With video cameras and tiny microphones, the team behind Sunday's Oscar-winning documentary film "The Cove" orchestrated a Hollywood-meets-Greenpeace-style covert operation to ferret out what the authorities say is illegal whale meat at one of this town's most highly regarded sushi destinations.

Their work, undertaken in large part here last week as the filmmakers gathered for the Academy Awards ceremony, was coordinated with law enforcement officials, who said Monday that they were likely to bring charges against the restaurant, the Hump, for violating federal laws against selling marine mammals.

It's Hollywood's animal lovers vs. sushi lovers!

In the clash of two Southern California cultures -- sushi aficionados and hard-core animal lovers -- the animal lovers have thrown a hard punch.

"This isn't just about saving whales," said Louie Psihoyos, the director of "The Cove," a documentary that chronicles eco-activists' battles with Japanese officials over dolphin hunting. "But about saving the planet."

How did they do it?

Video of their meal shows the two activists, both vegan, being served what the waitress can be heard calling "whale" -- thick pink slices -- that they take squeamish bites of before tossing into a Ziploc bag in a purse.

The samples were sent to Scott Baker, associate director of the Marine Mammal Institute at Oregon State University. Professor Baker said DNA testing there revealed that the samples sent to him were from a Sei whale, which are found worldwide and are endangered but are sometimes hunted in the North Pacific under a controversial Japanese scientific program. "I've been doing this for years," Professor Baker said. "I was pretty shocked."

Once an activist, always an activist, Oscar or no Oscar!

Director Louis Psihoyos's team -- a far-flung band of activists who use film making to highlight environmental causes -- knew they would be together in Los Angeles for the Oscars, and so sting operations two and three were hatched. On Feb. 28, team members split up between the sushi bar and a restaurant table and ordered sushi and communicated via text message with Mr. Psihoyos, who waited in a car in the parking lot. Mr. Psihoyos served as an electronic envoy between the investigators at the sushi bar, who were witnessing the chopping of fish and whale, and those sitting at a table:

"They're eating blowfish!" read one of the text messages. "Toro and sea urchin, nothing exciting," another said. "Whale coming now!"

Mr. Psihoyos, a former photojournalist who heads a nonprofit through which he makes his films, said that environmental action is more motivating to him than awards.

"Once you become sensitized to these animals you want to save them," he said over breakfast Monday, still bleary from his big Oscar night.

Wow! Did he have a fantastic weekend or what?!

Each year, more than two million brides and grooms get hitched in the U.S. That's a lot of food, flowers and favors -- and a whole bunch of waste and carbon emissions. Luckily, it's becoming easier than ever to green your wedding.

1. Go Local

Using local vendors cuts down on the miles that your wedding essentials must travel and puts money back into the local economy. Purchase food from farmers’ markets, and seek out great regional wines and brews for your celebration.

2. Use Seasonal Flowers

"Buying [flower arrangements] in season means they're going to be fresher...and you will also usually save money," says Kate Harrison, author of The Green Bride Guide. Purchase organic flowers to avoid pesticides and artificial scents. If you're set on a specific type of flower, only buy a limited amount.

Read the details of the next 8 ways to make your wedding super green!

3. Plant Your Centerpieces
4. Give Practical Wedding Favors
5. Encourage Low-Impact Clothing
6. Make an Invitation Statement
7. Buy Gently Used Items
8. Choose a Greener Dress
9. Give Back Through Gift Registry
10. Ditch the Diamonds

You're guaranteed to have a decades-long marriage if you follow these 10 easy steps! :)

When it comes to animal exploitation -- follow the money. Using animals for entertainment is big business, plain and simple. The killer whale Tilikum has helped SeaWorld sell millions of dollars worth of tickets.

Yes, indeed...it's all about the money:

Zoos and animal amusement attractions use the cover of "science" to justify their shows. Getting a whale to splash kids with water is not science. SeaWorld says it supports wildlife conservation, research and education and has rescued thousands of stranded and sick animals. While many of the handlers are undoubtedly well-intentioned and love the animals, the fact is that parks such as SeaWorld are money-making operations. It's about profit.

As talking heads debate this avoidable tragedy, few pause to reflect on where it all started. It began in the oceans off Iceland. That's where Tilikum was born. He was born free, free to swim up to 100 miles a day, as killer whales are known to do in the wild.

His idyllic life turned into a living hell in 1983. That's when he was captured. Capture of a wild animal is invariably traumatic. He was put in a small pen. After a stint in a Canadian aquarium that ended in tragedy when a trainer was killed by Tilikum and two other whales, the animal was transferred to SeaWorld in Orlando, Florida.

You try living in your bathtub for 25 years!

Tilikum has spent more than a quarter of a century swimming in circles, in a space that critics say would be equivalent to keeping a human being in a bathtub. Would you get resentful, angry, maybe even a little rageful and psychotic if you were kept in a bathtub-sized tank forced to swim in circles for more than 25 years?

Egg-zactly!

postscript, from the L.A. Times:

We don't expect SeaWorld to call an immediate halt to its ventures and simultaneously set up expensive coastal refuges for the trained orcas, which at this stage probably could not survive in the wild. But the breeding should end and the parks should prepare for the performances' eventual extinction.

White tigers in a Las Vegas magic show, Asian elephants in a traveling circus or Shamu bursting from a pool with a wetsuit-clad trainer standing on its nose -- they all had their place when we were ignorant about the fragility of wildlife and the folly of forcing wild animals to do our human bidding on artificial turf (or surf). Now we know that the best way to appreciate the wonders of these animals is by watching an awe-inspiring nature film and then contributing to habitat conservation efforts.

Mr. Clean has been keeping his mouth shut!

This story from New York State from EarthJustice.org is fascinating:

While investigating a potential legal strategy, EarthJustice attorney Keri Powell found buried in the pages of a book of New York State statutes a long-forgotten law authorizing the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to require household cleaning product manufacturers to disclose their chemical ingredients and information about the health risks they pose. In other words, pay dirt.

State regulations issued in 1976 made these disclosures mandatory. Such laws are practically nonexistent in the United States, and the New York law has been altogether overlooked.

Earlier this month, Keri led a group of clients into the New York State Supreme Court for historic arguments over chemical disclosure, a case that could have national ramifications. Consumers and their advocates may finally get a satisfactory answer to that critical opening question, which has vexed them for years.

Some companies voluntarily disclosed the chemicals in their products, like Simple Green and SC Johnson (which also launched a candid website disclosing their ingredients). But there are still a few companies fighting 'till the end:

But four companies -- Procter & Gamble, Colgate-Palmolive, Church and Dwight, and Reckitt-Benckiser -- stonewalled, and thus found themselves a few weeks ago across from Keri and her colleagues in a Manhattan courtroom as defendants in this first-of-its-kind lawsuit. They made it clear that their lips are sealed until authorities pry them open.

As Health Campaigner Kathleen Sutcliffe wryly remarked recently, Mr. Clean went to court and pled the fifth.

Stay tuned to this case and witness the power of the law working for us citizens, helping protect us from unwanted chemicals invading our homes.

For more information, read the EarthJustice press release which also includes the original law suit.

You can also read a list of all the companies that are targeted in this case.

Airline passengers create 881 million pounds of waste per year (half of it in-flight), and much of it is not recycled. In What Goes Up Must Come Down, The Sorry State of Recycling in the Airline Industry, Green America ranks 11 major airlines on their recycling efforts and offers actions the industry can take to improve recycling overall. We also offer actions that airline passengers can take to improve recycling.

From their press release:

Which airlines are taking steps to reduce the vast amount of waste generated each year by the industry? Delta, Virgin America, Virgin Atlantic and Southwest are doing the best job, according to the new report “What Goes Up Must Go Down: The Sorry State of Recycling in the Airline Industry” from Green America's consumer watchdog Web site ResponsibleShopper.org. The report also shows that United and US Airways are doing the worst job when it comes to recycling.

Finally, Green America has a two-step process to push back:

First, join us in sending a message to the airline executives that you value recycling, and don’t want your mile-high trash going into a landfill when you come down. Send a message to airline executives today

Second, help us with our research. If there’s one most-important thing we learned while researching our report, it’s that what the airlines say they’re doing and what passengers experience on their flight are not always the same thing. That’s why we’re collecting the experiences of airline passengers over the next year. The next time you fly, please ask the flight attendant what waste will be recycled. If the flight attendant confidently tells you that one or more items will be recycled, thank the airline for its efforts! If not, or if the flight attendant doesn’t know, politely explain that you’ll be recycling your own items at your destination. Either way, we want to know about your experience, so please complete our quick survey.

So, keep track of your experiences and then do the Push Back through Green America!

Well, they do exist! Check this out:

Shipping container homes have been constructed in London, Scotland, Amsterdam (home to the largest container city in the world) Canada and New Zealand, and the eco-friendly trend has recently caught on in the U.S. The steel cargo containers are nearly indestructible, and provide a frame that is mold, fire, and termite-proof and structurally superior to wood framing.

What's more, the containers can be found in every port in the world. Eighteen million ISO containers -- named such because they are manufactured to specifications from the International Organization for Standardization -- are used worldwide to transport products on ships. Once the containers are unloaded at docks they are typically left there, since it's prohibitively expensive to ship them back to their point of launch. In 2006 alone, the U.S. acquired 7.5 million shipping containers from China and returned just 3.5 million. The leftover 9,000-ton steel containers typically get melted down, which takes 1,000 kilowatt hours of energy per pound.

Read on for an interview with Peter DeMaria of Logical Homes LLC, an architectural design company in California.

And purchase your next home at the commercial shipping port nearest you!

TerraPass is all over it:

It's tempting to point out that global warming doesn't necessarily mean that it's always going to be warmer. It's why many of us prefer the term "climate change", after all. Yes, global average temperatures are moving upwards, but that doesn't mean that it's always going to be warmer everywhere, just more volatile.

But actually this current cold spell has nothing to do with climate change. Apparently it's caused by Arctic oscillation: higher than average pressure over the Arctic is pushing cold air further south than is usual in the winter.

Read on, Climate Change Deniers!

Several states recently banned specific practices that are common in CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations), taking small steps to level the playing field for more sustainable farms. California outlawed the amputation of dairy cows' tails, and Michigan passed a law phasing out restrictive crates for veal calves and pregnant sows, and tiny "battery" cages for egg-laying chickens, used to pack many animals together in a small space. Arizona, California, Florida, Maine, Colorado, and Oregon had previously acted to ban crates and battery cages, which, along with tail docking, are unnecessary practices that serve only to make large, polluting CAFOs viable. Meanwhile, examples abound of farmers successfully working with nature rather than against it to produce animal products without the problems associated with CAFOs. Listen to this recent National Public Radio story about one Ohio dairyman's efforts to transform the industry and produce fresher, more flavorful milk from cows on pasture.

Climate deniers claim that the scientific community is engaged in a wide-ranging conspiracy (or, more subtly, "groupthink") designed specifically to keep them out of the literature. The fact that their stuff isn't peer-reviewed has nothing to do with its quality, only with the fact that they aren't part of the community.

Now, I don't really know what the answer to this is. It's a feature of every conspiracy theory that the very fact that experts don't take you seriously is evidence that the conspiracy exists. So this isn't going to stop. But what to do? From a scientific point of view, you don't want to shut out legitimate dissent, but you also don't have the time to deal with every one of the hundreds of cranks who claim to have found an anomaly in your data. From a public opinion point of view, you don't want to be so dismissive that even reasonable people think you're being a jerk, but you also don't want to give this stuff enough oxygen that you're implicitly saying it's legitimate criticism. This tightrope is especially difficult to navigate since everyone's self interest (including mine) leads them in the direction of desperately preferring to believe that climate change isn't real. So you have to deal with that.

Indeed, who wants to pay for stuff they don't need, like a multi-trillion dollar face lift to wean ourselves from carbon-based energy? No liberal or conservative wants that, and hence this "debate." It really is the biggest hoax perpetrated on mankind...if it's a bunch of hogwash dreamed up by the scientific community.

And yet, you have amateur climate watchers, like Willis Eschenbach, who claims that he's uncovered some smoking gun in Australia that shows that the raw temperature data has been messed with. This is some blogger at The Economist who tracked down his error and has now posted this:

So, after hours of research, I can dismiss Mr Eschenbach. But what am I supposed to do the next time I wake up and someone whose name I don't know has produced another plausible-seeming account of bias in the climate-change science? Am I supposed to invest another couple of hours in it? Do I have to waste the time of the readers of this blog with yet another long post on the subject? Why? Why do these people keep bugging us like this? Does the spirit of scientific scepticism really require that I remain forever open-minded to denialist humbug until it's shown to be wrong? At what point am I allowed to simply say, look, I've seen these kind of claims before, they always turns out to be wrong, and it's not worth my time to look into it?

Well, here's my solution to this problem: this is why we have peer review. Average guys with websites can do a lot of amazing things. One thing they cannot do is reveal statistical manipulation in climate-change studies that require a PhD in a related field to understand. So for the time being, my response to any and all further "smoking gun" claims begins with: show me the peer-reviewed journal article demonstrating the error here. Otherwise, you're a crank and this is not a story.

Touche'! Kevin takes the ramifications of this little bit of sleuthing one step further:

Climate change: it's the public policy problem from hell. It's the scientific problem from hell. It's the PR problem from hell. If you had a classroom assignment to dream up a problem what would be almost impossible to solve given the realities of human nature and global institutions, climate change would be it. It makes healthcare reform look like a walk in the park.

The next two to three decades are going to be difficult for the human race, that much is certain.

** Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were nearly 40% higher than those in 1990. Even if global emission rates are stabilized at present day levels, just 20 more years of emissions would give a 25% probability that warming exceeds 2 degrees centigrade. Even with zero emissions after 2030, every year of delayed action increase the chances of exceeding 2 degrees centigrade warming.

** Over the past 25 years temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.190 centigrade per decade, in every good agreement with predictions based on greenhouse gas increases. Even over the past ten years, despite a decrease in solar forcing, the trend continues to be one of warming. Natural, short-term fluctuations are occurring as usual but there have been no significant changes in the underlying warming trend.

** A wide array of satellite and ice measurements now demonstrate beyond doubt that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass at an increasing rate. Melting of glaciers and ice-caps in other parts of the world has also accelerated since 1990.

** Summer-time melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated far beyond the expectations of climate models. This area of sea-ice melt during 2007-2009 was about 40% greater than the average prediction from IPCC AR4 climate models.

** Satellites show great global average sea-level rise (3.4 mm/yr over the past 15 years) to be 80% above past IPCC predictions. This acceleration in sea-level rise is consistent with a doubling in contribution from melting of glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland and West-Antarctic ice-sheets.

** By 2100, global sea-level is likely to rise at least twice as much as projected by Working Group 1 of the IPCC AR4, for unmitigated emissions it may well exceed 1 meter. The upper limit has been estimated as 2 meters sea-level rise by 2100. Sea level will continue to rise for centuries after global temperature have been stabilized and several meters of sea level rise must be expected over the next few centuries.

** Several vulnerable elements in the climate system (e.g. continental ice-sheets. Amazon rain forest, West African monsoon and others) could be pushed towards abrupt or irreversible change if warming continues in a business-as-usual way throughout this century. The risk of transgressing critical thresholds ("tipping points") increase strongly with ongoing climate change. Thus waiting for higher levels of scientific certainty could mean that some tipping points will be crossed before they are recognized.

** If global warming is to be limited to a maximum of 2oC above pre-industrial values, global emissions need to peak between 2015 and 2020 and then decline rapidly. To stabilize climate, a decarbonized global society -- with near-zero emissions of CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases -- need to be reached well within this century. More specifically, the average annual per-capita emissions will have to shrink to well under 1 metric ton CO2 by 2050. This is 80-90% below the per-capita emissions in developed nations in 2000.

Did you get that? The goal, if we have any chance of reversing what humans are doing to the planet, is to get our emissions 80-90% BELOW the levels we were discharging back in 2000.

Man, is this bleak...

But - the first step is to get the naysayers on board so that we can all work in tandem on this problem. It should be the number one focus of all nations in the upcoming decades.

Because no one can predict the future:

Light bulbs, bottle caps, toothbrushes, Popsicle sticks and tiny pieces of plastic, each the size of a grain of rice, inhabit the Pacific garbage patch, an area of widely dispersed trash that doubles in size every decade and is now believed to be roughly twice the size of Texas. But one research organization estimates that the garbage now actually pervades the Pacific, though most of it is caught in what oceanographers call a gyre like this one -- an area of heavy currents and slack winds that keep the trash swirling in a giant whirlpool.

Unbelievable. Imagine throwing some trash in the street and having it make its way into one of the great swirling gyres out there in the oceans:

Plastic is the most common refuse in the patch because it is lightweight, durable and an omnipresent, disposable product in both advanced and developing societies. It can float along for hundreds of miles before being caught in a gyre and then, over time, breaking down.

But once it does split into pieces, the fragments look like confetti in the water. Millions, billions, trillions and more of these particles are floating in the world's trash-filled gyres.

PCBs, DDT and other toxic chemicals cannot dissolve in water, but the plastic absorbs them like a sponge. Fish that feed on plankton ingest the tiny plastic particles. Scientists from the Algalita Marine Research Foundation say that fish tissues contain some of the same chemicals as the plastic. The scientists speculate that toxic chemicals are leaching into fish tissue from the plastic they eat.

The researchers say that when a predator -- a larger fish or a person -- eats the fish that eats the plastic, that predator may be transferring toxins to its own tissues, and in greater concentrations since toxins from multiple food sources can accumulate in the body.

Ugh...and it's not getting any better. That patch out in the Pacific is now twice as large as the state of Texas. This video covers pretty much sums it up:

In recent years, awareness of the environmental impacts of compact disc (CD) packaging has grown within the music merchandising industry, as well as the general public. This report was written for the Sustainable Packaging Working Group (SPWG), The Recording Industry Association of America and National Association of Recording Merchandisers, and reviews the environmental and potential toxicological impacts of several CD packaging options from the existing scientific literature. Based on the quantitative results detailed above and our qualitative assessment of the design problem facing the CD packaging industry, we can make a number of recommendations to decrease the overall environmental impact of packaging while maintaining an attractive product. These recommendations are presented by category, each addressing a different aspect of the packaging issue.

But you gotta read the report to see the recommendations...or check back here next month to see if we followed any of these steps!

If the label says:

* Animal Welfare Approved, American Humane Certified, or Certified Humane - eggs came from farms independently certified by animal welfare nonprofits (note: the latter two do allow beak-cutting).

* Cage Free - not regulated, but it usually means producers keep hens uncaged in barns or warehouses (though often there's no outdoor access).

* Free Range - typically means the hens are uncaged and have outdoor access - but nobody checks on the amount or duration.

* Natural - the USDA says Natural food products can't contain "any artificial or synthetic ingredients, and it must be minimally processed" - vague enough that it could apply to just about any egg.

* Organic - third-party-audited label that means the hens are uncaged and have access to the outdoors, and get a diet of organic, vegetarian feed without any antibiotics (beak-cutting and forced molting are permitted).

* Pasture Raised - unregulated, but typically birds raised this way have the chance to go outdoors and eat an organic diet.

* United Egg Producers Certified - producers can restrict hens to small cages and beak-cutting is allowed (but forced molting isn't).

* No Label - the hens were probably raised in a factory farm; if a company can make a claim, it usually will.

The thing they don't cover is which type of egg tastes best. Hmmm...maybe in their next entry they'll cover that topic.

Old-school incandescent light bulbs are going the way of the dodo -- already illegal in Europe and soon enough in the United States as well. Mostly CFLs will replace them in the near term, but as the price of LEDs drop, many expect them to become the bulb of choice. What comes after that?

Could be OLEDs:

Because OLED panels are just 0.07 of an inch thick and give off virtually no heat when lighted, one day architects will no longer need to leave space in ceilings for deep lighting fixtures, just as homeowners do not need a deep armoire for their television now that flat-panel TVs are common.

Within a year, manufacturers expect to sell the first OLED sheets that one day will illuminate large residential and commercial spaces. Eventually they will be as energy efficient and long-lasting as LED bulbs, they say.

Because of the diffuse, even light that OLEDs emit, they will supplement, rather than replace, other energy-efficient technologies, like LED, compact fluorescent and advanced incandescent bulbs that create light from a single small point.

The green movement is gaining traction, that's for sure!