I use far fewer calories than the average person. I am much more economically and environmentally sustainable. I exhale less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I use less space and thus I don't need a large house to live in. If the earth was populated by people my size, we could sustain a much larger population for longer. Next time you are about to dismiss or call someone "short", think about all the benefits he or she contributes to the planet and say something short and nice to them about me! :)

The photo was taken a day after the fires took a break from work because a) they got tired b) felt lazy c) showed respect for the Acropolis d) found no more forest to rage through e) all of the above. Please believe everything I'm telling you because the sign in this photo is not a joke. It wasn't staged or meant as humor. It's for Real! The sign reads "FOR SALE". Now, I am no forensic expert, but there was a major fire around it, and the sign seems clean and white. In other words, brand new. (read more)

Roundabouts are a seeming contradiction, they slow traffic while they keep it moving. But they are safer than traffic lights because they demand that your - and more to the point everybody else's - operation is cooperation. They save fuel because unlike a light-directed intersection they don't require you to stop, idle and start again. They have no moving parts. And you can plant trees and flowers in the circle.

In 2008, half of the world's population lived in cities for the first time in history. This trend is likely to continue as more people choose (or are forced) to move to the cities. After the Industrial revolution, we now have the Urban revolution.

As much as I love big cities, it is hard not to wonder whether urban lifestyles are fundamentally opposed to nature. In other words, is urban life environmentally sustainable? (read more)

I am not sure if this falls under psychology, ecology or economics. My friend works for a company which is currently facing severe economic difficulties and management is frantic about reducing costs. Half-jokingly someone suggested that they use both sides of a post-it note. When I heard it, I was surprised but after giving it some thought I realized it's not such a bad idea. If we use less paper, that's good for the environment, isn't it? The only time I used both sides of a post-it note was when, having run out of sets, I had to make do with the last note in the pack. It never occurred to me to think of the environmental impact so I'm now reconsidering my one-side only use.

imagine how many trees can be saved if printer settings did not give the option of printing on one side only. a simple adjustment in the settings to make all printers print using both sides of paper means less paper would be consumed. it's probably about half the amount we print now. if you think about it that's a lot of paper!

I just saw this story about a lioness adopting a small antilope.

http://animal.discovery.com/fansites/wildkingdom/lioness/videogallery/videogallery.html (read more)

MIT scientists discovered a new and easy way to store and use solar energy even when the sun is not shining. I am not a scientist so I can't tell how big a breakthrough it is. I thought to post the link to the source and hear your comments on the future of solar energy or clean energy in general. It's obvious to everyone that we have to move to clean energy but there is a big debate as to which form of clean energy we should move. Bio fuels and corn ethanol don't seem to be the right move. Could solar energy be it? Any ideas on how solar energy can be scaled? Is anyone aware of any arguments against using solar energy? (read more)

Apparently, not all farting is environment-friendly. With a bit of science, however, all farts can become environment-friendly.

In Australia, this is where cutting-edge research happens. According to this article

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/06/2111509.htm (read more)

A very interesting discovery by the Missouri Tree Ring Laboratory on how to reduce CO2 emissions in the atmosphere. If trees are submerged in freshwater aquatic systems they can store carbon for an average of 2,000 years. If they fall in a forest that number is reduced to an average of 20 years. We could store trees underwater in ways that could last tens of thousands of years if we wanted to put some thought in how to do it. Just a thought here. The article doesn't explain whether this holds true if the tree is submerged in seawater. Seawater storage could be a solution, storing thousands of acres of trees in the bottom of the sea might also help replenish food sources for fish and marine life. (read more)