Last night, with two people I had just met, I had an amazing conversation regarding definitions.  What is “sustainability”?  What does “greener living” actually mean?  Are there actual standards for these words.

Sean, a new friend, brought up something about Michelin determining nine new initiatives for the company and that six of them focus on sustainability.  According to the conversation, the spokesperson was asked to define what sustainability meant to the company, and the answer was something along the lines of being able to continue manufacturing the best tires on the road, to provide continued work to their employees, etc.

I realized how, skeptics that we are, such an answer often provokes sneers and jeers from environmentalists.  Likewise, for skeptics of environmentalism, such an answer is used as fuel to argue what a joke “sustainability” is.

“Ha!  They’ve defined it themselves.  Their ’sustainability’ has nothing to do with the environment and is all about their bottom line!  Both ’sustainability’ and corporate America are a joke!” both sides say.

To you, I cheerfully say, WAKE UP!  Welcome to the triple bottom line, and realize that measures toward social, environmental, and financial progress is the ultimate answer to our societal and economic ails.

Simply put, I do not believe “sustainability” can be singularly defined.  Honestly, any corporate entity must look at more than their “environmental impact” in deciding the “right” way to conduct business.  

Taking care of employees is vital to corporate and personal sustainability.  This includes affordable health care.  Reasonable pay for work rendered.  Cutting outrages bonuses from execs when times get tough for the nation.  These tactics keep the business afloat (hopefully) during recessions and shows employees gratitude for their hard work by rewarding them with the promise of health to their families.

Environmentally, in many ways, making your building more energy efficient and initiating gas-conservation tactics for your fleet help the environment.  Sometimes, those initiatives cost more initially, but will dramatically reduce expenses in the long term.  Thus, what is “right” for the environment is also “right” for the company bank account.  

 We would love to think companies are thinking more altruistically in these times, but honestly, UPS didn’t “Go Green” purely so that Indian will stop crying.  They knew they would save money, and the goodwill from the citizens that their efforts earned give them PR that no money can buy.  Genius.

If that turns you off from UPS and other companies making “greener” efforts, think again.  Regardless of their motives, consider how much of a difference UPS makes alone on airline emissions:

With almost 600 jets, the Atlanta company ranks as one of the biggest airlines in the world. As part of its environmental effort to curb emissions, UPS is looking to cut down on the amount of fuel its planes consume by reducing the amount of time jets spend idling on the tarmac before they take off, UPS chief information officer David Barnes tells the Business Technology Blog.

That doesn’t even take into account their ground fleet of hybrids, efficient routing, paperless invoices, etc.  Kudos to them!  I do not ask why they chose these efforts.  I applaud their commitment to progress and reevaluation.

I may not agree with many practices of Walmart, but I have even stopped touting them as the Anti-Christ because of their continued efforts to be more environmentally sound.  Now, if they would focus on the social aspect of the Triple Bottom Line… but I digress.

After Sean got me thinking about our terminology and what a joke it is, I still have to say, I feel more optimistic and empowered than ever.  Whether these companies have progressive, conscientious CEOs, or whether they feel the heat of consumer demands and expectations, or even if these companies are looking for the best ways to save money without resorting to sweatshops and toxic materials, more companies are growing sustainably every day.

And I will continue to applaud them.  Vocally, but more importantly, with my money.  Believe me, they hear money louder than any other tactic.  If you buy, they keep working on goals they already have.  If the money starts to dry up, they rethink what they do.

When I need new tires, you can count on the fact I’ll be looking toward Michelin for mine.  And if those two articles don’t convince you to do the same, maybe this one will.

Sustainably yours,  Ashley Sue

Clean Coal: is it the answer to foreign fuel dependency, or yet another gigantic delusion leading to further land and life destruction in an ongoing tirade of political agenda?  Either side you take, “clean coal” is a hot topic.

We need off to ween ourselves from the drying teat providing us with oil.  Several months ago when prices of gas where $5 a gallon, Americans desperately yearned to end our addiction to oil.  A little complacency set in with gas once again hitting $2 or less a gallon, but prices will inevitably rise again, and soon.  So until we have fantastic solar-powered cars of the future, and our homes are heated in renewably-resourced ways, what are the answers in the interim?

During election season, “clean coal” was a major buzzword among democrats arguing its superiority against domestic offshore oil drilling.  And I bought it.  Again, until solar, wind, hydrogen, etc. are more accessible and affordable, we must look for answers in the interim.  Those answers may not be perfect, but if they are progress away from the current standards and toward those “loftier” alternative energies, I say cheers!  And if Obama and team say coal can be made a cleaner resource, I’m sure it can be, right?

A while back, The Washington Post wrote regarding the dirty and deadly truth on “clean coal”.a  The article focuses on mining and what it does to the workers and communities involved, including the Appalachian communities that have

“become the poster child for strip mining’s worst depravations, which come in the form of mountaintop removal. An estimated 750,000 to 1 million acres of hardwood forests, a thousand miles of waterways and more than 470 mountains and their surrounding communities — an area the size of Delaware – have been erased from the southeastern mountain range in the last two decades. Thousands of tons of explosives — the equivalent of several Hiroshima atomic bombs — are set off in Appalachian communities every year. ”.  

Green Pepper’s piece on Give Coal the Boot! campaign a gave insights into activism against the ideas of “clean coal”.  The Good Human also recently posted a MUST-SEE video dispelling the myths of clean coal.  

But the government seems so intent that coal can be clean energy… what’s with the polar views of this energy?

Unfortunately, in December, a coal ash spill in Kingston, Tennessee revived the argument with evidence that coal is not clean.  In fact, the situation has only worsened as a second coal pond has erupted in Alabama, and due to a lack of regulations regarding coal ash ponds, states like North Carolina can soon expect to face such tragedies too.  According to an AP story, 

Without federal guidelines, regulations of the ash ponds vary by state. Most lack liners and have no monitors to ensure that ash and its contents don’t seep into underground aquifers…  

Despite improvements in state programs, many states have little regulation other than requiring permits for discharging into waterways — as required by the federal Clean Water Act.

In North Carolina, where 14 power plants disposed of 1.3 million tons in ponds in 2005, state officials do not require operators to line their ponds or monitor groundwater, safety measures that help protect water supplies from contamination.

Similar safety measures are not required in Kentucky, Alabama, and Indiana.

And while other states like Ohio have regulations to protect groundwater, those often don’t apply to many of the older dumps built before the state rules were imposed.

Dorothy Griffith of Banner Elk, NC provided aerial views of the TN disaster, appearing on Freakonomics.

Residents in Tennessee are now facing illnesses and potential long-term health consequences for this tragedy, and immediate testing of metals in their bodies is vital.  And the Tennessee Valley Authority, whom should be paying for these $700 per person tests, naturally, like Exxon, will do what they can to minimize their costs, deny impact, and cover their own tails.  

TVA Coal is Killing Tennessee is a blog covering the TVA dirty coal and spill disaster, as well as working with the United Mountain Defense to raise funds to help victims of the spill.  Their coverage is EXCELLENT and where you need to head for all the information you could need.  

The true tragedy to this is that it was all avoidable, we won’t know the long-term devastation to these communities and the land for potentially decades to come, and more of these spills are inevitable despite them being avoidable as well.

So, besides the question of how are we going to clean up this mess and stop future disasters from happening, the next big question is:

When will we stop kidding ourselves that coal can be a clean and safe solution?

Yes, now I understand why “clean” coal is a myth… and hopefully other previous supporters do too.

2009 is the year of change,

Ashley Sue

So, here I am driving a rental Chevrolet Cobalt (who told me to call her Tina…) for another couple days until I get a check for Gina and find another car.  This accident has me not only looking for another car-friend in my life, but has me asking questions regarding how eco-friendly I can get in my search.

I can feel decent that Gina, being the organ donor she is, will be reused in various other vehicles needing parts and body work.  But what will my new purchase be made of?  What workers will be paid for the manufacturing of my vehicle?  How will my car be with gas efficiency?

These are a few of the many questions I have to ask as I explore a new car.

My options aren’t unlimited, however.  I do have a budget to work within.  I am choosing to pay cash for whatever vehicle I buy, so a new hybrid or alternative fuel vehicle will not likely be an option, even if it were the greenest option.

According to The Daily Green, I could afford the 2008 Smart, but I have to be honest in that I like the size and space offered in my previous 2006 Impala.  Frankly, I am also not sure the Smart would have much to offer in terms of protection when t-boned.  I already shudder at how lucky we were the Impala wasn’t hit by an SUV or mega-truck.

A simple Google search on “eco car” lands me all kinds of sites on hybrids, primarily ~ and particularly sites in the UK (and here too).  The more research I do on hybrids and AFV, the more I realize I will certainly have to stick to more conventional transportation.

Really, though, my Impala had quality mpg.  I know firsthand how well she held up on gasoline, and unfortunately, for my job, I put quite a few miles on her.  And she had ethanol/biodiesel/diesel potential I just hadn’t tapped into.

So, I Google “green” “used” “car” and find a few useful websites.  I even found a Wired article declaring that buying a used car can be greener than buying the uber-efficient hybrids.

As Matt Power notes in this month’s issue of Wired,

hybrids get great gas mileage but it takes 113 million BTUs of energy to make a Toyota Prius. Because there are about 113,000 BTUs of energy in a gallon of gasoline, the Prius has consumed the equivalent of 1,000 gallons of gasoline before it reaches the showroom. Think of it as a carbon debt — one you won’t pay off until the Prius has turned over 46,000 miles or so.

That’s good, I feel.  I don’t have to feel like a shlub for buying a conventional car.  In fact, Power chronicles several car models from the ’90s and even the mid-’80s that beat the Prius on mpg efficiency!  That, I would have never guessed!

Of course, it can be tough finding a car that old that hasn’t been beaten like a drum, and Robyn Eckard of Kelley Blue Book tells us most used car buyers prefer something no more than 5 to 7 years old and with fewer than 100K on the odometer. No problem.  [Several models are mentioned specifically here]

We’ve undoubtedly left some off the list. But the point is, you don’t need to buy a Prius — or any other hybrid, for that matter — to get great fuel economy and minimize your carbon footprint. You might feel better driving a hybrid, but you won’t necessarily be greener.

On that note, judge me if you wish, but I am focusing my new car hunt on replacing my 2006 Impala with a used 2007 or 2008 Impala.

Until I have more news on the car-front~

Safe driving.

Sustainably yours ~ Ashley Sue

They die.  We shop.

A friend of mine made a beautiful video a couple months back.  Her words and her art have stuck with me for the entire time, and I want to share with her video you.

Consumerism is dirty. 
I do not mean that all buying and the concept of gift-giving is wrong.  I adore stuff. Beautiful luxurious stuff. And I adore giving gifts. Ask anyone about either of them.

I am saying I believe we, as a society, are in a thoughtless rut of going to buy stuff instead of actually feeling anything… Maybe it’s too real to cherish a single moment to be with ourselves, or to share laughter and deep thoughts with a beloved friend, or heaven forbid, take the time to reflect on something that may be uncomfortable…

… say, people suffering through the devastation that was Katrina.

… or the families who had to relive losing family in the 9/11 attacks.

… or dealing with the trust issues you have deep inside but try to hide from even yourself.

… or being older with health problems, but laid off from your job and without health care, and still trying to take care of yourself, your family, and your bills.

… or in Jane’s case, saving Shelter Dogs from the attrocities of careless bureaucracy.

Instead, we take on a gluttonous perspective to buy, throw away, replace.  Something new is here!  Throw away, buy, replace.

And the cycle spins, the poor and the third-world suffers, the waste grows, and the indulgences leave us empty.

… at least without conscientious living and consumption habits.

Sustainably yours,

Ashley Sue

Water, sugar, sugar, sugar… and Glaceau claims Vitamin Vater is healthy for you!  I repeat… vita-what?!

OK, Marc and I went to Earthfare up at Brier Creek last week and got hypnotized by the huge selection of beautifully-colored (BPA-leaching irresponsibly plastic bottled) VitaminWater selection.  After all the hype of how this beverage is made fully of natural ingredients to boost your health and dyed only with vegetable and fruit pigments, we caved under our thirst.

We got the XXX flavor (”triple anti-oxidants”!) and drank it.  It reminds me of Propel by Gatorade.  Subtly flavored sugar water.

Then we checked the ingredients (which, by the way, is the reverse order that we usually do things ~ We like to check first, buy second… oops).  The first two ingredients… water and crystalline fructose (aka derived from high fructose corn syrup).

Nice. 

I’m with The Office Meathead on this… the healthy ingredients added into this just don’t make up for the gross facts that calling this vita-anything or healthy is a stretch.

Whatever… next time, we’ll stick to water or tea or just straight juice.

Sustainably yours, Ashley Sue
BTW, This post was pre-produced due to the fact Green Grounded is vacationing a la mountain hiking this week.

I figure my money talks, so when I had to have a recent meeting at Starbucks, I chose to let them know I will only use my money for their fair trade and organic coffees. 

I walked up to the counter where two pleasant young women greet me and ask what I would like.

“A regular coffee please, but make it your fair trade or organic option,” I say.

One looks a little stumped and says, “We have so-and-so medium roast, so-and-so french roast and so-and-so decaf brewed today.”

I repeat, “Are any of your coffees today fair trade or organic, please?”

They both look a smidge stumped before one speaks up.  “No, the coffees we brewed today are not, but we can make you a french press of one.  Here are your options…” she rambles off.  I choose the one of the three fair trade, organic options that she says is her favorite.

I do apologize to them for seeming complicated and explain that my money needs to go to coffee I can feel good about since Starbucks carries so few.

The two ladies are very nice and gracious, agreeing that when you pay money, you should get what you want.

My $3.40 got me a carafe of two large cups of somethinanother tasty brew that I can feel OK about.  Not great.  I was still at Starbucks afterall. 

But I can feel at least OK because I voiced where my money would go.  And my money will go to appropriately paying farmers for the work they do… to making sure coffee farmers and families are not living in pesticide-laden lands… to making sure I help someone else live in a humane way.  At least, that is where I try to put my money.

Despite playing somre really great tunes while I was there, I will not go to Starbucks (I call them Starcruds) by choice.  And the fact that I had to make them brew a special pot for me is exactly why. 

Starbucks… you change your policies, and I’ll change mine.  And you’ll make even more money.

A new movement has begun to first go green and then to change it to blue so we’ve all gone (or are going) blue…

Huh?  Blue’s the new Green (which is the new Orange, which is the new Pink, which is the new Black ~ in case you hadn’t heard)?  Why on Earth are we changing our terminology of this revolution/ecolution/evolution now?  And what repercussions could follow changing the terminology?  The Green Life will give you a GREAT update on the upcoming (?) eco-lingo.

I can see why the push would be made ~ who isn’t sick of “green” “green” “green”, a word so abused and overused and has no concrete meaning anyhow?  Darn this catch-22!

This video totally has your answer for why you should love CFL bulbs.  Three minutes of “CFLs in Plain English”.  All lessons should be this cool.

Note, not all CFLs are created equal.  It pays to buy a $4 name-brand bulb instead of a cheapy version which will turn yellow-colored ~ In fact, Lighter Footstep explains it best. 

You get what you pay for. CFLs are not all created equal, and the no-name bargain units are cheap for a reason. The difference is usually in the quality of the ballast — the bulky part between the CFL’s light tube and the screw base. Junky ballasts can mean flicker, buzz, and a short service life.

Choose a quality brand: Sylvania, Phillips, and GE are among the most widely available.

That clippet is from the post, but check out the full article anyhow:  “How to Live With CFLs”.  If you don’t listen to Lighter Footstep, trust me, you’ll buy cheap bulbs and be unhappy with the result, and in an age where more countries are BANNING incandescents for CFLs and LEDs, you can jump in now to be ready then!

And if $4 seems like too much for one bulb, you obviously haven’t watched the above video yet.

I saw this picture at a business expo last week, insinuating the bank is about the green:

Further, they handed out a flier explaining they give you 5% yields for using your check card… and in smaller print explain that the bank plants a tree (via the Arbor Day Foundation) for every new “Go Green” account opened during the year (how about if you go in and ask for a plain ol’ checking account?  Does it qualify?).

That’s their green spiel.  In it’s entirety. 

Oh, except at the bottom of the flier where it says it’s printed on recycled paper (post-consumer fiber content percentage is noticably missing). 

Is this all we expect from the term “green”?  Do any of you feel the implications of such ads are acceptable?  If not, is their a way to stop it?  Should the responsibility to support “greener” initiatives ultimately fall on the consumer, or the businesses and their marketing departments?

I’ve been so in love with all my healthy products ~ my earthy shampoos, moisturizers, cleansers, lotions ~ and though they’ve got some good stuff, they also have some carcinogens.

An independent study just came out, and I’ve been reading the press releases on this all weekend.  Not fun, but a lot of supposedly credible products still aren’t perfect, containing 1,4 Dioxane, a proven carcinogen which is not purposely added to your favorite bath routine but instead is a byproduct of the petrochemical that causes it to get all lathery.

By the way, this includes children’s bubble baths and products too, including from the leading names in baby care products.

This proves that I have yet to find the “perfect” and proven answers in ”green”.  Instead, it’s another shade of (more…)