Earths Vigilante's: Inside Guerrilla Gardening

--trends + business + politics--

Richard Reynolds is the founder of online blog Guerrillagardening.org. He has been illicitly cultivating neglected public spaces for the past four years, and apparently is not alone.

Guerrilla gardening is an underground trend that seems to have found its way to locations worldwide. Reynolds has now written a book, 'On Guerrilla Gardening', which covers the movement's history and offers tips and advice for those who want to get involved, especially for those who want to focus on neglected public urban spaces. To become a guerrilla gardener or learn about the movement go to guerrillagardening.org

Here is an inside look into Guerrilla Gardening - courtesy of Reuters

Ebay's Good Green Moves

--trends + business + politics--

"eBay empowers people around the world to recycle and reuse, so constructing an environmentally friendly building from the ground up reflects our business values and our commitment to reducing our corporate footprint -- in the Bay Area and at all of our facilities worldwide," said John Donahoe, President and CEO of eBay Inc. "Going green is a great way to work."

The statement came as part of an announcement of a major green effort by the online giant. The company is opening an environmentally friendly building on its North Campus in San Jose, which is to be built to LEED Gold standards (the second highest LEED rating a building can receive). The building sits on a campus with the largest commercial solar installation in the city, including 3.248 solar panels that cover an incredible 60,000 square feet - larger than the size of a football field. eBay’s investment in its new "green" building is a reflection of its commitment to offer more ways for employees to incorporate green practices into their daily lives.

SolarCity, which provided the solar panels for the new building, has offered employees a discount for installing solar panels in their homes and more than 500 employees have attended workshops about residential solar installation. In addition, eBay Inc. offers employees a carbon offsetting program through TerraPass, which allows employees to measure their carbon footprint and purchase offsets to balance their impact. Further, eBay Inc. runs shuttles from its San Jose campuses to San Francisco in order to improve employee quality of life and get more cars off the road.

Ebay prides itself on being fundamentally "green" as a business. The online marketplace was built to be an engine for the reuse of goods. The market has grown to include buyers and sellers worldwide who are using eBay to make a difference on behalf of the environment. Over the last decade, this has translated into a whopping $100 billion in goods each year that were reused, as opposed to being thrown into landfills or producing and buying new items.

Oganic Consumers Association and Dr. Bronners Sue "Organic" and "Natural" Brands for False Claims

--trends + business + politics--

"We have been deeply disappointed and frustrated by companies in the 'natural' personal care space who have been screwing over organic consumers, engaging in misleading organic branding and label call-outs, on products that were not natural in the first place, let alone organic." said David Bronner, referring to a lawsuit his company filed on April 28, 2008 against a slate of "organic" and "natural" personal care brands that Bronner asserts are simply not.

The family owned business filed suit in California to stop such companies from making misleading labeling claims. Bronners alongside with the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) has warned offending brands that they will face litigation unless they either drop claims or reformulate their products to not include conventional agriculture and/or petrochemical material, without any certified organic material.

For example: The major cleansing ingredient in Jason "Pure, Natural & Organic" liquid soaps, body washes and shampoos is Sodium Myreth Sulfate, which involves ethoxylating a conventional non-organic fatty chain with the carcinogenic petrochemical Ethylene Oxide, which produces caricinogenic 1,4-Dioxane as a contaminant. The major cleansing ingredient in Avalon "Organics" soaps, bodywashes and shampoos, Cocamidopropyl Betaine, contains conventional non-organic agricultural material combined with the petrochemical Amdiopropyl Betaine. Nature's Gate "Organics" main cleansers are Disodium Laureth Sulfosuccinate (ethoxylated) and Cocamidopropyl Betaine. Kiss My Face "Obsessively Organic" cleansers are Olefin Sulfonate (a pure petrochemical) and Cocamidopropyl Betaine. Juice "Organics", Giovanni "Organic Cosmetics", Head "Organics", Desert Essence "Organics", and Ikove "Organic" all use Cocamdiopropyl Betaine as a main cleansing ingredient and no cleansers made from certified organic material. Due to the petrochemical compounds used to make the ingredient, Cocamidopropyl Betaine is contaminated with traces of Sodium monochloroacetate, Amidoamine (AA), and dimethylaminopropylamine(DMAPA). Amidoamine in particular is suspected of causing skin sensitization and allergic reactions even at very low levels for certain individuals.

Organic consumers have a right to expect that the personal care products they purchase with organic branding or label claims, contain cleansing ingredients made from organic agricultural material, not conventional or petrochemical material, and thus have absolutely no petrochemical contaminants that could pose any concern.

In addition the lawsuit also names Estee Lauder, Stella McCartney's CARE, Ecocert and OASIS.

Here is footage of a press conference from the Organic Consumers Association.

EPA Under Fire Again: New Policy Mixes Politics + Industry w/Hard Science

-- trends + business + politics--

In a stunning development, following much recent public scrutiny on the activities of the EPA in matters ranging from ozone limit policies to a shady history in pushing forth for regulation of BPA, to controversial links with chemical companies and failure to protect children - the Bush administration has now changed the EPA process for chemical reviews further which now will allow for a delay in scientific assessments and will further open the process to dangerous politicization. The move should be of grave concern for anyone with an interest in public health and safety...meaning everyone.

The new policy announced last month would allow the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as well as other agencies to offer input on assessments of long term exposure to chemicals. EPA will now involve OMB at every stage of the assessment process. Previously, OMB reviewed a final version of the draft assessment before EPA subjected it to external peer review. OMB not only already reviews assessments — but often edits them— incorporating agencies' proposed and final regulations. The office under the new policy will have several opportunities to review and alter the scientific findings that serve as the very basis for chemical exposure standards.

"It is a precursor to doing anything else," said John B. Stephenson, the GAO's (Governmental Accountability Office) director of natural resources and environmental issues. "That's how you decide whether you need to regulate or not." EPA officials also insist that such communication and engagement is for the benefit of the public, by "drawing on outside expertise."

To make matter worst the new effort is also classified as "deliberative" by the OMB, or to translate - it can be kept secret from the public and inevitably from scientific debate.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said the integrity of the program is in jeopardy.

"Shunting scientists aside . . . is so obviously a problem," she said during the committee hearing. "No one should be in that room in the early risk assessment stages except the scientists and the people concerned about health. . . . They have tainted and corrupted the process." She continued to note that the recent changes "put politics before science by letting the White House and federal polluters derail EPA's scientific assessment of toxic chemicals."

But the EPA continues to push back, even as headlines seem to daily point to the ills of not separating this "church and state."

James B. Gulliford, an assistant administrator at the EPA, rejected the notion that the changes would give other federal agencies the power to influence scientific process for political ends. "At the end of the day, it's still EPA's decision," he said at the hearing. "It's a process that ultimately results in a science-based result."

But for countless others the recent turn of events points to the increasingly murky waters of the EPA - one where it is not clear where loyalties start and end, and whose interest they are ultimately protecting. Richard Wiles, executive director of the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit environmental advocacy organization, summed up the sentiment of many in this way....

"With these rules in place, it's now official: The Bush White House is where all good public health protections go to die."


Video below is of Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), speaking on CSPAN on May 2, 2008, on the Politicization of the EPA and its similarity to the U.S Attorney General Scandal






(Sources: Environmental Working Group, OMB Watch)

Home Depot Stops Selling Toxic Pesticides To Protect the Public...But Only in Canada

--trends + business + politics--

Canada has been pushing the bar this month with announcements proving its strong stance in protecting the public from hazardous substances. Last Friday, Canada issued a ban on BPA and this week a new law banning lawn chemicals is forcing the Canadian division of Home Depot to stop selling traditional pesticides in stores across Canada by end of 2008. In the mean time, the stores will increase its selection of environmentally friendly alternatives.

The decision coincides with legislation introduced on April 23, which bans the sale and cosmetic use of pesticides on lawns, gardens and parks in the Canadian province of Ontario. Quebec passed a similar ban in 2003. Additionally, there are currently over 55 municipalities in Canada where the residential use, but not sale, of pesticides is banned. Other garden supply and grocery stores have also stopped selling pesticides in Ontario and Quebec, but the Home Depot decision will affect stores nationwide.

Environmental and public health activists believe the provincial bans and Home Depot phase-outs demonstrate that the country has reached a tipping point. “I would say that now that we have Quebec and Ontario, there is huge pressure on the other provinces. The next obvious one would be British Columbia.” Gideon Forman, executive director of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment told the Canadian newspaper Globe and Mail. “In terms of a cost-benefit analysis [of pesticide products], there is zero health benefit and the potential risk is enormous.”

In the meantime, the United States division of Home Depot has no plans to phase out the same product lines, while delivering a very humane and earth friendly rhetoric to the press,

“Like our customers, we, at the Home Depot, are concerned about the environment,” said Annette Verschuren, president of the Home Depot Canada and Asia. “We are going above and beyond government regulations by working with our suppliers to develop pesticide alternatives that are environmentally friendly and produce excellent results on lawns and gardens.”

Clearly, in the eyes of Home Depot, toxic pesticides are only dangerous to Canadians and the Canadian soil, with laws that protect them. For the rest of us super humans worldwide without policy protecting our health, toxic pesticides are benign. Thanks guys. Would love to hear how your CSR folks would position this one.

To Speak Up on the Issue and Take Action:
Tell Home Depot that U.S. residents deserve the same healthy communities as Canada. Demand that the company expand its Canadian decision to include all stores in the U.S. and around the globe.

Contact:
Home Depot Headquarters, Brad Shaw, Sr. Vice President - Corporate Communications and External Affairs, Chairman - Home Depot Environmental Council, 2455 Paces Ferry Road, Atlanta, GA 30339, 770-433-8211 (phone), 770-384-4211 (fax).


(Via The Sudbury Star & Beyond Pesticides)

Los Angeles Loses Sootiest City Top Prize: A New Star Polluter is Born

--trends + business + politics--

In a town known for it's love of awards ceremonies and honors, Los Angeles will be happy to have one less. Recently L.A lost the individual top prize for the sootiest city in the nation, as determined by the American Lung Association which gave top nods to Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania instead. The rankings were based on ozone pollution levels produced when heat and sunlight come into contact with pollutants from power plants, cars, refineries and other sources.

"It's not that Pittsburgh has gotten worse; it's that Los Angeles has gotten better," Nolen said. "If the trend continues, Pittsburgh will top two lists, and LA will only be leading the nation in ozone." said Janice Nolen, the associations assistant vice president of national policy and advocacy.

Los Angeles still keeps top billing for two other major categories including year round soot levels and smog, and as a result - typical of a city with a unique expertise with awards ceremonies got the best picture prize of pollution, with the title of highest all around pollution levels in the U.S.

Top cities trailing L.A include; Bakersfield, Fresno, Visalia-Porterfield and Hanford-Corcoran, all in California; Washington-Baltimore, Maryland; St. Louis, Missouri; and Birmingham, Alabama. While the cleanest include Fargo, North Dakota and Salinas, California. Overall, the study found that 42 percent of residents nationwide live in counties with high levels of ozone pollution - so chances are you qualify for some sort of award too.

"When you think of the impact of ozone on our respiratory tracts, imagine putting acid right in your eye. It's that corrosive," said Tony Gerber, a pulmonary specialist and assistant professor at the University of California, San Francisco. "This corrosiveness causes severe irritation and leads to problems like asthma attacks, coughing, wheezing, chest pain and even death."

Just another bit of "celebrity" news - to end your week with :)



(Source: CNN)

Who is the EPA Protecting, Really? Senate Committee Investigates EPA's Bedfellows

--trends + business + politics--

Ever find yourself wondering how the heck toxic chemicals get found in everyday products, after they were supposedly assessed by the powers that be - by the experts at the EPA? Find yourself entertaining what others call, conspiracy theories? Well, todays news brought to you courtesy of Associated Press, might answer some of those questions, and put your reputation as the conspiracy theorist to rest.

According to the AP, the Senate committee is currently looking into a report that states that the current administration has been continuously hampering with the EPA's ability to conduct timely, science-based risks assessment of health dangers of toxic chemicals in everything from household products to rocket fuel. The report stated that the extensive involvement by EPA managers, White House budget officials and other agencies has eroded the independence of EPA scientists charged with determining the health risks posed by chemicals. Parties and agencies cited include the Pentagon, the Energy Department, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration amongst others. Such groups are mentioned as being allowed to participate "at almost every step in the assessment process."

Officials have begun to speak out, including Senator Barbara Boxer,

"By law the EPA must protect our families from dangerous chemicals," said Boxer, D-Calif., the Senate committee's chairwoman. "Instead, they're protecting the chemical companies."

"The EPA's risk assessment process never was perfect," Boxer said in an interview with AP on Monday. "But at least it put the scientists up front. Now the scientists are being shunted aside."

But representatives of the White House are crying foul ball to the accusations,
"Only EPA has the authority to finalize an EPA assessment," Kevin F. Neyland, deputy administrator of the White House budget office's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote in response to the report. He called the interagency process "a dialogue that helps to ensure the quality" of the reviews.

But the EPA's questionable track record in protecting consumers from chemical companies has been under fire before, even in the last two months making repeated headlines with their clearly conflicted interests. Recently the EPA's Voluntary Chemical Evaluation Program was revealed as an utter failure, by failing to provide information on the dangers of the chemicals produced for common household products , as well as the recent controversy of the EPA refusing to lower the ceiling on acceptable ozone levels as recommended by countless scientists and medical experts - instead clearly compromising with industries putting pressure on the agency.

Again we ask - who is this Environmental Protection Agency ultimately protecting and why ?

Aiding Global Poverty -vs- Aiding Climate Change: The Bio-Fueled Tug-of-War

--trends + business + politics--

The international food price crises has lifted the intersection of global poverty and climate change, and thrust it into the mainstream psyche. Two issues that until recently were viewed by many as separate but equally concerning predicaments, have now been meshed together around the ultimate impact of Bio-fuels; creating nothing short of a life and death tug of war impacting millions. Now with food prices sky rocketing, and even the middle class being hit by the increase, the issues that seemed to concern "others" have literally hit home and drawn much needed attention. The international community is scrambling for answers to a web of complex issues that ultimately call for collaboration between industry, government and science.

The United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) says an extra 100 million people cannot afford enough food because of higher prices. Food has become increasingly expensive, triggering unrest in several countries. As a result, the WFP has launched a massive fund-raising appeal, saying it needs an extra $755m to purchase the necessary food to meet its obligations. On Monday, a two day meeting had been called by the UN Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon, in Switzerland, to address the mounting crises. The meeting is set to include Robert Zoellick and WTO Director General Pascal Lamy, along with 20 other agencies, including Oxfam, who has been outspoken against various recent suggested aid strategies.

"Aid is urgently needed to address the immediate threat to poor people posed by higher food prices but money is not enough. World leaders must take this opportunity to address structural problems such as under-investment in agriculture and unfair trade rules, which are exacerbating the problem," said Celine Charveriat, Oxfam International's Deputy Advocacy Director.

In addition, high on Oxfam's list of recommendations is an end to current bio fuels mandates in rich countries, widely recognized as fuelling price rises and speculation. Bio fuel production has seen a massive surge due to a rise in oil prices and fears over climate change (driving the use of maize to make bio-fuels while pushing up food prices). Experts have predicted that bio fuels targets may result in an extra 600m people being hungry by 2025.

"Bio fuels are not only a major cause of increasing prices but are also linked to labour rights abuses and land grabs in developing countries. Furthermore, research suggests they may make climate change worse. In this context it is absolute madness to have mandatory targets." said Charveriat.

In the mean time the Bio-fuel industry is experiencing a massive surge, with no expectation of a slow down. In addition supporters of the industry make claims that Bio-fuel production brings jobs and new opportunities to farmers and rural areas. But skeptics point out that the extent to which farmers will be able to see the benefits of switching to Bio fuels production depends on many conditions, including access to markets and access to technological innovation, neither of which is easy to access.

"A fundamental transition in global fuel production is now happening. In the year 2007, there were only 20 oil producing nations supplying the needs of over 200 nations. By the year 2010, more than 200 nations will become bio diesel producing nations and suppliers. The world is also entering a new era of participation by emerging market nations in global green energy production for transport fuels." (Bio Diesel 2020 Report)

Below is a list of other graphs that provide a snapshot on the complexity of the issue with rising populations, increase in food costs, and the impact on massive regions of the world. Bio fuel production has been blamed by critics of fueling this crises.


(Graphs courtesy of BBC)

In addition to concerns with fueling poverty, the environmental impact concerns others who are insisting on tight regulations on the industry. If not well managed, bio fuel production can lead to deforestation, a loss of biodiversity, and excessive use of fertilisers and pesticides. Such activities would degrade the land and water that poor people depend on.

In the battle of good will, of aiding poverty -vs- aiding climate change...Bio-fuels provide the answer to both or none, clearly depending on who you ask.

Plastic Industry Gets Slapped: Canada Bans BPA Plastics Due to Health Hazards

--body + mind + spirit--

Plastic has gone from being the industrial worlds salvation to the object often identified with its demise. From its negative impact to the environment, to its links to any number of diseases ranging from neurological damage to cancer; plastics are the new suspect substance on everyones' list. Canada has just decided to step up and set some hard line regulations for the plastic industry that will hopefully create a ripple effect worldwide.

Representatives have recently announced that Canada intends to list bisphenol A (BPA) as toxic, a designation that would essentially allow a ban on the manufacture, import, or sale of polycarbonate baby bottles. Polycarbonate is a type of shatter-resistant plastic made with BPA, dominating the North American baby bottle market. Baby food manufacturers will also be told to reduce the amount of BPA in resins lining the inside of infant formula cans, according to Federal Minister of Health Tony Clement. Canada would be the first country to ban BPA.

The American Chemistry Council, an industry association that represents BPA manufactures, has funded two studies used by both the European Union and the United States to support the position that BPA does not pose a health threat. But many studies have already shown that BPA mimics estrogen and has been linked to early onset of puberty, declining sperm counts, and even cancer, including just two weeks ago, findings by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) which said that there is "some concern" for neural and behavioral effects in fetuses, infants, and children from bisphenol A (BPA). The announcement by the NTP has "inspired" the FDA to launch a new review of BPA, but qualified the development by telling consumers that they should not stop using products with BPA.

As news of Canada's announcement broke, Wal-Mart ceased selling polycarbonate bottles and the manufacturer of Nalgene water bottles. Nalgene said it would switch to alternative plastics in response to consumer demand, which might include the demand of one particular California based consumer who is suing the company for knowingly selling their product with the dangerous BPA substance. Canada's designation of BPA's as a toxic substance could be declared as early as October, but the ban will probably not take full effect for a year.

For now, for some of us at least, there is a whole new love affair with good old fashioned glass. Stay tuned...the BPA saga promises more twists and turns..just this week the dental industry stepped up an announced concern over BPA in sealants and dental fillings...yet another reason to brush before bed time.

Leasing Solar Power to the Masses

--trends + business + politics--

It seems like everywhere you look now companies are trying to drum up simple, efficient, and increasing more affordable means for you to get more Eco-conscious with your lifestyle. So far, using solar power has been the one big opportunity that has remained, for many, simply too cost prohibitive. Enter - Solar City...a new company looking to make it cheap and easy for everyone to go solar.

Foster City, California based Solar City has developed an incredibly affordable leasing program that allows for you to get a 2.4 kilowatt system in place for as little as $70/month...and if you sign up before July 31st they'll even set you up with no money down at all (usually runs $1-$3K). The leased program is being financed through Morgan Stanley and intends to offer for customers a one stop shop for both installation and financing (think car leasing).

“We can essentially make it so that everybody can now afford clean power,” said Chief Executive Lyndon Rive.

The company is making their program available in California now and is expanding into Oregon, Arizona with plans to hit the East Coast thereafter. They serve residential, commercial and government clients and can install solar panels on any style of roofing (see above three represented styles).

At the price of cable T.V, if Solar City has there way, you will be able to cut down on your bills while giving back to the planet. We're rooting for you guys!

For more information go to the Solar City SITE

America's First Good Green Public Bike Rental Program Launches in D.C

--trends + business + politics--

If you were looking for a reason to love Washington DC again...their new bike rental program might be your ticket. Seems like the town known for its politicking has gotten a little more earth friendly thanks to the folks at pioneer company Clean Channel Outdoor.

The company joined forces with the Washington DC District Department of Transportation and is launching a self service public bike rental program (first in the U.S). The company intends to launch with ten locations and about 100 bikes, charging users a modest annual subscription fee of $39.99 per year, for which subscribers will get a SmartBike DC card that lets them use bikes at any station for up to three hours at a time, and can be returned at any SmartBike station

Although the operation sounds pretty simple, Clean Channel has actually adopted some savvy technology. Some high tech features include the digital sending of data from all docking stations to a central server and station terminal (allowing for monitoring of effective operation of each location) and supervision tools and remote processing to analyze the condition of each bicycle station and the bicycles there.

The very first self-service bike rental program was in the city of Rennes in France in 1998, and subsequently, programs rapidly spread to Scandinavia and Spain and now operates in thirteen cities throughout Europe. Hopefully we will see the earth friendly programs come to other cities in the U.S struggling with traffic congestion (and the resulting emissions) !

For more information on the D.C SmartBike Program, go to their SITE

The $206 Billion Smoke and Mirrors Game of the Tobacco Industry

--trends + business + politics--

It is truly astounding to see how often government and industry reconcile the cost of human life with statistics, logistics, and financials. Take this weeks announcement by Phillip Morris USA that it has made it full annual payment of $4 billion to states as required under a legal settlement to compensate those states for "smoking related health care costs."

Since 1998 some 46 states agreed to a legal settlement with Phillip Morris and other cigarette companies to pay over $206 billion over 25 years to reimburse their estimated costs. So far to date, Phillip Morris has paid an astonishing $42 billion. This information was released in a nicely worded press release and written about by countless press. But no where to be seen was the fact that every cent of the $206 billion was associated in some way to pay for the disease and death of millions brought upon by the industry. It's assumed we know it, so why mention it right? Why bring up such an ugly little detail ? It is extremely sad to read these statistics for what they really are - remembering the lives lost behind those numbers, and the enormity of the funds that otherwise could have been allocated to countless other causes - that could utterly have transformed the direction of millions of lives.

Think about it $206 Billion - how many people who will otherwise starve to death could have been fed (people just like you, with children just like yours), how much desperately needed medication could be funded for the suffering, how much education worldwide could be provided to create the next generation of leaders, how much medical care could be offered for the most underprivileged to prevent the spread of disease and the enormous costs associated. To make matters even worst, the Tobacco industry additionally contributes to world hunger by diverting huge amounts of land from producing food to producing tobacco. Add to that the significant environmental costs associated with Tobacco cultivation, such as serious environmental destruction caused by tobacco farming and pesticide related health problems for farmers and their families. It may be just an after dinner cigarette for some ...as long as you keep your head in the smoke.

The World Health Organization has been outspoken on the matter, but the tobacco industry has gone out of their way to discredit the WHO and others fighting tobacco. A Committee of Experts had been set up in October 1999 to “inquire into the nature and extent of undue influence which the tobacco industry had exercised over UN organisations.” This Committee produced a report that “found that the tobacco industry regarded the World Health Organization as one of their leading enemies, and that the industry had a planned strategy to ‘contain, neutralise, reorient’ WHO’s tobacco control initiatives.” They added that the tobacco industry documents show that they carried out their plan by:

• staging events to divert attention from the public health issues raised by tobacco use;

• attempting to reduce budgets for the scientific and policy activities carried out by WHO

• pitting other UN agencies against WHO;

• seeking to convince developing countries that WHO’s tobacco control program was a “First World” agenda carried out at the expense of the developing world;

• distorting the results of important scientific studies on tobacco;

• discrediting WHO as an institution

The reality is, that the tobacco industry is driven by a massive global consumer base fueled by a physical and/or psychological addiction to the product (approx. 25% of the global population smokes). So the notion that smoking is a matter of free choice is highly debatable. Let's get real here shall we, buying bagels or T-shirts is free choice, a pack-a-day cigarette buyer does not buy cigarettes quite the same way. What's even more surreal is that non-smokers have to be understanding and compliant with the "free will" of smokers to support this industry and to play a life and death game with every cigarette. We have been so well conditioned by an industry that can afford to exist after and remain perversely profitable after a $42 billion pay out (from one company!), that we don't ever simply lift our heads up out of the smoke (and mirrors) to say "what the hell is going on?" Perhaps worst than the crime/s of the tobacco industry is the complacency that affords them their opportunities. As always, it up to us to make the choice for a different way, speak up and create the change... and always see the realities behind the numbers.


(Sources: Associated Press, World Health Organization)

Los Angeles as the Most Eco-Friendly City in U.S ? New Law Aspires to Turn City of Glitz, Green

--trends + business + politics--

For those of you who have ever driven into Los Angeles and seen the smog cloud that sits on LA resembling a dirty cotton ball, you will find the headline sceptical at best. But latest news might at least inspire nods for LA's good intentions to clean up their act. This past week LA City Council passed a law requiring that any construction exceeding 50 units or 50,000 sq. feet must comply with LEED building standards.

"Given that greenhouse gas emissions from buildings account for more than 40 percent of global warming pollution, the Los Angeles Green Building ordinance is a good first step towards building an energy-efficient, climate friendly sustainable city," said Global Green USA President Matt Petersen. "While certainly not an end destination, it is important that Los Angeles has become the first big city to codify a private sector green building program," he said.

Mayor Antonio Villairagosa is thrilled by the move and said the initiative will cut emissions by 80,000 tons by 2012 - equivalent to taking 15,000 cars off the road (which seems like the approximately the number of cars stuck in gridlock on any LA freeway at rush hour). The new move is part of larger plan laid out the mayor last year to reduce LA's footprint to below 1990 levels by 2030.

"Our City is growing fast and growing up, and we're holding the private sector accountable to their commitment to be friends to our environment," said Mayor Villaraigosa."Already the City of Los Angeles has the largest, most aggressive municipal green building plan of any large city in America. Now it's time for green building to go private," he said.

Can the city known for glitz and glamour also be known for it's "green" ? Can the town known for style be won over by its substance ? Can the capital of excess get mindful? Only in Hollywood folks...only in Hollywood.



(Source: Environmental News Service)

Organic Food Market Holds Strong as World Faces Frightening Food Shortage

--trends + business + politics--

With all the talk about the failing economy filling up the airwaves, and the food shortage making front page news worldwide, one would think that the more costly organic food market would be in a state of crises. According to researchers, nothing could be farther from the truth.

Between 2001 and 2008, sales of natural food and drink products at specialist stores in the US have risen steadily from around $11.9bn to $19.6bn, according to market analyst Mintel. The Organic Trade Association reported recently that the Canadian organic market is booming with annual growth above 20 percent. So what's driving what some would believe is a surprising trend ?

The impact of intensified agriculture and the shipment of food on the environment, as well as the impact of meat consumption on crop supply, are playing an increasingly larger role in the mind of the ethically-minded consumer. And as such this sector is more likely to pay a premium that is likely to offset any price issues. West coast based Investors Ideas reported increased value for the stocks it surveys in the specialized areas of organics and health. These firms include: Hail Celestial, Herbalife, SunOpta, SuperValu, United National Foods, USANA, Whole Foods Market.

"It is interesting that this trend emerges in parallel to the World Bank stating that food prices have increased 83 percent worldwide over the past three years and food shortages are becoming a global issue," wrote Investor Ideas.

"There is a global shift taking place in the food, water and health sectors as we face consequences of environmental damage due to pollution, global warming, agricultural trends and use of pesticides and global drought."

It is a surreal and sad fact that millions of consumers are willing to pay top dollar to simply avoid the toxic and environmentally taxing impact of conventional foods, while millions today are faced with what some believe to be the worst food shortage since WWII. It seems that eating has become a life and death game for everyone...although for some more immediately than others.


(Information & Data Source: Food Navigator)

The Pleasure Kill Pill: Pharma's Answer to Addiction Linked to Suicide

--body + mind + spirit--

"Risk of Depression Dims Hopes For Anti-Addiction Pills" read the head line in AP yesterday. The medication of focus is Chantix and apparently works by blocking pleasure centers in the brain that provide the feel good response from eating or smoking. But now studies are finding that the drug is working all too well, and seems to be blocking pleasure from everything - causing severe depression and suicidal behavior in cases across the nation. Two other drugs recently have had similar problems.

Rimbonabant, an obesity pill sold in Europe was also linked to higher rates of depression in a study last month. Even though the evidence was clear, its maker Sanofi-Aventis SA is still pushing and remains optimistic that it will win approval in the U.S. Then there is Taranabant, a similar type of pill as Rimbonant and Chantix, which also became linked to high rates of depression just last month - its maker, Merck & Co decided to stop testing at middle and high doses to circumvent the findings. New drugs continue to hit the market claiming safety, with disclaimers for anyone with a "known history of depression."

Researchers are becoming disillusioned with the whole approach of these medications as a pleasure blocker as they can't differentiate between blocking the joy of one pleasure over another (removing the joy of a greasy burger or a cigarette will also remove the joys of a sunset or the smile of a child). But is this really a startling finding for researchers ? Are we suppose to believe that this aspect of the reaction of these medications was not taken into consideration before they hit the market ? To add insult to injury, the manufacturers of the medication are defending the medications putting blame elsewhere for the increased depressions and suicidal tendencies.Vice president, Dr. Ponni Subbiah, said nicotine withdrawal and even quitting smoking can cause mood swings and depression.

"It is hard to know what is causing what," she said. "We know that smokers are at higher risk of suicide than non-smokers, and heavy smokers are at higher risk than lighter smokers."

And Sanofi (the maker of obesity drug Rimonabant) now tells doctors to avoid giving the drug to people with a history of depression, said a company vice president, Dr. Douglas Greene. Another loophole the for a multi billion dollar industry to embrace. Mr. Green, not to sound too obvious, but why avoid those with diagnosed depression if there are no serious risks for complications ? And what specifically do you have to offer for the millions who have not been "officially diagnosed with depression" and take your medication ? And by the way, last question, are you offering free screenings by chance for all potential customers of your drug ?

The bigger issue here is that we are treating humans with conditions that are in most cases ultimately behavioral. There is no definitive data that shows overeating or smoking as a product of genetics. Yes, addiction runs in families, but the dysfunctional behavior that is rampant in families with addicts influences the next generation of addicts. Addiction is certainly inherited, but not necessarily genetically - as much as behaviorally. It is also shown that families with no college education produce kids who have less of a chance going to college, and women who have children as teenagers out of wedlock have a stronger likelihood of having children who will do the same. We inherit our predisposition to higher education, probably much in the same way as we inherit our predisposition to smoking, overeating or even drug use.

If we invested the same hundreds of millions of dollars into programs researching why we as a nation are eating, smoking and drugging our way out of our underlying issues, we might actually "cure" some of those problems instead of numbing and dumbing them down. Even if Chantix and the like didn't cause depression and suicide, it would still cause another equally dangerous condition...a new addiction - to those medications. All Chantix and other similar drugs are doing is playing musical chairs with addiction, and in the process pulling money being funneled into one pot into another (from millions spent by addicts on cigarettes, alcohol or illegal drugs - to legal drugs such as Chantix).

The pain, emptiness and chaos that plagues people who turn to any form of addictive behavior is the disease that needs the cure - not the "side effect addictive behavior. " Unfortunately no pill can cure a spiritual and/or emotional crises - this is the hard work of man/woman - it is the path they must walk. All that industry and government can offer in these scenarios is easy (and cheap/free) access to programs to help individual get on those paths, and stay on those paths. Until we stop buying into these quick fixes, we will continue to get cheap and dangerous manufactured promises from industries profiting from our suffering. Instead of numbing down - we need to start waking up and taking accountability for our conditions..regardless of how hard those pills might be to swallow.



(Based on findings in a story in Associated Press)

EPA Under Fire For Turning Science Political: Inside a New Investigation

--trends + business + politics--

The EPA is under fire yet again, this time through an investigation by a non profit environmental organization known as the Union of Concerned Scientists. According to the organizations report nearly 900 scientists at the EPA have experienced "political interference" in their work in the last five years.

The report was based on interviews with current and former staff members, analysis of government documents and a questionnaire sent to 5,419 EPA scientists (1558 of which responded). Of those responses, 889 scientists or 60 percent, said they had personally experienced at least one instance of political interference in the last five years; 394 said they experienced frequent or occasional "statements by EPA officials that misrepresent scientists' findings." More than one-fifth, or 285, said they had experienced "selective or incomplete use of data to justify a specific regulatory outcome," the report said. Nearly 100 scientists said the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) was the main offender.

To no surprise the EPA denies all allegations-again.

"Certainly OMB plays a policy role," Shradar said by telephone. "It's important that there is inter-agency cooperation. There's not interference against the scientific work that they're doing, that's still highly respected and taken into account."

But the report seems to be one of a slate of recent inquiries that put the EPA's role and set of interests in question. Most recently the EPA has come under fire for its standard for ground-level ozone which goes against the recommended ozone levels by countless members of both the scientific and medical communities that worry about the boom in ozone related health hazards. The agency is also in a court fight with 18 U.S. states over its failure to limit greenhouse gas emissions from new cars and trucks, more than a year after the Supreme Court ruled EPA had the power to do so.

All the recent controversy begs the question who the Environmental Protection Agency is ultimately protecting, the citizens, the industry, the policy makers or themselves? They certainly can't accomplish all at the same time...makes one wonder - who is getting the short end of the stick in this equation.


(Via Reuters & ABC News)

Can Fake Grass Kill? Astro Turf Goes Under Investigation

--trends + business + politics--

It's sort of a perfect metaphor to hit the headlines on Earth Day - "Fake Grass Kills." O.K well maybe that's not the headline that inspired this post, but it might as well have been.

According to the Associated Press, the U.S Consumer Product Safety Commission is looking into health hazards associated with the lead content in artificial turf installed at schools, parks and stadiums across the country. Of course, to no surprise, the artificial turf industry denied its products are dangerous.

Jon Pritchett, chief executive of General Sports Venue, the Raleigh, North Carolina-based licensee of AstroTurf products in the United States, said the company's tests have shown a low risk of exposure to lead.

"Obviously, we take very seriously any concerns about the safety of our products, and this is no exception," Pritchett said.

More industry experts were quick to chime in, such as Rick Doyle, president of the Synthetic Turf Council. According to Doyle, the lead in the product is fixed in place in the nylon and does not leach out, and thus poses no health risk. He also said that in recent years, manufacturers have begun offering lead-free nylon surfaces.

"In the 40 years that synthetic sports turf has been in use in the United States and around the world, not one person has ever reported any ill effects related to the material composition of the fibers," he said.

The United States has about 3,500 synthetic playing fields made of various materials, including nylon and polyethylene, and about 800 are installed each year at schools, colleges, parks and stadiums, according to the industry's Synthetic Turf Council. Pigment containing lead chromate is used in some surfaces to make the turf green and hold its color in sunlight. But it is not clear how widely the compound is used.

I wonder how long it will take for us to realize that age and wear is not something that needs to be synthetically modified. Weather its toxic vinyl on our houses that stands the test of time to look perfect with each passing decade, or a or face injected to artificial"perfection" with chemicals we dare not ingest otherwise or a ball park sprayed so green it would shame Alpine fields...we can't expect anything in life or nature to look or be perfect without the infusion of some highly imperfect ( and all too often, simply toxic) element.

As long as we don't embrace the nature cycles and wear of life, headlines such as these will continue to persist and both shock or puzzle readers.

Mattel's War on Children: Bio-Chemist and "Cradle to Cradle" Author Michael Braungart Speaks Out

--Weekend Feature Archive--

Renowned bio-chemist, and co-author of "Cradle to Cradle", Michael Braungart speaks at the Cradle to Cradle conference in the Netherlands. His speech is an eye opening look at the malicious war on our kids health by companies like Mattel. A must see, especially for any parent.



(Running Time: 3:35)

(Originally Posted November 11,2007)

Australia's Fear For Athletes Health at Beijing Olympics, Leads to Health Screening

--trends + business + politics--

Fear of air pollution in Beijing is causing more concern amongst officials. The Australian Olympic Committee announced Friday that it is beginning screening its athletes for asthma over fears of dangers with higher than normal pollution levels.

Officials fear that athletes on 2008 team are at high risk, especially those involved in prolonged periods of exercise in the outdoor air, including; triathletes, middle and long distance runners, cyclists, rowers and kayakers, and swimmers, of whom a significant proportion have asthma. Results of tests will be used to support monitoring and the development and implementation of preventative measures put in place prior to the games.

"Many athletes may have underlying mild asthma or exercise-induced asthma, but not be aware of its presence, as the symptoms are 'normal' for that athlete when working hard," said Dr. Karen Holzer, an air quality specialist and a 2008 Australian team doctor.

Beijing is one of the world's most polluted cities. A mix of particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide often blankets the city at levels five times higher than World Health Organizations safety standards.

Hard to believe that with all the health concerns for athletes abroad that we have heard nothing about China's own concern for its athletes. Inquiring minds want to know...where in the world (literally) do their athletes train ?

United States Gets Slammed by United Nations for Racial Equality Record

--trends + business + politics--

The United States has supposedly become the voice and symbol of racial justice and equality. The media is often quick to show our representatives either in, or running for, office, touting our upstanding record in democracy and human rights. But just last month the UN outright slammed the United States specifically on it record of racial equality and demanded that the U.S immediately adopt UN recommendation to alleviate widespread racial bias found in the American criminal justice system.

The UN's findings were based on consideration of extensive oral and written testimony submitted by the U.S government themselves to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination ( a body of experts responsible for monitoring countries’ compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, a human rights treaty ratified by the United States in 1994). The information delivered to the U.N also, interestingly enough, came a bit late... to be exact FOUR years late (due in November 2003 but finally submitted by the US in April 2007).

“The UN is telling the US that it needs to deal with an ugly aspect of its criminal justice system,” said Alison Parker, deputy director of the US Program at Human Rights Watch. “The committee outright rejected the government’s claim that more black kids get life without parole sentences because they commit more crimes.”

The UN committee condemned what it found to be racial disparities in both the death penalty and in the sentencing of youth to life without parole for crimes committed when they were under 18. The committee criticized US practices in numerous other areas, including:

• The Bush administration’s view that its human rights treaty obligations do not apply to laws or practices that are race-neutral on their face but discriminatory in effect;

• Racial segregation in housing and in public schools;

• Systemic inadequacies in indigent criminal defense, which have a disproportionate impact on racial minorities;

• The disenfranchisement of millions of US citizens because they have been convicted of a felony, even though they have fully served their sentences or have been released on parole.

The Unites States has long held an attitude that many worldwide felt portrayed them as "above the law." The Guantanamo case was an example of the dynamic. The UN committe repeatedly dismissed claims by the US government that asserted that the UN did not have the power to examine the detention of non-citizens at Guantanamo. Regardless of the push back, the committee urged the US to guarantee judicial review of the lawfulness and conditions of the detainees. The recent criticism and demand for action by the UN will hopefully draw the attention of the media and the candidates running for office - as there is a stronger likelihood for change in our next administration than, based on the record, the current one.

We need to keep in mind when considering the racial climate of the day, that a record measured against those with a complete failure in equality and democracy (as often happens with public officials and some citizens, who begin to cite human rights travesties abroad) is no measure at all. We need to measure where we stand as a nation, one rooted in and priding itself upon democracy, based on the soul of the principles upon which we claim to have built this country. Let's not look to how much better we are than "them" - but rather measure where we stand as a nation in contrast to the dream of who we wanted to become.


(Based on a report by the Human Rights Watch)