Save Eco Destinations

I’d never heard of something like this before-two countries, Italy and Switzerland, will have representatives meet to agree on new boundaries to divide their lands due to melted Alpine glaciers that used to mark the frontier between them, and are now gone.

Alpine glaciers melting

I suppose in the (I hope not too) near future we will be hearing more about this-between Argentina and Chile, perhaps the US and Canada, China, Russia, perhaps in Scandinavia (I need a map!).

This is really interesting. How would this affect tourism? What if certain nations decided to team up? Say one country had lots of wind turbines already set up, and the other did not, but was relying on solar power for a lot of its energy and had some to spare? These countries could team up and mutually benefit each other by sharing energy-and perhaps food and other amenities. Climbing temperatures could have unforeseen political consequences, perhaps great ones! Exciting.

Of course, there could also be wars (and probably there will be wars, the universe help us) over desperately coveted natural resources such as potable water (in particular!) and fertile soil. Well, we’d probably have these anyway, but I suspect border-related dilemmas could provide additional fuel to the debates.

And what about residents’ desires? In the Italy/Switzerland scenario, no communities are involved because the borders in question lie 4,000 meters above sea level, in deserted areas unfit for human habitation. I am reminded of the Falkland Islands–geographically and lawfully, they are part of Argentina. Politically, however, they are part of England. When in 1982 Argentina went to war to get the Falklands back (a desperate attempt by the dictator related to staying in power because he was losing control) a few things happened. First, Falkland residents protested against Argentina, saying they were English and wished to remain so. Second, the Argentine soldiers were so ill-equipped they lacked microwaves and such to heat their frozen food and they were inappropriately dressed for the violent cold of the far south. Third and last, in part because of the second point, the English kicked the Argentines’ ass. Argentina has no decent army. They recruited random young men to fight, inexperienced men, and many of them died in miserable conditions.

My point is, when politicians start getting involved in choosing new boundaries, I hope that, to avoid trouble, they seriously consider local residents’ opinions and desires regarding what nation they want to belong to. (I actually think nationality is absurd-you don’t choose where you are born, and you don’t know everyone you share a nation with-it’s an imagined community, an illusion.)

On Saturday, March 28 Greenpeace launched a month-long tour of Vermont in a solar truck called Rolling Sunlight.

The idea is to show how solar power can do everything nuclear power can-from heating chocolate to powering sound systems at events-but safely. The goal is to stop by farmer’s markets, colleges, artsy events, and such to engage Vermonters in a discussion about nuclear vs. renewable energy (i.e. solar).

Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor: A collapsed cooling tower spewing water that was supposed to cool the plant's reactor.

So why Vermont? Because its residents get to choose whether they want to shut down Vermont Yankee, Entergy’s aging nuclear reactor, and replace nuclear energy with local, cheap, clean and renewable solar power in their state. April’s the perfect time to take an eco trip to Vermont and support the project.

“Thirty years ago today, at Three Mile Island, we saw one of the worst nuclear disasters in history, and Pennsylvania is still seeing the effects of that radiation. The Public Oversight Panel’s report released last week detailed the extent that Entergy Nuclear management is neglecting maintenance and repair. We don’t want Vermont to be the next Three Mile Island. We have great renewable alternatives available to us that put Vermont’s safety first,” Ed Anthes from Nuclear Free Vermont by 2012 told Greenpeace.

The first stop was Brattleboro. Here’s the others –

Tentative Rolling Sunlight Tour Dates:

March 28 – Brattleboro (30th Anniversary of Three Mile Island)
April 1 – Middlebury
April 2 – University of Vermont
April 3 – Brattleboro
April 4 – Norwich
April 5 – Bennington
April 8 – Randolph
April 9 – South Burlington/Colchester
April 11 – Rutland
April 12 – Waitsfield
April 13 – Waterbury
April 16 – Barre
April 19 – Richmond
April 21 – St. Albans
April 22 – Burlington (Earth Day)
April 23 – Shelburne/Hinesburg
April 26 – Johnson/Morrisville (Anniversary of Chernobyl)
April 29 – Montpelier

If you’ll be making your way to Vermont this April and want to take part in this project, you can call Greenpeace for info at 800-326-0959.

Fishing in the Kawabe River

The Construction Ministry in Tokyo wants to build a dam on the Kawabe River in southern Japan, and everyone seems to be against it. At least for now, the dissenters are winning.

Environmentalists, farmers, and fishermen and women are objecting to the project on various grounds. Environmentalists are worried that a dam will damage the scenic gorges. Farmers assert they do not need irrigation water from the reservoir. Commercial fishermen and women are worried fish would swim elsewhere if the river torrents become blocked by the dam. Not to mention that half a dozen small villages had already been relocated for the future building of the damn dam. And what for? Purportedly, for irrigation (which farmers tell us they don’t need) and flood control (which dams have a bad reputation for preventing in Hitoyoshi).

And so these people got together and set up a petition opposing the $3.6 million project. They got 34,000 signatures, half of the residents in the city of Hitoyoshi.

Last September, this group gained the support of the governor of the Kumamoto prefecture, Ikuo Kabashima. Kabashima then requested that Tokyo suspend the dam’s construction (which, again, hadn’t yet begun). Tokyo consented. Thank goodness.

This is a big deal because usually local governors are essentially ignored by Japan’s central government, which gets to decide what happens all over the country despite what the locals might want. Kabashima stood up to the central government both because he empathizes with the plight of the locals, and because he thinks the central government exercises too much power in these situations.

This phenomenon spawned others (yay!). Other regional governments throughout Japan spoke up against plans to build dams in their prefectures. In November, four prefectural governments in the western Kensai region asked to have the dam project cancelled. Last month, the governor of the Niigata prefecture said he would not help finance a new bullet train line and the governor of Osaka refused to pay for a new bridge to an airport.

Now, some of these oppositions are due to the global economic crisis-budgets are limited. Regardless, this gradual deconstruction of the central government tyranny is something to be both noted and celebrated.

And there’s more: the Liberal Democratic Party is drawing up a bill to turn Japan’s 47 prefectures into 9-13 entities with enough power to balance out the central government’s. This may not happen anytime soon, though, as Prime Minister Taro Aso, who proposed the bill, is not very popular right now. But many are standing up to Japan’s central government, so something substantial is absolutely taking place, bill or no bill.

Read more.

Goes to show what grassroots power can do.

So far, TRU Organic Spirits has planted 50,052 trees as of March 2009 along as a result of its “one tree per bottle” method. The products are completely certified USDA organic and consist of infused vodkas and gins. Mmm…

Each planted tree, TRU says, removes 500 lbs. of CO2 from the atmosphere per year and later 1800 lbs. per year when the trees mature. Apparently, that’s the equivalent of two months of average driving (1800 lbs. of CO2). Not bad at all.

“To make sure those trees have maximal impact, we work with organizations such as Sustainable Harvest International, in tropical zones, because those are the most environmentally sensitive areas suffering rampant deforestation,” they say.

Volunteer for Sustainable Harvest International's Cacao Campaign

So, how do we know TRU is legitimate? The company has been issued a certificate by Sustainable Harvest International (SHI).  Sounds good. With this certificate in tow, it’s easier to believe TRU when they claim that they are 760 times carbon negative (!), they maintain clean farmland and groundwater, and use recycled and recyclable lightweight bottles, among other laudable practices. Independent organizations evaluate these claims. Read more here.

Speaking of which, SHI organizes Smaller World Tours–you can take a vacation to volunteer in Central America to fight poverty and deforestation.  SHI has tours coming up in Belize, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama and several of their tours coming up in the next few months are already filled up! Awesome.

Another thing you can do through SHI is intern in Central America through their Field Programs. There’s still room to apply for summer 2009. Check it here. The information is also available in Spanish.

The gorgeous prefabricated WeberHaus Passive House

This is one of the most amazing things I have ever known about – if you live in Germany or Scandinavia, you could be living in a house that keeps you comfortable without heat or AC, no matter the temperature. You’d be saving more energy (and money) than you’d know what to do with!

Passive houses, as they are called, adjust to temperature. These homes use one-twentieth the heating energy of typical German homes. While architects outside of Germany and Scandinavia are working to achieve something similarly spectacular, barely any passive houses have been built in other countries. So far, these houses cost just 5-7% more to build than typical ones. This system is also being implemented in Frankfurt schools. I am swooning.

The key to the amazingness of passive houses is ultra-thick insulation and doors and windows with complex airtight mechanisms that keep cold and heat from entering and exiting the structure. The house heats up via sunlight, the use of appliances, and bodies! The central ventilation system keeps mold and stagnant air out.

Passive house in Ireland

“The European Commission is promoting passive-house building, and the European Parliament has proposed that new buildings meet passive-house standards by 2011,” the New York Times reports.

Sweet. And the U.S. Army might build passive house barracks. Who would’ve thought the army would be this progressive? Not me, that’s for sure.

Hey, Obama! Turn the White House into a passive house!

More:

Passive Houses FAQ

Check out passive houses resources and builders around the world

The Passive House Institute US

Promotion of European Passive Houses

Passive House (Passivhaus) Standard for Energy Efficient Design

How to design a passive house in a specific climate

Photos of beautiful passive houses!

More photos (Weberhaus)!!

And more still!

Before it was damaged in 2005, people who visited the Everglades National Park would go there to stay the night. From now on and until who knows when, there will be nothing taking the Flamingo Lodge’s place.

The idea situation would be, of course, replacing it with a bright green establishment. The problem is, there’s no such thing as a free lunch-and we’re out of lunch money. It would cost at least $20 million to rebuild the marina and so on, and nobody’s bringing out their checkbook.

So now everyone, not just those who lack an adventurous spirit or are sane enough to demand AC in the searing heat of south Florida, will have to camp out and get bitten to near-death by mosquitoes (I hear there are 36 types in the area!) if they want to sleep amidst the gators. If only they had a sustainable wastewater management system with low-flush toilets. That’s all I ask for. A simple request. Right?

In any case, the Everglades Park is hell. Hot as hell, swampy as hell, buggy as hell, hell hell hell. But have fun if you go!

Seems like Iceland’s got a rival: the Maldives wants to be the first carbon neutral country (and they plan to do it by 2020, not 2050!).

Scared witless by the impending doom of global warming’s climate change, the president of the Maldives, Mohamed Nasheed, has announced that within a decade, his nation will be carbon neutral.  (While certain nations under threat of intense flooding are taking bold steps to become environmentally responsible, what they do means nothing if the rest of us don’t join in. By making the changes necessary to become eco-friendly, they are symbolically–and literally!–pleading for the rest of the planet to follow in their steps. And I hope our politicians do!)

Unsurprisingly, Nasheed declared the Maldives’ intention just days after scientists presented the media with apocalyptic caveats. Essentially, the shit’s going to hit the fan, and soon, for the Maldives and other low-lying regions. We already knew that, so why did it take Nasheed so long to take this step? Had he been hiding under a rock? More likely, he was lying on the beach belly up soaking up the sun. In any case, when is everyone else going to get moving? I’m looking at you, Bangladesh! USA! Everyone!

Nasheed will be working with British climate change experts Chris Goodall and Mark Lynas to devise a plan that will revolutionize the Maldives. They plan to eradicate the use of fossil fuels by 2020. If only the Maldives were a larger country! So far it seems only small regions are taking action.

Nasheed promptly followed his announcement by asking other nations to join him in slowing climate change through the adoption of innovative green energy methods.

“The Maldives could just give up. Its people could declare themselves climate change refugees and ask for sanctuary elsewhere. But the new government is taking a stand and asked us to give them a plan for a near zero-carbon economy,” Goodall said.

Excellent point.

Read the full story here.

Haters

Remember my recent post about Earth Hour? I brought up the qustion of how legitimate it really is–sure, it raises awareness, but wouldn’t it be so much better if that hour was advocated toward raising awareness more actively? What about an eco-themed potluck or picnic? A letter writing campaign? A workshop at your local community center to teach people how to make lamps from recycled materials?

There is so much we could do instead of shutting off the lights, that would be so much better. And wouldn’t inconvenience our lives. It’s really cold in some places, and shutting off the heat would suck (not everyone lives in a “passive house“, right?)

So I would say I am opposed to Earth Hour and that my reason is valid and legitimate. It turns out I’m not the only one against it, although some opponents’ reasons are ridiculous. Planet Save reports that libertarian groups are getting together to tell people to keep the lights ON “in protest of the fraud that is global warming.” Definitely, as PS says, lame.

Looking b ack, did you turn your lights off for Earth Hour 2008? I hadn’t heard about it, so I didn’t.  Time magazine makes a compelling if simple argument: we need all the awareness and effort and Earth-friendly action we can get. So even if turning off the lights for one hour will not make a difference in terms of our carbon footprint, what matters is that we care enough to do it. It’s the symbolism of the action that counts, not the immediate environmental effect.

Sure, we need all we can get.

But I still think an eco-themed potluck or workshop beats turning off the lights for an hour.

Parrots in the Amazon (photo by Orthopod1)

I am not a big fan of the World Bank, but maybe this time they’ve done something laudable: the bank has approved a $1.3 billion loan for the Brazilian government to spend on improving environmental management programs.

Given the environmental charge of the Amazon in the world (one-third of the planet’s tropical rainforests), this is good news! Maybe this effort will have a domino effect leading to less deforestation of the Brazilian rainforest. I’m hoping and hard, you better believe it.

The program focuses on forests, water conservation and energy efficiency. All aspects of the program will be involved in the climate change cause, e.g. deforestation leads to biodiversity loss and climate change, therefore, the program’s interests will include diminishing deforestation in Brazil.

Nice. After all, a better environmental management program really isn’t if ravaging deforestation isn’t dealt with! Honestly, I can’t help but be suspicious, even cynical at times. But Brazil does have a lot hanging on the Amazon, since it contains 60% of it, so their motivation lies there. Probably.

“This requires a commitment from all levels of government, whether federal, state or municipal, paying special attention to social programs, many of which include programs for sustainable growth,” said Guido Mantegna, Brazil’s Minister of Finance.

No sh*t. I mean, would we be that surprised if this money ended up being used on pseudo-green projects that would ultimately harm the environment? Anything’s possible with money, and if it were environmentalists who had it, we wouldn’t be in this mess. Plus, they had $488.6 million to spend on the environment and chose to fork it over to the military for “protection.”

To round it out a bit, here’s a related article you might be interested in: whether Obama should give Brazil $16 billion yearly to conserve the Amazon rainforests.

See you soon and don’t forget to add Save Eco Destinations on Twitter!

Nap on your hammock at Lapa Rios

As you might already know, Costa Rica has amazingly lush rainforests, waterfalls, an incredibly rich range of flora and fauna, heavenly beaches, and on and on-essentially, it’s one of those places you can go, look around, spread your arms wide and exclaim, “I am lucky to be alive and love life!”

Enter Lapa Rios.  Not only do you get to enjoy the amazingness of CR’s rainforests, but when staying at LR, you do so within 1,000 acres of private nature reserve. Talk about spoiled. Actually, this area comprises the only lowland tropical rainforest left in Central America.

So, wait a minute-CR is trusting its last remaining stretch of rainforest to tourism? (I don’t care whether it’s eco or not, ultimately tourism is tourism, right?) The fact, or purported fact, that the American owners of LR have good intentions makes me want to hear them out and, to some extent, hope you will choose them over the Hilton if you decide to check out CR.

Something that makes LR outshine other rainforest lodges is that no trees have been cut down to make room for its construction. *Applause* Read about its sustainability practices.  It was awarded Costa Rica’s highest sustainable tourism certification (CST). LR has won awards from around the globe celebrating its social and environmental choices. If only more eco hotels did, eh?

Makes me wonder about all the supposedly eco hotels who lack official certifications to prove it. (Thoughts?)

LR’s laudable practices: no AC, no hair dryers allowed (they have a minimal-capacity 24/7 generator), lowered water and energy consumption, educated community and staff about various green issues, support to local businesses and community, water is heated by the sun, manure created from food scraps creates the methane gas used to heat the (staff) kitchen stove, the wood used to build LR was obtained from sustainable forests, etc. Read more here.

The rates at seem exorbitantly high, but they do include guided tours, meals, and other items. Worth a second thought, in any case.

I am not into the fact that LR is in a private reserve. However, the thumbs up appear to offset the thumbs down. You be the judge.