If this is your idea of gift wrap, you really need to read on.

‘Tis the season we generate entirely too much trash. The EPA and Use Less Stuff estimates that from Thanksgiving to Christmas, the garbage we toss out increases by more than 25%, including food waste, shopping bags, packaging and – you got it – wrapping paper. Not to mention the bows and ribbons and frills, all of which add up to an additional 4 million tons in our landfills.

Here’s another option: go outside and source your trimmings from nature.

Stock up on recycled craft paper for the basic wrap-up, and use natural elements to provide the bling-factor. (Side note, old newspaper can fill in nicely here as well.)

Leaves and a bit of velvet ribbon adorn this bag, and the tag was made from a chop saw and birch log.

Invest in some baker’s twine and it will last you a forever.

If you could only smell this one, wrapped in craft paper, ribbon, raffia and rosemary.

My personal favorite: a bark wrapped gift, with acorns fixed to a black velvet ribbon and craft paper.

ALSO CHECK OUT:

See also…

DIY Alternatives to Traditional Holiday Gift Tags
11 DIY Alternatives to Traditional Christmas Trees
The Perfect DIY Gift: Mason Jar Photo Candles

Images: meddygarnet

ColumnPublicly and privately, politicians are straining credibility.

Years ago, I began to hear a steady stream of rumors about cell phones causing brain cancer. I took these warnings quickly to heart, since I have always been an early adopter when it comes to irrational panic. But my fears were dispelled by a number of medical studies showing that the radiation emitted by cell phones was not a health hazard. These studies were backed up by the Federal Communications Committee and the Environmental Protection Agency, both of which assured consumers that cell phone usage was safe. Now it seems that the World Health Organization has reconsidered its earlier, benign stance on cellphones, and is warning consumers that they may be carcinogenic after all.

Is it just me, or is it hard to trust the people who are supposed to be looking out for our health and well-being?

My distrust of government safety pronouncements is deeply ingrained and dates back to the 1960′s, when the Federal Civil Defense Administration tried to convince me that my best chance of surviving a nuclear attack came from hiding under the wooden desk in my classroom – despite the fact that visual evidence led me to doubt that this small and rickety desk could save me from the firestorm and thermal radiation created by an atomic mushroom cloud.

Since that time, countless other lies and misinformation have been fed to a trusting public:

• The food pyramid, as introduced in 1992, instructed Americans to base their diets on a grain-based foundation of white bread and pasta, until nutritional science proved that advice to be wildly incorrect. The new guidelines have literally toppled the pyramid, which now rests sheepishly on its side and comes with a lithe stick figure scampering up the edge of the fallen pyramid – an activity that, ironically, would be almost impossible for the many Americans who became morbidly obese on the FDA’s previous carb-heavy guidelines.
• In the days and weeks after 9/11, Mayor Rudolph Guiliani, the EPA and OSHA all gave New Yorkers a big, happy thumbs-up, telling them that the unfiltered air downtown was safe to breathe, and that there were no significant health risks to occupants and workers in the affected area. Subsequently, study after study has shown that countless residents and responders who worked on Ground Zero have suffered long term respiratory scarring and illness.
• The Federal Aviation Administration continues to let parents think it’s safe to hold babies under two on their laps during air travel, despite the fact that safety experts agree that unrestrained babies are likely to fly around the cabin like projectile missiles in the event of a crash or even turbulence.
• The USDA has given its approval to injecting ground beef with ammonia, in the hopes that this highly toxic chemical would kill the e. coli and salmonella often found in cheaply-produced meat products. Despite initially telling consumers the beef was safe to eat, the agency now seems to be edging away from this policy, since the dangerous bacteria can still be found in the treated meat. Interestingly, the USDA does not seem particularly concerned about the fact that this beef – which is often sold to school lunch programs – still contains significant amounts of ammonia, which is not generally thought to be one of the healthier or tastier food additives.

I am, naturally, angered and offended that the agencies and officials of my government  find it so easy to be less than entirely honest with me. And yet, I really have no cause to complain – not compared to Maria Shriver and the late Elizabeth Edwards, whose politician husbands never quite got around to telling them that they had fathered children with other women. Government officials may occasionally mislead me, but my outrage pales when compared to that of Huma Abedin, whose husband, Congressman Anthony Weiner, neglected to tell her that he was using his Blackberry to photograph his happy place, and then tweeting those pictures to a wide assortment of coeds.

For politicians, at least, it seems that cancer isn’t the biggest risk that their cell phones may pose.

Susan Goldberg is a slightly lapsed treehugger. Although known to overuse paper products, she has the best of intentions – and a really small SUV. Catch her column, The Goldberg Variations, each week here at EcoSalon.

Image: California Literary Review

Shopping ‘Made in the U.S.A.’ isn’t really so patriotic…or is it?

When you look at clothing labels while out shopping, you likely see more Made in Sri Lanka, Made in India, Made in China, and Made in Guatemala than Made in the U.S.A. labels. It seems just about every country in the world produces clothing except America. How can this be? Americans like to buy clothing more than any other nation in the world, so wouldn’t it be suiting that we like to make it, as well?

Unfortunately, American factories have been closing down at a steady rate, with 90% of our garment factories’ production being outsourced since 1955. Skilled and unskilled labor jobs are disappearing at startling rates. And since the 2008 market crash, American fashion companies have been downsizing the staff even in their corporate offices.

“If we’re going to be competitive with the global market, we need to focus on innovation and coming up with new ways of developing and producing product while maintaining and passing down the traditional skills of sewing within this country,” says Erica Wolf, of Save the Garment Center.

While most American fashion companies still hold their design and operations offices here, much of our customer dollars go to the countries that make the clothes; paying their taxes, developing their nations, building their economies. We expect our politicians to solve America’s rising deficit, meanwhile when we go out shopping, we spend our money supporting just about every country but our own. There seems to be a disconnect here. Aren’t there still values and standards that we as Americans believe are worth saving? If you can’t find what you want with a “Made in the USA” label in it, is it wrong to buy it if it is made elsewhere?

There are those who would forgo such non-American purchases; they tend to be the patriotic individuals who post American pride all over everything they own. They proudly sport American-manufactured clothes and equate shopping with the survival and promotion of their values; keeping jobs in America, putting food on the table for their families, looking out for their neighbors, pride, and better-quality clothing.

For over a century, progressive Americans have worked to protect U.S. workers’ rights. Our nation set up some of the first and most effective labor unions, some of the strictest labor rights protection laws and environmental protection standards enacted in the world. These standards have improved over time, and help to prevent more tragedies from happening like the infamous Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire of 1911. Americans fought for their rights, the government responded with appropriate laws, and all the while we never would have suspected our continual raising of the bar would over time lower the amount of jobs available to American workers.

Today, we have some of the most stringent factory standards on the planet. While the job of sewing operator is still no walk in the park, at least American technicians don’t have to work long hours without breaks or overtime pay. Modern day U.S. workers now at the end of the day get to go home to see their families, something that is unfathomable to the workers in the labor camps of China.

David Riley of americansworking.com has a theory that large companies have figured out how to operate business as usual regardless of the U.S. protection laws we enact: If they can’t do it here, they will do it somewhere else.

“We have outsourced all of our pollution and human suffering. America has made so many laws protecting the environment, the people, and our company trademarks here, that we can’t do business competitively in our own market. We are making American workers and our factories compete with those in countries who have none of the laws or standards that we must uphold,” says Riley. “We would never allow a factory in China to operate here. But we allow them to sell in our market, so in a sense we are allowing them to operate here anyway. We would never be able to compete.”

But amidst our fiercely competitive and, at times, cannibalistic business culture, our values continue to play a powerful role in the world of good. In 2006, American businesses and individuals were reported to have given more than 4.5 times what all of Europe, Australia, and Japan combined in private donations to charities and philanthropic causes that gave aid to developing nations. Granted, our donations are tax-deductible, but if we can afford to help others, why can’t we spring to support our own – at least with our shopping habits?

The majority of American fashion businesses default to China for production, claiming the cost of labor here is generally much more expensive than what American consumers are willing to pay for.

But according to Erica Wolf, of Save the Garment Center, this is not entirely true.

“With prices shifting, and China becoming more expensive it would benefit a big retailer to have their production department, at the very least, examine the prices at domestic factories. On certain garments the pricing is now comparable if not less domestically. And of course this additional business to local factories would help support American jobs,” she says.

Instead, businesses have learned to take advantage of the world market by outsourcing production to countries with cheap, exploitable labor to cut costs while keeping the prices of their goods low. The truth of the matter is that if a brand can’t dictate to us what we want through advertising, then they are forced to listen to what the consumers demand, and if we look for, request, and buy clothes that are Made in America, more companies will make clothes here.

However, for the average American consumer, fashion is frivolous, and has little to do with values or morals. It is less about the quality or where it is made and much more about the brand name on the label.

Riley says, “So much money goes into and comes from the marketing of high fashion brands; the image of high fashion is where they invest. The money spent there has to come out of something else, and I think that something is the cost of labor and product quality. They’re replacing the dollars for production and spending it on branding and marketing instead.”

With most American consumers so heavily influenced by the intoxicating spell of fashion advertising, most of our consumer drive comes from what we see in the media, rather than from the desire to choose items that represent our traditions or values.

Of course, there is one little company that challenged the standard formula and decided to go completely against the grain. In its 22 years of business, American Apparel has been surprisingly successful at building an American-produced fashion business using a vertical integration model that allows them to do nearly everything from design, to advertising, to production all, more or less, under one roof. Here is a brand that has taken great strides to give “American made” a new image.

If you can get past their ads, the company is all-American; proudly promoting their sweatshop-free, Union Made, U.S.A. produced, vertically integrated business, their charitable donations to natural disaster victims, and their political support of civil rights.

American Apparel isn’t the only contender willing to take on the global market while maintaining American production. There seems to be a new revival on the “Made in the U.S.A.”  fashion front. As Wolf notes, “There are designers doing production in the United States. For example, Nanette Lepore does 80% of her production in America.”

And quite recently, the American menswear company Brooks Brothers has made great efforts to bring it back home, complete with a luxe denim collaboration with American classic, Levi Strauss, and a heavily publicized marketing campaign to help equate “Made in America” with the luxury and quality that their brand stands for.

The Olsen Twins’ incredibly successful line, The Row, is yet another high fashion line that is primarily produced in the country. These brands have the marketing muscle and savvy and the will to bring the fashion-minded consumers once again back to getting behind American-made clothes, providing high end fashion that Americans can be proud of.

Image: Chevroletpedia, nycgo.com, America in the World, China Digital Times, Chicagomag.com, fashiongearlive.com

Recently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) celebrated its 40th birthday. And as we have already pointed out, the EPA should be given mad props for all the good work they have done. Among other accomplishments via thankyouepa.com, the EPA has reduced more than 60 percent of the dangerous air pollutants. It has prevented 18 million children from suffering from respiratory disease. And the agency has prevented 205,000 premature American deaths by cleaning up the land and air.

But as the Erin Brockovich types among us might note, the work of cleaning up the Earth is never done. After all, cleaning up after 304 million or so Americans requires some vigilance and extra elbow grease. So here’s a look at seven problems on which we’d like to shine a bright light.

Chromium-6 Is Widespread in US Tap Water
Speaking of Erin Brockovich – did you know that Chromium-6, or hexavalent chromium, is actually a common ingredient in American water? Chromium-6 was the chemical that poisoned residents in the Brockovich case. In fact, as many as 31 of 35 major American cities carry the chemical in their water system. As the Environmental Working Group (EWG) points out, “In all, water samples from 25 cities contained the toxic metal at concentrations above the safe maximum recently proposed by California regulators.” Luckily, just after the EWG made this announcement, the EPA issued a plan to help water facilities deal with this problem.

Chesapeake Bay Phosphorus Pollution Worsens
The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the United States and is now plagued with dead zones. Why? Because it serves as the dumping ground for large amounts of phosphorus, nitrogen and sediment from the six states that feed into the bay. These deposits choke oxygen and deplete life from the water. The EPA has urged states to develop plans to cut back on deposits, but the EWG notes that most of the plans are seriously deficient. As the EWG points out, “sufficient reasonable assurance that pollution controls identified could actually be implemented to achieve the nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment reduction targets by 2017 or 2025.”

Chemicals Are Still Common in Beauty Products
Phthalates, triclosan, parabens and more are still prevalent in beauty products. As the EWG points out, “studies link these chemicals to potential health effects including cancer and hormone disruption.” Teenagers are particularly influenced by these chemicals at a time when their bodies are most venerable, as they tend to use more beauty products than adults. As the EWG urges, “The federal government must set comprehensive safety standards for cosmetics and other personal care product.”

Protections Rolled Back as Western Drilling Surges
Oil and natural gas companies are drilling at higher rates than ever before in the American west, often leaving toxic chemicals, tainted water, and clawed-out landscapes in their wake. But the companies are exempt from most major federal environmental laws. As the EWG points out, oil and gas drillers enjoy waivers “under the Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Superfund, the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.” Experts predict drilling will only increase as gas and oil prices rise.

California Chemical Makers Get a Boost
In 2008, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed two bills that would eliminate toxic chemicals as the “inevitable byproduct of industrial production, lowering the risk of exposure to synthetic chemicals for California’s people and the environment.” But recently, the California Department of Toxics Substances Control (DTSC) issued a whole new set of regulations that essentially “gut” the Green Chemistry program – leaving it worse off than before.

Mercury in the Air and Food Chain Is Still Prominent
All fifty states have fish-consumption advisories due to mercury in fish. The EPA doesn’t have standards for the coal-fired plants that produce most of the mercury. As The New York Times points out, “Scientists know that coal-burning power plants, industrial boilers, cement kilns and other facilities produce much of the mercury in the environment.”

EPA Denies Petition to Ban Lead in Fishing Gear
Recently, a petition was brought to the EPA to ban the manufacturing, use and processing of lead in fishing gear. The EPA denied it on the basis that “petitioners have not demonstrated that the requested rule is necessary to protect against an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, as required by the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).” The petition was brought in part by the American Bird Conservancy.

Images: compujeramey, idhren, bensonkua

War, science denial and Fox News. It’s what’s going on in the world, but it’s not especially merry, merry. If you’re feeling anxious about the eco conversation turning an ugly shade of green at the family Christmas dinner, rest easy. It’s not all doom and gloom. (Besides, there will be plenty of time post-feast to take on Uncle Ulysses on Wikileaks, your sister Sue on why being green doesn’t actually make you a commie, and cousin Clive on the South Atlantic Gyre.)

So, for your dining pleasure, I submit to you three news items everyone can be happy about:

1. Good for flora…

How is this for a dream headline: “Amazon deforestation in dramatic decline, official figures show.”

This is from the Guardian, which reported this summer that data from satellites shows that large areas of forest destruction was about halved in the period between August 2009 and May 2010, compared with the same period a year earlier (to about 930 square miles from about 1860 square miles). The story notes that the Brazilian environment agency, Ibama, said “the drop was due to the increased use of satellite data to spot the felling of trees and new tactics to deter loggers, including ending their ability to hide under cloud cover.” Along these lines, we recently reported here that Google’s announcement this month of its Earth Engine will allow for even more monitoring and measurement of changes in the Earth’s environment. With its eye in the sky, the system will “function like a watchdog camera, supporting the development of ‘monitor, report and verify’ (MRV) efforts to stop global deforestation.” Go, trees!

2. Good for fauna…

Things are looking up for some pretty cool endangered species – you know, the sexy ones that get lots of press and for which even your most “who-cares” relatives have a soft spot. Consider first the mountain gorilla, the number of which in national parks of three African countries has risen by 26 percent in the last seven years, says a recent census. Next, how about those tigers, whose on-the-brink status has led to a recent summit among the 13 nations where the animals still exist in the wild. The takeway was $300 million raised to save the animals (including a cool million from actor Leonardo DiCaprio), as well as agreement to attempt to double their number by 2022. And finally, there’s the canary in our global coalmine – the polar bear – for which The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has just designated 87,000 square miles along the north coast of Alaska as protected “critical habitat” as part of a settlement in a lawsuit filed by environmental groups (although a lump of coal to the Obama administration for declaring polar bears merely “threatened” today).

3. And good for us…

Hooray for the home team on the emissions front. As a result in an increase in United States fuel economy standards, a new EPA report is showing a 14 percent per mile drop in carbon dioxide emissions over the last six years, and a 16 percent drop in gasoline use, with a rise of 3.1 miles per gallon to 22.5. In fact, “C02 emissions have decreased while fuel economy has increased every year since 2005, reversing the trend of the previous eight years.” This doesn’t mean we’re all to breathe easy and lose our discipline on this issue, but good news is good news.

So there. Eat, drink and be environmentally merry. A little more champagne, please! Go ahead and top off the glass.

Special thanks to the Great News Network (GNN) for reminding me that all’s not dire on the environmental front.

Images: Sara&Joachim, Johan J.Ingles-Le Nobel, wwarby, ^riza^

Eyes on the prize: Google announces ‘Earth Engine’

Offering scientists and conservationists a better look-see at Mama Earth, Google Labs unveiled its Google Earth Engine yesterday at the International Climate Change Conference in Cancun, Mexico. The product puts an “unprecedented amount of satellite imagery and data – current and historical – online for the first time,” says Google, allowing for monitoring and measurement of changes in the Earth’s environment. The images are designed specifically for environmental protection use, providing information on the “locations and extent of global forests, detecting how our forests are changing over time, directing resources for disaster response or water resource mapping,” among other data. One important value of the system is that it will function like a watchdog camera, supporting the development of “monitor, report and verify” (MRV) efforts to stop global deforestation. The company released an example image, generated in collaboration with Mexico’s National Forestry Commission, of a forest cover and water map of Mexico which is the finest-scale to date. The company says the map required 15,000 hours of computation, but was completed in less than a day on Google Earth Engine using 1,000 computers.

Happy birthday EPA!

Now more than ever is a good time to celebrate the Environmental Protection Agency. As the mostly on-our-side government agency is turning 40, it’s coming under severe attacks from a hostile new (corporate-sponsored) Congress, and other science and climate-change deniers around the the world. GreenBiz has it right when it says: “a testament to the scale and scope of the EPA’s successes over the past 40 years that they’ve faded into the background, or been woven into the fabric of daily life.” However, any take-it-for-granted attitude would be a grave mistake right now given the current political climate, and it’s good that sites like Green For All (ThankYouEPA.com), are out there helping to get the word out. There’s an informative quick take, too, from the Aspen Institute in a 10 reasons we love ‘em format. Among the highlights from the agency’s 40 years are banning the widespread use of DDT, addressing the acid rain problem, championing the reuse of waste, taking the lead on reducing vehicle emissions, cleaning up our water supply and being a  general conduit for public information.

Strange life forms found in (where else?) California!

While you would figure NASA would spend a lot time looking up, the organization just announced that one of its astrobiology research efforts that’s focused way down under one of California’s weirdest lakes has led to discovery that folks are saying will fundamentally shift the way we define life – and vastly expand the playing field in terms of how we look for life on other planets. These researchers have discovered the first known microorganism able to “thrive and reproduce using the toxic chemical arsenic. The microorganism, which lives in Mono Lake, substitutes arsenic for phosphorus in the backbone of its DNA and other cellular components.” Quoted in the NY Daily News, Mary Voytek, director of NASA’s astrobiology program, says, ”It’s terrestrial life – but not life as we know it.” The story adds that “all life discovered so far, from teeny amoebas to enormous elephants, are composed of combinations of the same six elements: carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, sulfur and phosphorus,” but the new bacteria (its catchy name is GFAJ-1) can live without any phosphorus and instead uses arsenic to build cells. Why do we care? “The implication is that we still don’t know everything there is to know about what might make a planet habitable,” says another NASA scientist. “Maybe we’ll be able to find ET now.”

Images: Google, jessica.diamond, NASA

It’s no secret that anything resembling an environmental protection law that even nods to the possibility of human-induced climate change is under sustained and rabid attack by industry groups and the politicians who represent them. (Okay. Breathing.) The tactic over the last two years has been to go after the EPA, which is charged with creating regulations that abide by these laws. Myriad word bombs and legal challenges over the organization’s ethics and tactics have been lobbed at it by climate change deniers for years now.

Well, the Justice Department just made it clear in legal briefing that if you got a problem with the EPA, you should take it up with Congress. (Note: Today’s the day we take stuff up with Congress.) The government’s environmental watchdog is simply executing on existing law. If you’re a member of Congress, then take it up with yourself. Bottom line? If you don’t like what’s going down, change the law, and leave the EPA out of it.

Here’s the verbiage: As reported in Politico, the filing states that states, industry groups and other groups’ objections to EPA rules (here related primarily to the Clean Air Act) “is not really to EPA’s actions; rather it is to the decisions Congress made and to the strict requirements Congress itself imposed on sources of air pollution.”

So it’s the law, stupid. Well, it’s the law for now, anyway. The target on the back of these laws (and efforts to strengthen and update them) may be more attainable for climate change deniers when you get up tomorrow morning. To be fair, both parties have a problem with the existing antiquated Clean Air Act, though efforts to create new law didn’t make it though Congress as it was the last two years. (So keep in that going forward now, we’re not even talking progress. We’re talking about maintaining whatever footholds have been established in recent decades.)

Consider this: Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), the favorite to chair the Energy and Commerce Committee if control of the House changes, says he’s geared up to investigate administration’s “poisonous regulations.” In fact, he told Politico that “If we have the gavel, I can assure you that the oversight subcommittee will be very busy. We’ll have a seat reserved for [the administration's top climate and energy advisor Carol Browner].” EPA administrator Lisa Jackon would doubtless be spending a lot of time on the Hill, as well.

Attempting to go with a non-partisan note here, we all have varied opinions on what needs to happen in the arena of federal environmental law. Just ask yourself what it is you want and keep that in mind when you, if you haven’t already, go act on your wishes, that is to say, Vote. Now, please.

Image: samantha celera

Pass-fail classes were a gift. I mean, not when I thought I would ace them, because what would be the point? But when getting by wasn’t a sure thing (in my case, for example, in any class that ended in “ometry”), a thumbs up or thumbs down option was a super deal. I could fudge pretty much anything and how hard was it, really, to garner enough lackadaisical sentiment from the powers that be that said: “Whatever. Move along. You’re fine”?

Well, heads up automakers. Teach is onto you. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are looking to take some of the vagaries out of fuel economy labeling by giving new vehicles grades for fuel efficiency. There’s even something on the table resembling a curve, where vehicles will be judged against the performance of their peers. Tough stuff and it won’t be surprising if The Industry doesn’t like what it sees.

The idea is to update the current label, “to provide consumers with simple, straightforward energy and environmental comparisons across all vehicles types, including electric vehicles (EV), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV), and conventional gasoline/diesel vehicles.” The new stickers will now have “ratings on fuel economy, greenhouse gas emissions, and other air pollutants,” which addresses the requirements of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007. The new label will be debut on vehicles in the 2012 model year.

For about the next two months, the agencies will be soliciting public comment before choosing between one of two proposed stickers. One is a bit more conventional (below), while the other bears the sure-to-be-controversial grading system (bottom). For the latter, according to the NYT, an A+ means a fuel economy equivalent of at least 117 miles per gallon and would be reserved for zero emission cars. Plug-in hybrids coming in between 59 to 116 miles per gallon would get an A, and “conventional hybrids, like the Toyota Prius and Ford Fusion,” would get an A-. The article goes on to say that if the system were in place today, “306 small cars from model year 2010 would receive a B, only eight S.U.V.’s would receive a B+ (68 would get a C), and the highest grade for a van would be a C+.”

Grades aside, a good old MPG ranking will be on whatever label ends up stuck on the windows of 2012 cars and trucks, as well as a “fuel consumption value” chart that measures gallons of fuel required per 100 miles. Egogeek points out that “upstream emissions, such as the emissions from a power plant generating electricity to recharge a vehicle, would not be listed on the label,” but there will a website offered where you can get more info if you want to check it out.

The NYT article is already reporting negative auto industry reaction, saying “the letter grades –  from A+ to D - were immediately denounced by some industry groups, which said the government should not be making value judgments for consumers about vehicles.” I suppose that’s to be expected by a group that’s not used to such getting graded so specifically on its work.

It’s going to be interesting to see how the grading system plays out, if that’s the route that’s chosen, as such an approach is always a delicate proposal. Witness the movie rating system where an NC-17 versus an R can make or break a film even before its release. The trick is going to be objective accuracy and if it’s done right, the carrot of a good grade might just be what’s indicated to get some of slackers in gear.

It took me years to realize that not only were sunglasses necessary to do the basic job of keeping the sun out of my eyes, they were also meant to protect the fine skin around my eyes.

Now, with sun damage lines grooved deep into the corners of my eyes, I wish I’d always worn sunglasses while out in the sun and thrown all care away for sunglass lines. According to All About Vision, an eye care journalism site, the UV Index developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Weather Service (NWS) has made many Americans more aware of the risks of sunburn and skin cancer from the ultraviolet radiation, but when it comes to eye protection are we just not listening?

FYI, extended exposure to the sun’s UV rays has been linked to eye damage, including cataracts, macular degeneration, pingueculae, pterygia and photokeratitis that can cause temporary vision loss.

Thanks to a slough of really hip sunglasses out there, you can protect your eyes while still looking hip and yes, even sustainably so.

Here are four lines I love and seven more from Eco-Chick Starre Vartan on MNN:

iwood

Made in the U.S. from FSC certified, reclaimed exotic woods, these glasses are feather light and offer 100 percent UVA/UVB protection.

icu

Made from recycled plastic and metal (and bamboo), this sunglass line (and this particular style) is a favorite with Oprah.

Moonwoods

Made conscientiously without harsh chemicals out of mill ends that would otherwise be discarded from a small (but growing) company based in Portland, Oregon.

eco

Utilizing recycled plastic and metal, eco plants a tree for each frame sold. A sunglass line doing double duty makes us smile.

Image: orangeacid

I don’t know about you, but when elderly lesbian doppelganger slash Republican Lindsey Graham is one of the few Senators espousing a common-sense, ecologically-minded legislative opinion, I pay attention. Complete with a double spit-take and a heaping helping of “WHAAA?”

Alaskan Senator Lisa Murkowski, firing the next salvo in the knock-out grudge match between Alaskans and the Earth, has sponsored a bill that would overturn the Environmental Protection Agency’s right to regulate air pollutants. Even though that’s, you know, what the EPA does. The core argument is that Congress should be regulating environmental policy, not an actual environmental regulatory group. Here’s where the startling sanity of Lindsey Graham comes into play: “If we stop them [the EPA], are we going to do anything?” Three guesses and a prize of their choice to the lucky winner.

The Murkowski bill counts at least 40 co-sponsors (including Democrats from Arkansas, Nebraska, and Louisiana). Several other Democrats from coal states have not yet stated which way they will vote, leaving open the possibility that the bill will find the 51 votes it needs to pass.

Since Obama’s climate bill hasn’t yet passed, the EPA’s Clean Air Act is the only governmental means of cutting carbon emissions currently available. There’s also nothing stopping Congress from crafting its own energy legislation in addition to whatever actions the EPA takes. But a consensus on energy policy in Congress is a long way off. Depending on which way the vote goes this afternoon, the reality of effective greenhouse emissions regulations may become just as distant. With Democrats scrambling to protect corporate profits and Republicans speaking up for sensible environmental protection (and no legislative consensus or leadership in sight), the score could very well be Alaska 1, Earth 0.

Image: dbaron