I know it has been a hot summer, but when I saw several people taking a dip in the Charles River one sultry evening this August I couldn’t believe my eyes. What were they thinking?

I know the river has been significantly cleaned up in the last few years, but it stinks to high heavens on certain days, which leads me to believe that some foul stuff is afloat in there. Rumor has it that before the clean-up efforts, boaters were advised to head straight to the hospital for tetanus shots after a fall in the river. This incident got me thinking about the state of the Charles River today-how clean it is, what contaminants remain, and how close we are to the Charles becoming a river that city dwellers can safely (and pleasantly) swim in.

Pollution of the Charles originated with the first English settler to Boston in 1625, and continued via the introduction of untreated raw sewage, waste water from city streets and factories that emptied contaminants directly into the river. The creation of dams and filling in of marshlands in Boston compounded the pollution and limited drainage. The river eventually became noxious, slicked with oil and flowing with toxins. Efforts to clean the river began in 1965 with the creation of the Charles River Watershed Association and in 1995 the EPA declared the goal of a “fishable, swimmable” river by 2005.

There has been considerable progress, but the EPA has not accomplished its goal of a completely fishable and swimmable river. The EPA measures bacterial counts at ten points along the 80-mile long river. The report card shows that in 1995, the Charles received a “D” rating, meaning that the river was safe for some boating but no swimming. In 2005, the river received a B+ rating, meaning that it is safe for all boating and some swimming. A major hurdle in the way of the EPA’s goal of a swimmable and fishable river is combined sewage overflow (“CSO”), which occurs when the pipe carrying untreated sewage from its source to the treatment facility cannot hold all of the water during periods of heavy rain. The overflow dumps untreated sewage directly into the river. Hopefully this will change, as we begin to see the results of a 2006 settlement between the EPA and the Massachusetts Water Resource Authority (MWRA) where the MWRA agreed to control CSO output into the Charles.

This blog was written by Maura Nugent, grant coordinator for Lights Out, Green In.

In all my years of reading the black-and-white Dilbert comic strip, who knew the man behind all the workplace blues was really green?

An article in the Wall Street Journal this week details how Scott Adams, the creator of the Dilbert strip, tried to build a totally green house.  His harrowing process of trying to “save the earth” with his house was witty and informative and caught my eye.

He shares some stark truths on his journey:

The greenest home is the one you don’t build. If you really want to save the Earth, move in with another family and share a house that’s already built. Better yet, live in the forest and eat whatever the squirrels don’t want. Don’t brag to me about riding your bicycle to work; a lot of energy went into building that bicycle. Stop being a hypocrite like me.

Between trying for a white roof, no windows and no lawn, a totally white pebble lawn, the house would be quite ugly as well. But Adams sums up the real kicker in environmentally friendly houses.

Heating and cooling are the biggest energy thieves. And roofs and windows matter the most for heat transfer. Focus your research and budget there. … If you’re thinking of buying a home that has lots of windows on the wrong side for your climate, you should pass. Few things make a home less liveable, and more of an energy hog, than improper orientation to the sun.

There is a ton of actual useful information in the article as well. So set your eyes on it if you’re buying or building a house.

The floods and Pakistan and fires in Russia are deserving of the world’s environmental attention, but the globe would be wise not to turn away from the BP oil spill. There’s been a slew of news rushing in on BP despite the fact that the oil well has been capped.

Last weekend Barack Obama’s trip showed the beaches in Florida are safe and open for tourism, but it also highlighted the huge drop in tourism to the region.

The resort towns of the Florida panhandle are on the eastern edge of the oil spill but the beaches were still hit by tar balls and an oily sheen. A study by Oxford Economics for the US Travel Association estimated the spill could cost coastal towns in the four Gulf states nearly $23 billion dollars in lost tourism arrivals over the next three years.

Shrimping season began in the region recently and while shrimping boats are at least all back to work, it’s not all plentiful and safe hauls. An interview with one of the heads of the shrimpers associations showed that.

ACY COOPER: It was poor. We don’t know what happened, the shrimp wasn’t as plentiful as we thought there was. We had more fish than we had shrimp, so it wasn’t what we anticipated. … Well, let me go to last Friday and the day they let me go, found oil on the bottom in the same areas that I was working at - which I worked at too much and never even seen this oil. So we have a lot of areas like that. When they sunk this oil, the Coast Guard kept saying it’s a tradeoff. And, like, we screamed and hollered from the beginning that the only tradeoff it is is to lose our industry. So we got to be very careful when you’re talking about all gone. It’s not gone, they just sunk it.

And speaking of declaring success before it should’ve been, scientists are wary of reports that the BP oil spill is under control - and the govt’s top commander still says the cap is a work in progress.

Their report claims that most of the oil that leaked into the Gulf is still present. They concede that much of it is dissolved or in the form of dispersed micro-droplets, but caution that oil in that state isn’t harmless. According to the Georgia report, between 70 percent and 79 percent of the oil remains in the ecosystem.

The truth these days is harsh - we don’t know quite how bad the effects of global warming will be. The latest example is the floating ice island that broke off a glacier off Greenland.

Four times the size of Manhattan, this floating weapon could sink ships with ease, simply by crashing into them. Right now scientists think the ice island could reach Newfoundland in 1 to 2 years. If it does this, well, look out.

These scientists believe the new ice island will enter Nares Strait and either block it or break up and lodge between real islands in the Strait. Such was the fate of a 230-square-mile ice chunk which calved from the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf in Canada in 1962. Another possibility is that the pieces could travel south toward the Atlantic over the course of the next two years and melt in warmer waters. Right now, the island is floating about 620 miles south of the North Pole.

While this “ice island” was always somewhat of a possibility, the bigger fear from the melting glaciers and ice caps was always the rise in sea level. Now we have this as well. I hope cameras can get footage of the island breaking off from the glacier as those types of clips often resonate most with the public (aside from polar bears). Who knows - maybe this can be another in a yearlong of wake-up calls.

Best case scenario is it only clogs up shipping lanes and worst-case scenario is this island floats into boats causing massive destruction. There’s no way of knowing. But there’s one thing we do know for sure - this is only the tip of the iceberg on global warming.

It’s as though Mother Nature is knocking us over the head with a wake-up call this year. Ignore the Copenhagen Curse at your own risk.

Since global leaders emitted more than a ton of hot air at December’s climate change summit in Copenhagen, it seems that more and more signs of the urgency behind global warming are popping up.

First, the historic BP oil spill showed how harmful our reliance on that type of energy is - it’s dangerous to get it and it’s dangerous to use it. Then, Climategate was debunked as any type of coercion, thereby giving credence to science once again. Next we hear Asian long-horned beetles are killing trees (which take in a lot of the dangerous carbon dioxide) all across the northeast, leveling the great equalizer to global warming. Oh - and it’s been really, really, really hot just about everywhere across the globe this summer.

Some global leaders have listened - it seems Russian president Dmitry Medvedev might be convinced after more than 1,000 people died from Russia’s June heat wave (or from drinking too much vodka). IF this is in fact true, it’s a big deal since not only has Russia been behind on halting climate change, its actually denied it many times.

Others haven’t heeded the lessons - such as the U.S. Senate and the White House, which shelved comprehensive energy reform last month. This has the world once again questioning the U.S. commitment to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. After we never agreed to the Kyoto Protocol, who can blame the doubters.

Global leaders of the U.N. are reconvening at Bonn this week for a conference on climate change. Monday, one leader urged countries to take baby steps, so we can at least get started on stopping global warming. Will it work? After the letdown at Copenhagen, I’m not sure. But it doesn’t, we might be in for even more curses.

It is no secret that bottled water takes an enormous toll on the environment. Precious resources are wasted along every step of the way in the production and sale of bottled water, from the petroleum used in the bottles, to the shipment of the water around the world.

Most water bottles do not get recycled, so their final destination is in a landfill, where it may take up to 1,000 years to biodegrade. As the bottles break down, they leak toxic chemicals into the ground and the air. All this waste is for a product that is much more expensive and may not be as healthy as tap water, which must pass strict regulatory guidelines under the EPA. Considering the facts, it seems clear which option is the smarter choice for our bodies, the earth and our wallets. Yet 70% of consumers in the U.S. still choose bottled water over tap water.

Why do we keep reaching for the bottle? Most of the choice to consume bottled water over tap water can be attributed to powerful marketing techniques. Bottled water companies advertise their products as a pure, simple and healthy alternative to other bottled beverages and strive to be perceived as a cleaner alternative to tap water. The images in bottled water advertising evoke a sense of health and purity—an attractive woman practicing yoga, an untouched spring in the middle of the forest, and a waterfall in the tropics. To be sure, water is probably the healthiest beverage we can choose, but the fact remains that it makes no difference to your health whether you choose to drink it from the tap or bottle. Despite this, the industry has successfully convinced consumers that they must do better than tap water, and the result is that bottled water now has a sort of snob appeal—it is a status symbol. Thus, businesses and individuals supply it for guests and employees in their homes and offices because, well, it’s an insult to expect your guests to drink tap water.

How do we begin to change this dependence on bottled water and the misperceptions about the benefits of bottled water? The most powerful tool that we have at our disposable is information. We must continue to inform others about the negative impact bottled water has on the environment, and the quality comparisons of tap versus bottled water. We can provide suggestions for easy alternatives, including water coolers and reusable bottles and thermoses. Beyond that, we only have control over our own habits, and the choices we make everyday.

This post was written by Maura Nugent, grant coordinator for Lights Out, Green In.

The dream of cap-and-trade has been bottled up by Congress, and with it ends any hope of comprehensive energy reform.

The only issue is while Congress might be going away - and some members never coming back - that’s not the case with climate change. The new energy bill is going be a band-aid on offshore drilling regulations. I’m sure that might help something, but it’s not going to help solve climate change.

There’s not really any other way to say we’re at the tipping point for climate change. Even if the bill had passed, one of the more ambitious measures called for all companies had to use renewable energy for 15% of their production by 2020. That’s a flimsy number. We need more than 15 percent. We need at least 25 percent by 2020.

And so, where do we go from here? World leaders failed at Copenhagen (despite the dog-and-pony show). Congress failed here at home. The EPA will start regulating emissions on its own in January - and frankly they’ll be tougher than Congress would have been, so that’s a silver lining. The focus should be on giving the EPA enough power to make a difference.

But most environmentalists have seen one disappointment after another in the political spectrum for 10 years. It’s time for us to take things into our own hands. Start using renewable energy wherever you can and start cutting back on energy use - take the 11 to 1 pledge to turn off your lights and use natural sunlight every day. It’s up to you to make a difference - Congress can thank us for saving their skin later.

No matter how you slice it, some people still hear going green and think about money.

These people are out there waiting to take advantage of you - and that’s going to make halting climate change a little tougher than we think. Green vultures - businesses and people who see the focus on going green as a way to make green.

I’m not saying First Point Power is all things evil - they offer discounted electricity prices in the deregulated energy market in RI - but they pass themselves off as a green energy company. There are green leaves, photos of windmills, green in their logo and above their prices (lower than National Grid) they advertise a clean energy option. But if you choose the clean energy option, $5 to $10 is added monthly to what would’ve been a lower bill. This bit of news, however, is buried deep inside the Web site.

National Grid and other electric companies also offer these green choices and you have to pay a premium for the clean energy. However, First Point Power passes itself off as giving you a lower bill from your current bill with its clean energy option. It’s not ever spelled out, but all the imagery is there for you to connect the misleading dots.

First Point Power does offer discounted energy prices - it’s just not green energy. We should all be aware of the misleading marketing in going green. The vultures are out there - this is just the latest example.

The rat-race was on - and I was a part of it. The time was Sunday night and as the clock ticked toward the 10:30 fireworks show, we ran to the street, hailed a cab, directed him out of traffic and scurried to a backyard. The fireworks were coming and NOBODY was getting in our way.

Nobody - not the least of all environmentalists - were getting in the way of La Jolla , Calf., having fireworks either. But a case brought up by environmental groups did garner attention and raise the issue of whether fireworks harm the environment. The court decided that there was not sufficient evidence to show environmental harm and stop the Calif. city from having fireworks.

You see, while there are small studies that show traces of environmental harm (although not definitively long-term), there is also the intuitive part that shooting bunches of toxic materials into the sky in order to create a blast is bad for the environment.

There are some ways to make fireworks more environmental friendly - and there’s also laser-lights shows - as the above article points out:

In 2004, Disney began using compressed air to launch fireworks at Disneyland in Anaheim, Calif., reducing at least the issues of smoky particulates in the air and perchlorates in the water. Researchers have also been fine-tuning alternative propellants that use nitrogen-rich materials in place of perchlorates, but those are still likely several years away from hitting the market.

It all boils down to fireworks happening once a year, however. And they cause a great feeling within the community and a sense of togetherness that everyone experiences. There are far more things that can be done to help the environment than banning fireworks. It starts with simple conservation and then using the alternative energy sources that we can. Once we’re perfect on that end, if you want to ban fireworks because climate change is still occurring - be my guest.

Perception is greater than reality, but that’s even truer when reality is years away. Climate change has fallen victim to this cliche with two major events in the past year.

The first scandal is Climategate, which conveniently erupted right around the time of last year’s Copenhagen summit on climate change. It supposedly showed scientists fixing stats in order to make a more convincing argument that global warming is true. But not only would these two have had to rig their data, but thousands of scientists would have to be in on it, too. More likely was that these two scientists were talking about making some changes to their data, which didn’t jive with decades-worth of data on climate change.

Media outlets, however, picked up on the data and all of a sudden, all climate change data was rigged to show global warming. The initial story? Well, the newspaper has retracted it - but nobody seems to have noticed. Global warming data was called into question and that is what will be remembered.

The second scandal has nothing to do with climate change, but it has something to do with the face of climate change. For better or worse, Al Gore is considered the man behind alternative energy. He was not even close to the first person to talk about global warming, but he has had the most success in bringing the message to a mainstream audience. But if he wasn’t already a punch-line, his latest alleged missteps in Seattle have made him one.

It’s not that anything in Al Gore’s personal life has anything to do with climate change, but the reports that allege he attacked a masseuse in an attempt to have sex with her undermine his own honesty. And when you say to Congress or the American people: “Believe me on this - climate change will be harmful.” Well, you’re not the first person I’ll really be believing.

Do Al Gore’s missteps mean he’s been lying about global warming. NO. But will critics seize upon them to make it seem like he’s been lying about global warming. YES. And when the answer to the global warming problem needs a collective action to succeed, we need as many people as possible believing in overwhelming global warming data. It’s not right, but Al Gore and the Climategate scandal make it all the tougher.