Eco-Chick · The modern girl's guide to living green & fabulous.

Success for the Sea Shepherd; Japanese Whalers Head Home Short

In a statement made yesterday by the Institute of Cetacean Research, Japan announced that it made it back to the mainland with only 679 whales slaughtered, as opposed to their annual minimum of 985 killed. The Japanese fleet pointed to the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society as the primary cause for their failure in the annual hunt.

Criticized for their tactics, mocked for their motley crews, and adored for their perseverance, the Sea Shepherd holds true to the course, regardless of public intrigue. Paul Watson, noted demagogue, eco-anarchist, and purported “eco-terrorist” (a creative use of language in our opinion), leads activists out to sea on anti-whaling campaigns to intervene in the unlawful acts of poaching. Animal Planet has been recording the campaigns for the past two years, producing the popular television show Whale Wars. The show has brought international attention to the Japanese whaling fleet that slaughter the approximate one thousand whales annually in the name of ‘research.’

Regardless of opinion and conjecture, the Sea Shepherd and her crew place themselves in harm’s way to act on behalf of mammals that are unable to avoid the nets and explosive harpoons that determine their existence. According to the Japanese, the direct interventions of the Sea Shepherd are what caused the fleet’s inability to meet their quota this year. The whales are supposedly killed for scientific research but it is well known that the meat is packaged on the ships at sea and sent back to Japan for consumption.

According to Watson:

“We continue to speak the one language these whale pirates understand,” said Captain Paul Watson. “Profit and loss: we need to keep their losses up and their profits down. We will eventually beat these killers with aggressively applied economics.”

Go Sea Shepherd!!! Congratulations.

Eco-Beauty Consultant Jessa Blade's Recommendations for Dry Winter Skin

During Eco-Chick’s 3rd birthday party last month, I had the chance to meet eco-beauty consultant and make-up artist, Jessa Blades.

Jessa is the founder of Blades Natural Beauty and is a vessel of information regarding all things organic beauty and skincare.  Shortly after learning about the breast cancer and body lotion connection, I had noticed I was almost out of face moisturizer. I had been sampling various brands over the last few months, and since old man winter has stepped up his game, I realized I needed to try a different moisture rich face cream. I contacted Jessa to ask for her expert opinion on the best eco & body friendly facial moisturizers out there for the winter season. Here recommendations are a perfect follow up to my body lotion post last week. 

Mod.Skin Créme Nutri-functional #1 $48.00

This rich and lightly scented cream can either be used during the day or night use. It leaves a moisturized glisten to the skin without feeling heavy. It can be used for all skin types.(Can purchase on-line, specialty beauty stores/section or pick it up at Whole Foods)

Dr. Hauschka Toned Day Cream $39.95

This is Jessa’s favorite. It is a tinted moisturizer that contains therapeutic oils which reduce the appearance of irritation and irregular skin tones for a variety of complexions. It is ideal for normal skin types, but can also be used over-top of a moisturizer in the winter for extra dry skin. Plus, it has a great scent. (Can purchase on-line, specialty beauty stores/section or pick it up at Whole Foods)

Aubrey Organics $16.28

These facial moisturizers come in 5 different varieties according to skin type. The products are available at a wide variety of stores and being that the company was founded in 1967, their heritage is respected within the industry. (Can purchase on-line, at major retailers or pick it up at Whole Foods)

Lip & Skin Balm by makeup artist Rose-Marie Swift $30

Another one of Jessa’s favorite is this dual balm. You can use it on your lips, face or apply it around the eyes at night time. The balm hydrates and protects the skin with food grade, biologically active ingredients and comes in either-Simply Vanilla or Simply Cacao.

Does Eco Fashion Matter?

I say, yes! But I’m not the only one. Over at Devidoll’s blog, a discussion we had a few months ago feels very relevant as I made my way through New York’s fashion week.

Excerpted from The Devidoll blog:

“Given the reputation of fashion as a ‘dirty’ business, a ‘shallow’ business and as creating false needs, ethical fashion is often written off as hypocritical/unrealistic/fashion piggybacking on wider awareness of eco-issues without adding any real value; a ‘rich people’ syndrome — from organic food to organic cotton tops simply for the sake of seeming ‘in’ — is derided as the symbol of what ethical fashion really is all about. And so the question is often asked: does ethical fashion really amount to any real good for anyone/the planet?

What are your thoughts on this kind of thinking and can you offer a counter-opinion about ethical fashion?”

And here’s who I asked (if you’re reading this because of even a modicum of interest in ethical fashion issues, you’ll know at least one of them) –

Margaret Teich: Associate Producer on The Lazy Environmentalist radio show and curator extraordinaire of the Directory of Eco-Fashion Retailers on the influential Lazy Environmentalist blog. Margaret’s job requires her to be somewhat of a knowledge bank and have her eye on lots and lots of different goings-on in the world of modern-day eco/sustainable/ethical living.

Starre Vartan: founder of must-read, in the know, particularly inspiring for (but by no means only) women, blog Eco-Chick. Starre writes for other publications too and she’s on our panel because there is very very little going on in the eco living world that she is not aware of. She is quite simply, in the know.

Jocelyn Whipple: Jocelyn’s agency, Element23, represents leading ethical fashion brands in the UK and Europe. She also separately designs and supplies sustainable textiles as well as being a personal stylist. This is a person who lives and breathes the commerce of ethical fashion — its creation, marketing and distribution.

Interestingly, all 3 of them had the same key arguments:

GET REAL!
Women will shop, fashion will be important-it always has been. To question the interest in/place of fashion is to be, at best, naive and at worst, part of the problem, not the solution. Starre puts it aptly “Human beings have been decorating themselves and their clothes for as long as there has been civilization, so assuming that we’re going to stop for any reason (even the poorest people in the world add color to fabrics they create themselves, or patch clothing in ways that show creativity and flair) is just ridiculous.” and Margaret is even more direct “So here is the reality: women love to shop. We love the idea that the interior can be expressed by what is worn on the exterior.”

BEING ETHICAL AND FASHIONABLE IS TO RETHINK OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH CLOTHES.
Jocelyn goes straight to the heart of the matter “Buy better, less often”. We should understand where clothes come from and what happens before they arrive in front of us (just like you think about battery chickens and automatically buy free-range eggs). We should also revert to previous ways of thinking, according to Starre, so that clothes are not “…disposable items, but investments…”. Then, we’ll more naturally, make better choices whether these are to eschew disposable fashion, ask for accountability or, as Margaret emphasizes “…(support) designers and their artistic craft, green sourcing and ethical manufacturing processes…”.

AS CONSUMERS WE REALLY CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
Forget all the cynical nay-saying about ethical fashion being the purview of only the select few blah blah blah; no, it affects and can be affected by everyone at some level. Starre sets it out simply “We can make a lot of positive change, as consumers, in all these areas.(…)These problems need to be solved, not ignored. This is not just an issue for “yummy mummys”. We all need to wear clothes.”. How? you ask – well, by building your awareness, looking behind the label and, as Jocelyn emphasizes “…be sure the brands and concepts you are buying into are upholding their part of the deal, by giving you real information and support around the complexities of the ‘eco /ethical’ fashion industry. Ask questions. Ask for accountability.”

Of course, these ladies had more to say and I’ll publish their full comments later. Here I wanted to just point out that there are substantial issues which everyone in the field, regardless of specific involvement, recognizes. And, even more crucially, these are issues which pertain to you and me….not just celebs or deep green vegans. As Margaret reminds us, there is ‘modern environmental revolution’ afoot (by they way, you’re ALREADY part of it with all your organic food choices, washing machine at 30c, switching off lights, buying white goods with optimal energy ratings….) and ‘touting green fashion’ is part of that revolution.’

Yes, these are extraordinary issues relevant to ordinary people.

Cell Towers and Health Effects: Cellular Disservice?

This past week a local in my town contacted me to see if I would be interested in discussing the issues surrounding a potential cellular tower that would be constructed within one mile of my house. Some of us from the town had the chance to voice our concerns to the Connecticut Siting Council, which is the governing body that determines zoning for these towers in our state.

Having written about microwave energy and electromagnetic fields a few years ago, I remembered interviewing Carl Blackman, a research scientist in the Environmental Carcinogenesis Division of the EPA, and asking him about cell phones and cellular base stations in relation to electromagnetic fields and the possible health impact. Blackman was one among quite a few scientists and researchers I interviewed who reiterated the same sentiment: “We just don’t know yet. The science is not in.” The fact that the jury is still out on this vast topic, in a field (pardon the pun) that is ever-expanding, is enough, for some, to warrant grassroots action.

The subject is controversial and highly debated, although the issue is one that people are dealing with world-wide. The fear is that without mobile phones and cell towers covering every inch of land, emergency services will be left without connection, leaving us, “with a hole big enough to drive a hearse through…” as I recently read in a concerned citizen’s letter to the NYTimes. One concern is that the proliferation of these towers and devices has gone largely unmonitored, unregulated, and, according to some scientists, could potentially lead to serious health issues.

The World Health Organization has advised that the “precautionary principle” be enacted as a preemptive move before certainty of harm is verified by science. This essentially means that when any new technology is evolving beyond the scope of scientific research, it is advisable to protect oneself through risk management. So, while some still think that those who discuss this topic with seriousness are delusional and should be stuttering through the park, wearing a tinfoil hat, others, including the World Health Organization, the National Institutes of Health, and member countries of the European union feel it is worth serious discussion.

In Europe, some governments have set exposure standards below those of the standardizing agencies, in order to try to protect their citizens. In India, towers were recently banned from school and residential areas to protect people following studies that showed potential harm to the brain. The United States Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Section 704(a) removes environmental considerations from the tower siting process, which denies citizens the opportunity to protest based on ecological concerns (zoning) or health issues.

In 2006, the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF,) the largest union of first responders in North America, passed a resolution banning cellular towers from firehouses until more research is done, because firefighters were suffering from ill health. Internationally, the concern regarding the exponential proliferation of wireless devices and base stations to support them has provoked scientific studies and prompted legislators to err on the side of caution when it comes to regulations. Many scientists are discussing the potential impact on DNA, neurological function, and human health while others study migratory birds and the reproduction patterns of all animal populations in the vicinity of strong electromagnetic fields.

In my town, in NW Connecticut, we are currently experiencing the battle. The cellular tower has been proposed to be on Route 7, a scenic highway that runs parallel with the Appalachian Trail. The AT park manager has sent a letter in response to the proposed tower stating that they had no problem with it, so long as Cellco/Verizon makes the tower look like a tree and plants 25 white pines along the trail.

The tower site is also within one mile of two schools and is next door to the largest employer of the town. The site abuts a friend’s property. Both he and his wife are cancer survivors and fear the tower could affect their health. At the public hearing, where town members were allowed to voice their opinions to the siting commission (who ultimately decides whether the tower goes up or not,) people expressed various concerns:
More »

Nuclear Is No Option

A few months ago, I posted here a compendium of reasons why I live in Germany. Though I’d intended the post as an answer to all those who’ve asked in the past, writing it also helped me to see through the myths I’d taken too seriously (i.e. all Germans are green) and helped me better understand myself in the political landscape here. Because like it or not, politics are a necessity in getting environmentalism to have the greatest impact.

As I reread the post, I realized that many of the things I wrote about had more to do with Germany’s social democracy and less with its green principles – which for an American like me seemed like two sides of the same coin but which for Germans are two very very different political stances. Up until three years ago, however, the two political parties (the Greens and the Social Democrats) were ruling bedfellows, maintaining control of the parliament and pushing through some of the legislation that appealed to me most, including the requirement that all nuclear power plants go off-line by 2020. It was, by most accounts, a Green party measure. But it also benefited the social democrats’ legislative ideas in many ways; most notably, it allowed them to battle long-time unemployment through the creation of thousands of “green collar jobs”.

In the comments to the post, however, someone named Richard said, “I was loving everything you were saying up until you rejoiced at the fact that nuclear power plants were being taken offline. That told me you hadn’t actually done your homework.” In fact I had, and I responded to that, but still, the comment got me wondering: since when did environmentalists start agreeing with nuclear? And then this article, “Atomic Dreams” from The Earth Island Journal fell into my lap:

According to a 2005 ABC News survey, only one-third of Americans approved of “building more nuclear plants at this time.” Nuclear proponents needed a way of convincing people that atomic energy deserved a second shot. Enter climate change. While nuclear power generation isn’t entirely carbon neutral—uranium mining and enrichment require vast amounts of fossil fuel energy—atomic plants are cleaner from a carbon standpoint than natural gas or coal-fired power stations. Posing nuclear energy as a response to global warming seemed a useful way to reintroduce nuclear power to a public that hadn’t been forced to think about it for years.

It’s an interesting read, especially for those interested in learning how a cause du jour can sway public opinion, for better and for worse.