Trade in your toilet
Sit down on some great water savings by opting for a high-efficiency toilet (HET). According to the EPA, toilet flushing accounts for about 30 percent of all indoor residential water use, requiring more water than any other activity in our homes.
But the right toilet can change those statistics for the better. In response to rising water demand and looming water shortages, the EPA developed WaterSense, a program that makes it easy for consumers to quickly identify water-efficient products. Toilets that carry the WaterSense label are third-party certified to be at least 20 percent more efficient than today’s standard toilets, which reduce flow per flush from an average 1.6 gallons to 1.28 (but toilets installed in your home before 1994 still use 3.5 gallons or more per flush). Visit the program’s Web site to find qualifying products plus a list of participating retailers like Vidavici.com, offering one of the widest selections of WaterSense–rated toilets available on the Internet.
You can save even more money by taking advantage of rebates for water-efficient toilets that are sponsored by local city governments throughout North America. For example, residents of Albuquerque, N.M., can receive a $125 rebate when replacing a standard toilet model with a water-efficient model. In Sioux Falls, S.D., residents are eligible for a $75 rebate when making the switch. Visit Toiletrebate.com to see what incentives may be available to you.
www.vivavi.com
The AQUS system saves fresh water by reusing wastewater.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But why send perfectly clean drinking water down the toilet? An AQUS System reuses the water from your bathroom sink for all of your flushing needs. Developed by Water Saver Technologies, the AQUS is a small, simple system that uses a 5 1/2–gallon container inside your sink’s vanity (or behind the wall or underneath the floorboards) to capture and filter water as it comes down the sink’s drain. The water is run from the container to your toilet’s tank with a small tube. Install the AQUS, and you’ll be a hero of the planet though you’ll barely notice that the device is there. Two people sharing an AQUS-equipped bathroom are estimated to save about 14 gallons of water per day, or 5,000 gallons over the course of a year. The system is available for $295 plus installation. Depending upon your local water and sewage rates, Water Saver Technologies estimates that it usually pays for itself within four to five years. You can find a distributor at Watersavertech.com. There is another toilet type that allows you to push one handle if there is only liquid waste, an another for solid waste, saving 40% on your water bill.
CONTINUED : A new way to water your plants, plus more
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Coal plants not the solution
Fiddling While the Coal Burns
Bill McKibbon
Updated: 1/20/2009 1:01:39 PM
Given the sheer number of candidates for "worst legacy of the Bush years," it may seem perverse to pick the hundreds of coal-fired power plants that have opened across China during his administration. But given their cumulative effect -- quite possibly the concrete block that broke the climate-camel's already straining back -- I think they may be what history someday seizes on. And they are emblematic of George W. Bush's utter failure to help the world rein in carbon emissions at what may have been the last possible moment.
When Bush first took office, China (and really India as well) were right at the bottom of their energy takeoff. China had actually become steadily more energy efficient over the previous decade, as absurd state industries began to shut down. But both countries were poised, thanks to the creation of the World Trade Organization, for the true explosion of their export economies, and for the subsequent rapid migration of rural residents to the factory cities that became the largest exodus in human history.
The obvious, easy, and cheap candidate to power that boom was always going to be coal: China has its own vast stockpiles and the kind of labor force and rail links to make exploiting it relatively easy. But by 2000 we already knew enough to conclude just how dangerous it would be if China went whole-hog into the coal business. George W., remember, had pledged during the 2000 campaign that he would enact a "four-pollutant bill" for America's own coal-fired power plants, forcing them to start reducing carbon dioxide.
But Bush abandoned that plan within weeks of taking office, kneecapping Christine Todd Whitman, his EPA chief, just before her first foreign trip. She grinned and took it, and the rest of the world winced and took it. From that day forward there was no real chance that the world would make substantive progress against carbon during the Bush years.
For one thing, the lack of U.S. action provided everybody else who didn't want to change with a perfect scapegoat, an unbeatable excuse for doing nothing. The Chinese, for instance, could say with perfect justice that they certainly shouldn't have to take the lead -- because they've been burning fossil fuel only a short time, it will be decades before they're as responsible for global warming as the U.S., never mind their much higher population. (Not only that, of course, but a huge percentage of the Chinese emissions come from building stuff for us, now that we've gutted our manufacturing economy.)
And so the Chinese took the path of least resistance. Anyone who has visited there in recent years knows the result: cities choked in coal haze, shiny new high-tension lines draping every ridge and valley in the same hypnotic swoop and fall as the Great Wall itself. And anyone who reads the rising carbon numbers from the instruments on the side of Mauna Loa knows the larger consequence: The world is now above even the bleakest "business as usual" paths laid out just a few years ago by climate policy experts.
But even for those -- Europe and Japan -- that wanted to do something about climate, the U.S. refusal to engage meant that nothing much could happen. Yes, the Kyoto treaty was finally ratified -- somewhat miraculously, since without our participation it required virtually every other developed nation to sign on. But because of America's recalcitrance (right back to the Clinton years) they were never strong enough to do much in any event. The eight Bush years turned into an international interregnum on climate policy. The American delegations sabotaged international meetings, slowed down any proposal to actually change, and in general served as the anchor thrown off the back of the caboose.
It's not entirely clear that even the most well-intentioned president could have headed off the China coal binge. It would have taken a shrewd mix of diplomacy, technology-sharing, and moral pressure to head them in a different direction. But even subtle nudges in their trajectory in the early years of the decade would have resulted in far less damage than we see today. And, of course, we'll never know since Bush didn't try. If anything, his team cheered on the Chinese.
As a result of all this planned malfeasance, Bush leaves Obama in the worst possible place to do anything substantial about carbon. For one thing, the Chinese now have all those coal-fired power plants and so, just like us, an enormous problem with sunk costs if they ever try to shut them down. (And shut them down is what Jim Hansen has told us must happen; if the earth is not done burning coal by 2030, then 350 parts per million CO2 goes forever by the board.) And because the Chinese are now producing as much CO2 as we are, our own coal lobby has a powerful rhetorical argument to use against any real action close to home. You can hear it anytime you want on C-Span -- some coal-state Republican or another announcing piously that it "will do no good for America to reign in its carbon emissions until China does the same."
Negotiating away the results of these eight years will be Obama's biggest environmental task, bigger even than figuring out how to limit our own emissions. By Copenhagen next December, the Americans and the Chinese will need to have rechoreographed entirely the poisonous dance they've spent the last decade perfecting. If they can't, the possibility of a breakthrough agreement is nil.
Oh, and since the most important element of that breakthrough will doubtless be finding some way to partially compensate China (still an overwhelmingly poor nation) for the cost of switching to more expensive fuel sources, the recession that Bush leaves us with is yet one more obstacle. If he'd set out to purposefully screw up the chances for dealing with global warming, it's unlikely Bush could have done a better job. (But the purposeful party was no doubt Dick Cheney.)
Bill McKibben, a Grist board member, is a scholar-in-residence at Middlebury College and co-founder of 350.org.
Bill McKibbon
Updated: 1/20/2009 1:01:39 PM
Given the sheer number of candidates for "worst legacy of the Bush years," it may seem perverse to pick the hundreds of coal-fired power plants that have opened across China during his administration. But given their cumulative effect -- quite possibly the concrete block that broke the climate-camel's already straining back -- I think they may be what history someday seizes on. And they are emblematic of George W. Bush's utter failure to help the world rein in carbon emissions at what may have been the last possible moment.
When Bush first took office, China (and really India as well) were right at the bottom of their energy takeoff. China had actually become steadily more energy efficient over the previous decade, as absurd state industries began to shut down. But both countries were poised, thanks to the creation of the World Trade Organization, for the true explosion of their export economies, and for the subsequent rapid migration of rural residents to the factory cities that became the largest exodus in human history.
The obvious, easy, and cheap candidate to power that boom was always going to be coal: China has its own vast stockpiles and the kind of labor force and rail links to make exploiting it relatively easy. But by 2000 we already knew enough to conclude just how dangerous it would be if China went whole-hog into the coal business. George W., remember, had pledged during the 2000 campaign that he would enact a "four-pollutant bill" for America's own coal-fired power plants, forcing them to start reducing carbon dioxide.
But Bush abandoned that plan within weeks of taking office, kneecapping Christine Todd Whitman, his EPA chief, just before her first foreign trip. She grinned and took it, and the rest of the world winced and took it. From that day forward there was no real chance that the world would make substantive progress against carbon during the Bush years.
For one thing, the lack of U.S. action provided everybody else who didn't want to change with a perfect scapegoat, an unbeatable excuse for doing nothing. The Chinese, for instance, could say with perfect justice that they certainly shouldn't have to take the lead -- because they've been burning fossil fuel only a short time, it will be decades before they're as responsible for global warming as the U.S., never mind their much higher population. (Not only that, of course, but a huge percentage of the Chinese emissions come from building stuff for us, now that we've gutted our manufacturing economy.)
And so the Chinese took the path of least resistance. Anyone who has visited there in recent years knows the result: cities choked in coal haze, shiny new high-tension lines draping every ridge and valley in the same hypnotic swoop and fall as the Great Wall itself. And anyone who reads the rising carbon numbers from the instruments on the side of Mauna Loa knows the larger consequence: The world is now above even the bleakest "business as usual" paths laid out just a few years ago by climate policy experts.
But even for those -- Europe and Japan -- that wanted to do something about climate, the U.S. refusal to engage meant that nothing much could happen. Yes, the Kyoto treaty was finally ratified -- somewhat miraculously, since without our participation it required virtually every other developed nation to sign on. But because of America's recalcitrance (right back to the Clinton years) they were never strong enough to do much in any event. The eight Bush years turned into an international interregnum on climate policy. The American delegations sabotaged international meetings, slowed down any proposal to actually change, and in general served as the anchor thrown off the back of the caboose.
It's not entirely clear that even the most well-intentioned president could have headed off the China coal binge. It would have taken a shrewd mix of diplomacy, technology-sharing, and moral pressure to head them in a different direction. But even subtle nudges in their trajectory in the early years of the decade would have resulted in far less damage than we see today. And, of course, we'll never know since Bush didn't try. If anything, his team cheered on the Chinese.
As a result of all this planned malfeasance, Bush leaves Obama in the worst possible place to do anything substantial about carbon. For one thing, the Chinese now have all those coal-fired power plants and so, just like us, an enormous problem with sunk costs if they ever try to shut them down. (And shut them down is what Jim Hansen has told us must happen; if the earth is not done burning coal by 2030, then 350 parts per million CO2 goes forever by the board.) And because the Chinese are now producing as much CO2 as we are, our own coal lobby has a powerful rhetorical argument to use against any real action close to home. You can hear it anytime you want on C-Span -- some coal-state Republican or another announcing piously that it "will do no good for America to reign in its carbon emissions until China does the same."
Negotiating away the results of these eight years will be Obama's biggest environmental task, bigger even than figuring out how to limit our own emissions. By Copenhagen next December, the Americans and the Chinese will need to have rechoreographed entirely the poisonous dance they've spent the last decade perfecting. If they can't, the possibility of a breakthrough agreement is nil.
Oh, and since the most important element of that breakthrough will doubtless be finding some way to partially compensate China (still an overwhelmingly poor nation) for the cost of switching to more expensive fuel sources, the recession that Bush leaves us with is yet one more obstacle. If he'd set out to purposefully screw up the chances for dealing with global warming, it's unlikely Bush could have done a better job. (But the purposeful party was no doubt Dick Cheney.)
Bill McKibben, a Grist board member, is a scholar-in-residence at Middlebury College and co-founder of 350.org.
Green facts
Did you know?
$210: Money saved in one year of energy bills by switching to a new refrigerator and clothes washer.
$82: Money saved in one year by switching to eco-friendly cleaning products such as white vinegar, baking soda, lemon juice and olive oil.
$135: Money saved in one year by a family of four when they recycle one bottle or can per day.
$210: Money saved in one year of energy bills by switching to a new refrigerator and clothes washer.
$82: Money saved in one year by switching to eco-friendly cleaning products such as white vinegar, baking soda, lemon juice and olive oil.
$135: Money saved in one year by a family of four when they recycle one bottle or can per day.
peanut butter facts
- The average American will have eaten 1,500 PB & J sandwiches before graduating from high school
- Grape jelly is the most popular fruit spread for PB & J sandwiches, according to a nationwide survey. Strawberry is a close second
- Creamy vs. crunchy peanut butter? 62% of adults prefer creamy. More men than women like crunchy.
- 96% of adults eat their PB & J with the crust on
- 62% od adults favor white bread for PB & J. Wheat bread is preferred by 27%, and 11 % like multigrain
Personally, I LOVE PB & J sandwiches !
- Grape jelly is the most popular fruit spread for PB & J sandwiches, according to a nationwide survey. Strawberry is a close second
- Creamy vs. crunchy peanut butter? 62% of adults prefer creamy. More men than women like crunchy.
- 96% of adults eat their PB & J with the crust on
- 62% od adults favor white bread for PB & J. Wheat bread is preferred by 27%, and 11 % like multigrain
Personally, I LOVE PB & J sandwiches !
Monday, January 19, 2009
comments
Whatever happened to the sidewalk lawsuit against the City? Was that ever resolved? If so, what was the final disposition? Anybody know? We have a couple traffic circles on the east side of town, and if properly designed and landscaped, are not an eyesore. They DO seem to slow the traffic down some. Its a public safety issue. Guess its cheaper to make a circle than to put a light in, rumble strips, or a stop sign. Still, no doubt that teachers salaries are important too, just more expensive to implement. Teachers ARE grooming the leaders of tomorrow. A perfect example of a case where City priorities and County priorities dont agree, and the County takes precedence over the City. It could easily happen again with annexation, if we dont have the proper zoning and legal safeguards in place.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
let us pay to NOT work for us?
What are the chances the City winds up paying the new Rec Director a LARGE lump sum to go away and NOT sue us? Of course, if he had been checked out properly in the FIRST place, this might very well NOT be an issue, right? Just ANOTHER expensive case of mismanagement- will they EVER end?
commentary
After six tough weeks of work, the new Rec Director gats administrative leave? Thats where he gets paid to do nothing, right? Who would authorize administrative leaves? Could the City Manager authorize administrative leaves without, at LEAST, informing the Council? Wouldnt the Mayor and Council have to approve such a leave? Or is this ANOTHER secret handshake deal between the City Manager and the new Rec Director? Wouldnt an administrative leave have to be documented somewhere? A memo? Something? Cops and other city employees can be put on administrative leave pending an investigation, and its results- is THIS whats happening? This whole situation is very peculiar. Why isnt the Mayor or Council telling us whats happening? We need, want, and deserve to know if we are paying a Dept head to do nothing- or not! If its true, on what basis was that decision made? IF its another handshake deal, on what basis was that deal made, and what IS the deal?? This may be an internal personnel decision, but it has direct affects on the taxpayers and the services we are paying to provide, or not provide, in this case. We need some facts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)