Green Genie is a super useful app for people who may not be eco-experts. The app provides tips on how to improve the environment and also includes a plastics directory, which deciphers the meaning behind those plastic numbers stuck on the bottom of plastic containers. Green Genie also suggests eco-friendly projects that recycle materials, like transforming the material of defunct garage door openers into some other useful gadgets.

GoodGuide also provides green tips but is more in-depth than Green Genie and capable of more sophisticated operations. For example, you can use the app at the store to scan bar codes and the app determines how environmentally friendly a product is. The database of information is huge; they have data on more than 50,000 products and they rate products in multiple areas.

Other apps have much more specific, albeit useful, purposes. The Light Bulb Finder app was one of the winners of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s “Apps for the Environment Challenge.” The Light Bulb Finder app is quite nifty and works by using zip code prompts and lighting information to direct users to light bulbs that would be more energy efficient, ultimately minimizing damage to the environment and saving the consumer money.

The Apps for the Environment Challenge also acknowledged Hootroot as a runner up for the Best Overall App. Hootroot works like Google Maps but takes into account factors like carbon footprints, so you know what kind of impact your excursion will have on the environment. Hootroot differs from the other apps in that it doesn’t require installation and can simply be accessed via hootroot.com.

What are some of your favorite green apps? Let us know in the comments below!

Population of world ‘could grow to 15bn by 2100′
“Nearly 7 billion people now inhabit planet but projections that number will double this century have shocked academics“

The headline in the Daily Mail, Britain’s largest circulation daily, was even more sensationalist:

“World population will more than double to 15 billion by 2100, says UN“

The Guardian story tells us:

“The United Nations will warn this week that the world’s population could more than double to 15 billion by the end of this century, putting a catastrophic strain on the planet’s resources unless urgent action is taken to curb growth rates….

“That figure is likely to shock many experts as it is far higher than many current estimates. A previous UN estimate had expected the world to have more than 10 billion people by 2100; currently, there are nearly 7 billion.”

The Guardian‘s editors repeated the claim in an editorial on October 23. “Without radical action, the UN now predicts the world’s population doubling again before the end of this century.”

Population Matters – the brand-name recently adopted by the arch-populationists of Optimum Population Trust – quickly posted the Guardian October 22 article on its website.

Populationists around the world have jumped on the wagon: less than 48 hours after the Guardian article first appeared, a Google search for “15 Billion by 2100″ found “about 10,900″ results.

But the Guardian article isn’t true. The UN isn’t releasing a new population forecast this week, experts aren’t shocked, and there is virtually no possibility that global population will ever reach 15 Billion.

For starters, the United Nations Population Fund doesn’t compile population statistics or produce population forecasts. Any statistics it publishes come from a separate UN agency, the Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social affairs. The Population Division’s report, World Population Prospects, 2010 Revision, was published six months ago – another isn’t due until 2013.

In this year’s report, the Population Division says that if current population trends continue, the world’s population will be 9.3 Billion in 2050, and 10.1 Billion in 2100. Their projections stop there, but if the trends they describe continue, world population growth will stop early in the 2100s.

So where does 15 Billion in 2100 come from?

The 10.1 Billion figure, called the Mid-Range projection, is based on a careful, country-by-country analysis, combining the latest statistics with the Division’s considered assumptions about long-term trends. The UN has been making these calculations since 1950, and its projections have consistently been off by less than 4%.

But to show that the results aren’t certain, the Population Division also produces two other projections by simply assuming that each adult woman will have 0.5 more or fewer children than the detailed Mid-Range projection. The choice of 0.5 seems to be entirely arbitrary: I’ve been unable to find any explanation of why the UN uses it it instead of a larger or smaller number.
This year, that calculation produced projections for 2100 that range from a low of 6 Billion to a high of more than 15 Billion, as shown in this graph. (click image for a larger version.)

The highest line assumes that fertility doesn’t change at all from now on, taking us to 27 Billion in 2100. Not even the most extreme populationists quote that number.

It’s important to understand that the 6 Billion to 15 Billion range is not comparable to the “margin of error” figure often reported in statistical studies. No probability whatsover is attached to it – it is just the result of a very crude calculation using an arbitrary adjustment.

In fact, the chance that population will reach 15 Billion this century is very close to zero. For that to happen, global fertility rates would have to be 20 to 25 percent higher than the UN’s best estimates, every single year for the next 90 years. Countries where birth rates have been falling for years would have to experience nine unprecedented decades of baby boom. Global birth rates, which have been declining for half a century, would have to reverse direction immediately, and stay high until the next century.

As noted above, previous UN Mid-Range projections have been accurate within 4%. Reaching 15 Billion in 2100 would be 50% off the mark. That’s extremely unlikely, to say the least.

The Guardian report is sloppy journalism, by reporters and editors who likely aren’t familiar with population projections.

But Optimum Population Trust claims to be a source of population expertise. For them to highlight the Guardian‘s grossly inaccurate article qualifies as either ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation. Either way, their judgement obviously can’t be trusted.

Unfortunately, as Mark Twain said, a lie can travel round the world while the truth is still lacing up its boots. Eventually the truth will win, but I expect we’ll see the “15 Billion by 2100″ lie quite a lot for a while.

E-waste stands for electronic waste. This includes anything from discarded and broken cell phones, computers, iPods, and small appliances.

Developed nations are dealing with a crisis of overconsumption, which produces many harmful consequences. One of these consequences is e-waste, which is created when electronic products are thrown away. Unfortunately, the production, consumption and ultimate disposal of e-waste is sped up with planned obsolescence, when products are intentionally designed to have a short lifespan—they either break quickly and cannot be repaired inexpensively, or new versions are continually being designed to replace older ones. With the technology available to us, products can be designed to last for decades, if not longer. However, things seem to be lasting for less and less time. This is all in the name of profit, benefitting corporations that want consumers to keep buying products. According to Greenpeace USA, the average lifespan of computers in developed countries has dropped from six years in 1997 to just two years in 2005, and mobile phones have a lifecycle of less than two years in developed countries.

But the dangers don’t come solely from the waste itself; even more severe problems occur when the waste is broken apart. When e-waste is disposed of, it is often sent overseas where people in struggling developing nations take apart the products to recycle the e-waste and attempt to salvage parts with any value. Some recycling companies that appear to be reputable engage in this careless practice as well. North America and Europe are known to export a large percentage of their e-waste to countries like India, China, and Ghana.

In the process of taking apart the electronics, these overseas workers are exposed to dangerous toxins, putting themselves, their families and their environment at risk. These toxins include heavy metals such as lead, beryllium and mercury, as well as chlorinated solvents, flame retardants and polyvinyl chloride (PVC). These are all deadly chemicals. Why should people in developing countries have to pay for the greed of our wasteful consumer society? 

What can you do about E-waste?

1. Rethink the amount of electronics you buy: don’t buy a new cell phone just because your contract expires and you can get the newest version that everyone else is getting. Also, look into getting your small appliances repaired before buying new ones. Reduce, re-use and recycle, in that order. Remember that no matter what advertising tells us, things don’t make us happy.
2. When you do have to get rid of electronics, recycle them with reputable companies. You can also contact the company where your product came from in the first place, and ask them if they have a take-back program. Always ask the recycling depot or company if they send the electronics overseas. If they don’t give a clear answer, choose somewhere else. Or, do some research and check with environmental organizations that would be able to direct you to a recycling depot in your area.
3. Support groups that are against e-waste. Recently, students from Simon Fraser University have formed a group to ban e-waste on campus. With plans to make an educational documentary to raise awareness of e-waste, teach people where they can safely recycle their electronics, challenge the amount of electronic waste people produce, and create an “E-waste Day” at SFU, the group is determined to tackle the issue of e-waste. To support them, join the Facebook group “Stop E-waste at SFU”, and follow the blog http://e-waste2011.blogspot.com/, which they update with their weekly progress, and you can find links to educational resources on e-waste and recycling depots around Vancouver.

Photo credit: Greenpeace India

If you are looking for a way to save trees by reading books on an e-reader but you don’t like the Sony Reader or can’t use the Amazon Kindle you might want to check out the Cool-er e-reader.

The Cool-er (Yes, that the actual name of the e-reader. And no, it’s not cool.) e-reader looks like one of those colorful ipods, although it’s a bit bigger. The Cool-er e-reader will offer a larger library of books than the Amazon Kindle and will sell the digital books in the open EPub format.

In USA the Cool-er user will be able to choose from around 260,000 paid-for titles at launch from all the major publishers. In Europe we will initially only have around 60,000 titles to choose from.

The e-reader will be available in the USA and Europe early June this year and cost $249.

Al Gore and The Alliance for Climate Protection have announced that they are interested in creating a new .eco domain name extension. The .eco domain extension will be for individuals to express their support for environmental causes, for companies to promote their environmental initiatives, and for environmental organizations to maintain their websites in a namespace that is more relevant to their core missions.

“We fully support Dot Eco LLC in its efforts to secure the .eco top level domain through the ICANN application process and look forward to working with Dot Eco LLC to promote .eco. This is a truly exciting opportunity for the environmental movement and for the internet as a whole,” said Al Gore.

But what is more exciting than a new “green” domain extension is that a majority of the profits generated from the sales of the .eco domains will be distributed to support environmental causes and organizations.

Cathy Zoi, CEO of the Alliance for Climate Protection said that: “The .eco initiative, as proposed by Dot Eco LLC, is a unique approach for fundraising for nonprofit environmental organizations such as ours. We are thrilled to be working with Dot Eco LLC to generate funds for our organization and to promote awareness of climate change.”

“It is an honor and a privilege to be working with Al Gore and Cathy Zoi on the .eco initiative,” said Fred Krueger, CEO of Dot Eco LLC. “We are confident that we will generate substantial funds for the Alliance for Climate Protection to promote their efforts to increase awareness of climate change.”

Dot Eco LLC will be applying for the .eco domain name extension idea through the ICANN gTLD application process in late 2009. So maybe in a near future you will read this blog on www.green-blog.eco?

Swedish designer Peter Thuvander has come up with the iYo YoYo, a nifty green alternative way to charge your iPhone or iPod.

“To celebrate my new Iphone and the fact that darkness is looming over me. I´ve done this: An induction powered yoyocharger for Apple.

And since solarchargers don’t work at night or in Sweden half the year, this should be a smash hit.”

Thanks to a small Li-ion battery inside the yo-yo you build up a charge while you play with the iYo YoYo. Afterwards you can just plug in your iPod or iPhone and it will be charged.

Watch the video:

Sony Ericsson recently released a new eco-friendly concept phone called the GreenHeart. According to Sony Ericsson the phone is made from bio-plastic housings, recycled plastic keypads and will come with an “environmentally conscious packaging” (see the picture to the right). The phone will have a zero charger with 3.5mW standby power. The manuals to the phone will no longer be printed on paper and will instead be offered as HTML based e-manuals that you can read on your computer. With the phone Sony Ericsson also wants to ship a game style educational application called “Ecomate”.

GreenHeart is still just a concept. So there are really no guarantees that this version of GreenHeart will be the one that finally gets released to the market.

“This concept has been shared with a few selected partners in the industry, whose response has been extremely positive. Sony Ericsson will therefore take this concept and initiate a two-way conversation with customers on what features they believe should be implemented in future phones and in what priority.”

You can also take a look at Nokia’s more futuristic-looking eco-friendly phone concept, or their 3110 Evolve, an eco-friendly phone that you can actually buy now.

Apple recently released their new line of MacBook and MacBook Pro laptops, which are mainly made from aluminium. They say that they are their greenest latops ever and claims that they are “highly recyclable and even more energy efficient”, and that they are “designed with the environment in mind”.

But really, how green are the new laptops?

Greenpeace, who is running a hard and successful campaign for greener electronics, says that the new laptops are “not quite the breakthrough” they “were hoping for”:

“A check of the full specs revealed the MacBook Pro, MacBook and MacBook Air – as well as the LED Cinema Display will now have internal cables free of PVC and will have internal components containing no BFRs. Not quite the breakthrough we were hoping for. These new MacBooks are currently on a similar level of toxics reduction to the Sony Viao laptop series on PVC, and the Lenovo Think Vision in monitors. The BFR free internal components represent an improvement from the bar set by the Vaio line.”

Hank Green, over at EcoGeek, is a bit more negative saying the new laptops are “wasteful”:

“I’m glad to see Apple focusing on the efficiency of their computers, not to mention decreasing the amount of toxic materials they contain. But this new carved-brick process isn’t green, it’s wasteful, and I’m happy to be sticking with my good-ol’ plastic clunker.”

Jaymi Heimbuch, from TreeHugger, on the other hand is a bit more positive:

“It seems that this process allows the MacBook Pro to use 50% fewer parts. In the manufacturing stage, they start with a 2.5 pound piece of aluminum. The end structure is only 0.5 pounds (for the MacBook Air). That means that 2 pounds of aluminum is cut away.

Nevertheless, it looks like this process, despite flaws, has some real improvements for the notebook in the big picture of its lifetime and total footprint.”

Apple explains how green their MacBook and MacBook Pro are on their website.

According to Tangent the Evergreen 17 only consumes 24 watts, which is 72% less than the Energy Star 4.0 rating requires.

“Not only do users experience computing with a touch screen LCD in a space-saving form factor, they also get industry leading power efficiency at 24 watts and 72% less energy usage than Energy Star 4.0 limits,” said Douglas Monsour, Tangent’s President. “This translates into cost-savings while, at the same time, helping the environment.”

The Evergreen 17 comes with the Via Eden 1.0 GHz (fan-less) processor or the ViaC7 1.50 GHz (low noise fan), hard drive capacity from 60GB to 250GB and up to 2GB RAM memory. Each Evergreen 17 is equipped with a high brightness TFT panel and resistive touch. It weighs15.8 lbs. and is only 2.25 inches in depth. The operating system is either Windows XP Professional (or Windows XP Embedded for server and web-based computing) or a Linux operating system.

The Evergreen 17 starts at $1,195 and comes with a one-year parts and labor warranty. The computer is available now over at www.tangent.com.

The Advent Eco PC is made from 75% recycled plastics, comes with electronic manuals, uses 25 watts when idling and is said to save you £35 (about $65) a year on energy. The computers specs are surely enough for the average computer user: 1.5GHz Core 2 Duo T5250 CPU, 2GB RAM, 160GB hard drive, 802.11b/g, and Vista Home Premium.

But, the Advent Eco PC is almost one year late, it should have been released last Christmas. And this is a disadvantage for the computer. The design and specs are not as “mind-blowing” as they are on Dell’s new eco-friendly computer. To be fair, the computer looks like an ugly wifi router, and it’s a bit more expensive than similar green computers.

But if you want to have an eco-friendly computer that will save you money on your energy bill the Advent Eco PC is a good option for you to consider. The Advent Eco PC starts at £599.99 (about $1100).