One person's washer is...

Hydro power from washing machines! Michael Lawley at Ecoinnovation converts household appliances into enregy saving and generating inventions.

A grass roots-campaign promoting ultra-low energy consuming technologies "less carbon more jobs"!


Obama promised to create 4 Million green jobs!

Governments don't create jobs, only businesses do. Help the Obama administration!

GreenMaraschino is an open source initiative to develop the blue-print for next-generation ultra-low energy consuming electronics. GreenMaraschino's mission is also to educate the general public in the devastating consequences of Carbon Dioxide, also known as Green House Gas (GHG).

There are many things you can do. Offset your Carbon footprint, participate in our projects, become a GreenMaraschino activist, volunteer ....

Unlike other carbon offset initiatives GreenMaraschino is not just selling carbon offset products. We proactively foster the development of new technologies, support greentech companies, work with corporations of any size to promote the adoption of ultra-low energy consuming technologies.

The adoption of ultra-low energy consuming technologies will create millions of jobs here in America and all over the world.
Get involved! Save our planet! Create Jobs!

Get involved!

We arelooking for volunteers, contributors, bloggers, social networkers, grass root campainers.

Join the Forum!

Click here to join in the conversation. via Green marashino

Manifestations of the New Economy or The Downsizing of the Treasury

Timothy F. Geithner is Obama's ultimate choice for Secretary of the Treasury after several false starts the post that will be most crucial to Obama's economic stimulus plans is now filled. Ironically, He is having a difficult time in getting started in his new job because his resources are slim-he is working with a skeleton crew due to Obama's poor vetting of his nominees. Obama hasn't put in place the necessary manpower in the Treasury because of his poor vetting of many nominees there and in other cabinet positions. And of course, Mr Geithner was one of the poorly vetted nominees. So, logically, Mr. Geithner is the reason himself that he does not have the resources to make an economic turn-around come true?

Idea from NY Times

Green Van Jones

MNN.COM > BUSINESS > GREEN JOBS
The prophet of the green collar economy
Meet Van Jones, the man who is single-handedly bringing the green collar economy to America's forefront.
By EB Solomont
Mon, Mar 09 2009 at 10:16 AM EST
Read more: GREEN BUSINESS, GREEN COMPANIES, GREEN ECONOMY


Despite downturn, California's green economy is booming

With the economy gasping for air, there has been no shortage of solutions. Obama! Economic stimulus! Bailout! Go green!

Go green? "Everything it would take to beat global warming is exactly what it will take to beat the recession," says Van Jones, author of the new book, The Green Collar Economy. "Basically, clean energy and green economics are essential," he says.

While Jones is not alone — last year, the New York Times columnist and author Thomas L. Friedman published Hot, Flat, and Crowded — Jones has emerged as an energetic voice calling for the creation of new "green" jobs that would stimulate both the economy and the green movement.

A Yale Law School graduate, Jones staked the early part of his career on police reform before turning to the green movement, where he has become a rising star. Several years ago, Jones attended a conference in a well-heeled neighborhood of Marin County, Calif., where he was blown away by the plethora of salads and tofu, organic agriculture, hybrid cars and solar panels.

"I really felt uplifted by all that stuff, but also like, 'Geez, why do I have to come over here to get it?'" he recalls thinking, as he returned to his home base Oakland. He says that experience resulted in a stark realization that is the basis for his current work: "I had this epiphany that we need green jobs, not jails," he says. "It's kind of four syllables that came into my mind and changed my whole life." /via mother nature network

Last year the US Conference of Mayors released a green jobs report wherein they estimated that in 2006 there were approximately 750,000 green collar jobs in the US (using a similar definition to the one above). Over half of those jobs were in engineering, legal, research and consulting and the second largest category was renewable power generation. The report also found that the jobs were spread across the country, although 85% were in metro areas. The top cities for green collar jobs were: New York (25,021), Washington DC (24,287), Houston (21,250), Los Angeles (20,136) and Boston (19,799).
all via virid.us

from What It Takes to Wear Green Green-collar jobs are hailed as a silver bullet to two major problems—but what does it really take to implement them?

What It Takes to Wear Green

Green-collar jobs are hailed as a silver bullet to two major problems—but what does it really take to implement them?

By Sarah Karlin
March 4, 2009

Dick Koenigs discusses Energy Northwest’s White Bluffs Solar Station, one of Richland, Washington’s explorations into renewable energy production. (AP Photo/Jackie Johnston)

Before signing the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law, President Obama reminded Americans that the bill will not just boost the country’s ailing economy but will help modernize the nation. “Because we know we can’t power America’s future on energy that’s controlled by foreign dictators, we are taking a big step down the road to energy independence, and laying the groundwork for a new, green energy economy that can create countless well-paying jobs,” Obama said.

Environmentalists see the stimulus as an opportunity to spur a revolution that will transform America’s old, gray, industrial economy based on coal, oil, and other dirty fossil fuels, into one that runs on clean, renewable energy. While green initiatives make up less than one-eighth of the stimulus bill, the chatter is all about green jobs, green infrastructure, and green energy. Green, green, green. But what exactly green jobs are and how such an infrastructure can be implemented are some of many questions that have yet to be answered.

The green jobs movement saw a major victory in December 2007 when Congress passed the Green Jobs Act as part of the energy bill. The act was supposed to set aside up to $125 million to train workers for jobs in the clean energy sector, but President Bush’s budget requested $0 for the initiative. The issue gained increasing notoriety during the 2008 campaign with the publication of Van Jones’ book The Green Collar Economy and his many moving speeches, like his most recent one at Powershift this year. Jones founded Green For All, a national organization dedicated to building a green economy, and has laid out his vision for a “Green New Deal” that would create programs and policies designed to fight both global warming and urban poverty by creating millions of green jobs. With more than $80 billion dollars of the $787 billion economic recovery package going toward investments in clean energy, the bill takes an important first step. Jones’ vision is still incomplete, but there are compelling reasons to take the rest of the green-collar jobs movement seriously.

Why go green?

As the economy lags, some experts say that going green may be the best way to revive our economy and save the planet. Climate scientists predict that unless we curb global warming emissions, average U.S. temperatures could increase by 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. Global warming has been linked to deadly heat waves, an increase in wildfires, the spread of disease, and a host of public health and weather catastrophes. And while the United States makes up only four percent of the world’s population, the country is responsible for emitting 25 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide pollution. Low-income communities and communities of color also tend to be disproportionately affected by the negative impacts of a high-carbon economy.

President Obama’s Energy Secretary Steve Chu said that an environmentally friendly, energy efficient economy is America’s only option in the fight against climate change. In an article last month in The Root, Chu warned that “without swift action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Americans might see their way of life grind to a halt.”

That news sounds even more dismal than today’s enormous economic crisis. But the good news is that at last we have an Administration that is determined to take the action necessary to address global warming. More good news is that investing in environmentally friendly projects may be the best way to put thousands of Americans back to work. According to the Department of Labor the U.S. unemployment rate was 7.6 percent in January, the highest in 16 years. But according to the Natural Resources Defense Council’s analysis of data from the U.S. Department of Commerce, investments in energy efficiency and renewable resources create more jobs per dollar invested than tax cuts, military spending, or oil and natural gas investments.

What is a green job?

Industries that clean up environmental damage count toward the green-job tally, as well as jobs that help America transition away from fossil fuels, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, eliminate toxins, and protect our natural resources. Jessica Tovar of Communities for a Better Environment told Green for All that “the movement for green jobs is a fight for a ‘just transition’ from reckless industry practices to new, ethical and eco-friendly ones. Green jobs are about respecting and empowering both workers and the communities they live in.”

While Tovar and other politicians and activists’ vision sounds positive, the rhetoric surrounding green jobs is still unclear. Not all green jobs are created equal. A “green” factory may produce a green product but produce tons of carbon dioxide each year. Employees that mine “clean coal” in Appalachia can endanger their own health while destroying huge areas of natural habituate and contribute to an industry that still releases large amounts of pollutants into air and water.

Who qualifies for the green collar?

Green collar jobs encompass a wide array of industries. There is no one-size-fits-all description of a worker who is qualified for the field. Green careers can be found in the non-profit world of advocacy and activism, in manufacturing, construction, engineering, agriculture and even the federal government.

Currently, jobs that qualify for the green collar are workers that install solar panels, retrofit buildings, erect wind farms, and install new light rail lines. Many organizations are assisting workers in finding green collar employment. At this year’s Good Jobs, Green Jobs National Conference in Washington, D.C., organizers put together a Green Jobs Expo, showcasing the numerous green careers available to job seekers. The expo included more than 85 booths run by academic institutions, manufactures, non-profits, and government agencies.

According to a January report by the American Solar Energy Society, popular green jobs include electricians, mechanical engineers, welders, metal workers, accountants, analysts, environmental scientists, and chemists. The report found that more than 37 million jobs in renewable energy and energy efficiency could be generated by 2030—more than 17 percent of anticipated U.S. employment.

While some green jobs are limited to college educated professionals who hold advanced degrees in the sciences, engineering, and other highly technical fields, others require only a high school diploma. According to Green For All, many green collar jobs are “middle-skill,” requiring more education than high school but less than a four year degree. Many workers will be able to use the skill set they already possess to find greener, more ecological job opportunities. For example, a factory worker who helps produce gas guzzling SUVs could easily transition to work at a factory that produces parts for hybrid cars.

Some green jobs will require workers to acquire new skills. The stimulus directs $500 million over two years to the Green Jobs Act. These funds will be used to train approximately 70,000 workers for renewable energy and energy efficiency jobs.

The stimulus and green jobs

According to Green For All, greening America’s infrastructure offers the biggest bang for our buck. Green projects will create jobs and cut energy bills, pay living, family wages, and provide opportunities for professional advancement. The Natural Resources Defense Council said that investments in energy efficiency save consumers and taxpayers so much money they more than pay for themselves over the lifetime of the project.

NRDC also reported that according to a green jobs study conducted by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, a two-year, $100 billion green investment program would create 2 million green jobs for American workers, more than 3 times as many good jobs as the oil industry. These new “good green jobs” would pay at least $16 an hour.

But such an investment might not be easy; the green economy has been hit as hard by the current financial crisis as the rest of the economy. Bank failures have made credit difficult for wind and solar developers to come by, causing them to delay projects and lay off workers. The stimulus might be able to recharge these clean energy projects. Environment America detailed the portions of the stimulus dedicated to green energy. The final bill invests $32.80 billion in clean energy, $26.86 billion in energy efficiency, and $18.95 billion in green transportation.

Big Oil still gets help

The green initiatives in the stimulus bill can help to put America on a path to clean, renewable energy, creating more jobs and protecting our planet. However, these initiatives are just a good start. To completely transform the American economy and combat global warming, the United States will need to take a stand against “big oil.”

While one-eighth of the stimulus bill directs funding towards green energy, large chunks of money are also being directed towards “business as usual” projects that will continue the cycle of pollution. For example, $27.5 billion is included for highway investments, compared to only $8.4 billion for public transportation systems. The stimulus also directs $3.4 billion for fossil energy research and development.

From regional to national, a grid that works

The United States current energy grid is regionalized and often described by environmentalists and scientists as “last century.” The current system was designed to draw energy from nearby plants, and transfer this energy to local customers. But the greenest energies do best in the most remote areas, like the plains of North Dakota to the deserts of Nevada. To transmit power from solar panels and windmills thousands of miles away to customers who need the energy, the United States will need a national system that is not only bigger but “smarter.” A New York Times article last month explained that different parts of the grid will need to be integrated and designed to deal with clean energy sources such as solar and wind, which fluctuate with weather conditions. Creating a national grid will not only take money but also work on the part of citizens, local, state, and national governments.

When people find out new powerlines are going to be built throughout their communities, there are often shouts of “not in my backyard” followed by lawsuits and other bureaucratic hurdles to completing new energy projects. The stimulus package provides $11 billion for smart grid related activities, but the New York Times article points out that money is only one of the many factors which is delaying much needed clean energy projects. The American Transmission Company, which operates in four Midwestern states, spent two years building a line of about 220 miles from Duluth, Minn. to Wausau, Wis. But it took eight years before that for the firm to win the necessary permits. As global temperatures increase and the demand on the U.S. electricity grid rises, our country does not have decades to waste in bureaucratic scuffles.

Sarah Karlin is an Editorial Intern at Campus Progress and a senior at George Washington University.

from http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/NEWSCIENCE/oncompounds/phthalates/phthalates.htm

What are phthalates? How are they used?
Phthalates are a class of widely used industrial compounds known technically as dialkyl or alkyl aryl esters of 1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid. There are many phthalates with many uses, and just as many toxicological properties.

Phthalates crept into widespread use over the last several decades because of their many beneficial chemical properties. Now they are ubiquitous, not just in the products in which they are intentionally used, but also as contaminants in just about anything. About a billion pounds per year are produced worldwide.

Intentional uses of phthalates include softeners of plastics, oily substances in perfumes, additives to hairsprays, lubricants and wood finishers. That new car smell, which becomes especially pungent after the car has been sitting in the sun for a few hours, is partly the pungent odor of phthalates volatilizing from a hot plastic dashboard. In the evening's cool they then condense out of the inside air of the car to form an oily coating on the inside of the windshield.

What are the health concerns? Much of the existing literature on phthalates' toxicological properties focuses on the old approach to toxicology: high level exposure for cancer endpoints, and occupational exposure leading to adult infertility. In the past several years, however, particularly led by Earl Gray's laboratory at the US Environmental Protection Agency, attention has turned to low-dose toxicity of phthalates during crucial windows of fetal development. As these studies have advanced, they have fundamentally changed our perception of potential health risks of phthalates.

According to Hauser et al. (2006): "Phthalates are a class of multifunctional chemicals used in a variety of consumer and personal care products. Highmolecular- weight phthalates (eg, di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate --DEHP-- and butylbenzyl phthalate --BBzP--) are primarily used as plasticizers in the manufacture of flexible vinyl, which is used in consumer products, flooring and wall coverings, food contact applications, and medical devices. Manufacturers use low-molecular-weight phthalates (eg, diethyl phthalate --DEP-- and dibutyl phthalate --DBP-) in personal care products (eg, perfumes, lotions, cosmetics), as solvents and plasticizers for cellulose acetate, and in making lacquers, varnishes, and coatings, including those used to provide timed release in some pharmaceuticals."

While high doses of phthalates do constitute risks in the sense of traditional toxicology, these low doses change the stakes dramatically. Gray's work reveals that male reproductive development is acutely sensitive to some phthalates. For example, the phthalates dibutyl phthalate (DBP) and diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) produced dramatic changes in male sexual characteristics when exposure took place in utero, at levels far beneath those of previous toxicological concern. These changes included increases in the rates of hypospadias and other indications of demasculinization.

Enough questions about phthalates have been raised during the last few years for the National Toxicology Program, under the auspices of its recently established "Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction" (CERHR), to convene a panel of independent experts in 1999 to review scientific evidence addressing developmental threats of phthalates. The panel issued a draft report in August 2000. Its conclusions are severely restricted by the fact that few of studies necessary to address fetal impacts of phthalates have been done. For a least one of the phthalates they addressed, DEHP, the panel had serious concern about health impacts. Not surprisingly, given the state of research the report's conclusions are tentative, establishing plausible but uncertain risk. One of the key points is DEHP's impact on developing Sertoli cells, cells in the male reproductive tract that are central to sperm formation. Damaged Sertoli cells during development lead to sperm maladies in adulthood, including low sperm count. DEHP does not cause Sertoli damage directly; damage instead is caused by a metabolite of DEHP, monoethylhexyl phthalate (MEHP).

In summer 2006, two papers upped the ante considerably on possible low-level effects of phthalates. The ranges at which Gray et al. have conducted their experiments are close to the range of common human exposure, but still somewhat above. These new papers reveal biological impacts in animals well within the range of common human exposure, and show show non-monotonic action of DEHP at environmentally-relevant levels. One examined impacts on the activity of the enzyme aromatase, which is essential for masculinizing male brains. The second experimented with DEHP's ability to exacerbate allergic reactions to an allergen, providing a possible clue as to why allergy rates have gone up so much in the developed world. Non-monotonic dose response curves are important because they invalidate current approaches to developing health standards.

In May 2005: For the first time, researchers have identified an association between pregnant women’s exposure to phthalates and adverse effects on genital development in their male children. The pattern of genital changes seen in these baby boys is consistent with the "phthalate syndrome" previously observed in rodents prenatally exposed to phthalates. It is also suggestive of "testicular dysgenesis syndrome," a human health condition proposed to be linked to exposure to endocrine-disrupting compounds. The adverse effects are seen at phthalate levels below those found in one-quarter of women in the United States, based on a nation-wide survey by the Centers for Disease Control. More...

In August 2000, Puerto Rican scientists reported on an association between exposure to DEHP and premature breast development in young girls, possibly linking phthalates to trends in puberty.

In September 2000, the US Centers for Disease Control released the first substantial assessment of phthalate exposure in the American public. Their study analyzed urine metabolite residues of seven phthalates. Levels were high for several of the compounds studied, particularly the metabolite of DBP. Of greatest concern was the discovery that in their sample, an disproportionate number of women of child-bearing age bore high levels of this metabolite. Given Gray's data on fetal vulnerability, this is precisely the population that should minimize exposure to this anti-androgen.

In winter/spring 2002-2003, three studies linked phthalate exposure to reductions in semen quality. All were of men exposed to background, environmental levels of phthalates, not higher occupational levels. One showed DNA damage in sperm. Two others (one from the US, the other from India) found reductions in sperm quality in men with slightly elevated phthalate levels. Phthalate levels associated with the damage were well within the range experienced by many Americans.

The debate about regulation and public health protection
Over the past several years, debate has grown in the regulatory world about what to do about phthalates. Industry argues that years of phthalate use without visible harm prove product safety. Critics counter that animal studies establish plausible risk but that the relevant human epidemiological studies focused specifically on the impacts of fetal exposure simply haven't been done. They point, moreover, to the fact that human health endpoints consistent with phthalate damage are found in animal experiments. They also point out that certain exposures, particularly those associated with children chewing on soft polyvinyl chloride toys and patients receiving intravenous medication through polyvinyl chloride equipment may lead to very high exposures. [The CDC report, above, adds to that list of high exposure concern: the fetuses of pregnant women using cosmetics containing phthalates.]

European regulators kicked off this debate when they began to explore the possibility of bans on toys intended for infants that contained DEHP. This set in motion fierce industry lobbying from the United States to head off the ban, an effort that not only proved unsuccessful ultimately in Europe, but one that was matched in the US by a call by the Consumer Products Safety Commission for a voluntary phase-out by US manufacturers, not only from pacifiers and toys but also from certain medical devices. Several large US toy manufacturers, including Disney and Mattel, made public commitments supporting the phase-out.

The debate heated up further in the US when an industry PR firm that masquerades as a public health organization, the American Council on Science and Health, put together a panel to review the safety of phthalates. Headed by retired Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, the panel ultimately issued a flawed report that concluded phthalates were safe. Their report failed to consider several key recent publications and misrepresented another, citing the latter as stating that no kidney damage was caused when in fact the research did not assess kidney damage. They committed an even more basic error, moreover, by accepting the absence of data as proof of safety. Absence of data proves only ignorance. A devastating critique of this report was published by Health Care Without Harm (a PDF file; long download on slow modems).

The American Academy of Pediatrics entered the debate in June 2003, issuing a report in Pediatrics that recommends research on phthalates effects on the fetus and infants. Their review of the literature found that no studies had directly addressed this issue, yet animal research clearly documents harm and data from the US Centers for Disease Control shows widespread exposure.