Gearing up for the Holidays with GoodGuide

Yesterday, during my usual moseying around political and environmental blogs, I came across the Good Guide. I feel that I may have written about or mentioned this before, especially in my piece about Daniel Goleman's Ecological Intelligence. Nevertheless, as the holiday season approaches and purchases go up, I think it is a good time to start thinking more wisely about our consumer choices.

GoodGuide provides a comprehensive assessment of the environmental, health, and social impacts of the products you buy, whether they be food, health & beauty items, toys, cleaners, or anything else. It is designed to be used as a phone application--any item with a bar code can be scanned and the ratings will immediately register. However, you can use it as a go-to website as well for when you create your holiday shopping list.


The site has a wealth of valuable information; however, as it is still growing, it faces some notable limitations. Many of the entries seem to be missing information, which will lead to a lower rating. Moreover, being a personal opponent of chemically derived sugar substitutes (e.g. sucralose, aspartame, etc.), I have issues with their nutrition grading.

Nevertheless, I think the site is definitely worth a browse or a more frequent visit. You can look at their methodology if you are curious about what factors go into the ratings; Good Guide does not shy away from important issues, from labor issues (how much a company pays its employees/the benefits they offer, child labor history, working conditions), history of ethical violations, philanthropic activities, quality and safety controls, energy use, pollution (water, land, air), and just about anything you would be curious to find out.

If you like it a lot, you can even apply (they are hiring), and they are looking for a User and Community Ninja. Pretty cool, huh?

The logo above was taken from GoodGuide's website, linked above.

Click to read more...

Obama Has Decided to go to Copenhagen! - What does this mean for US?

On our last day of classes, President Obama will be making a speech at Copenhagen.

So what? What is the significance of Copenhagen? Heard different rumors about it? I'll try to answer some questions which I think are relevant...

And if I didn't get some of your questions? Come to EcoAction's Danishes for Copenhagen study break on Friday, December 11th from 11am - noon in ICC 203.



What is Copenhagen?
Copenhagen is the capital of Denmark. (Haha, sorry. Couldn't resist!)

I've heard a lot about some conference in Copenhagen that's supposed to be a big deal. What's up with that?
The United Nations is hosting the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark. It's a meeting of UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) members. It's also called the Earth Summit. It is a meeting where the world, essentially, can come to talk about the effects on climate change and to create actions to diminish these effects.

When is it being held?
It's to be held from December 7th through December 18th.

What does it have to do with COP 15?
Although Copenhagen starts with the letters "COP," it does not have to do with the city name. COP stands for Conference of the Parties. The meeting in Copenhagen is the 15th annual meeting.

What are its predecessors?
It was preceded by the famous Kyoto Protocol (COP 3 - 1997). This is probably one of the most famous Earth Summits because it created a legally binding agreement for signatories to reduce their emissions from 6-8% of 1990 levels between 2008-2012. It's been somewhat successful; responsible for a huge amount of decreased carbon emissions and, undoubtedly, the increase of clean energy throughout much of Europe. However, it was also notable for the huge failure of the United States to ratify this treaty. (Technically, the US signed it, but it was never sent to Senate for ratification, making their signature worthless.)
The other ones were located in Berlin (COP 1); Geneva (COP 2); Buenos Aires (COP 4); Bonn, Germany (COP 5); the Hague (COP 6); Marrakech, Morocco (COP 7); New Delhi (COP 8); Milan (COP 9); Buenos Aires (COP 10); Montreal (COP 11); Nairobi, Kenya (COP 12); Bali, Indonesia (COP 13); and Poznan, Poland (COP 14).

Why didn't the US ratify the Kyoto Protocol?
A lot of reasons, which can't really be pinpointed. There was the fear of being held responsible of our own action (gee... what a concept!) and how other countries would implement this. Additionally, there were some issues with the Kyoto Protocol that the Senate didn't really feel comfortable with, such as the iffy timetables. Also, they wanted to be sure that other countries, at the time China, would be held to as high a standard as the US.

So if it's an annual event, why is it such a big deal this year?
Because the US and China, who have recently been in somewhat serious talks regarding carbon emissions - something which has never happened before, are being pressured to take a stand on climate change. There's a huge hope that all the major countries in the world, the ones that actually contribute the most to carbon emissions (i.e. the US).
Additionally, in Bali (COP 13), the participating nations decided to finalize their next binding agreement in two years - for COP 15. It's important now especially because 2012 is rapidly approaching. (The time when Kyoto expires.)

What about the cap-and-trade agreement? Does this have any effect on it?
Yes and no. The agreements decided upon at these COP meetings are a total agreement. Therefore, if by some miracle the Senate passed the Kerry-Boxer bill, then it would be in concurrence with whatever is agreed upon at Copenhagen. It was the original hope of the administration that they would be done with cap-and-trade before Copenhagen, so the US could show up at COP 15 and not be so embarrassed about their state of affairs and have something to show for it - i.e. well, we basically screwed up Kyoto- but we have been able to rein ourselves in on our own. However, the current healthcare debate has pushed cap-and-trade to the side for now.

How does cap-and-trade even work?
Okay, not really directly related to Copenhagen, but I know there are people confused about it, especially with all the propaganda that's been floating around lately. Cap-and-trade is a policy plan which prices carbon emissions and puts them on the trading market. It is pretty simple.
So say there are 10 million units of carbon. Each company would get a certain amount and be able to sell their surplus in the open market. If a company was going to emit more carbon, it would have to buy more carbon. Ultimately, the hope would be that the supply of the carbon would decrease and therefore total carbon emissions would decrease.

Why is it so controversial?
The government's role is super important. The government must decide how many units of carbon emissions each company gets and then must buy back the carbon emission allowances from the open market, ultimately decreasing total emissions.
FROM A CONSERVATIVE POV
Conservative members claim 1) that this doesn't work and 2) that it will be expensive - and essentially a tax. To rebut that, I say that as anyone who has taken a basic economics class knows, it will work if implemented correctly. Furthermore, as someone who has worked at a brokerage firm, I can confidently say that carbon emissions are ALREADY trading on the open market, though more popular in other countries, and companies have been making buckets of money off of them. (Yes, I'm very much MSB.) Number 2, yes, it will be expensive. And I don't really think there's any way to get around that. You have to consider the alternatives (anyone who has taken basic economics or finance, again, knows these as opportunity costs). What's the cost of inaction? What's the cost of a Katrina 2.0? What's the cost of waiting a few more years with a couple million more people clamoring for the same limited resources in addition to the monstrous populations of both India and China who want to consume as much as Americans do?
FROM A LIBERAL POV
Liberal members claim that 1) it's not the best solution and 2) it doesn't go far enough. There have been other solutions floating around the blogosphere, such as a flat carbon tax, which would be straightforward and easy-to-understand, but difficult to pass. There was also another idea floating around called cap-and-dividend, which I think may have been mentioned on this blog but never really discussed. Cap-and-dividend essentially caps carbon emissions, much like in cap-and trade. So every company would get a certain amount of carbon credits, but essentially the public would own the carbon credits, versus the government like in cap-and-trade. Therefore, whenever a company buys carbon credits, the money would be distributed equally to the public (i.e. a dividend).
FROM MY POV
I believe that it's going to be vastly difficult for any Senate to pass any sort of act on climate control, especially with this economy. Mostly, people are fearful of the inconvenience it will cause to them. I say that it's in fact necessary for something to be done. I think that cap-and-trade will pass much easier than cap-and-dividend. Seeing where the Kerry-Boxer bill is and where Waxman-Markey was, that isn't saying much. I think we have to accept that cap-and-dividend is way too difficult for people to understand right now - and therefore won't be passed. (Though Rep. Van Hollen (D-MD) wrote a cap-and-dividend bill earlier this year... which seems to currently be in limbo.) As an ex-science major (i.e. a believer in science) and someone who has studied carbon emissions and believes in global warming and a current finance major, I think the time is now to address these issues that will only hurt us more if left unaddressed.

How does that fit into Copenhagen?
Regardless on the agreement that's made in Copenhagen, a strong climate law will help the US reach its part of the agreement. It's expected that at COP 15, much like in Kyoto, the nations will agree on a specific cap on carbon emissions. Having a strong cap-and-trade agreement in place (or any policy limiting emissions for that matter), will only help the US reach the UN decided levels.

What are the implications for the US?
It depends a lot on what is agreed upon at Copenhagen, since they're essentially writing a bill. From what I've read, the world's nations are getting ready to really address these issues and to put a specific goal out there. Also from what I've read, the Obama team has been reluctant to agree to a specific goal, instead pushing for guidelines and suggestions. Though I think it's time for the Obama administration to wake up and to put its money where its mouth is (what happened to all the we're-going-to-save-the-world rhetoric we heard during campaigning??), the fact that Obama is going, and may be ready to commit, is a big deal. Though it is worrisome that he was hesitant to go in the first place - seeing as this is the biggest event regarding climate change all year.

How is it going to affect me?
If all goes well, i.e. if the US realizes that it can not continue to steamroll over the rest of the world and instead starts to act in accordance with other nations, we should see a lot of changes. There will be a new emphasis on clean energy. There will be an influx of green-collar jobs, a relatively new term to describe engineering and mechanic jobs related to building solar panels and wind panels, etc. We can look to countries like Switzerland, Norway, and Sweden, all known to have low carbon emissions. But more importantly, in my opinion, we can look to a country like Germany, who has greatly lowered its carbon footprint in recent years yet still has one of the highest GDPs in the world, and is arguably in a better economic position than the US.

My final two-cents...
The time is now for Obama and the US to show the world that it's a leader. If you believe in global warming, this could be the most important meeting since Kyoto. If you don't believe in global warming, I suggest you take a basic chemistry class and then come talk to me.

Click to read more...

We Never Talk About Global Warming Anymore

Yesterday was “Blog Action Day” for climate change topics, whatever that means…

So in the spirit of yesterday, let’s talk about student activism on climate change. Over my three-plus years in college, I’ve witnessed immense progress in how students view their impact on our world. When I came to Georgetown in 2006, global warming was still considered “global warming” for the mainstream folk. This was an age where we actually needed Al Gore to stand in front of a powerpoint in order to even begin considering how our personal, political, and economic choices impact our world. But like I said, that was sooo 2006.


Today, our campus – and I think all campuses – are alive with the spirit of sustainability, all driven by the presence of global warming. The beauty of this movement lies not in what EcoAction has become, but rather in how environmental sustainability has begun to leach into every aspect of life. The speakers that come here are environmental leaders; we have green architecture; we have an energy competition going on (admittedly, it’s woefully underpublicized); the SFS is switching Map of the Modern World to be based around geography more than political lines; the Sustainability Committee continues to make practical improvements to campus footprint; and every b-school student is trying to figure out exactly how to capitalize on all of this energy.

Over this time period, EcoAction has exploded. The organization takes on campaigns from all ranges of the environmentalist landscape, from sustainable food and park cleanups – central tenets for any tree-hugger – to carbon auditing and lobbying. I always expected this of EcoAction. I mean, it’s what we do. We’re an environmental group. But the broader things happening on campuses around the country are more exciting; the mainstream has finally gets it. And here’s where we’re at in terms of climate change activism on college campuses: the point at which it’s hardly anything you need to remind people about. But we still do, and we’re not stopping!

In line with not stopping reminding people about climate change, here’s a cheap, dirty plug for the raddest youth climate change summit this side of the Potomac. Virginia Power Shift is here! It’s happening at George Mason (so I guess it’s not exactly on this side of the Potomac, unless I don’t understand our local geography…) on Oct. 23-25, and Georgetown is sending a big group. Be there!

Click to read more...

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch

Here is a blog post from Brad Pollina, who presented this at the EcoAction meeting last night:

The Great Pacific Garbage patch is a swirling mass of plastic debris located in the central North Pacific Ocean. Earth’s ocean currents carry plastic trash from all over the world to this area, known as the North Pacific Gyre. Current estimates of its extent range from the size of Texas to the size of the continental USA. Either way, it’s huge and it’s growing by the minute.

The debris field is composed of about 80 percent trash from land and 20 percent trash from cruiseships, oil rigs, cargo tankers and the like. To give some perspective, humans produce about 200 billion pounds of plastic each year, 20 billion pounds of which wind up in the oceans. Greenpeace estimates that 10 percent of the plastics produced each year ultimately wind up in the Great Pacific Garbate Patch. With that in mind, it becomes clear that a fair portion of plastic thrown away each year winds up in the garbage vortex, resulting in a debris field of about 3.5 million tons of plastic. In most areas, estimates put the depth of the plastic at about 90 feet.

And it doesn’t just sit there. Plastic waste doesn’t biodegrade- it only photodegrades- meaning it gets broken into smaller and smaller pieces without ever actually decomposing. This means once it’s in the ocean, it stays there forever.

Photodegraded plastic poses a constant threat to marine life and gets carried to shore by ocean currents, littering beaches with trash. One of the major problems is also the release and absorption toxins into the water.

Materials like polystyrene, which we know as styrafoam, release harmful chemicals into the water which become absorbed by other types of plastic debris. From there, animals often mistake the contaminated materials for food and thereby introduce these toxins into our food chain.

Estimates hold that 267 animal species worldwide are affected by the garbage patch’s debris and about 1 million die each year by consuming and getting caught up in the trash.

So what can we do?

Remember 80 percent of ocean trash comes from land. Moreover, single use plastics are filling our landfills and much of this waste is winding up in the ocean. That includes plastic water bottles, cutlery, food containers, and plastic bags.

On a personal level, reusing plastics and reducing your personal use will help halt the growth of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. This means, for starts, using non-disposable food packaging, shopping with cloth bags, and drinking from reusable water bottles.

Next time you have the option to use something disposable, think twice and spread the word that it could wind up in the ocean.

Influencing policy at the local government level is also a high priority. The direct link between solid waste and the pacific garbage patch can’t be stressed enough, so local ordinance changes outlawing plastic bags, styrafoam, and other non-biodegradable materials represents a step in the right direction.

We need to encourage and pressure our local governments to enact plastic bag and polystyrene bans- it’s already happening around the country and the movement away from plastic disposables is gaining speed. Many towns have even started burning waste in clean energy facilities, which helps ensure these materials can’t wind up in the garbage patch.

On the national level, this issue is roughly where global warming was 10 years ago. It hasn’t received much international attention but what the Project Kaisei team has done is inspiring and should set the trend for handling this issue.

We need to contact our Congress people and the EPA to encourage them to devote funds to studying this. The more exposure we bring to this looming problem, the better. Not many people know about the Great Pacific Garbage Patch right now so we need to spread awareness if we expect to ever properly address it.

These images are from: http://knowmanythings.files.wordpress.com/ and http://bgviewsnetwork.com/

Click to read more...

Georgetown: A "B" Student?

The Sustainable Endowments Institute just released the 2009 College Sustainability Report Card today. The good news is that Georgetown's score rose from last year, but the not-as-great news is that we still only have a "B" overall. (Last year, we had a B-). So, how did we get the grade?

The SEI ranks colleges on a number of different components based on survey questions sent out to the included universities. Georgetown's scores ranged from a D in Endowment Transparency (up from the F of last year, at least) to A's in Climate Change, Investment Priorities, and Shareholder Engagement.

We got a B in Administration, Food & Recycling, Green Building, and Student Involvement, and a C in Transportation.

So, what are we going to do to make this better, joining the ranks of Harvard, Yale, Penn, Stanford, and UNC-Chapel Hill? (We beat UNC in basketball--remember that, my fellow seniors? Why should we allow them a victory here?)

The good news is that some new and upcoming changes will probably boost our scores for next year. The advent of the beloved BigBellies and the soon-to-come reforms for residential recyclign will possibly give us some "extra credit" for recycling, and when the GUTS buses switch to biodiesel, our transportation grade will get a speeding ticket because of how fast it will move. (Yes, that was an awful joke, but we all have our moments.)

As for the rest of that energy boost (organic or renewable, depending on interpretation), a lot of it requires action from YOU.

Do you want to see more local and organic food served at Leo's?
Do you want to bring an eye-catching canvas bag instead of taking a plastic bag?
Do you want to save yourself money by using a reusable water bottle instead of buying bottled water?
Do you want to show that you care about your future, your health, and the future and health of those across the globe?

You are all A-quality students (You got into Georgetown, right?), so let's make this an A-quality school, too.

Image taken from SEI site.

Click to read more...

Getting "Trash"ed at Homecoming: The Other Meaning

As Homecoming programming (i.e. tailgating) and general festivities get both students and alumni "trashed," they also trash the campus itself.

This past weekend, while I was talking with our campus Recycling Director, Bill DelVecchio, about the current and coming changes to recycling on campus, my dismay with the state of event management on campus was further increased.

During Homecoming, a time during which (one can easily infer) many beverage cans are produced, no recycling could be done because of contamination. Two loads (equivalent to TWO FULL TONS) of recycling had to get "trashed" because of this.

Although Homecoming is, by all means, a unique event, it also reflects a systemic problem in the way that events are run on campus. How many events provide bottled water for attendees? Overpackaged sandwiches from the Corp? Even still, how often do these events offer recycling facilities for the disposal of this waste? Not that often, for sure.

Systemic problems need to be addressed with systemic changes, and the paradigm with which we plan our events, both big and small, on campus needs to change. Zero-waste? Carbon-neutral? These are the types of events that we should be having. We, no doubt, have the resources and the brains to do it.

The photo above comes from the official Homecoming 2009 website.

Click to read more...

Homecoming Sustainability Panel

This Saturday, I had the privilege of presenting on a Homecoming panel focused on sustainability efforts at Georgetown and in higher education in general. The discussion was specifically focused on Georgetown’s newfound dedication to sustainable construction and building operations.

The trend of universities becoming leaders in environmentally sustainable development has been a process largely driven by student demand over the past several years. Our campus is a wonderful example of this type of progress. Three years ago the average Hoya assumed the recycling bins were emptied into the trash stream, that ICC’s solar panels had fallen out of use, and that composting was something Roy Hibbert did with his back to the basket (…get it?). In the time since, sincere student dedication to environmental activism has led to improvements all over campus, not least evidenced by a sustainability committee focused on the issues long term. Today, students may be surprised to learn that 85% of our campus’ waste is either recycled or incinerated to produce electricity (a number that is sure to improve due to our new recycling bins); that each residence hall’s energy use can be tracked real time (data that’s being used in an inter-dorm energy saving competition this year); that our GUTS buses are being converted to use biodiesel; and that our electricity is being offset by investment in a large and growing percentage of Green-E certified renewable energy resources.

Perhaps the best evidence of Georgetown’s dedication to sustainable development – and the main focus of the panel – is the administration’s plan to seek LEED certification on all new building projects. The LEED program, which is run by the nonprofit US Green Building Council, judges buildings on their level of energy efficiency and general environmental friendliness. The new Rafik Hariri building will probably receive a LEED Silver certification for practices such as offsetting 129% of the building’s energy use, installing low-flow fixtures to save water, using sustainable construction materials, recycling construction waste, and utilizing smart control devices to turn off lights and heat when rooms are empty. Meanwhile, the science building is being designed to achieve LEED Gold status – quite impressive for an energy-hogging lab facility.

The pattern of investing into greater upfront construction and design costs to create more sustainable buildings is not unique to Georgetown. As the effects of global energy waste and environmental degradation have become mainstream knowledge, all aspects of development have grown to be more sustainable. Simply put, when long term costs are considered as present financial values it is usually less expensive to build green. This author is glad our university understands that relationship as our campus continues to grow.

Click to read more...

Rate Decoupling

Here is a blog post from Carter Lavin, who presented this at the EcoAction meeting last night:

Currently utility profits and their energy sales are “coupled” so utilities make more money by selling more electricity. This incentivizes them to make and sell as much electricity as possible in the cheapest way possible. Because environmental costs are for the most part externalized by these utilities, they do not pay for the ecological damage they cause, they tend to use the cheapest and most energy dense fuel which in the United States is coal. This system is part of the reason for the general inefficiency of electricity use in the United States as the burden of action and financing falls upon individuals while the utilities have the reverse incentive.

Rate Decoupling is a policy which state and regional utility commissions can enact that provides utilities a guaranteed level of revenue in return for a certain quality of service to a specific region. This means that if a utility wants to generate a higher profit they need to reduce energy demand so they may reduce energy supplied and save on fuel and operating costs.



Right now utilities occasionally launch energy efficiency initiatives but they are on small scales and infrequent. In a rate decoupled system these types of programs would be bigger, better and more frequent.

To give you an idea of how much energy we could save through rate decoupling:

California implemented rate decoupling in the early 90s and utilities started energy efficiency programs that, along with state building and appliance energy efficiency programs saved 40 Billion kWh of electricity every year- roughly 2.8% of total American residential electricity usage in 2007 and roughly 20% of the amount of energy generated by California in 2007. If we did rate decoupling in every state and were about half as successful as they were, we would cut national energy use by 10%, and every individual and each utility would make money doing it.

It would also create many green collared jobs to help with all the retrofitting and energy audits that utilities would provide for free or at steeply discounted rates for their customers.

Currently Arizona, California, Connecticut, Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island and Washington State are currently reviewing rate decoupling and similar new rate structures.

This is a policy problem that can be solved by advocating change to those who are in charge of policy. Once that change is made then it will be the utilities who are going to push us to adapt more energy efficient buildings and appliances. The people who are in charge of making this decision are the people who regulate the utilities. These are boards that are sometimes regional and sometimes within a specific state and they are typically called Public Utilities Commissions or Public Service Boards or Public Service Commissions and you can find a list of them on PublicUtilityhome.com. Contact them and say that you support rate decoupling in order to increase grid stability, improve energy efficiency, protect the environment, and create green collared jobs.

If you want to read a imaginative description of what would life in a rate decoupled world be like, I suggest reading the chapter in Thomas Friedman's book Hot, Flat and Crowded called “If it isn't boring, it isn't green.”

Image from Stateinnovation.org

Click to read more...

Canvassing with the DC Project

Yesterday, Emily, Keely and I went over to Dupont Circle to meet up with The DC Project, a new non-profit organization. The DC Project aims to address social justice and climate change on a two-fold level.

They aim to create demand for green jobs by asking people to weatherize their homes. They also try to connect people with green job training so the demand is answered.

As of late, there's been a lot of emphasis on the new "green economy." Unfortunately, it's been a lot of marketing and less substance - it's been proven difficult to connect people who need jobs the most with the training that they need to work in green-collar jobs. This is what the DC Project tries to fix.

So the three of us went around DC going door-to-door to tell people about weatherization.

Weatherization is the process of making your home more energy efficient. The idea is that homeowners should insulate their homes so less heat escapes from the home - saving money and also requiring less heating and therefore reducing your carbon footprint.

Some examples of weatherization are: sealing gaps/holes, installing storm windows, sealing air ducts, and installing insulation.

We had a great time walking around and telling people about the DC Project and about weatherization. Overall people were really receptive- and we look forward to working with this group in the future.

Image from: http://www.capriverside.org/

Click to read more...

Meeting Dr. Jane

If you want to know all of the details of what Jane Goodall said in her lecture, you can check it out on the Georgetown website. The audience absolutely adored her, and she spoke with wisdom, grace, compassion, inspiration,...(The list goes on.) Her messages of peace and conservation, of humility and compassion, were, in my opinion, in tune with the ethos of Georgetown University, something we should all remember.

However, you can watch her (Mr. H, peace dove, and all) at the link above. What you can't watch is the student reception.

A group of us from the EcoAction board were able to attend the student reception for the lecture. Also at the event were contingents from GW and American as well as students from the Center for the Environment and Lecture Fund.

Dr. Jane (as those around her seem to call her) befittingly requested that the receptions be vegetarian. Her work with animals has inspired a love and compassion for them, and the reception should follow suit. We were able to indulge in an array of hummus dips (regular, black bean, and one other) with toasted pita corners, a variety of fruits, vegetables, and cheeses, and much more. I know I ate too much afterward, but it was all healthful food, so I don't have to feel too guilty.

After lots of mingling among the students, Dr. Jane finally walked in. When she entered the room, a silence fell over the room. All noise stopped. Tripti accurately described her entrance as "regal." She had an air of serenity and wisdom in the way she carried herself and, as we soon found out, in the way she spoke with us.

It was a bit intimidating to speak with Jane Goodall (that's right, THE Jane Goodall) when she finally got to our group while doing rounds. However, she was very welcoming; in the moments of silence around her, one feels that she is contemplative and compassionate. We spoke with her about the connection of business and law to social responsibility and of her work with youth from across the globe. She emphasized her message of an inspirational environmentalism. When speaking with students, she would often encounter many who had become depressed or indifferent, feeling that their future had been compromised by those before them. However, she seeks to inspire today's youth to take action in their communities, finding the steps (whether big or small) that can benefit people, animals, and the environment. She encouraged us to stay positive, stay focused, and stay active.

I had not had the opportunity to buy her book at that point (I did so just before the lecture), but I was able to get her to sign the back of a Roots & Shoots flyer that I later pasted into the book.

I have not yet read her book, but I am looking forward to doing so soon; the lecture gives a taste of the stories in her book--of the hope for the future that she sees around her. The only surefire way to lose a fight is to give up.

Click to read more...