It's no secret that coal-fired power plants, along with other human activities, emit an enormous amount of mercury into the air.

This map shows where much of the mercury rains down on the US. It's too bad it doesn't cover Alaska and Hawaii, as well, not to mention the rest of the world.

On the right side of the page, you can select specific states and see various food-related warnings. Though it's largely limited to fish that are not recommended for consumption, mercury content has a host of negative health effects for all living things.

As an editorial note, the authors of this map were very careful to state that mercury in the air can be from natural causes like volcanic eruptions. This is true, but it seems highly unlikely that the skyrocketing levels are due to natural causes if the levels are 10-20 times higher than "pre-industrial" levels. For example, there haven't been 10-20 times more volcanic eruptions in the 1900's compared to the 1800's.

In other words, our industrial civilization is to blame.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-10-30-where-mercury-falls_N.htm

Project Better Place, located in California, recently showed off a working prototype of a pure electric Renault/Nissan car in Tel Aviv.

This is pretty exciting news, as Project Better Place seeks to supplant oil-based cars in the next few years in Israel and Denmark. It's an exciting step forward, especially in Denmark, where the cars will be largely charged by wind generated electric power.

We applaud the more rational choice of making the car a four-door, five seater sedan (though a five-door hatch or wagon would be even more useful to more people). It's a bit unfortunate that the "other" electric car, the Tesla, is based on one of the smallest, most impractical forms possible; didn't anyone tell them that you can have high performance with four seats? Just look at cars like the Mazda RX-8 and BMW 135i. Replace those gas-guzzling engines with an electric drivetrain and you're ready to haul four asses at high speed. Ah, well. We still love the Tesla.

There's been some talk lately of toxic compounds in plastics that are often used for drinking and baby bottles. We'll keep this page updated with new information as it becomes available.

Several people have been asking us what we recommend as reusable drinking bottles, and there are good choices depending on what you need. Glass bottles have always been our favorite for pure, unflavored water. Re-using a purchased bottle of mineral water means that it also costs less than $4. Being made for retail shipping and handling, they are surprisingly durable, but of course they will shatter if you drop them on concrete or hard tile.

That being said, we can't remember the last time we've dropped a plastic bottle from height, either. The caps of glass bottles are often made of plastic or aluminum, which isn't ideal, but at least the water usually doesn't sit around in contact with the cap. There are also stainless canteens made by several companies; they seem decent choices, as well, but we definitely prefer the taste of glass-bottled water. For infants, a stainless bottle, or at least a glass bottle with some cushioning around it, may be a better bet.

Here is the list of household plastics:

Commonly known as: PC, Lexan, Polycarbonate, Nalgene (misnomer) Properties: Rigid, can be transparent, melts at higher temperatures, used for sunglasses, CDs, re-usable drinking bottles, water cooler bottles Known risks: BPA: carciogen, endocrine disruptor

Commonly known as: Polyethylene, HDPE, PETE Properties: Can be flexible or rigid, depending on thickness and type Known risks: Antimony: PETE leaches this highly toxic compound into water, especially in hot weather.

Commonly known as: Polypropylene, PP Properties: Opaque plastic, sometimes used for cutting boards and water filter vessels. Known risks: We're having difficulty finding specific information. Contact us if you have research links in peer-reviewed publications.

Commonly known as: Copolyester, Tritan Properties: Rigid, can be transparent, used for re-usable drinking bottles Known risks: This is the new kid on the block, and the reusable water bottle makers, finally acknowledging the toxic effects of polycarbonate, are jumping all over it. It's specifically advertised as "bisphenol-A free", but you can bet it contains a boatload of other chemicals with side effects that are yet unknown. Remember, it took decades to uncover the toxic effects of polycarbonate/Lexan.

We find it a bit amusing, and probably more the work of Eastman's marketing department, that its main claim to fame is being free of a specific chemical, bisphenol-A. It's a bit like saying "this gasoline is lead-free!" Even being lead-free, gasoline is still one of the nastiest concoctions around, and just saying it's lead free doesn't mean we're ready to go and drink it or pour it into the earth.

An interesting article from BusinessWeek, it describes how several large US corporations are trying to have their cake and eat it, too.

Apparently, it's cheaper in many cases to spend PR and advertising money on appearing green to the unsuspecting public than it is to actually take action.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/0809/b4073000596425.htm?campaignid=rss_daily

As consumers have learned, the Internet has given the little guy a newfound voice when it comes to having dialogs with producers.

Mitsubishi has an i-MiEV electric car that has a 100 mile range and costs about the same as a foreign-oil-burning Prius or Civic Hybrid. The only problem is that they aren't sure about selling it in America. Perhaps its our multitude of F-150's and Hummers that makes them think we're not a suitable market?

Convince them otherwise by signing this petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/iMiEV/petition.html

Tesla Roadsters are nice, but at $100,000 for two seats, they are more of a proof of concept than a real answer to fossil fuel consuption and climate change. This i-MiEV four-door is perhaps a better answer.

"High-performance vehicles such as this may actually be legislated out of existence," Tadge Juechter, GM engineer, bemoans.

"Highly habitable planets such as this may actually be destroyed out of human stupidity," RawEco writers note.

If the regular 400 HP Corvette is truly not fast enough for you, here's a crazy idea: keep making your gas guzzling ZR-1 Corvettes and stop selling Hummer H2 SUVs, Suburbans and Tahoes. Oh, right, you're only saying this to put a dramatic spin on CAFE regulations that GM opposes (big surprise, from the people who also brought you the death of LA's Red Car mass transit system and the EV1. We're waiting to see if/how they deliver the Volt.) Keep in mind this is total BS. We're not opposed to having 4-wheeled fun, but idiotic statements like Tadge's really seem myopic and represent GM poorly.

Mourn the loss of $100,000 gas guzzlers here: http://www.kansascity.com/382/story/411332.html

Send GM and Tadge your love here:

General Motors Corporation
P.O. Box 33170
Detroit, MI 48232-5170

Right on cue, as they shill their so-called "hybrid" Porsche from the previous centuries, Porsche goons have descended on Capitol Hill to petition a change in CAFE standard calculation rules to allow it to avoid being regulated by the standard.

Shame on you. Dr. Porsche is rolling over in his grave.

Here's some nice coal industry propaganda that we came across:

"Did you know that half of the electricity that heats our homes, lights our schools, and powers our businesses comes from coal?"
Yeah, I'd say that's the problem. :)

Here is some fun facts from their FAQ with our comments [in brackets]:

I saw an ad that said coal plants are now 70% cleaner than they were in the 1970s. Is that really true?

It is true! [in cheesy voice, "Why, I'm glad you asked!!"]

The calculations are based on five pollutants: carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter.
Data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency calculates environmental performance per unit of energy produced. That is, the relationship of emissions per billion kilowatt-hours.
From 1970 to 2000, the value for that ratio fell from 30,510 short tons per billion kilowatt-hours to just 8,040 short tons per billion kilowatt-hours — a reduction of 73.66%.


[This one is our favorite: it's kind of like asking, "Why is it better to get beaten by clubs rather than being tortured and then being beaten by clubs?" Either way, you're dead. Kind of like coal and oil.]

Why is coal a better answer to our energy needs than oil?

Put simply, America has more coal than any other fossil fuel resource. In fact, 38 states have large coal deposits. Our abundant supply means that we do not have to rely on foreign imports from politically volatile parts of the world.
In addition, coal accounts for half of our domestic electricity usage, while oil contributes to just 3% of our needs.

There's a saying that the stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones. It can be interpreted many ways (and is sometimes credited to a former OPEC executive), but the way we see it here is: yes, America has a lot of coal. We also have a lot of mercury deposits. Having a lot doesn't mean we should go dig it up and burn it. These fake consumer groups (like those at those fake Consumer Choice groups paid for by junk food companies) push these clean images and fake faqs, but in reality, they'll be remembered as con artists and frauds.

It's funny that the only industry they can claim they are better than is the oil industry. It's sort of like saying you came in second to last. You still suck.

There's simply no way to burn hydrocarbons and make electricity cleaner than methods that rely on existing energy sources like the sun. So just give it up, people. You're not fooling anyone, and you're holding up the train.

Honda's CEO recently went on record to bash GM's new Volt and essentially any car that allows you to charge its drive batteries through a wall socket.

It's a little sad to see this style of old thinking from a car company that supposedly embraces green technology. Here at RawEco, we believe that a "green car company" is an oxymoron; there's no car company today, Tesla included, that is truly ecologically sound, and it's probably because it's difficult to put together several thousand pounds of metal and make a profit without cutting many ecological corners. "Green" cars aren't ecological; they are simply somewhat less damaging that other cars.

That being said, Honda's approach to the hybrid is significantly more conservative than Toyota's; the Honda hybrid system can be accurately described as a "mild hybrid", having a starter motor on steroids wired to a large NiMH battery pack, whereas Toyota's is a parallel (or full hybrid), capable of running entirely on electricity. Up till now, the main stumbling block is that the battery pack in hybrids have been too wimpy to push the car more than a mile or two, and the drive motors aren't geared to allow speeds higher than 25 mph.

In short, while Honda calls itself a green car company, in reality it is quite conservative in its technological approach to reducing its cars' ecological damage. Honda's fuel cell work has been garnering attention, but with the promising new generation of batteries, Honda probably fears millions of dollars of fuel cell research going down the tubes.

The easiest way to combat that is through bad press of its competitors.

Fearing the new and hanging onto the old is a sure fire way to allow upstarts like Tesla to dethrone old establishments, so, in a sense, we welcome Honda's old-school thinking.

The first impression we got when watching CNN's Planet in Peril is that they actually spent some time and money to fly their staff around to cover some hot topics in ecological news.

The second impression is that they let America off a bit too easily. Sure, Madagascar, Thailand and China are destroying the earth, but America has saved the wolves in Yellowstone! Okay, so it's not that one sided, but it certainly didn't discuss our shortcomings, such as how Americans consume more energy per capita than any other country on the planet.

While it's laudable that they are trying to cover this type of news instead of yet another embedded reporter in the Middle East, there should be less finger pointing and more calls to action here at home.

The segment on Houston's atrocious Ship Channel was a refreshing exception, though the blame isn't exactly squarely in the face of ExxonMobil or other operations in the area.

Perhaps that's because Planet in Peril was sponsored directly by ConocoPhillips and BMW?

It's difficult to say if you can produce an unbiased documentary when your bills are paid by one of the largest oil companies in the world, and a car manufacturer that encourages its drivers to "own the road, but leave a little for the others".