Cottonwood Institute Blog

The Omnivore’s Dilemma

What should we have for dinner? It may seem like an innocent question, but in today’s America, that single question can be answered in a multitude of ways. Should it be fast food? Organic? Local? Natural? If you have ever found yourself engaged in a personal battle about what and how to eat, I suggest you check out The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan. In his book, Pollan does a fantastic job of researching and supplying (in sometimes grisly detail) the facts about the makeup of our food industry. From an Iowa corn farm to the completely self-sustained organic Polyface farm in Virgina, Pollan describes it all. He also brings to light several important issues about the environmental, health, and cultural effects of choosing one diet over another. Facts such as: one steer requires 35 gallons of oil to raise or 3 in every 5 Americans are considered ‘fat’ forces one to at least begin to think about the implications of what he or she eats. As Pollan states, “Imagine for a moment if we once again knew, strictly as a matter of course, these few unremarkable things: What it is we’re eating. Where it came from. How it found its way to our table. And what, in a true accounting, it really cost.”

Guiding Question: How much thought an intention do you put into what you eat, where it comes from, and its environmental impact?

How Green are Solar Panels?

In many circumstances, the products we use in our efforts to be more sustainable have a bigger footprint than we think. Recent articles in the Washington Post and from the Worldwatch Institute show how the production of large amounts of polysilicon in China are dumping toxic wastes on the surrounding landscape—the homes of poor Chinese villagers. The byproducts from these industrial processes include silicon tetrachloride, which ruins the soil chemistry and releases poisonous fumes. The situation is ironically inconsistent with the end use of this valuable product, which is usually for photovoltaic solar panels, which turn solar energy into "green, renewable" electricity. This is actually only one example of the ways that efforts by the developed world to become sustainable only result in more environmental degradation and socio-economic disparities.

The situation in [one Chinese] village points to the environmental trade-offs the world is making as it races to head off a dwindling supply of fossil fuels. Forests are being cleared to grow biofuels like palm oil, but scientists argue that the disappearance of such huge swaths of forests is contributing to climate change. Hydropower dams are being constructed to replace coal-fired power plants, but they are submerging whole ecosystems under water. –washingtonpost.com

Producing polysilicon is extremely profitable due to high demand, and the Chinese manufacturers are increasing their profits by refusing to invest in recycling technology, which is available now. The manufacturers apparently have the law on their side. They maintain that their practices are in keeping with all Chinese environmental restrictions, and while formal complaints have been made to portions of the government responsible for environmental protection, no action has been taken.

Guiding Questions:

To what extent is the industrial production of a product the responsibility of the various stake holders: the government, the impacted villagers, the company producing the material, the companies that buy the materials to produce the  end product, and the eventual consumer? Also, what can a potential consumer (or just a concerned individual) in the US do to oppose this kind of situation?

The Next Step

In a recent poll by Outside Magazine, 57% of people think that the environmental movement is finally turning the corner and making a difference. With the organic industry booming and the fact that 754 major U.S. cities have signed the Kyoto climate agreement, things are indeed looking up. Now, more than ever, it is imperative that we focus on taking the next step to live green.

The Cottonwood Institute is taking the next step and walking our talk in terms of environmental sustainability. We recently partnered with the Green Heart Institute to purchase wind credits to offset our CO2 emissions. We use 100% post consumer waste recycled paper and our paper is printed by Alphagraphics, a company certified by Partners for a Clean Environment. Every year we offer the Mt. Evans Volunteer Project as a free program to get up in the high country and give back to the mountains we all love and enjoy. Finally, our core programming initiative, the Community Adventure Program, received the 2006 Environmental Education Award for Excellence in the Citizen and Community category from the Colorado Alliance for Environmental Education (CAEE) and our courses are designed to inspire students to become environmental stewards both in the backcountry and throughout their daily lives.

Guiding Question: What are some other ways in your personal or professional life you can challenge yourself or your company to take it to the next step in terms of living green?

The Better World Shopping Guide

With the holiday season in full swing, everyone is starting to think about that perfect gift. Before you head to the store, jump online, or book your travel plans this season, the Cottonwood Institute would like to encourage you to consider buying from companies that care about people and the environment. We use a book called The Better World Handbook, by Jones, Haenfler, and Johnson as a core text in several of our educational programs. In this book, there is a section called The Better World Shopping Guide that grades various companies based on their human rights, environmental, animal rights, community involvement, and social justice practices to encourage people to vote with their wallet. Below is a list of companies with a letter grade.

This holiday season, please consider buying from companies that have received an A or B and try to avoid buying from companies that have received a C, D, or F and help change the world by voting with your dollar! For a list of companies that the Cottonwood Institute endorses, please visit the Cottonwood Institute Store.

RETAIL STORES:

• A: IKEA, REI
• B: Home Depot, LL Bean
• C: Target, Best Buy, Eddie Bauer, Walgreens, Costco, BJ's
• D: JC Penney, Maytag, Rite Aid, K-Mart, Sears
• F: Wal-Mart, Sam's Club

CLOTHING:

• A: American Apparel, Patagonia, Lost Arrow, Maggie's Organics, Ecolution, Diva Lifewear
• B: Levi Strauss, Timberland, Liz Claiborne, Cutter & Buck, Eileen Fisher, Reebok
• C: LL Bean, Nordstrum, Nicole Miller, Nike, Target, Gap, Mervyn's, Guess, Ralph Lauren, Limited
• D: Fruit of the Loom, Kmart, JC Penney, Federated, Calvin Klein, LA Gear, Saks, TJ Maxx, Marshall's, Kohl's
• F: Wal-Mart, Sam's Club, May's
   

CLEANING PRODUCTS:

• A: Seventh Generation, Dr. Bronner's, Earth Friendly, Ecover, Planet, ECOS
• B: Simple Green, Sunshine Makers, 3M, Colgate-Palmolive, Murphy's Oil
• C: Proctor & Gamble, Hefty, Dial, SC Johnson, Arm & Hammer, Hefty
• D: Chore Boy, Easy-Off, Glass Plus, Jet-Dry, Mop & Glo, Old English, Wizard, Playtex, Sara Lee, Reckitt Benckiser
• F: Pine Sol, Tilex, S.O.S., Liquid Plumr, Formula 409, Clorox

SUPERMARKETS:

• A: Food Co-ops, Farmers Markets, Whole Foods, Wild Oats, Trader Joe's
• B: Supervalu, A&P, Safeway, Vons
• C: Giant Food, Super G, City Markets, Food 4 Less, King Soopers, Krogers, Kwik Shop, Pay Less, Loaf N Jug, Quick Stop, Ralph's
• D: Albertson's, Osco, Savon, Lucky's, Thriftway, Winn-Dixie
• F: Wal-Mart
   

GENERAL FOOD:

• A: Hain, Amy's, Annie's, Horizon, Spectrum, Eden, Cascadian Farm, Barbara's
• B: General Mills, Quaker, Pepsi, Pillsbury, Colgate-Palmolive
• C: Campbell's, Kellog's, Weight Watchers, Johnson & Johnson, Proctor & Gamble
• D: Nestle, Carnation, Libby's, Coca-Cola
• F: Kraft, Nabisco, Post, Planter's, Oscar Meyer, Knudsen

AIRLINES:

• A: American
  
• B: Southwest, Delta, British Airways
  
• C: United, Air Alaska, US Air
  
• D: Continental
  
• F: Northwest, Korean Air

Guiding Question: What will you do this holiday shopping season to reduce your environmental footprint and help make a difference in the world?

Five things you can do in five minutes (or less) to protect the planet

I just learned that today was Blog Action Day, where bloggers around the world were encouraged to blog for the environment. Given that the Cottonwood Institute is committed to sustainability education, I had to post something! I found this post on GoodSearch.com and I wanted to spread the word about 5 things you can do to protect the planet in 5 minutes or less:

1. Change a light bulb to a compact fluorescent bulb - www.18seconds.org
   If every American swapped just one bulb for an Energy Star labeled CFL, it would collectively save more than $8 billion in energy costs, prevent burning 30 billion pounds of coal and remove 2 million cars worth of greenhouse gas emissions from our atmosphere.
2. Use GoodSearch to search the web — www.GoodSearch.com
   This search engine, which is powered by Yahoo!, earns money for your favorite environmental charity, or any other cause you care about, with every search.
3. Adjust your thermostat by 2 degrees.
   It's estimated that 1/6 of all energy consumed in the US is from heating and cooling.
4. Remove yourself from postal bulk mail — https://www.dmaconsumers.org/cgi/offmailing
   Every year, 100 million trees, 28 billion gallons of water, and $320 million in local tax money are used for the production and disposal of junk mail.
5. Unplug unused electronics
   Even when electronic devices are turned off, they use energy. Save over 1,000 lbs of carbon dioxide and $256 per year.

Send this email to five friends (ok, that's six things you can do!)

Source: GoodSearch.com

Let's Talk Some Trash

Sustainable Travel International recently posted the following article about Live Earth and the trash generated at New York's Giant Stadium, one of its venues. Guiding Question: Events like Live Earth are great at raising awareness about our environmental footprint, but once the event is over, it seems like we go back to business as usual. What are some simple things we can do to sustain environmental awareness after major events to promote behavioral change after the crowds leave?

Live Earth recently rocked the green world as it relates to waste and carbon reduction, but what happens next at these venues, and in these cities?

At New York City’s Giants Stadium, for example, a successful triple waste stream management program geared toward separating compost, recyclables and ‘other’ materials, resulted in an estimated 50% reduction in waste for that event. However, it cost a lot relative to standard waste removal. Why is this? Why does NYC, one of the most densely waste populated and least landfill available cities on the planet, charge $50 per ton in tipping fees for standard waste being dumped in landfills, and an $80-90 per ton tipping fee for recyclables? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Consider GHG emissions associated with waste versus recycling: for each pound of trash recycled it reduces an average of one pound of carbon dioxide equivalent from going into the atmosphere. Now, I don't know exactly what NYC’s waste stream is, but here are some figures on Google:

"NYC currently produces about 11,000 tons per day of residential waste, 10,000 tons per day of commercial waste, and 26,000 tons per day of construction and demolition debris." (Source: www.weact.org/mts/wasteexport.html)

Just looking at residential and commercial waste, it totals 21,000 tons per day, or over seven and half million tons per year!!! If half were recycled, you're looking at 3,832,500 tons of carbon dioxide reduced each year, not counting the added emissions savings from the fact that much of this waste is now exported out of state. Recycling this amount would be equivalent to taking about three quarters of a million cars off the road for a year, or about 28,500 acres of avoided deforestation. Bearing in mind emissions reduction targets set forth by many cities, we look forward to hearing more about how NYC is tackling climate mitigation as it relates to waste management.

For businesses looking at climate mitigation, better waste management is a great way to go, as shown by the example above. If you’re interested in learning more, STI and its sustainable advising team can help, so please contact us.

Source: Sustainable Travel International 

Americans Want More from Business & Seek it Online

More than two-thirds of Americans say they consider a company’s business practices when deciding what to buy.

Increasingly, Americans, both as customers and as employees, are seeking more from business, according to the 2007 Cone Cause Evolution Survey. They want companies to be socially and environmentally responsible, and this desire is increasingly affecting their purchasing decisions and expectations of their employers.

More than two-thirds of Americans say they consider a company’s business practices when deciding what to buy. And Cone believes that long-term support of social issues has become a major brand differentiator - something SRB Marketing as seen with our mostly small and mid-size clients for years now. That brand differentiator is a big reason many of our clients and their colleagues have been snapped up by Fortune 1000 companies (e.g., Ben & Jerry's, Cascadian Farms, Stonyfield Farm).

Americans’ expectations of companies are at an all time high: 83 percent say companies have a responsibility to help support causes, and 92 percent acknowledge they have a more positive image of a company that supports a cause they care about.

In many areas, Americans are more likely than ever before to reward companies for their support of social issues. Eighty-seven percent are likely to switch from one brand to another (price and quality being about equal) if the other brand is associated with a good cause - an increase of more than 31 percent (from 66%) since 1993.

American employees' expectations of companies have also increased, and quite dramatically: 72 percent wish their employers would do more to support a cause or social issue. This has climbed 38 percent (vs. 52%) since Cone’s last survey in 2004.

Advertising and the Internet are the two main ways Americans prefer companies to communicate their social and environmental issues and practices (45% and 41% respectively). Americans are also using technology proactively to learn about and support social and environmental issues and causes. More than one third are searching for information on issues (37%) or are forwarding important messages to family and friends (38%).

"Consumers have always relied on word of mouth recommendations to influence their decision making, and the increase in prominence of viral communications has made this form of idea exchange even easier," explains Julia Hobbs Kivistik, executive vice president of Cause Branding, Cone, LLC. "When a company communicates its cause activities in relevant, emotionally compelling ways and highlights the related social impacts, consumers will pass along the message to those around them."

Source: Conscious Clicks, SRB Marketing, Inc., Sustainable Travel International

Who Killed the Electric Car?

The Cottonwood Institute recently showed Who Killed the Electric Car? at our Change the World Movie Night at the Fluid Coffee Bar in Denver.

I really enjoyed how this film presented and analyzed the various suspects that contributed to the life and death of GM's Electric Vehicles (EV). Suspects included the California Air Resources Board, Batteries, the Federal Government, Consumers, Car Companies, Oil Companies, and Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles.

Guiding Question: With global warming gnawing at our environmental consciousness and higher gas prices burning a hole in the wallet of the average America, what do you think would happen if GM re-release their Electric Vehicle line in 2007?

Myrtle Spurge: A Menace to the Neighborhood!

Myrtle Spurge is a funky little plant that has stealthily crept its way into the many rock gardens and landscapes of Park Hill. While this plant is aesthetically pleasing, requires little water, and has a beautiful yellow glow when it flowers in the spring, this plant is a menace to our neighborhood!

So what’s the problem? Myrtle Spurge was brought to Colorado from Asia by well-intentioned gardeners and greenhouse buyers because it is a cool looking plant that is drought resistant, which is perfect for Colorado’s dry climate. However, once it was brought here, naturalists and land managers realized there was a problem because there were no predators in our ecosystem that would eat the plant and keep in it check, so there was no natural control. Myrtle Spurge spreads very easily because the plant has seed pods that can shoot seeds 10-15 feet each spring. Plants spread from garden to garden and then spread to open spaces where it flourished and dominated local native plants, which in turn began to affect other species food source. This was enough to put Myrtle Spurge on the State of Colorado Class A noxious weed list which is designated for eradication.

Another problem with Myrtle Spurge is that it has a milky white sap that is a blistering agent, which makes it dangerous to humans, especially in neighborhoods like Park Hill that have a lot of children. The sap acts like poison ivy and the blistering agent will spread when scratched or rubbed. It can cause permanent scarring your skin and face or cause blindness if it gets in your eye. Please use caution when removing it from your garden.

How do I get rid of it? Because the sap is dangerous, you need to take a few precautions. Wear long sleeved shirts, long pants, boots, eyewear, and wear rubber gloves over your gardening gloves to prevent the sap from touching your skin. If you do get the sap on your skin, wash it off immediately with Tech-Nu, which can be found at local gardening stores and hardware stores. To remove Myrtle Spurge, use a shovel and at a minimum make sure you sever the taproot a minimum of 2-4 inches below the soil, although removing the whole root is ideal. Myrtle Spurge is a stubborn plant and is likely to pop up again once it is removed and may take up to 8 or 9 years to completely remove from your garden! In the name of environmental sustainability, I am personally a big advocate of manual removal vs. chemical removal.

More Information: To download a brochure with more information about Myrtle Spurge, Click Here.

About the Author: Ford Church is the Founder and Executive Director of the Cottonwood Institute, an educational nonprofit based in Park Hill that develops school-based programs and summer courses that blend adventure, wilderness survival, and environmental service for adventurous high school students and adults. Ford first learned about Myrtle Spurge when his class chose to educate the community and promote an awareness about this invasive plant as part of their environmental action project through the Community Adventure Program at New Vista High School. For more information about the Cottonwood Institute check out our 2007 Summer Course Schedule.

An Inconvenient Truth

The Cottonwood Institute recently hosted another "Change the World Movie Night" at the Fluid Coffee Bar in Denver, Colorado with a screening of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. Al Gore put presidential and political ambitions behind him and is on a mission to raise an awareness about global warming and climate change. He does a solid job explaining global warming in basic terms as well as presenting persuasive graphs, data, and footage showing the effects of global warming and the dangerous impact that it will have on the future.

My one criticism of the film is that Al Gore could have spent more time on what people can do to take action. There is great information about simple things you can do to reduce your carbon footprint on their website at http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/. The truth is shocking, but taking action must be convenient and I think this starts with awareness and education.

Guiding Question For Those Who Have Seen the Film: What will you do with the information presented in this film? What small changes can you make in your daily life to reduce your environmental footprint?

Guiding Question For Those Who Have Not Seen the Film: What is preventing you from seeing the film?