Role Model, NOT Hypocrit

There are still a lot of those trashy Al Gore smear emails going around out there about his own energy use, but here are some helpful, de-bunking facts for everyone:


1. Al Gore has recently completed renovations to make his residence a model "green" home.

2. This plan has been in the works for a long time and has only recently been made public because of attacks by the right.

3. Gore's home meets Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, or LEED, standards established by the U.S. Green Building Council.

4. Al Gore's neighborhood council had zoning laws that previously prohibited the installation of solar panels. That has now changed and Al Gore has installed solar panels on his roof.

5. He has installed a geothermal system that will drastically reduce the cost of his water heating.

6. He has upgraded his windows and ductwork for maximum energy efficiency.

7. He has installed energy-efficient light bulbs.

8. He has created a rainwater collection system for irrigation and water management.

9. Al Gore drives a hybrid vehicle.

10. Al Gore's family has signed up for 100% percent green power through Green Power Switch.

11. Al Gore espouses a very consistent belief in purchasing carbon offsets to offset his family's carbon footprint. This is a concept the right-wing fails to understand and I suggest you do some reading before you discount it.

12. Al Gore flies commercial whenever possible. He is also an ex Vice President of the United States and receives numerous threats. Depending upon the security assessment and his schedule he is sometimes precluded from flying commercial.

13. Al Gore is an ex-Vice President who maintains his official office in his home for which requires adequate staff and space. He's has no other offices, making it unnecessary to use energy in separate locations.

14. The Gores' energy bills are in line with others in their part of the country. They live in the South, where extreme heat and humidity make air-conditioning the main drain on energy usage.

15. The Gores purchase, at great expense to themselves, "green" energy for their home (green energy costs 50% more than energy from conventional sources).

16. The Gores purchase carbon-offset credits to help mitigate the effect of their energy use on the environment.

17. One hundred percent of the profits from Al Gore's book and movie "An Inconvenient Truth" are going to a new bi-partisan educational campaign to further spread the message about global warming in addition to having a thousand people offer his slide presentation to groups around the world.

source- http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/8163-debunking-the-bunk-the-truth-about-al-gore-s-lifestyle

Ditch the Bottled Water!

For the Daily Dispatch Stephanie Nelson performed a cost-benefit analysis of the benefits of bottled water vs. using a Brita/PUR pitcher system vs. drinking plain old tap water. Highlights below:

“ The typical cost of the store-brand gallon of filtered water is about a dollar. The typical sale price of a six-pack of half-liter bottles is about $1, which is about one-third more expensive at $1.34 per gallon. By comparison, if you were to buy a pitcher water-filter system (such as PUR or Brita) your average cost per gallon of filtered water would be about 25 cents. The Brita company bases this cost estimate on the purchase of a $25 pitcher (one filter included), plus 5 replacement filters at $9 each, for a total yearly cost of $70. Each filter produces 40 gallons of water and the average Brita owner uses six filters in a year, to produce 240 gallons, which is the equivalent of using about two-thirds of a gallon per day. (Of course, your costs would be lower if you took advantage of Brita and PUR coupons that you can find on their Web sites and in the newspaper coupon circulars.) You could also buy the systems at household stores and use the 20 percent off coupon for the household store to buy the system. If your family uses two-thirds of a gallon of filtered water per day, your annual savings would be about $175, compared to using gallon jugs. That is also a conservative estimate; people that buy individual water bottles at the grocery store ($1 per six pack on sale) or individual water bottles at concession stands ($1 or more each) would save far more money by using a pitcher water-filter system. Shoppers who use filtered-water systems also help reduce the environmental impact of producing and disposing of plastic bottles. The Web site http://www.filterforgood.com/ (sponsored by Brita) encourages consumers to make a pledge to help reduce plastic water bottle waste. You will also be able to print a coupon for Brita products after you make your pledge, including $5 off the pitcher system or $1 off refills.

The Web site mentions a disturbing fact: Consumers send 38 billion plastic water bottles to landfills every year. Not only does that add trash to our environment, but it also takes 1.5 million barrels of oil to create that many bottles. Even though the bottles are recyclable, we do not manage to get them all to recycle bins. According to the site, last year the average consumer used 167 plastic bottles but only recycled 38 (28 percent). Shoppers can get $5 coupons for the PUR filter system or $2 coupons for the PUR refills at http://www.purwater.com/. Click on the Promotions link to sign up for coupons that you will receive by mail.”

To add to Ms. Nelson’s through research, I’d like to point out that in the U.S. bottled water isn’t even necessarily better, or "more pure," than tap water. Bottledwater.org says that the “Bottled water standard of quality . . . is as stringent as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) standards for public water supplies.” Bottled water legally only has to be equally as healthy or pure as your tap water, so if you're suspicious of your tap water, you should be equally as suspicious of domestic bottled waters. While I am sure that some bottled water companies exceed the standards for public drinking water, it is common knowledge that many bottled water companied simply bottle the tap water received by their plant.

What then, is the point of buying bottled water? Reduce your waste and improve your health by drinking tap water, or getting a pitcher or faucet filtration system.

Happy Earth Day

An Earth Day gift for you: a song by Tom Chapin. By the way, if any of you are parents or have any interaction with young children (I'd say 5-10 years old), I highly recommend Tom Chapin. He's got a lot of environmentally conscious, fun songs. Without further ado, I give you the Earth Day song (I forget the actual title):

One day she spun out of the Sun.
Did she know at the hour of her birth?
That she'd cool and she'd bloom and one day become
The garden we know as the Earth.

Happy happy Earth Day,
Happy happy Earth Day.
From the schools of leaping dolphins and the herds of kangaroo
Happy Earth Day to you.

We celebrate your waterfalls, your glaciers and typhoons,
The sweet smell of your meadows on rainbow afternoons.
The northern lights on starry nights and when the night is gone
The fiery magic of your dawn

Happy happy Earth Day,
Happy happy Earth Day.
From the fields of chirping crickets and the frogs of Blue Bayou
Happy Earth Day to you

From the highest Himalaya to the mountains under sea,
From the frozen tip of Greenland to the sands of Galilee.
We're gathering together to raise our voice in song
And pledge to keep you green and strong.

Happy happy Earth Day
Happy happy Earth Day.
Every time I smell a flower or feel the morning dew
Every time I see a baby learning something new,
I'm amazed again how blessed we are and it's all thanks to you.
Happy Earth Day to you,
Happy Earth Day to you.

Links

Happy Monday! Earth Day is tomorrow; I hope it's a happy and green one for all!

I've got three links for you:

myfootprint.org has revamped their questions to provide an even more accurate calculation of ecological footprints. If everyone lived like I do, we would need 2.97 Earths. The biggest part of my footprint is thanks to my food habits. This is a really interesting quiz, with useful results and tips on how to shrink your footprint!

walkit.com is a site much like the "directions" features of Google Maps or Mapquest, but for walkers. It shows you a map and tells you the distance, walking time, calories burned, and CO2 avoided. Unfortunately, it only offers the service for four cities so far, all in the UK. There's a button you can click to request a new city, and I've requested the city where I live. I hope it expands because this is a pretty neat tool!

metaefficient.com has reviews and news stories about environmentally friendly products.

Many thanks to Luai Lashire, who sent those second two links to us!

Do you know of any cool links? Comment, or email them to environmentaloutrage at gmail dot com!

Some of the Best Wildlife Footage Ever

The BBC's program "A Spy in the Jungle"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/spyinthejungle/video.shtml?prog1_3
Footage of tigers, elephants, monkeys, deer, and leopards

Paper Bleaching!

Think of all the paper you use every day. Toilet paper, office paper, Kleenex, paper towels, paper napkins, coffee filters, newspapers . . . it really adds up! Of course, we should use cloth alternatives whenever possible, such as cloth napkins and dishtowels. However, there are some times that a cloth alternative will just not work. Businesses in the take-out food industry need to be able to provide a disposable option, and there is certainly no substitute for toilet paper!

We can reconcile ourselves to this necessary paper consumption by choosing to buy better paper products. First, we can choose products that are made from wood that was logged in sustainably managed forests. Also, we can compost our paper waste when possible, instead of sending it to landfills. We can also take another important step, and buy non-chlorine-bleached paper.

Most of the paper we used is bleached to a bright white with chlorine. When wood pulp is bleached by chlorine, chemical reactions take place which produce dioxins, organochlorines, and a wide variety of other toxic chemicals. These toxins are released with wastewater into our rivers and streams, or into “containment” ponds that accomplish little in the way of containing the toxins. One website notes that “dioxins are now so widespread in the environment that virtually every man, woman, and child in America has them in their bodies. In fact, each day we ingest 300-600 times more than the EPA's so-called ‘safe’ dose. As they accumulate inside us to critical levels, the effects begin to show.”

Dioxins are bio-accumulative, and build up in organisms as you move up the food chain. They are also extremely carcinogenic, and have been linked not only to cancer but also to reproductive disorders and both physical and mental development problems in feti and children. Organochlorines are also bio-accumulative, and have been linked to a number of developmental and reproductive disorders, cancers, and failures of organ systems.

Lucky for us, every paper product we use has a chlorine-free alternative version on the market! Look for paper products that are labeled as “TCF” (totally chlorine free). Be careful that you don’t confuse TCF paper with paper labeled “ECF,” or “elementally chlorine free.” These papers do not use elemental chlorine, but they do use chlorine derivatives and are not as good for you and the environment. The Green Seal website has an extensive list of chlorine free paper products and brands available here.

I’ve overheard some discussion in the aisles of stores like Whole Foods about the color of paper products. I’ve heard people say they like their white paper towels and do not want to buy non-bleached paper because it just doesn’t seem “clean”. I’ve also seen enviro-litist people talking about how they only buy the brown, non-bleached products and would never dream of using white paper. To settle the debate I’d like to point out that brown paper products are not bleached, which is good for the environment. But, if you are not ready to give up your white paper towels and toilet paper, they make paper products that are both chlorine free AND white. Seventh Generation is one brand that offers white chlorine-free products. They use hydrogen peroxide and sodium hydrosulphite to bleach their papers, and the only by-products of this process are oxygen and water. Enjoy your white paper guilt free! And buy white, chlorine free office paper!

As a side note, chlorine is also used in many household cleaners. I won’t get into the dangers of traditional soaps, detergents, and disinfectants since we have already had a post on that subject; but I will remind everyone that buying alternative types of cleansers is important for the health of our families and the environment.

More info on paper bleaching can be found here.

DC Will Give You $50 to Plant a Tree!

This spring, Casey Trees and the district are teeming up to offer $50 rebates for planting large shade trees (such as oak, elm, or maple) on residential lots in DC. They'll also send you a free watering bag. How could you go wrong?
More info at:
www.caseytrees.org/pdfs/Spring%20Tree%20Rebate%20031208.pdf

Turn out the Lights: Office Bathroom Edition

I used to work in an office on a large, shared floor. The women's room there had about ten stalls, and there was almost always at least one person in there. Now, I work in an office on a smaller floor, and our bathroom only has two stalls. It's rare that someone else is in there when I enter or leave, so I always turn the light off. I kept hoping the rest of the women would catch on and turn off the light when they exited, but each time I went in there, the room would be empty and the light would be on.... sigh....

UNTIL TODAY! Finally, someone other than myself has taken up the fight! When I entered the bathroom today (in the afternoon, so I know I wasn't the first one in there), the light was off! VICTORY!

Anyway, the point is: the turn-off-the-light-if-no-one-is-in-the-room rule applies even to public rooms like your office bathroom.

Good for AU!

American University going greener!

Timely Musings on World Energy Use

Today I read an article about how the most recent report from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) could have miscalculated the ability of technological advances to help stabilize carbon dioxide emissions.

The IPCC was created to investigate global warming, and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize along with Al Gore. Their findings were that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level.” In addition to researching the problem of warming they developed the most sophisticated climate models to date, and ran several scenarios. The goal was to determine what role governments would need to play to regulate carbon dioxide emissions and prevent catastrophe. These models were developed by top scientists, and basically are a carbon-focused version of the IPAT equation. In truth, there is nothing basic about them. They analyze the incredibly complex relationship between hundreds of different variables, such as variations in weather, changes in the economy, changes in energy consumption worldwide, re-forestation and deforestation, and the advances in technology that would increase energy efficiency.

           

The authors of the article I read today argue that “two-thirds or more of all the energy efficiency improvements and decarbonization of energy supply required to stabilize greenhouse gases is already built into the IPCC reference scenarios. This is because the scenarios assume a certain amount of spontaneous technological change and related decarbonization. Thus, the IPCC implicitly assumes that the bulk of the challenge of reducing future emissions will occur in the absence of climate policies. We believe that these assumptions are optimistic at best and unachievable at worst, potentially seriously underestimating the scale of the technological challenge associated with stabilizing greenhouse-gas concentrations.”

In layman’s terms, the authors suspect that the climate models estimated that better technology would make us far more efficient faster than it is reasonable to expect, and diminished the sheer amount of technological change necessary to curb warming. Therefore, the IPCC figured that the successor to the Kyoto Protocol would not need to be as strict as it should be to prevent serious losses due to the consequences of climate change. This is troubling because the U.S. is already balking at the IPCC’s allegedly watered-down recommendations.

Further challenges to the successor of Kyoto because there is still debate as to whether it is right for developed nations to require less developed nations to sign on to the next emissions protocol. Already countries such as the U.S. say they will not sign such an agreement unless the entire globe is willing to sign on, while developing nations argue that they will not be able to increase their standard of living and eradicate poverty under such strict emissions rules. This is a timely question while all our attention is focused on China and the upcoming Olympics. China’s rapid industrialization is bringing wealth and hope to China’s poor, however it is decimating their environment and ours. Every ten days a new coal-fired power plant opens in China, sending sulfur dioxide, mercury, and other biproducts of coal combustion around southeast Asia and to the western U.S. This pollution is causing acid rain to fall in the U.S., seriously damaging ecosystems. It also has major consequences for human health. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that over two million people suffer premature death each year because of poor air quality.

As time goes on it seems less and less likely that the global south will remain exempt from carbon dioxide emission regulations. Initially it was argued that even though nations like China and India were developing rapidly, it would be several years until these countries surpassed emissions giant the U.S., and could be exempted from the next major protocol. The IPCC forecasted that China would not pass the U.S. in total carbon emissions until 2020; however, China surpassed the U.S. in 2006, and by a whopping 8%. It appears that we have reached the point in world history where the relative wealth or development of a nation can no longer be taken into account when drafting carbon dioxide regulations. Furthermore, we can no longer ignore the global problem of air pollution. In the U.S., under the Acid Rain Program, we have reduced sulfur dioxide emissions by 40% (below 1990 levels) and the NOX Budget Trading Program has reduced NO_X levels by 74% (below 1990 levels). It is possible to achieve the same results overseas, but only if countries with the technology send it overseas, at a price developing countries can afford.

To bring this back to the Olympics, and the recent media coverage of protests, I’d like to point out that environmental abuses in China have garnered relatively little press. (One exception is this article from Fox News.) I understand that violations against the most basic human rights may take higher priority than the environment, but to me the right to breathe clean air seems to be one of the most important and basic human rights. Furthermore, I am disappointed by the lack of coverage of the IOC’s efforts to green (or in truth not green) the games. In 2004, China wanted to make “being green” one of the 3 main themes of this year’s games, but it seems to have fallen by the wayside. The Olympic Torch relay will release over 11 million pounds of carbon dioxide, and the air travel of athletes, coaches, and spectators will only add to the Olympic footprint. I am sure that with all the new buildings and other infrastructure being built for the games some sustainable technology is being incorporated, but I certainly haven’t read anything about it. I wish the media would broaden their focus on abuses in China’s strict society, and drop the environmentalists a bone.

New York Times article on China and coal: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/business/worldbusiness/11chinacoal.html?pagewanted=all

EPA Clean Air Markets Division Annual Reports: http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/progress-reports.html

Eco-Week at AU

For those in the Washington DC area, here is the schedule for Eco-week at American University-

Here's the full schedule:

Mon. 8-9:30 "How to Live Sustainably in College" in the GARC (Letts Hall)

Tues. 7-8 Corporate Responsibility Panel in Ward 1

Wed. 5:30-9:30 Environmental Films in the Weschler Theatre

8 "Purchasing Campaign Successes" and update from Bill Mayer (the head librarian) and Chris Lewis (member of the Library Green Team) in the Weschler Theatre

Thurs. afternoon Quad events (tye-dying, popcorn machine, a rock climbing wall)

7-8 EJ Panel on Mountaintop Removal in the Battelle Atrium

9-11 Open Mics Open Minds in the Battelle Atrium

Sat. 9:30 Pontoon Ride and Picnic

If you are interested in going on the pontoon ride, we'll have a sign up at events during the week.

E-mail us at au_eco_sense@yahoo.com with any questions.

This message is forwarded from Eco-Sense- Scott

The Oil Economy Outrage

This post begins by exploring the relationship between the U.S. economy and worldwide oil consumption, and then explores the environmental implications of how we measure world economies today.

I believe this country is in a recession. I believe that the media’s effective dodging of the issue out of fear is only worsening the problem. And I believe it is going to get worse, and spread around the world. Why? For those of you who don’t realize, oil is the basis for our economy. It takes fossil fuel to create about 75% of the energy that runs everything. The mining equipment for ore runs on oil. The chainsaw to cut timber runs on oil. Machines running on gasoline plant and harvest the food you eat and the cotton you wear. Then, it takes more energy (provided by fossil fuels) to turn raw goods into the manufactured products we hold so dear. Fossil fuels ship these goods to the store where you buy them, and in most cases gasoline brings the items to your home. Finally, more often than not, it takes energy for you to enjoy these products. (Playing your new radio, watching the new plasma TV, running your new washer and dryer, etc.) Oh, and by the way, plastics are basically made of oil. In short, there is not a step in the creation of goods in which fossil fuel does not play a vital role.

What does this have to do with a recession? Fossil fuels are not a renewable resource. What we have on the planet right now is all we are ever going to have;* we are not getting any more. Now, I’m sure you studied supply and demand in school: when the supply of a good (fossil fuels) is decreasing (from powering our lives), and the demand is increasing (i.e. population expansion and industrialization in developing countries) the price is bound to go up. We’re in a recession? No wonder! We based our entire economy on a commodity that, even if the price dips for a short time, is destined to continue to become more and more expensive until we run out. What’s the answer? Increased energy efficiency and the expansion of renewable energy technology. Use less gas, people!

If we want to continue to have healthy and sustainable growth, we need to move away from an economy based on a resource that will run out. It is hard to put a definite answer on how long we have until fossil fuels effectively run out, but regardless of the time frame, we know it will happen eventually.** I do not see why the time frame should even matter. If we do not change over our economy now, we will be leaving the problem to our children, or at the least our grandchildren. Plus, making changes now while we have the benefit of making a gradual and planned transition will be significantly easier and cheaper than it will be in a few decades when it becomes a crisis.

Another reason to use less energy: every time you fill up your car or turn on a light, you are sending your hard earned money to the pocket of some oil company CEO. Just today an article was published reporting on Congress’s recent meeting with top oil execs. What transpired? Oil execs (who made $123 billion*** last year) deny that they are responsible for gas prices being so high. That is partially true. As previously mentioned, gas prices will consistently rise in the future. However, the billions of dollars in tax breaks given to oil companies also have something to do with gas prices. These tax breaks give the oil companies an artificial advantage over renewable energy producers. What’s to be done? Use less gas! The oil lobby is strong, and not filling up on Tuesday or Wednesday, or going to Shell vs. Mobile or Exxon vs. BP is not going to make them care about what the cost of gas is doing to American families. Doing any errands you can on foot or by bike, or buying more efficient appliances and vehicles is the most effective way to bring about change. Turning off lights that aren’t in use, or using better light bulbs will make a difference. Building your own solar generator for as little as $300 and using it to charge your laptop and cell phones will make a difference. I offer this from a purely economical stance; benefit to the environment, decrease of carbon emissions and healthier air to breathe aside. Take a stand, and stop the rich from getting richer.

While we’re on the topic, I would also like to question for a moment the idea that our GDP even needs to increase. Here in the U.S., we’ve been taught for years that economic growth, and an increase in GDP is not only a good thing, but absolutely necessary for us to continue to improve our quality of life and maintain our standard of living. We have been raised to listen to the news, hear that our GDP is up however many percentage points from the previous year, and thank our wonderful politicians and businessmen for bringing economic growth.

Now, GDP is not just a tool for measuring the “strength” of an economy. GDP is the estimated value of all goods and services produced over a period of time, most often a calendar year. That means that when the GDP goes up, it is because we have produced more goods and services than we did before. Do you recognize the environmental implications of this? If we produce more goods (and all services depend to some extent on goods) then we are using more stuff than the year before. Each year we are extracting more from the earth than the year before, and creating more trash. Of course, the environmental impact does not affect GDP for years or even generations. But are we so arrogant as to feel that we are entitled to extract everything we can from the planet, leaving the consequences to future generations?

Now, it may sound radical, but what if…. our GDP stayed exactly the same every year. Don’t panic! Most Americans (and other global citizens) turn a bit anxious and queasy at this proposition, but hear me out. If GDP is the same, and each year we produce the same amount of stuff as the year before, and items are recycled or safely returned to the earth, we have no global footprint. We live in harmony with the earth, and our economy acts more like a biological system. If efficiency of energy production, use, and recycling of materials increases, it is possible to even increase our standard of living while our GDP may stay the same.

Another flaw of GDP is the way it is currently calculated. Say a company manufactures a product, any product will do. The amount of product produced and sold counts towards the GDP. Now, say the factory has an accident, and a few thousand gallons of gasoline or some toxic chemical are released into the stream adjacent to the factory. The dollars that the factory spends on cleaning up the spill are also counted towards the GDP. Another example is a company that manufactures a faulty device that results in injury. The sale of the device counts towards GDP, as well as the medical costs of the injured. GDP does not distinguish between positive or negative goods and services. GDP should be calculated differently, so that dollars spent on fixing problems are subtracted from GDP. This has been proposed by many economists, and they suggest redefining GDP and changing its name to Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI).

For More Information:
Extremely important and influential (and unbiased) article “The End of Cheap Oil” http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:76wKCOFm9MkJ:www.nyswda.org/LegPosition/Documents/SAmerican.pdf
Excellent link on the economics of Oil: http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Index.html
Good site discussing how long we have till we run out of fossil fuel: http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/fossilfuels.htm
Herman Daly’s seminal work on no-growth economies: http://dieoff.org/page88.htm
A scientist’s musings on the no-growth economy: http://scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=14&idContribution=1158
More on re-defining GDP and GPI: http://www.rprogress.org/sustainability_indicators/genuine_progress_indicator.htm
*Unless we perfect space travel, and go to another planet that has carbon-based life, and find that that life has not used up all their fossil fuels too. I mean it’s possible…
**Fossil fuels will not literally run out in the same sense that your car will run out of gas and stall. They will simply decrease in volume and increase in price to such a degree that they will effectively run out. At that point, it will be costly and difficult to switch over technology. If we can change the foundation of our economy now, we will be significantly better off in the long run.
***123 billion? Do you have any idea how much that is? To put it in perspective, it has been estimated that there are 100 billion STARS IN OUR GALAXY. A billion M&Ms candies laid out touching but not overlapping would cover over 6 ½ acres. (My own calculation.)

Earth Day

Earth Day

Hi, today, I am a friend of Scott and Katie, who have graciously allowed me to guest-blog, today. Personally, I think saving the environment is important. Hell, I would take a bullet for the environment, if asked. Seeing how Earth Day is coming rather quickly on April 22, I wanted to express some simple tips to help make the world a better place:

Stop eating. Why waste our precious resources? Remember, plants feel pain, too.

If you are going to protest for the environment, make sure to encourage the police to use biodegradable clubs when they beat you.

Walking around naked saves heavily on clothing materials, as well as uses less water and detergent. Unfortunately, your hospital and legal bills will probably increase.

Exercise is another waste of precious resources. Don't go to football practice, walk, have sex. Just sit there.

Pee down your shower drain. It will save a gallon of water. Pooping down your shower drain will result in hilarity.

Buy more expensive cleaning and paper products. Clearly, if it is more expensive, it must be more environmentally friendly.

Remember Al Gore is the greatest of all environmentalists! Especially when he’s flying his private jet.

Do you really need that daily shower? Really?

What car would Jesus drive? Probably a Hummer, because Jesus was sweet.

Recycled paper bags, while less effective, are more environmentally friendly condoms.

Don't conform. Refuse to pay people in cash or credit cards, because both use our plastic and paper resources. Who cares if people call you a "terrorist", even if you are one?

Remember, when other people are not environmentally perfect, make sure to call them out on it. You are, and they'll really appreciate the reminder.

Reading these helpful hints wastes electricity. Stop reading this, and turn off your computer and your lights, you callous bastard.

April Fools!