Children's Environmental Movies

Babysitting this summer?  Finding yourself nostalgic for some children's movies?  Bored?
I've compiled my top 5 children's environmental movies.

5) Ferngully (1992): Long considered the quintessential children's environmental movie.

Ferngully is about a group of fairies who need to protect their rain-forest home from humans who want to cut down their trees for wood.
Environmental theme: deforestation

4) Jetsons: The Movie (1990): Though maybe a bit before our time, this space-age adventure is still relevant to our time - almost a past-day, children's version of Avatar.  (Minus the cool effects and blue people.)

The Jetsons, America's favorite future-family, have moved to Orbiting-Ore Asteroid, where a new mining colony has opened.  However, the factory is drilling into aliens' community and ruining their homes.
Environmental theme: habitat destruction

EcoAction in the News

EcoAction has gotten some media attention this week, so I thought I would highlight two articles:

Vox Populi featured an article about our upcoming collaboration with the Center for Student Programs to help make marketing events less wasteful and more effective and to help reduce the waste generated by the events themselves. Stay tuned as this develops.

The GW Hatchet also covered the Glover Park cleanup from last week. It is a great piece that highlights the collaboration between the student groups at Georgetown, GW, and AU for the benefit of the local community.

Locating the Environment in Political Philosophies

Professor Patrick Deneen wrote an opinion piece in yesterday's edition of The Hoya about the environmental movement's position within political philosophy. I think that it is an interesting and valuable read for its attempt to relocate respect for nature in the greater scheme of conservative philosophy; however, I feel that I need to address a lot of the overstatements that riddle the piece as well. Overall, however, I think that a debate about our role as both citizens and consumers comes out of this piece, and it is one that is central to any form of positive social reform.

First of all, I feel that the opening is too much of an overstatement. He claims that there is a "near-universal embrace" of environmentalism by today's youth. If there is, that's news to me; I must have missed the memo. Few people, of any generation, will actively speak out against the environment--unless you are Jim Inhofe, the self-proclaimed worst enemy of the environment, or one of his supporters. Wearing a "save the planet" sticker does not make you an environmentalist. Our generation might preach well on the environment, but practicing well--that's a different story.

Moving on, I feel that Deneen does raise the interesting point of personal accountability; however, at times, it feels a bit too much like an "Al Gore lives in a big house" style jab, if you know what I mean. Increased classroom technology can save paper although, at the same time, it uses energy. However, it helps to foment discussion and to promote knowledge--creating informed, well-rounded, reflective, engaged CITIZENS and individuals is the very purpose of a liberal arts education. And these citizens are the ones who make change.

However, I do feel, at times, that there is a tendency to ignore individual responsibility when advocating for corporate responsibility. One of my biggest pet peeves is environmentalists who smoke cigarettes. When you fight against the air pollution caused by the coal plant, why are you polluting the air yourself? And funding an industry that has no respect for your life? And doubtfully much for the environment either? We must be both good citizens and good consumers; they must exist together.

I disagree, however, with the issue of terminology that Deneen presents as the center of his argument. The word "nature" is a more distancing word, in my opinion, than the "environment." "Nature," as the word is commonly used, evokes the images of pretty postcards from national parks or tropical rainforests. The "nature," whether or not it should, implies an existence outside of the urban and suburban worlds. Even though the word "environment" can have the same pitfalls, at the very least, it can connote the entirety of one's surroundings. The air YOU breathe and the water YOU drink is part of your environment.

Moreover, it is not necessarily a "return to nature" that is being advocated in environmentalist discourse, but rather an "evolution with" or "growth with" nature. The problems with modern technology exist in the reliance on conflict minerals for their creation and the questionable issue of their disposal. Likewise, the electronics industry has based itself around the idea of planned obsolescence, making our iPods and laptops outdated by the time we buy them. Even though technology is the attempt to live beyond nature, we can still go beyond our natural abilities without destroying the environment to the extent that we do now.

It is true, as he notes, that early Progressive Movement often inadvertently caused environmental detriment in its aim at social liberation--just think of dams for a minute. Moreover, moving out of the scope of the US alone, just as there is no inherent respect for the environment in either socialism or capitalism. However, modern progressivism (and I will use the term "progressive" over the term "liberal") favors green jobs as a way to elevate labor by working with nature, not against it, and supports forms of energy that do not damage the health and well-being of the populace. You can harness the renewable sources of wind and sunlight rather than the nonrenewable sources of coal and oil.

However, Deneen is correct in that some elements of the environmental agenda do have firm roots in conservative principles. Take, for example, the desire to reinvigorate family farms, a system based on individual communities rather than on government-subsidized Big Ag. Growing your own food or using solar panels to get yourself off the grid are other great examples of an environmental ethos linked to a libertarian, individualist mindset. (Joel Salatin, discussed in an earlier blog post, is a self-described libertarian, for instance.) The intimate relationship between the GOP and Big Business has sadly corrupted these fundamental principles, which will hopefully blossom again.

Furthermore, I have always thought that the environmental agenda should not be ignored by those who claim to have a "pro-life" view of the world. The respect for the life of both humans and animals, wherever they are, lies at the core of the environmentalist ethos. If one purports to be "pro-life," how can one support mountaintop coal removal, which damages and shortens lives, or GMO foods that pose unknown threats to human life while under the guise of prosperity?

Ultimately, what one should take out of this is that leading a better future by working with (not over or against) the environment should not be a blindly partisan issue; however, as is the case with anything in this country, it inevitably will be.

Story Time with Annie Leonard

If you have to have a neuroses, Annie Leonard, the brain behind "The Story of Stuff" who held a book reading at Politics & Prose here in DC yesterday, would recommend hers.

When she sees an item--be it a chair, an iPod, or a bottle of shampoo--she immediately thinks of all of the stages of its life, from the factories to the landfills--all of which she has visited over the past 20 years. These materials, what she calls "stuff," exist in a specific context for her, a context of which most of us have lost focus.


If you have not already seen Annie's video, "The Story of Stuff," click this link and watch it now---it is a valuable, informative, engaging 20-minutes summary and tutorial on the relationship between your life and the lives of the stuff you buy, including the laptop from which you are probably reading this.

Annie's video and her book, which provides more in-depth information, demonstrate how so many of the issues that we face are interconnected, and in order to make positive, lasting social change, we must understand this. Rather than trying to get someone else to work for your issue, show them why their issue and your issue are intrinsically the same, and then work together for the solution. The environment, workers' rights, the treatment of women and minorities, global poverty, and more are all caught up in this web of "shop-watch-buy" and its effects. Moreover, if you really cared about "family values," you should value quality time with your family over the endless cycle of material consumption. Just saying.

The value of Annie's message, moreover, is that it speaks to the heart--to that deep, vibrant core in all of us that wants to see a difference and make it happen.

One of the most commendable traits that Ms. Leonard embodies is persistence. She has been working for over 20 years on the issue of waste, one that has not gotten a lot of attention in comparison to more aesthetically pleasing of topics. However, one of the best lessons to learn is what her good friend and notable environmental advocate Van Jones told her: "It's good to be marginalized for 20 years. By the time people start listening to you, you've gotten really good at saying it."

Returning to the crux of the topic, however, two fundamental paradigm shifts lie at the heart of the solution:
1) Waste is not an essence: it's a location. If a can is sitting on the table, it is a can, but as soon as it gets thrown away, it becomes "trash" or "waste." Break the paradigm that says that all things must end up in the trash can; buy the products that have the least amount of packaging, and find creative ways to reuse what you end up with.

2) The revitalization of the "citizen" part of our identity to match and surpass the "consumer" part of identity. As members of any collective body, we engage with others as both consumers and citizens. From an early age, we are taught to consume, to participate in the rituals of shopping. However, the lessons of citizenship often get lost, and an engaged civil society , one imbued with the ability to think critically (perhaps the most valuable asset of all), is essential to any attempt at lasting change for the public interest.

"The Story of Stuff" will soon be followed by more videos because of its unexpected, but decidedly well-deserved, success of the first. Premiering on March 22nd (World Water Day) will be "The Story of Bottled Water," a tale of manufactured demand. Soon to come, as well, will be "The Story of Electronics" (planned obsolescence), "The Story of Cosmetics" (toxics), and "The Story of Corporations" (on the recent Supreme Court decision).

A quick, amusing after-note: During the Q&A session, one guy came up to the mike holding a disposable cup and asked her if she would sign it for him. She replied, "Only if you promise never to throw it away."

Calling All Gristians: The Role of Media in the Future of the Environmental Movement

Yesterday, Chip Giller, CEO and founder of Grist, a cutting-edge environmental news site around since 1999, came to campus to deliver a lecture co-sponsored by us, GU Center for the Environment, and Lecture Fund. The talk had the facetious title "Tweet Huggers: Media, Sustainability, and the Future." Although I didn't see many people hugging tweets at the event (Alas, I can't seem to get Twitter on my phone anymore---or, at least I have not since the 3 months ago when I last tried. How does one "hug" a tweet anyway?), there was a riveting discussion about the future of environmentalism.



In his introduction, Chip presented an interesting parallel history between the environmental movement and modern journalism. Both saw their beginnings in the late 19th to early 20th century, with press icons like William Randolph Hearst and environmentalist forefathers like John Muir. For most of the 20th century, both were highly centralized in form. The press was concentrated in large newspapers that had broad reach and an unquestioning audience, and the environmental movement placed most of its efforts at change on the macro, federal level (such as the Clean Air Act, Superfund, etc.). However, just as the 21st century has seen a decentralization of the media with blogging, tweeting, citizen journalism, and the like, the environmental victories we see today (on sites like Grist, among others) are becoming more localized. Just go on their site or Tree Hugger's, and you will see the great initiatives and innovations being taken in different communities across the country (and the globe).

What is particularly interesting about juxtaposing environmentalism and journalistic media is that both are so tightly linked to the concept of information. At the core of environmentalism is the desire to learn and to recontextualize: to know from where our food comes, to know from where our energy comes, and to place ourselves in a more globalized worldview so that we can see how all of our actions have consequences. Journalism was born to do the same: to inform, to search for the answers to these budding questions, to put issues into perspective. The only way to know about an environmental problem--or an environmental solution--is for someone to write about it.

Moreover, Chip focused on the importance of the tone created by the environmental movement. He designed Grist to have an irreverent twist--to make puns, to crack jokes, to be an equal opportunity satirist, and never to take itself too seriously. Environmentalism is often viewed as being too preachy, and a moralizing rant will not win over hearts and minds--but a shared laugh can.

Since we had a somewhat small group, we were able to have a very interactive Q & A session after the talk.

One question that I had been pondering was the role of credibility in the world of new media. Just as the decentralization of media can bring many benefits, it can also bring pitfalls. "ClimateGate," for instance, shows how easily misinformation can spread across the blogosphere, and once something is out there in the public space, it's stuck.

Jessica Lioon (MSB'10) asked about the business model of Grist. Grist runs itself as a nonprofit, getting its funding from foundations as well as generous readers. Grist does an excellent job at putting fun into fundraising--back in December, I remember seeing their "friends with benefits" campaign (You be their friend, and you'll get some benefits.)

Tripti Bhattacharya (SFS'10) asked about reaching out to wider audiences. When new media is becoming more niche, does one end up only preaching to the choir? This is one of the main issues that faces any advocacy organization: how do you connect with those that may not agree with you or just may be unaware? Chip noted that, although most of their readers will agree with their perspective, they can arm their readers with the information needed to explain the issues to others. He compared this to the way in which evangelical churches have grown, by bringing in converts---Gristians, in this case. A good environmental website is not preaching to a choir: it is teaching the choir the songs to sing and how to sing them.

Many people, even if they do not see themselves as environmentalists, care about a lot of the same issues. They care about the food they eat, the air they breathe, the water they drink, and the ways in which what we do now will affect our children. However, the word "environmentalist" to too many people connotes an unshaven crunchy hippie who doesn't shower. (Believe me, environmentalists shower.) The word "green" has been reduced to a corporate buzz word, ripe for branding and selling products to idealistic consumers. Moreover, I wonder how many people actually understand what the word "sustainability" even means. The important task, then, is to help people to connect the dots--to see environmentalism for what it is: a passion for caring for all life--both our own, that of our global neighbors (both big and small), and that of our future generations.

Sustainability Website: It Exists!

Earlier this week, I posted a link talking about the Sustainability Action Committee, but now we have something even BETTER. That's right, my friends, we have Georgetown's very own SUSTAINABILITY website.

The site (which you should explore for yourself) highlights many factets of sustainabilty at Georgetown.

In the section about "What we're doing," you can learn about both recycling and emission from Georgetown. One of my personal favorite facts is that only about 15% of all waste from GU ends up at landfill because Waste Management has a relationship with an "Energy from Waste" facility, which produces a clean form of energy.

The website talks about the "Switch it Off" energy competition which has recently gone into effect in the residence halls and apartment complexes on campus. (You should have a sign on your door). It also gives links to faculty members doing research in environmental work.

Most importantly, for all of you out there, it highlights ways to get engaged (including a link to our very own website)!

So, go on the site, explore, learn, see fun photos. As they say, knowledge is power, and the first step toward reforming the way power (energy) works is to have the knowledge how!

Vote for "Sam and the Wasted Semester"

In Vox Populi's Georgetown Youtube Madness, "Sam and the Wasted Semester" was up in the Activism category. Check out the video on the link above, and go vote!

Thanks for the heads up, Carter!

The College Student's Dream

When I was reading Planet Green earlier today, I came across one of the most amusing names for an article that I have ever seen: "Why Buying Nothing, Doing Less, and Being Lazy Can Help Save the Planet."

This probably brings comfort to many people out there who thought that by doing absolutely nothing that they were not being productive. However, this is the rare occasion where "armchair environmentalism" can be real environmentalism.

Basically, this brings up a few interesting points we've discussed in the past:

• The T-shirt dilemma: How to give out prizes that don't engender environmental costs and waste in and of themselves
• How to get people (myself included) away from a computer and outside

Although doing nothing in some respects has its eco advantage, being active in advocacy is still essential. Want to idle online? Email your Senator about ACES! Guess what--it's also FREE TO DO!

What George Will Doesn't See

Well, first of all, the answer is probably a lot of things, more than could possibly be discussed here. But I needed to write something in response to his op-ed piece in the Washington Post today.

The noted climate denier and Post op-ed writer wrote about what he sees as the increasing skepticism around climate change and the lack of youth activism.

He writes,

"When New York Times columnist Tom Friedman called upon "young Americans" to "get a million people on the Washington Mall calling for a price on carbon," another columnist, Mark Steyn, responded: "If you're 29, there has been no global warming for your entire adult life. If you're graduating high school, there has been no global warming since you entered first grade."

Which could explain why the Mall does not reverberate with youthful clamors about carbon. And why, regarding climate change, the U.S. government, rushing to impose unilateral cap-and-trade burdens on the sagging U.S. economy, looks increasingly like someone who bought a closetful of platform shoes and bell-bottom slacks just as disco was dying."

As someone right in the middle of the age bracket provided by Will and a "young American," I can strongly say that there is a lot about youth that George does not seem to know.

First of all, today's youth is educated. More young people are attending college today than in the generations of our parents and grandparents. And these young people understand facts. Not everyone will be a science whiz, but we are not that easily duped by climate misinformation. We grew up reading about the ozone layer in Scholastic magazine and hearing about the environment on Nick News. Since we were toddlers or elementary school children, the Clean Air Act has been in place. We learned about pollution in our science classes back in elementary school. Now that we are older, we study the history behind the environment, the workings of the government, the principles of economics, and the dynamics of foreign countries. Do not underestimate us.

Moreover, our generation lives in the aftermath of the downfall of Big Tobacco. One of the most powerful lobbies had been brought to its knees during our lives so far. Bad science and corporate misinformation was at the heart of Big Tobacco's success for a while, but the public interest won in the end. We environmental activists need to study the success of the fight against Big Tobacco because there is a lot to learn and to bring to the table in reforming agriculture and energy.

Lastly, Mr. Will, today's youth does care. Maybe some of them don't know the steps to take, but when directed, they will gladly help. We have our outdoor enthusiasts, our global humanitarians, and our general do-gooders. They fill our universities today, and they fill conferences and events all the time to learn more about this issue. 10,000 of them attended Power Shift this past February. That's right, Mr. Will, 10,000 of us right here in Washington.

We may not be marching on Washington every day, but that is because we bring our activism to our own communities---spreading the word to our families, our friends, our classmates, our colleagues, our professors. Or maybe we are working for firms, NGOs, or nonprofits that are seeking to make a difference. You might not see us (Myopia is a sad side effect of age), but do not doubt for one moment that we are there.

The Re-Launch of Clean Skies News PLUS a Poem to Sen. Boxer

This morning, July 15th, marked the re-launch of the Clean Skies Network, an energy and environmental online news network. Promoters for the Clean Skies launch (including GU alumna Meg Martin) contacted us at “Renewable Energy Turns Me On” to participate in the exciting event.

The re-launch functioned as an open house for the news network. I was able to sit in on a few live tapings of interviews as well as sit in and watch in the control room. Moreover, the Clean Skies Network office has an aesthetically appealing modern design. Kimberly Collel, part of the American Clean Skies Foundation, said that they were going for a “gallery” design with an airy touch—the brilliant white walls and light, open feeling to the hallways certainly adds that touch. The gallery feel is finished off with glowing energy facts on the walls, reminiscent of exhibits you might see at the Smithsonian. Everything looks bright, new, and clean—how we would love our skies to look, right?

The first event was a live set of interviews with Miles Grant from Grist.org and the Honorable Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD).
Miles Grant was up first and spoke about what he hopes to see for the US climate legislation, especially as Copenhagen looms in the near future. Grant would love to see Barbara Boxer, Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman (and one of EcoAction’s favorite environmental advocates), get a bill through the Senate by the end of the year. However, the bill that we currently have needs work. Grant would like to see more permits auctioned off instead of handed out, for the current arrangement eliminates the revenue potential that originally existed from cap-and-trade. He also wanted a bill that would not only unite the country (in terms of working past regional biases) but also set a standard that is a model for other countries. (Right on, Grant!) One of Grant’s main focuses was the power of American innovation. If you told him thirty years ago that he could have a computer in his pocket in the form of a cell phone with more power than a room-sized computer, he wouldn’t have believed it, and thirty years from now, we will probably have a vast array of new technology in this sector. All we need to do is innovate! Go to work, America!

In the interlude between Grant and Bartlett, Jimmy Carter’s malaise speech (for which today marks the 30th anniversary) was discussed. In this speech, Carter addressed the many crises facing the country at that moment, including the dependence on foreign oil. Sadly, too many of his words ring true. Moreover, thinking of Carter and energy reminded me of the sad fact that Ronald Reagan eliminated the solar panels that Carter installed in the White House. (It becomes even more ironic, thus, that the EPA is in the Ronald Reagan Building, is it not?)

Rep. Bartlett voted against ACES and was very strong against it, using the typical Republican argument against regulation. He does not think that legislation is needed and believes that patriotism and education are the solution. The thrust of Bartlett’s argument was that the US was able to undertake massive efforts in conservation during World War II—Americans saved fuel and resources to provide for the war effort, and we also saw victory gardens spring up across the country. He thinks that such an emphasis on conservation, one rooted in individual action and patriotism, is the solution.

Rep. Bartlett stressed the need for education as a solution, but as we know, the facts are there. As Bill Clinton said at the Campus Progress Conference last year, we can’t bank our future on 5%, the small contingent of climate change deniers among the scientific community. If the facts are there and the moral imperative is there, then why have we not seen action yet? I really can’t see Rush Limbaugh having a garden in his backyard unless he somehow begins to believe in a crazy “liberal” conspiracy on our food system. The other problem in relying solely on individual action is the role of corporations. You can get people to carpool, to install CFLs, to turn off their lights, etc., but that is only one small step. Just think of the vast supply chains that exist in the manufacture and distribution of goods and the production of energy—let alone the energy used by office buildings.

Bartlett kept stressing that the public is educable, but are bad habits that easy to break? Can a patriotic impulse be believed by climate naysayers, or will they just reject it under the influence of the lobbies of our dead energy sources?

However, my favorite part of the Bartlett interview was when he complimented France and Europe as a whole. It is rare that you hear Europe complimented from the American right, but he spoke about the lack of SUVs and individual use pick-up trucks on the streets in France. There is no need for such cars; Europe has far outpaced us in fuel efficiency. Although I disagreed with some of Bartlett’s points, I was comforted to hear a Republican who does believe that action is needed (He’s not another Sarah Palin-type) and has made steps himself (Prius, solar panels, etc.) He puts his belief in individual citizen/consumer action to practice, and for that I respect him.

Next up was Tyson Slocum, the Energy Policy Director of Public Citizen. Slocum spoke about the problems that he saw in Waxman-Markey, notably the way that the bill gives in too much to utility companies. Slocum does not expect to see legislation enacted by Copenhagen, but he actually thinks that not having something rigidly in place could leave us more flexible in negotiations.

After Slocum came Denise Bode of AWEA (American Wind Energy Association). She spoke about the job potential from the wind industry. Wind energy would help to create jobs and do so especially in some of the areas that have been suffering high unemployment.

I also caught the interview of Joseph Romm, editor of Climate Progress. He stressed the transformative impact of the climate legislation but expressed a legitimate concern that much of the American public does not understand the scope of the problem that lies ahead of us. When asked what he would grade Obama on his work on the climate change issue, Romm said that he would give Obama a “B” for his environmental messaging. He would like to see the same effort that is being put behind health care put behind climate change as well. The health of our people, our environment, and our moral authority in the global community depends on this.

If you want to check out my tweets from the event, you can check me out on Twitter at JonathanCohn. Miles Grant and Joseph Romm can also be followed on Twitter as well.

For my final note, a short poem to Senator Boxer,

When it comes to this fall
And you start to roll the ball
For our act to save the air,
The land, and the sea,
And don’t forget posteri-ty,
Get ready for the political game
And be true to your name.

Win the Senate boxing match, Boxer!

Georgetown on ABC News

Georgetown's move out drive was recently featured in an ABC News feature on college campuses going green for move out.

I think Jess Buckley eloquently presents the value of such a drive when she discusses the role of the university in teaching students how to be "good citizens."

The GU sustainability logo also has a delightful cameo appearance.

Photo courtesy of abc.com.

Book Review: Fast Food Nation

I'm pretty sure I'm one of the last people in the world to have read Fast Food Nation (as cleverly alluded to on satirical blog and propagandist of the "new" environmental movement Stuff White People Like), but I finally got around to reading it and thoroughly enjoyed it.

I'm a big Michael Pollan fan, but I understand that people might not literally want to know what they're eating. For people with weaker stomachs (but still care about what they're funding/eating and more importantly, what their children are eating), Fast Food Nation is for you.

Fast Food Nation analyzes the growth of the fast food industry from a historical, market-based point of view. Eric Schlosser discusses the rise of many fast food chains, most thoroughly McDonald's but also Yum! Brands' Taco Bell, KFC, and Pizza Hut; Subway; Burger King; Jack in the Box; and Wendy's.

His main focus is on the rampant social justice issues with fast food rather than the abundance of fat and sugar in your McMeal, which is a nice departure from the "air of moral superiority that often accompanies" (257) advocates of vegetarianism/veganism.

After watching Schlosser in Food, Inc., I thought that this book was going to be an anti-corporate work denouncing multinational corporations and promoting veganism. I was glad to read, right in the introduction, that Schlosser was mostly worried about the welfare of our nation's children, whom fast food is mostly marketed to, and that he had eaten a good amount of fast food while conducting research for this book.

Schlosser paints the fast food industry as one that not only goes to any means necessary to make a profit, but one that blatantly disregards the welfare of the people who work for it and uses totalitarian tactics to silence its critics.

He discusses the high school dropouts who work behind the counters of their local fast food restaurants. These are young people who are generally not educated about their rights and are exploited by the system to work long hours, subject to menial labor which ultimately doesn't leave them with any valuable skills for their next job.

He continues with narrative about the factory farms where cows are raised and potatoes are grown. He discusses a lot of the same facts that were discussed in Food, Inc. and the Omnivore's Dilemma - namely that the way that factory farms are set up now promote the evolution and spread of super viruses/bacteria such as e. coli 0157:H7.

Schlosser offers a rare, behind the scenes view of meatpacking/slaughterhouse corporations. These sections were the parts of the book I found most disturbing - on several levels.

Though meatpacking is a highly skilled job, most of the employers are illegal immigrants, who can not read/write English, who have no skills, and are getting paid minimum wage. The corporations keep it this way because these workers are least likely to unionize for fear of losing their job and least likely to demand health care, which is much needed on this job. This keeps prices down and profits up.

Lurking above all of this is the mega-power of these super corporations on a political scale. One of the most infuriating facts is that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) does not have the power to recall meat. Even if half of the nation's beef was infected with e. coli, the government lacks the legal authority to recall the meat. Additionally, the blatant disregard for human safety in the name of profit is sickening.

Schlosser finishes by reminding the reader that the US is a capitalist society - which means that, ultimately, the corporation responds to the consumer. With these super sized companies, it's hard to remember that the consumer is still the one in control. To get these corporations to change their practices, people need to demand change - but before this, people need to become aware.

Conclusion? You probably won't get disgusted by the depiction of the actual food in this book, but it would be hard to suppress the anger and indignation from discovering that many of our nation's worst social justice issues are funded by the sale of Big Macs and Happy Meals.

(A side note: I'm also pretty sure that this book is on the reading list for Professor Fuisz's Humanities 011 class on banned books... I do know that it's on some class' required reading list. Does anyone know?)

ABC News: Move Out Drive

I have written about the on campus move out drive that has been going on for the past few weeks a few times, and I must say that I am very pleased by how successful it has been. The move out drive has been a work in progress over the years:
2006: one collection site in Red Square for all of campus on one day
2007: collections on each floor without enough manpower to check them
2008: one collection site per residence hall without any monitoring or publicity

But this year has seen a lot of collaboration and early planning and great contacts!


I spoke about KEYS earlier, and Dot Johnson, Valerie Johnson's daughter, a GU alumna, and a great artist, was able to hook us up with a friend of hers at ABC News, who was interested in writing about trends of sustainability at college campuses.

Jess Buckley, Hall Director of McCarthy and Director of Project Hilltop, wrote of today's filming with ABC News,
"ABC News, with reporter Gregory Simmons, was on campus filming about our drive & the trend of move out drives on campuses. Valerie Johnson from KEYS helped us coordinate a number of drop offs and pick ups today with Catholic Charities, Community Connections, and N St Village. So far, we've donated over 3 tons of clothes, 500 books, 6 fridges, a number of boxes of household goods, toiletries, food, small electronics, and more."

You can check out the awesome photos here.

Awesome job, everyone!

Logo from abc.com.

Book Review: Ecological Intelligence

I just finished reading Daniel Goleman's Ecological Intelligence: How Knowing the Hidden Impacts of What We Buy Can Change Everything . Goleman is also the author of the books Emotional Intelligence and Social Intelligence. You have probably heard about the former, considering how prevalent "EQ (or Emotional IQ/Quotient) tests" appear online.

Ecological intelligence, considered by Time Magazine to be one of the ten ideas changing the world right now, is a very new and very powerful concept. Ecological intelligence refers to the knowledge and understanding of the histories of the products we buy and the decisions we buy. When you go to the supermarket, for instance, you only see products on shelves; you do not know about how much water, how much energy, and how many miles went into their creation. When you choose paper or plastic, how do you know which bag has a less effect on the environment? And how do you know how much of an offset that reusable tote is? Goleman explores these questions and the role of INFORMATION and RADICAL TRANSPARENCY in this discourse...


One would hope that, given full information on two equivalent products, the consumer would opt for the one that has a better social and environmental history; however, greenwashing (common in marketing campaigns today--just think of some ads in the metro stations) is far from a carbon footprint label.

The Good Guide is one of many innovations Goleman discusses. One of my friends recently told me about the Good Guide when he had been thinking about such an idea himself. Founded by students in Berkeley, it is a cell phone- and Internet-based service that rates consumer goods on their health, environmental, and social impacts, letting you know the product's and company's history with just a snapshot (for the cell phone) or a click (for the Internet). Essentially, it compiles and condenses all of this data for you in the moment in takes to make that shopping decision. The Guide is only in its beta version now but could have a lot of potential.

Likewise, Goleman speaks a lot about the idea of RADICAL TRANSPARENCY. With new technological advances, consumers are able to find out more about companies, and more info can come out through the press as well. Radical transparency, then, can be the best of defenses: businesses should make all of their information available to consumers and position themselves for innovation and openness.

The ideas in this book are akin to those in the online web video The Story of Stuff by former Greenpeace activist Annie Leonard. Leonard's video has come into the news recently under accusations that it is an attack on capitalism. However, in my firm opinion, it is not an attack on capitalism itself, but rather a misguided manifestation of it. In the economic model of PERFECT COMPETITION, both consumers and producers have full knowledge of the product. With the lack of information that exists today for so many of the goods we buy, this "perfect knowledge" is noticeably missing. Such a lack of shared knowledge also prohibits the innovation provided by a competitive market; if consumers had all of the information about their purchases right in front of them at the store, then companies would probably be much more likely to innovate, a lesson that needs to be learned from the current problems in the automobile industry.

I think that the last lines of Goleman's book are perhaps the most powerful and most telling. He quotes Ian McCallum, a South African physician and naturalist who writes about ecological intelligence, saying, "We have to stop speaking about the Earth being in need of healing..the Earth doesn't need healing. We do" (247).

Photo courtesy of amazon.com.

Oiligarchy: Life imitating art?

In the awkward time between the end of finals and the beginning of internships, I've been watching a lot of movies, reading a few books, and playing a lot of video games. (As well as sitting around outside and playing with my dog...)

I stumbled upon a game called Oiligarchy. You are the CEO of an oil company: you can drill all over the world (Texas, Alaska, Venezuela, Iraq, and Nigeria), corrupt politicians, increase oil addiction, and stop alternative energies.

What I found interesting/sad was how eerily the game imitates real life. Throughout the game, the player can see the oil reserves depleting and the people becoming restless. Also interesting are little news articles/political acts that pop up, such as "Electric Car Pilot Program Act" or "The Trolley Preservation Act" (an act that increases the oil addiction by preserving all trolleys, as public forms of transportation, in museums), depending on how you play the game.

The game has two endings and lots of details. For example, in Venezuela when you put an oil rig down you destroy rainforest. In Nigeria, when you start exploring the land, all the fish in the pond die. Though some people have thought that this is a pro-oil game, it's actually a very clever satire and critique of the oil industry as well as American consumerism.

One reviewer calls this game "one of the most important games released this year" and says "selfish short-term greed runs this game." Life imitating art or art imitating life?

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

Do you know where your food comes from? (Do you want to?)

Last Tuesday (on free-scoop day at Ben and Jerry's!), a few members of EcoAction trekked through the pouring rain to the National Geographic Society for an advance screening of Food, Inc. Sustainable eating is one of my main interests (mostly because I like eating), but this movie really examines where your food comes from and the implications of what you eat, as well as the effects.

Much like The Omnivore's Dilemma, this documentary focuses on where your food comes from. In this documentary, there are appearances by Michael Pollan (my personal favorite and author of The Omnivore's Dilemma), as well as other experts like Eric Schlosser (author of Fast Food Nation), Gary Hirshberg (founder of Stonyfield Farms), and Joel Salatin (owner of Polyface Farms, located not too far away from D.C., who was also a pivotal character in The Omnivore's Dilemma).

I think it's super interesting how important (and how overlooked) food is in our energy crisis - and how it's also a social, political, and economic issue.

As far as the environment goes, the major issue that this movie brings up is the cost (both in terms of dollar$ and carbon emissions) of transportation. We ship our food from all over the world because we, as human beings, have ceased to be seasonal eaters. We're used to eating, for example, bananas all year around.

But I found that this documentary also, interestingly, had a focus on politics. I found one woman in the documentary, Barbara Kowalcyk, to be particularly endearing. Her two-year old son had died from eating a hamburger contaminated with e.coli. It's the type of story most people would write off as merely tragic, but if you go back and question how the meat got contaminated with e.coli in the first place, it goes beyond tragic to appalling.

Basically, because we live in a country which has such a high demand for beef, we need to raise a lot of cows. We essentially trade quality for quantity, and end up raising cows in super-tight quarters. As a result, cows walk around and live in their own waste, and disease is rampant. But, as any biology student could probably tell you, e.coli sucks, but people can generally recover from.

Not quite. Because cows live in such tight quarters, and because cows are fed on corn-based meals*, they are given huge amounts of antibiotics. Again, as any biology student could tell you, the overuse of antibiotics leads to super bugs, such as super-dangerous strains of e.coli.

For more information about the Meat and Poultry Pathogen Reduction and Enforcement Act (a.k.a. Kevin's Law, H.R. 3160 in the 109th Congress), a law Barbara Kowalcyk is trying to pass for stricter food safety regulation, click here.

This was just one interesting aspect of Food, Inc. I highly recommend that you watch it... though the vast majority of the food was disturbing, but really important to see. After all, you are what you eat.



*Corn based meals for cows, because of government regulations, need to have certain amounts of protein and fat - often gotten from other cows, i.e. cannibalism. Also, cows are, by nature, grass eaters, which is why they have rumens. Because cows are fed corn rather than grass, the acidity in their stomachs increases and they are also put on multiple medications to prevent them from feeling sick. Just look up CAFO (Concentrated Animal Farm Operation) for more information.

Georgetown Sees Gains in Recycling Competition

http://explore.georgetown.edu/news/?ID=41435

After a 10-week RecycleMania competition among more than 200 colleges and universities, Georgetown ranks among the top institutions finding ways to reduce solid waste on campus.

RecycleMania pits colleges and universities against each other for a friendly recycling contest. This year, the contest went global with U.S. institutions competing alongside colleges in Canada and India. Schools combined to recycle materials totaling 69.4 million pounds during the competition.

In waste minimization efforts, Georgetown ranked 22 out of 148 schools. The category is judged by which schools produce the least amount of municipal solid waste, including trash and recyclables. The university ranked No. 48 of 206 schools in the grand champion category, which measures overall recycling. Georgetown had an average recycling rate of about 37 percent, improving on a rate just under 26 percent in 2008.

University environmental leaders are pleased with Georgetown's RecycleMania showing, and say the Hilltop’s green efforts will continue to evolve.

"We have performed better this year in every category," says Karen Frank, vice president for facilities and student housing. "Most notable is that, in the last week of this year's competition, we recycled over 52 percent of our total waste. … Now we must focus on ways to achieve these numbers when we are not in a competition."

Reducing Georgetown's overall solid waste is a top goal of EcoAction, a student-run environmental education group, says member Jonathan Cohn (C'10). He wants those efforts to start with the ubiquitous disposable water bottles people carry.

"Without a doubt, I want to see a reduction in the consumption of bottled water. During my experience at GU, I have felt as though many believe that bottled water is better than tap water and that the offering of bottled water to someone conveys something specific," he says. "However, the consumption of bottled water produces a large amount of unnecessary waste."

There are easy alternatives, Cohn adds, including reusable bottles and filtered tap water.

Frank says her office shares Cohn's concern and notes that Georgetown had lower rankings in recycling cans and bottles, placing 117 out of 210 schools.

"This suggests that many recyclables are still being disposed of in regular trash," she says. "We have placed more recycling containers throughout Bunn ICC and are considering removing waste baskets from classrooms to encourage the use of the recycling containers in the corridors just outside the classrooms."

Georgetown's results during RecycleMania are:
• Ranked No. 22 of 148 in waste minimization
• Ranked 48 of 206 in overall recycling
• Ranked No. 88 of 293 in recycled gross tonnage of combined paper, cardboard and bottle and cans with 158,371 pounds recycled
• Ranked No. 146 of 204 in paper recycling
• Ranked No. 71 of 204 in cardboard recycling
• Ranked No. 117 of 206 in bottle and can recycling With RecycleMania over for another year, Frank's office continues to collaborate with student groups to promote and institute environmental initiatives. She knows there is more work to do, especially to achieve a university recycling goal of 40 percent of all solid waste. Part of Frank's strategy is broader input from the university community.

"We have a lot of support and excellent suggestions from active students," she notes. "Now, we need to bring more faculty and staff into our awareness planning."