kimberly-clark: branded.

if you're with me (and greenpeace and so many others) in the fight against kimberly-clark, be aware of their other brands listed below. start a new habit of flipping over the product in question to see if kimberly-clark is listed as the parent company.

kleenex
huggies
kotex
depend
scott
viva
cottonelle
andrex
pull-ups
goodnites
little swimmers
poise
neat sheet

other sites promoting awareness toward the destruction kimberly-clark leaves in its wake:

greenpeace: cut and run. (new findings on the kimberly-clark "legacy." download and read the report.)
kleercut: wiping away ancient forests.
treehugger: kleenex kleercut--trees for tissues?
grist: greenpeace hacks kleenex pr.
wikipedia: kleercut.
nrdc: flushing forests down the toilet.

and remember, it takes 90 years to grow a box of kleenex. 90 years!

continue the education.

congratulations al gore and the u.n. intergovernmental panel on climate change.

al gore was awarded the nobel peace prize last night alongside the u.n. intergovernmental panel on climate change for their efforts in bringing attention to the global warming issues plaguing the planet.

some quotes and statements from the article:

the nobel committee praised gore for being "one of the world's leading environmentalist politicians."

in the announcement, the committee cited gore and the ipcc "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change."

president bill clinton, gore's ex-boss, praised gore saying this award was well-deserved and "he saw this coming before others in public life."

gore said he was "deeply hounoured" and stated "the climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all humanity."

al gore: energy hog and hypocrite?

apparently the truth is too inconvenient for even al gore, the guy who told us we have 10 years to shape up or our planet will be sent free-falling. you know, the guy at the front of the documentary an inconvenient truth.

according to the article below, actions speak louder than words and he's being called an energy hog.

===

Al Gore's Mansion Described as Energy Hog
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
February 27, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - Former Vice President (and global warming aficionado) Al Gore deserves an award for hypocrisy, says the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.

The group, which studied Gore's electric and natural gas consumption, says his mansion in Belle Meade area of Nashville "consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year."

In his documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, Gore urges Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home, the group noted.

"The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) a year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh-more than 20 times the national average," the Tennessee Center for Policy Research said in a news release.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh -- consuming more than twice as much electricity in one month as the average American family uses in an entire year. Gore's average monthly electric bill topped $1,359, the research group said.

Likewise, the natural gas bills for Gore's mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 a month last year.

"As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use," said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research said.

===

Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to believe
updated 12/7/06 @ 5.45p ET

Al Gore has spoken: The world must embrace a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." To do otherwise, he says, will result in a cataclysmic catastrophe. "Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb," warns the website for his film, An Inconvenient Truth. "We have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tailspin."

Graciously, Gore tells consumers how to change their lives to curb their carbon-gobbling ways: Switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs, use a clothesline, drive a hybrid, use renewable energy, dramatically cut back on consumption. Better still, responsible global citizens can follow Gore's example, because, as he readily points out in his speeches, he lives a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." But if Al Gore is the world's role model for ecology, the planet is doomed.

For someone who says the sky is falling, he does very little. He says he recycles and drives a hybrid. And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics, the film's distributor, pays this.)

Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.

Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.

But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths.

Gore is not alone. Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean has said, "Global warming is happening, and it threatens our very existence." The DNC website applauds the fact that Gore has "tried to move people to act." Yet, astoundingly, Gore's persuasive powers have failed to convince his own party: The DNC has not signed up to pay an additional two pennies a kilowatt hour to go green. For that matter, neither has the Republican National Committee.

Maybe our very existence isn't threatened.

[...]

The issue here is not simply Gore's hypocrisy; it's a question of credibility. If he genuinely believes the apocalyptic vision he has put forth and calls for radical changes in the way other people live, why hasn't he made any radical change in his life? Giving up [...] one of his homes is not asking much, given that he wants the rest of us to radically change our lives.

Peter Schweizer is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and author of Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy.

who was at dick cheney's table to discuss his energy policy?

the energy task force: who was at the table

a lovely graphic demonstrating who at the table at what time.

see for yourself.

dick cheney. the name says it all. (boo. hiss.)

from behind closed doors, energy lords and other environmental-swindling players met together with vice president dick cheney to discuss and formalize his energy policy.

that was 6 years ago.

is anyone shocked that the majority of voices read in the plan are from companies that are major bush contributors or interested solely in their monetary dominance?

i'm not, really.

the question of surprise lingers when asked if we, the american people, are truly surprised that 1. it was discussed in secret; 2. major energy industry players were involved behind the closed doors; 3. when the environmentalists were finally welcomed to chime in about 40 meetings with interest groups, a.k.a. energy-producing industries (mostly), had already come to pass.

the reasons why the meetings were held in secret could be a handful. it could be that cheney was simply practicing his right to discussing policy without outside opinions bogging him down--understandable to a certain degree. it could be as easy as he knows he's not writing a policy that the majority of the american people will support--some may not even understand it. or it could just be cheney acting in secret because he can. ("the vice president has respectfully but resolutely maintained the importance of protecting the ability of the president and vice president to receive candid advice on important national policy matters in confidence, a principle affirmed by the supreme court," spokeswoman lea anne mcbride said by e-mail.--see link to the story below.)

when environmentalists were finally called in to meet, the plan had been in the works for 6 years; they'd all missed out on talking with cheney directly like other lords did in the beginning stages of the writing (cheney was absent from the meeting that included the environmentalists); bush had already been briefed on the course of the policy writing.

here's the full story: papers detail industry's role in cheney's energy report

note: while i truly try to stay bi-partisan on expressing my opinion on this blog, it seems too clear that this is the work of a man/party/group looking toward his/their best interest in terms of monetary gain. they don't seem to care about anything else.

bottled water understood. part 1.

i'm guilty. i love my bottled water. but i reuse my bottle time and time again until it starts to smell. does that help offset my consumption? probably not...

==

Snagged from Project Censored, top 25 stories censored by big media
in 2007: http://www.projectcensored.org/censored_2007/index.htm

#20 Bottled Water: A Global Environmental Problem

Source:
OneWorld.net, February 5, 2006
Title: "Bottled Water: Nectar of the Frauds?"
Author: Abid Aslam

Faculty Evaluator: Liz Close
Student Researchers: Heidi Miller and Sean Hurley

Consumers spend a collective $100 billion every year on bottled water
in the belief—often mistaken—that it is better for us than what flows
from our taps. Worldwide, bottled water consumption surged to 41
billion gallons in 2004, up 57 percent since 1999.

"Even in areas where tap water is safe to drink, demand for bottled
water is increasing—producing unnecessary garbage and consuming vast
quantities of energy," reports Earth Policy Institute researcher
Emily Arnold. Although in much of the world, including Europe and the
U.S., more regulations govern the quality of tap water than bottled
water, bottled water can cost up to 10,000 times more. At up to $10
per gallon, bottled water costs more than gasoline in the United States.
"There is no question that clean, affordable drinking water is
essential to the health of our global community," Arnold asserts,
"But bottled water is not the answer in the developed world, nor does
it solve problems for the 1.1 billion people who lack a secure water
supply. Improving and expanding existing water treatment and
sanitation systems is more likely to provide safe and sustainable
sources of water over the long term." Members of the United Nations
have agreed to halve the proportion of people who lack reliable and
lasting access to safe drinking water by the year 2015. To meet this
goal, they would have to double the $15 billion spent every year on
water supply and sanitation. While this amount may seem large, it
pales in comparison to the estimated $100 billion spent each year on
bottled water.

Tap water comes to us through an energy-efficient infrastructure
whereas bottled water is transported long distances—often across
national borders—by boat, train, airplane, and truck. This involves
burning massive quantities of fossil fuels.

For example, in 2004 alone a Helsinki company shipped 1.4 million
bottles of Finnish tap water 2,700 miles to Saudi Arabia. And
although 94 percent of the bottled water sold in the U.S. is produced
domestically, many Americans import water shipped some 9,000
kilometers from Fiji and other faraway places to satisfy demand for
what Arnold terms "chic and exotic bottled water."

More fossil fuels are used in packaging the water. Most water bottles
are made with polyethylene terephthalate, a plastic derived from
crude oil. "Making bottles to meet Americans' demand alone requires
more than 1.5 million barrels of oil annually, enough to fuel some
100,000 U.S. cars for a year," Arnold notes.

Once it has been emptied, the bottle must be dumped. According to the
Container Recycling Institute, 86 percent of plastic water bottles
used in the United States become garbage or litter. Incinerating used
bottles produces toxic byproducts such as chlorine gas and ash
containing heavy metals tied to a host of human and animal health
problems. Buried water bottles can take up to 1,000 years to biodegrade.

Worldwide, some 2.7 million tons of plastic are used to bottle water
each year. Of the bottles deposited for recycling in 2004, the U.S.
exported roughly 40 percent to destinations as far away as China,
requiring yet more fossil fuel.

Meanwhile, communities where the water originates risk their sources
running dry. More than fifty Indian villages have complained of water
shortages after bottlers began extracting water for sale under the
Coca-Cola Corporation's Dasani label. Similar problems have been
reported in Texas and in the Great Lakes region of North America,
where farmers, fishers, and others who depend on water for their
livelihoods are suffering from concentrated water extraction as water
tables drop quickly.

While Americans consume the most bottled water per capita, some of
the fastest collective growth in consumption is in the giant
populations of Mexico, India, and China. As a whole, India's
consumption of bottled water increased threefold from 1999 to 2004,
while China's more than doubled.

While private companies' profits rise from selling bottled water of
questionable quality at more than $100 billion per year—more
efficiently regulated, waste-free municipal systems could be
implemented for distribution of safe drinking water for all the
peoples of the world—at a small fraction of the price.

UPDATE BY ABID ASLAM
Consumer stories are a staple of the media diet. This article spawned
coverage by numerous public broadcasters and appeared to do the
rounds in cyberspace. Perhaps what seized imaginations was our
affinity for the subject: apparently we and our planet's surface are
made up mostly of water and without it, we would perish. In any case,
most of the discussion of the issues raised by the source—a research
paper from a Washington, D.C.–based environmental think tank—focused
mainly on consumer elements (the price, taste, and consequences for
human health of bottled and tap water), as I had anticipated when I
decided to storify the Environmental Policy Institute (EPI) paper (in
honesty, that is pretty much all I did, adding minimal context and
background). However, a good deal of reader attention also focused on
the environmental and regulatory aspects.

Further information on these can be obtained from the EPI, a host of
environmental and consumer groups, and from the relevant government
agencies: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for tap water and
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for bottled water.

Differences in the ways these regulators (indeed, regulators in
general) operate and are structured and funded deserve a great deal
more attention, as does the unequal protection of citizens that results.

Numerous other questions raised in the article deserve further
examination. Would improved waste disposal and recycling address the
researcher's concerns about resources being consumed to get rid of
empty water bottles? If public water systems can deliver a more
reliable product to more people at a lower cost, as the EPI paper
says, then what are the obstacles to the necessary investment in the
U.S. and in poor countries, and how can citizens here and there
overcome those obstacles?

Some of these questions may strike general readers or certain media
gatekeepers as esoteric. Then again, we all drink the stuff.

==
amy, thanks for forwarding the article. good stuff. enlightening.

is san francisco's city water better than bottled water?

as reported by the associated press, san francisco's mayor gavin newsom decided it's so. he's issued an executive order banning city departments from buying bottled water, even for water coolers. the ban takes effect july 1, and will extend to water coolers by december 1.

when the mayor announced the decision, he cited the environmental impact a single plastic bottle has on the environment, not to mention that most end up in the state's landfills each year. the cost of making, transporting and disposing the bottles is extremely damaging.

click here for the rest of the developing story.

do your part. go green.

reduce your carbon footprint:

consume less.
share more.
live simply.
do your part.
learn how.



Ten Things You Can Do to Help Curb Global Warming
presented by the sierra club—10 things you can do to help curb global warming and in the end, save you money and create a safer environment for the future.

Ten Things to Do
10 simple things you can do to reduce your carbon footprint. it even tells how much carbon dioxide you can save if you practice any of the suggestions. inspired by "an inconvenient truth."

Top 50 Things to Do to Stop Global Warming
a series of global warming awareness pages listing facts and we can do to help our planet.

The Global Warming Survival Guide
published in a special edition of time magazine it lists 51 things everyone can do—both complex and simple ideas.

Cargo Plant Love
visit their website and learn more about their lipstick that could change the world.

Treehugger
how to green your gifts.

Greenpeace Energy Saving [R]evolution - first 7 steps
sign up and help the revolution with practicing a step a day! together maybe we can change the laws.