The Red, White, and Green

Photo via Flickr: Ivan Walsh

When it comes to eating clean for the planet, that glistening sashimi may seem more virtuous than a fast food burger, but here’s the ugly truth: As much environmental damage may have been waged to bring you that jalapeño hamachi as that Big Mac you guiltily stuffed in your mouth after hitting the drive-thru. But how can that be, you ask?

If you saw Food Inc., you’re probably familiar with the concept of factory farming (i.e., livestock pumped full of antibiotics and hormones and stuffed into crowded cages where they stew in their own excrement before being sent off to slaughter). Pretty disgusting, and pretty toxic for the environment: We’re talking mountains of pesticides used to grow feed corn for the animals; the emergence of antibiotic-resistant superbugs; and areas of the ocean that are completely devoid of life, thanks to all that nitrogen-rich waste runoff that finds its way into our waterways.

Unfortunately, the same scenario is now happening with fish, except the factory farms are at sea instead of on land (FYI: hamachi refers to the farm-raised version of yellowtail): Floating sea cages are crammed with fish that are fed unnatural diets like corn and soy and administered antibiotics and other drugs. Their untreated waste is released directly into the ocean, spreading disease and parasites to surrounding marine life.

Unlike with factory farming for cattle, though, we can actually can do something about this, at present: There is currently a bill in Congress that would expand factory fish farming, for which you can take action to help stop. The bill is entitled the National Sustainable Offshore Aquaculture Act, but I’ve read the text of the bill, and I’m not convinced that sufficient measures have been taken to ensure true sustainability.

Click here to sign the Food & Water Watch petition.

While it’s likely that because of dwindling fish populations, the majority of fish we eat in the next decade will have to be farm-raised and not wild-caught, we can at least take steps to make sure that our first priority is protecting our precious coastlines, not appeasing our appetite for cheap sushi.

–Jennifer Grayson

Do this now: Want to know which farmed and wild seafood is actually good for our oceans? Check out the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Super Green List.

Related posts:
Just how unsustainable is Sin City seafood?
Sustainable seafood on the go

Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed

Photo via Flickr: Putneypics

This article was originally posted on Jan. 19. But with today being the last day to speak up about GM alfalfa to the USDA, I thought I’d republish.

While the United States has no labeling requirements for genetically modified (GM) foods, it should be moderately comforting that for now, there’s a lot the individual shopper can do to avoid them. I say for now, because all that could change very soon: The Department of Agriculture may be on the verge of approving Monsanto’s genetically engineered alfalfa.

Why is alfalfa such a concern? Well, one of the biggest fears about GM crops is the risk of contamination: Once a farmer plants a crop of GM alfalfa, who’s to prevent the wind from blowing pollen to a nearby organic alfalfa crop, or some hardworking honeybees from doing the same? For those who argue (read: Monsanto) that special precautions are taken by farmers to avoid this type of contamination, I would say that nature is not a controlled environment: Canada’s organic canola market was destroyed after being tainted by Monsanto’s GM canola crop.

The situation is getting complicated: In 2006, the Center for Food Safety sued the USDA for its approval of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready alfalfa, and won; the federal district court banned all GM alfalfa until the USDA conducted an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIS) evaluating the potential risks of the crop to the environment and farmers. Now, the 60-day comment period for the EIS draft (which was finally released in December) is open until Feb. 16 has been extended until March 3. But in the meantime, Monsanto has pushed the appeal all the way to the US Supreme Court, which decided last Friday on Jan. 15 to hear the case.

You may not care for alfalfa, but organic dairy cows do — it’s their lunch of choice. If we allow the USDA to approve Monsanto’s GM alfalfa, and the forage for those cows becomes contaminated, then we’ll never again be able to trust a carton of organic milk. Or even worse, organic milk may cease to exist altogether.

–Jennifer Grayson

Do this now: Protect the future of organic food! Click here to tell the USDA to reject GM alfalfa.

Related posts:
Where does Obama really stand on ag policy?
Distilled white vinegar and GMO
New corn ethanol study: No land-use impact doesn’t mean no impact

Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed

Photo via Flickr: Justin Marty

Of the 70 minutes that made up President Obama’s State of the Union address last night, he took about four — count ‘em, four — to focus on the environment and clean energy. I don’t want to hold it too much against him, though, since I thought the speech was quite moving, and accomplished its goal of reassuring an angry and disillusioned American public that the promise of hope the president campaigned on hasn’t been completely lost in the mire of Washington politics.

Still, with the focus on jobs, jobs, jobs, it’s a bit of wonder to me why there wasn’t a more extended look at the clean energy economy that’s going to create all those jobs, and green collar jobs in particular.

Here’s my play-by-play of the highlights (and lowlights) from those four minutes:

Encouraging American innovation. “Last year, we made the largest investment in basic research funding in history: an investment that could lead to the world’s cheapest solar cells…”

Obama is referring to the $16 billion allocated by the American Reinvestment Recovery Act for research — including $2 billion for the Department of Energy. No argument from me here: A country that leads the way in affordable solar technology is the country that’s going to create a lot of jobs at home and generate a lot of income from exports.

Nuclear power. “But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.”

Eh. Don’t know how I feel about this one. Nuclear power is controversial and far from perfect, but I’m becoming slightly (and I mean slightly) more open to the possibility that if we want to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change, those of us with qualms about radioactive waste may have to reconsider.

Offshore drilling. “It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.” (met by cheers from Republicans)

Wait, what? How can this be Obama’s third point to make about clean energy, and before a mention of alternative fuels? Methinks I smell concessions for a climate bill…

Alternative fuels. “It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies.”

Like the advanced biofuels part; not so thrilled about the perpetuation of the oxymoronic clean coal myth.

Climate bill. “And yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill, with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.”

Will the Senate finally make good on the bill the House passed last year? If the president’s points above are any clue, I guess yes — with some concessions to the Republicans. Though seeing as how the Republicans actually cheered when Obama called out “those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change,” the senators may have their work cut out for them.

–Jennifer Grayson

Do this now: Don’t let the Senate back down on passing climate legislation that really means something. Click here to find out how to contact your senator.

Related posts:
Want to understand Cap and Trade? Watch this
Senate to reveal draft climate bill tomorrow

Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed

I’m often asked by people who want to go green but don’t know where to start what I think is the most important and effective change a person can make. Should I buy a Prius? Eat only organic? Get solar panels for my home? All of those choices are fabulous if you have the resources to make them, but I truly believe that joining the Meatless Monday movement is No. 1. Why? Because it’s a small, subtle change that is eminently doable. And isn’t doable what you want for your New Year’s resolution?

[Watch video on Vimeo]

I took the Meatless Monday pledge in May, and even though the week-to-week change has been barely noticeable, it’s seriously opened my eyes to how profoundly our food choices impact the world around us (even for me, a longtime environmentalist). As Michael Pollan says, eating is a political act.

–Jennifer Grayson

Do this now: What else? Make Meatless Monday your New Year’s resolution. Happy New Year!

More Meatless Monday posts:
Meatless Monday: Your holiday reading list

Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed

I guess I fail to see the connection between nudity and greenhouse gas emissions, but if a Greenpeace hottie named Dave wants to strip down while explaining the intricacies of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and the role they play in global warming, who am I to argue? He’s got my attention.

[Click here to watch video on YouTube]

Those of us who are old enough to remember spraying our hair with giant cans of Aqua Net in the ’80s (or at least remember our moms spraying their hair) probably recall the ensuing publicity about chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and their role in the depletion of the ozone layer of the atmosphere. When CFCs were banned in 1987, HFCs — or F-gases — were thought to be a better alternative. Oops.

–Jennifer Grayson

Do this now: HFCs have an even greater impact on our climate than the much publicized CO2. Sign the Greenpeace petition to ensure that an HFC ban is included in the Copenhagen deal.

Related posts:
Why aren’t Angelenos using those green bins?
Germans say no to underground CO2 storage

Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed

Photo via Flickr: Steveandamron

Looks like Western Growers isn’t the only big ag group that’s miffed about sustainable farming cutting into its market share. It’s only been a month since Baltimore City Public Schools adopted Meatless Monday as part of its plan to introduce healthier eating to its largely overweight student population, but already lobbying groups for the meat industry are attempting to thwart other schools’ interest in doing the same.

From The Baltimore Sun:

The “Meatless Monday” program in Baltimore city school cafeterias has the meat industry madder than a factory-farmed hen. A spokeswoman for the American Meat Institute warned on CNN…that students aren’t getting enough protein. The Animal Agriculture Alliance urged people “shocked” by the once-weekly absence of meat on school menus to write schools chief Andrés Alonso “to ensure this effort does not spread.”

The cable news crazies have been jumping in on the veg-bashing effort, too, with Glenn Beck going all Nathan Hale about steak and Lou Dobbs proclaiming Meatless Mondays in schools “a political storm in the making.”

How transparent can these lobbyists’ efforts be? Don’t these people have children? Sure, let’s just keep stuffing kids’ faces with hamburgers and chicken nuggets; one in three of them may be overweight and on the way to developing diabetes, but at least they’ll be “getting enough protein.”

Since when did vegetarian lasagna become so controversial?

Thanks to loyal reader RG for sending us the Sun article.

–Jennifer Grayson

Do this now: Lou Dobbs is half right about Meatless Monday: It is a political issue. Giving up meat just one day a week is the single most effective thing you can do to improve our country’s environmental future and your own personal health. Take the pledge today.

More Meatless Monday posts:
Baltimore schools make national headlines for Meatless Monday effort
Baltimore City Public Schools first district in nation to adopt Meatless Monday

Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed

Photo via Flickr: Divemasterking

It was great to see First Lady Michelle Obama on Sesame Street this week, encouraging kids to plant gardens and eat their veggies, but I’ve got to be honest: I’m a bit confused as to where the president really stands when it comes to agricultural policy. A lot of wonderful changes are happening on the surface — the first White House vegetable garden since World War II, a farmers market just north of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue — but the green community was left scratching their heads last month after the president’s nominations of Islam Siddiqui, a former lobbyist for the chemical pesticide industry, and Roger Beachy, former head of the Danforth Plant Science Center (a nonprofit with some serious ties to Monsatan), to two high-level agricultural posts.

Beachy may already be installed at his job as director of the new National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), but Siddiqui, CropLife’s current vice president of science and regulatory affairs, isn’t sliding through his Senate confirmation as smoothly as first anticipated. (CropLife is the company that sent letters to Michelle Obama urging her to use pesticides in the White House vegetable garden.)

Writes consumer watchdog group Food & Water Watch in an email to its supporters:

These are two textbook cases of the “revolving door” between industry and the agencies meant to keep watch; Siddiqui’s and Beachy’s industry ties demonstrate that both men are too beholden to corporate agriculture to serve the public interest.

The group is calling for the replacement of both nominees; and while I think it’s a long shot for Obama to pull Beachy now that he’s already at work, there may be a real chance to derail Siddiqui — the Senate is planning a full floor vote sometime in the next couple weeks.

–Jennifer Grayson

Do this now: Click here to sign the Food & Water Watch petition asking President Obama to withdraw Siddiqui’s nomination.

Related posts:
Distilled white vinegar and GMO
Obama administration approves logging in national forest; environmental community outraged

Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed

According to the WSJ, the Senate climate draft includes "provisions to fund training of workers in the nuclear industry and development of technology that could reduce greenhouse-gas emissions from coal-fired power plants." Photo via Flickr: Theslowlane

Looks like my call last week for the Senate to get moving on its version of the climate bill is about to be answered — although it’s more probable that Al Gore’s swift kick in the Senatorial slacks at the Clinton Global Initiative last week had just a wee bit more impact. (We’ll get there one day, loyal RWG readers!)

From The Wall Street Journal:

Top Senate Democrats Wednesday plan to unveil a draft climate bill that would call for somewhat-faster reductions in U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions than would be required under a House bill. But the proposal is expected to defer tough decisions on many other major issues, underscoring the challenges lawmakers face in seeking a consensus on the issue.

According to a copy of the draft legislation seen by The Wall Street Journal and people close to the matter, the proposal will call for cutting greenhouse-gas emissions 20% from 2005 levels by 2020. The House bill, passed by the chamber in June, calls for cutting emissions 17% over the same period.

Click here for the full read.

–Jennifer Grayson

Do this now: There would be no Senate climate bill without Sen. Barbara Boxer, a relentless environmental advocate and head of the the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Unfortunately, she’s a top right-wing target for next year’s election. Her expected challengers are far from green: California Assemblyman Chuck Devore actually voted against AB 32, CA’s landmark global warming legislation; as economic adviser to presidential candidate John McCain, ex-CEO Carly Fiorina said “drill, drill, drill.” Click here to donate to Boxer’s campaign.

Related posts:
Senate needs to pass climate bill
Global warming will threaten national security

Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed

Photo via Flickr: Rob Crawley

Given the urgency of the crises we’re facing — ice sheets in Antarctica in “runaway melt mode,” a complete collapse of global fish populations by 2048, a floating dump of plastic trash in the Pacific Ocean twice the size of Texas — I often struggle with where best to focus my environmental efforts. Is changing light bulbs and composting really going to cut it?

Individual action is important, yes. If everyone stopped buying water in plastic bottles, that would go a long way toward shrinking the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, for example. And when people make small changes like planting tomatoes in their backyard, or eating vegetarian a few days a week, it often inspires them — and the people around them — to think about bigger issues.

But the other half of the work is enacting legislation. Without the mandate in the House’s Clean Energy and Security Act for electricity suppliers to meet 25 percent of its generated electricity from renewable resources by 2025 (not the 100 percent I wanted to see, but it’s a start), no amount of picketing and pleading would stop utility companies from buying coal if it was profitable.

The Senate needs to hustle up and pass its climate (ahem, global warming) bill. President Obama said in his speech at the UN Climate Change Summit on Tuesday that “we must not allow the perfect to become the enemy of progress.”

–Jennifer Grayson

Do this now: Take five minutes and write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper about the need for legislative action to combat global warming and spur the creation of green jobs.

Related posts:
Global warming will threaten national security
Los Angeles moves one step closer to plastic bag ban

Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed

Photo via Flickr: Diggersf

From The New York Times:

Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, a son of one of the most storied families in American politics, a man who knew acclaim and tragedy in near-equal measure and who will be remembered as one of the most effective lawmakers in the history of the Senate, died late Tuesday night. He was 77.

Long before green was cool, Sen. Edward Kennedy embraced environmental issues, tackling the oil companies in the mid ’70s and cosponsoring the first law to establish fuel economy standards more than 30 years ago. In recent years, he had urged the EPA to take action to clean up mercury pollution from power plants and cosponsored a resolution to end commercial whaling; his America COMPETES Act, which was signed into law in 2007, has proved vital to supporting research for clean energy technologies. The League of Conservation Voters, the political voice of the green movement, consistently ranked his voting record among the most environmentally progressive. 

Addressing the Democratic National Convention in 1980 after pulling out of the presidential race, Sen. Kennedy now famously said, “For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die.” 

For more on Kennedy’s environmental legacy (and the work that we will continue), click here. 

Our sincerest condolences to the Kennedy family. 

–Jennifer Grayson

 Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed