A destination previously left to only serious explorers, now many African countries are hoping that you will consider them for your next vacation. A Reuters article reports on how some African nations are attempting to brand themselves as eco-tourist destinations. Until now, Kenya and Tanzania have dominated the famed safari tours of Africa, but other nations such as Rwanda, Madagascar and Equatorial Guinea are getting in on the act.

Following the example of Costa Rica, which is now ubiquitous with eco-tourism, these countries are attempting to brand themselves as tourist destinations in hopes of attracting the huge sums that come with the hordes of European, North American, Japanese and Australian tourists eager to see the exotic landscape and wildlife that the less traveled Sub-Saharan Africa has to offer.

This is beneficial in many ways. If these nations can make a name for themselves as a tourist destination rather than as locations of political and economic troubles, the hope is that attracting tourism will create economic incentives to protect biodiversity, and that the income will improve the lives of the local population.

However, they have a long way to go before achieving the eco-friendly status of Costa Rica, and while there is potential for success, this plan could backfire.

It will be difficult for these nations to attract tourists in considerable numbers, particularly North Americans. Even if they are successful in their branding and the perceived instability and safety issues are not of concern, a ticket to Africa is far too expensive for most Americans or Canadians to consider. The hope is that this will change as nations become more popular tourist destinations, more affordable package deals are offered, and flights become more regular, but this can create its own problems.

Environmentalists warn that eco-tourism can bring new environmental concerns, with increased pollution caused by travel and activity, and unfortunate examples of tourists accidentally damaging coral reefs and causing forest fires, not to mention the damage to the area caused by increased development.

There is a difference between genuinely protecting species' habitats, and creating a few national parks with roads for tour jeeps and walkways for tourists to see the remainders of Lemurs, Gorillas, and endangered monkeys. In particular, the Madagascar mainland and the islands surrounding it which are very important to biodiversity would prove very tempting for developers should this region attract more tourists.

Also, there is the issue of increased tourism benefiting the majority. There is opportunity for tourists to contribute to a serious income source for those living in poverty, but there is also the danger of repeating the mistakes of tourist areas in many developed countries. Gated communities of foreign-owned resorts on beautiful beachfront keep locals away from tourists except as poorly paid staff, and most of the decent jobs go to other English-speaking foreigners.

Eco-tourism could be part of the solution, but it is not a magic bullet for conservation, and planners must be careful to consider all aspects of this re-branding. So too must tourists consider all the factors when planning an eco-friendly vacation.

LOHAS stands for lifestyles of health and sustainability, and refers to customers who buy their products based not just on quality and price, but also based on a variety of health, social and environmental issues. These are far ranging, from which cell phone company employs union workers to which pencil is made from FSC certified wood. If you are reading this, you are probably a LOHAS customer.

As LOHAS numbers grow, so do attempts to sell to them. A New York Times article this week, Mass Natural, discusses Wal-Mart's intention to get into the organic food business. Writer Michael Pollan concludes that although there are certainly some benefits to making organic food more accessible, going so massively mainstream would be a bad thing for organic farmers, consumers, and the environment in the long run.

Wal-Mart claims that it will provide organic foods at only 10 percent above conventional food prices, which is a great deal cheaper than organic customers are used to paying. Wal-Mart believes this will not only get many of their current customers to pay a little extra for organic, it will entice the LOHAS crowd into shopping at Wal-Mart.

Hopefully, they are wrong. If Wal-Mart does succeed in getting their prices down to only 10 percent above conventional, doing so will "virtually guarantee that Wal-Mart's version of cheap organic food is not sustainable in any meaningful sense of the word." Writes Pollan, "To index the price of organic to the price of conventional is to give up on the idea that food should not be priced high or low but responsibly. Cheap industrial food is cheap only because the real costs of producing it are not reflected in the price at the checkout." Soil depletion, pollution, decreased nutrients leading to poor health, is paid for by the environment, by government subsidies, and by the welfare of food and farm factory workers and animals.

To say that you can sell organic food for 10 percent more than you sell irresponsibily priced food suggests that you don't really get it, that you plan to bring business as usual principles of industrial efficiency and economies of scale to a system of food production that was supposed to mimic the logic of natural systems rather than that of the factory. - Michael Pollan

Wal-Mart is proving yet again that they don't really get it. When I attended the Forest Leadership Forum in Portland last month, I was shocked to find Wal-Mart there, but was not surprised by their condescending and awful presentation, which showed that while they may be accepting that they need to change their image to attract more upscale customers, they were not interested in changing much else.

Wal-Mart believes they can attract high-end customers the same way they attract low-end customers, buy offering things they want at the lowest possible prices. While there are certainly many people that will be won over by this approach, a substantial portion of LOHAS customers will not trust a place that puts independent shops out of business, destroys the communities it invades, pays their workers a laughable wage with little or no health benefits and violates union-busting and OSHA regulations constantly to safeguard the organic standards they laud.

In the end, it will be up to the consumer to decide who to support, but it is unlikely that a group of left-leaning, organic-eating, urban blue state dwellers will embrace Wal-Mart's going organic after fighting to keep the giant out of their cities. Wal-Mart's big mistake may be in ignoring the most important aspect of the LOHAS customer: they are multi-issue oriented. A company who has average to questionable social policies but excellent environmental policies or vice versa will be able to attract LOHAS customers, but a company with deplorable social practices to the point where an entire documentary film can be made about it, can not get themselves into LOHAS good graces by making positive but moderate environmental change only.

For more information on Wal-Mart and to get involved, check out Wal-Mart Watch and Wake Up Wal-Mart.

The Toronto-based paper The Globe and Mail reports on a woman named Barbara Harris in Nova Scotia who is part of a grassroots effort to live free of toxic chemicals. Her group worked with the Environmental Health Association of Nova Scotia to put together the Less Toxic Guide to educate the masses about potentially harmful chemicals in their everyday lives and how to minimize their contact with them.

The guide came out of Ms. Harris' own struggles. "It's more than a full-time job for individuals to try to figure out what's in the products that they're using," Ms. Harris says of the difficulties.

Many people believe that if a product is in stores, it must have been tested and proved itself safe for human exposure, but that is not always the case. If regulation in Canada is lax, US regulation is a joke. Thanks to powerful lobbying by chemical and other companies, most chemicals now come to market with little to no review, and are only pulled from shelves if people began to get sick, and the companies fear lawsuits.

One approach some environmentalists are using to help people minimize chemical exposures is to monitor what companies say is in their products, then disseminate this information widely.
Clean Production Action, an environmental organization based in Montreal, has set up a website to do just that. It evaluates products that may contain potentially harmful chemicals, ranking them by corporate name.

On the positive side, the group ranked IKEA, Volvo, and H&M as some of the safest to buy from, and most cautious about their use of chemicals. H&M expressly prohibits solvents or other hazardous materials in the manufacture of their clothes.

Although many environmentalist are urging consumers to take matters into their own hands, some researchers say there is a limit to what an individual can do. In most professional opinions, the most effective way to reduce exposures would be better regulation.

This is bad news for GM and Ford, who have seen sales of their tank-like cars, well, tank. In response, GM has started an insane promotion, promising to cap gasoline prices at $1.99 a gallon for a year for customers in California and Florida who purchase certain new cars. The refund amount depends on estimated fuel use and the average state-wide price per gallon. Eligible cars include notorious guzzlers Tahoe, Suburban, Yukon, and Hummer.

The promotion will probably see a modest jump in sales for these cars, but what GM and others fail to realize is that gas prices are one reason, albeit the largest for some, that is pushing Americans to change their behaviors. An extra refund may convince a few, but it will do nothing for the long-term health of the company.

There is an understanding among just about everyone that the rise in gas prices over the last couple of years is not temporary, it is the pump of the future. Gas prices will continue to rise, and if they do dip from time to time, they will come back up, and we just need to get used to paying more for gas.

There is also a fair amount of disgust at the huge profits of the major gas companies and the unwillingness of the federal government to do anything about it. What is seen by many people as simple price gouging is privatized, uncontrolled, and encouraged, so why should we continue to spend like we do?

And then, there is the war. Even those who support it realize that we are, in many ways, funding both sides of it. Our reliance on oil from countries with whom we are at war is completely insane, no matter what your opinion of the war or the current administration.

Companies such as GM seem to think that this is a simple equation: gas prices go up, SUV sales go down, but that is not the whole story. Although sales of the Toyota Prius are soaring, there is not yet an economic incentive to buy a hybrid car, so price alone does not explain the change in our buying habits when it comes to cars, and price alone will not change it back.

Of course, for some people, it doesn't matter. If you really, really want to buy a Tahoe, you are going to buy one, regardless of what gas prices or politics do. For most people, though, the party is over, and let's hope it stays that way.

The motives for the film are obviously partly political, coming out just ahead of congressional elections this fall, and building momentum toward 2008. Although Gore claims he has no intention of running, he still represents the democratic party, and is a painful reminder of what could have been if African-Americans had been allowed to vote in Florida in 2000. His attempt to come back into the spotlight at this point is a reminder that our next chance is coming up.

Coming as no surprise to anyone, Bush responded to a question about whether or not he would see the film with a flat "no". As Bush's popularity drops below thirty percent, and the republican party becomes increasingly fragmented, it appears that some slivers of environmentalism are getting through the big-oil-subsidizing congress.

The House, fearful of voters' rage in the face of high gas prices and record oil profits, voted to revoke billions of dollars worth of incentives to oil companies, and force them to negotiate leases to drill in the Gulf of Mexico. The House also voted to reject the lifting of a ban on oil drilling in costal areas outside the Gulf of Mexico, and to continue the ban on drilling only for natural gas.

Surprisingly, the House also voted to halt federal funds for road-building in Alaska's Tongrass national forest, and voted against an EPA directive that would reduce wetlands protection.

So the some republicans are going pro-environment in an election year? Gore and supporters think the time is ripe for change.

The opening of the documentary coincides with the opening of a new organization, The Alliance for Climate Protection, whose aim is simply to raise public awareness of climate change. The alliance will use huge amounts of money on a public awareness campaign in a massive attempt to shift public opinion on climate change.

Generally I'm wary of big-budget campaigns whose sole purpose is to raise awareness. There's no doubt that public opinion does influence politics and business, but without action campaign targeting specific companies or politicians, or targeted lobbying to back it up, an awareness campaign often begins and ends with awareness.

It does depend on how far the campaign goes. The majority of Americans already believe that global warming is real, and that it is caused by human activity. For the rest of them, it isn't so much that they don't believe it, but that they don't care.

Believing that your lifestyle is leading to the destruction of the planet, and the environmental devastation that precedes it, is hard to swallow. Ultimately, the success of an awareness campaign should be judged not on the resulting shift in opinion, but in a shift in action. Convincing people that the globe is warming and it's our fault is one thing, but convincing them to drive less, build less, and overall consume less is quite another.

So, Gore and his allies are hoping that this film is the beginning of a new movement against climate change, and we are all hoping this new movement starts producing some political and environmental results.

Check out An Inconvenient Truth at a theater near you.

Stephen Tindale, a spokesman for Greenpeace, echoed what many in the UK are saying about Blair's remarks: "The prime minister obviously made up his mind about nuclear power some time ago, and certainly well before the government launched its energy review. The review is a smokescreen for a decision that has already been taken."

In addition to this announcement, Blair has also removed nuclear skeptics from key cabinet posts earlier this month, replacing them with people who are more open to the nuclear option. Even if this review says that renewable sources of energy and conservation are feasible and the way to go, it seems unlikely that Blair would tone down his support of nuclear, and intends, his critics say, to a legacy of nuclear dumps around Britain.

Here at home? We have a president that can't even say "nuclear", much less comprehend the complexities of it. Many have said that last year's state of the union in which Bush made the infamous "we are addicted to oil" comment, had the intention not of promoting clean, renewable sources, but as a springboard for putting more money into nuclear.

Of course, there is nothing new about this debate. The US currently gets 20 percent of its energy from nuclear, France gets 80 percent. However, thanks to massive anti-nuke activism dating back to the 60s, we would hope that replacing existing plants and dealing with existing waste would be a priority for governments, rather than adding new plants and creating more waste.

Doesn't it seem insane that governments would rather invest in nuclear energy, which is controversial, and has massive environmental and health risks, and leaves the private sector wary of attaching their name to it, than invest in genuine solutions?

Of course, with nukes, there are profits to be made. Although the advancement of solar, for example, would be big business at first, once the solar panels are installed and the sun is out, energy would be free. Exxon doesn't own the sun, and their years of price gouging and record setting-profits would be over.

At their shareholders annual meeting today, Bill Ford certainly didn't find too many friendly faces. Shareholders' concerns are financial, but they are also environmental.

The wrong car at the wrong time has been the major criticism of Ford over the last few years. The company's three big SUVs, the Expedition, the Explorer, and The Excursion, have tanked as gas prices have climbed.

Lately, the company has been making an effort to appeal more to green consumers, with the Ford Escape Hybrid SUV. Neil Golightly spoke at the LOHAS forum about the ways in which Ford will continue to produce more fuel-efficient cars.

Bill Ford has been known for his involvement with environmental groups, and many hoped that his takeover of the company would signal a new pro-environment era for Ford. While the Hybrid does have the highest fuel efficiency (30 mpg highway) of any SUV, many still doubt Ford's actual commitment to the environment.

In one shareholder proposal, Green Century Capital Management asked for votes to make Ford disclose how much it has spent on lobbying federal officials in support of weak fuel-economy standards. In 2004 alone, Ford spent more than $7 million lobbying congress and the Bush administration in support of a proposal that allows Ford to increase the size of its vehicles to avoid meeting higher fuel-economy standards.

This, of course, is a sensitive point for Bill Ford, who was quite vocal about increasing the fuel efficiency of Ford's vehicles before he was CEO. These drawbacks and Ford's continual losses point to a few things. First, how late they came to the game of fuel efficiency. Toyota was already there, and consumers who want more responsible cars are buying a Prius, and look to Toyota for innovation before Ford.

Second is Ford's inability to shake their reputation as a conservative company. This is manifested in the ridiculous shareholder resolution to prohibit Ford from giving same-sex partner benefits to their employees. Ford has been a target for "anti-gay" activists, who have also attacked the company's decision to advertise in gay publications. This also does not help to raise their credibility with green, more leftist consumers.

So, the Escape is a start, but Ford still has a long way to go.

Day two of the forest leadership forum started out very well, promising to be more exciting than day one. An excellent morning plenary session titled "Business Response to Shifting Social and Political Interests" featured CEO Russell Horner from Catalyst Papers, Michael Marx, the Executive Director of Corporate Ethics, Denny Scott Assistant Director of the labor union Carpenters and Joiners of America, and a fascinating man, Martin Palmer from a UK based organization called Alliance of Religion and Conservation (ARC).

The panel discussion was informed and lively, with Horner demonstrating a depth of knowledge of environmental concerns we can only hope to have in CEOs, and challenging us to question our assumptions about recycling and emissions. Marx, Palmer, and Scott brought the perspectives of advocacy, religion, and labor to the discussion.

Marx brought Wal-Mart up as a example of a company that is on the verge of massive environmental changes. Since they are so huge, even a tiny cutback for them is monumental, and Marx was encouraged by the progress they are making. Denny Scott jumped in and pointed out what everyone in the room was thinking, which is that Wal-Mart, with or without any environmental commitments, continues to have deplorable employment and other social practices. Marx agreed, and said that until this changes, Wal-Mart will not have the support of most NGOs, which is why we need to mobilize these organizations to work together to force Wal-Mart into improving itself overall.

The session was lively and positive, and I left thinking that maybe it was possible. Could even Wal-Mart be waking up to the reality of sustainable practices? Could this be a sign they are changing their ways? Have we finally gotten through to them? Well, I got my answer at the next session I attended.

It was called "Learning from Like-Minded Organizations" and features, alongside representatives from the World Wildlife Fund and Organic Exchange, and Kristen Stevens, the Project Manager of the "Wood Fiber Sustainability Network" from Wal-Mart. I, like many people in that room, were skeptical of what she was going to say, and we were right to be.

Stevens' talk could not have proved more clearly that Wal-Mart’s efforts at sustainability are nothing more than greenwashing. Her presentation was full of feel-good corporate speak and lacking in anything concrete. I was reminded of President Bush's tour of Africa a few years ago when he made a speech denouncing slavery. Radical.

Stevens asked questions such as, "Do companies have a role in protecting the environment?", and then made the radical conclusion that they do. She assured us that Wal-Mart "is thinking very hard about this issue." Thanks Wal-Mart, for catching up to where every other company was ten years ago.

It gets worse. Stevens had the unbelievable gall to announce that Wal-Mart's mission is in fact to: "improve the standard of living for our customers". Really? Well, since they are one of the largest employers in the world, their customers are also their employees.

A very easy way to raise that standard of living for their employees would be to pay them a living wage, give them permanent full-time status, affordable benefits, and treat them with a little respect. While they’re at it, they could also settle their lawsuit over sexist discrimination, and cease this practice. They could also respond to the many allegations of racism in their stores, and train their managers not to tolerate this behavior.

The presentation also featured two laughably cheesy videos. One showing CEO Lee Scott making obvious statements about how sustainability is good for the bottom line, but saying nothing about how this would change their practices, and some nonsensical analogy about a blind pig and an acorn, which I think we were supposed to find folksy. The other was a group of Wal-Mart execs visiting a cotton farm in Turkey and feeling very good about themselves, but said nothing about how this farm would be sustainable or offer better treatment to its workers.

The only concrete facts were percentages of how the company is improving, which only serves to prove just how awful their practices have been. Reducing your waste by 10 percent is not so impressive if you were before and still are one of the most unsustainable companies in the world.

So overall, here's what I got from this presentation: Wal-Mart is only interested in what benefits them financially, in so much as it benefits them financially. They are interested in making some environmentally sound changes because it will save them a ton of money. This in and of itself is not wrong, but as we all know, the real test of a responsible company is whether they will do the things that cost them money, at least in the short run.

Offering living wages and benefits, and paying fair prices to suppliers, particularly small businesses and farmers therefore allowing them to do the same for their employees doesn't save money, but it should be done. Also, making decisions about where and how to expand that is responsible to communities and the environment can cost you money, but a sustainable business must do that. There was none of this mentioned.

Another point that was unintentionally made here was that Wal-Mart does not take environmentalism and sustainability seriously, if only in that they hired Ms. Stevens as their project manager on this topic. She seemed to make it a point of pride that she really didn't know what she was talking about.

Stevens made several jokes about how "big words" like sustainability and FSC certification were big new terms to her, she’s just used to saying "price". That got no laugh. She then said that they just completed nine months of training on these topics. Maybe I'm biased, but do you need nine months of training to understand FSC certification?

I can't believe that Wal-Mart could not have found someone for this position who knew what FSC certification is, or at least someone who could learn this and a few other terms in under a human gestation period.

She also made a stab at the elite liberals who oppose Wal-Mart, saying "people outside of places like Portland, Seattle, New York and San Francisco deserve good products". Yes, they do. And they could have them if the mom and pop operations you put out of business could continue to employ them with benefits and higher wages, and give them quality products instead of the cheap plastic crap you sell.

The time for questions was short, and although my hand was up to ask about employment practices, I didn't get a chance.

So, after a few days of positive progress from companies, today was a reality check of the battles we still have to fight, and how far we have to go. Overall, I have been impressed with the level of discussion at this conference, Catalyst Papers, Toyota, Aveda, and even Bank of America as well as many smaller companies seemed to understand the issues and value the input of NGOs, recognizing that their time of uncontrolled destruction is up.

Please help stop Wal-Mart! Visit Wal-Mart Watch and Wake Up Wal-Mart to learn more and get involved.

LOHAS did leave attendees with some solid steps for moving forward, but overall seemed to be about networking and sharing information across a wide spectrum of topics, with particular focus on LOHAS marketing. There was a lot of congratulating everyone for the progress they've made so far, and some new age sentimentality about their goals.

This positive vibe definitely came partly from the major sponsors that were evident everywhere, specifically Ford. One complaint I had about LOHAS was that attendees didn't have much chance to participate in any real way. Panel discussions and presentations gave time for one or two questions from the audience only, and those questions were inquisitive rather than critical.

Here, the sessions are much smaller, and except for the main keynotes, most are sessions with probably 50-75 people. There is also ample time built in for questions, which the first session used well. After this and the opening keynote, I can see that this conference will not only be more specific, it will have a decidedly more critical slant.

This morning's session, the Pre-conference EPAT workshop, was the unveiling of a new tool to assess the entire concept of "environmentally preferable paper".

The Environmental Paper Assessment Tool (EPAT) is an online system created by MetaFore (the environmental nonprofit business consulting firm that organized this conference) assessment tool intended to make these paper products more widely available and affordable, and to evaluate all aspects of paper production.

Currently, there are a few certifications and labels that consumers recognize. Nearly everyone is familiar with the terms recyclable, recycled content, percent post consumer content, and sourced from FSC certified forests. However, this is far from the whole story.

EPAT was created in partnership with huge businesses such as McDonalds, Staples, Nike and FedEx Kinko's. The result is an incredibly complex series of questions and rankings on everything from waste management, use of raw materials and clean production to natural system conservation, human rights in sourcing, and credible reporting and verification, designed to give any given business a series of scores that will tell how sustainable their paper production and use actually is.

David Ford, the president and CEO of MetaFore took us through the online program, and then opened up the floor to questions, when things picked up dramatically, and Ford and co. were put on the defensive.

Businesses wanted to know why the system was so complex, and felt that some components were weighted unfairly. Activists wanted to know how the measurements were verified, why they chose certain measures over others, and how could they guarantee accuracy of qualitative measurements. Couldn't data be easily falsified? How can they know this won't become a greenwashing tool?

The criticisms were many and specific; the panel seemed surprised at this. They answered the questions as best they could, and for many comments, fell back on "this is a work in progress" or "this tool is designed to foster communication".

Of course, here was validity to the criticism, and it was an oversight on MetaFore's part not to recognize it. Nearly everyone in the room was in the paper/forest business as an industry executive or an activist/conservationist. They all understood what the tool offered, the potential power of it, and what, from there perspective, was wrong with it.

Despite a few drawbacks, EPAT could be an important tool for activists, consumers, and business alike. If Metafore’s vision is achieved, an EPAT rating could tell sustainable business, government, and consumers everything they need to know about paper products and the forest impact of a given company. This is part of an important movement toward a comprehensive mulit-issue platform which will be the basis for evaluation of a given company.

So, a rousing start to what promises to be an interesting conference, and it will only get more so from here. More to come.

For more information on EPAT, visit MetaFore.

Ray said it first, and other speakers have echoed it. This is that it is no longer enough for companies to attract LOHAS (Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability) customers by simply looking like a green company, using buzzwords, putting “sustainable” before every new project name, or touting their use of five percent recycled paper.

To reach the LOHAS customers, companies have to go further. They must be authentic.

If companies listen to this message, it’s a great sign, and a new beginning for the environmental consumer movement. This is, after all, what we’ve wanted for years – not glossy marketing, not acquiring green brands and seeing to it that they’re not green anymore, and not controlling sponsorship of organizations and events that are forced to water down their message to get these funds.

So what does authenticity mean? It means that the company looks at many issues and pays attention to every aspect of their business to make sure they are doing everything they can to come down on the right side of these issues. Companies like Patagonia and Aveda gave talks on how they are doing just this.

LOHAS customers are brand loyal and willing to pay more for products they believe in, but they are a difficult market. They expect companies they support to do everything they can, from building LEED certified offices to using 100% post-consumer materials to paying their employees – ALL of their employees – fairly and ensuring that their contractors and vendors do as well.

More to come on the LOHAS market and all that that entails, but one thing is being made clear here – if you want to sell to them, you must be for real. Let’s hope they get it.

The opening remarks definately set the scene for the event. There is a decidedly new age feel to everything here, from the soft ethnic music constantly playing in the background to the organic snacks, and the fact that many of the participants got up early this morning for tae bo with Billy Blanks. This is LA, after all.

Opening remarks were by Dr. James Rouse, a naturopath and host of the TV show “Optimum Wellness”, which shows in various west US cities. In front of trendy simple backdrop of roses, grass, water, and the LOHAS 10 logo, Dr. Rouse thanked us for taking a “trust walk” to LOHAS this year. He then asked us to leave our comfort zones for a few days and think about these issues we were about to delve into idealogically.

He made a point of asking us to “come together”. This refers to the partnership of environmentalists and business, which is, of course, what this whole thing is about.

Dr. Rouse's soft demeanor and casual references to Buddhism, Kathmandu, and yoga, made him the definition of new age cheesiness. The audience seemed to enjoy it, but I was happy to move on to the first session of the day, a panel discussion on Greenbuilding.

Philippe Cousteau (grandson of Jacques), biologist and long time environmentalist Sam Labudde, and Michelle Moore, a VP at the US Green Building Council, made up the panel. The green building panel was overall very positive, which is the great thing about this topic.

Green building is one of those things everyone loves. It's the antidote to the criticism of environmentalists as constantly negative. Many critics say we don’t advocate enough alternatives to the practices we criticize, but this practice gives us something to be positive about.

And deservably so. “Greenbuilding is real, it’s tangible, and it’s better in every way,” said Sam Labudde, and he's right. Building green offers and improvement in health and welfare of people who live or work in the building, it's usually aesthetically pleasing, dramatically more environmentally responsible than conventional buildings, and it costs less.

That's right - it costs less. According to the panel, we are now at the point with resources that over the life of most buildings, it costs many times more to operate them than it does buy them in the first place. Green building to LEED certifications cuts this so dramatically that any extra spent on the building is made back within 3-5 years. This is completely win-win, and few environmental issues are this simple.

So, a decent start to the conference so far. More soon!

Many environmentalists believe that conferences, especially large ones that involve big companies, use significant resources that negate any positive outcomes. Others believe that they are an essential part of the environmental movement, and that just like any other industry, people need to network and share ideas.

Most conferences are aware of this issue, so many of them events take care to preserve the spirit of environmentalism by limiting their resource use. Cutting down on printed materials, using recycled products whenever necessary, as well as reusable cups, plates, and silverware for lunches and coffee breaks are a few ways to limit their impact. Some of them offer an option to offset their travel emissions with Terra Pass or by donating to a conservationist group.

Over the next two weeks, I will be attending two green conferences, LOHAS in Santa Monica, CA, and the Forest Leadership Forum in Portland, OR.

LOHAS, which stands for Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability, is an industry event for companies and organizations to showcase their “green” products and learn more about the LOHAS consumer. The Forest Leadership Forum focuses on what companies and NPOs can do to protect forests.

Some big names, such as Ford and Time Inc will be present at these events, and some smaller, well-respected companies, such as Patagonia, Gaiam, SustainLane, and Organic Bouquet.

At these events, I'll be looking to separate the legit from the greenwashers, as well as to see what's new in the industry, and what consumers can do to push businesses further along.

Check out the blog this week and next week to see what's going on at the conference. Are these worthwhile endeavors or showcases for greenwashers? We shall see.

The Bush administration's failure to rule out the use of force in Iran, and increased militia violence in Nigeria has lead to the suspension of 25% of that country's output, and has forced prices up 16% or $10 over the past month.

One option for relief, along with driving less overall and other options discussed in The Guide to the Green Life's Commute chapter, is to develop new technology that will allow us to move away from our dependence on (mostly foreign) oil.

The EPA and auto-parts supplier BorgWarner announced a partnership to develop diesel technology that they claim will be on the market within five years.

Diesel engines are 20 to 30 percent more fuel efficient than their gasoline counterparts, and the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that if one in three Americans were driving diesels by 2020, U.S. oil consumption would fall by 350,000 barrels a day.

However, diesels have had trouble getting going in the US because they cost around $10000 more than cars with gasoline engines, and there are concerns about the smog-forming pollutants, which are currently higher than standard engines.

The partnership is seeking to solve both of these problems with a tax cut of up to $3,400 per vehicle that will more than alleviate the increased cost, and ultra-low sulfur diesel regulations will cut emissions by 90 percent.

Rice feeds half the world. Three billion people, many of them in Asia, rely on rice as their primary staple. Rising temperatures, increasing floods and droughts, combined with rapid population growth in this region is putting a strain on current rice crops.

The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) is working to developing flood and drought-prone rice varieties to combat the future effects of global warming. "We have a wide range of research programs that are addressing issues directly relating to climate change and rising temperatures," said Robert Zeigler at the IRRI headquarters in Los Banos, near Manila. "We have rice varieties that will be released in the near future that are more tolerant to flooding than currently available varieties."

Zeigler also said the institute was developing rice lines that were tolerant of drought, and had just begun research on rice that could withstand high temperatures.

In a 2004 study, IRRI showed that for every one degree Celsius increase in the average daily temperature, rice yields declined 15 percent. This decline was attributed mostly to higher night time temperatures associated with global warming.

Researchers speculate that increased temperature at night forces the plant to divert more energy to maintain metabolic functions instead of producing greater biomass and grain yield.

Temperatures are projected to rise globally by 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius in the coming century, three to nine times more than in the past century, the institute said.

A new IRRI study will look at how the rice plant reacts to rising concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and how production contributes to the emission of such gases.

I couldn't find any statistics on this, but I'm sure everyone who has planned, knows someone who has planned, or been to a wedding can imagine how much waste weddings produce. The paper-heavy invitations, one-time use clothing, decorations, food and preparation, travel, and gift packaging all end up somewhere, often a landfill.

Weddings are also a great opportunity to support local, sustaianable agriculture and artistry.

There are green alternatives for nearly every step of the process, put together nicely at a new resource: Green Elegance Weddings.

Green Elegance Weddings is run by Valerie Edumunds from the Seattle area, who got the idea when helping to plan her daughter's wedding. She describes the website as "Injecting 'green elegance' into their wedding plans." Which includes socially responsible as well as environmentally responsible awareness.

The site seems to have a good mix of options, as well as a recognition that most young people don't want to get married as their hippie parents did, barefoot in a garden with flowers in their hair. However, many of them would be interested in greening the celebration, if only to save money, which some of the options do, or demonstrate their commitment as a couple to a healthy planet.

The website offers advice and resource on everything from "lovingly worn" or sweat-free wedding apparel, organic flowers, recycled paper invitations, organic and local food, eco-tourism honeymoon options, and gift registry suggestions.

The site includes information on other details also, such as greening wedding travel. So if you or someone you know is planning a wedding, send it on: www.greeneleganceweddings.com.