St. Patricks’ Day this week turned cities green literally – from landmarks to libations. But how green have major metro areas around the U.S. been throughout the year? The American Cities Business Journal group has released a new study on the matter.

Their inaugural Green Cities Index examined 43 U.S. cities, and ranked them based on 20 criteria encompassing residents’ environmental behavior, cities’ use or abuse of land and water, and presence of a variety of environment related projects and industries. The Green Cities Index 2010 survey results have been hot in the blogosphere ever since, with bloggers and residents bragging or bummed about their scores.

Portland topped the Green Cities Index 2010, with San Francisco in a close second place, Honolulu at third followed by Austin and Boston. The new study’s rankings fell in line with related studies by the Natural Resources Defense Council, and by Popular Science. But not exactly.

Surprising Strengths

Green Cities Index 2010 gave areas lacking environmental credibility overall some surprising points. Houston, one of the most traffic-choked cities in the U.S., held the top spot for Energy Star rated facilities, saving it from a much lower score.

Meanwhile, Albany ranked in the top ten on this list, though traditional manufacturing plants have caused severe pollution there for years. The city’s high score was influenced by Albany’s top score for “green jobs.”

At least the presence of more green jobs per capita in the area indicates the promise of a sea change.

It ain’t easy being green…

How important are green aspects of a city to the quality of life there? We think entirely important. That’s why we’re surprised that Green Cities Index 2010 chart topper Portland did not rank so highly in a separate happiness survey, the Gallup Healthways Well-Being Index which was released last month. The happiness study examined 162 cities, and Portland came in at 59. (That compares indirectly to 16th place on a 43-city list like Green Cities.)

Greensboro, North Carolina which came in dead last on the Green Cities Index, with the worst ranking for sprawl and its result, carbon emissions per capita, ranked 97th on the well-being index, which would put it at about 25th on a list of 43.

While there’s no apples-to-apples comparison between the studies, it’s worth asking: why aren’t the greenest cities always the happiest? Where does your city rank, and how happy are you?

Basic reading:

“A few hundred miles up the Ohio River from Cincinnati, Pittsburgh sits as a shining example of sustainability. After decades of working to clean its smoky skies and polluted waterways, the Steel City also has become a model for green building and sustainable design…” – A news feature discussing the reasons why Cincinnati Business Journal decided to launch its Green Cities Index

“Nine of the 10 cities that fare best on ‘life evaluation,’ assessments of life now and expectations in five years, boast a major university, a big military installation or a state Capitol – institutions that presumably provide some insulation from recession.” – A news feature breaking down a Gallup study of how happy people are in American cities, via USA Today

“If you want to be good to the environment, stay away from it…” From a 2009 study on Suburban vs. City living by Edward L. Glaeser

“No Northwest city is yet close to the destination of sustainability: carbon neutrality; widely shared prosperity; stable populations in strong communities; educational and economic opportunity for all; hyper-efficient use of natural resources; zero-pollution industries; and low-stuff, high-satisfaction lives.” – a different assessment of green cities from the Vancouver, B.C. news site, The Tyee

Further Resources:

News from OregonLive.com about the lack of trees in an otherwise green city, Portland: “Green Portland Isn’t Green Enough”

An Environmental Protection Agency air quality report

For contrast, a news report on air quality in Islamabad

A Greenbang.com story about London’s aim to imitate Copenhagen, Europe’s greenest city

A blog post calling for public transit support in Nashville, and referencing its low ranking on Green Cities Index 2010

Image Credit: Keith Skelton

This is the latest installment of EcoMeme, a column featuring eco news, tech and trends by EcoSalon writer and columnist Lora Kolodny.

Google Maps released a feature that gives turn-by-turn biking directions in 150 American cities this week, as it has previously for driving, public transportation and walking routes.

According to the company’s own blog, bike directions were the most requested feature by Google Maps users. Pro-bicyclist, and environmentalist groups like Austin’s GoogleMapsBikeThere.org had created petitions and lobbied Google to develop this tool as early as 2007. Their petition scored more than 51,000 signatures.

Others, like RideTheCity in New York, worked to develop their own bike route mapping tools online, with specific, insider knowledge of each metro area.

The new Google feature delivers information about bike trails that have no motor vehicles, and the streets and routes recommended for cyclists, avoiding motor vehicle traffic, and steep hills. So far, the green and bike loving blogosphere has reacted with mixed reviews, deeming Google Maps for Bikes a good start, but not quite there yet.

We hope that Google’s Bike Maps feature will encourage car commuters to go green and get fit. Biking where you might have driven before can prevent tons of carbon emissions each year, while burning hundreds of calories an hour.

Basic Reading:

“Motor vehicle emissions represent 31 percent of total carbon dioxide, 81 percent of carbon monoxide, and 49 percent of nitrogen oxides released in the U.S. A short, four-mile round trip by bicycle keeps about 15 pounds of pollutants out of the air we breathe.” – Top environmental reasons to bike not drive from BikeLeague.org

“Google worked with the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, which advocates for the creation of biking and walking paths throughout the United States, to gather trail-map data. ‘The demand for trail maps and information has never been higher, especially as more people recognize biking as a viable, inexpensive and healthy alternative to driving,’ Rails-to-Trails President Keith Laughlin said in a statement.” – A news item ‘Google Maps Your Way to the Bicycle Path,’ via Silicon Valley Mercury News

“Avid bicyclists, who have long demanded they be treated as equals on the city’s streets, suddenly felt the pain of every driver who has taken a wrong turn after getting glitchy Google Maps directions… Some [cyclists] said the site wanted them to backpedal away from official city bike routes, often adding 10 or 15 minutes to their usual commutes. One regular rider said Google was trying to kill her – directing her to get on Interstate 5.” – A mixed review for Google’s Bike Maps feature by Portland, Oregon cyclists via Oregon Live

“My guess: Google’s bike maps feature will be mostly neglected until they are vastly improved. One suggestion, Google needs a better system to accept crowdsourced input. If cyclists get behind the project, however, Google’s bike maps could become really helpful.” A tough review of Google Bike Maps, by David Coursey for PC World

Further Resources:

“I burn about 66 carolies per mile on my bicycle. My car emits .932 pounds of CO2 per mile…” – A by-the-numbers post at CarFree blog

Wired’s Autopia blog seeks readers’ opinion for a “crowdsourced” review of Google Maps new bike feature

A post by Jason St. Amand about the most affordable and best bikes via WalletPop

The website of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which tracks safety issues around driving, mostly, with some cycling and walking studies too

This is the latest installment of EcoMeme, a column featuring eco news, tech and business highlights by columnist Lora Kolodny.

Image: Pixel Addict

Are you vegetarian? Not that there’s anything wrong with that. If you are, you might have a high IQ or at least want to be perceived as smart.

A new study in the Social Psychology Quarterly March issue has linked high IQ, or measured intelligence, in adults and adolescents to “increases [in] adult liberalism,” including a tendency to be vegetarian, atheist and approving of same sex marriage.

Previous research had shown an even stronger link between high IQ teens and eventual vegetarianism.

Is this sheer snobbery and biased science? Can’t omnivores wear smartypants, too?

Stories about this study, combined with recent press appearances by and accolades for the novelist turned food writer-activist Jonathan Safran Foer and his book Eating Animals have turned up the volume on the ever raging environmental debate this week.

Safran Foer discussed his decision to make his own plate vegetarian or vegan, and to feed his infant son a vegetarian diet too on The Ellen Degeneres show. On air he quipped, “We continue to believe the meat on our plate comes from these idyllic [farms]. But on a chicken farm, an egg-laying hen farm even, more than 99% of hens live in these enclosed sheds each given about the space about the size of Mariah Carey’s engagement ring.”

A 67-square inch chunk of bling doesn’t exist, not even for the diva. But that’s the real size of living quarters for a beast in a factory farm, and about the size of two pages of a hardcover copy of Eating Animals. Safran Foer mentioned several more horrific sights he witnessed in researching food and farms for his book beyond that, on the show. Responses to his segment ranged from farmers trying to do right by their customers and livestock expressing anger at his generalizations, to kudos and support from vegan activists.

We asked Sandra McLean, a Slow Food New York City chapter leader, committee chair and all around food expert if adopting a vegetarian diet is the only (or the smartest) way to go green. Noting that Slow Food doesn’t take a pro-vegetarian, vegan or omnivore stance, she says: “Any animal that is raised humanely in the manner which is natural to its species is environmentally sensible.”

For omnivores, McLean advises buying and eating beef that comes from grass-fed, grass-finished steers that are raised as “the ruminants that they are,” meaning they should be able to graze for their food, and chickens that are raised in portable henhouses, which she called “a nice example of agricultural synergy.” A portable henhouse is moved about once a week around a field that will be planted with some crops. The birds’ manure fertilizes the field, and the chickens eat grubs and insects that populate it. McLean also suggests limiting meat intake to a 4 oz. portion daily, at most, to decrease the environmental impact of an omnivorous diet.

Above all, McLean says, “A person has a right to choose to eat the types of food that support his or her lifestlye and belief system.” Slow Food’s belief is that food choices should be based upon the credo of “good, clean and fair,” she says meaning good for the eater and the environment (and good tasting), clean as in grown and raised without pesticides, hormones or antibiotics, while being fair to the farmer, the farmworker and the animals.

Basic Reading:

“This study…advances a new theory to explain why people form particular preferences and values. The theory suggests that more intelligent people are more likely than less intelligent people to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values, but intelligence does not correlate with preferences and values that are old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of years.” – A Science Daily news feature on Kanazawa’s constroversial study of liberal vs. conservative IQ

“[A new] study found that young adults who said they were ‘very conservative’ had an average adolescent IQ of 95, whereas those who said they were ‘very liberal’ averaged 106. Vegetarianism…was shown to be related to intelligence in previous research, [the study’s author] Kanazawa said. None of this means that the human species is evolving toward a future where these traits are the default. Kanazawa said, ‘More intelligent people don’t have more children, so moving away from the trajectory is not going to happen.’” – A CNN Health story by Elizabeth Landau

“Jonathan Safran Foer, a smart Jewish boy from the American east coast has now written a book about what’s wrong with the modern way in which most of the animals we eat are produced. Which is to say, everything: the genetic manipulation of the breeding stock to produce maximum feed-to-meat conversion, regardless of the suffering it causes; the appalling circumstances in which these creatures are then raised, crammed together, the stench of their own shit in their nostrils; the barbarity of the slaughter process, which can result in cattle literally being flayed alive.”-A book review of Jonathan Safran Foer’s Eating Animals in The Guardian Observer

“Adult intelligence predicts adult espousal of liberalism, atheism, and sexual exclusivity for men (but not for women). Childhood intelligence at age 10 significantly increases the probability that individuals become vegetarian as adults.” – A blog post and discussion that asks if the new study is unfair, via Overcoming Bias, by Robin Hanson

Further Resources:

Why It Matters if Liberals Are Much Smarter, a ScienceBlogs post by Razib Kahn

Critical views on Kanazawa’s research and his limited sample of American young adults via BeliefNet

Village Voice blog post by Chantal Martineau talking about the book Eating Animals and its reception outside of the U.S.

PETA’s press release announcing an award for Jonathan Safran Foer, his pro-vegetarian views and his book

Image: Ha-Wee

Facebook is the second largest website in the US and the default social network of many environmental activists, where they (ok, we) go to develop supportive networks, raise awareness and funds for good causes. It’s also a platform for some excellent, environmental-fundraising games like Lil’ Green Patch (acquired by social games company Playdom in 2009) and Sea Garden (a MobScience game).

Obviously the environmental community, on and off Facebook, felt betrayed when the social media leader, in late January, announced its plans to build a data center in Prineville, Oregon that will be contrarily LEED-gold certified, yet run on coal power.

Yes, coal – that’s lump in your stocking, fine particles in the air and lungs, carbon dioxide-emitting coal.

Facebook’s data center electricity provider in Oregon will be PacifiCorp., a utility that is owned by Berkshire Hathaway, and generates most of its power from coal according to reports by SearchDataCenter.

The information and communications technology sector, according to Gartner research, is already as bad as and quickly surpassing the aviation industry in terms of global CO2 emissions. Why would Facebook – which has enjoyed a reputation as a game changer, and innovator – make the ICT sector worse, by going with the fuel that the Natural Resources Defense Council identifies as a top source of mercury pollution in the U.S., and a health threat to all who live near coal power plants?

End users do like free, or ad-sponsored Facebook. And coal power remains cheaper than cleaner alternatives like natural gas, or hydroelectric power (which has its own problems including damaging fish populations and rivers). But Facebook has said in a series of interviews that it focused on building an efficient data center, rather than the source of power it will use. We’re surprised an industry leader thought one good thing was good enough.

Is it unreasonable to ask Facebook to offer its services free to end users, but to buy more expensive, green power? Or, given their lack of environmental responsibility on this one, would you be willing to abandon your Facebook profile entirely?

Basic Reading:

“Criticism from Greenpeace and Change.org has attracted national attention within the information technology industry, catching Facebook off guard. ‘This has been a big learning experience for us,’ said Facebook spokeswoman Kathleen Loughlin. ‘We’re six years old. We’ve never owned a data center before. We’ve never owned land before…The energy source is one factor,’ Loughlin said, ‘but how we’re going to use that energy is another equally important, if not more important, factor to consider.’” A news feature by Mike Rogoway for The Oregonian

“After having rented out data center space in Silicon Valley and elsewhere for years, Facebook is now building its own data center in scenic Prineville, located in central Oregon. It’s a symbolic step for the company, which started out on an $80/month shared server just under six years ago.” – An InsideFacebook article detailing some of the efficient features planned for the company’s new data center

“For the first time Facebook will have its own facility but unlike Google or Microsoft, which both built data centers in the same area running off hydroelectric power, Facebook’s facility will be powered by dirty coal…” - An anti-coal petition from Change.org to Facebook’s CEO, with about 8,000 signatures as of Feb. 25, 2010

“The only truly green data centers are the ones running on renewable energy…Given the massive amounts of electricity that even energy-efficient data centers consume to run computers, backup power units, and power related cooling equipment, the last thing we need to be doing is building them in places where they are increasing demand for dirty coal-fired power.” – GreenPeace press officer Daniel Kessler via a HuffingtonPost op-ed

Further Resources:

“Coal accounts for a fifth of all greenhouse gas emissions worldwide,” reported in the New York Times‘ Green Inc. blog

A story on the waste problems created by coal power plants in B’More Green

A round-up of some of the green IT practices and technologies used by tech giants including Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and Facebook from Earth2Tech

Ironically, last April, Intel called for users to submit ideas via Facebook video submission about How to Green Data Centers, via Treehugger

A “clean coal” debunking site ThisIsReality.org that includes a public service announcement ad created by the Coen brothers

Image: Nick Perla

Editor’s note: This is the latest installment of EcoMeme, a column featuring eco news, tech and trends by EcoSalon writer and columnist Lora Kolodny.

A perfect media storm blew in for the week of Fat Tuesday.

First came an impassioned TED speech by Jamie Oliver challenging Americans to solve our obesity epidemic through food and nutrition education and more excellent cooking.

Then came New York City’s Fashion Week with its requisite news of models getting fired from runway gigs for allegedly “being fat” at size puny.

In parallel, there was a huge debate around the emotional outbursts, each in 140-character Twitter format, by Kevin Smith the actor and filmmaker who was kicked off of a Southwest airlines flight this week for being too large and a “safety” concern.

One of the milder tweets he offered: “Wanna tell me I’m too wide for the sky? Totally cool. But fair warning, folks: IF YOU LOOK LIKE ME, YOU MAY BE EJECTED FROM @SOUTHWESTAIR.”

Obesity-haters on Twitter and comment boards web-wide suggested it was fair for airlines like Southwest to kick Smith (a.k.a. Silent Bob) off a flight if, in their estimation, a passenger was too large to fit in a single seat, and no other seat was available. Others sided with Kevin Smith but wondered if a “fat tax,” which essentially punishes people who stress the healthcare system and food supply, is worth considering.

An informal survey on Hunch.com of 12,000 site visitors showed that – rather unsympathetically – people who aren’t fat are more likely to support airlines’ charging fat people for two tickets, if they can’t fit into one seat as opposed to offering a wider seat, or two for the price of one.

If you’re fit, would you pass the buck to the obese? If you’re fat, would the tax help motivate you to lose weight by eating less, or healthier (and presumably more sustainable) foods?

Study up on all sides of the argument for and against fat taxes on everything from plane tickets to sugary foods with the links and resources here.

BASIC READING:

“Daniel Engber has likened fat to height. ‘How fat you are has a lot more to do with your genes than with your behavior,’ he argue[s]. ‘As much as 80 percent of the variation in human body weight can be explained by differences in our DNA. (Your height is similarly heritable.)’…Instances of radical, lasting weight loss are exceedingly rare. Diet and exercise schemes tend to yield only minor effects over the long term…” – A post by William Saletan for Slate comparing the tall to the fat.

“The idea of a special tax on soda, similar to those on tobacco, gasoline and alcoholic beverages, is attracting more interest. Advocates of a tax note that sugared beverages are the No. 1 source of calories in the American diet, representing 7 percent of the average person’s caloric intake, according to government surveys, and up to 10 percent for children and teenagers. ‘What you want,’ says Kelly Brownell, director of Yale’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, ‘is to reverse the fact that healthy food is too expensive and unhealthy food is too cheap, and the soda tax is a start. Unless food marketing changes, it’s hard to believe that anything else can work.’” – A feature by Mark Bittman in the New York Times

“In Canada, the Supreme Court has ruled that obese and disabled people cannot be forced to buy a second seat on flights….Bill Fabrey, a director at the Council on Size and Weight Discrimination, a non-profit group that advocates for larger people said airlines should provide some bigger seats to accommodate people of size, just as many cinemas and theatres had increased their seats. ‘People come in all shapes and sizes,’ he said. ‘Judging someone by the size of their body, not health level, comes down to discrimination against a class of people.’” – A feature story in The National

FURTHER RESOURCES:

A post by BigFatDeal Blog that aggregates Kevin Smith’s Tweets about “flying while fat.”

A Web M.D. article about a new survey that says 8 of 10 adult males will be fat, not of healthy weight, by 2020

A story in the Syracuse Post-Standard about New Yorkers’ support of a “fat tax” of a kind, on sugary sodas.

A News-Herald story about curbing childhood obesity through more environmentally sound nutrition and standards for food in schools, which is one alternative to levying a fat tax against the obese.

A story by Tom Fudge for KPBS about new research that shows obesity is partly determined by the place where you live.

Editor’s note: This is the latest installment of EcoMeme, a column featuring eco trends, and tech highlights by Lora Kolodny.

Image: Alan Cleaver

Vancouver will no longer be known as the affordable shooting location for TV shows from Airwolf to The X-Files. Judging by blogs, Twitter and social media trends, people are now watching the city for its environmental leadership.

Friday marks the start of the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games hosted in Vancouver, marketed as the “greenest” ever Olympics by Ann Duffy, corporate sustainability officer for the Vancouver Organizing Committee (VANOC).

Of course, she faced a huge challenge in trying to minimize the footprint and waste generated by facilities and operations to accommodate: 7,000 athletes, 10,000 media professionals, and some one million people who will buy about 1.85 million event tickets (according to estimates by MacLeans’ sports section).

But for many environmentalists, what her organizing committee has done isn’t nearly enough to warrant a green-gold medal. And the sponsors of the “greenest ever” games, basking in her green halo’s glow, are suffering scrutiny, too.

Coca Cola aspires to win a green rep through recycling efforts in Vancouver. Panasonic has pledged to offset its carbon footprint. And Teck – a mining company based in Vancouver – donated the bronze, silver and gold for the official medals, which it thankfully “mined” out of electronics waste materials, and not sensitive habitat.

Do some, none or all of the above deserve the love of ecogeeks? Put yourself in an informed position to judge, with the links and resources below.

Basic reading:

Short descriptions of green initiatives at the Winter Olympics by Earth911.com writer Amanda Wills

“Canadians have also made it clear that celebrating winter sports shouldn’t come at the expense of a healthy planet. Thousands of people signed a petition in support of making the games climate conscious. All these voices made a difference. The 2010 Olympic Games in Vancouver have raised the bar for climate action, including energy efficient venues, the use of clean energy sources, and by promoting the use of public transit. Of course, there is, still, lots of room for improvement…” – A report entitled 2010 Winter Olympics: What’s the score on climate change? from the David Suzuki Foundation

“…Unchecked global warming jeopardizes the future of all winter sports. Frenzied reports have been coming in for weeks about the snow situation in Vancouver, which by all accounts is not good. Snow is being saved under tarps, according to some of those reports. More snow is being trucked in from surrounding areas. And even these efforts are expected to fall short, so the snow will likely have to be “enhanced” by sand and hay underneath…So far this year, at least six events have been canceled [due to poor snow conditions].” – A Change.Org post by environmental activist Mike Gaworecki

A Vancouver-based blogger, Leah Karpus, considers everything from made-in-China souvenir mittens to local snow conditions as part of her personal assessment on the Winter Olympics green marketing campaign

Further Resources:

The Reports & Resources area of the official Vancouver 2010 Olympics website, including Environmental Assessments and Sustainability Reports

A slideshow on Mother Nature Network profiling 12 Olympic athletes who “want to save the planet.”

A story about the forthcoming London Summer Olympics from Sustain Magazine that asks: Is “Sustainable Olympics” is an oxymoron?

A WWF-World Wildlife Fund report about the 2014 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games in Sochi, Russia, which they say are failing to meet proper environmental standards

An activist blog post that criticizes the Olympics for claiming to be green, but taking money from industrial developers as sponsors, and using too much non-renewable energy

This is the latest installment of EcoMeme, a column featuring environmental news, trends and tech highlights by Lora Kolodny.

Image: Roland

“Why not give me a choice besides french fries or french fries?” Morgan Spurlock asked the American food industry and regulators in his 2004 fast food exposé Super Size Me. President Obama’s budget for fiscal year 2011 begins to answer that question.

Of particular interest to slow food activists and locavores is the administration’s plan to invest $400 million, through public-private grants into the development of super markets, farmers’ markets and other health food stores across the U.S.

The financing should help small businesses provide healthy alternatives to plastic wrapped snacks, burgers, fried chicken and shakes in communities lacking options. President Obama’s plan, made public on Feb. 1, 2010, included overall food-and-nutrition expenditures far beyond this, of course, which will have a lasting impact on our food and agricultural economy, land and health.

According to Bloomberg financial reports, the U.S. Department of Agriculture spending overall will rise 2.3 percent to $132.3 billion in fiscal 2011.

Agriculture secretary Tom Vilsack said the money would continue to pay for major nutrition assistance programs, with $1 billion split between the Women Infants and Children, and National School Lunch Program; $1 billion for efforts to reduce foodborne illnesses from USDA-inspected food products; and a whopping $75.3 billion towards the food stamps program SNAP (Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Plan).

Even though food stamp spending is rising to meet the needs of record-levels of unemployed and under-employed people in the U.S., there’s a silver lining: food stamps are increasingly allowed at farmer’s markets, these days.

Farmers’ markets, which we frequent and frequently write about at EcoSalon, reduce the fuel consumption and other environmental costs of food transportation by selling produce within 100 miles of its origin and by featuring in-season items only, eschewing huge amounts of plastic and packaging, among many other environmental benefits.

Everyone, from lunch lady bloggers to twittering accountants, had something to say about the budget this week online. Decide for yourself if the plan spends too much or not enough on food, with these basic reads and resources.

Basic Reading:

“A record 37.9 million people, or about one of every eight Americans, received food stamps in October 2009, as the jobless rate reached a 26-year high, the USDA said on Jan. 12, 2010. ‘Thank gosh we have food stamps,’ Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said at a news briefing in Washington. ‘One, for the families who are struggling, and two, for the farmers who want to sell commodities to 300 million Americans.’ – Bloomberg news story by Alan Bjerga examining FY2011 budget in light of food programs

“Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-PA) said. ‘Every day millions of Americans walk out their front doors and see nothing but fast food and convenience stores selling high-fat, high-sugar, processed foods. This lack of retail outlets that sell healthy food options results in higher rates of obesity, diabetes and other health-related issues. The success of the Pennsylvania initiative should be used as the model for a national plan to improve children’s health, create jobs and spur economic development nationwide.’” – A PolicyLink press release via The Medical News

“President Obama’s Budget became public recently and one of the many items in the massive $4.5 trillion expenditures is $1 billion per year for Child Nutrition split between the National School Lunch Program and the Women, Infants and Children Program. At first blush, given the economy and the call for a 3-year freeze on discretionary spending, this might seem like a win for America’s children; and groups like The School Nutrition Association, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest have applauded the proposal. I believe we need to take a closer look at what this really means and perhaps rub the shine off of this offered apple.” – A Chef Ann blog post, by “renegade lunch lady” Ann Cooper, criticizing the president’s FY2011 budget

Further Resources:

Further plans for U.S. government spending on environmental initiatives, especially in solar energy, described at OnEarth.org

Eat This, Not That, a Men’s Health guide to swapping convenient comestibles, for healthier, still-tasty green fare

A photo essay in Fast Company showing new, luxe restaurants started during the recession

A list of food-related budget items by the industry blog The Packer

This is the latest installment of EcoMeme, a column featuring environmental news, trends and tech highlights by Lora Kolodny.

Image: mckaysavage

National Super Bowl ads have been universally fun or relatable through the years, making up for their glib materialism with some entertainment value and giving fans of pop culture but not the sport a reason to watch. Cute frogs croaked for beer (“Bud-wei-ser!”) and babies sang off-key (eTrade) in memorable campaigns.

But this year, CBS and the Super Bowl – which drew more than 95 million viewers in 2009 – are kicking up political dust allowing an anti-abortion ad in the national broadcast. The first religious-political ad CBS has approved to air in the entire history of the Super Bowl hails from the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family.

It features Pam Tebow, who recounts her decision to carry a pregnancy to term, against the advice of doctors who feared for her life and recommended an abortion. By her side is thankful son Tim Tebow, Florida Gators quarterback and Heisman trophy winner. The privilege of airing the ad cost Focus on the Family an estimated $2.5 million media buy, plus more to produce it.

Debate has been raging in the blogosphere. Is Tebow too controversial to get drafted now? What’s appropriate for broadcast during the Super Bowl? Should American women have the right to choose? And with teen pregnancy and teen abortions on the rise, shouldn’t we be focused on improving sex education, first?

No matter where you stand on such matters, or whether you’re one of more than 35 million women over the age of 18 likely to watch the Super Bowl this year (according to Nielsen research), it’s hard not to think of the positive human or environmental impact that a couple million dollars could have made, if redirected to help the already-born children of Haiti, for example.

Finally, there’s another question the anti-abortion movement raises, constantly, and again with this ad: should women be encouraged to have kids at all costs, when overpopulation is wreaking havoc in the form of air, water and noise pollution, loss of species and habitat, and a low life expectancy for humans where you find the fastest growing populations?

BASIC READING:

“Although people no longer talk about a catastrophic ‘population bomb,’ world population continues to grow. Unfortunately, the most affected countries are also the ones least able to support more people.” – Interactive feature on the environmental and social costs of over-population at National Geographic

“Do we really want to start seeing anti-abortion…messages on Super Bowl Sunday? Do you know what [this sports blogger] doesn’t want to see? ‘Issue-oriented’ ads. It’s Super Bowl Sunday. The only issue I want to deal with is replenishing the queso dip. Are you listening Tim Tebow?” – A blog post by Jeff Schulz for Atlanta Journal Constitution

“Tebow and his mom’s Super Bowl ad…will tell America how [Ms. Tebow] was young and not sure she wanted a baby, but then she had Tim who’s now a star about to make gobs and gobs of money… Ergo, you’d be crazy to consider an abortion, ladies, and gents and those not of child-bearing age, don’t even think about supporting a woman’s right to choose, because how could you choose not to gestate and give life to a person as successful and handsome as Tim Tebow?” – A blog post by Elizabeth Gettelman for Mother Jones

FURTHER RESOURCES:

An Associated Press article about Pepsi’s decision not to advertise in the Super Bowl 2010, unrelated to Tebow

A conservative opinion-editorial piece by Jan Crawford for CBS News online about her reaction to the network’s decision to air a pro-life, or anti-choice ad during the Super Bowl 2010

A blog maintained by researcher Richard Heinberg that frequently discusses the impact of overpopulation on the environment and related topics

Overpopulation.org, a website with scientific and historical data on overpopulation, maintained by researchers and activists who seek to improve the environment by curbing overpopulation

A news feature by Nena Carpenter for Helium on the links between various environmental issues and overpopulation

“It appears that Americans have completely forgotten about the profoundly dangerous relationships between overpopulation, resource depletion, environmental degradation, and our standard of living.” – A letter to the editor of Chicago’s Daily Herald by Jim Peterson

This is the latest installment of EcoMeme, a column featuring eco news, trends and tech highlights by Lora Kolodny.

Image: Landshark Stadium, where Superbowl 2010 will be played, by Chris Acuña

Last week, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reversed its position on the safety of a chemical used especially in canned food and drink packaging, plastic and baby bottles – Bisphenol A.

Sounds like a jazz cover of a Radiohead album? It’s so much worse, if that’s possible.

Bisphenol A, also referred to as BPA, is harmful to human health, the FDA finally admitted if not wholeheartedly. With human adults, exposure to BPA has been associated with everything from erectile dysfunction to miscarriages. In animals, it has caused breast cancer and development problems.

While the Bush administration all but ignored previous studies, at least the FDA is beginning to change its course. Sadly, both the FDA and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are delaying an all out ban on this questionable-at-best chemical.

The feds have rallied on behalf of industry, though, promising to help manufacturers of baby bottles and sippy cups find BPA-free materials they can use, and to find new ways to line infant formula cans with research and dollars.

Our green blogosphere has been fiercely a-tweet and a-post about this toxic mixture of plastics and food, politics and science. Study up with the links below, and take action if inspired.

We think a BPA ban might remain a hot, green topic online for a while. Especially since health is priced at a premium here in the U.S. – and hopes for an affordable public option are likely dashed by the election of Republican Scott Brown, now Massachusetts senator-elect.

BASIC READING

“Recent research has linked BPA to disruptions in the endocrine system, an issue that can cause reproductive, neurological, and behavioral problems, causing a growing number of consumer and health advocates to push for greater regulation of the chemical’s use in food containers. In 2008, near the end of the Bush Administration, the FDA conducted a toxicology review of the chemical and maintained that foods containing low levels of the chemical were safe. New research and increased public concern has caused HHS and the FDA to reevaluate the safety of the chemical.” – From a news feature for FoodSafetyNews by Helena Bottemiller

“The FDA is going to punt, and spend $30 million on research over the next two years, while the industry scrambles to find some kind of affordable and effective substitute for BPA in cans. And they better find one, because I suspect that the studies will prove that feeding birth control pill hormones to babies has never been a particularly good idea.” – A Treehugger post by Lloyd Alter parsing the FDA’s press release, and its BPA “concerns.”

“While this announcement is an improvement from their previous conclusion that [BPA] was safe in our food supply – it is too little, too late… The FDA [has] not acknowledged the impacts of BPA on adults. Biomonitoring data shows that babies are being born with BPA already in their blood, which means that they are being exposed through their mothers before they are born. Furthermore, BPA exposure in adults has been associated with miscarriage, erectile dysfunction, heart disease and diabetes.” – An article by scientist and writer Sarah Janssen for GreenAndSave.com

FURTHER RESOURCES

A blog feature by S.L. Baker for NaturalNews.com recounting various studies that link BPAs to heart disease, and other health problems

A blog post by Dr. Ari Brown that guides parents to products for babies that are free of or very low in BPAs, and discusses the harmful effects of BPAs on child development via WebMD

OMBWatch.org, a blog focused on “open government” looks into the regulatory issues surrounding the BPA controversy of Jan. 2010

An activist, Mary Olivella, writes for HuffingtonPost and calls for the immediate, all-out ban of BPAs in food and beverage containers

This is the latest installment of EcoMeme, a column featuring eco news, tech and business highlights by columnist Lora Kolodny.

Image: Timlewisnm

In stark contrast with news of the devastating earthquake and loss of life in Haiti this week, greener vehicles, energy activism and conservation law enforcement gave the blogosphere reasons to hope (and post).

Hybrid, electric, and compact vehicles more fuel-efficient than what’s ever sold before – like the Cadillac XTS Platinum, the Ford Fusion Hybrid, the Nissan Leaf and the Toyota Scion iQ – won accolades at the 2010 North American International Auto Show in Detroit, Michigan, which began Monday Jan. 11th and will be open to the public Saturday, Jan. 16th through Sunday, January 24th.

Some auto brands predicted, like academic researchers before them, that fuel efficiency would “drive” car sales in 2010 and beyond.

Just in time to curry favor with the auto lobby that turns out for the Detroit Auto Show each year, the U.S. Department of Energy this week also announced awards of $187 million in funding, from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act would go to American auto- and parts-makers to create not just jobs, but more efficient “super trucks” (military and commercial vehicles mostly) and passenger vehicles.

The D.O.E. also pledged – perhaps inspired by some of the greener efforts at the Consumer Electronics Show earlier this month – to enforce “minimum appliance conservation standards,” established in the Energy Policy Conservation Act of 1975. In other words, if you make electricity-sucking, carbon-emitting refrigerators, air conditioners or other appliances that don’t meet U.S. standards, and if you don’t report what your gadgets use with accuracy, the feds will fine you! This time they mean it. It’s for the earth. And the U.S. government purse.

Innovative new vehicles and appliances and environmental law enforcement, of course, are just one piece of the energy puzzle.

All of the green news this week from the D.O.E. wasn’t enough to cover the hypocrisy of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency last week which allowed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to issue a permit to Patriot Coal to proceed with some habitat thrashing, mountaintop coal mining projects in West Virgina.

Jan. 2010, Controversial Patriot Coal Mine gets green light from EPA

To solve problems like ruinous coal mining, burning and oil consumption, on Thursday, Jan. 14th the United Nations Foundation gathered investors and world financial leaders to discuss climate change and the role of energy in the global economy.

UNF philanthropist and founding member Ted Turner stated on CNBC’s Squawk Box the first day of the foundation’s meeting: “[In the U.S.] we’re still subsidizing the coal and oil industry in various ways and should stop doing that… [We should] make sure with fees or cap and trade that the true cost of pollution from burning coal and oil is covered by the users. Then solar and wind power can become very competitive. The oil problem – that’s $750 billion a year we’re transferring over to countries that are not exactly our friends.”

Soak up a balance of optimistic and skeptical news and opinions about green vehicles and appliances, and the U.S. government’s environmental initiatives as they relate to the global, energy economy below. Then go forth, share links and comment.

Basic Reading:

“Eco cars are dominating this year’s Detroit Auto Show with a number of new concept hybrids being launched by both large and small automakers. The Ford Fusion Hybrid won the 2010 North American Car of the Year…” – news via EnvironmentalLeader.com

A preview of green cars at the Detroit Auto Show 2010 by John Voelcker for GreenCarReports.com

“Coal releases more carbon dioxide emissions per unit of energy produced than any other fossil fuel, but it also provides more than half the United States’ electricity supply. Mountaintop mining, a practice that has grown throughout the past 30 years, now supplies about 10 percent of U.S. coal.The EPA has a long history with trying to come to terms with the impacts of that destructive practice.” – A featured post at SolveClimate.com

“D.O.E. [is making a broad] effort to increase enforcement efforts for both Energy Star and the federal appliance standard program, which sets mandatory energy efficiency and water use requirements for a number of products, from air conditioners to urinals.” – News via the New York Times Green Inc. blog

The official home page for the Investor Summit on Climate Risk hosted by the United Nations

“The agenda includes speakers such as U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Former Vice-President Al Gore, U.S. Climate Envoy Todd Stern and Media Executive/Philanthropist Ted Turner. The list of investors expected at the Summit underscores how climate change, an environmental issue, is increasingly gaining traction as a business issue.” – A news item on the Investor Summit on Climate Risk via EfficiencyLaw.com

Further Resources:

News of hybrids, compacts at Detroit Auto Show from Chosun Ilbo, a Korean news organization

A muscle car enthusiast and critic worries that too much “hybrid” could amount to not enough speed, via the Motortrend.com blog

Detroit Auto Show Round-Up: The Fully Monty, is a web page of short reviews and critiques of cars at the NAIAS 2010, from a decidedly not eco-centric source, Jalopnik

A DailyYonder.com blog post asking “How Do You Kill a Mountain?” and criticising coal mining practices approved by the EPA

“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced Tuesday that it would sign off on a Clean Water Act permit for a mountaintop removal coal mine operated by Patriot Coal Corp., drawing the ire of a coalition of environmental and community advocacy groups that says the decision opens the door for further environmental destruction in Appalachia…”- A news feature via Law 360

This is the latest installment of EcoMeme, a column featuring eco news, tech and business highlights by Lora Kolodny.

Nissan image via