Giving the Term "Airhead" New Meaning

This is a super cool post I got via Treehugger. Basically, all of us at one point or another have decided that we couldn't bike somewhere because we didn't want our hair looking ridiculous when we got there (my hair does this funky thing where it gets flat in all the areas EXCEPT where the air vents don't press it to my head, resulting in my looking like a much less cool Rufio). No longer. Thanks to Anna Haupt and Terese Alstin, there now exists an alternative: the Hövding, a sort of air bag for your head.

The Hövding is worn around your neck like a collar (reference the woman in the picture above) and it deploys, just like a car air bag, when internal accelerometers detect abnormal movements. Observe:



Then again, maybe you're better off getting helmet head then riding around with a giant explosive collar around your neck...

Image provided by Hövding

You want me to fill that up with WHAT?

The long sought "philosophers stone" of the biofuel movement is a biofuel developed from waste products. While traditional biofuels require us to sacrifice productive land that could be growing food, waste biofuels are exactly what they sound like: biofuels made from waste like garbage, wood chips, or industry byproducts. The problem with waste biofuel is no one has ever been able to make one that is both scalable and doesn't take more energy to make then it can give back later. Until now.

Scientists are now one step closer to achieving both those goals, and it might surprise you to learn that the fuel that might soon be powering your car is the same thing that currently powers your late night dance dance revolution sessions: whiskey.

That's right. Scottish scientists have recently discovered a way to turn two byproducts of the scotch whiskey distillation process into butanol, a fuel that gives off almost 30% more power than traditional biofuels. The best part? Butanol can be used in cars with regular combustion engines with no modifications what-so-ever, meaning it could realistically become a part of our gas mixture as soon as production can be ramped up. The researches from Edinburgh University who developed the process have already applied for a patent and hope to start supplying the country with fuel in the next few years.

To be fair, the stuff you'll be putting in your gas tank won't resemble that nice single malt you have stashed under your bed. Heck, it won't even resemble Dewers. Still, if this technology ends up being scalable, it could give a whole new meaning the the phrase "one for the road."

Image provided by chipgriffin

China Breeds Nuclear Car Eating Monster Bus

If we go by what we see in the movies, it is usually the Japanese, not the Chinese, who breed giant green atomic monsters hell bent on taking over an entire country. But this isn't a movie, and the behemoth we're looking at today isn't a radioactive mutant dinosaur. It also isn't nuclear (I just thought that sounded cool), but China has undoubtedly created a monster -- a giant, car-swallowing people-carrying "green" monster.

Check out this video of the new Chinese straddling bus, set to be unveiled in Bejing's Mentougou district next August:



OK, the video is pretty lame, and the voice over could definitely have used a little spice from those guys over at Most Extreme Action Challenge. And lets face it, I would crap my pants the first time I was biking or driving down the street and that freaking thing passed over my head. Still, it is a pretty cool idea, and if anyone can make it work, it's the Chinese.

I wonder how it would stand up against Mothra...

The Worlds First Bendable Bike

As someone who has had plenty of bike pieces stolen over the years (including a carbon fiber fork just this weekend from my LOCKED garage) I like the idea of this bike. It is pretty sweet -- basically the entire frame is made from these short pieces that are connected through some type of ratchet mechanism within the frame itself. When you are riding the bike, the mechanism is in locked mode, and the frame is sturdy just like a metal frame. When you are ready to park it though, you just push a button and the ratchet mechanism unlocks, turning your bike into some kind of mutant gumby transport. You can then literally fold the entire thing around a pole as shown in the picture above and lock it to itself using a small, pocket sized u-lock.

I'm betting the gears only come fixed...

Is Obama Ready to Put His Weight Behind an Alternative Energy Bill?

For months, bloggers and news organizations have weighed in (and in and in) on whether or not Obama's clout is required to move the climate bill out of limbo, and whether he and his aids are willing to put some of the presidents remaining political capital on the line for it. Early this morning, Obama seemed ready to answer that question. In a statement issued online to the millions who backed his presidential bid, the president asked his network to lend their names to a campaign to change the way America produces and consumes its energy. Later, in a speech he gave while visiting oil soaked Mississippi, Obama reiterated his support for an alternative energy bill: "Our continued dependence on fossil fuels will jeopardize our national security. It will smother our planet. And it will continue to put our economy and our environment at risk."

This is all encouraging news, but it still doesn't tell us if Obama is willing to put his money where his mouth is. He's passed a healthcare bill, he's averted the greatest monetary crisis since the great depression, and he's about to preside over a historic (if incomplete) financial reform bill. Will he have anything left for the environment? Looks like we'll have to wait and see.

Coolest Green Apartment Ever

This whole video (and the concept behind it) is sweet, but just WAIT for the last couple seconds...

Green Greed is Good

Today being Earth Day, I had the pleasure (and/or annoyance) of having pretty much every e-mail in my inbox reference Earth Day in the subject line. Most of them were boring and standard ("Happy Earth Day," "Earth Day Resolutions," "Call Your Senator/Representative This Earth Day," or "It's Earth Day: Give Us Money!"), but one of them really stood out, and it was from one of my favorite daily newsletter senders: Urban Dictionary. Their tagline: "Green Greed."

Urban Dictionary defines Green Greed as "companies and people who don't care about the environment at all, except when it will make them money."

So that got me thinking: is green greed really that big of a problem? Sure, I won't pretend I'm not irked to see GM hopping on the green bandwagon (and making crazy money on it) after they spent 20 years convincing people to buy giant, unnecessary gas guzzling SUV's and after literally killing the electric car. But that fact of the matter is that with the help of GM, people will have more access to green transportation over the next few years then they would have if GM hadn't gotten on the bandwagon. At the end of the day, that's all that really matters right?

As I've said before, I do enjoy some things that aren't good for the environment, and it seems to me that the best way to make sure those things get greener, and the best way to make sure those greener versions get into the hands of ordinary 'Mericans, is to applaud green greed. That doesn't mean we need to forgive GM their sins, that we shouldn't take them to task for the problems they still have, or even that we need to be their #1 cheerleader. But as far as I am concerned, why companies go green is not nearly as important as that they do go green.

You know what -- I think that is my Earth Day resolution. To paraphrase the immortal Gordon Gekko: green greed is good -- just don't forget who you're dealing with.

Why You Should Burn Your Trash

I've felt strongly for some time now that the energy of the future was going to be waste (ie. trash). I was introduced to this theory through the peer reviewed scientific lens of Back to the Future (which also introduced me to the possibility of flying skateboards, more on that in another post).

In the film, Doc Brown's original fuel for his time traveling DeLorean is plutonium, whose hard to obtain nature lands Doc in a pretty sticky situation. At the end of the film however, after Doc goes to the future and refits his machine with a new fangled flux capacitor, all it takes to fuel the DeLorean are a few choice items he pulls out of Marty's trash can, replacing forever Docs reliance on dangerous, hard to obtain nuclear fuel. I find this fable sums up pretty well my own opinions on the subject: why should we deal with dangerous, dirty fuels when we have more than enough waste full of untapped energy to go around?

The answer of course is that while there are many theoretical options for tapping into that energy -- cellulosic ethanol, methane from landfills, thermal energy from compost heaps, algea biofuels, the list goes on -- we are simply not there yet. We currently do not have the technology to turn waste into fuel in a way that is both cost effective, non-toxic. According to an article in yesterdays New York Times however, the technology may finally be here to do just that. The most amazing thing about this new technology technology? It's not even a new technology at all.

The idea of burning garbage as fuel has been around for a long time, but in the modern era it can be traced back to the 1970's. The recently formed OPEC was driving energy prices up, and cities were running out of landfill space. This obvious set of problems spurred a few entrepreneurs to develop "garbage to energy" systems: these systems burned garbage to make steam, or ground it into fuel pellets. What seemed like a slam dunk however quickly turned into a big problem:

"Garbage to Energy Plants were expensive, and to finance them, cities signed (were asked to sign) long term contracts to deliver and pay for a guaranteed supply of garbage. If the city didn’t have enough garbage, it had to pay anyway. The incentive to recycle would be gone. Also, the energy calculations started with garbage = 0. But Garbage wasn’t worthless – it was full of stuff that could be reused and recycled. You could save more energy and other resources by recycling paper than by burning it, and then cutting trees to make new paper." (www.garbage.org).

Add in the fact that burning garbage releases hundreds of toxic chemicals into the atmosphere, and by the 1980's the garbage burning movement was dead. After all, how could we possibly make up for all of these huge negatives?

According to The New York Times, Denmark, and several other forward thinking European countries including Germany and the Netherlands, have found a way:

"Far cleaner than conventional incinerators, this new type of plant converts local trash into heat and electricity. Dozens of filters catch pollutants, from mercury to dioxin, that would have emerged from its smokestack only a decade ago. In that time, such plants have become both the mainstay of garbage disposal and a crucial fuel source across Denmark, from wealthy exurbs like Horsholm to Copenhagen’s downtown area. Their use has not only reduced the country’s energy costs and reliance on oil and gas, but also benefited the environment, diminishing the use of landfills and cutting carbon dioxide emissions... With all these innovations, Denmark now regards garbage as a clean alternative fuel rather than a smelly, unsightly problem."

Additionally, the creation of these plants has not led to a drop in the recycling rate of these countries, in spite of the fact that they currently have some of the highest recycling rates in the world. This may be attributed to the fact that in these countries local governments usually manage all trash collection, incinerators and recycling centers, and financial incentives ensure that recyclable materials are not burned. For example, communities may recycle free of charge, but must pay to have garbage incinerated. Turns out government incentives CAN be a good thing.

Is this really possible? Can Denmark really have found a way to create energy and divert trash from the landfill in a way that doesn't release toxic chemicals into the environment or decrease our recycling rate?

There are of course downsides to the program. While scrubbers do keep the most toxic substances out of the environment, there is still no way to properly dispose of them and they must be stored forever in a way similar to nuclear waste. And there is still the American public to consider -- after 30 years of being told we do not want any plants of this sort built, can we really be convinced that it is now a good idea? An interesting debate to be sure, but whether we decide to follow Denmark's lead or not, I am still waiting for my own trash fueled flux capacitor.

Image provided by Richard Berg

UPDATE -- Let's Kill All the Animals (Even the Cute Ones)

Well, there we have it. As predicted, the Japanese succeeded in convincing enough countries to do an about face on protecting the porbeagle shark to bring that ban up for another vote and defeat it. That means that all eleven oceanic species up for CITES protection -- bluefin tuna, eight species of shark (not four as I posted yesterday, apparently they are listing each species of hammerhead separately) and two species of coral -- have been refused that protection.

Major freaking bummer.

Let's Kill All the Animals (Even the Cute Ones)

What a crappy month to be an animal.

Last week the UN Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) began in the city of Doha, Qatar. Basically, every two and a half years nations from all over the world send representatives to this meeting with the express aim of regulating international trade in endangered species. This year, the species up for protection included bluefin tuna, sharks, and polar bears.

Now, no one expected winning protections for all these species at the convention was going to be easy -- there are many countries around the world, big and small, who benefit from this trade. Still, many people, myself included, had hope that at least a few of these species might receive the protection they so clearly need. The actual result? A big FU to endangered species.

First came the vote on tuna. Sponsored by the US and Monaco, most observers expected this to be the toughest of the protections to actually achieve -- Japan consumes massive quantities of bluefin (Japan alone imports 80% of all the bluefin caught in the Atlantic) and many African countries bordering the Atlantic make money by either selling bluefin directly to Japan or selling the rights for Japanese boats to fish in their waters. At the end of the day, this bloc has some serious pull (according to the CITES charter, all bans require a 2/3 majority to pass). Despite the fact that bluefin stocks are down more than 70% from their 1957 levels, this ban was, disappointingly but not unexpectedly, shot down.

Next up was a ban on the trade four different species of sharks: scalloped hammerhead, oceanic whitetips, porbeagles and spiny dogfish sharks. Again, the big opponents of this bill were Asian countries, namely China and Japan, where sharkfin soup is still a delicacy. Shark fins are generally obtained by catching a shark, cutting off it's fin, and then just tossing the now debilitated shark back into the ocean where it slowly sinks to the bottom and drowns. Say what you will about American farming techniques (and I've said PLENTY), there are few things more cruel and wasteful than shark finning.

Each of these species were voted on in a separate bill. While all of the bills received majority backing, only the bill regulating porbeagle sharks was able to reach the 2/3 majority threshold, and then by only the slimmest of margins. As for this one glimmer of hope, backroom negotiations are already under way -- China and Japan hope to swing enough votes in their direction to bring this bill up for another vote before the week is out and overturn the decision.

Last on the docket: the polar bear. Honestly -- what kind of a person do you have to be to not want to save the POLAR BEAR? This majestic creature is currently under enormous strain, and most observers agree that with the additional pressure of global warming, polar bears could very conceivably disappear in the wild within the next century. So clearly, the world managed to agree that we could ban the sale of polar bear parts and skins right?

Nope, it turns out the world couldn't do that either. We can't even agree not to kill and sell pieces of the mascot for global waring endangerment. Sorry endangered animals; you didn't do to well at this conference. Better luck in two and a half years.

Image provided by flickrfavorites

There Goes My $1 Million iPhone App

Bad news first: my latest million dollar iphone application scheme has come to an end (not that it ever got past the initial dreaming stages, but lets not dwell on that). The good news: the reason my app idea is defunct is because Google beat me to the punch, and they most certainly did a better job with it than I ever could have hoped to do. The idea: to add a new layer to Google maps specifically for cyclists.

Google has added two new functions for bikers. First, it has uploaded an incredibly extensive array of bike trails and bike lanes in major cities all around the country. This information is easily accessed by selecting "Bicycling" from the maps layer button labeled "More..." in the top right corner of Google Maps. Making this selection will cause several new symbols to overlay on the Google map: a dark green line indicating a bike path with no motor vehicles, a light green line showing regular streets with MARKED bike lanes, and dotted green lines showing streets specifically for cyclists -- usually streets with low traffic. How they got that last bit of information I can't even begin to guess.

Second, you can now get biking directions the same way you used to be able to get walking, driving or public transit directions (by selecting "Bicycling" from the drop down menu). This is the aspect of this new technology I find the most useful (and that made up my million dollar app idea).

Clearly, this program still has bugs. I tried mapping out several different routes I take on a regular basis and Google keeps telling me to go ways that I know are not the best ways to go. In one case it even told me to go the wrong way down a one way street because that street had a designated bike path (it does, but it too is one way). My guess is that over the next few months cyclists from all over the country will be filing thousands of bugs and Google will use their feedback to get this new feature up to par. In the meantime, I need to come up with a new million dollar app idea.

Review of 5 Hour Energy

Since I have a bladder the size of a pine nut, I usually try to avoid caffeine, but there are times when it is the only way to get the job done. Back in college, my go-to source of high octane energy was Red Bull: it powered me through more late night study sessions and all night drives than I care to remember. However, those caffeine binges usually left me shaky and anxious. So when a friend told me how awesome these new 5 hour energy drinks were, I decided to give it a shot (no pun intended).

5 hour energy is a much more natural way to get that same energy kick when you need it. It does have about as much caffeine as a cup of coffee, but it's really the b12, taurine, b6, niacin and other herbal supplements that give you the lasting energy you need without the crash (yes I sound like the commercial, but it is true). And in terms of avoiding that crash, I found this stuff is the real deal: no more of that shaky aftereffect where you finished your work or your drive but still have another 2 hours of mind racing before you can go to sleep.

Also, it has no sugar or carbs -- not that at 25 I am super concerned about my daily carb intake -- but that's the deal anyway.

I do however have one disclaimer for this product. I recently had an intense weekend involving driving up to the mountains, snowboarding all day, partying all night, and then doing it all over again. As can be expected, I had more than a few of these to keep myself going. By the time Sunday night rolled around however, my heart was doing some pretty gnarly racing and I couldn't sit still or think clearly at all -- the effect was MUCH worse then having too much coffee. So, my personal recommendation is to keep your intake of these to one a day.

Other than that one disclaimer, I must say this product rocks!

Image provided by 5-Hour Energy

US Army Bases Now Doubling as Wildlife Refuges

The DOD continues to amaze me. A few months back, I posted here about the alternative energy policies the Department of Defense was promoting, and how the United States Military is set to become one of the worlds largest consumers of renewable fuels. At the time, while I was certainly surprised to see support for renewables coming from the same people currently fighting two wars for petroleum resources (c'mon people, there are other reasons as well, but oil played a major part in these conflicts), it did make sense to me: the military is acutely aware that petroleum is a limited resource, and they know from firsthand experience the huge drawbacks of having to transport heavy, liquid fuel with them everywhere they go. Whatever else you might say about the US military, they are pretty darn good at doing their job, and in this case they saw that one of the tools required to do that job is a more efficient energy source. So I applauded their efforts, relished the idea of having a new, powerful ally in the fight for renewable energy, and assumed it would be the last time I heard positive environmental news from the military. So imagine my surprise to read the following in yesterdays NYT:

"In the early years of the administration of President George W. Bush, the military lobbied Congress for limited exemptions from federal protection rules. Today, herculean efforts to save threatened species are unfolding at dozens of military sites across the nation, from Eglin, Fla., where the Air Force has restored and reconnected streams for the Okaloosa darter, to San Clemente Island, Calif., where the Navy has helped bring the loggerhead shrike back from the brink of extinction. "

Are you f*%&ing kidding me?

Apparently not. It seems that the same people who defend sonar heavy anti-submarine military exercises which can cause whales and dolphins to literally go insane and beach themselves have a soft spot for animals after all. According to The Times:

"The military has not always been so enthusiastic about saving endangered plants and animals, arguing that doing so would hinder its battle preparedness. But post commanders have gradually realized that working to help species rebound is in their best interest, if only because the more the endangered plants and animals thrive, the fewer restrictions are put on training exercises to avoid destroying habitat."

So maybe not exactly a moral victory, but a victory for wildlife nonetheless. After all, from 2004 to 2008, the DOD spent $300 million to protect endangered species. That is more than it spent in the previous 10 years combined. Not exactly chump change.

So, once again, I tip my hat to the US Military. Way to go guys.

Picture provided by Филби's ПРОПАГАНДА ?

Jon Stewert Says Funny Things -- Climate Change Deniars Unabashed

This video is actually from the set of huge storms they had on the East Coast last week, but I thought it was funny enough to share with all of you even if it is a bit late. Enjoy:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Unusually Large Snowstorm
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

How to Green Your Oil Change

An oil change can improve your car's gas economy and cut down on its pollutants (not to mention make it last longer and perform better). Just make sure you know where that used oil ends up.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), estimates nearly 200 million gallons of used motor oil are improperly disposed of in the US alone every year. That’s not chump change (oil?). The oil from a single change can contaminate one million gallons of water. That’s a year’s supply for 50 people!

Here are some tips from the EPA to ensure your oil change process is as clean and green as it can be:

• After draining the oil, but before removing the drip pan from under the car, close and secure the drain plug and check for leaks.
• If you are changing the oil filter, drain it for a minimum of 12 hours into a clean plastic container with a tight-fitting lid (do not use a container that once held chemicals, food, or beverages). Then, carefully pour the oil from the drip pan into the container.
• Reuse your drip pan; do not rinse residual oil down the drain or into your yard.
• If you do accidentally spill any oil, use absorbent material like sawdust or cat litter to clean the spill, then dispose of it in the trash.

But here's the best part: used motor oil isn’t just waste; it can be recycled to make new motor oil or processed into fuel oils or other materials. After you have changed your oil, take it to a local service station or recycling center that collects used motor oil for recycling (click here for a recycling directory). Some of these facilities will collect used filters as well. If they don’t, make sure to check with your local waste collection service before you dump it in your trash can.

If you are really into using as little oil as possible, a 2008 study conducted by the California Integrated Waste Management Board shows that many vehicles can go more than the standard 3,000 miles between oil changes. I still have trouble believing that is good for your car or your cars performance, so make sure to balance your choices – and like I said before, changing your oil can reduce your cars emissions and improve fuel economy. You want to be sure you aren’t saving one tree by cutting another one down!

Image provided by Robert Couse-Baker

Proof That It Always Makes Sense To Turn Off The Lights

This is an old episode, but I recently had a discussion with a friend on this very topic so I thought I should post the answer here. The question: does it ever make sense to leave a light bulb on when you leave a room if you are going to come right back? The simple answer: NO. I'll leave the rest up to the MythBusters:

Mythbusters lightbulb experiment - Watch more Videos at Vodpod.

I Support Des Nutz

Review of Maggie's Soap Nuts

Ever since I first heard of soap nuts, I knew I had to give them a try. What are soap nuts you ask? Some quick (paraphrased) info courtesy of Wikipedia:

Soap Nuts are a product of the Sapindus genus, a group of five to twelve species of shrubs and small trees in the soapberry family. Soap nuts contain saponins, a natural surfactant, which are released when the nuts get wet. They have been used for washing for thousands of year by various peoples including Native Americans, and are a staple in Ayurveda medicine where they are used for everything from washing clothing and hair to reducing excessive salivation.

In summation, soap nuts are a completely natural product (a nut) which produce a naturally occurring soap and which can be composted when your done with it. Sounds almost too good to be true right?

So on to the review. A friend of mine recently bought a bag of soap nuts from Maggies Pure Land company and gave me a few to try. She told me to add them to my laundry by taking 4 or 5 nuts, wrapping them in a mesh bag or handkerchief, and just putting them in with the rest of my stuff in the machine.

The first thing I noticed when I opened my sample bag was that the nuts themselves smell kind of bad. The thought of using something which smells bad to make my clothes smell good seems counterintuitive, so as a test, I decided to try them out on a load full of dish rags. Surprisingly enough, I thought they worked great! Now to be fair, I don't have any scientific data telling me how clean all my rags actually got. However, after a quick smell test and visual inspection, they smelt clean to me and they didn't have any gunked up food on them anymore.

Final words: My girlfriend still won't let me use them on our clothes, but after my initial test, I fully support des nutz.

Image provided by Maggies Pure Land

Organic GMO Aggravation

I saw a couple great articles yesterday about the ongoing battle between people who advocate GMO's (genetically modified organisms) and those who advocate organic food, and I thought I would share them with you.

First, there was this article in the NYT about a genetic food scientist and an organic farmer who are happily married. The piece was well written, although the article itself had little substance to offer other than the fact that these two people, representatives of competing (sometimes violently so) ideologies, can actually tolerate one another's presence. Kinda cool right?

Which brings me to the second article, published in the Los Angeles Times. This article, with the byline "Let's not join one of the armed camps deeply suspicious of one another shouting past each other," is aimed at food movement "independents," also known as the majority of Americans who have some interest in their food but who don't have several hours each day to devote to food policy. What this article essentially says is that there is a great conversation to be had about GMO's and organic food, and we should all chill out and have good, logical discussions without ripping each others heads off.

Generally speaking, articles saying we should all just get along kind of piss me off. However, this specific article intrigued me, because while it did have some of that annoying "us common folks are the ones who get it" edge to it, it also had some really good points. Such as:

"Agriculture is a business. Farming without a financial motive is gardening." (I'm sure he's used this one before, but it's still funny)

and

"Over the last 50 years, American farmers performed an agricultural miracle, all but eliminating hunger as a serious health issue in this country." (How much of that miracle actually relied on modern farming practices and pesticides is up for debate, but I'll give him this one)

but

"That battle has been won, and... the demands of today are different."(Hell yes)

and

"There's no free pass on progress. Just because you've always farmed a certain way does not mean that you are owed the right to continue farming that way in the future." (Hallelujah)

and finally...

"Don't assume that those who disagree with you are evil, stupid or greedy. And even when they are, that doesn't relieve you of the responsibility for making a constructive and convincing argument." (What are you looking at me for? He said that way better then I can)

So overall, pretty good articles, and proof that the debate over GMO food will be around for some time to come. And yet, I can't help but feel hopeful that we can all take a chill pill and, well, maybe just all get along.

Farmville photo by sabrina.dent