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.

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

Improving Local Journalism

This morning I attended a Philanthropy New York program, “Improving Local Journalism: Three Approaches”. The event, presented with Grantmakers in Film and Electronic Media (GFEM), focused on new grant-making initiatives designed to strengthen reporting by pubic radio stations and networks, as well as discussed new experimental and entrepreneurial approaches to carrying out the news-gathering function. The following are highlights from the discussion, which was moderated by Vincent Stehle, consultant to the John S. And James L. Knight Foundation.

Julie Sandorf, the President of the Charles H. Revson Foundation Foundation began the discussion by explaining how the Foundation’s foray into this work chose to focus specifically on local New York journalism. According to Sandorf, the Foundation looked for opportunities to fill the gap in local reporting. They looked for a few key elements including finding credible voice for new content, finding organization that had a record building an audience, and one that already had clearly defined mission to engage the public. They found that WNYC Public Radio was best suited for the challenge and awarded them a $1 million grant for its work to increase local media coverage. Dean Cappello, Chief Content Officer and Senior Vice President for New York Public Radio joined the conversation as well detailing some of the projects they’d been working one. One of the things that stood out was Cappello’s statement that WNYC recognized that it must “find ways to meet people where they are.”

Next, Lori McGlinchey, senior program officer with the Open Society Foundations discussed its efforts to find opportunities to fill gaps in accountability journalism at the state and local level, and specifically investigating the role that media plays in affecting public policy. McGlinchey gave examples of several grants awarded in the investigative journalism sphere, notably ProPublica and Voice of San Diego. She also discussed the importance of the role of ethnic media in bringing new and diverse voices into the fold, exemplified by grants to New America Media for example. Overall the Foundation’s strategy was to build a stronger non-commercial news sector, both by supporting traditional noncommercial media like National Public Radio, and by finding newer more entrepreneurial news models.

As an example of a new academic and entrepreneurial news project, Emily Tow Jackson, Executive Director and Trustee of the Tow Foundation discussed several projects that were partnerships between they had supported. Some of these included support to academic institutions, notably the City University of New York and New York University. For example, a partnership between The New York Times and NYU’s Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute led to The Local, an online news collaboration that covers the neighborhoods of the East Village and Fort Greene & Clinton Hill. These kinds of projects focus on innovation and new models for local journalism reporting. Other projects were mentioned, including funding fellowships for emerging and mid-career journalists, mentioning such projects as Ugandans Abroad.

I noticed a few running themes emerge from the conversation. First, was the key question about how to maintain financial sustainability in many of these new journalism models. It was widely acknowledged that Foundation funding is not a long-term solution to sustaining many of the institutions and projects mentioned. Also related was the importance of having a diversification of resources for these projects. Second, was the importance of establishing and maintaining partnerships and/or collaborations amongst projects. It was discussed that these relationships can bring expertise and voices to the table that might otherwise not be available. Third, was the key theme of engagement; an examination of the question of how can local journalism models can bring members of the communities they serve into the conversation. WNYC’s The Jerome L. Greene Performance Space is one example of what this can look like. To read more about that example specifically, click here. Lastly, there was a discussion about many of the challenges that arise with the transition to digital, notable a lack of access of many communities to broadband.

Overall it was an excellent program that brought together several examples of the how public media, and new grant-making initiatives can improve local journalism. Thanks to everyone who attended and participated!

Roses are Green?

Whether you're lamenting a flower vase left empty this Valentine's Day, or you're reflecting on the fleeting nature of love as your bouquet browns at the edges, an increasingly unignorable fact is clouding the eco-consciousness of lovers: the environmental impact of roses. According to numerous reports, the commercial flower business in the US and abroad continues to be a harsh one for the atmosphere, soil, water and human health.

It's been known for years the beautiful red roses we see packed up in neat bunches have to come a long, water-wasting, oil-and-toxin-soaked journey to arrive at our delis, florists and groceries. According to the Guardian, about 40 tons of CO2 are spewed into the atmosphere for every 12,000 roses that make it to market. Considering about 55 million roses are traded globally on Valentine's Day alone, that's roughly 180,000 tons of CO2 for just one day! It's time to ask ourselves: is it really romantic to give your sweetheart a bouquet of greenhouse gas?

Most roses in the United States are sourced from Colombia, where toxic pesticide use persists despite government regulations. The chemicals used to grow uniform, richly-colored flowers are not only terrible for the environment, they are deadly for the workers who have to prepare the flowers for shipment. Once the roses are packed, they are flown to Miami (oil!) trucked to locations throughout the U.S. (more oil!) and usually wrapped in plastic or waxed paper (even more!) before they end up in a vase where they can be enjoyed for three to six days. Is the footprint really worth it?

The news is not all bad, though. U.S. News & World Report quotes Alex Morgan, manager of sustainable agriculture at the Rainforest Alliance, an Overbrook grantee. Morgan says conditions are improving somewhat, but consumers must be vigilant in ensuring their flowers come from growers that have been independently vetted and certified. While growers are still able to evade regulations, Morgan says getting the information to the public is a great way to instigate change. "If people find out their flowers are coming from a bad source it can be harmful to business," he says.

Roses sold in Europe, most of which are grown in Kenya's Naivasha region, have similar environmental impacts as those grown in South America. Dr. David Harper, a conservation biologist quoted in the Guardian, describes the lack of regulation in Kenya's flower trade and the ways in which growers can sell despite having no fair-trade certification. Click here for the full story.

As Mother's Day approaches (another big flower holiday!) check out some eco-options that will say "I love you" to your Earth mother:

A long list of eco-flower businesses here

The Guardian has some options here

Organic Bouquet in California

California Organic Flowers

L.A.A.N.E. in the News

Overbrook grantee L.A.A.N.E. (Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy) is in the news, due to their groundbreaking report released this month detailing the waste, pollution and lost opportunity resulting from L.A.'s trash pickup system. According to the report, L.A. is largely serviced by private haulers that work independently, with low oversight and pick-up routes that often overlap, waste fuel, and contribute to pollution. Benefits from the smaller green fleet of vehicles municipal haulers use are over-ridden by the gas-guzzling and ghg-spewing trucks favored by private haulers. What's worse is the private haulers are not held to their word that recyclables and compostables end up at their proper destinations, and too many of these items go straight to landfills where they will remain for hundreds of years, if not more. And, according to the L.A.A.N.E. report, every time recyclables go to landfill the city of Los Angeles misses a great opportunity for green job creation. With a little oversight, coordination and public awareness, every one landfill job could be transformed into 10 jobs sorting and recycling.


See below for a series of links to news stories mentioning the L.A.A.N.E. report:

LA TIMES
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-trash-20110127,0,1681829.story


http://www.latimes.com/features/home/la-hm-trash-20110129,0,5155545,full.story


DAILY NEWS
http://www.dailynews.com/politics/ci_17209372


KTLA 5 TV NEWS
http://www.ktla.com/videobeta/26c01382-0cbf-4704-95fc-56181bc3d47c/News/KTLA-Study-Finds-L-A-s-Trash-Disposal-System-Wasteful-Lynette-Romero-reports


CONTRA COSTA TIMES
http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_17209372?nclick_check=1


USC ANNENBERG
http://www.neontommy.com/news/2011/01/los-angeles-trash-policy-trash-report-says

Veg-ing Out for the Planet's Future

As environmentally-conscious citizens of the world, we are already walking and biking to work, driving hybrids, shortening our showers and refusing plastic bags at the check-out counter. Some of us even compost or buy exclusively organic vegetables. Surely this is enough! Not so fast, says Wendee Holtcamp of The Daily Climate. Holtcamp asks the question many "fringe" vegetarians have been asking for years: "Can eating less meat curb climate change?" Holtcamp investigates, proving through the momentum of recent scientific research that the movement to reduce meat consumption is no longer the exclusive domain of latter-day hippies.

With predictions that the world's population will hit 9 billion by 2050 (the optimistic estimate out of the U.N. is 8 billion), scientists looking at food production and consumption are warning that our current system is unsustainable. Opinions differ on how exactly to solve this problem, but one necessary change is becoming abundantly clear: we in the western world have got to stop eating so much meat.

Statistics on the waste associated with mass meat production have been out for awhile, but it's good to be reminded now and again: To produce a little over 2 pounds of factory-farmed meat (that's an ample dinner of two16-oz steaks for you and your companion), 22 pounds of animal feed and over 4,000 gallons of water are used! And what makes up animal feed? Mostly corn, soybeans and other grains that would be equally nutritious and edible to hungry humans.

According to David Tilman, a University of Minnesota ecology professor quoted in Holtcamp's article, "We use about half of our farmland to grow grains for animal feed. Were we to eat less meat or eat more environmentally efficient meat, we would export more grains, and this would decrease the demand for crops that are an underlying driver of tropical deforestation."

Take into account the pesticides, petroleum and biodiversity loss that come from cultivating so much grain -- grain that bypasses the stomachs of malnourished people living in developing countries and goes straight to those of animals destined for western plates -- and it's obvious something needs to change. Whether your main concern is climate change, loss of fresh water and biodiversity, toxic chemicals in our soil, or even just the possibility of a hamburger-free future, the current meat-centric American diet is not sustainable. According to Holtcamp, an average American meat-eater drops an annual carbon footprint one and a half tons greater than a vegan's!

So what do we do? The recent report "Eating the Planet," co-commissioned by Friends of the Earth and Compassion in World Farming, provides multiple scenarios for feeding the coming 2050 global population without the use of intensive agriculture. No one can see the future, and multiple variables will shape what our food production system looks like in forty years. But one thing the report states definitively: less meat equals less loss of biodiversity and less pollution.

Although some environmentalists, including IPCC chair Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, say that going vegetarian is one of the single most significant things a meat-eater can do to combat climate change, "Eating the Planet" allows some wiggle room for those who can't face the prospect of completely veg-ing out. You don't have to completely cut it out, just limit consumption to 90 grams per day, says the report, which translates to a little less than half a pound.

No time to read the full report? A short FAQ page addresses lots of great questions about meat, mass agriculture, climate change and the sustainability of the global food system. Click here.

January 2011 Letter from the Board Chair and President

Below is The Overbrook Foundation's January 2011 Letter From The Board Chair and President. It can be read in its original format here.

Starting in early 2009, the Foundation periodically posted letters from its Chair and President outlining steps being taken to address the impact of the global financial crisis on its grantmaking programs (The letters from 2010 and 2009 are below). In October 2009 and, in part, because of the continuing financial downturn, the Foundation began an active strategic planning effort to examine all aspects of the Foundation’s life, with a particular focus on its mission, values and grantmaking. We are writing now to report on the outcomes of our strategic planning efforts and how they will affect our grantmaking
over the next several years.

Over the last three years, our investment portfolio experienced significant volatility and we continue to anticipate significant fluctuations in its performance over the coming months and years although we are cautiously optimistic that it will continue to slowly improve in 2011 and 2012. The Board has decided it will counter that volatility by committing the Foundation to a steady level of funding for its Human Rights and Environment Programs through 2012. We expect that by the end of 2012 the Foundation will have weathered the worst impacts of the financial storm and that we will be able to gradually increase our grantmaking levels beginning in 2013. In 2011 and 2012, our grantmaking will remain approximately 30% below its peak funding in 2008.

The Board has revisited the Foundation’s mission and values statements crafted in 2001 and refined them to reflect its current direction.

Mission
The Overbrook Foundation is a progressive family foundation that supports
organizations advancing human rights and conserving the natural environment.

Values
Honoring the vision and dedication of its founders, Helen and Frank Altschul, The
Overbrook Foundation:

• Honors its role as a steward of both the public trust and the Foundation's mission
• Advances programs ethically, responsibly and respectfully
• Is transparent and open
• Engages in its work in a deliberate and thoughtful way
• Takes measured risks
• Employs diverse approaches to seize opportunities and respond to challenges
• Supports social justice and environmental sustainability
• Promotes advocacy, accountability and reform of institutions and government
Program

The Board recently completed the Foundation’s first comprehensive review since 2005 of its Environment and Human Rights Program.

The Foundation’s Environment Program will continue to focus on biodiversity conservation in Latin America and sustainable production and consumption in the United States. In Latin America, its geographic focus will include Brazil, Ecuador, Mexico and, in certain circumstances, the nations of Central America. Criteria applied to potential projects will include: potential impact, level of innovation, the opportunity represented in the project, benefit to local communities, climatic implications and the strength of the funded group/leadership to accomplish the work proposed. The Environment Program will continue to seek out efforts that support innovative ideas in sustainability, particularly around the production and consumption of materials. The mitigation of climate change,
with a particular focus on energy efficiency, will receive distinct but limited support.

The Human Rights Program will continue to support organizations within the U.S that are advancing the U.S. domestic human rights movement where Overbrook has played a leadership role since 2005. It will also continue its grantmaking to strengthen gender rights in the U.S. where it has a long history of support for women’s rights, LGBT rights and anti-trafficking efforts. Building the reproductive justice movement and advancing marriage equality for same-sex couples will be central elements of the gender rights focus. Media reform and support of non-profit media will continue with support for nonprofit electronic and print media and efforts to reform the media landscape. This represents the Foundation’s contribution to progressive movement building in the U.S. Other movement building efforts not defined as human rights will be phased out over 2011. In the Latin America grantmaking program, the Foundation will continue to support human rights defenders and gender rights organizations.

We will continue to play an activist leadership role in the philanthropic community. Our program officers are heavily involved in organizing and managing funder collaborative partnerships, creating vital new non-profit organizations to advance change and assuming leadership roles in a variety of foundation associations. Through these various efforts, the Foundation believes it is able to influence the direction of significant philanthropic resources to those issues most central to its human rights and environment mission. Moving forward, we will continue using all of these mechanisms to protect and strengthen the fields in which our grantees are active and to learn more about work underway in the Foundation’s fields of interest.

Please note that letters of inquiry and unsolicited proposals will not be considered by the Foundation for funding in 2011 and 2012. Instead, because of the reduced funding available for grantmaking, Foundation staff will invite proposals on a limited basis as opportunities that clearly match the Foundation’s priorities are identified.

We deeply appreciate the difficulties that our grantees continue to face as the nation slowly recovers from the economic downturn of the last several years. Our Board of Directors and staff are sensitive to these challenges and will work diligently to assist our grantees and colleagues as they continue their work.

Sincerely,
Kathryn G. Graham, Chair of the Board of Directors and Stephen A. Foster, President and CEO

Another Victory for The Innocence Project

There's another victory for the folks over at The Innocence Project! Last week in a Dallas courtroom, a judge declared The Innocence Project's client Cornelius Dupree innocent after more than three decades in prison for a crime he did not commit.

DNA testing obtained by the Innocence Project proved that Mr. Dupree had been misidentified and wrongfully convicted of a 1979 rape and robbery in Dallas. Mr. Dupree was 19 years old at the time and sentenced to 75 years in prison. Throughout the trial and since, Mr. Dupree has maintained his innocence and, after serving 30 years, he was released on parole last July while DNA tests were pending. Mr. Dupree served more time in prison than any other person in Texas who was later cleared through DNA testing.

Cornelius Dupree’s case serves as another reminder of the urgency of reforming eyewitness identification procedures. In the U.S. a staggering three-quarters of wrongful convictions later overturned by DNA evidence resulted from misidentifications. Of the 40 people exonerated through DNA testing in Texas, 34 were misidentified by at least one witness.

A bill to reform eyewitness identification procedures in Texas was introduced last year and would require all law enforcement officials to adopt written policies for identification procedures, including lineups and photo arrays such as the one used in this case. Authored by State Senator and IP Board Chair Rodney Ellis and State Representative Pete Gallego, it is our hope that this important bill will be adopted in the next legislative session. Please visit their website to learn more about Cornelius Dupree's case and the proposed reforms in Texas.

The Innocence Project staff in New York City spoke with Cornelius Dupree by phone shortly after the court hearing. He expressed his deep appreciation for the organization's hard work. “Without you,” he said, “I wouldn’t be free.”

The Foundation would like to extend its congratulations to The Innocence Project. Each post-conviction DNA exoneration creates a learning moment able to bring about meaningful and lasting reform. Moreover, significant media coverage of the exonerations like this galvanizes public support for policy reform. Overbrook is proud to have supported The Innocence Project for a decade. Its been an honor to watch the organization to protect the public against wrongful prosecution and convictions.

Electronics Recycling Gets Easier

Considering the three billion electronics products filling American households, as well as the 400 million individual units that are disposed of and replaced each year, consumers are starting to expect safe and easy recycling options. Indeed, e-waste laws are gaining momentum as states sign on; New Jersey began mandating e-waste recycling last Saturday, and New York will follow suit in April of this year. Click here for a list of the 20-plus states that mandate electronics recycling and details of the states' laws.

An article in this week's New York Times lists a number of options for responsible recycling, "responsible" meaning the toxic metals and chemicals embedded in the guts of our computers, ipods, cell phones, printers and more are not incinerated or dumped. The article references Demos and the Electronics Takeback Coalition, both Overbrook Foundation grantees. Click here for a pdf of Elizabeth Grossman's report for Demos, "Tackling High-Tech Trash: The e-waste Explosion and What We Can Do."

Check out this short article (click here) for a sobering account of what happens to electronics that are not disposed of responsibly.

New Climate "Normal" for a New Year

If you were booked on one of the 4,000-plus flights delayed or canceled due to last weekend's storm, chances are you shook your fist at the sky at least once. True, sitting in an airport with a magazine and a Starbucks latte is not half as bad as weathering a storm must have been in pioneer days, but it's easy to lose perspective when you're already two days delayed with an unknown number of hours to go.

Snow in winter is a given, but was our latest storm "normal?" Was the wind speed and quantity of precipitation something we should have expected? The National Climatic Data Center is attempting to answer that question, as well as a slew of others comparing day-to-day weather with expected norms of years past. NCDC will soon publish a new "normal" for weather conditions based on 10,000 United States locations, an average the Center publishes once every ten years.

Meteorologically speaking, "normal" refers to an average of temperatures and precipitation levels over a thirty-year period. For the 2000-2010 decade, "normal" was based on the thirty-year period from 1971-2000. Excessive rains, droughts and the warming trend of the 1990s alerted climate scientists and people all over the U.S. that what we were experiencing was not "normal." The data set for the new decade will be based on averages from the thirty-year period of 1981-2010, a period that will exclude the cooler 1970's and include the hotter 2000s. The new "normal" will result in less drastic discrepancies between current temperature spikes and precipitation, and could have implications for the general acceptance of climate change. For instance, a particularly hot summer with excessive flooding, like 2010's summer, will not seem so bad compared to "normal." People will not see as great of a difference, and thus will be less alarmed, about what is and what used to be.

Of course, no one likes an alarmist, and there's plenty of data to support the theory that people won't change their behavior anyway, even when it is linked to climate change. (See my post "Changing the Climate Conversation" from November 2nd.) And it is interesting to note that 2010 saw more deaths worldwide due to natural disasters than to terrorist attacks over the past forty years combined. As we walk through airports, we're constantly updated on the color of the perceived "terror alert." But are we warned about climate anomalies? Not until they hold up our holiday plans.

Click here for an interesting take from the CEJournal, with links to editorials and posts discussing the climate change vs. "normal" debate.

Grist Talks to Jonathan Franzen

I have not yet picked up Jonathan Franzen's new novel Freedom, but it is getting rave reviews among Overbrook staff who have! Aside from being touted as a great novel with an engrossing story, Freedom is being praised for its merits as an honest and rousing profile of the contemporary environmentalist struggle. Franzen himself is an avid birder, and talks to Overbrook grantee Grist's Amanda Little about the inevitable conflict weathered by conservationists who live in contemporary society, yet rail against the negative impacts our lifestyles inflict on natural surroundings. Franzen tells Little of his own personal transformation from environmental cynic to optimistic lover of birds.

From the Grist interview:

A. I used to have a really angry, despairing sense that the world is screwed, that people have screwed the world, and so we should just let it all end. Let's have the great plague that will reduce the population by 90 percent, and let the land regenerate and nature catch its breath. I've moved away from that sort of deep-ecological extremism, which I found to be not personally tenable. It was time for me to stop thinking about apocalypse, time to move to New York City, time to start enjoying life. And from there I moved on to loving wild birds, which was a much more positive mode of engagement. I started to think, what can we do for wild birds right now? I don't want these particular species to disappear. So what can I do practically? If you're trying to save your child's life, you might make certain compromises that you would have found morally insupportable at a younger age. Love leads to pragmatism in a way that anger doesn't.



Click here to read the whole interview.

Happy holidays!

December 2010 Human Rights Program Grants

At its last Board of Directors meeting of 2010, The Overbrook Foundation's Human Rights Program awarded $485,000 in grants to 13 organizations in the categories of Reproductive Rights, Trafficking, International Human Rights, Movement Building and "Other."

For its work supporting Reproductive Rights, Overbrook awarded grants to three organizations: a $40,000 grant to Groundswell for the Catalyst Fund, a $40,000 grant to the Third Wave Foundation for its Reproductive Health and Justice Initiative and a $30,000 grant to the Western States Center for its program, Uniting Communities, Advancing Strong Families. In support of its anti-trafficking work, the Foundation also awarded a $30,000 grant to the Freedom Network for its project, Training, Advocacy, and Mentoring: A Comprehensive Approach to Human Trafficking and Modern Day Slavery.

In support of International Human Rights, the Foundation awarded a $40,000 grant to Front Line, for its work protecting Latin American Human Rights Defenders, a $30,000 grant to Reporters Without Borders for its work fighting for press freedom in Latin America, a $40,000 grant to Global Fund for Children and a $50,000 grant to Disability Rights International for its Americas Advocacy Initiative.

In the Foundation’s category of Movement Building grants, four organizations received support, including a $40,000 grant to the Center for Community Change for general operating support, a $10,000 grant to Demos for the continued support of Jared Duval’s book Next Generation Democracy: What the Open Source Revolution Means for Privacy, Politics and Change, a $50,000 grant to New Press for their work in progressive book publishing, and a $50,000 grant to People for the American Way for its Youth Leadership Program.

One other grant not in a specific program area that was awarded was a $35,000 grant to Channel Thirteen/WNET for the Online Education Guide to WIDE ANGLE: Women, War & Peace.

If you’re interested in learning more about what these organizations do, click on the links above to learn more.

December 2010 Environment Program Grants

At its last Board of Directors meeting of 2010, The Overbrook Foundation's Environment Program awarded $730,000 in grants yesterday to 12 organizations in the categories of Latin American Biodiversity Conservation, Sustainable Production and Consumption, Media, and "Other." Eleven are either renewals or from organizations previously funded, and one is a first-time request.

For its work supporting Latin American Biodiversity Conservation, the Foundation awarded $135,000 in grants. Organizations awarded were: AlTROPICO, for its work consolidating the Cotacachi Cayapas Ecologica Reserve and Chachi territories in Ecuador; Amazon Watch, for its work protecting the Ecuadorean rainforest from oil exploitation; IMAFLORA, for its work promoting sustainable cocoa harvesting in Brazil; and the ISEAL Alliance, for its work clarifying and lending credibility to sustainability standards.

For its Sustainable Production and Consumption work, the Foundation awarded $500,000. Organizations awarded were: As You Sow, for its corporate watchdog work promoting shareholder action for sustainable production and consumption; Catalog Choice, for expansion of its work to reduce paper waste and combat climate change; Clean Air-Cool Planet, for the expansion of its Community Catalyst Fund; GreenBlue, for general support of its projects in packaging, sustainable product design, greener chemicals and more; ioby.org, for the redevelopment of its web platform, crucial to its operations; and the Mayor's Fund to Advance New York City, for the continuation of GreeNYC's project to identify and implement the most effective greenhouse gas-saving behaviors for NYC residents.

For its work supporting Public TV, Radio and Other Media, the Foundation awarded $35,000 to Island Press for continued general support of its environmental science and conservation publications and for its outreach efforts.

The Environment Program also supported the Gulf Coast Fund for Community Renewal and Ecological Health for its work helping grassroots, local communities in the Gulf Coast region respond to the ongoing effects of the BP oil spill disaster.

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!

Measuring a Plastic Footprint

Just as the term "carbon footprint" has become common in the business and consumer lexicon, a new footprint (one we also want to shrink!) is on the horizon. Through an alliance between The Association for Sustainable and Responsible Investment in Asia, the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, and Overbrook grantee Project Kaisei's co-founder Douglas Woodring, the Plastic Disclosure Project will provide a centralized web space for the tracking and reporting of plastics.

Kicked off by former President Bill Clinton at an opening plenary of the Clinton Global Initiative earlier this fall, the Plastic Disclosure Project will encourage awareness of the ubiquitous use and "linear system" trashing of plastics, and the vast environmental impacts of this practice. (Check out the difference between a linear system and a closed loop system on Overbrook grantee Story of Stuff's online glossary.)

Disclosure and comparisons of plastic footprints among companies will encourage investors and stakeholders to value their brands not just in terms of today's profits, but also in relation to toxicity, pollution, waste, and human health. Annual surveys of industry participants will be voluntary, with the hope that new businesses will join once the value of PDP becomes clear to investors and consumers. The first go-'round for the PDP will create a baseline for waste, design inputs, and recycling rates, and subsequent surveys will compare plastic footprints between years and among participants.

Why is the Plastic Disclosure Project necessary? The PDP site relays the following information, showing that even modest cut-backs in plastic footprints could yield significant results:


"Industry estimates state that 300 million tons of virgin plastic are made every year. If just one tenth of one percent can be saved through efficiencies, better design, or increased recycling, then 3 million tons could be saved, which is roughly what some conservative estimates say are floating in the middle of the Pacific Ocean."

A yearly summary report of the PDP will be available online to industry groups, governments, educational institutions and the public.

Mayors Commit, Sending a Pre-Cancun Message

One week before the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Cancun, over 130 mayors from cities all over the world signed a voluntary pact to reduce greenhouse gases and adapt to climate change. The World Mayors Summit, which convened in Mexico City yesterday, aims to set climate change mitigation and adaptation goals for global cities that are, in the words of the pact, "measurable, reportable and verifiable." Cities that sign the pact will join an online registry where climate data, goals and progress will be logged and easily accessed by government officials as well as city residents.

After sustaining the disappointment of a lackluster Copenhagen agreement, (described here, post-Copenhagen, on Grist.org), city leaders from around the world decided their constituents could no longer wait for national leaders to act. The timing of the Mayors' agreement immediately preceding Cancun could inspire (or possibly shame) global leaders into taking concrete action against climate change. At the very least, if no binding treaty comes out of Cancun, the mayors are hoping for increased financial support, and the open acknowledgment that climate change has become an overwhelming issue requiring immediate, ongoing, large-scale attention.

A Wall Street Journal article from last month describes the "peer pressure" element of environmentally friendly behaviors. Researchers found that people respond most effectively, and in greatest numbers, when their behaviors are compared to those of their peers. Signs on doors informing homeowners they should use fans instead of air conditioning on hot summer days were most effective when they used an "everyone's doing it" approach as opposed to a "use a fan to reduce your greenhouse gas emissions" approach. The mayors' online registry of city climate data could benefit from that psychology. Cities that can track their own progress in relation to others' will, with luck, have a similarly persuasive effect.

As the UN Climate meeting in Cancun approaches amidst a sea of bad news, the Mayors Summit is a sign that tides may be turning.

Story of Stuff Project Launches a New Video

In collaboration with the Electronics TakeBack Coalition and Free Range Studios, the Story of Stuff Project launched its newest video early this week: The Story of Electronics.

Following in the footsteps of the Project's previous four videos, (click here to browse and watch them all), the Story of Electronics pulls no punches in its explanation of the "designed for the dump" mentality under which computers, phones, power cords -- you name it -- are manufactured. The video also illuminates some of the toxic chemicals used to make these devices, and calls into question what really happens when a computer is "recycled." Project creator, spokeswoman and movie star Annie Leonard tells it all with humor and ease.

Another Setback for Renewables

The Wonk Room posted a run-down late last week (cross-posted here by Overbrook grantee Grist.org) on the prospective Republican Representatives vying to lead the House Energy Committee. Until now led by Representative Henry Waxman, co-author with Rep. Edward Markey of last year's ACES (American Clean Energy and Security Act), the House Energy Committee had been poised to influence substantive change in the Federal regulation of greenhouse gases. Not so any longer -- perusing the cast of characters lining up to fill Waxman's spot, it is a disheartening day for environmentalists and businesses promoting renewable energy.

Michigan Representative Fred Upton, as the most senior member of the contenders, is a likely choice to head the House Energy Committee. Although Upton is not a blatant climate change denier, he has characterized proposed energy legislation as "job-killing," and his top donors are energy utilities. Other contenders are John Shimkus, who described proposed climate legislation as a threat greater than terrorism and war, Cliff Stearns, an ardent proponent of drilling in ANWR and Joe Barton, the Texas Republican who bizarrely apologized to BP this summer for what he perceived to be unfairly harsh treatment by Congress in the aftermath of the Gulf disaster.

This news coupled with two New York Times stories this weekend prove once again the growing need for grassroots watchdogs and activists. One article discusses the competitive trouble wind power companies are having against fossil fuel utilities, because the upfront costs of wind are higher. A line from the story explains, "a growing number of projects are being canceled or delayed because governments are unwilling to add even small amounts to consumers’ electricity bills." This, while consumers seem willing (if chagrined) to pay steadily rising bills for cable television.

The other weekend Times story profiles individuals who, in exchange for payment, have leased their private land to oil companies for hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," one of the most environmentally-destructive methods of extracting oil and natural gas there is. Read about fracking here on Overbrook grantee Earthworks' web site.

It seems as though a main obstacle to weaning off of fossil fuels toward a renewable economy is, once again, the behavior and attitudes of consumers and voters. A challenge for environmental groups in coming years will be to shift focus away from the instant gratification of cheap energy, (which, considering oil spills, blow-outs, carbon emissions, deleterious health effects and more, is far from "cheap") toward a longer-term view of the greater benefits to come through clean energy. This is no easy feat in the midst of an economic crisis, for sure. But once voters begin to view a clean environment, health, and greater savings over time as rights and expectations rather than special "perqs," national energy trends will surely change, along with the congressmen and women who represent us.

Changing the Climate Conversation

In a new study out of the University of Michigan, researcher Andy Hoffman attempts to answer the question many conservationists have been asking: why, with scientists worldwide corroborating that climate change is: 1) happening, and 2) caused by human activity, are people so slow to demand policy and behavioral change? Scientists have been researching and quantifying climate change scenarios for decades, yet comparatively little has been investigated from a sociological standpoint. And with today's election predictions warning of a U.S. government even more resistant to greenhouse gas regulations, it may be time to try a new angle in communicating climate change. Perhaps it has been a cultural issue all along, rather than a scientific one.

Hoffman compares lackadaisical responses to climate change to societal battles we've already fought in this country, battles such as the abolition of slavery or the sweeping bans on public smoking. While allowing slavery exists in a whole other realm of offense than public smoking, Hoffman bundled the two examples because they both represent practices that at one time were common, accepted, and economically beneficial to some. Both smoking and slavery took years to overcome, and continued as accepted practices even after large factions of the public denounced them.

"The issue was not just whether cigarettes cause cancer. It was whether people believed it. The second process is wholly different than the first," Hoffman said.

Hoffman is hoping conservationists can look back at these two examples to inform the fight against climate change. The issue now is not whether biking to work or weatherizing your home make a difference, the issue is whether people believe it.

The National Academy of Sciences recently published a similarly-focused study, a series it calls "America's Climate Choices." Risk communication relating to climate change has been comparatively ignored, so the NAS determined to get to the bottom of the societal factors that have been preventing meaningful progress. One of the study's findings describes the majority of Americans as feeling apathetic about their own contribution to mitigating climate change, while a significant percentage (though at 34 percent far from a majority) described themselves as "disengaged," "doubtful" or "dismissive" of the idea of climate change.

One recommendation from the study is to change the way climate change action is framed, to emphasize immediate individual benefit. For example, a person trying to lose weight would be more likely to bike to work if the action were framed as saving emissions as well as preventing obesity, rather than serving only as an altruistic act with long-term results that are unmeasurable on an individual basis.

Another recommendation from the NAS study is for local, web-based movements to keep up the good work. When people see others in their own communities making positive change, they are more likely to step up and pitch in. And while individual actions can feel like a drop in the bucket, people do have quite an influence on emissions in their daily lives. The Environmental Health Perspectives article on "America's Choices" quotes a finding by Michael Vandenbergh, director of the Climate Change Research Network at Vanderbilt University: eight percent of the entire world's total emissions come from individual households in the United States.

It seems like some facts should be able to speak for themselves. But as skeptics abound, it may be time to change the conversation.

Sustainability Victory for Seattle and Overbrook Grantee

Due to long-term goals and often complex measures of success, many sustainability and conservation projects tend to progress slowly and incrementally. So a clear "green victory" is always cause for celebration -- and even more so when an Overbrook Foundation Environment grantee is at its center!

The Product Stewardship Institute, supported for the first time by Overbrook in June of this year, just participated in a major victory for resource conservation in Seattle. The City Council passed a phone book opt-out ordinance last night, requiring directory publishers to pay for phone book recycling costs and making it easy for consumers, through a registry, to prevent unwanted yellow pages from appearing on their doorsteps. Seattle's is the nation's first phone book opt-out program, and with vigilance its influence will spread to other cities.

Overbrook directed its PSI funding last June toward the consumer opt-out campaign for phone books, a project PSI has been working on for a number of state and local governments since 2006. Although Seattle passed legislation the battle continues; it is estimated that discarded phone books account for 660,000 tons in the waste stream each year, and opt-out programs are critical for saving trees and money spent on recycling costs.

Catalog Choice, also an Overbrook grantee, partnered with PSI on the phone book registry.

Read the Seattle City Council ordinance here.

Environment Program Grants Awarded September 2010

At its September 2010 Board Meeting and Retreat last week, The Overbrook Foundation's Environment Program awarded $583,400 in grants to 10 organizations in the categories of Latin American Biodiversity Conservation, Sustainable Production and Consumption, and Public TV, Radio and Other Media. Nine are either renewals or from organizations previously funded, and one is a first-time request.

For its work supporting Latin American Biodiversity Conservation, the Foundation awarded $158,400 in grants. Organizations awarded were: Nature and Culture International, for its expansion of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) and carbon financing programs in Ecuador; the New York Botanical Garden, for its work creating a certification program and tree species inventory in Brazil; and People and Plants International, for its biodiversity conservation and sustainable community work in central Mexico.

For its Sustainable Production and Consumption work, the Foundation awarded $345,000. Organizations awarded were: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), to further its continued research on consumer behavior and sustainability; Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), for the continuation of its work advancing a new materials economy in the United States; Global Green USA, for the expansion of its Coalition for Resource Recovery's paper food packaging recycling program; ForestEthics, for general operating support of its work promoting sustainable forestry; Health Care Without Harm, for its Healthier Hospitals Initiative; and The Story of Stuff, for continued operating support of The Story of Stuff Project.

The Environment Program also supported the Consultative Group on Biological Diversity for the development of a communications framework to address the problem of ocean acidification.

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!

Environment Viewed in Opposition to Economy

As the international community faces mounting costs of oil spill clean-ups, unseasonable natural disasters and health issues linked to toxic air and water supplies, the perpetuation of the idea that going green is bad for the economy is perhaps one of the worst examples of doublethink. But increasingly, shifting away from fossil fuels and toward clean, renewable energy systems is pitted against the more immediate gratification of economic gain.

An article in today's Independent quotes New Economics Foundation policy director Andrew Simms decrying this reality: "We have submitted control over our own environmental destiny to a set of economic ideas that parade as if they were unquestionable, natural laws," Simms said.

Simms seems to be hitting on a troubling zeitgeist shift concerning environmental stewardship. While converting to a green economy could spur job creation and ultimately save money, the message that conservation is fiscally irresponsible is increasingly pervasive. Last week's New York Times quotes a spokesman for emerging Republican leader John Boehner attempting to reassure voters Boehner is not concerned with "environmentalists who support job-killing policies."

Organizations like Overbrook grantee Green For All have the facts to refute such statements. Check out their blog post on China's wind energy initiative (quickly on its way to surpassing the United States) here.

Grist, also an Overbrook grantee, referenced stories from the Associated Press and the Wall Street Journal proving fears of catastrophic job loss from a drilling moratorium in the Gulf were unfounded. (Not to mention BP's exploitative use of prison labor to work on clean-up efforts instead of paying newly out-of-work locals a fair wage!)

Last Friday, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund hosted an informational session on the Ecuadorian government's unprecedented new program to "keep the oil in the soil." The Yasuni-ITT initiative will prevent drilling in the incredibly biodiverse Yasuni National Park, if the international community will repay Ecuador half the forgone funds it would have gained from drilling and exporting. Minister of Heritage Maria Fernanda Espinosa explained the $3.6 billion fund will be used to convert Ecuador to a green energy economy. Success of the Yasuni plan has yet to be proven, but its implementation could signify the beginning of a needed backlash to the erroneous "green=poor," or "green=job-loss" mentality. Amazon Watch, yet another Overbrook grantee, has been monitoring the Yasuni initiative from the beginning.

Federal Agencies Submit Sustainability Plans

The White House released the Federal Agency Strategic Sustainability Performance Plans yesterday, with the goal of melding environmental, economic and energy goals to reduce emissions, create jobs and save taxpayers money. This marks the first time ever that federal agencies will submit sustainability goals, but it won't be the last. Following an executive order from October 2009, the agencies will have to set a greenhouse gas emissions target for 2020 and submit a plan for sustainable use of energy, fuel and water, to be updated annually and submitted for review to the Office of Management and Budget.

The Federal Government is the single largest energy consumer in the United States, with about half a million buildings and even more vehicles operating for a federal agency. About 2 million civilians are employed by the government. With luck, the new Sustainability Performance Plans will do more than set goals for government agencies -- the plans could also bring a new consciousness to agency employees. The ubiquity of Federal employees throughout the country could extend this commitment to sustainability to their home lives and behaviors as consumers. Either way, it is heartening to see the Federal Government "walking the walk," so to speak, in support of sustainability.

For a list of all the agencies involved and a look at the individual sustainability plans, click here.

A study just out of the Cambridge Conservation Initiative argues along the same lines, namely that conservation must be incorporated into the daily patterns and thought processes of consumers if any progress is to be made. Conservation must be viewed as a "global public good," according to the study, if biodiversity loss is to be stopped. It must go beyond policy and extend to individual's every-day choices. See the Eurekalert press release here.