The Product Policy Institute (PPI), an Overbrook environment program grantee, is highlighted in a recent article by Jim Motavalli in E- The Environmental Magazine. Based in Athens, Georgia, PPI works on building Product Stewardship Councils all over the U.S., where Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) has largely been the purview of a network of state and local institutions rather than an initiative of the federal government. The central principle of EPR, as described by PPI executive director Bill Sheehan in an E-Magazine interview, is that "...those who design, market and use products and packaging -- producers and consumers -- should pay for all of the environmental management costs."
The worry now, as EPR gains ground legislatively, is that new laws will tip their hats to EPR but will be watered down, providing major concessions for large corporations that don't want to pay for the recovery and reuse of their own products. A push toward single stream recycling, for instance, could be easy for producers yet yield diminished recovery and recycling rates of glass, plastic, paper and electronics.
In this complex materials web, one thing is certain: it will not be easy to please everyone and pass a federal EPR law. But PPI is doing great work to move the U.S. forward toward zero-waste. Read the E-Magazine article here for a more detailed explanation of EPR principles, and Bill Sheehan's interview here for a deeper look into the brains behind the Product Policy Institute.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Nuclear and Consumption , Perennial Questions
As the United States watches nuclear calamity unfold in Japan, a national poll of over 1,000 people shows wavering support for new nuclear power plant construction in the U.S. -- the lowest level of national support since the Three Mile Island disaster in 1979. Likewise, popular support for nuclear power declined sharply following Chernobyl in 1986.
Unique in its ability to reason, the human animal certainly bears an uncanny ability to forget, demonstrated best by the yo-yo of popular support for nuclear power that has waned following disaster only to spring back with great resurgence after a little time has passed, especially in eras of high gas prices or poor economy. Unfortunately, the aftermath of any nuclear disaster lingers far longer than attention spans seem capable of holding memories or convictions.
The disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi plant has not only renewed and sharpened the debate around building new nuclear plants in the U.S., but it has also re-focused the country's attention on the safety of the plants already in operation. The cooling pools that currently house radioactive waste were originally designed as temporary holding tanks, but since the dawn of the nuclear age the United States has been unable to settle upon a permanent repository. (Yucca mountain has long been the contentious on again-off again repository in waiting, although Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the mountain's home state, once declared, "Yucca mountain is dead, It'll never happen." A poetic narrative profiling Yucca, About a Mountain by John D'Agata, delves into some of the conflict, confusion and magical thinking that fuels the fires of the debate.)
A dangerous result of this politically charged stalemate in the U.S. is that, with nowhere else to put our mounting waste, cooling pools tend to be packed much more tightly with spent fuel rods than those in Japan. This "sardine effect" would only heighten and complicate a disaster if one ever were to occur in the U.S.
Tom Yulsman of the CEJournal wrote early last week, "It seems obvious to me that given the scale of the challenge in front of us, nuclear power is no panacea — and given the events in Japan, it is a perilous choice. On the other hand, I have a hard time imagining how we’re going to meet emissions reductions targets without it. What a dilemma." Click here for the entire post.
Indeed, the coal and oil industries seem to be capitalizing off of this dilemma, using the current nuclear reticence to downplay the negative effects of fossil fuels. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar recently announced plans to open coal reserves in Wyoming, in an area responsible for 14 percent of all U.S. CO2 emissions. The coal to be mined in the Powder River Basin will take an estimated 10-20 years to extract, a tiny window of "energy safety" for a country that should be working on long-term thinking, not to mention the comparably huge environmental impact in exchange for buying us just a little more time.
Quoted in an article in Forbes online, Salazar said, "...we need to embrace and encourage safe development of traditional energy - coal, oil, gas and nuclear."
Perhaps what' s needed is a new look at the word "traditional." Nowhere in the dictionary is "traditional" defined as "dirty," "destructive" or "deadly." In this time of crisis in Japan, there is opportunity to make a stronger push with renewables worldwide, and to look once again at the question of consumption. For the nuclear-wary Americans polled, perhaps most would be willing to bear some risk in exchange for heated homes in the winter. Perhaps some would think risks associated with nuclear are worth taking in exchange for street lights, lights to do homework by, lights to power computers with. The tricky part is drawing a universal line between what is necessary, or worth the risk, and what is not. And that line cannot be drawn unequivocally in a free society. Is a flat screen TV, always on standby, worth the risk? The answer to that question may, as a society, remain unanswerable, and may fluctuate along with opinions as the urgency of Fukushima fades in years to come.
Unique in its ability to reason, the human animal certainly bears an uncanny ability to forget, demonstrated best by the yo-yo of popular support for nuclear power that has waned following disaster only to spring back with great resurgence after a little time has passed, especially in eras of high gas prices or poor economy. Unfortunately, the aftermath of any nuclear disaster lingers far longer than attention spans seem capable of holding memories or convictions.
The disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi plant has not only renewed and sharpened the debate around building new nuclear plants in the U.S., but it has also re-focused the country's attention on the safety of the plants already in operation. The cooling pools that currently house radioactive waste were originally designed as temporary holding tanks, but since the dawn of the nuclear age the United States has been unable to settle upon a permanent repository. (Yucca mountain has long been the contentious on again-off again repository in waiting, although Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the mountain's home state, once declared, "Yucca mountain is dead, It'll never happen." A poetic narrative profiling Yucca, About a Mountain by John D'Agata, delves into some of the conflict, confusion and magical thinking that fuels the fires of the debate.)
A dangerous result of this politically charged stalemate in the U.S. is that, with nowhere else to put our mounting waste, cooling pools tend to be packed much more tightly with spent fuel rods than those in Japan. This "sardine effect" would only heighten and complicate a disaster if one ever were to occur in the U.S.
Tom Yulsman of the CEJournal wrote early last week, "It seems obvious to me that given the scale of the challenge in front of us, nuclear power is no panacea — and given the events in Japan, it is a perilous choice. On the other hand, I have a hard time imagining how we’re going to meet emissions reductions targets without it. What a dilemma." Click here for the entire post.
Indeed, the coal and oil industries seem to be capitalizing off of this dilemma, using the current nuclear reticence to downplay the negative effects of fossil fuels. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar recently announced plans to open coal reserves in Wyoming, in an area responsible for 14 percent of all U.S. CO2 emissions. The coal to be mined in the Powder River Basin will take an estimated 10-20 years to extract, a tiny window of "energy safety" for a country that should be working on long-term thinking, not to mention the comparably huge environmental impact in exchange for buying us just a little more time.
Quoted in an article in Forbes online, Salazar said, "...we need to embrace and encourage safe development of traditional energy - coal, oil, gas and nuclear."
Perhaps what' s needed is a new look at the word "traditional." Nowhere in the dictionary is "traditional" defined as "dirty," "destructive" or "deadly." In this time of crisis in Japan, there is opportunity to make a stronger push with renewables worldwide, and to look once again at the question of consumption. For the nuclear-wary Americans polled, perhaps most would be willing to bear some risk in exchange for heated homes in the winter. Perhaps some would think risks associated with nuclear are worth taking in exchange for street lights, lights to do homework by, lights to power computers with. The tricky part is drawing a universal line between what is necessary, or worth the risk, and what is not. And that line cannot be drawn unequivocally in a free society. Is a flat screen TV, always on standby, worth the risk? The answer to that question may, as a society, remain unanswerable, and may fluctuate along with opinions as the urgency of Fukushima fades in years to come.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Environment Program Grants Awarded at March 2011 Board Meeting
At its March 2011 Board of Directors meeting last week, The Overbrook Foundation's Environment Program awarded $375,000 in grants to 10 organizations in the categories of Latin American Biodiversity Conservation, Sustainable Production and Consumption, and "Other."
For its work supporting Latin American Biodiversity Conservation, the Foundation awarded $130,000 in grants. Organizations awarded were: Amazon Conservation Team, for its work protecting indigenous-led REDD in the Brazilian Amazon; National Audubon Society, for its work creating landowner incentives to preserve and restore forests in Veracruz, Mexico; and Solidaridad, for its Islands of Hope payments for ecological services project.
For its Sustainable Production and Consumption work, the Foundation awarded $215,000. Organizations awarded were: Corporate Ethics International, for continued support of its Business Ethics Network; Dogwood Alliance, for continued support of its Fast Food Campaign; Environmental Defense Fund, for its Corporate Partnerships Program and Climate Corps; Environmental Paper Network, for general operating support of its work accelerating the transformation to responsible production and consumption of paper products; Natural Resources Defense Council, for continued support of its New York Recycling and Sustainability Project; and the Product Policy Institute, for its Community Producer Responsibility Campaign.
In the category of "Other," the Foundation awarded $30,000 to the Sustainable Transportation Campaign, a short-term initiative working to build region-wide public and political support for a traffic pricing plan for the New York metropolitan area.
Once again, the diversity of its grantees reflects the Environment Program's commitment to conservation and innovation. Click on the links above to learn more about these wonderful organizations!
For its work supporting Latin American Biodiversity Conservation, the Foundation awarded $130,000 in grants. Organizations awarded were: Amazon Conservation Team, for its work protecting indigenous-led REDD in the Brazilian Amazon; National Audubon Society, for its work creating landowner incentives to preserve and restore forests in Veracruz, Mexico; and Solidaridad, for its Islands of Hope payments for ecological services project.
For its Sustainable Production and Consumption work, the Foundation awarded $215,000. Organizations awarded were: Corporate Ethics International, for continued support of its Business Ethics Network; Dogwood Alliance, for continued support of its Fast Food Campaign; Environmental Defense Fund, for its Corporate Partnerships Program and Climate Corps; Environmental Paper Network, for general operating support of its work accelerating the transformation to responsible production and consumption of paper products; Natural Resources Defense Council, for continued support of its New York Recycling and Sustainability Project; and the Product Policy Institute, for its Community Producer Responsibility Campaign.
In the category of "Other," the Foundation awarded $30,000 to the Sustainable Transportation Campaign, a short-term initiative working to build region-wide public and political support for a traffic pricing plan for the New York metropolitan area.
Once again, the diversity of its grantees reflects the Environment Program's commitment to conservation and innovation. Click on the links above to learn more about these wonderful organizations!
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Human Rights Grants Awarded at March 2011 Board Meeting
At its March 2011 Board of Directors meeting yesterday, The Overbrook Foundation's Human Rights Program awarded $500,000 in grants to 10 organizations in the categories of Domestic Human Rights and International Human Rights.
In its Domestic Human Rights program, the Foundation awarded grants to organizations working on issues of marriage equality/LGBT rights, the US Human Rights Movement, and Media. In its International Human Rights, the Foundation awarded grants to three organizations that to a large extent focus their work to support human rights defenders.
In its Domestic Human Rights program, for its work representing a unique collaboration among LGBT and other progressive funders to achieve marriage equality for same-sex couples in the United States, the Foundation awarded a $100,000 grant to the Proteus Fund for its work as a funding partner in the Civil Marriage Collaborative.
In support of other grantmaking activities in the domestic human rights movement, the Foundation awarded a $75,000 grant to the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation for its Human Rights Program, and a $50,000 to the US Human Rights Fund to support its grantee convening scheduled for later in 2011. This Foundation is looking forward to sponsoring this event in Philadelphia, PA, and is doing so in conjunction with The Ford Foundation and the Just and Fair Schools Project at Public Interests Projects. In the category of Media, the Foundation awarded two renewal grants, one to Free Press for support of its media reform activities and another to New America Media for its continued work on expanding models for ethnic media collaboration.
Two other grants were awarded in this program area; one was to Alliance for Justice in support of its Advocacy Training Program, and the other was a $30,000 grant to Generational Alliance in support of its work in building and sustaining youth involvement in the progressive movement.
In support of International Human Rights, the Foundation awarded a $25,000 grant to Committee to Protect Journalists for its defending free media in the Americas, a $50,000 grant to Human Rights Watch for its work combating human rights violations in Mexico, and a $35,000 grant to Indian Law Resource Center for a program of legal assistance, litigation and advocacy aimed at protecting the human rights and environments of Maya Q’eqchi’ communities near El Estor, Guatemala.
If you’re interested in learning more about these organizations, click on the links above to learn more. For a complete list of organizations support by The Overbrook Foundation, you can visit our website.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Good News for Environment and Economy
A study released yesterday by the Environmental Protection Agency proves EPA Clean Air regulations have and will save the country money, and not in insignificant amounts -- it is projected that up to $2 trillion dollars will be saved by 2020 as a direct result of smog and soot regulations placed on businesses in compliance with the Clean Air Act.
A rallying cry of the Republican party has largely been that environmentalists are anti-business, but this newest report shows how a cleaner environment is good for the economy, preventing millions of cases of heart disease, chronic respiratory illness, missed work and school days. Health care costs saved by prevention of these environmentally-induced ailments are astronomical, and even the study's most conservative future projection scenario shows a benefit to cost ratio of three to one. In the highest benefits assessment, benefits exceed costs 90 to 1.
To say the least, this is fabulous news for the environmental community, as there is now statistical back-up to prove that curtailing the worst-polluting business practices, even at initial cost to those businesses, results in great savings down the line. House leaders are currently trying to block government regulation of greenhouse gases, but the central argument that regulating ghgs is too costly in a bad economy no longer holds water.
From the EPA report: "The very wide margin between estimated benefits and costs, and the results of our uncertainty analysis, suggest that it is extremely unlikely that the monetized benefits of the CAAA over the 1990 to 2020 period reasonably could be less than its costs, under any alternative set of assumptions we can conceive."
Find the entire report here. ("CAAA" refers to Clean Air Act Amendments.")
In related news, Bill McKibben's March 1st essay in the Washington Post illuminates, on a less technical and more personal level, the popular misconception that regulating emissions is somehow anti-business or un-American. McKibben responds brilliantly to Glenn Beck's accusations of Communistic leanings. On Beck's show, the host apparently labeled McKibben's organization, 350.org, as Communist. In fact, 350.org is simply a campaign working to cap atmospheric C02 at 350 parts per million or less. Now that we know capping emissions is good for the country's coffers (and its coughers!), it will be interesting to see if Beck and others retract their accusations.
Read McKibben's essay here: My life as a communist
A rallying cry of the Republican party has largely been that environmentalists are anti-business, but this newest report shows how a cleaner environment is good for the economy, preventing millions of cases of heart disease, chronic respiratory illness, missed work and school days. Health care costs saved by prevention of these environmentally-induced ailments are astronomical, and even the study's most conservative future projection scenario shows a benefit to cost ratio of three to one. In the highest benefits assessment, benefits exceed costs 90 to 1.
To say the least, this is fabulous news for the environmental community, as there is now statistical back-up to prove that curtailing the worst-polluting business practices, even at initial cost to those businesses, results in great savings down the line. House leaders are currently trying to block government regulation of greenhouse gases, but the central argument that regulating ghgs is too costly in a bad economy no longer holds water.
From the EPA report: "The very wide margin between estimated benefits and costs, and the results of our uncertainty analysis, suggest that it is extremely unlikely that the monetized benefits of the CAAA over the 1990 to 2020 period reasonably could be less than its costs, under any alternative set of assumptions we can conceive."
Find the entire report here. ("CAAA" refers to Clean Air Act Amendments.")
In related news, Bill McKibben's March 1st essay in the Washington Post illuminates, on a less technical and more personal level, the popular misconception that regulating emissions is somehow anti-business or un-American. McKibben responds brilliantly to Glenn Beck's accusations of Communistic leanings. On Beck's show, the host apparently labeled McKibben's organization, 350.org, as Communist. In fact, 350.org is simply a campaign working to cap atmospheric C02 at 350 parts per million or less. Now that we know capping emissions is good for the country's coffers (and its coughers!), it will be interesting to see if Beck and others retract their accusations.
Read McKibben's essay here: My life as a communist
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
