Annie Leonard

Waving the White Flag

2012-09-25T14:01:36-04:00

Let's say your car is stolen. Irresponsible hoodlums take it for an out-of-control joyride, drive the wrong way down a one-way street, terrorize innocent pedestrians and cut donuts on the lawn in front of City Hall. If you get a chance to take it back, do you shrug and say, "No, they can keep it. That car sucks so bad I'm not going to drive anymore"?

I didn't think so. But that's the same attitude as people who -- dismayed by the hijacking of American democracy by corporate polluters, Wall Street fat cats and corrupt politicians-for-hire -- decide it's not important to vote.

My vote can't make a difference. All politicians are the same. Sitting it out is better than voting for the lesser of two evils.

No, no and no. Think about it:

• If voting didn't matter, would Susan B. Anthony and Julia Ward Howe have dedicated their lives working to secure passage of the Nineteenth Amendment?

• If voting didn't matter, would Martin Luther King, Jr., have led the March on Washington to push for the 1965 Voting Rights Act?

• If voting didn't matter, would there be such a big effort underway in more than a dozen states to keep voters - especially older, disabled, low-income or immigrant voters - away from the polls?

As Whoopi Goldberg says in this spot for the American Civil Liberties Union: "Every person who loses the right to vote takes us one more step away from being a nation of free people."

We all know people who think voting doesn't make a difference. It's not that they are apathetic -- some are activists who have fought so long and so hard against pollution or poverty or racism that they've given in to despair.

Sometimes it's easy to feel that way. But not voting is defeatist. It's waving a white flag. It's a cynicism we cannot afford if we want to make a better world.

I know who I'm voting for on Election Day, and you probably do, too. I don't think my guy is perfect. I don't have to, because voting is not a 100 percent endorsement. It's tactical. Some candidates move us closer to our desired future; some move us farther away. In the real world, tactical voting may even mean voting for the candidate who will move us the least farther away.

Voting may not be the most exciting way of working for change. But it is the bottom-line responsibility of an engaged citizen. In a recent episode of our podcast The Good Stuff, Eric Liu, a former adviser in the Clinton White House and founder of the Guiding Lights Network, said citizenship is about "how you show up in the world" - and in a democracy, voting is the most basic way of showing up.

So don't hand over the keys to our democracy to those who don't care if we drive off a cliff. If you're not registered to vote, do it now, as the deadline is nearing in many states. Learn about the candidates. Then remember to vote. (There's an app for that.)

Vote your values. Vote your dreams. Vote to reward those looking out for people and the planet and vote to send the others packing.

The fat cat super PACs may be able to outspend us, but they can only outvote us if we let them. As Alice Walker says, "The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any." Voting is power. Let's use it.

Why Changing Your Lightbulbs Won't Save the Planet

2012-07-17T12:22:17-04:00

I used to think the truth would set us free. Like many who care about the environment, I spent years thinking that information would lead to change. So I wrote reports, gave speeches, even testified before Congress.

Some things changed. Sadly, the big picture didn't.

For a long time I couldn't understand why. Now I've realized that it isn't because we don't have enough data, white papers or experts to tell us we're in trouble. The problem is we've forgotten what it takes to make change.

My new movie, The Story of Change, argues that's partly because we've gotten stuck in consumer mode.

I've come to see that we have two parts to ourselves. It's almost like two muscles -- a consumer muscle and a citizen muscle. Our consumer muscle, which is fed and exercised constantly, has grown strong. So strong that "consumer" has become our primary identity, our reason for being. We're told so often that we're a nation of consumers that we don't blink when the media use "consumer" and "person" interchangeably.

Meanwhile, our citizen muscle has gotten flabby. There's no marketing campaign reminding us to engage as citizens. On the contrary, we're bombarded with lists of simple things we can buy or do to save the planet, without going out of our way or breaking a sweat.

No wonder that faced with daunting problems and discouraged by the intransigence of the status quo, we instinctively flex our power in the only way we know how -- as consumers. Plastic garbage choking the oceans? Carry your own shopping bag. Formaldehyde in baby shampoo? Buy the brand with the green seal. Global warming threatening life as we know it? Change your lightbulb. (As Michael Maniates, a professor of political and environmental science at Allegheny College, says: "Never has so little been asked of so many.")

Now, all of those are good things to do. When we shop, it's good to choose products without toxic chemicals and unnecessary packaging, made by locally-based companies that treat their workers well. But our real power is not in choosing from items on a limited menu; it is in determining what gets on the menu. The way to ensure that toxic, climate-disrupting choices are replaced with safe and healthy alternatives -- for everyone, not just those who can afford them -- is by engaging as citizens: working together for bigger, bolder change than we could ever accomplish as individual consumers.

Look back at successful movements -- civil rights, anti-Apartheid, the early environmental victories -- and you'll see that three things are needed to make change at the scale we need today.

First, we need a Big Idea of how things could be better -- a morally compelling, ecologically sustainable and socially just idea that will not just make things a little better for a few, but a lot better for everyone. Millions around the world already have that idea: an economy based on the needs of people and the planet, not corporate profit.

Second, we need a commitment to work together. In history's most transformative social movements, people didn't say "I will perfect my individual daily choices," but "We will work together until the problem is solved." Today, it's easier than ever to work together, online and off.

Finally, we need all of us who share that Big Idea to get active. We need to move from a place of shared concern, frustration and fear to a place of engaged citizen action. That's how we build the power to make real change.

We have to aim high, work together and act boldly. It's not simple, and it won't be easy. But history is on our side. Let's get to work to make the kind of change we know is possible.

The iPhone and Consumer Guilt

2012-03-30T14:06:46-04:00

The traditional first rule of business is to give the customers what they want. Steve Jobs thought differently. "It's not the consumers' job," he said, "to know what they want."

Some people think that's cool -- the cocky self-confidence of a visionary with uncompromising standards. But I can't help but hear it as a reminder that companies target consumers by creating desires we didn't know we had and meeting them with cheap shiny gadgets we didn't know we needed. And when the companies get caught trashing the environment or mistreating their workers, everyone blames the customers -- that's us -- for demanding cheap shiny gadgets.

I've been thinking about this since news of the suicides at the Foxconn factory in China and other revelations about the disturbing details of Apple's supply chain produced a wave of guilt among Americans who can't imagine life without their iPhones, iPads and iPods. (On Thursday, after an Apple-endorsed investigation of factory conditions by the independent Fair Labor Association, Foxconn agreed to end illegal overtime, improve safety and upgrade worker housing.)

Sometimes it seems everything we buy is tarnished by guilt. Whether it's electronics from unsafe factories, clothes from oppressive sweatshops or coffee from the rainforest, we blame ourselves and our fellow consumers for our complicity in an unjust and unsustainable system. In a course I'm taking on impacts of the global economy, a classmate said: "It's our fault. We're driving this system. If we didn't buy the stuff, the manufacturers wouldn't make it."

Consumer as king is the gospel of today's marketplace. In an oft-cited editorial The Economist declared: "Brands do not rule consumers; consumers rule brands." After I wrote my local newspaper decrying all the branded schwag hospitals hand out to new mothers, one angry woman wrote me to object: "We control the manufacturers. It is never them controlling us, and it never has been."

Really? Ask yourself:

• If Apple didn't keep rolling out new, massively-hyped models, how many owners of perfectly functional iPhones would want a new one after a few months?

• Before single-serving plastic bottles, who wanted to carry around a throwaway container of water that, despite no guarantee of being cleaner or safer, costs thousands of times more than what comes out of the tap?

• How many mothers would have thought the best way to protect their kids was with pajamas soaked in neurotoxic flame-retardant chemicals, still on the market 35 years they were first identified as a health risk?

Economist John Kenneth Galbraith argued that companies aren't just giving us what we want; they're also manufacturing "wants that previously did not exist." "Production," he wrote, "only fills a void that itself has created."

Maybe the $130 billion-plus spent on advertising in the United States in 2010 had something to do with it. Last year, Apple alone spent almost $1 billion on advertising to persuade us that the latest version of their devices will transform our lives. They add cool new features, sure, but they also tweak the designs just enough that the hippest users can tell at a glance if you're a loser who's still using last year's model. That's not just planned obsolescence, it's perceived obsolescence.

Another tactic is making us feel we're in charge by offering us lots of choices. Choices, after all, create profitable niche markets. In Consumed, Rutgers political theorist Benjamin Barber says we are "seduced into thinking that the right to choose from a menu is the essence of liberty, but the power is in the determination of what's on the menu. The powerful are those who set the agenda, not those who choose from the alternatives it offers."

I'm not saying we are powerless to make ethical choices with our purchases or that our choices can't influence the marketplace. The problem with believing the best way to make change is by voting with our pocketbooks is that it defines us as consumers, not citizens. It implies that the most important choices are made in the supermarket aisles rather than in the halls of government and corporate towers.

Next time someone says they feel guilty for owning an iPhone, ask if they were the one who decided to maintain a 73% profit margin while underpaying workers on 18-hour-shifts. Did they decide to roll out new models at breakneck speed? To use conflict minerals and toxic chemicals? I didn't think so. The most important ethical choice is not the decision to buy an iPhone, but the decision made on how to make, market and sell it.

Let's stop thinking like consumers and think like citizens. By all means let's shun products from companies whose behavior offends. But let's also realize we can work to change not just the way they act but the way they're allowed to act. Only when every manufacturer of Stuff is required to make it safely and fairly will we know that no matter what we buy, the important choices have already been made.

Don't Be Stupid, Cupid -- Show Your Love Responsibly

2012-02-10T10:03:03-05:00

For holidays tainted by commercialism, Valentine's Day gives Christmas a run for the money -- big money. The National Retail Federation estimates Americans will spend $17.6 billion on Valentine's gifts this year, including $4.1 billion on jewelry, $1.8 billion on flowers and $1.5 billion on candy. But for consumers with a conscience, the very things Madison Avenue markets as expressions of love are some of the worst stuff you can buy.

Chocolate: A heart-shaped box of truffles may be a sweet dream for chocolate lovers, but it's a nightmare for many workers. Most of the world's cocoa beans come from plantations in Ghana and Ivory Coast, where a 2010 BBC investigation exposed the widespread use of child labor, human trafficking and even slavery to harvest cocoa.

Flowers: Most roses and other flowers sold in the United States are imported from Colombia, where the cut flower industry is also known to use child workers and forced labor. Because the flowers have to look perfect, they're treated with immense amounts of toxic pesticides, which contributes to high rates of lung and nerve disease in a workforce dominated by women and children.

Jewelry: Child labor, forced labor and dangerous conditions are well-documented in the mining industry. Gold mining uses mercury and cyanide to separate the metal from ore, and leaves behind mountains of toxic waste -- more than 20 tons of waste to make one gold ring. The film Blood Diamonds dramatized the role that diamond mining plays in fueling and funding brutal wars in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Angola and other African nations that have killed and displaced millions of people.

So should you boycott Valentine's Day? I'm not. I'm all for showing my loved ones how much I care, on Valentine's Day tomorrow and every day. A hand-crafted card, a heartfelt note, a home-cooked meal or (ahem) a special favor are all ways to express your love. And for a gift that keeps on giving you can get involved in efforts to change the way these destructive industries do business. Joining a campaign not only amplifies your voice but brings you together with others who share your concerns.

Last February, Change.org mounted a petition drive that persuaded 1-800-Flowers to add Fair Trade-certified bouquets to its collection and create a code of conduct that prohibits its suppliers from using forced and child labor. Now the Fairness in Flowers campaign is asking consumers to write other major florists urging them to ensure their flowers are not grown and processed with the use of exploited labor or child labor.

More than 100,000 consumers have joined the No Dirty Gold campaign, which works to get jewelers to promise to use only gold mined responsibly. To date, 80 leading jewelry retailers worldwide have signed the pledge. Global Witness, a human rights group that helped bring attention to the bloody truth about the diamond trade, recently pulled out of a flawed United Nations-backed program to certify conflict-free diamonds, but remains active in the campaign to reform the industry.

OK, here's the toughest one to pass by (at least for me) -- chocolate. Global Exchange is among the groups working with schools, churches and community groups to get leading chocolate companies to promise that their sweet treats don't exploit or endanger workers on African cocoa plantations.

Real love doesn't trash the planet or force children to work in dangerous mines or pesticide-drenched fields. There's no reason that jewelry, chocolates and flowers have to take such a heavy toll. This Valentine's Day, let's show our love not only to our sweethearts, friends and family, but to the Earth and people around the world.

We're Not Broke!

2011-11-08T12:43:42-05:00

"They got bailed out; we got sold out!"

The chant rang in my ears as I marched with my 12-year-old daughter and thousands of my fellow citizens through the streets of Oakland last week. But that $700 billion bank bailout is only part of the way the government takes our taxes -- money that should be paying teachers, building clinics, ensuring a healthy environment or feeding poor kids -- and gives it to big corporations that aren't helping build a better future.

Every year the government gives billions of our tax dollars to resource-consuming, pollution-spewing, dinosaur industries -- oil and gas, coal mining, industrial agriculture, waste incinerators -- while investing far less in better, cleaner and ultimately cheaper alternatives. Yet whenever I talk about the promise of developing clean energy, safer chemicals or other innovative ways out of the environmental mess we're in, I hear the same thing: Those things would be nice, but the country's broke.

That is, to put it delicately, bull.

We're not really broke -- our public money has just been hijacked. Our new film, The Story of Broke, shines a light on the dumb choices our elected so-called leaders are making with our money: handing out tax breaks for oil companies reaping record profits; paving public roads that only go to one place -- a new Walmart; granting permits to mine public lands at prices set in 1872; cleaning up toxic messes made by giant chemical companies; and offering public funds for corporations building nuclear reactors and other risky ventures.

Here's how it's supposed to work in a democracy: Every year, you and I pitch some of our money into the shared public account. Our government is supposed to use this money for the public good: public safety, education, environmental protection, and helping those in need. Some public money also gets used to help businesses -- to encourage job creation or spur technological innovation, for instance.

I'm all for the government using some of my money to help businesses grow and innovate -- as long as I and my fellow citizens also benefit. Unfortunately that's not always what happens. And we usually don't see it happening because most of the handouts take the form of hidden subsidies -- tax breaks, government contracts, access to public land and water.

If a member of Congress came to your house and asked for money to build a garbage incinerator in a low-income neighborhood, to mine uranium near the Colorado River, or boost the balance sheet of an oil company that just posted record profits, you'd tell him to get off your lawn. But thousands of lobbyists in Washington and billions in campaign contributions keep the subsidies flowing -- and hold America back from the sustainable economy of the future.

So as we balance our personal bank accounts each month, let's remember that there's a whole other pot of money we're responsible for as well. It's both our right and our responsibility to help determine how that money is spent and we should be making sure its helping build a better world.

We know that a better future is possible -- that we can make Stuff in ways that are safe and healthy and fair. We know that clean energy and non-toxic chemicals exist. Better alternatives have been around for decades.

It's high time we gave a leg up to the kinds of cleaner, healthier industries we need for the century ahead. It's time we put our money behind businesses that will help build a better future.

That means stepping out of our consumer selves and occupying our citizen selves. It means reminding ourselves and our governments of the power we have when we unite as citizens.

That's why what was happening in Oakland and other cities last week was so exciting. Because together, getting out of the shopping mall and into the streets, we do have real power to make a better future. And we have enough money to get started right now.

Why Democracy Only Works When People Are in Charge

2011-03-01T11:15:55-05:00

I don't get it. Poll after poll shows that the majority of Americans care about the same stuff I care about: secure jobs, good schools, healthy environment, clean energy and responsible government. I am not surprised that people want these things; they are pretty basic, red state-blue state, ingredients for a good life. But it's not happening.

We have a democracy -- as in majority rule -- and yet we can't get action on what the majority wants. What's up with that?

Last year I called a bunch of professional activists who work on climate issues in Washington, D.C. I was curious why the strongest legislation under consideration in Congress was still far weaker than what the science tells us is needed to curb global warming. The explanation was consistent: "It's the best we can get."

It's the best we can get? Who says? We're confusing political reality with physical reality.
There's no reason we can't have an economy that provides secure jobs and a healthy environment. There's no reason we can't have clean energy, good schools and all the other basics that would make life in America even better. This is America, after all. We are blessed with natural resources and a can-do spirit: we dream big, we aim high, we work together to overcome challenges.

So, why can't we handle such basics as keeping our air clean, teaching our kids math, and providing safe drinking water?

I went back and asked my DC friends, 'What's getting in the way of real solutions?' Again, the answer was consistent: the manipulation of our democracy by big business interests.
This should not come as a surprise. A recent poll by Hart Research found that 85 percent of Americans say corporations have too much influence on our democracy. Corporations hire armies of lobbyists and corporate representatives sit on so-called" independent" advisory committees that feed policy recommendations to government. And, as we saw in November, corporations pour huge amounts of money into campaigns to support or oppose candidates of their choice.

If it seems like it's getting worse, that's because it is. We can thank the Supreme Court for that.
In the 2010 case known as Citizens United v. F.E.C. - the Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend as much money as they want from their corporate coffers to influence election outcomes. The corporations say it's free speech, but there's nothing free about it. If corporations - say Exxon, which made $30 billion last year - spend even a tiny percentage of their profits on influencing election outcomes, they can dwarf the contributions from real live citizens (that's you and me), skewing election results to favor their own interests. Which, let's face it, aren't always the same as the interests of workers, families and the environment.

Democracy: government of the people, by the people, for the people. It's the platform where we work out our differences, dreams and desires and figure out how to move forward as a society. We can't have a healthy functioning democracy with corporations given legal status equal to real people. It just doesn't work.

And we can't solve today's pressing environmental, economic and social problems without a healthy functioning democracy. Which is why we need to band together to do two things: get the corporations out of our democracy and get the people back in. (It's also why I decided to devote my latest film - launched today - to this very issue. Please watch The Story of Citizens United v FEC: Why Democracy Only Works when People are in Charge, and pass it on.)

One way to put the brakes on the excessive influence of corporations on our democracy is to undo the disastrous Citizens United decision. And the most lasting, meaningful way to do that is with a constitutional amendment. It's a tall order, but many organizations are launching campaigns for one. An amendment needs to confirm that the free speech protections in the First Amendment don't extend to for-profit corporations.

A constitutional amendment won't solve all the problems with corporate influence of our democracy, but it is a great place to start. If the Citizens United decision stands unchallenged, elections will be no more than auctions, with political offices available to the highest bidder, and unavailable to those who prioritize public - rather than corporate - interests.

Regardless of whether you're passionate about healthcare or the climate, product safety or workers' rights, this is your issue too. Corporate influence is in the way of our achieving a healthier, more secure, more fair society.

So let's defend our democracy by putting it to use right now: join a campaign to get corporations out of politics. Then we can truly have a democracy of the people, for the people and get to work making America the best it can be.

Choose Family Over Frenzy

2010-11-23T13:49:43-05:00

When I turned on my computer today, I had seven emails from vendors announcing special low prices -- Black Friday deals -- available all week. The biggest discounts advertised were on electronics, which wasn't a surprise since November is considered "electronics-buying month" within the retail industry. I waded through the Black Friday junk mail, tapping away at my delete button, to find the one email I sought: the message from my neighbor with the menu, schedule and guest list for Thursday's Thanksgiving gathering.

Now, revisionist history aside, Thanksgiving is a great holiday. It is two full days during which most people in the U.S. are liberated from work and school. It comes at a time when the days are getting shorter, trees have lost their leaves, and we're pulling the sweaters out from the back of our overstuffed closets. It's the perfect time to cozy up and nest with friends and family. In the midst of our hectic year-end bustle, we get to spend two days pausing, recharging, looking into the faces of loved ones rather than into our computer screens. And, of course, remembering those who can't be with us.

There's one mother I especially think of on Black Friday: Marie Tellismond. Two years ago on Black Friday, Marie lost her 34-year-old son, Jdimytai Damour.

Jdimytai -- known as Jimmy to his friends -- had taken temporary job at a Walmart store in New York State, near his home. When the store opened at 5:00 in the morning, the crowds of shoppers -- many of whom had been waiting in the cold for hours to score good deals -- stormed the doors and trampled Jdimytai as he struggled to protect a pregnant woman from the stampede.

Jdimytai was a college student, and his mother said he hoped to be a teacher one day. He liked watching football and eating his mother's cooking. In an interview after the tragedy, she dabbed her eyes and said: "I don't have anybody else."

Now, I've never met Marie Tellismond, but as a fellow mother, I am pretty sure she would give anything to have a day with her son again. Losing, or even coming close to losing someone we love, makes us get our priorities straight really, really fast.

Most of us have a choice this Friday that Marie Tellismond no longer has. We have a choice to stay put with loved ones, to play board games and eat leftovers and maybe even watch a football game together. Or we can chose to leave the warmth of our beds before dawn, to sit in our cars in a parking lot at some mall and to spend the day searching for low prices on products which we don't really need and often don't even want, but getting them is all part of the Black Friday Frenzy.

Let's opt out of the frenzy this year.

Our out-of-control consumption has taken a toll on the planet, on our family budgets, and on workers from FoxConn in China to Walmart in New York. And it has taken a toll on the quality of our lives at home.

We have more and cooler stuff than our parents and grandparents could have ever imagined, but we pay dearly. We spend more time working and shopping than they did and we spend much less time in leisure, on vacation and with friends. What is the use of a brand new Pottery Barn table if we don't have a gang of friends and neighbors to gather around it?

If we're going to figure out how to build an economy and society that is healthy for people and the planet, this Friday is a good place to start.

Let's opt out of Black Friday. Choose family over frenzy.

The Story of Electronics: Make 'Em Safe, Make 'Em Last, Take 'Em Back

2010-11-09T11:57:41-05:00

Along with the changing fall leaves, there's another thing Americans can count on each November -- the flood of electronics sales advertisements in our mailboxes, email spam filters and newspaper pages that presage Black Friday.

The low prices promised in these ads are meant to entice us to buy gadgets we don't really need, or, to replace gadgets that are still working with slightly newer versions.

As I explain in my new movie, The Story of Electronics, product designers and stuff-pushers call this "shortening the replacement cycle." That means, getting us to buy new stuff faster and faster. And with electronics, it's really tempting. It seems every few months a new version of my phone is out with more features.

And do we ever oblige. Industry analysts expect that Americans will spend more than $8.5 billion on consumer electronics this month alone!

But isn't that good for the economy? $8.5 billion dollars making the rounds? What's not to like?

Plenty.

Making all these gadgets takes an enormous environmental and public health toll. Mining the metals trashes the environment in communities from Congo to Indonesia; assembling the gadgets uses huge amounts of water and energy and exposes workers to a host of toxic chemicals; and getting rid of them when we're on to the next, newer, better model creates mountains of old electronics -- what's called e-waste.

In the U.S. we throw away about 400 million electronic gadgets each year -- more than one per person. Only about 20 percent of e-waste in the U.S. is collected for recycling; the rest goes to landfills and incinerators where the toxics leach out to contaminate our air, water and communities.

And the 20 percent destined for recycling isn't all that great either. Investigations have found that 50 to 80 percent of this stuff is shipped overseas to Asia and Africa where it is broken apart by workers to extract the small bits of valuable metals. In addition to those pieces of gold and copper, today's electronics routinely contain toxic chemicals like lead, mercury, PVC, chlorine, and bromines that end up poisoning workers and their communities in the importing country.

The good news is that while the production, consumption and disposal of short-lived, toxics-laden electronics are a really big problem, the solution is pretty simple: Make them Safe, Make them Last, and Take them Back.

MAKE THEM SAFE! We know it's possible to make electronics a whole lot less toxic because some companies are already moving in that direction. And the entire European Union has banned a host of toxic materials from all electronics sold there. If Europe can do it, why can't we?

MAKE THEM LAST! My friend says that the only consumer product with a shorter life span than a cell phone these days is an ice cream cone. Slight exaggeration, but if the current trajectory continues, we'll be there soon.

The average life of a cell phone in the U.S. these days is about 18 months, and the majority are chucked and replaced while they still work. The average laptop lasts longer -- about three to five years -- before being replaced, but that still leaves us throwing away more than 100,000 computers in the U.S. every day. In addition to making them safer, companies need to make electronics more durable, and modular, so we can upgrade or repair components as needed, rather than chuck the whole thing to buy another.

TAKE THEM BACK! Innovations in reducing toxics, design for recyclability and modular components for easier upgrades are all great for new gadgets, but what about the millions stored in all of our basements, closets, drawers and garages? Those are eventually going to be tossed out, leaving local governments to figure out how to deal with them safely. Unless, that is, we get better Product Take Back laws.

Take Back holds manufacturers responsible for their products at the end of their useful life, preventing them from externalizing the cost of recycling or disposing of these hazardous products onto local governments, communities and the environment. Why should taxpayers pay to safely recycle every toxic, poorly designed, short-lived piece of electronic gadgetry that comes through the system? That's like being an enabler in a dysfunctional relationship. It is time we hold electronics manufacturers responsible for their product design decisions.

Everyone has a role to play in solving this problem. You can resist the upgrade, take good care of your electronics, make them last as long as possible and, when you finally have to throw them out, find an E-stewards certified recycler to take it.

Federal and state governments can enact and enforce meaningful laws to protect worker health and the environment and to prohibit hazardous waste exports to developing countries.
Local governments can stop acting as the electronics industry's garbage man by forcing companies to deal with their own mess.

And businesses can invest as much or more in making their products safe and durable as they do in other areas of innovation.

Billions of us want access to the incredible web of information and entertainment that electronics offer. But it's the access we want, not all that toxic garbage.

So let's send the "design-for-the-dump" mentality to the dump where it belongs and start building an electronics industry -- and a global society -- that's designed to last.

Why We Made the Story of Cosmetics

2010-08-04T11:09:16-04:00

What a couple of weeks it's been! More than 200,000 of you have watched the Story of Cosmetics since its launch July 21, and we've received an outpouring of support -- from cancer survivors, salon workers who've been harmed by chemical exposures on the job, green business owners and people around the world who are thanking us for raising the debate about toxic chemicals in the shampoos, deodorants and lotions we rub on our bodies every day.

The introduction of the Safe Cosmetics Act on the same day as the film premiere provides a vehicle to organize this energy into action. There are real opportunities ahead to shift the $50 billion beauty industry in a safer, more sustainable direction.

Not everyone is excited about these opportunities. Currently, the big cosmetics companies get to decide what's safe with very little government oversight, and they like this system just the way it is. The industry trade association has spent many millions of dollars over the past five years hiring lobbyists and PR firms to fend off attempts at new regulations.

So it's no surprise that we're seeing pushback about the critiques presented in the Story of Cosmetics (fully footnoted script is here) and the fact that a serious attempt to fix these problems is moving through Congress. The misinformation is buzzing, stirring up fears that the bill would hurt small businesses.

We'd like to take this opportunity to share why we made the film, and why we believe this moment offers huge possibilities to protect our health and future generations while also opening up new business opportunities for the companies that are already doing the right thing and making the safest products.

#1: Cancer Prevention

We made this film for Annie's grandmother who died of cancer before Annie was born, for Stacy's college roommate who died of cancer at 38, for Lisa who was 19 when she lost her mother to breast cancer -- and for all the moms, sisters, daughters, sons and fathers who are dealing with diseases that may be preventable.

We are living in a time when one in two American men and one in three women will get some type of cancer in their lifetimes. This is not normal. This is not acceptable. This is not the way it was when our grandparents were born. Why is it this way now?

Part of the answer lies in the 1950s mindset of "better living through chemistry." That's when companies figured out how to process oil into chemicals, and billions of tons of synthetic substances that never before existed in nature were put into commerce with little thought to the impacts on health and the environment. Companies just weren't required to study that stuff.

Decades later, it's clear we've got some big problems. The risk of getting breast cancer increased more than 40% in just our lifetimes, and many other types of cancer including childhood, testicular and prostate cancers are on the rise.

As the President's Cancer Panel recently stated:

The true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated. With nearly 80,000 chemicals on the market in the United States, many of which are used by millions of Americans in their daily lives and are un- or understudied and largely unregulated, exposure to potential environmental carcinogens is widespread.

The panel pointed to studies that have found 300 synthetic chemicals in the umbilical cord blood of newborn babies. This is a wake-up call. When we hear that babies are being born pre-polluted with industrial chemicals, including fragrance chemicals, it's time to figure out how to do things differently.

Two big opportunities to do things differently are moving through Congress right now -- the Safe Cosmetics Act and a similar effort to regulate industrial chemicals under EPA jurisdiction. These bills will set up systems that should have been set up decades ago to assess chemical toxicity and put standards in place that encourage the development of safe products.

#2: Getting carcinogens out of baby shampoo is common sense

Some companies argue that baby shampoos and other products contain just tiny amounts of cancer-causing chemicals, and there's no proof these exposures are causing cancer in people. Never mind that no one is even studying the cancer risk to kids exposed to carcinogens every day in the bathtub.

How about just getting carcinogens out of baby shampoo? Many companies have already figured out how to make great products without using chemicals that are known to cause cancer in lab animals.

So why aren't all the companies doing that? It goes back to that 1950s mindset again. Despite their reputation for innovation, many cosmetics companies are using the same toxic chemistry processes they've been using for decades, and they justify it with a theory straight from the 18th century: "the dose makes the poison."

The old theory was that if a high dose of a toxic substance causes cancer in lab studies, then lower doses were safe. But it's not that simple. According to the more recent science, it's not just the size of the dose that matters, but the timing of the dose, the age and size of the person exposed, the potential for low-dose effects and the enhanced toxicity of chemical mixtures.

Most risk assessments don't even consider these complicating factors. So how can we trust the risk calculations? The common sense thing to do is take a precautionary approach. Let's work to reduce preventable and unnecessary exposures to toxic chemicals in the products we use every day.

Let's not argue about how much carcinogens a baby can tolerate in the bathtub, let's just get the carcinogens out of baby shampoo.

While we're at it, if we really want to protect children, let's get the hazardous chemicals out of products used by pregnant women, and women who may someday want to become pregnant. Might as well get chemicals associated with damaged sperm and feminized genitals out of the body sprays marketed to teenage boys, too.

#3: We believe in a better way

We believe it's possible to get rid of the toxins and still have a thriving healthy cosmetics industry with abundant opportunities for small businesses. We believe the best thing for the whole American economy is to move away from the old polluting technologies in chemistry and energy and develop the next generation of clean, green products that people around the world want to buy.

In fact, the fastest growing segment of the cosmetics industry, even during the recession, has been the natural and organic sector, largely driven by growing consumer concern about toxic chemicals. But with no legal standards for these products, it's challenging for consumers to sort through the greenwash and make the best choices.

There are no silver-bullet solutions. These problems are complicated and have been decades in the making. Solving them will require all of us -- consumers, business owners, chemists, scientists, government agencies -- to reach deeper and think bigger.

Part of the solution is to pass policies like the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 that will eliminate the most harmful substances, set up systems to assess safety, and shed more light on the health effects of the chemicals we put on our bodies. As with any bill, there are important details still to be worked out through the democratic process, and we look forward to the debate.

We believe the challenges can be worked out while still achieving the goal of safer products and without harming small businesses. The bill will actually provide many benefits to small businesses, such as providing access to toxicity information and making it easier for consumers to find the safest products.

Preserving opportunities for small businesses is crucial. These companies are the heart and soul of the cosmetics industry. They are leading the way in solving many of the toxicity problems and innovating safer alternatives -- they are figuring out how to preserve products without formaldehyde or estrogenic chemicals, how to make great suds without carcinogenic contaminants, and many are going a step further and sourcing sustainable, organic and fair-trade ingredients. They are proving it can be done.

Many small business owners were inspired to start companies because they got sick with cancer or other diseases, or they couldn't find products they felt good about using.

"I founded my company because safe baby products weren't easily available to parents due to a broken system that allows companies to use toxic chemicals in personal care products -- and promote them as safe," says Jessica Iclisoy, founder of California Baby. "We need a bottom line of safety and integrity in the cosmetics aisle."

Cancer survivor and make-up artist Britta Aragon, who founded the company Cinco Vidas to help other cancer survivors, added:

Manufacturers are slow to embrace change -- if they embrace it at all. The only answer is regulation that forces industry to consider the potential health effects of any and all ingredients used. The priority has to be our health.

For the health of all of us, for all the people who have suffered with preventable diseases, we need to figure this out. We owe it to our children and future generations to figure this out. Let's work together toward the day when all children are born free of toxic chemicals and with the best chance to live healthy fulfilled lives.

Please take action by telling your Congressional Representatives that safe cosmetics are important to you; ask him or her to co-sponsor the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010.

Annie Leonard is the creator of the internet phenomenon "The Story of Stuff" which has been viewed more than 12 million times online, and author of the bestselling book by the same name. Stacy Malkan is a co-founder of the national Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and author of, "Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry."

The Story of Cosmetics: What's Really in Your Personal Care Products?

2010-07-21T08:35:22-04:00

As a mother, I want to be sure that the shampoo, sunscreen, bubble bath and other personal care products my daughter uses are safe. If I stick to products in the children's aisle at the drugstore -- stuff that's made and marketed specifically for kids -- those should be OK, right?

The labels are reassuring: "Gentle." "Pure." "Natural." "Free of Harsh Ingredients." "Recommended by Pediatricians." "Dermatologists Approved." And of course, "No More Tears."

But when you turn the bottles around, get out a magnifying glass and read the fine print on the back (and get online to do some research) it's a different story: sodium laureth sulfate, diazolidinyl urea, ceteareth-20, PEGs, quaternium-15 -- all these are typically contaminated with cancer-causing chemicals like formaldehyde or 1,4 dioxane.

Carcinogens in baby shampoo? Are you kidding me?

I asked some scientists what was going on, and what they told me was scary, and not just for our children. It turns out the average American bathroom is a minefield of toxic chemicals. Sunscreens, lipstick, moisturizer, shaving cream -- many cosmetics and personal care products for babies, kids, moms and dads contain chemicals linked to cancer or other health problems like learning disabilities, asthma and even damaged sperm.

I got so mad about this I joined with the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics to make a new video, The Story of Cosmetics.

It turns out that while you and I can choose to buy the safer products made by responsible companies, the really important decisions don't happen when we take a product off the shelf. What counts is when companies and government agencies decide what should be allowed on the shelves.

Here's just some of what I learned while making The Story of Cosmetics:

• All those sudsy products like shampoos and body washes that contain sodium laureth sulfate have as a byproduct 1,4-dioxane, a known carcinogen that's suspected to also cause kidney, nerve and respiratory problems. Unlike many other countries, the U.S. government does not limit formaldehyde, 1,4-dioxane, or most other hazardous substances in personal care products. As a result, independent lab tests found these chemicals in dozens of brands, including Johnson's Baby Shampoo and Sesame Street Bubble Bath. The companies claim that the chemical levels aren't large enough to worry about, but I'd prefer not to have any cancer-causing chemicals in my daughter's shampoo -- or mine.

• Protecting yourself from the sun shouldn't be dangerous. But a number of common sunscreen chemicals are linked to cancer, and may also disrupt estrogen and thyroid hormones. Well over half of all sunscreens contain the potential hormone disruptor oxybenzone that readily penetrates the skin and has been found in the bodies of 97% of Americans tested by the Centers for Disease Control.

• Dabbing on a little bit of lipstick seems harmless enough -- if you don't mind a little lead. Tests commissioned by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics found lead in almost two-thirds of top-selling red lipsticks. Highest lead levels were in top-selling brands L'Oreal, Maybelline and Cover Girl. Lead, a proven neurotoxin for which there is no safe level of exposure for children, was also found in every brand of kids' face paints tested.

You'd think the government would be working to keep hazardous chemicals out of cosmetics. Think again. The Food and Drug Administration doesn't assess the safety of personal care products or their ingredients. Since the federal cosmetics law was written more than 70 years ago, the FDA has banned just eight out of the 12,000-plus ingredients used in cosmetics. The FDA doesn't even require all of the ingredients to be listed on the label.

Instead, the government lets the cosmetics industry set up its own committee to self-police its products -- and compliance with the committee's "recommendations" is voluntary. The cosmetics industry is making the rules and deciding whether or not to follow them.

Women, parents, workers, people all over the country are demanding that Congress overhaul the outdated cosmetics law to give the FDA the power to make sure that our personal care products are safe. And Congress has heard them.

Today, Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) are introducing the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010, which would close the gaping holes in federal law. It would phase out the most dangerous chemicals, set up a system to assess cosmetic ingredients for safety, require companies to be transparent about what's in their products, and provide adequate resources for the FDA to do its job. It will also help small businesses in the cosmetics industry meet the new regulations, while spurring the development of greener chemicals that will help companies compete for customers who value safety and openness.

As you can imagine, the personal care product industry isn't so excited about this. The big cosmetics companies have already spent millions of dollars trying to defeat real reforms and proposing meaningless alternatives. Only a major mobilization of everyone who is affected by this problem from across the political spectrum can provide the support to pass this landmark legislation. You can add your voice to the calls for reform here. Then pass The Story of Cosmetics around to family and friends.

Together, we can tell the industry it's time to come clean.

Annie Leonard is director of The Story of Stuff Project and author of The Story of Stuff: How Our Obsession with Stuff is Trashing the Planet, Our Communities and Our Health and A Vision for Change.

Can't Buy Me Love

2010-04-15T09:00:00-04:00

It's Tax Day, which means the Tea Party will be railing against government spending on programs like health care, Head Start, environmental protection, consumer product safety inspectors and food stamps. Try as I might, I just can't understand the logic of opposing government programs to ensure that our air, water and baby bottles are safe, children aren't hungry and everyone has access to a doctor.

Last summer, when Fox News took note of my video The Story of Stuff, Glenn Beck attacked me as an anti-American, anti-capitalist Marxist because I said it's government's job to take care of us. (He's at it again. Last week he was aghast to learn from a group of conservative college students that the film had been shown in an NYU science class: "Somewhere your parents is [sic] paying for this!")

Maybe I left myself open for Beck's potshot. I didn't mean government should remind us to floss our teeth and tuck us in at night. I meant take care of us by tackling the big problems that can't be solved by individuals (or even charity) and ensuring that the system is fair for everyone.

Providing a safety net for sick people, hungry families and poor kids should be government's highest priority. Instead, tax laws and fiscal policy are almost exclusively concerned with promoting what has become our sole measure of national well-being: economic growth.

Economic growth was once a means towards an end -- good jobs, healthy communities, greater well-being. But somewhere along the way growth became a goal in itself, even when it throws workers out of jobs and undermines the health and well-being of our communities.

I'm all for a healthy economy, but today's economy values growth for its own sake on the premise that more money and more consumer goods always mean progress. We all know that once our basic needs are met, more money can't make us happy, but economists and politicians continue to bow at the altar of wealth creation - even when the evidence shows there are better ways to increase the quality of life.

Take the Happy Planet Index, which despite its name is a highly sophisticated tool for measuring how well nations turn their resources into long and happy lives for their citizens. The United States is first in resource use (no surprise) but ranks 140th in converting resources into life satisfaction.

Or take it from David Brooks of The New York Times, who recently cited research by the Brookings Institution showing:

The relationship between happiness and income is complicated, and after a point, tenuous. It is true that poor nations become happier as they become middle-class nations. But once the basic necessities have been achieved, future income is lightly connected to well-being. Growing countries are slightly less happy than countries with slower growth rates . . . The United States is much richer than it was 50 years ago, but this has produced no measurable increase in overall happiness.

Brooks writes: "Most governments release a ton of data on economic trends but not enough on social conditions. . . . Public institutions should pay attention to well-being and not just material growth narrowly conceived."

If Brooks, one of the most prominent conservatives in the nation, thinks this, maybe the tide is turning. Maybe we can begin to discuss the failings of our growth-obsessed economy without being accused of being anti-American. Maybe one day we'll see that taxes for social programs are how the government makes investments in the things that really make us happy. That's their job.

Annie Leonard is author of The Story of Stuff: How Our Obsession With Stuff is Trashing the Planet, Our Communities, And Our Health -- and a Vision for Change.

The Story of Bottled Water: Fear, Manufactured Demand and a $10,000 Sandwich

2010-03-22T08:27:42-04:00

Imagine I was trying to sell you a sandwich. It's shrink wrapped in plastic that may leach toxic chemicals, but don't worry about that. Mine's still healthier than a sandwich you could make at home, what with all those impurities in your fridge. Now, I've got no proof of that, and actually, some people have tested my sandwiches and found that sometimes they have more bad stuff in them than the ones from your own kitchen. But never mind that. Mine's more convenient. Tastes better too. I swear.

So here you go: one plastic-wrapped, waste-producing sandwich that isn't any healthier and doesn't taste any better than the one from your own kitchen. That'll be $10,000, please.

That preposterous pitch is the truth behind the marketing campaigns that turned bottled water into a $5 billion-a-year industry in the United States alone. Today is World Water Day--a good day to pause and consider the insanity of a global economy where 1 billion people lack access to safe drinking water while other people spend billions on a bottled product that's no cleaner, harms people and the environment and costs up to 2,000 times the price of tap water.

To mark the occasion, I'm joining with a bunch of North America's leading environmental groups to release our new film: The Story of Bottled Water. It's a seven-minute animated film that, like The Story of Stuff, uses simple images and words to explain a complex problem caused by what I call the 'take-make-waste' economy. In this case, we explain how you get Americans to buy half a billion bottles of water a week when most can get it almost free from the tap in their kitchen.

" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="300">
The answer, of course, is you manufacture demand--make people think they need to spend money on something they don't actually need or already have.

In the last few decades, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Nestle and other big beverage companies have spent untold millions making us afraid of tap water. They've told us that if we want to be sure what we drink is pure and clean--not to mention hip and fashionable--we should buy bottled water. After all, nobody cool or environmentally conscious drinks tap water, right?

The thing is, there are a lot of inconvenient truths the bottled water ads don't mention:

• Bottled water is subject to fewer health regulations than tap water. In 2006, Fiji Water ran ads bragging that their product doesn't come from Cleveland, only to have tests show a glass of Fiji water is lower quality than Cleveland tap. Oops!

• Up to 40 percent of bottled water is filtered tap water. In other words, if you're concerned about what's in your tap water, just cut out the middleman and buy a home water filter.

• Each year, according to the Pacific Institute's Peter Gleick, making the plastic water bottles used in the U.S. takes enough oil and energy to fuel a million cars. And that doesn't even include the fuel required to ship, fly or truck water across continents and state lines.

• Three-fourths of the half-a-billion plastic water bottles sold in the U.S. every week go to the landfill or to incinerators. It costs our cities more than $70 million to landfill water bottles alone each year, according to Corporate Accountability International.

But there's good news: People are getting the message. Last year, for the first time this decade, bottled water sales fell--not that much, but they went down. Restaurants are proudly serving tap water, adding carbonization on site for customers who want something fizzy. Consumers who want economy, portability and convenience are switching to refillable metal bottles.

Still, we've got a ways to go until everyone realizes that bottled water makes as much sense as a $10,000 sandwich.

So, if you haven't already, you can get started by making a personal commitment to drink from the tap.

Then join a campaign for investment in clean tap water for everyone, like those sponsored by Food & Water Watch, Environmental Working Group or Canada's Polaris Institute. Work to ban the purchase of bottled water by your school, company or city--Corporate Accountability is helping states kick the bottled water habit--and lobby local officials to bring back drinking fountains.

Together, we can send Coke, Pepsi and the rest of the industry a message as clear as a glass of crystal-clean tap water: We're not buying into your manufactured demand anymore. We'll choose our own demands, thank you very much, and we're demanding clean safe water for all!

Annie Leonard is the author of The Story of Stuff: How Our Obsession With Stuff is Trashing the Planet, Our Communities, Our Health - and a Vision for Change. Her latest film, The Story of Bottled Water, was produced by Free Range Studios and can be found at www.storyofbottledwater.org

The Story of Stuff: Externalized Costs and the $4.99 Radio

2010-03-09T07:58:47-05:00

Walking to work one day I wanted to listen to the news, so I popped into Radio Shack. I found a cute little green radio for $4.99. Pleased with my bargain, I stood in line to pay, but then started wondering: how could $4.99 cover the cost of extracting the raw materials, manufacturing the parts, assembling the radio, and getting it into my hands?

Whenever I go to buy something I get sidetracked, thinking of how it got here. It's an occupational hazard. I spent a decade traveling around the world, visiting the factories where our stuff is made and the dumps where it goes when we don't want it any more. What I learned makes it impossible for me to look at anything and not see the journey it made through the global take-make-waste system.

The metal in that $4.99 radio was probably mined in Africa. The petroleum that went into the plastic probably was pumped from Iraq, and the plastic itself produced in China. The packaging came from forests in Brazil or Canada. Maybe the parts were then shipped across the ocean to Mexico, where some 15-year-old in a maquiladora assembled the radio. There it was put on a truck or a train and shipped to a distribution center in Southern California, then 500 miles north to my local store.

Four-ninety-nine? That wouldn't pay for the shelf space it took up until I came along, let alone the salary for the guy who helped me pick it out.

That's when I realized: I didn't pay for the radio. So who did?

A study currently underway for the United Nations is calculating the cost of pollution and other environmental damage caused by the 3,000 largest publicly held corporations in the world. The study, which will be published this summer, has found that the cost of environmental damage by these companies is $2.2 trillion, or more than one-third of their profits if they were held financially accountable. This includes greenhouse gas emissions, other pollution, and water degradation. The final amount is likely to increase once additional costs -- like toxic waste -- are incorporated.

The Guardian newspaper wrote: "The report comes amid growing concern that no one is made to pay for most of the use, loss and damage of the environment, which is reaching crisis proportions in the form of pollution and the rapid loss of freshwater, fisheries and fertile soils." Economists call that externalizing costs, and it's how corporations hide the true cost of making and selling cheap stuff -- costs that are never recorded on the balance sheets and consumers never see. As David Korten writes in When Corporations Rule the World, "Externalized costs don't go away -- they are simply ignored by those who benefit from making the decisions that result in others incurring them."

What the UN report means is that a big chunk of the profits these big companies are making is due not paying the full cost of extraction, production, distribution and disposal. They are shoving a whole range of costs -- from pollution to climate change to water depletion -- onto us. Communities around the world are bearing the costs with degraded health, soil, water and climate change. That's just not fair.

Which takes us back to the original question: Who paid for that $4.99 radio? Some people paid with the loss of their natural resources. Some paid with the loss of clean air, with increased asthma and cancer rates. Some workers paid by having to cover their own health insurance. Kids in Africa paid with their future: a third of the school-age children in parts of the Congo now drop out to mine metals for electronics. All along the way, people pitched in, or were forced to, so I could buy a radio for $4.99 -- so cheap that if it broke I could just throw it away.

The UN report is a good first step at showing the global scale of externalized costs. If we're going to get our economy and environment back in order, a top priority must be forcing companies to pay the full costs of production. In economist-speak, this means internalizing externalities. That would be a strong motivator to get companies to invest in the cleaner, less polluting approaches and encourage all of us to avoid superfluous consumption.

If the true cost of that cotton t-shirt or iPod was included in the price tag, we might think twice before throwing it out and replacing it before we really need to. Think about that next time you look at those insanely low prices on so much consumer stuff -- who is really paying the full cost of producing all this? Not the companies that sell it.

Annie Leonard is author of The Story of Stuff: How Our Obsession With Stuff is Trashing the Planet, Our Communities and Our Health - and a Vision for Change, just published by Free Press, please see www.storyofstuff.org for more information.