Big Green Purse

Discovery's New Series Shows What "Life" is All About

Think life is boring? You won't after you watch the Discovery Channel's amazing new series called -- what else? -- "Life."

Narrated by Oprah Winfrey, each of the eleven episodes features magnificent never-before-seen footage of animals and plants living naturally in the environment: as predators, prey, and even parents. The program is a sequel of sorts to the blockbuster "Planet Earth" series Discovery aired a few years ago. But its focus on the animate world, as opposed to the geologic forces that underpin it, put it in a class of its own.

You'll find yourself holding your breath as you watch a seal try to escape the jaws of a school of hungry sharks. You'll ooh and aaah at the tiny rainforest frogs that transport their pollywog babies to safety by climbing up treacherous trees to find their safe haven: a bromeliad filled with water where the pollywogs can grow into frogs.

Will the baby ibex outrun a fox on the hunt? You know the law of the land is "eat or be eaten." Still, the ibex is so cute... And in fact, most of the animals are endearing. Unfortunately, some of them end up dead. Parents will want to exercise caution in letting very young children watch the show. But for viewers who can take a real dose of reality tv, watching this series will be as gripping as sitting through "The Bourne Ultimatum" and far more rewarding than environmental fantasies like Avatar.

If you know anyone who still doubts whether our environment still merits protection, sit them down Sunday nights at 8 p.m. ET when the series airs. You might have a hard time getting them in the chair, but once you do, they won't want to leave.

We Don't Wait for Our Child to Get Hit By a Car Before We Tell Her to Look Both Ways When Crossing the Street

"Look both ways before you cross the street." That's the Precautionary Principle in a nutshell.

The Precautionary Principle was hammered out at the historic Wisconsin Wingspread conference in 1998 by scientists, researchers, and citizens. The principle is grounded in the simple belief that we should not wait to protect ourselves or the environment until we have absolute proof that certain products or activities can cause us harm.

To the contrary, the principle declares: "When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken, even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established scientifically."

Industries use scientific uncertainty as a way to avoid cleaning up their act. Companies often magnify the importance of uncertainty to persuade citizens, legislators, and regulators that they, too, should delay action. Think how much farther along we'd be at solving the climate change crisis if the energy industry hadn't fought every proposed carbon dioxide regulation with the cry, "There's not enough proof that CO2 causes global warming!"

At the same time, budget crunches and competing priorities mean that important studies that could document environmental impacts often are shunted aside. Ironically, the longer we wait to address a problem, the greater the costs become - to the environment, to our health, and to the economy.

The Precautionary Principle has four tenets.

1) We -- consumers, governments, manufacturers -- have a duty to respond to early warnings. We must act before harm occurs, not after the fact. We don't wait for our child to get hit by a car to tell her to look both ways when crossing the street. People shouldn't need to contract cancer or asthma to get access to safe ingredients, or for companies to remove products like Bisphenol-A from baby bottles or control the air pollution coming out of cars.

2) Consumers should not bear the "burden of proof." Under our current system, you and I and, essentially, our environment, have to prove that we've been harmed before the government is willing to intercede on our behalf and before industry is willing to change the way it does business.  Under the Precautionary Principle, manufacturers would need to demonstrate safety.

Can this approach work for industry? It's taken hold in Europe. Starting with chemicals already known to cause cancer and birth defects, cosmetics companies are being required to reformulate their products to contain safer ingredients. Here in the U.S., the nonprofit Campaign for Safe Cosmetics is urging manufacturers to follow suit. Putting the burden of proof not on you and me but on producers should become the law of the land.

3) It is our responsibility to explore alternatives to toxic substances and activities. What good does it do us to know, or even suspect, something will harm us if we don't choose a safer alternative? Increasingly, we have real choice in the marketplace: more organic foods, more fuel-efficient vehicles, more recycled products, less plastic, less stuff overall. When we opt for the most environmenally friendly products and services available, we provide powerful incentives to manufacturers to shape up..

4) The Precautionary Principle requires democratic participation. Companies should not be allowed to decide our fate in their corporate board rooms. It's up to us to provide guidance as well as accountability by participating in public hearings, writing letters to companies, voting on ballot initiatives, electing responsive public officials, and, of course, using our Big Green Purse in the marketplace to favor products that offer us the healthiest, safest options.

In fact, often, our first line of defense is the way we spend our money -- or choose to keep it in our pockets. If you're stymied by all the confusing green labels, start with products that meet independent standards for health and environmental sustainability. For suggestions of products to avoid and choices to make, read this month's Green Mom's Carnival on the relationship between the environment and cancer, hosted by Tiffany at NatureMoms. 

(photo credit)

"Clean" Coal and Nukes Should Not be Part of Obama's Energy Future - or Ours.

President Obama tackled energy in his State of the Union address on Wednesday night, but not in the way that many (including myself) had hoped.

Not only did Mr. Obama push for "building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country," but he endorsed "opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development" and "continued investment in...clean coal technologies."

Does the President actually believe offshore oil drilling makes sense and that coal and nuclear can be safe, healthy and non-polluting? Or, as the country's uber politician, is he trying to maintain a balancing act in order to avoid alienating members of Congress who are beholden to the fossil fuel and nuclear industries for their campaign contributions?

If it's the latter, we should all remind the President of his campaign promise to rid the nation of "politics as usual." If it's the former, President Obama's science, environmental and health advisors need to make a beeline to the Oval Office so they can brief their boss on the industries he's touting. Why?

*  Clean coal and nuclear are myths, the products of aggressive industry public relations far more than reality.  Says analyst Richard Coniff, “Clean” is not a word that normally leaps to mind for a commodity some spoilsports associate with ... acid rain, black lung, lung cancer, asthma, mercury contamination, and, of course, global warming. Even if the carbon is captured and sequestered or impurities are "scrubbed" away, the pollutants that result from burning coal never truly disappear." 

* The very act of mining coal destroys the environment.  Mountaintop removal mining is decimating both the natural and human landscape of Appalachia, for example.

* Offshore oil drilling pollutes the oceans, threatens marine animals and plants, and trashes beaches and coastlines.

As for nuclear energy, I have a hard time imagining any scenario that can lump "radioactive waste" and "clean" in the same sentence. There's a reason no state wants to become a repository for the waste from nuclear power plants: they can't guarantee it won't eventually make its way into our air, water, and soil -- or be stolen by terrorists and converted into a bomb.

Now, to be fair, the president did strongly endorse renewable energy:

"We know the country that harnesses the power of clean, renewable energy will lead the 21st century," he said, noting that "Thanks to our recovery plan, we will double this nation's supply of renewable energy in the next three years."

I applaud the Administration's commitment to "put Americans to work making our homes and buildings more efficient so that we can save billions of dollars on our energy bill." Likewise, I support his decision to "invest fifteen billion dollars a year to develop technologies like wind power and solar power... and more fuel-efficient cars and trucks built right here in America."

But rather than link these winning strategies to losers like coal, oil and nuclear, why not expand his vision for our future to include cost-effective and non-polluting options like mass transit, telecommuting, and stricter building standards to reduce energy demand from space heating and lighting? 

If we want an energy future we can believe in, that future cannot continue to depend on fossil fuels and nuclear energy.

President Obama said it best: "If we confront without fear the challenges of our time and summon that enduring spirit of an America that does not quit, then someday years from now our children can tell their children that this was the time when we performed, in the words that are carved into this very chamber, "something worthy to be remembered."

Control Climate Change to Protect the Environment

If we have any hope of protecting the environment and ourselves, we must get climate change under control. The nations of the world are meeting in Copenhagen in December to try to hammer out international agreements to reduce the greenhouse gases that have caused the world's temperatures to soar, endangering the systems upon which all life depends.

But news reports are discouraging: already, headlines are announcing that major policy shifts are unlikely. We need commitments from every country, but especially the U.S., to reduce our dependence on the fossil fuels whose burning is warming the globe. The worldwide demonstrations tomorrow can show our "leaders" that it's time to follow the will of concerned citizens everywhere, and unite behind concrete plans not simply to slow climate change, but to stop it.

This morning, I received the following letter from Bill McKibben, the founder of tomorrow's International Day of Climate Action. I reprint it here in the hopes you'll participate.

Dear Friend,

Saturday's the day -- October 24, the International Day of Climate Action. So join the nearest 350 actionknowing you'll be part of something big.

Very big, in fact. This campaign has gone viral--there will be over four thousand events taking place simultaneously in over 175 nations. As far as we can tell, you'll be part of the single most widespread day of political action about any issue that our planet has ever seen...

There are too many incredible events to list in one place, but here are some of the highlights:

• In Cambodia, citizens from across the country will gather at the famous Angkor Wat to take a giant 350 action photo.
• In Hungary, hundreds of bathers will jump into the public baths in Budapest and do a 350 synchronized swimming performance.
• In the United States, 350 people will dance to Michael Jackson's Thriller in Seattle -- because if we don't stop global warming, we might as well be undead.

When you're out there marching or rallying, biking or kite-flying, singing or taking part in whatever is going on in your community, take a minute and try to imagine all the other people doing the same kind of things all around the world--every one taking the same basic scientific fact and driving it into the public consciousness.

350 is the most important number in the world--scientists have told us that it's the most carbon dioxide we can have in the atmosphere, and now we're making sure everyone knows...

Onwards,

Bill McKibben

It's Blog Action Day - So Get a Move On!

In honor of Blog Action Day, I'm getting off my duff and doing a few things to protect the environment and my family that I've been meaning to do for a while now: 

* I signed up to attend a climate change rally in Washington, D.C. on October 24, Climate Action Day. Want to do the same? Visit 350.org for details.

* I wrote a letter to Wal-Mart encouraging the company to involve consumers in the new initiative it's launched to establish sustainability standards for manufacturers and vendors it does business with. It matters, because as Wal-Mart goes, so goes the world. Learn more here - and get the link so you can write a letter yourself.

*  I donated to Alaska Wilderness League, a highly effective non-profit organization working to prevent oil drilling in America's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. They need your money. Can you donate, too?

* I'm tweeting all day about the need to act now to reduce climate change. If I'm not following you, let me know at www.twitter.com/dianemaceachern and www.twitter.com/biggreenpurse.

What are you doing to take action and make a difference? Let us know!

We Need Meaningful Standards to Protect the Planet -- and Us, too.

We've all seen the product claims that SOUND like they mean environmental protection. But do they?

* Products labeled "natural" may contain some biological ingredients, but they may also include synthetic dyes and fragrances.

* "Hypoallergenic" has no medical meaning. The word was invented by advertisers who used it in a cosmetics campaign in 1953.  Says the Food and Drug Administation, "There are no federal standards or definitions that govern the use of the term hypoallergenic. [It] means whatever a particular company wants it to mean."

* "Biodegradable" should mean that, when a product is exposed to air, moisture, bacteria, or other organisms, it will break down and return to its natural state within a reasonably short time. However, no government entity verifies the accuracy of a biodegradable claim; the term is often used simply to provide a marketing edge to a product that otherwise has no real environmental attributes.

* "Free range" implies that a meat or poultry product, including eggs, comes from an animal that was raised in the open air or was free to roam. But a vendor can give his livestock as little as five minutes of fresh air and still make the claim. Free range...or free rein to greenwash you, the concerned ecoshopper?

* "Fragrance-free" suggests a product has no natural perceptible smell; however, synthetic ingredients may have been added to mask odors -- and the dangerous phthalates that create them.

What's the point of this litany?

Currently, no government standards define specific "eco" terms like the ones above. Companies are free to use these words to gain a marketing advantage regardless of their accuracy. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) prohibits deceptive advertising and has issued guidelines encouraging manufacturers to substantiate environmental claims, but the agency rarely enforces its own rules.

This is a problem because consumers who want to protect themselves and the environment are increasingly reading product labels -- and walking away confused. Should they buy the "green" cleaner -- even though the label also says "Warning - Hazardous" because it actually contains toxic chemicals that can irritate the lungs or eyes?  Lipstick promises to make you beautiful. Should you use it, even though it  may contain lead? And what's with those "fuel efficient" hybrids that get less than 20 mpg?

How much easier these choices would be if products were required to meet meaningful standards set by independent third parties, a point Mary Hunt over at In Women We Trust has been arguing for years, and a point being made again this month by the members of the Green Moms Carnival, which Mary is also hosting.

You could avoid most greenwashing traps and label ambiguities if companies adopted comprehensive standards guaranteeing that their products were fully "sustainable" - that they protected public health and the environment throughout their entire commercial "life cycle." That includes the extraction of raw materials through their manufacture and use to final disposal or reuse in a new product.

Ideally, such standards would be set at the federal level. But if you've been watching the health care debate, you know how tough passing new regulations can be. That's why there's so much interest in Wal-Mart's recent jump into the sustainability arena. The retail giant is planning to develop a sustainability index against which it will judge the vendors that supply products to its stores.  Want to do business with Wal-Mart? You'll have to be able to vault over their bar.

How high that bar turns out to be remains to be seen.  Given Wal-Mart's role as the world's retail superpower, the higher we can convince them to set the bar, the better off we'll all be.

To that end -- and in honor of Blog Action Day -- now would be a good time to contact Wal-Mart and urge the company to set the most meaningful environmental standards possible.

New Book Highlights Environmental, Health Threats from Toxic Chemicals

Investigative journalist Nena Baker is the author of The Body Toxic: How the Hazardous Chemistry of Everyday Things Threatens Our Health and Well-being (North Point Press/Farrar, Straus and Giroux). I first met Nena when we both spoke at the Women, Health & Environment Conference sponsored by the Heinz Endowment in 2008. Since then, I've been a fan of her investigations into the impact that toxic chemicals have on our bodies as well as the planet. In the first of a two-part article, Nena explains why she tries to avoid one of the most common chemicals you're likely to find in your furniture, television, and kitchen blender.

"Ever since the publication of my book,  The Body Toxic: How the Hazardous Chemistry of Everyday Things Threatens Our Health and Well-being, people ask me what I’ve done in my own life to reduce exposures to toxic chemicals.

One answer is: I vacuum a lot more. And one family of toxic chemicals is the reason for it. Called polybrominated diphyl ethers, or PBDEs, these toxic flame retardants were – beginning in the 1970s -- added to everything from furniture foam, mattresses, carpet padding and drapery backings, to car interiors, computers, TVs, fax machines and small kitchen appliances. 

Because of the way PBDEs were blended into foam and plastic – think of a baker stirring chocolate chips into cookie dough – they can easily escape from the materials into which they are mixed. As a result, PBDEs settle in the dust on the floors of our homes, where children and pets spend most of their time. Indeed, researchers believe dust is the primary route of human exposure to PBDEs.

Based on the findings in animal studies, the EPA classifies PBDEs as a possible human carcinogen. Like other endocrine-disrupting chemicals I write about in The Body Toxic, PBDEs also are suspected of causing an array of negative health effects, including thyroid hormone disruption and permanent learning and memory impairment.

Because of their widespread use, PBDEs have built up at astonishing rates in the environment and in people. No one can say for certain how PBDEs are affecting humans, young or old. But research led by Dr. Linda Birnbaum, who was recently appointed director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, makes the case that house cats may be sentinels for humans, especially the littlest ones.

“Think about a cat’s behavior,” said Birnbaum. “They’re on the floor; they’re on the furniture. They get dust on themselves. They ingest it through grooming. Well, little kids are all over the floor and furniture, and they’re frequently mouthing things, including their hands.”

Read Part 2 of this article.

Protecting the Environment is a Health Care Issue

The current debate about health care seems seriously lacking in one important way: there's no focus on the environmental problems that make so many of us sick.

Just scan the front pages of this week's New York Times if you need to be convinced. "Health Ills Abound as Farm Runoff Fouls Wells," documents instances of children contracting serious ear infections, some requiring surgery, from bathing in polluted water.  "Toxic Waters: Clean Water Laws Are Neglected at a Cost in Suffering" focuses on scabs and rashes being inflicted on children because their tap water contains barium, lead, arsenic and many other toxins that cause cancer and damage the kidneys and nervous system. A Fight Grows Over Labeling on Cleaning Products addresses consumer concerns that the chemicals in common household cleansers are giving people asthma, acne, nervous disorders, and more.

Maybe it's time fror Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson to put their heads together and realize that America could reduce health care costs significantly if we focused on cleaning up the planet. And get some of those polluters to help foot the bill. The cleaning products industry alone is a $14 billion/yr enterprise.

"In Wildness is the Preservation of the World"

Henry David Thoreau wrote these words in 1862. Today, almost a century and a half later, they are more true than ever before. Mining, forest clear cutting, oil and gas development, and road building are destroying the extraordinary and irreplaceable wilderness that is our natural heritage.

The Wilderness Act, signed by President Lyndon Johnson on September 3, 1964, created a National Wilderness Preservation System so that wild lands, including national parks, national forests, and lands overseen by the federal Bureau of Land Management, would be managed “for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness...”  

Today, 45 years later, this prescient legislation seems more essential than ever. Though 109 million acres of land in Alaska and the lower 48 have been protected under the Act, many exquisite regions of forests, prairies, coastlines, mountains, and wetlands remain threatened simply because they haven’t yet been classified as federal wilderness.

Fortunately, citizens and concerned members of Congress are working to protect as much of America’s remaining wild lands as possible. The Alaska Wilderness League (on whose board I served for six years) is striving to secure federal wildernesss status for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The Campaign for America's Wilderness is spearheading wilderness protection campaigns in a dozen states. President Obama recently declared September 2009 "National Wilderness Month" and signed the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, which designated over 2 million acres of wilderness from coast to coast.

But that is not enough. Wild lands clean our air and filter our water. They protect open space from sprawl, and provide much needed wildlife habitat, especially for endangered species.  And increasingly in this shell-shocked, post 9/11 era, people are using wilderness to escape the stress of modern-day life.

Americans are losing 6,000 acres of open space every day, acreage we can ill afford to lose. If we want to protect the environment and the lands that restore our bodies and souls, we need to legislate more land as wilderness, and the sooner the better.

You can help. 

Is the Chevy Volt Good for the Environment?

  General Motors has started manufacturing an electric vehicle called the Chevy Volt. It claims the car will drive up to 40 miles on its lithium-ion battery, which can be recharged at home or work using a regular electrical outlet. According to GM, more than 75 percent of Americans live within 20 miles of where they work. If that sounds like your commute, you could drive the Volt to your job and back on 100% electricity without generating any of the emissions that cause air pollution or climate change, at a cost of about 80 cents in electricity a day.

If the battery does run down, the 1.0-liter, three-cylinder gas engine acts as a generator to charge the battery and provides enough power for up to an additional 600 miles. Says Chevy, the Volt will get 50 mpg with the generator running in what’s called "extended range" mode. If you drive 60 miles, with the last 20 miles in this mode, you'll enjoy a 150 mpg equivalent for the trip.

Does the car's high fuel efficiency rating mean it's "good" for the environment? That begs the question, is ANY car good for the environment?

After all, manufacturing a car is still a polluting, resource-intensive process. Fom an environmental perspective, driving a car is still inferior to using mass transit, biking, walking, and telecommuting,  Americans need better transportation options, not necessarily better cars.

However, I think it's fair to say that the Volt is "better" for the environment, in several ways:

It shows that any company - even one like General Motors, maker of one of the world's most polluting, least efficient vehicles, the Hummer - can make great strides in creating new products to protect the planet and human health.

It demonstrates to consumers that their demands for more environmentally-responsible products create a powerful incentive to businesses to clean up their act.

It fuels competition. General Motors may be the first to market with its electric car, but it won't be the last. It has set a standard other manufacturers will now be in a race to emulate.  Remember the history of hybrids in the U.S.? In 1998, there were virtually no hybrids being sold. In 1999 Honda introduced its first hybrid model, followed by the Tyotoa Prius hybrid in 2000. The wild popularity of these cars, especially the Prius, inspired a frenzy of re-design among all car companies. These days, every automobile manufacturer has at least one hybrid in its showroom - and over a million hybrids are being sold every year.

Should we all get out of our cars more?