Solar and Wind in Michigan

Common Policies For Common Good

Concerns about dangerous climate change and large biodiversity loss are visible throughout the world: unprecedented rates of temperature increases and species extinctions are a reality. In 1999 Dr. Peter Raven, president of the International Botanical Congress, published a paper in which he states that “current extinction rate is now approaching 1,000 times the background rate and may climb to 10,000 times the background rate during the next century, if present trends continue. At this rate, one-third to two-thirds of all species of plants, animals, and other organisms would be lost during the second half of the 21st century, a loss that would easily equal those of past extinctions”. He then outlined seven “Points to Slow the Extinction of Plants”, including financial and capacity building instruments to help developing countries protect 80% of the world’s biodiversity they host. As far as climate change is concerned, the responsibility of developed countries is high in providing the most threatened regions in the world with good instruments to cope with this challenge (or at least examples of them to implement autonomously).

Climate change plays a significant role in this human-induced mass extinction because it is increasing the already large biodiversity losses caused by habitat destruction and fragmentation, water and air pollution, introduction of invasive species. Marine ecosystems will be affected by an increase in sea temperature, but also by ocean acidification, because of the higher concentration of dissolved carbon dioxide (carbonic acid): in fact this reduces the shell formation ability in many organisms. Polar (and mountain) ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to climate change, with effects such as thawing permafrost, decreased snow cover, losses from ice sheets and changes in ocean temperatures. Large impacts on Arctic biodiversity are already evident, pictures of polar bears wandering lost on small icebergs being a scary and sad symbol of the era we live in (even former U.S. President Bush, at the end of his mandate, recalled this image to show his fellow citizens he cared about climate change …)

In this rapidly changing environment it is therefore extremely important that conservation plans include adaption measures for ecosystems accordingly to the predicted regional climate patterns (but models need still to be improved a lot at this scale): dynamic approaches are needed to set good options for future ecosystems and landscapes. It will be necessary to facilitate the movement of species to new geographical locations, as they follow the shifting habitats.

The public concern is growing: in Africa last 28 February young people organized a march from impoverished urban areas to the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro to raise awareness on climate change, together with the Kilimanjaro Initiative and the UN’s global UNite to Combat Climate Change campaign. It seems though that the global attention on climate change doesn’t fully consider implications for biodiversity yet: while the negotiations and speeches on climate issues are very popular (and the Nobel Prize was awarded to the entire IPCC together with Al Gore in 2007) the meetings and decisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity (http://www.cbd.int/) don’t raise comparable interest. Is it because the anthropocentrism is (still) the prevailing philosophy and animals and plants are mainly seen by people as beautiful “supporting actors” on the planet we live on? Right when we are losing control of the global situation it is probably time to reflect on our role of dominant species and acknowledge the fundamental contribution of other organisms to our livelihoods, despite many of us live in the so called Technosphere.

Policies to protect the climate avoiding irreversible effects on the ecosystems need to be strongly interconnected with conservation strategies: preserving natural areas while helping them adapt to the changing climate means hopefully to leave better, or not as compromised, ecosystems to future generations. Climate and biodiversity, though ever changing and evolving, are common goods and they need common policies: if we reduce the human Ecological Footprint both the atmosphere and the biosphere will be better off (and our children and grandchildren living in them).

Written by Luca Marazzi on behalf of Responding to Climate Change.

For further information on Climate Change please visit the Responding to Climate Change website – http://www.rtcc.org

The Ecological Footprint is a measure of human demand on the Earth’s ecosystems. It represents the amount of biologically productive land and sea area needed to regenerate the resources a human population consumes and to absorb and render harmless the corresponding waste. Using this assessment, it is possible to estimate how much of the Earth (or how many planet Earths) it would take to support humanity if everybody lived a given lifestyle. For 2005, humanity’s total ecological footprint was estimated at 1.3 planet Earths – in other words, humanity uses ecological services 1.3 times faster than Earths can renew them. See also: http://www.footprintnetwork.org/

american idol - green brain

Copenhagen’s Spring – Scientists Ask For Higher CO2 Cuts

The International Scientific Congress on Climate Change was held in Copenhagen between 10th to 12th March and organised by the International Alliance of Research Universities (IARU): the conclusions will be published into a full synthesis report next June. Almost 1,600 scientific contributions of researchers from over 70 countries have been received, and more than 2,500 delegates attended the event.

Connie Hedegaard, Minister of Climate & Energy of Denmark said that we have “to avoid the unmanageable and manage the unavoidable” and she pointed to their example: this European country has become a net energy exporter in 30 years, creating a green growth as a stable solution of the 70s oil crisis. The messages of the congress are various. The risk that current trends of the climatic system will accelerate has a more defined and significant meaning: more probable abrupt and irreversible shifts, and we are already above the worst scenarios published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001. Thus the big problem is trying to at least slow down these trends if not reverse them. The experts tell us that fast regional and global mitigation strategies are needed and that the more we wait the more expensive and ambitious actions will have to be taken in the future. The fact that scientists have come to the point of saying that “Inaction is Inexcusable” means also that people who studied relentlessly for decades are frustrated by the inaction of governments, businesses and people: it is understandable given that their work has not been considered and used enough, if not at all, up to now. They are speaking louder and clearer now. The different roles of politicians and scientists have to be combined. It is time for leaders to rely firmly on science as a basis for tough and unavoidable decisions. A “societal transformation” is being asked for by a wide group of the most intelligent people on the planet including diffusion of sustainable behaviours, innovative leadership, removal of subsidies and reduction of “vested interests”. These are all very explicit messages to politicians and public alike: there is a lot of work to do between now and next December’s COP15.

In the final debate the Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, summarised the six messages given by scientists as 6 keywords: Urgency (of the climate change challenge), Direction (long term target to be defined), Action (short term targets to be set), Fairness (to the poorest and most vulnerable), Opportunity (to originate large benefits), Governance (creation of a new global multilateral era). He stated firmly that “Business As Usual is dead” and asked his colleagues to follow Obama’s call for a Green New Deal, already asked for by public opinion and by many political parties in the world.

After the final debate with the panel of scientists an impatient Rasmussen asked for clear words on the CO2 emission target to be set in the new treaty. Prof. Daniel Kammen, Obama’s Senior Policy Advisor, stated that an entire new industrial revolution is needed to cut 1990’s CO2 emissions by 80% in 2050 and Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf agreed on this point. The feeling was that the other panelists didn’t mind… At this point the Prime Minister concluded that the ambition for COP15 can be this -80% long-term objective following the precautionary principle to avoid worse impacts (than the ones presented in 2007 IPCC report) already hypothesized by new works. Overall a more direct communication between scientists and policy makers took place in this huge meeting: now it’s time for delegations to study and prepare the ground for brave steps forward to be made by the international community in Copenhagen’s crucial Conference of the Parties #15. Will we be able to navigate better our “ship” in the solar system during the over 200 rotations it will make before then?

Written by Luca Marazzi on behalf of Responding to Climate Change.

For further information on Climate Change please visit the Responding to Climate Change website –
http://www.rtcc.org

*Next event: Copenhagen, 24-26 May 2009. World Business Summit on Climate Change

Save money with solar power

Green Tip – Moms Use Clothe Diapers

Sure, this is a little messier than the easier, disposable version. However, do you even realize the amount of disposable diapers that are filling landfills?? Cloth diapers are a choice that every mother should seriously consider. Let’s look at some facts that are quite alarming…

Disposable Diapers Sobering Facts:

* from birth to about 2-1/2 the average child will go through about 7,300 diapers

* the cost for that is about $2600

* 18 billion diapers enter landfills each year

* disposable diapers make up about 3.4 million tons of trash

* health risks such as fertility issues in males, eyes, nose and throat issues and even asthma-like symptoms have been connected to disposable diapers!

* long term negative affects on animal and water life.

* the chemicals that make disposable diapers white increase the risk of cancer

* affect development

* they use more water. yep. you may need to wash cloth diapers, however, way more water is used making disposable diapers!

* a study, conducted by Anderson Laboratories in 1999 and published in the Archives of Environmental Health, found that disposable diapers release chemicals called volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene and dipentene. They have been shown to have toxic health effects, such as cancer and brain damage, when used over time or high exposure.

* they use 1.3 million tons of wood pulp. that’s about 1/4 million trees every year.

* they take up to 500 years to break down.

* more viruses than you want to know about…including polio, survive for two weeks or more after disposed of.

There are many many many more reasons to avoid disposable diapers. However, I think our readers are intelligent and the above information is enough to get you thinking! Research for yourself. You will be shocked!

Go for organic natural reusable cloth diapers. You will not only be helping the environment and saving money, you will also protect your sweet precious love bugs from harm!

Copyright © Green Christian Network, All Rights Reserved

About the Author: Cindy Taylor is a Christian stay at home Mom who love the Lord and cares about God’s planet. You can see her passion and writing at her website, Green Christian Network (http://greenchristiannetwork.com).

Star News Of monsanto Seeds

Environmental Statements

Under the relevant European Directives, an Environmental Statement is the formal product of an Environmental Impact Assessment. Environmental Statements are often organised in a way that describes the environmental baseline, mitigation and effects for each type of environmental receptors: ecology, water resources, archaeological resources, human beings etcetera. Contaminated land is often managed in the same ways as the various environmental receptor groups, although it is principally a cause of impacts rather than a receptor. It also often refers to a pre-existing condition and its damaging effect is on a variety of different receptors such as human health, structures and buildings, surface water features, groundwater features and ecology. This often means that land contamination specialists struggle with integrating the issue in a logical manner in an Environmental Statement. Sticking to the structured approach of an environmental statement is essential to ensure a clear description of the existing environmental condition, the potential impacts and the actions taken to avoid, minimise, offset or manage the impacts. This article is based on UK practice and legislation, although fundamentally the issues should be similar within other contexts.

Contaminated land is in many countries considered on a source-pathway-receptor basis. This is important to understand the impact land development can have on the issue of contaminated land. Development can interfere with any of these three elements. It can introduce sensitive receptors by changing the use of land, for instance by building new residential units on a site that was previously used for heavy industry. New pathways linking pre-existing contamination with an existing receptor can be formed, for instance when piling through a non-permeable layer connecting a layer of contaminated soils with a deep aquifer. Finally by introducing pollutants on the site a development project can introduce a potential source of contamination.

The second element to consider is the structured approach of an environmental statement. Apart from the introductory and procedural elements described in the environmental statement, a good environmental statement comprised the following sections:

• environmental baseline conditions
• potential environmental impacts
• mitigating measures
• residual environmental impacts

There should be a logical relation between the different sections. Any receptor that is affected and described in the section about the potential impacts and effects should have been introduced in the section describing the baseline. Any material impact should be assigned a mitigation or management action etc. Implementing this structure allows a clear description and understanding of the environmental impacts and the way it will be managed.

Applying these principles to contaminated land will result in a baseline condition section that describes the current sensitive receptors that are present within the potential sphere of influence of the development, the sensitivity and importance of these receptors, the presence of any pre-existing contamination and the presence of actual and potential pathways. The next section, potential environmental impacts or effects, first considers the impacts that the development will have in terms of the introduction (or removal) of sensitive receptors and the creation of new pathways between existing and potential pollution sources and receptors. In addition this section will describe the potential environmental impacts that are associated with the introduction of new sources of contamination. In the third section, mitigating measures, a description of the actions to mitigate each of the impacts that may occur should be provided. Finally a statement of the residual impact of the development is provided in the last section: residual environmental impacts.

Paul Giesberg is an environmental consultant with a special interest in environmental impact assessment and sustainability in land use development.

The Technology News of Megawhat Gadget

Development Vs Rainforest Tropical

I few weeks ago I came across an article about the deforestation situation of all the tropical rainforests. It talked about the main causes this beautiful places, origin to thousands of different life forms, are being damaged by people in so many different ways, among others: subsistence agriculture, colonization, tourism, and civilization development (savetherainforest). This latter caught my attention the most, because last week I went to my teak farm, and I got to see with my own eyes how a highway development affects our rainforest and trees so badly.

My teak farm is located about 1 hour drive from Panama City, it is located in the Colon province, home of Colon City (second biggest city in our country, Panama). Last year the government decided to build a long overdue highway connecting both cities (of course I am all for improving the quality of life of my countrymen) but I can not agree with the amount of deforestation that took place in order to build this highway.

Hundred of acres deforested in order to make way for four lanes that will bring better days to a lot of people, no doubt; but also brought a lot of disorder and chaos to a well established eco system that has being here long before us, and will continue to be here for (hopefully) thousands or millions of years after every single one of us has left this world.

Since development of cities is inevitable, specially today where commerce since to grow exponentially, cities expand rapidly, and the whole world seems to be at everybody s fingertips, we need better way of transport and communication, but could we also be more interested in both preserving and saving tropical rainforests and trees? The answer is a big OF COURSE! I would have loved to see our government promoting the planting of trees in different areas of our country in order to make up for the ones lost during the development of this highway, or during the construction of so many other infrastructures around the country. Also having more people come forward and speak up as energetic and belligerent they are about so many other problems we have on this planet. Maybe all we need are more ways to let people know about this, get them involved.

Since so much rainforest is lost every year, roughly about twice the size of the state of FLORIDA, this has become a problem for every single one of us earthlings, I think we need to get the word out, raise awareness and get people involved! Tropical Rainforest account for only 2% of land surface but through photosynthesis of trees they take massive amounts of CO2 emissions and make air clean and breathable again for every one of us. SO WE ALL NEED OUR RAINFOREST AND MORE TREES!!

stove demo in Phuket

Going Green-6

Is Australia’s Emission Trading System Going to Work Effectively Or is it Just Greenwash?

In Australia the government are introducing an emission trading or cap and trade scheme.  There are major concerns about the level of reduction the government wants to sign up to and also whether it will actually work.

As Australians we do need to take action about carbon reduction.  We are both the most vulnerable continent for feeling the effects of global warming and also we are the worst greenhouse emitters per head than any other country on the planet.  We emit even more than the USA and Canada who are our nearest competitors for this wooden spoon.  This is at least in part due to our huge coal industry.

The head of the Australia Institute’s Think Tank says that the Federal Government’s emissions trading scheme will have too many permits and will not reduce carbon emissions.

The Australia Institute’s executive director, Dr Richard Denniss, said the scheme’s flaws related to the 5 to 15 per cent emissions reduction targets, which he described as ”ridiculously low”, and he said there would be too many permits.  Dr Dennis said that “We won’t achieve the policy goal, which is to reduce emissions.”

Dr Denniss told the Senate that ”[If] we pass this legislation, we’ve got it for the next 10 years. And anyone that’s got a good idea a year later, it’s not going to help. This legislation is designed to not be tinkered with.”

Professor Clive Hamilton, from the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, said the proposed scheme had damaged Australia’s reputation. A reduction target of at least 25 per cent needed to be set if the Government wanted credibility on the world stage.   Australia would be better off taking no policy than the proposed model to the December climate change talks in Copenhagen, he said.

”It not only lowers the ambition of the world community but also excludes Australia from being a forceful player in negotiating … a strong international agreement.”

It is hard to see how exempting large emitters ignoring the 1.9 million small to medium businesses is going to help us reduce our carbon footprint. These same small businesses are currently suffering from financial stress, the business owners and managers are overworked and simply don’t feel able to handle anything new. Many don’t really understand what global warming is about or why it matters. 

We urgently need unambiguous communication so that small to medium businesses accept the reality of the need for change and also how easy it can be to make significant reductions with minimal time input and save money at the same time.

We also need to help low income households reduce their carbon footprint with more efficient heating and cooling and effective public transport.  We should NOT be giving them even more cash hand outs as “compensation” as currently promised by the government.  All households need to come on board and stop wasting power.

We need a clear message that going green applies to all of us, is easy and saves money – just “go for a grumpy walk and just turn it off”.  If every small business and householder just went around each office and home and did this it would be relatively easy for every one to reduce their carbon emissions and their power bill by 15-20%. At present we are told it will be difficult and it only applies to big business.  Such a wrong message – we all need to pull together.

A Brief given to the Victorian Government advises that the state should only bother with green measures if they are more cost-effective than alternatives.  They have been told to rethink programs such as subsidies for solar farms and hybrid car fleets because these will not contribute to any additional emission cuts under the federal scheme.

The Greens have concerns about the cost of emission permits being reduced by the actions of households, councils and governments, hence reducing industry’s incentive to cut emissions. This is more than simply an economic debate. Individuals and households should also be reducing their emissions. Achieving sustainability is a grassroots exercise that involves the entire community, and Australians are becoming aware of the need to remake the economy and society. The momentum must not be lost.

An additional concern is whether the legislation and also the international agreements reached in Copenhagen will be flexible enough to take account of emerging technology.  At present this does not appear to be the case.  Senator Wong, the Minister for Climate Change, rejected spending on biochar, a form of carbon capture in soil research because that is not listed in the protocol.  Thankfully some soil carbon storage research will now be funded in the agriculture budget but that begs the requirement for the legislation to be flexible and allow for new and future technology.

If the ETS cannot deliver real carbon reductions it is really a form of “greenwash” saying we signed Kyoto and have done something before the next election. The big problem is that the government looks ahead 3 years to the next election, Big Biz CEO’s also look to the short term of their contracts and bonuses.  Who looks ahead for our children?

Jean Cannon is an energy management and sustainable business consultant. If you would like more information about how to go green in your home or business and increase your business profits why don’t you go to http://www.itiseasytobegreen.com and download a chapter of my book of almost the same name and find out how to reduce your carbon footprint.

Christians and Earth Day

Earth day is coming soon (4/22/09). This month we have Easter as well…so it got me thinking. How should Christians respond to Earth day?

First, I think we need to keep it all in perspective. Yes, we are to be good stewards of the planet. However, we are not to be earth “worshipers.” The earth is just another thing in our lives that God wants us to be a good steward with. Yes, it is important…However, Jesus Christ and His shed Blood is much more important. Saving souls should be above saving polar bears. You know what I mean?

So, do I think Christian’s should celebrate Earth Day?

Sure. Just make sure you have this whole eco, green planet stuff in perspective. Make sure that you are lined up with the Word and that God is your priority and His will. Do not let being green override sharing the Love of Christ and your true God-given purpose.

All that said, I thought it would be cool to add some fun stuff to do for earth day…

Earth Day Activities:

Plant a tree. This could be a fun family project.

Recycle. Take those cans you have been saving and turn them in.

Make the whole day green. Make eco choices all day long.

Clean up. Take your family to the park and clean up the junk left by others.

Make a point to add more green. Add at least one more green activity to your life.

Go on a nature walk. Enjoy the beautiful environment that God created for you.

Organic. Visit your local Ma and Pa farmer and shop for some earth friendly stuff.

Copyright © Green Christian Network, All Rights Reserved

About the Author: Cindy Taylor is a Christian stay at home Mom who love the Lord and cares about God’s planet. You can see her passion and writing at her website, Green Christian Network (http://greenchristiannetwork.com).

Tech Lab's Comedy Hour

Recycling of Electronics

Society’s technological advancements have grown significantly over the years. Electronics devices such as telephones, cell phones, radios, CD and DVD players, televisions, and computers are products that are used in every household. These items are just a few of the many electronic devices that can cause serious environmental damage due to their toxic components. Electronics that are in need of disposal are referred to as e-waste, or electronic waste. Because of the advancement of electronic products, there has been a growing concern about the hazards of electronic waste. Some of these concerns include: improper disposal of toxic materials, health and safety concerns for people disposing of these items, as well as dangers to the soil and water supply. For instance, electronics are made using a considerable amount of toxic substances such as lead, cadmium, aluminum, zinc, copper, and plastics which can all leak poisonous material in the ground and water. These environmental concerns have resulted in the establishment of electronic recycling facilities and industries who take old electronics such as computers for the purpose of recycling and safe disposal.

Electronics containing materials such as metals, plastic, are valuable to the recycling companies. Disposing of electronics through a recycling company will result in fewer electronic devices going into landfills and lower carbon emissions.

Recovering Raw Materials: Recycling electronics involves recovering raw materials from the electronic equipment. Materials such as steel, copper, wires, aluminum, brass, plastics, glass,etc., are extracted and sold to smelters so they can create raw materials. Depending on the type of metal being extracted, they can be processed and used in products required by such businesses as the steel, construction and cement industry. Plastics and wood can be used as fuel to provide heat to industrial furnaces which converts to steam. Metals such as copper are sold to metal refineries.

Plastics: Plastics from such items as computers, computer mice, and keyboards, are sent through shredding processes and machine sorted. They are then sent to other recyclers for further processing.

Larger Electronics: Items such as televisions and computer monitors are dismantled by hand. The leaded glass cathode ray tubes are removed and disposed of safely. Plastics, copper, and circuit boards are removed, separated, and processed.

Hazardous Items: Toxic items are removed from electronic devices and disposed of safely. Toxic substance can include leaded glass, rechargeable batteries, non-rechargeable batteries (i.e.alkaline, lead acid, cell batteries) mercury in lamps and switches, parts containing polychlorinated biphenyls, as well as ink and toner cartridges. The remaining non toxic materials are processed and the recyclable materials are recovered. The materials are shredded and separated according to type. For instance, they can be divided into such materials as steel, copper, aluminum, and plastic.

Refurbished Electronics: There are now many companies that acquire used computers, repair and update them, and resell them at a much lower price. This is a great way to keep electronics out of landfills and make technology more affordable.

Donate Your Computer: If you are getting rid of your old computer because of a recent upgrade, consider donating it to charity. Many schools and non profit organisations are in need of computers. There are companies and businesses that will take your computer, refurbish it, and donate it to a needy cause. Make sure your computer is wiped clean of all information before donating it. Donating your computer helps the community and the environment.

We are fast becoming a technology dependent society. When it comes to protecting and conserving our environment, we have to adapt and change our technological practices to ensure a sustainable future. Recycling electronics is a great way help the planet.

Know that repairing a computer or laptop repair Toronto is not cheap, but it can be cheaper than having to replace the computer. If you run into these situations, you will need to hire a onsite computer repair service Toronto.

sea power technology

New 3 R’s

I was back in the grocery store this Saturday, but it was not the prices (although I did manage to keep it under ninety pounds once again) that caught my eye or even what other people were buying. In fact, what I noticed this Saturday did not happen until I was home and unpacking my weekly shopping. What I noticed was the amount of packaging, most of it useless, that I put into the bin. Of course, we have been using our green bags for over a year now so we are not throwing very many plastic ones away. Well, in fact we don’t really throw any away, because we try to follow the adage…Reduce, re-use, re-cycle. I want to look at how the 3 R’s of reduce, re-use, recycle fits into all of the Frugal Fam core values.

Family first. Since we are our children’s first and best teachers, I think that the time we invest in teaching them about all things environmental is an excellent investment in our futures and theirs. Isn’t it ironic that reduce, re-use, recycle could become the new 3 R’s. In fact so I don’t wear out my fingers re-typing it all over and over again, let’s us that term in the rest of the article to refer to reduce, re-use, recycle. It is never too early to begin either. At three, my daughter knows the difference between the bin and the recycle bag (sometimes better than my eighteen year old).

Saving money. In fact, in the UK most councils offer free recycling facilities to all residents, which means that recycling costs us nothing. There are examples too of how recycling can actually save you money though, such as my wormary, which produces organic liquid fertiliser and compost or reducing your energy consumption by turning down the thermostat. And as I have shown in past post about Freecycle, charity shops and similar services, you can save a great deal of money by re-using items that someone else may no long need.

But in the USA recycling too can actually pay money. Although not as easy for many American families to place bags or special bins on the stoop (although some forward thinking counties and cities are offering curb-side recycling as in the UK), the profit from this activity can be used to fund extras or meet essential obligations. Before I left Los Angeles in 2006, there were increasingly mini-recycling centres often in the parking lots of grocery stores. Families could take their paper, metal and plastic products and turn them into paper…paper money that is. In some ways this is more incentive to recycle than the UK system. What if your family could pay for its holiday through recycling? Perhaps even clean up your street? I know that my three years old loves helping me to pick up trash in her park. Could your family do something similar?

Environmentally friendly. Like I said, the 3 R’s are among the basics of environmentally friendly. It is one of the easiest things that we can all do to save this special planet for our children and grand-children. Alright, we have all heard the pundits talk about how recycling does not make a difference. So to clear up a few of those myths:

• Enough energy is saved by recycling one aluminium can to run a TV set for three hours.
• A steel mill which uses recycled scrap reduces related water pollution, air pollution, and mining wastes by at least 70 percent.
• Creating one ton of recycled paper uses only about 60 percent of the energy needed to make a ton of virgin paper.
• Seventeen trees are saved for each ton of recycled newspaper.
• Recycling steel and tin cans saves 74 percent of the energy necessary to produce them.
• Today most bottles and jars contain at least 25 percent recycled glass.

Healthy living. It may not be immediately obvious how the 3 R’s can make you healthier, but I have a couple of examples:

• Reduce your carbon footprint by walking to school, the store and anywhere else you can…also increases the amount of exercise you are getting. Walking is actually one of the best exercises there is.
• Eating fresher often means that there is less packaging as frozen, tinned and jarred products, which produce more waste also, are likely to have more added salts, sugars and preservatives.
• Reducing the carbon miles of your food by growing your own fruits and vegetables also allows you to grow them organically as well as having the benefit of reducing your stress through the pleasurable hobby of gardening.

Now that we have talked about how the 3R’s of reduce, re-use and recycle keep with the Frugal Fam core values, I hope that each of you will join me in this journey and share your ideas for Reduce, Re-use, Recycle.

Terri O’Neale is the mother of six; ranging in age from 3 to 22. She has been both a working and stay-at-home mother at various times in her life. She was also a single mother for almost five years, before re-marrying the love of her life at the age of forty. Obviously, she has a life-time of training in raising a family on a tight budget. In addition to these real life experiences, she possesses a bachelors degree in health education and a minored in environmental management in her masters programme.

Terri feels strongly that this is one of the most challenging times in history for the family, but she also believes that families with the will and resolve to address the pressing issues of saving money, becoming greener, leading healthier lifestyles and spending more time with one another can endure these challenging times and come out victorious in the end.

Through Frugal Family articles, blogs, videos and social networking, she helps modern families rediscover some lost art forms such as cooking, sewing, and gardening. The goal is not to go back in time or become fanatical, but to help all families find simple and effective ways that fit into their lifestyle to make moderate changes with huge impacts. For more information, check out her blog http://frugalfam.wordpress.com/.

Green Tech

Christians and Earth Day

Earth day is coming soon (4/22/09). This month we have Easter as well…so it got me thinking. How should Christians respond to Earth day?

First, I think we need to keep it all in perspective. Yes, we are to be good stewards of the planet. However, we are not to be earth “worshipers.” The earth is just another thing in our lives that God wants us to be a good steward with. Yes, it is important…However, Jesus Christ and His shed Blood is much more important. Saving souls should be above saving polar bears. You know what I mean?

So, do I think Christian’s should celebrate Earth Day?

Sure. Just make sure you have this whole eco, green planet stuff in perspective. Make sure that you are lined up with the Word and that God is your priority and His will. Do not let being green override sharing the Love of Christ and your true God-given purpose.

All that said, I thought it would be cool to add some fun stuff to do for earth day…

Earth Day Activities:

Plant a tree. This could be a fun family project.

Recycle. Take those cans you have been saving and turn them in.

Make the whole day green. Make eco choices all day long.

Clean up. Take your family to the park and clean up the junk left by others.

Make a point to add more green. Add at least one more green activity to your life.

Go on a nature walk. Enjoy the beautiful environment that God created for you.

Organic. Visit your local Ma and Pa farmer and shop for some earth friendly stuff.

Copyright © Green Christian Network, All Rights Reserved

About the Author: Cindy Taylor is a Christian stay at home Mom who love the Lord and cares about God’s planet. You can see her passion and writing at her website, Green Christian Network (http://greenchristiannetwork.com).

Solar Building Blocks