Crave

Click for pics.

(Credit: iFrogz)

Portable headphones come in two main styles: in-ear and on-ear. The former comprises the ultratiny earbuds and canalbuds that you place at least somewhat inside your ears, while the latter often features a headband and circular earpads that rest over the ears.

iPod accessory maker iFrogz offers several models in both varieties, but the on-ear Ear Pollution Toxix headphones are the subject here. Thankfully, the $20 set doesn't totally live up to its name, but neither does it sound particularly good. The earphones offer a hint of style and a lightweight design, so they could work in a pinch for those on a budget, but the Toxix are far from the best portable option out there.

Read the Ear Pollution Toxix review.

When 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley and his crew went to China to record the black market dismantling of electronic waste, or e-waste, the experience was almost as hazardous for the 60 Minutes team as working with the toxic material is for poor Chinese workers.

Jumped by a gang of men overseeing the e-waste operations who tried to take the CBS team's cameras, Pelley's crew managed to escape and bring back footage of the hazardous activities. Pelley's investigation will be broadcast this Sunday, Nov. 9, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

The Chinese attackers were trying to protect a lucrative business of mining the e-waste -- junked computers, televisions and other old electronic products -- for valuable components, including gold. "They're afraid of being found out. This is smuggling. This is illegal," says Jim Puckett, founder of the Basel Action Network, a group working to stop the dumping of toxic materials in poor countries that certifies ethical e-waste recyclers in the United States. "A lot of people are turning a blind eye here. And if somebody makes enough noise, they're afraid this is all going to dry up."

E-waste workers in Guiyu, China, where Pelley's team videotaped, put up with the dangerous conditions for the $8 a day the job pays. They use caustic chemicals and burn the plastic parts to get at the valuable components, often releasing toxins that they not only inhale, but release into the air, the ground and the water. Potable water must now be trucked into Guiyu and scientists have discovered that the city has the highest levels of cancer-causing dioxins in the world. Pregnancies in Guiyu are six times more likely to result in miscarriages, and seven out of 10 children there have too much lead in their blood.

A chemical used to make LCD televisions and semiconductors could cause more global warming than coal-fired power plants, a report warns.

Nitrogen trifluoride is a "missing greenhouse gas," according to a study published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters on June 26. It's used in chemical vapor deposition, which makes liquid crystal displays, semiconductors, and synthetic diamond.

Production of the chemical could double to 8,000 metric tons in 2009, atmospheric chemist Michael Prather, who co-wrote the report, told New Scientist.

Nitrogen trifluoride's globe-warming effect reportedly could be 17,000 times stronger than that of carbon dioxide.

However, the picture is incomplete because nitrogen trifluoride isn't among the six gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol international climate change agreement.

This year alone, its production would release the equivalent of the global-warming emissions from Austria, totaling some 67 million metric tons, New Scientist noted.

And that would amount to more global-warming pollution than all the industrialized world's emissions of perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and of sulfur hexafluoride, which is considered more potent.

Kyoto's terms left out nitrogen trifluoride and some dozen other gases, in part because they weren't produced at a scale large enough to cause significant harm.

Some companies had turned to the man-made chemical initially to reduce pollution.

The market for flat-screen televisions, including LCDs, is expected to boom with the United States' full transition to digital television next February.

Along with it, watchdog groups warn that additional ecological harm could come, if toxic electronics waste isn't disposed of properly. Americans are expected to discard 80 million analog TVs by the end of 2009.

However, LCD televisions are often painted as eco-friendly because they consume less power than plasma and older rear-projection sets.

(Credit: USB Geek)

It's been clear for some time now that USB gadget makers are getting desperate for new products to plug the ubiquitous port, but this one may be one of the most ill-conceived.

USB air purifiers (or at least gadgets that make that claim) are nothing new, but the timing seems particularly bad for this mini-ionizer seen on GeekAlerts. Obviously, these folks didn't get the memo from the Sharper Image bankruptcy case and its "Ionic Breeze" travails.

Note to USB mavens: It's probably better to play it safe and stick with that aromatherapy stuff.

(Credit: PClaunches)

Everything is going green, as we were just saying, though that doesn't necessarily mean hemp. There are all types of environmentally friendly technologies, of course, and MSI is experimenting with one that releases negatively charged ions to literally clear the air.

Trying to show that it's not just about superficialities, the Taiwanese computer maker is working on a concept notebook that can release as many as 550,000 ions per cubic centimeter, which PClaunches says is "more than if you were right next to mountains and beaches." As a result, MSI claims, the Anion PR620 Computer "absorbs dust particles in the air to prevent inhaling into human body." The laptop would supposedly remove everything from offensive smells to cigarette smoke and toxic gases.

It would certainly beat having one of those aromatherapy gadgets plugged into the USB port. But if it does become a reality, we hope it fares better than the Sharper Image.

SOMS Technologies says that its engine filter will extend the life of engine oil by 30,000 miles, enabling drivers to use 75 percent less oil and save hundreds of dollars in maintenance per car.

"You could say this would be terrible news for Jiffy Lube, but we don't look at it that way," said company CEO Miles Flamenbaum, who presented at the Cleantech Forum in San Francisco on Wednesday. "It would allow them to charge a little bit more, take more of a margin from oil change costs, and do it less often."

The company, based in Bedford, N.Y., has raised $900,000 in angel funding and seeks another $4 million.

Flamenbaum aims for the company to snag a share of the $7 billion U.S. market for oil filter and engine treatment products while also helping to reduce the demand for petroleum and cutting pollution from waste engine oil, which contaminates groundwater when improperly disposed.

Engine oil passes through conventional filters in one swoop, but SOMS Technologies' system diverts some of the oil flow from the main filter into a finer filter.

"It's more passive," Flamenbaum said. "We're just taking a little bit of the oil and treating it separately, without affecting pressure in the engine."

The filtered oil comes out as clean as or even cleaner than new engine oil, he added.

The filter would cost about $15 and work with any combustion engine, including those in gasoline, biofuel, biodiesel, and hydrogen cars.

It uses off-the-shelf components as well as an "advanced material" the company won't disclose. Unlike many filtration systems being developed in labs, such as for purifying water, however, it does not involve nanotechnology.

There are 470 million filter changes each year in the United States, and 1.6 billion around the world, according to the company.

Flamenbaum sees the filter fitting into a growing green trend in automotive services. For instance, in November AAMCO launched its "Eco-Green" certification program to promote alternative fuels and reduce emissions at service centers.

Within a month, Green Earth Technologies' motor oil made from animal fats instead of petroleum will hit the shelves of big box stores, according to its CEO Jeff Marshall.

In April, SOMS Technologies' filters will be tested in some 30 New York City taxicabs, followed by 20 school buses in upstate New York. SOMS Technologies plans to target such fleets first, with long-term sights on selling its filters in automotive service stores and big-box retailers.

Flamenbaum sees a huge opportunity in developing countries where there's little infrastructure for waste oil recycling.

"I was in China last week and literally saw somebody draining oil and dumping it on the ground," Flamenbaum said. "If that guy was doing it there are probably another million like him out there."

The company is working on agreements to distribute the product in China, as well as with the United States Postal Service.

"We have excellent timing," Flamenbaum said. "There has been very little advancement in filter technology. Since the spin-on oil filter was invented in 1953, the biggest innovation is the pleated filter from the round filter to increase the surface area."

SOMS stands for spin-on microfilter system.

The Air Car runs on compressed air.

(Credit: Zero Pollution Motors)

A company named Zero Pollution Motors says it plans to bring a car powered by air to the U.S. sometime in 2009 or 2010. The six pistons in the Air Car's engine are pushed by compressed air rather than gasoline combustion, an idea developed by F1 race car engineer Guy Negre. The car carries a compressor, making it possible to fill its compressed air tank by plugging it into an electrical outlet. At low speeds, the engine is cranked solely by air from the tank. At high speeds, it uses gasoline to heat a chamber, giving the air pushing the pistons more pressure. In high speed mode, it also compresses air to inject into the cylinders. According to its initial, estimated, specifications the Air Car will go 848 miles on an 8 gallon tank of gas. The size of the compressed air tank isn't included in the specifications. Further, the car has a top speed of 96 mph, with its power plant putting out 75 horsepower. When traveling at low speeds, the car has zero emissions, while in high speed mode it has some emissions because of its use of gasoline.

The Air Car seats six in a fiberglass and foam body.

(Credit: Zero Pollution Motors)

The Air Car was developed by The MDI Group, which received funding from Indian car maker Tata Motors to build the car for the Indian market. Zero Pollution Motors intends to market the Air Car in the U.S. The body of the car is made from fiberglass and foam, and is built as a six seater. Instead of the usual speed and RPM gauges in the dashboard, the Air Car will use an in-dash computer with displays for speed and engine revolutions. This dashboard computer will also be used for navigation, media playback, and communication. The Air Car sounds promising, and we will be eager to see if it really lives up to its specifications.

(Source: AutoblogGreen)

Printer companies are under attack as more people become concerned about global warming and toxic pollution.

The solution? "Printer Vendors Need to Greenwash Their Image."

That unfortunate headline was the theme of an e-mail newsletter this morning from Lyra Research, a well-respected firm that tracks the digital imaging industry.

Apparently the writer didn't realize or care that "greenwashing" is a negative term. It describes how companies aiming to appeal to treehuggers are painting a green face, without necessarily cleaning up their act.

Picky consumers detest this trend, which makes it nearly impossible to tell which companies walk the green walk instead of merely spouting a green talk. Earlier this decade, greenwashing wasn't so insidious because most claims of eco-friendliness were made by small enterprises, like, say, your local weaver of organic hemp hacky sacks.

But now that the world's biggest corporations aim to appear green--sincerely or cynically--it's easy to be fooled by multimillion-dollar public relations campaigns.

This year, printer hardware is expected to contribute 1 million tons of solid waste in this country alone, while pulp and paper companies are the fourth-largest toxic polluters of water, according to Lyra.

The Lyra newsletter asked, "What can the industry do to prevent an attack by environmental groups and create a better image for itself?"

To start, the industry could gain some friends by reworking its razor cartridge model of ink replacement. I learned quickly--through reviewing printers for CNET--how much people hate that the cost of ink and toner quickly exceeds the price of the printer itself. Vendors insist that people use their premium-price, branded inks or suffer crummy-looking pages. And disposing of cartridges is a pain, even if you're organized enough to mail them in or bring them to stores, such as Walgreen's, for reuse.

Also, how about better tech support and repair? Fixing gadgets should be no harder than taking a cracked heel to the shoe cobbler. The tech industry overall should make better-quality, longer-lasting hardware. A printer that cranks out one page faster per minute than last season's model is not efficient. A printer that lasts but a year and costs more to fix than replace is not sustainable.

Yes, people at HP and most other printer companies have made sincere efforts to establish responsible recycling programs. They've also made more models Energy Star efficient, experimented with corn-based plastic and modular components, and made it easier to print on two sides of a page to reduce paper waste. You might even argue that personal photo printers are kinder to the planet than traditional lab photofinishing.

Still, what's the secret sauce in all that proprietary ink and toner? Materials safety data sheets that companies are required by law to report do not detail the little-tested toxicity of these chemical cocktails. The information is limited largely because American laws regulating potentially dangerous chemicals are notoriously weak.

It took independent testing by an Australian lab to root out potentially cancerous, asthma-inducing ingredients in laser toner.

I don't want to breathe in that noxious dust at my desk, and I certainly don't want to breathe in the hot air of greenwashing. Let's hope that tech companies boast of small successes in moving toward sustainability without getting ahead of themselves.

Carbon footprint, energy use, green tech: some phrases that won't be going away. From gasoline prices to global warming, we're likely to become more aware of what energy we burn up, just as most of us now have some sense of whether we're eating wisely (or not).

Front page of carbon calculator

(Credit: earthlab)

Just today the Live Earth concert folks e-mailed me a link to their carbon calculator. This one walks you through several pages of simple questions about how you live, and especially how you travel. This calculator was built by Earthlab.org. They want to know the size of your dwelling, your car if you own one, energy bills, airplane and daily travel. After going through their process, I can't imagine how bad an airline pilot would look, environmentally speaking.

My score on the Earthlab quiz: 301, and 11 tons of carbon. So I'm clearly doing my bit to warm the planet. Live Earth folks say they'll post overall test scores and more information on 7-7-07.

Then there's this site, which gives you the really bad news--how many planets humanity would need to supply energy if everybody lived as you do. My score: 6.3 planets. I think that translates into a couple more solar systems 'cause I don't get the sense there's a whole lot of oil, coal or biofuels to be had out beyond Venus. I could probably do nicely with a tiny sun, however.

Then the Yahoo folks have built a carbon dioxide emissions calculator. My score was pretty much the same as what I got from Earthlab...until I added in my infrequent air travel. From a few plane trips: 21.8 tons of carbon dioxide. Where are the calls for solar planes? Or goose-powered, or human-paddled balloons, or something? How about those Star Trek transponders that would beam you up? Could they be energy efficient? No crappy airline "food" either.

Altogether these sites are: depressing, educational, geared to getting you to do something about your consumption patterns. Turn off your work computer when you are done for the day (or night). Carry your own shopping bags. Use alternative energy when possible. Use efficient bulbs and appliances. Walk more. Freak out over air travel. All good advice. And aimed at making each of us less of a carbon bigfoot.