Many would say that the Church of Scientology is unsustainable in more ways than one, but few have stopped to consider how that applies to the natural environment. While Scientologists overtly organize to protect nature and profess to protect the planet many of their practices seem to contradict their statements. The overall effect seems to be alarmism couple with inaction: all of the theoretical zest of GreenPeace with all of the inaction of President Bush. Here are some of the ways in which Scientology seems to skew environmental issues and play on public opinion without a correspondingly set of proactive strategies. This side of Scientology seems to have been lost in the scandalous shuffle of recent news but Scientology’s mixed messages and actions on the environment are also important.

Strange Science: Putting aside questions of science versus pseudoscience, dsagree or agree with climate change, the infamous Hubbard Electrometer is purported to measure mysterious “environmental toxins” in one’s bloodstream. This “technology” is misleading at best as well as a waste of resources, from the mechanical components in these myriad devices to the endless pages of paper wasted while producing “diagnoses” of individuals. Perhaps worst of all this strange emphasis on mysterious environmental factors distracts from actual environmental issues.

Global Apocalypse: Still, the E-Meter isn’t their only environmental concern - Scientology is also worried about the future of the planet. Still, if Scientologists are truly concerned with saving the Earth, which in their words may “no longer support life [within our] lifetime,” then why focus on graffiti removal and other short-term city beautification projects? Were this global apocalypse truly a concern for them it would seem that their priorities don’t align with their concerns about the world. Why worry the small things if the entire planet is at stake?

Mixed Recycling: Recycling is in fact an overt priority for Scientology in theory which appears to go unfulfilled in actuality. One of their own organizational loci, the Flag Service Organization, completely fails to recycle even basic soda cans. Moreover, the Church of Scientology prints its pamphlets, magazines and fliers on glossy, heavy, non-environmentally friendly paper before sending them around the world to likely wind up littering streets and tossed into garbage cans. No, they aren’t evil for failing to recycle, but it seems incongruent to publicly advocate recycling and clean living but not to recycle in-house.

What Does it All Mean? Sure, the Church of Scientology puts on a great show for the public. They are active in local settings picking up trash, cleaning up parks and removing graffiti - all things that others outside the organization can see, appreciate and identify with. But one has to wonder if that’s not precisely the point: are they perhaps just focusing on the most obvious sustainable actions for the purposes of improving public perception of the organization and recruiting new individuals to it? Environmentally speaking they are perhaps at best stuck in a previous generation’s thought patterns, when it was believed that little things made the big differences in the end, or at worst just putting on a good show.

What is it about climate change that stirs everyone up so much? When innovative technology is applied to cars, houses or other everyday things everyone seems to celebrate progress. However, when articles come out about climate change the tone shifts and the skeptics come out in force. Ecoble invariably gets the most crass, spammy and downright incorrect comments on such articles. But why?

Is it just too big of a concept for people to grasp? Too complex to know for sure and therefore it elicits negativity? Or could it be that we are scared it could be true and eager to believe detractors who, possibly for personal profit, resist reacting to the potential threat post by global climate change? Even when alternative explanations, such as volcanoes, are presented to problems such as localized ice melting.

In the face of the complex and (of course) global nature of the problem, it is all too easy to throw up one’s hands and declare there’s no point worrying about it. But there is. Climate change could have a series and devastating impact one the world, affecting humans in every aspect of life from temperature to agricultural production. The debate just keeps heating up, too, as private individuals, companies and entire industries on both sides find they may have a lot to lose.

If you’re still a doubter after combing recent related news articles, look no further than this description of what may be the sixth mass extinction on Earth. Is it alarmest? Maybe. Are species becoming extinct at a more rapid rate than at any other point in human history? Absolutely. What does it mean? That’s up to you.

When it comes to vehicles, green can mean many things. Many supposedly environmentally friendly vehicles also aren’t as green as people might assume at first glance. These three articles provide some facts, figures and humorous anecdotes about what it really means to go green.

Everything You Know about Green Cars is Wrong: Much of what you think you know about “clean cars” is wrong, misinformation spread by word of mouth and unreliable blogs (not including this one). Here are some of the prime misconceptions, with corrections applied:

More On Coskata’s $1 per Gallon Ethanol: The Coskata process that GM is promoting can use a wide range of different feedstocks to produce ethanol. Materials ranging from agricultural waste to purpose grown crops that can be raised on marginal lands (switchgrass being the most widely known example of this) to waste materials such as old tires and even municipal waste streams can all be used as the raw materials that can be turned into ethanol with very little to zero landfill waste.

Top 5 Unusually Green Vehicles of 2007: As demand for environmental alternatives grows, some green-thinking automotive designers have gone above and beyond simple hybrid or energy-efficient cars to develop radically creative green vehicles in many senses of the word. Here are five of the most interesting, innovative, strange and downright bizarre green concept vehicles developed this past year.

So a lot of people question the mechanism, cause or even existence of what is now commonly called climate change. Sometimes they call out the words ‘global warming’ and then point out that there is cooling going on as well in the world. Well, details and titles aside you can’t argue with melting ice caps, can you? Nature may have its cycles but this is unquestionably unusual and incredibly significant to the global climate.

Ominous Arctic Melts Worry Experts: An already relentless melting of the Arctic greatly accelerated this summer, a warning sign that some scientists worry could mean global warming has passed an ominous tipping point. One even speculated that summer sea ice would be gone in five years.

Why Isn’t Antarctica Melting? Antarctic sea ice hasn’t shown the same obvious melting patterns in recent decades as the Arctic, fueling the global warming denialist crowd. Though the data isn’t as consistent as in the North, where the extent of sea ice this summer hit a stunning record low, southern sea ice has been expanding.

Trees are often a central topic when it comes to discussions of global warming or climate change, but what role do they really play and how important are they? Here are three different recent articles on trees that span the debate:

Fine for Burning Down Eden’s Forests: 11 Cents: When Madagascar drifted away from Africa some 165 million years ago, wildlife on the island spun off on its own unique evolutionary path, producing the world’s only lemurs, as well as dozens of amphibian and bird species found nowhere else on earth. That unique wildlife, which was only discovered by humans 2,000 years ago, has prompted many to refer to the island as an Eden-like remnant of the natural world as it was before human contact.

Trees Are Not The Answer To Climate Change: What was once seen as the solution to all our CO2 problems, the ability of trees to soak up anthropogenic carbon dioxide, has itself been hindered by global warming. A 20-year analysis of 30 sites in the frozen north has discovered that trees ability to take in CO2 is weakening. Whereas once it was assumed that just by planting more trees we could slow down the climate change tide. These results tell us unquestionably that we need to stop passing the buck, and stop creating CO2.

Trees absorbing less CO2 as world warms, study finds: The ability of forests to soak up man-made carbon dioxide is weakening, according to an analysis of two decades of data from more than 30 sites in the frozen north. The finding published today is crucial, because it means that more of the CO2 we release will end up affecting the climate in the atmosphere rather than being safely locked away in trees or soil.