Pollution from coal-fired power plants is making our kids sick — 1 in 10 already suffer from
asthma. Our kids deserve better than a city with smog-filled summers. Tell President Obama
to stand up to polluters. Text COAL to 69866 to take action for cleaner air. sierraclub.org/coal

The environmental movement is often characterized by the right as being loony or wacky or valuing inanimate trees over human life. I do believe that nature has an inherent value and I agree with John Muir that “Nothing dollarable is safe, however guarded.” We must protect our natural resources because they are priceless and because they are essential to human health. Clean air is a natural resource, and when others are fouling it and making us sick we should be outraged.

Children’s bodies are more susceptible to harm from pollution than adults are. This is something rarely brought to the table, especially by those who consider themselves to be pro-life. However it’s a vital issue, not only in terms of children’s health in general, but to environmental justice. Poor children and children of color are more likely to be exposed to dirty air and water, and combined with other risk factors of poverty like low quality health care, lack of access to exercise and food desserts and the outcomes don’t look good.

So, three cheers for the Sierra Club. I’m really digging their new thought provoking advertisements. It’s important to explain to people how these issues impact them, especially when it can feel like environmentalists are out of touch with the general public. I think about that every time I see climate change come in dead last on the list of issues Americans are concerned about (although “environment” in general fares better).

When I was a teenager, I remember reading about the radical actions of “Earth First!” I was both horrified and fascinated at the same time. I wondered who its members were and what they were like. Were they young? Were any of them women? I devoured all of the articles on Salon about them and anything else I could find on the internet of the late 1990’s. This perverse interest was what first made me question the idea of radicalism, a skepticism I haven’t yet abandoned.

It was this adolescent curiosity that made the latest documentary from Marshall Curry absolutely irresistible to me.

I was more than surprised to learn that the infamous “eco-terrorists” were not quite the white-people-with-dreadlocks clique from college who made me feel conspicuous for shopping at the mall and not being vegan. They were instead political activists who worked day jobs at places like Burson-Marstellar, the public relations firm that consulted with the likes of Exxon and Phillip Morris.

The movie follows Daniel McGowan, arrested in 2005 on charges of arson, while he is out on bail awaiting his fate. McGowan became involved in Earth First! after coming to believe that traditional forms of activism were not effective – as they hadn’t prevented the Forest Service from selling old growth forest to loggers. Increasing episodes of police brutality against tree sitters and similar protesters also led many to the conclusion that current tactics were not going to work anymore.

A harrowing moment of the film shows two women during a sit-in having their eyelids forced open by cops and cotton swabs dipped in pepper spray stuck into their eyes. One of the women squealed that violent force should not be used against peaceful protesters. I wondered if her cries haunted the police officers as they will many people who watch this film.

The film centers around two questions. Is what Daniel McGowan and his Earth Liberaton Front cell did terrorism? They did destroy millions of dollars of property, but not a single human being was injured or killed as a result of their actions. The same cannot be said for other radical groups in the United States that they are sometimes compared to, like pro-lifers or the white power movement.

In my opinion, terrorism requires violence, and violence requires harm to a person. I understand arguments about mental or emotional harm, but I am not swayed that this standard is met by ELF’s actions. A law enforcement officer interviewed by the filmmakers said “One person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter.” I don’t really think that “freedom fighters” is an apt description either. I see them as deeply misguided vandals, who, while deserving of some punishment in prison, are not terrorists. They are criminals.

The second issue the movie explores, is the idea of the prisoners dilemma. Six members of the cell had been arrested. The ones who would cooperate and agree to testify against the others were told that they would be given immunity. The ones who don’t face life in prison. (Today I Learned: Arson can carry a life sentence.) Each time Daniel insisted that he could not turn against his former colleagues, I wondered cynically, “Why is he trusting arsonists with his life?” Especially when, according to him, the group broke up because of an argument over whether or not to begin assassinating people.

“If A Tree Falls” illustrates the failure of radical environmentalists who used destructive and criminal means to draw attention to their cause. At the same time peaceful activists had won gains, forcing corporations like McDonald’s to stop using styrofoam, for example. In New York State, we have finally passed the bottle bill, which will increase the rates that plastic water bottles get recycled because of grassroots activism and good old fashioned lobbying. Radicals today are more adept at using the media than they once were. The Yes Men do quite a better job of communicating their ideals via creative activism than the ELF ever did in their anonymous press releases.

Do we need a more powerful environmental movement? Yes. But I remain unconvinced that the radicals – especially criminal ones – will give us traction that more legitimate outlets will not.

“If A Tree Falls” is a spell-binding, well researched documentary that I highly recommend. Screening information is available here.

My husband and I are frequent customers at our local Stop and Shop. The location is convenient, and they have a large selection of organic produce and meats for a cheaper price than Whole Foods. However, it has come to my attention via this editorial by Mark Bittman that the labor practices used by their supplier of tomatoes is akin to slavery.

Normally we get the “Nature’s Promise” tomatoes, Stop & Shop’s generic organic brand, but the label only reads “Made in the USA.” It’s impossible to tell if they were grown in the conditions Bittman describes, although they may not be as he says the fields in Florida require a massive amount of fertilizer. Luckily out local farmers market will be able to supply us with tomatoes for the time being, and we will be giving this letter to the store manager.

This website has other letters you can give to the manager at your local Giant, Kroger, Martin’s, Publix or Trader Joe’s as well. These chains also sell tomatoes from Immokalee Florida.

The New York City budget has a proposed cut in the budget for the Bronx Zoo and Aquarium of 50%. The Wildlife Conservation society is urging people to write to their councilwo/man, Speaker Christine Quinn and to Mayor Bloomberg to protest these cuts.

As someone who cares about the health of New York City’s economy, I urge you to restore funding to cultural organizations like the Bronx Zoo and New York Aquarium for Fiscal Year 2012.

The proposed budget cuts more than 50 percent of operating support to the Bronx Zoo and New York Aquarium. This would be a devastating blow, potentially sparking program cuts and layoffs.

When you cut funding to our City’s cultural organizations, you hurt New Yorkers. These organizations pump valuable dollars into our communities and employ New Yorkers citywide.

The Wildlife Conservation Society alone, which runs the Bronx Zoo and New York Aquarium, pumps more than $316 million into New York City’s economy. More than four million guests visit WCS facilities each year, buying from local merchants in Brooklyn, the Bronx, and across New York City.

Now is not the time to cut organizations that provide jobs to New Yorkers, drive local economies citywide, and educate our children. Please support restoration to cultural organizations and ensure our zoo and aquarium continue to serve the communities that depend on them.

Ever since I read “Not Just A Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry” by Stacy Malkin, I’ve slowly started to change the way I purchase and use cosmetics. I frequently consult the Skin Deep Database at The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. I don’t have any hard and fast rules, but I try to purchase products that are at least one of the following: fragrance free, have organic ingredients and/or do not contain phthalates or parabens.

I will be reviewing some of the brands of natural cosmetics that I use regularly. To see all of the posts in this series, click here.

Yarok Feed Your Roots

My friend Alexandra has seen my series on eco-friendly cosmetics and recommended I check out Terrain (disclosure, she is an employee). This mousse caught my eye because I have been looking for hair care products that fit some my criteria above. This one is 100% vegan, and contains no parabens or sulfates.

I was actually skeptical that it would work on my hair, but decided to give it a try. My hair is thick and wavy, and can be very frizzy in humid weather or for no reason at all. I usually add a lot of mousse to define my curls on special occasions. Last week, when Ebonmuse and I were going out on the town, I tried it, and it was fantastic. It smelled like rosemary and my hair looked just as good as when I use my typical, loaded with carcinogens, mousse. I would highly recommend this.

Edit: Many months later, I am still enjoying this product. I do have to add that the bottle leaks while traveling on an airplane. If you put this in your checked luggage, make sure you have it in a separate, sealed plastic bag.

When pollution from coal-fired power plants makes its way into our bodies, it endangers out children’s health; At least 1 in 12, and as many as 1 in 6 women in the U.S. has levels of toxic mercury in her body that would put a baby at risk of developmental problems.

The Environmental Protection Agency is stepping up to defend our families whith updated protections to limit pollution in our air and water.

We need to support strong safeguards to clean up mercury from our nations biggest polluters – there’s no excuse for poisoning our air and water and putting our children at risk.

www.sierraclub.org/mercury

I was excited to see the above image in the Sierra Club’s Facebook news feed as a newspaper advertisement they ran last week because it conveys a message that I have been thinking about for a long time. I have been made an argument to conservatives the Republican Party platform contains a glaring contradiction. They are against tighter controls on air pollution, but believe that a fetus has the same (or more) rights than a baby, child, adolescent or adult – especially and adult woman. A developing fetus is more sensitive to toxins than a child or adult, so shouldn’t Republicans want to protect them with the same zeal they use when trying to limit or eliminate abortion? That they do not is maddening.

I’ve gotten a few different responses to my line of reasoning. Some just scratch their heads and say “I’ve never thought of that.” Others tell me I’m being stupid, or delusional and don’t understand my point at all. I’ve heard from some pro-lifers that they, personally are also environmentalists so there is no contradiction. Another told me that an abortion will definitely kill a fetus, but pollution has a less than 100% chance of doing damage so it’s more important to focus on stopping abortion first. Apparently a woman’s desire for an abortion or for a healthy child are meaningless.

But I do want to commend the Sierra Club for attempting to mainstream this argument. It’s an important one for environmentalists to make louder, clearer and more often. Most people don’t realize that as harmful as pollution is, children and fetuses are affected even more adversely because they are smaller and still developing. This issue is a great example of how feminism and environmentalism and feminism intersect. For women who want to be mothers, it is unfair that the chance to have a healthy baby can be taken away by the governments inaction on stopping industries from spewing poisons into the air.

I never understood the argument against genetically modified food. I’m not sure how species of crops created with new methods are any different from the bananas and strawberries I love today that were created from less palatable fruits over many generations of careful cultivation. After watching Food Inc., I had a better idea of why Monsanto has a bad reputation. The way they enforce their patent on the most common type of soybean in the United States makes earning a living almost impossible for farmers. But does that take away from all the successes of genetically modified foods? What about golden rice? I remain unconvinced that genetic modification of crops is inherently a bad idea, and I find the rhetoric about “Frankenfood” childishly silly

However, when I heard that the scientists at Monsanto may have unleashed a hellish horror on the world from their labs, I was alarmed. Dr. Don Huber, a retired professor from Purdue University wrote a letter to the USDA about the discovery of a new pathogen found in Monsanto Roundup Ready crops (crops that remain unharmed when sprayed with pesticides). If I am understanding him correctly, this pathogen evolved in response to the use of genetically modified crops, the way that MRSA evolved in response to misuse of antibiotics.

The discussion around Huber’s letter is intense, and it should be. If there really is some new “microfungus” pathogen that can attack plants and animals, and it’s in our food supply, this is very dangerous. I started thinking about mad cow disease and swine flu and SARS and the Ebola virus!! All my friends who had warned me about genetically modified food were right! It should be labeled! How could I have been so naive?

Dear Lord, where is Rene Russo!?

But after a few days of not seeing the story in the mainstream media, I wondered if things were as bad as Huber is presenting them. Now, I know that there are scores of important stories not covered in our media. But in general, they seem to be at least semi-competent at covering food safety and all over anything that can create panic in the masses. (Panic sells more beer and Strawberry Pop Tarts.) Contamination of common staples
like spinach, or the latest gross out of who found what in their fast food are usually top stories. Why not this?

There is some evidence that Huber is misrepresenting what he found, or just plain wrong. I’m hoping for all of our sakes that he is. And I think that before everyone goes wacky, we should at least understand what we are up against.

What is frustrating me the most about this controversy is the way that anti-science forces have muddied the waters in previous scientific debates. If science were not so abused by the likes of climate change deniers, anti-vaxxers and others it would be easier to follow what was going on. But the checkered history of Monsanto and the way some people abuse science to drum up panic makes it difficult to choose a side. I don’t want to be a rube easily led by the megatheocorporatocracy (hat tip) but I’m also hesitant to jump on a band wagon that may be carrying Jenny McCarthy and James Inhofe. I don’t know how many people are alarmed by Huber because what he’s saying really is alarming, and how many people just don’t like the idea of genetically modified food and now they have found their reason to crow. In an age where any two groups of people who disagree on an issue can rarely agree on any facts in common, I hope the dust will clear soon.

First Amendment Solutions Sunday is a series of posts with a quick link round up of actions you can take to exercise your First Amendment rights to help feminist, environmentalist or otherwise progressive causes.

Here are three reasons to call your Senator this week:

1. The League of Conservation Voters released its annual scorecard for Senators this week. How did your Senator do? Call to congratulate them for a job well done or urge them to do better next time

2. Congress voted to give themselves a few more months to decide what to do about the Patriot Act. It’s not too early to get yourself on the record with your Senator about opposing Civil Rights violations in the name of security theater.

3. The House of Representatives voted to defund Planned Parenthood. Call your Senators and tell them you stand with Planned Parenthood.

Other ways to get involved:

I was deeply disturbed by the sexual assault of Lara Logan, a reporter covering the revolution in Egypt, and the subsequent victim blaming that went on in the media. I have decided to make a donation to the women’s shelter and rape crisis center in my neighborhood. Women are victims of violence all of the world, not just when it makes international news.

Planned Parenthood New York City is having a rally this Saturday February 26th. Plan to attend here.

Finally, former Senator Russ Feingold is starting a new political action committee, Progressives United. It’s not clear yet how it will function – will it be similar to Move On or something else entirely?

Congressman Ackerman sent a response to this letter via email on February 7, 2011.

Thank you for contacting me to express your concern about global warming. I am happy to share my views with you on this very important issue.

I believe global warming is one of the most serious threats facing our nation and our planet. The evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming is overwhelming and, despite the claims of some politically motivated commentators and pundits, climatologists nearly unanimously agree that the earth is warming, that man is having a significant impact on this trend, and that there will be major consequences if it continues.

The implications of these findings are dire. Over half of the United States’ population lives in costal regions; an ocean rise precipitated by increasing global temperatures could have catastrophic effects in these communities. Moreover, numerous sectors of our economy depend on a stable climate. Our agriculture, fishing, and tourism industries—along with many others—rely heavily on consistent seasons and temperatures. Climate change could cause major financial losses in these areas and do serious damage to our economy.

The only response to this looming crisis is to proactively reduce carbon emissions and invest in alternative energy technologies. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, H.R. 1, signed into law by President Obama two years ago, took important and unprecedented steps towards investing in alternative energies and the “green” economy. In addition, on June 26th, 2009, the House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which, for the first time in our nation’s history, would limit America’s carbon emissions and put our nation on the path to a sustainable future.

Unfortunately, this important legislation died when Republicans blocked its consideration in the Senate. Now, they threaten to roll back the crucial—if limited—progress that the Environmental Protection Agency has made toward curbing emissions through the authority granted in the Clean Air Act. Rest assured that I will continue to oppose these efforts, and work for strong environmental protections and stringent clean air standards

I thank you again for contacting me about this important issue. I hope you will continue to share your concerns and suggestions with me.

The Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate hazardous air pollutants. In addition to an initial list of pollutants, the Administrator of the EPA must periodically review it and add any new substances found to be hazardous. The EPA has decided to classify greenhouse gas emissions as hazardous air pollutants because of the role they play in climate change. This was in direct response to a United States Supreme Court ruling in 2007 which declared that they must make a decision on the matter. Now, the new Republican Congress has decided to take action to remove this authority from the EPA. The specific bill is HR 391, and was introduced by Representative Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee and currently has 154 co-sponsors. Since the previous Congress (and all previous Congresses) failed to pass comprehensive legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, we cannot stand idly by while the EPA is rendered useless to deal with the problem.

The EPA’s course of action will not be to implement a cap and trade system, although that would be ideal, and a precedent has been set by some states and other countries. However, we must not let better be the enemy of the good. The effects of climate change grow exponentially and will have disastrous consequences, and so we must take any action we can to mitigate it.

The argument against EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is weak. Aside from straight up climate change denial are arguments that this will harm the economy and that it is an overstep of government authority.

While some industries like coal or oil will experience setbacks, we should not let this stand in the way of protecting not only the existence of human life on earth, but its quality in terms of health and the peace and stability of nations. Regulation of greenhouse gas emissions will create an incentive for new technological innovations – to either abate pollution or to create clean, non-polluting energy sources. This will boost the economy. As standards tighten and industries strive to meet them this will become more apparent. For example, if such a thing as “clean coal” exists then this will be a boon for it.

Regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is not an overstep of government authority. As mentioned previously, the Supreme Court has already ruled that the EPA may regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, and they have also upheld the constitutionality of the Clean Air Act itself. Finally, one may question the validity of the existence of Environmental Protection Agency – but the reason we need it is clear – the problems addressed by the EPA may also be addressed by state and local governments, but since pollution knows no boundaries it is best assessed at as broad a scope as possible. President Richard Nixon wrote of the creation of the EPA:

Our national government today is not structured to make a coordinated attack on the pollutants which debase the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land that grows our food. Indeed, the present governmental structure for dealing with environmental pollution often defies effective and concerted action.

Despite its complexity, for pollution control purposes the environment must be perceived as a single, interrelated system. Present assignments of departmental responsibilities do not reflect this interrelatedness.

Many agency missions, for example, are designed primarily along media lines–air, water, and land. Yet the sources of air, water, and land pollution are interrelated and often interchangeable. A single source may pollute the air with smoke and chemicals, the land with solid wastes, and a river or lake with chemical and other wastes. Control of the air pollution may produce more solid wastes, which then pollute the land or water. Control of the water-polluting effluent may convert it into solid wastes, which must be disposed of on land.

Similarly, some pollutants–chemicals, radiation, pesticides–appear in all media. Successful control of them at present requires the coordinated efforts of a variety of separate agencies and departments. The results are not always successful.

I will be sending the following letter to my Congressional Representative and both of my Senators.

Global climate change is a serious issue which has the potential to negatively impact every person on Earth. It is for this reason that I am writing to you today. I urge you to take all actions you can to oppose HR 391 and ensure that the Environmental Protection Agency retain its authority to regulate greenhouse has emissions.