In a time to seriously reconsider our energy sources and the condition of our environment, I encourage folks to check out an upcoming expo for learning about the latest opportunities for creating a more sustainable culture: The Southern Energy and Environment Expo. 

This exciting 3-day expo will be held August 22-24th at The Western NC Agricultural Center right outside of Asheville, NC in the small town of Fletcher.  It will be a guaranteed good time with people from all across the southeast convening to discuss issues surrounding energy and the environment.  It’s the largest event of its kind in the southeast!  There will be booths to visit, seminars to attend, sustainable businesses to check out, and like-minded people to meet and discuss world, regional, and local matters of sustainability. 

So pack your bag, bring a tent (or a credit card if you’re going the hotel route), and a mind ready to soak up all there is to offer at this wonderful expo!

No, seriously.

Some of you may remember this - as Jack Nicholson was a big time promoter.

On a CBC Marketplace airing in 1978, Jack Nicholson made news by advertising a potentially pollution-free fuel for cars. The fuel: hydrogen produced by solar power. The automobile: a standard Chevy with a standard engine. The emissions: steam (Jack suggests using the emissions for a steam bath). Pollutants are negligible and there's no risk of explosion. And, check it out - Jack made the car go in drive and reverse.

There are definitely other stories of oil-free cars out there. Anyone see the documentary, Who Killed the Electric Car?

Help us educate ourselves and share your fun and truth-telling links, by commenting to this blog.

This week the US House and Senate passed a bill that bans lead in children's toys. The bill also bans other harmful toxins that are responsible for making plastic products softer and more flexible (think of a rubber duck). The toxins banned, six types of phthalates, are now thought to act as hormones and cause reproductive problems, especially in boys.

With the overwhelming majority supporting the bill in both houses (4 representatives total voted against it), this vote should send a clear message to the chemical industry that enough is enough. It's time to stop forcing the public to prove that a chemical is unsafe and time for industry to prove to the public that it is safe, before it is put on the market and into our products (children's toys or otherwise).

In similar toxic-related news, Rep. Pricey Harrison was successful in getting a study bill passed in the short session of the NC Legislature this year. This study is with the Child Fatality Task Force (sounds like a worthy cause) and would look at a ban on toxic brominated fire retardants. These chemicals, also known as PBDEs, went into wide-spread use in the 1970's and are now found throughout the home; including in your tvs, computer monitors, foam furniture, baby cribs, etc. Once PBDEs get into your body they stay there and accumulate, and are passed from mothers to their children. Studies show that PBDEs disrupt brain development and hormone systems.

Now, isn't it counter-intuitive that individuals and organizations concerned with public health have to fight to ban harmful chemical after harmful chemical? Shouldn't it be the responsibility of corporations and our government to prove that a chemical is safe before it ever reaches consumers?

Imagine this: an energy-efficiency program that "encourages" consumers to conserve energy by charging them higher rates to make up for any lost profits the power company may lose for not needing to produce as much energy. Because if consumers DON'T conserve, new power plants will have to be built; but if these "virtual power plants" don't have to be built, consumers will get a fabulous 10% savings on the cost of the power plants...that don't exist.

I'm sorry, what?

This rather confusing and underhanded strategy describes Duke Energy's proposed Save-a-Watt program, which has been the subject of much debate this week. From the News & Observer:

"What makes Duke's proposal different from other energy efficiency plans is that the company would not be paid for the actual cost of running Save-a-Watt. Instead, Duke says it should be paid 90 percent of the cost of building new power plants. Duke officials describe Save-a-Watt as a 10 percent savings for customers on the cost of new power plants that would otherwise have to be constructed to meet energy demand."

And from the News and Record:

"Duke would recoup the cost of programs that help consumers save energy by recouping 90 percent of what it would cost to build a power plant to meet the energy needs offset by the conservation effort."

The plan's many critics (including consumer and environmental groups and, uh, Wal-mart...) fail to see this plan as any sort of incentive to save energy because it would price-gouge consumers, only provide modest power savings, and allow Duke to rake in huge profits—literally charging consumers for the lack of using power. [As a side note, I think many groups understand the charges that would be associated with starting an energy efficiency program, but I think it's the exorbitant profit margin of 61% that's causing the real debate.]

The program is currently before review of the Public Utilities Commission, and is being discussed this week.

In the meantime, I encourage Duke Power consumers to start conserving energy now—while it's still affordable.

With all of the talk about threatened wildlife, species extinction, and loss of habitat, I was very refreshed to stumble across an article from the Asheville Citizen-Times entitled "Survey finds new species in national park in N.C." According to the article,

"A 10-year study has found more than 6,000 species of plant and animal life previously unidentified in Great Smoky Mountains National Park."

Hopefully this new information will not only encourage folks to learn more about the importance of preserving native species, but will also provide an incentive for protecting the habitat of the Great Smoky National Park in years to come!

Last week, Emagazine.com featured an interesting commentary about the environmental destruction taking place in the Middle East, as a result of the Iraq War. Apparently, the man who wrote the commentary (Steven Hanks) lived and worked in Iraq and is writing from first-hand experience with the issues. While I haven't heard anything else about this issue, I found the article intriguing, albeit, depressing. Here are some of Hanks' main points: 

• "Civilians create excess amounts of garbage that is included in the military’s massive open burns. Choking the sky with black smoke, these burns can be seen from miles away. The stench of burning trash permeates the air and infects the soil, containing high levels of carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, arsenic, mercury and barium. These compounds cause reactions ranging from mild irritation to deadly disease among the local population and wildlife."

• "At central military bases and sub-compounds, raw sewage is trucked off-site and pumped directly into roadside canals. Rarely is waste transported more than a mile from a base or compound before being recklessly discarded. At some sites, the waste is taken directly to a hole in the exterior wall of the compound and simply sprayed into the desert." 

• "[hundreds of thousands of] plastic water bottles must go somewhere. They are certainly not trucked out of the country and recycled. Without a sufficient system to recycle these items, they often end up buried, burned, or strewn across the countryside."

• "Hundreds of miles of open junk fields scar the Iraqi landscape. Thousands of vehicles, ordnance items, construction materials, air conditioning units, armor, tires, and parts litter these fields. Never is this vast destructive creation reused, recycled or rebuilt. It is all left to decay in the sand, poisoning the very land upon which it sits." 

This made me realize, once again, that even after foreign troops have left, the devastation —economic, social, and environmental —will affect the Iraqi region, and the Iraqi people, for centuries to come.

The NC General Assembly wrapped up its 2007-2008 biennium today.  

It sometimes take a while to get a perspective on a legislative session, but at this point, it looks like the legislature did decently by water this year.

One of bills receiving final approval today is H2499, Drought/ Water Management Recommendations, which will help strengthen North Carolina’s drought response – a good thing, since drought conditions this week are already worse than they were a year ago, and we’re not into August yet.

Another bill approved this week is S1967, Improve Coastal Stormwater Management, a compromise bill that strengthens coastal stormwater rules over currently law.  

Three bad ideas – hardened structures on our beaches, indefinite reconstruction of hog lagoons, and promotion of offshore oil drilling – all died in committee at the end of session.

All good reasons to celebrate the end of session!

Grady sent me this cool online tool called H2O Conserve, where you can calculate your water footprint (much like The Nature Conservancy's Carbon Footprint Calculator). From the H2O Conserve website:

"The Calculator gives you an estimate of the total amount of water you use, what is called your water footprint. The Calculator takes into account not only the water used in your home, but also the water used to produce the food you eat and the products you buy. Your water footprint includes other factors such as water utilized to cool power plants that provide your electricity, and water saved when you recycle. You may not drink, feel or see this water, but it makes up the great majority of your water footprint."

According to the calculator, the average American uses over 1,000 gallons of water a day. My estimated usage was 571.96 gallons a day. At the end of the "quiz" it also gives you some tips for things you can do to lower that number even more. Pretty cool little tool. Check it out and post your results below by adding a comment (I'm sure there are a lot of you out there who can one-up my 571.96 gallons a day figure!)

A few months ago, I read a fascinating (and troubling) report from a panel of American transportation professionals who visited China in September 2007.   While there, they met with Chinese national, regional, and local officials and business leaders, and toured a number of ports and other facilities to see how goods are being transported (and exported) in the Chinese economy.  The report is available from the Transportation Research Board. 

Some of the American panel’s conclusions include: that China expects to continue growing rapidly; that China has a national strategy for the transportation, including freight; and that China’s highly centralized state power has made it easier for the nation to build projects rapidly, without getting derailed by such concerns as environmental impacts. 

Travel can broaden the mind; it can also reinforce what one was predisposed to believe.  In that regard, one of the panel’s most telling comments is this statement:

"There was a strong perception that the United States lacks the political will to invest in infrastructure and could not deliver needed investments in infrastructure in a timely manner even if desired. China is viewed as being very proactive with respect to infrastructure provision by building for the future and clearly stating in their strategic plans what will be built and when; the United States is perceived as being very reactive."

The panel report also offers some practical insights – the US has a strong advantage in our rail network; US port capacity, rather than foreign port capacity, is the key drag on volume of imports into the US; widening of the Panama Canal is likely to increase pressure on already strained East Coast ports. 

Largely overlooked by the panel is the enormous price China is paying – in ecological and human health and social instability – for prioritizing engagement in global markets above sustainability.  The report omits any discussion of the likely impacts of climate change regulation.  That’s a striking gap, since the massive increases in truck, rail, and shipping imagined by the panel aren’t reconcilable with the reality of massive carbon reductions.  It seems to us that there’s a strong argument for United States to adopt a coherent national freight transportation strategy – it will take a proactive strategy to keep the current level of goods moving at much lower levels of greenhouse gas emissions – but the vision of rapidly ever-expanding volumes of freight, with bigger cargo ships, busier ports, more diesel trucks, and many more roads, is nuts.

I found a rather interesting article today regarding urban poachers who are setting up organized systems to nab recyclables from curbsides in San Francisco. Due to the increasing value of substances like aluminum, newspaper, and cardboard, these folks are making a lot of money. In addition to being illegal, the late-night trucks are a nuisance for neighborhoods.  And sometimes the poachers  take new newspapers, prior to anyone getting to read them!

That got me thinking--I wonder if this has hit North Carolina yet?

Got compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs)?  Until now CFLs had to be taken to specific recycling centers throughout the state--a far drive for many folks! But just days ago, The Home Depot launched a new initiative that allows residents nationwide to safely and properly recycle CFLs. The new, energy efficient light bulbs can be brought in to any Home Depot store and given to the employee at the return desk. You can find more information, and view their press release, here.

If you didn’t know already, the one downside to CFLs is that breaking the bulb releases mercury vapor. You can only bring unbroken bulbs to be recycled, so be sure to handle them with care when transporting. Carefully recycling CFLs prevents the release of mercury into the environment (and your body) and allows for the reuse of glass, metals and other materials that make up fluorescent lights. 

I'm a huge Pixar movie fan. Their last film, Cars, choked me up. So, I expected a lot out of their newest movie, WALL-E.

My husband and I went to see it last night, and within seconds of the movie starting, we looked at each other with shocked expressions.

Before getting to the theater, all we knew about the movie was based off of the marketing we'd seen: a cute and funny cartoon love-story with great graphics. So, we were taken aback when the movie opened with a scene of desolate urban wasteland - abandoned skyscrapers and mountains of trash piled just as high in cubes. The messages just balloon from there, hitting on the issues of consumerism, big box stores, in your face advertising, throw-away societies, and obesity. It was a bit surreal.

Truth be known, I'm pleased that the movie is not being marketed as an "environmental" or "anti-consumerism" movie - it likely wouldn't get the box office ratings it's getting if it had.

So, while you're enjoying your (3-day) 4th of July weekend, make sure you take a break from the heat and check out the movie for yourself and then tell us what you think.

Last week, WakeUP Wake County (an affiliate of the NC Conservation Network) hosted a public forum on transit titled, Transit: Is Wake County Ready for It? The event was a huge success: 300 folks in attendance including many elected officials and top-level Raleigh city planners and tons of media coverage, both before and after the event.

The overall tone of the event was clear - Wake County is ready for transit. To see for yourself, click here to watch the entire event. But, there are some hang ups - specifically funding a large-scale transit project and getting the project up and running in a timely fashion (on average, it could take seven years from start to finish).

Charlotte passed a 1/2 cent sales tax in the late 1990's to begin its light-rail project (thanks to special authority granted to the city by the state legislature). Now that it's up and running, the only complaints Charlotte and Mecklenburg County officials are hearing are that individuals want more trains and more rail lines.

Meanwhile, Raleigh is waiting its turn for the state legislature to grant it special authority to pass a 1/2 cent sales tax for public transportation projects. However, the bill is on shaky ground and may not pass in the 2008 short session.

My concern is this: at the rate at which it is taking us to approve a comprehensive transit plan coupled with how fast the Triangle is expected to grow (an additional 1,000,000 people in the next 20-30 years) we could end up doing too little, too late.

So, what do you think? Is Wake County ready for transit? And, if so, how do we go about funding the project?

Our friends over at Environment North Carolina have put together a great little video postcard to send to decision-makers regarding global climate change. The clips came from interviews at this spring's Take Action Tour and feature activists from around the state expressing their concerns regarding this "hot" topic.

During my lunch break today, I headed over to my local precinct to do my civic duty (you know, vote). The street as I walked up was deserted, the fire station void of any life except for the fabulous poll workers (thank you!)

Out of curiosity, I asked the gentleman in charge of the ballots how many folks had voted already. (Now keep in mind the polls had been open for over 6 hours by the time I showed up.) He said, "Ma'am, you're our afternoon rush. You're the eleventh person to vote here today."

Hearing about this low turn-out, I started thinking about the voting process. Do people not know about these smaller elections (I had almost forgotten myself)? Or do they not care? What makes people vote or not vote? What are the best ways to get voters out to the polls at lower-profile elections? Would more people vote if the voting system was set-up differently?

And please, if you haven't voted, you don't get to complain about decision-makers. The next time a non-voter starts griping about a certain person in charge, I'm going to hand them this fine sticker:

Why do I have this weird feeling I've been here before...

It's no surprise that President Bush's proclamation "Our nation must produce more oil, and we must start now" has sparked a heated debate between and among party leaders across the state of North Carolina and the country itself.

While offshore drilling has been a long-debated issue, the recent surge in gas prices has, shall I say, fueled the federal government to reconsider the ban on offshore drilling.

Here's the rub, though. Offshore drilling would have many cumbersome side effects, with limited positive outcomes. Firstly, you have the oil companies making more and more money, instead of investing money in renewable and sustainable energy sources. You also have severe environmental impacts on an already vulnerable coast, and although some offshore-drilling supporters envision using profit-sharing from the drilling to renourish beaches, what about all of the other environmental impacts at risk? From the Charlotte Observer:

"Fueled by $4-a-gallon gas, the growing clamor for new energy sources still faces opponents who envision oil spills, blighted ocean views and shorelines industrialized by pipelines and refineries."

I was also surprised to hear this little tidbit from Grist:

"...oil companies already have millions of acres allocated to them upon which they have not gotten around to exploring let alone drilling. When asked the delicate question, as some have been recently, why they have not explored these millions of acres to which the federal government has granted them rights, oil companies typically respond that the public should understand that oil exploration takes time."

Let's face it folks: offshore drilling would do nothing to help us in the next 7 to 10 years. We'll still be sitting here at square one--in dire straights, using the crutch of the mere potential success of offshore drilling to subsidize our energy-hungry lifestyles, which, if it came to fruition, would only provide us with borrowed time anyway.

What happens when 12 Dartmouth students take a 37-foot veggie oil powered bus road tripping across the US?

Well, education for one! If you're in the Chapel Hill area tomorrow,

"The Big Green Bus and its crew will roll into Morehead’s parking lot at 9:30 a.m., June 18. From 10 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., the crew will give public tours of the bus, explain how its engine works and provide information comparing the energy use of an SUV versus a hybrid vehicle."

From UNC's website, here are more details about The Big Green Bus:

"The mission of the Big Green Bus is to promote education and discussion about environmental responsibility, global energy issues and to show that alternative fuels are available for use right now."

They are also scheduled to stop in Raleigh this Thursday, but I've yet to find details on when and where. Be sure to post a comment below if you know.

Also, check out all the tour stops, meet the crew, and find out how it all works!

From our good friends at 1Sky:

"On Friday June 6, moments after a major policy debate on climate change, 1Sky volunteers delivered more than 100 murals calling for bold action to Congressional offices on Capitol Hill. The murals were created over Mother’s Day weekend by families and communities in 43 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico."

Check out this short video capturing the big day:

With the completion of I-540 westward, NC will likely get its first toll road, in large part due to the lobbying force of the NC Turnpike Authority – a division of the NC Department of Transportation (NC DOT). It seems that the “good roads state” continues to be committed to building new roads, even in the face of skyrocketing construction (see #4 here) and fuel costs (over $4/gallon).

To get our first toll road, it will take an act of the NC Legislature (because toll roads, contrary to what you might assume, don’t pay for themselves). And, last week the NC House gave the green light for funding of the construction of a new six-lane toll road: the Triangle Expressway. In the face of a budget crunch, you might ask yourself ‘where are they going to get this money?’ In short, the House has proposed transferring $25 million from the General Fund to the NC Turnpike Authority, so it can quickly build the Triangle Expressway. In recent years, this $25 million has funded education, crime prevention, human services, and more. In the face of rising transportation and fuel costs, this appropriated money will still not cover the costs of building this toll road. Compile this fact with the new knowledge that data used to base cost estimates for the Triangle Expressway are out-of-date, and you inevitably create a black (pot) hole for taxpayer dollars.

While many have been frustrated by how I-540 dead-ends (including those of us who vow to stay inside the beltline), one has to wonder if it makes sense for the completion of this loop to be made into a toll road. And, does it make sense for NC to continue funneling money into new road projects, rather then maintaining the current infrastructure we have? Especially in light of the recurring problems and criticism the DOT has faced.

For all of the problems toll roads (and new roads in general) bring, it seems like a good idea for North Carolina leaders to take some time to think about how we can continue to travel sustainably, without wasting tax payer money and killing our small towns. 

This weekend I was literally able to touch my work, and as I stood looking at our beautiful Outer Banks it touched me deep in my soul. I found myself in Manteo this past weekend for the fifth stop of the Take Action Tour on Climate Change. I've been traveling around the state for the past several months talking to lots of concerned North Carolinians in Winston-Salem, Wilmington, Charlotte, Asheville, and this coming weekend in Raleigh.

But this trip was different. As I drove East towards Manteo I thought about how this area of the state could one day be ground zero for the impacts of climate change. North Carolina has a lot of low-lying areas that could easily be impacted by the slightest rise in sea level or a major storm surge that brings water inland.

The first day I did get go stick my toes in the ocean for a bit and I was thrilled to see that the Coquina Beach bathhouse was being powered by the wind! The plaque in front of the windmill talked about how in the past wind was the only source of power in that area. It reads: "Harnesssing the power of wind is not new to this area. In the 18th century, coastal communities did not have running water or electricity, so they used the only source readily available to them to grind grain and to pump water: wind."

As I stood looking at the windmill from the beach, I was overcome with emotion as I thought how that tiny windmill generating about 6,000 kilowatt-hours is helping to save the very beach it overlooks.

After our presentation on Saturday the group of us went to eat at Sen. Basnight's restaurant, which was close by. We were all delighted when he came by our table to say hello and stay to chat with us for a bit. We were able to talk with him about the work we all are doing and we got to hear about all the eco-friendly things he is employing at his restaurant. Everything from recycling, to composting, to several large cisterns capturing water, to the beautiful osprey nest, to a portion of the parking area that's pervious to giving leftover veggie oil to the local biofuel folks. I was also pleased to hear that the food is all local and fresh with Sen. Basnight himself picking up veggies from the farm on his way back from Raleigh.

My last day I decided that since I was so close I would venture down to the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse. I felt compelled to do this because of a comment one of our speakers Bill Holman had said the day before about how the moving of the lighthouse was proof that we can and will adapt to a changing environment. As I set out south along through the Outer Banks it struck me how narrow some of these islands are.

In places there really isn't much more than a big sand dune with grass and beautiful flowers. Once I arrived at the lighthouse, I climbed to the top to get a good look a things. I chatted with the rangers who showed me where the lighthouse use to stand. They said that the distance we were from its original position is the same distance the ocean used to be from it when it was first built. They then told me that the island is actually growing towards the southwest.

Inside the museum there was an exhibit dedicated to how the shoreline has changed. I stood there, again overwhelmed with emotion and frustration because it seems so many people don't understand this...and there it is on the museum exhibit...these islands shift and change. Yet there are people wanting to fight it and build concrete barriers to protect their homes. Legislation before the NC General Assembly would allow them to protect their own interests while causing more erosion further down the islands. (You can take action to stop this by clicking here.)

The display read: "The coast of the Outer Banks moves. The shore erodes, but builds up elsewhere. The foundation of the first lighthouse is now underwater; armor rock has been placed to protect the current one. Man tries to slow the movement, but finally is forced to adapt."

Very powerful words right there in the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse museum.

While I did enjoy sticking my toes in the ocean I did have some profound moments of connection with the places I visited. What will happen to this beautiful place if we don't reduce our global warming pollution?