ABOUT
Smart discussion of the latest science and news on toxins in your food, water, and air, and what government agencies should be doing to protect public health. Written by EWG staff.
DONATE TO EWG TODAY
We need you to help protect your health and environment! Please donate $5 to EWG today.
GET EWG'S TIPS & ACTION ALERTS
Sign Up here to receive email updates and tips from EWG and stay informed on the issues that matter most to you.
Get EWG widgets & blog badges.
ENVIROBLOG TO YOU
ENVIROBLOG VIA EMAIL
Prom dresses, tiaras and combat boots
SEARCH ENVIROBLOG
FEATURED
Why, oh why is there plastic in my aluminum water bottle?
Cell phone radiation series - Part 2: 8 Ways to reduce your exposure
Infant formula: How to choose it & use it
EWG's Tips for Parents: The Series
EWG's Tips to avoid BPA exposure
Let's talk some serious shop about TSCA reform
EWG on TV
Cutting the Pork from U.S. Farm Bill
Sunscreen safety & DC drinking water
Perchlorate in people, kids' personal care products & plastics, and sunscreen
BPA in baby formula & safe cosmetics
What can I do about fluoride in my water?
What is new carpet treated with? What can I do?
Are stainless steel water bottles safe?
Is mineral-based makeup safer?
PEOPLE TALKING TOXICS
TALK TO US
Did we miss something? Email Enviroblog.
Monthly Archive
EWG expert on Good Morning America
Saturday Good Morning America aired a piece on toxic rocket fuel in our food and water supply. EWG Senior Scientist Anila Jacob was the resident expert. Watch the piece here.
Rocket fuel in your drinking water?
We got just the man
This post is written by Enviroblogger Alex Formuzis. He is away from his computer today so I've posted it on his behalf.
There I was earlier this week sitting in the back of a congressional committee hearing room listening to members of Congress and Bush Administration officials from the EPA, FDA, and Defense Department sparring over what level of rocket fuel in the nation’s drinking water is bad, or if it’s even bad at all. Hmmm, I’m going to go way out on a limb and say that if I put two glasses of water in front of anyone in the world and told them one had rocket fuel in it and one didn’t, their first question to me would be “Which is the glass without it?”
How did rocket fuel get into our drinking water, you ask? Well, from
a number of different ways, but by far the biggest culprit is the
Department of Defense and big defense contractors. You see, over
years as they tested military equipment, from rockets to fighter
jets, the fuel used seeped into the ground and ended up in our
drinking water. Most states have found rocket fuel, or the technical
term, perchlorate in their water.
But not to worry – at the hearing I learned something new. There is
actually a high-ranking official at the Defense Department in charge
of cleaning it all up. And, according to the Defense Department’s
own website the person in this position is in charge of: “cleanup
at active and closing bases, compliance with environmental laws,
conservation of natural and cultural resources, pollution prevention,
environmental technology, fire protection, safety and explosive
safety, and pest management and disease control for Defense
activities worldwide.”
That sounds like a big job, and one I would hope the president
wouldn’t trust in the hands of just anyone. I know I sure
wouldn’t. But, when I found out who that person is, and
what he did before he landed in his current role as Assistant Under-
Deputy Secretary of Defense for the Environment, Safety and
Occupational Health, I got a little worried that maybe, just maybe,
he may not be throwing all he has into his new gig.
Alex Beehler was a longtime employee at Koch Industries, one of the
largest privately held companies in the world, dabbling in
commodities trading, petroleum, chemicals, energy, fiber,
intermediates and polymers, minerals, fertilizers, pulp and paper,
chemical technology equipment and ranching. He was the Director of
Environmental and Regulatory Affairs – that’s just a longwinded
way to say ‘lobbyist’.
Now, at the same time Beehler was responsible for representing and
defending Koch’s interests in Washington, the company was found
responsible for over 300 oil spills in five states, which led to a
$35 million fine from the EPA. In one of the states (Minnesota) it
was fined an additional $8 million for releasing oil into streams and
rivers. But that’s small potatoes compared to what was about to
happen:
In the fall of 2000, just a few months before the nation would choose
its next president, Koch Industries was facing serious trouble with a
97-count federal indictment charging the company with hiding illegal
releases of 91 metric tons of the carcinogen benzene from its
refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas.
It looked like some fancy footwork and good old-fashioned courtroom
lawyering was the only thing that was going to get Koch out of this
jam. If convicted, Koch faced fines of $352 million with several
executives facing jail time in a federal pen. However, just after the
White House changed hands, and the Justice Department was under new
leadership, the department dropped all the charges just two days
before the trial was to begin, and settled with a fine of $20 million.
Now, I’m not sure what, if any role Alex Beehler played in this
sordid tale, but in order to land a plum presidential appointment
where you get to have "Secretary of Defense" in your title, one would
think the men and women in charge of filling all those newly vacant
positions took one look at his resume and really liked the cut of
this man’s jib.
Ask EWG: Is mineral-based make-up safer?
Question: Is mineral-based make-up safer for you than make-up bought at drug stores or department stores? Most of the mineral-based make-up contains titanium dioxide and/or silica, and some contain iron of some type. Is this okay for your skin? I am wondering how such make-up is absorbed into the body, too!
Answer: Like all cosmetics, mineral-based products raise more questions about their safety than answers. Many mineral-based make-ups contain (or potentially contain) nano-size ingredients, which are 10 to 1,000 times smaller than their normally-sized counterparts and are more likely to be absorbed into the body through the skin because they're so small. (See EWG's research on nano-materials.)
One recent study by the National Center for Toxicological Research found that nano-sized particles could be detected throughout the lymphatic system within minutes after being deposited in the skin of mice. And once nano-particles are absorbed by the body, studies to date suggest that they are quite damaging--for instance, they can cause emphysema-like symptoms when absorbed into the lungs and are toxic to a variety of cells. In short, it is a good idea to avoid inhaling mineral-based cosmetics--be careful to not create dust, as particles can quickly absorb deep into the lungs--and avoid using them on damaged skin where the likelihood of absorption is dramatically increased.
As for the second part of the question, we have a limited understanding of the ingredients titanium dioxide, silica, and iron, as used in cosmetics. (Click on each ingredient to learn more about what we do know in our cosmetics database, Skin Deep.) Why don't we know more? Because the FDA doesn't require companies to test their own products for safety. If you think that's ridiculous, sign our petition to the FDA urging them to set safety standards when it comes to the products we all use every day.
Want more Ask EWG goodness? Read "Ask EWG: What is new carpet treated with? What can I do?"
Got a question for our researchers? Send it in! We'll select one (or a few) for next month's edition of Ask EWG.
Want Ask EWG sent to your inbox? Sign up for our monthly bulletin.
Ask EWG: What is new carpet treated with? What can I do?
Question: I've heard nasty rumors regarding the treatment of carpet before it's sold and put into a house. I've heard that it's treated with some really bad chemicals, then rolled up and stored until sold. I'd really like to know what the carpet is treated with and what's the best thing to do.
Answer: Most carpets manufactured today are coated with a mixture of stain-resistant fluorochemicals sold under familiar brand names like Stainmaster, Scotchgard, and nearly anything advertised as "nonstick" or "water repellant." These coatings are effective at preventing stains, but at least one of the impurities and breakdown products (PFOA and similar chemicals) has been identified as a likely human carcinogen and associated with developmental harm in newborn lab animals. There are currently many studies underway looking at the specific effects on humans.
Thanks to a Center for Disease Control biomonitoring study, we know that more than 90% of Americans have PFOA in their blood, but how the chemical got there is still not completely understood. Most scientific consensus now points away from coated frying pans, though a recent study by the New York Department of Health detected PFOA coming off pans at normal use temperatures. Other possible sources include stain resistant coatings on furniture and carpeting, coatings on food products, and water supply contamination.
If you're still using Teflon-coated pans in your kitchen, take a look at our list of cooking alternatives. This is especially imperative if you have pet birds in the house, since "Teflon toxicosis" caused by fumes from nonstick pans can kill birds.
So what's being done about Teflon? Thanks in part to EWG's hard work on perfluorochemicals, in January 2006 the Environmental Protection Agency signed a voluntary agreement with eight companies to virtually eliminate new exposures of these chemicals by 2015. It is impossible to eliminate the old sources of contamination since the chemical will pollute the Earth for thousands of years thanks to its imperviousness to breaking down, but you can avoid new "stain-resistant" coated carpets and furniture, as well as coated paper products like popcorn bags and paper plates. And, by the way, if you do need to replace your aging carpet, limit your contact with the padding installed under it, as the foam can contain PDBEs, neurotoxic fire retardant chemicals.
Want more Ask EWG goodness? Read "Ask EWG: Is mineral-based make-up safer?"
Got a question for our researchers? Send it in! We'll select one (or a few) for next month's edition of Ask EWG.
Want Ask EWG sent to your inbox? Sign up for our monthly bulletin.
Parts is parts
Big Oil is getting into the biodiesel game. On the surface that’s good news. Last week I wrote about oil companies and how through their gas station franchises they are not allowing competing products like biodiesel to arrive on the pumps. Now Conoco-Phillips has entered into an agreement with Tyson Foods to produce the oil company's own brand of biodiesel out of leftover, well, parts from Tyson’s chicken, beef, and pork production.
While not technically biodiesel, the process does take organic materials and using a chemical process turns it into diesel fuel. What sets it apart is the use of existing traditional refineries.
If Conoco-Phillips is putting out a diesel product that burns cleaner, uses waste materials, and is not a foreign source of energy, then I’m all for it. It seems, however, that this idea was hatched to take advantage of federal tax incentives introduced for biodiesel refineries. Several biodiesel organizations and producers have cried foul. They allege that the Connoco-Philips successfully lobbied the IRS to expand the incentive loophole and hijack the biodiesel industry.
"If Congress lets this stand, our government will be handing over U.S. taxpayer money to some of the richest companies in the world…”
Joe Jobe, CEO of the National Biodiesel Board.
I am shocked at how unshocked I am at the news that the IRS assisted a big oil company in making more money. Our descendents will look back on the first ten years of the millennia as the "No-Bid Decade."
Just to be fair, I can’t help but point out a certain amount of hypocrisy in Mr. Jobe’s comments. Of the soybeans used to produce biodiesel represented by Mr. Jobe’s organization, how many were grown on profitable large agribusiness farms that receive taxpayer-funded farm subsidies?
Corporate welfare is corporate welfare.
(At this moment I cannot comprehend the bizarro world of logic I find myself in -- even tangentially defending a big oil company.)
Big Oil exploited a loophole to make more money. It’s been clear for a while what their priorities are. If they are going to take any steps towards addressing global warming/energy independence it will be profit motivated. We currently are not using wealth as a measurement for who receives government farm subsidies. This just proves how twisted and broken the system is.
Finally, and in all seriousness, does biodiesel produced from animal byproducts and waste parts pose an ethical quandary to vegetarians and vegans?
Prom dresses, tiaras and combat boots
By guest blogger Becky Sutton of EWG's California office
The attire for Project Prom 2007, yesterday’s Teens for Safe Cosmetics rally, symbolized the commitment to fight for safe and healthy beauty products. Live music and passionate speeches from the teens and their supporters rang out over San Francisco’s Union Square, as rallygoers and passing pedestrians enjoyed free green makeovers on a rare warm and sunny day in the City.
Jessica Assaf, a leading member of Teens for Safe Cosmetics, summed up the rally: "This is about standing up to a billion-dollar industry and demanding change. We should not have to choose between beauty and our health." (Read more about the rally in today’s Oakland Tribune.)
The Teens for Safe Cosmetics are big fans of Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep database, an online database of thousands of personal care products, each with a safety rating based on U.S. and international toxicological and regulatory databases. The teens keep pushing us to add more products to the database – we’re working on it! In fact, we’ll release an exciting update to Skin Deep very soon.
For our next project on cosmetics, we’ll move from looking at products to looking at people – specifically, teens. 20 teens, from all over California and the U.S., have volunteered to give us samples of their blood and urine. We’ll test these samples for a variety of chemicals found in many personal care products, chemicals linked to significant potential health concerns. Each of our teen participants will learn her very own chemical body burden, the pollution in her own body. I’m excited to see how all of these teens use this uniquely personal information to educate and to fight to make personal care products safe for all of us.
A bright kind of proposal
A high school algebra project first clued me in to the inefficiencies of incandescent light bulbs. After working out some basic calculations in the classroom, I was appalled to find just how much electricity these virtual heat-lamps devour (and how much more they add to electric bills) in relation to their fluorescent counterparts. A compact fluorescent light bulb uses less than a quarter of the watts required for an incandescent bulb. Since lighting consumes about 22 percent of electricity in US households, switching bulbs can put a real dent in monthly utilities costs.
Though I tried to explain the ecological/economical sense of CFLs to anyone who might listen, I was often ignored. “They’re too expensive. They don’t give off the right kind of light,” others would say.
Sure, when you’re standing in the home-goods aisle with a few bucks stuffed in your back pocket, it’s difficult to drop several dollars on a funky space-age looking bulb when the traditional ones go for fifty cents apiece.
But over its lifespan, each CFL can save $30 or more and prevent over 450 pounds of power plant emissions. Some of the newer CFLs even mimic the size and shape of a standard incandescent, and they all emit a warm color range unless labeled otherwise. So what gives?
Some lawmakers in California are now considering an efficiency mandate for light bulbs, proposed by Utilities and Commerce Committee chairman Lloyd Levine. Though some argue that consumers should have unlimited choice in what type of light bulbs they purchase, others think the bill is a necessary step in reducing energy consumption and curbing greenhouse gas emissions in the state of California.
Mark Murray of Californians Against Waste said, “It's hard to identify a technology that is more inefficient and backward than the incandescent bulb.”
Earth Day . . . again?
We used to call them MEGO stories: My Eyes Glaze Over.
For reporters, stories marking holidays and anniversaries are among the most dreaded assignments in the newsroom, right up there with the weather and the interview with the nursing home resident who's still spry at 111. What can you say about Valentine's Day, Halloween or the 50th annniversary of a big tornado that hasn't already been said?
Unfortunately, the Earth Day story is often a MEGO. Too many of the Earth Day stories that ran over the past weekend fit a tired pattern: Environmentalism, once a fringe countercultural movement, has gone mainstream, with everyone from oil companies to corner coffee shops taking up the cause. Green is cool. It's everywhere, influencing the arts, entertainment, fashion, religion, education, restaurants, travel, sports. Lots of celebrities are green. Al Gore made a movie about it. There's more than one kind of green. Here's what you can do to help.
From this year's digital stack of Earth Day clippings, here are a couple of hard-hitting exceptions – all the more welcome coming from California, where it lately seems like the only environmental story considered worth covering involves a cigar-smoking, Hummer-driving politician. Both are multimedia packages that show how well suited environmental reporting is to the new technology of online journalism.
• Douglas Fischer of the MediaNews chain (Oakland Tribune, Contra Costa Times, San Jose Mercury News) looks at a different anniversary: It's been 10 years since Bill Clinton signed an executive order directing federal agencies to base environmental decisions on what's best for children's health. The order was hardly noticed at the time, but Fischer quotes influential policy makers who say it was the beginning of a sea change in the focus of environmental health that has spread worldwide.
Unfortunately, as Fischer notes, "All is not roses." In a sidebar, he recounts how bisphenol A, a chemical used in plastic bottles and the linings of food cans, has not been banned despite evidence that it causes birth defects. Says EWG's Sonya Lunder: "There's no margin of safety for the typical person who eats one canned food product a day."
• The Sacramento Bee showcases an ambitious investigative series, six months in the making, that details the extensive toxic legacy of the state's military installations and defense plants. "Wastes of War" by Russell Carollo begins:
Time bombs lurk beneath California, from the Mexican border to the Oregon state line, under hills, valleys and coastlines – poised to contaminate wells, pollute waterways, jeopardize property values and endanger human lives.Hundreds of locations already have been polluted, and how much more of the state is at risk, no one really knows.
What is known is that more than 1,000 confirmed and suspected military sites, the largest number in the country, are spread across California, covering 7.5 percent of the state – an area more than twice the size of Connecticut. Many were abandoned decades ago but may still be contaminated with toxic chemicals, bombs and other munitions or even radioactive waste.
The problem is vast, completely overwhelming the resources available to protect public health. Do the champions of free-market environmentalism really think the marketplace can clean up 1,000 military toxic waste sites? Can it protect kids from a toxic chemical the public never even knew about?
Dead trees or pixels?
Some tout the electronic age as a greening tool that replaced snail mail with e-mail, saving trees and gasoline while improving efficiency in business, government, and in our personal lives.
But just how much have computers lessened our ecological footprints? EWG's Dusty Horwitt found that per capita paper consumption continued to increase after the rise of the digital lifestyle. He also notes that “electronic news uses more energy – and traditional means of delivery use less – than most people would assume.”
Read Dusty's op-ed in The Baltimore Sun: Has the environment really benefited from 'paperless' Internet age?
It's makeup time!
Awhile ago, it would be unusual for men to go shopping for makeup, and even less likely for them to wear it. That trend is changing now, with an increased percentage of men who decide to “pretty up” by using make up. Brands such as Clinique, Clarins and Jean Paul Gaultier are making products specifically for men, and if trend predictions are correct, other stores will soon be crowded with men buying makeup.
According to an article in softedia, “Becoming more aware of personal hygiene does not mean less manhood. Legs and arms shaving, pubic hairstyles, make-up natural kits for men, weekly tanning sessions and monthly male beauty centre visits, do not stand for Queer anymore, but for a healthy lifestyle.”
However, an increase in the use of cosmetic products does mean exposure to more chemicals. Currently, men use an average of 6 products per day, while women use about 12. On average, both women and men are exposed to 126 different chemicals daily. To read more about EWG research on cosmetics, click here
Women's health conference in Pittsburgh
Teresa Heinz—in collaboration with the Heinz Foundation and the Magee-Women’s Hospital of UMPC—sponsored a Women’s Health and the Environment Conference on Friday, April 20, at the David L. Lawrence Center in Pittsburgh. This annual conference has existed for the past decade in Boston, but just arrived in Pittsburgh for the first time this spring.
Speakers from around the country will speak about a variety of topics concerning environmental risks to women’s health, including Environmental Working Group’s vice president of research Jane Houlihan, who will host a presentation on safe cosmetics.
Several live-bloggers attended the conference earlier today. Check out their documentation of the event at Daily Kos, The Democratic Daily, and Democracy Cell Project.
More info on Women’s Health and the Environment here.
If you break it, you should pay for it
I wonder what would happen Congress decided it was high time corporate polluters and not the taxpayers should once again pick up the tab for cleaning up the messes they made at the thousands of Superfund sites across the country?
The White House almost never misses an opportunity to call for policies that allow the American taxpayer to keep more of his or her paycheck. But, when the Bush administration looked around for some good ideas on how to achieve this, reinstating the “Polluter Pays” tax on the industries responsible for the environmentally hazardous sites wasn’t even mentioned.
The Republican-controlled Congress let the fee on corporate polluters expire back in 1995, and since then all the money in Superfund has been spent, forcing taxpayers to pay the entire bill. Now that power has changed hands in Congress, Democrats and moderate Republicans might move to reinstate the fee so the big chemical companies and large manufacturers who dumped their toxins and left behind dangerous chemicals that have left millions of families exposed are once again forced to pay for their cleanup.
If Congress took action, we hope President Bush would put the public’s health ahead of the financial interests of those industries that are responsible for the contamination in the first place.
Mowing down emissions
As spring blossoms into summer and rusty lawn mowers begin to creep out of the dark corners of garages, our traditional yard maintenance machines will meet new criticism for their eco-shortfalls. On Tuesday, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a new rule that would require catalytic converters for small engines under 25 horsepower, commonly found in lawn mowers, generators, and other devices. According to the Marketplace Morning Report, this legislation could reduce small-engine pollution by as much as 70 percent. In certain parts of the US, the simple act of trimming grass produces one-tenth of summertime smog pollution from mobile sources.
Let’s face it—lawn care doesn’t exactly have the best environmental track record. Toxic pesticides too often grace our backyard treasures, obliterating dandelions without remorse and posing health risks to unsuspecting children who refuse to sit inside on pretty days to avoid hazardous chemical exposure. In more arid regions, lawn watering restrictions turn the summer months into enforcement nightmares, as cities and towns attempt to dole out limited water resources to a crowd thirsty for a Jones-style yard.
What most folks don’t realize is that grass actually produces fewer weeds and requires less water when left a bit shaggy. Add the EPA’s proposed small-engine catalytic converters to sensible lawn care practices and perhaps the grass will be a shade greener, after all.
Real green heroes
For a respite from the mainstream media's celebrity-focused environmental coverage, check out the Earth Day edition of Quest from KQED-TV, San Francisco's PBS station. It's an inspiring look back at the "everyday people who helped rescue the Bay Area from environmental disaster." These are the pioneering activists – "environmentalist" wasn't even a word yet – who introduced curbside recycling, halted plans to fill in 70% of the Bay and kept beachfront condos out of West Marin. Notably, many of them were women, the suburban moms once known as "homemakers." Save the Bay's Sylvia McLaughlin talks about how she came to see in that term a responsibility to make the Earth a better home. Their legacy lives on in people like Denny Larson of Global Community Monitor, who is seen giving inner-city kids a toxic tour of their own neighborhood.
The tale of a frustrated bio-diesel consumer
Two years ago, I bought a diesel vehicle. I was living in South Dakota and the idea was to immediately become a consumer of a homegrown fuel, in this case bio-diesel. The bio-diesel produced in South Dakota is generated for the most part from soybeans, but some from sunflowers.
The vehicle was a quasi-experimental Jeep from Daimler-Chrysler. The Jeep Liberty CRD, or Common Rail Diesel, logs an SUV-impressive 30 MPG using conventional diesel fuel. I was excited to fill up that first tank with bio-diesel, but was greeted with a grim reality – there were no bio-diesel pumps in Pierre, SD. Imagine that. In the capitol city of a state many regard as a major producer of ethanol and bio-diesel, there was not a single bio-diesel pump. (I do not consider B2 bio-diesel because of the nominal amount – most diesel producers use 2% anyway because it is a better engine lubricant).
Fast-forward to today and I now live in Washington DC. Upon driving into the city, I was excited to finally fill my tank with the ‘home-grown’ fuel promise. A quick search, however, yielded more disappointment. The nearest bio-diesel fueling station…Leesburg, Virginia (and it's only B5).
So if the capitol city of a farm state/Saudi Arabia of the plains can’t pump bio-diesel, and the United States Capitol can’t pump bio-diesel, are we really getting any closer to weaning ourselves from our addiction to fossil fuels?
The picture on why becomes clearer when you read this much circulated Wall Street Journal article [subscription required] that places the blame squarely on the big oil companies who through franchise agreements with filling stations simply won’t allow a competing product.
While bio-diesel will eventually not be the answer to our environmental and energy independence challenges, it is an attractive transition with its sourcing possibilities (especially compared to the news of ethanol’s potential environmental impact).
I just wish I could use it.
Magazines go green
It seems like every magazine puts out a "Green Issue" these days. And while I love nothing more than to see increasing attention paid to the environmental movement, there is a wide disparity in the depth and quality of these new green issues, ranging from the extremes of celebrity worship (can't they think of anyone more interesting to interview than Arnold Schwarzenegger?) and green shopping mania to more thoughtful analyses of international policy and the "what you can do" sections.
Columbia Journalism Review offers A Guide Through the Jungle of Green Issues where you can get a more comprehensive playback of the most recent eco-issues to print. CJR calls out the Elle issue which featured EWG's body burden work.
Last Action Hero
Our governor, who was oiling his quads for the camera when Lois Gibbs was fighting a chemical catastrophe at Love Canal, is suddenly being hailed as an environmental hero.
He's the GOP’s Al Gore. He’s simultaneously on the covers of special green issues of Newsweek and Outside, with fawning articles and Q&As recounting how he gets policy tips from his cousin-in-law Bobby Kennedy Jr. and has one Hummer that runs on hydrogen, another on biodiesel. He’s a jet-setting green diplomat, signing global warming pacts with Canada and Britain. He’s the keynote speaker at prestigious international climate change conferences.
Fine. To a point.
Arnold Schwarzenegger does seem to understand that the planet is in trouble. As a green Republican, he is a welcome contrast to the know-nothing, do-less attitude of President Bush. His movie star persona is perfect for delivering lines like "Arnold to Detroit: Get off your butt.“
But when he says the problem with environmentalism is that it’s not hip or sexy – that the movement has been a failure because it’s based on guilt and sacrifice, not optimism and fun – I must respond with one of the more eloquent lines from his signature role as an android assassin:
Wrong.
Here's what the governor said last week at Georgetown University:
"Pumping Iron" changed the image of body-building dramatically. . . . The perception of body-building began to change and it became more and more hip and more and more attractive. . . . It became mainstream. It became sexy, attractive. And this is exactly what has to happen with the environmental movement.Like body-builders, environmentalists were thought of as, kind of, weird and fanatics also. You know, they're, kind of, serious tree-huggers. Environmentalists were no fun. They were like Prohibitionists at the fraternity party.
For too long, the environmental movement has been powered by guilt. But I believe that this is about the switch-over from being powered by guilt to being powered by something much more positive, something much more dynamic, something much more capable of bringing about major change. . . . I don't think that any movement has ever made it and has ever made much progress based on guilt. Guilt is passive, guilt is inhibiting and guilt is defensive.
You remember the commercials a number of years ago, the commercials specifically of a Native American who sees what we have done to the environment and then a tear runs down his cheek? You all remember that?
Well, let me tell you something. That approach didn't work because successful movements are built on passion; they're not built on guilt. They're built on passion, they're built on confidence and they're built on critical mass. And, often, they're built on an element of alarm that galvanizes action. . . . [T]he tipping point will be occurring when the environmental movement is no longer seen as a nag or as a scold, but as a positive force in people's lives.
(Disclosure: Schwarzenegger’s chief speechwriter is a friend and former newspaper colleague of mine. Gary, I may have problems with your boss’ message, but the sound bites are working – check those approval ratings.)
Weird? Nags? Prohibitionists? Watch it, Governor, those are my people you’re talking about.
I know a lot of sexy, optimistic, fun environmentalists. Some of us are not as sexy as we used to be, and decades of sounding the alarm in the deaf ears of politicians and the business community have tempered our optimism with cynicism. But we’re still more fun than most people I’ve ever spent much time with. (Which includes politicians but not body builders and action-movie stars, so I don’t know for sure how we stack up to Arnold’s crowd. By all accounts, he was a real cut-up on the set.)
And passion? You haven't seen passion until you've seen kids, grownups and grandparents – even some movie stars – willingly go to jail for protesting nuclear weapons or toxic waste incinerators or clear-cutting.
Yes, environmentalists talk too much about poisons in our air, water and food, and the vanishing rainforest and radioactive waste and endangered species, and the criminal greed of polluting corporations and the cowardly refusal of governments to stop them. That’s because it‘s the truth. Yes, we should tell more success stories and talk more about innovative alternatives and give more credit to companies who are trying to do the right thing. That doesn't change the truth.
My problem with Schwarzenegger is that he’s encouraging a brand of warm and fuzzy, feel-good environmentalism that faces no inconvenient truths. Global warming is a concern, sure, but it doesn’t call for any fundamental changes in how we live our lives or do business. In fact, it’s a great way to make money. Environmentalism isn’t about curbing our reckless consumption of carbon and other consumer goods; it’s about having more cool choices – if you can afford them.
Now California, for instance, has already a car company that's called Tesla Motors. Tesla Motors has just designed and produced a car. It's called the Tesla Roadster. It's 100 percent electric. . . .Now this car, let me tell you something, is a very sexy-looking car. It's really cool. I mean, I test-drove it. It goes from zero to 60 in four seconds, it drives 130 miles an hour, and it drives 250 miles on a charge, and then the recharging only takes three-and-a-half hours. Now that's what I call cool.
And the car costs $100,000 -- to be exact, $98,000 -- and it is so popular it sold out immediately, that now the second version is being produced. And that car, the cost will drop down to $50,000. So we see where this is heading.
It’s heading toward rich Californians paying $50,000 for a two-seat sportscar with zero emissions, while poor Californians deal with cutbacks in inner-city transit service. (Schwarzenegger's latest proposed budget includes moving $1 billion in gasoline tax revenues away from mass transit.)
At Georgetown, Schwarzenegger got laughs with the story of going on MTV’s “Pimp My Ride” and outfitting a ’65 Impala with
. . . an 800-horsepower engine that goes from zero to 60 in three seconds. Now, you know how fast that is -- in three seconds. But it is biofueled. And that means that it emits 50 percent less greenhouse gases and it goes twice as far.Now that's what I call cool. You see, now we cut down on the greenhouse emissions. So we don't have to really go and take away the muscle cars. We don't have to take away the Hummers or the SUVs or anything like this, because that's a formula for failure. Instead, what we have to do is make those cars more environmentally muscular.
He’s not sounding an alarm; he’s reassuring us that everything will be all right. We can have hot rods and clean air! Relax, have a cigar. James Murray at Green Business News dissects the politics of this brand of environmentally positive thinking:
[W]hat Schwarzenegger and many other politicians seem to be saying is that environmentalists should stop behaving "like prohibitionists at the fraternity party" because technology will ensure everything will be alright without anyone having to make any major sacrifices or fundamental changes to their lifestyles and business models. According to Schwarzenegger, he doesn't need to get rid of his private jet after all.But while this "technology will save us" message makes for great political oratory it is a recipe for long term climatic disaster. . . .
Under pressure from voters it is very hard for politicians to be honest about the scale of the challenge posed by reducing carbon emissions and in fairness to Schwarzenegger he has done more than most to begin the transition towards a low carbon economy . . .
But there is a danger inherent to this approach of reassuring people and businesses that they do not have to make fundamental changes, because failing to face up to the fact that certain products and behaviours are simply unsustainable will only make it harder for politicians to push through the necessary changes when they realise we are not reducing carbon emissions fast enough to stabilise the climate.
There’s another reason it bugs me to see Schwarzenegger treated as an environmental hero: Global warming is the only green issue he seems to get. His reputation rests chiefly on the fact that he signed landmark legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 25 percent by 2020. But AB 32 was a Democratic legislator’s idea, and Schwarzenegger refused to sign it until he could soften the blow on business with an emissions trading scheme. What else?
He vetoed a bill to make the shipping industry pay for cleanup of dangerous levels of air pollution coming from the ports of LA and Long Beach. He did sign the nation’s first law establishing a state program to track chemical pollution in people, but he also vetoed a bill to restore Californians’ access to information about toxic chemicals in their communities, after a federal rollback of the Toxics Release Inventory. He has done nothing to speed up long-overdue safety standards for perchlorate, a rocket fuel waste that contaminates hundreds of water supplies in California. As another drought looms, he has declined to speak out against the wasteful, unfair and environmentally harmful giveaway of California’s water to a handful of Central Valley agribusinesses.
None of these actions negates what he’s done on global warming. But together they make it clear that as an environmental hero he’s a few merit badges short of Eagle Scout.
Heroes take risks. They do things that may not be popular, that will cost them personally or politically. Schwarzenegger’s environmentalism lite, on the other hand, is a politically cunning embrace of an issue with no downside. Tapes of the governor’s private meetings show that he and his staff understand very well the political value of his green agenda: His communications director Adam Mendelsohn told him last year: "I do not believe it's smart politics here in California to not talk about your environmental stuff."
Duh. Keep talking, Governor, but rather than comforting us with visions of the fantastic green future, start making people uncomfortable. Remind your Malibu neighbors that California has the highest percentage of minority residents living near toxic waste facilities. Tell the chemical industry they have no right to pollute the bodies of babies still in the womb. Announce that you will no longer accept campaign contributions from the oil industry.
Now that’s what I call cool.
Got MCS?
Awareness about Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS) is increasing nationwide. Cities and states are implementing some form of awareness programs and numerous institutions nationwide are making their workplaces fragrance free. This chronic condition with self-reported symptoms affects estimated 16% of the population.
Numerous studies show nearly 50% of the atmospheric pollutants are man made. It is estimated that more than 2,000 new chemical compounds are introduced annually and that over 60,000 different organic chemicals are used commercially today.
According to recent study, some of the possible triggers for MCS include:
* bleach, fabric softeners, wool-wash, and detergents
* household and industrial cleaning chemicals
* perfumes, lotion, scented personal care products
* air-fresheners and plug ins
* anything scented or perfumed
* petrol or gasoline, diesel and exhaust fumes
* pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, and other agricultural chemicals
* shampoos, hairsprays and personal care products
* dishwashing liquid and detergent (may cause migraine headaches for those without MCS)
* most glues (including carpet glue), varnishes, polishes, paints, solvents and paint-thinners
* petroleum-based products (including petroleum jelly)
* Caffeine
CFL's give better light than incandescents
Popular Mechanics tested seven different CFLs for brightness, color, and other characteristics and all seven stomped out the incandescent 'control' bulb. They only used one incandescent as a control which seems a bit unfair to the little energy drainers. But if, like me, you've decided CFLs are the way to go, then Popular Mechanics' results are a helpful buyer's guide to picking the right CFL for you. As it turns out, the N:Vision Soft Whites I've been using earned the highest 'overall' score. I'm very picky about light and have been pleased with the N:Vision bulbs despite my initial skepticism. If you prefer very warm light I recommend bouncing your CFLs off a warmer colored wall (I use my straw blinds), or experimenting with different lamp shades and fixtures. Dowload the CFL test results in PDF format before heading to the store.
via Siel at green LA girl
No bottled water at this fine restaurant
You won't find San Pellegrino or any other fancy imported water at Incanto, an Italian restaurant in San Francisco. In fact, you won't find any bottled water at all. Despite significant profit loss, Incanto's owner, Mark Pastore, refuses to pollute the oceans and air by shipping heavy glass water bottles across the ocean. Water bottled in plastic, produced domestically, is also out of the question for Pastore because of the plastic building up in our landfills and the large amount of petroleum needed to make it. But his customers need not be deprived of clean, bubbly water: Pastore has equipment to filter and carbonate his tap water. Some other prominent Bay Area restaurants, including Chez Panisse in Berkeley, have also stopped selling bottled water.
Good for them. Bottled water undermines consumers' confidence in their local water systems, allowing those with the resources the illusion of buying themselves out of "dirty" water. Illusion? Despite what water marketers would have us believe, bottled water faces less stringent regulation than tap water because it’s regulated as a food product, falling under the jurisdiction of FDA rather than the EPA.
EWG is currently working on a bottled water project. Tell us what you're drinking and help us build our database.
Commuting takes a toll on the body--
especially over time
As reported by the Washington Post in Your Car + Your Commute = A Visit to Your Doctor, your daily drive will make you angrier, stiffer, and home sick more often. Another compelling reason to reduce your carbon footprint.
Paper or plastic? Never mind
It's a question that may soon be irrelevant in Los Angeles and San Francisco.
Last week San Francisco became the first city in the U.S. to ban plastic checkout bags at large grocery and pharmacy chains, starting next year. The stores will have the option of using either recycled paper bags or compostable corn starch bags.
Not to be outdone, this week the LA County supervisors directed the public works department to study the problem of plastic bags and within three months recommend an option, including the possibility of an outright ban.
The San Francisco Chronicle's Charlie Goodyear says:
Fifty years ago, plastic bags -- starting first with the sandwich bag -- were seen in the United States as a more sanitary and environmentally friendly alternative to the deforesting paper bag. Now an estimated 180 million plastic bags are distributed to shoppers each year in San Francisco. Made of filmy plastic, they are hard to recycle and easily blow into trees and waterways, where they are blamed for killing marine life. They also occupy much-needed landfill space.
And the Chron goes on to cite some sobering statistics:
Plastic bags by the numbers180 million
Roughly the number of plastic shopping bags distributed in San Francisco each year.
2 to 3 cents
Amount each bag costs markets, compared with anywhere from 5 to 10 cents for a biodegradable bag.
4 trillion to 5 trillion
Number of nondegradable plastic bags used worldwide annually.
430,000 gallons
Amount of oil needed to produce 100 million nondegradable plastic bags.
SF shoppers seem to be in favor of the ban (even as they defend their own use of plastic bags). But only a few spoke up for the best alternative of all: Bringing your own cloth bags from home.
Automakers construct excuses, not solutions
According to the New York Times, American automakers recently put together a short list of reasons for not cutting carbon dioxide emissions in their vehicle fleets:
1. Individual states don’t have the right to regulate CO2 emissions.
2. Smaller vehicles endanger occupants’ lives.
3. Global warming really isn’t all that bad.
The scramble to defend automotive carbon pollution follows a Supreme Court decision on April 2, classifying carbon dioxide as an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. This ruling allows the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate CO2, paving the way for individual states such as California and several other Northeastern states to mandate emissions cuts in automobiles.
The industry claims that states don’t have the right to pass legislation against automotive CO2 emissions. Such legislation would likely necessitate fuel economy improvements, which can only be set by the federal government and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
The courts aren’t buying it.
The American automakers also worry about consumer health. Larger vehicles physically protect consumers by making them less vulnerable in crashes. Additionally, smaller, fuel-efficient vehicles cost less per mile to drive, which may increase the number of miles driven. More traffic inevitably leads to more traffic fatalities, a big health no-no.
Sierra Club lawyer David Bookbinder notes: “Everybody’s getting a good laugh out of the safety claim. Detroit is saying it’s a bad idea for everybody to drive more.”
A bit ironic, perhaps? What makes the safety claim even more ridiculous is the fact that the very presence of larger vehicles compromises safety for small vehicle drivers. These auto industry “health concerns” are also a real slap in the face for bicyclists and pedestrians, whose fatality rates increase substantially in crashes with larger vehicles.
As for the U.S. auto industry’s carefree attitude towards global warming—well, maybe they should pay more attention to public opinion. More than two-thirds of the global population worries about global warming, and most folks view the United States as the world’s primary greenhouse gas contributor. Although U.S. citizens tend to be less anxious about climate change than our international counterparts, a recent Gallup poll found that 79 percent of Americans favor setting higher emission standards for automobiles.
“Independent” Pet Food Task Force Includes Pet Food Co. Scientists
Reprinted from CSPI's Integrity in Science Watch:
Proctor & Gamble has launched a massive advertising blitz to counter consumer fears about the rising death toll from poisoned pet food. The firm took out 59 full-page ads in daily newspapers, with most citing reassurances from an independent task force. What P&G didn’t mention in the ads for Iams and Eukanuba products was that most of the task force members have financial ties to the P&G subsidiaries, according to Advertising Age:
“Of the seven veterinarians on the panel, three have appeared as endorsers in ads for Iams, another is affiliated with Veterinary Pet Insurance (a company with which Iams has a promotional partnership), another was a speaker at an Iams-sponsored symposium in February, another is a former Iams employee, and the last is a past recipient of a five-year research grant from Iams.”
To sign up for CSPI's weekly newsletter email science@cspinet.org
Let's build a nuke in our back yard
You've heard of economically depressed towns lobbying to be the site of a new prison. But who wants a nuclear reactor in the neighborhood?
Fresno does, or at least a group of local investors called the Fresno Nuclear Energy Group LLC do. The group has signed an agreement in principle with a power plant developer to build a $4 billion, 1,600-megawatt nuclear plant in the San Joaquin Valley city best known as the Raisin Capital of the World (a title hotly disputed by nearby Selma, where the raisin-packing plants are).
Despite being the nation's top agricultural county (or perhaps because of it) Fresno suffers from high unemployment. So the Energy Group thinks a nuclear power plant would be a good source of jobs.
Reactor meltdowns? Radioactive waste? Multibillion-dollar construction cost overruns? Not a problem, according to the corporate propaganda campaign to reposition nuclear power as a safe, clean and cheap answer to global warming.
The Energy Group recently brought to Fresno Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace who long ago went over to the Dark Side. He told an audience of 200: "Nuclear energy is the only nongreenhouse gas-emitting energy source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy global demand."
(Disclosure: I am part of a group of former Greenpeace employees active in debunking Moore's flackery for the nuclear, chemical, pesticide and logging industries.)
He's way wrong. Nuclear plants remain staggeringly expensive to build and operate, and that's money that would produce far more energy and eliminate far more global warming pollution if invested in solar and wind power and conservation. A stampede to build more nuclear power plants would be disastrous for efforts to slow global warming because it would take away resources desperately needed for ideas that will actually work.
There's also the fact that since 1976 California has banned new nukes unless and until the federal government comes up with a safe way to dispose of the waste, and we're no closer to that than we were 30 years ago. Ever hear of Yucca Mountain, Patrick?
That hasn't stopped Assemblymember Chuck Devore of Orange County, who has introduced a bill that would lift the ban on new reactors. Not long ago, advocating new reactors in California was the political equivalent of attacking motherhood, but the latest polls show that the state's voters are now split on the notion.
The Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility of San Luis Obispo, in the shadow of PG&E's aging Diablo Canyon reactor, is fighting Devore's bill. They're also trying to extend the ban on new reactors to stop relicensing of Diablo Canyon and Southern California Edison's San Onofre reactor. They could use your help.
Feed the Hummer; forget the hunger
The ethanol boom launched U.S. corn prices to a ten-year high of $4.38 per bushel this past March. As gas tanks gobble up more of our nation’s corn supply, rising commodity prices may result in sinking profits for livestock producers. Hog farmer and director of purchasing for Iowa Select Farms Joe Kerns says that feed costs have risen by about forty percent.
Beer drinkers will also suffer from pricier pints. As the market value of corn increases, farmers have begun to cut barley acreage in favor of larger corn tracts. Feedlot operators have responded to higher corn prices by purchasing a higher percentage of grain, thus putting additional pressure on malt prices. As a result, beer producers across the United States expect to charge more for their beverages—a reflection of significant increases in raw materials costs.
But perhaps the most disturbing consequence of the ethanol boom will occur in the developing world. According to a new report featured in Foreign Affairs, increased agricultural commodity prices from U.S. ethanol consumption will exacerbate global hunger. The International Food Policy Research Institute predicts that with all else equal, U.S. bio-fuel demand will push an additional 600 million of the world's poor into chronic hunger by 2025.
To put things in perspective, a 25-gallon SUV tank filled with pure ethanol uses over 450 pounds of corn. This amount of corn would meet the entire caloric needs of one person for an entire year.
How to talk to a climate change skeptic
Do you have trouble defending global warming science against the indefensible arguments of a climate change skeptic in your office or [gasp!] at your dinner table?
Coby Beck has the ultimate guide for debunking the most common skeptical arguments. [Grist]
In the news
Bush again pushes 3 nominees seen as pro-industry LA Times. 1 Apr 2007
UPDATE 4/4/07: San Francisco Chronicle's Jon Carroll gives us a more satire-infused critique of Bush's [re]nominees. SF Chronicle. 4 Apr 2007.
This just in: CO2 bad for air
In a huge decision that could force the Bush Administration to take action on global warming, the Supreme Court has ruled that carbon dioxide is air pollution.
What was their first clue?
The Bush EPA's been saying it had no authority over greenhouse gases, since they weren't air pollution. And it's seen California's landmark law to reduce CO2 emissions from autos as a sneaky backdoor way to raise mileage standards. By law, that's the Department of Transportation's job. But the Court quashed the White House's twisted notion that DOT's authority for fuel standards somehow relieved EPA of its obligations to protect public health under the Clean Air Act.
(UPDATE, April 3 – As I expected, the Court's ruling doesn't necessarily mean the Administration will obey the law. President Bush said today that any regulation of auto emissions of greenhouse gases should not hurt the economy or be offset by rising emissions from China or India.)
The White House warned the Court that tighter U.S. auto regulations could "impair the president's ability's to negotiate with 'key developing nations' to reduce emissions." To which Justice Paul Stevens, in the majority opinion, replied that while the president has broad authority in foreign affairs, "that authority does not extend to the refusal to execute domestic laws."
Knowing this president, we'll see about that. The New York Times' Felicity Barringer says that although Stevens' opinion implicity blasted EPA for not regulating carbon emissions, "the Court didn't say you must, but you should."(mp3)
The San Francisco Chronicle's Bob Egelko calls it the Court's most important environmental case in many years. I think so.
Not only does it let California move forward with its law, which takes effect in 2009, it clears the way for other states to take their own steps to regulate global warming pollution. The lawsuit that brought today's ruling was originally filed by Massachusetts, and this week, Maryland's legislature is considering a bill to reduce CO2 emissions 25 percent over the next 10 years.
Just as importantly, it is a sharp rebuke to the Administration's duck-and-coverup approach on global warming. The nation's thinking about global warming is moving rapidly, and the White House is hopelessly behind the curve.
The dangers of dried grasshoppers
When University of California-San Francisco researchers and health affiliates investigated an outbreak of lead poisoning in Monterey County, California, they found a correlation between consumption of certain imported food products—particularly chapulines (dried grasshoppers) from Oaxaca, Mexico—and elevated blood lead levels in prenatal women and children.
Globalization, Binational Communities, and Imported Food Risks: Results of an Outbreak Investigation of Lead Poisoning in Monterey County, California collected information from three health department clinics between 2001 and 2003. The report shows that six percent of the children tested in Seaside, CA had elevated blood lead levels, compared with 2.2 percent in the general US population.
Most of the women studied were born in Mexico, with the highest blood lead levels found in women from the Zimatlan region of Oaxaca. However, the research shows that much of the lead poisoning occurred within the United States. Although environmental lead exposure in the United States has fallen considerably in the past 25 years, these findings indicate that lead contamination remains a global dilemma capable of crossing borders and making its way into the mouths of children.
The Environmental Working Group also reported dangerous lead exposure and contamination in Lead Astray: Lead Poisoning Risks in California. EWG found that about 212,000 California children aged one through five suffered from elevated blood lead levels between 1992 and 1998.