Schools around the country are making their buildings greener and teaching students how to protect the environment as if it were just another social norm.

Installing no-idling zones for parents picking up children from school, switching to plant-based cleaners and banning pesticides from playgrounds and playing fields are just some of the efforts being pushed in schools these days. Teaching kids to recycle and preserving local wetlands are also popular. That's in addition to actually making the buildings green with certifications like LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) by the U.S. Green Building Council.

Making the school grounds safer for the environment is also safer for the kids, a generation experiencing drastically increasing asthma rates.

Administrators say once the children learn the importance of environmentalism, it's often the parents – who drive the SUVs and refuse to turn off their engines while waiting – who seem to need instruction.

Investments in clean technologies reached another record as venture capitalists in North America and Europe invested $1.74 billion in the third quarter of 2007, according to analyst firm the Cleantech Group. This brings the year-to-date level of investment to $3.64 billion, a 13% increase over the same period in 2006.

North American VCs invested $1.26 billion, up 36% from Q306. Venture capitalists in Europe surprisingly decreased investments during the quarter by 13% decrease to $472 million.

Energy Generation continues to be the largest category, with $1.2 billion invested in Q307. Solar investment reached $410 million in North America, a 16% increase over Q2 while biofuels companies raised $215 million in North America.

New state renewable portfolio standards and concerns about energy independence and greenhouse gas emissions will likely keep the investments increasing by double digits for the foreseeable future. A new energy policy after the 2008 election could push these numbers even higher.

Pittsburgh Paints just announced its 2008-09 line of paints, which include the EcoEcho paints that contain low VOCs. Within that line, customers can choose from four color palettes – "Fair Trade," "Eco Techno," "Eco Loco" and "Vintage." Despite the names, the four categories are named after the colors and actually have nothing to do with fair trade or disco balls.

Major commercial brands, such as Pittsburgh Paints, seem very different from something like Milk Paint, which claims to be the greenest paint available.

What do paint manufacturers seem to think makes a green paint? Low VOCs.

VOCs, such as formaldehyde, are carbon compounds that form ground-level ozone and can cause respiratory problems, skin and eye irritation, headaches, nausea, etc. They are found in most paints and can seriously lessen your indoor air quality when slapped on the walls of your house. The EPA states that paints labeled "zero-VOC" or "no-VOC" can still contain up to five grams of VOCs per liter.

So can we really call the paints that boast low VOCs environmentally friendly? What should the requirements be for a paint to be green? What about being transparent about how paints are produced and how much pollution comes from that process, what other chemicals the paint contains, whether it is combustible?

Until tighter regulations or more voluntary transparency come about, we can make choices only on the information provided. Green Home Guide lists pages of paints that claim to better for your health and the environment, and gives reviews of each one. And Build it Green describes what to avoid when shopping for green paints.

Companies' ability and interest in reducing greenhouse gas emissions are under fire this week from both BusinessWeek and Time. While some companies invariably will take the easiest (read least expensive) path, indicting carbon reduction efforts just because some companies try to "greenwash" their activities is going to far.

These top-notch publications are right for reporting on an alarming trend -- that some companies may be playing with the numbers to appear carbon neutral while doing very little to reengineer their business practices to be more sustainable. More accurate and independent auditing is needed. The focus should be on changes that measurably reduce greenhouse gas emissions year over year, not the hard to prove goal of being "carbon neutral."

BusinessWeek makes a failed conclusion by criticizing the idea that reduced footprint can equal increased profits, but then hinging their arguments that renewable energy credits (RECs) are not cost effective and may not really benefit the environment. It doesn't take a science or business degree to realize that buying carbon credits/offsets does not help the bottom line.

What the folks at the Rocky Mountain Institute and other environmentally minded groups espouse is changing manufacturing processes, enhancing energy efficiency, reducing waste, cutting travel, and streamlining the supply chain, which can also enhance profitability. If BusinessWeek can prove the contrary, then they can publish a "Little Green Lies" article, but not by arguing against RECs and carbon offsets, which are not about increasing profitability.

Apparently we're just not recycling enough, and the industry is suffering because of it.

Barely 25 percent of the billions of pounds of plastic bottles and containers manufactured each year in the United States actually get recycled.

Chemical & Engineering News cites that financial concerns, technological difficulties and competition for raw materials by recyclers in the United States and abroad challenge the U.S. plastic recycling industry. The issue also says cities and counties just aren't doing their part to promote recycling.

But the main cause? Consumers just aren't recycling enough.

Pity poor GM. After years of losses and being abused in the media for its lack of embracing fuel economy, the company is now being criticized for being too aggressive in pursuing a plug-in hybrid vehicle, the Chevrolet Volt.

While I was a smidge skeptical that the Volt might be a PR ploy when it was first announced, GM is betting with its wallet and marketing mouth that the car, which will go 40+ miles on a charge, will be for real. The Volt may be founded on uncertain battery technology, but I give the company credit for making an all-out effort to retake the lead from Toyota.

There is a huge risk to the company if the Volt isn't ready by 2011, especially if someone else is able to develop a plug-in hybrid before GM can. But throwing down the gauntlet has put battery makers and competitors on notice -- the plug-in hybrid must be built to satisfy consumer demand and to enrich GM's future.

Other auto manufacturers are responding to the heat, which is good news for everyone who wants to see a plug-in hybrid in their garage soon. There are still logistical challenges to volume use of plug-ins, but those will eventually get resolved.

Recycling e-waste may be a good solution to disposing our old electronics, but it's a bad solution for those living near the recycling facilities.

A recent study compared the dioxin levels in women of child-bearing age at two sites in China, the destination for 70 percent of electronic waste: an e-waste recycling site and an area without e-waste recycling. They analyzed the dioxins, or compounds linked to cancer, developmental defects and other health problems, in samples of breast milk, placenta and hair.

The results showed that the daily intake of infants from six months of breastfeeding at the recycling site more than doubled that of the reference site. The scientists believe that the levels of dioxins at the recycling site were at least 25 times the tolerable daily limit deemed by the World Health Organization.

The study described the recycling methods, such as heating scrap electronic components over coal fires in the open air. This may not mean that recycling electronics is universally hazardous – we may just need to change the methods of recycling electronics. Of course, if products were designed for reuse or easy and environmentally-friendly disposal in the first place, this wouldn't be a problem.

It may not be on the top of the list of America's Greenest States, but Pennsylvania is quickly climbing the charts and making headlines for its green initiatives.

Of the state's current energy purchases, almost 30 percent is green energy, surpassing Governor Edward G. Rendell's goal of 20 percent that he set last year. The state purchases its electricity from renewable wind and hydroelectric sources via Community Energy, Inc.

It is also on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Top 25 Green Power Partnership list – the only state in the country to be included in the top 25 of renewable energy purchasers.

Plus, Montgomery County in Pennsylvania last month became the first 100 percent wind-powered county in the country. The county recently made a 29 million kilowatt hour wind energy purchase that will power all county facilities, with the utility PECO and Community Energy.

Such purchases will help Pennsylvania meet its Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard, which calls for 18 percent of all retail energy generated by 2021 to come from clean sources.

Last week, Rendell handed out $21.2 million in grants that support alternative energy, although it seems the state is already attracting clean-tech companies even without the incentives. Spanish wind developer Gamesa and other international energy companies, such as Iberdrola, Conergy and Axion have all made the state a base of operations. And since the alternative energy portfolio passed in 2004, it has attracted $1 billion in new, private investment to Pennsylvania.

We can file this under the weird category. NoPoPo (non-pollution power) Aqua Batteries run off liquid and can hold that charge for up to 10 years.

Almost any liquid works – water, beer, urine. Yes, that's right. Just insert any liquid into the base with a pipette. The batteries come in a range of sizes and contain no dangerous chemicals, such as mercury, lead or cadmium. Inside, a mixture of carbon and magnesium reacts with the liquid to produce power. However, they can only be refilled a finite number of times.

Apparently they can also be connected in a series to create larger power cells, which can power larger items, such as lamps. But think of the potential – could we someday power our refrigerators, or even cars, with water?

They're currently only sold in Japan, but they could hit the West by early 2008.

The second season of E2 has begun on PBS, and it's a must-see for anyone interested in sustainable design and clean energy technology. Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman are the narrators to the series which highlights how progress can go hand in hand with environmentally friendly policies.

Episodes focus on wind energy, developing nations, and "clean" coal and nuclear power. The shows will be on TV weekly during the next few months, and individual episodes are streamed online.

Pitt gives more than lip service to the cause and is building eco housing in Louisiana. Celebrities are having a beneficial impact in bringing their star power to the importance of green design and energy that go hand in hand with profitability.

Many hotels and motels claiming to be energy efficient and environmentally friendly these days charge an arm and a leg. Motel 6, the old road-trip standard, however, is making those changes while still offering affordable stays.

The motel chain teamed with Honeywell and Pacific Gas and Electric Co. to perform energy retrofits of more than 7,000 hotel rooms in California. The changes include installing sensors that shut off air conditioning and heating equipment when rooms are unoccupied, as well as updating interior and exterior lighting fixtures and cold drink vending machines. The heating and air conditioning changes alone should save hotel owners up to $140 per room annually.

Also, in June, Motel 6 rolled out what it claims to be the first national fluorescent light bulb and battery recycling program within the hospitality industry.

The good news for car buyers looking for fuel efficient options is that they have more diesel vehicles to choose from than in years past. While diesels can offer higher MPG than their gasoline counterparts, the most comparable hybrids are a better bargain (at least on paper).

While for the 2007 model year there was just one diesel passenger vehicle (the Volkswagen Touareg SUV) for sale, the Diesel vehicles -- cleaner and better than ever, are back on the scene and are expected to compete with hybrids for fuel-conscious consumers. The 2008 Fuel Economy Guide lists seven diesel vehicles -- the Mercedes Bluetec sedan plus six SUVs.

As you can see in the chart, the Mercedes sedan offers much higher MPG (27-21 combined) than its closest competing hybrid, the upscale Lexus 600h. Yes, there are other hybrid sedans that trounce the Mercedes in MPG, but comparing it to a Prius really ain't fair.

As you can see by the ratio of base price to MPG in the SUV category, the diesels from Jeep and Mercedes are more expensive if you only (and most people don't) consider fuel economy for similarly comfortable and powerful vehicles. The hybrids also include generous tax credits, something that Congress hasn't bestowed upon diesel vehicles.

I'm glad to see more diesel vehicles on the market