Don't buy from tree-hating businesses

[ehrenfest]

http://www.climatecounts.org/

Here they give businesses a score based on how environmentally friendly their practices are. It looks to me like a really good, well-meaning organization. Look how low Amazon.com and Apple scored! If these major corporations that are pervasive parts of American manufacturing and distribution of goods don't care about the environment, we are really screwed. Their website allows you to send e-mails to these companies telling that you care about climate and that they should clean up their act. I will definitely keep checking their scoreboard and try to more environmentally intelligent consumer decisions.

 

[Evo]

Tree hating businesses? You mean like publishing companies and booksellers?

Your title is misleading.

 

[WarPhalange]

Libraries smell like murder.

 

[Evo]

Libraries smell like murder.

We "could' go back to using sheepskin. But then, what is the environmental impact of the land used by the sheep, the sheep feces, farts, the environmental issues of the feed for the sheep, transporting the sheep, processing of the skin for parchment...

 

[Math Is Hard]

I kicked a tree this morning.

 

[rootX]

I just don't mind killing trees
I am not planning to procreate, so nothing to worry about.

 

[Evo]

I kicked a tree this morning.

<slowly backs away from MIH>

"No officer, I do not know this woman, all I know is that she had a crossbow, then deformed squirrels started showing up around her place..." :uhh:

 

[Math Is Hard]

<slowly backs away from MIH>

"No officer, I do not know this woman, all I know is that she had a crossbow, then deformed squirrels started showing up around her place..." :uhh:

:rofl: I know you guys are saving this all for my commitment hearing.

 

[Evo]

:rofl: I know you guys are saving this all for my commitment hearing.

:rofl: Can you imagine my file?

 

[ekrim]

Just curious, but how could Google even be environmentally unfriendly? I feel like they'd have to make a noted effort to achieve that.

 

[Cyrus]

http://www.climatecounts.org/

Here they give businesses a score based on how environmentally friendly their practices are. It looks to me like a really good, well-meaning organization. Look how low Amazon.com and Apple scored! If these major corporations that are pervasive parts of American manufacturing and distribution of goods don't care about the environment, we are really screwed. Their website allows you to send e-mails to these companies telling that you care about climate and that they should clean up their act. I will definitely keep checking their scoreboard and try to more environmentally intelligent consumer decisions.

The website evaluation seems ok, your title is very inappropriate IMO. It has nothing to do with the website.

 

[Math Is Hard]

:rofl: Can you imagine my file?

That shipment of Ninfa's Green Sauce is on the way.

 

[Moonbear]

When using a site like that, always consider what they include in their judging criteria. If you look at their list, which is a downloadable PDF file (that annoys me to have to download instead of having them just put the text on their site), it's really not about the environmental impact a company is making, but what policies they have implemented regarding environmental impact. So, a company that is very "green" in terms of not much polluting, good at conserving resources, etc., could still rank low if they haven't spelled it all out as company policy. A company belching out all sorts of pollutants into the environment, but with a policy to monitor how much they're polluting or to reduce some of that pollution, could score more highly than a cleaner business based on the criteria used.

 

[Dale]

If you really believe that CO2-induced global warming is today's biggest environmental problem, then it seems to me that the best thing to do would be to buy lots of durable wood products. Log cabins would be the most environmentally friendly construction because of the large amount of carbon sequestered. Similarly with paper books over e-books.

 

[rewebster]

I'm ALL for being 'green'---but its hard to tell a country (or the poor people) who are on the 'doorstep' of becoming industrialized 'not' to take some advantage of their natural resources ----just 'how much' is the question.

can you imagine IF the USA was just now coming to a point of industrialization, to tell people that they can't cut down trees to make houses, furniture, and to get farmland?

I think the USA has only about 1% of its original 'virgin' forest left and its usually considered a national treasure (except by some of the logging industry).

We can go by 'we learned our lesson by screwing up our environment' (but in a lot of places we still are doing it)--so, a lot of those countries may 'listen' but business/'the economy' of most places (including the USA still) usually overrides things---like offshore drilling, damming rivers, etc. I think the 'snowy owl' thing is still going on.

 

[Dale]

In terms of carbon footprint, a sustainable logging industry is probably the most "green" industry there is. They sequester an enormous amount of CO2 and then remove it from the environment.

 

[rewebster]

In terms of carbon footprint, a sustainable logging industry is probably the most "green" industry there is. They sequester an enormous amount of CO2 and then remove it from the environment.

yeah...but...they usually still have to 'cut' down the original old growth to have a place to 'farm' trees

 

[Dale]

An old growth forest no longer sequesters CO2, so from a carbon perspective old growth is not beneficial. The easiest way to remove massive amounts of CO2 from the environment is to continuously generate new biomass that is then removed from the environment. I think the logging industry is the only industry that does this.

 

[rewebster]

An old growth forest no longer sequesters CO2, so from a carbon perspective old growth is not beneficial. The easiest way to remove massive amounts of CO2 from the environment is to continuously generate new biomass that is then removed from the environment. I think the logging industry is the only industry that does this.

there was a segment on one PBS shows about a guy trying to 'sell' the sequestered CO2 as part of 'cap' program of the old growth forests in New Guinea (I think)

part of what you're saying (I think) is about removing more co2, right?

 

[Dale]

part of what you're saying (I think) is about removing more co2, right?

Yes, exactly. For example, the agricultural industry sequesters much more carbon than the logging industry, but as soon as someone metabolizes it that CO2 is released back to the atmosphere. But the carbon sequestered in wood furniture or construction lumber or even paper will stay out of the atmosphere for a long time.

 

[russ_watters]

We "could' go back to using sheepskin. But then, what is the environmental impact of the land used by the sheep, the sheep feces, farts, the environmental issues of the feed for the sheep, transporting the sheep, processing of the skin for parchment...

It would be a real boon for Moonbear, though! (yeah, I know, she doesn't do that so much any more - but I'm not letting it go)

 

[FredGarvin]

Libraries smell like murder.

I almost spit my coffee out at that one. Friggin' awesome.

 

[ehrenfest]

When using a site like that, always consider what they include in their judging criteria. If you look at their list, which is a downloadable PDF file (that annoys me to have to download instead of having them just put the text on their site), it's really not about the environmental impact a company is making, but what policies they have implemented regarding environmental impact. So, a company that is very "green" in terms of not much polluting, good at conserving resources, etc., could still rank low if they haven't spelled it all out as company policy. A company belching out all sorts of pollutants into the environment, but with a policy to monitor how much they're polluting or to reduce some of that pollution, could score more highly than a cleaner business based on the criteria used.

Good point. Their score is based on how much the company has recently reduced its carbon footprint or how much it intends to. So, for example, if a company already reduced their carbon footprint to a minimal level, they might get a low score.

If I were Wood Turner, the director of ClimateCounts, I would respond by saying: the market economy in the US makes environmentally destructive practices so much easier and more profitable than environmentally friendly practices that you really have to make a positive effort in order to be green.

 

[wildman]

An old growth forest no longer sequesters CO2, so from a carbon perspective old growth is not beneficial. The easiest way to remove massive amounts of CO2 from the environment is to continuously generate new biomass that is then removed from the environment. I think the logging industry is the only industry that does this.

Logging works if the old biomass doesn't rot. However, having worked as a logger (choker setter) when I was in college, I know that a lot of biomass is left in the forest to rot or is burned to put nutrients back in the soil. It would take a lot of new growth to counter this.

 

[Dale]

Yes, you are correct that less than 100% of the biomass is harvested, but I am not sure I understand your point. The majority (also less than 100%) of the biomass that is harvested is sequestered from the environment, and the land is then available for a new cycle of growth and harvesting.