Businesses Nationwide Support Methane Regulation

Businesses nationwide are speaking up in favor of climate regulation.  The US Chamber of Commerce often gives the impression that businesses oppose environmental regulation. But across the country, thousands upon thousands of businesses are speaking out and saying that well-crafted regulations of carbon emissions are good for businesses.

There is increasing evidence that fracking for natural gas is harming local communities and substantially increasing climate change.  Today, Green America’s Green Business Network and the American Sustainable Business Council, representing over 200,000 businesses, filed joint comments with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in support of proposed regulations of methane emissions from natural gas operations on public and tribal lands.  The regulations are an important first step in addressing rapidly increasing methane emissions from natural gas operations.

***************************************************************

U.S. Department of the Interior
Director (630)
Bureau of Land Management
Mail Stop 2134 LM
1849 C St. NW., Washington, DC 20240

Attention: 1004–AE14

April 21, 2016

Dear Director Kornze,

On behalf of the 3,000 business members of Green America’s Green Business Network and the over 200,000 businesses represented by the American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC), we submit our support for the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) recent proposed standards to reduce methane emissions and wasted gas from venting, flaring, and leaks on federal and tribal lands. The proposed regulations make strong business sense, and are an important step in the right direction in mitigating the adverse effects methane leaks have on the environment, small businesses, and Americans.

Current standards addressing venting, flaring, and leaks do not take into account recent developments in methane mitigation technology and the increasing evidence of methane’s contributions to climate change. Methane is a pollutant more potent than carbon dioxide, and accounts for nine percent of greenhouse gas emissions. In March, Harvard researchers published the study entitled A large increase in U.S. methane emissions over the past decade inferred from satellite data and surface observations in Geophysical Research Letters. The study relied on satellite imaging and found that methane emissions increased by more than 30 percent over the central US between 2002 and 2014. Methane emission increases over the past decade or more are significantly undermining the reductions the US has achieved in CO2 emissions over the same time period.

If strong federal rules are not adopted, methane waste from oil and gas sites will continue to exacerbate the effect climate change has on the economy, including the small businesses sector, which is a principle job creator in the US. Although climate change has more immediate consequences for certain regions – coastal communities and businesses, for instance, are already dealing with rising sea levels – small businesses in general are vulnerable to its impacts, and have less resources to adapt to them. Impacts include disrupting distribution, interrupting farming and production, and rising healthcare costs for employees. Air pollution from methane leaks on public and tribal lands near tourist destinations can also impact small businesses that depend on tourism.

Climate change is likely to have far-reaching and devastating economic impacts. The Risky Business Project, founded to highlight the risks of climate change to the economy, recently published The Economic Risks of Climate Change: An American Prospectus.  The book highlights the greatest economic risks of climate change including: increased mortality; reduction in the hours that people are able to work (particularly in the agriculture, construction, utilities, and manufacturing sectors); and impacts on energy demand, coastal communities, agriculture, and crime. The authors found that the total economic impacts could be three percent of US GDP or higher. Small businesses will be particularly susceptible to such impacts.

That is why it is vitally important that the BLM take steps to lower methane emissions contributing to climate change.  These steps will help protect American small businesses and their communities nationwide.

Adopting the proposed rules will also spur innovation and create jobs in the American clean energy industry, especially within the methane mitigation sector. The majority of existing methane mitigation companies are headquartered in the United States and qualify as small businesses; this rule would allow the American methane mitigation sector to grow, and positions the US to become a global leader in reducing methane emissions.

We greatly appreciate the BLM’s leadership with the proposed rules to reduce methane waste from public and tribal natural gas sites. Although the proposed rules are a positive first step, there is also room to strengthen BLM’s proposal, including:

  • improving leak detection and repair requirements (including quarterly inspections for leak detection and conservative parameters around the proposed alternative compliance programs following the successful examples of Wyoming and Colorado in capturing waste);
  • enacting better standards for production equipment and strengthening flaring regulation (including strengthening control measure around pneumatic controllers and monitoring for leaks); and
  • ensuring enforcement, transparency, and accountability (including increased ability for public comment for ongoing issues).

Finally, it is imperative that BLM finalizes the rules this year as the need for meaningful methane regulation reform is clear: methane leaks and waste fuel climate change and negatively impact human health and businesses nationwide.  Delay will only increase these harms.

The proposed regulations and the steps highlighted above for strengthening them will play a strong role in reducing waste, protecting public health, and addressing the harmful consequences of climate change.  They will help to protect the small business community from climate impacts and provide opportunities for small businesses growth.

Sincerely,

 

Todd Larsen                                                                                       Richard Eidlin

Executive Co-Director                                                                    Vice president of Policy and

Green America                                                                                   Campaigns of ASBC

The Paris Accord: A Major Step Forward for International Cooperation on Climate. Not Enough, On Its Own, to Address Climate Crisis

The Paris Accord: A Major Step Forward for International Cooperation on Climate. Not Enough, On Its Own, to Address Climate Crisis. Yet, in many ways the deal does not go far enough. The key goals of limiting temperature change are aspirational and not legally binding.

The news from Paris this weekend was huge.  Nearly 200 countries agreed to take action on climate to keep temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius or an even more aspirational goal of 1.5 degrees.  The deal has many positive aspects. Nations will be transparent about their emissions reductions, and that transparency should help to shame laggards.  Rich countries are pledging $100 billion per year in assistance to poorer nations.

Yet, in many ways the deal does not go far enough.  The key goals of limiting temperature change are aspirational and not legally binding.  That is why climate scientist James Hansen has ridiculed the agreement for being insufficient to address the problem at the scale that’s needed. And, developing and poor nations are justifiably concerned that assistance from rich countries will not be enough and isn’t even guaranteed.

Of course, the flaws in the agreement reflect the political realities of the major polluter nations, particularly that of the United States.  The U.S. Congress is under the control of politicians who still question whether climate science is real, favor lavish subsidies for fossil fuels, and fail to adequately support renewable energy development.  As a result, the Obama Administration had to negotiate a deal that did not need Senate approval, and the Paris Accord, with all its strengths and weaknesses, fits the bill.

Since the goals of the Paris Accord are aspirational, it is up to citizens and progressive business leaders worldwide to push for strong measures in their countries to move to a clean energy economy.  This transition needs to protect human rights alongside environmental priorities. An important place to start the transition process is eliminating the vast subsidies for fossil fuels.  Worldwide subsidies for fossil fuels represent an astonishing $10 million per minute, or over $5 trillion per year.  These subsidies are distorting energy markets worldwide, making highly polluting fuels appear to be “cheap,” when they actually have huge environmental and health costs that will be borne by citizens for generations. And, compare subsidies for fossil fuels with those for clean energy – currently only $120 billion per year worldwide. Fossil fuel subsidies are an incredible 125 times greater than clean energy ones.  Despite these imbalances, clean energy is developing quickly around the world, but if there were a level playing field, it would increase even more rapidly, and at the rate we need to address climate emissions.

Here in the U.S., government incentives for clean energy are expiring and failing to be renewed, while fossil fuel subsidies that have been locked in for decades continue without any opportunity for public debate.  Green America is working to correct this issue by promoting Clean Energy Victory Bonds, legislation that would provide $50 billion in dedicated Treasury bonds that support only clean energy and energy efficiency programs in the U.S. This legislation would create over one million good paying jobs in the U.S., and help accelerate wind, solar, and energy efficiency installations across the country. As we work to pass Clean Energy Victory Bonds, Green Americans can take action with us to divest their money from climate polluters and invest in clean energy solutions instead.

It is also essential that the citizens of wealthy countries assist poor countries in adopting clean energy and addressing the impacts of climate change.  It is only fair that the countries that have benefited from over 100 years of unrestricted carbon emissions that helped generate tremendous wealth, agree to help developing countries build their economies with low-carbon technologies.  It is also in the interest of rich countries to do so for their own sake.  For example, if climate change continues on its current path, the United States could experience sea level rises of 10 feet on its East Coast, destroying the homes and businesses of millions of people.

Climate change demonstrates clearly that we are all in this together, and that there is no place for privileging one nation above others.  As the wealthiest country on earth, the U.S. has a special obligation to be a leader, creating a future for its own citizens and people worldwide.  We can all play a role, as consumers, investors, business owners, and voters to ensure that the U.S. is the leader we need it to be.

11 Alternatives to Amazon for Online Holiday Shopping

With the holidays around the corner, you are likely starting to think about ways to appreciate friends and family by giving them a gift. Like many Americans—if you choose to purchase gifts—you are likely to buy some online. Consumer surveys indicate 46 percent of Americans plan to shop online this year. Amazon.com is the world’s largest retailer and is synonymous with online shopping. Over 40 percent of online shoppers in the U.S. turn to Amazon as their first stop.

Last year, we dug into the company’s record on environmental and social responsibility and found Amazon.com to be performing poorly across the board–from dirty energy to worker exploitation.

With Amazon’s most important time of the year for sales on the horizon, we’re taking another look at Amazon’s sustainability practices and have also updated our popular Alternatives to Amazon Guide to Online Shopping. Choosing to spend money wisely, in ways that support our value, can have a major impact. This year, if you are shopping online, consider one of these alternatives.

Amazon Alternatives Holiday Shopping Guide

Company

Products

How They’re Green

Powells Books, Audio Books, DVDs Operates a fleet of biodiesel-powered trucks, purchases wind power, and generates electricity from solar panels on their roof.
BWB Books, Audiobooks, eBooks, Textbooks, DVDs, CDs By offering previously-owned merchandise BWB has recycled and re-used over 250k tons of books and offset 44k tons of carbon emissions.Member of the Green Business Network
vivaterra Home Décor, Accessories, Artisan Goods Offers a wide range of organic, fair trade, recycled, and chemical-free products, made by artisans in more than 20 countries, including the U.S.Member of the Green Business Network
etsy Crafts, Jewelry, Art By sorting for “handmade” consumers can connect directly with artisans around the world to purchase their products.
villages Fair trade Arts and Crafts, Jewelry, Music, Food Handmade jewelry and textiles provide equitable returns to artisans in developing countries.Member of the Green Business Network
ebay Used Goods — hundreds ofcategories Largest online engine for reuse on the planet; allows people to sell items they own and are not using, reducing demand for new manufactured goods and landfill space.
terra exp  Fair Trade Arts and Crafts Supports environmental education in Mayan communities, uses post-consumer recycled paper, hybrid vehicles, and website hosted by 100% wind power.Member of the Green Business Network
worldfinds Fair Trade Gifts & Textiles All products are handmade, often locally, and are shipped using recycled paper, packaging material, and boxes.Member of the Green Business Network
indigenous Fair Trade/Eco Clothing Makes high-quality clothing from natural and organic fibers such as cotton, silk, wool, and alpaca; committed to using environmentally-friendly dyes.Member of the Green Business Network
maggies Fair Trade, Organic Clothing Uses certified organic fibers, purchased directly from growers. Fair labor practices are in place through all stages of production, and manufacturing is limited to North & South America to reduce carbon usage.Member of the Green Business Network
EE  Fair Trade Coffee, Tea, Chocolate, Gifts Sources from over 40 small farmer organizations in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the United States.Member of the Green Business Network
Member of the Green Business Network Designates a certified member of Green America’s Green Business Network®

Amazon’s 2015 Sustainability Report Card:

Environment:

Amazon uses huge amounts of electricity and most of the company’s energy comes from coal-fired power plants. In 2015, in response to mounting public pressure, including our Build A Cleaner Cloud campaign, Amazon’s hosting company, Amazon Web Services (AWS) announced it would invest in both solar and wind energy projects. As these projects come online, AWS will be able to use greater amounts of renewable energy to power its massive network of data centers, which currently run on a steady diet of mostly fossil fuels.

The company has committed to move to 100% renewable energy, however, it has yet to announce a deadline for this goal. Amazon is also still stalling in terms of transparency, refusing to report its energy usage to the Carbon Disclosure Project

Workers:

The New York Times’ explosive expose on Amazon’s white-collar workers revealed that while employees at Amazon’s Headquarters may earn a great deal, they are often subjected to a ruthless working environment. Current and former employees conveyed tales of working for four days without sleeping, developing ulcers from stress, never seeing their families, even being fired for having cancer or a miscarriage and needing time to recover.

Beyond the individuals working at Amazon’s HQ in Seattle, a massive global network of people support Amazon’s operations around the word as contractors and temporary workers. Workers in Amazon’s “Fulfillment Centers” (warehouses) have been found to work non-stop on their feet in non-air conditioned buildings. These same workers are now being forced to sign 18-month non-compete agreements, which prevent them from finding other similar work, should they be let go. The author Simon Head concluded when it comes to labor practices, “Amazon is worse than Walmart.”

Corporate Citizenship:

Like many corporate behemoths, Amazon has a history of shielding profits overseas, and for years, it fought against charging sales tax on its products.  These are just two ways that the Amazon has benefited against brick and mortar companies and small businesses.  Just last week, after years of under-cutting the prices of independent, local book stores and driving many out of business, Amazon announced its first ever brick-and-mortar bookstore in Seattle. This may seem like an odd move for an online company, but then again, as the movement for buying local is growing in the US, and as Amazon faces much less competition in the bookstore business thanks to its own success at selling books online, it’s actually a no-brainer. The Huffington Post shares more about Amazon’s ironic move and its history of undercutting other business.

Environmental Costs Outweigh Corporate Profits

The 2015 State of Green Business report was just released, detailing the environmental performance of large companies around the world. The report, produced by GreenBiz and TruCost, illustrates the true costs of pollution, ecosystem depletion, and health impacts of unsustainable natural capital consumption by corporations and the alarming rate at which they are growing.

2010dirtyenergyAccording to the report, environmental costs, like greenhouse gas emissions and water abstraction (removing freshwater from the natural water cycle, and thus preventing its future use), would render most businesses unprofitable if they were responsible for paying for the impacts. The report found that environmental costs tallied up to $1 trillion (or 6.2% of GDP) for companies in the US, and $3 trillion worldwide.

The authors state, “Over the past five years, the proportion of company profit at risk consistently exceeds 100 percent of their profit… This means that, on average, companies would be unprofitable if they had to pay the actual costs associated with the commodities they consume and pollution they generate.”

It’s not all bad news, however. The report finds that the level of sustainable investment has been growing considerably in recent years. According the 2014 Trends Report published last November by US SIF: The Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment, cited in GreenBiz’s report, sustainable assets totaling $6.57 trillion represented almost 18% of the $36.8 trillion in total assets under management, a 76% increase over 2012.

Social investors, joined by non-profits and growing consumer concern, are changing the ways that companies value natural resources. As a result, more companies are adopting the concept of ‘natural capital,’ which refers to “the stock of resources and ecosystem services on which all companies depend for their success.” Fresh water for industrial processes, and energy produced from fossil fuels (and its connected value to the clean air it pollutes) are the two largest forms of natural capital discussed in the report. Most companies are using these forms of capital at unsustainable levels. Due to rising shareholder and consumer concerns, companies are increasingly examining their businesses along their entire supply chain, where most natural capital expenditure occurs.

Additionally, science-based emissions reduction goals are becoming much more commonplace. Now, to really address the problems of overusing natural capital, corporations need to take a leadership role in reducing their imapcts. It is up to businesses to address their overall sustainability by assuming liability for their stranded assets (including certain fossil fuel reserves), adopting open and distributed sustainability systems, providing transparency along supply chains, and most importantly, supporting policies that advocate for sustainable business practices across the board.

The Poor Have It Easy? Really.

Photo from Occupy Atlanta
Photo from Occupy Atlanta

I just read an important editorial by New York Times columnist Charles M. Blow, in which he dissects a January survey from the Pew Research Center, showing how it explodes the myth of the so-called “welfare queens,” a term popularized by President Ronald Reagan to describe people, usually women, who gamed the welfare system to receive undeserved government benefits.

The survey found that this view hasn’t changed much since the Reagan era: 54 percent of the wealthiest Americans believe “poor people today have it easy because they can get government benefits without doing anything in return.”

In his op-ed, Blow doles out statistic after statistic showing that nothing could be further from the truth.

As Blow states, “‘Easy’ is a word not easily spoken among the poor. Things are hard—the times are hard, the work is hard, the way is hard. ‘Easy’ is for uninformed explanations issued by the willfully callous and the haughtily blind.

He cites a Bureau of Labor Statistics paper stating that 11 million Americans work but don’t earn enough to lift themselves out of poverty. Compounding that, he notes, the poor end up paying more in income taxes than the rich and middle class, and they spend over 40 percent of their income on transportation. Even worse, the poor are “unbanked”—the key reason Green America campaigns for breaking up with mega-banks and moving to community development banks or credit unions.

Blow quotes the St. Louis Federal Reserve to illustrate just how serious it is to be underserved by banks and credit unions: “Unbanked consumers spend approximately 2.5 to 3 percent of a government benefits check and between 4 percent and 5 percent of a payroll check just to cash them. Additional dollars are spent to purchase money orders to pay routine monthly expenses. When you consider the cost for cashing a bi-weekly payroll check and buying about six money orders each month, a household with a net income of $20,000 may pay as much as $1,200 annually for alternative service fees—substantially more than the expense of a monthly checking account.”

It’s powerful stuff. Add to that the fact that the poor are more often victimized by predatory lending schemes and denied credit and loans for mortgages or education—as Green America illustrated in the “Break Up With Your Mega-Bank” issue of our Green American magazine—and you have a lot of struggling people trying to climb out of poverty with far too many unjust burdens holding them down.

This is why it’s so vital to break up with your mega-bank and support a community development bank or credit union, which make it a key part of their mission to provide banking services and fair and affordable loans to low- and middle-income borrowers,  in addition to the educational support they need to succeed.

Visit our website, breakupwithyourmegabank.org, to find out today how you can move your accounts and credit cards to responsible banks that lift up communities that have so much stacked against them.

You Don’t Have to Be a Rockefeller

It’s not often at Green America that we highlight members of the 1% as an example to follow, but recent action by the Rockefeller family now serves as a model for many Americans. The Rockefellers have instructed the Rockefeller Brothers Fund to divest its holdings of fossil fuels, joining a growing list of foundations that are taking this stand against irresponsible fossil-fuel polluters. Since the family’s wealth — much of which is now in charities — was made from Standard Oil (now Exxon), the move is particularly meaningful.

The divestment decision comes after years of the Rockefellers engaging with Exxon and trying to encourage the company to be more sustainable, without much success (for 10 years Green America and its members also put direct pressure on Exxon). Exxon and the other major fossil fuel multinationals have made it clear that they plan to pursue a strategy of increasing the production of fossil fuels for decades. That means increased drilling in fragile ecosystems, with the inevitable major spills on land and seas. That means more fracking and more tar sands fields. It also means pumping way more carbon into the atmosphere and warming the planet to levels it hasn’t experienced in millions of years, creating massive disruptions to civilization as we know it, and speeding the extinction of thousands of species.

ThatFossil Free’s why more and more philanthropies, universities, houses of worship, and individuals are saying “enough is enough” and moving their money out of fossil fuels and reinvesting in a green economy.

You don’t have to be a Rockefeller to take part. Here’s four steps to take action with your money:

  1. Divest from climate polluters and reinvest in clean energy. 
    Green America’s Fossil Free Investment campaign has the most complete resources available.
  2. Break up with your megabank.
    Megabanks continue to invest billions in coal and other fossil fuels, even after pledging to go carbon free.  Green America’s Break Up With Your Megabank Campaign has all the resources you need to move your money to banks and credit unions that invest in local communities and green companies.
  3. Take the Divest/Invest Pledge.
    The Divest/Invest coalition is asking people to take their pledge to divest to demonstrate the growing numbers of individual investors who are saying no to fossil fuels in their portfolios.
  4. Share this information widely.
    Encourage family, friends, your house of worship, school, etc. to divest their money from fossil fuels as well.  The faster the movement grows, the more pressure there will be on polluters.

The People’s Climate March – 400,000 strong – demonstrated that Americans are willing to take action for climate change and are not going to wait for Washington or all Street to take action. We can all take action with our money for the climate. In the 1980’s the divestment movement made a huge impact on ending Apartheid in South Africa. Now, it’s our turn to divest our money from fossil fuels and invest in the clean energy economy we need.

Take action today!

Light Weight = Heavy Impact

Guest blog post and graphic by Allison Stewart of our Better Paper Project. 

I was at a Sustainability in Packaging conference earlier this spring, and it hit home for me that we need better product and packaging development. If we develop products that have no further opportunity for re-use, then we are intentionally making unsustainable products and packages. If we support a circular-based economy – in which products are designed, produced,distributed, collected, sorted, and returned to be recycled and reincorporated into new products – then we can’t continue choosing lightweight but unrecyclable packages (see example below). These lightweight packages sound like great design innovation, but they are ultimately increasing the amount of unrecyclable waste in our landfills.

We are delivering more and more products in disposable, one-time-use, plastic containers and pouches. This trend is a result of lightweighting our packaging to decrease the volume and increase the fill-capacity of packaging. The process of lighweighting is one of the most effective ways to decrease the amount of plastic that is used for packaging.

Lightweighting is seen by most sustainability representatives of companies as the best way to economically invest in sustainability, and most would probably agree to that logic. Lightweighting can increase the amount of packaging that can be produced with the same material, it lowers shipping costs per item, decreases the volume (per item) of packaging going into our landfills, and thus is seen to have a lower environmental impact. The fundamental flaw, however, is that these pouches and containers – regardless of using less resources than previously – are not designed to be recycled or recovered.

I first heard of the idea “Light Weight, Heavy Impact” from McKinsey & Company’s report about the impact of lightweight materials across industries  The variety of flexible and hard plastics, aluminum, and other materials used to create lightweight packages make it impossible to recover. These packages are literally “designed for the dump.”

Waste & recycling facilities, municipalities, and consumers are all wrestling with the new challenge of determining what packages can be recycled. For the past decade, most of our waste has been sent to China where Chinese recycling plants have made a lot of money reprocessing our trash and selling the raw materials. Last year they enacted a policy called the “Green Fence,” rejecting shipments of over-contaminated recyclables that don’t pass inspection. As a result of these demurrage charges and subsequently higher shipping costs, many waste and recycling facilities are looking for alternative solutions. The US now ships to India and other countries that accept it, though this isn’t a sustainable or long-term solution.

As companies continue to designing products and packages without considering the environmental fate, more packaging moves to hard-to-recover, lightweight materials that are designed for the dump. We need to consider the end-of-life of our products from the beginning, and design products with environmental intention. A system built on the idea of Cradle-to-Cradle design would set standards for developing non-toxic, sustainable materials and facilities that design products that can be later reutilized in new products. Biodegradable and compostable packaging will likely play an increasingly important role in a transition to zero-waste.

One strategy frequently discussed for building sustainability into our packaging system is Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR). “EPR is typically understood to involve a shift in responsibility (administratively, financially or physically) from governments or municipalities to producers as well as an encouragement of producers to take environmental considerations into account during the design and manufacture phases of product development.” (Source: Sustainable Management of Resources. Accessed March 12, 2014 via web: http://epr.eu-smr.eu/introduction).

Many organizations are already working to encourage EPR in packaging legislative action, to bring corporate responsibility into the equation. Canada is leading with and Europe already lead by example.

Canada has years of experience implementing EPR at the national and provincial level utilizing a variety of approaches. There is no national EPR authorizing legislation in Canada; instead, each province or territory is able to implement or pass its own authorizing legislation and regulations. Nearly all provinces and territories have their own programs and authorizing legislation.

EPR is widely used in Europe as a means of preventing pollution and minimizing waste. The European Union (EU) possesses the authority to issue legislative acts known as directives and each member state must “transpose” or create its own laws, if necessary, in order to implement these directives. The EU has issued a number of directives aimed at increasing producer responsibility across Europe.  (Examples: https://www.ec.gc.ca/gdd-mw/default.asp?lang=En&n=FB8E9973-1, http://www.eprcanada.ca/, http://www.europen-packaging.eu/policy.html ). And NRDC has awesome infographics that demonstrate how EPR can be an effective strategy in California and other parts of the US: http://www.nrdc.org/recycling/files/green-jobs-ca-recycling-info.pdf.

The Better Paper Project of Green America is participating and working with other non-profits and companies to find sustainable solutions to our packaging challenges here in the US. How we spend our dollars reflects our values, and we tend to overlook the packages that deliver our products. This impact, however, is adding up – and ending up as marine debris and in landfills, as opposed to being recollected for further use. Companies, distributors, consumers, municipalities and government are all involved, and must work together to effectively minimize the environmental footprint of our products and source materials. If you have questions or suggestions about the ways in which consumers can play a part, feel free to share in the comment section below.

Some ideas include: supporting various take-back programs, choosing certified products that are also packaged and produced with end-of-life in mind, encouraging legislative action, working on local zero-waste initiatives, education campaigns, etc.

AllisonsGraphic