HELL NO, CEO! POSTED 1 DAY, 12 HOURS AGOby Mackenna Goodman
Last week I went to California for the 2010 Eco Farm Conference -- a three-day organic farming extravaganza featuring big names (and big influences of the organic agriculture movement). But make no mistake about it -- this wasn't no utopian hippy fest.
Read the rest of this valuable article at: http://www.grist.org/article/hell-no-ceo-whats-the-future-of-organic-food
With help from grants, 'green' home deconstruction takes off in MarinPosted: 01/24/2010 11:32:38 PM PST
 Aaron Brown of Novato-based Marin Sonoma Deconstruction and Julie Ogawa tour Ogawa s home, under construction in Mill Valley. (IJ photo/Jeff Vendsel) The Homestead Valley home Julie Ogawa lived in for more than two decades had quite a history. In the late 1960s, it had been a hippie pad, a sort of mini-commune. It was a quirky place - no garage, no regular doorways, no closets. It was so old and so not-up-to-code, the plot map filed with the Marin County planning department showed no structure there at all. Ogawa decided several years ago it was time to start from scratch. As a self-described environmentally conscious person, she hoped to salvage some parts of the home - mostly the old-growth redwood that probably was logged nearby in Mill Valley. Last year, she started chatting with a fellow Marin Catholic High football parent, Novato entrepreneur Aaron Brown, about his new business,  Julie Ogawa s old home was carefully disassembled, and parts of the old building were reused to create the new structure. (IJ photo/Jeff Vendsel) Marin Sonoma Deconstruction. "I didn't know Aaron was in the business, and it sounded perfect for me," Ogawa said. "They take down your house, but you can keep anything you want and reuse it. Whatever you don't want gets donated to a nonprofit and you get the write-off. "I'm into being green, although I'm very careful in using that term. To me it doesn't mean expensive and exotic, it just means what's best for the environment." Marin Sonoma Deconstruction, which was born with help from a state grant, specializes in residential and commercial deconstruction, salvage and reuse services in the Bay Area. The company assists building owners in donating salvaged material to nonprofits that sell them to contractors and homeowners for drastically reduced prices. The grand idea, aside from profit, is to reduce waste through recycling and tap into tax deductions for donated salvaged materials for clients. "When people find out about us, they say it's really cool and wonder why people weren't doing this before," said Brown, 50. "And then when they realize that Uncle Sam provides tax deductions, they get really interested." Deconstruction costs about double that of demolition and can take twice as long, but the final tab  Wood from Julia Ogawa's Mill Valley home is stacked up after the house was deconstructed. Ogawa, who decided on a total remodel of the home, did not want the structure bulldozed and taken to a landfill, so she called Marin Sonoma Deconstruction, a company started with state grant money. (Provided by Molly Samietz) varies widely. It all depends on how the house was built, what fixtures are inside and what kind of shape they're in. Molly Samietz runs the Donation Solution, an independent appraisal company that determines the value of the salvaged material in a deconstructed home. Samietz has worked with Marin Sonoma Construction on a number of jobs, including the Ogawa house, and said the range of costs per job is huge. Samietz once appraised a small Marin house built in the 1950s that had minimal improvements since it was built. It had old fixtures, single-pane windows and not much that was in good condition - a key factor to the Internal Revenue Service when it comes to granting write-offs. The value of the salvageable material was only $11,000. On the flip side, a big home that has received many upgrades through the years might yield $500,000. "Most of the time, the value of the tax write-off more than covers the cost of deconstruction," Samietz said. "The nice thing about Marin County is that there is so much high-end stuff in these homes," Brown said. "It gets donated and turns around pretty quickly." Marin Sonoma Deconstruction is not the only deconstruction company that does jobs in Marin, but it's the only one created in part with county assistance. Omar Pena, Marin County's green building coordinator, applied for a grant from the California Integrated Waste Management board to form a deconstruction company. "It was 2006 and there weren't any in Marin then," Pena said. "We wanted to help somebody start a deconstruction company and a reuse facility where homeowners and contractors could pick out materials from deconstructed homes. When we got the funding, we chose Aaron." The Reuse Assistance Grant was worth $14,000 and helped Brown, a former wholesale insurance executive, build a new company with refuse and demolition expert Tony Perez, a Hillsborough resident. Brown focuses on marketing and business development as vice president of Marin Sonoma Deconstruction, and Perez, the CEO, deals more with operations. Perez, 47, started as a garbage man in Pacifica and moved into the hauling business. Customers started asking if material could be salvaged rather than taken to a landfill. Some landfills would give recycling rights to independent companies to pick through items at the dump and recycle whatever they could, and that prompted Perez to start looking to partner with somebody to form a deconstruction business. He met Brown through a mutual friend. "We started hearing about the homeowner benefits of deconstruction because of tax write-offs, and it makes so much sense," Perez said. "If you think about the natural resources it takes to make all the parts of your home, and then all the labor involved and all the energy it takes, reuse is the way to go if we want to be environmentally conscious." Perez predicts more municipalities will adopt policies to divert as much waste as possible from landfills. The county already has an ordinance that says 50 percent of any demolished house must be recycled or reused. Plans are under way to open a reuse center at Fairfax Lumber to sell used materials. Ogawa marveled at the deconstruction process and took time-lapse photos and video to document the process during September. On her property - which wasn't typical, according to Brown - it took three weeks to detach everything piece by piece. Some parts were wrapped in bubble wrap or cardboard to protect them for reuse. "They used California Conservation Corps guys and it was fun to watch," she said. "What was so great was that I don't believe it bothered any of my neighbors. They hardly knew what was going on." She's watching her new solar-powered home go up now with sustainable materials. In the end, she says she believes she will have saved money because of all the write-offs and rebates for going green. "Business has been great," Brown said. "We've been very busy all over the Bay Area, not just Marin. The biggest problem is that there is not enough space for the nonprofits to pick up the materials. In a way that's a good sign." |
posted Mar 10, 2010 11:47 AM by Anita Fieldman
http://www.grist.org/article/the-mall-gets-fresh
 The shopping mall is not dead. In Cleveland, in fact, it's growing green: cucumbers, lettuce, herbs and even flowers.
In the former Galleria at Erieview mall, a project called Gardens Under Glass is taking root, part of a grand plan to transform malls into greenhouses. It's just one of many Cleveland-based projects, suggesting that this rust belt city might have a few sustainabilty tricks to teach urban centers everywhere. Vicky Poole, who heads up marketing for the Galleria, conceived this project after looking at a photograph of plants growing in a cafe window. Hmmm, she thought, imagining a retooled version of the food court. The mall was already scrambling to find innovative uses for itself in a flagging economy, primarily as a wedding hall, but also as a farmers market. A greenhouse, she discovered, could thrive in the building's climate controlled environment under the tremendous glassed-in atrium that runs like a spine down its emtpy center. Poole and her partner-in-green Jack Hamilton (who manages Artist Review Todaymagazine and gallery, located in the Galleria) won a $30,000 grant to set up the greenhouse project. The money came from Cleveland's Civic Innovation Lab, which funds ideas for growing the local economy (other projects include a recycled glassware company and a renewable energy group). In February, spinach, tomatoes, and strawberries were started in a composted soil system produced by a local company. This week, a hydroponic system was delivered that will exponentially increase output. They also added artificial light to supplement the daylight streaming through the glass ceiling. Poole's vision for the mall is both a master marketing tool -- this one, like so many of its mid-80s brethren, was in dire straights not long ago, with dozens of vacancies in its 200 stores -- and an inventive way to promote sustainability in what has proven to be a largely unsustainable architectural dinosaur. It's pretty hard to find alternate uses for 100,000-plus square feet of mostly windowless space. "I don't look at us as a mall anymore," she says. "We really serve the downtown business community." Already, the farmers market is growing in popularity. The grander plan calls for the entire mall to become a retail ecovillage: vegetarian restaurants, health food stores, garden supply outlets, more farmers' stalls and shops selling recycled goods. There are other ecovillages in Cleveland and a whole slew of green initiatives that we detailed in 2008. What's great about this mall project, though, is that it comes from the private sector, from one woman with a big idea and a big enough space to realize it. "I hope it'll bring this building back," she says. In the meantime, malls are struggling to find new uses. Perhaps dead malls will become centers of local live produce? |
posted Mar 10, 2010 11:46 AM by Anita Fieldman
Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) and former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt explain why retooling our carbon-based energy sector for clean growth can spur the
kind of investment and job growth that we saw in the telecom industry after the market opening of the early 1990s.
Congressman Markey and FCC Chairman Hundt compare the benefits we can achieve now from passing bold climate change and clean energy
legislation to the benefits America reaped from passing 1990's legislation that lead to revolutions in telecom products and services:
In the ten years that followed the spectrum auctions that created competition in digital cellular and the regulatory framework that opened
Internet access to competition and the telephone network to innovation - 1997 to 2007 - investors, according to McKinsey and Company, poured
more than $850 billion in new capital into mobile, data, and expanded cable networks in the United States.
This investment drove job creation beyond any economist's prediction. Unemployment fell to 4 percent by the end of 1990s, and nearly 65 percent
of the population was employed. That's a remarkable contrast to the numbers today: 9.7 percent of Americans are unemployed and only 58
percent of people are employed. The job growth led to national income growth and increased tax revenue, so that the federal budget, contrary to
every estimate at the beginning of the 90s, was balanced by 1998.
We can get the same upside surprises if we pass a law that retools the carbon-based energy sector of the last century and encourages private
investment in a 21st century energy economy built on alternatives such as wind, sun, biomass and geothermal. That's the purpose of the
Waxman-Markey bill, which passed the House of Representatives last June.
Reform in communications stimulated creative destruction. For example, the old long distance industry charged ten cents a minute for a call when
we passed the Telecommunications Act. Now people are not even aware that there used to be a long distance charge when they use their phones
to call anywhere.
The replacement of the old networks with the new led to waves of innovation. Our reforms permitted everyone to unplug the phone line from the
back of the telephone and stick it into the back of the computer. That connection was the first pathway to the World Wide Web - in large part
because we did not permit the telephone company to charge extra money for all that extra and unpredicted use. The new demand for data
connections drove telephone companies to buy routers and switches, to build data centers, and to upgrade lines. Cable companies were driven to
respond by switching some of their capacity from one-way video programs to high speed two-way internet access, giving rise to broadband. In
response, the phone companies are now installing fiber, taking broadband to new levels of speed and lower price per bit.
Similarly, in the energy sector we need to retool the existing generation and distribution networks with cleaner forms of generation, open markets
to innovators who will build power lines that lose fewer electrons and connect new sources of clean power to users, and reward investors for
installing more efficient ways of using electricity. Creating the right framework for our communications networks led investors to commit about
$850 billion to rebuild those networks. With the right set of policies, it is reasonable expect a similar explosion of private sector investment in the
energy sector. This will result in consumers paying less for heating, cooling and lighting, and America's energy sector will be firmly based on
abundant, cheap and clean fuels. Nothing will pull innovation into the energy sector more than wind farms demanding better storage technology,
solar farms demanding better ways of capturing and converting sunlight into electricity, and appliances and electric vehicles that can talk to the
grid if it is smart enough.
There are other areas of the economy where Americans can and should find new jobs. In the energy sector we not only will need millions of
employees, but we also know that those millions will help us achieve independence from foreign oil and an end to the pollution of the environment
from carbon emissions. The trifecta of huge employment, national security, and protection of the environment is a winning ticket for America. We
have found that winning formula before in hard times that proved to be the dawn of economic growth; we can turn the dark days of the present
into sunny optimism about our future once again.
Superb piece -- they've clearly got their messaging down on the importance of passing bold climate change and clean energy legislation. Note to
the Senate: let's make it happen, already!
Kudos for TMP for bringing us this kind of high quality content, which is worthy of the op-ed pages of the world's finest newspapers.
|
posted Jan 17, 2010 2:18 PM by Anita Fieldman
By Norman Solomon Posted: 12/27/2009 12:07:17 AM PST Marin Independent Journal www.marinij.com/marinvoice/ci_14076230
AN AILING ECONOMY and a warming climate have caused many people to become more skeptical of business as usual in such matters as food, energy, housing, water and the environment. The virtues of self-reliance are compelling - and in Marin County, more than ever, the hunt is on for local solutions. There's a lot of value in "go local" perspectives. Far too often, our communities are beset by cookie-cutter chain stores, centralized bureaucracies and impersonal, corporate-driven forces that take precedence over environmental concerns, employees' rights and civic compassion.
With much wisdom, many people are engaged in supporting small businesses, farmers' markets, co-op ventures and other efforts to make the best use of talents and dollars close to home. In the process, they're often making wonderful strides for green sustainability and economic viability.
Yet we should be wary of assuming that any community can go it alone. Going local has the potential to solve many problems - in tandem with going regional, national and global.
Localism, if carried to an extreme, can drift toward isolation rather than connectedness. A key insight of environmental awareness - that all of nature is interconnected - is liable to be squandered if we tune out the larger regions, jurisdictions and forces at work.
If public investment is insufficient at federal and state levels, then the financing needed for truly green mass transit is apt to be woefully inadequate for local communities.
If the power of huge energy conglomerates is excessive in Sacramento or Washington, the best-laid plan for local consumption of clean energy is in danger of "greenwashing."
A heated controversy over the proposed asphalt plant near Petaluma has been largely confined to Sonoma County. But opponents warn that the plant's negative impacts could go far beyond the immediate area of the site on the Petaluma River.
Similarly, the effort to expand the Redwood Landfill in North Marin has significant potential long-term hazards for nature and human health on both sides of the county line.
Without becoming heavy-handed or grandiose, we need an enlarged regional approach for the North Bay. And, in the long run, our vision should go beyond any lines on a map. Just focusing on the region can shutter our window on the rest of the country and the world.
In theory, if everyone acts locally, then the combined action will become global. And there's a lot to be said for that theory.
But we also need structures - including regulatory mechanisms, funding processes and systematic protections - that span the nation and the globe.
That's why many thousands of activists, from all over the planet, converged on Copenhagen for the recent UN conference on climate change.
In the real world, careful macroeconomic policies and large-scale safeguards are essential to implement vast change. And - in an era of rampant poverty, global warming and widespread warfare - vast change is essential.
At the same time that we're thinking globally and acting locally, we'll need to find better ways to think locally and take action in concert with many other people, near and far.
Norman Solomon, a West Marin author and political activist, is co-chair of the Commission on a Green New Deal for the North Bay. Its Web site is: www.GreenNewDeal.info
Note: Norman Solomon is one of many individual voices that comprise the Commission on the Green New Deal for the North Bay. We welcome the opportunity to hear from all stakeholders. Please send comments and views to voices@GreenNewDeal.info. |
posted Jan 13, 2010 4:05 PM by Anita Fieldman
As advocates for clean energy and good jobs evaluate
opportunities to advance their issues in 2010—from a jobs bill that could
include energy efficiency measures to a federal clean energy and climate
bill—there is another oft-overlooked vehicle that advocates would be wise to
consider.
This year, Congress will likely pass a national transportation
bill—legislation that comes up only about once every six years—through which
the nation could reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions from the
transportation sector and significantly curtail petroleum use, thereby reducing
U.S. dependence on foreign oil. The transportation bill also could deliver
major economic benefits, including millions of new construction, operations and
manufacturing jobs—just what the doctor ordered to fix what’s ailing the U.S. economy.
“Transportation
is the fastest growing sector in terms of greenhouse gas emissions,” said Jill
Kubit, assistant director of the Cornell Global Labor Institute,
which encourages labor unions to become actively engaged in climate policy.
“But it’s often neglected in terms of the solutions side, so we feel a real
need to engage unions and workers around this issue.”
The Global
Labor Institute isn’t the only organization that is planning to engage groups
in the upcoming transportation debate. The coalition Transportation for America was created in 2008 by Smart Growth
America, Reconnecting America, and the Surface Transportation Policy
Partnership. T4America, as the coalition is called, now counts some 400
organizations that support its agenda to create “a new national transportation
program that will take America
into the 21st century by building a modernized infrastructure and healthy
communities where people can live, work and play.”
“It’s astonished and gratified us the range of organizations
that have realized a connection to transportation,” said David Goldberg,
communications director at T4America. He listed AARP as being a T4America
member that is concerned that the U.S. transportation landscape is unfriendly
to aging Americans; the American Public Health Association as a member that is
troubled by the health impacts of pollution from the transportation sector and
the lack of physical activity that has resulted from our transportation
infrastructure; and PolicyLink as a member that wants to provide poor
communities with access to high quality and affordable transportation options.
Groups like Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources
Defense Council are also part of the T4America coalition because of their focus
on climate change. “If you’re talking about climate change, transportation is
about a third of the emissions, and you’re not going to be able to put all new
vehicles that run on cleaner fuels out there in time to deal with the problem.
Liquid fuel is going to be the fuel source for a lot longer, but part of what
we need to do is not drive so much,” Goldberg said.
The transportation bill is so far-ranging that it touches many
aspects of our lives. It addresses highways, bridges, highway safety, public
transportation, railroads and high-speed rail, among other transportation
issues. It includes the repair of existing transportation infrastructure as
well as the financing of new highway and transit capacity. It targets
metropolitan areas as well as rural areas. It regulates not only the movement
of people, but also the movement of goods.
Groups that
seek reform of the transportation system also hope to address a wide diversity
of issues through the transportation bill-climate change, health and safety,
equity, smart growth and economic opportunity, among others. There is also a
significant amount of money at stake, as well as the potential to create a
large number of jobs. The last transportation bill was funded to the tune of
$286 billion over six years; the current proposal by Minnesota Democrat James Oberstar, the
chairman of the HouseCommittee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, would increase that amount to $500 billion over six
years, including $50 billion for high-speed rail. Rep. Oberstar testified in
July that the bill will “create or sustain approximately six million
family-wage jobs.”
Many economists
consider the transportation sector to be rife with job creation potential. A
recent study by the Economic Policy Institute (Transportation Investments and the Labor Market)
found that a $250 billion investment in the U.S. transportation system would
create more than 2.8 million direct and indirect jobs. The study also looked at
the quality of the jobs that would be created by transportation investments and
found that they were more likely to be unionized and less likely to require a
college degree.
“Across the board, it’s a pretty dense industry when it comes to
unionization,” said Ed Wytkind, president of the Transportation Trades
Department of the AFL-CIO. “This means you have higher wages, better benefits
and better training. You probably have good quality health care, and you’re
more likely to have a pension.”
Although Wytkind’s organization does not represent workers in
transportation manufacturing, he is very interested in the potential for
increased transportation investment to create not only construction and
operations jobs, but also domestic manufacturing jobs. “Most of our
manufacturers are buying components and intellectual property from overseas.
This [transportation bill] is a great opportunity to look at the next
generation of locomotives and passenger rail cars and buses and make sure
they’re not only more energy efficient, but that they also support American
jobs,” Wytkind said.
Currently, most U.S.
transportation funding comes from the gasoline tax, which has not increased
since 1993 and is not indexed to inflation. At 18.3 cents per gallon, the
federal tax has lost 33 percent of its purchasing power over the last 15 years,
according to Oberstar. If more funds are to be invested in transportation to
create the jobs and other benefits for which many groups are advocating, the
gasoline tax will need to be increased or a new and sustainable source of
funding will need to be identified. However, with the economy still in a state
of recession, most politicians are loath to support any tax increases. This is
a key reason why the transportation bill, which expired in September 2009, has
yet to be taken up by Congress and may not be seriously considered until fall
2010.
Funding is not the only challenge for those who seek changes in
the U.S.
transportation system to address environmental, public health, equity and other
critical issues. Many groups still differ on their priorities. For example,
while most groups support increased transportation investment, there are
divisions as to whether public transportation should be on a more equal footing
with highways. There are also divisions between organizations that support
fix-it-first policies that prioritize repair and maintenance work on roads over
new road and bridge construction, and those which argue that new road
construction is needed to address traffic congestion and other problems.
These issues will be discussed and debated throughout 2010 as
Congress deliberates the transportation and jobs bills. In December, the Obama
administration proposed that the jobs bill include a $50 billion infrastructure
investment to go mainly toward highways, transit, rail and aviation. The House
jobs bill, which was passed on December 16, included approximately $37 billion
in transportation investments.
To the extent that these investments create well-paying jobs and
move the country toward a cleaner and more sustainable transportation system,
they represent progress. But the transportation bill is still the 800 pound
gorilla. As T4America’s Goldberg put it, “By all rights, this [transportation
bill] ought to be the best opportunity in a generation to create a bold new
vision for our national transportation policy.”
A longer version of this article is available at www.apolloalliance.org.
Andrea Buffa
joined Apollo Alliance in July 2009 after working for two years at the University of California,
Berkeley,
Center for Labor Research and Education, where she studied the impact of
climate change policies on jobs and workers.
|
posted Dec 9, 2009 11:02 AM by Anita Fieldman
[
updated Dec 9, 2009 11:13 AM
]
CA Green Job & Business Growth Significantly Outpace Rest of CA Economy
Sacramento Region Leads Green Job Growth, Los Angeles Region Energy Efficiency Jobs Grow by 77 Percent, Bay Area Has the Largest Number of Energy Generation Jobs, And More
Sacramento, CA - New data released today shows that California green businesses have increased 45 percent in number and 36 percent in employment from 1995 to 2008 while total jobs in California expanded only 13 percent. As the economy slowed between 2007 and 2008, total employment fell 1 percent, but green jobs continued to grow five percent.
The Sacramento Area led the pack with job growth of 87 percent from 1995 to 2008, followed by the San Diego Region (57 percent), the Bay Area (51 percent), and Orange County and Inland Empire (50 percent).
Many Shades of Green: Diversity and Distribution of California’s Green Jobs released by the nonpartisan Next 10 and Collaborative Economics, provides the most comprehensive green jobs accounting to date, systematically tracking the most recent available data on green companies, job type, location and growth across every sector and region of California. “Data show that green sector businesses are taking root across every region of California, generating jobs across a wide spectrum of skill levels and earnings potential,” said F. Noel Perry, founder of Next 10. “While green jobs clearly cannot solve the state’s current unemployment challenges, over time these jobs could become a growing portion of total jobs in California.”
“Market certainty provided by California’s forward thinking policies combined with ingenuity and the pioneering spirit has put California ahead of the green technology pack. As global demand for these technologies increases, driven by rising fuel prices and policy, so too will our widely dispersed green economy,” according to Perry.
While the absolute numbers of green jobs are not large, they are comparable to the biotech and software sectors, according to the report.
Highlights of California’s Core Green Economy:
• Between 1995-2008, green businesses increased 45 percent, green jobs grew 36 percent while total jobs in the state grew only 13 percent.
• Even in rural areas with a smaller economic base, green jobs are growing faster than the overall economy.
• Between 2007-2008, green jobs grew 5 percent while total jobs dropped one percent.
• Manufacturing represents 21 percent of all green jobs, and grew 19 percent, while manufacturing represents only 11 percent of all jobs in California (January 2008.)
• Half of all manufacturing jobs are split between Energy Efficiency and Energy Generation.
• Services accounted for 45 percent of all California green jobs, the largest portion in Environmental Consulting.
• With nearly 43,000 jobs in 2008, Air & Environment is the largest of California’s green segments. While this segment’s jobs remained steady, hovering around 35,000 from 1995-2005, since 2005 the number of green jobs in this segment has increased 24 percent.
• From 1995-2008, Energy Generation employment expanded 61 percent by nearly 10,000 jobs. Solar makes up the largest portion, and strongest growth (63 percent).
• Employment in Energy Efficiency increased 63 percent from 1995-2008.
• Employment in Green Transportation has increased 152 percent since 1995. Green Transportation Jobs are primarily in Motor Vehicles & Equipment and Alternative Fuels, with the latter growing faster at 201 percent, and representing 48 percent of all jobs in this segment.
• Green Logistics is an emerging field, only in the Bay Area at present, with employment growing by 1144 percent since 1995.
Regional Highlights:
• The Sacramento Area led the pack with green job growth of 87 percent.
• The San Joaquin Valley green jobs concentration in alternative fuels is three times the state average.
• The Bay Area had the largest number of energy generation jobs (roughly 7,000).
• Los Angeles energy efficiency jobs grew by 77 percent.
• Orange County green transportation jobs grew 1,875 percent including alternative fuels and motor vehicles and equipment.
• Inland Empire energy generation jobs grew by 85 percent with high concentrations in solar and wind.
“California is home to companies driving technological advances in clean energy products and services,” said Collaborative Economics CEO Doug Henton. “Green technology has the potential to do for energy, the world’s largest sector by revenue, what IT did for communications. As a first mover, we are well positioned to capture the fast emerging multibillion-dollar global green market.” |
posted Nov 10, 2009 9:55 AM by Anita Fieldman
posted Nov 4, 2009 3:25 PM by Anita Fieldman
http://www.calgarysun.com/comment/2009/11/01/11595276-sun.html
By GIDEON FORMAN
Calgary Sun
Sunday, November 1, 2009
One of the biggest issues before city council this fall is a proposed bylaw to phase-out lawn and garden pesticides.
Calgarians know some herbicides and insecticides are linked to cancer and birth defects and that Calgary is the largest city in Canada with no bylaw protecting its citizens from these poisons. But there are a number of other, less familiar, reasons why phasing-out toxic lawn chemicals makes sense.
A Calgary pesticide bylaw will be good for business and employment.
Cities with pesticide bylaws have seen their lawn care industry prosper. In the five years following passage of a pesticide bylaw in Halifax, the number of landscaping and lawn care firms in the city grew 53%, according to Statistics Canada. The number of landscaping and lawn care businesses grew each year in Toronto.
In places like Ontario -- which has comprehensive pesticide restrictions -- reports of business growth come from the industry itself. Following passage of the province's Cosmetic Pesticide Ban Act in April, one major lawn company said it viewed the ban as an opportunity to expand its base of service. Another firm said it is gaining new customers from among people who object to pesticides and it expects to hire more staff because non-toxic lawn maintenance is more labor-intensive. One Toronto-area lawn company offers only pesticide-free programs and has enjoyed a 400% increase in business in the last six months.
Why have lawn firms done well in the new non-toxic climate? Pesticide-free maintenance requires more knowledge of plant and soil ecology, which homeowners sometimes lack -- hence an increased reliance on professionals.
With a pesticide bylaw, Calgary properties will look great.
If the legislation goes ahead, Calgarians will keep their lawns and gardens beautiful the way homeowners do in other cities with pesticide prohibitions. They'll use effective non-toxic product now available at major retailers. It's never been more convenient.
Top health organizations -- along with Calgarians -- support a pesticide bylaw.
A Calgary pesticide ban is now supported by Canada 's most respected health organizations including the Canadian Cancer Society, the Lung Association, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society of Canada, the College and Association of Registered Nurses of Alberta, the Learning Disabilities Association of Alberta, and the Canadian Pediatric Society (Section on Environmental Health).
As well, polling released by the Cancer Society shows nearly nine of 10 Albertans support pesticide restrictions on private and public land. If our medical authorities -- along with the vast majority of local citizens -- want a pesticide ban, shouldn't we be listening?
Under a pesticide bylaw, Calgarians are protected from any health threat.
The bylaw would only prohibit non-essential pesticides, i.e., chemicals used to change a property's appearance. Any time pests (mice, termites, poison ivy, mosquitoes) presented a health threat, pesticides could be employed. As well, these chemicals could be used on any commercial farming operation. (Protecting commercial agriculture is a health imperative.)
The bylaw will give Calgarians time to adjust.
Every pesticide bylaw in Canada has a phase-in period, allowing citizens and industry to adjust to non-toxic methods. It wouldn't be fair to ask people to make the change overnight. A reasonable phase-in would be a year -- during which time Calgarians would learn about pesticide-free techniques and products.
Health professionals say phasing-out non-essential pesticides is common sense.
Calgary aldermen should pass a strong bylaw at the earliest opportunity. If we can grow local businesses, protect our rivers and drinking water, and safeguard our children, why would we hesitate?
GIDEON FORMAN IS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE CANADIAN ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICIANS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT WWW.CAPE.CA |
posted Nov 4, 2009 8:02 AM by Anita Fieldman
by Judy Patrick an Shelley A. Davis
This past week Maria Shriver and the Center for American Progress released a seminal report on the emergence of women as primary wage earners for millions of families. The Shriver Report: A Woman’s Nation Changes Everything, marks a promising step forward in the evolution of a society that for too long has failed to adjust policies and practices to women’s growing presence in the workplace.
Left in the shadows of this otherwise comprehensive report, however, were the unique obstacles faced by those struggling most to make ends meet-low-income single mothers trying to support their families on paltry wages in jobs that offer no prospects for a better future. Any serious national discussion on the obstacles confronting women in the workforce must include a special focus on the growing numbers of women toiling at the bottom of the economic ladder.
Consider these facts:
- Ninety percent of working-age adults who work full-time but earn less than $15,000 a year are women.
- In 2008, 37.2 percent of female-headed families with children were living in poverty compared with just 8 percent of families with both parents in the home and 14 percent of male-headed families.
- Adult women and teenage girls make up two-thirds of minimum wage employees in the U.S.
The recession has taken a significant toll on low-income single mothers. In September, 11.6 percent of this population were unemployed, compared with 11 percent of men overall and 7.4 percent of married men. Providing low-income single women with the resources to train for and stay employed in jobs with good wages and benefits is the clearest path to a brighter future for millions of families. Since women now make up half the workforce, it is also a vital component of lasting economic recovery for our nation.
As founding members of a new collaborative of women’s foundations—the Women’s Economic Security Campaign—we have seen up close how programs that train women for better paying jobs with the possibility of advancement can make all the difference for families and communities. With the emergence of a green jobs sector, we have an opportunity to advance women’s economic security in a bigger and better way than ever before, providing low-income women with a rare chance to get in on the ground floor of a growth industry and learn the skills to compete for stable, higher-paying jobs.
Unfortunately most green jobs, from weatherizing homes and buildings to constructing wind turbines, are in fields that have typically been dominated by men. As a society we have a terrible track record of training and placing women in these non-traditional careers. For example, 0.5 percent of roofers and 1.4 percent of plumbers, pipefitters, and steamfitters are women, according to a new report from the Women’s Economic Security Campaign—Creating Opportunity for Low-Income Women in the Green Economy. Even at the higher end, women make up just 10.6 percent of civil engineers. The median hourly wage for roofers, at the low-end of the non-traditional job spectrum, is $16.17 an hour—enough to cover the basic needs of a small family. By contrast, preschool teachers, 98 percent of whom are women, earn just $11.48 an hour. At that wage, a preschool teacher would need to work over 25 hours more per week then a roofer to support a similar living standard.
Fortunately, our country is in a good position to change this pattern. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided states with millions of dollars to train workers for new green sector jobs. We need to ensure that a significant portion of those funds goes to programs that prepare low-income women to successfully compete in the green economy.
Once they are on the job we need to provide women with the supports necessary to stay employed. For low-income single mothers that means child care, flexible hours, and accessible transportation. It also means enforcing anti-discrimination and sexual harassment laws that for too long have made non-traditional workplaces inhospitable to women.
As Congress debates climate change legislation, our representatives in Washington, D.C. should stand up for the needs of low-income women when considering provisions aimed at training and placing workers in green jobs. We have the chance to do it right this time and shape a more promising future for the growing number of women and children in poverty. In the process we can help our nation move toward a long-term economic recovery that will benefit us all. |
posted Nov 3, 2009 1:35 PM by Anita Fieldman
Jerry Mander addressed participants in Point Reyes Station, Calfironia on October 24, the International Day of Climate Action. He points out six main flaws in the current economic paradigm of infinite growth on a finite planet and explains why 'we'll get to 350 ppm, one way or another.
A new report just jointly published by the International Forum on Globalization (IFG.org) and the Post Carbon Institute is authored by Richard Heinberg with a foreword by Mander. Its title - SEARCHING for a MIRACLE: 'Net Energy' Limits and the Fate of Industrial Society.
Wikipedia Bio:
Jerry Mander is an American activist and author, best known for his 1977 book, Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television. His most recent book, The Superferry Chronicles, is about efforts by Hawaiian activists to halt the operation of the Hawaii Superferry.
Mander worked in advertising for 15 years, including five as partner and president of Freeman, Mander & Gossage in San Francisco. Mander worked with the noted environmentalist, David Brower, managing the Sierra Club's advertising campaigns to prevent the construction of dams in the Grand Canyon, to establish Redwood National Park, and to stop the U.S. Supersonic Transport (SST) project. In 1971 he founded the first non-profit advertising agency in the United States, Public Interest Communications.
Mander is currently the director of the International Forum on Globalization, and the program director for Megatechnology and Globalization at the Foundation for Deep Ecology. |
posted Oct 25, 2009 8:54 PM by Anita Fieldman
On October 22, EESI and the Business Council for Sustainable Energy hosted Green Jobs: Re-energizing the American Economy in conjunction with the House Climate Change Caucus. With job creation currently a hot topic on Capitol Hill, the briefing attracted a standing-room-only crowd of 180 attendees.
Three green jobs reports were presented at the briefing, and the speakers explained that investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy can help solve two of our most pressing problems: the financial crisis and climate change. One report found that investing $100 billion into a green recovery program can create two million jobs in two years and lower unemployment by 4.4 to 5.7 percent. Renewable energy jobs are more labor-intensive than those in the fossil fuel industries, meaning more jobs are created by investing in renewable energy industries than in fossil fuel industries. The jobs created will also be higher paying jobs, multiplying the number of jobs that pay over $16 per hour by three.
Visit www.eesi.org/102208_green_jobs more information from the briefing. Visit http://www.eesi.org/102208_green_jobs_factsheet to see EESI's recently updated factsheet on green jobs.
|
|
