If you can’t read the ad, here’s what it says:

“Green is the new mainstream. Once a global issue taken on by the few, it has now come home. Literally. Recycling, saving energy, choosing organic, preserving the planet, it’s all about embracing nature and discovering innovative ways to live. Our Plascon Palette of 2009 is filled with colours that mimic nature and bring its life-giving energy to the home. The colours of air, water, fire and earth. The natural world is an exciting and mutable place. And so, too, is your home.”

After reading this ad, it doesn’t seem there’s anything green about Plascon paints, except maybe the colour. Blatant greenwash? I’m trying to find out more from Plascon. Stay tuned.

Via: Green Remix

This is a guest post by Samantha Catalano, a Public Outreach Coordinator for the Mesothelioma & Asbestos Awareness Center. Ms. Catalano coordinates the writing, preparation and distribution of informational materials, including articles related to occupational asbestos exposure, mesothelioma cancer and more. For further information, or to contact Ms. Catalano about informational materials, please email scatalano@maacenter.org.

We’re all well aware of the need to live “greener” and reduce our environmental impact. In an effort to do so, we all need to consider decreasing our reliance on fossil fuel and utilizing alternative sources of energy, such as solar or geothermal. There are approximately 150 operating oil refineries in 32 U.S. states, and the North Sea area of the UK is also home to 9 major onshore refineries and over 300 offshore facilities. All of these refineries are harboring a hidden danger in the form of asbestos that is affecting the heath of refinery workers and nearby residents. Exposure to asbestos has been linked to the eventual development of pleural mesothelioma, a fatal type of cancer.

The last U.S. refinery was built in 1976, about four years before the Environmental Protection Agency first instituted asbestos regulations. Until then, asbestos was a popular construction material because it was an extremely efficient insulator. Because of this, oil refinery piping often contained asbestos insulation. However, asbestos may be found in other materials within oil refineries, including roofing and floor tiles and drywall.

The UK refineries, including a BP-owned facility in Dorset, which is the largest in Europe, also harbor asbestos-containing materials. In fact, these UK refineries often ship crude oil products to the US on ships which may also be laden with asbestos insulation, presenting an even greater concern. The elaborate pipeline distribution method that has been implemented in the UK may also be a concern, since these extensive pipes must be insulated with some form of heat-retardant material.

Because the refining process involves high heat and combustible liquids, the likelihood of fire and explosion is high. Along with the obvious environmental and safety consequences of a fire or explosion, there is also the concern of asbestos fibers becoming airborne, putting oil refinery workers at risk of inhalation. If inhaled, the small fibers can cling to the pleural lining of the lungs for decades before an individual may experience common mesothelioma symptoms, such as the presence of fluid inside the lung cavity.

Oil refinery workers are at a heightened risk of developing this fatal type of cancer, but so are the residents who live nearby oil refineries. Consider the explosions at two separate Texas refineries in 2005 and 2007, as well as refinery explosions in the UK in those same years: not only were the oil refinery workers at risk of inhalation, but nearby residents faced the potential of inhaling asbestos fibers that traveled via wind current from the refinery to their homes. What is most disturbing for parents is that the latent period associated with mesothelioma cancer is between 20 and 50 years, so a child who inhales asbestos may never know until they receive a mesothelioma diagnosis in their thirties or forties. There are various mesothelioma treatment options, but there is no cure.

It is imperative that we understand all of the implications of fossil fuel use, including the dangers of asbestos present within oil refineries. By utilizing alternative sources of energy, we may one day be able to close our world’s oil refineries and greatly reduce the number of hardworking individuals who are exposed to asbestos.

Photo credit: NARA/EPA via pingnews

Games consoles have featured on thousands of letters to Santa this year, replacing many older consoles that will end up in the mountains of e-waste that are growing by the day. Now Greenpeace is pitting console against console in their new campaign to convince manufacturers to clean up their act. They’re targeting gamers, the people who hold the controllers, to play a new game. The game is to let Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo know that they want clean, green games consoles, to see whether they can affect a better outcome in the real world. Greenpeace want these companies to remove toxic chemicals from the consoles, and to take back and recycle their products once they become obsolete. Not such a big ask when PC and mobile phone manufacturers are already doing it. Don’t let them leave games consoles in the environmental dark ages.

Lets play!

Advertisement: Reduce your CO2 footprint by as much as 2 tonnes/year & save up to £150 on your energy bills.

This is a guest post by Pete Roche, editor of the No2nuclearpower website.

The Westminster Government completed yet another nuclear consultation on 2nd November. (1) This one was not about building new reactors, but how to get rid of the mess they leave behind, so was no less crucial to the nuclear industry’s expansion plans. It was the most recent stage in the “Managing Radioactive Waste Safely” process which began in 2001 as a progressive stakeholder consultation exercise, but after a series of misjudgements it now looks as though the Government may be about to pluck defeat from the jaws of victory.

In the first half of 2008 the Government will announce its new policy – most likely based on the idea of offering “community benefit packages” – bribes to you and me – to persuade communities to volunteer to host a nuclear waste dump. Then the search for a site will begin in earnest with an invitation to communities to express an interest in taking part in the siting process.

The history of government schemes to deal with this extremely dangerous waste has been a disaster going back as far as 1976 when eight sites were first selected for an underground dump. (2) The “Managing Radioactive Waste Safely” process looked as though it might work – having been based for the first time on much more intensive public consultation. But this latest stage which began in June 2007 got off to an inauspicious start. The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee called for it to be delayed because the institutional framework being proposed by the Government was “incoherent and opaque”. (3) And in an unprecedented move the Scottish Government refused to endorse the process at all saying it ruled out allowing deep disposal in Scotland. (4) (5)

The crux of the problem is that the Government has ignored important recommendations of the Committee it set up to look into the nuclear waste problem.

The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM), established at the start of the process in 2003 (and reconstituted with almost completely new membership in 2007) recommended after three years’ deliberation, that deep disposal of nuclear waste was the best option. (6) But it also made other important recommendations which the Government has ignored. Most importantly it recommended that, because of the uncertainties surrounding the implementation of geological disposal, there should be a major R&D programme on both geological disposal and robust interim storage. There has yet to be any visible progress in this area. (7) Interim storage could be needed for at least 100 years, but there is also a risk of delay or failure of the repository programme. CoRWM also recommended a review to ensure the security of waste stores particularly against terrorist attack.

A year after the CoRWM report, the government is still ignoring its advice. It has eagerly accepted what it sees as the solution of deep geological disposal, but it has done little to address the vital prerequisites. (8) Storage has its own significant problems but represents the least worse option as it allows, rather than removes, choice for future generations, rather than subjecting them to a potential long-term radiological risk – a leaking nuclear waste dump. The only conclusion to be drawn is that the Government is trying to create the impression that it has a solution to the nuclear waste problem to further its aim of building a new generation of reactors.

The recent consultation fails to make clear that CoRWM’s recommendations deal only with legacy waste, and it also creates this misleading impression that other countries have successfully built a repository for this kind of waste. (9) CoRWM said it takes no position on the desirability or otherwise of nuclear new build, and that future decisions on new build should be subjected to their own assessment process. It specifically said it did not want its recommendations seized upon as providing a green light for new build – yet that is exactly what the Government has been doing. CoRWM warns that new build waste would extend the time-scales for implementation, possibly for very long but essentially unforeseeable future periods. Creating new nuclear waste raises completely new political and ethical issues which are quite different from the issues raised by the waste we have already created.

When The Guardian pointed out in June that West Cumbria is still widely seen as the favourite to host a waste dump (10), this prompted Chris McDonald, the lead inspector of the 1995-96 public inquiry into the proposed nuclear waste facility near Sellafield, to write highlighting evidence from the Inquiry showing the safety case was at best marginal. (11) Investigations should be moved elsewhere, he said. David Smythe, professor of geophysics at Glasgow University warned it would be “wrong” and possibly illegal in international law to use Sellafield which should have been ruled out Sellafield after previous research proved the area was unsuitable. There is clear evidence that West Cumbria possesses no suitable rocks. (12) But the Treasury is reported to be worried that Copeland Borough Council in West Cumbria may be the only Council which applies giving it the ability to hold the taxpayer to ransom demanding extra funding of perhaps as much as £1bn. (13)

CoRWM has been at pains to point out that it built up a fragile trust after three years of open and transparent dialogue with stakeholders and the public. But now it is “not persuaded” that the re-constituted CoRWM will ensure a continuation of public trust. A series of other misjudgements by the Government do not bode well either. For example Nirex was killed off without any consultation. Its incorporation into the NDA in what Nuclear Engineering International magazine called a rather “ham-fisted” and secretive way, left the process open to legal challenges, and a real danger we will see a “re-run of the last repository failure”. (14)
The Government says spent fuel from new nuclear power stations could be accommodated in the same geological disposal facility as existing waste – even though this might increase the total radioactivity by a factor of up to five. (15) CoRWM’s view is that communities are unlikely to express a willingness to participate in a process that might lead to them becoming a host for a nuclear waste dump when it is unclear how much waste the community might be expected to accept.

Gordon Mackerron warned the Scottish Government against cherry picking from CoRWM’s “interdependent and inseparable package of measures” lest the whole ball of string unravels, setting us back to where we were before CoRWM was formed. (17) It now looks as though it is not the Scottish Government threatening the integrity of CoRWM’s recommendations, but the UK Government, which has thrown away the trust CoRWM painstakingly built up in its haste to justify the case for building more nuclear plants.

The no2nuclearpower website is in urgent need of funds to stay afloat. Now that Gordon Brown has made it clear he will give the go-ahead to new reactors -probably at Sizewell in Suffolk, Bradwell in Essex, Dungeness in Kent and Hinkley in Somerset – our mix of news and analysis will be needed more than ever by anti-nuclear activists all over the UK. Please send cheques, made payable to “no2nuclearpower”, to Pete Roche c/o Friends of the Earth Scotland, Thorn House, 5 Rose Street, Edinburgh EH2 2PR or you can make a secure credit card donation via PayPal.

(1) Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: A Framework for Implementing Geological Disposal, DEFRA, 25th June 2007.
(2) See History of Nuclear Waste Disposal Proposals in Britain, by Pete Roche
(3) Radioactive Waste Management: An Update, House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, June 2007.
(4) Nuclear Engineering International 25th June 2007
(5) Scottish Government Press Release 25th June 2007
(6) Managing our radioactive waste safely: CoRWM’s recommendations to Government, July 2006.
(7) Future R&D Needs, by Gordon MacKerron, CoRWM, June 2007.
(8) Guardian 12th September 2007
(9) Greenpeace Response to the MRWS Consultation 2nd Nov 2007
(10) Guardian 25th June 2007
(11) Guardian letters 28th June 2007
(12) Guardian 2nd Nov 2007
(13) FT 24th October 2007
(14) Corrina Thomson, Who shot the sheriff? Nuclear Engineering International, July 2007.
(15) CoRWM’s Radioactive Waste and Materials Inventory, July 2005
(16) Scotsman 30th June 2007

Advertisement: Reduce your CO2 footprint by as much as 2 tonnes/year & save up to £150 on your energy bills.

US residents can now check out what they’re being poisoned with by checking out this new tool provided by the US Environmental Protection Agency and Google Earth. It’s a useful tool to track air quality in your community or if you are planning to move to another area to escape airborne toxins. Check for levels of carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen oxides, VOCs, particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. You can also identify big emitters easily, like cement plants, chemical manufacturers and petroleum refineries, amongst others. Focus on a particular state or sector to get the most accurate details. You need to have Google Earth already installed on your computer for the EPA file to work, or if you’d prefer not to install it, you can download the text version. It’s not as much fun to use as the Google Earth file, but it contains all the information you’ll need.

Advertisement: Reduce your CO2 footprint by as much as 2 tonnes/year & save up to £150 on your energy bills.

As oil prices skyrocket and the climate heats up, the debate around the 2007 Energy Bill, currently being debated in U.S. Congress behind closed doors, is getting hotter. Environmentalists, students, rock stars, and even auto industry workers in the United States are clamoring for a strong, clean 2007 Energy Bill that includes high fuel efficiency standards, more renewable electricity and no nukes. The U.S. auto industry is contentiously divided, as American students rally across the nation, and everyone launches YouTube video campaigns.

Can the U.S. Ever Reach 35 mpg by 2020?

The United States Congress is hard-pressed to choose between 2 fuel efficiency standards – the 35 mpg Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standard, which was approved by the Senate in June, and the U.S. Auto Industry counter-proposal of 32 mpg by 2022.

A large group of auto workers and dealers have broken from the industry in order to support the 35 mpg by 2020 fuel efficiency standard. As oil prices continue to rise, what is at stake in the debate over fuel efficiency is the future of the American auto industry and the livelihood of U.S. autoworkers, not to mention the wallets of American drivers in the years to come.

Adam Lee, a third generation auto dealer, makes this personal plea in his 3-minute video clip.

“My family has been selling American made cars since 1936. My livelihood and the livelihood of over 350 employees who work for us depend upon the success of the automobile industry. Today that strength is severely compromised by the lack of fuel-efficient cars and trucks customers want to buy. …

Without a 35 mile-per-gallon mandate, I’m afraid, global warming and our dependence on foreign oil will continue to get much worse in the long run. And, in the short run, I’m afraid I’ll be stuck with a lot full of cars that no one wants to buy or even worse: This country will no longer have an American auto industry.”

To emphasize the difference between the 2 fuel efficiency proposals, the Pew Campaign for Fuel Efficiency delivered Trick or Treat bags to members of Congress, illustrating the Spooky Truth about the32 mpg by 2022 Auto Lobby proposal.

Power Shift 2007 – American Youth Demand Climate Legislation

On the Monday following the National Day of Climate Action on Saturday, November 3rd, which saw rallies on American campuses across the nation, a huge group of American students recently convened in Washington D.C. for an initiative called Power Shift 2007. The youth arrived to demand bold legislation that effectively combats climate change and global warming and deliver an action-oriented, concrete proposal to move the nation forward towards a greener future. The students asked U.S. lawmakers to:

1.Create 5 million green jobs conserving 20% of our energy by 2015
2. Freeze carbon pollution levels now, reduce 30% by 2020, and 80% by 2050
3. Enact an immediate moratorium on new coal-fired power plants

The youth also highlighted which provisions under consideration in the 2007 Energy Bill had the strongest positive impact on a clean, energy future for America. In addition to the 35 mpg fuel efficiency standard, a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) requiring 15% of U.S. electricity to be sourced from renewable energy sources was high on the agenda.

Rockers Protest the Nuclear Bailout On YouTube

One of the more frightening provisions under consideration in the hotly debated Energy Bill is a proposal for unlimited loan guarantees to the nuclear power industry, which could amount to the tens of billions of dollars.

Musicians Bonnie Raitt,Jackson Browne and Graham Nash have launched a nuke-free petition drive and YouTube music video urging Congress not to approve federal loan guarantees for new nuclear power plants.

Nuclear power is being touted as a viable energy alternative to greenhouse gas emitting fossil fuels. Under U.S. legislation enacted in 2005, nuclear power qualifies as a “clean technology” because it does not emit carbon gases that contribute to global warming. However, nuclear power is far from clean.

Should Congress even adopt the 35 mpg Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard and 15% Renewable Energy Standard, the nuclear provision would obliterate any environmental gains made by CAFE and RES.

What you can do to support a strong, clean 2007 Energy Bill

The United States is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases and the world’s most oil-addicted nation. Less dependence on foreign oil and leadership in renewable energies can stand to make the U.S. a more model global citizen.

Here’s what you can do to support the United States in making a shift to a cleaner energy future:

1) Support auto industry workers by sending this letter to Congress in support of 35 mpg by 2020.

2) Support a strong, clean Energy Bill that includes both the 35 mpg CAFE standard and 15% Renewable Electricity Standard by signing this petition.

3) Say “NO” to unlimited loan guarantees to the nuclear power industry by signing this petition for a Nuke Free America.

Advertisement: Reduce your CO2 footprint by as much as 2 tonnes/year & save up to £150 on your energy bills.

In our efforts to save energy resources, we are increasingly sealing our homes and other buildings off from the outside air. This also means that we are sealing in gases from synthetic materials that we furnish and equip our homes and offices with. As a result, indoor air pollution has become a widespread problem and ranks as one of the top five threats to public health. Yet many people are unaware of this problem, and are inadvertently putting themselves and their families at risk.

What synthetic materials? What gases?

In our modern society, where we expect goods to be more affordable, items that used to be made out of natural materials like solid wood are being replaced with cheaper pressed wood and synthetic materials held together with a variety of glues and resins. These synthetic materials release hundreds of VOCs (volatile organic compounds) into the air. Common household items responsible for chemical emissions include upholstery, curtains, plywood, particleboard, stains and varnishes, paints, paper towels, tissues, carpets, permanent-press clothing, fabrics.

What are the symptoms to watch for?

Symptoms of “sick building syndrome” include allergies, asthma, eye, nose and throat irritations, fatigue, headaches, nervous-system disorders, respiratory congestion and sinus congestion.

What can I do about it?

Prevention is better than cure, and there’s no better way to avoid VOCs in the home than to eliminate them. Fortunately, you won’t have to rebuild, redecorate and refurnish your house to achieve this. You can dramatically influence air quality by using certain plants in your home or office.

Click here to see a list of plants that will purify your environment.

Using these plants will effectively clear the air in your home of most common airborne toxins. To achieve optimal detoxification, you will need to place between 15 and 20 air purifying plants in a home with the area of 1800 square feet (170 sq. metres).

For more information, click here.

Recommended reading: How To Grow Fresh Air by B.C. Wolverton

See you at the garden centre!

Advertisement: Reduce your CO2 footprint by as much as 2 tonnes/year & save up to £150 on your energy bills.

“Like many other countries around the world, plastic bags litter Uganda. They poison the soil, block drains and create an unsightly health hazard. So the government listened to the environmental concerns and banned the bags but the clean-up campaign’s not going according to plan.”

Advertisement: Reduce your CO2 footprint by as much as 2 tonnes/year & save up to £150 on your energy bills.