One such game is ominously entitled “Fate of the World.” It’s a PC strategy game that deals with some pretty heavy issues—natural disasters, population growth, and energy consumption are but a few of the problems game players must face. As the game’s official website explains, “Your mission: Solve the crisis. But, like life, it won’t be easy. You’ll have to work through natural disasters, foreign diplomacy, clandestine operations, technological breakthroughs, and somehow satisfy the food and energy needs of a growing world population. Will you help the planet or become an agent of destruction?” And if your kid is more into iPhones, there’s the iPhone/iPad compatible “Face the Waste,” which also addresses environmental waste concerns.

Another interesting environmental game is National Geographic’s “Plan It Green.” In the game you play as the Mayor of Greenville, and your mission is to change the city for the better by creating green jobs, constructing eco-friendly homes, and beautifying your surroundings (from sidewalks to garage doors). CEO Kirk Owens explains, “This is the right product for the times. Not only is it a fantastic game, but it integrates a theme we all hear hundreds of times a week. . . . By working with National Geographic, we were able to go beyond pop green ideas and make a game that truly conveys the possibilities of the future.”

Do you feel that green video games are the key to get kids more involved and interested in green issues? What do you think is needed for these issues to resonate with adolescents? All comments are appreciated.

The award show took place at the National History Museum in London, with candidates including Paul McCartney and musician Miguel Bose. Gisele has been a Goodwill Ambassador for the United Nations Environment Program since 2009 and has been a big supporter of environmental issues and events, such as World Environment Day.

But Gisele isn’t the only celeb who has gone green. Ashton Kutcher has reportedly bought soon-to-be ex-wife Demi Moore quite a Lexus hybrid (valued at over $100,000), not a shabby vehicle to have tucked behind your garage door! Jessica Alba has come forward as a proponent of the Safe Chemicals Act, which would require chemicals to be proven safe before they can be used in products that children are likely to encounter.

Finally there’s Amy Smart, who recently had a green wedding, marrying Carter Oosterhouse. Smart explained, “Our wedding was very green. We had 220 people there and only one bag of trash, not even a full bag. We recycled everything, we composted everything.”  Smart also commented on hopes to go even greener, saying, “For my house, I had [a solar paneling company] come and . . . try and put [solar panels] on my roof. From the mountains and the location, they said I wouldn’t be able to benefit from it and it would be so expensive because I get so much shade at some points. So yeah, if we can, we will definitely try to put solar on.”

So what does it mean that so many celebrities are jumping aboard the green bandwagon? Well, it certainly is a good sign. People look up to celebrities, and if they see them going green and becoming more environmentally conscious, they are more likely to follow suit, or perhaps at least do some research and explore a more eco-friendly lifestyle.

Join in the discussion in the comments below and/or share the piece.

A recently released environmental film, perhaps, is “The Lorax.” Originally by Dr. Seuss, The Lorax was first released as a book in 1971. Interestingly, the book met some controversy in 1988. A town heavily dependent on logging lashed out against the book when the book was put on the second-graders reading list.

Terri Birkett consequently published The Truax with the help and support of NOFMA (National Wood Flooring Manufacturers Association). The Truax tells the story of the Guardbark, who eventually understands the loggers’ stance and sides with them.

The revamped Lorax story has been adapted into an animated film, and stars several teen icons. The main character, Ted, is voiced by Zac Efron, who has a crush on Taylor Swift’s character, Ashley. Other actors involved with the movie include Betty White, Danny DeVito, Ed Helms, and Rob Riggle. Search for the film on YouTube and you’ll find over 100,000 views of the trailer even though it has only been on the website for two days. A barrage of comments on the website supports the stars.

The plot follows 12-year-old Ted, who sets out to find a tree amidst his futuristic high-tech world in order to win the affections of his crush. To do this, Ted will need the help of the Lorax, whose curmudgeonly personality can be attributed to having to fight so hard to save the world. Crazy but true, and as serious as a garage door bent on closing.

“The Lorax” will be released in March 2012 and will be available in 3D. The film also incorporates state-of-the-art CGI animation, so it’s sure to entertain a young crowd, who will hopefully be motivated to take positive actions toward an environmentally-friendly future.

Join in the discussion in the comments below and/or share the piece.

Firstly, I’ve noted that the GFT is unusually busy this week. This is good as it shows there is clearly an appetite for these sorts of documentary films. But, as came up in a Q & A session with one of the directors of Planet Eat Or Shlomi, there is a bit of a dilemma here. The directors of these films want to promote the message in the movie as much as possible, and get as many people to watch it as they can. Probably the easiest way of doing that is to stream it online. But equally they also want to raise revenue. Not that any of them are in it for profit (breaking even would be nice!) but there is a danger with the streaming of documentaries on the internet, thro websites such as Top Documentaries , will kill the golden goose. Of course, if we all stopped watching these films online, then given that so few cinemas show these sorts of documentary films, much less of us would get to see them, other than hoping and waiting for them to be broadcast in a local art house cinema, or possibly on TV (and you can forget about the  major networks in the US ever broadcasting one of these films) . I don’t know the answer to that one, DVD sales are one idea, thought not ideal (can end up costing the producers more to make and distribute the DVD’s than they make back…and don’t get me started on carbon footprints here!) but like I said, it’s a dilemma.

Another point Or Shlomi made was the issue that in the UK, an independent film maker has great difficulty approaching scientists and getting interviews. They want to speak to the BBC or ITV, etc. In the US, it’s the opposite, tell a scientists you’re an independent film maker they’ll happily give you a couple of hours of they’re time, say you’re from CNN…..and they’ll suddenly remember they’ve got a load of papers that need marking. I’m wondering if this has something to do with the state of journalism in the US, i.e the scientists know that anything they say to CNN (or Fox) will be heavily edited and watered down (or inflated into some scare story). It’s possible that the recent explosion in documentary film making might be linked to the abandonment by the news media, particularly in the US, of serious investigative journalism.

Harry Shearer, director of “The Big Uneasy”, in New Orleans on the bank of the Mississippi River with the Pontchartrain Expressway in the background.

The Big Uneasy

In 2005 the New Orleans was hit by an unprecedented natural disaster, in the form of hurricane Katrina. It was a rare one off storm that nobody could have foreseen….or at least that’s what Fox News would have you believe! As this film shows the true story is one of inadequate flood defences and many other issues that had been building for years. Contrary to popular opinion it’s likely the walls of the levees were not overtopped, several may well have structurally failed, indicating that New Orleans flood defences were inadequately designed. The film documents the accounts of whistle blowers who claimed critical equipment failed in tests years earlier, and that scientist warned of the dangers to New Orleans but were ignored, see National Geographic in Oct 2004 (a year before Katrina, and this was a followup story to another one about the issue published years earlier). The decline and loss of the wetlands around the city in pursuit of shipping channels (to support the oil industry, notably the so called MR GO) as well as climate change, also played its role.

But in the aftermath there is the question of what next for the Big Easy? Some sceptics would say, well you build a city below sea level and it will flood come a storm (like dah!). However, it’s not as simple as that. Indeed large parts of New Orleans, including the historic French quarter, are actually above sea level. The city is built where it is because it is one of America’s most strategic ports – the point of entry for much of its oil (from the Gulf of Mexico as well as Venezuela) and the exit point for much agricultural produce. That said, the film raised questions about the competency of the US Army Corps of Engineers and given the mess they made last time, whether the current flood defences will work next time (and there will be a next time!).

Indeed a good deal of the film was about showing the systematic failures of the US ACE, not just at New Orleans but countrywide. The ACE is one of Congresses principle delivery tools for Federal pork barrel funds, so on the one hand congress wants an ineffective, slightly dotty ACE that will provide more jobs and employment, but then of course they don’t want to pay the high costs of build New Orleans flood defences up to say category 5 level. Not helped by the fact they are now having to spend money correcting past mistakes of the ACE, such as the aforementioned Mr GO shipping channel.

Indeed we have to ask, as the film does, whether building big concrete walls is the best way to protect a city from hurricanes. Other alternatives include reclaiming the wetlands around the city or a “Dutch” approach with lots of open canals and water basins in the city to take away and store the water, plus keeping the ground wet (so it will absorb more come a storm). I would note, that there’s probably health reasons to limit the last of these options, given that New Orleans is in the Tropic (mosquito breeding country), but even so concrete walls aren’t necessarily the only solution to the problem.

And for the other great cities of the world, New Orleans is a warning of what’s to come. Today New Orleans…tomorrow…London? As sea levels rise, many of the world’s great cities such as London, New York, Tokyo and Mumbai, will find themselves under increasing pressure from the sea and will be forced to spend increasing amounts trying to defend the city from flooding. Eventually, it may reach the point where we have to just give up, move the critical functions of said city further inland and abandon the place to its fate. Such could well be the price we pay for climate change. With New Orleans this will be painful, the whole city won’t need to be abandoned (like I said parts of it are on a hill), but we’re talking bout having to relocate maybe 500,000+ people and the docks and other critical infrastructure. That’s going to be a pretty big job, whose going to pay for it? And relocating the city of London to higher ground, or all the financial services companies on Manhattan Island, whose going to pay for that? These are the sort “prices of climate change” that those who oppose action, because its too costly, don’t take into account.

Planeat

This film explores that most crucial of human relationship, between us and our food. Our largely meat based diet is the source of considerable environmental damage, from the increased global warming that it produces (a combination of embodied energy in feeding animals plus the CO2 and methane they produce, a cow for example produces about 90 kg’s of methane per year) and the vast “dead zones” in oceans caused by agricultural run off.

Of course one of the arguments against a Vegan diet is that it’s less healthy. Probably, true up to a point, in that it’s harder to eat a balanced diet if you completely give up meat. However, as the film spends a good deal of time pointing out there are health implications to a meat based diet, such as a greatly increased risk of heart disease and that one is more at risk of certain types of cancers (neither I nor the film are saying that meat causes cancer, not true, but it does increase the risk, nature creates the risk and diet can help pull the trigger). This is largely based upon a major study by Dr T. Campbell focusing on the link between diet and disease in rural China, which showed extremely low risks of heart disease (and certain cancer types) among populations who largely eat a plant based diet, compared with other populations in other parts of the country who were more at risk, due to a more animals products based diet.

Of course one of the other obstacles to going Vegan is cost. Its much more expensive to by Hummus in a Organic food shop, than meat based stuff at the supper market (casing point, last jar of Hummus I bought…think it was 3 quid, last burger I bought at a super market…think they were about 70-80p each…and I went for the gourmet expensive ones!). Of course this price differential is only there because we massively subsidise the meat and dairy industry, both in the Europe (according to Wikipedia its about €57 Billion euro and 40% of the EU budget) and the US. Clearly not a sustainable practice. Removing these subsidies would level the playing field, make meat more expensive and thus Vegan alternatives much more competitive.

Of course for me, an expert in energy, the real worry here is the energy one. Food contains rather a lot of embodied energy. That is the energy used by agricultural machinery preparing the land, the energy used in making fertilizers, pesticides, etc. The energy invested harvesting and processing food and of course packaging and shipping it (i.e. food miles). Much of this energy comes from Fossil fuels. Opinions differ as to how these things pan out, I’ve heard some people suggest that for every calorie of food energy we eat approximately 10 calories of (largely hydrocarbon) energy are consumed in producing that food. Even putting aside this figure, one fact that is beyond dispute, is that a meat based diet consumes much more food than a plant based one. And given that I suspect we’ll have a lot less energy available in future to invest in food production, plus we’ll likely be forced to give over some of our land to energy production (biofuels, etc.) this creates a big dilemma, can we feed the planet in a post peak oil world?

I’ve seen estimates before suggesting that on an energy basis, a sustainable global population would be around 25 Billion with a plant based diet and 8 Billion with a mixed meat and plant diet, of course these figures only account for energy inputs into the system at the exclusion of everything else and we assume 100% conversion efficiency at various steps (when 20-33% is more likely, i.e a pop. of 5-7.5 Billion with plants and 2-2.66 Billion with meat). The energy efficiency of say a cow is probably only about 5-10% (that is we feed a cow food, food = energy from the sun/fossil fuels, kill cow & eat cow but will only receive 5-10% of the originally invested energy back) although again we’re thinking purely in energy terms here.

On a food basis Planeat suggests we can get 3 times more food from the same land with plants than with animals. And as also pointed out in the film, about 40% of our grain supply gets fed to cattle. So, cutting down on meat production is something of a priority.

Of course, as I would counter, we can’t eat grass, while cows can! Furthermore, organic farms tend to be much less efficient producers of food than industrial agriculture . And before we go all Vegan mad here, what’s good for the goose ain’t good for the gander. Some parts of the planet are not really geared towards plant based agriculture. In much of the Middle East, the steppes of Asia, Pacific Island communities, or the Northern areas of North America and Europe (or indeed the highlands of Scotland), a meat or fish based diet is actually the most energy efficient and carbon neutral option. The amount of trouble and energy you’d have to invest trying to grow crops in such a harsh climate, against raising animals or fishing, negates any benefits. But of course feeding much of our grain to cattle isn’t a great idea, nor is it sustainable or ethical in an overpopulated world.

So in my opinion, while we need to take the message of this film on board (course you’ll have to see it first ), we also need to put everything in context. For example, just to correct one point made in the Q&A afterwards, someone (a Vegan I presume) made some comment about the “ethics” of using wool. The problem at the moment in the UK is getting farmers to shear their sheep, as its better for the sheep on an animal welfare point of view. Unfortunately, it now costs farmers more money to sheer a sheep than they get back from selling the wool, as they have to compete against artificial fibres (produced from oil) and some aren’t bothering to do so any more. Wool is a good natural product, excellent insulation properties, good U-value, bio-degradable, a low carbon footprint (compared to artificial fibres) and most important of all its sustainable – we’ve had sheep in the UK for thousands of year and likely still have them thousands of years after the last petrol powered car has rusted back to iron oxide. So wool hardly counts as unethical, quite the opposite!

Of course, I’m being a bit of a hypocrite here, given that I just walked past a fridge full of meat and dairy products (indeed the primary “plant derived” food in my fridge is probably beer!) although my dinner tonight was salad and lunch was spicy potatoes & tomatoes (check out the planeat website for some nice recipes!). Having seen this film, I’ll probably decrease my meat intake in future, but I don’t think I’ll be turning Vegan…sort of hard think to do in Glasgow! Casing point, on the train home after the film many people (drunks…sorry! I mean locals!) were tucking into their deep fried…..something or other (probably best not to know what it was originally!) or kebab and chips. I start preaching about Veganism there I’d have probably got Chibbed with a plastic fork fairly quickly! If Glaswegians went Vegan, we’d start deep frying tofu and lettuce! :O This is the home of the deep fired mars bar! So we’ve along way to go in terms of solving our food problems.

Gasland

Narrowly beaten to the Oscar for best documentary this year (by Inside Job), Gasland is probably one of the most controversial films in years. If you’ve not heard about (have you been living under a rock?) it traces the story of one young filmmaker who was asked by a drilling company for permission to drill in his land for “Shale Gas” using a technique called Hydraulic Fracturing, often referred to as simply Fracking . He embarks on a journey across the US uncovering a trail of people claiming Fracking nearby their homes has contaminated their water supplies….to the point that some of them can actually set fire to their tap water! Then there are strange mysterious vapours coming of the condensation tanks at Shale gas wells (given that they are only visible in IR camera, here a still, its probably some greenhouse gas likely methane…plus a carcinogen or two!)

The film comes on the back of a Cornell university study (summary of the study here, news article here, key graph  here) suggesting that Shale gas drilling, once you account for these methane leaks, comes out with a carbon footprint worse than coal! And worse still, as most of this carbon is released downstream, i.e at the wellhead, we can’t mitigate the problem with CCS. Indeed, reading through the Cornell study paper I note that it doesn’t seem to adequately consider the issue of underground leaks (i.e the gas that’s winding up in peoples drinking water, at one point in the film you see gas apparently seeping up from the ground). If so, then this could mean that Shale gas has a much larger carbon footprint than even this Cornell study suggests. Given how the US and certain other countries now seem determined to get the bulk of their energy from Shale gas in the future, this could mean that if the US starts ditching oil and coal for Shale gas, far from its greenhouse gas emissions falling, they might actually increase dramatically, never mind the enormous damage to public health and drinking water that this film highlights.

Of course the gas industry has been very quick to react to both this film and the Cornell study. In the situations in the film where people light their drinking water, they point out that investigators (hired by the gas industry) concluded that the gas in the water is biogenic in origin (i.e from natural decay not natural gas). The make similar claims as to there being no direct link between Shale gas drilling and water source pollution. This may be true, but as Gasland shows, there’s a growing causal link between Shale gas drillers moving into an area and then people reporting water problems….I wonder if there’s a relationship between the two!

As a scientist, I should note that a causal relationship doesn’t prove anything by itself. But it’s certainly reason for further study and maybe easing off on Shale Gas projects until these studies are completed. I would also note that proving a definitive link between two things, say the deaths of thousands of people at Chernobyl due to radiation, or smoking and lung cancer is difficult. In both the two examples above our evidence is mostly causal (lots of people smoked, lots got cancer).

Of course the very fact the Gas industry swiftly deployed their PR attack dogs against Josh Fox, suggests he’s hit on a raw nerve. You don’t call out the big gun PR firms unless you have a good reason to be worried. The first I heard of this film was from one of these PR agencies attacking it…which given that I know how these guys operate (see PR watch or Toxic sludge is good for you! here), suggested to me that the film must be on to something…indeed it sort of suggests that the fossil fuel industry have probably known about these problems for years and are now really upset that someone’s finally blown the whistle. Why for example, back in 2001, before the Shale gas drilling boom even started did the Bush adm. exempt Shale Gas drillers from the Clean Water Act? That sort of suggests that they knew something was dodgy from day one.

But I see a simple solution to this whole mess, we make a deal with the Shale gas industry that they can drill wherever they like – but the executives and shareholders, plus their families and children, have to exclusively drink the drinking water from wells harvested around shale gas facilities. How many shale gas wells do you think we’d drill?

But Jokes aside, Gasland is a film that anyone who is even vaguely aware of this thing called “the environment” needs to go see….somehow!

The Pipe

In 1996 natural gas was found off the North West coast of Mayo by Shell. So began Ireland’s most controversial energy project to date . Since then various local opposition groups have sought to derail and prevent this Corrib gas project, under the umbrella group “Shell 2 Sea” . This film details the struggle of members of a small local community against the combined forces of a major energy corporation and the Irish State to push through Corrib regardless.

Having said that, I would note that at the time Shell originally proposed the gas field and pipeline route, their preferred pipeline route (which is the crux of all the controversy) struck me as the least worst option from an environmental point of view. Shell 2 Sea’s proposal, while moving the pipe out of certain people’s back yards, would be worse for the environment. So it’s not really appropriate to consider this as an “environmentalists” against multinational situation, more NIMBY’s against a multinational. Indeed it was sort ironic at times seeing some of them driving around in SUV’s or using cars (or fishing boats!) to block construction never once thinking, well without fossil fuels how would I be able to live?

As someone supportive of renewables, I’d rather see more offshore wind, tidal and wave energy installed off the west coast instead of gas. But the fact is that 90% of Ireland’s energy comes from fossil fuels (see the graph here), 37% of it from natural gas. Climbing that mountain is going to take decades. In the interim, we are going to need to use some source of fossil fuels and I’d rather see us use the Irish stuff than importing it from Russia (and if Corrib doesn’t goes ahead this will be the end result). Of course mention the word “environment” in Russia and the FSB will spirit you away to the nearest Sushi bar,  so like I said its about least worse options.

Yes, of all the energy companies picked to exploit Irelands natural resources, I can think of none worse than Shell – who in their right mind pick them…oh! wait, it was Ray Burke, one of the dodgiest, brown envelope stuffing politicians of recent Irish political history. And I mean we used to call him Ray Burka for his habit of hiding stuff! Anyway, Shell for those who don’t know (again, which rock have you been living under?) have a bit of a “reputation” to say the least! The strong arm tactics of the police were brutal, and the way the Irish government just rolled over to corporate power, is controversial. But there is a need to be pragmatic about these things. So altogether both compelling and at the same time slightly humorous viewing.

Of course you’ll notice I said, most controversial to date project. They reckon that there’s Shale gas up in Fermanagh, and given what happened over Corrib, and all that I said earlier about Shale gas above, I suspect sparks will soon be flying over this soon. If there’s one positive outcome from Corrib it will be that the Fermanagh proposal gets quietly dropped as the companies will be too afraid of local opposition.

Winds of Change

A short film that showed an alternative approach to the above. Rather than big business coming into a rural community and imposing an energy project (be it a wind farm, gasfield or nuclear plant) for the benefit of people hundreds of miles away and profit of faceless investors, the community of Fintry bought a share in a local renewable energy project. The profits of which are now being ploughed into local community energy projects (loft insulation, renewable heating systems, etc).

http://www.transitionscotland.org/~transiti/uk-green-film-festival-20-22-may

I would note that this is nothing new; they’ve been following this approach in Denmark and Germany for many years now. This may explain the relatively limited opposition to renewables in these countries compared to the rampant NIMBYism in the UK (and Ireland). So definitely a way forward, and a stark contrast to the business model of Shell above or the Shale gas drilling industry.

That said of course, there’s a limit to how far we can push this paradigm. The majority of us live in large cities which will require some large energy projects if we’re going to solve our energy needs. While I would favour as much local involvement as possible, inevitably you’re going to need major corporations involved, at some level, in both for the installation of renewable systems but also the financing of these projects.

Is it too early to start thinking about Christmas? I think not. If you plan early and do a little research, green alternatives aren’t hard to find; there’s something eco-friendly out there for everyone on your list.

Top 10 Green Gifts

1. Homemade Bodycare Products

For the: makeup lover, spa junkie, or anyone who could use a little pampering

Why it’s Green: There are tons of natural beauty products out there, but why not kick it up a notch and make your own? You can make this present as green as you want it to be!

Generally, homemade products are free from toxins and dangerous ingredients because you use pure, simple ingredients like essential oils and skin care oils like almond, olive or grapeseed. Using baking tools you already have at home, plus some simple ingredients, you can create countless products. You can also clean and re-use glass packaging from old bodycare products (which saves money and packaging) and use organic and local ingredients whenever possible.

Why they’ll love it: You can personalize these products to make something perfect for that special someone. Use essential oils to create their favourite scents (such as rose, citrus or vanilla) and keep in mind their skin type (oily, dry) to create a unique product that they can’t find on the shelf. There are tons of great recipes online.

2. Tools to Refuse Plastic

For the: friend who’s always on-the-go

Why it’s Green: Saving non-recyclable, toxic food containers and wrappers from contaminating our environment and ending up in the oceans—how can this not be green? I’m not just talking about stainless steel water bottles and travel mugs here: everything from chopsticks, cutlery, stainless steel drinking straws, cloth napkins and glass or stainless steel food containers are a must if you’re always on-the-go and don’t have time for a sit-down meal with real cutlery and dishes. If you’re armed with these tools on hand, you can easily refuse the disposable plastic that’s always forced on consumers.

Why they’ll love it: Now that they’re becoming more popular, stainless steel water bottles and travel mugs come in stylish designs that will please even the most reluctant environmentalist-in-training.

3. Refillable Pen

For the: student, business professional or creative writer

Why it’s Green: Instead of throwing out hundreds of pens and wasting plastic, investing in one reusable high-quality pen that will last forever is significantly better for the environment.

Why they’ll love it: Not only is this gift environmentally-friendly, a serious writer or student will appreciate how much more professional and beautiful a high-quality pen looks.

4. Natural Rubber Yoga Mat

For the: yoga and fitness enthusiast

Why it’s Green: With yoga becoming so popular, we should re-evaluate the typical yoga mats being used. Regular yoga mats are made from PVC, a toxic plastic that has been labelled a carcinogen. Available online, natural rubber yoga mats are the natural alternative to synthetic mats. They’re plastic-free, non-toxic and biodegradable and they work just as well as their PVC cousins. 

Why they’ll love it: Chances are, anyone who practises yoga is doing so as part of an overall healthy lifestyle. Knowing that you’re breathing in toxins during Downward Facing Dog isn’t a pleasant idea.

5. Hot Air Popper

For the: foodie

Why it’s Green: Did you know that microwave popcorn bags are lined with toxic non-stick coatings? Yes, even organic microwave popcorn. Plus, the vast majority of microwave popcorn is genetically modified and loaded with trans fat and salt. The hot air popper is an old idea that is ready for a comeback. Depending on which kind you get, they can be a little pricey, but avoiding toxins is well worth the investment. Plus, they’re so much more fun to use.

Why they’ll love it: Everyone loves popcorn! Pair it with some organic hot cocoa and a movie, and you’ve got the perfect remedy for a cold winter night.

6. Gardening Supplies

For the: friend with a green thumb

Why it’s Green: Growing your own food is one of the greenest (and healthiest) things you can do. Help out your favourite gardener by giving stylish gardening gloves, hand-held tools, beautiful ceramic pots, a watering can and other supplies from you local gardening/landscaping store.

Why they’ll love it: Sure it’s not the season yet, but we can dream about the sunshine, can’t we?

7. Hemp Clothing

For the: fashionista

Why it’s Green: Organic cotton and bamboo are great, but you’ve got to hand it to hemp as the winner of the best eco-friendly fabric. It’s durable, comfortable, naturally resistant to mold and mildew, and doesn’t require chemicals to grow compared to cotton. It’s even strong enough to act as a vegetarian alternative for wallets, purses, bags, belts and shoes.

Why they’ll love it: It’s fashionable! They’ll have no idea it’s hemp until they look at the tag. Check out The Hempest (http://store.hempest.com/catalog/) for some great pieces.

8. Indoor Plants

For the: homeowner

Why it’s Green: Unlike some gifts where you’re looking for a “better” alternative, plants are perfectly environmentally-friendly on their own! Not only do they add oxygen to the air, but they clean the air of indoor toxins too. For a sophisticated look, choose a bamboo plant, an exotic palm or a cactus. For the more traditional friend, flowers or ivy work well. Small evergreens are also perfect for this time of year.

Why they’ll love it: They’ll make any room look stylish and cheerful. There are lots of varieties that need virtually no water, so it’s not too much to care for them. Plus, they can be transferred outdoors if they ever get too big.

9. Gift Certificate for a yoga lesson, photography workshop, cooking class, etc…

For the: friend who has everything or the friend who refuses material gifts

Why it’s Green: There’s nothing being produced, shipped or wasted here because it’s all about the experience instead of a material object.

Why they’ll love it: They can do something they love, and you can do something together. There are countless possibilities: a craft, sport or dance they’ve always wanted to try, a massage, an event they’ve been hinting about, an annual pass to a museum…

10. Make-it-yourself Birdhouse and Birdfeeder

For the: family with young kids

Why it’s Green: Birdhouses can teach kids to love nature and care for animals at an early age. Plus, songbirds are in danger these days due to hungry neighbourhood cats, so they need all the help they can get!

Why they’ll love it: Putting it together is a fun project that can be done as a family and watching winter birds take refuge in your backyard is definitely rewarding. Plus, the kids can spend some time outdoors instead of in front of the TV. If you decorate it, make sure you use natural, non-toxic paints!

Top 10 Stocking Stuffers

1. Take a trip to your local health food store and fill cloth gift bags with organic chocolate-covered fruit and nuts.
2. Organic and Fair Trade Certified bulk tea and coffee are stocking stuffer classics with an eco-friendly twist!
3. Natural beeswax or soy based candles are an eco-friendly alternative to paraffin-based candles with synthetic (and toxic) fragrances.
4. Give small, medium and large lightweight drawstring cloth bags for produce and bulk food to the shopper in the family. While many people have swapped their plastic bags for reusable ones, produce and bulk bags are often overlooked. Washable, organic cotton or hemp bags are best.
5. Organic cotton or hemp facial washcloths are a perfect companion to any natural bodycare products.
6. Warm and cozy hats, scarves, socks and mittens made from organic cotton or non-dyed wool are perfect for the cold days (preferably from local vendors at craft fairs).
7. Homemade natural and organic foods are so much better than store-bought! Give away jams and preserves (in bpa-free glass jars), cookies and baked goods and organic hot cocoa mix.
8. Packets of organic vegetable or flower seeds will keep until spring when they can be planted.
9. For the student, recycled pencils, notebooks and other environmentally-friendly supplies are useful and stylish.
10. Make some homemade lip balms (see above for more information). Try a combination of peppermint and vanilla essential oils for a lip balm that smells and tastes like candy canes!

Top Places to go shopping

Skip the big box stores and find something unique and environmentally friendly:

1. Winter farmers’ markets and craft sales: you’ll find one-of-a-kind gifts and local creations, and you’ll get to meet the people behind the products.
2. Local artisan shops and boutiques: like farmer’s markets and craft sales, you’ll find unique pieces of artwork that are locally made.
3. Your local health food store: find specialty and organic foods, preferably with minimal packaging.
4. Online: if you’re looking for something specific or don’t have many environmentally-friendly alternatives nearby, there are tons of green companies online that ship right to your door.

Wait! What about wrapping paper?

This isn’t as tough as it seems. My favourite (and free!) choice is newspaper, especially from the comics section. If you don’t have a subscription, there are tons of free dailies around that get recycled (or thrown out) every day. Snag some and re-use them.

If you’re really trying to impress and newsprint won’t cut it for Grandma, reusable cloth bags of all sizes work well to wrap gifts. Opt for real fabrics (cotton or hemp) instead of reusable bags that look like cloth but are really made from synthetic materials and more plastic.

As far as bows go, skip the cheap plastic ribbon. Reuse what you have and when you run out, use hemp twine, which can be saved and reused for gardening in the spring!

“As I became aware of the mounting global water crisis, I realized that it represented a clash of cultures – between a culture that values water as a shared sacred source of all life and a corporate culture that regards water as a commodity to be bought and sold.”

Quote from Shalini Kantayya, director of A Drop of Life – a futuristic sci-fi flick about the mounting water crisis winning Best Short Film at Palm Beach International as well as the Audience Choice Award at the IUOW Film competition. Will check it out some time (two years late anyway).

“Who controls water controls life”

Obama will abandon complex policies on emissions, clean coal and refocus on achievable goals like applying deodorant daily, learning what to say when you burp.

Don’t worry! It’s just some good’ol satire. Or is it?

This past week the non-profit film HOME was released in every format, including in movie theaters, on television, DVD/Blu-ray Disc and the internet, on the same day in over 50 countries in an effort to spread its message to the widest audience possible.

“We are living in exceptional times. Scientists tell us that we have 10 years to change the way we live, avert the depletion of natural resources and the catastrophic evolution of the Earth’s climate”, Yann Arthus-Bertrand, director and photographer of the film, said.

“The stakes are high for us and our children. Everyone should take part in the effort, and HOME has been conceived to take a message of mobilization out to every human being.”

HOME is directed by the internationally renowned French photographer Yann Arthus-Bertrand, produced the famous director Luc Besson and narrated by five-time Academy Award nominee Glenn Close (Dangerous Liaisons).

The film is shot in high definition in 54 countries and 120 locations over 217 days and will use a “first-time ever all-aerial filming style” highlighting “the Earth’s wonders as well as its wounds and provides a necessary perspective to approach the changing environment”.

Home will be available on DVD for $19.98. But you can watch it for free in high definition over at YouTube.

It’s an amazingly beautiful and yet scary documentary about our home. It sort of reminds me about the Swedish documentary “The Planet” but with fewer facts. Watch it!

Also watch: The Age of Stupid

Going Green: A wannabe environmentalist just doesn’t get it.

President Obama hosts a star-studded SuperNews! full of “recycled” cartoons from classic episodes.

Yesterday the new climate change movie “The Age of Stupid” had premiere in the UK. The movie stars Pete Postlethwaite as an archivist in the devastated world of the future, asking the question: “Why didn’t we stop climate change when we still had the chance?” He looks back on footage of real people around the world in the years leading up to 2015 before runaway climate change took place.

The movie has already received positive reviews in the press and celebrities, politicians and environmentalists have all praised it. The Guardian has said the movie is “fascinating”. And that “the message, never stated but constantly emerging, is that we all have our self-justifying myths. These myths prevent us from engaging with climate change.” The New Statesman says the movie is “anything but a good-guys-versus-bad-guys polemic. It is angry but nuanced, despairing but strangely motivating.”

Ken Livingstone, former Mayor of London have praised the movie and said that “every single person in the country should be forcibly made to watch this film”. George Monbiot, Britain’s leading green commentator, has said that “it is a captivating and constantly surprising film: the first successful dramatisation of climate change to reach the big screen”.

I am definitely looking forward to watch this movie. Maybe. Just maybe it will be better than Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”. What do you think?

Watch the Trailer:

The Age of Stupid: final trailer, Feb 2009 HD from Age of Stupid on Vimeo.

The movie is directed by Franny Armstrong, produced by John Battsek and will be released in UK cinemas on 20 March 2009, followed by other countries. The movie will be followed by a “Not Stupid” campaign that will help put “serious pressure on the decision makers at Copenhagen in December”.