• News/Talk
  • Music
  • Entertainment

Marketplace

http://www.publicradio.org/columns/sustainability/greenwash/The Greenwash Brigade

January 2008 Archives

Candidate platforms and lost sustainable economic development

Like Janne said, cellulosic ethanol is on the lips of every candidate, particularly after we collectively wiped the corn smudge off our faces when we realized corn-based ethanol provides a mere 18-29% reduction in greenhouse gases compared to cellulosic ethanol's 85%. Let's also not forget the food for people vs. food for your SUV quandary implicit in corn-based ethanol.

I also enjoyed Janne's observation about the absence of real greenwash in any of the Republican's environmental platforms. I took a closer look at the platforms of Huckabee and McCain. Huckabee's platform is folksy -- well meaning but vague in its particulars on a comprehensive energy plan and McCain, a long time supporter of action on climate change, was vocal in his criticism of the Bush Administration's stumble and wait approach to the issue. Of note, he did oppose the 2001 Roadless Rule which has implications for the ability to retain forests to sequester climate change gases.

Take a glimpse behind official platforms. What happens when powerful economic interests are poised against community interests and the commons that belong to all of us? We can't have effective environmental policies if we can't see the water through the chicken crap. Huckabee's unseemly, although understandable support of Arkansas's chronically misbehaving poultry industry led him to oppose Oklahoma's attempts to protect local water quality in 2005 litigation against 14 Arkansas poultry companies. Arkansas' one billion chickens deploy you-know-what each year and although good for shareholders, is acutely problematic for worker and water health in the region (Soerens, Fite and Hipp, "Water Quality in the Illinois River- Conflict and Cooperation between Oklahoma and Arkansas." Diffuse Pollution Conference Paper. 2003).

Clinton and Obama's platforms are like falling pleasantly into Oz in comparison to the Republican platforms but they too raise a few concerns. Obama is seriously invested in nuclear energy -- living in the state with the most polluted nuclear site in the country, I'm not convinced we have the capability to store nuclear waste safely. Sorry Obama and sorry France.

These candidates have very detailed long-term energy policies and I was particularly tickled by programs designed to train and support the next generation of green collar jobs, driven by renewable technology smarts. I like Clinton's ideas on SEC disclosure regarding climate change impacts and Obama's emphasis on clean food supplies by incentivizing organic farming and pushing for country of origin and genetically engineered food labeling.

Looking back at the Arkansas poultry issue, it's emblematic of what's oddly absent from all the candidate platforms: a plan for sustainable economic development, a restructuring of the values implicit in business decision making, and how to pay for ecosystem services to preserve forests, farmland, wetlands and other valuable forms of landscape.

Driven by the inarticulate push for "growth," we are paving over America and with that, losing valuable carbon sinks, forcefully contributing to flooding, reducing clean drinking water supply and oh, local food supplies. National security anyone? It's political suicide of sorts, but I'd like to see more of the same zesty green job thinking applied to Smart Growth and - - - forbid, a commitment to both carbon and impervious surface taxes in addition to cap and trade systems. If the candidates can't sow that row, then perhaps we can have a note about how we will balance explosive population growth and sprawl with a healthy economy, remembering that people and communities are part of that system.

LEED certification in a transitional moment

I totally agree with Daniel Brook's premise that you can game the LEED Rating System to come up with a LEED Certified project that is decidedly NOT green. And many have questioned individual LEED credits and the equivalency suggested by the point-based system (do 1 point for low VOC carpet and 1 point for a green roof suggest that the two are environmentally equivalent, for instance?).

The question is whether LEED is causing improvement in the environmental performance of our built environment overall, not whether there are limited examples that clearly lie outside of the system's intent. In spite of all its warts, LEED has been, and continues to be, a significant catalyst for change. It has provided an agreed upon, understandable way to ask for a green building. Before LEED, 'green design' and 'sustainability' were fairly esoteric terms in the building industry. LEED is also clearly promoting some healthy competition with college campuses and building portfolio managers scrambling to get their first "LEED Certified" building.

LEED takes sort of a shotgun approach, attempting to address all aspects of the environmental impact of building. I do wonder if the growth in public awareness about global climate change that has occurred largely since LEED was introduced in 2000 will result in the industry transitioning to more of an energy/carbon-focused system which directly addresses global warming emissions.

In light of this growing awareness, and specifically pressure from Architecture 2030, the USGBC did increase the energy efficiency requirement for all LEED projects last year. But recent initiatives focusing exclusively on climate change, such as the American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment and the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement seem to be growing at a rate that eclipses even LEED's explosive growth. It will be interesting to see whether carbon footprint supplants LEED certification in the green building arena.

Hot pix: green monitoring sites from the Greenwash Brigade

Blogs and talk

  • "Greenwashed," a public discussion group on the WiserEarth site (Flisrand)
  • Joel Makower’s blog highlights sustainability business opportunities, and he has a number of posts about green marketing. (Flisrand)

Consumer Guides and Research

Architectural

Define "Sustainability." Please.

I heard my voice on Marketplace this morning. Odd. I heard Heidi, too, for the first time ever. Nice to put a voice to a name, a face, and a personality. I also learned that Heidi and I have differing opinions about the desirability of crafting a definition of "sustainability."

Sustainability is a simple concept. In 1987, the UN Brundtland Commission defined sustainable development as "meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." (Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development.)

Sounds simple enough.

But what does that include? This evening I explored a (currently) well-written Wikipedia article on sustainability. While the discussion is interesting if you want to read for 20 minutes, I came away with principles and no specifics on how to tell if something is "sustainable" or not.

Jim and I recently discussed LEED -- we agreed that LEED has its faults, and that it doesn't accommodate what's different about each project. It's a definition with faults. But, Jim highlighted that having "an agreed upon, understandable way to ask for a green building" has been transformative. Now, it's possible. Thanks to a definition of green building. (I've had an identical experience in promoting sustainable building as an affordable housing priority. Once affordable housing-appropriate Green Communities Criteria were developed, getting them implemented has been relatively easy.)

Heidi said that sustainability means different things in different contexts - I agree. But, I also think many underlying principles can be agreed upon. Product toxicity isn't OK. Massive energy consumption doesn't pass. Child labor is out. There are more (see the Wikipedia article for ideas).

I like a definition that sets forth and defines specific principles. For example, what makes a product toxic, and what levels of toxicity are acceptable (if any)? That approach gives companies, manufacturers, individuals, governments, etc. a goal to aim for. Not every principle will apply to every entity, but if it's irrelevant, no worries!

With that definition, advertising a Sustainable Product will have a clear-cut meaning. A Sustainable Product will meet all of the relevant sustainability principles. Then, sustainability claims can be verified, and something can be done about greenwashing.

Until then, it's the Jannes and Heidis of the world who become the arbiters. Sure, we'll have a great time discussing what passes and what doesn't. But we're not available everywhere to everyone at all times. Nor do we have the information to evaluate everything, and we might even disagree on basic principles of sustainability.

Until then, sustainability is a term anyone can use anytime they think about using organic cotton in a product.

Until then, consumers will struggle to know just what they're getting, unless they are willing and able to spend lots of time digging before every purchase AND retailers/manufacturers are more forthcoming with their practices.

Would a definition be useful?

Response - Define "Sustainability." Please.

Two chocolate chip cookies are yummy. Eighteen chocolate chip cookies will make you sick. There's a similar challenge with defining sustainability. Adobe is considered by many to be a sustainable building material, so is rammed earth. But would these materials be sustainable at the scale and density of Manhattan? That's a lot of dirt. Sustainability is complex. Natural is generally good, toxicity is always bad, renewable is good, carrying capacity / quantity is important, socially equitable is critical, and on and on. How can you assure something can be repeated in perpetuity?

But, like LEED, having a rating system can certainly nudge things in the right direction, allowing consumers to make the best (or less bad) choice. Architect William McDonough and Chemist Michael Braungart introduced the concept of "Cradle to Cradle" certification in their 2002 book by the same title. They have since developed a Cradle to Cradle Certification System:

"Cradle to Cradle Certification provides a company with a means to tangibly, credibly measure achievement in environmentally-intelligent design and helps customers purchase and specify products that are pursuing a broader definition of quality.

"This means using environmentally safe and healthy materials; design for material reutilization, such as recycling or composting; the use of renewable energy and energy efficiency; efficient use of water, and maximum water quality associated with production; and instituting strategies for social responsibility."

The system has yet to rate many consumer products, but it seems to be moving toward the 'sustainability index' Janne is looking for. It will probably never be possible to give a pass/fail grade to a product stating definitively that it is sustainable (it can be produced/used/reused forever, at any rate/scale). Maybe that's the problem. The concept "product", and our consumer-driven society itself, are not sustainable. We're stuck within our culture's non-sustainable mindset, trying to make it less non-sustainable. As McDonough would say, we're trying to drive more slowly over the cliff rather than turning the car...

Sustainability: a proliferation of definitions

I am thoroughly enjoying Janne's and Jim's sustainability conversation and agree that it's crucial we develop a shared understanding of sustainability, whether sustainable development, community, or product design. As the FTC makes its foray into updating its green marketing guidelines, it may not be necessary to address this issue primarily because no one is foolish enough to use the vagaries of "sustainability" on a product label or claim. 2002 Lake Snell Perry & Associates focus group results for a Partnership for Sustainable Washington illuminate the nuanced meaning of sustainability and why the term doesn't lend itself to a label.

The Kennedy School of Government reports that sustainable development is featured on over 8 million web pages. Well, that's a good start.

There is no dearth of sustainability criteria, labels and certification systems. Frankly, researching the topic (or rather re-researching it) made my head spin in this doozy of a topic. Check out the newly minted document from Environmental Building News: Behind the Logos: Understanding Green Product Certification.

Implicit in defining sustainability is a discussion of scale (raised by Jim's building example), carrying capacity, balance, and values. I was positively struck by the underlying values of the Millennium Declaration:
Freedom, Equality, Solidarity, Tolerance, Respect for Nature and Shared Responsibility. Perhaps this should be the new frame for "change" as we approach our frenzied electoral cycle. The 7 Triads of Sustainability for Communities were also of interest as broad organizing principles: participation, decision-making, partnership, governance, knowledge & information, continual improvement and lifestyles. Perhaps combining these values into one set will become a starting point for discussing the intimacy shared by businesses, communities and the envelope of natural resources that makes it all possible.

A critical buyer of sustainable products or services might first start with these questions:

What is the Life Cycle Assessment for this Product?
What is its embedded energy and energy source?
How many miles did it travel?
Has the product been servicized ?
What is its carbon footprint?
What are the working and environmental conditions associated with the products' manufacture?

If we have to get down to specific product specifications, I liked the work provided by a DC firm on sustainable products.

I appreciate Janne's desire for a sustainability index although I have to admit I'm not a big fan of indexing, having worked in environmental performance measurement for years. Indexes tend to mask important subtleties and fluctuations in salient data points although they can be a handy tool.

So the question of defining sustainability is not solved at all, is it?

Back to Politics

My own Super Tuesday caucus is coming up, and local organizers are sending around voter guides. Among others, I received the League of Conservation Voters guide. My favorite part was the chart, where I realized for the first time that Clinton and Obama both support "investing in liquid coal if it reduced carbon pollution by 20% over conventional gasoline in 2007."

I guess they missed the treaty negotiations on this one.

Oops.

A proliferation of definitions - that's the problem

Heidi reports 8 million web pages featuring sustainable development, and pointed out that there is "no dearth of sustainability criteria, labels and certification systems." Frankly, I think that's precisely the problem. Just reading her post, I felt so overwhelmed my brain tuned out.

I see two problems.

1) If there are 8 million pages featuring sustainable development, it's too many to be any good for "regular" non-expert people. It's also so many, manufacturers can find the right one to fit their purposes, honorable or not.

2) Too many criteria, labels and certification systems confuse consumers. Which of the multiple fair trade certifications is best? Certainly niche products (like low-VOC building products) need a very specific certification, but that's not useful for general consumers. Hyper-stringent standards (like Cradle to Cradle) also play a role, but they aren't accessible to most products.

There needs to be a small number of certifications that are meaningful, achieve significant market penetration so they can be found in stores, and that people can recognize and grasp -- think Energy Star.

I simply don't think the American consumer -- an expert at consuming, but not an expert in every technical area of manufacturing -- who wants to consume in a more sustainable way should need a masters degree to understand labeling on products.

Tata Nano Revolution (Part I): environmental mitigation in an unequal world

Normally, environmentalists would praise a major automaker’s introduction of a 50 MPG car.

But when India’s Tata unveiled the Nano, green advocates’ reaction was almost the opposite. For instance, Nobel Prize winner Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said the innovation gave him nightmares. The same Sierra Club activists who praised Ford for a 29 miles per gallon hybrid Escape find it hard to stomach the idea of millions of people in India and the rest of the developing world driving brand-new Nanos in a couple years.

tata.jpg

Why? Well, that’s a complex question. But basically when we imagine climate change mitigation, most of us preserve as much status quo as we can to help our policy ideas seem plausible. But the assumptions that we make are based on the deeply unequal world we've inherited.

While US emissions per capita are lower than oil-rich Qatar, Kuwait, and the UAE, there's a dramatic difference when compared to poorer countries such as India and China. But India and China host one third of the world’s population, while the US represents less than 5%. China recently passed the US in aggregate emissions. If you look at it per capita, China’s rate represents only a quarter and India’s only one tenth of US emissions. But for the Earth and its limited capacity to handle more greenhouse gases, it is startling evidence that the next round beyond Kyoto better include these major emitters in a more meaningful way.

What should a climate activist do about it? My belief is that people in the US and developed world who care about the environment, public health and peace must take our “common but differentiated” climate responsibility seriously by rapidly getting our per capita house in order.

I had the pleasure of visiting China last year and India back in 2000 (yes, I bought offsets). We have a great deal to learn from them on lowering our emissions. And we can teach our neighbors as well – by sharing experience in products such as LED lights, solar, and wind. Maybe the Nano helps mark a new two-way globalization rather than old-school cultural exportation from the West.

Instead of getting scared of Nanos that increase miniscule per capita emissions, we can work hard to achieve a 50 mpg fleet average in the US, Europe and Japan -- incorporating some of Nano’s design. As the price of oil rises, rolling windows down and bicycle sharing like the Parisians is a better way to lose a couple pounds than a fad diet.

I’m optimistic the Nano can be a step in the right direction. But we have to question our unequal assumptions and foster a little social change to make it so.

Part II will discuss what the Nano might do to an already tight global oil market…

Tata Nano versus the SUV

I think the Tata Nano is brilliant. Imagine... it gets 50 mpg, is designed for diesel and possibly electric, is cost effective and is sold in kits that are distributed and serviced by folks who assemble it for customers. As a result, they cut out the massive middle distribution chain.

What Dennis is talking about is our collective hypocritical, hysterical reaction to 10 million more cars in India in the near future when Americans are driving around in corpulent Jabba-the-Hut SUVs so we can play soccer, go for a hike and buy groceries. Be the change you seek in others?

I ran across a fascinating blog from Bruce Nussbaum who writes on innovation and design for Business Week. He advocates for design democracy and asks designers to design WITH, rather than design FOR. What a concept! So, perhaps all the Tata Nano detractors need to work with professional designers to design the future so all that may want a car can drive one without costing the future.

The dubious road to Clorox's new GreenWorks product line

Let's start our journey in 2007 when Clorox and the American Red Cross crossed historically strict legal boundaries on using third-party endorsements on pesticides. Clorox bleach is a registered pesticide, and EPA prohibits third-party claims on pesticides ... except this time where the familiar Red Cross label was used on Clorox bleach which is only supposed to have "use and safety" instructions. EPA is considering making their limited exception permanent (ye gads and hello litigation).

This story didn't make mainstream press but state pesticide regulators found EPA's exception to its own rules not only contrary to law but a dangerous precedent. The story is also routinely discussed in my happy circles of toxics and hazardous waste compatriots here in the Pacific NW.

Next enter Clorox once again who purchased the ubiquitously loved Burt's Bees in November 2007 for $913 million: a small, environmentally-dedicated company swallowed by a mega-corporation in trade for purchasing intact land (Ms. Quimby, one of the original Burt's Bees founders was able to purchase and restore 100,000 acres), helping the successor company green its practice and image, and just plain money. Clorox is a fairly traditional mainstream company which has more recently dedicated itself to improving its environmental performance. Joel Makower met with Clorox officials and wrote beautifully about Clorox's evolution as a company. I hope that Clorox's purchase of Burt's Bees will inform product reformulation of their Formula 409, which contains 2-butoxyethanol, readily absorbed through the skin and which is routinely screened out by cities, states and companies with environmentally preferable purchasing screens on their cleaning products.

Finally, enter The Sierra Club, which will now have its logo on Clorox's GreenWorks line of green cleaners. This is where I have a problem. In fact, the bad actors here in my estimation are EPA (for permitting Red Cross labels in violation of its own rules), The American Red Cross (which made a goodly amount of money in an exclusive licensing arrangement with Clorox) and The Sierra Club.

When you look at a product label, what would you think if you saw your favorite environmental non-profit logo? Wouldn't you think, hey, this product is probably better, safer or greener than its competitors? Well, more than 17 state attorneys general thought so in a killer report on the pitfalls of cause-marketing (that's when corporations or other private interests financially support non-profit work). The problem is that the non-profit and corporation typically have an exclusive licensing agreement which raises issues about product endorsement and the extent to which your purchase really helps the non-profit and its mission.

GreenWorks will also bear EPA's Design for the Environment label which signals to me that the product really is superior from an environmental standpoint. I'd rather have EPA's label on this product than The Sierra Club's. If we decide to go this cliff-hanging route, then we may start to see non-profit logos on all sorts of products -- and the last thing we need is more product labeling confusion.

Be prepared, state consumer protection agencies, because you are going to need some cash infusion soon as well... to help you sort out these implied claims. This is a prime example of what can happen when we let cash-strapped non-profits use corporate money to help fill the cookie jar. Remember how junk food made its way into the public school system?

Can Super Bowl XLII teach sports fans about global warming?

The biggest teach-in in the U.S. is the Super Bowl, when almost 100 million of us gather around TV sets from coast to coast and enjoy the show.

We will learn lessons of dedication: how Tom Brady wakes up early in the morning to practice hard enough to unleash his potential and be this year’s MVP and one of the best quarterbacks in history as he chases his fourth Bowl title. We will learn lessons of teamwork: where each player trusts and relies on each other to achieve common goals, something the New England Patriots have perfected so far this year in their winningest undefeated run. And we will learn lessons of hope: how a NY Giants team has overcome tough odds and a mediocre early season to vie for the title. Thanks to some recent steps by the NFL, the Super Bowl may also share some lessons on how our country can tackle one of the biggest public policy challenges of this century, global warming.

tata.jpg

Under the leadership of Jack Groh, the NFL Environmental Program is, for the third straight year, reducing the carbon footprint of the big game. While federal policymakers drag their feet, the NFL is fighting climate change next Sunday by offsetting 500 tons of greenhouse gas emissions through support of wind, solar, geothermal and landfill power as well as planting dozens of acres of trees in the host state of Arizona. They also have recycling initiatives and source many of the products locally. Their website has some info on the effort (including the image to the right). But the big question is whether they prioritize the climate mitigation lesson to the enormous audience. If viewers are inspired to purchase efficient light bulbs, carpool, and support new wind turbines rather than coal plants, then we can get our emissions falling and join Europe as climate leaders rather than laggards.

The more we can make all big events climate responsible, the more we can grow a culture that transforms our country. For further progress, I would love to hear that the NFL and other professional sports leagues commit in 2008 to reducing the emissions of all of their games, not just the championship. The NFL can join Google, 480 universities who are dedicated to climate neutrality, and others who promote climate responsibility throughout their powerful institutions and help it become a part of mainstream culture.

Mitigation efforts in one of the biggest annual games in all of sports are definitely a step in the right direction. Here’s to many more steps that take advantage of the educational opportunity to inspire our country full of sports fans to be climate responsible!

Tata Nano Revolution (Part 2): Straining a squeezed global oil market

With a sticker price half of the world’s cheapest cars (like India’s Maruti and China’s Chery brands), the $2,500 Nano will probably accelerate growth in auto sales, and thus fuel consumption, throughout the world.

The Nano may not change the automotive landscape in the US, Europe, or Japan since it doesn’t conform to their safety standards. But these regions aren’t the growth drivers of the automotive world anyway, with saturated markets of more than 700 vehicles per thousand people and slowly growing populations. However, it may ignite an auto revolution in India, where their twenty cars per thousand market could grow more than thirty times its current size.

The bulk of future Nano consumers currently ride motorcycles -- which lack a car’s carriage capacity and weather resiliency. While the Nano boasts respectable fuel economy ~50 miles per gallon, these bikes often get 80-110 miles per gallon. So, a Nano driver would demand roughly double the fuel.

In India, the 1.5 million vehicle sales annual market is already growing at a breathtaking clip of 15% per year. China is growing even faster at 20% annually and has recently become the 2nd biggest vehicle market at almost 9 million. These numbers are still significantly smaller than the 16 million US sales and a fraction of the 75 million vehicles sold worldwide that add up to one billion vehicles on the road currently. If a billion people can afford a vehicle starting at $5,000, those billion consumers had an income at least high enough to pay for a car and its fuel, let’s say ~$10,000 annually. The question now is how many people have an income of between ~$6,000 and $10,000? My guess is that in our unequal world we may be talking about another billion people or a doubling of the auto market by 2030. If that is the case, Nanos seem capable of dramatically increasing oil demand. With transportation making up half of global oil consumption, a doubling of the number of four-wheel vehicles could raise oil demand more than 25%.

Meanwhile, oil producers seem unable to significantly increase supply due to production declines in Mexico, Norway, the UK and elsewhere. Without sufficient oil supply, a bidding war will likely emerge between US motorists trying to maintain a gas-guzzling lifestyle and a growing percentage of the developing world joining the world mobility elite in a Nano. This appears to almost guarantee increasing oil prices as a long-term reality.

While biofuels may play a role – an increase of conventional corn ethanol threatens to make world grain prices climb higher than current records and magnify malnutrition in the hundreds of millions plagued by extreme poverty.

I’m rooting for strong developments in renewable energy technologies that can transition us to a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle fleet for a sustainable future. Without such advances in the near-term (along with improved transit services and bike/ped friendliness), current tensions over energy resources worldwide could flare-up into full-scale conflicts and prevent us from stopping climate change.

Tools

Meet the Greenwash Brigade

Our hand-picked environmental professionals, each part of the Public Insight Network, are on the hunt for "greenwash" as they examine eco-friendly claims by companies, governments and other groups. They ask tough questions about the mainstreaming of green, from the perspectives of people in the trenches who are focused on these issues 24/7.

Jim Nicolow

Jim Nicolow is a nationally recognized expert on sustainable design and leads the sustainability initiative for Lord, Aeck & Sargent, overseeing the incorporation of sustainable design strategies and features into the firm’s design projects. He is a LEED® Accredited Professional with extensive knowledge of the U.S. Green Building Council’s (USGBC) LEED rating system.

Janne K. Flisrand

Janne K. Flisrand has worked as an affordable housing and urban planning research consultant for five years, primarily supporting local non-profits. Her focus is on transit, transit-oriented design, affordable housing, and sustainability. Currently, she’s the program coordinator for Minnesota Green Communities, a program promoting affordable, healthy, sustainably built housing throughout Minnesota.

Dennis Markatos-Soriano

Dennis Markatos-Soriano recently completed a Master's in Public Affairs at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School. He is now launching Sustainable Energy Transition (SET) to help individuals and institutions move from dependence on oil and gas to an efficient use of renewables. Previously, he co-founded SURGE (Students United for a Responsible Global Environment), which aims to bring young progressives together across issues of environmental and social justice throughout North Carolina and beyond. In the summer of 2006, he helped to start a small green company, Greenway Pedicabs, to provide a greenhouse gas-free transportation option for people in the Triangle of North Carolina.

Heidi Siegelbaum

Heidi Siegelbaum is a principal with Calyx Sustainable Tourism and works primarily on advancing sustainable tourism practices. She also specializes in science translation, cross-border indicators with Canada, cross-disciplinary planning and environmental technical assistance to businesses. Previously, she was in-house legal counsel for EPA for industrial chemicals and biotechnology and the senior performance measure analyst with the Washington State Department of Ecology. She is on the technical advisory committee of the Seattle Culinary Academy and a long standing member of the Chefs Collaborative.

NOTE: The opinions expressed by the Greenwash Brigade bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of American Public Media or its employees. American Public Media is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information supplied by the Greenwash Brigade bloggers.

Tags

 ©2007 American Public Media