The EWG found 287 different toxins in the blood of 10 Americans. These toxins have been linked to cancer, birth defects, hormone disruption, reproductive problems, immune disorders, and other health problems.  Find out who they are and how their bodies were contaminated, and what you can do to protect yourself and family.

When: Tuesday, March 17 at 6:30 p.m.

Where: Cavallo Point, 601 Murray Circle, Fort Baker, Sausalito, CA  94965

How: RSVP at http://www.ewg.org/marin

The article features Brian McGuinness, a vice president of Starwood Hotels and Resorts, and discusses Starwood’s green initiatives as well as its new green brand, Element. According to McGuinness, people say they want a green hotel so long as they don’t sacrifice anything. Fair enough, many people say this about plenty of aspects of their lives. However, McGuiness goes on to discuss to examples where he thinks people will not compromise: master switches and dual flush toilets.

Having spent last year living and traveling in Europe, I can tell you that neither of these compromised my comfort in any way. For those who don’t know what a master switch is, it is simply a slot near the door of your hotel room where you place your key when you enter your room. This turns the electricity on in the room, and you can then turn on the lights, television, etc. at your leisure. When you leave the room and take your key out of the slot, anything that you left on will shut off after a brief interval. (When you return and put your key back in the slot, any lights you left on will illuminate instantly.)

McGuiness said that Starwood (and Element) doesn’t use master switches because some customers were concerned that their rooms would be too hot if the air conditioning was turned off in their absence. He said that Starwood was considering compromise switches instead, so that lights would be turned off, but the AC could remain on. What a colossal waste! And, I might mention, this is based on a customer concern, not a real customer experience. I have never had a problem with the AC being off while I was out of the room, and this includes staying in Athens, Greece, in JULY, in temperatures well over 100 degrees. Hotel rooms are not so large that a few minutes of cooling doesn’t take care of the heat rather quickly.

In fact, the only downside I experienced with a master switch was if I was trying to charge something while out of the room, such as a laptop, digital camera battery, or cell phone. Some hotels did have an outlet set aside for this purpose however.

As for dual flush toilets, these basically have two buttons on the top of the tank, one large and one small. You would use the large button the flush solid waste, and the small button to flush liquid waste. Like master switches, dual flush toilets are also used widely in Europe, but seldom seen here. McGuiness again cited customer “concern” on this topic, the concern being that these toilets wouldn’t work as well. I can attest here that they work just fine.

It seems to me that Starwood is being a bit overly zealous in gathering customer feedback, almost setting themselves up with reasons to NOT be green. Certainly it behooves any business to find out what their customers’ wants and needs are before making a big change, but in the case of master swtiches and dual flush toilets it would appear that the concerned customers just don’t know enough about them, and their concerns are therefore unfounded.

If a hotel didn’t make a big fanfare about master switches and dual flush toilets, customers would simply use them during their stay and that would be the end of it.

A Deloitte survey recently found that 34% of business travelers seek out green lodgings. Starwood properties are incredibly comfortable for business travelers; I hope they do more to meet this desire for green lodging by instituting changes that make sense.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

On July 4, Elizabeth Royte, author of Bottlemania: How Water Went on Sale and Why We Bought It, was interviewed on the Science Friday edition of NPR’s “Talk of the Nation.” (To listen to the interview, click here.

Royte researched the history of bottled water in the United States and explored the environmental and social issues involved in the industry, including the privatization of water supplies around the country and around the globe. Certainly many people are aware of the petroleum and energy costs that go into manufacturing plastic water bottles and transporting the finished product to market. Some things the average consumer might not consider, however, are contaminants in the plastic water bottles themselves, advances made in bottle production to “lightweight” bottles and lessen costs, and how communities are affected by corporations buying up water sources.

Not everyone finds the water business evil, Royte pointed out in her interview. Even she finds it comparatively “not the worst thing in the world.” When asked whether she found people worried about losing their local water supplies, Royte responded that some people do and some don’t. While there are so-called water wars with angry people protesting and going to court, others welcome the jobs brought by the bottled water business and view it as a clean industry.

Royte does advocate tap water, explaining that the vast majority of community water supplies meet or exceed federal standards. She did note in her interview, however, that some 29 million Americans do not have municipal water that meets federal standards. Because many people are concerned about what’s in their water (and because the water industry has marketed their products in ways to make us be afraid of our water supply), Royte suggests two things:

1. Check your local Right to Know or Consumer Confidence report to see how clean your water is. These reports come in the mail every year, but you can also find them online for your community.
2. Optionally, you can collect a water sample from your tap and have it tested.

Once you know what is (or isn’t) in your water, you can then filter your water through either a carbon filter or a reverse osmosis filter, which removes industrial and agricultural contaminants.

For more information about Bottlemania and for extensive links to a variety of resources about water, visit Elizabeth Royte’s Bottlemania web site.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Hardly a day goes by where I also don’t see an article about the financial benefits of sustainable business practices (for example, the cost savings realized by becoming more energy efficient). If “going green” puts a company more firmly in the black, are higher prices still justified?

Some people point to the higher cost of organic food ingredients or to paying a proper wage to fair trade producers. Others will cite employers who foot the bill for a solid benefits package for their employees or other socially-forward thinking activities. And there is merit in those arguments, no question.

Still, there are companies that seem to manage to have sustainable business practices while being priced competitively. One company that comes to mind in this regard is the Sierra Nevada Brewing Company, which was recently recognized by the Environmental Defense Fund in its 2008 Innovations Review. Sierra Nevada does some amazing things in their plant, currently generating 80% of their own electricity, having one of the largest fuel cell installations in the country, and reusing their waste methane among them. The company is also a leader in recycling, winning Waste Reduction Awards Program awards from the state of California every year since 2001.

I popped down to the corner store before writing this post to check the price of Sierra Nevada compared to other beers on the shelf. Despite its green innovations (I’m sure the fuel cell installation didn’t come cheap), Sierra Nevada was no more expensive than other beers of its category, and in some cases was even less expensive. Other examples of comparably priced products that are greener include Stonyfield Farm and Trader Joe’s yogurt, which have reduced packaging, General Mills, which reduced the shape of noodles in Hamburger Helper to reduce packaging volume by 20%, and Procter & Gamble and Unilever, in association with Wal-Mart, which changed their liquid detergents to concentrated formulas to reduce water, plastic, and cardboard consumption.

Hopefully I won’t be surveyed with the question “Are you willing to pay more for a green product?” because my answer is not a simple Yes or No. It’s an “It Depends,” and the dependency is not whether the product is a computer or shampoo.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

What interests me about these trends and predictions is seeing American society come full circle. I grew up in the ’70s and ’80s, and have long heard laments from Baby Boomers about how our suburban lifestyle has been the death of communities. How air conditioning and television has stopped us from knowing our neighbors. How strip malls and big box stores have killed downtowns across the country. How long commutes have eaten into our time together as families. It seems even as people took more and more advantage of comforts and cheap prices, it came at human, resource, and environmental costs.

Is there a silver lining in the decline of oil supplies and the rise of gas prices? Will communities begin to come back together? Will we be able to adjust our public trans infrastructure to support a changed lifestyle?

Far be it for me to be overly optimistic about all of this, but in the age of people text messaging their spouses — both in the same house — a bit of community can’t help but being a good thing. In fact, I reckon that coming together as a community, both locally and globally, will be the only way to make it through our coming environmental and energy challenges.

Now, if only I could get across my 7 x 7 mile city by public transportation in under an hour…

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

We can really make a difference. TODAY. But I need your help. Plus I have some free Reverend Billy DVDs to give away.

I really, really need support from all of you today (and I’m unashamedly bribing you with the offer of free Reverend Billy DVDs). But first I have to give you some background. Just read the bits in bold if you’re in hurry.

Next Friday, May 30, Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York’s Eight Congressional District has kindly agreed to meet with me in his New York office. As one of his constituents, I intend to ask Representative Nadler to support an effective global warming mitigation policy that is based not on what is politically possible but on what is scientifically necessary.

More specifically, I intend to ask him to:

• Introduce, as soon as possible, a non-binding resolution to the House of Representatives asserting that we need a climate change mitigation policy with a goal of no more than 350 ppm of atmospheric carbon dioxide (read why here). Furthermore, the resolution should say that the United States must collaborate with the international community to achieve an effective successor to the Kyoto Protocol that will achieve the 350 goal or better (depending on how the science progresses).
• Pledge to support the 1sky.org policy platform that also includes creating five million green jobs (through, for example, weatherizing our buildings and manufacturing solar panels and windmills), and placing a moratorium on the building of new coal power plants.
• Pass on to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a letter addressed jointly to her and Representative Nadler, in his position as Assistant Whip, asking them both to push for the introduction of new and the strengthening of currently pending climate change legislation to reflect the crucial 350 goal. This means, at the very least, aiming for an 80% reduction in climate emissions below 1990 levels by 2050 and a 25% reduction by 2020.

Now then, here’s how I was hoping you could help. My dream is to present Representative Nadler and Speaker Pelosi with between 350 and 3,500 (10 x 350) emails of support for these policy objectives.

Can you help? All it requires is a cut and paste job (see below).

Fellow bloggers: would you be willing to pass this request onto your readers?

Everyone: would you email this around and get your friends to pitch in?

Two bits of good news:

1. Representative Nadler has been an ardent supporter of environmental issues ranging from the thorough cleanup of the World Trade Center site to securing federal funding for state conservation and wildlife grants. He received a score of 95% for his voting record in the 1st session of the 110th Congress from the League of Conservation Voters.
2. Reverend Billy and the Church of Stop Shopping have provided me with five copies of their new DVD, What Would Jesus Buy (watch the trailer here). I’m going to give the DVDs to people who send in their emails of support (the 1st, the 35th, 100th, the 350th and the 1000th).

Here’s how to send in your email of support:

Simply cut and paste the below, making sure to substitute in your name, mailing address and email address, and send it to noimpactman+nadler+pelosi@gmail.com (it looks like a weird email address but, don’t worry, it will work).

Dear Representative Nadler and Speaker Pelosi–

Thank you for your hard work on behalf of the people of the United States. It is indisputable that the health, happiness and security of the American people depends upon the well-being of our planetary habitat. It is also indisputable that the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases is causing changes in our habitat that will adversely effect Americans on every level–from our health to our economy.

On May 30, Colin Beavan aka No Impact Man will visit Representative Nadler to express to him support for a number of climate change mitigation policies that are much stronger than those currently passing through Congress. Please consider this a letter of support for the measures Colin Beavan will be advocating.

Specifically, I support Colin Beavan in requesting that Representative Nadler and Speaker Pelosi both, together or separately:

* Introduce, as soon as possible, a non-binding resolution to the House of Representatives asserting that we need a climate change mitigation policy that accords not with what is politically possible but what is scientifically necessary–a goal of no more than 350 ppm of atmospheric carbon dioxide (read why here). Furthermore, this resolution should assert that the United States must collaborate with the international community to achieve an effective successor to the Kyoto Protocol that will achieve the 350 goal or better (depending on how the science progresses).
* Pledge to support the 1sky.org policy platform that also includes creating five million green jobs (through, for example, weatherizing our buildings and manufacturing solar panels and windmills) and placing a moratorium on the building of new coal power plants.
* Push for the introduction of new and the strengthening of currently pending climate change legislation to reflect the crucial 350 goal. This means, at the very least, aiming for an 80% reduction in climate emissions below 1990 levels by 2050 and a 25% reduction by 2020.

Yours sincerely,

<Your Name>
<Your Mailing Address>
<Your Email Address>

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

At first glance, Seventh Generation Natural Dish Liquid appears to be rather eco-friendly. The bottle is made of #1 PETE plastic (easily recycled), and contains a minimum of 25% post-consumer recycled plastic. In addition, the bottle states:

… We disclose all
INGREDIENTS: A unique combination of naturally-derived cleaning agents (coconut-based surfactants), Whole and natural plant essences (a blend of lemongrass, clementine, bergamot, blood orange, and elemi essential oils), Preservative (less than 0.05%), Water.

This dish soap is also not tested on animals and does not contain animal ingredients. It claims to be non-toxic, biodegradable, and hypo-allergenic.

I purchased the soap with hardly a second thought, and was very pleased when I used it for the first time. It cleaned my dishes like a charm, and I needed significantly less soap than Trader Joe’s to do the job. The scent was light to the point of non-existence. My only complaint was that the soap came out of the bottle very quickly, so I wound up using much more than I had to and felt like I had wasted quite a bit.

To get ready to post this review, I popped over to Seventh Generations web site and found a somewhat more extensive list of ingredients than appears on the bottle:

Sodium laureth sulfate, cocamidopropyl betaine, cocamide MEA and coconut alcohol ethoxylate (plant-derived cleaning agents), aqua (water), sodium chloride (thickener), magnesium chloride (cleaning enhancer), citric acid (cornstarch-derived water softener), essential oils and botanical extracts* (citrus clementina (clementine co2), citrus aurantium bergamia (bergamot fcf), citrus sinensis (blood orange), cymbopogon citratus (lemongrass), carnarium luzonicum (elemi)), hexahydro-1,3,5-tris (2-hydroxyethyl)-s-triazine (preservative, less than 0.05%). *d-limonene is a naturally occurring component of these ingredients.

This was really disappointing to me. The bottle says that Seventh Generation discloses all ingredients, which they do on their web site if not on the bottle. However, had I read on the bottle that the soap contained sodium laureth sulfate and cocamide MEA, and coconut alcohol ethoxylate, I would have tried another product. After all, I do my best to avoid personal care products that contain these ingredients due to their links to cancer. (Sodium laureth sulfate is a foaming ingredient and is commonly found in products like soaps and shampoos. It is a concern because 1,4 dioxane is a carcinogenic byproduct of this and other ethoxylated ingredients, and it is often found in products containing sodium laureth sulfate. Cocamide MEA contains diethanolamine (DEA), which the National Toxicology Program found to cause cancer in laboratory animals.)

Bottom line: This product is effective and I was very happy when I first used it, other than its overzealous spout. However, I was disappointed that the product contained ingredients that have been linked with cancer, and even more disappointed that a company as seemingly transparent as Seventh Generation does not list these ingredients on the bottle. This kind of thing bothers me even more in natural products than it does in non-natural products. Consumers have a certain trust in natural products, but I am learning that one has to be just as vigilant with them as with anything else.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

I haven’t been to a sporting event in years, and therefore haven’t given a lot of thought to their environmental impact (I also don’t watch sports on TV, so I missed out on all the green hoopla surrounding the Superbowl, etc.). Looking at the emptying seats, I was struck by all the trash left behind and couldn’t help but wonder about (A) the workers who would have to clean up in the blazing heat, and (B) whether any of it would be recycled. Imagine cleaning up an entire stadium: how scrupulous would you be? Of course this train of thought led to others, such as all the energy used to run the concessions, all the water being flushed away after an afternoon of beer drinking, all the lighting that goes into a nighttime game.

By coincidence, I read a Newsweek article the very next day about the new Washington Nationals ballpark and other greenities in Major League Baseball. The $611 Nationals’ stadium is the first such building to be LEED certified, though the Minnesota Twins’ new stadium will have a higher level of LEED certification when it opens in 2010. Among the features of the Nationals’ stadium:

• High efficiency bulbs in the field lights
• 95% of the steel used in construction was recycled
• Toilets are low-flow
• Recycled 5,500 tons of construction waste
• Has a state-of-the art water filtration system
• Close to public transportation

Even more exciting, building the stadium to LEED standards resulted in just a 2% hike in construction costs, proving that building with a mind to the environment is very feasible.

The Natural Resources Defense Council has been lobbying sports teams and facilities to go green since 2002. Some successes to date include:

• A composting and recycling project by the Seattle Mariners at Safeco Field, which expects to recycle 25% of its waste this year (about 350 tons of glass, trash, and organic trash
• Solar panels on ball parks in Cleveland, San Francisco, and Colorado
• Bio-degradable corn-based cups at the Oakland A’s stadium
• A goal by the Pittsburgh Pirates to recycle 100% of bottles and cans used this year
• MLB will be using some of its $6 billion yearly revenue to pay for greening costs of the Marlins’ future stadium in Miami

Now that is something to cheer about.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

The bottle itself is #2 HDPE, easily recycled in most communities. It is also made from 50% post-consumer recycled content, another strong plus. A few other good things about this product:

• It was not tested on animals
• It does not contain parabens (an ingredient linked to cancer, reproductive problems, and endocrine disruption)
• It does not contain fragrance (I chose the fragrance free version)
• It does not include artificial color or unnecessary chemicals
• It does not contain animal ingredients

So let’s look at what is in this product so we can see whether this is as good of a product as the label may lead you to believe. Ingredients include: Water, Brassica Campestris Oleifera (Rapseed Oil), Cetyl Alcohol, Glyceryl Stearate, PEG-100 Stearate, Benzyl Alcohol, Glycerin, Xanthan Gum, Sesamum Indicum (Sesame Seed Oil), Sodium Citrate, Lecithin, Dehydroacetic Acid, Panthenol, Simmondsia Chinensis (Jojoba Seed Oil), Allantoin, Tocopherol (Vitamin E).

Of these ingredients, two are cause for concern:

• PEG-100 Stearate – an emulsifier and skin softener. Products containing this ingredient may contain 1,4-dioxane, an animal carcinogen and probable human carcinogen, and a “dirty dozen” ingredient found in personal care products.
• Benzyl Alcohol – an aromatic alcohol found in a slew of personal care products. The Cosmetics Database lists this ingredient as a moderate hazard, and the EU classifies it as harmful. It is a known neurotoxin.

Bottom line: The price is right for this product and I find it adequate as a moisturizer on my body but not my hands, which tend to be dry. I’m concerned about the presence of PEG-100 Stearate and would prefer a product that does not contain ingredients that produce 1,4-dioxane. Finally, some of the ingredients, such as lecithin, glycerin, and cetyl alcohol, can be derived from animals as well as plants. If you are looking for products without animal ingredients, you may want to find out the source of these ingredients in other products.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Dell responded quickly, sending a team out to the vendor that shipped the offending box to fix the process. In a post on their blog, Dell discusses their immediate directive to use envelopes for small items like thumb drives as well as other initiatives to use more intelligent and size-appropriate packaging.

Dell also has a forum where people can rate, discuss, and brainstorm on environmentally friendly solutions.

It’s great to see people posting about this kind of thing, and to see companies responding. Greener One is one platform to share both positive and negative environmental info about products, and I’m always on the lookout for products to review here. Drop me a comment if you have any review requests!

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::