bemoreeco

Taken from the Onion New Network

I though that this ‘Dustbot’ robot was an April Fool gag, but then I realised that we are in May and therefore it must be real. Check out this video by BBC report Duncan Kennedy.

However, to summaries, the Dustbot, form Tuscany, Italy, is believed to be the world’s first robot that comes to take away rubbish from your house when you want it. The Dustbot can be summoned to your address through a mobile phone any time of the day. The robot works with a combination of GPS navigation and with a gyroscope to keep it upright. There are also a number of sensors on the machine so it does not bump into anything.

Dustbot’s inventors say they hope it will put an end to fixed times for rubbish collection and they say it is designed to work in tightly packed urban areas where large refuse trucks find it difficult to operate. A number of local authorities from around the world have already expressed an interest in it.

While Disney is taking the well-worn path to corporate environmentalism, its business model still depends on enticing visitors to fly halfway round the world to shake hands with Mickey Mouse and ride a rollercoaster or two.

All those people who scorn at green ideas, here’s the Mother of Them ALL, and its by biggie Philips, so lets see what you’re gonna do about it! Biosphere Home Farming is a structure that houses fishes, root veggies, grasses, plants and algae all under one roof. It takes all your kitchen-trash as fodder for the farm and manages to generate food, water and cooking gas for the family.

In short you consume your trash in a more refined way! Ok, enough of green bashing hit the jump to see what exactly Philips has to say about this concept.

“Biosphere home farming concept generates food and cooking gas, while filtering water. The concept supplements a families nutritional needs by generating several hundred calories a day in the form of fish, root vegetables, grasses, plants and algae. Unlike conventional hydroponic nurseries this system incorporates a methane digester than produces heat and gas to power lights, similarly algae produces hydrogen and the root plants produces oxygen, which is fed back to fish. CO2 is pumped into the plants. It is a closed loop interdependent system. The system uses waste water and non-consumable household matter and delivers food in return.”

Source – Yanko Design

While any structure built in a way that lessens its footprint is welcomed, some of the buildings that people try to turn green simply make no sense. LEED certification (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), in all its greatness, does not take the building’s intended purpose into account; this leaves us with some hilarious, unabashedly self-contradicting buildings. Here are the ten of the most laughable green buildings.

1. BP’s Helios House Gas Station - Los Angeles, Cal.

Yes, there is an LEED-certified gas station. It’s actually a nice building, complete with rainwater collection, solar panels, recycled building materials, and LED lighting. However, don’t think you’ll be able to refuel with biodiesel or charge up your electric car—they’re only in the petroleum-dealing business. How green of them, right?

2. Justin Timberlake’s Golf Course/Lodge - Woodstock, Tenn.

So Justin Timberlake decided that he wants to buy a golf course and fix it up with an LEED-certified lodge. While it’s an improvement compared to most other golf courses, the fact remains that maintaining a golf course takes chemicals and lots of water. In the United States alone, golf courses total more than 1.7 million acres and consume around 4 billion gallons of water every day. How does a green lodge counteract the water used to maintain the course? Justin, if you really want to be green, you should have turned it into a wildlife sanctuary instead.

3. Nestle Pure Life Water Bottling Plant - Boiling Springs, Tenn.

While this isn’t the only LEED-certified water bottling plant, it’s listed for having the most greenwashed name. Ozarka, Arrowhead, Ice Mountain, and Deer Park water bottling plants also have LEED certifications of some sort, but they couldn’t compete with Pure Life in the name department. If anyone needs a reminder of why bottling water is a bad idea, here are five reasons to ditch the bottle. Oh, and Nestle as a whole won’t be getting an award for their treatment of the planet and its people any time soon.

4. Logan Airport Terminal A - Boston, Mass.

Activists in England have put their freedom on the line protesting against a third runway at the enormous Heathrow Airport; do you think they’d be more satisfied with the runway if the airport terminal was LEED certified, with solar panels and the whole bit? You’d be right to assume they wouldn’t, because whether they take off from a green building or not, airplanes are still one of the top causes of global warming.

5. Toyota Car Dealership - Rockwall, Tex.

While Toyota is almost synonymous with green when it comes to cars, in reality they’re not much better than any other car company. They have a full line of vehicles, including four-wheel-drive SUV’s, some of which are 8-cylinder. In fact, their entire fleet’s average gas mileage is worse than Chevrolet’s. Perhaps they should clean up their cars before trying to green their dealerships?

6. Antilia Tower - Mumbai, India

While this probably will not be LEED certified, it has been often mentioned as being one of the greenest building concepts on the planet. While it does look beautiful and will act as a giant carbon sink in the middle of the city, there’s a major problem: it will be the home of one family. No matter how green this building is, that is a complete waste of space in a city known for its overcrowding.

7. Civic Center Parking Garage - Santa Monica, Cal.

The only green parking garage I want to see would be located at a train or bus station for people to drop off their cars to finish their commute on mass transit. To quote every politician involved in the 2008 campaign, “You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.”

8. Vacation Home Development - Las Vegas, Nev.

You only need one house, people! Granted that seven of these eight homes are 1/12 shares, these homes are being built in a desert (Las Vegas) and if anyone needs a water-capture system, it’s people who live there year-around. Simply due to their excess, vacation homes may be the least environmentally-friendly structures on earth.

9. Spaceport America -  New Mexico

Another case of the rich attempting to make the rest of us think they’re doing the world a favor. Recreational space travel, at least with the current technology, is a huge and unnecessary carbon polluter. But hey, the spaceport will be LEED certified, so everything’s going to be fine, right?

10. Every Fancy New Building - Dubai, United Arab Emirates

I know, I know — I cheated on this one. I couldn’t pick just one since they’re all ridiculous for the same reason. The government is intent on making Dubai one of the biggest, most gaudy places on earth. Perhaps to compensate for unending excess, they’ve mandated that all new buildings must have specific eco-minded properties, but when you take all of it in at once, you know it’s nothing but a giant waste of resources.

Source;  Green Building Elements

Image Credits: (All Flickr under CC License) Top from J. Phil on Flickr. 1. danperry.com on Flickr 2.BP 3. Macon County, TN 4. MileageNYC on Flickr 5. Dushaun on Flickr 6. Concept illustration 7. City of Santa Monica 8. Emre Ersahin 9. Spaceport America 10. utpal. on Flickr

Are you ready for Part 4 in our series of dumb eco questions your were afraid to ask (by New Scientist), well here are four more;

What is the single most effective thing I can do for the environment?

Over a 75-year lifespan, the average European will be responsible for about 900 tonnes of CO₂ emissions. For Americans and Australians, the figure is more like 1500 tonnes. Add to that all of humanity’s other environmentally damaging activities and, draconian as it may sound, the answer must surely be to avoid reproducing.

How environmentally damaging is barbecuing?

Tristram West from Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee has calculated that on 4 July – when over half of all American households fire up their barbies – the grills release 225,000 tonnes of CO₂. The emissions from these estimated 60 million barbecues would still be less than 1.5 per cent of the nation’s daily output. Not too high a price to pay for a whole lot of fun, you might think. However, West also points out that this is equivalent to burning 2300 acres of forest. He says that if you do choose to barbecue, the most eco-friendly method is to use charcoal as opposed to the propane burners favoured by most Americans. Food grilled over charcoal made from locally grown coppiced wood may actually have a smaller carbon footprint than if it were cooked conventionally, since sustainably grown wood is carbon neutral and transport is minimised.

When and how is the most energy-efficient way to defrost my fridge-freezer, and is a self-defrosting fridge more eco-friendly?

The frost in your freezer forms when warm air condenses and freezes on the cooling coils. Self-defrosting fridges generally use more energy than manual models because their coils are automatically heated every few hours to melt any frost that forms on them. But a manual-defrost fridge is only better if you defrost it before the frost starts to take over, because the coils have to work harder to cool the air if they are covered in ice. How often you need to defrost depends on how often you open the door and the humidity of the air. As a general rule though, you should defrost when the ice gets to 5 millimetres thick. The best way to do this is to turn off the freezer, put pans of hot water inside to speed up melting, and then remove the big bits of ice with a plastic scraper.

What does the circling-arrows logo on European packaging mean?

Hands up everyone who thinks the small, round symbol of two arrows circling each other means that packaging can be recycled. Wrong! In fact, this so-called “green dot”, or “grüner punkt” – which is often printed in black – originated in Germany and indicates that the manufacturer has paid into a scheme to meet the general costs of recycling under the terms of European Union legislation. So particular packaging bearing the logo may or may not be recyclable. In countries such as the UK that have not adopted the system, the logo is especially perplexing, as its use appears quite arbitrary. “We typically deal with multinational suppliers that often sell the same product in multiple countries and therefore include things on packaging that may be irrelevant in one of those markets,” explains Katherine Symonds of the supermarket chain Tesco. Recognising that this can lead to confusion, she says Tesco has now established a working group with other retailers to make labelling “clearer and more intuitive”.

What’s greener, paper/cardboard or plastic packaging?

Many people choose paper over plastic, figuring that being renewable, degradable and recyclable, it is probably the greener option. In reality it’s not quite that simple. Paper is heavier and bulkier to ship than plastic, takes more energy to produce and uses damaging chemicals in its manufacture. Overall, the best packaging choice is the one that has the least total impact over its life – from raw materials and shipping emissions to toxicity and waste – and that depends on where it comes from and what you plan to do with it. Consumers often don’t have the required information to work out this trade-off but there are some things to keep in mind. Check whether the paper or plastic has already been recycled, and whether you can reuse or recycle it. Also, if you tend to avoid packaging altogether, consider this: if it reduces the chances of a product perishing or breaking before it can be used then it is almost always better to have packaging than not. Just choose products with the smallest amount possible.

Are you ready for Part 3 in our series of dumb eco questions your were afraid to ask (by New Scientist), well here are four more;

Is it worth recycling when stuff gets shipped to China and back in the process? Given the carbon footprint of all that, maybe we should just let the stuff rot

With recycling rates going through the roof, some countries don’t have the capacity to process all their waste. In the past 10 years, for example, waste paper exports from the UK have risen from 470,000 tonnes to 4.7 million tonnes per year and exports of used plastic bottles have gone from under 40,000 to 500,000 tonnes. China has a big demand for both materials, and its trade imbalance with Europe and the US means container ships would be heading home empty if they didn’t carry waste. According to a recent study by WRAP, shipping waste to China in this way uses 10 per cent of the carbon saved by recycling.

Can I save the planet by staying slim?

It’s unlikely. In May, Phil Edwards and Ian Roberts from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine did link obesity and global warming (The Lancet, vol 371, p 1661). They argued that obese people consume around 18 per cent more calories than the average and their greater mass means their vehicles require more fuel, so policies to encourage walking and cycling would not only improve people’s health but also be good for the planet. Perhaps such policies would provide short-term benefits, but in the long run they would be more than offset by the fact that people who stay in shape are likely to live longer, emitting tonnes of CO₂ for every extra year of their lives. So being slim may be good for you, but is unlikely to benefit the planet.

What’s worse, the CO₂ put out by a gas-fuelled car or the environmental effects of hybrid-car batteries?

According to the UK-based Environmental Transport Association (ETA), the most efficient conventionally powered cars are slightly less detrimental to the environment than hybrid models. However, it points out that the current crop of hybrids won’t evolve without customers willing to invest in what is still frontier technology.

What is recycled organic waste used for?

There are three main uses. Treated aerobically, organic waste is composted to produce soil conditioner or landscaping mulch, returning carbon to the soil. Under anaerobic conditions, it can be digested by bacteria to produce methane, used to generate electricity. Through a combination of biological and mechanical processes, it is also turned into fuel that can substitute for coal or coke in power stations or cement kilns.

We have added this article found at C.Net to our Dumb Green Ideas catagories, and that hat you see to the right is smokin’. No, it literally is. Chilean fashion designer Alexandra Guerrero made it from recycled cigarette butts.

Through her new company, Mantis, Guerrero combines purified smokes with natural wool to form a raw, textured material that can be woven into garments with a surprisingly appealing modern macrame flair.

Of course, as cute as the finished products may be, it’s hard to imagine nonsmokers wearing Guerrero’s creations without experiencing a significant ick factor. Still, you have to applaud the designer’s creative contribution to the everyday-objects-from-recycled goods oeuvre.

“This project began as an idea for my thesis,” she told the blog Cool Hunting. “We always wanted to do sustainable design but we didn’t want to do something that was already seen, so we started thinking of a waste that was unnoticed and then we thought of cigarette butts.”

The clothes can be purchased via e-mail from the Mantis Web site and range in price from $50 for a hat to $125 for a sweater. Hey, you’d probably pay more for a sweater at Bloomingdales or BCBG. And you wouldn’t be helping to clean up the streets.

Are you ready for Part 2 in our series of dumb eco questions your were afraid to ask (by New Scientist), well here are three more;

What’s the most fuel-efficient way to drive? 

Smoothly. Avoid dramatic braking and acceleration and use cruise control if you’ve got it. Move through the gears as quickly as possible, changing up before you hit 2500 revs per minute (2000 rpm for a diesel). Where possible, drive at a steady 55 miles per hour (90 kilometres per hour). It is up to 20 per cent more fuel-efficient than driving at 75 mph. Check your tyre pressure once a month because underinflated tyres can raise fuel consumption by 6 per cent. Don’t carry excess baggage. Each extra 25 kilograms decreases fuel efficiency by 1 per cent. And avoid short trips – a cold engine uses twice as much fuel as a warm one.

Is it worth recycling when stuff gets shipped to China and back in the process? Given the carbon footprint of all that, maybe we should just let the stuff rot

With recycling rates going through the roof, some countries don’t have the capacity to process all their waste. In the past 10 years, for example, waste paper exports from the UK have risen from 470,000 tonnes to 4.7 million tonnes per year and exports of used plastic bottles have gone from under 40,000 to 500,000 tonnes. China has a big demand for both materials, and its trade imbalance with Europe and the US means container ships would be heading home empty if they didn’t carry waste. According to a recent study by WRAP, shipping waste to China in this way uses 10 per cent of the carbon saved by recycling.

Can I save the planet by staying slim?

It’s unlikely. In May, Phil Edwards and Ian Roberts from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine did link obesity and global warming (The Lancet, vol 371, p 1661). They argued that obese people consume around 18 per cent more calories than the average and their greater mass means their vehicles require more fuel, so policies to encourage walking and cycling would not only improve people’s health but also be good for the planet. Perhaps such policies would provide short-term benefits, but in the long run they would be more than offset by the fact that people who stay in shape are likely to live longer, emitting tonnes of CO2 for every extra year of their lives. So being slim may be good for you, but is unlikely to benefit the planet.

There are time when you are afraid to ask an eco or green question as you might think that you are being dumb. This series of dumb eco question compiled and provide by New Scientist  gives us a clue about what people are thinking about. Don’t worry if you have a dumb question please post a comment and we will find a reply. 

As there are so many questions we have made this in to a four part series. So get ready here are the first four dumb eco questions.

If I switch the light on and off every time I enter and leave a room, does this use more energy than leaving it on all evening?

Switching the light on and off does saves energy, but there is a catch. Every time you flip the switch, the bulb takes a jolt of electricity, which shortens its life. Studies by the Electric Power Research Institute in Palo Alto, California, found that turning low-energy compact fluorescent bulbs on and off at frequent intervals can shorten their lifespan by as much as 75 per cent. The institute’s director of energy utilisation, Tom Reddoch, suggests leaving energy-saving bulbs on if you will be out of the room for less than 15 minutes.

How clean does the pizza box have to be for it to be recyclable? Likewise cans and bottles

According to the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), based in Banbury, UK, pizza boxes are often not recyclable. That’s because grease from the toppings contaminates the cardboard, making it useless to paper mills – though it can still be composted. Such impregnation is not a problem when it comes to cans and bottles. Nevertheless, they should be rinsed to remove food remnants so as not to attract vermin. Plastic should also be clean, and lids removed from bottles so they can be squashed flat. WRAP recommends rinsing waste items in old washing-up water to save energy.

Are laminated juice cartons recyclable?

Yes – but only if you separate them out. Placing cartons lined with polyethylene or aluminium foil into your ordinary paper recycling devalues the load and, depending on the mill it reaches, may mean it ends up in landfill. However, the drinks carton industry has taken steps to recover their product for recycling. In the UK, manufacturers have funded a local collection scheme. The empty drinks cartons are shipped in bulk to a processing mill in Sweden, which turns the fibre into plasterboard lining while burning the plastic and aluminium to fuel the plant.

What’s the most fuel-efficient way to drive?

Smoothly. Avoid dramatic braking and acceleration and use cruise control if you’ve got it. Move through the gears as quickly as possible, changing up before you hit 2500 revs per minute (2000 rpm for a diesel). Where possible, drive at a steady 55 miles per hour (90 kilometres per hour). It is up to 20 per cent more fuel-efficient than driving at 75 mph. Check your tyre pressure once a month because underinflated tyres can raise fuel consumption by 6 per cent. Don’t carry excess baggage. Each extra 25 kilograms decreases fuel efficiency by 1 per cent. And avoid short trips – a cold engine uses twice as much fuel as a warm one.