I am confident that, with Earth Day on the immediate horizon, the nation’s biggest publications have begun to compose those bannerheads that will run on April 22, as the whole news media takes up its annual tradition of, for a day, fixing its gaze on environmental issues. For one day, we will collectively turn our eye to the issue of sustainability, reading retrospectives on the environmental movement, which trace its genealogy, and connect the movement’s past to its present and future, or op-eds on environmental degradation, carbon emissions, and water scarcity. However, I have always found the practice of celebrating the Earth—that blue and green rough-skinned globular object we ride through space—one day a year to be somewhat offbeat. Throwing the Earth a party which, in terms of scale and magnitude, might resemble a Queen’s Golden Jubilee arouse in us the same sense of purpose, excitement and focus as, say, the theme of monarchy, royal nuptials. Admittedly, likening Earth Day to a celebration of the Queen’s fiftieth anniversary trivializes what the day is, and the evocative purpose it serves—Earth Day represents a day on which the world can unite not only in common purpose, but on which humanity can publicly express and reflect on its support of conservation, helping to further embolden and revitalize a movement whose object is to turn “sustainability” and “conservation” into household terms. This analogy does, however, illustrate a point: the Earth deserves more than a Day.

John Viera, Director of Sustainable Business Strategies at Ford Motors, recently contributed an article to GreenBiz plotting the trajectory of sustainability education in America, creating a cultural climate conducive to the growth of sustainability into a corporate imperative. Although, for the most part, the target of Viera’s analysis is rather narrow, his conclusions throw an interesting light on the future of sustainability in American business and education, and implicitly addresses the fleeting attention we pay to the Earth on its day, answering the question, “What happens after Earth Day?”

Focusing, in part, on how The National Environmental Education Act put in place a framework to create an American education system whose curricula is not only underpinned by an acute sensitivity to environmental issues, but, as such, transmits knowledge to students which would allow them to adapt to many of the external forces (from blustery commodity markets and the prospect of resource scarcity to environmental degradation and climactic shifts) driving and shaping America’s burgeoning green economy, Viera takes notice of how well-suited today’s students are to confront the sustainable future facing businesses.  He writes, “Our schools and teachers have instilled in younger generations an unprecedented appreciation from the environment,” the upshot of which is a generation of people (Viera’s focus, naturally, is on MBA grads) capable of steering the engines of economic growth when those engines are no longer running purely on gas.

Intertwined with Viera’s analysis, discussing how today’s students are better prepared to lead America’s economy into a greener future, is an implicit observation acknowledging a still-emerging value shift toward sustainability, which, although, perhaps to some, may appear transitory, will eventually define and in some way undergird and structure all decision making (at every level, from individual to nation-state) in the 21st century. However, to this end, Viera notes that “a sustainable future will only be possible as new generations understand the complexities of sustainable business.” Quite right.

What Viera misses directly, as a result of his narrow focus, but seems to suggest generally, is that in the age of globalization humanity can only confront the environmental perils with which it is faced (extending from resource scarcity, including fresh water scarcity, to broader climate concerns), if one, sustainability goes global, and two, if education does its part to inform, and help continue to prepare students for a sustainable future, not just in business, but in life. In essence, education must do its part to ensure that every day is Earth Day.

Last year, Hannah Jones, VP of Sustainable Business at Nike, wrote that businesses must adjust their sights, and begin to see sustainability as a “strategic prism.” The line of thinking Jones adopts seems to be an iteration of a familiar idea: to gain a competitive advantage in today’s progressively green-minded marketplace, sustainability must be allowed to develop into a constitutive strategic element driving and leading the commercial activities of businesses. Sustainability in the 21st century, Jones reflects, has developed into “a core strategic imperative for any company that intends to thrive and grow in the years ahead.”

Beyond labeling sustainability a “core strategic imperative”, or, translated into the rather muddled parlance in which I write, a universal social imperative, Jones underscores the transformative impact of transparency in the promotion of social movements encouraging structural changes to existing cultural paradigms. Put another way, in detailing how technology-derived and -related social pressures are not only driving corporations and governments to become more transparent, but have, in some way, directed the distribution of corporate and state-owned resources and become “a trigger for movements and political action,” Jones begins to trace the contours of a revolution that will come to define the Information Age.

Transparency is not only a key ingredient to maintaining a free society, but often helps engender and later propagate fledging social movements which, without it, may otherwise be stillborn. In the same way that social media has acted as a channel through which ideas are allowed to spread globally, and in doing so, has been instrumental in allowing once oppressed people the opportunity to realize and define their political destiny, so too the forces of transparency—which social media has come to embody—can be harnessed as a means by which to establish sustainability as a social (not just corporate strategic) imperative.

Transparency is one of two “accelerators,” propelling “change and innovation” in the world of corporate sustainability, says Jones. The other, Jones notes, is “data.” Information is the fuel driving transformative social currents, and simultaneously demands transparency and results from it. As it concerns sustainability, data is a necessary precondition to creating a climate (corporate, social, or both) conducive to innovation and one in which the spread of this “strategic imperative” is made possible.

Understanding this, Second Nature, the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment’s (ACUPCC) administrative arm, has attempted to bring to education each of the “accelerators” which, says Jones, are driving the movement to sustainability in business. If higher education is to become sustainable, institutions must direct themselves toward the goal of ensuring the longevity of the sustainability movement. To do this, Second Nature identifies “public reporting” as a “key driver for long-term success” and describes four the primary “benefits” of public reporting: (i) accountability; (ii) communication; (iii) follow-through; (iv) deadlines. More precisely, each of the aforementioned benefits collectively forms the heart of the ACUPCC, and serves (I think) the ultimate end of creating a self-sustaining sustainability movement in higher education. That is, transparency and data will, in the end, together help cultivate an environment in which transparency and reporting become regular habit rather than a self-imposed obligation.

Imagine a vending machine that pays you for your product. For those readers living in a state with a bottle deposit law Reverse Vending Machines, or RVMs, may already be commonplace at your local public spaces.  An RVM is a device that accepts empty beverage containers and returns payment – either in money or another form of currency such as coupons or gift cards – to the user.  Businesses that are looking for ways to increase their sustainability initiatives may have found one in this incarnation of recycling. What blue recycling bins lack is what RVMs offer – an interactive element for the user and the opportunity to provide immediate rewards for recycling.  RVMs also provide opportunities for businesses to develop relationships with the public and further strengthen and encourage sustainability initiatives within communities.

A variety of institutions have taken their recycling efforts to the next level with the use of RVMs.  Universities such as Sacred Heart University in Connecticut have tied in their incentives with free goods from key sponsors like BIC and FUJIFILM.  Large event venues like the Dunkin Donuts Center in Providence, Rhode Island, encouraged by eco-minded entertainers, offer prizes to their patrons in the form of event tickets.  Even hospitals have honed in on the opportunities provided by RVMs.  Hospital staff and patients generate hundreds of used beverage and meal containers daily.  The Yale New Haven Hospital in New Haven, Connecticut, decided to use the recycling of these containers to the benefit of their employees.  The proceeds from each bottle or container placed into the machine go to raise money for the hospital’s Employee Hardship Fund.  PepsiCo created, in conjunction with Waste Management RVM, the ”Dream Machine,” to offer reward points to individuals who use the machine to recycle bottles and cans or cash donations to charities.  The points accumulate to earn rewards such as travel or movie tickets and coupons for Pepsi products.

These unique endeavors demonstrate how many different ways RVMs can be used by a wide variety of industries to incentivize people to recycle.

Last year “more people were killed worldwide by natural disasters…than have been killed in terrorism attacks in the past 40 years combined.”  If 2010 was the “year the earth struck back,” what will 2011 be known as?  So far in the U.S., the year 2011 has been a year of climatic record breakers—blizzards, tornadoes, floods, droughts, and most recently, heat waves.  There are few areas throughout the nation that have not been affected by intense heat this summer.  With energy costs increasingly on the rise, how can you afford to keep your home cool on a budget?  There are ways you can save money and still stay cool in this time of recession, and one place to start is the outside of your home.

If you do not already have shade trees nearby, consider planting some, particularly on the side of your home that experiences the most midday and afternoon sunlight.  Trees will block some sunlight from reaching your windows and siding and decrease the amount of heat that will build up inside, thus reducing your cooling needs.  According to the Arbor Day Foundation website, if you have an outdoor or window air conditioning unit, consider planting a tree to shade it.  Of course, trees will not grow over night, and you will want to research tree varieties to choose which are right for your unique situation.  Some fast growing varieties can be found at the Fast-Growing-Trees website.  Also, factor in the eventual need for trimming, and do not plant trees too close to your house, as mold formation is heightened and gutters can become clogged with foliage and tree debris.  Tips for pruning trees can be found at the USDA Forest Service website.  Additionally, deciduous trees may be a good choice because they will let the sun’s rays reach your home during the winter months after their leaves have fallen.  If you are currently looking to rent or buy, add shade trees to your list of search criteria.

 
Additionally, consider adding an awning to the exterior of your home.  There are fixed awnings as well as retractable ones on the market.   They can be used to shade windows, patios, porches, as well as entire sides of homes.  According to the U.S. Department of Energy, “Window awnings can reduce solar heat gain in the summer by up to 65% on south-facing windows and 77% on west-facing windows. You can use an awning to shade one window or have an awning custom-made to shade the entire side of your house.”  Also consider that awnings can prevent heat from entering your home in the winter, so a retractable or removable one may be most beneficial for your needs.

Finally, consider the color of your home.  Dark colors can absorb up to 70% to 90% of radiant energy that hits a home’s surface and much is transferred inside the home through conduction, while light colored homes reflect most radiant heat away from the home.  The key is, the more heat you can keep from penetrating your home, the less energy you will need to consume to keep the inside of your home cool.

Recently, a coworker who is also an American Public University (APU) student (as many of our employees are) sent me a link to a YouTube video that her professor posted as part of that week’s assignment.  The video, produced by The Story of Stuff Project and narrated by Annie Leonard, is 20 minutes in length and provides a somewhat scathing look at the life cycle of our “stuff.” 

Through the use of basic yet effective animations, Leonard describes in accessible terms how all of our stuff comes to be and what happens when we are finished with it.  Through the five steps of the materials economy (extraction, production, distribution, consumption, and disposal), our stuff requires tremendous resources, natural and human.  Along the way, the process harms many of the parties involved.  During the extraction process, for example, people living in the places where the first resources are culled often lose the lands and natural materials on which they have relied for generations.  Because their resources are lost, some 200,000 people a day (worldwide) move from environments that had previously sustained them for generations to cities in search of work, often finding it in the factories that are making stuff from the resources taken from their lands.  During the production process, workers are subjected to many harmful chemicals that are used to create the stuff.  At the same time, working conditions in many of the factories producing our stuff leave much to be desired. 

Even the consumer, who is the driving force behind the manufacturing of this stuff is harmed.  The toxins that go into making the stuff impact those who buy and use these items.  Leonard uses the phrase, “toxins in, toxics out” to make the point that many of our products are actually toxic to us.  Through all of this, the environment takes the most consistent abuse, however.  The loss of vast quantities of natural resources, toxins emitted into the environment, and the irresponsible disposal of most items leaves our planet quite vulnerable, according to Leonard.

During the linear process of the materials economy, we are “bumping up against limits” all along the way.  According to Leonard, “in the last decade alone, one-third of the world’s natural resources have been depleted.”  In the United States, only 4 percent of our forests are left.  Though Americans account for only 5 percent of the world’s population, we consume more than 30 percent of the world’s resources.  In only one day, the average American creates 4.5 pounds of trash – due largely in part to the fact that we also consume twice as much stuff as Americans did 50 years ago.  Leonard explains that the consumerist economy for which the United States is known is not accidental but instead was designed by American government, big business, and economists in the 1950s who sought to bulk up the American economy.  She notes that we have since become a nation of consumers – that in fact, consumerism is the characteristic for which Americans are best known.  The “golden arrow” within the materials economy that represents consumption is the key to the entire system.  Without that consumption, none of the rest of the system would be able to proceed and would become obsolete.

In relation to her discussion about consumerism in America, Leonard explains the concepts of planned obsolescence and perceived obsolescence.  Planned obsolescence is quite scandalous, really: manufacturers design and make stuff that will be obsolete quickly but last long enough to give the consumer enough faith in the product that he or she returns to the distribution center (store) to purchase another, perpetuating the cycle.  Perceived obsolescence is more of a societal and psychological problem.  This is the notion that what we already have is not good enough and often is discussed in terms of fashion.  Leonard points out that in a single day, Americans see more than 3,000 advertisements, each essentially telling the consumer that he or she is not good enough, does not have the best stuff, and urges him or her to quickly run out to purchase the newest, “best” of what is available. 

In the end of the discussion about the materials economy, Leonard explains that this is a system in crisis.  The limits that we are “bumping up against” will soon give way to no resources whatsoever.  She points out to the viewer, however, that it was people who created this system (namely the economists, government officials, and big businessmen of the 1950s).  Because people created this system, people can also dismantle it.  Leonard suggests removing the disposal component of the system altogether and moving from a finite linear model to a circular one in which consumed goods are reused for the creation of more goods.  She encourages this type of recycling as a means toward improving the system but cautions the viewer against believing that recycling is all that is needed.  She adamantly states that recycling is not enough; according to Leonard, a behavioral change is required that will not only assist in conservation efforts but could also promote greater happiness for all parties involved in the process. 

The content of this video is quite eye-opening and interesting.  To some degree, most of us know in general terms that we live in a consumer society and that our “stuff” requires tremendous resources to make.  By connecting the entire system from start to finish, however, and explaining several consumerist norms that many may not know, The Story of Stuff Project changes the way the viewer looks at his or her stuff.  While I was impressed with the content of the video, I was equally as impressed that this video was assigned in my colleague’s class, a sociology course.  Many universities have struggled with how to integrate sustainability across their curriculums.  Doing so is a requirement of the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) of which APUS is a charter signatory.  The use of this video in a sociology class is a great example of a creative way to incorporate topics of sustainability into academic curriculums where it may not otherwise be present. 

If you are interested in learning more about the “story of stuff,” check out Annie Leonard’s book of the same title.

Many people often do not equate auto performance with efficiency.  This is often true of many early American performance cars.  The first performance engine available to the masses was the Ford Flathead V-8 introduced in 1932.  It is often associated with bootlegging and hot rodding, but it was compact and fuel efficient when compared to larger inline six or eight cylinder engines.  Road tests were even able to achieve 20mpg fuel economy, quite remarkable for the times.

In 1949 the Oldsmobile Rocket 88 was introduced with the first high performance modern overhead valve V-8 engine.  The horsepower wars continued throughout the 1950s with the Chrysler C-300 becoming the top performer with its Hemi engine.  Larger, higher horsepower engines continued to be offered throughout the first half of the 1960s, but mostly in larger cars.  This was soon to change.

In 1964, Pontiac shoved a full sized 389 cubic inch V-8 from its full size car line into its midsize Tempest, calling it the GTO.  This created what some argue is the first muscle car (a large, high horsepower engine midsize car).  The Ford Mustang was introduced the same year, with high performance engines offered the following year.  Both of these cars found imitators such as the Plymouth GTX and Roadrunner, Dodge Charger, Chevrolet Chevelle SS, Oldsmobile 442, Plymouth Barracuda, and Chevrolet Camaro, just to name a few.  The large, gas-guzzling muscle cars were constructed with straight-line performance, not fuel economy as the number one priority.

Larger, more powerful engine options continued until they peaked in 1970 with the 450 horsepower Chevelle SS 454 LS6.  Higher insurance costs, stricter safety regulations, new unleaded fuel and rising gas prices, especially after the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973, resulted in the death of the original muscle car era.  The 1973-1974 Pontiac Trans AM Super Duty 455 is often cited as the last true performer of the period.  Cars increasingly offered more “show” than “go,” sporting stripe or appearance packages, but often only offering modest power when compared to earlier offerings.  The positive side of this period is that automakers began to focus more on handling and safety for performance packages that actually created more balanced cars—certainly not the blistering straight-line performers of just a few years before, but nonetheless lively and easier to manage around turns.  A good example is my sister’s 1974 Dodge Dart Sport Rallye.  It has racing stripes and rally wheels, but only has a mild 318 V-8 that makes the car snappy, but not exceptionally fast.

Muscle cars gradually began to return a few years after the second gas crisis of 1979 and by the 1990s, had employed fuel injection and computer technology to improve fuel economy and overall drivability.  Additionally, they were smaller without compromising much interior space.  In 2005 a redesigned Ford Mustang with retro looks was introduced and the Dodge Charger, Challenger and retro Chevrolet Camaro soon followed.  One feature that is found on modern V-8 performance engines is a system that automatically shuts off fuel to four cylinders when extra power is not needed.  The Chrysler version, found on some modern Hemi engines, is called the Multi Displacement System (MDS).  According to Chrysler, “the MDS system saved nearly 100 million gallons of gasoline between 2005 and 2009, and reduced carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by close to a million metric tons.” 

Although American modern muscle cars are not as fuel efficient as their 4-cylinder hybrid counterparts, they have outsold the latter for the month of May 2011.  Part of this may be due to the shortage of Japanese hybrids in the wake of the earthquake and tsunami there in March.  Nevertheless, some consumers may feel justified in purchasing a car that can reach 30 mpg and still have over 300 horsepower on demand.

Father’s Day is this Sunday, June 19th. If you are looking for an environmentally friendly gift for your dad, there are many items available.

Earthtec offers functional apparel while keeping green thinking at the forefront.  In fact, all of their products are made from recycled or renewable materials.  They focus on materials like organic cotton and wool and work with eco-textiles, as well.  Some of these new materials include recycled nylon, corn and coffee beans.

For the hungry dad, Hearst Ranch offers grass-fed meat products for shipping.  Hearst Ranch’s cattle live as foragers and grazers.  The rancher believes that this “enhances a complex and balanced mosaic of native grasslands which in turn maintains vigor and distribution of these habitats, ensuring a sustainable food system.”

Many dads are our families’ power savers.  Belkin offers a socket which can be set on a timer to automatically shut off appliances or electronics that draw unnecessary power when they are not being used.

For the adventurous dad, the Sierra Club and other companies like LL Bean, Nau, and The North Face, offer sustainable outdoor gear.  They offer products from camping gear, to hiking gear and other adventure-related items.  The North Face spends their research time on waste elimination, climate change and energy.

When you have decided on your gift, wrap Dad’s gift in eco-friendly paper like Of the Earth recycled paper.  Or use today’s newspaper and recycled ribbon.

Thank Dad for all he does by giving him not only a well-deserved gift, but one that is green and earth friendly.

The thought of “going green” can be daunting and even overwhelming.  It may appear that living a greener lifestyle will require funds that many families are finding difficult to come by.  Some people may not know where to start.  Chinese philosopher Lao-tzu said, “A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.”  Beginning the journey to a greener lifestyle should be looked at in the same way.  Once you take that first step, however, take several more to keep your momentum going!  Below are some easy suggestions that will not cost you much money, will not require tremendous energy or maintenance, and will get you started on your journey to a greener lifestyle.

Day 1
Change the settings on your thermostats.  Many thermostats can be programmed to automatically set themselves lower at specific times.  Set your thermostat a bit cooler than you would typically when you go to bed at night and when you leave the house for the day.  Even better, if you have ceiling fans, combine them with open windows on opposing sides of your house to get a natural breeze and some fresh air.  In the winter, keep your thermostat at 68F and in the summer, set it at 75F to get the most effective use of those systems.

Day 2
Make or purchase a composting bin and start composting.  For many, the notion of composting is unfamiliar and conjures images of waste piles that make you hold your nose.  The process of composting involves mixing yard and household organic waste in a pile or bin, then providing conditions that encourage decomposition.  The microscopic organisms in these materials devour the contents, leaving behind an organic fertilizer which can do wonders for your plants.  You can build your own composting bin or purchase one from a vendor like Planet Natural that offers many varieties of bins depending on the extent of your composting goals.  Composting can reduce yard waste by between 50 and 75 percent. 

Day 3
Find a friend with whom you can carpool to and from work.  Even if you are only able to carpool a couple of times a week, those miles not traveled will add up quickly.  This step not only costs you nothing, it actually saves you money!  According to the recent census, single occupant commuting in the United States is around 75 percent.  With the cost of gasoline so high (national average cost per gallon at time of publication is $3.84), carpooling can help you keep money in your pocket while keeping harmful emissions out of the environment. 

Day 4
Switch your light bulbs to light-emitting diode (LED) bulbs which last significantly longer and save energy over incandescent and compact fluorescent lights (CFLs).  Environmentally, LED bulbs are better because they are lit by the movement of electrons.  Incandescent lights generate a tremendous amount of heat; according to one estimate, 90 percent of the energy burned using incandescent lights is wasted as heat.  CFLs contain mercury and other toxic substances which LED lights do not, making them more desirable from a health and environmental aspect.  Though LED bulbs are traditionally a bit more expensive than their more traditional counterparts, they easily make up for that cost in lack of maintenance and replacement required.  LED bulbs can last up to 60 times longer than incandescent bulbs and 10 times longer than CFLs. 

Day 5
Switch to eco-friendly cleaning products or, even better, make your own cleaning solutions using environmentally friendly ingredients.  Environmentally friendly cleaning products can improve indoor air quality and reduce the health problems that can be associated with more traditional cleaners.  The chemicals in traditional cleaning products gets washed down your drains where it can enter the groundwater and contaminate waterways and wildlife (some chemicals are taken out of the water as a matter of practice at water treatment facilities but some are missed in this process).  Some manufacturers have taken the socially conscious step of offering an environmentally friendly line of cleaning supplies.  For example, Clorox now offers the Green Works cleaning line which contains no harsh chemicals that can harm your family and the environment.  Simple Green cleaning products are also environmentally friendly.  If you would like to take the additional step to mix your own cleaners, check out Annie Bond’s article on Care2’s Healthy & Green Living blog.

Pioneered in the mid- 1970s by Australians David Holmgren and Bill Mollison “Permaculture”- a contraction of the words permanent culture or permanent agriculture-is land use design based on ecological and biological principles.  Simply speaking, the goal of permaculture’s application is to create systems that promote harmony between the land and the people who inhabit it. Once a method -and now becoming a worldwide movement -permaculture’s methodologies can be applied to any environment and project from large farms to small urban landscapes to window gardens.
 
This broad-based, holistic approach to sustainability follows a fundamental system of core values to be applied to any situation:

Earthcare: realizing the Earth is the source of all life and that we are a part of Earth, not apart from it;

Peoplecare: supporting and maintaining one another in finding ways of living that do not harm ourselves or the planet; and

Fairshare: placing limits on consumption, and using Earth’s resources in ways that are equitable and wise.

Drawn from sources across multiple disciplines such as ecology, energy conservation, landscape design and environmental science, permaculture design follows Holmgren’s twelve design principles. Among them:
1. Observe and interact.
2. Catch and store energy.
3. Obtain a yield.
4. Apply self-regulation and accept feedback.
5. Use and value renewable resources and services.
6. Produce no waste.
7. Design from patterns to details.
8. Integrate rather than segregate.
9. Use small and slow solutions.
10. Use and value diversity.
11. Use edges and value the marginal.
12. Creatively use and respond to change.

Permaculture does not have to be a vast, complicated technique.  A simple shift in perception and attitude toward seeing “solutions not problems” will make your methods quickly adhere to the essence of permaculture.  As co-originator Bill Mollison said “you haven’t got an excess of slugs, you’ve got a duck deficiency.” For more information visit permacultureprinciples.com, or start by reading the definitive Permaculture: Principles and Pathways Beyond Sustainability by David Holmgren.