I first became familiar with Sara Snow when I was pregnant and on bed-rest. Between reading baby books and eating I watched her Discovery show Get Fresh with Sara Snow and enjoyed her ease and playful approach to environmentalism. I love how Sara always mixes stories of her childhood into her day-to-day recipes for green living. This adds a personalized touch to her passion for all things green.

Growing up the daughter of Tim Redmond, co-founder of Eden Foods, informed Sara’s life as a green foodie and all around eco-advocate. In her new book, Fresh Living: The Essential Room-By-Room Guide to a Greener, Healthier Family and Home, Sara traverses the modern home, discussing every aspect of our lives and what we can do to connect more with nature and minimize wasteful practices. This unpretentious guide is an easy read that is full of useful information. Sara discusses everything from how to maintain a green lawn naturally (or better yet, how to plant wildflowers and indigenous greens that attract butterflies and deter mosquitoes,) to how to decorate a toxin-free baby nursery.

Sara gives detailed lists of what ingredients to avoid in beauty products, toys, household cleaners, and pretty much anything else one may have in their home or garden. Comprehensive definitions explain the origins of chemicals, how they are used and what is most harmful. These days many products, including purported “organic” or “natural” items, contain dubious ingredients. The explanations of scientific terms really help one to weed through the ambiguous marketing language of greenwashing. There are also recipes for how to make your own cleaners and home products that are totally natural and inexpensive.

A small part of the book I really enjoyed was the simple reminder that house plants are good. They bring the outside in, clean our air, and promote healthy chi. Sara shares a list of the top fifteen plants to have indoors to remove various pollutants from the air. These days people spend hundreds, even thousands on air fresheners and purifiers. Plants!

The description of composting is user friendly. Sometimes composting can seem detailed or labour-intensive, but Sara keeps it simple with a description of what we need and what ingredients can assist in maintaining a healthy compost, even for those living in urban areas.

An important theme reiterated throughout the guide is that there are real dangers in our environment, but we can be empowered by educating ourselves and creating an atmosphere that is fresh, vital and thriving. This book would make a sweet gift but is also an excellent resource to just have handy around the house.

Last night I was reading my favorite magazine, Orion. Bill McKibben was discussing the campaign 350. From the website:

350 is the red line for human beings, the most important number on the planet. The most recent science tells us that unless we can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million, we will cause huge and irreversible damage to the earth.

But solutions exist. All around the world, a movement is building to take on the climate crisis, to get humanity out of the danger zone and below 350. This movement is massive, it is diverse, and it is visionary. We are activists, scholars, and scientists. We are leaders in our businesses, our churches, our governments, and our schools. We are clean energy advocates, forward-thinking politicians, and fearless revolutionaries. And we are united around the world, driven to make our planet livable for all who come after us.

We are everywhere, and together we are unstoppable.

We are currently living at 387ppm. Scientists claim numbers could reach 450-550ppm which would mean disaster for life as we know it. Every time we turn on a car, a light, the heat, the stove, the television, the computer; we partake. Unless we are receiving our power solely from renewables, then we are using coal and oil. The 350 campaign is hoping to influence lawmakers, political leaders, and individuals to take action. One view has perpetuated the notion that climate change, such as what we are experiencing now, is normal, just as ice ages come and go. However, the real science is in and it is time to listen, regardless of partisan politics.

Last week my extended family gathered. A discussion arose, among friends and family, about the fictionalized nature of global warming and how it is simply a marketing campaign so people can sell “green” products. Greenwashing exists. We know this. But this conversation, dominated by one in particular, was reiterating a denial about what is happening. My young cousin, who is twenty and overheard the discussion, told me she wasn’t sure. We had a decent conversation about some examples of climate change, what greenwashing means, and environmentalism in general. The information is out there. Bill McKibben, Michael Pollan, Terry Tempest Williams, Treehugger, Grist, Adbusters, Huffington Post, ENN – just to name a few sources.

There are ways we can minimize the nitrogen levels:
-Drive less
-Drive a hybrid
-Golf on environmentally friendly golf courses or encourage your local courses to practice sound and sustainable ways to maintain their lovely “greens”
-Next time you see that brown spot on the lawn, think twice before using fertilizer
-Buy local!

“Anyone concerned about climate change will be alarmed at the scale of man’s impact on the world’s oceans, as revealed by our new study,” said Prof Peter Liss, an environmental scientist at the University of East Anglia.

“The natural nitrogen cycle has been very heavily influenced by human activity over the last century – perhaps even more so than the carbon cycle – and we expect the damaging effects to continue to grow. It is vital that policy makers take action now to arrest this.

“The solution lies in controlling the use of nitrogen fertilizer and tackling pollution from the rapidly increasing numbers of cars, particularly in the developing world.”

It seems as though anyone with any sort of science background is scurrying around trying to solve the problem of global warming. Recently some geoengineers proposed a “solution” that would just make matters worse. It’s an idea that really makes me think that real and professional scientists shouldn’t be left to solving global warming. Their idea? Clouding the atmosphere up with man made aerosol particles. This would deplete the ozone in “some” regions, mostly the North and South poles, making those regions colder, yes, but also creating irradiated dead zones. But to them it seems like a pretty fair trade off.

These aerosol particles that would be added to our atmosphere would in theory reflect sunlight away from the earth thus cooling the planet. But consider that for a second. Instead of investing money into long term life changing solutions to global warming, we’re going to add more chemicals to our atmosphere so we can shift weather patters, and deplete our ozone to the point where areas of our Earth would be considered “dead zones”. Save one part of the earth by destroying another? It seems like such a scheme would cost a gigantic amount of money and would be a huge logistical challenge.

Playing with the Earth like this is just crazy. We’ve seen time and time again (with trying to move waterways and using chemicals to grow food) that playing around with nature is rarely, if ever, a good thing. When it comes to our atmosphere, there is so much that we don’t understand and so much that we’re still discovering. Where would geoengineers even get an idea like this? In 1991 when Mt. Pinatubo erupted and it released sulfur into the atmosphere. There was a direct correlation with the temperature decreasing.

All of these newfangled attempts at cooling the planet are getting out of control.

There’s the man-made volcano that shoots gigatons of sulfur high into the air. The space “sun shade” made of trillions of little reflectors between Earth and sun, slightly lowering the planet’s temperature. The forest of ugly artificial “trees” that suck carbon dioxide out of the air. And the “Geritol solution,” named after a multi-vitamin and mineral supplement with extra iron — in which iron dust is dumped into the ocean.

All of this time, energy and money is being poured into these ridiculous attempts at using science to cool the planet, when really humanity would be better of pursuing changes within their industrial, economic and home lifestyles. All of these crazy ideas could lead to disastrous weather patterns, cloudy skies through which we’d never see the sun again, droughts and famine. We have no idea. Changes on Earth take millions of years for a reason, we can’t just start dumping tonnes of sulfur on the planet and expect everything to be okay. The Earth’s systems are just not that simple.

Of course all teenagers and college students hate their parents a little bit (or a lot, depending on the hormones), as it’s part of forging one’s own identity. Isn’t it the American way to hold your parents in contempt until you’re at least 25, and then become them?

But these kids are going to have good reason for their anger, and I predict a revolution when these tiny tots grow to understand the legacy their parents have left them. They will inherit a planet-wide environmental mess, and it might not be impossible to fix, but it’s going to take the best minds of their age (plus their offspring), lots of money, and a singular desperation to fix what’s wrong before it’s too late. What these kids face in the coming years will make the mistakes my generation has been left with: Rockefeller drug laws, repeated pointless wars in the Middle East, and lack of marriage rights for homosexuals, seem like quaint oopsies in comparison. They’ll be figuring out how to handle the planet-altering effects of massive droughts (hey, it’s already happening) and global warming has barely gotten underway), disintegration of ecological webs as species disappear during the current mass extinction, and human migration due to the effects of global warming, not to mention changes we can’t even foresee yet.

Well, you say, each generation has to pick up after the one prior to it in one way or another; what gives those kids in diapers more permission than anyone else to let us have it? The answer is that we know what we’re doing to the environment and we still continue to do it.

Not only that, but Americans use more resources than almost anyone else, so the bulk of blame falls on us. There is no reason anyone under 50 should choose not to recycle, yet most of the places I’ve worked don’t have a serious program to deal with office waste. We are all aware of how much CO2 is spewed into the atmosphere every time we fly (about ½ a ton for a domestic flight), yet we hop on last-minute getaway jaunts like they’re going out of style. I could go on, but we all know our eco-sins.

The truth is, faced with the information-packed movies The Eleventh Hour and An Inconvenient Truth, coupled with the constant natterings, warnings and protestations of hundreds of green bloggers like me and the mainstream media alike, (2007 was The Year of the Green for glossy mags), the environment still places near the bottom of the concerns of voters according to a USA Today/Gallup poll.

What to do? If you’re a parent, an aunt, uncle, godfather, stepmother, or any permutation of the above, or even hope to have kids one day, start thinking less about what piece of junk to buy the kids in your life, and start thinking about what your real legacy to them will be.

To get you started thinking about the issues, why not write a note to your sure-to-be-angry descendants, and tell them exactly what you did — or didn’t do — to try to give them a healthy, sustainable world. Check out The DeSmogBlog’s 100 Year Letter Project where the adults of today write to their heirs. Andrew Revkin, one of the top science/environment journalists for The New York Times, covered this ingenious combination of the personal with the global on DotEarth, the Times’ enviroblog and he got some great responses in the comments section.

Before you pop that tyke into the back seat of the new SUV you bought for “safety” reasons, or purchase that plastic learning cube for him in hopes it will eventually get him into Stanford, take a step back and think 50 years down the line, and what he will write to his grandchildren about you.

Originally published in The Huffington Post 

TOMORROW, on Halloween, the House is set to vote on HR 2262, which updates the incredibly outdated (and super destructive) Mining Act of 1872. That’s right, this puppy was last updated over 130 years ago!

WHAT: We want our Congresspeople to vote YES on HR 2262, the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007, which updates the act and makes environmental provisions as well as making sure Native Americans have a say in what’s done on their lands. Also, it forces profit-making companies to pay for the right to mine on public lands.

It would help clean up western waters contaminated by tens of thousands of abandoned mines, ensure that new mines do not become perpetual water polluters, and give federal land managers and local elected officials more say in balancing mining with other important public land values, such as for drinking water, wildlife habitat, and places to hunt, fish, hike, and camp.

WHY: “[The old act] allows foreign and domestic companies to take valuable minerals from public lands without paying any royalties, and it still allows public land to be purchased at the 1872 price of less than $5.00 an acre.

The 1872 Mining Law contains no environmental provisions, allowing hardrock mines to wreak havoc on western water supplies, wildlife and landscapes. Mining has polluted 40 percent of the headwaters of Western watersheds, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. ”

OR….you can just watch the video about it!

HOW: You can call or email your representative. DO IT NOW!!!!

ALSO:

There’s a new global warming bill making it’s way through Congress, which will finally address many of the long-standing contributors to our warming world.

WHAT: The Leiberman-Warner “America’s Climate Security Act of 2007″ does not go far enough in reducing global warming emissions. Got to this page to get links to all the nitty-gritty details of the act.

The Quick and Dirty:

The bill would cap greenhouse gases at the 2005 emission level starting in 2012 and gradually reduce them to 1990 levels – a 15 percent reduction – by 2020. The measure requires deeper cuts over the long term: a 65 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2050.

“The goal should be to keep the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere below 500 parts per million,” Lieberman said. “That will avoid what (scientists) describe as a high risk of severe global warming impacts here in the United States … but also around the world.”

WHY: Though this is mostly a positive bill, it doesn’t go far enough, especially because it introduces a ‘cap and trade’ system for polluting industries. Check out this editorial from the LA Times about why it could end up making corporations zillions of dollars instead of solving the problem.

Cap-and-trade is a politically popular idea in the U.S. and Europe, but it is an extremely complex mechanism that presents irresistible opportunities for cheating and profiteering that would deeply compromise its effectiveness. Rather than creating a new carbon-trading market primed for manipulation by clever polluters and traders, Congress should be focusing on simple carbon taxes that would assess polluters for the cost of their environmental damage and offset the resulting economic pain by lowering other taxes.

HOW: As always, call or email your representative and tell them what you think about this. You can also sign MoveOn’s petition.

Eco-gourmet. It’s what you get when a brother who’s passionate about food teams up with his sister and her husband who are passionate about environmental sustainability.

If you’re in downtown San Francisco during the week, make sure to stop at my favorite lunch place, Mixt Greens, a great place to get an organic eco-gourmet salad.

Not only are their salads super tasty and organic, (i’m in love with their berry nutty) but their business practices are environmentally friendly. Mixt Greens’ two locations (both on Sansome in the financial district) were built following the USGBC’s guidelines for green building. In addition, all of their take-away packaging is made from corn (containers, cups, straws, lids and bags), and they compost 80% of their daily waste. Mixt Greens is also a Certified Bay Area Green Business.

Although mainly geared for take-away, both of Mixt Greens’ locations have a fun well-designed atmosphere to eat inside or outside.

By guest-blogger C. Tenz

When the publisher of a guidebook series says people fly too much, we know we’re in deep CO2 trouble. But that’s exactly what Mark Ellingham, the founder of the Rough Guides, said in an interview recently in The Observer. In an article celebrating the guidebook series’ 25th anniversary, Ellingham rails against the travel development he refers to as “binge flying” – hopping a flight for a quick weekend in a distant locale. To counter this trend, he calls for a £100 (~ $ 210) green tax on all flights from Britain to Europe and Africa and a £250 (~ $520) green tax to flights elsewhere.

As a poor eco-lover who lives far from her close friends and family, I initially balked at the idea. I can’t imagine affording my annual flight from Germany to the US if the price doubled. As a citizen of Cologne, a city that often hosts these binge flyers, however, I might be swayed. It would be nice, after all, if our local environment was compensated for the damage done by holiday shoppers and stag party revelers who fly in for the weekend because the beer is cheaper here.

Perhaps, however, the answer shouldn’t rest on finances. Considering that flights are reaching record levels – with 2.51 million take-offs planned for May 2007 – this fee could quickly increase the amount of money diverted toward environmental interests. But which eco-developments would benefit? At this point, there’s still not much conclusive research on the best way to remove carbon emissions from the atmosphere, so the money wouldn’t directly undo the damage caused by air travel. And Ellingham acknowledges that the plan could backfire. With a reduction in air travel, he says, the economies of many nations that currently benefit from tourism may be devastated. Should some of this green tax go to those nations?

Germany, for one, is trying to avoid this green tax argument altogether with an appeal to its citizens to stay home on their next holiday. In marketing their country as the best travel destination, they are using not only the “better for the environment” argument. They’re also playing up the low costs of using the rail system to move around the diverse landscape, which includes both beaches and mountain ranges. And with the nation still reeling from the hottest April temperatures on record, it’s got a climate to rival Spain’s. That, combined with the German eco-consciousness, will hopefully work better than a tax to keep the world’s holidaymakers at home a bit longer.

If Ralph knows it, you REALLY should know it.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told us earlier this year that we’re basically all screwed. That the poor are even more screwed. And that we need to do something about it. Today they will be releasing the fourth report, where they will tell us what we can actually do, and really… the requests and reccomendations aren’t all that surprising.

Basically, from the reports that I’m seeing as previews, we need to divert substantially from using the energies that we’re so used to using today. We need to invest more money into sustainable energy and promote sustainable energy use. Give incentives for buying clean energy and make more products that don’t use theh extensive and dirty energies.

All night talks in Bangkok went on as economists, scientists and government officals discussed how they would tackle the problem of huge emission levels from the oil and gas industry. The parts per million of C02 in the air have raised more than a third since the start of the industrial revolution, and now is the time to hault these emissions to spare the earth some pain, and people in developing countries. If the there is a deley on action the greehouse gases in the atmosphere could raise by an additional 90% by 2030, on top of the 70% increase we’ve had since 1970. C02 is extremely important to keep our eye on because so much of it is produced every year (25 billion tons…) and it just sits in the atmosphere making it progressively worse.

The report will conclude that significant progress can and should be made with in the next 25 years with technological advances/shifts and huge policy changes. The most important of these technologies obviously being cleaner energy. The message of the report is very clear. There is no reason, what so ever, to now be sitting around waiting for the “science” to back up unreasonable environmental policy. We have the right science that can now be used and kept in mind – it should push governments and citizens to see the need for change. There is no need to wait any longer for change.

To stop the ever increasing emissions in the air governments are going to have to do some things that people are really going to hate, such as fuel taxes and garbage fees. Also countries such as China will need to slow down their development. The final version will state that C02 levels need to be brought to the 2000 level by 2030. To do this it would cost $50 to $100 a ton which is on par with the price of fossil fuels if the price continues to raise the way it has been.

The effects of the change are going to hit the global economy, resulting in an overall reducation of about one tenth of a percentage through 2100. That figure was highly disputed, some say it would have a far greater impact than this and that more research needs to be done on the topic. But many say the investment as a reasonable one, given the alternative.

No one really knows what the future holds. But these reports that we’ve seen have most definitely shown that if there is no action there is going to be extremely hefty and detrimental impacts happening not only to the environment but to all the people living within it and relying on it. 100 years ago none of us would have had electricity or a car so many in 100 years there won’t be any again? Or maybe we’ll all have solar panels attached to our backs. Who knows.

Here is a Q & A with one of the scientists that was present at the Bangkok talks.

Update Better sources and articles: BBC and Scientific American

(Cross posted at lib-deb and appletree)

When Bill McKibben wrote The End of Nature in 1989, it was the first popular press book to address global warming in a meaningful way. Since then, McKibben has not only carved out a career as an environmental journalist; he has become one of the most steadfast and trustworthy voices in the arena.

McKibben is currently at work promoting Step It Up 2007—a decentralized protest calling for Congress to introduce measures to cut carbon emissions 80% by 2050—which will take place on April 14 in over 800 locations across the country.

In his latest book, Deep Economy (Henry Holt, 2007), McKibben submits that we’re past the point of changing our light bulbs and hoping for the best. Instead, it’s time to challenge the prevailing economic ideology of “More is Better,” with local yet systemic alternatives.

McKibben recently took some time from his work to discuss Deep Economy with Eco-Chick.

Eco-Chick: How does the idea of deep economy differ from the idea of local economy?

McKibben: Local economies are the main prescription, I think, for dealing with the deep problems of our current system—that it’s driving the Earth off an ecological cliff, and that it isn’t making us as happy as it seems to. We’ve thought much too shallowly about what we want out of the economy: not simply more, but a satisfying and workable world.

Eco-Chick: In Deep Economy, you say that it’s time to move beyond “More is Better,” but qualify that by saying, “researchers report that money consistently buys happiness right up to about $10,000 per capita income, and that after that point the correlation disappears…” (41). Do you see environmentalism as something of a class privilege? If so, do you think that has been sufficiently recognized by the environmental movement?

McKibben: I think that not caring about the environment is a kind of class privilege. The very poorest people—in this country and around the planet—feel the effects of the damage more than the rest of us do. (Go to New Orleans to see what I mean, and after that Bangladesh.) The onus on cleaning up should fall most heavily on those of us who have made the most mess—in this case, by pouring CO2 into the atmosphere, carbon that is directly related to our consumption. And we shouldn’t point too many fingers at China for their carbon emissions, not while our per capita emissions are four times greater. Instead, we need to figure out how to re-engage with the rest of the world to help them develop on something other than our energy path.

Eco-Chick: Since the Democrats took control of the House and Senate last November, many Americans have expressed hope that Congress will finally address growing public concern about global warming. However, you note in Deep Economy that unless we also critically examine our marriage to economic growth—something the Democrats have failed to do—we cannot expect to arrive at meaningful solutions to climate change and other environmental crises. What, if anything, can we reasonably expect from the Democratic Party, both in Congress and in the upcoming Presidential election?

McKibben: I hope that the Democrats will set targets—dramatic and ambitious ones—somewhere near the scientific mandate. At stepitup07.org, we’ve been saying 80% cuts by 2050. If that happens, it will help set in motion the train of events that will, hopefully with enough speed, wean us away from a world of fossil-fueled hyper-growth and towards something more durable. Congress won’t vote against growth. They may vote for higher energy prices (under some guise like cap and trade), which will then help lead us in saner directions. But an awful lot of the work is going do have to be done on the local and state level.

Eco-Chick: As I read more about local economy and, specifically, local food production, it seems to me that the discussion might need to include a reconsideration of the traditional gender roles that Americans have challenged in recent decades. In other words, the move from processed food to fresh, locally grown food requires that there be someone cooking in the kitchen. Do you think that this is part of the dialogue or is it a non-issue by this point?

McKibben: What can I say? At our house, I do the cooking. I guess I don’t think that cooking is such a bad thing—better for your body, for the planet, and probably for your mood than subcontracting it to some fast food kitchen. The fact that we’ve largely forgotten how to cook is a problem, and if we relearn, I sure hope it won’t be attached to gender as it has been in our past.

Eco-Chick: Likewise, does the idea of deep economy suggest that we might need to reconsider the roles that children and grandparents can play in a family and a community?

McKibben: Yep. Children and grandparents are now viewed as slightly problematic since they’re not contributing to economic growth. But any sensible community anywhere in the world has knit [children] into the fabric of real life—not by “child labor,” but by allowing ways that they can help. And it’s the same with grandparents.

Eco-Chick: Your research for Deep Economy took you to India, China, and Cuba, as well as cities and towns across the U.S. To me, one of the elephants in the room is that many of the most committed, knowledgeable and active environmentalists (those who would be most open to the idea of deep economy) are also people who love to travel, partly because they appreciate seeing alternatives to their own ways of thinking and living. Is there a way to reconcile travel and deep economy? Is it enough to buy a hybrid and carbon credits? Or should we heed poet Gary Snyder’s advice and, “Find your place on the planet, dig in, and take responsibility from there”?

McKibben: I think that Snyder is basically right. One of the hypocrisies of my life is that I spend a great deal of time traveling to tell people to use less carbon. I hope I end up a few gallons to the good. Of course, I buy carbon offsets, but that’s fairly token. My real joy is to stay and home and my favorite vacation of recent years is described in a book called Wandering Home, about a three-week backpack trip across my home county.

Eco-Chick: Deep Economy is dedicated to Wendell Berry. What influence has he had on your work?

McKibben: I read him first at an impressionable age, and he shocked me out of believing that the conventional wisdoms of the world were, in fact, so obvious. As I told him recently when we shared a stage, he completely changed the course of my life, and for that I’m about 85 percent grateful.

Eco-Chick: It’s been 18 years since you published The End of Nature, the first popular press book to address global warming (as far as I know). What has changed—in terms of scientific knowledge, public and government action, and your own concerns about the issue—since then? Are you satisfied with how we are responding?

McKibben: The science has gotten steadily grimmer. We didn’t understand how finely poised the Earth’s physical systems were, so we’re seeing huge responses to warming (such as Arctic melt) sooner than we would have expected. The political response—especially in this country—has been slower than I would have thought. The last six years have been totally and completely wasted, and they were important years. At the moment, though, I’m feeling a little optimistic. The response to stepitup07.org has been so much larger than I could ever have guessed and I think that we’re finally nearing a tipping point.