In June, Greenpeace released “Slaughtering the Amazon,” a three-year investigation into deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Greenpeace found that people were taking over protected lands in order to expand their cattle ranches. This was not only illegal, but large quantities of greenhouse gases were being released into the atmosphere as a result of the rapidly depleting forests.

Adidas, Nike and Timberland have committed to cancel supplier contracts unless their products were guaranteed to be free from Amazon destruction.

Deforestation accounts for around one fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions, more than all the world’s trains, planes and cars combined, and Greenpeace estimates that the cattle industry is responsible for  80 percent of all deforestation.

Now, just four months after the release of “Slaughtering the Amazon,” positive steps are being taken by some of the big companies implicated.

“Each of the companies, JBS-Friboi, Grupo Bertin, Minerva and Marfrig, declared the adoption of environmental and social standards to ensure their products are free from cattle raised in newly deforested areas of the rainforest,” according to a Greenpeace statement.

Greenpeace says there now will be a strong monitoring of supply chains and clear targets for the registration of farms that both directly and indirectly supply cattle. There also will be steps taken to end the purchase of cattle from protected land and from farms that use slave labor.

Bertin, one of the largest leather traders named in the report, supplies shoe manufacturers such as Adidas, Nike and Timberland. Since the release of the investigation, all three manufacturers have committed to cancel supplier contracts unless their products were guaranteed to be free from Amazon destruction.

“This is an important step in the fight to stop the destruction of one of the world’s most critical rainforests and vital to helping tackle climate change,” said Paulo Adario, Greenpeace Amazon campaign director, in a statement.

Gov. Blairo Maggi of the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso, which has the largest cattle herd in Brazil, has also announced that the state would support efforts to protect the Amazon and would provide high-resolution satellite images for monitoring.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Kimberly-Clark, the world’s largest personal paper products company, announced new policies today in which the paper maker will greatly increase the use of recycled and sustainably grown wood fibers in its products, which include the Kleenex, Scott and Cottonelle brands.

The move will help save forests around the globe and make the Dallas-based company a leader in producing sustainable paper products, said Greenpeace media officer Daniel Kessler. “We worked with Kimberly-Clark on this policy and it’s a landmark for forest protection; 100 percent of Kimberly-Clark’s fiber will come from sustainable sources.”

For five years, Greenpeace had pressured Kimberly-Clark to become more environmentally sensitive about the raw material used for its paper products. Greenpeace’s “Kleercut” campaign protested Kimberly-Clark’s use of virgin wood fiber in Kleenex tissues, organizing blockades and demonstrations and arguing that the company’s use of trees from Canada’s Boreal Forest and other virgin sources was contributing to world-wide deforestation.

The new fiber-sourcing policies announced Wednesday bring the long-running Kleercut campaign to an end and make public Kimberly-Clark’s plans for more sustainable business practices.

Over the next three years, Kimberly-Clark will dramatically adjust its sourcing for disposable paper products, aiming to ultimately get all of its fiber from sustainable sources. By the end 2011, the global paper product maker has promised that 40 percent of its North American tissue fiber – representing an estimated 600,000 tons – will be either recycled or certified as sustainably grown by the Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC). That represents an increase of more than 70 percent over 2007 levels.

“We are committed to using environmentally responsible wood fiber and today’s announcement enhances our industry-leading practices in this area,” said Suhas Apte, Kimberly-Clark Vice President of Environment, Energy, Safety, Quality and Sustainability, in a news release.

“It is our belief that certified primary wood fiber and recycled fiber can both be used in an environmentally responsible way and can provide the product performance that customers and consumers expect from our well-known tissue brands. We commend Greenpeace for helping us develop more sustainable standards.”

Paper companies, including Kimberly-Clark, have long argued that consumers prize softness in tissues and toilet paper, which the companies used to justify their use of virgin wood fibers for disposable personal care products.

But consumer tastes and desires are changing, and the focus on softness may be lessening as people become more aware of environmental degradation associated with common household products.

“Consumers vote with their dollars. We know that as consumers become increasingly concerned with supporting environmentally friendly products, they increase pressure on companies to do the right thing,” Kessler said, noting that an estimated 20 percent of global greenhouse gases come from deforestation.

The temperate Boreal Forest, like the tropical rainforests in the Southern Hemisphere, is a huge carbon sink, holding in the ground carbon that adds to the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels when released. Environmentalists from Greenpeace to Prince Charles of Great Britain are passionately trying to save the forests to mitigate global warming.

Under the new agreement, Kimberly-Clark will not purchase of any fiber from the Canadian Boreal Forest that is not FSC certified by 2011, helping preserve the forest as well as endangered animals that depend upon it.

“Today, ancient forests like the Boreal Forest have won,” said Richard Brooks, Greenpeace Canada Forest Campaign Coordinator in the news release. “This new relationship between Kimberly-Clark and Greenpeace will promote forest conservation, responsible forest management, and recycled fiber as far and wide as possible.”

Dallas-based Kimberly-Clark employs 53,000 people around the world, and posted sales of $19.4 billion in 2008, according to company statements. It makes products under the Kleenex, Scott, Huggies, Pull-Ups, Kotex and Depends brands.

Greenpeace has posted a web page where consumers can thank Kimberly-Clark for this move toward more sustainable practices.

Kimberly-Clark also has other sustainability initiatives.

(Image credit: Greenpeace.)

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

You gotta love it when people show they care. Greenpeace activists made their passion for the environment manifest in yet another creative way today, posting a sign urging Obama to show strong leadership on global warming.

On Mount Rushmore.

Next to Lincoln, our president’s favorite president.

They were arrested, which for Greenpeacers is not a negative. Though the group noted in the news release that the sign posters were all trained rock climbers, so no lives were endangered. The “heads” were unharmed and the activists took care to use established climbing anchors used for routine cleanings.

As for the inevitable hundreds of tourists on the viewing deck below, it no doubt created an exciting moment worthy of a footnote in the vacation scrapbook, or a weird flashback to that scene in which Cary Grant saves Eva Marie Saint in North by Northwest.

Why was Obama poked at this particular moment? He is meeting with G-8 leaders this week in Italy and the enviros want to make sure he doesn’t weenie out and become too compromising on climate matters. In light of Obama’s tendency to instinctively meet people halfway and the recent passage of much-mauled, arguably weak and alternately praised and maligned Waxman-Markey climate legislation, this seems like an appropriate message.

And now we get to show you the picture:                

The banner reads, “America Honors Leaders. Not Politicians. Stop Global Warming”.

Greenpeace wants the Obama Administration to set policies that result in global emissions peaking by 2015 and falling back to zero, compared with 1990 levels, by 2050.

The group also wants President Obama to personally attend climate talks in Copenhagen in December to push strong policies, such as a global fund to help less developed nation’s cope with the impact of global warming and stop tropical deforestation. Whether or not that all comes to pass remains a huge question.
Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Greenpeace followed up the release this week of its latest Carting Away the Oceans scorecard with a friendly and fishy demonstration outside Trader Joe’s stores in San Francisco.

Greenpeace members, two of whom dressed as orange roughy and others who parodied Trader’s by wearing Hawaiian shirts mimicking the store’s trademark uniform, handed out information on why its important to select and buy seafood that can be replenished and also asked prospective customers to sign petition postcards to privately held grocery company.

California-based Trader Joes is a grocery with more than 300 stores that caters to people looking for natural and organic and specialty items at reasonable prices. It prides itself on selling “unconventional and interesting products.” But Greenpeace has ranked the store dead last among national grocery chains for its conventional approach to selling seafood, specifically its lack of attention to seafood sustainability. The advocacy group says Trader Joes (which ranked #17 on the seafood scorecard) has no apparent plant to assure it is buying reputably fished and farmed seafood and sells “Red Listed” fish that are endangered by overfishing or habitat loss.

Orange roughy are on Greenpeace’s Red List, which includes several jeopardized fish that marine experts have identified as needing time to recover from over-harvesting and whose populations are at risk of collapsing.

Trader Joe’s has not replied to a query for response.

To keep the heat up on the chain, Greenpeace also opened a website, called “Traitor Joe’s” where a cartoon pirate welcomes people to his “one stop shop for ocean destruction.” The site further explains Greenpeace’s seafood campaign.

Greenpeace is urging consumers to buy from stores that are trying to minimize their impact on the oceans by selling sustainably farmed or caught fish. It’s new rankings released this week commended Wegman’s, Ahold USA, Whole Foods and Target for doing the best job to maintain an eco-friendly seafood counter. Safeway, Harris Teeter and Wal-Mart also received acceptable marks. But Greenpeace listed nine grocery chains, national and some regional, as doing little to help save the oceans and urged consumers to not buy seafood from those retailers. (Trader Joe’s was last among national chains, with three regional chains ranking lowest on the 20 store list.) For more details on Trader Joe’s response to Greenpeace’s seafood campaign, see the listings on the seafood scorecard.

The company responded to Greenpeace’s query for information on its seafood practices by saying its policy is guided by “listening to its customers” but declining to give any more information, according to Greenpeace’s report card. Greenpeace concludes in its report that the chain is not affiliated with any conservation groups, has no discernible seafood policy to reduce environmental harm and in addition, that signs posted in some of its stores suggesting that its seafood is environmentally friendly appear to be mere marketing ploys.

The company’s stated reliance on customer input helped shape Greenpeace’s decision to have Trader Joe’s customers sign petition postcards asking for strong seafood policies, a spokeswoman explained.

(Photo credit: Greenpeace, San Francisco.)

In 1986, the International Whaling Commission banned the catching and killing of whales for commercial purposes worldwide. Whale populations — such as the North Pacific gray and the North Atlantic right whale — were threatened because of centuries of unrestricted hunting.

That ban is still in effect, with two exceptions: aboriginal peoples whose survival depends on whaling (Alaska, St. Vincent, the Grenadines, Denmark and the Russian Federation) and whaling for scientific purposes.

Citing “scientific” work, in the last year Japan killed about 1,000 whales, and estimates run from 12,000 to more than 23,000 killed since ‘86.

Iceland and Norway have simply refused to comply with the ban, and last year they, too, killed hundreds of whales.

The 61st meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC), made up of 85 representatives, took place last week on the Portuguese island of Maderia. To the frustration of many, the commission made no progress on addressing the three countries’ ongoing killing of whales for what conservationists say is strictly commercial purposes.

On the IWC meeting web pages, numerous reports and summaries of the recent gathering are available. One report spelled out the number and species of whales killed globally in the last year. The parsing of much of the data-filled information varies according to who is reading it.

Australia is most outspoken in its opposition to Japan’s whaling, especially in the Southern Pacific whaling sanctuary. Australia’s conservationist-minded representatives have reportedly threatened to take Japan to international court for its killing of whales.

The majority of whales being killed are smaller Minke whales, which are not endangered or threatened. Iceland and Norway have publicly stated that their commercial whaling is an issue of national sovereignty and that they are whaling in a “sustainable” way, catching a species that is plentiful. The IWC lists population estimates of each species of whale.

Japan’s chief representative at the meeting, Akira Nakamae, reportedly defended his nation’s position, saying that whaling can be done in a “sustainable manner.”

But Humane Society International representatives at the IWC meeting called for an end to any legalized killing of whales. Although they lauded the IWC for passing a resolution concerning the effect of climate and environmental changes on the whale and dolphin populations, they decry Japan’s use of the “scientific” loophole to commercially kill whales. Their “Save Whales – Not Whaling” report contains more details.

Greenpeace made an opening statement at the meeting in Madeira, calling for the IWC to become a conservationist group and stop attempting to “manage whales for the benefit of the whaling industry.”

Though they had much criticism for the IWC, Greenpeace did laud a report introduced during the meeting that detailed the booming business of whale watching around the world.

The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society also called for the IWC to stop the taking of humpback whales in Greenland (by Denmark). The World Wildlife Federation reports that 13 whale species are still endangered or vulnerable, even after the years of IWC protection. The Pew Whale Conservation Project also took the IWC to task for making little progress in protecting whales.

PHOTOS: From top (Japanese whaling ship) Greenpeace.org.uk ; Whale Adoption ; Whale Adoption

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

When you fish for seafood at your local grocery, it can be difficult to tell whether you are supporting sustainable fishing practices.

Was the snapper you selected caught using legal, sustainable fishing practices? Should you even be buying it? Is the Chilean Sea Bass you just purchased on the “Red List” of jeopardized marine species? Does the grocery you’re patronizing buy seafood certified by the Marine Stewardship Council?

Greenpeace is trying to help you sort it all out – and assure that groceries do not ignore the need to keep our oceans and fisheries healthy.

The worldwide conservation group published its third “Carting Away the Oceans” scorecard on Tuesday, outing several grocery chains that flout efforts to support sustainable seafood methods and lauding the stores that are helping conservationists.

The group is calling on customers to stop shopping for seafood at the lowest ranked stores, which have made little or no effort to support ocean ecosystems by selling sustainble seafood, including such large chains as Costco, Publix and Trader Joes.

The scorecard assessed and ranked the top 20 U.S. grocery chains on their green seafood credentials, giving top marks to Wegmans, Ahold USA, Whole Foods, Target, Safeway, Harris Teeter and Wal-Mart. These stores have all made strides toward responsible seafood buying and selling, though they may be innovating in different ways, Greenpeace reported.

Wegman’s, which was ranked number one on the list, for instance, has created a public sustainable seafood policy and supports a variety of initiatives aimed at supporting practices that preserve ocean ecosystems. The New York-based chain’s seafood policy dictates that wild-caught fish be properly reported and that capture methods meet certain standards; the store also buys from aquaculture groups that aim to avoid using pesticides, antibiotics and wild fish as feed. It actively seeks out items that have been certified by the Marine Stewardship Council and has removed several red list seafood species, though not all, from its inventory.

Privately owned Wegman’s, which operates 70 stores in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states, provides in-store information to educate customers about seafood sustainability.

Ahold, listed number two on the Greenpeace list, operates as Stop & Shop, Giant and Martin’s Food Markets and is owned by Royal Ahold of the Netherlands. It deserves good marks for developing the “Choice Catch” program under which it avoids buying illegally caught seafood and takes ecological impacts into account, Greenpeace reported.

Ahold also gives preference to farmed seafood that is pesticide and antibiotic-free, but could do a better job of in-store education, according to the score card. Ahold has announced they will no longer sell Chilean sea bass, orange roughy and shark (they already have stopped sales of bluefin tuna and Atlantic halibut) but still sell other jeopardized seafood, the report said.

Whole Foods and Target (third and fourth on the Greenpeace list) also have worked to eliminate many unsustainable items from their inventory, though fast-growing Whole Foods, which previously ranked number one on Greenpeace’s seafood score card, continues to offer “a tremendous amount of red list seafood options.”

By Diane Porter
Green Right Now

Next Monday, in what is billed as the largest mass civil disobedience rally for the climate in U.S. history, organizers expect thousands of people to join in a protest at the Capitol Power Plant in Washington, D.C.  Hoping to bring attention to the issues of climate change and green jobs to the new administration and new Congress, the protestors are expected from around the country, spurred on by support and videos from actress and activist Susan Sarandon and NASA’s James Hansen.

“We want to send a clear message to Congress and the Obama administration that Americans aren’t satisfied with the action that’s been taken on climate yet,” said Mike Crocker, a spokesperson for Greenpeace. “We need robust policies in place as soon as possible, certainly in time for (the next United Nations Climate Talks) in Copenhagen in December 2009.”

The Capitol Power Plant is the only coal-burning plant in the District. It is a major source of sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide and soot in a city that has repeatedly been found in violation of the Clean Air Act, according to a story in The Washington Post. Although half of what it burns is coal, it also burns natural gas and fuel oil. In the past, when an effort was made to eliminate coal from the fuels the plant burns, Senators Robert C. Byrd, (D-W.Va.), and Mitch McConnell, (R-Ky.), both coal-producing states, blocked the attempt.

Despite that history, however, the power plant was chosen more for its proximity to Capitol Hill and its symbolic nature. “It’s not by any means the dirtiest or most polluting,” Crocker said, “but it’s Congress’s, and it’s symbolic of the country’s missteps it terms of climate and energy, and the new opportunities we have to right the ship in the next year.”

Protestors plan to disrupt access to the plant by surrounding it and refusing to leave, risking arrest in the process. The organizers’ website emphasizes that it will be a peaceful demonstration, “carried out in a spirit of hope and not rancor.” They are expecting, at last count, more than 2,500 attendees “from the neighborhood, from across the country and from across the world,” according to Crocker. More than 90 different organizations have endorsed the effort, and the event expects Hansen, former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson, actress Darryl Hannah, singer Kathy Mattea and James Gustave Speth, dean of Yale University’s School of Forestry to attend. Sarandon is performing and won’t be there.

The Pew Center for Global and Climate Change says that reducing the greenhouse gases that result from burning coal is one of the most significant challenges facing those working on climate change. Coal use now accounts for about 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. But coal is cheap and plentiful, and the political issues surrounding it are deep and multi-layered. Coal plants in the United States are part of the country’s aging infrastructure; a third of them were built before 1970, and just 12 have been built since 1990. However, because of high natural gas costs and the political instability of nuclear power, an estimated 130 new coal plants are somewhere in the planning stages.

President Barack Obama  has made it clear that he supports efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, rely more on clean energy, and create more green jobs. So why such a big statement so early in the new administration?

“Clearly this administration is a breath of fresh air compared to the last 8 years, but there’s no time to waste,” Crocker said. “We of course welcome the priority that the Obama administration has made into climate issues, but there are a lot of powerful interests at play here and the politics are such that you can never take anything for granted.”

For more info see the Capitol Climate Action website.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

There’s a funny scene in the Larry David show Curb Your Enthusiasm in which Larry, and the displaced New Orleans family encamped in his house, wink and smirk over the toilet paper that his wife has installed in the bathrooms.

Being an environmentalist – as is her real life counterpart Laurie David – Cheryl David had outfitted the water closets with recycled TP. The running joke was that everyone had noticed the difference. And they weren’t in love with the experience.

Such is the reputation of recycled TP. Although, it seems as though I have successfully slipped it by my family. Has it gotten better (I think it has)? Or are they smirking behind my back? Probably a bit of both. I don’t really know, and it doesn’t matter because we won’t be returning to conventional stuff.

The environmental costs of using virgin paper for disposable products are just too great. Deforestation is a problem worldwide and at the very least, we can avoid being co-conspirators by rejecting the marketing myth that we have to treat ourselves to the cushiest TP. I mean, really.

Believe it or not, there’s been a bit of debate over bathroom paper. One guy in NYC made his point by starting his own brand of recycled TP. It’s called —- Be Gone and its proprietor claims it is softer (when folded and not crumpled) than the embossed, puffed and well-marketed stuff sold in stores. Who knew? We were just un-informed,  crumpling instead of folding.

—- Be Gone is crudely, but incisively named: This is a single-use, single-function product. Do we really want to carve up forests for it?

Here’s an area where a lesson from our forebears seems in order. They once used the Sears Catalog in the outhouse. That was the original recycled TP and from not so long ago, in the broad sweep of history. (Oddly, the Kimberly-Clark, maker of non-recycled TP includes an essay about the history of toilet paper on its website. Things like corn cobs, leaves and newspapers are mentioned.)

Granted, we don’t much get the Sears catalog these days. And the thought of using it that way…let alone a corn cob. Let’s not go there.

Today, we have better ways at our, ah, disposal. Our family has a membership to Costco, and kudos to them, they carry the Sunrise brand of recycled TP — sold in bulk packages no less.  If it’s not the softest paper we’ve ever encountered, well, it’s soft enough.

For those of you shopping at other stores, please see the newly reissued Greenpeace Recycled  Tissue and Toilet Paper Guide, which gives thumbs up to brands such as Green Forest, Seventh Generation, Natural Value, Earth Friendly, Fiesta and Fiesta Green and Whole Foods Market house brand 365. The guide lists TP brands to avoid as well, such as Charmin, Angel Soft and Kleenex Cottonelle, Quilted Northern, Scott, Target and Wal-Mart brands.

(I should note, too, that Costco’s house brand, Kirkland, pops up as a facial tissue to avoid. Other than Whole Foods, house brands, including Wal-Mart’s, Target’s and CVS, tend to fall into the “avoid” category. Interesting, given so many of these stores are touting other green advances.)

For more background on the guide, see our story, Greenpeace issues new guide for choosing recycled personal paper products.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Greenpeace, guardian of oceans and forests, has reissued its Recycled Tissue and Toilet Paper Guide to help people make the switch to recycled paper.

The newly updated pocket guide endorses brands such as Green Forest, Earth Friendly, Natural Value and Seventh Generation, which are made of recycled paper.

It recommends that shoppers avoid products such as Kleenex, Cottonelle, Charmin, Angel Soft, Bounty, Brawny and the Target and Wal-Mart house brands because they are not made from recycled wood products.

Using recycled personal paper products can make an impressive impact in curbing global warming, according to Greenpeace, among others — far greater than one might suspect from contemplating the lowly roll of toilet paper.

Greenpeace reports that Americans could save 400,000 trees if every family replaced just one regular roll of TP with a recycled one. Imagine if more people switched over completely to recycled brands. Untold acres of carbon-absorbing, life-sustaining forests could be saved.

Even if Greenpeace’s calculations are off-the-mark, consumers could still wield impressive sway in saving forests by ditching conventional paper products.

Mainstream paper companies have responded to deforestation concerns by turning to wood from sustainably managed forests, which require them to harvest according to guidelines that preserve the forest and provide for replanting.

Advocates, though, worry that even these sustainable practices still winnow trees for throwaway paper products.

Greenpeace’s position is that paper companies should get their wood fibers from post-consumer wood or paper waste, or failing that, from Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) forests and tree farms. Companies should not use wood from old-growth forests, a practice that’s slowing, but has not stopped.

For its guide, Greenpeace eschewed paper products that were made from virgin wood fibers, and gave improved rankings based on how much of the product came from post-consumer waste. It also looked at whether the paper was bleached using chlorine, a process that pollutes groundwater, lakes and streams. It suggested that consumers look for products that are made of 100 percent overall recycled content, a minimum of which is 50 percent post-consumer recycled content.

It’s an attainable goal: Green Forest, the top TP pick, is made from 100 percent recycled fibers, 90 percent of which are post-consumer waste, meaning this paper is truly on its second incarnation. By contrast, several TPs in the “avoid” category contain no recycled or post-consumer content. In other words, they might be Angel Soft, but they’re not green.

Now that you’ve worn off the magnetic strip on the credit card buying presents for everyone, gotten the letter that your health insurance premiums are doubling and your job is being “redefined,” it’s time to think about those year-end donations. Sigh.

While environmental groups will likely have an easier time on Capitol Hill next year talking policy with a new Administration that sees global warming as a real threat, they paradoxically could be facing headwinds with donors.

Consider first that some of their large contributors may have been dragged down in the Bernard Madoff securities/Ponzi scheme, which savaged many charitable foundations. While the extent of that damage is being assessed, it’s safe to assume that even nonprofits that escaped that five-alarm fire, have been singed by the economic meltdown.

This holiday season, their biggest time to collect donations, finds them pressing for money from corporations and individuals who may be more flushed with worry than flush with cash.

Will a public that’s financially fragile have anything left over to help feed Pandas? Preserve forests? Save tigers? Support Darfur refugees? Buy back rainforests? Rescue polar bears? Stop mountain top mining?

Let’s hope so. The work list is long. The causes are legit. And climate change demands urgent attention.

Should you be making donations this season, here are links to some of the top environmental organizations. They all have worthy projects.

Defenders of Wildlife
I fell in love with this group when I heard about how they organize volunteers to ride Western ranges as part of an effort to help ranchers and the gray wolves live side by side in, if not harmony, détente. It’s just one of many innovative projects they support.

EarthJustice
Lawyers are the front lines when it comes to assuring everyone follows the rules under the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts and other protections that only work if they’re enforced. Earthjustice provides free legal counsel to environmental groups large and small, because, as their motto goes, “the earth needs a good lawyer.”

Environmental Defense Fund
An alliance-building group that lobbies for protections for nature and we human inhabitants, from coordinating a drive to clean up school bus emissions to advocating for wind and solar energy projects. (If you can’t donate, consider buying EDF President Fred Krupp’s book, Earth: The Sequel, an informative primer full of real life anecdotes that examines our green energy options.)

Environmental Working Group
Scientists working with EWG have screened our water, food, furniture and cosmetics for toxins, creating valuable tools like the Dirty Dozen list of fruits and veggies most doused with pesticides, and Skin Deep, a database where you can check your body lotion for harmful additives. Their reporting helps us show us how to clean up our home and natural environment.

Greenpeace
A strong advocacy that works on behalf of endangered wildlife, marine life and forests around the globe. Known for their visual stunts, boycotts and blockades, Greenpeace takes action and makes news, helping raise the profile of many enviro causes.

Nature Canada
This group is working to save our Northern wildlife such as the caribou (Santa’s reindeer), as well as one of earth’s largest land carbon sinks, the Boreal Forest. It may be in Canada, but it is of global importance.

The Nature Conservancy
The conservancy works to protect land, rivers and marshes around the world, relying on a staff of 700 scientists to steer work in the right direction. They’ve also begun a campaign to Plant A Billion Trees in the Atlantic rainforest in South America.

Natural Resources Defense Council
They’re also covering the planet, working to mitigate climate change and preserve habitats. A new fund drive invites people to donate $10 to plant a tree to help Revive the Rainforest in Costa Rica.

National Wildlife Federation
The producer of Ranger Rick and Your Big Backyard magazines focuses on AMerican wildlife and nurturing a love of wildlife and the outdoors in children. One way to donate is through their “adoption” programs.

Sierra Club
The oldest and largest American environmental group has a membership of more than 1 million and works to save natural spaces. Want to see the national parks protected? Look to Sierra Club. But they also have their hands in the urban environment, working with the Cool Cities project to tamp down carbon emissions and make cities greener and cleaner. Read about founder John Muir, who started Sierra in 1892 to “make the mountains glad.”

World Wildlife Fund
Where to begin? WWF has wildlife saving projects in place from the Congo to the Arctic to the Galapagos Islands. They also have a wealth of information on their website, and adopt-an-animal donor programs. (Big givers can adopt whole acreages of imperiled habitat through the Partners in Conservation program.

Union of Concerned Scientists
At the forefront of energy and climate science, this venerable group helps link the latest scientific thinking on energy, climate change and invasive species into policies that makes sense and preserve our world.

Worldwatch Institute
Someone’s got to study, analyze and explain the problems facing the globe so we can find the right solutions. That’s Worldwatch, helping dissect the issues that stand between us and a just, sustainable and less-toxic environment.

Copyright © 2008 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Don’t know if it’s the financial crisis, the change of seasons or just the usual grumpiness over the incessant despoiling of the mothership, but the green agitators seem especially edgy lately.

Reuters reported Monday that Greenpeace had blockaded palm oil ships leaving an Indonesian port bound for China and Europe. Their point: harvesting palm oil in that region is destroying rainforests and wildlife and contributing to greenhouse gases (remember those warm climate forests are especially valuable carbon sinks).

The activists were reportedly bobbing in rubber boats out in front of the palm oil ships and one Greenpeacer was seen jumping aboard the anchor of a ship, where he or she presumably clung for dear life.

This action was eerily familiar to one in Australia three days ago in which protesters also flung themselves in harm’s way, forcing the evacuation of an Australian power station by attempting to chain themselves to a coal conveyor-belt.

No doubt they were upset that Australia draws so much of its power from dirty-burning, greenhouse-gas-emitting coal, which supplies 80 percent of the nation’s electricity, according to the Reuters report.

Of course such actions are nothing new. We’ve reported about the long-running dispute between Greenpeace and Kimberly-Clark over the company’s near exclusive reliance on virgin paper for making retail tissues. K-C says the public wants cushy nose rags. Greenpeace counters that recycled would be good enough for sneezing, and far less harmful to the fragile Canadian forests being tapped for this disposable product.

All these conflicts simply highlight the obvious. We have to set priorities if we’re to preserve our planet. Can we use another oil if it helps save Indonesian rainforests? Can we support, with our votes and our selection of household power companies, the move to renewable energy? Can we shop around to find recycled paper products, and reduce our disposable paper use, to help save forests?

Sure we can. The only real question is, will we?

Copyright © 2008 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

It all comes down to leadership.

Pundits from former Vice President Al Gore to New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, agree – the technology to develop clean energy and curb global warming is available. What’s needed are lawmakers with the mettle to put it into action.

“We’re committed to changing not just light bulbs, but laws. And laws will only change with leadership,” said Al Gore, launching the We Campaign earlier this year.

Now, a new report, Energy [R]evolution: A Sustainable World Energy Outlook from Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) reaffirms this concept:

“Unlike other energy scenarios that promote energy futures at the cost of the climate, our energy revolution scenario shows how to save money and maintain global economic development without fueling catastrophic climate change. All we need to kick start this plan is bold energy policy from world leaders,” says Sven Teske, Greenpeace International’s senior energy expert and co-author of the report.

And just how much money could be saved?

The report estimates that by investing in renewable power generation and energy efficiency, the United States could generate about $360 billion. This could fund about half of the world’s electricity needs, protect the climate and reduce future fuel costs by $18 trillion.

The result is described as “win-win-win” by providing a win for energy security, the economy and the climate.

“The renewable industry is ready and able to deliver the needed capacity to make the energy revolution a reality,” says EREC Policy Director Oliver Shafer. “There is no technical impediment but a political barrier to rebuild the global energy sector.”

Developing countries such as China and Inida are in a good position to take advantage of this new green economy, notes G. Ananthapadmanabhan, Greenpeace International Program director. “The energy revolution is key to them climate-proofing their development,” he says.

The report stresses that the time to make decisions for a clean energy economy is now. Governments, investment companies and businesses need to move quickly in order to achieve a greenhouse gas emission peak by 2015 with a fast reduction afterward. Also needed is a stronger United Nations climate agreement.

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media