Everyone’s doing the green thing these days, and naturally (pun not intended), marketing people are scrambling to claim that their brand’s products are green, natural, sustainable, organic, LOHAS etc.

The food industry is no different, and although there’s brands out there that are really the real deal, there’s also a load of bullshit greenwash that everyone should know about. Here’s 8 of these claims that you’ve probably seen at the supermarket.

Adapted From Change.org:

1. Cage Free. This means exactly what it says and nothing more. The carton may try to imply happy chickens in the sunshine, but cage-free hens are still confined entirely indoors in crowded and dirty conditions, and still very much treated like machines. It is certainly a big step up from being crammed into a tiny cage, unable to move, like most hens. But as I experienced for myself at Comic Con last weekend, being jostled around in a big room packed wall-to-wall with your peers can make you exhausted and miserable.

2. Free Range. Again, this term implies happy animals in the sunshine, but don’t be fooled. Look for the phrase “access to the outdoors” on the label. That means that the animals in question are confined most of the time with just a small yard to visit from time to time—if they can squeeze through the crowd to get there, that is. Now sometimes this label is applied to something truly free range, but look for terms like “pastured” and “grass fed” to confirm this. By itself, this label isn’t very trustworthy.

3. Organic. This is the most strictly regulated of the common sustainable food labels. To be called organic, a farm must go through a certification procedure and meet a very specific set of requirements, including cutting out all artificial fertilizers, chemicals, antibiotics, and hormones. Certainly if you’re going to rely on a label to make a quick food decision, this is the one. But organic doesn’t always mean what you think it means. There are a few dubious allowances in the organic regulations, and the majority of organic produce is grown miles away in vast monocultures that, while loads better for the soil and local environment, doesn’t exactly follow the spirit of sustainability.

4. Natural. This means absolutely nothing from a labeling standpoint. I joke that this is the label companies use when they have nothing real to advertise, and as such, I generally count it as a point against whatever food it’s on.

5. Humane. This term is very subjective and not regulated in any way (although the Humane Society is certainly trying to change that). I usually assign just as much weight to this label as I do to “natural,” with the exception of those foods with the “Animal Welfare Approved” label. Other humane certification programs exist, but the rigorous AWA standards are the real deal. AWA animals are also required to be pastured.

6. Local. Again, this can mean almost anything. At the very least it generally means it was grown in-state, but in a place as big as California, that doesn’t mean much. It also makes no guarantee regarding how the food is grown — unless it says otherwise, it is probably conventional, pesticides and all. Besides, isn’t purchasing local food from a supermarket kind of defeating the purpose?

7. Grass Fed. There is a push to regulate this label the same way organic is (and the push back by those who fear a government label wouldn’t be strict enough), but as of now there is no certification process. It’s true that a producer could slide in an animal that was finished on grain (although I have never found an instance where this actually happened), so a more assuring label is “Grass Finished” or “100% Grass Fed.”

8. Pastured. This term isn’t regulated either, so use some common sense, but it means that an animal was raised grazing or foraging outside on pasture. You can bet it lived a pretty good life given that the animals had to have enough space not to kill the grass. It’s a helpful term because animals like chickens and pigs can’t live on grass alone, thus the term “grass fed” can’t apply. But pastured animals are able to supplement their feed with bugs and forage, creating a much happier and healthier animal, whatever the sort. I consider pastured the gold standard, but I always ask questions or do more research to make sure the producer thinks “pastured” means the same thing I do.

**

Here’s some advice:

Be a smart shopper, and always verify these terms. If the manufacturer of a product claims any of these green traits, and it’s the real deal, they’d definitely be more than happy to prove it to you. Their websites would usually have the relevant information, or you can email them about it.

Do check out my intro post about eco-labelling.

New York Times:

With 267 people being born every minute and 108 dying, the world’s population will top seven billion next year, a research group projects, while the ratio of working-age adults to support the elderly in developed countries declines precipitously because of lower birthrates and longer life spans.

In a sobering assessment of those two trends, William P. Butz, president of the Population Reference Bureau, said that “chronically low birthrates in developed countries are beginning to challenge the health and financial security of the elderly” at the same time that “developing countries are adding over 80 million to the population each year and the poorest of those countries are adding 20 million, exacerbating poverty and threatening the environment.”

Projections, especially over decades, are vulnerable to changes in immigration, retirement ages, birthrates, health care and other variables, but in releasing the bureau’s 2010 population data sheet, Carl Haub, its senior demographer, estimated this week that by 2050 the planet will be home to more than nine billion people.

Even with a decline in birthrates in less developed countries from 6 children per woman in 1950 to 2.5 today (and to 2 children or less in Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Iran, Thailand and Turkey), the population of Africa is projected to at least double by midcentury to 2.1 billion. Asia will add an additional 1.3 billion.

While the United States, Australia, Canada and New Zealand will continue to grow because of higher birthrates and immigration, Europe, Japan and South Korea will shrink (although the recession reduced birthrates in the United States and Spain and slowed rising birthrates in Russia and Norway).

In Japan, the population of working-age people, typically defined as those 15 to 64, compared with the population 65 and older that is dependent on this younger group, is projected to decline to a ratio of one to one, from the current three to one. Worldwide, the ratio of working age people for every person in the older age group is expected to decline to four to one, from nine to one now.

Earlier this week, Eurostat, the statistical arm of the 27-nation European Union, reported that while the union’s population topped a half billion this year, 900,000 of the 1.4 million growth from the year before resulted from immigration. Eurostat has predicted that deaths will outpace births in five years, a trend that has already occurred in Bulgaria, Latvia and Hungary.

While the bulge in younger people, if they are educated, presents a potential “demographic dividend” for countries like Bangladesh and Brazil, the shrinking proportion of working-age people elsewhere may place a strain on governments and lead them to raise retirement ages and to encourage alternative job opportunities for older workers.

Even in the United States, the proportion of the gross domestic product spent on Social Security and Medicare is projected to rise to 14.5 percent in 2050, from 8.4 percent this year.

The Population Reference Bureau said that by 2050, Russia and Japan would be bumped from the 10 most populous countries by Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

New from Greenpeace’s website:

Will Notorious Forest destroyer Sinar Mas Come Clean?

The short answer: not likely.

In fact, not only will they not be likely to come ‘clean’, but today we are releasing fresh evidence that Sinar Mas’s notorious forest destroying practices continue unabated and in direct violation of the company’s own environmental commitments on protecting forests and peatlands.

Sinar Mas is Indonesia’s largest palm oil, and pulp and paper group. The recent KitKat campaign saw hundreds of thousands of you ask Nestlé to stop buying palm oil and pulp and paper products from Sinar Mas because of their involvement in rainforest and peatland destruction in Indonesia.

New photographic evidence shows Sinar Mas clearing rainforest in peatland areas on the island of Borneo. Further photographic evidence shows Sinar Mas has cleared rainforest that has been identified as orang-utan habitat by a United Nations Environment Program study.

Today Sinar Mas was meant to publish an audit it had commissioned into its own activities on only a small number of palm oil concessions – not on all of its operations. The release of this audit has now been postponed by Sinar Mas and its public relations company, Bell Pottinger, to August 10th. The name Bell Pottinger may sound familiar to you, as they were also hired to do public relations for Trafigura, the oil trading company who was recently convicted and fined for illegally transporting toxic waste to Côte d’Ivoire.

While Sinar Mas makes public promises to protect Indonesian forests and peatlands – it does just the opposite. In addition to these broken promises the company plans to expand its empire of destruction ever further. Last week the head of Sinar Mas’s palm oil division confirmed intentions to expand into an additional 1 million hectares, including the untouched forests of Papua.

Indonesia’s rainforests and peatlands cannot afford to continue to be the victim of Sinar Mas’s ever expanding ambitions – after all, this is a country with one of the highest rates of deforestation in the world.

Recently we’ve seen positive steps – multinational companies like Unilever, Kraft and Nestlé have responded to evidence of Sinar Mas’s destructive practices by dropping contracts. Until this company is no longer involved in destroying rainforest and peatland , other companies who still purchase from them – like palm oil supplier Cargill – should know that they are purchasing environmental destruction. Other companies (ahem, Nestlé) have already learned that this is not good for business.

From Guardian:

Ecotourism and western-style conservation projects are harming wildlife, damaging the environment, and displacing and criminalising local people, according to a controversial new book.

The pristine beaches and wildlife tours demanded by overseas tourists has led to developments that do not benefit wildlife, such as beaches being built, mangroves stripped out, waterholes drilled and forests cleared, says Rosaleen Duffy, a world expert on the ethical dimensions of wildlife conservation and management.

These picture-perfect images all too often hide a “darker history”, she adds. Her new book, Nature Crime: How We’re Getting Conservation Wrong, which draws on 15 years of research, 300 interviews with conservation professionals, local communities, tour operators and government officials, is published today.

When wildlife reserves are established, Duffy says, local communities can suddenly find that their everyday subsistence activities, such as hunting and collecting wood, have been outlawed.

At the same time, well-intentioned attempts to protect the habitats of animal species on the edge of extinction lead to the creation of wild, “people-free” areas. This approach has led to the displacement of millions of people across the world.

“Conservation does not constitute neat win-win scenarios. Schemes come with rules and regulations that criminalise communities, dressed up in the language of partnership and participation, coupled with promises of new jobs in the tourism industry,” claims Duffy, professor of international politics at Manchester University.

A key failure of the western-style conservation approach is the assumption that people are the enemies of wildlife conservation – that they are the illegal traders, the poachers, the hunters and the habitat destroyers. Equally flawed, she says, is the belief that those engaged in conservation are “wildlife saviours”.

Such images, she argues, are oversimplifications. “The inability to negotiate these conflicts and work with people on the ground is where conservation often sows the seeds of its own doom,” she adds.

“Why do some attempts to conserve wildlife end up pitting local communities against conservationists?” she asks. “It is because they are regarded as unjust impositions, despite their good intentions. This is vital because failing to tackle such injustices damages wildlife conservation in the long run.”

Duffy stresses that her intention is not to persuade people to stop supporting conservation schemes. “Wildlife is under threat and we need to act urgently,” she acknowledges. Instead, she says, she wants to encourage environmentalists to examine what the real costs and benefits of conservation are, so that better practices for people and for animals can be developed.

“The assumption that the ends justify the means results in a situation where the international conservation movement and their supporters around the world assume they are making ethical and environmentally sound decisions to save wildlife,” she says. “In fact, they are supporting practices that have counterproductive, unethical and highly unjust outcomes.”

Duffy focuses on what she says is the fallacious belief that ecotourism is a solution to the problem of delivering economic development in an environmentally sustainable way.

This is, she says, a “bewitchingly simple argument” but the assumption that such tourism necessarily translates into the kinds of development that benefits wildlife is far too simplistic.

“Holiday makers are mostly unaware of how their tourist paradises have been produced,” she says. “They assume that the picture-perfect landscape or the silver Caribbean beach is a natural feature. This is very far from the truth. Tourist playgrounds are manufactured environments, usually cleared of people. Similarly, hotel construction in tropical areas can result in clearing ecologically important mangroves or beach building which harms coral reefs.”

But the World Wildlife Fund for Nature, one of the four biggest environmental NGOs in the world, maintains that the loss of wildlife is one of the most important challenges facing our planet. As such, a powerful focus on conservation is necessary: “Conservation is essential so let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater,” says a WWF-UK spokesman. “There are examples out there where ecotourism is working and has thrown a lifeline to communities in terms of economics and social benefits, as well as added biodiversity benefits.

“Let’s have more of those projects that are working for everybody and everything,” he adds. “There is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to ecotourism and conservation.”

Ironic, perhaps, that I should be reading this on a night I wish I was asleep already. So, insomniacs of Singapore, let us, everyone of us, put down the sleeping pills (anyone knows how to link more than ONE site?) and give this a go, shall we?

**

First the stuff to avoid:

1. Sugar. Does all sorts of nasty things that helps us NOT sleep. Stress hormones, sugar fluctuations, things like that.
   Check! No sugar. I’ve never been a sugar fella anyway.
2. Chocolate. Contains caffeine (no explanation required I’m sure), and theobromine, a stimulating plant compound. Explains why folks enjoy them so much, and why many people don’t sleep well.
   Check again! Never liked the chocolate. Call me a traditional Chinese man.
3. Red wine. Apparently, alcohol disrupts sleep. Further, red wine contains tyramine, an amino acid that stimulates the brain’s neurotransmitters.
   I’m a whiskey man myself on occasion.  No worries there. Check!
4. Aspartame. I’ve been told by a very respectable source that this increases your appetite. It also encourages the release of excitatory nerve transmitters than keep you up at night. Not cool.
   Check! I avoid the stuff for fear of exciting my hunger.
5. Spicy foods. Unfortunately, chili, ginger, garlic, peppers, are too warming and stimulating for pre-bed foods.
   Fail. Unfortunately, garlic and ginger are mainstays in Chinese cuisine. Fortunately, I can’t take chili, so that’s one thing I managed to avoid.

-

So, how did you do on the above checklist? I think I did alright. 4 out of 5 sounds respectable. Let’s check out the things that do aid in a good night’s rest:

Credit Brian English

1. Turkey. I don’t eat meat so this is out. But for the folks who do, turkey has the highest levels of tryptophan. Don’t know what this does. I will Google that. Scout’s honor.
   Fail.
2. Yogurt. This sound delicious. Again with the tryptophan.
   Didn’t have that tonight. Don’t usually have yogurt at night. Fail.
3. Almonds and other nuts and seeds. Once again, tryptophan. I’m starting to suspect this has something to do with protein. These things also have nerve-calming magnesium.
   Not big on nuts, seeds, the whole food group. Powdery. ‘Nuff said. Fail.
4. Beans and soy. High in B Vitamins and tryptophan.
   My main source of protein, I take this all the time. No wonder I feel sleepy after lunch. Check!
5. Spinach and leafy greens. Loaded with magnesium and B Vitamins.
   2 years ago, I wouldn’t touch the stuff. Fortunately, I am falling in love with all things green and yummy. Check!

-

Not quite as successful as the “things to avoid” column, but 2/5 is close to a passing grade.

**

One last tip: Leave the laptop off at night. Trust me.

Singaporeans are much too connected for sleep.

Turn off the electronics.

Goodnight folks.

Came across this piece by Mark Johnson on B2C Insider. Again, this one is from an American perspective, but I think that  everyone here similarly, wants this question answered.

As employee volunteerism continues to spread across corporate America, companies have increasingly wanted to measure the impact of their efforts.  As reported recently on CSRWire, HandsOn Network’s ROI and Impact Measurement Study, spearheaded by Coca-Cola, KPMG, and The Home Depot, will use online surveys to gather data directly from a company’s volunteers. Measurements will focus on impacts related to sales, recruiting, skill development, satisfaction, brand, and social-value creation.

Intuitively we know that doing good does well for the company as employees become more engaged and proud brand ambassadors when they feel their companies are socially responsible.  Yet, I could not agree more that we need to take to the next level our understanding of the link between employee volunteerism and the bottom line. 

It’s critical for companies to have a tool to enable them to better focus their philanthropic efforts and measure the effect of their CSR (corporate social responsibility) initiatives so they can manage their volunteerism in ways that maximize the impact on both the business and the community.

Previous studies have shown that when employees understand how their company’s CSR initiatives make a difference in their jobs and in their communities, engagement levels rise.  For instance, Sirota Survey Intelligence (May 2007) found that employees who are satisfied with their company’s commitment to CSR are likely to be more positive, more engaged and more productive than those working for less responsible employers.  Sirota’s survey found that when employees have a positive view of their employer’s CSR commitment, employee engagement rises to 86 percent; when employees don’t have a positive view of their employer’s CSR activities that level drops to 37 percent.  The survey also found that of the employees who are satisfied with their company’s commitment to CSR:

• 82 percent feel their organization is highly competitive in the marketplace
• 75 percent feel their employer is interested in their well-being
• 71 percent rate senior management as having high integrity
• 67 percent feel that senior management has a strong sense of direction

-

But how do these “feelings” affect the bottom line?  I highly suspect that the ROI and Impact Measurement Study is going to show that employee volunteerism initiatives drive engagement which unlocks human potential and leads to better performance overall.

**

Thinking of Spearheading volunteerism in your workplace?

There’s no shortage of organisations and causes to volunteer for in Singapore. Environment related ones include Eco-Singapore, ACRES, Wild Singapore, and Nature Society (Singapore). Contact these groups directly, or check out the National Volunteer and Philanthropy Centre for more information.

Thanks Wild Singapore!

Christopher Tan, Straits Times 28 Jul 10;

TESLA, the maker of electric sportscars sought after by the wealthy and environmentally hip, has set up shop here.

Tesla Motors Singapore was registered last month, and operates out of Suntec City. It is now looking for a showroom, workshop and permanent office in the Leng Kee and Alexandra Road motorbelt.

Even before the California-based company’s arrival, it already has a list of potential customers.

‘People were contacting our head office directly to express interest,’ said Tesla’s regional sales manager Andrew Liew, who said it has about a dozen prospective buyers.

Ownership does not come cheap. The Lotus-built Tesla Roadster – the seven- year-old company’s only model to date – is expected to cost just a bit less than a Porsche 911 Turbo. Or around $500,000, after the green vehicle rebate.

A second car, a full-sized sedan named Model S, is due here by 2012.

Mr Liew expects to deliver the first Roadster some time in September. That is, if parallel importers do not beat him to it. At least one parallel importer is offering the Tesla Roadster for sale.

Tesla was founded and is owned by a group of Silicon Valley technopreneurs, including PayPal co-founder Elon Musk. Investors include Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, as well as automotive giants Toyota and Daimler.

The Tesla Roadster, which runs on lithium-ion batteries that can be charged via a household socket, is a 288-horsepower, two-seater capable of hitting 100kmh in just four seconds. It is good for 380km on a single charge – or seven times the average daily mileage clocked by a car driver here.

Since launching the Roadster in 2008, Tesla has delivered more than 1,200 of the first all-electric sports car in production.

Owners have included California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Hollywood stars George Clooney and Leonardo DiCaprio. At its Asian debut early this month, the first buyers were chief executives and entrepreneurs.

However, the company has yet to turn a profit. Last month, it raised US$226 million (S$308.6 million) via a public listing.

Its Singapore audience is expected to be equally exclusive. Mr Liew predicts annual sales of 20 to 30 cars, and maybe more with the Transport Technology Innovation and Development Scheme, which exempts electric vehicles from a certificate of entitlement and registration taxes, but is open only to corporations and institutes taking part in a test-bedding scheme.

The Energy Market Authority (EMA), which is heading the scheme, has received bids from 11 companies to build electric vehicle-charging infrastructure here. They include Hitachi Asia, Robert Bosch (South- east Asia), and Wearnes Automotive and Equipment. The bids range from $988,600 to $11.07 million for up to 63 charging stations, to be up by year-end.

Hong Kong, Japan and Australia are among those in the region with such an infrastructure.

EMA will announce the successful bidder by end-September.

(Oh btw, they’re hiring.)

From Wall Street Journal:

Are your Nikes greener than your Adidas? There will soon be an answer to this question, if the manufacturers have their way.

A group of roughly 100 well-known apparel brands and retailers have developed a software tool to help them measure the environmental impact of their apparel and footwear, from raw material to garbage dump.

Ultimately, the companies hope to display an eco-value on a tag or package, much like the Energy Star rating of appliances. The Eco Index will be rolled out next month at the Outdoor Retailer trade show in Salt Lake City. The idea is to give manufacturers a common way to look at environment and human-rights impacts when designing their products. Consumers won’t immediately be able to see how brands rate.

The companies won’t say exactly when they’ll be ready to go public with the Eco Index, which has been in the works for three years. But eventually, it could help shoppers compare how green garments are.

Sustainability has proven to be a powerful motivator for consumption of everything from Prius vehicles to conflict-free diamonds and Method household cleaners. It’s also been shown to be an effective way to lure shoppers to try new products. Of course, no eco index will convince people to wear unattractive clothes, no matter how green they are. But a high rating might cinch the decision between a pair of Levi’s and Wranglers or attract green-minded consumers to other new brands.

Of course, we’re still a long way from knowing the Eco Index rating of Jimmy Choos: No luxury companies are involved, according to the brands. Such brands have been slow to get involved with other new retailing trends, from online sales to social media, viewing their appeal as fundamentally different. But the coalition participating in the index counts a broad swath of the apparel industry.

The brands include retail giants like Levi Strauss & Co., Nike Inc. and Target Corp., as well as outdoor-wear makers like Brooks Sports, Adidas AG, Timberland Co., REI, Columbia Sportswear Co. and Patagonia Inc., according to the companies and industry-group committees. Outdoorsy companies have plenty of employees—and customers—who are attuned to environmental issues.

Apparel doesn’t sound like a dirty industry, but its manufacturing has huge global consequences. Tanning leather often involves toxic chemicals. Making synthetic fabrics such as polyester uses large amounts of crude oil and other materials that release volatile compounds. Cotton-growing is water-intensive—and cotton is often shipped from the U.S. and Europe to Asia to make thread and fabric, then shipped elsewhere for cutting and elsewhere again for sewing. Some of our clothes have circled the globe twice by the time they arrive in stores.

Increasingly, environmentalists believe we should also count the costs at the other end of clothing’s life: the garbage dump. Americans tossed out 12.4 million tons of textiles in 2008—a number that has risen far faster than other sources of trash, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Our consumption habits were a lot more sustainable back in 1960, when we tossed out only 1.8 million tons of textiles.

The Eco Index, which is basically a software tool any apparel maker can use, poses a series of questions to companies on their environmental and labor practices—some of which require answers from the companies’ suppliers. It then assigns a score representing a percentage of a perfect score. The questions cover every step in the life of a product, from raw-material production to manufacturing, shipping, and even disposal.

For instance, Levi’s gets points for having a recycling program that lets consumers drop off their old jeans at Goodwill, and Timberland earns points for using leather tanneries that have wastewater-purifying systems. Points are lost for using bulky packing material or transporting goods long distances.

The Eco Index also includes estimates of how consumers will wash and eventually dispose of their clothes. Some of the points are awarded for changes with very speculative impacts. Levi’s care tags ask consumers to wash in cold water, line-dry and donate to Goodwill. All of that earns Levi’s points on the Eco Index. But that doesn’t necessarily make Levi’s greener than a pair of Wranglers, which can just as easily be dropped off at the Salvation Army.

Participants also say the survey involves a lot of estimates and isn’t as detailed as it could be, a result of the many types of brands it covers. The production process for shoes doesn’t share many elements with the production of a shirt. All the information is self-reported, and the companies don’t have to provide proof. Energy Star ratings, which were created by the EPA in 1992, are also estimates, but they have become an international standard for rating the energy efficiency of appliances.

For the same thing to happen with the Eco Index, it must be made available to shoppers at the point of sale. Some companies are impatient with the pace of the rollout to the public. “Our industry is flirting with getting this right,” says Jeff Swartz, chief executive of Timberland Co., which makes outdoor apparel. Mr. Swartz says he’s frustrated that the Eco Index coalition isn’t moving faster, so Timberland is already putting its own version of green ratings on its packages and website. Levi’s vice president of social and environmental sustainability, Michael Kobori, says the tool will be available “as soon as we can get everybody to agree” on how to publish and communicate it.

Nike is one of the sportswear and apparel makers using the Eco Index to measure its products’ environmental impact. This sounds about as easy as herding cats, given the numerous brands involved. It’s one thing, many companies say, to use the data internally, but quite another to trumpet it to the world. They want to be sure everyone communicates the data in the same way.

For instance, they don’t agree on whether the index should be communicated as a single number on a hang tag or in a more detailed manner that might involve directing customers to data on the Web. “It’s got to be uniform in order to be useful,” says Rick Ridgeway, vice president of environmental initiatives for Patagonia.

For now, “it’s a tool for a company to use to make a better choice,” says Amy Roberts, vice president of government affairs for the Outdoor Industry Association, a Boulder, Colo.-based trade organization that has shepherded the measure’s development. To use the index, companies must pepper their suppliers with questions about materials use, labor standards, and recycling. These suppliers get points or ratings such as “gold,” “silver,” and bronze.” Timberland started seeking out leather tanneries with more sustainable standards, says Betsy Blaisdell, Timberland’s senior manager of environmental stewardship. “I now have tanneries fighting over the points needed to get a silver rating,” she says.

As part of its participation in the Eco Index, Levi’s did a separate internal study of its own practices. As a result, Levi’s changed its transportation routes last year to make them more efficient and reduced carbon emissions by 700 metric tons. In addition to the Goodwill agreement, Levi’s also cut back on packaging, allowing only three pieces of labeling with the jeans—a back-pocket tag, a size sticker, and a price tag.

Brooks redesigned its shoe boxes after finding that its score wasn’t as high as it had hoped. When the shoe boxes earned a score of roughly 40%, footwear operations manager Chase Mueller went to work to improve it. Among other changes, Brooks got rid of moisture-absorbing silica bags, which turned out to be ineffective, and stopped stuffing the insides of shoes with tissue paper. As an added benefit, the “green” changes reduced the cost of the shoe box by 38%. In this instance, the index appears to be working. Mr. Mueller is now looking to create a recycling program for Brooks’s shoe boxes. “I’d like [the score] to be much higher,” he says.

Infographics are all the rage in design expression and viral communication these days. Topics vary from personal resumes, Facebook’s 500 Million members,  Sushi Etiquette, World Cup Predictions (who got it wrong), and the optimism index for 36 economies (Singapore was ranked 16th). So here we present, in no particular order, 5 of our favourite environmental ones (click to enlarge).

**

Bottled Water = Evil.

**

Vampire Energy in your home

**

World’s major cities and Rising Sea Levels

**

Food Waste

**

Shocking CO2 Emissions Statistics

By Caroline Spelman for Guardian (UK):

The beauty of our landscapes is significant, but few are aware of the solid economic benefits they bring – and what we don’t value we don’t protect.

So today, when rebuilding their economies is the number one priority for governments across the world, we need to start making the economic case for our environment at least as strongly as we have been making the aesthetic one.

Today, Defra is launching a discussion paper that will lead to the first Natural Environment white paper in 20 years.

It points out that our environment is the natural foundation on which our economy is built.

It creates thousands of jobs and generates billions of pounds.

English national parks, for example, support over 54,000 tourism-related jobs. The Peak District national park on its own contributes £155m to the region – 60% of local businesses say they would suffer if the landscape deteriorated.

Our natural assets don’t just add to the quality of our lives – they can actually extend them. Those living within 500m of green space are almost 25% more likely to be active at recommended levels. It’s also been estimated that the NHS could save over £2bn through increased activity in open green spaces – our home-grown natural health service.

Our trees are “multitaskers” – capturing carbon and holding soils together, preventing flooding and helping control our climate. They play a particularly important role in our urban cities – in some parts of inner London each tree is calculated to be worth as much as £78,000 in terms of its benefits.

The natural environment, of course, isn’t just restricted to our land or air. The passing of the Marine and Coastal Access Act clears the way to the creation of a network of marine conservation zones around the UK that will provide ecosystem services worth up to £1.6bn every year.

The Natural Environment white paper isn’t about simply trying to put a price on nature, but about recognising its true value.

The services we get from our environment, ecosystems and biodiversity are not, for the most part, optional. Our honeybees and other pollinators, for example, contribute up to £440m to our economy every year, 13% of the country’s entire income from farming.

If our natural capital isn’t providing these kinds of services, we will have to pay for an alternative. This isn’t just about altruism; it’s about enlightened self-interest.

The natural environment is incredibly generous – it provides us with goods and services worth trillions of pounds at no cost.

All it needs in return is that we allow it the ability to function and maintain itself.

If we degrade it to the point that its ability to mitigate the effects of climate change, purify our air and water and keep us healthy is lost, there will be a heavy price to pay.

And our children and theirs will be the one to pay it. We need to become the generation that draws a line in the sand of the steady degradation of our natural capital and says “no more”.