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

Michael Pollan Cements His Status As My Freaking Hero

I like Michael Pollan for many reasons, the obvious being that he is THE leading voice in the local, organic food movement. His books have singlehandedly brought the food policy discussion into settings where it was never before conceivable, ranging from cocktail parties to office water coolers. If it were not for Pollan, the current food movement would look absolutely nothing it does today.

Another obvious reason why I admire Pollan is that I happen to like his particular food philosophy, which he sums up in seven simple words: "eat food, not too much, mostly plants." Who can argue with that? Even I, a known connoisseur of bacon in its myriad forms, and a person who consumes quantities of food at the occasional Dim Sum Sunday that no sane observer could call "not too much," can find little wrong with Pollans statement.

Which brings me to the less obvious reason why I like Michael Pollan -- Michael Pollan is Mellow. Mellow with a capital "M." Here is a guy who has devoted his entire life to the study of food policy, yet who sums up that life's work in "eat food, not too much, mostly plants." Seriously. Can you imagine PETA getting a crowd rowdy with a reasonable statement like that? Now way -- they have "Meat is Murder" and "Save the Sea Kittens" (I am not even joking about that last one). Or on the other end of the spectrum -- try getting farmers and middle Americans angry over Pollan's slogan. Not gonna work. Instead, we hear hyperbole about rising food prices, our planets inability to feed the people who live on it, and how the government is trying to control us. This is the real reason why Michael Pollan is my hero. He is so mellow in his approach and policies (in addition to just plain being right, which I admit helps) that no one can successfully argue with him.

Take for example Pollan's recent NPR debate with Blake Hurst, a blogger who wrote The Omnivore’s Delusion: Against the Agri-intellectuals (you can listen to the interview here). The debate begins with Pollan, in his mellow, even-keeled voice, outlining his basic position. Great. Cue Hurst.

The first thing we hear from him (in a pronounced twang) is a hokey, overpracticed statement about how it is not true when Pollan says the agricultural industry hides behind farmers. Really, Hurst continues, the only person who helped him write his essay was his wife, (she needed to "help him sound out the big words" since he is no intellectual). He talked about how he wasn't really growing a mono culture since he switches between soybeans and corn every year. He talked about how it was unfair of Pollan to ask him and other farmers to go back to the farming methods their grandparents had used in the 1930's. In other words, he used some well known, cheap debating techniques to try and score points with NPR's listeners, and he did it all in that twang and using these rehearsed colloquialisms that made me want to punch him in the face. In then process however, he left himself open to about 1000 different logical attacks from Pollan, and I couldn't wait for Pollan to seize on one and jump down his throat.

But he didn't. Pollan remained calm as an organic cucumber. He just kept making his points in that same mellow tone of voice. And I eventually realized why. As the debate went on, Hurst became more and more flustered, and less able to respond to anything Pollan said. The debate wasn't going the way Hurst had planned it at all. His whole shtick was to play the part of the small farmer being yelled at by some agri-intellectual who didn't know what he was talking about. But Pollan didn't take the bait. He refused to get ruffled, no matter how little sense Hurst made. And the more Hurst realized that Pollan wasn't going to let him play his part, the less sense he started making. By the time the debate ended, all Hurst's little colloquialisms were gone, and even the twang had softened. There could be no doubt who finished on top.

Please listen to the full interview to see the master at work. We could all stand to take a lesson in mellowness from this man, not the least of which is to eat food, not too much, mostly plants.