According to the article:

Recycline’s products, sold under the Preserve brand, make new products out of things that would otherwise be likely to end up in landfills. The company uses mostly recycled polypropylene, much of it from yogurt and cottage-cheese containers, along with some sustainably forested wood and recycled paper.

On one hand, the idea of recycling plastic, rather than tossing it into a landfill, is über cool. And polypropylene isn’t (as far as we know) a carcinogen or an endocrine disruptor like BPA and PVC.

I’d like to see the idea taken one step further. This company is minimizing the waste in a system already in place. All those yogurt containers were designed without anyone seriously considering what happens after we polish off our yogurt. It would be great if people factored that in at the design stage.

Now, I’m not an economist, but the first line of the article makes the whole thing sound freakish. From the article:

Economists note there should not be two prices for one thing at the same place and time. Could a drugstore sell two identical tubes of toothpaste, and charge 50 cents more for one of them? Of course not.

But, in effect, exactly that has been happening, repeatedly and mysteriously, in trading that sets prices for corn, soybeans and wheat — three of America’s biggest crops and, lately, popular targets for investors pouring into the volatile commodities market. Economists who have been studying this phenomenon say they are at a loss to explain it.

Whatever the reason, the price for a bushel of grain set in the derivatives markets has been substantially higher than the simultaneous price in the cash market.

When that happens, no one can be exactly sure which is the accurate price in these crucial commodity markets, an uncertainty that can influence food prices and production decisions around the world.

I’m not sure what all this means. Thoughts?

According to the article:

North America’s buildings release more than 2,200 megatonnes, or about 35 percent of the continent’s total, of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. If the construction market quickly adopted current and emerging energy-saving technologies, that number could be cut by 1,700 megatonnes by 2030, the report said.

Alas, there are “obstacles” preventing the rapid adoption of green building techniques:

One is the so-called split incentive policy, where those who construct environmentally-friendly buildings do not necessarily reap the benefits of using them.

Also, governments and other institutions separate capital and operating budgets instead of budgeting for the lifetime of a construction project, creating a disincentive to build “green,” the report found.

Oh well, I guess I’ll have to make do with a nice cozy place on the Street of Dreams until green building catches on. Uh, scratch that.

By the way, Tasmanian devils are nearing extinction.

As part of the Back to the Future alternative energy series, The New York Times has an article today about the rising demand for solar thermal power plants, which use solar panels to heat water and operate a steam turbine.

Among the advantages cited:

On sunny afternoons, those 10 plants would produce as much electricity as three nuclear reactors, but they can be built in as little as two years, compared with a decade or longer for a nuclear plant. Some of the new plants will feature systems that allow them to store heat and generate electricity for hours after sunset.

In addition, solar thermal can provide energy more reliably than wind can, and it provides the most energy during mid-day, when energy usage peaks.

This technology has been around since the ’80s, but according to the article, the low cost of natural gas made solar thermal plants too expensive. Now, rising energy prices and opposition to coal are making solar thermal power more appealing. There’s still a cost disparity between the cost-per-kilowatt-hour of coal power vs. solarthermal power: 7 cents/kwh versus 15 cents/kwh. (Although they clearly aren’t taking into account the planet-destroying costs of coal.)

The article also talks about potential effects on biodiversity if solar thermal plants become widespread — obviously, if miles and miles of land are taken up for piping-hot solar panels, that could potentially be a bummer for wildlife:

Already, building a plant in California requires hiring a licensed tortoise wrangler to capture and relocate endangered desert tortoises.

But those problems seem minor in comparison to problems with coal. You know, little things like dangerous working conditions, filthy carbon emissions, and the potential for giant, 30-year underground fires that swallow up whole towns.

Maybe that’s just me.

The product, called the handler, is basically a small, plastic pirate’s claw impregnated with nanoscale silver particles. The particles prevent bacteria from getting a foothold on the hook. Have to go to the ATM and come into contact with filthy keys that other flu-ridden people have pawed? No problem, just pull out your hook.

Not so fast!

Apparently, the EPA thinks that, because of those pesky silver particles, the product may be considered a pesticide according to a 1947 law:

The law at issue the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, better known as Fifra was conceived in 1947 to protect humans from agri-chemicals sprayed by the millions of gallons to kill weeds, plant viruses and bugs.

Since nanoparticles are so new, they have not been thoroughly evaluated for safety. And the Times notes that there may be some health risks, since those silver particles are so small:

One of the biggest concerns with such particles is that they may easily penetrate the brain and other organs that larger particles cannot reach.

Moreover, some critics worry that the technology may contribute to the evolution of microbes resistant to silver poisoning. And some health experts say that constantly reducing exposure to troublesome microbes may eventually weaken the human immune system.

But even if the EPA does decide the handler is a pesticide, it is easy for the company to wriggle out of the regulations, by simply dropping the health claim that the product is antimicrobial.

As the E.P.A. interprets the regulation, a product is not “designed” to be a health-protecting antimicrobial — and thus subject to registration requirements — if it is not advertised as such.

I’m glad to see that the EPA is fighting the good fight to protect the environment.

Air would be blown over a liquid solution of potassium carbonate, which would absorb the carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide would then be extracted and subjected to chemical reactions that would turn it into fuel: methanol, gasoline or jet fuel. This process could transform carbon dioxide from an unwanted, climate-changing pollutant into a vast resource for renewable fuels. The closed cycle — equal amounts of carbon dioxide emitted and removed — would mean that cars, trucks and airplanes using the synthetic fuels would no longer be contributing to global warming.

The idea is purely theoretical at this point — no factories or prototypes have been built. But even as pure speculation there’s one major hurdle; the process requires large amounts of input energy. And where would this energy come from?

The two Los Alamos scientists envisioned using nuclear power plants to generate the necessary energy. While any form of energy could theoretically be used, the article notes that renewable forms like solar energy would be economically "less favorable."

No doubt, the idea has sex appeal (at least to science geeks like me). But building a "dedicated" nuclear power plant is hardly a long-term environmental fix. And it’s even sillier to increase our energy demand when we haven’t fully explored existing renewable clean sources to reduce the carbon emissions of stationary power generation.

Yes, transport is a major source of carbon emissions, but coal-fired power plants contribute even more to global warming. The main problem is that we consume huge amounts of energy, don’t get much of this energy from renewable sources, and don’t take advantage of existing approaches to reduce our total energy usage. And if we already fail to fund alternative energy sources, is it realistic to expect that we’ll just find the $5 billion necessary to build the prototype?

Ultimately, these techno-solutions are tempting but naïve. Our main obstacle in the climate change crisis is not technological but political — it is the lack of political will.

Will this be a good thing for Indian farmers or the environment? I have my doubts.

On one hand, large portions of India’s agriculture sector still rely on fickle monsoon rains, so Israel’s innovations in drip irrigation and other water recycling techniques might reduce the risk of crop failure. But depending on the types of technology we’re talking about, it may or may not be better for the environment. (Some past sub-continental irrigation projects have led to arable land becoming unusable through salinification.)

What’s more, India has seen a rash of farmer suicides over the past several years, fueled in part by farmers’ inability to pay back crippling loans for Monsanto’s Bt Cotton seed and other modern agriculture accouterments. What spurred these farmers to take on huge debt and to risk everything on an unproven, expensive, biotechnology? Indian farmers were reacting to the opening of India’s market — in order to compete with subsidized grains from the U.S. and other developed countries, they sought to increase yields. To do so, the farmers borrowed from unregulated, usurious moneylenders. A single untimely rain or drought brought with it economic devastation.

The idea of intensifying India’s dairy production is a whole other story. Currently, India is the world’s largest dairy producer, with the majority of these farmers owning small herds of 2-10 cattle, usually buffalo [PDF]. (As an aside, to see an interesting movie about the formation of a national dairy cooperative in India, check out Manthan.)

Industrial animal production is a well known environmental nightmare; it’s unlikely that intensifed dairy production in India would be better. And industrial animal production might squeeze out all the landless herders who eke out a living from one or two buffalo, since they likely can’t afford the new technologies.

So I’m somewhat skeptical. The environmental impacts are iffy. Ultimately, implementing the new technology — whether it be drip irrigation, modern dairy equipment or greenhousing — will cost money. Without heavy government subsidies and a retooling of the farm-loan infrastructure, it’s not clear that Indian farmers will benefit.