Americans Less Concerned about Global Warming

A new joint study out of Yale and George Mason University found a marked decrease in numbers of Americans who say they are even somewhat concerned about global warming. Only 51 percent even believe it is happening, down 14 points since the last study of its kind in the fall of 2008. Of that 51 percent, only half believe global warming is caused by humans. The study, "Climate Change in the American Mind: Americans' Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in January 2010," can be accessed here.

"The scientific evidence is clear that climate change is real, human caused and a serious threat to communities across America," said Edward Maibach, director of the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason. "The erosion in both public concern and public trust about global warming should be a clarion call for people and organizations trying to educate the public about this important issue."

This disregard of mounting scientific evidence and drop in concern about climate change coincides with a growing distrust of public figures, the survey found. The distrust appears to be non-partisan -- 65 percent surveyed distrust Sarah Palin while 53 percent distrust former Vice President Al Gore. But the most troubling aspect of the survey results is not necessarily who is trusted less, but the question of how scientists will get their increasingly important message across as attention spans and respect wane.

From a grassroots perspective, apolitical, local movements are now needed more than ever. Many environmental groups were disappointed with President Obama's State of the Union speech last night, in which he promised more nuclear, "clean" coal and offshore drilling options. With a less-than-promising climate bill in the works, (and many believing it will not happen at all), support for independent environmental organizations is crucial. If Americans no longer trust our leaders at the top, perhaps they will turn their ears to voices in their own communities.

New "Plantbottle" Raises Questions

Is "green" truly green when it's used as a tool to sell more stuff?

Today's Wall Street Journal reports that Coke, the biggest drink maker in the world, is introducing a new bottle with a reduced plastic content. The new design incorporates sugar cane ethanol with petroleum to create the bottle, ostensibly making it more eco-friendly. According to Coke, the "plantbottle" is a step in a cleaner, greener direction, since it is only 70 percent petroleum-based. At the same time, Nestle is working on a reduced-plastic eco-bottle, and PepsiCo is using a corn-based bag for Sun Chips.

It's heartening that large companies are at least thinking about their impact on the planet, but when a new eco-design is implemented to placate consumers and sell more product, is it truly green? Coke hopes to sell two billion "plantbottle" drinks by the end of this year. Environmental groups are saying it's a slight improvement, but the biggest problem here is consumer behavior. No matter what the bottles are made of, not nearly enough consumers recycle the containers they drink out of. Another issue is ethanol itself. When the impact of growing the sugar cane and converting it to ethanol is assessed, not to mention transporting the bottles all over the world, is the "plantbottle" truly an eco-option?

The best option for consumers who want to tread lightly remains the same as it has always been, despite new advances in bottle design: consume less. Fears about tap water safety can be assuaged with a simple in-home faucet filter and a reusable bottle.

Click here for a Treehugger assessment of the five best in-home water filters.

Click here for water safety information from the Environmental Working Group.

True Spin Conference: Day Two

Well it’s the end of the second and last day here at the conference. The keynote speech by Rashal Robinson of GLAAD was really great and so were a second day of workshops. I attended Jed Alpert’s section on Mobile Advocacy/Engagement, in which the issues of how cell phones can be a part of advocacy work were discussed. According to Alpert, as well as many of the active participants in the room, we’ve already reached the era of campaigns putting mobile phones to use, as a method of informing, engaging, and mobilizing people. In turn we discussed how this strategy often attracts more media attention, and how to continue using this strategy in future campaigns and goals.

Today I also did something rather shocking for anyone who knows me. I did not attend the session titled “Real-Life Success with Twitter.” Of course, I love Twitter and I am obviously a huge advocate of the tool, but instead I ventured to a session titled “How to Pitch to the Disappearing Mainstream Media.” Although working for a Foundation I’m not involved in pitching stories to the media, I am interested in how non-profit organizations are able to get their messages heard. Particularly as we see the homogenization of the mainstream media, and organizations look towards alternative and ethnic media to be heard. The session was very interesting and involved a discussion about building relationships with mainstream newspapers, emphasis on local TV news, better research and other tactics to reach mainstream reporters.

The last workshop of the day I attended was almost a nice combination of both of the morning sessions, and involved a conversation about tradition and new media. The panel allowed for the opportunity to hear strategies on how to balance a multi-platform approach to messaging in the new media environment, recognizing that traditional methods of communication still is a constant in the changing landscape of communications. The participants were encouraged to use these traditional kinds of communication and evaluate each strategies strengths and weaknesses.

Thanks to all who made the past two days such a great success!

True Spin Conference: Day One

Today has been a great first day at the 2010 True Spin Conference so far. I attended some really great informative panels including one hosted by Dean Hollander, the leader of Fenton Communication’s Interactive and New Media Communications Division. This session reviewed ways in which different people and organizations are talking about a wide range of progressive issues online. He also presented an overview of how to use these kinds of tools and insights to develop more effective and engaging content. It was great to hear from Hollander because I think he helped put some of the new media strategies into perspective, without overwhelming organizations that may be slower to adopt these new kinds of technologies.

Following this first session, I stopped briefly into two different sessions; the first a session on the power of advocacy networks and a second session on how to measure social media which had a very interesting discussion on how to make sure your organization isn’t wasting staff time and resources and how to improve your social media “Return on Investments” (ROI).

We’re just finishing up lunch and both Reverend Billy, and Andy Goodman, of the Goodman Institute (and author of some great books such as Why Bad Ads Happen to Good Causes) were dynamic speakers who are able to engage the audience in very different ways.

Shortly I’ll be heading to this afternoon workshops, and plan to attend Heather Mansfield and Rashad Robinson’s session, titled “Real-Life Success with Facebook.” The session will investigate how groups are accomplishing their goals and objectives using Facebook, as well as hopefully give us the opportunity to hear stories of how progressive organizations use the tool to score media coverage with more traditional media outlets. I think it’ll be interesting to learn about how younger generations in particular are engaging these tools, and seeing as how the younger generation is more progressive, understanding how to take advantage of these kinds of tools.

True Spin Conference: A Preview

Tomorrow and Friday and I’ll be in Denver, Colorado for the 2010 True Spin Conference a national conference on communications for progressives. The conference brings together some of America’s best progressive PR practitioners for two days of panels, practical workshops, networking and fun. It’s a unique opportunity for progressive advocacy groups from around the country to exchange ideas and learn new and creative public relations tactics.

Although this is my first year attending the conference it was first held back in 2006. Currently, the conference is held every two years, with the most recent conference being held in 2008, where it brought together over 225 people. For a list of past registrants and speakers, as well as audio recordings of workshops and panels from 2006 and 2008 you can check them out here.

Some great speakers for this year’s conference include Karl Frisch, of Media Matters for America, Martin Kearns of Green Media Toolshed, Rashad Robinson of GLAAD, and David Sirota, author of Hostile Takeover. To check out all the speakers and their bios, click here. You can also find a partial list of participants by going to the True Spin Conference home page. It’s interesting to note the wide range of people that will be attending, from Foundations to non-profit executives, to public relations professionals and media executives. I think this speaks to the importance of having targeted progressive communications strategies for the broad range of issues that are represented here at the conference, from the environment to human rights.

Not planning on making the trip to Denver but interested in checking out the full list of workshops and schedules? Click here. Tomorrow’s program includes an introduction and keynote speech by Holly Minch, titled “Common Challenges, Uncommon Solutions”, followed by a series of interesting panels including “The Power of Advocacy Networks”, “Evaluating Communications in the Nonprofit World” and “Crisis Communications: How to Respond to Unwanted Media Attention”, just to name a few. Later on in the week, I’ll be interested in attending the panel on “Mobile Advocacy/Engagement”, and “Real-Life Success with Twitter.” It’s great to see that this conference is taking such an active interest in learning how mobile strategies and new Web 2.0 technologies can aid in progressive causes. I really do think that this is the way of the future. Both as someone who works for a foundation, and as graduate student in media and communication, I’ll be very interested in learning how organizations are able to take advantage of the tools that are available to them in order to foster their advocacy work.

If you want to follow the conference on online via Twitter, you can find it at @TrueSpinner. If you’re here in Denver and tweeting from the event, be sure to use the hashtag #truespin. And of course, a very special thanks to Effect Communications, a Denver based communication firm that is sponsoring the two-day event. Also, be sure to sign up for the free Progressive PR newsletter by visiting www.truespinconference.com/jobs. I’m looking forward to the next few days!

Obama Admin Considers Aquaculture in Federal Waters

Within the next five to seven months, the Obama administration is expected to come up with new rules for aquaculture operations in federal waters.

Today, fish farms are confined to operating within three miles off United States' shorelines. In 2005 the Bush administration proposed extending aquaculture to federal waters beyond that three-mile radius, but Congress voted against it due to fears of waste pollution, antibiotics and pesticides commonly used in fish farming.

These environmental concerns still exist, but Representative Lois Capps, a Democrat of Santa Barbara, has introduced legislation that would establish new environmental regulations allowing safe aquaculture in federal waters. Capps and supporters believe the economic opportunities for the U.S., a country that imports over 80 percent of its seafood and over half of that from fish farms, are too great to pass up. With a new set of enforceable regulations, aquaculture can be developed responsibly and sustainably on larger scales off U.S. shores. Under Capps' plan, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would establish a new office that would deal only with aquaculture -- determining which fish are appropriate to farm in which waters, giving ten-year permits and regulating them through environmental impact studies.

As good as this sounds, aquaculture still remains highly controversial. Environmental groups point to public health risks posed by water pollution, as well as to diseases introduced to wild populations already threatened by overfishing.

Ted Dunn, a long-time commercial fisherman interviewed in November by the San Diego News Network said of aquaculture, "I don't know of anything else. Instead of environmental groups fighting it head on, I think people should come together and find out how to do it." Read the entire San Diego News Network article on aquaculture here.

Jonathan Safran Foer's newest book, Eating Animals, includes a chapter on fish farming he calls "Our Underwater Sadism." Check out Foer's book here.

Wherever you fall on the aquaculture spectrum, the debate in the next several months promises to be a heated one. We can only hope any new regulations are made with science, environmental stewardship and public health as priorities over immediate economic benefit, and not the other way around.

Women's Health Care: Not Under the Bus

If you’ve been following the great work of The Women’s Media Center lately, you may already know about their campaign for women’s health care called Not Under The Bus. Launched by WMC last year, NotUnderTheBus.com aims to amplify the voices of women and organizations that are devoted to a health care reform that is fair to women, by using the full power of old and new media. It calls on all women and men who support women’s equality to take the initiative and start “driving the bus” right down to the White House to get their voices heard. Its goal is to pass health reform that makes women’s health care fair, safe and covered for all.

This new campaign and website aim to serve as a platform for a unified media message that supports and defends women’s rights in the national health care reform debate. To watch a brief video about the campaign, click here.

The site provides some great news and commentary. Yesterday was the “Not Under the Bus Action Day”. To see a sampling of what the media, the blogs and other organizations say about their work, click here. The site also provides great information on where you can go to sign petitions on this issue, petitions organized by groups like NARAL, Feminist Majority, and the ACLU.

If you want to join Not Under The Bus and tell Congress to stop turning the clock back on women’s rights, sign their petition and spread the word to your family, friends and co-workers. Be sure to also check out their timeline which details the important dates and issues in the health care reform debate. They also have a great list of links to like minded organizations so you can check out what other great groups are up to, as well as tips on how to write-op-eds and blog posts to share your own voice and views.

Debate on the Future of Renewable Energy

With an inconclusive end to the Copenhagen conference and grumblings that the U.S. Senate is dragging its heels on climate legislation, the country's energy future is in the news.

Yesterday's New York Times published a series of short responses on the future of renewable energy, which has been creating somewhat of a divide between environmentalists -- some of whom push for solar and wind power as an antidote to greenhouse-gas producing coal, and some of whom fear vast solar plants and wind farms will just create new problems by destroying natural habitat.

The Times' "Green Civil War: Projects vs. Preservation" covers a range of opinions on the direction the country's new energy future should take. One thing all contributors can agree on: we are on the brink of forging a new relationship to energy. What remains undecided it just what that new relationship will look like.

Energy analyst Randy Udall starts the dialogue with a pragmatic outlook. Americans, he writes, "insist on consuming our body weight in petroleum each week, but god forbid we see an oil well." Using already threatened natural habitats for new solar and wind farms is an unfortunate trade-off, according to Udall, but the alternative is continuing the one-way path of carbon emissions, peak oil and climate change. One way or the other we have to make some sort of sacrifice to maintain our current lifestyles.

David Roberts of Grist, an Overbrook Foundation grantee, has a somewhat more visionary and optimistic view. Why stick to the idea that energy has to come from one, monolithic, centralized company? Why not create a new model in which solar panels pave every parking lot and roof? Why not have small wind turbines on bridges or backyards? According to Roberts' vision, energy production will redistribute social and economic systems so communities can control their own production and use. "'Consumers' become producers, managers and innovators," Roberts writes.

Ileene Anderson, a biologist and public lands desert director of the Center for Biological Diversity has a similar view. Let's throw out the utility-centric model, she writes, and create a system in which energy production is distributed. Protected lands need not be used for solar panels or wind farms. Anderson believes the conflict arising among environmentalists (whether to use natural habitats for renewable energy) is only a result of poor planning, and easily resolved. Let's use parking lots, rooftops, brownfields and former agricultural lands, not wildlife corridors or endangered species habitat.

Winona LaDuke, program director of the Honor the Earth Fund, looks at renewable energy plans as having great potential for Native America. LaDuke claims tribal lands hold more than 535 billion kwh per year in wind power potential, and over 17,000 billion kwh per year in solar energy potential. Renewable projects on reservations would provide a significant piece of the national energy puzzle, create jobs and bring wealth to Native communities and reservations.

Read the dialogue, readers' responses or contribute yourself here.

2009: A Terrible Year for Free Speech Online

Although it was hailed as the year that social media revolutionized the online world, it turns out 2009 was a terrible year for free speech online. At least, according to Clothilde Le Coz, the Washington director of Reporters Without Borders. In a recent article, Le Coz, the current Washington director for Reporters Without Borders, and whose current role is now to get the message out for readers and politicians to be aware of the constant threat journalists are submitted to in many countries, 2009 was an unprecedented year for online repression.

This might seem surprising, since people often refer to the internet as a point of liberation for journalists, bloggers and citizen activists and laud it as a vehicle for free expression. Unfortunately there are currently 100 bloggers and “cyber-dissidents” imprisoned worldwide as a result of posting their opinions online. Also alarming, the number of countries pursuing online censorship doubled this past year.

One of the worst offenders? China, which lead Internet censorship in 2009. Other countries such as Tunisia, Thailand, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam and Uzbekistan also blocked websites and blogs, and engaged in surveillance of online expression. Iran saw the most violence, during its elections this past summer, there were more than 100 arrests and many prison sentences were handed down. According to Reporters Without Borders, Iran, which is on it’s “Enemies of The Internet List”, also deployed a sophisticated system of Internet filtering and monitoring, especially in recent months.

It’s not exactly surprising that the above countries have been some of the worst offenders to online expression. But democratic countries have also enacted online censorships. Some European nations are working on new stops to control the Internet, and Australia is also planning to set up a compulsory filtering system that poses a threat to freedom of expression. To read the rest of Le Coz article, click here.

We hope that 2010 will be a better year for freedom of the press online. The Foundation looks forward to continuing to support freedom of the press both domestically and abroad.

"Rewilding the World" Excerpt in Scientific American

Scientific American's website posted an excerpt earlier this week from Caroline Fraser's new book "Rewilding the World: Dispatches from the Conservation Revolution."

Fraser's book comes at on opportune time as we kick-off the International Year of Biodiversity (see my post from 1/5.) She explores the concept of "rewilding" as antidote to the Sixth Great Extinction, a period of burgeoning loss of plant and animal life that scientists and conservationists warn is upon us. But instead of doom and gloom, Fraser has a positive outlook, seeming to trust in education and the ability of rewilding to improve not just the environment, but also the economy and society.

Fraser references the International Union for Conservation of Nature's Red List, and writes about the "global experiment" humans are currently engaged in -- one in which we upset wildlife corridors, destroy natural habitat and separate systems that have evolved interdependently.

One way to reverse the current extinction rate, (now estimated to be more than 1,000 times greater than it would be without human influence), is to implement this idea of rewilding, described in Fraser's book. Conservation biologists Michael Soule and Reed Noss originally fleshed out the idea in a 1998 paper, dividing "rewilding"into three categories: Cores, Corridors and Carnivores. Fraser's book looks at those three in depth, but the basic idea is to preserve natural areas (cores), connect them (corridors), and maintain populations of predators (carnivores) that naturally evolved to keep ecosystems in balance.

Fraser writes with a surprisingly positive outlook, despite the sobering news. As we move forward, human disciplines will have to meld along with the natural corridors we are working to reconnect. Conservation biologists increasingly find themselves working with environmentalists, who are working more with grassroots groups and governments. Environmental stewardship is becoming an accepted link to economic well-being, job security, public health and overall quality of life.

Check out Caroline Fraser's book here.

International Gay Rights Update

Over the past few months it seems the issue of homosexuality and gay marriage has been on the forefront of not just the domestic news, but the international news as well.

On December 21st, Mexico City became the Latin America’s first law recognizes gay marriage. The law, which was approved by city legislators will take effect this March. It will also allow same sex couples to legally adopt children. Same-sex civil unions are already legalized in Uruguay, Buenos Aires, and some states in Mexico and Brazil, but this is the first time that gay marriage itself has been recognized.

Although there are clear victories for gay marriage, particularly in Latin America, there are other serious concerns about how homosexuality is treated in other parts of the world. For example, on Monday, The New York Times carried this article, titled “Americans’ Role Seen in Uganda Anti-Gay Push” by Jeffrey Gettleman. The article describes the efforts in Uganda to criminalize and punish by death homosexual conduct. It points out the direct connection between the proposed anti-gay legislation and U.S. evangelical preachers in proselytizing in Uganda with anti-gay messages.

An Overbrook grantee, the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) is very active in the efforts to fight this legislation by developing international opposition to its adoption. IGLHRC, a leading international organization dedicated to human rights advocacy on behalf of people who experience discrimination or abuse on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, has been very effective in making the US fundamentalist connection visible and in calling out conservative US Congressmen who haven’t spoken up in opposition to the legislation. And of course, the issue of the criminality of homosexuality abroad is not limited to Uganda. For a recent post from IGLHRC on the status of a law criminalizing homosexuality in Rwanda, click here.

We often blog about gay marriage issues here in the United States, but will definitely be more diligent in following how these issues are being dealt with around the world as well.

A New Year for Biodiversity Conservation?

When the ball dropped at 12:00 am on Friday, the International Year of Biodiversity began, in line with the United Nations' goal of halting biodiversity loss by 2010 (Target 2 of Millennium Development Goal 7.) If you were watching Times Square revelers on television, any regard to biodiversity conservation may have seemed ludicrous -- although this year's ball was designed with LED bulbs and only used the power of "two traditional home ovens," it descended in the midst of what is likely one of the most wasteful five-block radii in the world.

Any prominence environmental issues can gain in the media is good news, and declaring 2010 the year in which the international community will "halt" biodiversity loss is definitely worth celebrating. But on the heels of Copenhagen, it is difficult to believe a series of celebrations and talks will result in concrete legislation or change. Education and community involvement are always positive steps, but environmentalists disappointed with the nonbinding outcome of Copenhagen are justifiably skeptical.

A story in yesterday's New York Times addressed just this frustration, referring to the Copenhagen aftermath as a "vast legal tangle." The Copenhagen Accord, a document drafted in the waning hours of the conference, is ambitious yet legally unbinding. Critics are disappointed, viewing it as nothing more than four pages of suggestions for combating global warming.

At the same time, the Accord has supporters who see it as a great symbolic step, marking the first time ever that all major carbon emitters of the world have mutually agreed to cut their emissions. The Accord also calls on nations to declare their emissions targets to the UN (due at the end of this month), and states the necessity for the UN to monitor and enforce those commitments. The problem with these agreements is they remain unbinding, and plans for how the Accord will be implemented remain to be seen.

In the meantime, we can set our sights at home on the climate bill in the Senate which, despite rumors of postponement, is still expected to pass in some form in 2010.

Lifted HIV Travel Ban Effective Today

Happy New Year! With the ushering in of a new year marks the end of a 22-year-old policy that was not only discriminatory and homophobic, but detrimental to public health. Of course we're referencing the HIV/AIDS travel ban. Since 1987, people from foreign countries with HIV/AIDS were not allowed to enter the United States. It also prevented the United States from effectively hosting conferences on international HIV/AIDS, since people living with HIV/AIDS were just about universally excluded and stopped at their home airports.

But not anymore! In October of last year President Obama announced that he would lift the HIV travel ban. Although the move comes over 20 years too late, it marks the first step in sending an important notice to the world that the U.S. is moving in the direction of fighting this global epidemic without fighting the people who have HIV/AIDS.

When announcing the lifting of the ban last year, President Obama said the ban was "rooted in fear rather than fact." In moving to end the HIV travel ban, the U.S. can also move forward with plans to host a 2012 international conference on HIV/AIDS. Immigration Equality, a group that worked tirelessly to lobby the White House to overturn the HIV travel ban, said that the original ban was pointless, and an irresponsible move to deal with HIV/AIDS in the 1980s.

Last year the United States was only one of a dozen countries that still barred the entry of people with HIV. Physicians for Human Rights, which shared the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for its efforts to ban landmines, described the policy change as "monumental."