Five Things You Can Do on Earth Day to Fight Global Warming

No. 4: Give Up Hamburgers

Continuing our countdown to Earth Day, the next small step you can take to fight global warming is to give up hamburgers.

Notice once again we're not going for the whole enchilada (so to speak, and we mean cheese only!). You don't have to give up red meat, although hopefully that's down the line a bit. You don't have to become a veggie head or vegan, although eliminating all meat is a good goal to have.

Why do we pick on hamburgers? Because in the name of constant expansion, burger chains keep stripping more and more land for bigger and bigger corporate farms. You've heard of win-win? This is lose-lose. We lose trees and natural flora, which are our biggest aid against carbonization of the atmosphere. We pollute the terrain with huge holding ponds of animal waste, poisoning water supplies and fouling the air. We then burn untold fossil fuel getting the animals to market, processing them and shipping the meat to consumer points.

Finally, as anyone who saw the film "Supersize Me!" knows, we wind up slowly poisoning our bodies with hormonally injected, antibiotically tainted, red meat. Oh, and it puts those extra pounds on our waistlines as well. (For more reasons, check out Vegan Porn's entry at http://www.veganporn.com/1052278746.html.

Lose-lose-lose-lose-lose. So this week, when you get the urge to have a Big Mac or whatever, eat an apple or orange instead. If for nothing else, to help make Earth Day 2006 meaningful.

— Paul Andrews, GreenforGood

global warming ecological footprint carbon footprint green for good
sustainability
green lifestyle

Capitalism Weighs In: Going Green Is Profitable

The green wave continues to spread across America, as more and more folks from various industries are realizing that pursuing sustainability is not only good for the earth, but it's good for business.

Some of it seems like common sense when you just take the time to think about it a bit. For example, it only goes to reason that if a company uses fewer resources to create, produce, transport or sell a product, it can cut costs at any of those points. And doing that means fewer resources are consumed (or wasted) which means they can last a lot longer.

There was an interview recently posted with Investment strategist Abby Joseph Cohen, who is ranked 19th on Forbes magazine's list of the world's 100 most powerful women. As the site Earth & Sky points out, "When she talks, businesses around the world listen. One of the things she's telling businesses these days is that thinking green can be good for business."
Catch her interview here, as she talks about why she thinks EVERY company needs to be thinking about global warming...

David Kaufer
President and CEO
GreenforGood.com

Five Things You Can Do on Earth Day to Fight Global Warming

No. 5: Stop using plastic

OK, we're in countdown to Earth Day 2006, and the only way you wouldn't associate this year's event with concerns over global warming is if you were Exxon Mobil or Dick Cheney. Still, as aware as we've all been made by recent writings and events of the urgency over global warming, the No. 1 question always comes down to: What can I do?

I was explaining my personal strategies recently at a dinner party among some rather well to do Seattle folks, and the reaction surprised me. Most said: You can't do anything. You're not even a drop in the bucket. The bucket is so big and you're so small, you don't even register.

The problem with this thinking is, just reverse it. Say for some reason you wanted to cause global warming. And someone said, you know, you can't create global warming. You're just one person, not even a drop in the bucket.

Yes. So how'd we get in this mess if one person cannot make a difference?

The point is, we're all in this together. We'd better start thinking collectively or we do not have a future.

So, counting down to Earth Day on Saturday, here's the first thing you can do to fight global warming.

Stop using plastic.

Yeah I know. It sounds impossible. But I don't mean for us to stop using ALL plastic right now. I just want us to think about eliminating plastic.

You can start with grocery bags. This is, or at least should be, an easy one. It's tricky because even if you carry a canvas bag in your car, the trick is bringing it with you into the store while you shop. It took me literally years to get to the point where I (almost) always remember to bring in canvas bags.

A small thing. But plastic being a petrochemical by-product, it's one small step against global warming, one giant step for mankind.

— Paul Andrews, GreenforGood

global warming
ecological footprint
carbon footprint
green for good

Too Hot NOT to Handle? HBO Special worth a watch

Seattle got treated to the premiere of a new HBO Earth Day special called "Too Hot Not to Handle" the other night. A packed audience of 260 in the Seattle Public Library saw the one-hour show, which will air at 7 p.m. Saturday, Earth Day, on the cable channel.

It's worth a look, even for dedicated greenies. It has a cogent, easily understood explanation of global warming and the greenhouse effect, it features scientists who know their stuff but can speak in clear English and use great metaphors to explain the crisis. And it covers most of the bases in a very short time.

Some factoids: In the U.S., heat waves lasting four days or longer have nearly tripled over the past 50 years.

Snowpack is hurting...big time. Look at what killed a lot of past civilizations, folks: Drought. 75 percent of western states rely on snowpack for their water supply. And 75 percent of the nation's fruit comes from those states. Snowpack generally has declined up to 60 percent since 1950.

Over half of U.S. residents live within 50 miles of an ocean.

Is the show alarmist? I liked the fact that it didn't take on a scary tone. Much of it just lays out the facts, and those are scary enough. But there's also hopeful looks at solar, wind and ethanol, the dark cloud (literally and figuratively) being all the coal that still lies in the ground, waiting to be milled for polluting energy.

One issue that emerged in Q&A with the show's co-producer, Laurie David, is the personalization of green solutions. David, wife of Seinfeld creator Larry David, is perky and buoyant, but not to a fault. She just likes to tackle global problems with an effervescent charm.

She hopes people will take away a few things they can personally do to fight global warming. You need to set an example, she told the audience, and not be quiet about it. She talks about how when the Davids have Hollywood guests over for a dinner party, "the place looks like a Prius dealership. Nobody will drive anything but hybrid cars to our house!" For the record, she and her husband both drive Priuses.

On a recent trip to Washington, D.C., David was told our esteemed congressional leaders are doing nothing about global warming. "Not a hearing, not a briefing, not a discussion at all in Congress going on!" she exclaimed. "It floored me. But at the same time it made me more resolved. There is no other option but to have hope. There is no other option but to solve this thing."

David and former VIce President Al Gore have also teamed up on a feature film, "An Inconvenient Truth," to be released in May. See the trailer here.

— Paul Andrews, GreenforGood

global warming
ecological footprint
carbon footprint
green for good

Jaime Lerner's Inspiring Green Sustainability Solutions

Jaime (pronounced CHAI-me) Lerner brought his vision of sustainable cities — "A city is not a problem, a city is a solution" — to a packed Seattle audience Monday night. The former mayor of Curitiba, Brazil, known for creative incentives toward mass transit and urban rehabilitation, frames issues in ways most of us haven't even considered. As a result, he has managed to accomplish wonders in progressive, green policies in urban environments.

Lerner notes that for the first time in history, more people live in cities than do not. That means we must transform the urban environment toward a more efficient mechanism or we face certain doom. Fortunately, it can be done with the right blend of moxy, leadership and cleverness.

Examples of some of Lerner's inspirations:

A windmill boulevard, where the mill blades are attractively perforated. You still get the power generation, but they look a lot better and create a comfortable corridor. Cabs which take passengers only as far as the nearest mass-transit terminus. Bus tubes where patrons wait no longer than a minute for the next ride. The no-wait program means you don't need huge waiting areas, so you save on public space. And the bus system pays for itself, it needs no subsidy.

When surfers resisted public transit, Lerner designed an open-air "wave" vehicle where the surfers could toss their boards and catch a ride. The bed of the vehicle was curved like an actual wave.

Bike lanes were located only along rivers and canals. The terrain is always flat, and the scenery excels.

Lerner says a good idea needs to be acted on promptly or it can get bogged down in process. Most botanical gardens take years to build; Lerner got one in place in two months. He put a commanding theater in a former stone quarry; another quarry was converted to a dramatic bluff park.

Some Lerner pearls: "Creativity comes when you cut a zero from a budget."

"Cars are like a mother-in-law. We have to have a good relationship with her, but we cannot let her run our life."

"I was told every citizen should have a BMW. What do you mean, I asked. The answer was Bus, Metro, Walk."

One of the most brilliant things Lerner did came when corporate and transportation interests opposed his notion of turning a throughway into a pedestrian mall. Practically overnight he had pavement jackhammered and cobblestones, kiosks and flowers installed. As author Bill McKibben notes:

"The next weekend, when offended members of the local automobile club threatened to "reclaim" the street by driving their cars down it, Lerner didn't call out the police. Instead, he had city workers lay down strips of paper the length of the mall. When the auto club arrived, its members found dozens of children sitting in the former street painting pictures."

The anniversary of Lerner's coup is still marked each year by children drawing in the mall.

Lerner's fertile imagination is the kind of innovative thinking we need to tackle the challenges of global warming, peak oil and climate disruption. He has traveled throughout the world helping other cities with sustainability challenges. America has a host of institutional barriers to his style of sociopolitical alchemy, starting with the no-limits-on-growth assumptions corporations drive and government institutions labor under. But it's nice to know that Lerner's ideas are gaining wider visibility; maybe his genius can rub off on us!

— Paul Andrews, GreenforGood

global warming ecological footprint carbon footprint green for good sustainability

Top "Green" Cities: Where Does Yours Rank?

The Green Guide has put together an interesting "Top Green Cities" list (of pop. exceeding 100,000) heading into Earth Day 2006. Remarkably, Oregon scored two of the top three: Eugene (first) and Portland (third). Criteria:

"We sent out surveys to mayors' offices in all 251 metropolitan areas with populations of 100,000 or more. By scoring survey responses in combination with information from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) and other independent sources, we came up with our ranked list of the top 25 green cities in the U.S., giving special recognition to the top 10."

Seattle, which is on a sustainability PR binge thanks to Mayor Greg Nickels' "born again green" campaign to mobilize mayoral support for the Kyoto protocol, unfortunately fell from 10th last year to 24th. Part of the dilemma for our fair city is Nickels' growth and redevelopment scenario for the metro core. Raising building heights, putting in new highways and campaigning to add 50,000 new jobs and 22,000 new housing units in the next two decades may not quite jibe with express sustainability goals.

People close to Nickels tell me he's sincere and is a quick study, especially when motivated. So we'll see how it all shakes out. But right now Seattle is facing some tough decisions that will force Hizzoner to Walk the Talk, if he can.

— Paul Andrews, GreenforGood

global warming ecological footprint carbon footprint green for good
sustainability

Toasting Organic Wine

It wasn't long ago that one barely heard of Organic Wine. But the concept clearly makes sense. As this article in the Vancouver, BC-based The Tyee, points out in today's issue,

"...it should never be forgotten that wine also simply comes from grapes; a food product grown in the dirt on a farm amongst the bugs and animals.

And what goes into that dirt and onto those grape leaves and into the fermenting vat before bottling all comes out again - in your stemware glass at dinner time.

Unfortunately, that wine all too often includes the residue of pesticides, herbicides and chemicals used by agri-business to grow fruit and vegetables all around the world."

The article is very comprehensive, and provides a fine overview of the current state of organic wine-making (as well as some reviews).

And if all this wine reading makes you want to try some, check out our selection (which will soon be dramatically growing thanks to our partnership with the folks at the Organic Wine Company).

Cheers!

David Kaufer
President and Chief Green Officer
GreenforGood.com

Thinking About Where the Food Comes From

One step in sustainability awareness comes in thinking about how far food travels to your market.

Here's a good primer:

"Almost all of what you and I eat comes to us from far away -- the average distance being about 1,200 miles."

A couple of years ago I decided to stop buying, for example, grapes from Chile. Grapes don't grow close to where I live in Seattle (concords, maybe, late in the summer, but that's about it), so they're always going to have to make a bit of a hike to my doorstep. But Chile seems beyond the pale.

I think others are coming to the same conclusion. A big indicator was last Christmas, when (from what I could tell) black cherries from Chile didn't sell well. Cherries at Christmas — now whose idea was that? In any case, they pretty much rotted in PCC's food co-op and Whole Foods didn''t seem to be moving 'em much.

There's a tradeoff here, to be sure. As I've mentioned, our household tries to buy fresh rather than packaged. And I love fruit. So yes, if I'm going to eat oranges and grapefruit, I'm going to increase my "carbon footprint" some.

But in a few weeks, local berries and fruit will be coming in. During the summer, my carbon footprint shrinks by a few toes' worth. Wish I could say the same for the entire year.

— Paul Andrews, GreenForGood

global warming ecological footprint carbon footprint green for good

More on Eco Footprint: Test Your Shoe Size!

Following up on our pointer the other day for reducing your carbon footprint, here's another: Earthday.net has put together a "footprint quiz." It takes less than 5 minutes to complete and is worth the effort.

I scored 11 acres (the lower the score the better). The brownie point: The average U.S. score is 24 acres. The demerit: Maximum space on earth is 4.5 acres per person.

"If everyone lived like you, we would need 2.6 planets," the quiz informed me.

My high score was in "mobility," since I travel mostly by bike and seldom drive by myself. "Shelter" was my low score: I live in a big house, and even though 5 others live in the house as well, I'm still taking up too much room.

I could do better on "food," too, although in Seattle it's tough to buy fresh and still buy local during winter months. The tradeoff I aim for: Fresh avoids processing, packaging production and then recycling/disposal, and is far healthier. So even though our household produces almost no non-nonrecyclable waste, we still have to "go too far" to get our stuff.

In any case, the quiz helps you think about your actions and lifestyle, the first step toward moving you to change. I'll come back in 3 months and try the quiz again (although I can almost guarantee I'll do better because most of my food in summer comes locally, from Farmer's Markets around town).

Only 23 days to Earth Day (April 22).

— Paul Andrews, GreenForGood

Tags: global warming
ecological footprint
carbon footprint green for good

Is Mass Media 'Getting' Global Warming? Does It Matter?

In the past couple of weeks, it seems, global warming has gotten hot (so to speak). This week's TIME magazine cover story depicts a forlorn (and probably doomed) polar bear on a tiny ice floe as a symbol, perhaps, of where we all are when it comes to global warming. Stuck, isolated, alone, feeling helpless to really do anything. ABC News is running a week-long series on "World News Tonight." CBS' "60 Minutes" had a long piece on Bush administration censorship of global warming warnings. And Elizabeth Kolbert as well as other authors are out on the stump with new books.

At first glance, it should be encouraging that mainstream media are finally telling the awful truth. But there are two big problems here.

First, media (and even authors like Kolbert) basically are describing a frightful state. "Be Worried. Be VERY Worried" states TIME's cover. Kolbert's book title talks about a "catastrophe." And nearly every other major treatment I see on global warming takes a similar approach: Be scared out of your wits because the day of reckoning isn't somewhere down the road, it's now.

Fair enough. After years of dithering with "fair and balanced" reporting on global warming, quoting ostriches and nay-sayers with a political axe to grind and no solid evidence next to world-class scientists with years of data and research to back up their complete accord on impending disaster — and pretty much imparting the impression that each side cancels the other out — media may have indeed turned a corner. Maybe during the next Katrina we won't have to sit through endless talking head patter about "no evidence this is related to global warming." The latest verdict on hurricanes, cited by Kolbert in a recent New Yorker piece, moved the science a step further. During Katrina meteorologists were saying that global warming, while it may make some few hurricanes more severe, would not cause an increase in the number of hurricanes. Well, toss that one out the window. The numbers are going up as well.

The parabolic curve of global warming also is steepening. By that I mean that after we cross the point of no return (which may already have happened; we just cannot be sure yet), the metrics will accelerate beyond what was predicted. Which means that even us boomers, who thought the whole problem would be fobbed off on our children and grandchildren, may live to see the death of the planet.

The other problem with mass media jumping on the global warming bandwagon is this: Next week they'll totally forget everything they wrote and be onto special issues on the building boom, or the coming Iranian invasion, or China's industrialization or some other topic that they will handle with equal breathless hand-waving as though it, too, is something we should all pay attention to. And all of that coverage will act as though global warming does not exist, and earth has a real future while building bigger highways and taller buildings and more fast-food joints.

If the mass media are really going to DO anything about global warming, they will have to 1) integrate the issue into all daily/weekly reporting, so that a story on downtown high-rise development talks about it in terms of the Kyoto Protocol, say, and a story on a new highway discusses it in terms of carbon and greenhouse gases, and 2) they will have to start telling the more urgent story of what individuals and, more importantly, society can do about global warming. The last point is the hardest for a media conditioned to dishing out terror and gloom as their bread and butter.

The latter point is what we're about here at GreenForGood. Because the more you think about what you can do on a daily basis, the easier it is for you to change. Fear is not enough.

— Paul Andrews, GreenForGood

Summary of TIME piece

Full TIME article

global warming GreenForGood

What Will It Take to Wake People Up?

The United Nations is set to report that many of the world's mightiest rivers are sick and depleted. So not only are we heating up nature's corpus mundi, we're draining its bloodstream as well. (Thanks to The Future Is Green for the link.

Meanwhile, Elizabeth Kolbert, who visited Seattle last week on her book tour for Field Notes from a Catastrophe, reports in the latest New Yorker that ice melting is accelerating faster than the models have predicted.

So what are we doing about all of this? Recognizing we're all well-intentioned, I would have asked Kolbert how she feels about jetting around the country (and the planet) to promote a book on a "catastrophe" brought about in some measure by jetting around the planet. Jet pollution is emerging as a disproportionally severe contributor to greenhouse gases. And we're in an era of increasing private jet use where a few very rich people are really wasting the future for all of us.

So what's the average person's perspective on all of this? For those of us enmeshed in green issues on a 24-hour basis, it's sobering to get a reality check like this one:

"By the time I got to work, my 15-minute commute by car had taken almost an hour. In a little while, I would pick Ben up, and we'd take the bus home. Which bus, I wasn't so sure.

Fighting greenhouse gases ain't going to be easy."

The incredible cultural momentum behind destroying the earth really has no easy solution. Even in New Orleans, traffic jams will return once rebuilding takes hold. Confronting and reversing global warming "ain't going to be easy," for sure. The only thing harder, in fact, will be the terrible, fatal alternative.

— Paul Andrews, GreenForGood

global warming GreenForGood

Reducing Your Ecological Carbon Footprint

Another way to jog your subconscious into changing to green is to think about your carbon footprint. This is the amount of carbon you contribute to the atmosphere, which accelerates global warming. Not only can you do some things to reduce your carbon production, you can do other things to off-set your carbon footprint (such as planting a tree).

I like the concept of a footprint because it's so visual. The typical American's footprint is twice as big as the rest of the world average. So say you're a size 8. The American footprint would be like Shaquille O'Neal stepping on your shoe!

To help you figure out your footprint, check out CarbonFootprint.com here. They've put together a guide that not only informs you about your own footprint, it gives tips on how to reduce your Size 16 to a Size 10. (Note it's a British site; you will need to have a calculator and utility bills handy for conversion to dollars. Give yourself some time to do a complete calc.)

— Paul Andrews, GreenforGood

carbon footprint GreenForGood

Changing Into Green: A First Step Guide

One of the things I try to do as I go through my day is analyze each action for its impact on the earth, and especially on global warming.

Admittedly, it's not an easy thing to do. Most of the time we rush from one thing to the next without even pausing to take a breath, let alone consider a truly ponderous challenge of how our actions are affecting our children's future.

But it's really the only way we, as individuals, can really do something. And it gives you real karma feedback when you make a little breakthrough.

For example, I'd always had trouble remembering to take along a canvas shopping bag to the grocery store. The best answer to the question "paper or plastic?" of course is neither. But you have to remember to bring the bag!

Part of the problem is that I often shop while riding my bike, which means I already have a bag — either on my back (backpack) or around my waist (waist pack). Problem solved there.

But when I buy more than I can carry on my bike, I need the bags.

Here's how I finally forced myself into the habit of remembering. The day came when I went through checkout and they asked paper or plastic. I said, wait a minute. Let me run back out to the car and get the bags. So that's what I did. They didn't seem to mind too much, just set aside my stuff. It was an inconvenience having to bag everything up, and it cost me a few minutes out of my day.

But hey, next time I remembered! And the next time after that! Something about forcing myself to walk the extra mile jiggered my subconscious into reminding myself when I got out of the car to take the bags in with me.

Try it. It may be a nuisance the first time or two, but it'll work wonders in the long run.

— Paul Andrews, GreenforGood

Technorati tags: recycling GreenForGood

Will Wal-Mart, Safeway organics hurt Whole Foods?

Whole Foods has been a great investment in recent years, but the Big Boys of retailing are moving into natural/organic product lines. Will Whole Foods, food co-ops, Wild Oats and other natural outlets get hammered?

TheStreet's Jim Cramer weighs in.

I'd have to back Cramer on this one. Here's a little comparison. When Blockbuster and Wal-Mart decided to take on little Netflix with cheaper rentals and no late fees, nervous nellies hammered Netflix stock. Guess what? Netflix took over Wal-Mart's video operation, and Blockbuster got somethings besides its block busted.

The reason: Netflix knows and curries its audience. Same with Whole Foods. Cramer mentions affluent clientele but that's not the real story. I shop in Whole Foods (full disclosure: am also an investor) and see all walks of life there because of the Paul Principle: The more quality a product delivers, the less its price matters.

The people who shop at Whole Foods are not necessarily the elite. They simply want the best return on their dollar. That's why every Whole Foods shopper smiles when he or she calls it Whole Paycheck.

— Paul Andrews, GreenForGood

Technorati tags: whole foods GreenForGood

4th Annual NW Biodiesel Forum: What a Gas!

We had a blast at the 4th Annual Northwest Biodiesel Forum today at Seattle's Magnuson Park. When it comes to being green, biodiesel ranks right at the top. It emits 78 percent less carbon dioxide and 50 percent less carbon monoxide than petroleum diesel. It also has the highest energy return of any transportation fuel — 3.2 units of energy per unit of fossil energy.

The occasion was also the birthday of Rudolf Diesel, a German inventor born 148 years ago.

After walking around the forum, viewing cars, trucks, furnaces and other equipment running on biodiesel, you have to love the stuff. We have a Prius now but our former 1985 Toyota diesel was purchased by Larry Owens, co-founder of the Shoreline Solar Project, and now does the circuit as a demonstration vehicle. Larry, who was running a renewable energy booth at the forum, had it parked out front and we got to say hi to old Betsy. A sign in its rear window said Larry has put more than 3,000 biodiesel miles on it since he got it. That means it now has around 90,000 ticks on the odometer. If the car holds together it should run another 20 years at this pace. Diesel engines wear awfully well, and the Corolla's engine was diesel-specific, not a converted gas engine (like the VW Rabbit and others).



It was chilly out, so we enjoyed an exhibit that showed the heat-producting quality of biodiesel. Mind you, no fumes! It made me wonder if there will soon (if not already) be available camp stoves running on the stuff.



A big van was parked out front with its biodiesel innards cut out for examination. Apparently with this rig you can produce your own fuel on the go. A brochure said the truck had been to 16 countries on 2 continents and traveled 16,000 miles. It's affiliated with Oil + Water at www.nrpw.com.



Here's what the "kitchen" looked like on the van:



The kids went nuts over a biodiesel electric car parked out front. The incredible thing about this car, although it was only a 2-seater, was its leg and head room. Normally my head brushes the top of a conventional car. I had lots of clearance in this "Smart" car.



Altogether a great time, thanks for the show! And remember, for your next car, consider biodiesel. A lot of new models are coming on line.

— Paul Andrews, GreenForGood

Technorati tags: biodiesel GreenForGood

Buy Green, Save Green, Be Green on St. Paddy's Day

Instead of just wearin' o' the green on St. Patrick's Day tomorrow, here's something you can do to "be" green and help save the planet. Whatever you buy tomorrow, try to make it "green." And get it on sale, so you'll save "green" as well. For example, my grocery co-op has organic lettuce greens on sale for $2 off a pound. Or you could buy a canvas tote bag, then use it when you shop (bonus points if it's green as well). Of course, shopping at GreenForGood also counts! Or simply do a "green act," like spreading some compost on your garden or recycling those dead batteries you've been collecting. Then if someone tries to pinch you (who you don't really WANT to pinch you!), just tell them you're "being green" all day.

— Paul Andrews, GreenForGood

Tags: Green St. Patrick's Day GreenForGood

Big Oil Spill, Tiny Coverage

The North Slope of Alaska is suffering from a terrible oil spill that has gotten hardly any media attention. The Seattle Times, which won a Pulitzer Prize for its Exxon Valdez coverage, has run only a couple of wire stories. Granted conditions are harsh, but one also has the sense that oil spills are among the many incremental environmental holes in the dike that get covered like a single little leak when their combined effect is a fire hose.

The easiest way to find out about the spill, in fact, is to do a blog search on Google. MichaelMoore.com, MySpace, The drama of containing the spill in minus 44 degree weather would make a great blog-by-blog account, in fact. Although it would probably require the blogger to get out of his/her pajamas.

Why is this oil spill particularly newsworthy, you ask? Because, in one of those nightmarish coincidences that seem to be piling onto the Bush administration as Nature's reminder that you don't mess with God, the Senate is trying once again to sneak through an amendment to start drilling in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge. Now what's that about how there'd be no risk of a spill from an ANWR pipeline? To say nothing of the "global suicide bomb" that continued reliance on oil means for our planet's, our children's and their children's future.

NoCrony.com has the awful truth.

— Paul Andrews, GreenForGood

Technorati tags: north slope greenforgood

Avian flu epidemic: The best antidote may be natural

Good piece in Ode magazine (look for it on independent bookstore stands) on the unlikelihood of a bird flu epidemic, and some "natural" (round here we call 'em "green") strategies for fighting the flu if it ever does get out of hand. Have you heard of sambucol? Might be worth tracking down a source locally just in case. In the meantime we at Green for Good will try to locate a source for ordering!

From the article: "In an effort to prevent this pandemic, governments are furiously stockpiling antiviral medicines—primarily the drug Tamiflu manufactured by Roche. But is there really a pandemic at hand? And if so, will Tamiflu help?

"The answer to both questions is “no,” according to the respected British alternative-health newsletter What Doctors Don’t Tell You (December 2005), among other sources. Why? Because the specific virus involved (H5N1) was discovered 45 years ago, when terns in South Africa were infected, and has never posed a serious threat to humans in all that time."

And there are links between Tamiflu (which is generally proving to be worthless) and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, further sullying the authenticity of any real danger while raising more Halliburton/Cheney-like questions about this corrupt administration: http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/2005/1101_b.html

— Paul Andrews, Green for Good

Technorati tags: tamiflu sambucol greenforgood

Solar Bill brightens Washington State legislature

Congratulations to our friend Larry Owens, head of the Shoreline Solar Project and vice president of Solar Washington, for rallying public support that pushed through new tax breaks for solar equipment. Larry worked the Net channels, especially e-mail, in generating citizen pressure for approval. When the Senate voted unanimously (47-0-0) to approve the bill late last week, Larry sent out an e-blast "WE DID IT!"

Larry has been a tireless solar advocate and testament once again to the power of One. We became Owens fans when he purchased my wife's 20-year-old diesel Toyota Corolla and converted it to biodiesel. So now whenever there's an alternative-energy conference or display, Larry brings along the Toyota and we get to say hi to our old car!

— Paul Andrews, Green for Good

Technorati tags: solar greenforgood

Blogging and Media Panel

I'll be moderating a star-studded panel tomorrow at the Public Relations Society of America regional gathering in Bellevue. It's sold out and should be a howlin' time. My esteemed blogger panelists will include Kathy Gill of Wired Pen (Kathy teaches great classes on blogging at the University of Washington), The Seattle Times' Kim Peterson (who contributes to the group blog Tech Tracks), the P-I's Microsoft blogger Todd Bishop (who sent this link as an example of something he probably would not have bothered with for print), Eric Fetters, biotech blogger for the Everett Herald, and sports blogger David Locke for the P-I.

Black and white and green all over...

Here's Kathy, the only blogger I know whose photo includes motorcycle regalia:

Thanks for all the good wishes

Lots of folks inquiring yesterday about the relaunch. Thanks all for the good wishes! We got some great visibility from the pr and networking wires, including Google alerts and ClickZ News, and a blurb in the Everett Herald. Please send along any other refs you happen to run across, thanks!

We're rollin' Bob!

After more than two months of rehab, the new, improved Green For Good is rockin' n rollin'! Still lots to do and many goals to accomplish, but thanks to all who have helped with ideas and suggestions. Keep 'em comin' !

— The Green Team

Death in a Warm, Hard Place

Good review in The Seattle Times today on two new books about global warming. Both authors are coming to Seattle in future weeks.

I'm already familiar with, and often cite, Elizabeth Kolbert's work from The New Yorker. What makes Kolbert's reporting so effective is her cold-eyed, unflinching dissection of the human race's self-extinction as it unfolds. It's as though she were standing beneath the twin towers on September 10 saying, "Steps are in place for two passenger jets to fly into the World Trade Center tomorrow morning, causing extreme loss of human life and renewal of war in the Middle East. High-level intelligence memos have warned of this occurrence for months, including one titled, 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.' Yet unless there is a last-minute reversal of policy, the jets will destroy the towers."

Should we take action? You decide.

I'm not familiar with Tim Flannery's writing but it sounds just as apocalyptic. Kolbert's series is one reason I like to tell people that I'm living each day of my life as though it is a crisis. Not a happy message, I know, and not a happy way to live. I've always been an optimistic person and would like to remain so. One reason I joined Green For Good is the hope that an alternative approach can not only make an impact but succeed. But any notion that hey, humans have always faced insurmountable challenges to survival and prevailed, is just not scientifically supportable under current practices. If we are to survive, things not only need to change, they need to change exactly right now.

I'll leave for now with my favorite quote from Kolbert (the series; I haven't seen the book yet): "It may seem impossible to imagine that a technologically advanced society could choose, in essence, to destroy itself, but that is what we are now in the process of doing."

— Paul Andrews, Green for Good

Technorati tags: global warming, seattle times

From the Organic Consumers Association: Call for help on labeling laws

Hey everyone, Food labeling to tell us exactly is in what we eat needs to be supported. Here's an alert sent from the Organic Consumers Assn. Worth following up on:

We'd like to thank OCA supporters who responded to our action alert earlier this week and contacted your House of Representatives member to vote against H.R. Bill 4167. This blatantly anti-consumer Bill would eliminate over 200 state food safety labeling laws.

Yesterday, March 2, we won an unexpected and important victory, when the House decided to delay a scheduled vote on the controversial "National Unity for Food Act" until March 8. Industry lobbyists representing major food, biotech, and retail chains were shocked at the nationwide backlash against the legislation.

Congress members felt the heat as 50,000 consumers, including over 30,000 from the Organic Consumers Association, barraged Congress with email letters and phone calls over the past four days. Siding with consumers, a number of major newspapers published editorials against HR 4167, while Attorney Generals from 35 states sent a strong letter to Congress opposing the Bill. But Congress is still poised to pass this Bill, which takes away your right to know what's in your food.

How You Can Help

If you have not already done so, please Take Action Now--Send a Message to Your Congress Member in the House of Representatives to Vote "No" on H.R. 4167. Click here.
Please forward this Action Alert to five or more of your friends to ensure that the House votes "no" on HR Bill 4167 on March 8. We need to continue to inundate Congress with letters, sending a strong message that we want food safety laws and labels strengthened, not weakened.
Also please consider picking up your phone and calling the Congressional Switchboard 202-224-3121 and have them connect you with the office of your Representative. Phone calls at this point are extremely important.
In addition, OCA needs to raise at least $10,000 to crank up our phone bank next week to get thousands of organic consumers in key Congressional Districts to call or send a letter to their Representative. Please consider making a tax-deductible donation to the OCA now by clicking here.

Again thanks for taking action on HR 4167. Our cause is just and our numbers are growing. We will provide you with an update next week, as soon as Congress votes on this important issue of local democracy and food safety.

ORGANIC CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION
6771 South Silver Hill Drive
Finland, MN 55603
Phone: (218)- 226-4164 Fax: (218) 353-7652

Technorati tags: organics, green lifestyle

Green Trumps Gray — Always

As the green movement gains visibility in mass media, it's to be expected that articles will carry a certain skepticism. Mainstream media tend to support the status quo and be suspicious and questioning of newness and change; don't ask me to explain this essential contradiction (the news must not be too new or it threatens more than informs), but years of working in a newsroom taught me that it's there.

A great example comes from a recent article in The New York Times, headlined "Living Green, but Allowing for Shades of Gray." Even after reading the piece several times, it's unclear to me what exactly its point is. The subject is Wendy Gordon, who is "no fanatic." Right away the alert goes out: Greenies are fanatics! Beware the greenies! (I'm not sure even if greenies were fanatics what the caution might be. We're fanatical about saving the planet — is it wrong?)

Now it's true, "she believes deeply in living green." She thinks that plain soap does just as well as antibacterial soap. (And well it should, since soap is an antibacterial by definition, a point that seems to have eluded both Gordon and the story's author.) She avoids plastics and cleans her home with vinegar and lemon juice instead of household products.

And yet, she's gray about her green. She thinks canned tuna and salmon are "not any less healthy than fresh." Another curious bromide that goes unresearched. Most incredibly she drives an SUV because "despite numerous studies that have come to the opposite conclusion, she says it makes her feel safer." At last, a point the author of the story has researched.

Gordon is the subject of the piece, apparently, because she publishes something called the Green Guide and is executive director of the Green Guide Institute. She calls her effort "Consumer Reports for the eco-conscious" and wants to help people "make healthy decisions in a world of imperfect information."

No argument that we live in a world of imperfect information, but someone who drives an SUV on grounds that it's safer seems to me to be piling on the imperfection. Even if SUVs were safer, and anyone who has done cursory research knows they demonstrably are not, their gas mileage and disproportionate use of natural resources would be hugely contradictory of a "green" lifestyle. Sorry, there are some things that disqualify you as "green," and SUVs are right at the top.

I'm not casting stones here. None of us is "perfectly" green. What irks me, though, is blatant hypocrisy from someone who should know better. If I drove an SUV (for the record, I never have owned one) I would still try to live as "greenly" as possible (at the top of my list would be getting rid of the SUV, however). And I would explain that I am embarrassed to be driving a polluting gas hog that sends exactly the wrong message about who I am. I have a friend who put a sticker on his SUV (before he got rid of it) that said, "I am changing the earth's climate. Ask me how."

That's the attitude any greenie should have toward SUVs.

I don't disagree with everything Gordon says in the article. Her points about caveat emptor when it comes to organic labeling are well-taken.

In general, though, the article creates more gray than it clarifies green. "Green" is a holistic approach to living based on a philosophy of sustainability and health. "Organic" and "green" — while they share some goals and attract the same psychology — are not synonyms or even parallel ideologies.

And "green" always trumps "gray," in real life as in the color chart.

The real caveat emptor involves what you read about "green," starting with knowing in your heart, the one true oracle — what "green" really means.

— Paul Andrews, Green For Good

New Problem on Horizon: Organic demand outstripping supply

Interesting article from Maryland discussing the ins and outs of organic farming conversion.

While farmers may balk at the three-year conversion process (to certify fully organic), the premium paid by organic buyers outstrips the conversion costs. And the premium promises to keep accruing as organic demand continues to skyrocket. That's simple market economics.

Still, one point needs underlining. The article implies that during the conversion, farmers lose money from reduced yields. Then, once they gain certification, they more than make it back.

What I've noticed over the years shopping full-time organic, however, is that "transition" produce yields the same premium as fully organic. It's marked transition, yes. And that means that while it has not qualified for certification, it also is not tainted by pesticides, hormones and other pollutants.

So I guess I'm curious exactly how farmers suffer during the transition period. It's something I'll follow up with my sources at farmers' markets.

The good news remains that demand is increasing — by 75 percent at the end of the decade, according to the article. Overall organic consumption is still tiny, tiny, tiny. But the growth rate is the key integer to watch, and it's dynamite.

Another key quote from the article: "A recent study by the Hartman Group, a market research firm that tracks healthy food sales and trends, found that traditional motives to buy organic—concern for the environment—have been eclipsed by concerns about health and food safety." Green For Good's partner, HealthEGoods.com, has got to be encouraged by that kind of finding.

Does Parenting Make You Green?

Like many others, my path to living a more Green lifestyle was greatly
impacted by the desire to be a parent. My wife and I tried for numerous
years to get pregnant, but without success. After numerous tests and
additional setbacks, we learned that our best (and perhaps only) hope was
through in vitro fertilization methods. It took three "cycles" but
ultimately we did become pregnant and are now proud (and tired) parents of 3
month old twin boys (Stone and Ty).

Often when a couple turns to fertilization processes, it is because there is
an "issue" with one partner or the other. In our case, it was both of us.
But at least we live in a day and age where science and technology has
progressed to the point that we can experience child birth and subsequent
parenthood. It wasn't very long ago at all that we would have had to
consider adoption as our only option towards parenthood.

How did this experience impact us and help us become more Green? As we
progressed through the process, we learned much more about environmental
factors that can and do impact the reproductive systems of men and women
alike. And while we certainly are not young first-time parents, both my wife
and I are in otherwise excellent health. As we shared our tale with friends
and family, we were stunned by the number of stories we heard about other
couples who were having difficulty conceiving. While some of this may be
attributed to fact that many were in their 30's, again, most of those we
know are also in excellent health. So what's going on?

I believe that environmental factors have played a huge role here. We are a
generation that was born just after the "golden" age of chemicals and
pesticides and have had them used around us for the better part of our
lives. This is probably only part of the reason - but I feel there must be a
tie-in to the environment somehow with the boom in fertility clinics. I have a very good friend who is a partner in one of these clinics in the Sacramento area and he has said that they have more business than they can handle.

Now that we are parents, we are of course very aware of the products and (soon) food we purchase for our babies. I was checking in on my old hometown paper in the San Francisco Bay Area, the Contra Costa Times, and this article caught my eye. There is a group of fathers who call themselves the "Grateful Dads" and they meet weekly to take their babies, toddlers and young children hiking in the East Bay hills and trails. Not only does this provide the dads and kids with valuable bonding time (as well as a well-deserverd break for the moms), but it's exposing the kids to our beautiful outdoors at a very young age. This can only help to teach our next generation to appreciate our environment as much as possilbe - and I applaud the Grateful Dads on many levels for this program. Maybe it's time to look into a Seattle chapter?

David R. Kaufer - President and Chief Green Office (Green for Good, Inc.)

Technorati Tags: Fertility Parenting Twins

Clean 'n Green: What Does It Mean?

Our household crossed a threshold of sorts recently when I went out to take down the garbage can for its weekly pickup.

There was nothing in it.

The city of Seattle recently added a third receptacle to its home-waste regimen. In addition to 1) garbage can and 2) glass, can and paper recycling, it's now possible to 3) add food-stained plastic and paper as well as compostable garbage to a big honking wheeled green yard-waste bin.

All of which means that if you're only passingly careful about what you bring into your home, you can recycle just about everything. Not batteries or paint or toxics, of course. But most common day-to-day items qualify.

To come up empty that week several things had to happen. One member of our household was traveling in New York. Two others had spent time visiting relatives. And my wife and I had hit a week where everything we tossed out was "green."

But it does speak to the efficiency of Seattle's and King County's recycling programs that such a thing is possible at all.

Coming up clean 'n green made me wonder something: If our household did away with garbage on an ongoing basis, could we save the $8 a week ($32.70 a month) we pay for collection service? I called the city to inquire and was told there is no way to opt out of the basic service.

This seems fair (in order to make a public utility work everyone has to subscribe) but I thought it was worth a try.

Still, there ought to be some sort of incentives to get people to go "100 percent green." I plan to write the utilities chairman of the City Council and see if some incentive programs for "garbage-free" homes could be provided. Money might not have to be involved, but it seems some recognition of above-and-beyond "greening" could be instituted. After all, residents are punished with $50 fines if they violate recycling ordinances. Why not give them a button or sticker or something when they're extra good?

I'll keep Green For Good readers posted. As always, feel free to post comments or blog me with any ideas, suggestions and so on. Has anyone else had this happen (I'm thinking some Daily Green readers may have been 100 percent clean for years!).

— Paul Andrews, Green For Good

Green Celebrities

As we get closer to relaunching the new and improved Green for Good website, we have of course been pondering the various marketing approaches we can take to help get the word out about the great new site. Naturally, the idea of having a celebrity spokesperson endorsing the site was raised, so we got thinking about which celebrities would be the best fit for Green for Good and promoting the Green Lifestyle we support.

Well, one natural idea (if you'll pardon the pun) is to ask actor Ed Begley - after all, we sell his cleaning products on our site already. But we didn't want to limit the field to just one, so we decided to do some hard core research. Let's see - would a celebrity be considered Green if they drove a Hybrid? If so, we have the following to choose from:

Alexandra Paul
Alicia Silverstone
Dr. Andrew Weil
Arianna Huffington
Bill Maher
Billy Crystal
Billy Joel
Brad Pitt
Cameron Diaz
David Duchovny
David Hyde Pierce
Donna Mills
Donny Osmond
Ed Begley
Ellen DeGeneres
Hart Bochner
Harrison Ford
Jack Black
Jack Nicholson
Larry David
Kevin Bacon
Kirk Douglas
Kurt Russell
Leonardo DiCaprio
Patricia Arquette
Rob Reiner
Robin Williams
Salma Hayak
Susan Sarandon
Tim Robbins
Ted Danson
Tom Hanks
Woody Harrelson
Will Ferrell

Not a bad list!

Some additional digging revealed that just last week, our friends at treehugger.com pointed out that "Sting and Trudie, that famously all singing, all producing, all do-gooding tantric couple, have produced a range of organic honey and olive oil straight from their ‘Fields of Gold’ in Tuscany. This is the ‘Message in the Bottle’ according to Trudie: “I feel that we're using nature's bounty to give something back to the earth, and so help preserve its future for generations to come.” Since the Il Palagio range is organic and produced by very famous people unsurprisingly this particular Italian bounty doesn’t come cheap, evinced by the fact it is being sold exclusively at Harrods. To further sweeten the expensive taste Sting and Trudie are donating 10% of profits to the environmental charities they support. As a special treat however it might be nice to drizzle a bit of Sting on your toast!"


(How would Sting and Trudie look in Green?)

I have attempted to contact the couple's representatives in the US to see if Green for Good might get the exclusive rights to the products here but to date, I have yet to hear back (but hey, it was a holiday weekend).

What about Willie Nelson or Daryl Hannah? Each were on hand at the biodiesel conference in San Diego last week, where Hannah presented the "Influencer of the year" award to Nelson. According to a write up about the affair in the San Diego Union, "Nelson has become an icon of biodiesel use. His personal vehicles and tour bus all run on biodiesel. At home on Maui, Hawaii, he drives a Mercedes-Benz E-Class diesel sedan powered 100 percent by diesel. His wife, Annie, drives a Volkswagen Jetta diesel.

Actress Daryl Hannah, who drives a biodiesel-powered 1984 Chevrolet El Camino among other biodiesel powered vehicles was on hand to present the “Influencer Award” to Nelson."



(Photo by SANDY HUFFAKER)

Now if driving a 1984 biodiesal-powered El Camino doesn't demonstrate a commitment to the Green Lifestyle, I'm not sure what does!

So you can see there are plenty of choices for us out there - many more I'm sure I didn't include in here. What do you think? Should Green for Good give one of these celebrities a jingle to see if they'd help us out? And if so, whom would you choose?

-David Kaufer (President and Chief Green Officer, Green for Good, Inc.)


Technorati Tags: Biodiesel, Sting, Daryl Hannah, Willie Nelson, celebrity

Finally We Seem To Agree: Global Warming Exists

It's easy to despair over the issue of global warming. When exactly will the U.S. (and to some degree China, although the U.S. plays by far the lead role) start actually doing something on an official level to address climate disruption?

Experts have been warning for fully two decades, and we've continued in our planet-destroying ways.

But here's one indicator of hope that has gone uncommented on to my knowledge. It's a simple one. It's a threshold we seem to have passed over in 2005.

The voices questioning whether global warming actually exists seem to have gone silent.

CBS's "60 Minutes" mentioned this in passing in a segment on polar bear extinction Sunday night. I wish the report had clarified that we're ultimately destroying not just bears but human life — a point The New Yorker continues to drive home in its appropriately apocalyptic series. At a certain point, as we saw in New Orleans, even an advanced civilization is helpless against ferocious natural forces. From The New Yorker: "It may seem impossible to imagine that a technologically advanced society could choose, in essence, to destroy itself, but that is what we are now in the process of doing." (May 9, 2005, p. 63).

I'm sure in the Toxic Right, there are still think tanks churning out white papers with obscure ideological postulations and scientific citations intended to discredit global warming. It's been only a little more than a year since the libertarian Cato Institute and writer Michael Crichton issued weighty tomes casting doubt on the whole climate change thing.

But Crichton's book tanked and he is not exactly burning up the lecture circuit. (And his blithe "we always bounce back" assessment seems to have been plowed under with the debris of Katrina.) Moreover, my over-the-transom monitor has gotten almost no ticks on the anti-global warming meter over the past six months or more.

It used to be any time the subject showed up on the mailing lists and forums, someone was sure to check in with a "poppycock!" assertion and cite various journals and opinions. Maybe it was the tsunami and Katrina, maybe it's the news media's shift, maybe the signs themselves are having greater impact and affecting more people's lives. When the frogs go still and the butterflies disappear, our collective unconscious may shift as well.

Whatever the reasons, the outright denials have waned. This is a great first step, although at the current rate we will be debating what to do in the Halls of Congress even as rising floodwaters moisten our esteemed senators' Guccis.

For now the debate (such as it is) seems to have moved to the issue of whether global warming is as bad as they say it is, or reversible. Or how humans will be able to adapt to and tolerate serious climate change.

For a long time I said, not even half-jokingly, that the American solution to ozone depletion was to raise the SPF rating on sunscreen. Now 2005 has given us a new strategy that I call the Katrina Remedy, based on the post-hurricane efforts in New Orleans.

Where global warming creates havoc, we simply bring in the bulldozers and scrape the terrain clean. Where trauma visited, there is now cleanscape. Out of sight, out of mind.

It won't save us from global warming's relentless endgame. But having removed the untidiness and depressing reminders, we'll feel a whole lot more serene as the maw of annihilation advances.

— Paul Andrews, Green For Good

Organic diets lower children's exposure to two common pesticides

According to a press release sent out today by the Emory University Health Sciences Center, researchers at the institution, in conjunction with the University of Washington, conducted a study on Seattle-area children to determine the effect of organic food dietary exposure to two common pesticides used in U.S. agricultural production. According Emory University researcher Chensheng "Alex" Lu, PhD, the substitution of organic food items for children's normal diets substantially decreased the pesticide concentration to non-detectable levels.

Previous research has linked organophosphorus pesticides to causes of neurological effects in animals and humans, Dr. Lu says.

"The use of organophosphorus pesticides in residential areas has either been banned or restricted by recent regulatory changes," Dr. Lu continues. "This helps to minimize children's exposure, but still few restrictions have been imposed in agriculture."

In his initial research, Dr. Lu and his colleagues from Emory University, the University of Washington, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) specifically measured the exposure of two organophosphorus pesticides (OP) - malathion and chlorpyrifos - in 23 elementary students in the Seattle area by testing their urine over a 15-day period.

The participants, ages 3 to 11-years-old, were first monitored for three days on their conventional diets before the researchers substituted most of the children's conventional diets with organic food items for five consecutive days. The children were then re-introduced to their normal foods and monitored for an additional seven days.

According to Dr. Lu, there was a "dramatic and immediate protective effect" against the pesticides until the conventional diets were re-introduced. While consuming organic diets, most of the childrenÕs urine samples contained zero concentration for the malathion metabolite. However, once the children returned to their conventional diets, the average malathion metabolite concentration increased to 1.6 parts per billion with a concentration range from 5 to 263 parts per billion, Dr. Lu explains.

This finding is consistent with the 2003 paper published - also focusing on the impact of organic food on Seattle-area children (is it any wonder this is one of the most Green areas in the world?) That study, "Organophosphorus Pesticide Exposure of Urban and Suburban Preschool Children with Organic and Conventional Diets" was written by Cynthia L. Curl, Richard A. Fenske, Kai Elgethun of the Department of Environmental Health, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Washington. It also concluded "that consumption of organic fruits, vegetables, and juice can reduce children's exposure levels from above to below the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's current guidelines, thereby shifting exposures from a range of uncertain risk to a range of negligible risk."

While my infant twin sons are still too young for solid food (this will soon change as they approach their 4 month birthday), they will receive a consistent (if not exclusive) diet of organic food. Why risk the exposure?

- David R. Kaufer (President and Chief Green Officer)

Technorati Tags: Pesticides Organic

Technorati Profile

Grist Online Magazine

Good investigative and cultural info on green

The long shelf life of pesticides in the ground

And some people wonder why sales of organic produce and food are skyrocketing?

It's called awareness folks - and you can count me as one among many who only recently really began to understand the potential harmful affects of the extensive use of pesticides on our food supply within the US the past century.

The Washington Post reported on Friday, February 17th that "Development of former farmland can disturb pesticides spread nearly a century ago and contaminate nearby water sources, according to a study by researchers at Dartmouth College."

It went on to state, "The problem is that pesticides spread during the early 1900s contained both arsenic and lead, which researchers have found remain in the top 10 inches of soil. The study results appear in the January-February issue of the Journal of Environmental Quality.

But the study, which focused on two New Hampshire apple orchards where the pesticide lead arsenate once was used, found that over time these toxic metal change form and become part of the silt and organic matter in the soil."

YIKES!!!

Think about how much farmland has been converted into housing developments the past 20 years...10 years...heck, one year! In my last post at Comcast working in the California Bay Area, I had to drive to the Central Valley (Fresno) on a monthly basis (not what I would call a perk of the job). What amazed me was the speed of development in the Valley and seeing the farmland rapidly becoming housing projects.

Given that this is an area that considers itself to be the "Breadbasket to the world" - the implications causes me to shudder for those families snapping up those houses.

And what about the farmland that *hasn't* been plowed over yet and is still being used to produce food....with arsenic and lead in the top 10 inches of soil?

May I have an *ORGANIC* apple please???

- David Kaufer, President & Chief Green Officer, Green for Good

Technorati Tags: washington post, Pesticides, Organic Food

Living Green in LA

Exploring the green lifestyle in LA - healthy, natural, sustainable and conscious living

Green Marketing in action

I've been fortunate enough in my professional career to have had a variety of marketing, PR and communications experiences for some great companies such as Microsoft, Cisco Systems and Comcast. It was during my sting at Cisco that I got to work in the interesting world of sponsorship marketing.

Sponsorship marketing was new for Cisco at the time - so being part of the first team assembled to review and manage major sponsorships was very much like being part of a start-up within a large corporation. As a very visible company during the hey-day of the dot com era, Cisco was approached by literally hundreds of organizations annually, all hoping to get the company to cough up some money to support an event or cause. As you can imagine, we nearly always said no when approached - because most "opportunities" simply didn't tie in appropriately with Cisco's marketing goals and objectives.

The sponsorship team worked with IMG, one of the premier sponsorship agencies in the world. Together we collaborated to create a sponsorship strategy that focused on 3 key areas of opportunity: technology, brand building and partnership exposure. What this meant was unless the event provided an opportunity for Cisco to use/showcase its Internet networking technology, allowed it to be the lead sponsor (for brand recognition) and created opportunities for its many business partners to participate (as either additional tech providers or hospitality co-hosts), we simply weren't interested. Investing in any event that didn't fall into this category was a waste of time and money.

What does this have to do with being Green or the Green Lifestyle? Well, one trend that has been on the upswing the past few years is something those within the industry call "cause-related marketing" or sponsorships. Cause-related marketing is simply investing company dollars and resources into specific causes such as cancer, AIDS or the environment. Many companies have come to realize that investing in causes (rather than stadium naming rights for example) provides multiple levels of return beyond the simple financial support: employees and customers alike feel better about a companies who put their money where their mouth is by financially and visibly supporting these types of causes.

This past week I saw one of the best examples of cause-related marketing I've ever seen from the folks at Clif Bar and the Amgen Tour of California (a new West Coast version of the famous Tour de France). As seen on Tour's website, "In addition to sponsoring the sprinter's Green Jersey, Clif Bar & Co. is taking "green" one step further by offsetting the event's impact to the environment with clean wind energy and onsite recycling and composting at the Healthy Lifestyle Festivals."

The sponsorship has some brilliant elements tied in:

* The fastest sprinter in each stage will receive the green jersey - presented and sponsored by Clif Bar.

* By working with NativeEnergy's Windbuilders program, Clif Bar & Co. will fund the purchase of enough renewable energy credits to offset the estimated 518 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2 is the main contributor to global warming) produced in association with the event. These energy credits will help finance the construction of new, clean-energy wind farms on Native American land. That's providing an environmental equivalent to taking more than 1,000 cars off the roads of California for a month!

* The Clif Bar & Co. on-site recycling and composting stations will reduce the amount of waste being sent to our landfills. At the Clif Bar & Co. booth, spectators can purchase "Cool TagsTM" through a partnership with NativeEnergy to offset the amount of carbon dioxide they generate by driving to and from the event-each $2.00 Cool Tag offsets approximately 300 miles of car travel. To encourage alternate forms of transportation, there will be a bike valet on-site to encourage everyone to leave their cars at home. The Clif Bar & Co. biodiesel-powered van will be along for the entire race to raise awareness about cleaner burning alternative fuels that reduce the impact on global climate change.

And there is more - check out the full release on the site to get the full impact.

Those familiar with Clif Bar likely aren't surprised at this trail-blazing approach. The company is renowned for being one of the first (if not only) energy bar companies to go all-organic with its products and is absolutely committed to sustainability in its daily corporate practices. Developing and managing this sponsorship is an accurate reflection of the company's values and helps project a very favorable image to everyone who will see or experience it.

We are very proud to offer Clif Bar products to our customers.

While Green for Good is too small at this stage to invest in large sponsorships such as this, we try to do our part to "walk the walk" by being a member of 1% for the planet as well as committing 10% of our profits to community and environmental organizations. As we grow, you can bet you'll see us begin investing in small (to begin with) cause-related sponsorship opportunities - probably on the local level first and then growing from there.

Are there any cause-related marketing campaigns/programs that you feel have stood out as well?

- David Kaufer (Green for Good President and Chief Green Officer)

The Daily Green: Why An E-Commerce Blog?

Rolling out Version 2.0 of Green For Good, we're trying something new in online journalism.

We want to build a culture of news, education and community around an e-commerce site. In so doing, we hope to contribute to new paradigms in journalism, marketing and advertising.

We represent a marked departure from the typical approach of e-commerce, which is simply to offer products and product descriptions. At Amazon and eBay and a million other e-commerce sites you'll find huge product diversity and brilliant transaction technologies. What you won't find is a lot of information or conversation about the stuff for sale. (There are "customer reviews" of course, but their credibility and authority is often and widely suspect.)

There are logical reasons for this. Since the early days of Web ordering, the assumption has been that shoppers know what they want before coming to the site. They've done their shopping and research in stores or via search engines and found the deal they want. Their primary reason for visiting the site is simply to place an order.

At Green For Good, we're committed to high-quality, low-impact, sustainable, ecologically healthy products. But we also want our clients and customers to share our rationale, philosophy and values. We want to build an ethos around our particular brand of e-commerce.

So that's the reason for this blog. And for our new forum, The Green Room, our Product Reviews section, our Ask the Experts features, our monthly newsletter and our newsfeeds from a variety of sources.

We call all this the Green Scene. As much as we want to help inform and inspire our customers, we also feel our customers can help inform and inspire us — and one another at the same time. And best of all worlds, we can be a "green" resource ourselves to the Web community at large.

As a lifelong journalist, I'm intrigued and excited by the possibilities here. The Web offers journalists the tools to do incredible things far beyond what the print world can provide. There are manifold reasons why a daily newspaper about "Green" is impractical: Audience identification, distribution, production costs. The Web, with its infinite reach and real-time magic, makes a "Daily Green" not only possible but necessary.

From the standpoint of Journalism Theory 101, one might ask, "Aren't you risking objectivity by writing about stuff that you sell products for?" This is a significant point, called separation of church and state in the traditional journalism argot. The idea is that the reporting side doesn't know what the advertising side is doing, and vice versa, to preserve an ideological purity to the news.

Again, the Web changes the dynamic. A Web site can afford to assume it exists for "like minds." Its audience is there not because it has to subscribe to 100 pages to get the 3 stories it might actually be interested in, but precisely because it knows it will find material it identifies with on the site. Additionally, the products are part and parcel of the "like minds" culture.

In the case of Green For Good, we assume our visitors want to know about green lifestyle. We assume they support green values. They want to know how to minimize their footprint on earth and make the future safe for their children. So in order to serve our readers best, we're not going to spend a lot of time questioning green principles, global warming, climate disruption and sustainability. Rather we'll try to show the subtle discriminatory practices against "green" ideals, and how monied interests work the channels to discredit green values and promote principles and practices that spell the end of the world as we know it. And we'll also celebrate "green's" virtues, its success stories, and the strides it is making in giving hope for the planet's future.

So we're glad to have you aboard. As always, feel free to email me or add comments below. Thanks for coming, and feel free to bookmark us and subscribe to our RSS feed (see right column), our newsletter and The Green Room.

— Paul Andrews, Green For Good