Who said boating had to be bad for the environment?
The world’s first green superyacht will go on sale sometime in 2013. Consumers can purchase Palambo’s 130-foot Columbus Sport 130’ hybrid, but it won’t be cheap. The yacht is priced at $30 million.
What makes this yacht different?
The Italian superyacht has an eco-friendly design and duel-powered electric and diesel engine. It uses hybrid fuel and is “powered by a Toyota Prius style mixture of electricity and diesel that reduce the ship’s emissions,” according to a news article. In addition, it has a bilge water separator that keeps oil from spreading in the sea.
Built with an aluminum exterior, it features three-cabins and holds up to eight people. It’s also the ninth-largest yacht in the world.
The cost to cruise around in the yacht for week: $384,000.
Read more about the yacht here.
Posted by Ariel Brouillard on May 16, 2012 at 12:30 AM0 comments
Are Fracking Chemicals Making our Drinking Water Unsafe?
Today, many scientists say fracking isn’t hazardous to our drinking water. Layers of rock can keep fracking fluid tucked away from our water supply close to a mile away, according to some scientists’ theories.
But a new study examining the safety of gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale found that fracking chemicals injected into the ground could move closer to our drinking water supply than scientists may have thought. Check out the study, mentioned in an article on Business Insider, here.
The researchers in the study found that “natural faults and fractures in the Marcellus, worsened by the effects of fracking, could allow chemicals to get to the surface in as little as a few years from now.”
"Simply put, [the rock layers] are not impermeable,” said Tom Myers, author of the study and an independent hydrogeologist.
This isn’t the first time fracking has caused concerns about whether it can get into our drinking water.
A U.S. News opinion article, however, calls the case against fracking “anecdotal and overstated,” stating that there haven’t been any cases where fracking chemicals have entered our water supply. Read the article here.
But several other news sources disagree, arguing that fracking chemicals have, in fact, been found in drinking water.
In one instance, the Environmental Protection Agency conducted an investigation in 2011 to determine whether Encana drilling company’s fracking process contaminated water in Pavillion, Wash. The EPA found that the water contained “synthetic chemicals, like glycols and alcohols consistent with gas production and hydraulic fracturing fluids, benzene concentrations well above the Safe Drinking Water Act standards for high methane levels.” Read the story here.
So what happens when fracking chemicals seep into our water supply?
One website said fracking chemicals are “linked to bone, liver and breast cancers, gastrointestinal, circulatory, respiratory, developmental as well as brain and nervous system disorders. Such chemicals are present in frack waste and may find their way into drinking water and air.”
But how do we know the true dangers? How do we know what fracking can really do to our water supply is, how dangerous the chemicals are, and who we can trust to keep our drinking water safe?
Please let us know what sites you visit to learn more about fracking.
Posted by Ariel Brouillard on May 04, 2012 at 2:13 PM2 comments
It seems not everyone is pro natural energy. On Tuesday, April 3, demonstrators rallied against wind power projects in Ontario, Canada, claiming turbine noise was causing physical illness and rural property values to plummet.
More than just a few people expressed disdain for the wind turbines; roughly 800 farmers rallied outside downtown Toronto protesting against a government subsidy and requested that Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty resign due to his push for clean energy that is allegedly costing citizens more money. The protestors demanded McGuinty cease wind and solar power projects.
Some residents claim they have been forced out of their homes because of the noise.
McGuinty is all for the continued progression of green initiatives throughout Ontario with the goal of reducing Ontario's greenhouse gas emissions by 15 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050; he states on the government website: “Ontario has a vision for green energy – we will be a North American leader. We have practical, aggressive policies to secure green energy generation, research and manufacturing, which will create good jobs in a growing industry.”
McGuinty aims to reach his government's green goal by opting for renewable energy over coal-fired power plants, encouraging conservation, providing tax breaks for energy-efficient products, and creating incentives for green businesses, municipalities and consumers.
While McGuinty stresses the positive side of the green energy movement in Ontario, voices from the citizens personally affected by some projects oppose the initiative – specifically the turbines.
“They’re huge power-producing machines that make noise and produce vibration…that is felt in the inner ear, similar to the bass from a passing car that’s playing loud music,” said Jane Wilson, president of Wind Concerns Ontario to AFP. Wilson is one of many protestors involved in nonprofit organizations participating in the wind power protests. The Ontario Wind Resistance represents more than 50 organizations banning together against wind power. The April 13 protest was just one in an ongoing battle against the turbines – the group even has a calendar highlighting scheduled protests on their website.
The Ontario Wind Resistance website features testimonials from Ontario residents and their experiences with the turbines – some testimonials include citizens of Australia and the United States of America. Check them out for yourself here. Apparently, the whole green movement isn't a good thing for more than a few Ontario residents.
Posted by Christina Miralla on Apr 13, 2012 at 4:48 PM0 comments
HealthyStuff.org, a website run by the Ecology Center, a Michigan-based non-profit, released a report that several national vendors sell low-cost jewelry that contain toxic chemicals known to cause cancer and allergies. The products, which included inexpensive jewelry for adults and children, were tested for chemicals including lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury, bromine, and chlorine (PVC).
More than half of the tested items resulted in a “high” level of concern because one or more of the dangerous chemicals were detected at high levels. The presence of hazardous substances were found by using an X-ray fluorescence detector. Retailers such as Target, Walmart, Claire’s, and H&M were among several popular national chains represented. To find the items tested by brand name and vendor, click here and see the individual contaminants in each product.
“There is no excuse for jewelry, especially children’s jewelry, to be made with some of the most well-studied and dangerous substances on the planet,” said Jeff Gearhart, Research Director at the Ecology Center and founder of HealthyStuff.org. “We urge manufacturers to start replacing these chemicals with non-toxic substances immediately.”
A total of 27 percent of the 99 tested items contained more than 300 ppm lead in one or more components, which is higher than the legal limit for children’s products. Additionally, ten percent contained cadmium, 93 percent chromium, 30 percent nickel, seven percent brominated flame retardants, and 12 percent PVC. Click here to view a summary of the results as well as other chemicals found.
Cadmium and chromium are known carcinogens. Nickel is carcinogenic in addition to causing skin and lung problems. Brominated flame retardants contain more than 1,000 ppm bromine, which causes nervous system damage and disrupts genetic materials. Chlorine, which is contained in PVC at 25,000 ppm, does not have consistently documented long-term effects, but is know to irritate the skin, lungs, and eyes.
According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), children should not be given cheap metal jewelry because, “Swallowing, sucking on, or chewing a metal charm or necklace could result in exposure to lead, cadmium, or other heavy metals, which are known to be toxic at certain levels of exposure.”
However, the CPSC has failed to regulate cadmium in children’s products in general, instead opting for a voluntary standard developed by the industry. Six states, including California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington, have moved to regulate the harmful chemical through state law. Also, the Toxics Substance Control Act is in the process of being reformed through a bill, the Safe Chemicals Act (S.847), introduced by Senator Lautenburg in 2011 with 15 co-sponsors.
Click here to watch a video and contact your senators about the Safe Chemical Act.
Posted by Elizabeth Freed on Mar 16, 2012 at 9:39 AM0 comments
When people think about the impacts of war, they usually think in terms of lives lost and dollar spent. While these are valuable considerations, what impact can human conflict have on the land, water, air and animals in the near vicinity?
The most obvious example of harmful warfare is nuclear weapons. Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan in World War II are the only known examples of atomic bombs actually being used. Besides the significant loss of civilian life and subsequent radiation sickness and birth defects, the environmental impact of the A-bombs was profound.
Radioactive dust particles floated and settled nearby on land and in water. Also, debris that was blasted into the atmosphere travelled untold miles. Plants and animals suffered similar burn deaths, or died shortly thereafter due to radioactive rainfall.
The surface water was contaminated, leaving local Japanese (and animals) without safe drinking water for months. The earth was similarly scorched, with dead rice stalks reportedly found up to a seven mile radius from the drop sight.
However, nuclear weapons do not have to be deployed for similar effects to happen during wartime. Probably the most infamous of chemical weapons, Agent Orange, had similar effects on Vietnam’s water supply and natural ecosystem. The defoliant was used extensively during the U.S. conflict in Vietnam. It was used to kill off hundreds of acres of dense rainforest and also found its way into rivers as well.
Although the use of Agent Orange is now illegal, defoliants continue to be deployed as a viable military tactic with devastating effects on the land and water. As recently as 2007, President Bush used defoliants in Colombia to kill coca farms. Unfortunately, cocaine production did not slow down as a result of the seven-year policy, so Colombia decided to revert to the less destructive use of manual removal.
Probably the most controversial of recent chemical war agents, depleted uranium, which is used on tank-busting munitions, has been found to have significant radiological impacts on human health and soil. The weapons were used extensively in Bosnia and Iraq where many birth defects and infant fatalities have been reported.
Chemicals don’t have to be contained in weapons to be used aggressively during war. Although the legality and morality behind the strategy is questionable, chemical production factories are targeted for bombing. In 1998, President Clinton thought a Sudanese factory contained dangerous chemicals and ordered it to be bombed. Luckily for locals, it did not, but the bombing still harmed the Sudanese economy.
Armed conflict in Rwanda took park rangers out of the protected habitats of gorillas, leaving them vulnerable to poachers. Also, the forced migration of refugees has had a detrimental effect on the habitats of endangered species throughout the African continent.
The Environmental Law Institute (ELI) is an organization “concerned with issues of the legality of bombing certain targets, such as chemical plants near populated areas; employing certain weapons, such as depleted uranium munitions and cluster bombs; and adopting certain tactics, such as high-altitude bombing.”
In 1998, following the widely condemned burning of Kuwaiti oil fields and dumping of oil into the Persian Gulf, ELI, the Smithsonian Institution and the Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Sciences co-hosted the First International Conference on Addressing Environmental Consequences of War.
A book, The Environmental Consequences of War, was produced from that conference. According to a chapter by Christopher D. Stone, only one provision of all the laws regulating war behavior specifically addresses the environment. All other laws include it incidentally as a secondary factor after human impact. That provision, Article 35(3) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, prohibits methods of warfare: “expected…to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment” (page 21).
This is an excellent start, but has been demonstrated – who decides when the damage is too severe, and when will the consequences for violations be enforced?
Posted by Elizabeth Freed on Mar 05, 2012 at 12:16 AM11 comments
Although few would guess that NASCAR racing is the most environmentally-friendly sport out there, the franchise has worked hard for the last four years to make sure it is. An array of green initiatives including beverage container recycling, cell phone recycling and ethanol gasoline has allowed NASCAR to take the lead in the race to be green.
When racecars rev up for this year’s Daytona 500, it will be the second year in a row that ethanol-blended fuel will power their engines. Last season alone, the Sunoco Green E15 renewable racing fuel, which contains 15 percent American-made corn-based ethanol, saved racers 300,000 regular gallons of gasoline. The ethanol blend also produces 20 percent less greenhouse gas emissions.
Other racetrack-based initiatives include the recycling of batteries, oil recycling and proper disposal and limiting the time that racecar transporters idle on the track. Also, both tracks and teams are jumping on board. For example, Pocono Raceway in Pennsylvania has installed a solar farm to fuel its energy needs and contribute to the local energy grid. It is the largest of its kind for any sports arena in the nation. Additionally, Roush Fenway Racing team recycled 26,660 pounds of plastic, 100,000 pounds of steel and aluminum and 11,335 pounds of paper in 2010.
NASCAR green programs also address more general concerns about the environment. Every time a green flag is dropped, for example, the clean air program will plant 10 trees. The franchise also encourages paper reduction in the home and at the office.
The whole trend started in 2008 when Coca-Cola and Coors teamed up for a consumer recycling initiative at the races. Last year, more than 1,000 tons of cardboard, cans and bottles were recycled as a result of the same campaign.
NASCAR encourages other kinds of consumer recycling as well. The latest initiative is a partnership with Creative Recycling Systems that will promote the recycling of televisions, computers and other electronic equipment. Collection events and informational campaigns will be held to educate consumers about the importance of recycling electronics.
In the past, spectators have been provided with pre-addressed, postage-paid envelopes to recycle their used wireless phones, batteries and accessories. According to NASCAR’s managing director of green innovation, Mike Lynch, NASCAR fan families tout green households 50 percent more than non-fans, an increase in the last three years.
"Things that are good for the environment have become a competitive edge," Lynch said according to Business News Daily. "We are glad we launched it when we did."
Click here for more information.
Posted by Elizabeth Freed on Feb 27, 2012 at 2:31 PM0 comments
When Cascades Tissue Group, North America’s fourth largest producer of towel and tissue paper, unveiled their beige-colored Cascades Moka line of bathroom tissue at a recent tradeshow, distributers were initially concerned by the color.
"Then they would feel the product and say, 'Oh, wow, that is actually very soft!’” said Isabelle Faivre, the marketing director for Cascades Tissue Group. “And when they learned about our method for producing the 100-percent recycled, undyed and unbleached tissue, their interest immediately peaked.”
White toilet paper can be produced from recycled fiber without using chlorine—which is the main grievance against the bleaching process— but Cascades Tissue Group believes they have found an even more sustainable way of producing bath tissue by using a unique pulp recipe that is composed of 80-percent post-consumer paper materials and 20-percent recovered corrugated boxes. When the company performed a detailed life cycle analysis of Cascades Moka bathroom tissue and compared it to their 100-percent recycled bathroom tissue that undergoes a chlorine-free whitening process, it found that the environmental impact was lessened by at least 25 percent.
The United States uses 3.4 million tons of bath tissue annually. Despite having the capabilities to produce bath tissues made from recycled fiber, 54 percent of the tissue consumed continues to be produced using virgin fiber. Cascades estimates that if a complete swap was made to their environmentally preferable 100-percent recycled bath tissue, it would annually save 30.6 million trees and 68 million GJ of energy, which is enough to fuel the annual energy consumption of 619,811 households.
Since consumer tastes and habits often evolve in the public before their behaviors are modified at home, Cascades believes that the commercial market serves as the first frontier for sustainable innovations. Therefore, Cascades Moka is currently only available for the away-from-home market.
In recent years the napkin industry has seen a trend that Cascades thinks will be replicated by the bathroom tissue industry. Companies like Target and Cinnabon, for instance, have successfully waned off of white napkins and replaced them with recycled brown napkins. Many marketers believe that the beige napkins have actually become a badge of honor among businesses that wish to project a positive image to their environmentally-conscious customers.
“Beige is the new green, at least as it relates to towel and tissue,” said Suzanne Blanchet, CEO of Cascades Tissue Group, who personally conceived and championed Cascades Moka bath tissue’s development. “The last several years have brought about countless habit changes meant to preserve the environment. The quality of this bath tissue hasn’t been sacrificed one bit, so adjusting to a new color seems like a small step to take for even greater sustainability.”
But when it comes to bathroom tissue, will American consumers agree? Bath tissue distributed outside of the United States is offered in a variety of colors: apricot in the United Kingdom, green in Poland and orange in Switzerland. Americans, however, are more resistant to such changes.
Again, Cascades looks to the napkin industry as a predictor.
In the late ‘90s Cascades began its Moka concept with the introduction of the Moka napkin line. Commercial sales for the product have steadily increased year by year, as corporate purchasers and their employees and customers become more aware of its environmental benefits. In 2004 the Moka napkin line represented 10 percent of its total away-from-home sales in North America—now it represents more than 23 percent of case sales.
Cascades also believes that, aside from the environmental advantages of using recycled fiber in the production process, their business model will eventually lower the cost of the end product, which will be a savings that is passed on to the consumers.
Virgin pulp prices have more than doubled over the past three years, which has invoked price increases in recycled fiber as well. But by expanding and varying the types of fibers used in the production process, Cascades believes it can hedge its products’ exposure to commodity price fluctuations and white fiber shortages that rest outside of its control, thereby keeping tissue prices affordable in its served markets
Cascades Moka bathroom tissue is currently priced similarly to its white counterpart, with no discount or premium, but Cascades believes that will change as the trend catches on and more North American consumers see the immediate environmental benefits and eventual financial benefits of using recycled bath tissue.
“While the initial feedback for Cascades Moka has been extraordinarily positive,” Faivre said. “In the end, we will have to wait and see how American consumers react when they see our beige bathroom tissue in the stalls of their office, universities and hotels.”
So is America ready to sacrifice the white, virgin toilet paper its grown accustomed to if it means less of an environmental impact? When the benefits are rolled out onto the table, Cascades Tissue Group has faith that the answer will be “Yes.”
Ryan Benson works at Kohnstamm Communications, the agency of record for Cascades Tissue Group. O’Dwyer’s Public Relations News ranked Kohnstamm Communications 94th in its March 2010 annual ranking of independent public relations agencies. For more information, visit www.kohnstamm.com.
Posted on Feb 21, 2012 at 3:00 PM6 comments