Global warming is a hot topic these days, and Hunter College environmental studies student Cordelia Lindgren intends to keep the subject alive. As one of the 1,000 people chosen to take part in the “Climate Project,” former Vice President Al Gore’s initiative to counteract global warming, she will be helping the public to become informed and conscientious citizens of this planet.

Cordelia Lindgren, of Hunter College, a CUNY school, New York City

Lindgren and her fellow volunteers, who come from around the country, are a diverse group ranging from scientists to country singers. At training sessions conducted by Gore and his team, they were equipped with information and slides from Gore’s documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” and sent out to conduct a minimum of 10 presentations at locations of their choosing.

So far, Lindgren plans on bringing her message to architectural and design offices, a public school, and maybe even Hunter. She is encouraged by this project, and hopes it will help people view energy use in a new light.

“In the US there is such a sense of individual right,” Lindgren said. “We have to bring the ‘me’ back to the ‘we.’ I hope this will encourage individuals to take more consideration in day to day decisions, and use their voices to make the government change its energy strategies.”

The personal sense of responsibility for the environment that Lindgren advocates is one that she has carried from a very early age.

“As a child, every summer, I traveled to France. I used to sit and stare out the plane window and see the curvature of the earth. I saw that home is not the city or the country you live in, it’s actually this planet.”

* * *

On Sunday night at the Oscars Al Gore and his film An Inconvenient Truth took home the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature. Watch Al Gore in his appearance on The David Letterman Show as he talks about what everybody can do in their daily lives to fight the problem of global warming.

Fashion is trying on a new shade of green in high-end clothing and accessories this spring.

Designers are pushing nature-inspired styles that are “environmentally friendly” and “socially responsible.” Think clothes made from pesticide-free cotton and produced under humane working conditions.

Among the fashionable looks are a $430 silk dress with wicker detail from Cynthia Rowley, a Jimmy Choo clutch with wooden beads appliqued on suede for $1,495, and a $10,000 shell- and-diamond cuff bracelet from jeweler John Hardy.

Bergdorf Goodman, New York City

Retailers like Saks Fifth Avenue and Bergdorf Goodman have added such clothing, footwear, accessories and jewelry. Barneys New York said today it is adding such goods to its 17 stores and is planning an environmentally themed Christmas promotion with Rudolph the Recycled Reindeer as a mascot. The lower-priced H&M chain will introduce its first full organic cotton clothing line in March.

Linda Loudermilk, known for her ecological designs, staged a fall fashion show in New York on Feb. 1 that included evening gowns made of hemp satin and reclaimed faux fur.

The technology used to incorporate new textiles like bamboo in fashion has improved. In turn, designers have made these clothes and accessories more chic, fueling demand from fashionistas.

“There is no question that there is an enormous opportunity,” Bloomingdale’s Chairman Michael Gould said. “People are developing an affinity for companies that can talk in a meaningful way about being friendly to the environment. But you can’t give up quality, fashion and newness.”

The U.S. market for goods and services designed to improve the environment and increase social justice is estimated at $229 billion, according to Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability. The Broomfield, Colorado-based group is a network of companies with environmentally sustainable business practices.

Studies have shown that three-quarters of the U.S. population says it is willing to pay a premium, usually of about 10 percent, for socially responsible products, said Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Finland, Minnesota-based nonprofit Organic Consumers Association.

Yet unlike organic food, which follows various certification standards set by federal regulators, there’s no such watchdog for eco-fashion, so it can be difficult to find “the real deal,” Cummins said.

It’s uncertain whether consumer interest will translate into big sales, since the trend has lost favor in the past. Saks has cut back its offerings of the Edun line of organic clothing, promoted by U2 singer Bono, whose real name is Paul Hewson. Saks spokeswoman Lesley Langsam Kennedy declined to comment. Esprit’s Ecollection of clothing made from organic and recycled materials in the 1990s didn’t survive that decade.

“Before, the clothes were too ethnic, the fabric not quite right,” said Lynda Grose, one of the creators of Ecollection who now teaches a sustainable design course at California College of the Arts in San Francisco. “This wave around is more stylish and is more in sync with the marketplace. The whole industry is going toward more advanced product.”

Retailers and designers are forging ahead. American Apparel produces trendy clothing, some of which is made with organic cotton, at reasonable prices. American Apparel said it pays its workers, all of whom are Los Angeles-based, an average of $12.50 an hour.

In her show, Loudermilk, whose clients include actress- activist Daryl Hannah, displayed minidresses, jackets and other pieces manufactured from organic as well as recycled materials, including Japanese rice paper wool, reclaimed lace, even human hair.

“I want to create beauty that has respect for the planet,” she said backstage after the event, which was sponsored by Lexus, which makes three hybrid car models.

Designer Stella McCartney, who has been at the forefront of eco-fashion with leather-free handbags and shoes, has just introduced an organic skin-care line at Sephora called Care.

Holt Renfrew department stores in Canada sell a Danish line of women’s clothing called Noir, which gives a percentage of its revenue to fund medicine and business loans for African cotton workers.

“This is not a fad but an important long-term global trend,” said Barbara Atkin, a fashion director at Holt Renfrew.

[via Bloomberg]

Australia looks ready to become the first country to phase out incandescent light bulbs in favor of more energy-efficient compact fluorescent bulbs, as part of its drive to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

The Australian environment minister, Malcolm Turnbull, said Tuesday that he would work with the states to get rid of incandescent bulbs by 2009 or 2010.

“The most effective and immediate way we can reduce greenhouse-gas emissions is by using energy more efficiently,” Mr. Turnbull said. “Electric lighting is a vital part of our lives; globally, it generates emissions equal to 70 percent of those from all the world’s passenger vehicles.”

He pointed to International Energy Agency data showing that a worldwide switch to compact fluorescent lights could result in energy savings equivalent to five years of Australia’s present electricity use by 2030.

Australia already has minimum energy performance standards that apply to appliances, and a similar system will be put into effect for light bulbs. The standards would ultimately make it impossible to sell incandescent bulbs. Mr. Turnbull said the government would consider some exceptions, like medical lighting and low-power oven lights.

Australia has used similar means to phase out high-volume toilet tanks and high-pressure shower heads.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Turnbull, Sarah Stock, said the first step would be to work with manufacturers, importers, wholesalers and retailers to encourage them to phase out incandescent bulbs and ensure that enough fluorescent bulbs were available.

“Once the main players have removed those inefficient products,” she said, “that investment in better quality and more efficient products will be protected by regulation.”

Australia would be the first country to carry out such a plan, although legislators in California proposed a similar measure last month.

Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer, recently announced a drive to sell 100 million compact fluorescent bulbs a year by 2008, compared with 40 million in 2005. Philips has announced plans to stop making incandescent bulbs by 2016.

The Australian initiative appears to face little political opposition. Environmental groups are pleased, particularly as the conservative government of Prime Minister John Howard was, until recently, unwilling to accept climate change as a reality.

Australia will hold a general election this year, and opinion polls show that the environment is high on the list of voter concerns.

The government’s move on light bulbs is the latest push in an effort to seize the ecological initiative from the opposition Labor Party. Mr. Howard says that by 2015, when the plan is to be fully in place, Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced by as much as four million tons a year, or 0.7 percent of its greenhouse gas output in 2004.

Incandescent bulbs illuminate by passing electricity through a wire filament, but some 90 percent of the energy is converted to heat rather than light. Fluorescent bulbs work by passing an electrical current through a gas, typically argon, which emits ultraviolet light. This, in turn, causes a thin coating of phosphorous on the inside of the tube to glow.

Fluorescent bulbs are not entirely benign. They contain some mercury — perhaps a fifth of the amount used in a watch battery — and in Europe the cost of each lamp includes a premium to allow for its safe disposal.

The bulbs are also about four times as expensive as equivalent incandescent bulbs, but they use 20 percent or less of the energy to produce the same amount of light and last 5 to 10 times as long.

Although the cost efficiency of compact fluorescent lights has made them popular with corporate customers, they have not been such a big hit with Australian consumers, some of whom say that the light is unflattering and that the bulbs do not fit many home lampshades.

Jin Chew, who manages a hardware store in Sydney, said that incandescent bulbs outsold fluorescent ones in his shop by 5 to 1.

But he said that the makers of fluorescent bulbs had improved the color of the light, making it less blue and less harsh.

[From the New York Times]

US policy on global warming seems headed for a tipping point, with politicians, business leaders and economists joining environmentalists to call for new laws to limit greenhouse gases that spur climate change.

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House

So far, the Bush administration has rejected these calls, but has been at pains to stress its commitment to dealing with global warming.

President George W. Bush’s fleeting mention of the problem in his State of the Union address last month was seen as significant, even as he stressed alternative fuels and new technologies — not legal limits on emissions — as solutions.

On Capitol Hill, there have been almost daily hearings on the consequences of and responses to human-induced climate warming, including an extraordinary Senate meeting where dozens of lawmakers themselves testified on the subject.

Sens. John McCain and Joe Lieberman, an Arizona Republican and a Connecticut independent, have introduced legislation that would require caps on carbon emissions. Lieberman predicted that a US measure requiring cuts in greenhouse gas emissions would be law by late 2008 or early 2009.

They were among other legislators, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat with long-standing environmental credentials, who addressed a World Bank-sponsored global forum on climate change last week.

Their talk of mandatory US emissions limits got a warm response from participants from the Group of Eight industrialized nations, as well as developing countries China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa.

The forum’s final statement, nonbinding but ringing, stated: “Climate change is a global issue and there is an obligation on us all to take action, in line with our capabilities and historic responsibilities.”

The statement said that establishing a market value for greenhouse gas emissions was “the most efficient and powerful way to stimulate investment” in new technologies.

That is in line with an extraordinary call by an unexpected coalition of corporate leaders and environmental groups for federal legislation to cap carbon. The group, known as the US Climate Action Partnership, made it plain at a Jan. 22 Washington news conference that this would offer opportunities for business, and that a national law was preferable to a patchwork of state and local regulations.

The Bush administration has rejected mandatory caps on emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that contribute to a documented rise in world temperatures — which in turn are linked to more severe storms, worse droughts, rising seas and other ills.

The White House has recently been on the defensive, especially since the Feb. 2 release of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which called global warming “unequivocal” and said with 90 percent probability that human activities help cause it.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said on Feb. 7 that the United States had done a better job of cutting carbon emissions than had the European Union; he was referring to figures from 2000 to 2004, a narrow time span that some analysts have said gives a misleading picture of US progress.

James Connaughton, head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, defended Snow in a telephone interview.

“Tony was responding to a lot of assertions … that the United States is doing nothing to address its emissions,” Connaughton said. “When all is said and done, we’re all making about the same rate of progress. So this is the most important point: There’s a popular mythology that somehow Europe is doing more than the United States is. That’s not true.”

He said the 2000-2004 period covered President Bush’s time in office, beginning with his inauguration in January 2001, using 2000 as a baseline year. Energy Department figures show that during this period the United States outstripped the European Union in curbing carbon emissions. The 2004 figures are the most recent available.

[via Planet Ark and Reuters]

Two years ago, Sami Grover, an environmentally minded Englishman, vowed to take his last trip by airplane. Then a summer romance in North Carolina turned into a long-distance love affair — and then into months of busy trans-Atlantic travel.

Jenny Butler and Sami Grover bought carbon emission credits. Courtesy International Herald Tribune.

To compensate for the tons of greenhouse gases the couple’s plane trips helped spew into the atmosphere, Mr. Grover quietly began paying Climate Care, a British company, to help make the world a little greener for him and his girlfriend.

“I didn’t want her to think I was some kind of eco-fascist,” said Mr. Grover, 28. “I did it for her flights, too, but I did it in secret.”

Mr. Grover could no longer be called an environmental zealot. Indeed, he is now in the mainstream of a budding market where individuals can buy and sell rights to offset “carbon footprints” from their personal activities, such as driving a car, using disposable diapers, even jet-setting across the Atlantic.

These days, pop stars, chief executives and politicians vaunt how they offset carbon emissions by planting trees or investing in renewable energy projects — many in poorer countries in Africa or in India.

Pledges by celebrities, like Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain and members of the band Coldplay, have helped generate huge publicity for these carbon-offset trading companies. In turn, the companies have actively sought out a green glitterati and concerned consumers in Europe and the United States.

The operations reflect a new consciousness about climate change, but scientists and environmental watchdogs say that the carbon trading actually may be producing little of real value to the environment.

“These companies may be operating with the best will in the world, but they are doing so in settings where it’s not really clear you can monitor and enforce their projects over time,” said Steve Rayner, a senior professor at Oxford and a member of a group working on reducing greenhouse gases for the International Panel on Climate Change. “What these companies are allowing people to do is carry on with their current behavior with a clear conscience.”

Some carbon-offset firms have begun to acknowledge that certain investments like tree-planting may be ineffective, and they are shifting their focus to what they say is reliable activity, like wind turbines, cleaner burning stoves, or buying up credits that otherwise would allow companies to pollute.

[Read the full article here from the New York Times]