OneWebDay: September 22nd, 2008

Who ever thought of an Earth Day for the Internet? Well, Susan Crawford did! I first heard of OneWebDay at the 2008 National Conference on Media Reform in Minneapolis this past June. The idea of OneWebDay is to focus attention on a key internet value (this year it will be online participation in democracy) focus attention on local internet concerns, and create a global constituency that cares about protecting and defending the internet. It’s an “environmental movement for the Internet ecosystem”.

Unfortunately, it’s becoming pretty clear that an environmental movement for the Internet is necessary. The Internet is under great pressure from all angles, including access providers who want to track what everyone is doing online and use it for their commercial advantage. We’re also suffering enormous digital divides and lower-income and rural communities don’t have adequate or consistent connectivity.

In 2008, OneWebDay is going to mobilize more people in more cities than every before and they are even going global.

If you’re in the city on Monday, September 22nd, come to Washington Square Park from 11:45am to 2pm (at the Teen Plaza on the Southeast part of the park). You’ll hear from Moderator Sree Sreenivasan (Columbia Journalism & WNBC-TV), plus Larry Lessig (Stanford), Craig Newmark (craigslist), City Councilwoman Hon. Gale A. Brewer, John Perry Barlow, and others. And if you’re not in New York, click here to find out what events are going on in your city.

OneWebDay is a unique platform for people to educate and activate others about issues that are important for the Internet’s future.

The Constitution Project

We’ve been a light on blogging this week as we’ve been busy putting together the Foundation’s Fall Retreat Books. But now that they are safely on their way out the door, I thought I’d tell you about the recent work of an Overbrook Foundation grantee, The Constitution Project. On September 2nd, The Constitution Project drafted and obtained signatures for a letter which urged Texas Governor Rick Perry to put off an execution. That letter is referenced in this article published in yesterday’s New York Times.

The letter was which signed by 22 prominent former judges and prosecutors and sent to Perry concerns the case of Charles D. Hood - a man who was scheduled to be executed in Texas for murder despite evidence that his trial was tainted by a romantic relationship between the judge and prosecutor in his case.

The Constitution Project drafted and organized similar letters from judges and other influential leaders in a number of capital cases --- including the case of Troy Davis, a Georgia death-row inmate who received a 90-day stay of execution in July 2007, thanks, in part, to a letter urging the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles to grant clemency that they drafted and placed in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution on behalf of former federal judge and FBI Director William S. Sessions.

This kind of work allows The Constitution Project to become acquainted with new unlikely allies and educate them about their work and the issues. This in turn allows them to expand the pool of voices that it marshals on behalf of constitutional safeguards and civil liberties.

It's sure nice to see groups bringing together influential voices from across the political spectrum to prevent gross injustices.

Slow Food Nation

This weekend in San Francisco, Slow Food Nation will bring artisans, farmers, cooks, chefs, groupies and food connoisseurs together with apples, goat cheese, melons, pears, and heirloom tomatoes. The Slow Food movement started in the 1980’s as Italians, who have been cultivating and farming for centuries and centuries, saw a sudden shift to industrial agriculture that homogenized their food choices and harmed the environment. The event is considered to be the Slow Food movement’s American Coming Out Party and a celebration of more the twenty years of resisting industrial agriculture.

Slow Food Nation, along with Slow Food USA , promotes a food system based on principles of high quality and taste, environmental sustainability, and social justice. The movement calls attention to the schism between our plate and planet and supports hard working, passionate and struggling family farmers across the country.

In college one of my favorite volunteer experiences was working on a sheep cheese farm, Shepherd’s Way, in rural Minnesota. Earlier in the year a fire destroyed most of a barn and killed many of the sheep and when their insurance refused to cover all of the damages, the family, whose cheeses were award winning, was struggling to pay the bills. Through the help of the community they were able to get volunteers to help out with the day to day work, but even though their cheese was sold at high prices in expensive stores across Minneapolis and St. Paul, they continue to struggle.

It’s easy to dismiss the Slow Food movement as an elite pastime to complain about subtle differences in olive oils or fruit chutneys, but the movement is focused on fighting industrial agriculture practices that are bad for the environment and communities. Companies like AMD and Cargill make a ton of money by treating people and land merely as profits and make no consideration for the long term effects of their decisions on soil, water, food, nutrients, or communities. The Slow Food Nation event this weekend will do exactly the opposite of that. It will celebrate the people, the soil, the animals, air and environment that all come together to create the very essence of survival: food.

Fine Wine in a Box?

What comes to mind when you think about boxed wine? For me, it brings back fond memories of drinking affordable Franzia in college. Well, the New York Times reported this week that more wine producers are packaging their fine wine in boxes too. Italy's Agriculture Ministry announced that some wines that receive the government's quality assurance label may not be sold in boxes. The concept of good boxed wine is nothing new--it's been around for more than 30 years, with Australia being the first country to popularize it.

So what's so good about boxed wine? The lighter packaging reduces the producers' carbon footprint, for one. According to the Times article, more than 90 percent of American wine production occurs on the West Coast, but the majority of its consumers live east of the Mississippi. A standard bottle of wine holds 750 milliliters of wine and emits 5.2 pounds of carbon dioxide while traveling from a vineyard in California to a shelf in New York. In comparison, a 3-liter box generates about half the emissions per 750 milliliters. If 97 percent of wines sold in the U.S. were put into boxes, we would reduce greenhouse gas emissions within a year by about two million tons, or the equivalent of retiring 400,000 cars.

With America soon becoming the largest wine market in the world, we should start thinking about all the greenhouse gases we're producing while drinking. The problem, however, is that boxed wine in America is hard to market because of its stigma as a cheap, lower-quality variety. It's admittedly hard to imagine an expensive wine coming out from a plastic spigot. It does have its advantages however, as boxed wine can be stored for about four weeks (compared to the bottled variety, which only lasts a day or two). More importantly, per glass prices of wine will be cheaper out of the box since producers can ship more with less weight and boxes are cheaper than bottles.

All in all, boxed wine seems like the right (and increasingly necessary) choice to make. Theoretically, the boxes should be recyclable too! I hope that wine producers and marketers can pick up on this trend and change the way Americans think about wine. We've already switched from glass to aluminum soda cans, so it should not be all too difficult to make some changes for wine.

Voting Season

I’m not sure I can wait one more day to find out just who Barack Obama is planning to pick as his Vice President. I check my phone every 20 minutes to see if Obama’s campaign has sent the announcement via SMS!

Unfortunately my excitement is hindered by the recognition that as we approach the 2008 general election, I’m constantly reminded that the structure of voting in elections in the United States has become dependent on large corporations which are not accountable to the public. It is, in its essence, the privatization of yet another sector. On August 18th, VotersUnite.org released a report entitled “Vendors Are Undermining the Structure of U.S. Elections”. The report, which is based on interviews with state and local election officials, news reports, reports from governmental agencies, vendor contracts and other public documents focuses on the control a handful of voting system vendors exercise over election administration in nearly every state.

According to the report which focuses on several case studies to prove its point, these vendors are unaccountable and untrustworthy. So my question is: How is that we have let voting system vendors undermine the foundation of American democracy? Is there anything that we can do about it?

Well don’t look to the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). That’s an Orwellian term for a piece of legislation if I’ve ever heard one! HAVA effectively mandates unsafe and unreliable changes to electronic voting machines which are fraught with complications, leads to confusion and voter intimidation (through ID requirements), has caused massive amounts of misappropriate of funding, and generally complicates the voter registration process.

There is some good news though. Some states are throwing out electronic voting machines. And check out the work of some groups that are working hard for election protection, like Voter Action.

There’s nothing more important than having fair elections. In fact, it’s integral to our democracy. As we prepare for another presidential election, the question persists as to whether voters will be able to access the ballot in an equal and meaningful way. Let’s hope that the political rights of every voter to independently cast a ballot and have their vote recorded and counted accurately is possible.

Language Power Punch: Green For All and Van Jones

In a movement in desperate need of leadership, Van Jones and his team at Green For All address racial, environmental and climate justice with poignancy and bite. Still less than a year old, Green For All has made a significant mainstream impact helping the term ‘green collar jobs’ convey a new category of opportunities that battle climate change and lift people out of poverty.

There is a lot of racket out there in the world. Between the media, academia, industry and non-profits tons of opinions are flying around about carbon dioxide particulates, impacts of government policies on communities of color, and economic recessions. Each issue is horribly complex and could take thousands experts to address and explain. Green For All really stands out in this cacophony specifically because of its ability to tie these concepts together and powerful use of language. Read a couple quote bombs from Executive Director, Van Jones:

“We cannot drill and burn our way out because we will bake this planet. We can invent and invest our way out.”

"The chief moral obligation of the 21st Century is to build a green economy that is strong enough to lift people out of poverty. Those communities that were locked out of the last century's pollution-based economy must be locked into the new, clean and renewable economy. Our youth need green-collar jobs, not jails."

These quotes are absolutely fantastic! They provide understandable imagery and explain really complex energy and racial justice issues simply and beautifully adding tremendous integrity to the environmental and human rights fields. To read more amazing lyricism, just go to the front page of their website, its incredible. Or help support Green For All by signing up for a “I’m Ready!” event on September 27 and tell America that you want new low carbon energy investments and to pivot the economy in a better direction.

¿Habla usted inglés?

Anyone who rides the New York City subway in the morning knows there are a plethora of ethnic newspapers in this city. Well did you know that there are actually close to 350 ethnic and community newspapers? That’s nearly double what I guessed! And according to the Mayor’s Office on Immigrant Affairs, there are 1.8 million people in the city with little or no English-language skills. No wonder there are so many ethnic newspapers. How else would these communities get their news?

Unfortunately it’s pretty easy to see that ethnic communities, including minorities and young people, are often marginalized or even exploited in today’s mainstream media. The more these groups are better informed, better connected to one another, and better able to influence policy makers, the better they can serve their communities. These kinds of communities and networks flourish when there is a media that speaks for them. Luckily in New York there are organizations that support the basic ethnic media infrastructure, like The New York Community Media Alliance (NYCMA). NYCMA is an organization that works to promote and support independent publications committed to social justice and a free press. In pursuit of this goal, the NYCMA provides technical assistance to its member publications and is a vigorous public advocate of the independent press.

Curious to see what some of the stories are that pervade the ethnic media? Well to view NYCMA’s weekly edition of Voices That Must Be Heard, click here. And if you’re interested in seeing where there are offices of ethnic publications in New York City by borough, click here.

And although you might think that New York is unique as a hodge-podge of culture and ethnic media, the ethnic media is also the fastest growing sector of American Journalism across the country. Out in California there’s New America Media which serves as the country’s first and largest national collaboration and advocate of 2000 ethnic news organizations, an “AP” of ethnic news.

To acknowledge that the ethnic media is “progressive” seems to state the obvious: these media outlets serve constituencies with the greatest stake in social change in our society. Yet, ethnic media remain largely off the radar or progressive policy institutes, media and communications strategists and even those working in the media reform movement. But through the efforts of organizations like New America Media and The New York Community Media Alliance which serve as vehicles for communication, we can build allies between progressive groups and ethnic minorities. Their work defends immigrant rights and provides a voice to a large segment of the population that has been excluded by the mainstream media from representation in the political process.

Lame Green Poland Spring

In Monday’s post, Carolynn explained that term “lame green” describes companies whose businesses practices have a moderate negative environmental impact but are actually making weak claims about how their product improves the Earth.

Well, bottled water companies are one of the worst offenders of this type of claim. One of the most egregious corporate offenders is Nestlé, which launched its new Poland Spring single-use eco-shape water bottle. It claims that the bottle uses 30 percent less plastic and 30 percent less paper for the label than the average half-lifter bottle and Nesté uses it as an example of the company “doing its part” to make a difference for the sake of the environment. But just how accurate are those claims?

I investigated three areas where I think Poland Spring has shown the company's true colors: energy consumption, environmental impact and false advertising.

Enormous amounts of energy go into creating and transporting these water bottles. In 2007, Poland Springs alone burned 928,226 gallons of diesel fuel. That energy used is wasteful and most of these recyclable bottles don’t even end up in landfills (which really negates the fact that the new bottle is touted for being 100% recyclable and “easier to crush for recycling”).

And what about the company's environmental impact? It's proven that taking water draws down on local water resources. With the market for bottled water continuing to grow, sources of freshwater are becoming more precious. Not to mention the impact of environmental harm that comes from groundwater pumping. According to the Sierra Club, Nestlé's bottling operations in the Unitd States have already degraded lakes, harmed wetlands, and lowered water tables, and its pumping continues to posea threat to residential and agricultraul water supplies. So much for the company whose slogan is "What it means to be from Maine."

And lastly this is a company that has a history of false advertising! In 2003, Poland Springs was sued for false advertising in a class action lawsuit charging that their water, which supposedly comes from springs, is in fact heavily treated common ground water. Although the company didn’t admit to the allegations, they agreed to pay $10 million in charity donations. This was chump change of course, for a company whose profits in 2006 neared $7.64 billion.

I’m not denying that the bottle is more eco-friendly than some of the company’s other products. And maybe I’m too cynical for thinking that this type of cutesy marketing could actually turn away consumers. But given the company’s history, I just don’t trust them. I think for them, this bottle is an opportunity to pay lip service to a trend in green advertising, even thought it’s clear they are far from green.

So I’m sticking to good old tap water. Don’t worry, it’s safe to drink.

Greenwash Watch: Exxon Mobile

In late May this year the Rockefeller family, whose great-grandfather founded Exxon Mobile’s predecessor Standard Oil Trust, filed shareholder resolutions to demand that Exxon take a deeper look at their role in climate change. Exxon, who lags behind other oil conglomerates like Shell and BP in low carbon alternative fuel research, was asked to do three things: research renewable energy sources, look at the impacts of climate change on poor countries, and reduce their emissions by a third.

On May 28th, Exxon rejected the proposal arguing that their only job is to deliver a product that is in high demand. Rex Tillerson, chairman and chief executive, said “We’re focused on safely and reliably meeting the growing energy demand while working to reduce our impact on the environment.” As well as, “A lot of climate change policy is still up for debate.”

The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a conservative estimate and review of all climate change science, dispelled any serious climate science doubts with their Fourth Assessment in 2007. Climate change will cause profound and significant changes in our environment, society and economy in the next 100 years. The United States is the largest contributor of global greenhouse gas emission with only 5% of the population, but 20% of emissions. While ignoring their responsibility for those emissions Exxon is also ignoring just a few of the following consequences:

• By 2020, between 75 and 250 million of people in Africa are expected be exposed to increased water stress due to changes in precipitation and drought. (IPCC)

• Heavily-populated coastal regions in the megadeltas of South, East, and Southeast Asia are at very high risk of increased flooding due to both sea level rise and flooding inland rivers. (IPCC)

• By 2020 in some African countries, agriculture yields could be reduced by up to 50%. Agricultural production is expected to decrease in many African countries severely threatening food security and increasing overall malnutrition. (IPCC)

But what’s worse is the company is also going around advertising that they are hard at work trying to reduce carbon emissions. Using images of friendly scientists and technology along with quotes like, “In the US, if just 10% of cars were replaced with hybrids you’re talking about reducing CO2 emissions by the equivalent of taking more than five million cars off the road”

The company isn’t explicitly lying about this. They’ve reportedly spent $2 billion over the last five years on carbon reduction programs. But for a company that just beat its own record of $11.68 billion in profits in this past quarter alone, $2 billion in 5 years is chump change.

Green Makeup?

The first topic we're looking at is "green lite," which describes the light environmental claims that business make through their advertisements. As Carolynn mentioned earlier, companies that use "green lite" advertisements are taking advantage of a trend to make their brands or products more appealing. I've noticed that one of the most common types of these ads is for cosmetics. What's interesting is that these ads are increasingly connecting the issues of health and environment. As such, being "green" is becoming synonymous with healthy and non-toxic.

Lucky for us, there are groups out there that are working to help consumers discern "green lite" ads. The Environmental Working Group is an organization that uses the power of public information to protect public health and the environment. One of its projects is a safety guide to cosmetics and personal care products. Skin Deep: Cosmetic Safety Database allows users to see which body products are safe (or unsafe) to use. The system pairs ingredients in more than 25,000 products against 50 definitive toxicity and regulatory databases, making it the largest integrated data resource of its kind. It's pretty scary to look up the soap or makeup you use everyday to see which chemicals are in them and what their possible effects are.

Let's take a look at an example of a "green lite" ad: Physicians Formula Organic Wear Makeup. According to the ad, the makeup promises the following: the first 100% Natural Origin Makeup formulated with certified organic ingredients; 100% free of harsh chemicals, synthetic preservatives and parabens; contains EcoBlend, featuring OrganiSoy and Eco-Olive; and Eco-Conscious packaging. The model appears to be completely one with nature--so much so that she's turned into a plant! Meanwhile, the question: "How green is your makeup?" sits at the very top of the ad.

According to Skin Deep, Physicians Formula Organic Wear Natural Origin Tinted Moisturizer, Fair to Light Organics, SPF 15 scored a 3 out of ten (moderate hazard). That's pretty good, especially compared to products like Revlon's New Complexion One Step Compact Makeup SPF 15 in Carmel color that scored a 7. The database found 32% of foundations with lower concerns and 26% of sunscreens spf 15 and above with lower concerns than the Physicians Formula product. Furthermore, ingredients in this product are linked to the following: cancer; developmental/reproductive toxicity; violations, restrictions and warnings; and other concerns for ingredients used.

While the ad may not be a lie entirely, it certainly portrays the image of being the first (and hence, most) environmentally healthy makeup. And according to Skin Deep, that's stretching it. But isn't that how advertising usually goes? It's good to pay attention to environmentally healthy products, but it's important to keep an objective eye and to double-check the integrity of its claims.

Authenticy in Green Advertising

This week on the Overbrook Blog we are going to highlight some of the different types of green advertising and test them for their authenticity.

We’ll start with “green lite” which are light environmental claims businesses make. These companies aren’t hiding and lying about anything, just extending the truth a little bit. For example, say you have been recycling in your home for the past 10 years and then all the sudden you decide to make it the focus of your marketing campaign. You aren’t doing anything wrong, but you aren’t making any additional actions, and you’re taking advantage of a trend to make your brand or product seem different or better.

Next, we will highlight “lame green.” Lame green advertising claims are made by companies whose businesses practices have a moderate negative environmental impact, but are making really ‘lame’ or weak claims about their how their product actually improves the Earth. For example, bottled water companies have recently come under a lot of flack for the impacts on public and local water rights, waste, and global warming contributions from production and shipping. Many bottled water companies are fighting back with advertisements that claim their products are inspired and reflect nature. That’s a lame green claim.

And finally we will talk about “greenwashing” which is the most serious. Greenwashing is similar to whitewashing and a deliberate cover up and deflection from environmental offenses. Let’s say you were running a business out of your garage and making a ton of money off of trinkets. Unfortunately, they created a ton of acidic waste which you then dumped into the stream in your backyard. When you came back tons of fish were found dead. Your neighbors got upset and called you environmentally irresponsible. Then in response you put a beautiful sign outside your house praising the beauty of freshwater streams and how we should all work to protect it. That’s deceptive. That’s greenwashing. The biggest companies acting this way are oil and car companies whose business practices are directly contributing to climate change. They are vehemently working behind the scenes to stop any legislation, however, they are publicly advertising their environmental and innovative practices.

Olympic Fever

Unless you’ve been living under a rock all summer, you probably know that today marks the start of the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. Whether you’re anxiously following Michael Phelps or were saddened when Morgan Hamm had to pull out of the competition due to his ankle injury, one thing is clear: Everyone, but in particularly the media, has serious Olympic Fever!

There are two stories in particular that have dominated the U.S. media’s coverage of this summer’s Olympics and I couldn’t help but notice how they touch upon some of the issues that Overbrook considers with respect to its grantmaking.

The first is the environment concerns over the issue of pollution in Beijing. Yesterday, Beijing’s air pollution index was recorded at 96, which comes close to exceeding the national level for acceptable air (anything over 100 is harmful to sensitive groups, including children and the elderly). Many athletes participating in the games have chosen to train elsewhere voicing concern for their health. Although there have been some modest efforts to incorporate green building and solar power into this year's games, the larger questions of what exactly China’s environmental policy is and what its effect is on climate change still remain.

The second issue that has raised concern is with respect to China’s human rights record. There are legitimate concerns from several groups, including organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch which believe that China has wasted a historic opportunity for reform. According to Sophie Richardson, the Asia advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, “The Chinese government and the International Olympic Committee have had seven years to deliver on their pledges that these games would further human rights. Instead, the Beijing Games have prompted a rollback in some of the most basic rights enshrined in China’s constitution and international law.” To see the specific concerns of Human Rights Watch, click here.

Watching all of this media coverage (which will only continue in its relentlessness over the next few weeks), I can’t help but wonder how these issues will play out along political, social and economic lines long after the Olympic Torch is extinguished. But let us also not forget that these are issues that we struggle with here in the U.S. on a daily basis. The issues of climate change, environmental policy, and domestic human rights are ones that I hope our media will cover in a thoughtful and serious way.

WITNESS The Hub

Earlier this year, WITNESS, an organization that uses video and online technologies to open the eyes of the world to human rights violations announced the launch of a beta version of its new “Hub” as a global platform for human rights media and action.

If you ever needed an example of the power of Web 2.0 and the potential it has to further the work non-profit organizations, this is it. Not only does The Hub serve as the first community-driven participatory media site for human rights, it’s an interactive community where you can upload videos or photos, watch what’s being uploaded, comment on and share what’s on the site. You can search for video based on highest rated, most viewed, by issue or by region.

The website has more than just video. There are also extremely valuable resources such as Video Advocacy Guides, Tool Kits and Resources. There are also chances to encourage individuals to learn more and to get involved in specific campaigns, advocacy groups and actions that can make a different. You can connect with groups, or create one of your own.

The Hub also works with partners and allies in the human rights movement, including Breakthrough, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. To watch a 60-second Hub Video click here.

The Hub is important not only for its ability to provide information to a large group of people, but also because it provides access to those who decide to use it. Its power come from its members. After spending some time on its website, you can tell that those behind it have truly looked at the landscape of the Internet and used new digital technologies to further its mission of documenting human rights abuses. Let’s hope it’s the first of many innovative projects of its kind.

Hey Renewables, Don't Forget Climate Change!

photo credit from Angel Franco, New York Times

Throughout the election Obama and McCain have talked a lot about economics and energy. More and more people are starting to realize that our dependence on foreign oil causes economic problems. Renewable solutions like solar and wind are becoming mainstream and many traditional and even conservative players like T. Boones Pickens are picking up and running with the idea.

Take for example this article in The New York Times yesterday about Nebraska’s wind farms. Not only have these small towns discovered their abundance of clean energy, but the rural communities are taking pride in their wind turbines. One town even renamed their main street Turbine Avenue. A Turbine Mart popped up. An Iraq Veteran, now with a new job on the wind farm, gently said “I definitely would much rather be here than there.” Communities like this and all across America are great examples of the positive influence of renewable energy can have.

However, there’s even more reason to celebrate. Climate change is hardly mentioned in the article, but is fundamental in understanding why these turbines are so important. Right now most of our energy is not just coming from foreign sources, but its coming from carbon intensive sources. In order to prevent climate change and more of its effects we have to transition out of coal and oil which currently make up most of our energy sources. Renewable energy is an excellent way to do this.

However, even if renewable energy is hitting all sectors of America, its connection to climate change is not. When talking about putting up new turbines across the Great Plains it’s still uncommon to hear anything about taking pride in helping reduce emissions. Picken’s Plan, otherwise ambitious, makes absolutely no connection to global warming. That idea might be there, but it’s not prevalent yet. Transitioning to renewable energy must be tied to decreasing climate change, helping the rest of the world, and the future. To truly celebrate and understand the depth of the situation small Nebraska towns should really be naming their streets Future Generation Avenue instead.

The AIDS Epidemic

Last week two important news stories about AIDS hit the mainstream media. First, the Black AIDS Institute, an HIV/AIDS think tank released the report “Left Behind – Black America: A Neglected Priority in the Global AIDS” in which it announced that the AIDS epidemic in black America is as severe as in parts of Africa. Then this past Saturday, The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) announced it had underestimated the number of new HIV infections in the United States. In fact they estimated that approximately 56,300 new HIV infections occurred in the United States in 2006, rather than the previous estimate of 40,000.

Given the report and the CDC’s new figures, which are especially enlightening when presented in tandem, it’s safe to say that AIDS is one of, if not the most, severe health epidemics that this country is facing.

What is perhaps most frightening about this news is the rate at which HIV/AIDS is appearing in certain gender and racial populations. Although African Americans only compromise 14% of the population, they accounted for 50% of the new HIV infections in 2006. In newborns, blacks accounted for 65% of HIV-infected babies. AIDS is also the leading cause of death among black women between ages 25 and 35. Black women are 23 more times likely to be diagnosed with AIDS than white women.

If you read “Left Behind” (or even just the Executive Summary for those of us with less time), it’s clear there are many pressing problems that need to be addressed if we’re going to solve this epidemic, or at the very least, prevent it from getting even worse. These challenges including protecting young people from infection, preventing HIV transmission among homosexual men, addresses drug use and HIV infection, and promoting optical medical outcomes for people living with HIV. But perhaps the most important is addressing the epidemic along the gender and racial lines in which it is presenting itself.

It’s also important to understand why we’re seeing certain populations affected more than others. Is it simply a lack of education? Is it the stigmatization associated with the disease which prevents people from taking action before it’s too late? My suspicion is that it’s indicative of a deeper-seeded problem with access to health care in this country. But without understanding the causes of the epidemic, it will be all but impossible to address it any long-term meaningful way.

The Story of Stuff

Question: Where does all the stuff we buy come from, and where does it go when we throw it out?

Following up on Carolynn’s great post yesterday about going paperless, I thought it’d be an opportune time to talk about Annie Leonard. I first met Annie in late 2005, when she spoke to The Overbrook Foundation’s Board of Directors during our fall retreat. During the retreat, Annie gave a presentation that examines the above question about stuff. Her presentation, which she’s done hundreds of times to standing ovations, became the video The Story of Stuff. If you haven’t already watched this 20-minute video, you must.

In this very engaging and humorous story about “all of our stuff”, Annie explores the global materials economy and its impact on economy, environment and health.

Those fans of the late George Carlin might recall his hilarious exploration of stuff (click here to watch it). But this is no laughing matter. For example, each person in the United States makes 4.5 pounds of garbage a day. That’s twice what we each made thirty years ago! In the past three decades, one-third of the planet’s natural resources bases have been consumed. And just as frightening – there are over 100,000 synthetic chemicals in commerce today.

All of this certainly gets me thinking – why are products designed to be regularly replaced – from computers to phones to clothing fashions? How is this driving consumerism year after year? And what will the impact be on the environment?

After watching the video, be sure to check out film’s website www.storyofstuff.com. It serves as a great example of the Web 2.0 platform! It’s a great interactive site that features organizations working to change the cycle of the materials economy. It also includes resources and information, a suggested reading list, The Story of Stuff Blog and discussion topics for local screenings. Check it out!

Set yourself free, go paperless.

How many paper products do you own? No just the stuff in a printer or on the desk that’s clean and read to go, but how many phone books, bills, catalogs, AAA maps of Northwest Arizona, user manuals, coupons, bank statements do you glance at once and then never see again?

Although at first benign, these small, tedious, obstructing pieces of paper are everywhere if you keep looking around. They stick out of cabinet drawers or are placed in brown boxes and put on the top shelf. At my house we even have a whole table, right in the front, dedicated to two things: our keys and piles of papers from schools, banks, companies, or cell phones that nobody looks at. It doesn’t do much for the foyer. And it’s not just from the mail. Every time I get a new gadget or toy there are 4 or 5 user manuals that along with those “DO NOT EAT” silicon packets usually get thrown away.

However, not only are these stacks of useless papers product messy and obnoxious they have an environmental impact. Most of the paper that lands in your life is not certified from the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). That means that when it was produced giant machinery drove through huge, carved roads and deposited invasive species along. That machinery took out whole acres of wood at a rate that’s unsustainable and yielded a profit, not more growth. That land was then ignored until rains came through and washed most of the unprotected soil into polluted bodies of water downstream.

Paper is archaic. Nowadays, most of the same information is online. Of course services like Catalog Choice allow users to opt out of unwanted catalogs, but there are also many other websites that are working on ‘paper’ as well. The Paperless Petition wants to scrap the phone book since most of the information is online, UserManualGuide.com has all sorts of guides for phones, cameras, dvds, and tvs. There’s even the Paperless Hymnal which has all your congregation's favorite songs.

Freedom of Expression in Mexico: An Important First Step

Last month, Committee to Protect Journalists announced that Mexican President Felipe Calderon had pledged his commitment to federalize crimes against freedom of expression. This announcement came on the heels of a CJP delegation, led by the organization’s board Chairman Paul Steiger and Executive Director Joel Simon that met with Calderon and several members of his cabinet. Shortly thereafter, Mexico’s Attorney General Eduardo Medina Mora announced draft legislation that would amend Article 73 of Mexico’s political constitution that would make a federal offense for any crime causing “social alarm”, including threats to freedom of expression.

This legislation is expected to be introduced into the Mexican congress this fall but could take between six and twelve months to pass. Meanwhile, Mexico remains a dangerous county. Research shows that over the past 15 years, 13 journalists were killed in direct relation to their work, and 14 additional journalists were killed under mysterious circumstances. Three journalists and three media workers were murdered in 2007, and another three reporters went missing. This violence has continued in 2008. Historically, journalists who cover organized crime and official corruption are particularly at risk.

If this legislation is passed, it alone would not solve the issues of attacks on freedom of expression in Mexico, but it would be an important first step for the country. As Joel Simon recently wrote, it’s not realistic to believe that the federalization of crimes against journalists will ensure successful prosecutions automatically. But it would send a message to the press and to the public that the government is actively cracking down against impunity.

Also last month, CPJ launched a special report “Three Killings, No Justice” written by Monica Campbell which discuses several unsolved cases of slain journalists. The report looks at the factors is preventing three specific cases of killed journalists in Mexico from being solved.

Is 'thrift' the new 'green'?

1. Bring your lunch to work.

2. Line dry clothes in the sun.

3. Grow a garden.

4. Turn off lights and air-conditioning when not in use.

5. Make clothe napkins.

Is this top-five list of: a) ways to go green b) ways to save money and get out of debt c) your grandparent’s age old advice? The answer: all three! As economic woes are increasing, many Americans are making decisions about lifestyles and consumption habits. The good news: many of these changes are also good for the environment and fight climate change. Actions like line drying and making your own jam pull on a powerful tradition of thriftiness we’ve shied away from in the past two decades and are also help reduce your impact on the environment.

A recent New York Times article reported that consumers are experiencing a “green fatigue” and are less interested in claims companies are making. Environmentalists may or may not be seeing the beginning of the end of the recent mainstream advertising, but marketing ideas as ‘thrifty’ may be a way for us to encourage behavior change and reduce consumption habits without dying out with a fad.

However, there are reasons to be wary of this line of reasoning. Encouraging people to make decisions based purely on economic choices will not mean that the environment always comes out on top. In fact, in many cases it won’t at all. What’s more, a lot of serious changes will take more investment up front.

We want to encourage environmental values AND stay in the lime light. We should emphasize the value of the ‘thrift’ when talking about environmental choices, but those economic arguments should support not supplement the reason for waking up an hour early to make your own lunch.

The environment and economy will always have a complicated relationship, but as the proliferation of green marketing may start to dwindle and we can cautiously use the appeal of being frugal and saving money. However we must make sure that its clear those actions protect, not destroy, our natural resources.

A Step Ahead

If you want to be healthy, save money and battle climate change all at once, moving to one of the recently named "walkable" cities might be your answer. WalkScore.com, a service working to improve public health, communities and the planet, just named San Francisco the most "walkable" city in the U.S. The city by the bay scored an 86 out of 100, followed by New York's score of 83 and Boston's score of 79. Walkscore looked at the 40 largest cities in the U.S. and evaluated them based on residents' proximity to grocery stores, coffee shops, restaurants, movie theaters and other amenities.

I know I just praised San Franciso for being ahead of the curve, but I honestly think that New York should have taken the winning title this time around. I feel like I'm always walking! I went to WalkScore.com and found that most neighborhoods in Manhattan, including mine, are considered a "walker's paradise." Furthermore, I don't know anyone who drives in Manhattan, though many of my friends living in San Francisco drive daily. The ranking is deceiving, however, as it takes Manhattan's outer boroughs into account--where the neighborhoods aren't as densely populated and access to public transportation is more limited. Meanwhile, San Francisco's outer borough's, such as the East Bay, are not included in the evaluation.

Regardless of the ranking, it's evident that living in a walkable city is becoming an even more significant factor in choosing a place to live. Given current fuel prices and the state of our climate, it's a great time to wean ourselves off our fossil fuel addiction. Congratulations to all the cities making strides in the right direction. As accessiblity becomes a bigger decision-maker in people's lives, I hope that more cities work to enhance their walkability. In the meantime, take a walk and enjoy the sights!

Photo taken from www.cooltownstudios.com

Recreating Paradise

With gasoline prices at a record high, transit systems in major cities from Los Angeles to New York are benefiting from an increase in ridership. According to the American Public Transportation Association, heavy-rail systems experienced a 4.4% ridership increase in the first quarter of the year. Meanwhile, smaller cities, such as Honolulu, Hawaii, are struggling to figure out how to utilize and develop their public transportation systems within existing infrastructure.

I grew up in Honolulu, a city of over 370,000 people, most of whom live in the surrounding suburbs and commute to work everyday. According to the Honolulu Advertiser, 67% of commuters in Hawaii drove alone in 2006. On a small island with a rapidly growing population and one freeway connecting most suburbs, you can imagine the hellish morning commute. I cringe at the thought of driving whenever I come home to "paradise," and often find myself missing the MTA.

To satiate a need for a more comprehensive mass transit system, the city of Honolulu plans to spend $3.7 billion on a 20-mile elevated commuter train. This comes on the heels of the controversial Superferry which now only runs between Oahu and Maui after cancelling its Kauai-Honolulu trips due to protests citing environmental risks. Change is hard for many to swallow--especially when it is done without public collaboration and consent. Anti-rail groups have also protested the proposed rail system, complaining about aesthetics, noise, increased taxes, displacement, among other things. The city is pressing on, however, and hopes to finish the project in phases between 2012 and 2018. Mayor Mufi Hannemann said he isn't afraid of putting the city's proposed rail system to a vote, as he is confident that the public will back the project. I sure hope so. The last thing this island needs is for traffic to increase by 64% by 2030, as is currently estimated.

Barack Obama, a local boy from Punahou School, famously created a slogan around the power of change. I hope the rest of the island (and world) recognizes how important it is not only to change, but to do so in a way that benefits both the population and environment.

Photo taken from the Honolulu Advertiser.

Not So Swift Justice

Walter Swift is a free man – after 26 years. Back in 1982 in Detroit, Swift was found guilty and sentenced to 55 years for the rape of a pregnant white woman that he did not commit. His case was fraught with common mistakes when it comes to wrongful convictions, notable misidentification by an eyewitness in an unorthodox and unreliable identification procedure, forensic evidence that could have cleared him at trial that was never shared with the jury, and a court appointed lawyer that was inadequate.

It took ten years of hard work which began in 1998 by The Innocence Project, to prove Swift’s innocence but he was finally exonerated this past May. More than anything, Swift’s case has highlighted discrepancies in the identification procedures used in Michigan. To make sure this doesn't happen to other people, a bill has been introduced into the Michigan's Legislature that would improve eyewitness identification practices statewide. The bill is currently pending.

Swift is in Ireland this week, where he will be honored at a special fundraiser, which will help him build a new life in Detroit. He will be joined on July 16th, by Barry Scheck (one of the Innocence Project’s co-founders) at the Law Society of Ireland. They will also be interviewed on Irish national television.

Sadly, Swift is just one of the 218 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States; nearly 60% of them are African American. The average length of time served by exonerees is 12 years. That is not so swift justice.

Good News for Net Neutrality?

It can be pretty rare that the Federal Communications Commission does something good these days. So yesterday when Kevin Martin (the head of the FCC) said that he would recommend that Comcast, which is the nation’s largest cable company, be punished for violating agency principles that guarantee customers open access to the Internet, I was pretty surprised. Of its investigations, Martin said, “The commission has adopted a set of principles that protects consumers access to the Internet….We found that Comcast’s actions in this instance violated our principles.”

Of course, I shouldn’t be surprised because I knew Free Press was on the case. In January of this year when they learned that Comcast was secretly blocking the Web sites and services of its competitors, Free Press and members of the SavetheInternet.com Coalition filed a complaint urging the FCC to stop Comcast's harmful blocking and sought fines to deter future violations. They flooded the FCC with hundreds of thousands of complaints and comments, and organized a series of public hearings on the issue.

What could this decision, which would be the first time that regulators have punished an Internet provider for violating open-access rules mean for network neutrality moving forward? Well, Vindu Goel of The New York Times called it an “imminent victory” for net-neutrality advocates here. But he also warns that the decision could actually end up hurting Internet users if it spurs moves by the cable industry giants to charge customers based on how much data they are using instead of offering unlimited data for a flat fee.

Although I’m breathing a sigh of momentary relief, I’m still keeping my eyes on the cable industry because I know they aren’t going to take this lying down. We’ll have to wait and see.

Can It!

I spent the past weekend hanging out in San Francisco and enjoying a break from the New York City heat and humidity. I met up with Paul, one of the main guys working on Catalog Choice out of the Ecology Center. After finishing up our lunch, I walked down Haight Street, checking out the vintage shops and looking for good deals on used CDs at Amoeba.

Although the city has much to offer, I must say that one of the cooler things I discovered was its trash cans. Unlike standard cans, each of these had a separate compartment on top for recyclable cans and bottles! And it looks like people use them--each can I passed had quite a few bottles and soda cans tossed in there. It's a simple concept that's easy to implement and is doing its part to reduce waste.

In New York City, the average resident (remember, there are over 8 million of us), discards nearly four and a half pounds of waste each day--imagine how much of that waste could be prevented simply by providing easy access to a recycling bin. It's a shame how often I find myself with a soda can and nowhere to toss it except in the dump! With San Francisco's goal of diverting 75% of its landfill by 2012, we should see what steps it's taking to reach its goal. It would be great if other cities could learn from each other and figure out easy ways to make an immediate in decline in our waste production.

Click here to learn more about San Francisco's environmental initiative and here to learn more about New York City's own PLANYC 2030.

Photo taken from:
http://picasaweb.google.com/thatchermelissaimboden/SanFrancisco0408/photo#5191861446822646370

Climate Change Conversions

Example 1:

Bill McHarg was an Australian real estate titan and the co-founder of Colliers International. He worked on the development and sale of property all around the world for more 40 years. A millionaire and avid bicyclist at 62 you would think Bill had his eyes set on a comfortable retirement off the coast of Australia.

Instead, Bill quit his job, bought a van, decorated it with yellow and red and mounted four huge megaphones to the top. Then he drove it down central Melbourne during lunch time playing loud kookaburra calls and mocking the Australian Prime Minister. “It was the most undignified thing I think I've ever done” he said.

What triggered this abnormal behavior? Eight weeks early McHarg was at an event where Al Gore, the leading voice of climate change in the world, in his polite Tennessee drawl explained global warming and its effects around the world.

Something triggered in Bill. He then spent all his time until the upcoming election determined to take down then Prime Minister John Howard. Howard was an ardent climate change denier. Australia, like the US, has one of the highest per capita carbon emissions rates and was the only other industrialized nation not to sign the Kyoto Protocol. They were also in the middle of a long, severe and unprecedented drought. Not only did McHarg drive around the van, but he took out ads in major newspapers mocking Howard and created a successful YouTube video which argued “Planet First, Howard Last.” And luckily, his efforts had a real impact in changing the election. Australia elected Kevin Rudd and one of his first actions was to sign the Kyoto Protocol.

Bill McHarg had a climate change “conversion.” He felt an intense urgency about the situation and terrifying understanding of the severity. A lot of people working on climate change have had similar moments as well--where all at once the true depth of the situation hits them. Climate change is so different than any other challenge we have faced that it takes a different kind of conceptualization. It's good for us to talk about similar experiences and collect these stories. It is especially important because our understanding and "conversions" must fuel a radical change in the way we live.

To read more about Bill and his adventures:

"Climate was right McHarg's political foray"

Bottlemania

Anyone who has ever been forced to take New Jersey transit on a holiday weekend probably can experience the frustration I endured coming back from the Jersey Shore yesterday afternoon. After my boyfriend asked me to buy him a bottle of water at the newsstand (for $3.50 no less) I remembered that I had a copy of Elizabeth Royte’s new book “Bottlemania: How Water Went on Sale and Why We Bought It” stuffed in the bottom of my beach bag.

I dug it out and began reading it. I quickly learned that Americans spent nearly $11 billion dollars on bottled water in 2006 when we could have simply drunk tap water instead. Sales of bottle water grew a shocking 170 percent between 1997 and 2006. Globally it is a $60-billion-a-year business. Sales of bottled water have already surpassed sales of beer and milk in the United States and by 2011 are expected to surpass soda. How American is that?!

Even more troubling than the clever marketing that spurred the industry is the issue as to when, how and why access to safe and clean water became acceptable to market as a private commodity rather than be provided as a public good. In her book, Royte questions the environmental and social fallout of what we’re drinking. It has me worried about what’s next: Are we going to be charging for the quality of air we’re allowed to breathe (if so, we New Yorkers may be in big trouble)?

I was so engrossed in Royte’s funny engaging book that I have to say I was disappointed when we finally pulled into Port Authority and I had to put it down.

To read the New York Times Review of Royte’s book, click here. And to hear comedian Lewis Black’s hilarious take on bottled water click here.

Founding Fathers and Sunscreen

As we all head off to the beach to enjoy The Fourth of July holiday weekend, be forewarned! The Environmental Working Group just released a study that says 4 out of 5 sunscreens don’t adequately protect consumers. In fact, they say that chemicals such as oxybenzone that are found in many popular sunscreens can penetrate skin and pose serious health concerns.

Sadly, I’m hardly shocked. According to The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (which is a project of The Breast Cancer Fund and is funded in part by Overbrook) only 11% of all personal care products are tested for safety. Here in the U.S. only 10 ingredients are banned from cosmetics, in Europe it’s over 1,100. And most frightening – one-third of personal care products contain at least one chemical linked to cancer!

Luckily the folks over at Environmental Working Group have put together a database called Skin Deep, which can be your safety guide to cosmetics and personal care products. It pairs ingredients in more than 25,000 products against 50 definitive toxicity and regulatory databases, making it the largest integrated resources of its kind. Click here to access the guide.

After researching some of the products I use on a daily basis, it looks like I’m going to need a serious overhaul of my cosmetics. I’ll do it as soon as I come back from the beach.

Environmental Movement at a Crossroad

One of my favorite blogs World Changing has a really great discussion up about a recent report from the World Wildlife Federation (WWF) called “Weathercocks and signposts: the environmental movement at a crossroads”. The report asks really critical questions of the movement and judging from all the activity on the World Changing blog—a lot of people in the environmental community are digging a little deeper as well.

Over the past couple of years everyone has noticed a viral trend to “go green.” Magazines, advertisements, and TV shows all seem to have advice about how to become more environmentally friendly and activities once associated with a small subset of culture are now mainstream. The environmental community has generally encouraged these “painless and easy steps” with the argument that buying an organic towel is the first step on a virtue ladder. Those first towels will lead to more and more significant lifestyle changes.

However, the WWF report challenges that assumption. First, there is no evidence that this virtue ladder exists and works. Second, they argue that using marketing and eco-consumption as a tool undermines the movement. Environmentalists should be telling people to stop buying things. We should challenge materialism—not promote consumerism. Third, although we’ve had tons of mainstream and commercial success we haven’t had any on the things that matter. Carbon emissions are steadily rising world wide.

Climate change is one of the largest challenges to face human history and is quickly evolving out of the environment box. It’s spreading to become an economic, human rights, national security and public health issue. People are beginning to understand that our actions have serious impacts on our ability to live. How do we balance the need to bring as many people into the movement as possible and make significant changes at the same time? To solve climate change will require a radical pivot in the way we live. It will not be easy. In the next decades we will have to make tough decisions about our culture priorities, so we better start having more conversation like this now.