We have all heard about Global Warming, where the planet’s atmosphere is supposedly heating up. Of course, we as common citizens have no real proof, only what our scientists tell us, along with the Think Tanks and mass media. But how can we trust this when Global Warming researchers have been paid 100s of millions of dollars, and they know if they disagree with global warming theory the money stops being funded and they are out of work?

One of the most fascinating debate points for Global Warming goes something like this; “The majority of scientists say global warming is real and we are already seeing its impact (the drought in the Western USA and the long term drought in Australia.”

This is seriously a flawed argument and let me tell you why. You see it is irrelevant and may not even be true. After all, 55% would be most of the scientists and thus the majority, still leaving a huge contingency of doubters, with plenty of data and research to back up the opposite point of view.

Likewise, during Copernicus’ day only one man believed the world was round, everyone else said it was flat; so the “majority of scientists” argument is irrelevant; majorities don’t mean anything. If you were one of a 100 people and they all jumped off a bridge because they agreed to, would you jump too? That is illogical.

Now then, the second part of the argument has to do with droughts in the world. And we all know that droughts come and go. Remember the Dust Bowl “Grapes of Wrath” in the US? And in the 1950s Australia had a drought just as bad during the same period, same as the one they are having now. This one we notice more because there are more people demanding the same amount of water.

In California, the snowpack this year is normal and anymore puts us above normal, thus, the drought theoretically is over? So, does that mean this so-called Global Warming is over? Of course, not the powers that be, behind global warming will continue to pursue this until it’s no longer in their interests. Think on this.

We’ve certainly seen quite a few companies come out and say that their manufacturing facilities have a zero impact on the environment, meaning zero footprint, but indeed, there is much controversy on how to determine what a zero foot print is. It’s almost impossible to get to zero, even if a company goes and plants 10,000 trees over the course of 5-years.

The other day at a Think Tank meeting, we were talking about how to establish a complete CO2 discharge chain of a product, including all its components in the process of making it. From the wrappers, card board box, printing, assembly, energy to do all that, the distance the people traveled to work in what type of cars, etc. I mean really narrowing down the actual discharges.

Not because we are Global Warming alarmists, but because we feel it is not exactly correct for a company to claim Zero Emissions. And that we must have a more realistic view of the total process, Supply chain and all.

Many companies like Dell in Texas have stated that they have finally achieved zero emissions, but they were attacked for stating that, why? Because, everyone has a different concept of what nothing is. In other words we are all out there fighting over nothing and that makes no sense to anyone, no matter how you figure it.

Indeed, we should be applauding Dell for their solar panels, LEEDs certified warehouses and assembly plant and all their hard work and meaningful dedication to do the right thing. And yet, we are not doing that are we? Instead we find people attacking businesses, even those that go out of their way, spending millions of dollars to do the right thing. I ask are we doing the right thing by allowing persnickety environmental complainers to attack America’s greatest companies?

Silicon Valley is known for both innovation and hype. Recently, this pool of innovation has extended beyond bandwidth to the protection the environment. Google and Yahoo, the search engine giants, are both headquartered in the Valley and have been making headlines by greening their offices, reducing energy consumption, and carbon trading. The PR motivations are obvious, but are the green benefits really there? To set apart the hype from reality, we have analyzed the green value of both Google and Yahoo’s headquarter facilities.

We looked at the ecological services provided by green landscape features such as trees and open space (i.e. grass). Grass and trees are pervious surfaces, meaning they allow water to permeate into the ground. Roofs, sidewalks, patios, and asphalt parking lots are examples of impervious surfaces, where rainwater drains into the public storm drains. Heavy metals, oil, and other pollutants are carried off parking lots in rainwater, which often lead directly to open water habitats, where fish, birds, and reptiles live.

In terms of ecological services, trees and grass have been proven to:

1.      Remove and store carbon from the atmosphere,

2.      Remove certain airborne pollutants,

3.      Permits rainwater to seep into the ground as opposed to draining into the stormdrains, and

4.      Remove certain waterborne pollutants.

Here is a look at how green Google and Yahoo really are and how the measure up against each other.

Google Green Report
Google’s headquarters, the Googleplex, covers 44 acres, nearly 50% of which is grass or tree canopy. This is an impressive paved to open space ratio. The grass and trees on the Googleplex remove roughly 2 tons of carbon from the atmosphere per year, or 0.04 tons per year per acre. In addition, 530 lbs. of air pollution are removed per year (e.g., ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter), or 12 lbs. per year per acre. It was assumed that the parking lot of the Googleplex is asphalt, and not a type of porous pavement, so the cost of managing rainfall runoff from the Googleplex is $4,474 per year, or $103 per year per acre. The abundance of grass and tree canopy on the Googleplex go a long way to offset the water quality impacts of the paved surfaces (mainly the parking lot). On average, the grass and trees reduce water pollution by 6%, as opposed to the entire property being paved.

Yahoo Green Report
The Yahoo headquarters, Yahooplex, covers 28 acres, a third of which is grass or tree canopy. This is a classic ratio of paved to open space for large office complexes in California. So far, par for the course. The Yahooplex removes 0.36 tons of carbon from the atmosphere per year, or 0.01 tons per year per acre. 114 lbs. of air pollutants are removed per year, or 4 lbs. per year per acre. In terms of rainfall, the cost associated with runoff is $9,219 per year, or $331 per year per acre. The grass and tree canopy help offset the paved areas with a 2.3% reduction in water pollution as opposed to the entire property being paved.

The final green analysis?

Google kicks Yahoo’s butt, largely due to the forethought, or luxury, of the Googleplex having 50% of its property surface providing green services. The good news for both Google and Yahoo is that over time, as trees grow, so will the tree’s canopy and mass, thus storing more carbon and removing more air pollutants.

Green next steps for both Google and Yahoo is to:
 

1. Install porous parking surfaces, allowing up to 80% of rainwater to seep into the ground,
2. Install green roofs, absorbing rainwater while reducing cooling costs and energy consumption, and
3. Planting larger trees on the south and west sides of the buildings to reduce cooling costs and energy consumption.

While we crunched the hard numbers to settle the Google vs. Yahoo green debate, this report illuminates the great opportunity that awaits these two Silicon Valley giants to harness the ecological services of green surfaces.

If you have not given up plastic bag for your own reusable bags yet, no worries, you can still make a difference! Recycle them! How? Well, there are many ways you can recycle plastic bags. We have listed a few to get you started. Use your imagination!

21 Ideas for Recycling Plastic bags:

* for filler when sending packages or when you want to store fragile items.

* use old plastic bags for liners in your bathroom or office trash can.

* to pick pet waste.

* use them as baby bib.

* arts and crafts. (off site link)

* reuse plastic bags over and over when you grocery shop.

* store wet bathing suits in them when at the pool or beach.

* dispose of dirty diapers when out and about.

* put hubbies lunch in them instead of a lunchbox.

* litter box liners.

* use plastic bags instead of Ziploc bags when possible.

* store holiday items in them.

* as a cap when giving yourself a hot oil treatment.

* make a kite with your kids.

* as a toiletry bag when traveling.

* shred and cut them to make plastic bag confetti.

* use them as gloves when cleaning.

* have your kids put them over their shoes when playing in the snow to keep shoes dry.

* cut them in to big squares and let your children finger paint with them. (under supervision, of course)

* send them to the recycle bin at your neighborhood grocery store.

* or…avoid using plastic bags all together and REALLY make a difference!

This is just small list to get you started. There are MANY ways that you can recycle and reuse plastic bags. You can also Google “recycle plastic bag ideas” and you will find tons more!