Lately there has been a lot of fuss on the part of environmentally concerned citizens about plastic water bottles, as they seem to be constantly in the hands of people on the go everywhere. And, of course, the major concern is what happens to them after they no longer contain the water. As almost everyone knows by this time, the biodegrade time for these little gems is horrendously slow, and way beyond this generation’s lifetime and many more to come.
     Unfortunately, water bottles are only the tip of a very massive iceberg.
     Consider first the other liquids that come in plastic bottles: soft drinks (virtually all of them), shampoos, hand lotions. hair care liquids, some toothpaste (most come in plastic tubes), pills, garden care products, household care products — and here’s the worst of it, almost anything small that can otherwise be shoplifted: cell phones and accessories, computer-related accessories, office supply products, not to mention the vast amount of toys of all shapes and colors. Furthermore, nearly anything that doesn’t require two hands to carry is marketed and released in a plastic wrap with lots of cardboard backing with full color promotional printing all over it. (No, it’s not about just shoplifting considerations anymore)
     Walk into any hardware store, drug store, grocery store, department store, office supply, Circuit City, Best Buy,Wal-Mart, Target, Radio Shack, Home Depot, Lowe’s or the like, and start counting up all the stuff enclosed in promotional and descriptive plastic enclosures. You won’t believe the numbers. When you think of how much of this is sold every day of the week, the amount of discarded plastic going to recycling plants or landfills boggles the mind.
Let the Future Deal With It It’s easy to assume that people have become so conscientious about recycling (since most communities now offer separation of trash from recyclables) that people will do the right thing and set the plastic discards apart from the trash, but that has not been this writer’s observation, especially in the workplace. In most of the trash bins of office buildings, it’s all mixed together, even when separation is offered, so where does it all go? Why, to landfills, to sit underground for mega years for someone else in the distant future to deal with.
     In the not-too-distant past we used to buy solids in cardboard and wood boxes, and anything liquid in glass bottles. We collected bottles and turned

them in for “reward” money at collection centers. It was a real incentive to contribute to the recycling process, and it gave a lot of kids some spending money.
     Now, over the last sixty years, a very expansive industry has burgeoned to the point where it is dependent on future business continuing as usual for the livelihoods of its employees and the investment growth of its stockholders. If the powers that be see the light and try to turn back the clock to the old ways, any move by state or federal governments to even slow the plastics industry down will be met with fierce resistance. (This is true with many other entrenched industries, as well). Therefore, it is also a vexing political problem.
It's Not Just Non-Degradable Trash, It's Oil As if the problem of disposal weren’t enough, there is another significant concern with our developed dependence on the plastics industry. The production of plastic consumes billions of barrels of oil. At a time when Americans are screaming about domestic oil shortfalls, it seems ironic that we are using so much of it for wrappers and containers we really don’t need, and up to the years following World War II, didn’t have. Somehow, we got along fine with what we had. We were satisfied, and yes, even comfortable.
     Since I have found scant evidence in newspapers, magazines, and on the Internet that any steps have been taken to make people aware of or begin steps to ameliorate the problem (one lone article in The Week about a month ago called attention to plastic bottles only), the solution seems to me to lie within our capacity for conspicuous outrage.
     Do we care enough about our future (and our children’s and grandchildren’s) to stand up, inform, and protest loudly and persistently? Or are we content to sit back and hope someone else will do it for us? They won’t. Passivity is contagious. Unless the vast majority of us become involved consistently in the workings of our government from the very top right down to the local level, reforms won’t happen.
     The plastics problem is only one of many grim realities America must acknowledge and treat, as described in this website.
     We ask you, our readers, to again become involved with how your government works, to take an interest in the global warming issues, to educate yourselves on all environmental, social, and political considerations, and above all, to search for the truth. It’s out there, albeit frequently and elaborately camouflaged.
     Complain vigorously, if you observe events unfolding that you don’t believe serve the public good. Write your congressmen, senators, mayors, city councils, news reporters, and Internet blogging sites. Get the word out. Participate.
     Reform begins with you.       - JRB

We read this week in the press that Ohio presently requires convicted drunken drivers to use on their cars yellow license plates with red lettering, and that the Ohio legislature is currently considering controversial legislation which would require convicted violent sex offenders and child predators to use all-green license plates.
     This made us think that the time will soon come when the carbon footprint of cars and homes can be measured accurately and easily. There will then be a need to recognize publicly those individuals and families whose overall carbon footprint is neutral or better. Allowing them to have all green car license plates as a badge of honor may be one way to do it. This could also include the car and truck fleets of corporations and other organizations who were taking the overall "right" (to be defined) steps in regard to emissions.
     Using all green license plates for these ends, across the nation, would seem a more constructive and positive use of such an effective spotlighting technique as all-green license plates.      - KEM

May 4,'07
While government action will be necessary to significantly reduce carbon emissions and address the threats of global warming, individuals can take immediate action to reduce their own emissions. In her recent column in the Press Democrat (Santa Rosa, CA), editor Ann Dubay wrote about an local activist who is encouraging friends to adopt a "Low Carbon Diet" or "A 30-Day Plan to Lose 5000 Pounds."
      Using the free web site of the Empowerment Institute or other similar web sites, you can calculate your carbon footprint and learn how to reduce your carbon emissions. Suggested measures include using a dishwasher instead of washing dishes by hand, keeping cars well-tuned and tires inflated, converting to fluorescent bulbs, using a clothesline, walking, riding a bike and taking rapid transit.
      Like other diets, or lifestyle changes, the real challenge is in maintaining a "Low Carbon Diet." Why not, the activist suggests, develop support groups, a la Weight Watchers, to encourage participants to continue until the diet becomes habit?
      California is also in the middle of the national debate on immigration reform and a recent San Francisco news panel raised the issue of how immigration has increased the state's population and, therefore, affected the environment or increased carbon emissions. Actually, recent census data shows that the greatest source of population increase in California was from new births, followed by immigration. While an increase in population increases the demand for resources, including energy, it is not immigrants or their sons and daughters who are building 5000 square foot mansions, heating their pools or driving SUVs. Like global carbon emissions, it is the more developed or wealthier societies which have contributed the most to global warming, though China and India are fast closing the gap with Europe and the United States in current emissions.      - DAW

The most interesting international environmental battle being waged today doesn’t concern the science of global warming, or even corporate recalcitrance. It’s a face-off between activists for the soul of the environmental movement — and whether to collaborate with business to make incremental progress, or simply dig deeper into adversarial foxholes.
     On one side are the traditional, all-business-is-bad environmental NGOs, so familiar to headline readers worldwide. They maintain their operating budgets by merchandizing fear. As a result, the public bears a persistent and serious misperception — still played for advantage by these conflict-intensive activists – that economic interests and environmental protection are inevitably at odds.
     When a former Presidential candidate can fill theaters with an environmental documentary that does a magnificent job ringing the climate change alarm, but casting the corporate world as a monolith of toxic smokestacks, the public can be forgiven for believing that the best we can do is “balance” competing economic and environmental interests. In fact, and increasingly often, prospering corporations and an improving environment have become mutually reinforcing.
     A current and instructive example of the old-style activism is Greenpeace wannabe Alburnus Maior, which operates near the village of Rosia Montana in Western Romania. The rivers there run red with toxic tailings from Communist Era gold mines, and unemployment stands at over 70%. Gold mining done wrong, of course, can be one of the most environmentally-destructive undertakings on the planet. But while you won’t hear it from the mass media, there are actually ways to do it right. And in this case, Gabriel Resources of Canada has offered to open a new mine with the best modern control technology, bring over $2 billion in foreign direct investment to a country with the lowest GDP in the EU, and – here’s the key — clean up Ceausescu’s uncontrolled mining in the bargain. This represents literally the only path to a clean-up for the region. There is, and will be, no Romanian Superfund. Still, the old no-go NGO band plays on: Alburnus rolled out British actress Vanessa Redgrave as celebrity spokesmodel. While she’d never actually been to Rosia to see the ravaged environment or the effects of catastrophic unemployment, she declared the project would “destroy the planet,” and took title to a symbolic single-meter plot of land at a ceremony far from the region, to become a property-owner before jetting back to London. (When residents of the village who support the project took Ms. Redgrave to task in an open letter to the London Guardian, a pro-Redgrave activist responded, “If the people are in favor of the project, we’ll simply add them to our list of enemies.”) Consider Alburnus for a new annual award: moral entrepreneurship detached from human, economic and environmental outcomes.
     The smart activists have gotten past the protests — and stopped forcing a false choice between economy and ecology — because they see more progress to be made in partnership with business. Such efforts reflect a pragmatic and broadening determination to drive efficiency, reduce operating expense, improve earnings per share and deliver better environmental outcomes — prompted by a new level of collaboration that is yielding real results.
     Environmental Defense and Rocky Mountain Institute, for example, have begun to work with rather than against business, unfazed by the dismay of environmental absolutists. They’re working with FedEx and McDonald’s to find solutions for better packaging, and with Wal-Mart on higher fleet fuel efficiency — in Wal-Mart’s case, to double fleet fuel efficiency by 2015, reduce CO2 emissions by 26 billion pounds, and save $500 million in fuel costs. These are real business cases for waste and carbon reductions, which pursue incremental progress over improbable zero-waste and hydrogen economy scenarios, for a very compelling reason: They actually work.
     UPS is working on the deployment of new “hydraulic hybrid” trucks, developed and patented by the EPA in partnership with private interests and the U.S. Army. They store braking energy mechanically in pressurized cylinders and require no batteries, making them simpler, less expensive and more reliable than fuel-electric hybrids. Along with higher torque and acceleration, they deliver 60% efficiency improvements over standard diesel engines, which will help with UPS’s $1.4 billion annual fuel spend, not to mention their global carbon footprint.
     And some of these initiatives eclipse government regulation entirely, by creating a marketplace for second-order effects consumers can evaluate. The Forest Stewardship Council, for instance, comprised of timber producers, retailers, scientists and conservationists, has developed standards for sound logging, custody and tracking. By introducing RFID technology to track timber from harvest to home-site, FSC can reliably certify lumber as responsibly produced. Over 73 million hectares in 72 countries are now in the program. Home Depot, one of the world’s largest lumber buyers, has agreed to buy only FSC-certified lumber.
     NGOs that work with businesses to educate end consumers about the up- and downstream consequences of purchase decisions are bringing a measure of efficiency to the classic dilemma of the commons. Such markets for stewardship are more efficient than legislative prescription, more self-policing than command-and-control regulation, and more effective than traditional postures of false conflict and reductive opposition. The only downsides, of course, are limited livelihoods for litigators and fewer fear-driven fundraisers.
     The future of environmental and economic policy rests not with the celebrity-driven anti-industrial complex, but with those who apply market incentives to enlist the self-interest of private agents in service to the public good. The smart activists are focusing less on outrage, and more on outcomes.       - MDL

    Click to return
firms have also converted truck fleets to electric vehicles or plug-in hybrids. By reducing energy consumption, they hope to lower operating costs, making them more competitive and increasing profit margins.
     Responding to a growing market for "green" products and services, corporations have developed new processes and products which are more efficient, less polluting and purportedly "green." They have also launched promotion campaigns to convince customers that their products and operations are environmentally sensitive.
Buyer Beware!However, there is no government agency or trade association to certify that corporate operations, products or services are "green", and the consumer either must personally investigate these claims or rely on manufacturers' claims. While claims that food products are natural, light or organic can be checked, the assertion that products are "green" is more complicated, since it is not just the ingredients of the product which are in question, but how it was manufactured, processed, packaged and delivered, information beyond the knowledge base of most consumers. How do consumers know that a product is biodegradable, carbon neutral or made from sustainable materials?
     By way of illustration, the recycling of plastic bottles to make rugs and outerwear saves raw materials, including oil, and keeps the bottles out of landfills. But those products may be made from plastic bottles collected in the United States, shipped to Asia for processing and then shipped back to the American market non-biodegradable products. Likewise, clothing made from natural plant-based materials may require the use of chemicals to make the fiber softer or more durable.
     Since the American public has apparently endorsed the concept of "green," and consumers are more likely to buy a product which is labeled natural, organic or carbon neutral, they can also be misled into purchasing items whose claims are false or exaggerated. When this happens, the consumer has been duped by "greenwashing" to purchase falsely advertised "green light" products.
     Lacking any certification by a government agency or consumer association, consumers have no proof of the green claims other than the information provided by the producer or retailer. If that information is inaccurate, the false claims will not only distort the market, but also undermine the public's willingness to pay higher price or to patronize companies which are truly green. Even buying strictly local products is no guarantee that your purchases have had minimal impact on the planet.
     "Greenwashing" can also create an illusion that a large corporation deserves patronage or capital, thereby discouraging smaller, truly green firms, or denying them the necessary capital to produce and distribute their green products.
Carbon Trading/Offsets      The emerging carbon trading market may also be subject to "greenwashing," since there may be no proof of actual carbon offsets and there is no agency or association to certify what is a valid offset. While it is admirable that airline passengers or purchasers of new automobiles can learn how much their travel or purchases have affected carbon emissions and purchase carbon offsets, how do they know that what they are investing in will help to reduce emissions, especially since this involves highly technical information and there is no way to measure or guarantee this benefit?
     Selling carbon offsets has been compared to selling indulgences, allowing those who travel extensively, live in monster houses or drive gas-guzzling cars to relieve their consciences without changing their habits. It is a way of letting the wealthy feel good, thinking that they have made a donation to counter the damages of their affluent life styles. As in the case of green washed products, there is also no standard or oversight to guarantee the results of their donations.
     As an alternative to purchasing carbon offsets for new automobiles, some concerned citizens have advocated a carbon tax which would be based on a car's fuel consumption or emissions. But others have pointed out that since the poor and elderly tend to drive older, less efficient cars for relatively short distances, a gasoline or fuel tax at the pump would be more equitable. Under either proposal, the additional revenue could be used for renewable energy projects or to provide a rebate for the purchase of more energy efficient cars.
     Since there is no universal standard for measuring one's carbon footprint or the processes whereby one can become carbon neutral, how does the average consumer make a well intentioned decision to offset their emissions? Planting a tree may absorb carbon during its lifetime, but when it dies and decomposes, carbon dioxide is released. Donating to alternative energy projects may feel good, but does it really make a difference in the development of that industry or the production of clean energy? And who will determine the amount of the savings or guarantee that the trees will not only be planted, but will not be cut down, all of which is susceptible to manipulation or fraud.
Federal Trade Commission      Since American corporations and consumers spent $54 million last year on carbon credits to offset their operations or purchases, the Federal Trade Commission recently held meetings on green marketing. Although the FTC regulates advertising claims, it has not revised its "Green Guides" since 1998, and is asking for suggestions on how to update these guidelines as well as to regulate the carbon offset programs which companies offer to their customers.
     To be effective, however, these new guidelines must be drawn up in an open and transparent process and have the full backing of the federal government. Given the recent scare about the safety of imported toys and foods, and the urgency of converting to a greener economy, adopting and enforcing comprehensive guidelines for green products and carbon offsets should have a high priority. This means providing adequate resources to hire the best scientific minds, develop state-of-the art research facilities, and provide adequate enforcement for enabling legislation.
Consumer Choice and National Policies      Just as wealthy individuals may purchase carbon offsets, wealthy nations can invest in energy saving or carbon-reducing operations in poor countries, without cleaning up their domestic operations. Generally, this is cheaper, but since the wealthy nations have been the major producers of carbon emissions, it basically lets them off the hook, but is good for public relations. Because this also raises the question of whether the project would have been initiated without new foreign investment, the Kyoto Protocol provided that such investments must be in addition to what was already planned by the host country, in order to be certified as constituting a valid carbon offset by the Clean Development Mechanism.
     Instead of purchasing questionable carbon offsets in order to feel good, individuals, as well as corporations and nations, should be looking for ways to reduce their consumption of fossil fuels and, therefore, their emissions. As a nation we need to establish standards that will make a difference, allowing us to accurately measure and reduce our carbon footprint, make informed consumer choices and support the efforts of government agencies, corporations and international agencies to reduce emissions and address global warming.
     There is also a need to make intelligent consumer choices, not changing wardrobes every season, or replacing our perfectly functioning appliances to match our decor, or buying new luxury cars, all of which increase our carbon footprint. While some of the "green products" may be organic, or made in an environmentally sensitive ways, we should ask how have the organic materials been processed or have they been transported thousands of miles to be manufactured and then shipped to retail outlets? What kind of energy has also gone into the growing, harvesting, processing and distribution of "natural" products?
     Since our over-consumption is part of the problem, requiring the use of more and more raw materials and energy, "green consumerism" is a contradiction which may actually increase our carbon footprint, while not addressing the fundamental issue of consumerism. Eating fresh fruit in winter from half way around the world, no matter how organic, is farcical in terms of reducing carbon emissions or alleviating global warming. Since they do not require any new materials, the greenest clothes you can wear are those you already own.
     Because making informed consumer choices does not really address the problem of global warming, we need to develop effective public policies to address our dependency on oil for transportation and coal for electricity, and to promote higher density housing at affordable prices, combined with public transit. If consumers consciously decide to purchase green products, certified by a federal agency or trade association, perhaps they will also be motivated to endorse constructive "green" public policies needed to address a complex problem.       - DAW