Dallas Cleaning Service

With tainted milk products from China
recently showing up in Asian-style candies in
the U.S. and British chocolates in Australia, you might be looking for cleaner, greener Halloween
treats this year.

Choosing sweets made closer to home, especially goodies made
from natural and organic ingredients, is a great way to stay safe. Products
that are fair-trade
certified also are a good choice because the manufacturing process includes
a lot of oversight. Problems like those in China are less common with
certified organic and fair-trade goods.

Start out with our detailed list of eco-friendly
chocolates, most of which are made in the U.S. You can order these decadent
sweets online.

For bite-sized chocolates (suitable for trick-or-treating),
consider Endangered
Species Chocolate and Equal
Exchange Chocolate Minis. Both of these companies offer candy that’s
certified organic and made of ethically traded cacao.

The Natural
Candy Store sells a variety of organic and made-in-the-U.S. candies that
are ideal for Halloween. You’ll find goodies like lollipops
made with organic cane juice (no high-fructose corn syrup) and certified
organic gummy
worms.

Another classic candy is gum, and Glee Gum is a natural alternative. It comes
in six fruity flavors and doesn’t have a bunch of synthetic ingredients.

Yummy Earth makes
certified organic lollipops and candy drops in flavors such as Pomegranate
Pucker and Chili Mango Mambo. College Farm
Organic has a line of organic hard candies and lollipops with flavors
ranging from Strawberry and Cream to Chocolate Mint.

Looking forward to the holiday season following Halloween? It’s never too
early to stock up on candy
canes — including ones made in the U.S. and certified organic. Or
place your order for fair-trade chocolate gold coins
to avoid the December rush.

Some people use “global warming” and “climate change” interchangeably, while others insist on saying it one way or the other. Both terms are usually meant to describe the increasingly negative impact human activity has on our planet’s atmosphere and environment.

So which one is right? Does it matter?

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s website has a potentially helpful sidebar titled: Climate Change or Global Warming?. It says the term “climate change” is preferred because it encompasses the full range of changes in the climate, in addition to rising temperature.

Global warming is simply the increase in the atmosphere’s temperature that has been measured since the mid-20th century. But the rising levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases that we’ve created are causing other changes in the Earth’s climate. Stronger storms in some parts of the world, and drought in others, are also connected to human damage of the environment.

This is why the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which shared a Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change use the phrase “climate change” in its name and work. The U.N.’s definition is:

“Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

While “climate change” is more descriptive and all-encompassing, “global warming” seems to have been around longer and has caught the public imagination.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary entry for global warming dates the phrase to 1969 and defines it as: “an increase in the earth’s atmospheric and oceanic temperatures widely predicted to occur due to an increase in the greenhouse effect resulting especially from pollution.”

The History of Climate Change Science site notes that much of the early work on the topic focused on rising world temperatures. A publicized statistic in 1967 said “average temperatures might rise a few degrees within the next century.”

In 1988 — the hottest summer on record until then — scientists’ claims about climate change gained public attention. The connection between heat and the climate was well-established, so the words “global warming” caught on easily.

The hugely influential movie, An Inconvenient Truth helped burn the words “global warming” into people’s brains even further. And yet the man behind the movie, Al Gore, has a new nonprofit group called We Can Solve It that uses the term “climate change” and “global warming” in equal measure.

Whichever words you say, the effects are the same: We’re harming our atmosphere, and we have to reduce our CO2 emissions to stop the problem. You can start by measuring your personal carbon footprint and making small changes that, when we all take part, will have a positive effect.

Picture a world with clean air, even in the big cities. Envision a calm commute that involves biking, walking, sharing a ride on public transit, or staying at your home office. Imagine having extra hours in your day to be with family and friends or simply relax.

Consider how much money you’d save if you could walk to all your errands instead of forking over cash to oil companies for every little trip.

That’s the ideal of a carfree world — one built around people instead of cars. Many of us don’t live there yet, but some communities are trying to take back the streets.

From adding bike lanes to building homes closer to shopping areas, people are looking outside the box of the car and towards a more connected, smaller-scale style of living.

This is the goal of World Carfree Day, celebrated on September 22. With activities planned from Washington DC to London, across Canada and around Europe, where the event started.

Even if your town doesn’t have a party planned, you can use the day to explore carfree options, such as:

• Find a new way to work such as public transit, or consider telecommuting.
• Walk or bike with your kids to school.
• See how many regular errands you can run on foot; Walkscore can show what’s near your address.
• Get on a bike or look for a new one. Bicycling is great exercise and less expensive than driving a car.

One day without a car may be a big step for some folks. But it’s a step in a clean, green direction. You’ll save money on gas, reduce stress from your commute, and do the planet a favor by limiting pollution.

If you’re looking to green your home office (or small business), you might want to get a laser printer instead of an inkjet. A comparison by TreeHugger finds a host of reasons why the common inkjet printer is a bad environmental bet.

The biggest problem is that inkjet-printed paper is almost impossible to recycle. The inks can’t be separated from the paper, so the resulting recycled-content paper wouldn’t be bright and printable again.

Most inkjet inks also release volatile organic carbons — the dry toner used in laser printers usually is not. Some water-based inks are available for inkjet printers, but that still doesn’t make the printed papers recyclable.

You also get fewer printed pages per cartridge with an inkjet than you do pages per toner cartridge for a laser printer. So you have to buy a lot more ink jet cartridges, which means a lot more plastic to either throw away or hopefully have recycled and refilled.

Laser printers cost more upfront than inkjet printers, but the prices have come down a lot in the past five years. TreeHugger also points out that the cost-per-page is less for a laser printer. The site compared 47 printers (inkjet and laser), each costing under 0, and TreeHugger found that a monochrome laser print was as low as 1.4 cents per page, while the color inkjet was 5.7 cents per page.

Of course, people like inkjets for printing photos, but honestly, how many photos will you print every year? If it’s really important, you can always get a small inkjet printer for photos only (several are sold that you can connect directly to your digital camera). Then use a laser printer for all other printing needs, and you can recycle those papers easily.

And ask yourself if you really need to print that document at all. Salon’s resident green expert analyzed the energy use of reading online versus printing something out to read. You really do create less greenhouse gas emissions when you read on a computer screen. So give paperless a shot.

For much of our history, America has had two major political parties running our government. But that doesn’t stop smaller parties from nominating candidates for president. In recent years, a few of these parties have issued strong environmental agendas, and while their candidates may not get many votes, their green ideas enter the national debate.

The third-party conventions didn’t receive much media coverage, so I couldn’t do exactly the same environmental keyword tally as I did for the Democrats and Republicans in the first two parts of this series.

But I did research the energy platforms of the independent candidates who have the highest profile and who you’re most likely to see on the ballot in your state. This summary (listed in approximate order of ballot access) can help you research your presidential pick.

Libertarian: This party’s presidential nominee is Bob Barr, running with Wayne Allyn Root as his vice presidential nominee. Barr’s energy policy states that the federal government should eliminate both restrictions and subsidies on all types of energy production (presumably this includes renewable energy). He also recommends drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

In a statement on energy and global warming, Barr insists that “the scientific community has been unable to make definitive judgments as to the past cause or future course of climate change.”

Barr’s adds his opinion on energy efficiency and consumption: “Attempting to adjust global temperatures by artificially cutting energy consumption would undermine the very prosperous and innovative market system.”

The Libertarian Party blames the government as “the greatest single polluter in the U.S.” However, the party platform opposes government regulation in most forms.

Unaffiliated: Ralph Nader is running for president with Matt Gonzalez as his running mate. They are independents, but in some states they may be listed on the ballot under the Independent-Ecology Party or the Peace and Freedom Party.

In his energy platform, Nader opposes subsidies for oil, nuclear power, coal mining, and biofuels such as ethanol. He supports renewable energies instead. Nader proposes a carbon tax of per ton of carbon dioxide emissions and would use this money to create 10 million new green-collar jobs.

Nader states: “We need to make environmental protection a priority for our energy, trade, industrial, agricultural, transportation, development, and land use policies. Indeed, protecting the environment must be weaved throughout our governance.”

Constitution: This party nominated Chuck Baldwin for president and Darrell Castle for vice president. While Baldwin’s campaign site doesn’t list an energy or environmental policy, Baldwin has said that he would disband the Department of Energy.

In addition, he states: “There is enough gas and oil under the soil of Alaska (not to mention the Dakotas and the Gulf of Mexico) to meet the energy needs of the United States for the next 150-200 years.” He is also in favor of nuclear power.

The environment section of the Constitution Party’s platform proclaims: “We wholeheartedly support realistic efforts to preserve the environment and reduce pollution — air, water, and land. We reject, however, the argument of the perceived threat of man-made global warming which has been refuted by a large number of scientists.”

The party opposes all environmental treaties and conventions and would repeal the federal Endangered Species Act.

Green: Cynthia McKinney is this party’s presidential candidate, and Rosa Clemente is the vice presidential candidate. As one might expect from her party’s name, McKinney lists many environmental ideals in her campaign platform. She is in favor of renewable energy, investments to green our economy, forest protection, and reduction of toxic chemicals in the workplace.

The Green Party makes ecological sustainability one of the pillars of its platform. Specifically, the party recommends increasing fuel efficiency standards for cars to 60 mpg for cars by 2010 and ratifying treaties like the Kyoto Climate Protocol of 1998 and the Global Climate Treaty of 1992.

For info. about lesser-known candidates, check out Wikipedia’s complete list of third-party candidates in 2008. You can usually follow the links to each person’s official website.

Admittedly, I’m don’t know anything about Ludacris, and most of what I know about Tommy Lee isn’t suitable for publication on a G-rated site.

But the ads showing the rapper and hard rocker competing to be cleanest and greenest on Planet Green’s new show “Battleground Earth” were too funny to pass up.

The show, which started in August, has lived up to the promise. From the very first episode, the two have been a riot to watch. They slam each other and play tricks, but the planet comes out the winner.

Here’s the gist: Ludacris and Tommy Lee each have a team of three friends, and they’re traveling across the country in biodiesel buses. The teams compete at environmentally themed tasks, and whoever finishes the task correctly first is that episode’s winner. At the end of the series, the final champion will headline a concert, and the loser will be the opening act.

One competition had them install solar panels in New Orleans, while another task involved shoveling cow manure in Texas to create methane-gas power. When their biodiesel buses ran out of fuel, the teams served up burgers and fries to create grease that could be recycled into veggie biodiesel.

The show is filled with cameos by famous musicians and actors along the way. Plus, each episode has little “Pass It On” intros where celebs share green tips and ideas.

If you want a dose of eco-inspiration washed down with pure entertainment and a splash of reality TV, I highly recommend “Battleground Earth.” No preaching, no guilt, lots of laughs, and, yeah, you may actually learn something along the way — not many “educational” shows can say that!

Even if you’ve missed episodes, the series will undoubtedly be repeated on Planet Green and other Discovery Networks channels. And it’s not the kind of thing you have to watch sequentially to understand or enjoy either. Find out when it’s airing near you.

The times they are a changin’. The U.S. economy isn’t what it used to be, and old jobs are becoming old hat. But new technologies and shifting priorities are creating opportunities for job-seekers, especially if you want to make a living while leaving a lighter footprint on the planet.

Our own HotJobs points out several top recession-proof fields right now. The areas of education, energy, health care, and the environment itself are all good bets. And greenies will be glad to know that these overlap with E: The Environmental Magazine’s list of booming eco-friendly job sectors.

Other hot fields include environmental law, information technology, government planning and land use, and waste management and recycling. Plus, jobs such as accounting, human resources, and project management continue to be needed within environmental organizations of all types.

So where do you start your green job search? We’ve collected some of the best websites for job listings and other resources for a new earth-focused career.

• Sustainable Business Green Dream Jobs: Large list of positions at all levels with environmentally conscious employers.
  From solar water heating system installer to web producer, from human resources assistant to fish campaign organizer, you’re bound to find something intriguing here.
• Idealist.org Job Search: Openings at nonprofits; search on “environmental & ecology” or “energy conservation & green living” for unique listings such as organic farm manager in Southwest Florida and video editor for the Clinton Foundation.
• Green Jobs: This site is all about the burgeoning area of renewable energy. If you’re interested in solar, wind, or biofuels, whether installing, engineering, or selling, check this one out.
• EnvironmentalCareer.com: Lists hundreds of jobs, especially in environmental sciences and energy fields. Also has opportunities to transfer existing skills into green businesses — for example, a senior billing coordinator position for environmental consultants.
• Business for Social Responsibility Jobs Board: Worldwide positions at companies that value people, communities, and the environment. Includes big names such as the Walt Disney Company.
• Grist Job Board: Environmental groups from around the country post their jobs here. Also, Grist’s Kevin Doyle has a series of articles about the green job market.
• TreeHugger Job Board: Dozens of green business and organizations list their openings here. Subscribe to the RSS feed for the latest updates.
• Jobs With the National Park Service: Love the great outdoors? You could work anywhere from Hawaii’s volcanoes to Yellowstone’s geysers. The park service has 16,000 permanent employees and another 10,000 seasonal employees each year.
• World Wide Opportunities on Organic Farms: If you’re interested in the fast-growing field of organic food (no pun intended), you could volunteer on a farm to get experience. This site connects volunteers with farms around the planet.

Another green tip: Many companies encourage applying online these days, so you can email your resume. But if you have to print it, look for high-quality paper made with recycled fibers. No point killing trees when you’re applying for an earth-friendly job!

Litter — from sea glass to bottle caps to remnants of fishing lines — washing up on our beaches has become a familiar sight. It’s easy to think that that debris must be all of the marine litter out there, which eventually makes its way back to shore.

We like to imagine the world’s oceans to be pristine and unsullied. But the reality is that the seas are not free from the same litter and pollution we see on land.

In the middle of the Pacific, a circular ocean current called the Pacific Gyre swirls around a region about the size of Africa. Long avoided by sailors for stranding ships in its doldrums, today the spiraling current collects a different cargo: Plastic.

Everything that floats is drawn into this vortex, creating a marine dead zone twice the size of Texas, now commonly known as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

Plastic makes up 90% of marine litter and does not biodegrade. Instead, it slowly breaks down into smaller bits of plastic that never disappear. Eventually it becomes tiny pellets called “nurdles,” which cannot be digested — but that doesn’t stop animals from eating them.

Birds, fish, and marine mammals in the middle of this toxic zone have a steady diet of plastic litter — which turns deadly when sharp pieces of debris rupture their stomachs or when the mass of cigarette lighters, bottle caps, and fishing nets grows too large and causes starvation. In the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, uncontaminated food can be hard to find: Researchers estimate there are six pounds of plastic for every pound of plankton.

But it’s not just distant sea creatures that suffer the consequences. The floating plastic mass also collects chemicals that don’t break down in seawater, like DDT, PCBs, and nonylphenols, which cause hormonal disruptions in the animals that eat them — and the ones that eat those animals.

Those of us at the top of the food chain ought to start worrying.

Suggested sites:

• Trashed - Charles Moore, leading researcher of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, explains how it works and what we can do about it.
• Our oceans are turning into plastic … are we? - A look at the possible human side effects of marine pollution, including obesity and infertility.
• The trash vortex - Greenpeace, unsurprisingly, is opposed.
• Why is the world’s biggest landfill in the Pacific Ocean? - HowStuffWorks looks into the origins of the trash vortex.
• Albatross necropsy video - 306 punches - Warning: This graphic video shows the plastic objects that killed an albatross.

Directory categories: Water Pollution, Water Resources, Pollution, Oceanography, Ecotoxicology

Originally posted on The Spark, a daily blog where Yahoo! Directory editors highlight new and interesting content on the Web.

A new iPod is on the way, and everybody loves the latest and greatest. Or maybe that first-generation click-wheeler you bought finally gave up the ghost, and you want to upgrade to a tiny little MP3 player.

If you’re like me, you might have a drawer full of old iPods at home (honest, some were gifts!). What can you do with them?

If the device is still functional, try giving it away. If friends and family are all set with MP3 players, offer it to your local Freecycle group and someone will surely pick it up.

What about fixing it? Contrary to popular opinion, you can have the battery replaced on an iPod. You’ll have to send the device back to Apple. The new battery will cost from to depending on the iPod model, plus shipping and tax.

If the iPod is truly dead, don’t just throw it in the trash. The plastics and metals that make up the device can be recycled, if you take it to the right place.

The most obvious recycler is Apple itself. You can simply take the old iPod back to any Apple store, and you’ll get a 10 percent discount off of a new iPod.

Or go to Apple’s iPod recycling site, fill out a form, and request a prepaid mailing label. Then send in your old iPod. Apple also recycles cell phones of any make and model (not just iPhones).

Another way to recycle that dead ‘pod is the site BuyMyTronics.com. This company buys used gadgets — even non-working ones! — and resells them. Broken electronics are scrapped for parts, so they’re not wasted.

You get an immediate estimate for your device. I found that a totally dead first-generation iPod could earn about , while a working iPod Touch would garner nearly 0. BuyMyTronics also takes cell phones, PDAs, laptop computers, and game consoles.

So don’t leave that old, sad iPod sitting in a drawer anymore. And definitely don’t chuck it in the garbage. Give it back to Apple or recycle it for cash, and you can move on to the next song with a clear conscience.

The Democrats had their turn, and this was the GOP’s week to introduce its platform and candidates to the country.

If you’re researching environmental issues in the 2008 presidential election, the party conventions give you a good place to start.

To collect info. for those who think about the planet when they vote, I searched through the speeches at both conventions and counted all the references to terms like “clean energy,” “renewable energy,” “climate change,” “global warming,” “green-collar jobs,” and “environment.”

In part I of this series, I found about 148 references to green concepts in speeches at the DNC convention.

Reviewing the archives of the Republican convention’s speeches, I found about 44 mentions of green ideas.

President George W. Bush said candidate John McCain “will invest in the energy technologies of tomorrow — and lift the ban on drilling for America’s offshore oil today.” U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman proclaimed: “If John McCain was just another go-along partisan politician, he never would have led the fight to fix our broken immigration system or to do something about global warming.” And the resident commissioner of Puerto Rico Luis Fortuno predicted that “under President McCain’s leadership we will become a leader in the new global green economy; by protecting our environment and addressing climate change; by promoting energy efficiency; and, finally, by cracking down on the speculative pricing of oil.”

Vice presidential Sarah Palin candidate emphasized energy independence themes from the Republican party platform: “Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we’re going to lay more pipelines … build more nuclear plants … create jobs with clean coal … and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources.”

Presidential nominee John McCain added to the climate change and energy topics he’s addressed during his campaign so far: “We will produce more energy at home. We will drill new wells offshore, and we’ll drill them now. We will build more nuclear power plants. We will develop clean coal technology. We will increase the use of wind, tide, solar, and natural gas. We will encourage the development and use of flex fuel, hybrid, and electric automobiles.”

So now you can compare the two major parties’ stand on the environment, climate change, and renewable energy. Next week, I’ll summarize the positions of third-party and independent presidential candidates who are likely to show up on ballots around the country.