Archive for the ‘Green Business’ Category

Time for Reform

Of more than 80,000 chemicals used in the U.S. over the last few decades, only about 200 have been required to get tested for safety. And only one group of chemicals – PCBs – has ever been fully banned.

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), America’s main law governing chemical safety, requires the government prove chemicals are harmful instead of requiring manufacturers to prove they’re safe. As a result, virtually every American is exposed to hundreds of toxic chemicals every day.

We recently had the opportunity to speak with two EDF scientists in this field: Richard Denison, EDF’s Senior Scientist specializing in policy, hazard and risk assessment and management for industrial chemicals and nanomaterials; and Caroline Baier-Anderson, EDF’s Health Scientist providing technical and scientific support on chemical regulatory policy, air toxics and nanotechnology.

EDF: Toxics have been an issue for a long time. Why is it finally getting attention on a larger scale?

Richard Denison: I think what’s brought it to the forefront now is a drumbeat of high-profile stories over the last few years that vividly illustrate the failing of government in ensuring the safety of chemicals. These include the widespread exposure to formaldehyde of people who were forced to live in trailers provided by FEMA after hurricane Katrina; the steady flow of imported toys and other products from China that are contaminated with lead or other heavy metals; contamination of pet food with a chemical that killed dogs and cats; and probably most recently and most visibly the inability of government to regulate a chemical — bisphenol A (or BPA) — that has been used extremely widely in food can linings, baby bottles, infant formula cans and many other products.

Caroline Baier-Anderson: These products are governed by various laws and agencies; the regulatory patchwork is complicated, but the bottom line message is simple: Chemicals and consumer products made from them are not being properly regulated by our federal government. The Toxic Substances Control Act is in most dire need of an overhaul.

RD: Part of the problem is that we have isolated different types of chemicals, or even the same chemical in different uses, across different agency jurisdictions. BPA, when it finds its way into a baby bottle or a food can, is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but that same chemical when it shows up in a cash register receipt could be regulated by EPA under TSCA. Nobody has been charged with looking at the big picture: all of the sources of exposure to a chemical. We think that EPA should have that authority under TSCA because it was envisioned as being an all-encompassing law that would help to fill the gaps in other laws and be able to consider the full life cycle of the chemical across all of its uses.

CBA: As you can imagine, if you have a chemical that is being used in dozens of different products regulated by different agencies, it is incredibly difficult to pull all the information together in one place to make rational decisions about how a chemical should be used. I think under a reformed TSCA that’s exactly the kind of authority EPA needs.

EDF: So what factors are driving the momentum for TSCA reform we see now?

RD: In the absence of action by the Federal Government, many states in the US have either banned individual uses of certain chemicals or enacted their own policy changes in order to deal with chemicals within their own borders. That always brings industry to the table at a federal level because they don’t like individual states having different laws that they argue interfere with commerce.

Much of the rest of the world is already ahead of us in dealing with this problem as well. The European Union recently enacted sweeping reform of its chemicals legislation, and that is changing the landscape because it is essentially becoming a set of global standards. Anyone who sells chemicals in Europe, which is just about every company that produces chemicals on the globe, has to comply with this new policy.

And finally, and probably most important, the downstream users of chemicals—companies that buy chemicals and put them in their products or that buy or sell products that contain chemicals—are demanding more information and more evidence of safety. That customer demand is the major factor driving chemical producers, for the first time ever, to say it’s time for us to modernize and reform TSCA.

CBA: Information about what products chemicals are being used in is not systematically collected, not by EPA, not by FDA, not by anybody, so it took a lot of years of digging and a lot of groundwork on the part of many different individuals representing non-profits and the press to explain the problems we’re now seeing. And the scientific understanding of chemical effects has advanced in recent years: We now recognize that some chemicals can have adverse impacts during early human development or at very low levels of exposure, and those findings have served to heighten the concern.

RD: We now know that all of us carry hundreds of synthetic chemicals in our bodies; indeed, even newborn infants come into the world with hundreds of synthetic chemicals in their bodies because of exposure of their mothers before or during pregnancy. That is a huge wake-up call. For example, BPA is found in 93% of Americans’ bodies—a staggering revelation that has made everybody begin to wonder, is BPA safe? And if it’s in combination with hundreds of other chemicals in my body, what about the interactions and the synergies between those chemicals?

CBA: No one would have predicted 20 years ago that we would be exposed to BPA like that. It’s really hard for a scientist, even an industry scientist, to stand up and say, “Oh, I’m sure it’s fine.” No one is going to believe that. No one is going to accept that. So, you have fetal exposures to hundreds of chemicals—there is something fundamentally wrong with a system that allows that to happen.

RD: When TSCA was first passed over 30 years ago, it may have seemed logical to assume that we weren’t going to be exposed to these chemicals, or they wouldn’t be harmful to us if we were. But once we realized that we are all being exposed, it was surprising how little information we had about the safety of these chemicals. So that’s why we are calling for a shift in the burden of proof from the presumption that most chemicals are safe and puts the onus on government—and hence the public—to have to prove harm in order to act, to a new approach that requires companies to demonstrate the safety of their products as a condition for entering or staying on the market.

EDF: You mentioned earlier that humans have hundreds of different chemicals in their bodies. Is this more of a problem in the U.S. right now, or internationally as well?

CBA: We know that Europeans are similarly exposed, although we also know that where Europe has taken precautionary action on certain chemicals, there are measurable reductions in their body burden compared to what we have in the US. This is particularly true for chemicals like flame retardants, where the exposures are still very, very high in the US and they’re actually going down in parts of Europe because they phased these chemicals out well before we began to take action on them. Beyond the U.S. and Europe, since a lot of our hazardous materials and waste gets shipped overseas, that’s an open question and an important one.

RD: Certain chemicals, especially those that are very persistent in the environment and tend to build up in the environment or people’s bodies, are being found far removed from the industrialized parts of the world. Some of the highest levels of brominated flame retardants found in any people have been found in native Alaskans, who subsist on a diet that consists of large amounts of fish and other food sources that accumulate chemicals. So, we know that these chemicals don’t stay put, they tend to migrate long distances, and populations that are not exposed to those chemicals industrially or even through product use are showing some of the highest levels. So we know we have a problem that is global in nature.

EDF: You mentioned the FEMA trailers in New Orleans earlier, and how the materials used to build them was brought in by China. But it wouldn’t be legal to sell that wood in China, is that correct?

RD: The Chinese producers of pressed wood products, including plywood, produce different grades of products for export to different countries. Because Europe and Japan, and now California, have stringent limits on formaldehyde in such products, they produce a line of products that can be sold into those markets. The rest of the U.S. has no such limit and that is how the high-formaldehyde plywood came into the U.S. and was used in making the FEMA trailers. China itself has imposed limits on the emission of formaldehyde from such products. So the products they are selling to the U.S. could not even be sold for domestic use in China.

EDF: Is there anything the average person can do to avoid toxic chemicals?

CBA: Yes, there are products like shampoo and dish soap and laundry detergent that market themselves as being made with safer chemical ingredients, and a variety of eco logos are on products that have been certified as being made with safer chemical ingredients. It becomes a little more challenging when we talk about the big-ticket items such as carpeting and furniture and mattresses and things like that—these are products that we live with for many years. Companies like IKEA, which is based in Sweden, have made an effort to remove many known chemicals of concern from their products. So safer products are out there, they are available, but they are hard to find and often it can be really confusing to the average consumer. Ultimately the solution is regulatory reform so that we have standards in place that protect all citizens.

RD: Even the most informed and motivated individual consumers are limited in what they can do to protect themselves, in part because most products are not required to disclose their ingredients. Some companies have taken voluntary efforts to label their products. But what we really need is a more uniform system that requires companies to disclose which chemicals are in their products. Ultimately though, it should not be up to individual consumers to take steps to protect themselves. We need government to provide the policies and regulations needed to ensure that chemicals in products and in widespread use are safe.

EDF: Tell us about what’s happening with the TSCA bill. Is there anything the average person can do to help put pressure on the government to reform this bill?

RD: The US Congress is for the first time in many decades seriously considering new legislation that would reform the Toxic Substances Control Act. A bill was introduced in both Houses back in 2008, and that Bill is being updated and expanded considerably. We expect it could be introduced into the House of the Senate as soon as this month. We are hopeful that bill will signal the beginning of a legislative debate that will culminate in passage of legislation that reforms TSCA in a fundamental way.

People need to get informed about what the issues and needs are for a good chemicals policy; and then weigh in with their legislators to let them know that they care about this issue, that they want strong and fundamental reform, and that they will vote accordingly and support Members of Congress that support strong reform. One source of information is the website of a broad coalition of health, environmental and labor groups that EDF is part of, called the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families coalition: www.saferchemicals.org.

CBA: And I want to make a pitch for the consumer to seek out products that are made with safer chemicals. Even though it is hard to do and it can be confusing, it sends an important message to retailers and to manufacturers that there is a consumer interest in products made with safer chemicals. Reducing your body burden even by a little bit can make a difference, but I think the most important reason to seek out products made with safer chemicals is the incentive it provides to retailers and manufacturers. Often representatives from companies I communicate with say that they are not seeing sufficient demand for safer products at the retail level. By letting them know that we do care, we can play an important role in pressing for change.

EDF: EDF is known for taking a transformational approach to policy. What is the core transformational idea here?

RD: The cornerstone of what we are seeking in chemical policy reform is to create the conditions that allow the market to function. I would argue that we have a very dysfunctional market right now, for two reasons. One, the vast majority of chemicals have little or no information about their safety; that means that the millions of decisions that get made every day about chemicals, by everyone from individual consumers all the way up to huge companies, are ill-informed and don’t adequately account for safety because the information isn’t there. If we have a policy that drives the development and propagation of that information, the market itself will be able to make much better decisions. Second, we also need a government that is able to differentiate between a safe chemical and an unsafe chemical and has the resources and authority needed to drive the market towards safer chemicals and safer products. That’s the kind of fundamental transformation that I think we need.

EDF: Do you have a positive outlook on how this will end up?

RD: We have new leadership in the Administration and at EPA that has acknowledged the priority that this issue needs; and that’s a significant departure from the past. With the executive branch acknowledging that time has come for change, that helps the legislative process to move along in a way that often doesn’t happen if those two branches of government are at odds with each other. So I think for the first time in many years, we have stars aligning in a way that makes it quite likely we’ll get the first fundamental reform of this law in more than three decades.

Not long ago, connoisseurs scoffed at organic wines, after early experiments produced some less than appealing results. But concerns about the environmental and health effects of synthetic fertilizers and vineyard pesticides have led many growers to go organic or biodynamic, and, not least because of methods that enrich the soil, many of these vintages have first-rate quality and taste.

Third Party Certification

Organic: Certified Organic wines are made entirely of organic ingredients and processed without synthetic agents. Organic wine producers claim that it helps produce flavorful wines: Flourishing soil microorganisms and careful attention to the health of the vines, they claim, make a great contribution to taste. Organic wines contain no added sulfites (though some may exist in the wine naturally), which make them better for those with sulfite allergies.

Wines labeled “made with organic grapes” must be made from certified organic grapes but don’t adhere to the same rigorous processing standards.

Wines from California can be certified sustainable, which takes environmental, economic, and social factors into account. The certification is designed to be broader than other certification programs and allow for regional differences in the best sustainable practices. The certification label is not allowed on bottles yet, but you can see if the wine is certified on its Web site or other promotional materials.

Biodynamic: Biodynamic agriculture is an approach to farming that emphasizes the relationships between soil, plants, animals and astrological elements (for instance, planting crops according to the lunar calendar). Like organic, biodynamic farming restricts the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers and promotes responsible farming practices, such as implementing energy saving techniques and preserving high-value conservation areas like rain forests.

“LIVE” and “Salmon Safe”: LIVE, the “Low Input Viticulture and Enology” label currently certifies vineyards in Oregon and Washington that utilize natural resources like native insects and pest-deterring plants to reduce reliance on chemical pesticides. “Salmon Safe,” another certification applied to vineyards in the Northwest, ensures that farmers use agricultural practices, such as planting trees, growing cover crops and applying natural pest control methods, that don’t harm salmon habitats.

By Emily Main

About $200 million worth of roses sold in the U.S. are grown out of the country, mostly in Central and Latin America, where toxic pesticides are common and protective equipment for workers is scarce. But you can be just as conscientious about your flower purchases as you are about your food and wine.

Just like food, local flowers are your best alternative, provided you live in a warm climate where flowers grow year-round. If not, keep your eyes out for these independent certifications:

VeriFlora Certified
Administered by the independent and reliable Scientific Certification Systems, Veriflora requires farmers to use as little chemicals and as many organic farming practices as possible and to farm the land in ways that enhance biodiversity (for instance, implementing buffer zones near waterways and using native cover plants). The certification also protects against illegal child labor and requires meeting local minimum wage laws.

GG Product Pick: OrganicStyle.com is the most comprehensive resource for VeriFlora-certified bouquets. Combine Valentine’s Day and Black History Month with the “One Dozen Freedom: A Rose in Honor of Rosa Parks” bouquet, and 10 percent of the proceeds go to the Rosa and Raymond Parks Foundation for Self Development ($59.95).

Fair Trade Certified
Fair Trade certification puts more stress on worker rights, ensuring that growers are not only paid a fair wage but that ten percent of their profits are re-invested back into the community. Growers are also trained to handle agrochemicals safely and to reduce the need for hazardous chemicals with organic farming practices.

GG Product Pick: 1800Flowers.com sells a variety of Fair Trade Certified bouquets from $39.99 and up, but also check your local Sam’s Club (and www.samsclub.com). They added flowers to their Fair Trade offerings last year.

Certified Organic
As with organic food, certified-organic flowers are grown without synthetic, petroleum-based pesticides or fertilizers. Although the certification doesn’t have any fair-wage protections, you’re more likely to find certified organic flowers grown in the U.S., which cuts down on their carbon footprint (most VeriFlora and Fair Trade Certified flowers are grown in South America).

GG Product Pick: California Organic Flowers’ Cupid’s Delight bouquet with red anemone, red and white dianthus and rosemary is a nice departure from the standard bunch of roses ($54.95; www.californiaorganicflowers.com). Also check out Diamond Organics organic seasonal-flower bouquet ($69; www.diamondorganics.com).

The FDA Changes Its Tune on Bisphenol-A

by Joe Dickson, January 19th, 2010 | Permalink | Email this

Bisphenol-A (BPA) is a chemical used to make plastics and other materials used in many food packaging applications, from can linings to baby bottles (see Joe’s last post on BPA for some background). Many working on the BPA issue for years were quite surprised on Friday to learn that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had changed its position on the chemical, admitting for the first time that they, too, have questions about its safety. For as long as they’ve had a position on BPA, the FDA’s position has been that it’s safe and suitable for food contact. With this announcement, the FDA admits that “on the basis of results from recent studies using novel approaches to test for subtle effects, both the National Toxicology Program at the National Institutes of Health and FDA have some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and young children.”

To translate: There still isn’t conclusive evidence that BPA is harmful, but there are a number of question marks that need to be resolved through research – and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) was just awarded about 30 million dollars to pursue that research. In the meantime, the FDA has announced its interim position and the steps it is taking regarding BPA:

• FDA is taking reasonable steps to reduce human exposure to BPA in the food supply. These steps include:
  • supporting the industry’s actions to stop producing BPA-containing baby bottles and infant feeding cups for the U.S. market;
  • facilitating the development of alternatives to BPA for the linings of infant formula cans; and
  • supporting efforts to replace BPA or minimize BPA levels in other food can linings.

• FDA is supporting a shift to a more robust regulatory framework for oversight of BPA.
• FDA is seeking further public comment and external input on the science surrounding BPA.

— from FDA’s 1/10/10 report

We’re very pleased that the FDA has chosen to take this issue seriously – both by acknowledging that there are legitimate questions and by committing the resources and the money to begin to answer them. As always, we will carefully monitor the issue, provide our comments and perspective to the FDA, and keep our customers informed on any major developments.

What We’ve Been Doing About BPA

The FDA’s recommendations are consistent with the path that we at Whole Foods Market have taken over the past few years. Our position has been that there are enough questions about BPA that, when there are functional alternatives available, it makes sense to avoid the use of BPA.  Back in February of 2006, we were the first major retailer in the U.S. to ban baby bottles and child cups made from BPA-containing polycarbonate plastic. More recently, we’ve been working very closely with our canned food suppliers to help them transition away from the use of BPA in food can linings. The FDA’s recent recommendations validate the steps that we’ve already taken and will continue to advance. Here’s a quick overview of what we’ve done on the issue:

• We have worked with our suppliers to strongly encourage the transition to non-BPA materials where functional alternatives exist. For example, the majority of the refillable individual water bottles in our stores were once made from polycarbonate plastic. Because of our work to encourage the transition away from BPA, nearly all of those bottles are now made from other materials, and we are working with our buyers and suppliers to finalize the transition away from polycarbonate water bottles completely.
• Our Quality Standards Team actively follows academic research and regulatory developments regarding the endocrine activity of substances present in plastics, including BPA. We work with academic experts and alternative plastic suppliers to stay on the leading edge of this issue.
• Polycarbonate plastic is still used in certain bottles and in aluminum can linings in our stores; we are currently working with manufacturers to strongly encourage the development of packaging that uses alternative materials. We have asked our major manufacturers of canned goods to present us with their plans for transitioning away from BPA-containing materials.
• Frustratingly, there are very few effective BPA-free cans available on the market. A few manufacturers have produced BPA-free cans, but the supply is very limited and they are only effective for a narrow range of foods. BPA-based epoxy lining is the industry standard for the lining of canned foods, with very few exceptions. This lining material works very effectively to protect the integrity of food. We are actively working with experts in the field to find an alternative material that works just as well without the presence of BPA or any other substances of concern.
• The manufacturing of cans in the U.S. is dominated by a small number of very large companies. Whole Foods Market represents a very tiny slice of the overall canned good market, so our leverage is limited. Despite the uphill nature of this battle, we are working with a group of like-minded companies and socially responsible investors to continue to push for alternatives. The FDA’s new focus should help us in this effort.
• To date, we have done more than any other U.S. retailer to inform our customers and take action on the issue. When appropriate, we have stopped the sale of certain products and/or provided information to our customers about the products.

Complex issues of food safety are seldom simple, and there are almost always trade-offs. BPA epoxy resin is the best lining for cans, in terms of protecting food integrity, extending shelf life, and ensuring the safety the food inside, but as we’ve learned, it may not be as safe as the industry once believed. Our goal is to continue to push for food packaging materials that protect food and keep it safe, without the leaching of BPA or any other toxic or estrogenic materials. We hope the FDA’s new direction on this issue — both in recommending the minimal use of BPA and in committing to researching the questions — will give new energy and momentum to the food industry’s transition away from BPA.

For More Information:

Dept. of Health and Human Services BPA Safety Page

FDA’s BPA Update Page

Undercover videos produced by animal rights groups are fueling a debate over the need for new laws to regulate the treatment of American dairy cows.

Graphic footage suggests milk cows may be victims of some cruel practices.

The graphic videos include one made inside a huge New York dairy operation where cows never go outside, have the ends of their tails cut off in painful procedures without anesthesia, and are seen being abused by one employee who hits a cow over the head with a wrench when it refuses to move.

An investigator for the group Mercy for Animals worked at the New York dairy farm, Willet Dairy, one of the largest in the state, for two months as a mechanic. Willet supplies to Leprino Foods, based in Denver, which produces mozzarella cheese and other cheese products that are used at chains including Pizza Hut, Papa John’s, and Domino’s.

“These animals are really treated as little more than milk-producing machines,” said Nathan Runkle, executive director of Mercy for Animals. “The overall environment at this facility was really a culture of cruelty and neglect.”

Portions of the video were played in reports aired on ABC World News with Diane Sawyer and later on Nightline.

This is a make or break moment in our fight against global warming. We must act now to reduce our carbon emissions or we will commit the earth to devastating climate change.

The Environmental Defense Fund interviewed three EDF scientists on the crisis and how important it is that we act now.

EDF: What is the best estimate today of what we’re committed to regarding global warming over the next two or three decades? Is it too late to change anything?

Steve Hamburg: We’re really working hard to limit the impacts of global warming to two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures. The most important question is when do we actually stop the increase in emissions and start decreasing it? At what point and at what level and then at what rate can we decrease it? That becomes a really critical point.

James Wang: We could in theory remove carbon dioxide from the air and thereby start cooling the climate. Given technical and political realities…a lot of groups are shooting for limiting warming to two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. This is a level that many scientists consider to be a threshold, above which we’re going to have really serious irreversible impacts, like the meltdown of the Greenland Ice Sheet, which would raise sea level by over 20 feet.

EDF: At two degrees what kind of visible impacts can people expect?

Lisa Moore: At two degrees, as James mentioned, there is certainly big concern that the Greenland Ice sheet will be committed to full disintegration over the next several centuries. The tipping points might come earlier or maybe we will be lucky and they will come later. The Greenland Ice Sheet certainly gets a lot of attention. Some of the tipping points that scientists are talking about involve total disappearance of summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, really widespread extinctions of earth’s plants and animals and dramatic changes in whole ecosystems. Various species have temperature ranges that they can tolerate. If they cannot move to new places because either there are no places available to them or they can’t get there fast enough as the temperatures and other conditions change and if they can’t tolerate those new temperatures they will die off. There are some species that are more vulnerable than others, but biologists are seriously discussing really scary numbers, including one-third of species going extinct.

SH: One of the things that we have to think about, which is fundamentally different than what has happened historically with the record of climate change over the past millions of years, is that now the surface of the earth has large numbers of human-caused alterations—roads, agriculture, forestry, housing—those are all impediments and alterations to the way species can migrate. It is important to remember that species migrate through their offspring and their seeds. The individuals are seldom the ones that are migrating, or they go a little distance and their offspring go a little further. Our best guess for what the rates are don’t include humans, so in some cases humans are helping because things attach to cars and attach to boats and so they spread faster. In other cases their dispersal is negatively impacted, for example by an interstate they are not going to get across.

LM: Remember that all species depend on others, so when one is impacted another will feel those effects. Think about when plants bloom; when leaves fall; when birds migrate. As that timing changes, species respond differently and they can get out of sync with each other. Interactions among species are going to ripple out to affect whole ecosystems. Again, there are really big uncertainties around the details, but very, very good reasons to expect very large changes. Another big concern is ocean acidification. CO₂ doesn’t just cause warming, it also dissolves into the ocean where it forms carbonic acid and the oceans are acidifying at a rate that marine organisms haven’t seen in their evolutionary history. It is extraordinarily rapid and there are reasons to believe it could have really bad effects on coral reefs, other shell-forming organisms and all of the food chains that they support.

SH: Even if we accomplish what many now believe is going to be a big challenge maintaining, keeping climate change to within two degrees Celsius, one of the most vulnerable ecosystems in the world will be coral reefs.

EDF: What kinds of changes might people in the United States have seen in their own back yards if they’ve been paying attention?

SH: We’re actually developing two museum exhibits on this issue: one for New England and one for North Carolina. In New England we are using three iconic issues: One is maple syrup production—maple syrup producers’ seasons start earlier and they have to use more technology to maintain their production. These farmers will no longer be able to produce syrup commercially because the winter won’t be sufficient to support it—they need the snow, cold temperatures during nights and warm temperatures during the day. The nights are not getting cold enough to produce the sap runs needed for maple syrup production.

Second, you’re going to see more invasions in central New England of red oaks, which are present in southern New England. Everyone enjoys the fall foliage—particularly magnificent with the inclusion of bright oranges for sugar maple and the reds for red maple. The oaks have much more brown and those will diminish the quality of that experience. I have personally seen the invasion of oaks up the side of a mountain over the course of my research career. The oaks are present in places they weren’t 25 years ago and it is directly attributable to climate change.

Third, lobster fisheries are moving north as a result of temperature changes; places that supported a vibrant lobster industry in Long Island Sound 50 years ago are now seeing very limited takes and will soon be completely gone. North Carolina has similar issues within the crab fisheries. The Balsam Fir Christmas tree trade is also being threatened; the trees just can’t thrive and grow in an area in the western part of the State.

LM: Some other examples include the snow pack in the west, which has been decreasing for at least the last five decades; it is starting to melt earlier and earlier. The evidence for that is very clear. The Audubon Society recently put out a report about how bird patterns are changing in North America. Gardeners are also feeling the effects. In fact, in 2006, the Arbor Day Foundation actually re-drew the hardiness zones for the United States because of documented climate changes.

JW: Also, there’s been a trend of larger and more destructive wildfires in the West and there have been studies showing that not only has the area of wildfires increased over time in recent decades, but also these fires are moving up higher in altitude to areas that had previously experienced little fire, so this shows that it’s not just a consequence of our forest management practices, namely suppression of fires in the past, but it’s also influenced by climate change. In the year 2000, the west experienced its worst wildfire season in 50 years and in more recent years we’ve seen record destruction from wildfires in California.

EDF: What is your answer to individuals out there who ask, “What can I do?”

LM: People should educate themselves about the issues. They should tell their elected representative that this is an important issue for them, vote accordingly, take whatever steps they’re able to take and make lifestyle changes that are better for the environment, whether that’s being better about turning off the lights when you leave the room, or replacing your light bulbs with energy efficient bulbs, or turning down your thermostat. And all the little things that people probably have heard over the years, those things really do add up if you adopt those changes. From a large-scale perspective, putting pressure on governments and corporations to make large-scale changes is really important.

JW: A personal favorite solution of mine is for people to purchase renewable electricity—it is in fact available in most states in the U.S. now, so the argument that we don’t have that option is not valid. Here in New York State, for example, I purchase 100% wind power for my apartment, and I think more people ought to do that. It doesn’t necessarily cost that much more than conventional fossil fuel-powered electricity. And the greater the demand for renewable energy, the more renewable resources will be developed to meet demand. This is basic economics. Of course, a national cap on emissions would give a tremendous boost to demand for renewable energy.

EDF: How do you engage children in the issue of climate change? Are many young people familiar with climate change science?

JW: Lisa and I have made presentations in front of school children before, talking to them about what global warming is and what they can do about it.

LM: I’ve spoken in schools, I’ve gone to community science events, I’ve given information to teachers to pass on to students. My experience is that the students have heard about it, they’re concerned about it and they’re open and engaged, which gives me hope. Now if we can just get them to vote when they’re of age, that would be great! But yes, the young people that I’ve talked to about this issue are familiar with it. They may have some misconceptions, they may not know all of the facts, but they know it’s a problem, they know that humans are the cause and they know that there are things that we can do about it. So, that’s definitely a cause for some optimism.

EDF: Is there one thing that you wish every American could know about Global Warming?

JW: I’d say that a few degrees of warming might not seem like a lot, but people should realize that the difference in global temperature between the last major Ice Age, when the ice sheet in North America went all the way down to New York City, and the present time is only about five degrees Celsius or nine degrees Fahrenheit. And we’re expecting that if we don’t do anything about global warming, the Earth is going to warm by about that much over the next century. So the world will be completely different. This is a very, very serious problem. I’d like to add that on the flip side it’s something that we can solve; we can do something about global warming, so we really need to be concerned and working on this.

EDF: How do you get up and do what you do, knowing what you know? There is so much information on climate change that is disturbing and upsetting. How do you do it every day?

SH: I think you’ll find that most of the people who work on climate change impacts are inherently optimistic individuals. We realize that both human systems and natural systems are resilient, so we have faith that humans, once they really understand these impacts, will make the changes that they need to make; and we recognize that while we may suffer a lot of losses in the natural world, that we’ll also get some positive surprises and hopefully that human society will respond quickly enough so that those losses are not overwhelming. It can be bleak if you think about it rationally and what it’ll be like for my grandchildren. You have to be an optimist; you have to have faith that humanity will recognize the threat that’s before them and they’ll respond.

JW: I guess what motivates me is that I know that many other people are working on the issues—environmental problems in general and climate change in particular—and so it’s definitely a team effort and eventually we’ll get it solved. This has happened for various other issues in the past, like civil rights or like various other problems. I think there’s definitely hope for the environment.

Brought to you exclusively by the editors of Garden Design magazine, the Green Awards program reveals the exciting moment when great design meets ecological responsibility. Smart water and energy use, repurposing, recyclables, natives and organics, and other earth-friendly innovations will be recognized. Designers are invited to submit their projects in the following categories: Residential Gardens, Public Spaces, Corporate Landscapes, Edible Gardens and Outdoor Products: Furniture, Décor and Lighting.

Step 1: Enter Now For a Chance to Win: Online submissions will be accepted from January 15 – May 1, 2010