Photo via Flickr: Infrogmation

It seems logical that the tragedy of the BP oil spill would serve as a public opinion tipping point, that it could somehow be the impetus for this country to free itself from fossil fuels once and for all. It’s what a lot of us have been hoping for, anyway.

Turns out, this is exactly what is happening, and the stats are in to prove it: According to data from the June Congressional Conversation Index, the environment and energy now top the list of issues concerning Americans, having steadily increased in the rankings since the spill occurred on April 20. Take a look:

Of the top 10 issues prompting constituents to contact their representative, the environment now ranks second, while energy ranks fifth. (Combined, the two top the entire list.) This is a marked increase from just a few months ago; in February, for example, health and Medicare were the two most pressing issues on citizens’ minds.

The two questions I have are:

#1 Do more Americans truly care about clean energy, or have environmentalists just been more proactive about contacting members of Congress?

#2 Will Americans continue to care once the oil spill is capped (as perhaps may now be the case), or will it be out of sight, out of mind until the next one happens?

–Jennifer Grayson

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

[Watch video on YouTube]

Looks like the BPA ban fever sweeping the nation (hooray, California!) is starting to make the chemical companies nervous. After all, they have a lot of money to lose should Congress follow through on its plan to overhaul the 34-year-old Toxic Substances Control Act and actually do something about the more than 80,000 largely unregulated chemicals on the market in the United States.

So what’s the chemical companies’ plan of action? Well, for starters, forming deceptively named organizations like the Coalition for Chemical Safety and plastering its website with pictures of smiling families, all to make it seem like they actually care about your health and well-being. Don’t be fooled: CCS is a sham, it’s industry-funded, and its “balanced approach to our nation’s chemical safety laws” is code for “we’re going to do everything in our power to make sure real reform doesn’t happen.”

Just take a look at the list of coalition members on the website: the American Chemistry Council, Montana Agribusiness Association, Virginia Coal Association — not exactly a who’s who of the environmental movement.

So check out the awesome chemical industry spoof, above, and tell Congress that we need to strengthen the laws so that chemicals are studied and determined safe before they’re allowed to be put in the products we use. The video was made by an organization that’s really fighting to protect us from toxic chemicals: the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition.

–Jennifer Grayson

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

California could become the first state in the country to ban plastic bags, hopefully making sights like this less common. Photo via Flickr: Katerha

Seeing as in my relatively young career as an environmental journalist, I’ve amassed enough reusable bags to last from now till eternity (canvas, hemp, jute, polypropylene, nylon, you name it!), I think I’m pretty well positioned for a plastic bag ban in California, which looks like it may actually happen.

Earlier this month, the state Assembly passed AB 1998, which would require grocery stores, drug stores, convenience stores, and liquor stores to provide reusable bags and charge at least 5 cents to customers in need of a disposable one. Now in the Senate, it was approved yesterday by the Senate Environmental Quality Committee by a 5-2 vote.

Next up: the Senate Appropriations Committee, where the fate of 19 billion plastic bags a year (that’s how many we use here in California; a mere 5 percent of them are recycled) will be decided.

I pray that it passes, if only to imagine the dumbfounded reaction of the lady I encountered yesterday in the checkout line of the supermarket. She asked for her purchase — a lone toothbrush — to be double bagged.

–Jennifer Grayson

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

Photo via Flickr: Ivan Walsh

Update: This post was originally published on March 9, 2010. The bill referred to below, H.R. 4363, is still in committee.

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: Today is World Oceans Day. Help protect our oceans by learning which seafood is safe to eat: 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

The Environmental Protection Agency's "Submit a Technology Solution" web page, where you too can submit an idea as to how to clean up the Gulf oil disaster

As 200,000 gallons of crude continue to gush daily from the Deepwater Horizon well site in the Gulf of Mexico, it’s becoming more painfully obvious that no one — not the federal government, not the Gulf region marine scientists, not even BP’s own experts — has any clue how to even begin to clean up this mess. It turns out that what few options we have (including burning the oil or attempting to disintegrate it with toxic dispersants) may, in fact, do more harm than help.

Want some scary evidence that the cleanup efforts have become a complete crapshoot? Check out the Environmental Protection Agency’s very own “Submit a Technology” page on its website, where you and any shmoe with a corn cob and a prayer can suggest ideas to our federal government for how to mop up the spill.

I mean, really? Could you imagine if EPA had set up a similar website after the meltdown at Three Mile Island? Uh, well, we kind of allowed this technology to be built that had the potential to destroy our planet, but we never really figured out what to do if something went horribly wrong… Suggestions, anyone?

I said this today in my column today for HuffPost, and I’ll say it again: Because of our desperate need for oil and other fossil fuels, we’ve allowed corporations to develop ultra sophisticated technologies to plumb the depths of the ocean for oil, but not required them to construct solutions to deal with a disaster scenario when those technologies fail.

Not surprising, considering that BP spent $16 million lobbying Congress last year alone.

–Jennifer Grayson

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

I’m going to be writing my own Earth Day post next week, but I thought this video of President Obama encouraging action at the individual level was pretty apropos, considering that there’s a lot of environmental inaction going on right now at the federal level.

True, there has been some promising change since Obama took office: His administration has increased fuel efficiency standards to 35.5 mpg, as well as allocated $2 billion for clean energy research through the American Reinvestment Recovery Act — heck, the First Lady is even encouraging local, organic farming by planting the first White House vegetable garden since the Roosevelt administration.

But there have been setbacks, too: the appointment of two big ag men to high-level agricultural posts; a section of the Tongass National Forest opened to logging; the stalling on the regulation of toxic coal ash; and, most recently, the reversal of the offshore drilling ban.

Still, I don’t think Obama is being insincere by telling Americans that their greatest hope for environmental change is through individual action; I think he’s being realistic. He’s seen time and time again — with his campaign, with the push for health care reform — that regular folks making small changes in their daily lives move the agenda a lot faster than a bunch of bickering bureaucrats.

As Thomas Jefferson said, A republican government is slow to move, yet once in motion, its momentum becomes irresistible. That momentum is us.

–Jennifer Grayson

Do this now: Want to know what you can do this Earth Day? Go to whitehouse.gov/earthday to find service projects in your area.

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

Photo via Flickr: Rennett Stowe

Last week’s coal mine disaster in West Virginia may prove the impetus for stricter government enforcement of mine safety regulations — and let’s hope it does, for no American worker should have to face the increased likelihood of death or serious injury so that a company can save a quick buck.

But with increased scrutiny of the coal mining industry and the safety of its workers, we also need to start talking about another, more insidious, coal disaster that’s affecting the American public at large: toxic coal ash.

A byproduct of burning coal (which produces nearly half of our nation’s electricity), coal ash contains harmful contaminants like mercury, arsenic, lead, and boron. Of course, you wouldn’t want a known carcinogen like arsenic in your drinking water, but that’s exactly what’s happening: Unbelievably, the Environmental Protection Agency has yet to issue a ruling as to whether or not coal ash is a hazardous material.

As such, the power plants that produce this gunk can dump it anywhere they see fit — usually in large waste ponds located near residential communities — inevitably polluting drinking water and sickening the people nearby.

Most of us remember the horrific Tennessee power plant spill in 2008 that half-buried a community and contaminated its water supply with nearly 5.4 million cubic yards of coal ash, but smaller-scale “spills” are happening nearly every day, all across the country, and largely under the radar: In one Alabama town, describes a resident, “Trucks unload the ash within 200 feet away from people’s homes. They are also intentionally washing it off train cars and trucks into a stream…The landfill was pumping this toxic leachate over roads and down into public ditches at night.”

In Oklahoma, another small town with 20 homes located near a coal ash waste pit has seen 14 of its residents stricken with cancer.

How did I hear these stories? Because the letters containing them, which have been made public on the Ohio Citizen Action website, have been sent to Cass Sunstein, Obama’s regulatory czar, in the hopes that he will move forward with EPA’s proposed rules to regulate coal ash disposal. The regulation has been pending since Oct. 16, amidst holdup by Sunstein’s Office of Information of Regulatory Affairs.

Yesterday, a delegation of coal ash victims traveled to Washington and met with OIRA staff members to share their stories — two staff members from EPA also sat in on the meeting — but no Sunstein. And no indication as to what or when the OIRA’s decision will be.

–Jennifer Grayson

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

The Golden Gate Bridge on Friday, March 26. Lights on the bridge and other major monuments across the US will be turned off for one hour on March 27 at 8:30 pm for Earth Hour, a global campaign sponsored by the World Wildlife Fund. Photo: John Storey.

Update at 3:20 pm ET: The World Wildlife Fund is announcing that Earth Hour will officially be observed in all 50 states. Still, the lights at the governors’ residences and/or state capitol buildings will only go dark in 33 of them — the majority of those being in states with Democratic governors. Republican-governed states Florida and Utah have now joined in, as have the Democratic-governed Kansas and North Carolina. The chart below has been updated to reflect this.

Tomorrow night, at 8:30 pm local time, nearly a billion people around the globe will turn off their lights for an entire hour — Earth Hour — in a show of solidarity for action on climate change. The good news? A record 118 countries will officially go dark this year for the event, along with thousands of cities and iconic landmarks from the Pyramids of Giza to the Golden Gate Bridge.

The bad news? The issue of global warming has become so politicized in the United States that even the states participating in Earth Hour are split along party lines: Of the 29 33 states taking part agreeing to turn off the lights at governors’ residences and/or state capitol buildings, 23 25 have Democratic governors. Among the remaining six eight with Republican governors, five six are liberal-leaning; only one  — Georgia — was a “red” state only two — Georgia and Utah — were “red” states in the 2008 presidential election.

The gap is even more apparent when you consider that of the remaining 21 17 states that have chosen not to participate in Earth Hour 2010, 18 all but one have Republican governors.

Here’s the breakdown:

This has got to change. The number of Americans who doubt the existence of global warming has markedly increased over the last decade (from 19 percent in 1997 to 35 percent in 2010), and much of that is due to the influence of the Republican party. But by allowing the issue of climate change to become increasingly politicized — dividing ourselves into believers vs. nonbelievers — we’re missing the opportunity to take action on the myriad other environmental challenges that I think most Americans can agree on: developing our own clean energy economy to create jobs and lessen our reliance on foreign oil; reducing the use of toxic pesticides in our food supply; and preserving our beautiful natural spaces for future generations.

Democrats or Republicans, we are all citizens of this country; we are all citizens of this planet. Turn your lights off tomorrow night for that, if for nothing else.

–Jennifer Grayson

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

President Obama signs the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law at 11:15 am ET on March 23, 2010. Photo via Flickr: Rep. Keith Ellison

The ink is barely dry on the landmark Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but the lives of millions of Americans have already changed for the better, since many of the provisions in the bill — like tax breaks for small businesses, prescription drug relief for seniors, and access to coverage for those denied due to preexisting conditions — take effect immediately. I’m one of those Americans — one of those overjoyed Americans, I should emphasize — since I’ve been denied coverage for years because I have hypothyroidism (along with 10 million other Americans, I might add). Every year, paying for my health care expenses out of pocket has cost me nearly a quarter of my income.

There is one outcome that’s not clear at the moment, however, and that’s how the health care legislation will affect the environment. Stay with me for a second, folks; I know the connection may seem a bit far-fetched, and there’s been seemingly no end to the “how will health care affect X” articles, but I do believe that healthy and green are not mutually exclusive.

It stands to reason that if insurance companies are forced to insure everyone, then they’re going to have to start focusing on preventive care to help keep costs in check (after all, regular doctor’s visits and nutrition counseling cost a lot less in the long run than open heart surgery). And I think a greater emphasis on preventive medicine — i.e., the kinder, gentler approach — will have a profound affect on our planet. A few possibilities:

Less pill pollution. If insurance companies and doctors start emphasizing the importance of a healthy diet, regular exercise, and adequate rest to prevent chronic diseases, then we can perhaps expect to see a decreased reliance on prescription medications. That would be good news for the environment, since pharmaceuticals — including antibiotics, antidepressants, and sex hormones — have already found their way into the drinking water of 41 million Americans.

Less hospital waste. The same concept holds true for the 6,600 tons of waste that hospitals produce every day. If Americans are able to see their doctors before illnesses become complicated to treat, that translates into fewer surgeries, fewer hospitalizations, and less disposal plastic products winding up as a result in our landfills.

More funding for real food. In the effort to cost-effectively prevent diseases like diabetes, heart disease, and cancer, expect to see health care providers encouraged to emphasize real food — like lean meat, whole grains, and fresh fruits and vegetables — over processed food products. This could result in more funding for organic agriculture and possibly (gasp!) a repeal of the federal corn subsidies that fuel our genetically modified, atrazine-doused, high fructose corn syrup–laden junk food habit.

–Jennifer Grayson

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