The current issue of Mother Jones offers a handy guide to the eco-labels that get slapped on food, flowers, and other products, parsing overly broad claims like “free range” and “fragrance free” (practically meaningless) and pointing to trustworthy labels that have sets of standards to back them up (official “Certified Biodegradable” label, yes; plain old “Biodegradable,” no). Labels from the Forest Stewardship Council, Humane Society, and Marine Stewardship Council get high marks; ubiquitous declarations like “hypoallergenic” and “cruelty-free” are exposed for the standard-less shams that they are.  It’s a great cheat-sheet (compiled by Rebecca Clarren, a savvy environmental reporter) for savvy shoppers.

Source: Mother Jones

Perhaps you’ve heard about the vast high-level conspiracy to unite the United States, Mexico, and Canada in a single powerful mega-state, the North American Union? Well, apparently the environmentalists are in on the plot, too. The three countries recently formed a pact to cooperate on wilderness conservation measures, reports National Geographic Newswatch.

The news came without much fanfare (coincidence?) out of the 9th World Wilderness Congress in Merida, Mexico, on November 7. The countries’ “memorandum of understanding”—basically, an agreement to seek agreement—has provisions that address ecosystems, migratory wildlife, and natural resources that cross geographical boundaries; encourages cooperation on scientific research; and recognizes the importance of wilderness conservation amid climate change.

At the same time, the memorandum “respects native approaches to conserving wild nature, accommodation for indigenous customs, priorities for species survival, and national environmental policy,” according to a statement from the World Wilderness Congress.

On the bright side, the agreement may help address important issues such as the impact of border fences on wildlife and overfishing in international waters. But just wait till the N.A.U. conspiracy crowd gets wind of it. They’ll want to send those illegal-alien monarch butterflies back to where they came from and prevent Canadian grizzlies from forming sleeper cells in the U.S. Rockies.

Sources: National Geographic Newswatch, World Wilderness Congress

We chose Julia “Judy” Bonds as an Utne visionary because we saw in her a rare sort of courage and conviction. As the codirector of Coal River Mountain Watch in Whitesville, West Virginia, Bonds has for more than a decade been at the fore of the battle against what she calls “King Coal.” After she began witnessing firsthand how mountaintop removal coal mining was irreparably damaging her region’s land, wildlife, and people, she fought back by speaking out forcefully against the practice and working to end it—persuasively, legislatively, and, if necessary, bodily. (She has been arrested twice at protests.) Now a matriarch to the anti-mountaintop removal movement, she spends part of her time traveling to share advice and tactics with college students and other green groups. I interviewed Bonds about the state of the movement, her inspirations, and her resolve in the face of daily danger.

How did you get started in the fight against mountaintop removal?

“Basically, I’m a coal miner’s daughter and granddaughter, and I’m an eighth generation resident here in the Coal River Valley. I lived in a little holler in Marfork, and Massey [Energy] moved into my holler and began to mine coal so irresponsibly that it just really smacked me in the face. I realized somebody’s got to do something, because nobody’s paying attention to what’s going on.”

“What started it was black water spills along the creek where generations of my family had recreated and survived there. But what really did it was the fish kill that my grandson found in 1997 when he was 6 years old when we were walking. He was standing in a stream full of dead fish. When you see a child standing in a stream full of dead fish, asking, ‘What’s wrong with these fish?’ I don’t see how anyone cannot react to that. I watched Massey Energy poison the whole town of Whitesville several times, because I lived three miles directly upstream of their drinking water intake. And I realized, my god, they’re poisoning the whole town of Whitesville—my friends, my relatives. It just dawned on me in a couple of years there that somebody has to do something, and it’s time to speak out.”

Sometimes things get personal at protests. I saw that you were slapped in the face by a woman at a rally earlier this year. Is it tough to maintain your resolve and your dignity in the face of opposition like this?

“In a way it is, because you know that living here, where we live and where our office is, is basically ground zero—it’s the front lines of the battlefield. And you face that battle every day. I could walk out of this office and get in my car and be run off the road or run over by a coal truck. Or any night that I go to bed in my home, I could be burned down in my home or I could walk out to my car and turn it one and have it blow up. It’s a day-to-day battle. You worry about your loved ones. It’s dangerous to even walk into a convenience store around here because you never know when there’s a coal miner or strip miner or heavy equipment operator in that store who’s got it out for you and wants to hurt you. So yes, it’s tough, but you just have to be cautious and try not to think about what could happen.”

“And I’m not the only one. [Fellow activists] Maria Gunnoe, Larry Gibson—anybody here that works against coal and against the abuses of the coal industry here is subject to be beat up or possibly suffer a fatality.”

There seems to be momentum building lately around the issue of mountaintop removal coal mining. Is that your sense?

“Yes, there is a sense that there is a lot of momentum building. We had a strategic plan to ramp it up this year, particularly on the Obama administration so as to basically give him a mandate to say we’ve got to do something about this. Essentially, we’re doing this to give him the intestinal fortitude he needs to stand up to the coal industry.

“And of course the coal industry senses that it’s in its last throes. It’s like a dying animal, and it’s scratching and clawing, reaching out any way it can, and basically, its solution is to use violence, threats, and intimidation against those of us who are committed to nonviolent civil disobedience and nonviolent tactics. So they’re using violence and threats and intimidation back, and lies. They’ve already been caught up in writing fake letters, and they were caught up again using fake pictures on a website called Faces of Coal. Their response to our honest, nonviolent plea for sanity and for help is threats, violence, and lies.”

Do you think the American public is finally waking up and catching on about where their coal comes from?

“Yes, I think it is. The new movie Coal Country is coming out, and United Artists is adapting the book Michael Shnayerson wrote called Coal River into a major motion picture [On Coal River].

“So I think America is waking up, particularly after the disaster in Tennessee [the December 2008 sludge spill] and a lot of arrests, and I think a large part of it is due to the progressive movement on college campuses, called the Campus Climate Challenge, to reduce greenhouse gases. So I think coal and global warming and climate change are running hand in hand, and I think mountaintop remove is an ugly poster child, probably the strongest weapon that activists who want a future can use against the coal industry.

“So it’s definitely ramping up. Americans are becoming more aware of what’s going on, and of course the coal industry has—I think they had almost $60 million to use in campaigns and TV ads. And that’s a dangerous two-edged sword for the coal industry, because once they get the word ‘coal’ out there and people actually do start to look deeper into the coal issue, they find our issues: They find mountaintop removal. They find sludge water. They find disasters. So I think it’s a double-edged sword for the coal industry to use so much of their money on PR and advertising. Because once you go on the Internet and you type in ‘coal,’ well, there we pop up. Basically, they’re helping us spread the word, and for some reason they just don’t realize that. (laughs) And the Internet is becoming the new TV set for this new generation of college students and for kids, and we have spent the last 10 years producing so many movies, producing a lot of websites and getting information out there, that when you do cruise the Internet, we pop up everywhere. So it’s becoming quite an advertisement for us as well.”

What kinds of moments give you gratification in your work?

“Well, the most gratification in my work comes from setting in my backyard, listening to the summer insects, watching lightning bugs and fireflies, and talking to my grandson and playing with my hound dogs. That’s a calming moment for me.

“Other than that, it’s every time a new citizen or a new college student speaks out about the abuses of coal and about the need for a transition to a clean, renewable energy future—that gratifies me. Every time a new student comes up to me and says thank you so much, you’ve opened up my eyes. Or a new coalfield resident gets blasted [by mining explosions] and says I’ve had enough, I’m ready to speak out. Just recently, a couple of security guards have become disgusted with the tactics of the coal industry and have quit. So it’s those little things, those little successes, that make me feel good.

“And it’s hard for a local resident to speak out, because of all the threats and intimidation. People have been threatening to burn down people’s homes. Larry Gibson has had a couple of dogs shot, and they burned down his cabin. And every time there’s a new threat, a new intimidation. I don’t know if you’ve seen the video called Mountain Madness, Invasion of the Coal Thugs. You might want to look at that. It was a video taken on Kayford Mountain on July 4 this year, after I was assaulted at the protest.

“Every time locals see something like that, it just takes a little bit more for them to speak out. And see, the coal industry knows that they can’t intimidate those of us who are already invested in speaking out. Who they’re trying to intimidate is the other coalfield residents, our neighbors, from speaking out. It becomes very hard for people to speak out when you know that Judy Bonds got assaulted for speaking out, when there are intimidating and threatening comments and letters to the editor, when Larry Gibson’s dog got shot, or when Maria Gunnoe’s dog got shot—it makes it very hard for locals to speak out.

“This is a war zone. A lot of people don’t understand that when you live in southern West Virginia, you’re no longer living in the United States of America, you’re living in King Coal’s country. And he owns 95 percent of the media here, 98 percent of the elected officials, and the judges, the legal system as well. And that makes it almost impossible for an average citizen on their own to try to seek out justice. A lot of people don’t realize that, but if you come down here you’ll see: It is basically another country here.”

Sources: Coal River Mountain Watch, Goldman Environmental Prize, Planet Green, Politico, Huffington Post, Coal Country, On Coal River, Campus Climate Challenge

Image courtesy of Coal River Mountain Watch.

The fast food giant KFC has started marketing “Kentucky Grilled Chicken” as a “better-for-you” alternative to their famous fried meals. The meals are billed as having fewer calories, fewer fat grams, and they also contain the cancer-causing chemical PhIP, according to Good Medicine magazine. In fact, all chicken and other meats will produce this chemical when cooked at high temperatures. That’s why the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), the company that publishes Good Medicine, is suing KFC, McDonald’s, Chick-fil-A, Chili’s, Applebee’s, and others in an attempt to warn customers about the cancer-linked chemical. PCRM president Neal Barnard is quoted saying, “Grilled Chicken Contains carcinogens, and consumers deserve to know about it.”

Of course, PCRM isn’t too happy about the Double Down “sandwich”—which replaces bread with pieces of fried chicken—either.

Source: Good Medicine  

If I’m wearing a jacket, is the earth really warming?

Most of the United States had a notably cool summer and fall, a phenomenon that plenty of climate-change skeptics have seized upon. “Nice global warming we’re having,” they’ve been saying for months as extraordinarily cool temperatures have prevailed. So it looks like it’s time for another enlightening discussion of the elemental difference between weather and climate—with infographics!

Let’s look at the most recent month, October. The National Climatic Data Center recently released a map of October’s global temperature anomalies in one of its State of the Climate reports. Blue dots show cooler-than-average temperatures; red dots show higher-than-average temps. The bigger the dot, the greater the departure from average. As you can see, the U.S. is an island of blue in a world that is virtually red:

Also see maps from June, July, August, and September—as well as the combined June-August period—at the NCDC website. To varying degrees, they show the same thing: The United States has been one of the coolest places on the planet, relative to average, for months.

So the next time you hear a denialist—or just your well-meaning friend who’s clumsily trying to make small talk about the weather—attempt to link climate change and the current temperature outside your door, don’t just shake it off. Remind them that as usual, the big picture is what counts. And yes, it’s still getting warmer out there.

Source: National Climatic Data Center

Image courtesy of National Climatic Data Center.

Will there be a nuclear power renaissance in the United States, as a host of rosy-glassed prognosticators have predicted? Not as long as it remains such an abysmal investment opportunity, Matthew Wald writes in Technology Review’s November-December issue.

Wald, a New York Times reporter, contends that nuclear has come a long way in reliability and efficiency but still carries some serious financial baggage. “As the possibility of an accident that panics or injures the neighbors has diminished,” he writes, “the likelihood has grown that even a properly functioning new reactor will be unable to pay for itself.”

Wald cites three factors, all in flux, that make nuclear a huge financial risk. One is the sheer cost of building a new reactor, $4,000 per kilowatt of capacity using optimistic math, which is more than coal ($3,000) and far more than natural gas ($800). Another is the future competitive landscape in energy, and thus the price of electricity. And finally, no one is certain of the future price of fossil fuels, especially natural gas, which could change the whole equation.

The upshot is that prospective builders want government help in the form of federal loan guarantees—help that is not currently forthcoming. “The odds are probably not good enough for the nuclear industry to place a bet with its own money,” Wald concludes. “Only the government can agree to back up that bet, and has yet to do so.”

Elsewhere on the Technology Review website is another chink in the reactor for the nuclear renaissance crowd: The Physics arXiv Blog reports that the world’s supply of uranium is running short, citing a detailed analysis of the global nuclear industry by Michael Dittmar of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich.

“Countries that rely on uranium imports such as Japan and many Western countries will face uranium shortages, possibly as soon as 2013,” the blog states. “Far from being the secure source of energy that many governments are basing their future energy needs on, nuclear power looks decidedly rickety.”

Source: Technology Review (subscription or payment required), Physics arXiv Blog

Image by Topato, licensed under Creative Commons.

While the FDA holes up and takes a good, hard look at the health effects of the widely used plastic additive bisphenol A, there’s a flurry of news and activity on the BPA front.

Consumer Reports has ginned up considerable media attention with its recent study of BPA in canned food, which found the substance showing up widely in soups, juices, and canned vegetables. Check out coverage at Grist, Civil Eats, and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, and see the Consumer Reports blogs for coverage of the industry reaction.

A study published days ago in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health Perspectives found a correlation between aggression in young girls and high BPA exposure during pregnancy by their moms. Read stories about it at E Magazine and Sierra Club Green Home. Another study covered in today's Washington Post found that Chinese men exposed to high BPA levels suffered erectile dysfunction.

And now the mighty Kristof hath taken up the cause with his pen. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof weighed in on Saturday with “Chemicals in Our Food, and Bodies.” Springboarding off the Consumer Reports hullabaloo, he sums up some of the alarming science and pronounces endocrine disruptors—the dangerous class of chemicals to which BPA belongs—scarier than “threats from warlords, bandits, and tarantulas.”

Apparently, he’s not the only one scared by the BPA situation. Business Insurance reports that 25 BPA-related lawsuits that seek class-action status were consolidated last year, seeking damages from companies that include baby-bottle makers Avent, Evenflo, Gerber, and Playtex, as well as the maker of the ubiquitous Nalgene bottles. The most frightening aspect for the corporate defendants is that the strategically worded suits specifically do not allege bodily injury, and thus insurance will likely not cover the companies' court costs. (Instead the suits seek economic and punitive damages.) The story suggests that BPA may be next major cause for plaintiffs’ attorneys.

Finally, there may be broader reform afoot in the area of chemical safety. The Wilmington, Delaware, News Journal  reports that “momentum is gathering to strengthen the government’s primary mechanism for banning harmful chemicals or limiting their use in consumer products, the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act.” The story notes that EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said in a September speech that there are “troubling gaps” in the data on many widely used chemicals.

“Many are turning to government for assurance that chemicals have been assessed using the best available science, and that unacceptable risks haven’t been ignored,” Jackson said. “Right now, we are failing to get this job done.”

Sources: Consumer Reports, Grist, Civil Eats, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, E Magazine, Sierra Club Green Home, Washington Post, Business Insurance, Delaware Online 

You can be forgiven if you’ve grown somewhat cynical about food labeling in the organic and natural aisle: Lately it always seems to turn out that brands with names like Grandma’s Garden are fabricated and owned by Acme Evil Megafoods Inc. At EcoSalon, Vanessa Barrington sizes up 10 big organic and natural food brands to explore who owns what, and what they’re putting into their products.

Can you guess which of the following brands on the list are still independently owned, even though they’ve grown large enough to make it to your local market?

• Amy’s
• Arrowhead Mills
• Cascadian Farms
• Eden
• Horizon
• Nature’s Path
• Newman’s Own Organics
• Organic Valley
• Stonyfield
• White Wave/Silk

Read Barrington’s full post at EcoSalon for her thoughtful analysis and commentary on these 10 brands. The website has become a must-bookmark destination for people interested in solid, sane advice on living green. Recent topics have included the Purell-ification of flu-panicked America, a new Levi’s clothing tag that promotes Goodwill donations, and seven delicious non-tofu meat alternatives.

Thanks, Alternet.

Image by arincrumley, licensed under Creative Commons.

Source: EcoSalon