Elisa's Green Scene

Growing Green Awards 2010

Hat tip to Fedele Bauccio for pointing me to the 2010 Growing Green Awards organized by theNational Resources Defense Council. Bauccio was a 2009 winner in the Business Leader category.

The four categories are:
Food Producer
Business Leader
Thought Leader
Water Steward

Here is the eligibility information:

Eligibility

Recipients may represent a variety of fields including food production, food service, retail or restaurants, academia, journalists, policy advocacy, and government. The panel will consider candidates from across the country (candidates operating outside of the United States will not be considered) Individuals in the following four categories are eligible: 

Food Producer: Farmers or other food producers, including aquaculture, who employ innovative techniques to sustain agriculture, the natural environment, workers and community;

Business Leader: Entrepreneurs who effectively use the marketplace to promote sustainable food systems, develop infrastructure that enables producers to be more sustainable, or advance sustainable innovations anywhere along the supply chain from farm to fork;

Thought Leader: Visionaries who advance sustainability as it relates to food through creative research, public education, and outreach.

Water Steward: Farmers or other food producers who have made extraordinary contributions in demonstrating water efficiency, sustainable water use and the protection of water quality.

And here is the criteria:

Innovation in promoting ecologically-integrated food systems. This may include minimizing inputs of energy, water, and chemicals; reducing pollution and global warming gas emissions; use of on-farm polyculture; increasing natural resilience; and stewardship of biodiversity, pollinators, open space and land resources.

Potential to achieve wide scale adoption, implementation or behavioral change.

Advancement of health, safety, and economic viability for farmers, farmworkers and rural communities.

As you can probably guess, I would love for every submission and winner to be about food production and distribution that was not animal-based. Although most of last year's winners were indeed involved in plant-based agriculture, certainly a couple of them were not.

However, I do acknowledge the value of rewarding people meeting the criteria above, and in particular I'm so glad to see the last criteria about improving the lives of farmers ***and farmworkers*** on this list. 

In all the recent hype and hoopla about conscious eating, I have seen a lot of ink devoted to talking about the health and well-being of humans, animals and the planet. All of which is true. But very little ink has been devoted to the health of a particular subset of humans...not the ones eating the food we're all so conscious about, but the ones producing it. 

Happy to see it here.

This is, admittedly, not my field, and I'm not sure I know who to nominate. Perhaps Jonathan Safran Foer as a Thought Leader? He qualifies because I think his work this year will be the catalyst for a lot of behavioral change.

Or perhaps blogger and BlogHer Food '09 speaker Greg Massa, who migrated his family's brown rice farm into an organic one. [Although I confess to being bummed he has incorporated raising ducks for meat into his farm.]

Who would you nominate?

The US Chamber of Commerce: Losing members and credibility?

I've been following the brouhaha with companies leaving either the board of directors or giving up their entire membership in the Chamber of Commerce. 

Today it's Apple. [BTW: Here is Apple's latest info on their environmental impact and efforts.]

But last week it was Nike pulling out of the board of directors and PG&E started the exodus.

Why?

Because, as the New York Times opined, the CoC is "way behind the curve" on climate change policy issues. Including calling for a "Snopes Monkey Trial" to judge the EPA's findings on greenhouse gas emissions.

Of course, this post's headline might be oxymoronic. Or ironic. Or something. Because I fear the Chamber hasn't had credibility for a while. They're a lobbying organization, and although they evoke a benign Norman Rockwell-type feeling, they are pretty reactionary.

I'm a small business owner, but don't feel they represent me.

What about you? Following the drama?

Are these companies making relatively meaningless statements for purely PR gain?

Or is is it a great sign that these significant organizations are willing to take this public stand?

Or, really, isn't it meaningful that making such a meaningless statement would be good PR?

Thoughts?

Quick Link: PCRM's 21-day Vegan Kickstart

If you've ever considered becoming vegan because of the environmental impact of a meat-based diet, then you might get the little boost you need by signing up for the PCRM's 21-day vegan kickstart. I signed up, even though I'm already a vegan, because after all: Who wouldn't want daily healthy tips and recipes?

And just in case you'd like some links on vegan being the greenest way to eat:

New York Times: A vegetarian diet reduces the diner's carbon footprint

eHow.com: How to go green - vegetarian-style

EarthSave International: How environmentalists are overlooking vegetarianism as the most effective tool against climate change in our lifetimes

Tonight's Tony Awards...going green (aren't we all?)

In my long, checkered past there is quite a bit of of the starving artist theatre person. I never got to attend the Tony Awards in person, but I try to watch them religiously every year. I used to have the time, inclination, and close family relative in NYC that justified a substantial trip to NYC every year, so most years, long after I moved back to California from NYC, I had seen many of the nominated shows. I, on occasion, even personally knew some of the nominees. I knew them back when, of course, when we were all younger and more struggly.

Over the course of time my trips to NYC have become quick 2-3 day jaunts leaving little time for theatre-going. Even a 6-day trip last week was so packed with business and work functions that I couldn't carve out the time.

Sadly I haven't seen a single nominated show or performer this year. But I'm watching anyway.

Which is why I was glad to get a note from the National Resources Defense Council about them. Seems the NRDC has been trying to help Broadway theatres in general get in on the sustainability act, and this year the Tony Awards got some attention. Being someone who puts on events, I know exactly how challenging it can be, so what does that mean exactly?

Well, here's what the NRDC told me:

First of all, there's a Broadway Green Alliance. The BGA is an "industry-wide initiative to educate, motivate and inspire the theater community and its patrons to adopt environmentally friendlier practices and reduce our carbon footprint."

The Broadway Green site is actually quite detailed, starting with the area where various departments involved in producing a Broadway show are given a list of "better practices" to try to follow. Advice for everyone form the Production Team to the Scenic, Costume, Lighting & Sound folks is simple and includes both baby steps and big ideas.

So, continuing that work and applying it directly to the 2009 Tony Awards seems like a no-brainer, and it gives them a chance to bring their activities to a larger audience. 

According to the BGA and NRDC, the Tony Awards's first-ever greening effort incorporates the use of renewable certificated to offset the electricity of radio City Music Hall, enhanced recycling efforts and wider use of environmentally-friendly materials. Results include (and not how they got corporate sponsorship to help them achieve their goals...it's the modern way to get anything done...appeal to a company Corporate Social Responsibility mission!):

• GDF SUEZ Energy Resources donated Green-e certified wind power Renewable Energy Certificates to support the generation of renewable energy during the week preceding the Tony Awards and for the telecast itself
• Lipton Tea made it possible for the 2009 Tony Awards edition of Playbill to be printed on paper with 30% post-consumer recycled content
• Applica Consumer Products, Inc. donated 500 Clear₂Go reusable water bottles with replaceable filters for event guests
• Goodmart donated 2,200 energy-efficient cold cathode light bulbs for the event gift bags. As part of the BGA’s greening effort, this bulb type is now typical of those being used to light Broadway theatre roof signs and marquees
• Hybrid vehicles are being provided for presenter and performer transportation
• Recycling bins are being provided at Radio City concession stands for plastic bottles and in production offices for plastics and paper waste.
• Radio City Music Hall has taken a number of steps towards reducing environmental impacts at their venue, including: a comprehensive energy analysis of the facility performed by Energy Analytics, resulting in an enhanced energy efficiency plan; recent installation of efficient lighting; and restrooms have been retrofitted with low-flow toilets and faucets and feature post-consumer recycled content tissue products
• The Red Carpet is made from 100% recycled material with 49% post consumer content
• The production/management company for the Tony Awards is using paper with 60% post-consumer recycled content
• The public relations office has posted all press materials online and, when needed, will print out all press materials on 100% recycled content paper
• Banners for the show were printed on non-PVC plastics and will be reused or recycled after event.

I love that they're reporting the post-consumer recycled content % of the red carpet itself!

Broadway is an institution, and one that dates back a century. The buildings in which Broadway plays are mostly old buildings, the traditions are long-time traditions. If Broadway, as an "industry", can step up and go green...what excuse do any of us have?

Tonight I'll be settling down to watch actors I've never seen collect awards for shows I didn't get to attend...and checking out how the new-fangled red carpet looks :) 

Defining natural

Disclosure: This post happens to be about one of our sponsors for BlogHer '09, but I had no intention of writing about them until I happened to read a conversation on BlogHer today.

Here is the conversation, on a basic promotional page for one of our sponsors, Clorox Green Works.

A couple of positive comment, and then a comment challenging the sponsor and their pointing out the lack of consistent definition for terms like "natural", etc.

So, social media step #1: Someone from the brand came to respond to the comment. Good job! Social media, don't forget, empowers not only we, the consumers, but companies too. The power to respond quickly and directly to your customers.

But what caught my eye, and prompted this unsolicited and unpromised post is this:

"When we created Green Works® natural cleaners, there was no standard or official definition for the term “natural” so we defined it using three core principles: the products had to contain plant-based ingredients and biodegradable cleaning ingredients, and could not be tested on animals. We believe we set the bar for natural cleaning very high, and stand by the natural profile and efficacy of our products.*"

* * To learn more about natural and what it means to us, click here. 

As I tweeted: Right on. Especially that last part. I'm not sure I've seen a lot of companies think of the animals when they're defining a "natural" product. Happy to see all three core principles.

Now, here's the question: Do other "natural" cleaners share the same core principles?

I'd try to compare to Method, but their site hasn't loaded over the last 20 minutes as I've been trying to get to their info. Sigh.

Perhaps an update post will be in order. But pipe up if you know!

Global Warming...yeah, that's someone else's problem!

Hat tip to Earth First for pointing me to a Treehugger post about a recent survey on attitudes about global warming.

People are funny, truly.

We think everyone else will be more affected than we ourselves will.

We somehow think plants and animals will be way more affected than people...as though we don't all rely on the same resources.

The comments on the Treehugger post do bring up some valid points...well, of course, future generations will be more affected than than us, and of course developing nations will have more trouble staving off impending doom than richer nations.

But I don't think you can explain the responses away as rationally as all that. People are sometimes just as irrational as they seem!

EPA proposes that greenhouse gasses pose "public health threat"

See their announcement on their website here.

"EPA’s proposed endangerment finding is based on rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific analysis of six gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride – that have been the subject of intensive analysis by scientists around the world. The science clearly shows that concentrations of these gases are at unprecedented levels as a result of human emissions, and these high levels are very likely the cause of the increase in average temperatures and other changes in our climate.

[snip]

The proposed endangerment finding now enters the public comment period, which is the next step in the deliberative process EPA must undertake before issuing final findings. Today’s proposed finding does not include any proposed regulations. Before taking any steps to reduce greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, EPA would conduct an appropriate process and consider stakeholder input. Notwithstanding this required regulatory process, both President Obama and Administrator Jackson have repeatedly indicated their preference for comprehensive legislation to address this issue and create the framework for a clean energy economy."

Now you may say, um, "duh", but this is a key step in getting legislative action at the federal level.

Of course, as this ABC News piece outlines, the move has its proponents and its detractors. The detractors are suitably extreme in their opposition, saying this move will single-handedly destroy our economy. 

So I guess we've got the destruction on both sides, then...our planet or our economy.

Isn't it possible that we can make adjustments along the way that will prevent both? I know the bush Administration was all about "staying the course". Isn't our hope that an Obama Administration will be more nimble, less prideful?

It's mine anyway.

Hat tip: Treehugger

Colony Collapse Disorder decoded?

For the last few years there has been increasing concern about, and increasing attention paid to, Colony Collapse Disorder, a phenomenon where honey bees have been dying off inexplicably and in large numbers, which is not only a concern for the survival of bees, but also for agriculture in general.

According to Ars Technica, a new study has been published in Environmental Microbiology Report that purports to have discovered not only the cause od CCD, but potential cures.

Certainly very promising.

Now if we can move on to save the bananas! [OK, that's mostly a myth.]

Hat tip: @mfmakichen

Mike Tidwell on the Low Carbon Diet

Audubon Magazine features a great article this month on The Low Carbon Diet, aka: Being vegetarian.

The columnist, Mike Tidwell, says a few things that I have felt like a broken record saying, mostly about how people who consider themselves environmentalists conveniently leave our dietary choices off the table when talking about saving the planet. (Including taking Michael Pollan to task a bit, which I do enjoy.)

He makes the point that our beliefs about food may be so ingrained and, in a way, irrational, that only the most tough talk and moral imperative may sway most folks.

"All of which is to say that for people to care, the climate–food discussion must be about more than just facts, more than pounds of greenhouse gases per units of food. It’s got to be about morality, about right versus wrong. And I don’t mean the usual morality of environmental “stewardship.” Or even the issue of cruelty to farm animals. I’m talking here about cruelty to people, about the explicit harm to humans that results from meat consumption and its role as a driving force in climate change. Knowingly eating food that makes you fat or harms your local fish and birds is one thing. Knowingly eating food that makes children across much of the world hungry is another." 

I think it's true. But I also think it's smart of Tidwell to talk about how easy he finds it to be veg*n these days. The first question many people ask me abotu being a veg*n is "Isn't that hard?"

It's a good article. More than that I hope it's an impactful article.

Hat tip: Vegan.com

The Tennessee Coal Ash Spill: Biggest, under-the-radar story that bloggers helped elevate?

Here's what happened on Monday 12/22, very succinctly described by BlogHer's Kim Pearson:

Early Monday morning, a dam containing tons of coal ash burst  in Harriman, Tennessee, burying an estimated 400-acre area in a 6-foot pile of toxic sludge. The dam belonged to the Kingston Fossil plant operated by the Tennessee Valley Authority. It produced fly ash, a byproduct of coal burning that contains troubling levels of lead, mercury and other heavy metals. That's in addition to being "100 times more radioactive than nuclear waste" according to Scientific American magazine and Dr. Steven Chu -- the man that Pres. Elect Barack Obama has tapped to run his Department of Energy.

Seeing no coverage of this in the mainstream media (gee, could that be related to the fact CNN cut its science and environmental staff to cut expenses?), bloggers and twitterers stepped in to fill the gap. Amy Gahran wrote about it over at Poynter, and she created the #coalash hash tag on Twitter.

It was more than a couple days before, finally, the mainstream started to catch up...with CNN and the New York Times finally getting in on the action on Christmas Day and following up yesterday.

Considering the buzz word "clean coal" was in heavy use throughout the presidential campaign, it's clear that this little spill throws a wrench in any thinking that we had a simple solution just waiting in the wing, and that a buzz word would be sufficient to address safety and environmental concerns.

What went wrong? How do we prevent a similar accident in the future? How long will it take to clean this up? And what are the long-term ramifications, for wildlife and for humans?

Some big questions need answering soon. Let's hope that they'll get to work on the answers now that everyone' paying attention...and kudos to those social media types who kept this story alive...or really, made it come alive to begin with. It ain't all navel-gazing, folks!