With a science-hostile Congress moving into Washington next month, now – before reactionary attempts to turn back the nascent clock – is a good time to revisit the benefits of stem cell research.

By way of a quick review, work here in the United States is still in a relatively embryonic stage, so to speak, as it was only in March 2009 that President Barack Obama issued Executive Order 13505 – “Removing Barriers to Responsible Scientific Research Involving Human Stem Cells.” The EO revoked one signed by President George W. Bush in 2007, as well as Presidential statement in 2001 that limited federal funding of research involving human embryonic stem cells. Obama’s order instructed the Director of NIH to “develop guidelines for the support and conduct of responsible, scientifically worthy human stem cell research, including human embryonic stem cell research, to the extent permitted by law.”

It’s that last bit about the law where the new Congress has the ability to stop and reverse forward motion. Here’s a primer on the progress and opportunities we stand to lose if backward thinkers have their way:

1.  Cures for common diseases

Topping the list is the role that stem cell research and regenerative medicine might – most researchers, in fact, say will likely – play in developing cures for disease that might otherwise be incurable. (Note that: otherwise incurable.) Here’s a short list:

• Parkinson’s Disease
• Alzheimer’s Disease
• Heart Diseases
• Diabetes
• Cancer

Know anyone suffering from something on this list? Most people do. And how about this recent headline from the peer-reviewed journal Blood, a publication of the American Society of Hematology: “Evidence for the cure of HIV infection by CCR5 32/32 stem cell transplantation.” Know what that means? Yeah. The AFP reported this just yesterday: “A US cancer patient who received a stem cell transplant has been cured of HIV.” Stay tuned on this one.

2. Reversing birth defects

Studies are showing that by injecting stem cells directly into the brain, neural birth defects may be reversible. This research into treating birth defects is pretty new, but teams have been developing therapies for rodents with real or simulated birth defects in the brain, says MIT’s Technology Review. “Even though most of the transplanted cells did not survive, they induced the brain’s own cells to carry out extensive repairs.”

3. Repairing stroke damage

Science Daily reports that according to a new study by researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine, neural cells from human embryonic stem cells “helped repair stroke-related damage in the brains of rats and led to improvements in their physical abilities after a stroke.” This is big news. “The great thing about these cells is that they are available in unlimited supply and are very versatile,” said a senior scientist on the project. “The neural cells the group generated grew indefinitely in the lab and could be an ongoing source of cells for treating stroke or other injuries.”

4. Dealing with spinal cord injuries

Just this fall, a patient suffering from a spinal cord injury was injected with two million human embryonic stem cells. “The hope,” says CBS News Healthwatch, is that “one day this treatment may help the paralyzed walk again.” The procedure took place at the Shepherd Center spinal cord and brain injury rehabilitation facility in Atlanta. The idea is that the cells will become specialized nerve cells which can then be injected directly into the injured area of the spinal cord.  If the treatment works, the progenitor cells will produce new oligodendrocytes (cells that produce myelin, which allows impulses to move along nerves) in the injured area of the patient’s spine, allowing for new movement.

5. Organ repair and replacement

Growing whole organs and critical tissue is a seemingly sci-fi scenario that’s a lot closer than we think – with the help of stem cell research. This new technology could make possible “a virtually inexhaustible supply of organ replacements, thereby doing away with the need to wait for organ donors and removing the risk of rejection.” Entire hearts, lungs, etc., aside, tissue generation has an entire host of curative possibilities.

6. Burn victim relief

Here’s an area where there’s already been a significant payoff as cultivated stem cells are today being used to generate skin grafts. Also, patients whose eyes have been damaged in chemical accidents have had their sight restored using their own stem cells. Embryonic stem cell research plays a significant role helping scientists understand and put to use adult stem cells, as well.

7. Developing new drugs

New drugs can be tested on stem cells to test safety before testing on humans, or even animals, for that matter. In fact, as CNN reports, some researchers are saying embryonic stem cells could end animal testing altogether. Says one expert, “It could save a lot of time and effort of taking the wrong drugs through, or it may allow drugs through which are lost at an early stage, because they affect the animal cells but don’t have an effect on human cells.”

8. (If the science isn’t enough) It’s the economy, stupid

States that support stem cell research have seen significant corporate investment and job creation. Estimates in California, for example, are that $1 billion in investment in stem cell research is not unreasonable. The commercial potential is overwhelming, according those who are in the business.

9. It’s the economy, stupid II

Oh, and don’t we have a little problem with healthcare expenditures in this country? Don’t most experts believe that the amount of money we’re paying out as a society for the sick and dying is going to bankrupt us if action is not taken? How about more healthy people? Seems like something we should be looking into.

10. (If the economics isn’t enough) It’s just the right thing to do

Stem cell research is inherently innovative and efficient, and a practical and a conscious demonstration of caring for those who are sick. These people are not only taxing the system, but they are taxing themselves and their families with trauma and anguish. Scientific progress and human quality of life are inexorably linked in our times and acting to improve and care for the entire system, the whole connected fabric of our existence, is a moral imperative. Consider that more than 100 million Americans suffer from ailments and diseases that may be cured with embryonic stem cell therapy. Alleviating human suffering. It’s the right thing to do.

Image: kaibara87

The post 10 Reasons Not to Turn Our Backs on Stem Cell Research appeared first on EcoSalon.

On November 17th, the Paycheck Fairness Act went to the Senate for vote. The bill would have provided “improvement and modifications” to the Equal Pay Act of 1963. President Obama called it a common sense bill. Nonetheless, it failed to pass due to an overwhelming surge of Republican opposition. Democrats voted 56:1 in favor, while Republicans went 1:40 against it.

So what have women lost as a result of this vote? As Jezebel reports, the Act would have “required employers to provide a business justification for paying men and women differently for the same work and make it easier for employees to obtain salary data and ask about salaries without retaliation.” A lack of transparency is a key reason why many women remain underpaid. Currently, a woman makes 77 cents to each dollar a man earns.

What do Senate Republicans and one Democrat have against a woman knowing what her co-worker earns? Some argued that the Act would kill jobs, and that a woman’s lower pay is a result of her choices in balancing family life with work.

Others argued that it would have opened up the work place for unnecessary lawsuits. But as the Washington Post points out, the Act would have simply “clarified vague language in the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and applied well-established legal standards that are in place for other types of pay discrimination.”

To mourn the death of the Paycheck Fairness Act, check out our homage to some of the more ridiculous laws regarding women on the books. Hopefully, some will soon be repealed. Let’s just not send them to Congress to do so.

1. In Maryland, a woman cannot go through her husband’s pockets while he is sleeping. Not even if she really wants a piece of gum.

2. In Vermont, a woman must obtain written permission from her husband if she wishes to wear false teeth. Because women really lead with their teeth in wanton, uncontrolled sexuality.

3. In Tucson, Arizona, women are not allowed to wear pants. No word on the stance on booty shorts or thongs.

4. In Carrizozo, New Mexico, it is illegal for a woman to appear unshaven in public. Rejoice, razor industry, rejoice!

5. In Dyersburg, Tennessee, it is illegal for a woman to call a man on a date. I don’t want to live in a world where equal-opportunity drunk dialing isn’t free to all.

6. In Carmel, New York, women may not wear high heels within the city limits. They are obviously just protecting their citizens, as this move effectively disqualifies the city from ever letting a “Sex and the City” sequel to be shot in their town. Good move, Carmel!

7. In Michigan, a woman isn’t allowed to cut her hair without her husband’s permission. But what if her husband cuts it for her?

Image: ralpe

The post 7 Ridiculous Laws Against Women appeared first on EcoSalon.

So the joke goes that there’s a guy stranded on the roof of his house. Flood waters are rising and he’s praying to God for help. A couple of kids come by in a canoe and say, “Hey Mister! Jump in!” Preoccupied with prayer, he ignores them and they paddle away. Soon the water level is higher and the local sheriff comes by in a dinghy, “Get in, pal! It’s gonna get worse!” The man says, “Please, officer, not now, I must focus on the Lord!” Before long the waterline breaks over the roof of the house and a helicopter comes by, dangling a rope ladder. “Climb up!,” the pilot shouts above the roar of his engine. With the water raging and chopper wind blowing fiercely around him, the man screams, “Leave me! The Lord will save me!” Finally, the flood overcomes the man. As he’s being swept to his doom he looks to sky and asks, “Oh Lord, why have you left me to die?!” “Left you to die?!,” booms the Almighty, “I sent you a canoe, a dinghy and a helicopter, you idiot!”

I couldn’t help but think of this joke when I heard the infamous and honorable Representative from Illinois, John Shimkus (who is currently seeking the chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce panel in the next Congress), tell us that we don’t have to worry about global warming. Only God, says Shimkus, can destroy this earth, not man, and after all, He made a deal with Noah not to flood us out any more. I feel like shaking this guy and saying, “your Guy’s sending you data and science and smart people, you moron! He’s speaking to you and he’s saying: ‘Save thyself!'”

The War on Science is on and some people are telling us that He/She/It doesn’t believe in global warming and neither should you. By way of background, here’s a right-on quote from a blogger on About.com: “One of the principle driving forces behind all this [science] denial is a desire to get around the conclusions of science when they conflict with some preferred ideology – political, economic, religious, whatever.”

The political and economic issues behind climate change denial seem clear. As my father used to say, it’s always about two things: money and dollars. Corporate polluters have a record of funding efforts to portray good science as bad, promoting the notion of “science impotence” (portraying science as a  failure based on the fact that certain phenomena remain “unexplained”), and of course funding the campaigns of science deniers (take a guess where BP put its money this last election cycle). But what’s with the religious attacks? I mean, if you’re looking for something apocalyptic, global warming experts are offering up some crash and burn on a silver platter.

Of course there’s a thesis to be written here and we can go back to Descartes gumming up Church works with his thinking therefore am-ing, and then, of course, there’s our man Darwin who really queered the deal. But while portraying evolution as a theory as opposed to fact might be harmless enough (if ignorance can ever be harmless), denying changes in the weather puts people at risk. I don’t want to question Rep. Shimkus’ sincerity of motives; let’s not presume that his beliefs are really a front for corporate-backed efforts to derail climate change legislation. But his (and other policymakers‘) anti-science stance is dangerous and is based on antiquated thinking that precludes the coexistence of science and biblical creationism, something our greatest theologians would find ignorant, at best.

The truth is, there’s plenty of room for theology to exist alongside science and even support its conclusions as perhaps information coming straight from God’s workshop – tools “delivered” to us so that we might better love and protect ourselves and our neighbors. Whether or not one believes in creationism as the genesis of life, analysis of facts on the ground is just that – and a method to help preserve that life, wherever it comes from. Who knows? Maybe, just maybe, alternative energy technology is a gift from, well, just ask the folks at the Evangelical Climate Initiative.

You know, whatever one believes (or doesn’t believe), it’s important to have enough sense to come in out of the rain. You might even consider such a logical maneuver as taking refuge in God’s house. In any case, most of us can agree to this: finding a port in a storm beats going down with the ship.

Image: radiant guy

The post On Global Warming: If There Is One, He, She or It Is on Our Side appeared first on EcoSalon.

Climate control freaks?

Geoengineering is exactly what it says it is – engineering our geo. But here’s a cooler definition from the National Academy of Sciences:  “Options that would involve large-scale engineering of our environment in order to combat or counteract the effects of changes in atmospheric chemistry.” Consider this: when Mt. Pinatubo, in the Philippines erupted in 1991, its bad-ass belch of some 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide dropped world temperatures by an average of half a degree. Scientists now have the technology get the same job done without any help from the volcano gods; they can use airplanes to inject sulfur dioxide right into the stratosphere. One way to combat global warming? Maybe, but hey, maybe it’s a good idea to set up some rules here before we get all crazy, no?

Who’s upstairs?

There are lots of breakthroughs these days regarding our knowledge of what’s happening at the helm of our own personal wheelhouses. While we’re always going on about how we should all be thinking, buying and even voting green, how much control do we really have as to where our minds and dollars go? What we’re getting here is, do you know what the “neuromarkerters” are up to these daze? Do you know the role they played in this month’s election? Stay tuned in (if you can) for tales about who’s trying to take control of your controls.

Insides Out

While we’re looking at what’s under the hood, how about them stem cells? We’re all about sustainability here, right, and what could be more sustaining than potentially life-giving research opportunities? Well it depends on who you ask. What’s happening on the biotech ground – from university and corporate labs to the halls of the Hill – affect our current and future quality of life every day, and the latest rules and regs and funding issues are playing a major role in how we approach these issues as a society. Who are the players on these issues and what do they have cookin’ up in their petri dishes?

It’s in the air

Blown away by all the wind-generated energy hubbub? Swept up by the grand promises while suffering though the doldrums of slow-to-no progress? Well, we are too. With plans for massive “farming” projects everywhere from the Great Plains to off our coastlines, there are a lot of questions to explore about what’s the right way to go about an effective wind grabbing. What are the costs? What are the potential rewards? Who’s primed to make coin on these deals that could make large-scale engineering efforts like the Hoover Dam seem like specs in our collective rear view mirror? And as a nation, are we interested in taking the innovation lead?

What’s happening?

Save the date! Our global(ish) eco-social is coming up this month in sunny Cancun, Mexico, where the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is guaranteed to entertain. And who better to cover the red carpet happenings than EcoSalon? The background from the UN is this: “Over a decade ago, most countries joined an international treaty – the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – to begin to consider what can be done to reduce global warming and to cope with whatever temperature increases are inevitable. More recently, a number of nations approved an addition to the treaty: the Kyoto Protocol, which has more powerful (and legally binding) measures.” Here’s the subtext for this 16th meeting: Might a new binding treaty emerge? Don’t hold you breath – or maybe hold it. In any case, we’ll be covering the event! (In fact, we should send a reporter, right? Um, editor at ecosalon dot com. Tell her Scott sent you.)

OMG! It’s getting warmer in here!

If you thought we were going to leave Rep. Shimkus alone (note our shot across the bow last week), you’re mistaken. Not that we’re not saying there’s anything wrong with a Godly approach to life, but if he is speaking to us at all, he’s probably saying “knock it off with the greenhouse gases!” Anyway, it’s not just Shimkus we’re worried about. We’ll be keeping our eye on the climate control-busting shenanigans class of 2011. No quarter here. That’s a promise.

Duck and cover

Picking up on the Shimkus wave, we’re here to remind you that the War on Science is alive and well – and well-funded. Science denial seems to reaching a crescendo these days, whether deniers are taking on Einstein or climate change, the span between what science is telling us and what we believe seems to be growing. What are the facts on this issue? Does anyone care? Who wants you not to know better?

Is this thing (still) on?

Do I really need a new laptop already? It seems like I just bought one. Well, surprise, surprise, my breakdown might have been planned to go down well before my box was boxed. Planned obsolescence is a story not only about marketing and corporate greed, but about product footprints, waste and and throwaway culture. As our pal Brian Clark Howard recently said over at The Daily Green, “The issue has big environmental implications, because our insatiable appetite for stuff drives carbon emissions and pollution.” Quick, before the warranty expires, let’s take a look at this issues, and why it’s not necessarily an all-bad phenomenon.

Okay, so there’s a little EcoSalon skin. Hot huh? We missing anything? Thoughts? Ramblings? Send us a note at contact at ecosalon dot com.

Images: World Economic Forum, flydime, Liberal Democrats, James & Vilija, , phault
World Economic Forum, danielfoster437, woodleywonderworks, m.gifford

The post Not Quite 10 Stories (Okay, 8) We’ve Got Our Eyes On appeared first on EcoSalon.

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

The post The Law of Land and Sea and Air: Yet <em>Another</em> Reason to Vote! appeared first on EcoSalon.

The White House is going solar (again). Two weeks ago, Nancy Sutley, chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, and Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced at a “GreenGov” symposium plans to install solar panels and a solar hot water heater on the roof of the executive residence next spring. This, they say, is “a project that demonstrates American solar technologies are available, reliable, and ready for installation in homes throughout the country.” Nice. But while the Obama administration’s promotion and support of alternative energy is encouraging, if not exactly aggressive, I’m reading these greening of the White House stories and am not sure whether to be encouraged or depressed. To be sure, this solar panel installation is a good thing. Likewise, it was a good thing four presidencies and three decades ago – when we did it the first time.

Maybe it’s because we’re staring down the barrel, so to speak, of a 1994 redo; a tragic, almost identical backslide to the one that took place on the Hill in the midterms of 15-plus years ago. With this history repeating itself right now, the idea of traction on issues like solar power seems so fleeting. To wit, I bring you Jimmy Carter, who installed similar panels on the mansion to much fanfare in 1979.

It was a move supporting his energy policy, which he discussed in a famous televised speech a few years prior: “Because we are now running out of gas and oil, we must prepare quickly for a third change, to strict conservation and to the use of coal and permanent renewable energy sources, like solar power.” he told us. “It is a problem we will not solve in the next few years, and it is likely to get progressively worse through the rest of this century.”

Ronald Reagan’s ascendancy put an end to that nonsense – immediately and completely. “The budget for the [Solar Energy Research] Institute – which President Jimmy Carter had created to spearhead solar innovation – was slashed [under Reagan] from $124 million in 1980 to $59 million in 1982. Scientists who had left tenured university jobs to work [on the project] were given two weeks’ notice and no severance pay,” Arthur Allen wrote in Mother Jones back in 2000, just months before another Big Oil president would take office. “By the end of 1985, when Congress and the administration allowed tax credits for solar homes to lapse, the dream of a solar era had faded”¦ Solar water heating went from a billion-dollar industry to peanuts overnight; thousands of sun-minded businesses went bankrupt.”

In 1986, when work was done to fix a leaky roof, President Reagan took down the panels. “By ripping the solar thermal (aka solar hot water) panels off the White House roof in the mid 80s to make a “˜statement’ against alternative energy – and for oil – Reagan was instrumental in killing the U.S. solar thermal industry,” says Lisa Margonelli, Director of the Energy Productivity Initiative at the New America Foundation. Sadly, she also informs us that the Virginia company that made the White House panels was out of business by 1991.

So here we are again, more than a quarter of century later, and Obama’s repeat of Carter’s gesture leaves us to wonder where we would be today “if only.” Think about 30 years of intensive, subsidized investment in solar power – or wind, for that matter. How different would our world be today? I’m not just talking about global warming and environmental issues here. I’m talking about jobs. I’m talking about geopolitics. I’m talking about war and peace.

Ironically, as recent as last month, in an effort to avoid comparison to the ill-fated, one-term Carter administration, the Obama White House looked like it was about to balk at installing the panels. So the turnaround (albeit symbolic) this close to election time does indeed show some alternative energy chops.

I hope they’ll still be there in 2015.

Image: Beverly & Pack

The post Rays Redux: After 30 Years, White House Once Again Amps Up for Solar Power appeared first on EcoSalon.

He’s baaack!

You’ve all heard of Richard Pombo, right? For 14 years, he represented a real-life version of the smoke monster from Lost to environmentalists everywhere. The Tracy, CA cattle rancher was even given a cute nickname by President George W. Bush: “The Marlboro Man.” From 1993 to 2007 Pombo represented the 11th Congressional District, which runs from Morgan Hill to Danville along the east side of I-680, including farm towns like Manteca and Lodi.

So why is he so toxic?

Pombo introduced bills to expand offshore oil drilling (“Drill, baby drill!”), rewrite the Endangered Species Act (“Die, Bambi, die!”) and increase logging on public lands (“Fell, baby, fell!”). He even advocated more commercial whale hunting (I guess dolphins and baby seals weren’t big enough game), and infamously that environmental regulation “owes more to communism than to any other philosophy.” Seems reasonable. I could swear the last time I went hiking that the wind in the willows seemed to be whispering Marxist propaganda at me.

Then came 2006. Environmentalists spent more than $1 million to help Democrat Jerry McNerney, a former wind energy executive, upset the rootin’ tootin’ pollutin’ Marlboro Man. But this week it appears that Pombo will be coming out on top and reinvigorating his political career – and worse, his political agenda. He’s running in the Republican primary in what may be California’s hottest congressional race of the June 8 election.

His district will include, wait for it, Yosemite National Park. That sound you’re hearing is a thousand woodland creatures screaming collectively.

Pombo and the other three candidates, state Sen. Jeff Denham, R-Merced; former Fresno Mayor Jim Patterson; and Fresno City Councilman Larry Westerlund, have similar positions on the issues. They all have angled for lower taxes, an overturn of President Barack Obama’s health care law, and new rules to waive the Endangered Species Act to allow more water to be pumped to farmers from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Can’t evolution of flora and fauna be stifled by the law? What good is lawmaking anyway if it can’t put limitations on everything, even nature?

The Stetson-donning Pombo, has stated that if elected, he’d not only start with 14 years seniority, but with insight into how Congress works, particularly when it comes to water and wildlife laws.

Here’s something to chew on: If the GOP wins back the House in November, Pombo has said that by January he could be chairman again of the powerful House Natural Resources Committee. Perfect!

“This is a tight race,” he said. “The state, the Central Valley, doesn’t have a lot of time. We’re in trouble. We need somebody who is going to be effective immediately. That’s what I bring to the table.”

What are greenies doing about this? Not much, I’m afraid. (Really, with this kind of threat to the environment, how can anyone not be afraid?) The Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund has spent around $65,000 on radio ads calling Pombo “another corrupt politician.” (Been there, done that, guys.) The Humane Society Legislative Fund has distributed thousands of mailers – which is kind of counter-intuitive if the mailers are not printed on recycled paper, which you just know Pombo and his ilk will call out. And the League of Conservation Voters put Pombo on its “Dirty Dozen List,” normally reserved for sitting members of Congress – do they not realize that The Dirty Dozen is the title of a movie starring Lee Marvin, Ernest Borgnine, Charles Bronson, Jim Brown, John Cassavetes, Telly Savalas and Donald Sutherland – precisely the kind of “man’s men” that deems the classification a compliment?

“Having Pombo represent a district that includes Yosemite National Park is like electing Godzilla as mayor of Tokyo,” said Warner Chabor, CEO of the California League of Conservation Voters. No, Warner, it’s not. Godzilla was a stranger in a strange land. Richard Pombo is a danger in endangered land.

During the campaign, he has caught controversy for once taking money from disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and also for billing taxpayers $5,000 after taking his family in 2003 on an RV trip of national parks. I mean, come on. Californians, when you vote in this election next week, take a look outside your window and hum the “This Land is Your Land” tune. When you do that, remember that those lyrics are little more than Communist what’s-mine-is-yours propaganda. Do you like the view from your den? Enjoy it now, because it’s about to become Marlboro country.

The post The ‘Marlboro Man’ Returns to Ruffle Green Feathers appeared first on EcoSalon.

With tax season behind us and Earth Day upon us, our friends at the Sierra Club tipped us to a handy tool to bring both topics to Congress’s attention. It’s their DIY missive builder!

I’ve taken the liberty of writing my own letter to our reps and I thought I’d share it with you:

Dear Congress,

Can I call you Conny? So, as you may already know I’m a taxpayer, and have given my fair share to our communal Uncle. I just want to make sure you and I are on the same page. How are all those subsidies and tax credits for fossil fuel production going? All done with that stuff? I know my own write-offs can’t really compare, but, I think you know what I’m getting at. I know where you’re coming from when it comes to the benefits of my friends and I paying (or what do you guys like to call it…oh right, underwriting) fuel sources that pollute the environment.

In fact, I credit some of those gorgeous Los Angeles sunsets to them. (Certainly some of those colors wouldn’t exist thanks to nature alone!) And like the hair products foisted on follicles at salons across the country, the oil that coats fur and feathers can be quite stylish. I’m not sure the ducks and otters agree with me, but c’est la vie. They’re so au natural. [Commencing eye-roll at those hippies.]

How much is Big Oil giving Uncle Sam this year, anyway? Just keeping it square, you know how that goes. Oh, by the way – I’ll totally spot you the next time you and I go out for coffee. Order the venti, even! You know I’m good for it.

Anyhoo, just wanted to say hi and hope you’re enjoying the weather (did you know that March was the most unseasonably hot ever? I know, right?). That’s all for now.

Besties,
Chris

P.S. This is from the Sierra Club’s website:

As Big Oil rakes in windfall profits, Americans are stuck with the bill. Whether we’re subsidizing their destructive drilling practices or paying to clean up their mess, Big Oil continues to see big money each year. If we are ever going to transition to clean energy solutions, the tax breaks and subsidies to Big Oil must end today.

Ask Congress to phase out subsidies and tax breaks to Big Oil!

1. Personalize the message text on the right with your own words, if you wish.
2. Complete the form on Sierra Club’s site with your information.
3. Click the Send Message button to send your letter to these decision makers:* Your Senators
   * Your Representative

Share some of your own e-cards with us in the comments! We’d love to keep this chain mail going!

Editor’s Note: This is the second installment in Christopher Correa’s weekly column, Hill/Street Greens, examining the environmental deeds (and misdeeds) of Washington, D.C. and Wall Street.

Image: mikebaird

The post To Congress, with Love appeared first on EcoSalon.

From the Hill”¦

It’s almost Earth Day – do you know where your congressman is? Chances are, he or she is greening the office. Maryland Representative “Dutch” Ruppersberger announced plans to increase energy efficiency, save resources and cut costs in his Washington, DC., office. He’s participating in the “My Green Office” program, which was initiated by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a year ago this month.

Congressman Ruppersberger and his staff are implementing new practices and technology to reduce energy consumption and operational costs, including:

• Installing new smart power strips that automatically turn off when computers are not in use
• Replacing traditional light bulbs with energy-efficient ones
• Eliminating the use of bottled water with a new water filtration system
• Switching to reusable coffee mugs and glasses
• Ordering solar shades and composting bins

“These changes may seem simple and insignificant, but if every House Office participates, we can save nearly $1 million and keep up to 3,000 pounds of garbage from filling up landfills every year,” said Congressman Ruppersberger.

He purports that participation in the program over the course of a year will reduce electricity consumption at the House of Representatives by more then 7,500 kWH, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 16,000 pounds and result in savings of more than $1,300 from reduced electricity and procurement costs.

Thus far the program has trained roughly 3,000 House staffers in ways to eliminate material, electric and pollutant waste in their respective offices, and expects to reach all 7,000 DC Metro area House employees by the end of this year.

Since Pelosi launched the My Green Office program on Earth Day 2009, her office reports that the House has saved 1 million sheets of paper each month and 175,000 kilowatt hours of electricity, diverted 75,000 pounds of waste from landfills and cut nearly 400,000 pounds of carbon emissions.

For those of us keeping score, Congress has yet to significantly improve environmental policies by passing comprehensive legislation beyond that of the first of its kind in 1970 (the year Earth Day was founded by Senator Gaylord Nelson). Radical Republican Howard Baker perhaps drafted the most passionate provision in the Clean Air Act, the “technology forcing” section that required all new cars to have catalytic converters, even though no such device was yet commercially available.

In recent years, the green movement (in politics) has sought to find softer language and more nonpartisan positions that would help raise support in diverse communities, including those with little or no interest in environmental values. Meanwhile, each draft of the climate bill becomes less aggressive than its predecessor. Those energy-efficient office light bulbs and reusable coffee mugs will come in useful when drafting yet another bland iteration.

From the Street”¦

Is NBC giving the word programming a bad name? That’s the sentiment bandying about the blogs this week. It appears that television shows on the peacock network have been trying out a new subliminal messaging stratagem: behavioral placement. Product placement is so American Idol after all. But the results have been mixed. People have proven to be surprisingly offended by it. (Like this network needed another kerfuffle after Conangate.)

Instead of shilling for brand-name beverages and designer doughnuts, NBC executives have been running demonstrations of eco-savvy living during popular sitcoms and dramas.

All programming this month is themed around – or directly influenced by – the aforementioned Earth Day. A recent article in the Wall Street Journal exposed the Green Initiative (aka General Electric’s insidious mind tricks), which the network didn’t deny: If “Tina Fey is tossing a plastic bottle into the recycling bin,” the theory goes, audience members will be conditioned to do the same.

Christopher Rosen in Movieline calls the practice “creepy” and “dumb,” and states that “the pressure to be eco-conscious has reached a new high”¦NBC implies that people are too “˜patently stupid’ to make healthy decisions on their own”¦do viewers really need NBC “telling them how to run their life?”

To Rosen and his fellow critics, I query: This is what’s gotten you riled up? Television execs have always treated tube viewers like boobs. Witness laugh tracks, ad campaigns labeled “Must See TV” and shows like Friends that depict characters obsessed with items from Pottery Barn and Tiffany & Co. to compel viewers to obsess over them as well. Now that’s pushy.

But having Tina Fey’s character Liz Lemon toss empty plastic bottles into the recycling bin? Casting Al Gore to send-up his own gung-ho environmentalist image (while at the same time encouraging viewers to embrace his latter-day eco-awareness)? Fine by me. The earth is a nobler beneficiary than junk food brands and soft drink makers. And an episode of The Office featuring a cast member dressed as a made-up superhero named Recyclops didn’t tarnish the show’s quality in the least. The Office has seen a sharp drop in quality, all right, but that has nothing to do with socially conscious tinkering.

Does NBC’s Green Initiative seem intrusive, even Orwellian? This progressive stereotyping segments “viewers”¦into categories based on their favorite shows and their level of concern about the environment,” says Rosen. Sounds like Nielsen ratings and social responsibility gone right to me.

Television provides a service. If it aims to provide some useful eco tips while it works to entertain, it’s on par with going to the supermarket and being offered a cash incentive if you bring your own grocery bag. Unless there really is a greedy marketplace for designer compost heaps in need of a celebrity push from the cast of 30 Rock.

Editor’s Note: This is the first installment in Christopher Correa’s weekly column, Hill/Street Greens, examining the environmental deeds (and misdeeds) of Washington, D.C. and Wall Street.

Images: Speaker Pelosi and image courtesy of NBC.com

The post Congress Goes Green 1 Cubicle at a Time and NBC is Reading Your Mind appeared first on EcoSalon.

“Get real! This is the biggest crisis humanity has faced,” warns Annie Leonard in her latest environmental education video, The Story of Cap & Trade. It is getting mixed reviews as the dust settles since its recent release.

A follow up to her widely popular animated eco tutorial, The Story of Stuff, it offers a pureed breakdown of how energy traders (greedy corporations and industries) and Wall Street financiers hope to get rich off of pretending to save the planet. The method to the madness: capping carbon emissions by giving permits to the polluters, who will in turn have the free license to pollute, especially in the third world where lax standards pose disastrous consequences for farmers and villagers.

Leonard’s release of the video comes on the heels of what many considered the failed talks for climate change solutions at Copenhagen, and identified the devils in the existing caps and trade proposals. These include issuing free permits to major polluters rather than selling the permits instead and allotting dividends to citizens and paying back ecological debt.  She also cites fake offsets which let polluters make false claims about what they will do the cut emissions, as well as the most dangerous devil of the plan – distraction.

Leonard tells us relying on the scheme weakens our ability to make strong laws away from fossil fuels.

While climate talks in Europe or on Capitol Hill have yet to scratch the surface on global caps on carbon emissions, the video illustrates (with charming, monochromatic animated stick figures) that education of the masses is crucial for curbing any crisis, as witnessed with the AIDS public information campaigns of the early 80s.

Leonard is adept at making sense of it all with her wholesome, kindergarten teacher approach to feeding our overwhelmed brains one truth at a time. In the end, she basically throws up her arms to declare about the process, “It’s protecting business as usual.”

Not all agree. “Just colossally ignorant,” is how one Grist writer sums up the video’s treatment of the trade entities, such as Enron, and how Europe has botched its attempts at handing out permits to cut emissions. Of course, many of the critics calling the critique of cap and trade deceptive also lump Leonard with the rest of the “Left” making up all of this hogwash about fossil fuels contributing to climate change.

Meanwhile, eco activist Michael Gaworecki, writing for Change.org, agrees with the video’s arguments, but says he isn’t sure the cap-and-trade plan isn’t the best mechanism for lowering carbon emissions that we can put in place  in enough time to make a difference.

“America needs to take the lead on stopping global warming if we’re to stand a chance, and anything perceived to interfere with unfettered capitalism is unlikely to fly in the good ol’ US of A,” he says.

Gaworecki adds that the few alternatives, such as a straight-up tax on carbon pollution, could be simple and effective, but “would never make it out of the American Congress alive.”

Image: Telegraph

The post The Story of Cap & Trade Video Begs Us to Get Real appeared first on EcoSalon.