Feed: Forecast Earth on Yahoo! Green - AggScore: 80.0

I'm not big on air fresheners. They never smell all that fresh to me. The bloggers over at The Good Human agree.

They are taking Air Wick to task for marketing a new line of Aqua Essences air fresheners with tag lines such as, "Captures the renewed freshness of an open field dotted with flowers after a cool, gentle morning rain" and "Captures the freshness of a blend of crisp papaya, mango and water flowers from a remote island paradise."

While I'd love to "bring the freshness of nature" into my home, this probably ain't the way to do it. The bloggers write that "judging by their ingredients, these products are pretty far away from nature and freshness. According to product information sheets, the air fresheners may cause sensitization by skin contact, must not be swallowed, are harmful to aquatic organisms, and may cause long-term adverse effects in the aquatic environment."

So what we have here is a textbook case of greenwashing, marketing a decidedly unnatural and potentially toxic product as something "natural." Naughty, naughty Air Wick. One might say that this whole thing stinks.

The middle school science experiment was simple: Mix dried grass and water in a jar, and look at a drop of the water under a microscope once a week.

Week 1: Grassy water.
Week 2: Occasional micro-organisms swimming around (amoebae, paramecium, etc.).
Week 3: Teeming with life (hundreds of micro-organisms packed into a single droplet).
Week 4: Water smells sour, looks murky, and carries only a few surviving micro-organisms.
Week 5: Water has become foul-smelling sludge, devoid of life. Micro-organisms have died from living in high concentrations of their own waste in a closed system.

Reality check: We're living in a closed system, increasingly swimming in our own waste. Global human population, which was 2.5 billion in 1950, is now 6.5 billion. If I live to normal life expectancy, I'll survive to see the population exceed 10 billion, unless something dramatic changes.

I hope something dramatic changes. We're so attached to our own importance, that the very subject of limiting our population growth is a taboo subject.

This year CNN produced "Planet in Peril," an exquisite series about threats to nature worldwide. Like virtually every nature show that exposes the effects of deforestation, poaching, habitat loss, suburban sprawl, unsustainable farming, industrial pollution, or other man-made threats to wildlife, it couched admonitions about the threats in terms of a lack of education or poverty.

It was because people were poor that they poached endangered species for bush meat or sold the parts on the black market. It was because people were ignorant that they fished species to the brink of extinction. It was never because the ever-growing human population simply was an insatiable juggernaut.

Population overload is the elephant in the room in the environmental debate, because so many religions, nationalities, and ethnic mores encourage their adherents to procreate. China's once-child policy is considered an abridgement of human rights, which is roundly criticized in the West.

Water shortages, food shortages, squabbles over natural resources, are attributed to poverty again and again, because the word "overpopulated" is too politically hot to touch. Only a handful of organizations dare to address the subject, most notably the nonprofits Population Connection and Negative Population Growth.

I support greater use of organic farming to reduce fossil fuel dependence and cut into agricultural chemical pollution that's wiping out birds, marine life, and other living things. But I also know that the single biggest threat to wildlife survival is habitat loss. And organic agriculture requires more land to compensate for lower yields than conventional (chemically fertilized, pesticide-sprayed) crops. There isn't enough farmland on earth to grow organic food for our 6.5 billion brethren (especially with our growing taste for meat, which requires way more land than plant-based food does).

To all those couples thinking for having that second child, I recommend adoption. For concerned citizens of the world looking or a way to address pollution, shortages, global warming, and most other global environmental issues, I recommend focusing on initiatives to slow population growth. It's the one common thread between all of those issues and many more.

Ready for a deep think as the year comes to an end? Head to Grist for a crash course on environmental economics that makes one very important point: "The difference between the market prices for fossil fuels and the prices that also incorporate their environmental costs to society are huge."

That's the conclusion of Lester R. Brown, who is concerned that the free market continues to operate on 19th-century assumptions that resources are limitless and consuming them has no environmental effect.

The roots of our current dilemma lie in the enormous growth of the human enterprise over the last century. Since 1900, the world economy has expanded 20-fold, and world population has increased fourfold. Although there were places in 1900 where local demand exceeded the capacity of natural systems, this was not a global issue. There was some deforestation, but overpumping of water was virtually unheard of, overfishing was rare, and carbon emissions were so low that there was no serious effect on climate. The indirect costs of these early excesses were negligible. Now with the economy as large as it is, the indirect costs of burning coal -- the costs of air pollution, acid rain, devastated ecosystems, and climate change -- can exceed the direct costs, those of mining the coal and transporting it to the power plant. As a result of neglecting to account for these indirect costs, the market is undervaluing many goods and services, creating economic distortions.

And economic distortions are a problem. Says Brown:

One of the best examples of this massive market failure can be seen in the United States, where the gasoline pump price in mid 2007 was $3 per gallon. But this price reflects only the cost of discovering the oil, pumping it to the surface, refining it into gasoline, and delivering the gas to service stations. It overlooks the costs of climate change as well as the costs of tax subsidies to the oil industry (such as the oil depletion allowance), the burgeoning military costs of protecting access to oil in the politically unstable Middle East, and the health care costs for treating respiratory illnesses from breathing polluted air. Based on a study by the International Center for Technology Assessment, these costs now total nearly $12 per gallon ($3.17 per liter) of gasoline burned in the United States. If these were added to the $3 cost of the gasoline itself, motorists would pay $15 a gallon for gas at the pump.

See the problem? "In reality, burning gasoline is very costly, but the market tells us it is cheap, thus grossly distorting the structure of the economy. So the challenge facing governments is to restructure tax systems by systematically incorporating indirect costs as a tax to make sure the price of products reflects their full costs to society and by offsetting this with a reduction in income taxes."

Perhaps. President-elect Obama, it's your move!

Over the years, Dell has come up with a number of innovative ways to cut its carbon footprint, even going so far as to become a major Texas tree planter. Now it turns its attention to its own packaging, with a new initiative that will eliminate 20 million pounds of desktop and laptop packaging, a move that may save it $8.1 million over four years.

"The company plans to reduce desktop and laptop packaging materials by approximately 10 percent worldwide, increase sustainable content in cushioning and corrugate packaging by 40 percent, and ensure that 75 percent of packaging components are curbside recyclable by 2013."

What's the plan? "Dell is integrating air-filled cushion technology and renewable materials including molded pulp cushions and 100 percent recycled high-density polyethylene (HDPE) thermal-formed cushions. Milk jugs and laundry detergent bottles are typical materials that comprise the HDPE recycled waste stream. Over the next year, Dell estimates that it will integrate nearly two million recycled milk jugs into cushions protecting its Studio Hybrid system. An estimated 33 million recycled milk jugs will be integrated into desktop and laptop packaging in 2009."

Neat. I've been wondering what happens to my milk jugs. As long as my next Dell notebook makes it from the factory to my house in one piece, Dell can package it anyway it wants to.

In my daily Web travels looking for stuff to write about, I came across The Greenwash Brigade, a blog run by the public radio folks. They've announced their "winners" for the 2008 greenwashes of the year, which call out the biggest events that are spun as being "green" but, you know, not really.

Frankly, I find it just as irritating when so-called greens tear their rotator cuffs patting themselves on the back for all the "good" they do, but I was intrigued by one of the brigade's selections for this year: the Detroit CEOs driving hybrids to D.C. for their bailout beg-a-thon.

As you're all aware, when these guys jetted in on the company Gulfstreams to tell Congress how poor they were, it was a PR debacle of the first order -- and deservedly so. Of course, PR flacks are also masters of overreaction, so round two saw Rick Wagoner (GM), Alan Mulally (Ford), and Bob Nardelli (Chrysler) all drive (or get driven) from Detroit in whatever eco-tinged vehicles they could pull from the company motor pool.

Mulally came in an Escape Hybrid. Nardelli, somewhat appropriately, came in the D.O.A. Chrysler Aspen Hybrid and also worked in a photo op involving a Jeep Wrangler EV concept. Wagoner drove down in the Chevy Malibu Hybrid, but made his grand arrival in a Chevy Volt engineering mule.

Of this theatre, the Greenwash Brigade's Jan Flisrand says, "The only reason I can think of for them to drive hybrids is to make the companies look green."

She's 100% correct, of course. And as a bonus, it was later reported that as all this went on, the automakers flew the execs' co-drivers back and forth on commercial flights anyway.

But let's be fair, too. If you watched the hearings, you saw two days' worth of Congressmen and Senators browbeating the CEOs over their plans for, what else, more green cars. Seriously, then -- what the heck else were they going to drive?

On the heels of the announcement that Carol Browner will be the Obama administration's "climate czar" comes this question from Plenty: What exactly does a climate czar do?

First things first, don't call her a czar. "It's unlikely that Browner's business cards will actually read "Climate Czar," since Obama reportedly dislikes the title's autocratic resonances.

Still, the media won't let her abandon the title so easily, and conservatives are already trying to use the appointment to paint Obama as another high-handed, big-government Democrat." So think of her more as a high-powered "adviser to the President."

Her tasks: "Browner's precise job description isn't yet clear, but it's likely that she'll serve as a high-level White House adviser, coordinating the work of Cabinet officials and perhaps heading a National Energy Council modeled on Bill Clinton's National Economic Council. That, at least, is the plan put forward by the Center for American Progress, the liberal think-tank that's provided the intellectual muscle for Obama's transition effort (and whose head, John Podesta, is co-chair of Obama's transition team).

"You've got Energy, Interior, EPA, Agriculture, Transport, State, all are going to have something to do with energy and global warming," says Daniel J. Weiss, the group's director of climate strategy. "This would provide a person who could coordinate those activities."

As the longest serving EPA administrator in history -- she served through both Clinton administrations -- Browner is no stranger to Washington or bureaucracies, but there is some concern that adding an additional layer of oversight will only tangle the government's environmental org chart. We shall see.

It's the classic question of the 21st-century environmental movement: Why would anyone is his or her right mind by bottled water from Fiji? But of course people do. Lots of them.

Fiji Water is the number two bottled water in America, right behind Evian (which begs the question: Why would anyone buy bottled water from France?). So how much environmental damage is done when empty plastic bottles are flown to Fiji (most likely from China), filled with water, and then shipped here for our consumption?

Environmentalists love to puzzle it out.

The latest attempt is an excellent one. TriplePundit's Pablo Paster has recently updated his 2007 analysis of the question to reflect current prices for fuel and other resources. His figures are fascinating.

Here's just a taste: "The total mass of the empty 1 liter bottle is probably around 0.025kg (25g) and it is made from PET (Polyethylene terephthalate). Plastics of this type use around 6.45kg of oil per kg, 294.2kg of water per kg, and result in 3.723kg of greenhouse gas emissions per kg. So, with a quick check (200kg/kg x 0.025kg = 5kg of water), a bottle that holds 1 liter requires 5 liters of water in its manufacturing process." Wow.

Paster goes on to break down transportation costs in an almost obsessive fashion to calculate the energy used in the supply chain (a lot) and the profits generated. His conclusion: The $1.50 bottle of water costs just 22 cents to manufacture. Gotta love that profit margin.

New York State will close a $750,000 pheasant farm, the last of its kind in the state, and donate its nearly 8,000 remaining birds to food pantries. The New York Times reports that this will bring to an end an era of state-stocked pheasant-hunting lands.

I'm feeling ambivalent about the decision, since I have long supported hunting as a more humane source of meat than our mainstream livestock production system. But this wasn't exactly a wilderness harvest, I guess. I have no information about the conditions that the birds experienced before their release to the wild, or how long their life expectancy in the wild was. All I know is that there were up to 14 workers at various times of the season dedicated to ensuring the health and welfare of the pheasants. That's way better than the ratio that exists on a mainstream chicken operation.

So most of the pheasants, which constitute the breeding stock of the farm and cannot be release into the wild because their wings have been clipped, will be slaughtered and sent to the needy in and around Christmastime. Not a bad holiday gift from a state that's closing the farm to save some money.

So-called "canned hunts," where animals are stocked on game preserves for hunters to shoot, are also an ethical quandary. There's no doubt that the quality of life for the animals in such captivity is far better than it is for livestock, but how many of those animals are shot as trophies, rather than for the meat? It's very different from shooting non-endangered whitetail deer in the wild or invasive nutria in the bayou.

Whatever their life experiences were, the New York pheasants are bringing some sustenance to the hungry at a time of increasing need. As a great chef I've known once said, "how many of us will bring as much joy in death as these beasts will?"

It wouldn't be a truly environmentally friendly holiday around my house if I didn't check in first with Danny Seo, the best known "green lifestyle guru" in America.

He's amazingly creative when it comes to stylish green living, and his passion for eco-chic comes from a lifelong commitment to environmentalism that was probably inevitable given that he was born on Earth Day.

Seo's message is that sustainable style doesn't have to be expensive, and it doesn't have to be all about burlap. His website and his blog are fascinating troves of ideas, crafts, products, and building supplies that look good and are good for the environment.

At holiday time, Seo really gets into his groove. In fact, he's even written a book called "Simply Green Giving" that shows you how make your own great gifts inexpensively and wrap them in dramatic fashion.

This year his blog features a bunch of ways to decorate in resourceful ways, some suggestions for an "eco-holiday office party," a plan for giving your friends gift baskets stuffed with nothing but the best local products that truly represent your town, and your best bets for replacing your traditional holiday lights with longer-lasting energy-saving LED lights.

If you like Danny's stylish eye, get even more tips at his Better Homes and Gardens blog.