Green Burials?

A colleague recently gave me a somewhat morbid topic to blog about, which is why I saved it for Halloween. So far, I've written about green Halloween, make-up, food, and most recently, dating, but now burials?

In Hawaii and other places by the sea, it is common enough for one's remains to be scattered in the ocean. Now, a company called Eternal Reefs, is adding a twist by offering an environmentally-friendly alternative to conventional burials. The "reef balls" are artificial reefs made by mixing cremated remains with concrete. Reef balls are placed next to each other to create a habitat for sea life. According to the website, it would only take a few months for the remains to look like a natural reef.

Based in Atlanta, the company even provides the exact latitude and longitude of where the reef is placed so people can visit the site by boat or scuba dive. The memorials are currently limited to the east coast and the costs range from $2,495 to $6,495, not including the cost of cremation. There are also reef options for pets.

While it's not something I'd like to think about, it does seem like a cool idea. It would only work, however, in habitats that are void of thriving reefs (since you would not want it to compete with healthy, living systems). I am also interested to know how the reef balls age in time and if the ingredients are safe for the environment should degradation occur. If anything, I would say this is a creative step toward finding environmentally-friendly alternatives to common, less green practices.

Pennsylvania Victory!

Everyone following the election knows that the state of Pennsylvania is coveted by both candidates in next Tuesday’s election. Well the voters of Pennsylvania just received a huge victory. Yesterday, Federal Judge Harvey S. Bartle III ruled that emergency paper ballots must be made available when fifty percent or more voting machines fail at polling locations across Pennsylvania. Judge Bartle, who is the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, issued the ruling in favor of plaintiffs (who included the NAACP State Conference of Pennsylvania, individual voters who reported long lines and voting machine breakdowns, and the Election Reform Network) who had argued that voters could be disenfranchised by having to wait hours in line due to voting machine breakdowns. The plaintiffs presented testimony at an eight hour hearing yesterday before Judge Bartle that stated voters had faced long lines caused by voting machine problems during the primary election in Pennsylvania in April, particularly in low-income minority neighborhoods.

The legal director for Voter Action and co-counsel for the plaintiffs, John Bonifaz, said, "This is a huge victory for the voters of Pennsylvania. This ruling will ensure that many voters across Pennsylvania will not be disenfranchised when voting machines break down on Election Day."

The lawsuit followed numerous reports during Pennsylvania's April primary of long lines when electronic voting machines became inoperable at their polling sites and that election officials were not providing emergency paper ballots when voting machines malfunctioned. The reports revealed that many voters left their polling locations without casting their votes. It’s clear this is a much needed change for next Tuesday. Congratulations to the state of Pennsylvania!

A Case for Sustainable Dating?

Many of us have routinely--and I admit, sometimes obsessively--scanned discount airfare websites and saved a portion of our paychecks for the chance to be finally reunited with a long-distance loved one. Since my boyfriend is a consultant who always travels on different projects, long-distance has become a lifestyle for us. And it seems like we're not the only ones.

In an article for Slate, Barron YoungSmith writes that there are about 100 million single people in America over the age of 17, according to Census data. Furthermore, the author's research suggests that at least a quarter of all college students are dating out of town. Since the rate would be much lower among the general population, YoungSmith makes a conservative estimate that 1 in 15 of all single adults are in long-distance relationships, which adds up to 6.7 million Americans. If you include the 3.4 million married people who live separately but are not "separated," the total rises to more than 5 million long-distance relationshippers.

Besides the expected difficulties in making such a relationship work, some people are now saying that people in long-distance relationships should also take the environment into consideration. YoungSmith's article advocates locasexualism, a take on the Local Food Movement's locavore concept. Not only should we get our food within a 100-mile radius, but we should also date locally.

According to the article, if a couple flies across country to see each other once a month, a carbon offset company would estimate their romantic travels to be the equivalent of 35 metric tons of carbon dioxide a year. Remember that greenhouse gases emitted from high-altitude planes have several times the impact of emissions from ground transportation. Breaking the flights down between each partner and each individual's lifestyle would be six times worse for the environment than the average American. If every American in a long-distance relationship drove from Washington, D.C. to New York City every two weeks, they would produce a total of about 18 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. Moreover, YoungSmith concludes that breaking up would be about 10 times better for the environment than going vegetarian!

The Date LocalMovement works to: "discourage this special type of conspicuous consumption at the margins, nudging people toward the realization that breaking up is in their own, and enlightened, economic self-interest."

Even though my boyfriend and I both consider ourselves environmentalists, I honestly doubt we'd consider ending our four-year relationship to follow the Date Local movement. Although some may argue that we must give up such pleasurable activities as air travel for vacations, eating food out of season or taking long and hot showers in order to save the environment, should we also give up inconvenient relationships? At the risk of sounding cheesy, I must say that as much as I love the environment, I think I love my boyfriend more...for now, at least! If I do date again in the future, however, it might not be a bad idea for me to take the Date Local mantra into consideration.

To see Grist's coverage of the original article, click here.

Future Leaders in Philanthropy

Today I'm deferring my blog post to something I wrote for my good friends over at Future Leaders in Philanthropy. Will Schneider is kind enough to let me contribute to their great website which produces content by and for young people working in philanthropy.

In the past I've written for them about what it's like to work in a family foundation, and also the kinds of challenges that young people working in philanthropy face. This time I wanted to write about how the philanthropic sector can better use social networking and web 2.0 technologies. A lot of people recognize that a huge opportunity exists for non-profits and foundations alike, so I attempted to answer the question what does the sector do to take advantage of it?

So check it out and let me know what you think. And don't forget to sign up for FLiP's feed. It's one of the best out there!

Ready to Vote?

The Presidential Election is just 8 days away. Although I feel as though this has been the longest election season I’ve ever experienced (and admittedly I’m not old enough to have recalled that many), I still can’t quite believe how quickly November 4th will be upon us.

Although I’m filled with excitement, after watching Mark Crispin Miller discuss the possibilities of voter fraud on Bill Moyers Journal, I have to admit I have some serious anxiety about next Tuesday. Miller, a professor of Media, Culture and Communication at New York University, has been following voter fraud allegations in his blog and is an expert on propaganda and media. His latest book, Loser Take All is an anthology of writings covering election fraud.

I watched Miller after reading that Common Cause and two other public interest groups issued a 50-state report card titled, "Is America Ready to Vote?" The report stated that vast improvements have been made in voting technologies and procedures but it also warns that many still are not ready.

Why constitutes this so-called voter fraud? And what kinds of activities should we be on the lookout for next week? There’s the kind of voter fraud that has a long-standing history in the United States. This includes tactics such as suppressing voting turnout and voter purges. But there is also the problem of computerized voting systems which are in place in at least 80% of the country. These voting machines are run by private companies and often leave no paper trail to confirm a voter’s intention in the voting booth.

Although this is scary stuff, luckily there are places that voters can turn too. Click here for an Election Protection voting checklist. There are also great ways to allow people to discover, watch and share their experience next Tuesday. You can take part in uploading your voting experiences to YouTube at Video Your Vote. There’s also an a way to monitor election day via Twitter called Twitter The Vote! (For anyone needing a crash course in Twitter, you can see my blog post last week).

So remember to vote on Tuesday. Be vigilant and make sure your vote will count.

Healthwashing?

We've blogged about greenwashing, the (often disingenuous) work of large corporations to project an environmentally friendly image. Since I've started questioning the motivations behind advertisements I come across, I've realized how scary it is to wonder how many of these companies are telling the truth. Among the issues that people are most concerned about is the negative health impact from commercials and ads featuring candy, soda, sweet cereals, etc.

In June, the Corn Refiners Association began an 18-month, $20-30 million campaign to revive the reputation of sweeteners. According to an article in Grist.org, the industry is worried about losing its reign over kids, a key consumer demographic. The ads thus target the moms who control kids' food choices.

As this ad shows, high-fructose corn syrup--found in everything from soft drinks to ketchup--is supposedly "fine in moderation." This message is hard to believe, however, coming from a corporation that thrives when people binge on sweetened foods.

The quick story behind the rise of high-fructose corn syrup is that changes in government policy, pushed by the corn industry, led to the spike in domestic sugar prices and fall of corn prices in the 1980s and '90s. According to the article, corn sweetener consumption peaked in 1998 and has been dropping since, coinciding with an increasing concern over diabetes and obesity.

And while the industry may tout the safety in consuming high-fructose corn syrup, University of Florida researchers found that diets heavy in fructose may induce leptin resistance, which is a condition that can easily lead to obesity. Leptin is an important substance produced by the body that tells us when we're full and to stop eating. Although more research needs to be done, it is clear that the industry has cornered the sweetener market as people have become accustomed to a sweet diet.

Americans must learn to regain control over their health by playing an active role in deciding what they consume. Most importantly, we must get our kids used to a healthy diet free of empty calories. It's time to put down the Coke and drink some good ole' H2O (from the tap, of course).

Twitter

Anyone who knows me knows that I have become a huge fan of Twitter over the past six months. In fact, one of my friends recently referred to me as a “twitter evangelist”. For those of you who aren’t familiar with it, Twitter is a free social networking and micro-blogging service that allows users to send and read other users’ updates (updates are known as tweets), that are text-based. Tweets are limited to 140 characters in length. Updates are displayed on the user's profile page and are automatically delivered to other users who have signed up to receive them. It’s very mobile friendly and most people I know access it either on a computer or directly from their phone (there are applications for both the iPhone and the Blackberry).

So just exactly why do I like about Twitter? Well, everything! Aside from it being an informal way to share interesting articles, blog posts and amusing videos, it’s a fun and easy way to follow the work and day to day thoughts and activities of many friends and colleagues. The uses of Twitter are endless. Colleges uses it to relay information to their students, businesses use it to provide product or service information, news outlets use it to disseminate breaking news, activists used it to coordinate protests at the Republican National Convention in Minneapolis. Even members of Congress are using it to update their constituents on their day to day activities!

I also like that I can follow people that I know (like friends and co-workers) and those that I may not “know” but are interested in their musings - think highly esteemed professors like Clay Shirky or political figures like Barack Obama (he has over 105,000 followers).

At meeting last week I heard an explanation of Twitter that I thought summed it up pretty well. Deanna Zandt called Twitter the “modern day water cooler”. I think that’s a great way to think about the social media tool.

Slowly but surely the philanthropy world is catching on to Twitter too. I follow the Chronicle of Philanthropy and OnPhilanthropy, as well as some other Foundation folks. It’s also great to follow some of our grantees and their work. As of this month there are over 3.2 million Twitter accounts. So what are you waiting for? The real value of Twitter comes from having a broad network of people that you follow. After you sign up, be sure to follow the Foundation! I’m off to tweet.

Climate Change and the Economy

As climate change moves increasingly to the forefront of conversations among policymakers, some continue to argue over how much it will cost the economy to cut the emission of greenhouse gases.

Organizations like Green For All believe that the national effort to curb global warming and oil dependence can simultaneously create well-paid green-collar jobs, safer streets and healthier communities. Van Jones, founding president, wrote a book called The Green Collar Economy, which tells people how they can invent and invest their way out of the pollution-based grey economy and into the new green economy. California Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi has endorsed the book.

The conversations linking greenhouse gas emissions with the economy are becoming increasingly significant, especially in California where in two months, the state is set to adopt broad policies to enforce a new cap on greenhouse gas emissions.

In a timely study released Monday, David Roland-Holst, an economist at the Center for Energy, Resources and Economic Sustainability at the University of California, Berkeley, found that California's energy-efficiency policies created nearly 1.5 million jobs from 1977 to 2007, while eliminating fewer than 25,000.

Although the state's policies lowered employee compensation in the electric power industry by an estimated $1.6 billion over the same time period, the state's overall compensation improved by $44.6 billion.

Professor Roland-Holst said his calculations over the past 30 years factored both the decrease in per-capita demand for electricity--now 40 percent below the national average--and the increase in California's electrical rates, which are 40 percent above the national average. He said that the historical decrease in per-capita demand for electricity outstripped the increase in rates and that much of the economic growth was driven by both energy efficiency standards for large appliances (i.e. refrigerators) and for residential and commercial buildings.

To view the original article in the New York Times, click here.

Network Neutrality and the Candidates

Just two weeks to go until the Presidential Election! I thought it’d be timely to report on a key difference between McCain and Obama when it comes to national tech policy, particularly as it relates to the concept of Network Neutrality.

Barack Obama has long supported Net Neutrality laws. His tech paper says “A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history”. He also encourages network diversity ownership, diversity in the ownership of broadcast media and promoting the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints.

John McCain on the other hand opposes the concept of a Net Neutrality law. His tech policy paper says he would focus on allowing broadband customers access to the Web content and applications of their choice, but instead of a law that would mandate this, he believes the best way to guard against unfair practices is “an open marketplaces with a variety of consumer choices.”

You can read more about net neutrality at Open Internet Coalition, a coalition of companies including Google, and at SaveTheInternet, a grassroots alliance of non-profit groups. Both groups support net neutrality.

And if you’re interested in learning more ways in which the two Presidential candidates differ on other key tech policy issues? Click here for a great article that shows differences between the two candidates in the area of telecommunications, national security, privacy, IT jobs, and innovation.

Public Policy Communicators NYC Group

Next week on Wednesday, October 29th, I’ll be heading to the first meeting of the Public Policy Communicators NYC Group at Public Agenda.

The idea behind the meeting is to begin an informal group of New York area communications professions focused on public policy to meet once a month over lunch to network and discuss topics of interest to the group. There’s clearly a need for these kinds of discussions amongst public policy communicators here in New York so that we can network, share successes and discuss tactics that could inform our work. As Public Agenda noted in its invitation for the lunch, New York City probably has more individuals working to affect public policy than any other city besides Washington. Hopefully it will be a great group of communications executives in foundations and nonprofit organizations; the list of people that expressed initial interest is great!

It’s my understanding that the first meeting is going to be pretty informal with time for introductions. We will, at some point, begin to address questions such as “Are you planning on reaching out to the new administration and new congress in your work?” And the ever important question for private foundations, “How do you advance your issues without lobbying?”

One issue I hope that we will address as a group includes figuring out a way to get the attention of the public and/or appropriate audiences since it can be true that a lot of public policy work ends up on a shelf collecting dust with little impact.

Know of anyone you think would be interested in attending next week’s meeting? If so, click here for information on how to attend.

Have a Green Halloween!

I do love Halloween, but I have to admit that thinking of a costume stress me out every year. Well, Grist.org's Umbra Fisk offers witty ideas for those interested in an eco-themed Halloween costume. Fisk writes, "Adult eco-themed costumes must walk a fine line between depressing and funny--the eco-line we all walk every day." Here are a few highlights from the author's list:

CFL bulb: Wear shiny white body suit and electrify hair in some way (Bride of Frank wig?). Build CFL filament around yourself, using white foam tubes, stuffed white fabric/socks, or white balloons.

Glacier in 2050: Carry glass of water.

Prius owner: Dress in clean, tasteful clothing and walk around with contented air, holding Prius key casually at chin level (pain small matchbox black and write "Prius" in shiny letters or, if you have actual Prius, write "Prius" on key). Stuff pockets with with overflowing money saved on gas. Click here for Fisk's full list.

Grist isn't the only one telling readers how to make their Halloween more green. About.com also has a list of Green Halloween Tips that includes the following: 1) Trick or Treat with Reusable Bags; 2) Make Do-It-Yourself Costumes; 3) Give Eco-Friendly Treats; 4) Walk Instead of Driving; 5) Make Your Halloween Party Eco-Friendly; 6) Reuse and Recycle; 7) Keep Halloween Clean; 8) Keep it Going. Click here for About.com's full list.

Green Halloween also has a whole website dedicated to offering fun, healthy, affordable and easy costume ideas that benefit both kids and the planet.

Good luck on the costume search and party preparation. We look forward to seeing your green ideas out there on the 31st!

From Soundbites to Solutions

Earlier this year in June, I attended an event co-sponsored by an Overbrook Foundation grantee, The Women’s Media Center. The event was called “From Soundbites to Solutions: Bias, Punditry, and the Press” and was co-sponsored by The White House Project and the Maynard Institute for Journalism Education.

The half-day event itself was great. This was due mostly to a group of fantastic and well-informed speakers. The event also engaged audience members using instant polling questions. Although admittedly, there was a lack of diversity amongst the audience members, overall the event was well organized and really started a dialogue about the role of the press in the political process. If you’re interested in listening to some of the presenters, you can do that at the Women’s Media Center Video Gallery. (I particularly recommend watching the comments of Courtney Martin and Pamela Newkirk).

As a follow-up to the event, the Women’s Media Center recently released this report. Even though the event itself was great, I was even more pleased to see the report come out recently. I think it’s a great example of a follow-up report for two reasons. Often at presentations and panels I come away feeling a bit overwhelmed at answering the question of what’s next. I struggle with trying to remember the key points of discussions or understanding what follow-up steps to take. I feel that this report really captures the answers to some of those questions. It does a great job of recapturing the heart of the event and offering suggestions for media consumers. Definitely check it out!

The Water Debate Continues

Elizabeth Royte, author of Bottlemania, was quoted in the news again as an expert on the topic of bottled water vs. tap water. This time, the LA Times posed the question in light of Los Angeles, San Francisco and Santa Barbara's ban of plastic water bottles from city funds. This is interesting, since many L.A. residents, including my family, do not believe they should drink the tap water. However, Benjamin Grumbles, assistant administrator for water with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) told the LA Times that although the water can taste funky, it generally does not mean it isn't safe to drink.

The great majority of tap water in the nation meets the EPA drinking-water standards, which regulates the levels of roughly 90 different contaminants. States also regulate their public water supplies, as California does for the gasoline additive MTBE and the industrial chemicals called perchlorates.

"If a utility is doing its job and it's well funded, they can take all this stuff out," says Elizabeth Royte. Furthermore, as we know after reading her book, tap water often shares the same source as bottled water and is subject to higher scrutiny. Large public water supplies are often tested for contaminants up to several times a day, while the Food and Drug Administration require private bottlers to test for contaminants only once a week, once a year or once every four years, depending on the contaminant.

Recently, plastic bottles have been getting their own media attention for their potential to contain chemicals that can leach out. PET, or polyethylene terephthalate is a chemical that has been linked to birth defects in newborn boys. Also significant, however, is the environmental toll of mass consumption. In California alone, more than 1 billion water bottles are thrown out each year, according to the California Department of Conservation. And nationwide, just 15% of the bottles consumed each year are recycled.

The LA Times article cites the Pacific Institute, a research group based in Oakland, that calculated 17 million barrels of oil went into making all the plastic water bottles in 2006. Price it by the gallon, and bottled water is more expensive than today's gasoline.

Imagine my personal horror, when I visited my family in Hawaii a couple of months ago and found my fridge stocked with bottled water from California! Hawaii has the best tap water I have ever tasted (sorry New York). Buying bottled water despite a good source of tap water is just wasteful.

So what's left to debate? Given the current economic crisis, we can all save money easily by not buying bottled water. For those of you who are still concerned about tap water, buy a filter. There is no excuse to buy bottled water when clean tap water is available.

Just Vote

If you live in New York, you have exactly one day left to register to vote. If you live somewhere else, you may have more time (check here to see the registration deadline for other states).

Voter registration is always one of the biggest nationally coordinated efforts leading up to any Presidential Election. There are literally dozens of advocacy groups that work on these issues. This year is no different.

One key group that is always targeted in voter registration efforts is youth. So just how is that effort going this year?

According to this article in the L.A. Times, Rock The Vote has registered almost 2.3 million voters in the last 15 months, and expects to register a total of 2.5 million. That’s more than twice as many people as the organization registered in 2004. And that's just one organization. Another organization, Declare Yourself, has registered 750,000 voters under 30 since the summer.

What makes this year different from previous years is the numerous reports of innovating ways that groups are reaching out young voters. There are viral videos like 5 Friends Uncensored that have been viewed over a million times on YouTube. The New Voters Project has a text messaging campaign to increase voter turnout called TXT OUT THE VOTE. There are also massive efforts on social networking sites the Facebook, MySpace and Twitter, all encouraging young people to register. And Rock the Vote recently launched a feature on Microsoft's Xbox 360 that allows gamers to request voter registration forms from their handsets!

I believe it’s these kinds of efforts which really go out and reach youth where they already are, so to speak, that account for that record jump in the number of registered youth voters this year. And it’s not just registering that’s important. Super Tuesday this year saw record turnout of youth voters, and those young voters often played a central role in primary wins.

If you’re not registered to vote, no matter your age, click here to find out where you can. And if you are registered, that’s great, but make sure to take 10 minutes and send an e-mail to your friends and family telling them why it’s important that they register too.

I'll Take Some Environmental News to Go

As soon as I get to the office every morning, I check my email and get my daily news fix. With so many different sources of environmental news out there, however, it's nearly impossible to scan all the major sources to get a good mix while gearing up for the long work day ahead. Luckily, Environmental Health Sciences has a service called Enviromental Health News that publishes both DailyClimate.org and AboveTheFold, free daily e-letters with links to top news stories published in English mainstream press sources around the world. The DailyClimate compiles links to the day's climate change news, while AboveTheFold provides links to the day's top environmental health news. News sources include the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, BBC and Toronto Globe and Mail.

Subscribing to each service gives readers a one-stop shop for news related to environmental health and climate change. Using a combination of automated and manual searches, staff at Environmental Health Sciences review thousands of mainstream news outlets everyday.

As I find myself becoming increasingly busy--or quite possibly, lazy--I am grateful for the two e-letters that make my life a bit easier. So go ahead, sign up and impress your coworkers with up-to-date news knowledge.

Democracy: It's All Deliberative

I spent the morning down at New York Regional Association of Grantmakers (NYRAG) for a program called “Deliberative Democracy: The Next Form of American Governance?” The event was co-sponsored by the affinity group Philanthropy for Active Civic Engagement.

I have to admit, I went to the program because I wasn’t sure I necessarily understood what the term “Deliberative Democracy” meant. But after listening Matt Leighninger, the Executive Director of The Deliberative Democracy Consortium, I began to understand that deliberative democracy is the attempt to strengthen the voices of citizens in governance issues by including people of all races, classes and ages in an attempt to directly affect public decisions. The importance is placed on citizens influencing policy and resources decisions in ways that impact their own lives and their future. It’s particularly interesting to talk about these issues in light of new technology platforms and its ability to bring people together. Although admittedly, the digital divide itself is a serious barrier to many of the communities that would benefit most from its use.

As a funder, it’s important to see the tenets of deliberative democracy play out amongst the projects we support. The ideas of community building and grassroots organizing are important no matter what the bigger programmatic goals of a foundation are.

In addition to hearing several case studies on how deliberative democracy has worked in several different communities, the group came up with some good questions that we need to think about further. How do you actively engage citizens beyond simply voting? How do you work across racial and socio-economic barriers to bring people together? What are the barriers to working with local communities?

Although these questions have no easy answers, judging by the amount of people in the room, there is a growing recognition of the need for citizen input, coalition building and moving forward with the notion of a small “d” democracy.

Looking into the Mirror

Water filter companies are disseminating a sleuth of advertisements attacking bottled water. A new ad by Brita's "Responsible Water" campaign shows a woman running on a treadmill with a disposable water bottle within reach. The screen then shows the message: "30 minutes on the treadmill, forever in a landfill."

Similarly, Procter& Gamble's $45 million-plus campaign enlists Scrubs start Zach Braff in its television advertisements for the PUR water filter. "I'm water. I shouldn't be trapped in a bottle. I've got things to do. Trees to grow thirsts to quench," says Braff, the voice of water. "I don't need a cap and label. I look better naked."

PUR isn't the only water filter company to run ads that mock the wastefulness of bottled water. FilterForGood.com is a site that aims to reduce waste from bottled water. The site is also partnered by Brita and bottle-maker Nalgene. The website asks people to pledge to stop using bottled water. When I checked it out this morning, the site said that approximately 105,705,095 bottles have been saved thanks to those who took the pledge.

Despite the positive environmental message produced by these campaigns, I can't help but wonder how much of these campaigns stems from genuine concern for the environment and how much stems from simple market-based competition? And it seems like I'm not the only one. Environmentalists are campaigning against the ads that tell people in order to give up bottled water, they have to switch to another plastic product. Moreover, water filters cannot be recycled in the United States. TakeBackTheFilter.org works to persuade companies to start recycling the plastic filters and has collected more than 15,000 signatures and over 374 Brita filters for recycling to date.

In Europe, countries like France and Germany require producer takeback programs such that consumers can return Brita water filters to the manufacturer for recycling or drop them off in stores. Clorox, the company that owns Brita, states that the U.S. municipal waste system is to blame because they are not equipped to recycle Brita filters. Clorox spokesman Drew McGowan said that a test program may begin within the next year that will let people return the filters to retail stores.

While residents in New York City enjoy some of the best drinking water in the nation, other residents do not have access to good, clean tap water. In those cases, and in cases where a filter system cannot be installed into the building's plumbing, a portable water filter is a much better alternative to plastic bottles. In the end, plastic water filters last longer and produce less waste per unit than their bottle counterparts.

To check out the original article in The New York Times, click here.

Amazon I Hardly Knew You

Anyone who cares about the Amazon rainforest received some troublesome news earlier this week. The Amazon is being deforested more than three times as fast as last year. Nearly 300 square miles of Brazilian rainforest were destroyed in August of this year alone. That’s a nearly 228% jump when compared with August of 2007.

The question is why?

Well, according to Brazil’s Environment Minister Carlos Minc, upcoming elections made be partly to blame, since mayors often turn a blind eye to illegal logging in hopes of gaining votes locally. Interesting, satellite imagery is often used to track illegal logging. Also partly to blame? The recent spike in food prices which encourages soy farmers and cattle ranchers to clear land for crops and grazing.

According to this article, Minc announced that he will be pressing criminal charges against 100 of the worst individuals or companies responsible for most of deforestation since 2005. But will that serve as a deterrent to farmers and ranchers who are desperate for a solution to their problems?

It’s pretty clear that the Amazon deforestation plays into the world’s larger battle against climate change. For a good explanation by Grist.org about how The Amazon rainforest anchors global climate stability by storing vast amounts of carbon and by destroying it releases carbon and accelerates climate change, click here.

The Green Collar Economy

In late August, Carolynn blogged about Van Jones’ and Green For All, an organization dedicated to building an inclusive green economy strong enough to lift people out of poverty. You may also be familiar with Van Jones excellent work at the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights.

Well we have an exciting update! On Tuesday October 7th, Van Jones’ first book The Green Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems will be released. The book promises a solution that both rescues our economy and saves the environment. I can’t think of a topic that is timelier given today’s economic and political climate.

In the book, Jones illustrates how we can invest our way out of the pollution-based grey economy and into a new healthy green one. Built by a broad coalition deeply rooted in the lives and struggles of ordinary people, this path has the particular benefit of both cutting energy prices and generating enough work to pull the U.S. economy out of its present death spiral. The book is already receiving rave reviews. Al Gore said, “Van Jones demonstrates conclusively that the best solutions for the survivability of our planet are also the best solutions for everyday Americans.”

Jones also provides a great list of resources of national groups advocating for Green-Collar Jobs. To pre-order the book from Amazon, click here.

Be sure to also check out the profile of Jones in Time Magazine - he was recently honored as one of the Environmental Heroes of 2008.

Catalog Choice Gains Endorsement from Catalogers

Catalog Choice made a giant leap yesterday when the Board of Directors of the American Catalog Mailers Association (ACMA) announced its unanimous decision to recommend catalogers to enter a merchant licensing agreement with the service. The ACMA Task Force spent a considerable amount of time since November 2007 investigating Catalog Choice and the issue of how to best address emerging consumer requests.

According to Hamilton Davison, executive director of ACMA, the Task Force concluded that "Catalog Choice is sincere and focused on reducing unsolicited catalogs, waste that places a burden on catalogers and catalog consumers alike." The organization fully supports the Catalog Choice goal of eliminating unsolicited catalogs from American mailboxes and advocates that catalog companies should work individually with the service to create the most effective, positive consumer-merchant relationships.

Participants of the Task Force include executives from Crate and Barrel, Cuddledown, Gardeners Supply, National Wildlife Direct and ParadyszMatera. John Seebeck of Crate and Barrel and co-chair of the ACMA Task Force said, "Our company, Crate and Barrel is today joining with other leading catalogers to formally expand our working relationship with Catalog Choice. We call on our industry colleagues to do likewise."

ACMA is also producing a "best practices" paper to help guide its members on how to accomplish the goals of Catalog Choice while not derailing house file growth. According to Davison, "One of the benefits of a trade association is to promote best practices to improve performance without each having to go to the expense and risk of inventing their own solutions."

With 1,012,671 Catalog Choice users as of today, opting out of over 13,500,000 catalogs, the addition of ACMA's endorsement will make a significant impact on the fulfillment of consumers' preferences. Hopefully, more catalogers will now join Catalog Choice!