Gristmill

InterActivist Robyn Griggs Lawrence asks readers for input on green certification issues

Robyn Griggs Lawrence, editor in chief of Natural Home & Garden magazine, answers reader questions about her magazine, the wabi-sabi movement, and getting rid of elder box bugs in InterActivist today. She answers a question about user-friendly labels evaluating the environmental impacts of products and brings up the issue of cost for many small companies:

Q: Are you supportive of the concept of developing scientifically robust yet user-friendly expanded labels evaluating the environmental impacts of products? Ideally, this "label" would provide us with a "thin slice" of summary information on the product's lifecycle to make it easy and quick to use. -- Deborah Dunning, president, International Design Center for the Environment, Chapel Hill, N.C.

A: I think this would be fantastic! I love that we're seeing more green certification -- in everything from forest products to fish. Most of our readers say they do want to be better informed about life-cycle issues and manufacturing processes, but they don't have the time or the resources to investigate every single one. I like to think that the transparency such a label would create could make a big difference in how a lot of products are made -- and disposed of. (Campaigns like the recent "Green the iPod" from The Green Guide -- calling for the iPod to be fitted for an easily replaced and recyclable, toxic-free battery -- are great for making people aware of the full life-cycle consequences of ubiquitous products that they might not think about.) The challenge, as you know, is to make green labels and certification affordable for smaller companies. I'd love to know your thoughts on how to address that sticky issue.

Luckily we have just such a place for readers to discuss green issues! Let us know what you think.

Eco-April Fool’s from around the web

It's April Fools Day, as Daily Grist readers are no doubt discovering right about now. Other examples of the grand tradition of April Fooling can be found on RealClimate and Energy Priorities. Readers: you have any other good examples? Leave them in comments.

(Oh, this is funny too, though not April Foolsy -- I meant to blog about it a long time ago and forgot -- thanks to Jeff for reminding me.)

climate science is not a short-cut to cultural change

Roger Pielke Jr. has an important post up that I would encourage each and every enviro to read. He references this letter (PDF, registration required) in the current issue of Nature. It's from reps of several green organizations. An excerpt:

Head and shoulders above the rest

As I was waiting for the bus this morning, I glimpsed this headline: 'Is that Dandruff in Your Air Pollution'? It's such an unsurprising concept -- that particulate matter in the air includes stuff like dandruff and fur -- that it hardly seems newsworthy. And yet. The image of all of us wading through a haze of skin chunks is somehow tough to, er, swallow. I can't help but think of all those salmon swimming through each other's lice -- and how I had the temerity, when we reported that the other day, to think it was strange.

Ecosystem services

Don't miss Joel Makower's long and informative post on recent developments around ecosystem services:

...the $33 trillion worth of "free" deliverables provided to us by a healthy planet, including fertile soil, fresh water, breathable air, pollination, habitat, soil formation, pest control, a livable climate, and a bunch of other things we generally take for granted.

He touches on the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment and a number of emerging attempts to assign economic value to ecosystem services, thereby making "externalities" into market "internalities." A great read.

Fossil Foolishness

As we report in Daily Grist today, Ford Motor Co. is the latest in a string of major companies looking into this whole climate-change dealio. The company is expected to announce today that they will begin researching how global warming will affect them -- or rather, how pending and future regulations will affect company business. But they won't be making any promises, said one spokesflack, about actual changes that would, oh I don't know, alter their lowest-fuel-efficiency-among-all-automakers title: "To commit to that at this point is to probably create some expectations that we might not be able to meet." Indeed.

Interestingly enough, however, is the timing of this announcement and "pledge," as tomorrow, April 1 (the Day of Fools!), is shaping up to be a major Ford-bashing day. Energy Action, a coalition of youth working toward clean energy, is organizing their second annual Fossil Fools Day. The group hopes to have thousands of participants from all over the U.S., Canada, and the U.K. involved in actions to demand clean and renewable energy.

More on the suggested actions below the fold:

Who’s getting PAYD?

The Northwest's guru on pay-as-you-drive (PAYD) auto insurance and related transportation pricing innovations is Todd Litman of the Victoria Tranport Policy Institute. He provides a useful summary of who's doing PAYD in his newsletter, which I'll simply insert below the fold. The growth of PAYD programs is very encouraging, because PAYD is among the most powerful incentives for sound transportation and land-use patterns. There are rumors that a Cascadia locale could be the next place to host a PAYD insurance offering -- more on that, if it comes to fruition.

And more framing

It occurs to me that the two points in the post below -- that framing is deeper and more important than just tweaking terminology, and that the green pursuit of Lakoff is a waste of time -- might be seen to be in conflict, so a quick clarification.

Of course greens need to be cognizant of framing. Everyone does; even in a one-on-one conversation, it is helpful to be aware of the basic frames your interlocutor is bringing to bear, so that you can actually communicate instead of passing like ships in the night. That's the thing: Lakoff has not uncovered some super-top-secret political juju heretofore only possessed by the right wing. What he's done is helped clarify common sense. All you need to be "great at framing" is some empathy and a willingness to listen. (Try it at home!) It's great that he's brought some conceptual clarity to the area, but let's not lose our knickers over the whole thing.

Yes, greens need to frame their issues better. But -- much like, say, keeping your knees bent when you play tennis -- this is not an end in itself. You wouldn't go to a knee-bending camp, and you wouldn't pay someone $350,000 to show you how to keep your knees bent. Greens should be framing their issues well as a matter of course, as they go about doing other things -- like pursuing actual goals. What's been preventing them from doing so is a fairly complicated knot of issues: media access, well-funded disinformation campaigns by the other side, structural and cultural impediments in the way the movement operates, and -- let's not pretend -- some old, outdated, fusty, or otherwise unappealing positions on issues (you can't shine shit). What hasn't prevented them from framing well is some sort of arcane mystery about how framing works, or what frames are effective. An astute, empathetic observer of culture, backed by extensive poll data and personal experience interacting with those outside her immediate social/ideological circle, already knows how to frame the issues. The thing now is just doing it.

Framing

Amanda's article on Lakoff reminded me of two things I've been meaning to say about framing.

In being popularized, the concept of framing has basically been reduced to the search for magical words. It's become synonymous with spin. Molly Ivins sums it up this way: