Green and Climate-Friendly Televisions

Keep old TVs functional, find the greenest and least-toxic new ones, and learn about responsible electronics recycling.

Through the years, it’s become apparent that many Real Green readers aren’t big TV watchers. So our editorial staff thought we should warn you all that early next year, television broadcasters will transition completely from analog to digital broadcasting, meaning that any TV not equipped to receive digital broadcasts won’t get a signal after February 18, 2009.

The upside of this change is that compared to analog broadcasting, digital signals allow more information to be sent on a smaller group of frequencies, freeing up valuable airwaves for other uses, including public safety.

The significant downside, however, is that the switch is expected to send millions of analog television sets containing toxic components like lead-filled cathode-ray tubes to landfills—as people mistakenly assume they’ll have to toss their old TVs and buy new flat-screen models to navigate the switch.

Fortunately, with a little information, you can keep your old TV working for many more years. Below, we tell you how and also include tips on what to look for when you do need a new TV.


Keep Your Old TV
If you have an older TV at home, chances are it's a cube-shaped cathode-ray (CRT) set. No matter how ancient it is, your old television will likely do just fine after the switch. If you currently subscribe to a satellite or cable service, you’ll continue to get a signal after February 18, whether you have an analog or digital TV.

But if you use an antenna to watch TV, those over-the-air signals may cease after the switch. Fortunately, it’s easy and cheap to fix this problem and keep using your set. First, if your TV was made after 2003, it may have a built-in digital tuner. Look for labels on your set that say something like “integrated digital tuner” or “digital receiver built-in.” If that’s the case, you’ll still be able to get an over-the-air signal.

If your TV isn’t equipped with a digital tuner, you can use a set-top converter box to convert the digital signal to analog, so you can receive an over-the-air signal. Every US household is eligible to receive two $40 coupons from the government to purchase a converter, which range in price from $50–$75. Visit www.dtv.gov to find out how to get your coupons. And be sure to look for an Energy Star converter box to ensure that you’re using the most efficient model possible.

In terms of energy efficiency, CRT TVs do as well or better than comparable flat-screen models, so you won’t be saving much energy by making the switch. Therefore, your greenest option is to keep your CRT TV as long as possible, preventing more resources and energy from being used to make a new TV.


When Your Old TV Dies...
But maybe you really do need a new TV. In that case, you have a few new types to consider.

Some manufacturers are starting to phase out production of CRT televisions, in favor of new flat screen models, which generally have better picture quality and are much thinner and lighter. The more sophisticated flat-screen technology has also made extra-sharp high-definition (HDTV) images possible, as long as stations broadcast in high-definition.

When shopping for a new or used flat-screen television, you can choose an LCD (liquid crystal display), plasma, or rear projection TV. The technical differences between these three types are fairly complex (look them up at ConsumerReports.org if you’re curious). All three can be HDTV-compatible, so you’ll probably find picture-quality and price to be comparable among all three types. It’s the environmental impacts that can differ greatly.


Energy Efficiency Considerations

Let’s just state right off the bat that you want to avoid energy-hog plasma televisions. The average plasma TV uses more energy per year than a refrigerator, which is the biggest energy user in most US households, says the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE).

Another problem with plasma TVs is that the higher the resolution, or how sharp the image is, the worse they get in terms of energy use. Flat-screen TVs are available in 720p or 1080p resolution (the “p” stands for “pixels,” which are the little dots of light that make up your image). Resolution only matters with a plasma TV, because each pixel is illuminated separately—therefore, a 1080p plasma TV will use more electricity than a 720p plasma TV. Higher resolution in an LCD or rear-projection TV won’t affect their energy use because all of the pixels on the screen are illuminated by one light source.

No matter which TV you choose, it’s important to remember that size matters. If you swap your old 26-inch CRT television for a monstrous 52-inch LCD TV, you’re not going to save energy.

Though energy use among different models can vary widely, for a rough idea, Efficient Products.org, a Web site that researches the energy efficiency of consumer products, says that for smaller TVs less than 42 inches, LCD models are more efficient than CRTs. Rear-projection models are mainly available in larger sizes (50 inches and higher). If you want an enormous television, the rear-projection models tend to be more efficient than comparable LCDs or CRTs.

In the future, manufacturers are looking to mass-produce LED (light-emitting diode) and OLED (organic light-emitting diode) TVs, which may be even more efficient than current models.

Best models: Your most efficient option is an LCD TV less than 42 inches. CNET.com rated 128 flat-screen TVs by their energy use in October. (Find those ratings here.) Also, look for the Energy Star. While the program used to rate televisions based only on stand-by mode—meaning how much power they leak when turned off—starting in November, the ratings will change to also reflect power usage when the sets are turned on.

If you choose an LCD, you’ll want to have the set calibrated to a medium level of backlighting—instead of the torch-bright backlighting the manufacturer sets it to so the screen will look nice when displayed in stores. Check your manual to see if the set has a “home” setting you can select, or call an electronics professional to calibrate your TV. It will save energy and keep your TV from burning out quickly.

Also, remember that TVs leak power even when turned off. Plug your TV into a power strip, and switch off the strip to stop those leaks.


Climate Impacts
Earlier this year, Professor Michael J. Prather of the University of California–Irvine sounded the alarm about a hidden greenhouse gas that is often used in the production of flat-screen televisions. According to Prather’s research, nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), which is often used to clean flat-screen manufacturing equipment, is 17,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

While industry representatives have said they take precautions to contain NF3, Prather argues that companies may very well be lax about letting it escape, since it’s not regulated by the US government or under the Kyoto Protocol.

Fortunately, some companies are finding alternatives to NF3. Linde Electronics, a gas and chemical company, has created a process that allows pure fluorine to be used in place of NF3, says Steve Pilgrim, Linde’s global marketing manager.

“Fluorine has a global warming potential of zero,” says Pilgrim. “It’s also more efficient to use, so it’s cheaper. We’re doing our best to convert manufacturers to fluorine, either on the economic or the environmental argument. Performance is unaffected by which gas you use.”

Best models: So far, Toshiba–Matsushita Display and LG have converted much of their manufacturing operations to fluorine instead of NF3.


Toxic Innards
As more people are becoming aware, televisions and other electronics often contain hazardous innards. In addition to the lead problem with CRT TVs, chemicals like hormone disrupters polyvinyl chloride and brominated flame retardants, neurotoxic mercury, and more can be found in flat-screen and CRT TVs alike.

Best models: Samsung and Sony scored best on the “2008 Greenpeace Guide to Greener Electronics,” which ranks companies based on the toxicity of their products and whether they have robust take-back and recycling programs. Though Philips received a poor ranking from Greenpeace, its Eco-TV is less toxic than many models (see below).


Responsible Recycling
To ensure that old TVs don’t end up clogging landfills and leaking hazardous substances, it’s important for manufacturers to take their products back for recycling. However, irresponsible recyclers often send old electronics to developing countries like China, where organizations like the Basel Action Network (BAN) have reported seeing workers sort and dismantle toxic electronics by hand, unprotected. Recyclers listed on BAN’s Web site have pledged not to export e-waste and to recycle it responsibly. Find the list here.

Green America’s ResponsibleShopper.org also notes that many electronics companies, like Sanyo, Toshiba, and Sony, are tied to worker exploitation along their supply chains.

Best models: Samsung, LG, and Sony have the most robust recycling programs. Consumers can drop their Samsung electronics at 174 locations across the US. The company has pledged not to incinerate, landfill, or export its e-waste (it’s not a BAN signer).

LG (Goldstar, Zenith) has 160 drop-off sites across the US for its old electronics, which are recycled through Waste Management Recycle America, a company that is in the process of qualifying as a BAN-pledge signer. Sony has a similar program, also run through Waste Management.


In Short...
As their monetary prices come down, flat-screen TVs don’t have to come at a steep cost to human health and the Earth. Keep your old TV for as long as you can, and when you need a new one, encourage new green technology by buying green.



Posted from Green America
—Tracy Fernandez Rysavy

Solutions from the Green Economy

Everyone now understands that the economy is broken.

While many name the mortgage and credit-default-swap crises as culprits, they are only the most recent indicators of an economy with fatal design flaws. Our economy has long been based on what economist Herman Daly calls “uneconomic growth” where increases in the GDP come at an expense in resources and well-being that is worth more than the goods and services provided. When GNP growth exacerbates social and environmental problems—from sweatshop labor to manufacturing toxic chemicals—every dollar of GNP growth reduces well-being for people and the planet, and we’re all worse off.

Our fatally flawed economy creates economic injustice, poverty, and environmental crises. It doesn’t have to be that way. We can create a green economy: one that serves people and the planet and offers antidotes to the current breakdown.
Here are six green-economy solutions to today’s economic mess.

1. Green Energy—Green Jobs
A crucial starting place to rejuvenate our economy is to focus on energy. It’s time to call in the superheroes of the green energy revolution—energy efficiency, solar and wind power, and plug-in hybrids—and put their synergies to work with rapid, large-scale deployment. This is a powerful way to jumpstart the economy, spur job creation (with jobs that can’t be outsourced), declare energy independence, and claim victory over the climate crisis.

2. Clean Energy Victory Bonds
How are we going to pay for this green energy revolution? We at Green America propose Clean Energy Victory Bonds. Modeled after victory bonds in World War II, Americans would buy these bonds from the federal government to invest in large-scale deployment of green energy projects, with particular emphasis in low-income communities hardest hit by the broken economy. These would be long-term bonds, paying an annual interest rate, based in part on the energy and energy savings that the bonds generate. During WWII, 85 million Americans bought over $185 billion in bonds—that would be almost $2 trillion in today’s dollars.

3. Reduce, Reuse, Rethink

Living lightly on the Earth, saving resources and money, and sharing (jobs, property, ideas, and opportunities) are crucial principles for restructuring our economy. This economic breakdown is, in part, due to living beyond our means—as a nation and as individuals. With the enormous national and consumer debt weighing us down, we won’t be able to spend our way out of this economic problem. Ultimately, we need an economy that’s not dependent on unsustainable growth and consumerism. So it’s time to rethink our over-consumptive lifestyles, and turn to the principles of elegant simplicity, such as planting gardens, conserving energy, and working cooperatively with our neighbors to share resources and build resilient communities.

4. Go Green and Local
When we do buy, it is essential that those purchases benefit the green and local economy—so that every dollar helps solve social and environmental problems, not create them. Our spending choices matter. We can support our local communities by moving dollars away from conventional agribusiness and big-box stores and toward supporting local workers, businesses, and organic farmers, and companies that are doing good for the environment.

5. Community Investing
All over the country, community investing banks, credit unions, and loan funds that serve hard-hit communities are strong, while the biggest banks required bailouts. The basic principles of community investing keep such institutions strong: Lenders and borrowers know each other. Lenders invest in the success of their borrowers—with training and technical assistance along with loans. And the people who provide the capital to the lenders expect reasonable, not speculative, returns. If all banks followed these principles, the economy wouldn’t be in the mess it’s in today.

6. Shareowner Activism
When you own stock, you have the right and responsibility to advise management to clean up its act. Had GM listened to shareholders warning that relying on SUVs would be its downfall, it would have invested in greener technologies, and would not have needed a bailout. Had CitiGroup listened to its shareowners, it would have avoided the faulty mortgage practices that brought it to its knees. Engaged shareholders are key to reforming conventional companies for the transition to this new economy – the green economy that we are building together.

It’s time to move from greed to green.



Posted from Green America
--Alisa Gravitz

The Power of “1 Acre”

“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.”
– Native American Proverb

As the central message and principal cause of Save Your World’s conservation goals are based upon “1 Product = 1 Acre of Rainforest Saved for 1 Year”, we believe our customers should have a more thorough, vividly realized portrait of what “1 Acre” means in this ever-changing world.

What Is the Measure of “1 Acre”?

When considering an accurate determination for what 1 Acre could be, remember 1 Acre is a unit of measure used to express or define an area of land, and therefore has no particular width, length, or definable shape – it can be round, square, polygon, etc.

According to the ever-expanding online resource, Wikipedia, “one international acre is equal to 4,047 square meters”, or approximately 4,840 square yards. To give U.S. customers an idea, that’s 93 yards of a 100-yard long football field, given the NFL’s standard 50-yard width dimensions.

Other measures of the area of 1 Acre could be:

One/Half (1/2) New York City block = 1 Acre
Three (3) high-school gymnasiums = 1 Acre
Four (4) Olympic swimming pools = 1 Acre
One-Thousand (1000) king-size beds = 1 Acre

What Is the Value of “1 Acre”?

Beyond the simplified comparison between an NFL field and the size of 1 Acre, here are a few clarifying descriptions and comparisons.

The word “acre” is derived from Old English æcer, originally meaning "open field", which is similar to the German Acker, Latin ager, and Greek αγρος, or “agros,” as in “agriculture.” The “acre,” as originally determined, was approximately the amount of land tillable by one man behind one ox in one day. One man, one ox, one day equals 1 Acre.

1 man + 1 ox + 1 day = 1 Acre

In the valuation of property, how the U.S. dollar trades for 1 Acre of land can vary widely, depending on the location of the land. For instance, 1 Acre of oceanfront property in sunny Malibu Beach, California goes for around $3 million per acre, whereas 1 Acre of riverfront property along the Rio Grande in west Texas goes for around $60 per acre.

$3,000,000 USD + Malibu, Ca. = 1 Acre or $60 USD + Lajitas, Tx. = 1 Acre


What Is the “Value” of Save Your World’s Land Acreage?

With Save Your World, we want to have a different valuation of land acreage. Rather than assessing its importance for development, business, or tourism, Save Your World measures the value of our land acreage for its sustainable, ecologically sound environment supporting indigenous people and native flora, fauna, and wildlife.

Guyana Wildlife

For instance, in Guyana’s Upper Essequibo region, we found an opportunity we feel fortunate with because of the genuine eco-value of Guyana’s land and resources. Over three-quarters of Guyana’s landmass are made up of forest, and about 60% of that is classified as primary or “old growth” forest. This is significant for its biodiversity and eco-value.

1 “Save Your World” Acre = Primary Forest!

Primary forest is a forest that is of superior age and growth maturity, possessing diversified and unique biological features. Because of the older age and height of many trees within old growth, primary forests, they are often more shaded than other types of forests.

Primary forests are unique, and usually have intricate, highly evolved layers of vegetation, with myriad species and aging of trees. To consider an accurate “value” of these lands would be difficult. In terms of their ecological importance, primary forests are truly “priceless” – valued beyond standard real-estate assessments. What is of upmost value and importance to Save Your World is the conservation of our planet’s primary forest stands.

Deforestation and Destruction

Primary forests are threatened by habitat destruction due to massively destructive logging and clear-cut logging activity, which reduces biodiversity both in terms of decreasing the amount of primary forest and habitat that remain on the planet as well as the destruction and, therefore, reduction in the level of remaining native or indigenous species living within primary forest habitat.

Guyana's primary forests are highly diverse: the country has some 1,263 known species of amphibians, birds, mammals, and reptiles, and 6,409 species of plants. According to an assessment by the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), the forests in Guyana can be classified as follows: wet evergreen (36%), montane (35%), swamp and marsh (15%), dry evergreen (7%), seasonal (6%), and mangrove (1%).

1 Acre = 1 World

As you might imagine, we believe you can help us to Save Your World -- 1 Acre at a time. Failing to preserve rainforests like the Guyana Reserve and their plants and animals can lead to their extinction. These plants and animals may have unknown medicinal qualities that would be lost forever if they died out.

Although a quarter (25%) of Western pharmaceuticals contain ingredients from plant sources, only 1% of rainforest plants have even been tested for medicinal value. Protecting the rainforest keeps these valuable resources intact and prevents further loss of species.

The destruction of rainforests over the next 25 years is predicted to wipe out or endanger almost half the world’s animals, plants, and microorganisms. 1 Acre of primary forest in Save Your World’s Guyana Reserve can support up to 500 trees! That’s why it’s so important we do what we can to reverse these actions and take necessary measures, such as those implemented in our Upper Essequibo Conservation Concession through partnerships with Conservation International.

Our Conservation Mission

In 2006, a group of family and friends joined together to create Guyana Reserve with the Save Your World project. The mission of this organization is to provide financial support for and create public awareness around conserving our world’s natural resources.

By purchasing our products, you are contributing to the Save Your World project, a partnership with Conservation International and the Government of Guyana Forestry Commission. The project secures rainforest habitat that would have been leased by mining or logging companies. Every purchase you make helps protect one whole acre of dwindling habitat, thus keeping it in its pristine condition:

1 Product = 1 Acre of Rainforest Saved for 1 Year.

Do your part today and reverse humankind’s acts of destruction by making a purchase of Save Your World products where “1 Product = 1 Acre of Rainforest Saved for 1 Year”. It’s just like a carbon calculator only better, as you get great all-natural products while reversing negative effects on the environment by saving rainforest acres.

1, 4-dioxane – Not a Part of Our Products

The recent discovery of the toxicant carcinogen 1,4-dioxane in several well-known body care and household cleaning products has become a topic of true concern for companies like Save Your World, operating in the organic and naturally produced product industry.

Save Your World supports and encourages a comprehensive review of the industry’s standards of practice and production and has gone so far as to initiate its own independently financed inventory of the formulaic content of its products. The comprehensive examination measured down to the one-part-per-million (1PPM) level, far exceeding any watchdog or federal standard for testing, and showed conclusively that Save Your World’s products are free from the toxicant.

Thus, Save Your World states clearly:

1,4-dioxane is not a part of our products.

Quality products that support a healthy, naturally fortified, wholly sustainable life – incorporating modern methods of diet, hygiene and wellness – are what Save Your World hopes to offer its customers. In this age of modern enlightenment and the ubiquitous Internet, people are truly empowered to understand what constitutes a smart, healthy, informed purchase. This heightened awareness has allowed regular consumers to discover and eventually purchase quality services and healthy products. Save Your World encourages informed skepticism and consumer awareness and welcomes consumer advocacy as a benefit to its burgeoning industry.

More than ever, consumers are concerned with exactly what is in their favorite healthy products, posing such questions as, “What’s really in those ‘organic’ chicken tenders?” and, “Is this fruity, ‘natural’ shampoo actually good for my hair and health?” Much to the credit of consumer advocacy groups such as the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) and the Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics (CCIC), consumers are entering a new era of corporate accountability and product integrity. Consumers are calling for a fuller declaration of ingredients and manufacturing processes by companies producing “organic” and “natural” products.
To make matters more disconcerting for these companies, in March of 2008 the Attorney General of California, acting on both independent (OCA) and state-funded research, filed a lawsuit against companies whose products tested highest for the 1,4-dioxane toxicant. According to a subsequent article by the Los Angeles Times, “…tests of 100 ‘natural’ and ‘organic’ soaps, shampoos and other consumer products show that nearly half of them contained [1,4-dioxane] … a byproduct of petrochemicals used in manufacturing.”

The toxicant, which is not an ingredient but a contaminant from the manufacturing process, has been identified by the EPA as a probable human carcinogen for having caused cancer in lab animals. Under California’s Proposition 65, and in line with the EPA’s findings, “consumer products that contain toxic levels of 1,4-dioxane must have warning labels stating that they may cause cancer.”

The dilemma with these companies is they may actually be diluting the purity of their “organic” and “natural” products in their processes and efforts to bring a high-quality, yet affordable product to market. In their efforts to save a dollar, the healthful, natural quality of their products has been sullied, and the entire industry is taking a closer look at what may be a larger problem.
To understand this dilemma, a brief history of the organic and natural products industry is necessary. Fifty years or so ago, a few imaginative, health-conscious manufacturers brought their organic and natural products to market, essentially blazing a path as industry pioneers. As was their intent, these products were able to live up to their healthy billing, and seized a previously untapped market share. Though there were no definitive regulatory practices in place, the “natural” essence of their products and their healthful intent were genuine.

Fast forward to the ’eighties and ’nineties, when a slew of “natural” and “organic” manufacturers began to enter the market. The human processes necessary to bring “natural” and “organic” products to market are just that – made by humans. With “bottom line” and “shareholder equity” replacing favored policies of “sustainability,” “eco-conscious,” and “enviro-friendly,” corners were cut, and healthful quality appears to have suffered. These companies may have attempted to bring high-quality, healthy, wholesome products to market, but are failing in the end. Save Your World hopes to bring quality and accountability back to the forefront of this industry.

The general consensus on the subject – among government, watchdog, scientific and wholesale officials – is 1,4-dioxane is not intentionally added to these products. Tests indicate the toxic compound is a byproduct of the human process used to soften harsh detergents. It is formed when “surfactants,” or foaming agents, are processed with certain petrochemicals. The process is intended to make products gentle, smooth, clean, fresh and dynamic, but some of these formulas generate less than favorable results.

The federal government’s Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry releases what it calls ToxFAQs™, with the stated intention being “a series of summaries about hazardous substances and their health effects.” The September 2007 ToxFAQs™ for 1,4-dioxane describes the toxicant as a “trace contaminant of some chemicals used in cosmetics, detergents, and shampoos,” with manufacturers being required to reduce these “chemicals to low levels before these chemicals are made into products used in the home.”

Save Your World advises families wanting to avoid products containing 1,4-dioxane to do so by reviewing and recognizing the following ingredients required to appear on the outer container labels offered for retail sale: “PEG,” “polyethylene,” “polyethylene glycol,” “polyoxyethylene,” or “polyoxynolethylene.” Many products on the market today contain 1,4-dioxane in minute, immeasurable amounts.

It’s not as alarming as some may imagine, with many solidly imagined and well-designed products exceeding national health standards. Only companies selling products that tested close to or in excess of 20 parts per million (20PPM) for 1,4-dioxane in the OCA study were named in the lawsuit, with Save Your World testing negative for 1,4-dioxane all the way below the 1PPM level, effectively demonstrating our product purity. That said, the California lawsuit has become an important measure of the true condition of this burgeoning industry.

Indeed, with major players being forced to inventory certain product-line formulas, some companies announced shortly after the March 2008 lawsuit that they would be reformulating their products to ensure removal of the problematic ingredient or any faulty formula. This may be the kind of opportunity necessary for the “organic” and “natural” products industry to embolden its efforts at improving and reimagining healthy products, while bettering our environment.

Some forward-thinking companies like Save Your World, even though it is neither mentioned nor named in any of these salacious charges, are taking a voluntary stance to prove the purity and wholesome quality of their products. This kind of action is in lieu of more definitive regulatory guidance, as much of this industry operates outside any regulation or concrete standard. Save Your World, though, is asking for just that – more specific regulations and standards.

Save Your World has partnered with many organizations –the Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics (CCIC), the “Leaping Bunny” certification program, the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), the Organic Trade Association (OTA), and the Natural Products Association, for instance – to embrace oversight and regulation. These watchdog groups are free to support or refute any company’s claims of being “organic” and “natural,” as well as “sustainable,” “eco-conscious” and “carbon footprint free.” Some of these companies are joining with Save Your World’s campaign to improve overall product quality for the consumer while sustaining a viable and beneficial plan to nurture and conserve natural resources. An issue like 1,4-dioxane is simply a great way for them to shed more light on their cleanliness and natural goodness, to employ an apt turn of phrase.

One initiative for change is the “Compact for Safe Cosmetics,” which has been signed by Save Your World and several other personal care and beauty product companies. The stated goal of the signed compact is “to reduce hazardous chemicals that are prevalent in our bodies, our environment and in the personal care products we use daily.” The OCA offers anyone the opportunity to join the more than 500 companies and thousands of consumers who support its “Coming Clean Campaign” – one to rid the marketplace of synthetic personal care products misleadingly labeled as “organic.”

One major distributor of Save Your World’s products, Whole Foods Market, has a high-quality measure for its personal care products. Its criteria, called “Whole Body Quality Standards,” calls to mind these types of issues. Among those criteria are “plant-based and naturally derived ingredients, pure essential oil fragrances, gentle preservatives, and non-petroleum ingredients.” In addition, vendors like Save Your World are required to offer products free of animal testing. Save Your World is proud of its policies for following premium, industry-leading standards for minimally processed, preservative-free products.

A healthy, naturally fortified, whole life is what many consumers seek, with a large percentage demanding full disclosure of ingredients and manufacturing processes by companies producing “organic” and “natural” products. Save Your World supports this kind of awareness. This is a new era of manufacturing accountability and corporate responsibility. 1,4-dioxane need not be a bane to companies in the organic and naturally produced product industries, but rather a nod to human error and an indication of a better world in the works.

Save Your World wants to help better your world, one product at a time.
_________________________

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts187.html

http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/products/whole-body-standards.php

The Two-Headed Palm Oil Monster

Save Your World has entered the fight against a two-headed monster threatening to destroy our world. In this case, the monster is the sweet, sticky sap and pulp from tropical palm trees in the world’s lush rainforests. Indeed, it’s the two-headed nature of the burgeoning global Palm Oil trade that speaks to a classic work of literature with a similar theme, Robert Louis Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. At once good and evil, the main character struggles to find his inner peace and find a balanced understanding of the seemingly dual nature of his existence.

No doubt, humans are capable of vividly imaginative methods of creation as well as maddening propositions for destruction. The comparison between Palm Oil and a fictitious mad scientist seems accurate because the Palm Oil business has found difficulty achieving a working relationship between ecology (good) and economy (evil). In the unfolding drama of this seesaw battle, the future of Palm Oil and the Earth’s climate have become central characters, each weighing heavily on the conscious of green-minded consumers and industries worldwide.
Originally excavated from the jungles of Western Africa for use in the industrialized Europe of the mid-18th century, Palm Oil has surpassed soybean oil as the most widely produced vegetable oil in the world. Palm Oil and its derivatives have become important in the manufacture of soaps, washing powders, personal care products, and – to the dismay of many environmental watchdogs – an unfavorable source for biofuel.

The demand for Palm Oil and its byproducts is indicative of the rise of consumers “green” purchasing trends and an overall expansion of the “green,” “organic,” and “natural” markets. Companies like Save Your World are looking to find the best possible ingredients for their products, and Palm Oil is a healthful, readily available, affordable component in their current formulas and ongoing research and development. The difference for Save Your World is our desire to trace the source of our Palm Oil directly to its origin, with the Philippines providing the entirety of our sustainable, fair-trade Palm Oil.

In the underdeveloped countries of Indonesia and Malaysia – who provide 86% of the world’s Palm Oil supply – the cultivation of this “green gold” has been a tremendous boon to these poverty stricken countries still reeling from the catastrophic tsunami of 2004. Global demand for Palm Oil has boosted the overall economy of these countries and provided a working capital to build roads, schools, and bridges, as well as new villages and communities.

What appears rather benign on the surface has another side, the other face, that speaks volumes to the growing frenzy of these countries’ desire to gain their share of the 21st century’s global economy. Clear-cutting of entire rainforests – some of the most pristine, bio-diverse, ecologically important in the world – has become commonplace as a means to create growth territory for expanding Palm Oil plantations. More land, more plantations, more Palm Oil.
As a consequence, the broad, heavy-handed destruction of these forests has become a critical issue for global concern. For Save Your World, the solution to this dilemma appears rooted in a cooperative, regulated, and transparent “good governance” plan of action, which can both support the industry as well as prevent continued rainforest and environmental destruction.
With an emergence of the alternative-fuel market in the recent decade, some companies have found Palm Oil to be – as with its veggie-oil business model – a cheap alternative to more expensive, lesser quality sources. But the means by which Palm Oil becomes available to consumers is of paramount concern, and the facts and figures appear to paint a picture of the most severe ecological threat of this new century. Some estimates claim a total loss of these rainforest regions in the next ten years.

To make matters worse, this forest clearing isn't the worst aspect of this dilemma. In the region of Indonesia, Malaysia, and Borneo, dense tropical rainforests areas grow on peat-moss swamps – mostly decaying bio-matter from generations of tropical foliage and fauna. These peat-moss forests, or peatland, are cleared and burned to create viable growth areas for Palm Oil plantations. Not unlike the rampant deforestation of other timber areas, the technique is common and marginally accepted under regulated conditions.

However, the carbon-based materials that make up these soggy-bottom peatland areas are a major pollutant when they are scorched for clearing. According to a recent article in National Geographic, “Carbon released by decaying peat soil, fires, and deforestation has pushed Indonesia into the third place among nations as a source of greenhouse gases, behind only heavily industrialized China and the United States.” The information for this assertion is readily available in a jointly sponsored 2007 report by the British government and the World Bank. As startling as this may sound, it is old news, and the problem is growing larger by the day with the Palm Oil industry continuing to explode as the central revenue product for these countries. Again, Save Your World has found other viable opportunities exist for Palm Oil production in sustainable, fair-trade countries, like the Philippines and Brazil.

The real irony of this ecological dilemma is recently released data by Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace showing “that forests and peatlands that are replaced as Palm Oil plantations release more carbon dioxide than is saved by burning biofuels instead of diesel.” With its detrimental effects, what should be a benefit to the world in the form of healthier oil has become a bane. Under intense pressure from the United Nations, Greenpeace, and the World Bank, the Indonesian government under President Yudhoyono has enacted small measures to curtail deforestation and peatland burning. Most critics say this is diplomatic posturing and will not result in favorable changes.
The Kyoto Protocol was revised in the United Nations Climate Change Conference December 2007 meeting in Bali, more directly addressing the issue of deforestation for industries like Palm Oil production. The overwhelming majority found that necessary components must be implemented to prevent further destruction and harmful emissions. There are numerous conservation initiatives to assist this plan of action – like the conservation incentive agreements Save Your World utilizes for its Guyanese conservation leases.

In the Bali meetings, a new acronym, REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation) became the talking point of activists seeking to make an impact instead of continuing the perpetual negotiating dance of diplomats. Many supporters see it as the last best opportunity and hope to save some of the world’s most pristine, invaluable rainforests. REDD offers a chance for developed, wealthy nations to put their money where there mouth is, to use a commercial jingle. It’s a chance to secure our climate’s future.

Concerned agencies, nations, and companies like Save Your World can combat climate change by paying for the conservation of large, priceless areas of tropical rainforests. If the Palm Oil industry is built upon the value of its future, strategic financial action can supplement that future money while preventing continued catastrophic results. There’s certainly a price to pay, but it appears the value far outweighs the cost.
There are other imaginative ideas for conservation, many leading down the same path: cooperation with governments, regions, countries, and communities in the form of financial support. Some have sought stop-point action. The San Francisco, Ca., based Rainforest Action Network issued a pledge in October 2008 to “support a moratorium on the expansion of palm oil plantations into tropical forests.” The pledge has been signed by more than thirty leading consumer and cosmetic-goods companies, with dozens more being gently pressured to join.
A few companies have led the trend for forward-thinking Palm Oil production. AgroPalma Group is an example of how the ecology-economy system can reap valuable benefits in the area of rainforest conservation. AgroPalma’s efforts in the Amazonian regions have produced favorable results and can demonstrate a viable, sustainable solution for the continued production of Palm Oil. Policies such as reforestation, recycling, and habitat management have allowed the forests to survive and even thrive with a renewed vigor.

Greenpeace has produced its own version of the REDD, called a Tropical Deforestation Emission Reduction Mechanism (TDERM). The stated intent of the activist group’s deforestation initiative is to provide “financing needed to help protect the world’s remaining tropical rainforests by reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries.” Again, Greenpeace recognizes the built-in ecology-economy relationship and aims to thwart destruction by supplementing its fuel source: money.

Save Your World’s conservation partner, Conservation International, has a slogan they use to gain consumer attention to their cause: “Lost There, Felt Here.” The words are matched with an image of depleted rainforest in the shape of human lungs – the image speaks to the corrosive, catastrophic impact of industry on our climate. This Palm Oil issue is a focal point for Save Your World’s initiatives because it can make headway into a more difficult issue – how to effectively involve underdeveloped nations and regions in saving our world instead of building their economies.

The two-headed monster is not going away, and Save Your World recognizes it’s truly a time to gain some insight and make some decisions. In Stevenson’s classic story, the evil Mr. Hyde ended his life and the story with a nod for human compassion. Unfortunately, the Palm Oil industry is here to stay, but it’s also necessary to take action to ensure rainforests and our climate remain as well. With good governance, conscious conservation, and measured maintenance, a well-designed plan can help meld the good, ecology, with the bad, economy, allowing the two-headed monster to become a single, viable, sustainable, healthful industry for years and generations to come.
_______________________
Malaysian Palm Oil Board (2008): http://econ.mpob.gov.my/economy/EID_web.htm
“Borneo’s Moment of Truth”; Mel White, National Geographic Magazine: Nov. ‘08
Borneo’s Moment of Truth”; Mel White, National Geographic Magazine: Nov. ‘08
Greenpeace (2007): http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/palm-oil_cooking-the-climate
Rainforest Action Network (2008): www.cms.ran.org/media_center/news_article/?uid=4776
“Forest for Climate”; Thies and Czebiniak, Greenpeace: November 2008