This Friday, don’t just buy nothing — use nothing!

Umbra Fisk, Grist.org — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:53:51 PST

For 20 years, the people behind Buy Nothing Day have been pleading with consumers to avoid the frenzy inherent in “Black Friday,” the no-holds-barred shop-o-rama that comes the day after Thanksgiving.

This year, they’re ramping things up and calling for an all-out wildcat strike against the “capitalist consumption machine.” Socialists, you say? No, just worried people who want to take a stand in the face of “crises of ecology, psychology, and faith.”

Dearest readers, I’ll let them say it themselves — give this a look, and visit the Buy Nothing Day site to learn more:

This year we’re calling for a wildcat general strike. On November 27/28 we’re asking tens of millions of people around the world to bring the capitalist consumption machine to a grinding — if only momentary — halt.

We want you to shut off your lights, your televisions, and other nonessential appliances. We want you to park your car, turn off your phones, and log off your computer for the day. We’re calling for a Ramadan-like fast. From sunrise to sunset, we abstain en masse. Not only from shopping but from all the temptations of our five-planet lifestyles.

Instead we’ll feed our spirits and minds with a feast of subversive activities: pranks, shenanigans, credit card cut-ups, bicycle swarms, mall invasions, and all manner of culture jams and creative détournements … and some of us will take things even further with sit-ins, demonstrations, passive resistance, and acts of nonviolent defiance, anarchy and civil disobedience.

If we can create a big enough ruckus on November 27/28, then we may be able to catalyze what the Situationists tried to set in motion half a century ago: a chain reaction of refusal against consumer capitalism … a sudden, unexpected moment of truth … the first ever global revolution.

So think about it — and at the very least, I encourage you to rein in your shopping this holiday season. Here’s an interesting look at the role of products and packaging in our current climate crisis; when all is said and done, they can be tied to 44 percent of our greenhouse-gas emissions. In the words of Santa’s seamstress, “Yikes.”

Related Links:

Which is greener, a real or fake Christmas tree?

Brian Clark Howard — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:45:27 PST

(Photo: Jorge Barrios /
Wikipedia)

For many families, the centerpiece of Christmas celebrations is the luminous, awe-inspiring tree set up with care in the living room. But with all the options now available, how do you know which Christmas tree is the greenest choice for the environment?

Should you go for a real, fresh tree, as nearly 29 million households do, according to the National Christmas Tree Association? Most Christmas trees are now raised on established farms, meaning deforestation isn't an issue, but they must be shipped, often from long distances. They do require pesticides and fueled vehicles to maintain, and may end up taking up space in landfills.

On the other hand, most artificial Christmas trees are made in China, typically from oil-derived, pollution-releasing polyvinyl chloride (PVC). A number have been found to contain lead. Once finally disposed of, artificial trees will last for centuries in landfills. These days, roughly 70% of Americans choose artificial.

Advocates of "going artificial" point out that a one-time purchase of a fake tree can save gas otherwise used for annual trips to a tree farm or shopping center, not to mention for cross-country shipping of the tree to point of sale. If your family keeps the faux fir for many years, even generations, the oil savings could certainly add up to more than what it took to make and ship the product in the first place. But that is an "if," and all too often people upgrade to a fancier model or abandon their old one after a move or after the boughs get bent in the attic.

So on balance, what's the greenest Tannenbaum? It depends on a number of factors, including where you live, how you celebrate and precisely what you buy. So there is no one-size-fits-all answer.

Going with a real tree? Try to choose something locally and organically grown. You'll cut down on CO2 emissions and help prevent the environmental degradation wrought by pesticides on big conventional operations. Local Harvest features a list of beautiful live Christmas tree providers across the country. If you like, you may even be able to cut your own! When you are finished with your tree, make sure it is converted to mulch or compost.

Going with an artificial tree? Then try to find one made in the U.S., which greatly decreases the chances for contamination with lead or other toxins, preserves domestic manufacturing jobs and reduces shipping. For example, check out Holiday Tree and Trim Co. of New Jersey. If you must get rid of your artificial tree, check with local charities, shelters and churches to see if they can use it. Most recycling programs do not accept them, and they'll take many centuries to degrade in landfills.

Want an even more "clear cut" answer? Buy a living, plantable "bulb" tree. Inside, the tree can wear ornaments and garland, and after Christmas it can be transplanted outdoors. You'll be adding to the planet's lungs and fighting global warming, as well as providing wildlife habitat. If you live in an apartment, or don't have room in your yard for an evergreen, see if you can donate it to someplace in your community.

Or save all your money and simply decorate an outdoor tree for Christmas. True, unless you live in a warm climate, you aren't likely to want to open presents in your yard. But you may be able to decorate a tree that's close enough to a window to set the mood.

You can also fashion your own "tree" from natural materials like driftwood, pine boughs, felled branches, and the like. You won't be contributing to any new resource use and will be giving your own creativity a chance to flourish.

More from The Daily Green

Reprinted with permission of Hearst Communications, Inc

Check out Yahoo! Green on Twitter and Facebook.

Eight ways we should clean up our food supply

Robyn O'Brien — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:01:35 PST

The landscape of health has changed. No longer are our families guaranteed a healthy livelihood, not in the face of the current rates of cancer, diabetes, obesity, Alzheimers and allergies. In the words of Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard University law professor who is head of the Congressional Oversight Panel, "We need a new model," and we need a new food system. It's our health on the line.

1. Evenly distribute government moneys to all farmers.
The current system allocates the lion's share of our tax dollars (approximately $60 billion) to farmers growing crops whose seeds have been engineered to produce their own insecticides and tolerate increasing doses of weed-killing herbicides. As a result, these crops, with a large chemical footprint, are cheaper to produce, while farmers growing organic produce are charged fees to prove that their crops are safe and then charged additional fees to label these crops as free of synthetic chemicals and "organic."

If organic farmers received an equal distribution of taxpayer-funded handouts from the government, the cost of producing crops free from synthetic chemicals would be cheaper, making them more affordable to more people, in turn increasing demand for these products -- which would further drive down costs. If we were to reallocate our national budget and evenly distribute our tax dollars to all farmers, clean food would be affordable to everyone and not just those in certain zip codes.

2. Reinstitute the USDA pesticide reporting standard that was waived under the Bush administration.
In 2008, the USDA waived pesticide reporting requirements (a procedure that has been in place since the early 1990s) so that farmers and consumers would know the level of chemicals being applied to food crops. Given a report just released that reveals a 383 million pound increase in the use of weed-killing herbicides since the introduction of herbicide-tolerant crops in 1996 and the potential impact that glyphosate is having on both the environment and on our health, perhaps the "don't ask, don't tell" policy assumed under the previous administration should be reversed.

3. Reinstate the pre-Bush administration dollar value that the EPA places on the life of every American.
in May 2008, the Bush administration lowered the value placed on the life of every American by almost $1 million, benefiting corporations who use this figure in their cost benefit analyses, marking down our lives from $7.8 million to $6.9 million the same way a car dealer might markdown a '96 Camaro with bad brakes. The EPA figure is used to assess corporate liability when a company's actions put a life at risk. While this figure benefits the corporations conducting the cost benefit analysis when assessing the health impact of their chemicals, the costs of these chemicals are being externalized onto the public in the form of health care costs.

4. Allow public debate over the nomination of pesticide lobbyist Islam Siddiqui for Chief Agriculture Negotiator at the office of the United States Trade Representative.
As addressed in a letter sent to Chairman Max Baucus and Ranking Member Charles Grassley of the Senate Finance Committee, Islam Siddiqui, nominated for Chief Agriculture Negotiator at the office of the United States Trade Representative, was formerly employed by CropLife America, whose firm challenged Michelle Obama's organic garden, has consistently lobbied the U.S government to weaken international treaties governing the use and export of toxic chemicals such as PCBs, DDT and dioxins, and blocked international attempts to help regulate pesticides that increasingly are linked to chronic skin and respiratory problems, birth defects and cancer in our communities.

Given that a growing body of scientific evidence supports the theory that chemicals in our food are contributing to the rise in health problems, particularly in children, the appointment of an industry lobbyist to export our challenged food system to the rest of the world may be in the best interest of agrichemical corporations, but consideration should also be given to the health implications that these novel chemicals, proteins and allergens may have.

5. Encourage climate change advocates like Al Gore to discuss pesticide use by Big Ag and its chemical footprint.
While speaking openly about the petroleum industry's impact on global warming, leading environmental advocates like Al Gore have been relatively quiet about the chemical contribution that the recent introduction of crops genetically engineered with pesticides play on global warming despite scientific evidence from the Royal Society of Chemistry highlighting their impact.

New reports based on USDA data show a 383 million-pound increase in the chemicals being applied to these crops since their introduction in 1996. According to the Royal Society of Chemistry, "growing biofuels is probably of no benefit and in fact is actually making the climate issue worse," given that glyphosate, being applied in increasing doses to these crops, breaks down into nitrogen.

6. Update the Consumer Protection and Food Allergen Labeling Act to inform consumers of newly engineered corn allergens.
The recent engineering of novel food proteins and toxins in the U.S. food supply has enhanced profitability for the food industry by allowing commodities like corn to produce their own insecticides. As a result, corn is now considered an insecticide and regulated by the EPA . For this same reason, this corn has been either banned or labeled in products in other developed countries because the new toxins and novel allergens that it contains have not yet been proven safe.

Despite the lack of evidence, this corn is in the American food supply. The increase in the rate of food allergies as demonstrated in the December issue of Pediatrics and the growing number of people with this condition -- whose bodies recognize food as "foreign" and launch inflammatory reaction in an effort to drive out these "foreign" food invaders, speaks to the need to update and amend the food allergen labeling act to label these newly engineered genetically enhanced proteins and allergens as governments around the world do.

7. Ask the SEC to join the Department of Justice in its investigation into trade practices in the agrichemical industry.
As the Department of Justice begins its investigation into the impact that Monsanto's monopoly is having on farmers, their financial situation and the food supply, research out of the USDA highlights that the biotech industry is not delivering on what some are calling their "hype-to-reality ratio." As farmers are charged premiums for seeds that have been engineered to produce greater yields, research out of the USDA and Kansas State University shows that these products are not delivering as promised, directly impacting the cost structures of farmers in a razor to razorblade scenario.

As farmers purchase genetically modified seeds in the hopes that they will increase yields and drive down cost structure and their dependency on weed killers, studies now suggest that since the introduction of the "razor"-- these biotech crops introduced 13 years ago -- farmers are actually spending more on the "razorblade" -- the herbicides and weed killers required to manage them, driving farmers' debt to asset ratios to record levels. Given that Monsanto's CFO, treasurer and controller are all leaving the company by year's end, the Securities and Exchange Commission could interview these three exiting executives and learn more about the financial predicaments of Big Ag's customers, the farmers, and the greater ramifications that this monopoly will have on food prices.

8. Appoint a Children's Health Advisor to serve on the USDA's National School Lunch Program.
The landscape of children's health has changed. No longer are American children guaranteed a healthy childhood, not in the face of the current rates of obesity, diabetes and allergies. Perhaps it is time that we follow the lead of governments in other developed countries and create a Chief Advisor for Child and Youth Health, whose responsibilities might include, but not be limited to, serving in an advisory capacity to the USDA on the National School Lunch Program.

Under the USDA's current budget for the National School Lunch Program of approximately $8.5 billion (in comparison to the Pentagon's 2009 budget $600 billion), less than a dollar is available per meal for the purchase of healthy food once overhead costs are taken out. Given that one in three American children now has allergies, ADHD, autism or asthma and according to an October 2008 study from the Centers for Disease Control, one in three fourth graders is expected to be insulin dependent by the time they reach adulthood. As a result, dietary concerns are becoming increasingly prevalent for the estimated 30.9 million children and approximately 102,000 schools and child care institutions that participate in the National School Lunch Program.

Given that increasing scientific evidence points to the roles that environmental insults like synthetic growth hormones in milk and trans fats in processed foods are having on our health, investing in a children's health advisor may provide long-term benefits to the future of our health care system .

It's our food system on the line. And if our children are any indicator, our health and the economic burden that it presents are on the line, too.

Robyn O'Brien is the founder of AllergyKids, which is working to help people protect the health of their families. She has been named one of the 2009 Women Who Shaped the World, along with Michelle Obama, by Shape Magazine.

Also by Robyn O'Brien:

Friend us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

More from The Daily Green

Reprinted with permission of Hearst Communications, Inc

Countdown to consensus on action against global warming?

Editors of E / The Environmental Magazine — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:57:00 PST

EarthTalk is a Q&A column from E/The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: What do organizers hope to accomplish at the upcoming (December 7-18, 2009) United Nations Climate Change Conference being held in Copenhagen? -- F. Rojas, Oakland, CA

The upcoming COP15 meeting in Denmark -- so named because it is the 15th such international gathering of the Conference of the Parties (COP) under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change -- is the world's next big chance to take decisive multi-lateral action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions substantially enough to ward off cataclysmic climate change.

Negotiators from all over the globe hope to come to terms on a binding agreement regarding emissions reductions that both developed and developing nations can agree to. The stakes are high: This conference represents the final step in negotiations years in the making -- and the results could chart a course toward success or failure in human efforts to control the carbon beast we set free in the industrial revolution.

Officially, the stated goal of COP15, according to United Nations organizers, is "to stabilize the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a level that prevents dangerous man-made climate changes." They add that "this stabilization must occur in such a way as to give the ecosystems the opportunity to adapt naturally" without compromising food safety or hindering sustainable social and economic development around the world. Organizers, delegates and a wide range of other participants -- some 10,000 people are expected to attend -- are still holding out hope for the establishment of an ambitious, legally binding global emissions reduction agreement to take effect beginning in 2012. That is when initial commitments made under the Kyoto Protocol, an earlier international climate treaty that the U.S. refused to join, expire.

One sticking point is whether or not the Obama administration will risk agreeing to major emissions reductions without the prior consent of Congress. The most promising U.S. climate legislation, the so-called Kerry-Boxer Bill, is currently under consideration in the Senate but likely won't be voted on until February 2010 or later; traditionally the American government likes to iron out its policy legislatively at home before agreeing to international commitments. But bi-partisan backers of the bill in the Senate say they can agree on terms now that will be acceptable to enough to their colleagues for later passage, enabling American negotiators at Copenhagen to have some guidelines at the COP15 bargaining table.

China and much of the developing world would like to see industrialized countries cut their greenhouse gas emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2020, but analysts say such drastic cuts are unlikely to fly with U.S. politicians. Climate champion Al Gore is urging COP15 delegates to create a binding legal framework where commitments can be ratcheted up with time as governments begin to realize the benefits of switching to larger amounts of renewable energy and participating in the development of green technology.

Beyond the big question of U.S. participation, COP15 negotiators will be trying hard to forge a consensus on a wide range of related issues, including: what year should be set as the baseline against which specific reduction targets will be measured; the duration of the emissions reduction commitment period; whether or not to call for curbs on deforestation, especially in developing countries' tropical rainforests; and whether or not to tighten rules governing the methods used to reduce emissions.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E / The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it here or via email. Read past columns here and check out the recent book Earthtalk: Expert Answers to Everyday Questions about the Environment

Friend us on Facebook and Follow us on Twitter.

More from The Daily Green

Reprinted with permission of Hearst Communications, Inc

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

Umbra Fisk, Grist.org — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:50:21 PST

Q. Dear Umbra,

Municipal and individual composting operations are gaining steam nationwide. Some obvious benefits include space-saving in landfills, and cheaper and (hopefully) “greener” fertilizer. While I am an avid supporter of composting, I am curious if municipalities with composting facilities could see decreased decomposition rates in their landfills. Do yard and plant scraps even play an integral role in landfill decomposition? Thank you.

Todd
Vancouver

A. Dearest Todd,

Since this is Thanksgiving week here in the U.S., a time when we are at our most gluttonous, composting is a timely issue. In fact, I’m putting together a video with tips for getting started—keep an eye out for it.

In the meantime, your question is an interesting one. Are yard and food scraps the key to quicker decomposition in landfills? The answer is no. In fact, such organic waste is the bane of a landfill operator’s existence; it takes up a quarter of the space and is a major source of methane, a greenhouse gas that’s twenty times more potent than carbon dioxide. Paper is also a problem: it’s another major source of methane, and accounts for about a third of our municipal solid waste.

This is why composting and recycling are so important. Here in the U.S., we are better about “recovering” paper and yard waste than food waste: In 2007, according to the EPA, we recycled 54 percent of our paper and composted 62 percent of yard waste. When it comes to food waste, however, we compost only about 2-3 percent. In fact, we flat-out throw away more than 25 percent of the food we buy. Pigs.

Composting, as you say, frees up space and creates a nice rich fertilizer. Because it reduces methane, it’s also a tool in the climate fight. In short, it’s a win all around, and we’d be turkeys not to participate.

Caruncly,
Umbra

Q. Dear Umbra,

We typically try to minimize the impact of our buying decisions. We carefully considered buying some Thai mats, handcrafted by a family the shopkeeper knows. Then she told us that all textiles and furniture, whether organic or not, are all fumigated with methyl bromide before entering the States. It seems no one is talking about this issue—is it a problem? Are my mats messed up? What about all the cool hemp clothing, is it all contaminated?

(m)Ethyl M.
San Francisco, Calif.

A. Dearest (m)Ethyl,

This here is one of those good news, bad news situations. The good news is, methyl bromide has been banned under the Montreal Protocol, an international agreement that seeks to stop the destruction of the ozone layer. The bad news is, the U.S. keeps getting exemptions that allow it to continue spraying the stuff, though it uses far less than in the past.

Methyl bromide, used primarily as a soil fumigant and on food imports, is toxic and will, as the EPA delicately puts it, “affect not only the target pests it is used against, but non-target organisms as well.” That’s us! The greatest danger, the agency says, is at the fumigation site itself. After that, the stuff wafts up and gets busy eating ozone.

I cannot say for sure whether your Thai mats and hemp pants have been sprayed with methyl bromide or one of the “safer” alternatives, because imports are subject to a labyrinth of federal regulations that depends upon where they come from, what they’re made of, and whether the inspector got a good night’s sleep. Sometimes a visual inspection is enough, and finished products are often treated less suspiciously than raw materials. I can tell you that the good people at the Pesticide Action Network are doing consistent, thorough, obsessive work on this topic, and you should definitely check them out.

Phytosanitarily,
Umbra

Q. Dear Umbra,

I am planning to reuse my boyfriend’s old melamine chest of drawers for our baby’s nursery. But since it’s a bit low, I would like to build an additional module on top of it to make a changing table of the correct height. My in-laws are currently remodeling their kitchen and have dozens of cabinets I could reuse to build the changing table top. Now I know melamine and particleboard are evil, but is older melamine OK? If their kitchen cabinets are 20 years old, can we assume they have already off-gassed most or all of the formaldehyde they had to off-gas? It makes no sense to throw it all out in the garbage!

Raphaëlle
Montréal

A. Dearest Raphaëlle,

Congratulations on your impending arrival and your commitment to reuse. I can tell already that you are going to raise a wise child.

You’re right that melamine, which combines with formaldehyde to make the plastic resin we know, is—well, tricky, if not outright evil. For a long time it was hailed as the key to a sort of miracle plastic, even an eco-friendly-ish choice, and then it got into our pet food and our baby formula and some of our Halloween candy and it started to seem dangerous and creepy. And then we realized that, like any plastic, melamine could leach chemicals when heated—in the microwave, for instance. More creepy.

Having said all that, however, I think your particular reuse is a fine idea. We know that you and your boyfriend and your baby are not going to heat or eat the chest of drawers. You are relieving your in-laws, and your landfill, of at least some of the waste from their kitchen-remodeling project. And you are being crafty! Any off-gassing should have happened long ago—it is generally most intense in the first year, and dwindles from there. I say go forth and modul-ify—and let me know how it goes.

Awwwwly,
Umbra

Related Links:

Wind power could be stored as ice

Megan Treacy — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:16:00 PST

A perfect way of storing electricity generated by wind turbines has been elusive so far. Ideas like super-sized batteries, compressed air, and hydroelectric storage have all been floated. One company though thinks the answer could be as simple as making ice.

Calmac has come up with a storage system called IceBank that uses the energy generated at off-peak nighttime hours to make ice. That stored ice is then used for cooling purposes during high-demand daytime hours. The company claims that reducing electricity demand for cooling can cut energy costs by 20 to 40 percent. That reduction also means fewer emissions from power plants.

This a great solution for harnessing wind power that might otherwise go to waste during night-time hours. And it's pretty low-tech -- no need for lithium or rare earth minerals - just a souped up ice maker.

via Treehugger

The state of wildlife in the midst of a mass extinction (now)

Dan Shapley — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:41:00 PST

Jeff Corwin is becoming the Everyman Indian Jones. Because he's not just an "animal guy" anymore. And while his first MSNBC documentary, Future Earth: 100 Heartbeats, may have enough cute fuzzy animal appeal to woo doe-eyed animal lovers, the brutal scenes familiar to the nature show lineup don't come from circling hyenas, but from us, whether we're poachers in the African bush or simply shoppers in a U.S. grocery store.

And that's the point, driven home with a series of profiles of species on the brink of extinction and those "conservation heroes" trying to preserve them: They're cute, they're fuzzy, they're important to the ecological functioning of the Earth ... and we humans are both their biggest enemies and their last chance at survival.

The education for the layman in the documentary is this: The Earth is in the midst of a mass extinction event, the likes of which has been seen before, but not during humanity's tenure on the planet, and never before caused by single species. Past extinction events are thought to have been triggered by meteor strikes, volcanic eruptions and climactic changes. This one is all our's.

Corwin's inspiration came from a conversation with his daughter about Panamanian golden frog, once Panama's national symbol and a frog he has showed in previous documentaries, he told the crowd gathered at a screening this week in New York. "She said, 'If we ever go to Panama, you have to show me that frog.' I said, 'I can't'." It's extinct. (And Panama has chosen a new national symbol.)

The depressing part of his new documentary -- and there are about two parts depressing to every part inspiration in this recipe -- is that the threats come in so many and varied forms. And the editing team was unflinching.

If this documentary is your first experience of a pangolin, you'll have the stomach-churning experience of seeing a pickled pangolin fetus awaiting sale at a Cambodian restaurant. If you've never witnessed shark finning -- slicing fins off live sharks and tossing them back in the ocean to sink slowly and drown -- then here's your chance.

For amphibians like the multicolored and charismatic frogs of Panama -- some of which Corwin searches out while wading knee-deep in a cave filled with bat guano -- the primary threat is a fungus that's been spreading for unexplained reasons, but probably aided and abetted by human trade and travel.

For rhinoceroses, sharks and the elephants, it's a poached-toward-extinction mix of inadequate policing, poverty, greed and strange folk medicine (if you think rhino horn powder improves your sex drive, try biting your nails, because it's the same stuff).

For orangutans, the orphaned young of which (one is tempted to write "of whom") deliver some of the film's unforgettable doses of cute as they cling to Corwin's neck and stare up wide-eyed at their first experience of untouched rainforest, the threat is in every grocery store product that contains palm oil; for companies and farmers in Borneo, it's far cheaper to clear-cut the orangutan's forests than to seed palm plantations on already cleared land.

The inspiring part of the documentary comes in passionate care the protectors take with their species. We see surrogate cheetah moms and deft condor surgeons. One man adopts the role of mother for an orphaned rhino, and the viewer is treated to touching scenes of him sleeping an arm's length away, and exercising the dancing behemoth (if you don't believe rhinos dance, you'll have to watch the documentary).

But there's often brutality even in the care shown to these creatures. The documentary opens with scenes of helicopters chasing down racing rhinos to dart them with tranquilizers, and rangers bloodying the animals to mark them and to take tissue samples, before wrestling them into crates and shipping them like freight ... to the safety of a national park many miles away.

The documentary footage, spanning four continents, distills hundreds of hours of footage into about 90 minutes (without commercials). It airs on MSNBC, and its release coincides with the publication of a book of the same title. The gimmick in the title is a good one: 100 heartbeats, for the species profiled, is about all it would take for them to slip into nothingness.

The argument that protecting these creatures is a moral imperative is persuasive, not only because we hold the fates of entire species in our hands, but because future generations will only experience them if we protect them now. Jeff Corwin, with the earnestness we're familiar with, is the perfect reporter to deliver this kind of hard-hitting message. America already trusts him with the world's wildlife, and he's already welcome in our living rooms.

If the documentary could have been stronger, it would have included more of a call-to-action: What can we do besides feel bad for that boiled sea turtle, or the finned shark? Don't eat shark fin soup, sure... but what else?

Some of the animals' protectors offer ideas at the close of the documentary: Avoid and ban the lead shot that poisons wildlife like the California Condor, make sustainability a priority in purchasing decisions and donate to those organizations that make wildlife conservation possible, like the Cheetah Conservation Fund, the Sepilok Orangutan Rehabilitation Center, the Panama Amphibian Rescue and Conservation Project and others profiled on screen and in print.

Here are 10 things you can do to stop extinctions, according to the Endangered Species Coalition.

More from The Daily Green

Reprinted with permission of Hearst Communications, Inc

Five major companies innovate by going green

Brian Clark Howard — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:21:09 PST

While environmentalists, and the public, have many reasons to remain wary about big corporations, it's also true that big business's tremendous wealth and power can be harnessed for good. While no company is perfect, particularly when it operates on an international scale and has a long history, it is worth noting the ways in which companies are going green today.

The following are not necessarily the greenest companies around, but they also aren't niche players. Let's see what lessons in sustainability we can learn from:

Kimberly-Clark

Paper giant Kimberly-Clark has been trying to reverse years of bad environmental press, and earlier this year was recognized by the EPA for being one of the top buyers of green power. After a long conflict with Greenpeace over clear-cutting in Canada's Boreal forest, the company has agreed to source all it's fiber from "eco-friendly sources."

Kimberly-Clark said it wouldn't buy material from the Boreal unless it had been certified by the third-party Forest Stewardship Council as sustainable. It's a major win for conservationists, who point to the Boreal as a major bulkhead against climate change and a sanctuary of biodiversity.

The company that makes Kleenex, Scott, and Cottonelle brands, among others, says that by the end of 2011, 40% of its North American tissue fiber will be either recycled or certified, an increase of more than 70% over 2007.

Staples

The office giant Staples has been heading in a greener direction for some time. The company's finance chief, John Mahoney, recently told Environmental Leader that sustainable initiatives are saving Staples serious money. (For example, switching from three-amp to two-amp light bulbs has saved the company $4.2 million after expenses).

Staples has also slashed diesel fuel use by 540,000 gallons per year, saving $1.5 million, by modifying its trucks so that they can’t go more than 60 miles per hour. Staples also boasts an impressive commitment to solar power and has also beefed up recycling for shoppers of cartridges and even printers.

The office superstore also announced LEED Gold certification for a branch in Boston, with energy savings of 34% over a standard store. Staples is also joining with one-time foe Dogwood Alliance and other conservation groups, wood products companies and landowners on a new, multi-faceted initiative ("Carbon Canopy") aimed at protecting forests and combating climate change.

The pilot program is working with managers of Southern U.S. forests to achieve rigorous Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification and to develop a transparent, effective carbon market. Finally, Staples has also entered Rainforest Alliance's SmartSource program, with the goal of further greening its supply chain.

Starbucks

As we recently reported, coffee kingpin Starbucks has pledged to upgrade 8,000 of its iconic, sometimes controversial stores with super-efficient LED lighting. Overall Starbucks has a goal of reducing energy use by 25% by the end of next year, and will be trying out other green building elements in select stores.

Starbucks continues to support Fair Trade coffee (though still not as much as some activists would like), and did you know that anyone can request their coffee grind waste to use for compost? The company has been innovating when it comes to listening to customers and critics.

Timberland

Trek over to Timberland's Website right now and see how the hip footwear maker has made green it's central call to action. Check out the Earthkeepers Collection of rugged boots. They are designed to be highly recyclable, and are made with recycled content and greener leather.

Some of the soles come from recycled tires, and for every pair of Yele Haiti boots sold, Timberland will donate $2 to Wyclef Jean's Yele Haiti Foundation, which is working to reforest the denuded and troubled island nation.

Instead of skirting around the impending global warming debate, as some companies are doing to play it safe, Timberland has taken the challenge head on, pushing a petition to convince world leaders to get a real deal at the upcoming Copenhagen summit. Backing up the "Don't Tell Us it Can't be Done" campaign with action, the company has pledged to half its emissions of greenhouse gases based on 2006 levels, and has made solid strides in that direction.

Nissan

As veteran green car journalist Jim Motavalli recently reported for us, Nissan-Renault hopes to break ahead of the surging pack in electric cars. Motavalli tested the working "mule" version of the Nissan Leaf for TDG, and found it exciting and promising. The electric car is expected to go 100 miles on a charge from its lithium-ion batteries.

But perhaps what's most exciting is the broad coalition that Nissan is building in America and abroad, partnering with nonprofit, utility, and government groups to bring accessible, affordable, convenient electric vehicle charging to many more markets.

It's an exciting time for innovation in clean vehicles, perhaps unparalleled since the early years of the 1900s, and Nissan is poised to make major waves in the much-heralded space.

Regardless of the specific field one is in, innovating by going green is a powerful way for companies to show true leadership, and improve their "triple bottom line."

Photos: Staples, Brian Clark Howard, Timberland, Nissan

More from The Daily Green

Reprinted with permission of Hearst Communications, Inc

Five more ways to keep the heat in this winter

Loretta White — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:01:01 PST

Want to save money on heating this winter? Here are five steps you can take to keep the heat in.

The previous post in the Simple Ways to Save Money This Winter series focused on with exterior walls. Here we discover five other insulation solutions that are not only inexpensive but can be done in a short amount of time and don’t require you to tear down walls to accomplish.

Save money and heat with these easy insulation tips:

To determine the best place to start in your home, take an energy audit. You can either find a local energy auditor, or take your own free energy audit. Once you’re ready, here are some of the quickest, easiest, and least expensive places to insulate.

1. Plumbing: Inadequate insulation can create substantial heat loss, in and around your plumbing.

Stuff steel wool in gaps around the pipes using gloves and a chop stick or fondue fork to push in. Then fill with fiberglass or foam insulation
Caulking afterwards will give the project that “finished” look.
Add foam covers to hot water pipes. This will save on the loss of heat as the water travels to its destination. Of course, tank-less water heaters are the greenest way to go, and most luxurious!
Gas pipes should be checked as well.
Tip: Look under sinks, in the laundry room, in cellars, and around anywhere else that plumbing comes out from the wall.

2. Duct work: Seal around heat ducts and AC vents. The cellar is a good place to start here.

Stuff steel wool in gaps around the pipes using gloves and a chop stick or fondue fork, then fill with natural fiber, fiberglass or foam insulation.
Caulking afterwards gives the project a “finished” look.

3. Sill: This is the area where the ceiling meets the floor of your first floor.

Go around the sill plate and fill in gaps with natural fiber or foam.

4. Seal foundation with moisture block: Foundation repair can be very expensive if left untreated.

Consider using liquid rubber waterproofing to keep moisture from damaging your foundation.

5. Attic door or hatch

Place a blanket on fold-down stairs, making sure the blanket is touching the edges. When closing the stairs, you create a insulated seal.
Bead or squirt caulking or use spray foam around the gaps in the hatch.
Use fiberglass to insulate around the hatch.

Remember: Choose natural insulation whenever you can. As you can see, there are many options to fix these areas. If you have other ideas, please add them in a comment. We’d love to hear your heat saving solutions.

About the author: Loretta White is a respected member of the global manufacturing industry and brings over 20 years experience in consulting. Loretta lectures on: Sales, Business Development and Green Business practices and is a published author on sustainability techniques.

More from ecomii:

Cheapskates against talking while driving

Jeff Yeager — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:08:00 PST

I'm thinking about starting a movement to decriminalize drunk driving, reinstate smoking in all public places, and repeal laws that require parents to use child safety seats for their toddlers in the car.

After all, if it's still legal in most states to operate a motor vehicle while talking on a cell phone, shouldn't we have a "fair is fair" policy when it comes to allowing people to do stupid things that endanger the health and well-being of others? Maybe we could have a cap and trade system for jackass behavior. For example, if you don't talk on the phone while you drive, then you'd have the choice of either driving drunk or smoking in hospitals, day care centers, and other public spaces.

With all of the public concern and ongoing scientific debate over the possibly harmful effects of cell phone radiation, why isn't there more public outrage over the documented public safety hazard of cell use while driving? Even here at The Daily Green, I've counted at least a dozen recent articles about the yet-to-be-proven harmful effects of cell phone radiation, but not a single article (up until now) about the more than 2,500 deaths and 330,000+ injuries every year in the U.S. attributed to the use of cell phones will driving (according to the Harvard Center of Risk Analysis).

Could it be that it's easier for people to get up in arms about forcing cell phone companies to take responsibility for producing radiation-free devices than it is for us to take responsibility for our own actions and hang up the *&#@^ cell phone when we drive?

Numerous studies have shown that cell phone use (including hands-free phones) seriously impede our ability to drive safely. Several studies, including a 2006 study by the University of Utah, show that use of both hand held and hands free cell phones while driving is considerably more dangerous than driving while intoxicated, making it roughly four times more likely that we'll be involved in a crash. It's also widely accepted that the role cell phones play in causing auto accidents is grossly under reported. Up until just recently, police in most states were not even required to ask about or investigate cell phone usage in connection with auto accidents.

And yet, according to the Governors Highway Safety Association, only six states totally prohibit the use of cell phones while driving, and that's only for hand-held phones (no state currently prohibits the use of hands-free phones). Ironically, six other states have "preemption laws," prohibiting local jurisdictions from enacting their own restrictions limiting cell phone use by drivers. Man, my cap and trade system for jackasses is looking more reasonable all the time.

My disdain for cell phones and the negative impact they have on the quality of our lives is a matter of public record, and I am rapidly becoming the last American to live cell-phone free (and very happily and successfully so, I might add). No, I don't expect others to join my boycott of the cellulite lifestyle, but I hope that we'll pull our heads out of the sand and pass laws to prohibit all cell phone use while driving. The nonprofit National Safety Council is fighting to do just that, and I hope you'll support their efforts.

Jeff Yeager is the author of the book The Ultimate Cheapskate's Road Map to True Riches. His website is www.UltimateCheapskate.com. Also check out Jeff Yeager at AARP.

Friend us on Facebook and Follow us on Twitter. Follow Jeff Yeager on Twitter.

More from The Daily Green

Reprinted with permission of Hearst Communications, Inc