The fact is that we need to be better at selling “better.” Beyond green tech, green products, green causes, green politics, we need to sell a more considered life. Studies show, overwhelmingly, that when we as consumers know more about what our decisions actually mean- for ourselves, our community, our planet- we’re more likely to choose more responsibly.

The job of the brand marketer is to elevate the subject, educate the consumer and explain how life would be better if only you made room in your life for “X.” It’s OK to be skeptical of a catch phrase or brand slogan. After all, it’s a sell job in fancy dress. But the good ones should be appreciated. Remember the Seinfeld episode where George decides he needs his own version of the ‘By Mennen’ jingle? George was looking for a way to seep into the subconscious of his target audience- women. The good ones do that, from the modest but determined ‘We Try Harder’ from Avis, the empowering simplicity of Nike’s ‘Just Do It,’ the perfectly descriptive ‘Melt in your mouth, not in your hand’ of M&Ms. In the ‘green space,’ of course, catch phrases and brand marketing can be a slippery slope. Greenwashing, the practice of brands over-inflating the actual green creds of a product or brazenly misleading the consumer, only creates more cynics and skeptics. But thanks to social media, it’s also getting harder for a brand to dupe the consumer. The problem is not marketing, though, it’s that we need better marketing. Selling a ‘considered lifestyle’ requires just as much branding as any other product- more, perhaps, since the ‘ask’ is perceived to be greater- and, in that regard, we could all be doing much better.

If it can be done for rental cars, shoes and bags of chocolates, can’t it be done for “living better?” If subliminal marketing can trigger a faint “By Mennen” in my subconscious when I’m standing in the supermarket aisle perusing my deodorant options, can’t we do the same when I’m choosing whether to buy local food instead of food shipped in from New Zealand, or when I walk past an empty room with lights still on, or in helping me envision a wall garden in my city apartment,…

“Costanza.”

In honor of Mother’s Day- thank you to all you Moms out there, where would we be without you?!- LTT goes back to the basics. Responsibility, consideration, care, these are concepts first taught to us by our mother,s and, whether we’re conscious of it or not, each time we act thoughtfully we’re paying tribute to them. Perfection was never a goal she set for us- Mom knows better- instead, she encouraged us to try our best, think about how our actions affected others, learn from our mistakes, take at least one bite of the broccoli, even if the smell of it made you gag. Ok, that’s my experience, but I’m guessing you recognize that motherly approach to ‘one degree changes.’ Moms are the first line of defense, the first teachers of what we now call ‘considered living.’

Some Mom-isms:

“Don’t leave the water running while you brush your teeth.” - As usual, Mom was right. According to the EPA, you can save up to 8 gallons of water a day simply by turning off the tap while you brush your teeth in the morning and at night. Do the same while you shave.

“Eat everything on that plate, mister. Don’t you know there are starving children in Africa!” - Mom was right about this, too. According to an article on Next Generation Food, food wasted in the US and Europe could easily bring the remainder of the world where food is scarce up to basic nutritional requirements. In the United States, food waste has increased by 50% since 1974. As much as 40% of all the food produced in the U.S. is thrown out.

“When you leave a room, turn off the light!” - Maybe Dad would say this too, in which case this should be second nature by now. And while it’s not all about money, converting that waste into allowance money terms can be pretty powerful. For example, if you were to burn a 100 watt bulb for 10 hours, you’d use up 1,000 watt-hours of electricity, or 1 kilowatt hour. In the U.S., 1 kilowatt hour costs about 12 cents. So, that 100 watt bulb left on for 10 hours used 12 cents worth of electricity. Let’s say your kid leaves a few lights on- bathroom light, bedside light, TV room, and, for the sake of argument they each stay on all day while you’re out. 36 cents a day, that’s about $127 a year you’ll dock their allowance. Whoa! Time to start shutting off lights.

You get my point. Mom was right- of course. And, odds are, every time we think twice about being wasteful, we hear just the faintest echo of Mom’s gentle reminder. Happy Mother’s Day!

If we do the right thing, does it matter why we chose to do it? Skeptics, cynics and conspiracy theorists may not like it, but when a brand does something that is, in balance, a good thing, motive shouldn’t matter. Take Wal-Mart, for instance, though any major brand with a corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiative is a prime candidate for this argument. Businesses are in the business of making money, and however well-intentioned it may be, if can’t push any sort of “socially responsible” agenda if it goes broke. Wal-Mart is a lightning rod for criticism, and anyone who has seen The High Cost of Low Price is familiar with the company’s litany of issues. But, as Martin LaMonica writes for CNET, the company has “pushed forward with a risky sustainability initiative at a time when its public image was suffering.” Should we still celebrate the company’s decision to invest in renewable energy at store, reduce waste in packaging, create a “sustainability index” of its suppliers and other positive and industry-changing initiatives despite its former CEO Lee Scott now claiming the company’s rationale for “going green” was purely economic? Yes.

Brands are increasingly seeing the economic benefits of “going green,” though you hardly need an MBA to recognize that “efficiency” reduces waste and increases profit. But Scott’s comments, that these decisions were pure business decisions, were suprisingly frank. “The effort has endured because the motivation was purely economic, said Scott, who was the first featured speaker at the Fortune Brainstorm Green green business conference here on Monday. If it had been done to repair its image, the company would have likely scaled back during the economic downturn last year.”

“What Wal-Mart has done is approach this from a business stand point and not from a point of altruism. If we as a company focus on waste, we can make Wal-Mart a better company and at the same time, become a better citizen,” he said.

LaMonica explains, “the first project within the sustainability push was started by an executive who figured out how to reduce packaging in a Wal-Mart-branded toy. That change eliminated the need for 215 shipping containers. From there, it spread to the point where now people who don’t have an environmentally oriented initiative in the company are “outliers,” Scott said.

These initiatives resonated with consumer expectations, “particularly the 25- and 35-year-old buyers,” Scott said.

Critics are quick to point out that Wal-Mart is the largest private consumer of electricity in the U.S., and with more than $400 billion in annual revenue, its “green” efforts pale in comparison the damaging impact of their stores on the environment. But, as LaMonica points out, “large businesses create demand for green-technology products, which helps bring down the cost of energy-related products, such as solar panels, or consumer goods, such as organic foods.” Doing the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing is something we should each aspire to, but waiting for global brands to make decisions that way…we’re bound to be waiting a long time.

[Source: LTT, CNET]

Last year, I enjoyed a lively exchange of emails with Jennifer Boulden, founder of the great blog, Ideal Bite. Like LTT, Ideal Bite was founded on the belief that “if we all knew what we could do in the day to day to impact the planet and our communities in a positive way, we’d do it.” The idea of “guilting people into going green” or shocking them in action by grim reports of a climate catastrophe doesn’t seem particularly effective. But in a piece for the Huffington Post, Boulden laid out a more ambitious brand of green thinking, one that seemed to question the philosophy of daily green baby steps.

In “You Gotta Break A Few Eggs To Make An Omlette,” she reflects on that “fine (nagging) line” that one treads when one chooses green products; “greener options are definitely better, but at the same time, they are only just less bad,” she writes. “The fact is we need a big, dramatic departure from the core structure of our economy. Why? Because it only works when we buy more and more things.” “We need to rethink some core tenants under which we are surprisingly comfortable operating,” she argues.

She goes on,

“I realized that we may just have the right ingredients for cooking up a new type of economy. Very intelligent, passionate people are shaping a new framework. Yes, there will be some short term costs and some temporary pain and discomfort. But remember, you gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet.”

At LTT, we think about this a lot. Are “greener products” only “less bad,” rather than actually “good?” Should we be moving with a greater sense of urgency towards a “sustainable future?” To a point, and yes. But while we don’t believe in half measures, we do believe in the power of realistic alternatives.

Every major brand is addressing this in some way or another- there are a lot of innovative companies out there that get it and others that are starting to get it. But whether it’s the size of the slow-moving ship, the nature of their industry or the state of the economy, “going bold” sometimes gets watered down to simply “taking action.”

But, still, we look to those big fish to reshape the priorities of their own industry. PepsiCo , a company we admire (we’ve covered a number of their initiatives), is an interesting contradiction. On the one hand, it produces a staggering amount of plastic bottle waste, and, because of its global distribution, produces waste (in the form of emissions and landfill fodder) everywhere you can imagine. On the other hand, PepsiCo is among the most progressive Fortune 50 companies in terms of corporate social responsibility, recycling (check out Aquafina’s partnership with Keep America Beautiful), industry-changing innovation (Frito Lay’s compostable bag) and so on, and that global reach can bring a message of sustainability to unlikely places. Other examples, companies like Timberland, Green Mountain Coffee and Whole Foods, have shown the broad appeal of integrating responsibility into a company’s core identity.

Whole Foods is adopting some innovative practices, from exploring renewable energies at stores, banning the use of plastic bags, or pushing the entire industry towards responsible aquaculture guidelines. Their Mid-Atlantic region recently established a commitment to diverting 90% of its waste from landfills by 2009. We had a chance to speak with Mark Smallwood, Whole Foods’ Green Mission specialist, who says the company is well on its way. To achieve this remarkable goal, Whole Foods is working to minimize packaging, enhance its composting programs and further develop its recycling. After a recent garbage audit, Smallwood says, “we found roughly 60% of our waste going to compost, 25% was being reused or recycled (including pallets, totes, milk jugs and so on) and 15% was going to landfill, mostly packaging.”

Boulden’s right, it does seem as if the pieces are positioned to fall into place for a new (sustainable) economy. But it takes a confluence of understanding, energy and innovation. The words that shape all of our efforts- one degree changes everything- speaks to the power of baby steps to lead to adult-sized leaps. It takes not just consumers demanding greener products but companies anticipating (like Honda and Toyota did a decade ago with hybrid/EV technology) how their industry needs to evolve. Baby steps or big leaps, the scene is set for us to “cook up a new type of economy.”

For more on Boulden, check out her piece on the Huffington Post.

[Ideal Bite has since become part of Disney's Family.com, and it continues to offer great tips for moving towards a more sustainable life.]

2009 was an interesting year! We looked at Neckties made from recycled cassette tapes, the rise of “Smart Grid-compatible” appliances, the coolest band in the world (U2) having a massive carbon footprint on tour, Upcycled Medals for the upcoming Vancouver Olympics, the amazing story of William Kamkwamba (aka ‘the boy who harnessed the wind’), ESL light bulbs becoming more energy efficient than highly touted CFLs, the BigBelly Solar Powered trash can, the ‘E-Rockit’ man, and many, many more innovative ideas, interesting people and trends that we’ll be tracking tomorrow.

We also created some videos we’re proud of- check them out.

This year, while continuing to track green technology, LTT will broaden its focus to cover innovative ideas, promising and creative solutions to tomorrow’s problems and people and concepts that inspire us.

Happy New Year!

This time next week, I’ll be just starting to emerge from a turkey coma. Ah tryptophan! My favorite of the essential amino acids! Thanksgiving is, for my money, the best holiday of the year. It’s one we all share- as Americans- and, without the stress of having to find the right presents, the focus is food, family and gratitude. But the holidays can also present certain challenges to sustainable living. For starters, Thanksgiving is the busiest time of the year for US travelers. With all that travel, shopping, cooking and eating…it’s a holiday that produces a lot of waste.

With a few tweaks to your normal routine, it’s possible to save time, money and waste this Thanksgiving. Often, simply being conscious of your consumption guides you towards responsible decisions. According to the Nature Conservancy, an estimated 96 billion pounds of food are discarded nationally every year, 5 million tons of trash during the holiday season alone. So, maybe if no one really finished your homemade pumpkin pie last year, make less this time around! I know, I know, you mistakenly put in a cup of salt instead of a cup of sugar, but, seriously, back away from the stove…!

What’s our point? Well, while some green sites might suggest things like a vegan menu, we know, in reality, you’d probably get expelled from all future family events for a stunt like that. And why drastically change one of the greatest days of the year? As you’re thinking about Thanksgiving, consider all the little decisions that go into the day, and then consider tweaking them. Carpool to your Aunt Barb’s house, or, if you’re flying somewhere, consider offsetting the carbon (roughly $12 for a cross-country flight), where possible buy products with less packaging, and don’t forget the best part of Thanksgiving…leftovers!

Happy Thanksgiving!

[this is a recycled post]

Cause For Concern:

It’s been a week or so since Thomas Friedman’s op-ed column (The New Sputnik) sent shivers down our spine. In the piece, Friedman predicts the defining summary of 2008/2009 may well be the story of how we let China leap ahead of us in green tech.

Friedman writes,

Most people would assume that 20 years from now when historians look back at 2008-09, they will conclude that the most important thing to happen in this period was the Great Recession. I’d hold off on that. If we can continue stumbling out of this economic crisis, I believe future historians may well conclude that the most important thing to happen in the last 18 months was that Red China decided to become Green China.

Friedman suggests China’s decision to go green is one of necessity.”What do we know about necessity?” he writes, “It is the mother of invention,…[and] unless China powers its development with cleaner energy systems, and more knowledge-intensive businesses without smokestacks, China will die of its own development.” The “greening of China” is, he argues, the 21st century equivalent of the Soviet’s launching Sputnik, an event that stunned the U.S. and “spurred America to make massive investments in science, education, infrastructure and networking — one eventual byproduct of which was the Internet.”

Glimmer of Hope:

In these pages, we’ve argued many times that America (the government, public and private companies, individuals) should welcome the opportunity to be a leader in green innovation, because, someday soon, we’ll either be buying it or selling it. So, it’s with a tempered sense of relief to read about construction projects like the Russia Wharf Tower, the 31-story building that is taking sustainable construction to new heights with a state of the art “rain harvesting” system.

The developer, Boston Properties, estimates that the green building will harvest nearly every drop of water that lands on its expansive roof. Rather than releasing the water into storm drains, the water will be used for air conditioning and landscaping. The system is designed to conserve more than 12.5 million gallons of water a year.

“Capturing this level of storm water prevents it from flowing into our waterways as runoff,’’ said Jim Hunt, Boston’s chief of energy and environment. “That’s critically important to preventing pollution after we invested billions of dollars to restore Boston Harbor.’’

As people like Thomas Friedman (appropriately) chastise the U.S. for its complacency in all things green, perhaps its only fitting that we see the Russia Wharf Tower as a hopeful sign of a new chapter in our history. A short walk from the new development brings you to the site of the Boston Tea Party- no, not the confused and rag-tag gatherings sponsored by hysterical radio personalities, but that original act of American defiance, one that set the country on a path to independence.

Is this development (750,000-square-foot office tower, 70 residential units, several restaurants, and a waterfront plaza) a sign of good things to come? Stay tuned.

[Sources: Boston Globe, EcoFriend, NYT]

To hell with the panda! It’s not strong enough to survive in the wild and the millions spent on preserving it could be better spent elsewhere. That provocative suggestion, from Chris Packham, a wildlife expert and British television presenter, is being slammed by conservationists (as “daft,” “reckless,” “completely moronic”) but it draws an interesting line in the sand that’s worth considering.

Should we pour millions into protecting a species that, as Packham puts it, has “gone down an evolutionary cul-de-sac,” rearing it in capitivty in hopes of releasing it into a habitat that can no longer sustain it? Would that money be more usefully invested in protecting species and habitats that can be saved? Or in conservation projects that have broader results? Or, dare I say it, in R&D for green tech?

Packham believes that our irrational attachment to the panda is based on its cuddly looks and blinds us to the fact that it’s a waste of conservation funds. “Unfortunately, it’s big and cute and it’s a symbol of the World Wildlife Fund – and we pour millions of pounds into panda conservation. I reckon we should pull the plug. Let them go with a degree of dignity.”

Fellow wildlife expert David Bellamy agrees with Packham. “When I was a WWF trustee I begged them to buy big chunks of the land in which these animals live, not just go on spending millions on rearing pandas in captivity. You can’t release them back into the wild if there is no wild left and we shouldn’t rear animals just to put them into cages.

Not everyone agrees, of course. Dr Mark Wright, a conservation science adviser for WWF called Mr Packham’s comments “irresponsible”. Pandas, he said, face extinction due to poaching and humans moving into their habitat, and that if left alone they would not be under threat.

[source: Telegraph]

For those of us who work towards a more sustainable future- and, thankfully, that’s a quickly growing demographic- the challenge is in opening our eyes to the gravity of our situation while maintaining a healthy dose of optimism. With all the doomsday reports, it’s sometimes difficult to see our way out of the mess we’ve created.

I once asked Roger Lang, a remarkable conservationist and entrepreneur out in Montana, whether he thought of optimism as a vital component of the environmental movement.  “I don’t think so,” he replied. “I have dark days when I’m convinced developers will pave all these beautiful open spaces. But I think these bouts of pessimism actually keep me engaged- pure optimism is synonymous with naivete. I think to be dedicated to conservation means you better have a good appreciation of the challenges, or else you’ll be blind-sided by them.”

A new study by researchers at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies provides, perhaps, the right balance of realism and optimism. An analysis of 240 independent studies, it found that most polluted or damaged ecosystems worldwide can recover within as little as 5 to 10 years “if societies commit to their cleanup or restoration.”

The Yale researchers studied seven ecosystem types and their recovery from man-made disturbances (logging, mining, oil spills, overfishing, industrial pollution…) and natural disasters (hurricanes, cyclones…). They found, for example, that forest ecosystems recovered in 42 years on average, while ocean bottoms recovered in less than 10 years. While the damages to these ecosystemss are serious, the researchers see the results as an indication that “if societies choose to become sustainable, ecosystems will recover. It isn’t hopeless.”

The study does conclude that about 15% of damaged ecosystems are beyond recovery. But the researchers suggest that, as bad as things are,  “speculation that it will take centuries or millennia for degraded ecosystems to recover” is, in general, wrong. Holly Jones, one of the study’s co-authors added, “we recognize that humankind has and will continue to actively domesticate nature to meet its own needs. The message of our paper is that recovery is possible and can be rapid for many ecosystems, giving much hope for a transition to sustainable management of global ecosystems.”

[Sources: Yale University, Jeff Kart- Clean Technica]

*repost LTT looks back on first year

From caviar to convertibles, country homes to cross-country flights, the word ‘luxury’ conjures images of excess. Is it possible to have a green luxury? Does green living mean giving up the ‘finer things in life?’ In some ways, this is the enduring question of the green movement- is it possible to merge a consumer’s aspirations with the environment’s needs?

For the auto industry, going green has long meant major compromises in performance and power. But as car makers have seen sustained interest in sustainability, demand has driven innovation, and that gap between ‘luxury’ and ‘green’ has narrowed. In housing, it’s difficult to make an argument for a ’sustainable McMansion’ - see our video on building a net zero home- but breakthroughs in renewable energy, smart technology and recycled materials will similarly narrow that gap. And making a long-haul flight more green is now as easy as purchasing carbon offsets from someone like Brighter Planet- see our Carbon Offsets 101 video.

The greening of luxury foods, too, has been fueled by innovation and consumer expectations. Greater scrutiny of how food is grown and how animals are treated has brought issues of sustainability to the fore. But in contrast to agriculture, so-called aquaculture - fish farming, shrimp farming and so on- has been slower to evolve, and retailers have been slower to demand it. That’s beginning to change thanks to companies like Whole Foods.

As we noted last year, Whole Foods became the first major retailer to announce a comprehensive set of aquaculture guidelines, adopting strict standards aimed at protecting sensitive habitats, limiting waste and reducing pollution. The move is being welcomed by environmental groups, like the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and the World Wildlife Fund, both of which have contributed to the “aquaculture dialogue.” Working with those environmental groups and leading scientists, Whole Foods began visiting its suppliers’ farms to develop a comprehensive set of guidelines, which includes a ban on preservatives, antibiotics, hormones and other chemicals commonly used in fish farming. “Right now, we need a way to source our seafood in a way that meets our customers’ expectations,” says Carrie Brownstein, seafood quality standards coordinator at Whole Foods. “We don’t want to be waiting on the sidelines. We want to be very active in the process.”

One company that has met Whole Foods’ strict guidelines is Petrossian, purveyor of luxury foods such as caviar. Caviar has long been something of a poster child for reckless luxuries, as rampant overfishing of the prized Beluga sturgeon threatened to drive the species into extinction. NYC-based Petrossian has helped revive caviar’s reputation as an eco-minded luxury item, raising the profile and integrity of farm-produced caviar as a viable alternative to caviar from wild sturgeons. Petrossian was the first distributor to work with sturgeon farms to provide an alternative for caviar connoisseurs, helping to continually improve technology and techniques. Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch and the EDF have ranked U.S. farmed sturgeon and caviar as a “Good Alternative” for the environment. With a sticker price that can be as low as 1/3 the alternative, sustainable caviar makes financial sense too.

It’s human nature to indulge in the finer things…so let’s celebrate the greening of ‘life’s little luxuries.’

Way back in February, we looked at the “cash for clunkers” programs already enjoying success across Europe- Germany, France, Spain, Britain…, where it goes by the slightly less stupid name of ’scrappage incentives’- and wondered if something similar could ever work over here. Well, after the initial $1 billion allocated to the subsidy here in the U.S.- which was expected to last until November- evaporated in under a week, that question was put to rest. The House was forced to quickly vote on another $2 billion in clunker coupons, with the Senate expected to vote to extend the program soon. But other questions remain- is it a good idea? is it good for the environment? is Glenn Beck the craziest man on television?

The 411

The “cash for clunkers” program was designed to achieve three main goals- 1) stimulate the economy by luring the middle class back into showrooms, 2) provide the ailing car industry a much-needed shot in the arm and, if possible, 3) begin the transformation of the American fleet of cars towards more fuel efficient vehicles. The idea is pretty simple. The government will give consumers up to $4,500 to trade in older vehicles (less than 25 years old) that get 18 mpg or less (combined EPA ratings), in exchange for a vehicle that does 22 mpg or better.

Effect On The Economy & Industry?

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood calls it a roaring success, saying, “the government has proved we can get money out the door and sell almost 160,000 cars.” LaHood and others estimate these transactions to be worth $664 million, suggesting the trade-in program has made an immediate and indisputable impact on the struggling U.S. auto industry. Ford announced on Monday that their July U.S. auto sales were up a strong 2.3% over results from one year ago, a result that company executives linked to “cash-for-clunkers.”

But critics suggest the impact on the economy is negligible. The Wall Street Journal calls it “crackpot economics. The subsidy won’t add to net national wealth, since it merely transfers money to one taxpayer’s pocket from someone else’s, and merely pays that taxpayer to destroy a perfectly serviceable asset in return for something he might have bought anyway.” Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan believes the program is an effect of a rebounding economy, not a cause. “It’s an interesting issue,” Greenspan says, “I mean, I have qualms about the concept, but there is no doubt that that very extraordinary response is a very important indicator that the state of confidence in the economy is beginning to pick up.”

Effect on Environment?

Larry Summers, National Economic Council President, said on NBC’s Meet The Press that “the so-called cash for clunkers program has actually been far more successful than people expected, both in terms of the number of car sales it’s generated, and, I should say, in terms of the environmental benefit.” But what exactly is the environmental benefit? The Guardian’s Ryan Avent says the eco-thinking behind the program is based on sound logic: “Cars 13 years old and older generate 75% of all automobile pollution while travelling only 25% of the miles driven…Over the course of 10,000 miles, for instance, an improvement from 18 to 28 miles per gallon (mpg) will save nearly twice as much gasoline as a move from 34 to 50 mpg.”

Still, folks like Cameron Scott (SF Chronicle’s Thin Green Line) are skeptical. Scott argues the current program is a typical Washington half-measure, the effect of which is diluted by the already low emissions standards in this country. “The government requires fleetwide average fuel efficiency of 2009 American vehicles to be just 23 mpg…In Europe the number is 45, and it’s even higher in Japan, leading Japanese cars to trounce their American counterparts class by class in fuel efficiency.” He concludes, “it seems to be working fairly well as an economic stimulus program without actively screwing the environmental pooch.” Faint praise, indeed.

We’ll continue to track this story, but Scott is right to say that until the U.S. can match the fuel efficiency of Europe and Japan, we’ll continue to get trounced. Proof is in the pudding- 4 of the 5 top cars being bought through the “cash for clunkers” program are foreign. After the Ford Focus, which is surprisingly the top-selling new car,  Japanese automakers are dominating: the Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic, Toyota Prius and Toyota Camry. But, on the bright side, of 157,000 trades that had occurred as of Tuesday morning, 80% of the “clunkers” were SUVs and trucks. That’s gotta be a good thing!

(AP Photo/Rick Bowmer)

The above video is an example of effective viral marketing, in which a short, well-made video spreads on a variety of social media platforms. I’ve seen this on Facebook and Twitter repeatedly in the past two days. With clever graphics and succinct narration, its ideas are easy to digest (to paraphrase: “people have been predicting that overpopulation would lead to humanity’s demise since that nutjob Malthus in 1798. Conspiracies about a Malthusian Catastrophe have found new crazy sponsors in every generation, and they always prove wrong…ergo, it’s gotta be hogwash!”). But who is behind the video? Do these ideas gel with scientific consensus? Is social media the new front in the war on climate change? Does any of this matter? Did I lose you at “Malthusian?”

Who is behind the video?

The video comes from the Population Research Institute, a VA-based non-profit organization that, according to its site, is dedicated to “presenting the truth about population-related issues.” PRI argues against the notion that human overpopulation is occurring. It’s useful to contextualize the argument presented in the video, but a few layers of the onion need to be peeled back to reveal the specific agenda- PRI is a “pro-life” organization, largely funded by The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc., which some liberal watchdog groups refer to as one of the country’s “largest and most influential right-wing foundations.” It’s a dangerous game- mixing a political and moral debate (the sanctity of life vs. woman’s right to choose) to construct a scientific argument (”don’t believe what you hear that overpopulation is biggest threat to the environment”).

What does scientists say?

Do these ideas about population growth gel with scientific consensus? A report by the United Nations suggests that world population will reach 11 billion by 2050. The U.S.’s population is expected to rise from 305 million (2008) to around 440 million by 2050, which will make fielding a kick-ass Olympic team easier, but we may have to start paving our open spaces (first dibs on Yellowstone). Global life expectancy, which is estimated to have risen from 46 years in 1950-1955 to 65 years in 2000-2005, is expected to keep rising to reach 75 years in 2045-2050. In the more developed regions, the projected increase is from 75 years today to 82 years by mid-century. Scientific estimates put the carrying capacity of the Earth- that is, the level at which we can achieve a sustainable economy and divert disasters- at around two billion people.

In a study titled Food, Land, Population and the U.S. Economy, David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell University, and Mario Giampietro, senior researcher at the US National Research Institute on Food and Nutrition (INRAN), estimate the maximum U.S. population for a sustainable economy at 200 million. The World Wildlife Fund’s “Living Planet” report suggested we’re consuming three times more of the Earth’s resources than we’re able to regenerate. According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a four-year research effort by 1,360 of the world’s leading scientists commissioned to measure the actual value of natural resources to humans and the world, “The structure of the world’s ecosystems changed more rapidly in the second half of the twentieth century than at any time in recorded human history, and virtually all of Earth’s ecosystems have now been significantly transformed through human actions.”

I could continue, but I think it’s fair to say that a scientific consensus exists- that, though technological optimists might be right that we can continue to develop new ways of increasing food production to sustain a larger population, the Earth’s resources are being stretched perilously thin.

Social Media as new battleground?

Is social media the new front in the war on climate change? Definitely. It’s the most effective way to broadcast your views, and, studies have shown, people trust Facebook and Twitter as a source of real and relevant information. The video is a smokescreen for the debate between Pro Lifers and Pro Choicers. That debate, of course, is fraught with landmines - you either believe life begins at conception or you don’t- which make the two sides irreconcilable. That’s why introducing such a moral component to a Pro Life audience about Population/Climate Change efforts is fiendishly brilliant- and unhelpful.

Does any of this matter? Arguing against the ‘myth of overpopulation’ is like arguing against next Tuesday arriving after next Monday. It’s going to happen- many would argue it has happened- and so those of us interested in green innovation should be hard at work. You know, just in case thousands of the world’s leading scientists end up being right.

It’s time for another “we choose the moon” speech. Instead of the moon, we need to set our sights on our own planet. It’s time to take a page from JFK’s play book and set the country on the path towards world changing innovation. The U.S. has the resources to lead the green charge, it just lacks the political will.

On May 25, 1961, President Kennedy announced before a joint session of Congress an extraordinary and ambitious goal of sending an American safely to the Moon before the end of the decade. Like the Manhattan Project before it, the race to the moon mobilized an entire generation of the best and brightest minds towards a single and common purpose. Bi-partisan support in Congress and strong leadership in the White House focused the nation’s determination to achieve what many felt was impossible. In July of 1969, Apollo 11 commander Neil Armstrong stepped off the lunar module and onto the Moon’s surface, capping a remarkable period of innovation and commitment to progress.

This week, we (the U.S., mankind, sci fi geeks) celebrate the fortieth anniversary of Apollo 11’s mission. Time, now, to imagine an ‘Energy Race,’ like the ‘Space Race’ of the 1960s, spurred on by national pride and global concern. Kennedy’s speech to Congress in May of ‘61, like his “we choose the moon” speech at Rice University in September of ‘62, remains a stirring reminder of the power of that office to inspire- especially for 21st century listeners; we know the challenges, the odds and, ultimately, the triumphs. Obama has the opportunity to lay down the gauntlet, to set us boldly on a course of pursuing something remarkable, something that would still inspire awe forty years from now.

“We choose to free ourselves from our dependence on fossil fuels within a decade. We choose to ensure that all new homes built in this country produce as much energy as they consume. We choose to create the infrastructure for smart grids, a network of green bullet trains, highways with battery swap stations…,” he could say. And, as he did in Cairo, he could say it in a way that could inspire hope in the dignity of American ideals.

When Neil Armstrong took his first steps on the moon, the whole world was watching and cheering. It was mankind’s triumph. But Kennedy was motivated by Cold War ambitions and was aided by two important factors, that rivalry with the Soviets and, perhaps more importantly, a clear goal.

The Cold War

A month before his speech to Congress in May of ‘61, Kennedy wrote a memo to Vice President Johnson, putting him in charge of assessing the state of our space program. Kennedy asked, “do we have a chance of beating the Soviets by putting a laboratory in space, or by a trip around the moon, or by a rocket to land on the moon, or by a rocket to go to the moon and back with a man?” Later that month, Johnson responded, “the Soviets are ahead of the United States in world prestige…[but] the U.S. has greater resources than the USSR for attaining space leadership but has failed to make the necessary hard decisions and to marshal those resources to achieve such leadership.”

We could say the same about our efforts to confront climate change- others are ahead of the U.S. in world prestige, and, though the U.S. has greater resources, we have failed to make difficult decisions and to marshal those resources effectively.

Johnson argues in his note to Kennedy that the world will align itself with whichever nation it sees as being the “world leader” and that “dramatic accomplishments in space are increasingly identified as a major indicator of world leadership.” In conclusion, Johnson writes, “the American public should be given the facts as to how we stand in the space race, told of our determination to lead in that race, and advised of the importance of such leadership to our future.”

For Kennedy, the race to the moon had strategic military and political value- our way of life was in jeopardy.  Few questioned whether it was in our best interests to remain ahead of the Soviets in space exploration. For Obama, the narrative is more nuanced (a scientific consensus exists, but the political debate remains complex). But it’s still very much a story about the risks to our way of life, and Obama, as good as he is at delivering poignant speeches, could make that case convincingly.

A clear goal

Kennedy also had a very clear goal- get to the moon and back: a narrative with a beginning, middle and end, a mission with a concise rallying cry. The goals for Obama are more abstract and don’t come with a singular moment of triumph, like a man walking on the moon. The leading voices in the green movement- some of whom I saw speak last week at UVM’s “gameplan” summit- need to provide Obama with dramatic, appreciable goals that would have the power to inspire and provide a rallying cry. While we welcome green innovation from other parts of the world, the U.S. remains uniquely positioned to influence world economies- if we went green, the world would follow. And, let’s remind the Senator Inhofes and Rush Limbaughs of the world, if we don’t lead the way, we’ll be buying that technology from somewhere else.

Kennedy said of the ‘Space Race,’ “it will not be one man going to the moon…it will be an entire nation. For all of us must work to put him there. For while we cannot guarantee that we shall one day be first, we can guarantee that any failure to make this effort will make us last.” Forty years on, the fact that we once mobilized the brightest minds to solve the most ridiculously complex of challenges should inspire us to do the same in our time. Any failure to make this effort will make us all last.

Is the Wall Street Journal at war with itself? We’ve recently given the paper some credit for its evolving coverage of all things ‘green.’ In March of this year, Alan G. Robinson and Dean M. Schroeder debunked “conventional wisdom” that might suggest a company’s costs rise as its environmental impact falls, explaining that going green can be highly cost effective. Earlier this month, WSJ editors chose to lead with this headline: “It’s Time To Cool The Planet.” In the article, Jamais Cascio proclaims, “if we’re going to avoid climate disaster, we’re going to have start getting a lot more direct. We’re going to have to think about cooling the planet.”

But in an opinion piece offered last week by WSJ columnist Kimberly Strassel, the skeptics were once again given full voice. Strassel points to a climate-change bill in the Australian Parliament that may get killed due to what she calls the “growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens [that] once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.”

“Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress,” Strassel writes, “is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as “deniers.” The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.”

She continues,

“The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. — 13 times the number who authored the U.N.’s 2007 climate summary for policymakers.”

Granted, this is an opinion column, and therefore not a work of journalism, but Strassel’s suggestion that Inhofe- of all people- is uncovering “the collapse of the ‘consensus’” strains credulity. The WSJ seems in conflict with itself, as its journalists begin to report on the reality that, as this global trend towards green innovation and sustainable business continues, the U.S. will either be buying it or selling it. Meanwhile, opinion columnists like Strassel insist that this “unconvincing green science” will do nothing for us but risk job losses. Which side prevails?

I’m still mulling over Jennifer Boulden’s piece in the Huffington Post, considering that balance between advocating “green tweaks” or “green leaps.” As I mentioned in the last piece, Boulden is the co-founder of Ideal Bite. For those of you who haven’t read Ideal Bite- what’s wrong with you?- it’s a site that provides daily tips for living green, promoting the positive and empowering value of “incremental environmentalism.” In her piece for the HuffPo, though, Boulden reveals a more ambitious philosophy emerging, a call for bolder action and bigger leaps forward. Will baby steps get us to where we need to be?

At LTT, we think about this a lot. Are “greener products” only “less bad,” rather than actually “good?” Should we be moving with a greater sense of urgency towards a “sustainable future?” To a point, and yes. But while we don’t believe in half measures, we do believe in the efficacy of realistic alternatives. But maybe Boulden is right, maybe we now have the necessary ingredients for creating a new framework. Maybe we’re reaching that tipping point, where individuals, governments and corporations are absorbing the message.

Every major brand is addressing this in some way or another- there are a lot of innovative companies out there that get it and others that are starting to get it. But whether it’s the size of the slow-moving ship, the nature of their industry or the state of the economy, “going bold” sometimes gets watered down to simply “taking action.”

But, still, we look to those big fish to reshape the priorities of their own industry. PepsiCo , a company we admire (we’ve covered a number of their initiatives), is an interesting contradiction. On the one hand, it produces a staggering amount of plastic bottle waste, and, because of its global distribution, produces waste (in the form of emissions and landfill fodder) everywhere you can imagine. On the other hand, PepsiCo is among the most progressive Fortune 50 companies in terms of corporate social responsibility, recycling (check out Aquafina’s partnership with Keep America Beautiful), industry-changing innovation (Frito Lay’s compostable bag) and so on, and that global reach can bring a message of sustainability to unlikely places. Other examples, companies like Timberland, Green Mountain Coffee and Whole Foods, have shown the broad appeal of integrating responsibility into a company’s core identity.

Whole Foods is adopting some innovative practices, from exploring renewable energies at stores, banning the use of plastic bags, or pushing the entire industry towards responsible aquaculture guidelines. Their Mid-Atlantic region recently established a commitment to diverting 90% of its waste from landfills by 2009. We had a chance to speak with Mark Smallwood, Whole Foods’ Green Mission specialist, who says the company is well on its way. To achieve this remarkable goal, Whole Foods is working to minimize packaging, enhance its composting programs and further develop its recycling. After a recent garbage audit, Smallwood says, “we found roughly 60% of our waste going to compost, 25% was being reused or recycled (including pallets, totes, milk jugs and so on) and 15% was going to landfill, mostly packaging.”

Boulden’s right, it does seem as if the pieces are positioned to fall into place for a new (sustainable) economy. But it takes a confluence of understanding, energy and innovation. It takes not just consumers demanding greener products but companies anticipating (like Honda and Toyota did a decade ago with hybrid/EV technology) how their industry needs to evolve. Baby steps or big leaps, the scene is set for us to “cook up a new type of economy.”

For more on Boulden, check out her piece on the Huffington Post.

I’ve enjoyed a recent exchange of emails with Jennifer Boulden, co-founder of Ideal Bite. Like LTT, Ideal Bite was founded on the belief that “if we all knew what we could do in the day to day to impact the planet and our communities in a positive way, we’d do it.” The idea of “guilting people into going green” or shocking them in action by grim reports of a climate catastrophe doesn’t seem particularly effective.

In that sense, Al Gore was preaching to the choir in “An Inconvenient Truth.” However necessary and affecting that film was, I wonder how many people walked out of the theater scared but largely unchanged. And how many people who should have seen it didn’t because of the loaded political associations?  As the Ideal Bite folks explain, “we don’t want someone to tell us what’s wrong…unless we understand how we can help.” That serves as the basis for Ideal Bite’s brand of “incremental environmentalism,” and the site offers “ideas for real people who lead busy lives and want to make small changes that up to big results.”

In a recent article published on the Huffington Post, Boulden proposed a more ambitious brand of green thinking. In “You Gotta Break A Few Eggs To Make An Omlette,” she writes about her experience at the Fortune Green Business Conference in Laguna Nigual, CA, reflecting on that “fine (nagging) line” that one treads when one chooses green products; “greener options are definitely better, but at the same time, they are only just less bad,” she writes. “The fact is we need a big, dramatic departure from the core structure of our economy. Why? Because it only works when we buy more and more things.”

Just when I was considering packing my bags for New Zealand to live a life of blissful ignorance, Van Jones spoke. Obama appointed this social change leader into a Green Collar Job position to make sure that the $20B - $40B allotment to stimulate green economic activity actually did just that, and that it the cash infusion benefited all of people in this country. His battle cry was, “Be Bold,” and I dig it.

I am no economist (even though I slogged my way through an Econ major at William & Mary), and I am no business pundit (although I hid from the economic downturn of 2001 by receiving a ‘green MBA’ from George Washington U). I am, however, someone who thinks that we need to rethink some core tenants under which we are surprisingly comfortable operating.

She continues,

Ask yourself, “why not be bold?” — and let me know what you come up with. Luckily I got my inspiration to fight the good-n-green fight for the next year from the conference. Not because anyone was spouting off warm-fuzzy platitudes that glossed over the abysmal state of the environment, but because I realized that we may just have the right ingredients for cooking up a new type of economy. Very intelligent, passionate people are shaping a new framework. Yes, there will be some short term costs and some temporary pain and discomfort. But remember, you gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet.

Tomorrow, I’ll delve deeper into that question that we all seem to be wrestling with- are baby steps enough?

For more, check out Ideal Bite. For Boulden’s full article on HuffPo click here.

For those of us who work towards a more sustainable future- and, thankfully, that’s a quickly growing demographic- the challenge is in opening our eyes to the gravity of our situation while maintaining a healthy dose of optimism. With all the doomsday reports, it’s sometimes difficult to see our way out of the mess we’ve created.

I once asked Roger Lang, a remarkable conservationist and entrepreneur out in Montana, whether he thought of optimism as a vital component of the environmental movement.  “I don’t think so,” he replied. “I have dark days when I’m convinced developers will pave all these beautiful open spaces. But I think these bouts of pessimism actually keep me engaged- pure optimism is synonymous with naivete. I think to be dedicated to conservation means you better have a good appreciation of the challenges, or else you’ll be blind-sided by them.”

A new study by researchers at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies provides, perhaps, the right balance of realism and optimism. An analysis of 240 independent studies, it found that most polluted or damaged ecosystems worldwide can recover within as little as 5 to 10 years “if societies commit to their cleanup or restoration.”

The Yale researchers studied seven ecosystem types and their recovery from man-made disturbances (logging, mining, oil spills, overfishing, industrial pollution…) and natural disasters (hurricanes, cyclones…). They found, for example, that forest ecosystems recovered in 42 years on average, while ocean bottoms recovered in less than 10 years. While the damages to these ecosystemss are serious, the researchers see the results as an indication that “if societies choose to become sustainable, ecosystems will recover. It isn’t hopeless.”

The study does conclude that about 15% of damaged ecosystems are beyond recovery. But the researchers suggest that, as bad as things are,  “speculation that it will take centuries or millennia for degraded ecosystems to recover” is, in general, wrong. Holly Jones, one of the study’s co-authors added, “we recognize that humankind has and will continue to actively domesticate nature to meet its own needs. The message of our paper is that recovery is possible and can be rapid for many ecosystems, giving much hope for a transition to sustainable management of global ecosystems.”

[Sources: Yale University, Jeff Kart- Clean Technica]

Here’s a clip (via Ecorazzi) of Roland Saekow who, like millions of other graduating college students, is entering the “real world,” with its battered economy and fragile environment (or is it fragile economy and battered environment?). But with people like Saekow bringing their ideas and energy, the future is looking bright (green).  We thought it was time to tip our caps to this new wave of thinkers.

Saekow built this solar powered graduation cap for his big day at UC Berkeley. The mini “green world,” with a model house, functioning solar panel and wind turbine and a remote-controlled sun that rises, is a pretty good representation of the future this generation of minds expects to cultivate. While a student at Cal, Saekow helped pass the Green Initiative Fund legislation on campus, “which generates $200,000 annually for green projects at Berkeley.” As he writes on his website. “I also taught the Joy of Garbage DeCal course for six semesters. This course explored the impact of our waste on the past, present and future. Finally I was the Waste Reduction Manger (WRM) at my housing cooperative for four semesters.”

We’re looking forward to seeing what he does next!

[source: Ecorazzi)

Microphone check. One. Two. [Ahem] Allow me to vent for a minute about buttheads and poop. There are possibly only three types of people in this world 1) people who think it’s okay to drop a (still smoldering) cigarette on the ground, where, by the way, my one year old may crawl by and pick it up and, as with everything he touches, put it in his mouth. 2) people who don’t pick up after their dogs. [these people are sometimes the same people]  3) people who would run for office in city hall if only to pass some ordinance that required the first two groups of people to serve 100 hours of cigarette and poop cleanup duty.

Admittedly, the issue of “not scooping the poop” is not necessarily an environmental one- someone prone to doing it might argue that ultimately it’s good for the soil, or it’ll be gone in a week so what’s the big deal, or “hey, I’m not using a plastic bag to pick that up because it’ll just end up in a landfill.” That person would be an idiot, but the argument could at least be made. But the larger point is, of course, it flies in the face of the type of self-responsibility we all expect from one another. The plastic bag argument, I suppose, raises an interesting dilemma for people who have, otherwise, successfully avoided using disposable plastic bags in their daily lives. For those people I recommend something like FlushEze, the flushable, biodegradable poop bag. And cigarettes… - smoke, don’t smoke, I don’t care, but would a person who recycles at home, is conscious of not being wasteful, etc…drop a cigarette butt into the gutter? And if he/she did, why that disconnect? Incidentally, a cigarette butt takes up to five years to biodegrade. On a walk recently, I saw a woman who, no joke, was wearing a shirt that said “Hug Your Mother Earth,” who in the span of two minutes, tossed her cigarette butt into the bushes and watched idly as her bulldog had a morning constitutional on the side of the bike path. It was the perfect trifecta of douchebaggery. I knew it was time for a post about buttheads and poop. Now…, back to our normal fare.

It’s not hard to find evidence to support Tom Friedman’s ‘Flat Earth‘ theory, especially these days. The U.S. subprime meltdown went through the global economic bloodstream like a virus, infecting economies big and small- poor Iceland is still in intensive care. Speaking of viruses, the World Heath Organization says the Swine Flu pandemic is imminent, classifying it as a Phase 5 outbreak. Chrysler announced yesterday it would file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and merge with European carmaker Fiat. The pitfalls of globalization are everywhere you look, but they also stand as a reminder of the speed at which change can arrive- for worse, clearly, but also for the better.

When it comes to green innovation, we’re often left daunted by the challenges. Can we act fast enough to stave off climate disasters? Won’t it take years to integrate these new green products/technologies into the mainstream? And as long as China is building coal plants at a rate of once a week, aren’t we putting our own economic interests at risk by setting strict emissions standards?

While it’s true we lag behind on a lot of green thinking, the US is still the flagship in the fleet of trends. If we can go green, the world will follow. If we can invest in cost-effective, energy-efficient smart grids, plug-in hybrid technologies, electric vehicle infrastructure like the kind Shai Agassi at Better Place is developing, the world will buy it.

Am I suggesting the current world crises could have been avoided with a little more “green thinking?” Pretty much, yeah. Chrysler? I’m sure there are lots of factors (labor costs, stiff foreign competition, yadda yadda), but, c’mon, have you seen these cars? Do they look like the cars of tomorrow? Is the Sebring exciting you? The Chrysler Aspen Hybrid? Really? That’s what you’ve got?

Some are already seeing the Swine Flu outbreak as a result of factory farming. “When the CDC and the USDA conduct their investigation in Mexico,” writes Sarah Fobes, “they will start with the industrial scale pig farms that have been growing in numbers over the last decade…[noting that many] American pig companies have been opening up pig factories in Mexico, where the outbreak started.”

And, while it was probably greed and a lack of oversight and personal responsibility that helped create the conditions for the subprime meltdown, green innovation might help create the conditions for recovery. Just yesterday, the Metropolitan Transit Authority said it will save $200,000 annually just from having changed to compact fluorescent lightbulbs at Grand Central Terminal.

With our tongue firmly in our cheeks, we say, yes, of course “going green” will solve the world’s problems!

It’s that time again. Time to celebrate the planet, to think about ways to live greener, for television networks and our favorite shows to highlight their green initiatives. But is it as important as ever, as some have suggested? If, as Rick Bass argues in his piece for Grist, “carbon dioxide concentrations are nearing the point-of-no-return of 360 parts-per-million—at some point beyond that, the eggshell of a globe we call home might ignite into a giant ball of flame, simply from the belch of one more cow,” don’t we need more than one day a year?

Since it’s inception in 1970, Earth Day has been an important springboard for activism. But that conversation is no longer confined to the activist fringes. “Going green” has gone mainstream, and thankfully so. Of course, a lot of work is left to be done. Celebrants of the first Earth Day must have imagined a cleaner world in 2009 than the one in which we find ourselves today. But there are many fewer corners of the world where green thinking hasn’t taken root, to some degree or another.

We’ve seen companies like Seventh Generation, Patagonia, Whole Foods, Wal-Mart even, help set their industries on a course towards greater sustainability. Every major brand is addressing its environmental message- some more authentically than others, admittedly. In less than a second, a Google search of the word “sustainability” produces nearly 30 million results. Green blogs abound, and green design has become more about economics and aesthetics than about preaching.

Are we through the tunnel? No, of course not. But haven’t we reached the tipping point where we’re ready to engage on this issue every single day, not just on April 22nd? So, we’ll happily celebrate Earth Day today, but just as sex shouldn’t be reserved for Valentine’s Day, turkey for Thanksgiving, Harry Potter costumes for Halloween- ok, maybe that’s ok- we think it’s worth having this conversation every day!

In his recent column, Nicholas Kristof asks whether the Web, flooded with information and ideas as it is, can actually trigger new ways of thinking or whether it will only serve as a tool for filtering out dissenting view points. “There’s pretty good evidence,” he writes, “that we generally don’t truly want good information — but rather information that confirms our prejudices. We may believe intellectually in the clash of opinions, but in practice we like to embed ourselves in the reassuring womb of an echo chamber.”

Innovation, though, relies on diversity of thought. It needs the free-wheeling optimist and the brow-furrowed pragmatist, the pie-in-the-sky dreamer and the devil’s advocate. A multitude of voices. Piers Fawkes, of the always-compelling PSFK, reminded us recently of Linus Pauling’s great quote: “The best way to get a good idea is to get a lot of ideas.” And it’s especially true in a conversation such as the one on sustainable design and green thinking, where political rhetoric and biases are everyday hurdles.

Activism too often devolves into a monologue, rather than a healthy and open dialogue. The driving philosophy of Love Tomorrow Today is the belief in the efficacy of ‘one degree of change.’ That’s not to say that we strive for half measures or that we turn away from bold thinking, just that we understand that real, lasting change is inclusive rather than exclusive.

more…

This was supposed to be another step towards a new era of NASA missions, turning the focus from the cosmos and back towards our own planet. The exciting new NASA satellite designed to track carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere failed to reach orbit on its launch yesterday morning. The Orbiting Carbon Observatory (pictured above in an artist rendering) never separated from the Taurus XL rocket and took a quick (and unexpected) dip in the Pacific Ocean near Antarctica. A $278 million goof.

As Kenneth Chang explains in his NY Times piece, “scientists had hoped the new data, covering the entire planet, would help them improve climate models and better understand the ‘carbon sinks’ like oceans and forests and that absorb much of the carbon dioxide.” Annual variations in levels have confounded experts, and understanding these ‘carbon sinks’ is seen as a key in explaining why “in some years, all of the excess carbon dioxide disappears; in some years, all of it stays in the air.”

For anyone who sees the abstract value of an agency like NASA, it’s hard not to be disappointed. You can hear the doubters gaining steam: What was the point of going to moon? What’s the  real value in aiming for Mars? These aren’t unreasonable questions, especially when our economy is pulling a Titanic (minus the Leo-Kate love story and the gagillion $ box office). C’mon, NASA, no more $278 million “my bads,” please!

You read us- thanks, by the way- but who do we read? Quick answer- everyone! Perhaps a few grains of sand slip through our fingers, but we track hundreds of industry sites, press releases, trend watchers, blogs and newspapers, with a goal of aggregating a broad and interesting range of examples of how companies and individuals are activating simple and sustainable change. We follow the ways in which big brands are incorporating eco-thinking in their core business (from companies you’d expect, like Whole Foods, Patagonia and REI, to ones you might not, like Wal-Mart, Pepsi, even Pepperidge Farm) and how newer players (like Better Place and GEM) are pushing that innovation.

As a company, Love Tomorrow Today looks to develop products and ideas that make it easier to activate simple change in our daily lives. As a blog, we try to stay out in front of the tsunami, tracking the swells of exciting innovation and the changing landscape of sustainability. We value your feedback and your efforts to spread the word!

Here’s a widget of this blog that you can grab (for your iGoogle page, your blog…).

Today, the entire world tunes in to see Barack Obama sworn in as the 44th President. As comedian Chris Rock recently joked, “I’ve never watched an inauguration…It was never like, “I can’t wait till tomorrow. Oh my god! They’re going to swear in Jimmy Carter!” Expectations are high, and so too are the stakes. Pundits predict Obama’s inaugural address will focus on the theme of ‘responsibility,’ and, fittingly, his speech will be set against the backdrop of the greenest inaugural celebration in history.

Critics will argue that with more than four million people expected to arrive in DC this week (including celebrities flying in on private jets), claims of a “green event” are empty. But the culture of responsibility will be on display, thanks to an impressive array of eco-friendly initiatives. Some of them include: EPA officials advising event organizers on ways to reduce waste and maximize efficiency, bike riders being treated to valet parking, public restrooms featuring air dryers instead of paper towels, and caterers who compost and recycle. That, as they say, is change we can believe in.