VideoWe all have rights.

 The United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a cornerstone text, is brought to life in this video through motion graphic. The result is moving.

We love the art of storytelling, so every weekend we bring you videos that have been making the rounds at EcoSalon. Enjoy!

The post Video: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights appeared first on EcoSalon.

Owned. Fox News, like every news outlet is owned and if we’re going to keep our “fair and balanced” gyroscope upright we have to continually ask the question: by whom? With that, here’s some timely irony. In last weeks’ op-ed in The Australian, Wikileaks founder Juilan Assange wrote: “In 1958 a young Rupert Murdoch, then owner and editor of Adelaide’s The News, wrote: ‘In the race between secrecy and truth, it seems inevitable that truth will always win.'”

So here’s some truth for the media magnate Assange cites in his defense of getting real. During last week’s frenzy of leak speak, this from Fox News: A year ago, during the Copenhagen climate change summit, one of the network’s reporters said on air that the United Nations’ World Meteorological Organization announced that 2000-2009 was “on track to be the warmest [decade] on record.” Within 15 minutes, a senior network official issued a memo questioning the accuracy of climate change data and ordering Fox “journalists” to “refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without immediately pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question.” The memo concludes: “It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.”

The memo, leaked by watchdog group Media Matters, was written by Fox News’ Vice President of News and Washington Managing Editor Bill Sammon. This is the same guy who instructed his network’s journalists during the health care reform debate to cease using the term “public option” and instead use “government option.”

The same night the climate change memo/directive was sent, on Fox News’ Special Report with Bret Baier (“the number one cable news program in its timeslot”) correspondent James Rosen brought up the Climategate scandal and claimed that climate scientists “destroyed more than 150 years’ worth of raw climate data.” This at a time when it was already well-known that, taken in any light, the University of East Anglia “leaks” (there’s that word again) had nothing to do with the veracity of facts related to climate change.

Here’s the thing: In a world where nomenclature shapes perceived reality (and we all know what perception is), we have to ask what it means when we call a spade a, well, say a diamond. There’s the continued to use of the term “theory” around evolution and the “pro-life” litmus test language shrouding what might more accurately be called “anti-choice” sentiment. And how about the “death tax” nom de guerre assigned to taxing inheritance windfalls? The idea of climate change being assigned “notion” status by those interested in altering that perception/reality is not surprising. It must be tough when facts don’t do what you want them to.

Rupert and Bill, lest there be any confusion, here are a few facts, according to the National Cimatic Data Center (NCDC): the global surface temperature (including in the United States) is rising, sea level is rising, global upper ocean heat content is rising, northern hemisphere snow cover is retreating and U.S. climate extremes are increasing.

And there’s this: While no one can say if the reporter was fair and balanced, he sure was accurate. According to that tree-hugging and far-left-extremist organization NASA, the decade ending in 2009 was indeed the warmest in history. 2009 was also “the second warmest year since 1880, when modern temperature measurement began.”

So let’s close the loop here on the concept of “owned” and what’s so ironic about this coming down the Fox pipes. Murdoch’s News Corporation, which owns Fox News, is under the gun right now to achieve its pledge to be carbon neutral by 2010. This promise was much ballyhooed at the time it was made (a result of Murdoch himself claiming to have undergone an eco-transformation in 2007) and, while it’s not clear if the organization is going to achieve its goal, the Murdoch PR machines have been busy working it hard over the last few years. So while his Fox News organization plays it fast and loose with the facts, it seems that Mr. Murdoch has two options: Fire Sammon and Rosen and anyone else involved in purposefully distorting facts related to climate change data – or live with this title: Hypocrite.

Image: dutchlad

The post Happy Holidays, Fox ‘News’! Here’s a Leak for You! appeared first on EcoSalon.

Though the it’s-too-late set seems to be growing, most scientists agree that when it comes to human-induced climate change, there are solutions. Most of these solutions are ambitious. Some, in fact, might be too ambitious – and perhaps too dangerous on a number of fronts.

Geoengineering is exactly what it says it is – engineering our geo. If you want to get a little more technical, here’s a 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.”

This example has recently been discussed quite a bit: When the Philippines’ Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991, it released about 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide and decreased world temperatures by an average of half a degree. That’s a big drop and the kind of climate change that, as a global population, we might be very interested in. So here’s the geoengineering news: We now have the technology to get the same job done – without a volcano – using airplanes or blimps to inject sulfur dioxide directly into the stratosphere.

But wait, there’s more. If playing Volcano God doesn’t do it for you, how about:

• Spraying massive amounts of seawater mist at low-lying clouds to reflect sunlight.
• Launching sunlight-reflecting mirrors into the Earth’s orbit.
• Seeding the ocean with iron to boost phytoplankton growth. (“Plankton release a chemical called dimethyl sulphide into the atmosphere which helps cloud droplets form. More droplets mean whiter clouds that bounce more solar energy away from Earth,” says New Scientist.)

In fact, there are all kinds of ways we can take the reins of our climate situation. Are they good ways to combat global warming? Maybe, but hey, perhaps it’s a good idea to set up some rules here.

Ever since the concept of geoengineering came on the scene, excitement around the scientific possibilities has been tempered by political and ethical (perhaps even more than practical) considerations at every turn. For example, with the potentially global impact of any effort, who gets to play? Anyone who wants to (read: has an interest and can afford to)? What would prevent the abuse of such high-impact, “planet-hacking” technologies? Say an arid country would like to wet its whistle a bit? What’s to stop it from doing a little more than praying for rain? Of course, there’s also the little problem of a hostile nation wanting to flood or dry out an adversary.

Enter the United Nations. The UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) recently closed its 10th biennial meeting in Nagoya, Japan, with the implementation of “a de facto moratorium on geoengineering projects and experiments.”

This makes sense – making sure that geoengineering science is explored in the global light of day, with science and ethics awareness checks as research moves forward. Good intentions aside, the weaponization potential alone requires every effort to make sure the wrong people don’t get their ill-willed fingers on any climate triggers. As one astute writer at the guardian.co.uk recently put it, the current world of geoengineering “is eerily reminiscent of the race to develop nuclear weapons in the 1940s.”

But let’s look at one more angle on this debate. Are these scientifically grand and impressive approaches to global warming just easy (for rocket scientists, anyway) answers to a complicated problem? Might “the promise” of geoengineering encourage a form of laziness, giving us the illusion that we’re relieved of the burden we must ultimately carry if we’re going to better manage how we manage our world?

If we’re going to take on human-induced climate change, we’re going to have to do some heavy lifting. We’re going to have to make some fundamental changes to how we view, consume and burn energy. We’re going to have to quickly evolve our thinking regarding sustainability and obsolescence and resource usage. We going to have reinvent our relationship with the Earth and no amount of New Big Science is going to end-run this fact.

Image: ewen and donabel

The post The Rise of Geoengineering: Smart? Safe? Too Easy? 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.

I’m currently in Czech Republic for a UN strategic planning meeting on a campaign that my non-profit, The 5 Gyres Institute, is working on to spread awareness about plastics in the oceans. Plastics that work like sponges for pollutants that ultimately end up in fish that people eat. The scope of the campaign is broader, but it’s my intention to position ourselves as a dominant force within the scope.

I’ve been to a couple of these retreats, working with an international cast of UN folks and contractors. All of which are brilliant in their own right. But I’ve become close with one of my UN contractor counterparts, an artist named Barbara Benish, who is an expat living and working in the Bohemian countryside of Czech Republic.

Barbara works in many mediums and from my perspective, she’s a master. Where she lives is a work in progress as well. Adjacent to a lake above, her estate is an old flour mill, (now called ArtMill), which at one time used a gravity fed stream from the lake to power the pump that fuels the mill. When she first took up residence here, the place was in shambles. Though it would be much cheaper to rebuild from scratch, Barbara has rebuilt the place into a massive, sprawling studio that reinterprets the functions of the mill for art – while still preserving its historical significance. When the area was occupied by the Nazis, Czechs were forced to produce flour for export, and the village would see no benefit. But the workers, working in secret, would provide for their families at great risk to their well being.

I walk the grounds, replete with installed sculptures, a rabbit hutch, a stream with carp, friendly dogs, a horse pasture, an organic garden, duel fire pits, side studios – you name it, it’s there. It’s a dreamy place. When one conjures that image of ‘going to the countryside to write a novel’ or such, this place is what you’re imagining. This is the platonic form of art consciousness and nature.

Yes, there was work. But when the day was complete, there were sprawling meals of fresh carp and organic pork roasted over a wood fired grill, stews, salads, sweets and local wine. These meals lasted for hours, as they’re supposed to, and the day would slip into night as the wine went down. The romance of the place filled the senses and the spirit with something we often look for in this world when we travel – pure joy. And joy and romance is what I found. And I will be back.

The post Czech Republic and the New Bohemia appeared first on EcoSalon.

Understanding the threats that tourism poses to the environment and even cultures, the United Nations is launching a global initiative to make tourism worldwide more environmentally, socially and economically sustainable. The Global Partnership for Sustainable Tourism will be led initially by the French government and hosted by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).

This global approach is a huge endeavor, but by highlighting the importance of sustainable tourism, the UN is encouraging countries around the world to think about how tourism works and how it can work better, and in a more sustainable fashion. The partnership is aiming high. The goal is to transform the way tourism operates around the world by seeking out and replicating successful, sustainable policies, projects, and investments,” said Achim Steiner, Under-Secretary General for the UN and Executive Director of UNEP.

Because tourism is such an all encompassing industry, and one that is responsible for about five percent of global GDP, the initiative will cover a variety of sectors:

• policy frameworks
• climate change
• environment and biodiversity
• poverty alleviation
• cultural and natural heritage
• private sector sustainable practices
• finance and investment

How will this affect how we travel? That remains to be seen, but with such a grandiose, international initiative we can most likely expect a larger discussion on what constitutes sustainable tourism and how we can all do our part to travel in a more conscious manner.

Image: Lee Coursey

The post How Should You Travel More Sustainably? Ask the UN appeared first on EcoSalon.

All eyes are on Copenhagen this month as the drama events of the UN Climate Change Conference play out. But those eyes aren’t just the ones of climate change activists and greenies. Multinationals are just as involved – even global beverage giant, Coca Cola, is descending on the Danish capital.

Working with other media, marketing, tech and creative partners, including DuPont and Gap Inc., Coca Cola was instrumental in launching the Hopenhagen campaign. The result? An interactive online campaign as well as lots of exposure on the ground in Copenhagen. Known for its creative advertising and branding, Coca Cola released a special Hopenhagen set of posters, seen all over town for the duration of the conference.

On Coca Cola’s Hopenhagen website, the company encourages visitors to take action against climate change and learn more about recycling and water as well as Coca Cola’s plant bottle, a soda bottle made form 30% plant-based materials (that means it’s still 70% plastic!). But supporting a good cause shouldn’t come without questions.

Although the company now supports several sustainability initiatives, most notably a partnership with the WWF that promotes water conservation, Coca Cola certainly has its flaws.

Earlier this year, Coca Cola found itself on a list of companies with factories causing major water pollution in the Chinese capital of Beijing. This summer, the Environmental Working Group called upon Coca Cola to protect consumers from the hazards of BPA, after a Coca Cola representative joined a group of lobbyists in a meeting to talk about the “fear tactics” used in the market in regards to BPA. Some have questioned the company’s tactics in India, and then there are the alleged murders, kidnappings and torture at bottling plants in Colombia, for which The United Steelworkers of America and the International Labor Rights Fund have filed a lawsuit against Coca Cola.

Beyond environmental and humanitarian complaints, Coca Cola also uses high fructose corn syrup to sweeten its US beverages, another minus point on the sustainability list.

So what should we think about Coca Cola and Hopenhagen? Yes, the campaign is a conglomerate of big business, but in a world where business is often a driver of change, multinationals are needed to step up to the plate, and this is a good example. However, it’s equally important to ask whether the support companies are giving is genuine or simply an attempt at the kind of marketing that will benefit them (aka greenwash).

At the end of the day, Coca Cola is a business and businesses want to make money. But, if Coca Cola achieves its goals of doubling serving sales to 3 billion per day in 2020, how and where the beverage is produced, how much water it takes and what it’s bottled in will be even more crucial in terms of the company’s footprint, no matter how much positive marketing goes into making the company look green.

Image credits: Coca Cola

The post Coca Cola at Copenhagen: Can a Multinational Work in the Environment’s Best Interest? appeared first on EcoSalon.