I have some exciting news to share: My writing debut for USA TODAY hits the newsstands this week, in the American Life: Green Living special publication (how Red, White and Green is that?). The article is about vertical gardening, which has become something of a passion of mine since moving to an apartment with an abundantly sized patio (stay tuned for photos of my pole beans). There’s also a section about vertical farming, which sounds like science fiction, but could very well be the key to food security as our planet struggles to accommodate 9 billion people in the next half century.

The magazine is only available in print, so if you’d like to read the article other than zooming below, I highly recommend picking up your own copy (also on the newsstands through June), since it’s filled with some really cool ideas about how to take your green home/life just that one step further (included: DIY cleaning product recipes; a guide to renting goats; and an engrossing read on guerilla gardening, penned by my pal/brilliant writer Matt Villano).

A special thanks to my interviewees for the piece — organic gardening consultant and Gardenerd founder Christy Wilhelmi, Windowfarms founder Britta Riley, as well as Dickson Despommier, professor emeritus at Columbia University and author of The Vertical Farm.

Now get out there and start growing!

–Jennifer Grayson

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

Photo via Flickr: NS Newsflash

Why is it that 97 percent of climate scientists believe that global warming is man-made, yet only 40 percent of Americans agree? It looks like we finally have someone to blame: me. Well, not me, specifically; I’m talking about the media.

According to the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, just 1 percent of news coverage today is focused on environmental issues. (That’s down from a whopping 2 percent in 2010.) Compare that with sports and lifestyle coverage, which receives double that, and celebrity coverage, which Pew says is about on par with green coverage. (To me, celebrity coverage seems to eat up a bigger portion of the pie, but I think Pew is talking about reputable news outlets here, not US Weekly and WWTDD.)

Now, the good news: In a new national poll commissioned by the Project for Improved Environmental Coverage and conducted by Opinion Research Corporation this past weekend, nearly 80 percent of Americans said they think environmental coverage should be improved. What’s more, the results didn’t vary much by age, race, education level, or region of the country. They even seem to buck traditional tree-hugging stereotypes (for those who think that green-minded folks are usually white, college-educated Northeasterners; see my bold):

• 79% of 18 to 24 year-olds and 79% of those over 65 felt coverage should be improved
• 77% of those polled in the Northeast, Midwest, and West thought coverage should be improved; 83% of Southerners concurred
• 83% of those who received a high school diploma or less and 76% of college graduates believed coverage should be improved
• 88% of African-Americans thought coverage should be improved, along with 79% of Hispanics and 77% of whites

So we’re all in agreement here: Give us more green news! And not slanted coverage, either. The poll also revealed that Americans (70 percent) want the coverage to be inclusive and solutions-oriented. You hear that, Fox News?

–Jennifer Grayson

If you’re a member of the media who wants to know how we can effectively increase environmental coverage, check out the national Vision for Improved Environmental Coverage, which launched in February this past year. (Note: I was an adviser for the project, along with representatives from Time Magazine, Society of Environmental Journalists, Michigan Radio, San Francisco Chronicle, Solutions Journal, Grist Magazine and the Knight Center of Environmental Journalism.)

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

Photo: Blingcheese.com

The news that girls as young as 4 are now developing breast buds and pubic hair should horrify anyone. But as the mother of a toddler girl, I felt my insides twisting when earlier this month, I read Elizabeth Weil’s feature about early-onset puberty in the The New York Times Magazine (Puberty Before Age 10 — A New ‘Normal’?). The medical term for this phenomenon is “precocious puberty,” which makes it sound like it’s something benign, even adorable. Clearly, it’s anything but:

That morning one of [pediatric endocrinologist Louise] Greenspan’s patients was a 6½-year-old girl with a bone age of 9. She was the tallest girl in her class at school. She started growing pubic hair at age 4. No one thought her growth curve was normal, not even her doctors. (Eight used to be the age cutoff for normal pubic-hair growth in girls; now it’s as early as 7.) For this girl, Greenspan prescribed a once-a-month shot of the hormone Leuprolide, to halt puberty’s progress. The girl hated the shot. Yet nobody second-guessed the treatment plan. The mismatch between her sexual maturation and her age — and the discomfort that created, for everybody — was just too great.

Now it seems it’s not only we parents of girls who need to be concerned. Early puberty is striking boys, too, and not only American ones: In Leipzig, Germany, the famous St. Thomas Boys Choir has noticed the voices of its boy sopranos cracking earlier than ever before; now at age 13, on average. (The choir, which dates back to 1212, has quite the historical record for comparison. In the 1700s, boys’ voices changed around age 17; even as late as 1993, the age was 14 or 15.)

So what the heck is going on? Well, obesity, for one. More than one-third of US children are now overweight or obese, and the ties between a high childhood body mass index (BMI) and early puberty are strong. Germany, too, has a growing problem with childhood obesity, which may be to blame for the squawking sopranos. But exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the environment are also of grave concern, as the NYT article points out (bold is my emphasis):

One concern, among parents and researchers, is the effect of simultaneous exposures to many estrogen-mimics, including the compound BPA, which is ubiquitous. Ninety-three percent of Americans have traces of BPA in their bodies. BPA was first made in 1891 and used as a synthetic estrogen in the 1930s. In the 1950s commercial manufacturers started putting BPA in hard plastics. Since then BPA has been found in many common products, including dental sealants and cash-register receipts. More than a million pounds of the substance are released into the environment each year.

In other news, the FDA has decided not to ban BPA from food and beverage packaging, stating “the most appropriate course of action at this time is to continue scientific study and review of all new evidence.”

Really? We are turning into science experiments faster than we can be studied and the response is a carefully measured “wait and see?” Nothing like choosing the chemical companies over our children.

–Jennifer Grayson

What you can do: Join Non Toxic Revolution (@kanbtr) today on Twitter and tell @US_FDA that not banning #BPA was a major #FAIL because #PlasticSucks. Find out more here.

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

Photo via Flickr: Chris_Samuel

Long before I started writing this blog, a fresh-out-of-college environmentally minded young woman got into a heated political debate with her Republican uncle. It was 2003, the eve of the Iraq war, and gas prices had spiked dramatically. Their argument began when the young woman said she hoped that gas prices would continue to rise; it was the only way, she explained, that Americans would stop driving Hummers, start demanding more fuel-efficient cars, and begin to diminish our thirst for Mideast oil.

That’s insane, said her uncle. Regular people would be really hurt if the price of gas got too high. They wouldn’t be able to drive to work; the cost of food would skyrocket; people wouldn’t be able to feed their families.

Somewhere, there’s going to have to be a sacrifice, said the woman. Change doesn’t happen when people are comfortable.

You’re a crazy tree hugger, he said, and walked off in a huff.

Now, said tree hugger felt the sting of her uncle’s abrupt dismissal. She didn’t think her argument was crazy at all; if anything, it was extremely logical: The price of gas goes up, the market responds with more fuel efficient cars. The price of gas remains artificially subsidized, we never push toward a more sustainable future. What was so radical about that premise?

Nothing, as the passage of nearly a decade has shown. With gas inching toward $6 a gallon in some places, electric/hybrid car sales could triple in the next six years. President Obama is calling for an end to fossil fuel subsidies. Even said uncle is considering a hybrid for his next car.

But it was only this past weekend that the woman felt a moment of true validation. Now shopping for a hybrid car herself, she asked the car salesman how hybrid sales were faring at his dealership. The salesman didn’t hesitate.

Lots and lots of sales right now, he said. When the price of gas goes up, everyone comes in wanting hybrids. When the price of gas goes down, they look at regular cars again. If gas ever gets below $3 a gallon again, you can forget about the hybrids.

Yeah, well, I’m guessing that’s not the direction we’re really headed, said the woman lightheartedly. No, it’s not, said the salesman, chuckling in agreement. It most certainly is not.

–Jennifer Grayson

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

Photo via Flickr: benketaro

Yesterday, I wrote a Huffington Post column about the high environmental cost of Valentine’s Day flowers. Not surprisingly, some people were less than thrilled with what I wrote — namely, people who love fresh cut flowers (which is most of us, sorry!), and people who make a living growing and/or selling flowers.

One commenter, kaseycronquist, had this to say:

…While it is certainly true that most of the roses purchased this valentine’s day will have originated from Colombia or Ecuador, Ms. Grayson fails to identify the origin of those “magnificent” calla lilies which may have in fact been grown locally. California is home to a handful of flower farms that grow calla’s for market, even the mass market. Your roses to callas example is the ol’ produce analogy, “apple to oranges.”

I also understand and appreciate the effort to grab the attention of consumers during a major floral holiday like Valentine’s Day, but stories like these need to better consider the facts and avoid such faulty generalizations as the examples you’ve provided.

There is a flower farming community in California that is working hard to compete against the imports you describe, they employ good people, sustainably grow beautiful flowers (like Calla lilies) and currently bring $10.3 billion dollars to California’s economic table.

I don’t think your a Vday Grinch, just misinformed and not providing your readers with the reality of their options. Ask for California Grown Flowers, look for the label when you shop, make sure you are getting America’s best source for high quality flowers for your special someone this Valentine’s Day.

…so enjoy those Callas, they could have been grown from the heart…in California!

Unfortunately, kaseycronquist failed to mention two things:

First, buying something that was made or grown in California doesn’t necessarily mean that it was done so sustainably; to wit, this ABC News report that touches on the California flower industry:

Most U.S. flower production occurs in California, where flowers and other ornamentals ranked sixth among all crops causing pesticide illnesses, according to data compiled by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. In San Mateo County, 23 percent of all pesticide poisonings occurred in the flower industry.

Among those poisonous pesticides? Methyl bromide, which the Environmental Protection Agency classifies as “highly toxic.” Even lower level chronic exposure can damage the nervous system, kidneys, lungs, and potentially cause cancer. Want to know what other chemicals are being used? Here’s the complete list from the Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Pesticide Database.

The second essential piece of information kaseycronquist failed to highlight in the comments section: He is the CEO of the California Cut Flower Commission.

Now, Mr. Cronquist, I’m all for buying American-made, especially California-made. Heck, I live in Los Angeles! But until you find a way to move the industry away from the use of dangerous chemicals like methyl bromide and toward sustainable alternatives, instructing people to simply buy “America’s flowers” won’t be enough to cut it.

I welcome your response here.

–Jennifer Grayson

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

By now, you’ve likely heard the news that Pres. Obama has rejected the Keystone XL pipeline; though rejected may be too strong a word. Punted is more like it, since the pipeline’s builder, TransCanada, will be allowed to reapply for a new permit. But for now, it’s a victory, and everyone who protested and marched and called their Congressperson certainly deserves a thank you.

The Republicans deserved this, of course. They were the ones who placed a rider in the payroll tax cut extension forcing Obama to either reject or approve the pipeline by Feb. 21. What a ridiculously short and arbitrary deadline. Did they think Obama (and the State Department) would approve such a far-reaching project without having adequate time to study its potential risks?

The rub is: Of course not. It was a setup.

The Republicans put that provision in the legislation because they knew that Obama — or any sensible person, for that matter — would be forced to reject it, and then they could call him out for being a job-killer and make him look bad in his bid for reelection.

Nevermind that Cornell University says the pipeline could actually cost us jobs. Look for Republicans to stick to those ridiculously inflated TransCanada numbers in the months ahead.

Is anyone else insulted that the Republicans think we’re that stupid?

–Jennifer Grayson

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

Photo via Flickr: MillionsAgainstMonsanto

Happy New Year! Or not: I had every intention of starting off 2012 with a bucket of rainbows, but first, some important — though lamentable — news that can’t be ignored (although most everyone else seem to have done just that; this news came out last week). Props to The San Francisco Chronicle for not letting what had seemed like a much-anticipated decision about whether to allow the planting of genetically modified alfalfa slip under the radar:

A federal judge has upheld the government’s decision to let the nation’s alfalfa growers plant the genetically engineered, herbicide-resistant strain manufactured by Monsanto Co., saying the alleged risk of contaminating other crops does not require regulators to impose buffer zones.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture approved the use of Roundup Ready alfalfa — so named because it is designed to withstand Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide — in January 2011, ending a nationwide ban that another judge had imposed in March 2007.

The action was challenged by a group of alfalfa farmers who said they feared that the Monsanto product, spread by winds and bees, would pollinate their crops and take over their fields. Thursday, however, U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti of San Francisco said the USDA had acted within its authority.

Federal law does not require the department to “account for the effects of cross-pollination on other commercial crops” in assessing the risks posed by a new crop, Conti said.

Translation? GM alfalfa is free to blow around and contaminate (“cross-pollinate”) the fields of organic alfalfa (“other commercial crops”) that feed our nation’s organic dairy cows. USDA doesn’t have to worry about it. But you do: As Gaius Publius has reported over at Americablog, this could mean the end of organic, at least as we know it.

As of now, there are plans to appeal. I’ll keep you posted.

–Jennifer Grayson

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

Photo via Flickr: 666isMONEY

A lot of environmentalists are the crystals-and-incense type. I’m not; you’re probably just as likely to hear me inquire after someone’s sign or use the expression raising consciousness as I am to eat a factory-farmed cheeseburger. (Which is to say, not very.)

So that’s why I’m kind of semi-cringing as I write this, but lately I feel like the universe is trying to tell me something.

Three different apartments in the space of six months. Four discrete insect infestations. A loss I’m not ready to write about yet. And a kitchen ceiling that two days ago started leaking water all over me at the very moment I took out my laptop to start working again after our move this past weekend.

This is not to say woe unto me; the world at large is a far crazier place right now, to be sure. An apartment full of moving boxes and bouncing crickets is still a more restful abode than a tent in Zuccotti Park (now a backpack on the Brooklyn Bridge?).

Still, I hope you’ll understand if I stop fighting the tide for a few weeks and take an early holiday break. I will still be working on a few exciting projects in the interim (though most important: enjoying time with my little one and getting our home in order), so I’ll have lots to share when I return after the New Year. Happy and healthy to you all–

–Jennifer Grayson

Some holiday posts you might enjoy from the archives:

Real or fake? Rent your tree instead
Holiday travel: Stay at an Energy Star hotel
Sustainably sweet potato pancakes
How to give gifts without giving ‘stuff’

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

Photo via Flickr: Valentinapowers

Babies and formaldehyde are two things that should never be in proximity to one another, but unfortunately, finding the highly carcinogenic chemical in nursery furniture is the rule rather than the exception. Earlier this year, I addressed this issue in a column for The Huffington Post, but I guess I wasn’t thorough enough; below is a related question I received from a reader earlier this week.

Jennifer,

Thank you for writing this article. I too have been worried about the formaldehyde issue since I came across a few articles from 2008 which stated Delta, along with four other companies, were under fire for having high levels of formaldehyde in their products. I have since been in contact with Delta and they would not give me a straight answer whether or not their products still emitted formaldehyde. The only crib I found that said formaldehyde-free was the DaVinci line. Have you come across any updated information regarding Delta’s cribs? Or what crib manufacturers really are trustworthy?

–Monika

Hi Monika,

Glad you liked the article! I’m not all that familiar with Delta’s products, but I took a look at a few different cribs on their website, and I suspect that most of them do, indeed, contain formaldehyde. Here’s how I know: If you click on the product details for each crib, it does say what materials are used. For example, in the case of the Padrona Crib and Changer, the listing says “made of wood and wood components.”

Solid wood you don’t have to worry about; it’s the “wood components” that should trigger an alarm: That’s code for particle board or MDF, which is made from tiny little pieces of wood that are bonded together with a resin that contains — you guessed it! — formaldehyde.

Now, it is possible that Delta uses a particle board made with formaldehyde-free glues, but since the company hasn’t been responsive to your inquiries, I’m guessing that isn’t too likely (if I’m wrong Delta, feel free to set the record straight here). It’s always better to be safe than sorry, so I would look for a crib manufacturer that prides itself on its use of formaldehyde-free, sustainably harvested solid wood. A few of my personal faves: Bloom, Oeuf, and Stokke.

By the way, you may be pleased to know that last year, President Obama signed legislation that will help protect consumers from formaldehyde exposure. It doesn’t go into effect until 2013, though, so for now, you’re on your own. Good luck!

–Jennifer Grayson

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

If you read my post last week about the large amounts of chemicals about to be pumped through our apartment building, you know that we’re trying to move out of here – and fast. So I though I would post this video I made for HuffPo about my tips for a green move, which I filmed over the course of our last move. The tips are current, since that last relocation was but a mere four months ago.

The only difference this time: I’ll be packing our belongings in boxes from UsedCardboardBoxes.com instead of the Recopacks from Rent A Green Box; we haven’t actually found a new home yet, so I need options in case we have to put those boxes in storage. (You only get the Recopacks on loan for a couple of weeks.) Wish me luck–

–Jennifer Grayson

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