Hybrids Beat Hydrogen

With all the hype about Hydrogen, it's important to remember that Hydrogen is not an energy source. You have to get the Hydrogen from somewhere, and that's the rub. The easiest place to get Hydrogen these days is natural gas, but it's actually more environmentally efficient just to burn the natural gas directly. You can get Hydrogen by running electricity through water, but in order to do that you have to generate electricity.

Long term, Hydrogen could be a great way to store energy. The wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. It's important that we develop systems for turning intermittent renewable energy sources into continuous clean energy sources. Hydrogen could play a role there.

But there are many questions to be answered and lots of work to do before Hydrogen can play that role. Which brings us to the issue of clean cars and the Hydrogen Highway. As Joe Romm makes clear in an interview with Salon, hybrids are the way to go for the next decade or two. Hydrogen deserves continued research, and it may be valuable in the long term. But we shouldn't let that distract us from our immediate need for cleaner, more efficient cars, a need that can be satisfied with existing technology at an affordable price.

You can read the full interview, with lots more details, at Salon.

GMO Food Concerns Raised at Kraft Annual Meeting

Kraft's annual meeting was the occassion for more questions about the company's continued use of genetically modified ingredients. Kraft has acknowledged that GMO foods pose health risks to its customers and the financial risks to its shareholders, but they continue to sell them and continue to refuse to label them. You can read U.S. PIRG's statement from the meeting, and take action here.

Campaign Institute

A short break from our regular topic of corporate campaigns:

Interested in working on a political campaign this summer or fall? The Campaign Institute is providing an intensive non-partisan one-week training for electoral activists and wannabe campaign professionals. There will be great speakers, great trainers, and even a job fair at the end to offer you the opportunity to find a paid campaign position�. Among the goals of the Institute: to help move campaigns from the airwaves back down into local neighborhoods, and to get more people (especially young people) involved in campaigns.

There will be a training in Washington from July 8-11 (application deadline May 21st) and a session in Boston from August 2-9 (application deadline June 25th). (Note that the Boston session is longer.)

Conversation with Michael Dell

I just finished watching the web cast of a conversation between representatives of Dell Computer and the Computer Takeback Campaign. There were opportunities for questions from students, but most of the time was taken up by Michael Dell and Pat Nathan describing their company's plans for handling the e-waste problem.

You can watch a recording of the conversation here.

Dell has come a long way since the campaign started. They no longer use prison labor or ship e-waste overseas. They have an exemplary program for recycling printers: when you purchase a new printer, you take it out of the box, put your old printer into the box, and call the shipping company to pick it up. And they've reduced the cost for recycling old computer equipment to $5.

But there are still problems. $5 is not free. And though the amount seems small, it still represents a significant psychological barrier: who is responsible for the waste? Who owns it? The $5 says it belongs to me until I pay Dell to take care of it. In a true EPR system, the materials belong to Dell, from cradle to grave.

Is it worth pursuing this fine point down to the last $5, or do we declare [mostly] victory, and move on? We're interested in hearing your feedback.

Marking Earth Day Inc.

What do we lose when polluting corporations sponsor Earth Day events? Should enviros be more careful about whose money they take? In today's NYTimes, Geoff Johnson of The Green Life argues that we should. Greenwashing doesn't just cover up corporate dirt; it also contributes to the fog of misunderstanding around the economy, the environment, and our personal responsibility for both. By accepting money from irresponsible companies, local Earth Day organizers are buying into that separation of word and deed, value and action, which is at the root of our disconnect from the Earth.

It's worth a read.

More about The Green Life and corporate greenwashing here.

GMO Soya Causing Problems in Argentina

The Guardian reports that farmers in Argentina are running into problems with Roundup Ready Soy. Monsanto designed this genetically modified wonder to be resistant to the herbicide Roundup (also produced by Monsanto). Not surprisingly, the super-soy is now spreading across Argentina, forcing farmers to use heavier applications of stronger herbicides to reclaim their land.

Let's hope American's take this as a lesson, starting with our friends at Kraft.

Maine Passes E-Waste Bill

The Maine Senate just voted to enact a comprehensive e-waste bill. Unlike California's SB-20, the Maine bill embodies the principles of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). By requiring the producers to carry the burden of the final disposal of their products, EPR gives the producers a powerful incentive to build products that are cleaner and easier to disassemble, reuse, and recycle.

Go Maine!

BP Announces Arctic Drilling not part of Current Business Plan

Good news from U.S. PIRG on the campaign to keep BP out of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge!

*****

For immediate release:
April 15, 2004

BP ANNOUNCES ARCTIC DRILLING NOT PART OF CURRENT BUSINESS PLAN
More than 6% of Shareholders Vote for No-Go Zones Resolution

In a victory for a campaign to persuade the London-based oil giant to stay out of sensitive and protected areas, BP Chairman Peter Sutherland announced at its annual general meeting today that drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge is "not part of its current business plan."

"Drilling in the Arctic doesn't make sense from an environmental standpoint and the company's announcement today shows that BP recognizes that it doesn't make good business sense either," said U.S. PIRG Arctic Campaign Director Athan Manuel. "We hope that we can build on a productive annual meeting and develop a long-term no-go zone policy for sensitive areas."

Manuel and the Right Reverend Mark MacDonald of the Episcopal Diocese of Alaska presented the resolution at Thursday's annual general meeting. The resolution, filed by a trans-Atlantic coalition of environmentalists, religious organizations, and socially responsible investors, directs BP to report on the risks associated with operating in sensitive and protected areas such as World Heritage Sites, IUCN categories, and national parks, monuments, and wildlife refuges. More than six percent of BP shareholders voted in favor of the resolution.

"For centuries, the Christian moral tradition and the Western legal tradition have consistently promoted aboriginal rights as fundamental elements of basic and minimal commitment to justice," said Reverend MacDonald. "Though these traditions are accepted almost unanimously in theory, government, corporations and sadly, even religious institutions have far too consistently undermined or stolen capacity for aboriginal peoples to survive," he concluded.

The Special Resolution, drafted by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (U.S. PIRG) Education Fund in December 2003, was co-filed by a broad coalition of environmental, financial, and religious groups, along with over 90 individual investors. This year's lead co-filers include the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, the Sierra Club, Clean Yield Asset Management, and some members of Ecumenical Council for Corporate Responsibility, including the Congregation of La Retraite.

"Today's vote sends a strong message to BP that the best way for the company to go beyond petroleum is to stay out of protected areas like the Arctic Refuge," said U.S. PIRG's Athan Manuel. "Adopting a no-go zones policy will make BP the industry leader on environmental issues and corporate responsibility."

In the last five years, the PIRG Arctic Wilderness Campaign has targeted oil companies that have an interest in drilling in the Arctic Refuge. ConocoPhillips shareholders will vote a similar resolution on on May 5, 2004. The campaign has filed 14 shareholder resolutions and generated more than 50,000 e-mail, phone calls, and letters to BP, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco. For more on the campaign visit: www.savethearctic.com.

For More Informations:
Athan Manuel (in London)
011 44 776 666 5119
Justin Tatham
202-907-6721
Liz Hitchcock
202-546-9707

Michael Dell Responds

On April 6th, Michael Dell issued a public letter in response to actions by students from ecopledge and our coalition allies in the Computer Takeback Campaign. His letter acknowledges all of the key points that we have raised in our dialog with the company, including the need for clean manufacturing, responsible recycling, and of course the takeback of all equipment manufactured and sold by Dell.

Michael Dell will be continuing this dialogue in a meeting with students on April 26th.

Congratulations to all the ecopledge leaders who helped make this happen! This announcement is great news and represents great progress on this campaign.

But there is still more work to be done. Our request is simple: Dell should offer free and convenient takeback for the computers and related equipment that they manufacture. That is the only way to keep this equipment, and the toxics it contains, out of our land, our water, and our air. We will continue our advocacy efforts until we reach this goal.

Ecopledge students, please keep up the good work! We will be in touch as the campaign develops. If you have comments, feedback, or ideas for moving this campaign forward, please send us an e-mail.

You can read Michael Dell's open letter at the Dell web site.

You can read the press release from our coalition ally the Grassroots Recycling Network by visiting the GRRN web site.

Don't Be Fooled

On April Fool's Day, The Green Life released the 12th annual Don't Be Fooled report profiling the 10 worst greenwashers of 2003. The report holds corporations accountable for the integrity of their environmental messages in marketing and public relations.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines greenwash as, “Disinformation disseminated by an organization so as to present an environmentally responsible public image.�

“We're all familiar with greenwash at some level,� said Geoff Johnson, Program Coordinator of The Green Life. “It shows up on product packaging in the form of vague labels like ‘eco-friendly' and ‘all-natural,' it's in advertisements that show SUVs at home in the wilderness, and it's in the way corporations churn out environmental rhetoric about ‘sound science' and ‘sustainability.'�

The Don't Be Fooled Report finds that new forms of greenwash are emerging as corporations, industry groups and government agencies explore innovative ways to mislead the public about their environmental commitment.

One alarming development is the advancement of the logging and biotechnology industries into American school systems. Project Learning Tree, an environmental education curriculum taught in over 300,000 classrooms, is a program of the American Forest Foundation, whose members include over 100 logging and paper companies. The Council for Biotechnology Information, funded by Monsanto, publishes “Look Closer at Biotechnology,� an activity book targeted at 3rd and 4th graders.

“Greenwashers are attempting to take over environmental education in this country,� stated Johnson. “Clearly they believe the children are their future. They're writing and publishing educational materials that promote their agendas and providing them for free to underfunded and overburdened schools. Our kids are being shown the wonders of tree farms and genetically modified foods without being taught to think critically.�

The report does not focus exclusively on the worst environmental offenders. In fact, several of the corporations profiled are recognized by consumers as environmentally progressive. Yet, the report reveals, such corporations have a tendency to slow down their environmental progress once they are perceived to be a step ahead of their competitors.

“Whether they've earned their reputation or not,� said Johnson, “corporations that are considered to be an environmental leader in their industry often take advantage of the public's trust. Some, like Starbucks and BP, rest on their laurels, at least compared to the progress they could be making, until a competitor challenges their environmental leadership. Others, like Subaru this past year, move backwards on the environment and hope that it won't get noticed.�

The complete ten worst list consists of the American Chemistry Council, Avalon Natural Products, BP, the Environmental Protection Agency, Monsanto Company, Project Learning Tree, Royal Caribbean International, Salmon of the Americas, Starbucks Coffee Company and Subaru.

The Don't Be Fooled Report is a project of The Green Life's “Take Greenwash to the Cleaners� campaign, designed to explain, expose and erase greenwash in marketing and public relations. Copies are available at www.thegreenlife.org. The Green Life, formerly Earthday Resources for Living Green, is a non-profit organization that promotes simplicity, health and sustainability in daily life.