Thursday, January 24, 2008

Solar Solutions, Green Collars and Eco-(Un)Friendly Takeaways


Time for some green stuff, to satisfy the eco-concerned out theah - which includes me, good people - so I figured I'd do an extra-verdant melange of emerald bits n' pieces tonight.

Being resident again in Cyprus, the island of my birth, after many years abroad, it is a joy to take for granted the abundance of sunshine, light and heat during most of the year (though, right now, we're in the midst of severe drought, so as much as I am a Sol-worshipper, I dread the consequences of our near-bone-dry reservoirs and dams). However, what would please me even more would be even greater investment in solar energy technology on the island.

If we could use solar power for (unfortunately vital) desalination of water, it would add to be a considerable energy saving, not to mention, ultimately cheaper for the tax-payer, since Cyprus has no oil or gas reserves of its own, and must ship them in - a process, in itself, that pollutes the environment, to say nothing of the CO2 emission from the vast amount of power required for the desalination process.

In the US, one individual who is really pushing solar solutions - not merely to promote environmental responsibility in light of global warming, but also to boost inner cities' standard of living and create jobs in "green construction and alternative energy" - is Yale-educated lawyer Van Jones, the Oakland, CA-based human-rights activist.

Byran Walsh's TIME magazine article entitled "Bring Eco-Power to the People" has this to say of Jones:

You couldn't create a better advocate for the green-collar movement than Jones. A Yale-educated lawyer who founded the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in Oakland, the magnetic Jones moves easily between worlds, at home preaching to inner-city high school students or mixing with Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. But everywhere Jones goes, he repeats a simple message. "Give the work that most needs to be done to the people who most need the work," he says, and solve two pressing problems--pollution and poverty--at once.

For the environmental movement, embracing Jones' message means recasting global warming not just as an existential threat but as an enormous economic opportunity. It's a narrative that is particularly resonant with low-income workers who are likely to bear the short-term economic burden of cutting carbon only if they believe there will be a personal payoff for them in the long run. Says Jones: "They need to see green in their pockets."

The rest of the article can be read: here.

On a related note (well, 'related' in the sense that it's another area in which to heed the need for green) just how environmentally sound can we grade our takeout or takeaway receptacles as being?

Elizabeth Gillian, writing for chow.com broaches the topic thusly:

Your food can’t go everywhere exposed to the elements; it needs packaging. Unfortunately, that packaging often takes massive amounts of energy to create, and much of it doesn’t properly decompose. We’ve rated some common carriers on a scale from 1 (bad) to 5 (good).

The usual suspects follow with their pros and cons re. eco-friendliness, with some (styrofoam) being predictably on the more culpable or virtuous (edible containers made from food) end of the scale, while others (aluminium foil) falling surprisingly somewhere in the middle.

For those of us who, for a range of reasons, consider dinner (or lunch - or even breakfast) prep to be speed-dialing the nearest Thai place for some green chicken curry delivery, the green-or-not low-down on transporting eats to your home in all its depressing glory can be found here.

No comments: