Get Out to Vote Today
Nov 2, 2010 Environmental News
I’ll be heading out shortly to vote today. I’m in California, and we have some really important issues on the ballot to deal with… most to say “no” to.
Prop 23 is an easy no. It suspends recent environmental policies until California’s unemployment rate remains under 5% for a given length of time, a year as I recall. Only thing is that even in good times, our unemployment rate is rarely that low. It’s funded by oil companies. One guess why they want Prop 23 to pass!
Prop 26 is another easy no. They’re trying to claim it’s about taxes, but it’s really about fining companies who pollute, to make them pay for cleaning up their own messes, or rather an attempt to allow companies to avoid those fines.
Prop 19′s an interesting one. I’m for marijuana legalization, even though I’d never use it. I don’t smoke or drink either. What I’m not certain of is that this one is the right way to go about it. It looks like the rules could get a little convoluted with all the regions able to set their own policies. If it fails, I want it to be a close thing, and for a better version to be on next year’s ballot.
Then there are the politicians running for office. On the big races, none of them make me happy, but I’m going Democratic because they make me less unhappy than their Republican opponents. Sometimes that’s what it comes down to.
Tags: california, politics, propositions, voting
The Need for Clean Water – Blog Action Day 2010
Oct 15, 2010 Environmental News
This year’s Blog Action Day’s subject is water. Specifically, the need for more clean water around the world.
As a southern Californian, I have a lot of sympathy for those who don’t have water, even though we have plenty of water for our needs. We grumble about lawn watering rationing here, but that’s nothing compared to the desperate shortage of water others live with every day of their lives.
About one billion people on this planet don’t have access to safe, clean water. This results in 80% of diseases and kills more people weekly than war. This is hard to imagine, coming from a place where scarce water means to most people that their lawn turns brown – the horrors! But a lack of water is a harsh reality elsewhere.
A lack of water is a major contributor to poverty. You can’t do much if you don’t have water. You have to spend hours collecting water, and hope it doesn’t make you sick. The lack makes basic sanitation difficult.
Just think of all that water is necessary for on a daily basis. Drinking, growing food, sanitation, bathing. If you lack water, you have to prioritize which of these you can do when you get water, sometimes after walking miles to retrieve it.
There’s a question now about if access to water should be a basic human right. The UN says yes. Putting that into action and finding ways to supply water to those who don’t have it is going to be quite a challenge. It’s not a situation that can be fixed quickly, resolution or no. It’s going to take time and money to fix it. The problem has at least been recognized, and that’s the first step.
Those of us who have more access can help. First and foremost, look into charities and other organizations that are making water more accessible to communities that need it.
Also look at your own lifestyle. Water supplies are almost shamelessly wasted and polluted in many areas. That needs to change, for out own good as well as the good of others.
That means rethink your lawn. Is it the best choice and is it the right type of grass for your area? Are you using chemical fertilizers on it that wash off and end up in creeks and rivers?
Where does your water come from? Is the supply good now? Is it being overused to where there won’t be water available from that source in the future? Aquifers do dry up, as do other sources of water, when they’re overused. There are places in the United States where it’s not at all clear that water will continue to be readily available.
Tags: blog action day, clean water, water
FTC Changing the Rules on Green Marketing
Oct 7, 2010 Environmental News
Greenwashing is a constant problem when you go shopping for eco friendly products. So many product claims have no legal definition. Fortunately, the FTC is in the process of changing that. They’ve proposed revisions to their “Green Guides” that help marketers avoid making misleading environmental claims.
Can I say about time?!
These guidelines haven’t been updated since 1998. A lot has changed since then in the marketing of eco friendly products.
There’s a comment period open until December 10, 2010, after which the FTC will make the final decision.
So what are the changes proposed?
The revised Guides caution marketers not to make blanket, general claims that a product is “environmentally friendly” or “eco-friendly” because the FTC’s consumer perception study confirms that such claims are likely to suggest that the product has specific and far-reaching environmental benefits. Very few products, if any, have all the attributes consumers seem to perceive from such claims, making these claims nearly impossible to substantiate.
The proposed Guides also caution marketers not to use unqualified certifications or seals of approval – those that do not specify the basis for the certification. The Guides more prominently state that unqualified product certifications and seals of approval likely constitute general environmental benefit claims, and they advise marketers that the qualifications they apply to certifications or seals should be clear, prominent, and specific.
Next, the proposed revised Guides advise marketers how consumers are likely to understand certain environmental claims, including that a product is degradable, compostable, or “free of” a particular substance. For example, if a marketer claims that a product that is thrown in the trash is “degradable,” it should decompose in a “reasonably short period of time” – no more than one year.
They’re looking for comments on any of the changes, so if you have thoughts, now is the time to share them.
These changes won’t cover everything. That’s really not a surprise. It’s hard to come up with a good definition for “natural” for example, that could never be used in a misleading way, as it so often is now. I expect that it’s going to continue to be wildly abused since it’s not going to be regulated. Such an easy claim to make, too.
The rules in general may not be terribly specific, but environmental claims are hard to define in general. Hopefully these new guidelines will encourage more use of concrete evidence of claims made. In other industries such as weight loss, claims must be proven, but that’s more difficult when it comes to the environment and we don’t always know the full impact of what we’re doing.
These guidelines aren’t law, but they do give the FTC a basis for declaring claims to be deceptive or unfair. They can order companies to cease and desist making claims that aren’t reasonable to make, or fine them if they violate the cease and desist. It’s not perfect, but it’s a step in the right direction.
But it’s still going to be up to consumers to pay attention and spot the greenwashing claims. These new guidelines should help, but they aren’t going to solve the problem.
Tags: ftc, green advertising, green guide, green marketing, greenwashing
Is Big Oil Going After California’s Climate Legislation?
Jul 19, 2010 Environmental News
Quick answer, yes, Big Oil is targeting California’s climate legislation. Proposition 23 would cause California to only enforce it’s Global Warming Solutions Act when unemployment is under 5.5% for four consecutive quarters.
That doesn’t sound that bad until you understand that unemployment has only been that low three times since 1970.
Worse, as the article at Grist points out, the clean energy law has created more jobs than it has damaged. Claiming that green energy solutions damage job creation is a common tactic used to make people think that it’s not something we can afford to do right now.
Funny, I always thought that new technology meant opportunity. Opportunity for individuals to get jobs and for new businesses to grow. Jobs are being created as new technologies become available and improve.
Of course, this isn’t about other businesses. This is about the oil companies protecting their profits. What happens to the rest of us doesn’t matter.
This is where it becomes important to pay attention to who is sponsoring a proposition, or any commercials supporting it. You can learn a lot here in California about what to vote for just by who’s trying to pass or defeat a proposition.
Keep an eye on this one. I expect some really nasty advertising to come around trying to pass Prop 23 in the coming months. I hope my fellow Californians don’t fall for it.
Tags: big oil, california, climate legislation, job creation, proposition 23
Who Really Won the Supreme Court Decision on the GM Alfalfa Ban?
Jun 23, 2010 Environmental News
The Supreme Court issued a ruling on a ban on genetically modified alfalfa seeds that has both Monsanto and environmentalists claiming a win. So who won?
There’s a touch of both. But Monsanto doesn’t come out as clear as they want people to think. They still can’t have their GM alfalfa grown commercially until it’s proven safe enough for the environment. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has to review it first for safety.
That’s where Monsanto could win this one, to my disappointment, although that wasn’t what the Supreme Court was ruling on. So far APHIS thinks the alfalfa is safe. They have a lot of comments to review before giving approval, but it concerns me that they might approve it.
A big plus is that the Court has recognized the potential for environmental harm coming from transgenetic contamination, and that organic farmers should have the right to go to court over gene flow from genetically modified crops to their own crops.
Overall, I’m not happy about GM alfalfa getting closer to being planted, especially when the modification is so that it can withstand more herbicide. The alfalfa in question is one of Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” varieties. More poison being sprayed on crops because they can handle it better isn’t exactly what I’d call a good situation.
Some countries have already banned GM foods and seeds, and I can see their point. We don’t know enough about the effects of genetically modifying our foods, the foods given to animals that people eat, or the effects of modified genes getting out into the wild. This is dangerous stuff we’re playing with.
My one hope at this point for our country is that farmers who are impacted by genes drifting onto their crops take advantage of this ruling and sue whenever there’s a problem resulting from someone else’s use of GM seeds. There are consequences we already know about and that farmers have experienced – let’s see some of that come out in court.
Tags: food, genetically modified, gm alfalfa, legal, supreme court
