September 29, 2011

Program Will Honor Schools for Excellence in Environmental Education, Sustainable Facilities and Healthy Practices

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan today invited states to take part in the inaugural year of the Green Ribbon Schools program, which will recognize schools for reducing environmental impact on their communities, promoting healthy school environments for their own students and staff, and offering high-quality environmental education.

The program was developed by the Department with support and advice from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ).

The award aims to encourage energy and resource conservation measures that can lead to cost savings and job creation; environmental and behavioral changes to promote health and productivity among students, staff and other occupants; and the use of environmental and sustainability education to support students’ preparedness for some of the nation’s fastest growing employment sectors

In a video message featured on the Department of Education’s blog, Duncan said, “Our goal is to encourage all of our nation’s schools and communities to work towards a future where school facilities have no adverse environmental impact, have a positive effect on students’ health, and enable students to become environmentally literate citizens who are well prepared for the 21^st century economy.”

Duncan’s announcement included details on the program’s eligibility requirements and nominating process. State education authorities will nominate schools based on their success in promoting healthy and sustainable environments and conducting environmental education. Nominated schools will also need to be in compliance with federal civil rights and federal, state and local health, safety and environmental statutory and regulatory requirements.

Duncan urged state and local school officials to review the various documents made available online today so that they might “get started right now in identifying their best candidates for the Green Ribbon award” for the first (pilot) year of program.

“Green Ribbon award guidelines focus on steps that will make our Nation’s schools healthier and more sustainable,” said Nancy Sutley, Chair of the White House Council on Quality.  “This program will help to ensure that our students are equipped to meet 21^st century demands and learn in an environment that is second to none.”

“With as much time as our children spend in school over the years, it makes sense for us to do everything we can to protect their health, encourage wellness, and make sure they are getting the most productivity out of their hours in the classroom. Green Ribbon Schools well help foster the changes needed to protect and support our students, teachers and school staff, and brighten their future in the process,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson.

The Department plans to provide a nominee submission deadline in early 2012 and announce the first Green Ribbon Schools before the end of the 2011-2012 school year.

More information on Green Ribbon Schools can be found at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/green-ribbon-schools/

Bill to address health, economic and future conservation concerns by supporting state, local and federal strategies

Just days after American kids took to the outdoors for Halloween, two members of Congress have formally suggested we make it a year-round habit—but without the costumes and candy.

Rep. Ron Kind (WI) and Sen. Mark Udall (CO) introduced House and Senate versions of the Healthy Kids Outdoors Act today to support state, local and federal strategies to connect youth and families with the natural world, with an eye toward improving children’s health and supporting future economic growth and conservation efforts.

“The nature of childhood has changed, and there isn’t much nature in it,” said Larry Schweiger, National Wildlife Federation’s president and CEO. “National Wildlife Federation commends Congressman Ron Kind and Senator Mark Udall for introducing legislation that will strengthen the economy by getting Americans moving through recreation and active outdoor play.”

Getting Childhood Back Outdoors

The Healthy Kids Outdoors Act represents the spearhead of a national movement to get childhood back outdoors, a pointed response to the approximately 13 million U.S. children and adolescents who are obese and the increasingly screen-bound lifestyle that got them there. Just last week, the American Academy of Pediatrics cautioned that parents should limit their young kids’ TV and other screen time, and even the amount of time they spend watching TV near their kids. A recent report from Common Sense Media found that ‘screen time’ is higher than ever for American kids despite such warnings.

Recent studies have also shown that children between the ages of 8-18 are spending half as much time outdoors as they did 20 years ago, devoting an average of 7 hours and 38 minutes to entertainment media in a typical day instead. By working toward partnerships to encourage outdoor recreation, Rep. Kind, Sen. Udall and supporters in OAK aim to put some of the nature back into childhood.

Nature as an Economic Driver

As American childhood—and recreation—has moved indoors, local and state economies have suffered along with it. The drop in outdoor recreation has translated into less revenue for outdoor retailers, local tourist destinations or “gateway communities,” and state fish and wildlife agencies.

On a national level, outdoor recreation contributes $730 billion annually to the economy (including $289 billion in retail sales and services), supports 6.5 million jobs and provides sustainable growth in many rural communities—one more reason to encourage it and make it accessible.

“[The bill] supports our vibrant outdoor economy, which is especially important in Colorado and to our rural mountain communities,” said Sen. Udall.

Shepherding the Conservationists of Tomorrow

One of the most important benefit of getting kids outdoors and in nature is the effect it may have on future conservation efforts.

A 2006 study (PDF) from Cornell researchers found that doing outdoor activities like hiking, hunting or camping as a kid positively impacts a person’s attitudes toward nature (and environmentally conscious behavior) as an adult, and that the most direct route to caring about environmental stewardship as an adult is participating in “wild nature activities” before the age of 11.

That report concluded that “youth spending so little time outside may also lead to a dwindling knowledge about biodiversity and… less pro-environmental attitudes and reduced participation in environmentally friendly behaviors as adults.”

The world consumes 1 million plastic shopping bags every minute—and the industry is fighting hard to keep it that way

Shanghai landfill

By Kitt Doucette

American shoppers use an estimated 102 billion plastic shopping bags each year — more than 500 per consumer. Named by Guinness World Records as “the most ubiquitous consumer item in the world,” the ultrathin bags have become a leading source of pollution worldwide. They litter the world’s beaches, clog city sewers, contribute to floods in developing countries and fuel a massive flow of plastic waste that is killing wildlife from sea turtles to camels. “The plastic bag has come to represent the collective sins of the age of plastic,” says Susan Freinkel, author of Plastic: A Toxic Love Story.

Many countries have instituted tough new rules to curb the use of plastic bags. Some, like China, have issued outright bans. Others, including many European nations, have imposed stiff fees to pay for the mess created by all the plastic trash. “There is simply zero justification for manufacturing them anymore, anywhere,” the United Nations Environment Programme recently declared. But in the United States, the plastics industry has launched a concerted campaign to derail and defeat anti-bag measures nationwide. The effort includes well-placed political donations, intensive lobbying at both the state and national levels, and a pervasive PR campaign designed to shift the focus away from plastic bags to the supposed threat of canvas and paper bags — including misleading claims that reusable bags “could” contain bacteria and unsafe levels of lead.

“It’s just like Big Tobacco,” says Amy Westervelt, founding editor of Plastic Free Times, a website sponsored by the nonprofit Plastic Pollution Coalition. “They’re using the same underhanded tactics — and even using the same lobbying firm that Philip Morris started and bankrolled in the Nineties. Their sole aim is to maintain the status quo and protect their profits. They will stop at nothing to suppress or discredit science that clearly links chemicals in plastic to negative impacts on human, animal and environmental health.”

Made from high-density polyethylene — a byproduct of oil and natural gas — the single-use shopping bag was invented by a Swedish company in the mid-Sixties and brought to the U.S. by ExxonMobil. Introduced to grocery-store checkout lines in 1976, the “T-shirt bag,” as it is known in the industry, can now be found literally every­where on the planet, from the bottom of the ocean to the peaks of Mount Everest. The bags are durable, waterproof, cheaper to produce than paper bags and able to carry 1,000 times their own weight. They are also a nightmare to recycle: The flimsy bags, many thinner than a strand of human hair, gum up the sorting equipment used by most recycling facilities. “Plastic bags and other thin-film plastic is the number-one enemy of the equipment we use,” says Jeff Murray, vice president of Far West Fibers, the largest recycler in Oregon. “More than 300,000 plastic bags are removed from our machines every day — and since most of the removal has to be done by hand, that means more than 25 percent of our labor costs involves plastic-bag removal.”

The initial resistance to plastic bags came from manufacturers of paper bags, who saw them as a major threat. Environmentalists took up the cause of eliminating single-use bags in the 1990s, but they made little headway until a sailor and researcher named Charles Moore passed through the North Pacific Gyre in 1997 and drew international attention to the vast flood of plastic trash polluting the world’s oceans.

The first nationwide ban was enacted a decade ago in Bangladesh, after plastic bags clogged storm drains and caused massive floods. China issued a top-down order banning plastic bags in June 2008 — just two months before it hosted the Olympics — in an effort to reduce the amount of “white pollution.” Even though the ban is openly flouted by street vendors, it has still made a tremendous impact: In the first year alone, China decreased its use of plastic bags by two-thirds, eliminating some 40 billion bags — a move that saved the energy equivalent of 11.7 million barrels of oil.

The Indian city of Delhi boasts some of the world’s most aggressive legislation on plastic bags, not only fining individual users and businesses that hand out the bags but also threatening jail time for offenders and plastic-bag manufacturers. This year, Italy became the first European country to issue a nationwide ban on plastic bags, while Ireland places a 15-cent fee on every bag — a move that reduced usage by 90 percent in the first three months. All told, 25 percent of the world’s population now lives in areas with bans or fees on plastic bags.

While other nations have effectively cracked down on plastic bags, the U.S. government has left local communities to fend for themselves. In 2007, San Francisco became the first American city to ban plastic bags, and Washington, D.C., has imposed a five-cent fee per bag, cutting monthly use from 22.5 million bags to barely 3 million. Unlike attacks on plastic products such as Styrofoam, which were orchestrated by well-known environmental groups, the fight against plastic bags has been led for the most part by community organizers and concerned citizens who put pressure on their local businesses and governments. In recent years, a growing number of U.S. communities — from 30 townships in Alaska to the Outer Banks of North Carolina — have introduced some 200 anti-bag measures.

The widespread mobilization against plastic bags has sparked a counterattack by the plastics industry, which was slow to react to the rising tide of negative sentiment among consumers. Leading the charge to protect the plastic bag is the American Chemistry Council, an industry group whose members include petro-chemical giants like ExxonMobil and Dow Chemical. With 125 employees and more than $120 million in annual revenues, the ACC and its members are using their deep pockets and extensive political connections to overturn bans on plastic bags, cast doubt on legitimate scientific studies and even file lawsuits against anti-bag activists. The council, which spent $8 million on lobbying alone last year, has also put together a front group called the Progressive Bag Affiliates, made up of top bag manufacturers like Hilex Poly, Superbag and Unistar Plastics.

In three new studies published in the May issue of the journal Health Affairs, Mount Sinai School of Medicine researchers reveal the staggering economic impact of toxic chemicals and air pollutants in the environment, and propose new legislation to mandate testing of new chemicals and also those already on the market.

Leonardo Trasande, MD, Associate Professor of Preventive Medicine and Pediatrics at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, analyzed the costs of conditions – including lead poisoning, childhood cancer, asthma, autism, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) – associated with exposure to toxic chemicals. Dr. Trasande and his team calculated the annual cost for direct medical care and the indirect costs, such as parents’ lost work days, and lost economic productivity caring for their children, of these diseases in children.

The researchers found the annual cost in the United States to be an estimated $76.6 billion, representing 3.5 percent of all U.S. health care costs in 2008. The breakdown includes: lead poisoning ($50.9 billion), autism ($7.9 billion), intellectual disability ($5.4 billion), exposure to mercury pollution ($5.1 billion), ADHD ($5 billion), asthma ($2.2 billion), and childhood cancer ($95 million).

“Our findings show that, despite previous efforts to curb their use, toxic chemicals have a major impact on health care costs and childhood morbidity,” said Dr. Trasande. “New policy mandates are necessary to reduce the burden of disease associated with environmental toxins. The prevalence of chronic childhood conditions and costs associated with them may continue to rise if this issue is not addressed.”

Dr. Trasande also reviewed an earlier study of 1997 data, which was conducted by Philip J. Landrigan, MD, and documented $54.9 billion in annual costs for childhood diseases associated with environmental toxins in the United States. Reviewing this prior analysis, Dr. Trasande found that while exposure to lead and costs associated with asthma had diminished, new chemicals and new environmentally-induced diseases, like attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, have increased the overall burden of disease. Dr. Landrigan is currently Dean for Global Health, and Professor and Chair of Preventive Medicine, and Professor of Pediatrics, at Mount Sinai School of Medicine.

In a related article also in the current issue of Health Affairs, Dr. Landrigan and Lynn R. Goldman, MD, Dean of the School of Public Health at George Washington University, propose a three-pronged approach to reduce the burden of disease and rein in the effects of toxic chemicals in the environment:

·         Conduct a requisite examination of chemicals already on the market for potential toxicity, starting with the chemicals in widest use, using new, more efficient toxicity testing technologies.

·         Assess all new chemicals for toxicity before they are allowed to enter the marketplace, and maintain strictly-enforced regulation on these chemicals.

·         Bolster ongoing research and epidemiologic monitoring to better understand, and subsequently prevent, the health impact of chemicals on children.

“Implementing these proposals would have a significant impact in preventing childhood disease and reducing health costs,” said Dr. Landrigan. “Scant legislation has been passed to reduce the risks associated with childhood exposure to toxic chemicals in the environment. Even though only six chemicals have been banned, we have seen dramatic benefits from that action alone. The removal of lead from gasoline and paint is an example of the importance of this type of regulation.”

In a separate article in Health Affairs, Perry Sheffield, MD, Assistant Professor of Preventive Medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, evaluated the little-studied correlation between air pollution and infectious respiratory illness in children, and the resultant health care costs.

Dr. Sheffield and her team analyzed hospitalization data between 1999 and 2007 for children aged one month to one year who had bronchiolitis – a type of viral lung infection with symptoms similar to asthma – and monitored the air quality surrounding in the hospitals where the patients were treated. They found a statistically significant association between levels of fine particulate matter pollutant surrounding the hospitals, and total charges and costs for infant bronchiolitis hospitalizations.

Her team revealed that as the amount of air pollutants increased, infant bronchiolitis hospitalization costs increased by an average of $127 per patient. As a result, they concluded that reducing the average level of fine particulate pollutant by just seven percent below the current annual standard could save $15 million annually in U.S. health care costs.

“While more research is required to understand the full effect of air pollutants on infectious disease severity and health care costs, our findings are indicative of the tremendous impact new legislation on air quality control standards could have on the health of our children,” said Dr. Sheffield.

Prominent Pastor Gerald Durley Call for Repeal of Fluoridation Law in GA

APRIL 13, 2011

Citing concern that fluoridated water disproportionately harms poor citizens and black families, influential Atlanta civil rights leaders Andrew Young and Gerald Durley are calling on top Georgia legislators to repeal Georgia’s mandatory water fluoridation law.

Young and Durley recently sent letters to legislators Chip Rogers, Robert Brown, Larry O’Neal, and Stacey Abrams, the majority and minority leaders in the Georgia Senate and House of Representatives.

Ambassador Young and Dr. Durley are both inductees in the International Civil Rights Walk of Fame in Atlanta. In their letters they expressed concerns about issues of fairness, safety, and disclosure related to fluoride chemicals in drinking water.

Increasing numbers of cities are examining the risks of adding fluorides to water to help prevent cavities after a 2006 National Research Council report documented volumes of research never conducted on the whole-body safety of fluorides and fluoridation.

Information in the report appeared in stark contrast to decades of assurances from fluoridation promoters that fluoridation has been extensively researched. The NRC report also described fluoride risks for babies, kidney patients, diabetics, and seniors, and set the stage for a little-publicized change of stance by the Centers for Disease Control on baby formula.

CDC now says that parents can use low-fluoride water when mixing milk formula to reduce the risk of permanent teeth staining caused by fluorides.

The Gerber company is selling an unfluoridated bottled water so parents and caregivers can avoid using fluoridated water in formula.

Bottled water may not be a feasible solution for many families, however.

In a personal letter sent to the Georgia legislators, Ambassador Young wrote, “I am most deeply concerned for poor families who have babies: if they cannot afford unfluoridated water for their babies’ milk formula, do their babies not count? Of course they do. This is an issue of fairness, civil rights, and compassion. We must find better ways to prevent cavities, such as helping those most at risk for cavities obtain access to the services of a dentist.”

He also stated, “My father was a dentist. I formerly was a strong believer in the benefits of water fluoridation for preventing cavities. But many things that we began to do 50 or more years ago we now no longer do, because we have learned further information that changes our practices and policies. So it is with fluoridation.”

Dr. Durley’s letter addressed disproportionate fluoride harm to black citizens’ teeth, and noted that with disproportionate amounts of kidney disease and diabetes in the black community, blacks are more impacted by fluorides.

He stated, “We also need to know why the full story about harm from fluorides is only just now coming out. I support the holding of Fluoridegate hearings at the state and national level so we can learn why we haven’t been openly told that fluorides build up in the body over time (and) why our government agencies haven’t told the black community openly that fluorides disproportionately harm black Americans…“

Others are also concerned about harm to minority citizens and sensitive populations.

In an April 6th letter to CDC Director Dr. Thomas Frieden, the President of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology noted, “The recent Health & Human Services attempt to somewhat lower the amount of fluorides in drinking water still does not address the fact that poor and minority families will be ingesting more fluorides than others, and it does not address dose – merely concentration in water.”

IAOMT President Matt Young also stated, “We do not wish to shoulder the responsibility of people thinking that dentists could possibly know how much fluoride each person has ingested systemically…”

A recent article in an American Association for Justice newsletter for trial lawyers described potential upcoming fluoride legal actions based on personal injury, consumer fraud, and civil rights harm.

In February a group of Republican and Democrat Tennessee legislators sent a letter to the State’s Health Commissioner describing worries about the impacts of fluoridation on babies and other groups.

Daniel G. Stockin of The Lillie Center Inc., a Georgia-based firm working to end the practice of fluoridation, salutes the leaders now speaking out on the issue.

“Ambassador Young and Dr. Durley see the potential implications of fluorides building up over time in our bones and joints, that seniors should know about this. They see the common sense arguments against fluoridation, such as the fact that poor families should not be forced for financial reasons to use fluoridated water in their babies’ formula.”

Now that the liability and health risks are better understood, Stockin foresees even more community leaders speaking out against fluoridation.

Cartridge World comes to Brookwood Elementary School

Richard Green works with students at Brookwood Elementary.

Hello, my name is Richard Green, and I am the owner of the Cartridge World in Snellville, Georgia. We sell remanufactured ink and toner cartridges. Our store remanufactures about 12,000 cartridges a year.  Those cartridges that we can’t remanufacture, we ship to a company in Illinois. They collect about 2.5 million cartridges each month. If the cartridge cannot be remanufactured, the components are recycled into raw materials. They prevent 1.6 million pounds of plastic and metal from being dumped into a landfill.

How long does it take for the plastic to decompose? Up to 1,000 years!  It is estimated that 100 million laser printer cartridges and 400 million ink cartridges are produced each year. The idea is to reuse the cartridges instead of buying new cartridges. Reuse is one of the highest levels of recycling. Think about it! The cartridges that you buy new, where did they come from? Philippines, Malaysia. Your carbon footprint should be considered each time you buy a new cartridge. There are probably even aspects of getting the cartridge that you haven’t considered. For example, how much carbon fuel was used in transporting the cartridges to the U.S.?

Where can the empty cartridges end up? Places like China and countries in Africa. U.S. companies use these countries as dumping grounds. The people in these areas tend to be in poverty stricken areas where they are willing to do almost anything to make a few dollars. They use corrosive chemicals to separate the precocious metals from the body of the cartridge. The unused portions are thrown into a huge pile of trash. The rain washes the remaining chemicals into their streams and water supply.

It is a really good thing to recycle and reuse your ink and toner cartridges…DON’T YOU THINK?

(December 2, 2010) The House of Representatives on Thursday joined the Senate by passing the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, ending months of deadlock and significantly improving opportunities for low-income students to get healthy, more affordable school meals.

If President Obama signs the bill into law, as expected, there will be $4.5 billion in new child nutrition funding over 10 years and schools will:

*Serve more fruits, vegetables, whole grains and low-fat dairy products.

*Get help meeting new standards for healthier school meals.

*Have to follow national nutrition standards for all food sold on school grounds.

*Strengthen their wellness policies.

*Get funding for farm-to-school programs.

*And expand the Afterschool Meal Program to all 50 states.

While valid concerns remain about nutrition and hunger programs for low-income families and crucial work must be done to ensure that Congress and the President restore funding to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), passage of this bill is a huge victory in the battle to end the epidemic of undernourished and obese children.

Story by Action for Healthy Kids organization

Shelton Johnson, a ranger at Yosemite and author of “Gloryland: A Novel,” published last year by Sierra Club/Counterpoint

November 2, 2010

By MIREYA NAVARRO

WASHINGTON, DC – “Let’s Move Outside, Junior Rangers!” is First Lady Michelle Obama’s call to kids across the country this summer. Today, the National Park Service kicks off Let’s Move Outside Junior Ranger in 20 parks. National Park Junior Rangers will not only have fun and get exercise but also receive an extra reward for working up a sweat.

Young people who complete at least one physical activity in pursuit of their Junior Ranger badge receive a special sticker that designates them as a Let’s Move Outside Junior Ranger. The activities range from adventures like hiking with a ranger at Grand Canyon National Park to body surfing at Canaveral National Seashore and canoeing at Mississippi National River and Recreation Area.

Let’s Move Outside, led by the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, provides tools and information to parents to make it easy to enjoy the outdoors and be active. It is part of First Lady Michelle Obama’s nationwide campaign to end childhood obesity within a generation.

“The Let’s Move Outside program in our national parks provides a wonderful way for parents to help their children gain a passion for outdoor recreation while teaching them about our nation’s beautiful lands, our rich cultural heritage, and our storied past,” said Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar.

The program engages young people from all backgrounds in a range of educational programs and self-guided activities on America’s public lands and waters. From hiking and biking, to swimming, paddling, and horseback riding, these activities promise to be fun, healthy, and family friendly.

Throughout the summer, Let’s Move Outside! programs and events will be held in conjunction with schools, community groups, and other partners.

“Young people inspire us; we want to help them be vigorous and curious for life. It starts with family fun. National parks are amazing places where exercise is disguised as adventure, and we sneak in some learning too,” National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis said.

Let’s Move Outside will soon be integrated into other programs, like the Fish and Wildlife Service’s “Let’s Go Outside” initiative, which seeks to reconnect kids and families to nature in our country’s 552 National Wildlife Refuges, and the Bureau of Land Management’s “Take It Outside” program.

Primary federal partners in this initiative are the Department of the Interior’s National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management, and the Department of Agriculture’s U.S. Forest Service.

“As a department that manages one fifth of our nation’s land, the Department of the Interior will play a vital role in Let’s Move Outside!” said Julie Rodriguez, director of the department’s Youth Office. “Our parks, refuges, and other public lands are waiting to be explored and enjoyed by our nation’s young people, and we are eager to help them get outdoors.”

By summer’s end, 50 national parks will offer Let’s Move Outside Junior Ranger.  Before heading out, visit www.letsmove.gov/outside <http://www.letsmove.gov/outside>  for more information about activities and participating parks. This website hub will link families to the great outdoors and give tips and ideas on how to best plan and enjoy an active visit.

The 20 parks launching today:

Canaveral National Seashore, Florida
Cuyahoga Valley National Park, Ohio
Denali National Park and Preserve, Alaska
Effigy Mounds National Monument, Iowa
Fire Island National Seashore, New York
Fort Dupont Park, Washington, DC
Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona
Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve, Colorado
Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Tennessee and North Carolina
Harpers Ferry National Historical Park, West Virginia
Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Indiana
Mississippi National River and Recreation Area, Minnesota
Mount Rainier National Park, Washington
New River Gorge National River, West Virginia
Prince William Forest Park, Virginia
Redwood National and State Parks, California
Rock Creek Park, Washington, DC
Shenandoah National Park, Virginia
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, Michigan
Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, Montana