Eco | Centric

From here to eternity, pt. I

noreply@blogger.com (Dave Slifka) — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:21:00 +0000

For better or worse, this is my life, and a bad life it is not. I'm just not enjoying it very much.

In 2005, I began working for an ecommerce company that shall remain nameless and was already circling the drain. I was happy to have a job and perplexed by the long faces and unhelpful postures of my coworkers. A year and a couple rounds of layoffs later, I got caught in the vortex of corporate ennui that threatened to swallow the entire company. It wasn't quite Office Space, but it wasn't far off; social gatherings around the coffee maker, birthday "celebrations," hopelessly transparent pep talks that couldn't paper over the rumors of impending financial insolvency. It was more about the evil of banality than vice versa. Ever day was the same, every office is the same and they all have the same rituals.

I distinctly remember riding my bike to work and thinking, this cannot be how the rest of my life is going to be, hopping from one cube farm to the next with ever-diminishing returns. So, this blog was launched in the beginning of 2007 after a lightening bolt hit me, telling me that I needed to enlist in the Green army. That jolt lasted the better part of eight months and fizzled, which is not to say that environmental and conservation no longer interested me. At the time, I toyed with the idea of starting a green business and, true to my risk-averse ways, basically wilted after getting lukewarm feedback from a variety of friends and family. See, I don't have a lot of faith, so the green idea petered out.

The company was ultimately purchased by private investors whose energy reinvigorated my commitment for awhile. That turned out to be a blip on an otherwise unrelenting downward trajectory of dissatisfaction with the corporate work environment. While I singlehandedly reshaped the image and corporate identity of the company through my design work, I received virtually no acknowledgment for a job well done. At the first conference of the "new" company, I was largely responsible for the theme and look of what was ultimately a very successful relaunch of the brand. The totality of the feedback I received for that success was persistent stink-eye over a minor typo in the marketing materials that was ultimately caught by no one.

And so it went for the next several months after the conference, as I reluctantly stepped back from the ledge of resignation. With the economy going in the shitter, I was forced to be practical and followed the same advice from my brother whenever push came to shove: "Sleep on it."

Come June of that year, I also stumbled on an old crush through Facebook, Becca, a happenstance that would change the complexion and course of my thoughts and feelings. Old flames reconnecting through the internet, and Facebook in particular, seems to have reach epidemic proportions and the cliche runs strongly through me. Becca and I went to high school together and I never recovered from the disappointment of never having the chance to date her.

At the time, I was involved in a very ambiguous relationship with Camile, a wonderful woman I had dated formally for seven months and subsequently stayed intimate with for over two years. As I considered possibilities with Becca, things went from grey to black and white with Camile when she got tired of waiting for me to re-commit and found someone new.

Someday, I may learn how to be satisfied as a single guy, but that day hasn't come yet. Losing Camile was a moment that reminds me a lot of (unintentionally) eating a habañero chile; it doesn't quite hurt immediately, but the sense of great pain on the immediate horizon is unmistakable. And the pain sure came.

The big dogs step in

noreply@blogger.com (Dave Slifka) — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 03:40:00 +0000

It was only a matter of time before Daddy Warbucks threw his hat in the ring and why not, I suppose. Yahoo recently launched Yahoo Green and is now sponsoring a contest for designers to create an icon that will be used to represent green products throughout its family of sites and networks. How Yahoo presumes to deem something officially "green" is unknown. This, combined with the acquisitions of Zaadz.com by Gaiam and Treehugger.com by Discovery Communications, reeks of sellout.

While these moves undoubtedly take the green movement closer to the mainstream, one has to wonder if the opportunities that vested interests see in the market serve to strengthen it or undermine it. There is a strain of thought that believes true "green" and true environmentalism cannot coexist peacefully within capitalism, since conspicuous consumption and other monetary pressures that go along with it compromise green principles at every step of the way. In essence, it's difficult - well-nigh impossible - to place a monetary value on the things that bring true value to our lives...clean air, clean water, the colors, smells and sounds of nature, food created healthfully. So how do we expect these things to survive and, ideally flourish, if we no longer even understand their value in our lives and the only value that exists is money?

From what I can see, Yahoo Greenz appears to bring a lot of disparate information together pretty effectively, which is a tremendous resource for those seeking green information and alternatives. Nevertheless, the burden is on us, the informed citizen, to remain vigilant and protect green principles from agents too easily tempted by profit and dollars.

A misanthrope speaks

noreply@blogger.com (Dave Slifka) — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:13:00 +0000

Here's an old clip of George Carlin doing what he does best - rant. This is from back in 1992, during the last big wave of eco-awareness. He seemed to think the planet would be fine, and I suspect he still feels the same. His view of environmentalists is contrary to what I believe, but it's always good to get the "other" point of view and, god forbid, have a sense of humor about it.

Global Warming jumps the shark

noreply@blogger.com (Dave Slifka) — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 01:48:00 +0000

The phrase "Jump the Shark" has been in circulation for about 10 years now and originally denoted the moment/event when a television show passes its expiration date, so to speak, and begins its decline. The phrase derives from an episode of Happy Days where Fonzie - yes - jumps a shark on water skis, subsequently going down in the annals of absurd TV and spawning a phenomenon.

I can think of no more evident sign of a great global cause jumping the shark than a massive, intercontinental series of concerts designed to raise consciousness about that very cause. I'm talking about Live Earth here, Al Gore's just-completed pet project and, ostensibly, the first phase of his new campaign to bring an awareness of global warming to the masses.

Now, I think this blog is testament to where I stand on the issue and I'm no Al Gore hater, but it's been my experience that these mega concerts rarely, if ever, give the impetus for a cause to remain in the cultural consciousness for very long. In fact, I'd argue that they are consciousness killers. Not that they don't do any good or meet any of their immediate goals, but they bring important issues into the realm of commerce, where they are appropriated by the very interests that are part of the problem - big corporations and mass celebrity culture. Once the corporations get involved on the sponsorship side (as Chevy, for one, did), how much harder does it become for someone like Al Gore to call them out for inaction or, god forbid, malfeasance? Oh, he might still have the cajones to do it, but it's a slippery slope my friends.

Ironically, putting big name celebrities and musicians at the heart of this part of the campaign stands in contradiction to some of what Gore has to say in his latest book, The Assault on Reason. In it, he bemoans the disporportionate focus paid to events such as Anna Nicole Smith's death while "our nation was in the process of more quietly making what future historians will certainly describe as a series of catastrophically mistaken decisions on issues of war and peace, the global climate and human survival, freedom and barbarity, justice and fairness." Later, speaking of the degradation of television news, he states that "The subjugation of news by entertainment seriously harms our democracy: It leads to dysfunctional journalism that fails to inform the people. And when the people are not informed, they cannot hold goverment accountable when it is incompetent, corrupt or both."

Hell yeah. So, by Al's own testimony, celebrities and musicians, aka paid entertainers, may not be the best representatives for the cause at hand. It leads to, as Dan Rather put it about TV news, information being "dumbed down and tarted up."

To wit, some quotes from participants:

"As a parent I want a decent world for my kids to grow up in and if we can draw attention to this and make people start doing the things that really count ... then that will do something."
Simon Le Bon of Duran Duran

"Our actions from this day forward will help determine just what sort of future we pass on to our children and to their children."
Leonardo DiCaprio

"America, what happened to us?"
Melissa Etheridge

"If you want to save the planet, I want you to start jumping up and down!"
Madonna

Add into these empty pronouncements the vague concert banners admonishing people to "answer the call" and $40 organic cotton T-shirts proclaiming "Green Is the New Black," what does any of it actually say or ask people to do? We are continually awash in platitudes and banalities that lead to the intellectual atrophy of our society and that is too often what events of this nature offer.

I have no particular quibble with any of the participants but, as the saying goes, the road to hell is often paved with good intentions. And I do believe that most of these people involved have good intentions, although a lot of pixels have been spilled over Madonna's notable lack of green credentials.

As a country, it's been easy for us to sweep some of the big global issues addressed by concerts, such as poverty and AIDS, under the rug since they don't affect us very directly. We won't have that luxury in this case. Arguably, these concerts serve as a very rudimentary band-aid. Whether global warming has just "jumped the shark" in public consicousness or not, it's not something we'll be able to turn a blind eye to for much longer.

This is your society on drugs

noreply@blogger.com (Dave Slifka) — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 13:56:00 +0000

I'm cranky this morning and the news has been no help in alleviating my bile. As if there wasn't enough reason already, a news article from AFP.com gives yet more justification to avoid anything labeled "Made in China."

The list of food ingredients potentially hitting our shores from China includes formaldehyde, hydrochloric acid, ciprofloxacin, enrofloxacin, industrial parrafin and the dye malachite green, as reported by China's food quality watchdog. These contaminants were found in baby milk powder, rice, flour, meat, biscuits, seafood, soy sauce and sweets, among many other products.

This is what I love about the bottom line, market-regulated model of society. Hey, I know, let's outsource public safety to a country with virtually no regulation, no public accountability and one of the more abysmal records on human rights. We've all lost complete sense of the idea of what something costs from cradle to grave and we've outsourced our consciences along with it. It's insanity. There would be something pathological about viewing this as a "natural" correction of a market-regulated economy, which some people will no doubt claim. A "few" animals had to pay the price this time; what will it be next time? Are we apathetic, ignorant, miguided or greedy enough to keep business as usual and just wait to find out? Unfortunately, I think there's little doubt we are.

In other news of the apocalypse, the Washington Post today published an article about Dick Cheney's covert operation to gut environmental regulations throughout the country. I'm not going to lie - I haven't read the entire article yet. Frankly, I'm afraid it will force me to ingest large amounts of food produced in China. I have skimmed it and it's depressing and predictable. For all his avuncular demeanor, Cheney is just another Tricky Dick for a new generation who, coincidentally, probably learned his tricks from Tricky Dick I.

I want to send a personal shot out to Ralph Nader who, as accurate as he may have been, in principle, regarding the corporate infiltration of both major political parties, helped elect the most ruthless, inept and morally corrupt administration this country has ever seen. You, sir, fucked us. Twice!

God, I'm pissed.

The wacky world of carbon offsets, pt.I

noreply@blogger.com (Dave Slifka) — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 04:32:00 +0000

You're probably hearing a lot about companies going "carbon neutral" these days. All the cool kids are doing it, and it's even become a selling point for Democratic and Republican presidential candidates.

Sounds good, but what does it actually mean? Has everyone just stopped exhaling? Here's a quickie primer on the logic and logistics behind carbon offsets.

GM crops are not OK

noreply@blogger.com (Dave Slifka) — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 03:44:00 +0000

As we've seen recently with the pet food fiascos, our food supply may not be safeguarded as well as we thought. Not even close. The documentary The Future of Food discusses some the political, health and social consequences of a corporate food complex run roughshod over the public good, with the silent assent of our government.

My sister recently unearthed an article from a year ago, detailing just one way that Genetically Modified foods may represent a cure that's worse than the disease. In the case of Liberty Herbicide (marketed as Basta, Ignite, Rely, Finale and Challenge), GM crops are embedded with genes that produce an enzyme that converts their herbicide to a non-toxic variant called NAG (N-acetyl-L-glufosinate). With each subsequent spraying, NAG accumulates within the plants.

The problem is that when these crops are consumed, some of the NAG may be converted back into toxic herbicide. It is believed that gut bacteria, primarily found in the colon or rectum, are responsible for this re-toxification. Suffice to say, this represents a significant danger to the public if not sufficiently researched and evaluated. Moreover, it represents a huge health risk for infants and fetuses who are particularly vulnerable, even to small doses of a herbicide. According to this article, the EPA has, by and large, abdicated its responsibility to evaluate the danger posed by GM foods to fetuses and developing children.

Testing indicating the dangers of GM foods to public health has been made exclusively on laboratory animals, and it would be easy for some to dismiss the correlation for humans. One thing we should've learned from the past - whether it be in regard to Agent Orange, DDT or Fen Phen - is the necessity for vigilance against each next great panacea engineered in a lab and foisted on the public by those who stand to profit from it.

Hybrids poised to get hosed at the pump

noreply@blogger.com (Dave Slifka) — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:30:00 +0000

New EPA fuel efficiency standards implemented in May are expected to drop car mileage estimates across the board, with hybrids suffering more than most.

According to a May article in Wired online, "The two top-selling hybrid vehicles, the Prius and Honda's Civic Hybrid, will lose 12 and 11 miles per gallon respectively from their city driving estimates. Other vehicles are downgraded between 2 and 4 mpg."

After years of overestimating gas mileage, "the new EPA tests factor in real-world conditions such as speeding, varying weather and lead-footed driving. Vehicles like hybrids with smaller engines pay a higher penalty during the acceleration test, as well as the tests that simulate going up a hill and maintaining highway speeds."

Two steps forward, one step back. The onus is on the manufacturers to get consumers the type of performance they've been expecting from hybrids. While EPA estimates are not their responsibility, truth in advertising is. Once you've lost the consumer's trust it's hard to get it back, and this goes to the very core of the hybrid selling proposition. I don't expect much from American car manufacturers, but let's hope the Japanese continue to develop the technology aggressively.

Mr. Freeze ices High Speed Rail

noreply@blogger.com (Dave Slifka) — Wed, 16 May 2007 16:36:00 +0000

I recently wrote to Governor Schwarzenegger regarding the California High Speed Rail(HSR) initiative that's been in limbo for some years now. Scheduled to go before voters in November '08, Arnold is slashing money for the high speed rail authority in his 2007 budget and asking California legistators to postpone indefinitely the $9.95-billion rail bond that is slated to appear next year.

Below is my letter and the canned response:

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger,
I'm writing in support of the high speed rail program, and in opposition to the reduction of its funds. I believe that HSR is a much more sound solution to California's long term traffic congestion issues, both on the road and in the air. We don't need more roads, or better roads. If we are to protect what makes California a beautiful and unique state, we need to pursue solutions that ensure the long term sustainability of it's beauty and and health. High speed rail will do that.

Also, please consider other factors:

If you support the idea of high speed rail, it will never be cheaper to build than it is today. Putting it off only makes it more unlikely it will ever happen. If you decide to defund it, it is a clear sign, despite public pronouncements, that you DO NOT support the rail and what it represents to California.

HSR provides much greater security than planes, as no one can fly a train into a building with tons of jet fuel. HSR is a way to PROTECT californians from security risks.

It is more environmentally sound. It will significantly reduce global warming gases and reduce development in sensitive areas, which is inevitable with the extension of the roads and highways.

I am confident you will be a leader on this issue. High speed rail will be a testament to your governorship for many years to come.

From: "mailto:governor@govmail.ca.gov"
To: daveslifka@yahoo.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 9:00:11 AM

Subject: Re: Show some love for high speed rail

Thank you for writing to Governor Schwarzenegger to share your thoughts and concerns about highspeed rail. The Governor appreciates hearing from people who care about the important issues facing our great state.

In November 2006, California voters approved one of the largest bond packages in the state's history. This money represents a considerable down payment on repairing and building our infrastructure and boosting the public services necessary to preserve our quality of life. And, with the tremendous population growth expected for California over the next two decades, the Governor has put forward an even broader proposal that will include funding for flood control, schools, courts and the correctional system.

Because of the critical need for funding these other forms of vital infrastructure, California has a limited ability to borrow money for a full high-speed rail bond measure right now. Governor Schwarzenegger's comprehensive Strategic Growth Plan, and its varying bond components, cannot happen simultaneously with the high-speed rail bond without putting the state into a position of spending General Fund dollars at too-high levels. This approach instead protects California's credit rating and support for other important state programs.

But the Governor's proposed budget does recognize that high-speed rail is a viable transit option worth exploring for the future, and so it includes $1.2 million for staff support of the High-Speed Rail Authority. He is also willing to consider other potential payment options for such a rail system, including private financing.

Again, thank you for taking the time to write and share your thoughts with Governor Schwarzenegger. He welcomes any comments that can help improve the future of California.

Sincerely,
Office of Constituent Affairs

My other car is a bike

noreply@blogger.com (Dave Slifka) — Thu, 10 May 2007 16:00:00 +0000

I stumbled across this post about living car-less and thought it was some good (calorie-free) food for thought. I have to say, and the ratio of those who echo this sentiment seems to be about 4 to 1, that I don't enjoy driving and wish I didn't have to anymore. Which is not to say I don't have a choice. I could sell my car tomorrow. I've also thought that maybe I should try a moped for the daily commute, because that would be much more environmentally-friendly, cheaper and practical in San Diego.

When I lived in Australia for 10 months after college, I relied wholly on public transportation and I loved it. I also slept better which, as those who know me know well, is sometimes a challenge. With options like FlexCar, which rent cars from multiple locations within the city, perhaps ditching my car is getting closer to reality. I have a friend, and he knows who he is, who used FlexCar or ZipCar or SomethingCar, when he needed while living in San Francisco. Of course, we're talking about San Francisco here, which is the one major city in California with a semblance of public transportation.

Has anyone out there ever tried to go carless and, if so, how did it go/how is it going?

Hanging with Mr. Begley

noreply@blogger.com (Dave Slifka) — Mon, 07 May 2007 02:58:00 +0000

Your eyes don't deceive you - that's me with the frickin' GREENEST MAN IN HOLLYWOOD, Ed Begley Jr. He might also be the tallest man in Hollywood (or I might be the shortest one outside of it). If you don't know him, check out old episodes of St. Elsewhere or the movie Transylvania 6-5000.

Currently, he is the subject and star of Living with Ed on HGTV, where he and his wife enact the daily battle between convenience and eco-conscious living. He has the social consciousness, as Bobby Kennedy Jr. tells it, of "a West Coast cadet who gets up every morning and says 'reporting for duty'"

I recently attended Southwestern College's 2nd Annual Environmental Symposium, where big Ed dropped some eco-perspective on us for about 20 minutes. It was practical, to the point, and focused on results.

First and foremost, he recognizes that the facts of the global warming debate have been hijacked by politics. His advice is to rely on scientists, those with "Ph.Ds after their names" and those with peer-reviewed work, to get THE FACTS.

He acknowledged past action that has brought improvement to the environment - emissions standards, catalytic converters, banning CFCs. Much of it started in California and we're again in the position to innovate and take the lead on these issues.

Clearly, we don't have a choice!

Ed unconvincingly reiterated that going green is "good for the environment, good for the economy." It's not that I don't believe it's possible to "do well by doing good," I just think he has a hard time selling it because it's not his personal motivation for being green. The economic benefits of going green are often used as a hook for the majority of people who aren't motivated by environmental concern, but the facts on those benefits are still in short supply. I would've liked more anecdotal evidence from his life regarding these savings, but that is a discussion for a more in-depth interview, perhaps. How about it, Ed?

The meat of the talk, and the part that resonated with me the most, focused on understanding the value of using less and using differently. He talks about the value of standing capital, that which is all around us, supports the living system we are a part of and enhances our lives in ways not measured with currency. He calls it our current treatment of the environment "bad economics," akin to a fire sale of resources. In economic terms, we should be living off its interest, not the principal. For those of us who take pride in our recycling efforts, he encourages us to also buy recycled and "complete" the cycle.

As for himself, his efforts are there for everyone to see on Living with Ed. He says he's not a rich man, he's a working actor. He doesn't have a lot of money, but he doesn't need a lot of money either. That's another tough sell, but a great message nonetheless.

The Running Men

noreply@blogger.com (Dave Slifka) — Sat, 05 May 2007 21:40:00 +0000

Media Curves recently asked a group of 309 survey respondents to watch videos of speeches by Al Gore and Arnold Schwarzenegger addressing global warming; respondents recorded their level of agreement in real time, which is tracked according to political affiliation. Click on the image and see what you think - my comments are below.

It's not much of a surprise that Arnold's Hollywood pitch rates better than what is, essentially, scolding by Gore. Grown men like nothing more than to be told that they are immoral if they don't agree with your assessment of a situation. It's also a different stance than Gore takes in An Inconvenient Truth, which may have been assisted by skillful editing. Interestingly, Republicans reject Gore's appeal to a higher cause, which has been a successful tool for our role in Iraq for so long.

Both men appeal to different human motivations - for Gore, it's about morality and for Arnold it's an issue of normalization and belonging. What helps Arnold in this case is that the discussion remains concrete; he gives specific examples of what needs to be done, what can be done and what he has personally done. Regardless of how you feel about Arnold's policies, he knows how to frame a debate. Which isn't to say that I agree with his approach. Personally, I think the idea that we can "fix" things without any behavioural modification is disingenuous at best, pandering at worst. I don't believe you can talk about global warming without talking about changing habits.

To some extent, I also think this is an apples and oranges comparison, in terms of the audiences they are addressing. Talking to politicians is much different than talking to a gaggle of press reps. The footage in the video showing bored politicians surely didn't help Gore's viewer perceptions either. If Gore hasn't learned how to talk to politicians by now, that doesn't bode well for those hoping for an '08 presidential run.

Four out of five pandas agree...

noreply@blogger.com (Dave Slifka) — Wed, 02 May 2007 06:42:00 +0000

...you should be snacking on bamboo.

I just got back from a Ralph's run and they're now stocking Bambu brand ("Bamboo products from Bambu") dinner wear, including plates (excuse me, Verneerware), utensils and some cutting boards. I didn't even think to compare prices against paper and plastic, but I'll update this post with that information later. I thought they looked pretty nice and whole lot classier than their less sustainable counterparts. My only issue is that the Bambu website says the plates are intended for single use, despite the fact that they appear sturdy enough to endure repeated use. Even in the magic green fairy land, consumption is king.

I thought it would be fun to play "spot the eco-brand." Have you been noticing a green creep into your local chain retailer? I think that if people know that these things can be found where they're already shopping, they're a lot more likely to give them a try. At the very least, it raises awareness that those products are available.

So what products/brands have you seen and where are they being sold? You can also send pictures of your finds for posting.

John Mayer, my hero

noreply@blogger.com (Dave Slifka) — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 03:07:00 +0000

I'm just going to say it upfront - John Mayer is being a dumb ass.

Generally, I don't take exception to entertainment figures pontificating on subjects outside of their core competencies, especially since most of them are liberal. However, John Mayer has offended my delicate sensibilities with his inane "approach" to going green. He calls it going "light green:"

"When it comes to this issue [global warming], we've been given only two sides to pick from: side one says the future of global warming does not present a doomsday scenario, almost chuckling the matter aside. Side two says it is a dire issue (which it is), and then goes on to inundate side one with so many separate nakedly-scientific points that they make naivete' seem cozy by comparison.

So here I am, introducing a third side. A laid-back, panic free approach to environmentalism. One that believes the message of 'An Inconvenient Truth' is sound, but that it's an incredibly un-fun name for a movie. A side free from the cry of hypocrisy, for it doesn't make sweeping promises. A side that drives an SUV on the way to the grocery store but then produces nylon mesh bags at the checkout line.

Pick one thing to change this year, and keep the rest of your life the same. After all, the only message the charts with escalating red lines are meant to send is that the red lines have to stop escalating, not that they have to drop to the bottom of the graph by next Tuesday."

Now, I like John Mayer and I think he's an intelligent guy, but his third way is crap. It makes a lot more sense to say "here's what I'm doing right now and here are habits I feel I need to change in the near future" than to take pride in falling short by choice on a yearly basis. It's not like anyone needs encouragement to do less. No one expects perfection from anyone, but let's not settle for average either. If the agitation over global warming becomes too "unfun" for John, I suggest he keep his head in the sand and stick to writing pretty pop songs.

Black gold goes green

noreply@blogger.com (Dave Slifka) — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 06:09:00 +0000

I want to thank those who have made some comments here so far and made me feel just a little less alone...sniff sniff. Seriously though, it feels great when someone says they're following my posts and even better when they take the time to share their thoughts and experiences.

Some highlights from the comments I've had thus far:

According to Jimmy in Redmond, Martha Stewart knows a little something about worm poop and its benefit to plants.

Akemi in Tokyo laments that fact that Japanese politicians don't exactly walk the walk of eco-consciousness.

An anonymous reader also got hosed by the "quirky" hybrid tax credit guidelines.

What's going on in your part of the world?

Who is Joel Makower?

noreply@blogger.com (Dave Slifka) — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 03:48:00 +0000

I don't know who Joel is but, man, he's got some astute readers. The comments on this article provide more insights than most articles I've read. The article itself delves into the gap between the principles and buying habits of the green consumer, which I also addressed previously. From there, the comments take the discussion into strange and wonderous lands of eco thinking and anecdote.

(Actually, I lied. I now know that Joel is the executive editor of Greenbiz.com)

KAB Man, representing for the cause

noreply@blogger.com (Dave Slifka) — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 20:07:00 +0000

Interview with an Eco Entrepreneur

noreply@blogger.com (Dave Slifka) — Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:17:00 +0000

As some of you know, I'm enrolled in a small business class at a local community college. One of our assignments is to interview someone in an industry of interest. I was lucky to find Maureen O'Connor, queen bee at AlternativeConsumer.com, who generously fielded some questions via email about her business and the state of green commerce in general.

The AlternativeConsumer.com home page features all kinds of interesting green services and products, like a furry, huggable, lamp, mixed with the day's grab bag of environmental headlines. The best part is that each story has a big attractive picture so you can see exactly what they're talking about. I'm not much of a sales guy but this site is really easy to pimp because they have such cool stuff.

Without further ado...

Why did you decide to start a business of this kind?
I've always had an interest in environmental issues, and healthy lifestyle choices. I’m a devout recycler, as well as organic food and yoga junkie. After seeing "An Inconvenient Truth," I was inspired to actually act on my instincts and issues that I feel passionate about.

I dabbled in blogging, believe it or not, while my husband was healing from an operation. His temporary physical set-back forced us both to slow down a bit. So I started to seriously research sustainable fabrics and materials for clothing and home furnishings. Then the blog's content mix branched out to include green cleaning products, green gadgets, eco friendly beauty and healthcare products, eco travel, alternative energy and construction info.

Starting the biz was a "natural" process in its own way. Prior to doing this, I was an executive producer of corporate business meetings -- producing film, video and computer graphics for special events. Our first online video for The Alternative Consumer will launch during "Earth Day week," April 22. The topic of the video is "Replacing Plastic Shopping Bags."

What are the major reasons people are buying green?

Al Gore’s film and book made global warming suddenly more "real" to the population at large.

More of a general awareness of "green issues and initiatives" -- There's been a proliferation of books, radio (ecoTalk), tv & cable programs (Discovery, The Green Sundance Channel and PBS especially), films (Who Killed the Electric Car?), magazines, daily newspapers and internet content. So the environment and the awareness of Earth's limited natural resources are more top of mind today. People are discussing topics like sustainable manufacturing and fair trade labor/socially responsible business practices with each other more frequently.

Health & well-being. People are seeing the connection between how they live -- what they put in and on their bodies -- directly affects both their personal well being as well as the "health/condition" of the planet. Organic farming and biodynamic practices are so much better for the environment; organic food and personal care products are so much better for one's body -- both inside and out.

The desire to live a "cleaner" existence -- a modern lifestyle that incorporates cutting-edge design and "best/purest" technologies available.

What do you see as some trends in green and green
e-commerce?

The greater the number of consumers who invest in "eco-conscious options," the less these green goods will eventually cost.

Local and federal government tax incentives (i.e. Prius owners) will encourage many consumers to head in a "green" direction when making purchases.

Tax penalties will also encourage folks to make personal sacrifices or change (i.e. if Portland decides to tax consumers who use plastic shopping bags at certain retail establishments, this will encourage more folks to bring a reusable shopping bag when they shop).

Going in a green, alternative direction will "force" big business to make positive changes in their big biz practices (Wal-Mart, IKEA, Whole Foods, Toyota, Honda, BP).

The more "consumer demand" for eco friendly goods and services there is, the more "green" biz development will result.
Home construction -- smaller homes, and more energy-efficient homes are being built.

People are looking at all the green characteristics of a product, its sustainability, its environmental impact, manufacturing and fair trade issues, packaging and shipping and overall carbon footprint are all becoming buying criteria.

What do you project for the future of green e-commerce?
Lots of room to grow, it will be positive in many ways. People who are just starting out -- in their 20's and 30's are very active, open, and willing to "do the right thing."

But going in the green direction won't happen overnight. Many people in the 45-55 age range seem to sort-of stuck in their "I don't want to change" mentality, or they've already invested a ton of money in "old technology". So for this segment of the population, going green is a little more difficult.

Some folks in the 55-65 yr range seem more receptive, oddly enough, because they have the wisdom from experience, disposable income, and desire to "make a change for the sake of the next generation." They've reached their "I want to give back" stage of their life, and realize the long-term impact their "footprint has on Mother Earth."

What do you think your customers want and can't find right now in the market?
Solid information about where to go to get the best green goods.

What do you consider the biggest obstacles for the green industry right now?

There's still mis-information on the facts regarding the global warming issue, causing confusion in paralysis in many folks who are not sure of what to believe, and in which direction they should head.

In the U.S - the Bush administration is a huge impediment. Their less than stellar record on the environment.

They way people are hard-wired, they're not pre-disposed to embrace change. People can be reticent to change their behaviors (i.e. bringing a reusable shopping bag with them when they shop in a retail store; buying an eco-friendly car requires extra research; recycling is an inconvenience -- there's that word) and cutting back and cutting down on resource use can require a certain amount of personal sacrifice. So large segments of the population will simply ignore the situation, and exist as though "nothing's wrong."

One final note from Maureen: "I’d just like to say, Thanks, Dave, for being so interested in what The Alternative Consumer is all about."

My eco report card

noreply@blogger.com (Dave Slifka) — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 02:19:00 +0000

Everywhere I go, I hear about green things. I don't know if it's because my focus has shifted more green over the last couple months, or if there is something really happening (or both). All kinds of people are bringing news articles to my attention and becoming aware of alternatives to what has been the norm for so long now. However, I believe it's a tranformative process and the goal is to not become a saint, especially not overnight. One day you have a thought to do something different and then a week later you do it; then you do it more often and eventually it becomes a habit.

In that light, and in the spirit of full disclosure, I'm laying out my personal progress report and hope that some of you brave souls reading this will do the same in the comments area. This by no means represents my expectations of others. It's all about sharing ideas of ways to make a difference.

What I'm doing

Recycling plastic, glass and paper

Carpooling whenever possible

Riding my bike/walking whenever possible

Turning off unused lights and appliances

Printing on recycled paper

Unplugging my cell phone charger when unused

Using compact flourescent light bulbs

Paying my phone bill online

Refusing plastic bags at the grocery store and in restaurants for small carry outs

Henry's canvas bags for groceries (but never remember them)

Donating magazines to the library

Wearing clothes more than once before washing, if not dirty or stinky (underwear excluded)

Stopped buying bottled water and using refillable water bottles

Bought a Brita filtration system (as yet unused)

Room for improvement (i.e. next steps)

Biodegradable plastic products (bags, utensils)

Non-toxic laundry detergent

Hybrid/electric car (eventually)

Organic/non-toxic shampoo

Avoid foods transported great distances

Use my canvas grocery bags more!

Non-toxic cleaning supplies

Stop receiving the newspaper at home

So that's my state of the eco union so far. It's obviously NOT about being perfect...that's too much pressure. It is, however, about what we can do better. How is your report card? What would you like to do differently? What do you think of my list? Am I copping out or taking half steps? Give it to me with both barrels - I can take it.

Taking the green lead, pt. II

noreply@blogger.com (Dave Slifka) — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 13:39:00 +0000

While this is not intended to be a political blog, it's hard not to have "good guys" and "bad guys" when one party has such a poor commitment to and record on the environment. That's right, we're talking about the Grand Old Party here - Republicans for those outside American borders. What would be nice would be if they followed the lead of some of their religious consituency, who now understand that they have a responsibility to protect God's creations.

Now for something wholly uninspiring...

Rudy Giuliani

What he's done: Pushed energy efficiency for public buildings in N.Y.C.; approved plan to convert city buses to run on natural gas; acquired and renovated more than 2,000 acres of parkland.

What he'll do: Plans to restore "conservation [as] a conservative value," but hasn't proposed any policy. Sees global warming as a threat, but warns against antibusiness policies.

How green is he? His campaign declined to answer. (This just in...Giuliani has verified his personal commitment to green living by wearing a shirt twice without washing it.)

John McCain

What he's done: Has recently introduced a bill capping greenhouse-gas emissions, advocated alternative erngy and repeatedly voted against efforts to drill for oil in federal parks.

What he'll do: McCain has promised to tackle global warming and plans to lay out a series of energy proposals in a major speech later this month.

How green is he? According to his campaign, McCain recycles. He's also installed solar panels on his Arizona cabin and worked with the Audubon Society to reintroduce native plants.

Mitt Romney

What he's done: Early on as governor, Romney told a polluting salem power plant to clean up. But later he backed out of a regional pact to cut greenhouse-gas emissions.

What he'll do: Plans to promote an environmental agenda friendly to economic development and address security concerns by pushing for cleaner domestic sources of energy.

How green is he? Romney's campaign headquarters reduces energy usage by relying on more energy efficient light bulbs, mugs instead of disposable coffee cups and recycled paper.

My take

There is a real lack of substance to any of the efforts or proposals here. While Republicans like to promote their national security strengths, there's little evidence here of specific policies aimed at developing alternative energy sources and reducing our reliance on foreign oil. It'll be interesting to see what McCain reveals in his upcoming speech, as he is the only major Republican candidate to honestly acknowledge and address environmental issues. Apparently, the Republicans didn't get the memo that Americans are done with politicians sucking up to big business. While many corporations are jumping on the green bandwagon, all types of civic and political vigilance are required to ensure that those practices are honored fully.

Taking the green lead

noreply@blogger.com (Dave Slifka) — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 16:29:00 +0000

It's convenient to have a scorecard in the game of politics. The April 16 edition of Newsweek, titled "Leadership and the Environment," sizes up the Presidential candidates and provides just that. Naturally, this only represents Democrats and Republicans, ironically excluding "alternative choices" in the realm of politics. However, it's instructive to see how the frontrunners are leading by example and what their agenda would be if elected.

Today, I'm covering the Democrats.

Hillary Clinton

What she's done: A member of the environment committeee, she voted for a 2003 bill (and cosponsored McCain's bill this session) that would've capped greenhouse gas emissions.

What she'll do: Has proposed eliminating tax breaks for oil companies (and using that money to invest in alternative energy) and quadrupling the existing tax break for hybrid car owners.

How Green is she? The Clintons are redoing their entire home for maximum energy efficiency, hiring consultants to come up with greener lighting, heating and power-generation solutions. (Update: Hillary's campaign announced that it was going carbon neutral in an April 20th news release).

Barack Obama

What he's done: Co-sponsorsed McCain's greenhouse gas bill; introduced a bill giving tax breaks to gas stations selling alternative fuels; advocated an increase in fuel-economy standards

What he'll do: Talks up clean-coal tech. Promises to up research funding for alternative-energy sources and push for plan to require the government to use either flex-fuel or hybrid vehicles.

How green is he? Obama's campaign leases a flex-fuel GMC Yukon that can run on gasoline or an ethanol blend-though he admits that it's often hard to find ethanol in Chicago.

John Edwards

What he's done: Criticized efforts to roll back the Clean Air Act, consistently opposed drilling in ANWR and supported legislation that would have reduced power-plant emissions.

What he'll do: Hopes to create 1 million new jobs by investing in a "new-energy economy" and has called for a climate treaty that would ask all nations-even developing ones-to reduce pollution.

How green is he? His new mansion uses solar panels to heat water, he traded in his SUV for a hybrid Ford Escape and he's pledged to run a "carbon neutral" campaign.

My take

I'm totally unimpressed with Obama. Sounds like he's doing a lot more talking than doing, and what's up with leasing a flex-fuel behemoth when there's no flex fuel available? Last I checked, he had some pull in his state to make something like that happen. I like Hilary's idea of eliminating tax breaks for big oil, but I wonder if that would ever get through congress. Tax breaks for hybrids has been a big winner in converting people so far, but she would also need to eliminate the loopholes and quirks that go with it. Edwards' "new-energy economy" has an appealing ring to it, but 1 million jobs is far too modest, in my opinion. It represents less then one percent of the employed work force over 16. I can't put a number on a number that sounds like real change, but that's too low. Conversely, his global climate treaty, in the current political landscape, seems like pie in the sky. The obvious matter of China is going to require unprecedented political manpower and economic incentives to slow down it's untethered growth and related byproducts. A treaty is only as good as the power vested to enforce it.

There are no clear cut winners here but, based on green credentials alone, Barack Obama comes up well short of the other two candidates. Next time, the Republicans...

The ecology of golf

noreply@blogger.com (Dave Slifka) — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 14:30:00 +0000

When one thinks of a golf course, it often conjures the image of a benign oasis. However, over the years, there's been a greater consciousness of golf's impact on the environment. Specifically, it's impact on water resources, species biodiversity, and the use of pesticides. After doing a little research, I was encouraged to see that there has been a shift to the use of reclaimed water and, depending on the habitat the course is replacing, occasionally an increase in biodiversity. However, all courses are not made the same and their impact is highly dependant on how they're managed.

The following video on R&A's website, called The Open Road to Sustainability, recounts efforts to maintain the sustainability of the Royal Liverpool Golf Course. However, R&A is golf's world rules and development body and organizer of The Open Championship, so take it for what it's worth.

The cost of being Green

noreply@blogger.com (Dave Slifka) — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:41:00 +0000

With consumer awareness of green issues increasing every day, there is greater pressure on manufacturers to become innovative in order to provide more cost-effective green options to the average consumer. However, cost effective does not necessarily mean equivalent pricing to what's already on the market. Creating a truly green marketplace will require a shift in thinking that stands in opposition to the current paradigm, which focuses squarely and singularly on the immediate impact to the wallet.

If we concede that the "cost" of a product on the shelf involves much more than a dollar amount at the point of sale, we have to start thinking about the impact of a product over its entire life span, from "cradle to grave." This sort of analysis, in use since the 60's, is known as life-cycle cost analysis.

Life-cycle cost analysis typically incorporates the following phases of a product's existence:

Planning,

R&D,

Production,

Operation,

Maintenance,

Cost of replacement,

Disposal or salvage

While many green products currently cost more than their non-green counterparts upfront, the benefits they offer, financially and otherwise, must be calculated on a different timeline and scope. And over time, I believe it can be demonstrated in many cases that the green option is the more cost effective from a purely financial perspective, as well [The Costs and Financial Benefits of Building Green, p.4].

So we need two things in abundance to make this happen - supporting data from green advocates/businesses and patience from a doubting public, as affirmed by a recent Reuters article:

"In a pilot program, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority built 15,000 energy-efficient homes, which cost on average $7,000 more than a conventional home. That $7,000 investment paid for itself within four years through lower energy bills," [president and CEO of the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority] Peter Smith said.

But consumers are generally unwilling to invest in more expensive homes or appliances unless they can make their money back in less than three years, according to a study by consultants McKinsey & Co.

Creating a centralized life-cycle costing database for the many green products, methods and services out there would be a huge boon to the growing number of consumers seeking them. As with many things, the information is out there for people who are looking, it's just a matter of tracking it down.

Raking carbon over the coals

noreply@blogger.com (Dave Slifka) — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 04:49:00 +0000

Poor carbon...who knew one element could cause so much trouble! I think carbon should become one of those Successory posters that are so easily mocked. It might be something like:

CARBON
Good things come in small packages
that can't be burned

Or something like that.

The following clip discusses more constructive alternatives being explored to deal with our naughty little carbon "problem," including CO² sequestration, coal gasification and carbon cap and trading. You'll be hearing a lot more about these in the future, so check out the video and get your energy chic on.

Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble...a clean cure for dirty pipes

noreply@blogger.com (Dave Slifka) — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 05:09:00 +0000

This handy dandy tip reposted from ApartmentTherapy.com

Baking soda and vinegar are always in the kitchen and produce a remarkable chemical reaction that will clear out whatever's in the way when used with hot water and a plunger.

This really works, the only caveat being that you have to do it more often than with commercial drain cleaners. But you'll save yourself from using the highly toxic Drain-O stuff that really doesn't do a perfect job AND contaminates your home. Of course, the best thing to unclog a drain is a plumbing snake, but that's for another day.

The basic directions are...

1. Get as much water out of the area as possible
2. Pour 1/2 cup of baking soda down the drain
3. Follow with 1 cup of HOT white vinegar
4. Wait 10 minutes or until it stops bubbling and wash with boiling water
5. Use a plunger if necessary

General consensus seems to be that the vinegar and baking soda can be left in for any length of time, and that the hot water really makes a difference.