E-NEWS

Save the Planet

Profits to the Planet November 2, 2008 Reporting by Roddy Scheer A new Earth Profits Fund would channel corporate money to causes like forest protection. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) announced that it is launching a new conservation fund called the Earth Profits Fund. The fund will ask the world’s 500 wealthiest corporations to dedicate one percent of their profits to protect threatened forests, fisheries and other at-risk ecosystems around the world. IUCN, a Swiss-based nonprofit, is an environmental network comprised of more than 1,000 governmental and nonprofit organizations (also known as the World Conservation Union). The group is best known for producing and maintaining a Red List, the most comprehensive tally of the globe’s endangered species.   The new Earth Profits Fund will act as alternative funding source for conservation programs in light of the fact that traditional sources are disappearing due to the worldwide economic meltdown. If the group can get the buy-in from the world’s richest companies, it could raise some $10 billion a year to put toward conservation causes. “It's going to be a long haul to get it implemented,” says Richard Cellarius, the Sierra Club’s VP for international affairs and a major proponent for launching the fund. “Trying to get [financial] resources for conservation is an uphill battle.” Source: World Watch

Blowing the Whistle on BPA November 2, 2008 Reporting by Roddy Scheer An independent scientific panel took the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to task last week for failing to protect the health of the American public. Specifically, they went after the agency’s assessment of the risks associated with bisphenol A (BPA). The chemical has been used for decades to harden plastic in baby bottles and thousands of other food-grade consumer items, but in recent years has been linked to prostate cancer, diabetes and other health problems in animals.   Sarah Janssen of the National Resources Defense Council says the current levels of BPA exposure are not safe. © Flickr Environmentalists fear it could cause similar problems, as well as reproductive abnormalities and possibly even cancer, in humans, and think the chemical should be regulated out of food-grade products, especially those designed for children. “The current levels of exposure are not safe,” says Sarah Janssen, a reproductive biologist with the environmental nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). “We should get rid of it in food containers.” For its part, the FDA responded by commissioning new research into the health effects of BPA. Environmentalists warn that even if the FDA does eventually recommend phasing out or banning BPA, it won’t happen for years. In the meantime, consumers can take matters into their own hands by avoiding products containing BPA. Sources: Green Media: Washington Post

COMMENTARY: Presidential Fact Check A look at McCain and Obama’s environmental missteps and misstatements By Jessica A. Knoblauch Obama has been a strong advocate for renewable energies, but has changed position on offshore drilling (he now supports it). © www.barackobama.com With the help of PolitiFact.com and FactCheck.org, two truth-seeking websites, E investigated some of Barack Obama and John McCain’s most egregious environmental claims. Let’s just say that both candidates would fit right in as truth-twisting writers at The Onion.   Offshore Drilling Before $4-per-gallon gas prices dominated headlines this summer, many Americans opposed offshore drilling. But as the price of gas has spiked, public opinion has shifted—69% now support offshore drilling—causing the candidates’ opinions to shift as well. On offshore drilling, Obama is guiltiest of switching gears. In July 2008, he railed against drilling, arguing that oil companies could “double our domestic oil production and increase natural gas production by 75%” just by using 68 million acres they already have access to. However, one month later Obama flip flopped his offshore drilling stance, explaining that “If we can come up with a genuine bipartisan compromise in which I have to accept some things I don’t like…in exchange for actually moving us in the direction of energy independence, then that is something I am open to.” Kudos to him for crossing party lines, but the sudden shift made many environmentalists uneasy. McCain, on the other hand, has mostly stuck to his guns on offshore drilling. Though some reports claim McCain initially opposed offshore drilling, the truth is he’s always been opposed to drilling when states involved are opposed as well. In a 2007 Republican presidential debate, McCain said, “I wouldn’t drill off the coast of Florida unless the people of Florida wanted to. And I wouldn’t drill off the coast of California unless the people of California wanted to. And I wouldn’t drill in the Grand Canyon unless the people in Arizona wanted to.” McCain has a made a host of false claims against Barack Obama’s support for innovation to fight climate change. However, McCain hasn’t been so forthcoming when talking up offshore drilling’s benefits. In mid-June 2008 McCain told reporters that drilling would be “very helpful in the short term in resolving our energy crisis.” This statement is just plain wrong according to the government’s own Energy and Information Administration (EIA) 2007 Annual Energy Outlook, which found that domestic drilling projections would not have a significant impact before 2030. It’s hard to say whether McCain knew about the EIA report beforehand, but what’s more revealing is that a month prior he said offshore drilling “would take years to develop” and would only serve in postponing or “temporarily relieve our dependency on fossil fuels.” While each of these carefully worded statements may be true, they lead to opposite conclusions on whether or not McCain supports offshore drilling. Clean Coal Obama and McCain are both big fans of clean coal and proud of it, probably because the technology allows them to have their coal minus the muck, a tactic that pleases coal enthusiasts as well as (some) enviros. But “clean coal” is often regarded as an Orwellian cop out among coal opposers. Though Obama and McCain love talking up carbon capture and sequestration technology (CCS)—a process that captures coal-burning emissions and stores them underground—containing CO2 doesn’t exactly make coal “clean” because getting to the coal involves dirtying air and water. Plus, it’s energy intensive (think more CO2). Developing the technology is also costly and time-consuming, a detail both candidates are well aware of but more than happy to leave out. Take the FutureGen project. As Senator of a pro-coal state, Obama lobbied successfully to get the controversial $1 billion clean-coal project built in Illinois, but his success was short-lived. In January 2008 the government cancelled FutureGen, citing ballooning technology costs. Even if it did go online, full-scale plant operations wouldn’t start until 2012. Obama knows about these drawbacks, but he neglects to mention them on his website. McCain is just as (un)forthcoming as Obama when discussing clean coal’s potential. But rather than defend his clean coal stance, McCain has mostly opted for the offensive position. Most recently, McCain jumped on Senator Biden’s off-the-cuff remark in an ad suggesting Obama is against clean coal. It was a low blow considering that A.) Biden’s words were taken out of context, and B.) McCain most likely knew the accusations to be false considering that Obama has always been a vocal supporter of clean coal. McCain’s recent smear keeps both parties from getting to the heart of the matter; that is, whether coal can ever really be clean. (Our verdict: No). Global Warming When it comes to global warming, both Obama and McCain acknowledge it is a problem that needs a solution. They’ve also made clear that they believe global warming is man-made, a key factor when finding solutions (It should be noted that McCain’s running mate, Governor Sarah Palin, is unclear whether she thinks global warming is man made, a little detail that could make a big difference in a McCain administration.) But the candidates’ statements about each others’ global warming policies are a little blurred. While McCain is eager to fluff his maverick feathers by pointing out that he was one of the first Republicans to tackle global emissions, he’s less than generous when discussing Obama’s efforts. In May 2008, McCain accused Obama of never having been involved in “legislation nor hearings nor engagement” on the climate change issue. That’s blatantly false, as Obama has been involved in several climate change actions, including his co-sponsorship of the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007, an involvement McCain certainly knew about since he introduced the legislation. McCain has lobbed similar bogus bombs when discussing Obama’s plans to curb global warming. In a June 2008 ad, McCain painted Obama as Dr. No—that is, a person that says “no to innovation, the electric car, and clean, safe nuclear energy.” This statement is so fictitious that PolitiFact gave it a “Pants on fire!” label on its Truth-O-Meter scale. Concerning innovation, Obama has in fact taken the lead, proposing a $150-billion energy program that would increase research and create new jobs. Obama has also taken the wheel on pushing for electric cars; his energy plan will get one million plug-in hybrid cars on the road by 2015. Finally, Obama is aa huge supporter of clean, safe nuclear energy—just check out his website. Though Obama talks the same trash about McCain’s global warming policies, the difference is that some Obama claims are actually true. Take for instance Obama’s remarks that McCain “voted against renewable sources of energy, against biofuels, against solar power, against wind power.” This statement is accurate, as McCain has long opposed subsidies for clean energy like wind, solar, and ethanol. However, it must be pointed out that Obama did omit McCain’s recent softened position on biofuel. So what does all this political finger pointing mean? Well, for one it confirms the obvious—politicians like to stretch the truth, sometimes pretty egregiously. But more importantly it shows that the public no longer has to be oblivious to political propaganda. The web has opened up doors to all kinds of wonderful, accessible information—which means that politicos are accountable now more than ever for any kind of doublespeak they try to pass off as truth. It’s up to us to keep them honest. JESSICA KNOBLAUCH is an editorial assistant at Plenty Magazine.

Beneficial Bags Saving the Earth, One Tote at a Time By Karen Soucy It’s estimated that the average person uses 500 plastic bags per year and recycles only four or five of them. With over 500 billion plastic bags discarded every year, it’s no wonder that the demand for an alternative is skyrocketing. And your purchase of a tote bag can give back in ways you never imagined. With the holidays approaching, giving the gift of a tote can do more than reduce the plastic bag pandemic; it can support a variety of nonprofit organizations covering environmental, social and global causes.   Here is a roundup of some of today’s “totes with a mission.” Everybodygreen.com™ Recycled Pear Bag: This fun-loving tote is made from recycled plastic water bottles. Coupling eco-fashion with a campaign that donates to a number of nonprofit environmental organizations including Oceana, Earth Resource Foundation, The Clean Water Fund and Heal the Bay, Everybodygreen.com aims to raise one million dollars by the year’s end. The Recycled Pear Bag is sold in packs of 10 ($19.95). Another offering from this forward-thinking group, which touts fans worldwide, is The Reuse Bag ($4.95). With six brilliant colors to choose from, this tote also comes with its own pouch and hook for easy storage once the workday is done. www.everybodygreen.com.   FEED 100 Bag: Created by Lauren Bush, cofounder and CEO of FEED Projects (and niece to our 43rd president), each purchase ($29.99) provides 100 nutritious meals to schoolchildren in Rwanda through the United Nations World Food Programme. Sold exclusively through Whole Foods Market, the bags are fair trade and made from organic burlap. According to Bush, “Creating the FEED 100 bag was inspired by the need to take better care of children and the planet at the same time.” www.feedprojects.org; wholefoodsmarket.com.   My Bag Cares™: This generously sized tote is a must-have for the tree lover on your list. For every My Bag Cares purchased, a tree is planted in fire-ravaged areas of our national forests. Nearly 17,000 trees have been planted through the Arbor Day Foundation. The bags are made of linen and untreated natural cotton. Every My Bag Cares ($25) is also shipped in a 100% recycled box and includes a thank-you card for your recipient (printed on recycled paper, of course). www.mybagcares.com.   Friends of Al: The New York design team Hayden-Harnett offers this natural canvas tote with a funky graphic printed in all-natural pigment inks. Each sale sends $25 to various global warming charities and $10 to American Forests to plant 10 trees ($55). Also from Hayden-Harnett is the Green Is Good organic cotton tote ($27) with 100% of its proceeds benefiting Farm Aid. www.haydenharnett.com.   Bazura Bags: This Canadian-based company offers several attractive shopping bags, including the Banner Shopping Bag ($29.95), made from recycled Filipino advertising banners, and the Colored Shopping Bag ($34.95), which incorporates recycled juice pouches. Purchases help sustain the Women’s Co-Op of the Philippines while reducing vast amounts of waste material from the landfill. The Co-Op’s new Scholarship Fund will help aid children of the women members with their post-secondary education. Bazura has pledged 5% of its total purchases on a yearly basis. www.bazurashop.com.   What’S ur bag’s its-laS-tik™ HOPE NOLA Tote: Made in New Orleans, in a factory destroyed by Hurricane Katrina and rebuilt by survivors, 5% of sales goes to Hope House Charity in New Orleans. Made of nylon and spandex, the fabric allows the bag ($14.99) to stretch and assume the shape of its contents. The bags are washable, reusable and economical. And, once your HOPE NOLA tote has seen better days, just send it back to the company for a discount towards your next purchase. The worn bags are sent back to the factory to be shredded and reused. www.whatsurbag-usa.com.   ECOBAGS®and DoSomething.org “I Am What I Do” Tote: DoSomething.org is the nation’s largest non-profit dedicated to em-powering young people to take action on environmental issues. www.DoSomething.org and ECOBAGS have teamed up to spread the word that eco-friendly, reusable bags can be not only practical but encourage social action, too. Five dollars from every recycled cotton canvas tote sold ($14.99) is donated to DoSomething.org. ECOBAGS also offers “Bring Your Own Bug” bags ($14.99, butterfly, spider or grasshopper motifs) with 20% of proceeds benefiting MS research. The tongue-in-cheek “Nothing on Me Is Plastic” tote ($16, limited edition) is printed on certified-organic cotton and supports the Environmental Media Association. “We are actively seeking to partner with other groups whose missions are aligned with ours,” says Sharon Rowe, CEO and founder of ECOBAGS. Additional “totes with quotes” and hundreds of other eco-friendly items are also available. www.ecobags.com.   Envirosax® Organic Series: This “zen-sational” 15-piece series boasts bags made of bamboo, hemp and linen. Designs are infused with Asian art and landscapes in a color palette of deep reds, rich plums and calming neutrals. Each stylish bag ($24.95) holds the equivalent of two supermarket bags. With each purchase, Envirosax donates a percentage of its sales to the Australian Marine Conservation Society, Surfrider Foundation, American Cancer Society and the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand. www.envirosax.com.   Pangea Collection: It’s nearly impossible to imagine the horrors of surviving December 2004’s tsunami in Thailand. Four years later, survivors still face the daily task of rebuilding their lives. Pangea Collection is offering the Eco Cotton Shoulder bag ($35) made by members of the Saori Project, a Thailand-based organization that aims to give survivors spiritual therapy and a secure and steady work environment. These handmade, fair trade bags utilize raw materials and dismantled threads, which are then woven together to create original, vividly colored works of art. www.pangea-collection.com.   KAREN SOUCY is the associate publisher and advertising director of E and a tote bag fanatic.

Three Digits The 350 Campaign Has Global Warming’s Number By Amanda Peterka A California rally for the 350 campaign. © www.350.org Skier Bode Miller is wearing the bright-green sweatband. Cyclist Adam Craig sports one. Surfers, speed skaters and hockey players have picked up on the trend. And if Andrew Gardner reaches his goal, exactly 350 world-famous athletes will soon be wearing the eye-catching color.   Each wristband bears the number 350, the same as Gardner’s goal. And he wants it all to be done by December 24, 2008, 350 days before the United Nations convention in Copenhagen. The number represents the parts per million (ppm) of carbon emissions that climate scientist Dr. James Hansen says we have to return to in order to sustain life on Earth as we know it. It’s also the name of the umbrella campaign that Gardner’s work falls under—a worldwide network of people and climate change organizations committed to following Hansen’s advice. “The culture of athleticism is imitation and idolizing, and we’re hoping to take that network of people and turn them into folks who are spreading the word about 350,” Gardner says. Gardner, a Nordic skier and environmentalist, is also friends with Bill McKibben, author of the first book on global warming and founder of the larger 350 campaign. McKibben and a crew of recent graduates from Middlebury College in Vermont launched www.350.org earlier this year to make the importance of the number stick. Although there are a few offices scattered throughout the country, the largest in San Francisco with a staff of four, the campaign depends on the ground efforts of people as far-flung as India, Poland, the Maldives and Mongolia. The goal: Pound that number into as many people’s heads as possible before it’s too late. Global warming activist and author Bill McKibben, who started 350. © Nancy Battaglia “We are having people do cool actions around the number 350. Churches are ringing their bells 350 times. There are huge 350 quilts. We got an e-mail from farmers in Africa who are planting 350 trees on the edge of their village. Polar explorers and high-altitude climbers have 350 banners flying from the top of faraway peaks,” McKibben says. “Over the next 18 months, we want to make that number ubiquitous.” McKibben began the campaign after the melting of the arctic ice last summer and the success of his previous effort, Step It Up, which mobilized more than 2,000 organizations around the country. The difference with 350 is that it’s on a global scale. To do that, it’s “using this new technology they call the Internet” to connect everybody, says McKibben. The campaign’s website is in 10 languages and has a 90-second wordless video to explain both the science and politics around the number. Middlebury grads in the campaign offices spend most of their time e-mailing, organizing and updating the site’s blog on what actions people are taking across the world. “It’s important that all diverse approaches have a common target. It’s a quick three-digit, go-to symbol that can be translated across different countries,” says Jamie Henn, co-coordinator who works in San Francisco. “The United States is responsible for way more emissions as a whole. It’s up to us to help, but we add an international aspect.” Middlebury College students launch 350.org. © www.350.org Along with just spreading that number, the group is also working to inspire leaders to act at the December U.N. climate meeting in Poland. “It represents the biggest, most high-profile meeting following the U.S. general election. It’s an important meeting for the U.S. president to show reengagement with the international community as a whole,” says May Boeve, who is heading up an online “invitation” to the new president to attend that meeting with 350’s goal in mind. The invitation asks for the president to commit the U.S. to mandatory reductions in emissions and to help developing countries build sustainable economies. The group is also in the process of choosing a day for mass mobilization around the world. “We hope it represents a climactic moment in the climate movement to show that people around the world are watching the outcome in Copenhagen,” Boeve says. “We need a strong treaty to get us to a safe level. We are ultimately building toward that point.” Getting enough people for that day probably won’t be difficult. 350 has risen faster and gotten more media attention in a shorter time than Step It Up did, McKibben says. It’s probably because the framework is already in place; 350 is just giving everyone a common denominator to rally around. “The good thing about 350 is that because it’s a universal goal, it’s not perceived as doing things in one correct way. It accepts everybody and hopes in whatever way folks are getting the word out that they’re doing it with this number in mind,” Gardner says. “It’s a clearinghouse of good ideas.”