It's getting harder and harder to resist the urge to call President Barack Obama "Daddy Greenbucks." Especially today, when he announced that he's shelling out $3.4 billion in grants to build a smart energy grid that would bring our nation's antiquated electrical system into the digital, green and clean age.

Obama's big cash-money, and I mean big in a "largest-award-made-in-a-single day-from-the-$787-billion-stimulus-package" way, will:

1. Give far more than a face lift to our aging "dilapidated" electricity grid with the addition of 18 million digital smart home meters and reams of energy powered by renewable sources, like solar and wind energy. (But how and how soon can I get a a smart meter?! )
2. Create historically more watts than ever before with less impact on the climate. (Speaking of, the climate bill battle kicks off in the Senate today.)
3. Energize business for 100 green companies in 49 states with deep-green grants ranging from $400,000 to $200 million.
4. Inject tens of thousands of new green-collar jobs into the already-exploding green industry. Hey, kids, it's not too late to change your major.
5. Significantly reduce rolling blackouts (which we deserve and suffer plenty of in power-hungry Southern California).
6. Save some decent utility bill cash for America's energy vampire consumers, that is if we're smart, like this grid. (How? Basically, with the digital smart grid, electricity prices will increase when demand increases and decrease when demand decreases, empowering us to make better, more energy- and cost-efficient choices.)

The President announced the historic $3.4 billion (!) greenbacks for green energy at a Florida solar plant just moments ago. He said the country's ailing electrical system "wastes too much energy, it costs too much money, and it's too susceptible to outages and blackouts."

Obama wasted no time moving on to an aggressive pitch for nationwide greenhouse gas cap legislation that he said will "finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America." Apparently a few Senators missed that memo.

(Photo credit:flickr, LanceCheungImages)

The White House isn't so pallid white anymore, in all the very best ways—and none so inspiring to us here at Super Eco as its green initiatives. President Barack Obama, First Lady Michelle Obama and the first family are very much walking the talk when it comes to taking care of the hearth of the nation in an eco-friendly, sustainable way. Now, the Obamas are taking aim at LEED certification for the White House itself. As the Green Guide reports:

According to government officials familiar with greening efforts, the Obama White House intends to be the first White House to earn LEED certification, a system developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) to measure and reward buildings and communities that implement green building design, construction, operations, and maintenance.

“LEED certification of the White House is absolutely possible and viable,” said Rick Fedrizzi, CEO and president of USGBC, which has offered to help advise the White House on the process. However, Fedrizzi noted, it will not be easy because of the building’s historic status and the security required to protect the President and his family.

“A normal building is already a challenging assignment, and this is something that’s a historic structure, one of [the] nation’s most historic structures,” he says.

Here's something you may not realize: the Obamas didn't have to start from scratch to paint the White House a deeper shade of green. What the Obamas bring, though, is the interest, energy and fresh new faces it takes to color the White House and its activities a greener shade of sustainable.

• Victory for a White House garden
• The first garden: A fertile source of green ideas
• The first soil: Dirty business at the White House
• New White House chef is a lunch revolutionary
• Group urges first family to eat it (homegrown organic food, that is)

(Photo credit:The White House/Joyce N. Boghosian)

Wouldn't it be wonderful if Americans could open a dialogue about health care that actually centered on health? We don't think it's at all far-fetched—and neither does Whole Foods CEO John Mackey, who wrote an editorial for The Wall Street Journal that criticizes President Barack Obama's proposed health care reform and suggests healthier diets as part of a proactive public health plan.

In Mackey's words: “Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted: two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese. Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending—heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity—are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices.

"Recent scientific and medical evidence shows that a diet consisting of foods that are plant-based, nutrient dense and low-fat will help prevent and often reverse most degenerative diseases that kill us and are expensive to treat. We should be able to live largely disease-free lives until we are well into our 90s and even past 100 years of age.”

This is worthy of a public opinion firestorm? The Huffington Post put together an entire roundup of rants on the backlash, including a poll indicating that 57% of its readers declared they would not be setting food inside Whole Foods again. ... wait, people are boycotting Whole Foods because Mackey thinks Americans should avoid preventable diseases through better nutrition? Certainly people may disagree with the criticisms Mackey levelled at Obama's reform proposals, or they may observe that it's opportunistic for Mackey to suggest that people eat healthier (but then again, this is the CEO of a food chain—what were they expecting?). But pulling an ostrich maneuver over the idea of healthier food?

We smell a tinge of desperation in the air, the scent of consumers and companies who are deathly afraid that their "way of life"—toxic, fattening, artery-clogging or not—may be assailed if "healthy" foods are "forced" upon us. As environmentalists and natural health advocates, we may find this reaction befuddling, but we must remember to react with compassion to the feelings of people who perceive real discomfort and a real threat in the idea of changing their ways. Easy does it ... And stay tuned to Super Eco for more simple, unthreatening ways to green your entire life.

(Photo credit:Whole Foods)

It's a dirty business, making a political statement with your garden—but Michelle Obama's just the woman to carry it off with aplomb. In the latest garden gossip, we learn that the First Garden will be adding three compost bins. (Hold the presses—we've got worms in the White House!) For a while there, the scuttle on the street was all about how New York celebrity chef Dan Barber sent over a load of organic compost. Now, it appears the White House will generate its own fertilizer.

Considering that only 3 percent of the 31 million tons of food waste that Americans toss out every year gets composted and recycled, the White House's example is one Americans would do well to emulate. San Francisco certainly is doing exactly that, enacting the nation's first legislation that requires residents and businesses to compost food scraps. "San Francisco already converts over 400 tons of food scraps and other compostable discards into high-grade organic compost every day," says San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. "It’s so nutrient-rich that the final product is almost jet black in color. It’s snapped up by farms and vineyards across the Bay Area, we can barely keep up with the demand. By requiring all residents and businesses to compost, we’ll increase the amount of 'black gold' available for sustainable regional agriculture and improve our environment."

But back at the White House, still another dirty little battle is erupting: Could the soil in the First Garden be contaminated with lead? Nonsense, say scientists who call the 93 ppm readings recently taken for the White House soil "ridiculously safe." It's all a ploy, some say, to divert attention from the benefits of going organic. Dirty politics? Maybe—but we can't complain about seeing greener debates in the headlines.

(Photo credit:normanack, flickr)

Who knew a humble garden could be such a fertile source of healthy, sustainable initiatives? Michelle Obama's White House garden is growing support for all sorts of ideas and projects.

• Ambassors of nutrition When 36 fifth-graders from Bancroft Elementary came to the White House garden, Michelle Obama gave them a summer homework assignment. "This gorgeous, bountiful garden has given us a chance to not just have some fun—and we've had a lot of it—but to shed some light on the important food and nutrition issues that we need to address as a nation," she told the young eco-activists. "I want you to continue to be my little ambassadors in your own home and your own communities." (The Washington Post)
• Simple, healthy cooking All of the foods cooked at the White House Kitchen Garden harvest event were simple, low fat and healthy. These are the very first recipes released under the rubric of assistant chef Sam Kass as Food Initiative Coordinator—and keep in mind that they're designed to be very simple, so even people who have no experience cooking can begin to get in on the action. (Obama Foodorama)
• If you grow it, they will come With children not exercising and not eating right, childhood obesity has become an epidemic in America that threatens to cause younger generations to have a shorter life span than their parents. So how do we get our kids to eat healthier? The First Lady stated that if the food tastes good, they’ll eat it. (The White House Blog)
• Sustainability snafu As part of their visit, the students prepared a healthy meal with produce from the garden. ... The meal was served on paper plates, with styrofoam cups and disposable cutlery, sending a mixed message to the young kids about sustainability. The White House could have opted to serve the kids their organic meal on washable plates with real cutlery and/or on biodegradable and compostable plates and utensils.(GreenMuze)

Even the British are getting into the act, with Queen Elizabeth reinstituting an organic garden "allotment" at Buckingham Palace. Way to grow!

(Photo credit:The White House Blog)

Global climate change is hitting America harder than we ever anticipated, say a new report from the White House—but it appears that we can do more to avoid and ameliorate the effects than we thought possible before, too. The latest report from the U.S. Global Change Research Program ticks off a laundry list of effects from global warming that researchers say are already upon us (and worsening fast): rising sea levels, regional heat waves, longer droughts and stronger storms.

The climate status report was compiled by a collaboration of about three dozen academic, government and institute scientists, notes a story at the Huffington Post. The report contains no new research yet paints a "fuller and darker picture" of global warming in the United States than previous studies.

The good news is that we still hold the power to effectively change course. "It's not too late to act," said Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, at a White House briefing. "Decisions made now will determine whether we get big changes or small ones." Those changes are already affecting Americans at the everyday, real-world level, she said: "It's happening in our own backyards and it affects the kind of things people care about."

Let's get to the point: This report collects the facts we need in a way that we can use—you, us, the government, everyone. An easy-to-read summary of the report's findings as well as an even shorter summary brochure make it easy to get a handle on exactly what the experts consider to be the facts of climate change. You can even find summary information and a link to a PowerPoint presentation on the White House Facebook page. Now it's time to get serious.

(Photo credit:stevekrh19, SXC)

Picking up the proverbial spade she first held nearly 70 years ago as a young girl gardening in Great Britain's Dig for Victory campaign, Queen Elizabeth of England is once again digging in—to a victory garden, that is. Buckingham Palace joins the Obama White House in enjoying a garden designed to supply at least a portion of their respective households' fruits and vegetables.

The Buckingham Palace garden is more properly known as an "allotment," a large community garden that's become a centuries-old, government-supported tradition in Great Britain. While the allotment won't come close to supporting the palace's immense household staff, it will produce a regular crop of sage, tomatoes, runner beans, onions, leeks, carrots, beets, broad beans, chard and sweet corn. In fact, its first harvest of Cambridge Favourite strawberries was served to the Queen and Prince Philip for his 88th birthday last week.

Included in the allotment are a half dozen varieties of rare heirloom plants. According to the Guardian, the charitable group Garden Organic has donated six rare varieties from its Heritage Seed Library to be nurtured on the allotment. Cleverly enough, all six varieties feature suitably royal names: climbing French bean Blue Queen, dwarf French bean Royal Red, plus Northern Queen lettuce and Golden Queen, Queen of Hearts and White Queen tomatoes.

The best news? It's all organic. True to the principals of long-time organic activist Prince Charles, the Buckingham Palace allotment is all organic. Liquid seaweed fertilizes the crops, garlic deters aphids and pests naturally, and the beds are full of mulch from the palace compost heap. And that's a heap of good, in our book.

(Photo credit:mimbrava, Super Eco pool @flickr)

Check mate, fossil fuels. Green energy investments have finally one-upped fossil fuel investments on a global scale. The official score: Solar, wind and other clean power technologies: $140 billion. Coal, natural gas and petroleum: $110 billion. Who's the referee declaring global green victory? None other than the United Nations. I'd say they're a pretty credible source. See for yourself.

Which countries are the top renewable energy buyers, according to the encouraging U.N. figures? Surprise, surprise. Not us. Try England and the rest of Europe. They're forking over a third of the world's green money for an unprecedented clean tech switch.

Which countries are boosting the demand for sustainable energy the fastest? Again, not us. China, India and other developing countries are. The Johnny Come Latelys to the clean scene are Angola and Kenya.

So where does the United States stack up in the global sustainable energy game? If President Obama has his way, we'll be dropping $200 billion in federal funds over the next decade to “mount a historic effort to end, once and for all, our dependence on foreign oil” and put our money where our green hopes are.

Topping Uncle Sam's prospective green shopping list for support “America's clean-energy future”are wind, solar, plug-in cars and so-called “clean coal.”

Sure, $200 billion might sound like a lot, but it pales in comparison to the estimated $800-plus billion in U.S. tax dollars our government has dumped on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (high human-cost investments in our addiction to foreign oil?). A couple million in green innovation clearly isn't enough, but it's a start, so we'll take it. But the private sector will have to hurry up and jump on the Federal clean bandwagon in a big way to help us catch up. Pronto.

(Photo credit:phault, flickr)

Was it just last week we wondered if the EPA's effectiveness might be on the upswing? No need for the Ouija board, because more and more signs are pointing to "Yes." Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson announced yesterday that the EPA is reversing Bush-era changes to how science is used to set air pollution standards.

The EPA is required by the Clean Air Act to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for harmful pollutants using "best available science." The Bush administration sideswiped this process, eliminating independent assessments by scientific experts, suppressing recommendations from EPA scientists and instead injecting high-level political appointees into the process.

The new procedures will set the EPA back on track to deal with six key pollutants found nationwide: ozone, particle pollution (particulate matter), lead, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide. Jackson's procedural cleanup loops science back into the process at a much earlier point in air quality reviews.

• Reinstatement of a policy document containing EPA staff analyses of options for administrators to consider when setting air quality standards
• A public workshop early in the NAAQS review process
• Restructuring of science and risks documents to make them more concise and more tightly focused on key scientific and policy issues
• EPA staff consultations with scientific experts in other federal agencies that have responsibility for public health and environmental protection

“It’s essential that the best science and the greatest transparency inform air quality standards that prevent illness and save lives,” Jackson said. “These changes will help us bring a greater rigor and openness to our standard-setting process and improve the scientific basis for our standards.” We agree—kudos on this step back toward real oversight.

(Photo credit:krayker, stock.xchng)

President Obama today delivered an uppercut to the auto industry when he went public with a set of stringent federal fuel economy and car pollution rules. The standards, which go into effect in 2012, will significantly slash American greenhouse gas emissions.

Can you hear the grumbling all the way from Detroit? Perhaps not. In what's being called an industry-wide "about-face," 10 car companies and the United Auto Workers are throwing their arms around the program (which we're sure has nothing to do with the recent multi-billion dollar bailout).

Obama, flanked by suddenly unified heavies from two typically diametrically opposed groups—environmentalists and automakers—said the United States can no longer be guilty of producing "a quarter of the world's demand for oil." Here, here.

Here's your short-and-sweet on the Obama Administration National Fuel Efficiency Policy, straight from a White House fact sheet. The tough new standards:

• "Ultimately" require an average fuel economy of 35.5 miles per gallon, saving an estimated 1.8 million barrels of oil and reducing about 900 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions. (The current requirements are 27.5 mpg for cars and 23.1 mpg or trucks.)
• Includes the first-ever tailpipe emission standard for every class of vehicle. 
• Will yield yearly 5% increases in efficiency from 2012 through 2016.

The historic fleet fuel efficiency standards basically one-up the CAFE law that Congress passed in 2007 that mandated an average fuel economy of 35 mpg by 2020.

Who will foot the inflated pricetag of leaner-mileage cars? We, the consumers, will—to the tune of around $1,300 per vehicle. That might sound steep, especially in tight times, but Obama said drivers would recoup the cash within three years in gas savings alone.

Finally, we will have one national policy "for all automakers, instead of three standards: a Department of Transportation standard, an EPA standard and a strict California standard that would apply to 13 other states."

Didn't I just cluck, "As California goes, so does the rest of the country?" Now if I could convince my stubborn New England relatives that "Californication" isn't always bad thing ... except for the inconvenient truth that "Nobody walks in L.A." Not even me. Won't this new policy only encourage us to motor deeper into our dependence on the almighty combustion engine? Either way, it's a start. An unprecedented, positive drive in the right direction.

Meanwhile, National Public Radio's mind-bogglingly quick (unscientific?) online "quick question" poll showed that 81% of mouse-clickers "like" the new federal fuel and emissions standards. Well, what do you have to say? Do you "like" Obama's long-overdue national fuel and emissions standards?

(Photo credit:transplantedmountaineer, flickr)