NEWSGREENER BUSINESSES & INSTITUTIONS

Hundreds of people around the U.S. have joined Stiv Wilson's petition on Change.org asking the National Park Service to re-instate its plastic bottle ban in the Grand Canyon. Signers are worried about the effects of plastic litter and pollution, and want the National Park Service to protect the beauty and wildlife of the Grand Canyon, one of America's greatest natural treasures. They are also angered that corporate interests, namely Coca-Cola's desire to keep making profits on bottled water, could take precedent over the public's interest in doing what's best for the park. Below is a statement from one petition signer we'd like to highlight. You can find many others by looking at the petition.

Erica Donnelly, Marine Biologist:

"I am a marine scientist in Santa Cruz, California who researches plastic ingestion in birds including Northern Fulmars, Albatrosses, and Shearwaters. We find plastic fragments from a variety of sources (both local and non-local) inside of bird stomachs.  Almost every bird we examine contains internal plastic that can effect the animal directly (internal blockages, abrasions, etc.) or indirectly (chemical toxicity from pollutants that adhere to plastics).

Seabirds are just one example of how are extensive use of disposable plastics is impacting wildlife. Micro-plastic infiltrate our ground water, water ways, and soil creating a national health issue, not just a localized problem on the coast.  We must get to the source of the issue and curtail our dependency on single use, disposable plastics.  Please help make a step in the right direction by banning plastic bottles."

You can join Erica and hundreds of others by signing Stiv Wilson's petition today.

The battle against the environmental impact of single-use plastic bags is a classic David vs. Goliath story: local individuals trying to reduce waste and save the planet are going up against the giants of petro-chemical companies bent on keeping the flow of fossil-fuel laden bags at an all time high. Take, for example, the owner of ChicoBags, a reusable bag company that was recently sued by three of the top US manufacturers of plastic bags—Hilex Poly LLC, Superbag, and Advance Polybag—in an attempt to discredit the reusable bag company's green merits.  (The recent settlement shows the plastic bag company's arguments were as flimsy as their bags).

Then, there are the numerous cities across the state of California that have passed such bans, including San Francisco, Malibu, Palo Alto, and Los Angeles County, but are now threatened with lawsuits by, you guessed it, Hilex Poly. Big time pressure from the industry shut down state-wide ban efforts in California this summer, and thwarted a city ban in Seattle last fall.

More than 3,000 people have joined a campaign on Change.org calling on the University of Michigan to commit to using solar energy in its football stadium.

The campaign, created by the Ann Arbor-based Ecology Center, follows a growing NFL trend of renewable energy-powered national sports stadiums, including the homes of the Philadelphia Eagles, Arizona Cardinals, New England Patriots, and Washington Redskins. Activists hope the petition on Change.org will lead the University of Michigan, home to the Big 10 Wolverines and the largest-capacity stadium in North America, to become the first big-name college football school to join in.

“The UM stadium has the potential to be the largest athletic venue in North America with solar panels, which is fitting with the University’s claim to be ‘the leaders and the best’,” said Monica Patel, policy specialist at the Ecology Center. “Even though the electricity generated won’t solve the climate crisis, it will go a long way in terms of solar energy education — just think of the awareness raised among the 100,000+ fans there on Game Day, and millions of others who tune in. The move would also give real support to Michigan's growing solar energy industry."

My name is Romic, and I am a teenage Houstonian who loves astronomy.

I can clearly remember when I first became interested in astronomy, not too long ago in November, 2010. We had just finished up our astronomy unit in Science and there was a lot of hype about Jupiter making it’s closest approach in nearly 50 years. Ever since then, I was outside every night with my binoculars trying to get a good view of Jupiter. Even without a telescope, I’d always scan my binoculars across the sky every night and see what I could find.

Before my interest in astronomy, I tried to remember if I had ever seen the stars, and I unfortunately realized that I had never really seen any stars in the sky!

It was in November when I began looking up at the sky more often and then realizing that the stars were actually there. After many months, I received my first telescope for Christmas and started reading books and articles on astronomy. I then learned about light pollution and realized that the stars I looked at every night were only a fraction of what I could have been seeing.

Editor's Note: This blog post is written by Josh Golin, associate director of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood. His organization is leading the effort end Scholastic's "InSchool Marketing" of corporate and industry materials. You can sign their petition to add your support, or leave a note on Scholastic's Facebook wall.

For years, Scholastic has exploited its privileged position in schools to serve as Trojan horse for all sorts of inappropriate marketing.  But a couple of weeks ago, the company got caught red-handed when a campaign led by CCFC and Rethinking Schools exposed the fact that the self-proclaimed “most trusted name in learning” was distributing one-sided teaching materials in schools paid for by the coal industry.  After extensive protests by advocates for education and the environment, Scholastic pulled the materials and vowed to review its policies and editorial procedures on all sponsored classroom materials.

As Scholastic conducts its review, CCFC is urging its members and anyone concerned about the commercialization of education to weigh in.  In a petition hosted on Change.org and CCFC’s website, more than 50,000 parents and teachers have already urged Scholastic to stop distributing all corporate and industry-sponsored teaching materials and shutter its controversial InSchool Marketing program.

Don't want the Yellow Pages dumped at your doorstep? Great news. If you live in San Francisco, starting May 2012, you won't get one.

Last week, in an overwhelming 9-1 vote, San Francisco's Board of Supervisors passed the nation's first-ever Yellow Pages opt-in ordinance, a program that could save San Franciscans $1 million taxpayer dollars every year and end millions of pounds of paper waste.

The phone directory industry, fearful of the groundbreaking precedent this ordinance sets, lobbied against it intensely. But 11,000 Change.org members, more than 1,000 of who are San Francisco residents, helped counter their efforts with a swell of grassroots support. This petition, backed by the legislation's sponsor Supervisor David Chiu, became part of the legislative record during the heated debate of the proposal. In addition, PhonebookFree SF, a grassroots group of citizens, presented it when they tried to return 1,500 unwanted phonebooks to AT&T's San Francisco headquarters in March (it turned out even AT&T didn't want the phonebooks, and neither did the local recycling facility).

This victory will bring San Francisco closer to meeting its goal of zero waste by 2020, and is an important benchmark for consumer choice in our digital age.

That doesn't mean the phone directory industry, which makes billions of dollars of advertising revenue printing books that often go unopened, will go quietly into the night. In Seattle, the industry sued the city for passing a less stringent mandatory "opt-out" measure. This lawsuit, however, has been unsuccessful so far. What's more, barely a week since the opt-out program took effect, more than 100,o00 people have already decided they can live with the heavy books. Even The New Yorker recently weighed in on what they have dubbed the city's "phonebook wars."

Back in October, I wrote about why more business schools should include sustainability programs as a key part of their curricula. One of the leading international business school accreditation associations, the EFMD, based in Brussels, has been helping to do just that: encouraging business schools to integrate long-term thinking (sustainability) into their academic programs.  In 2008 it partnered with Kozminski University professor Jonathan T. Scott, an expert in this field, to pave a way ahead.

Working with legendary sustainability pioneer Walter R. Stahel of the Product-Life Institute, Scott put together a series of educational texts that teach the basics of sustainability from a business perspective. He and the EFMD are offering these materials for free in a bid to help spread the message that sustainability goes beyond 'green'.

In the most recent publication, Standards for Long-term Business Survival, Scott presents sustainability as a financial concept that focuses on the causes of resource depletion, environmental degradation, job loss, etc. (waste) rather then the symptoms (pollution, carbon emissions, lack of jobs, etc).

The 30-page text includes: a brief history of what contemporary sustainability and how it creates jobs; examples of the billions of dollars in cost savings, long-term profits, and competitive advantage that sustainability generates; a detailed description of formidable economic realities currently gathering strength across the globe; and a 10-page checklist to help businesses think in the long-term and prepare for the onslaught of growing market-force changes.

But while a number of major international business and environmental organizations -- more than 20 -- are helping in the distribution of this guide, are business academics taking this seriously?

I've been writing a lot to help with a campaign (11,000 signatures and counting) to make San Francisco the first city in the U.S. to end the distribution of unwanted copies of the Yellow Pages.

In the process, I've met a man named Albert Kaufman, of Portland, Oregon, who is the driving force behind similar proposed statewide legislation now being considered in Oregon. He's been asked a good question: "You might ask, why, when there is so much going wrong in the world, have I chosen to focus on phone books?"

His answer? "I learned a while ago that it makes sense to focus on a thread, and keep on pulling, and somewhere along the way, the wastefulness and just downright pain in the ass to deal with of phonebooks got to me."

It's an attitude similar to the motivation of many Change.org members—you've got to start somewhere. Why not the phone book?

San Francisco, as one of the greenest and most progressive cities in the country, has a track record of passing landmark environmental measures. Supervisor David Chiu's proposed ordinance is no exception: It would be the first program in the U.S. to end the distribution of unwanted Yellow Pages by creating an "opt-in" program.

Unfortunately, that distinction can also be a curse.

In the last few weeks, the $15 billion phone directory industry has put heavy resources into lobbying the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to vote down the measure, fearing the precedent its passage would set and the potential for other cities and states to follow.

That's why yesterday a vote on the legislation was delayed for 6 weeks. Lobbyists with groups such as the Yellow Pages Association swayed a few members of the Board to request an economic impact report from the city's comptroller, which Board of Supervisor President David Chiu agreed to complete. Chiu is also the sponsor of the Yellow Pages legislation and the sponsor of a petition on Change.org as a vehicle to express grassroots support for the bill. So far, more than 11,000 people have signed, and more than 1,000 of these signers are residents of San Francisco.

Chiu's office told me that while the delay is unfortunate, they are confidant the economic report will support his position. (So far, the city's Land Use committee and its Small Business Commission both have unanimously endorsed the bill).

Almost 11,000 people around the country have said they don't want to receive a Yellow Pages unless they want one. Yesterday, a group of San Fransisco residents really hammered home that point.

Evidence the photo to the left and the pile of 1,500 unwanted phone directories they returned to AT&Ts San Francisco headquarters.

The protest event was organized by PhonebookFree SF, a group of San Francisco residents who are fed up with the extreme waste of the printed phone book.

Before the event, Lloyd Nimetz, the event's organizer, said: "we will be dumping thousands of phonebooks on the front steps of phonebook companies...to do to them what's done to us several times a year. It will be very interesting to see how they like it."

It turns out AT&T didn't like it at all. AT&T's spokesman was actually quite unhappy with the negative publicity (see media reports here, here, here, and here). He eventually called Mr. Nimetz to tell him so himself.

"[Yesterday] was quick, simple and absolutely awesome. We pulled off a nice little act of civil disobedience, didn't get arrested or any fine and it was successful in showing the press and the world that San Franciscans care about this issue," Mr. Nimetz said.

The unwanted phone books were collected from residents last year, when California was considering statewide legislation that would end wasteful phone book distribution. The bill eventually got spiked by industry lobbying. Mr. Nimetz decided to use them for the demonstration today, as San Francisco considers a similar bill that would require companies receive opt-in permission before dumping the books.