Starbucks' dirty little secret 2NOV15

 

 STARBUCKS is one of those companies that most of the time it tries to do the right thing, like their employee college tuition program and sourcing their coffee according to CAFE standards, but sometimes they need a little push. Please sign this petition from +Us @ SumOfUs calling on Starbucks to set a time table to meet their RSPO commitment, just click the link.

Update: 194,552 of us have already petitioned Starbucks to stop buying conflict palm oil! 
The good news -- Starbucks has changed its palm oil policy. The bad news -- the coffee giant still hasn't told us how it will achieve net zero deforestation.
Can you add your name to help push Starbucks to do the right thing?

---

In 2013, facing public pressure, Starbucks announced that it would be sourcing 100% sustainable palm oil by 2015… Well, 2015 has arrived and it looks like Starbucks will miss its deadline. Tell Starbucks to adopt a time-bound sustainable palm oil policy. Sign the petition

Starbucks is the world’s largest coffee retailer -- and a purveyor of environment-wrecking palm oil.

Your Starbucks coffee break is likely to be contributing to deforestation, extinction of endangered tigers and orangutans, and abuses of workers and communities.
While other industry giants such as McDonald’s, KFC, Dunkin’ Donuts and Krispy Kreme have committed to cutting conflict palm oil from their supply chains, Starbucks is taking an ostrich-like approach -- sticking its head in the ground and ignoring this growing emergency, and the concerns of its consumers.

In 2013, facing public pressure, Starbucks announced that it would be sourcing 100% sustainable palm oil by 2015. That deadline has come and gone, and Starbucks needs to hear from us that we won’t wait any longer for responsible palm oil.

Tell Starbucks to cut conflict palm oil from its supply chain -- NOW.

Starbucks is a recent member of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO), but the coffee giant has already failed to report mandatory data on its palm oil sourcing to the overseeing body.
And unfortunately, even if Starbucks met RSPO criteria, it wouldn’t mean it had achieved gold standards. The RSPO can’t guarantee that the palm oil it certifies is deforestation-free. Deforestation is happening in palm oil plantations owned by RSPO members, and NGOs and consumer companies also criticize RSPO’s inability to regulate peatland destruction and greenhouse gas emissions.
What’s most remarkable about Starbucks’ lack of progress on palm oil is that it’s in stark contrast to the company’s work on coffee.
Earlier this year, Starbucks announced that 99 percent of its coffee is now ethically sourced, which it accomplished by developing and implementing the Coffee and Farmer Equity Practices (CAFE), a third-party verified program for farmers to ensure certain human rights and environmental standards are met.
Through its CAFE initiative, Starbucks actually reduced deforestation in its coffee supply chain. Why is it so hard to do the same for palm oil?
Tell Starbucks to meet its goal of 100% sustainable palm oil urgently.
The past few months have been a pivotal moment for industry leaders such as McDonald’s and KFC who have adopted sustainable palm oil policies following campaigns by SumOfUs.
Hundreds of thousands of SumOfUs members from all around the world stood up to fast food giants -- signing petitions, making phone calls, and showing up at events to make conflict palm oil a thing of the past.

If it truly wants to make a difference in the palm oil sector, Starbucks needs to go beyond RSPO -- something that dozens of companies have already done.
Just like we're doing with other industry leaders, we're showing Starbucks that we're on the lookout, and won't let it get away with making excuses or ignoring the problem. Whether it's standing up for workers making LG-brand TVs, or asking British Columbia’s government to charge a fair price for its ground water to Nestlé, we are working together to hold corporations accountable for their behavior.

It’s time to amplify the movement to transform the palm oil industry and make sure that Starbucks is the next domino to fall.

Tell Starbucks to adopt a sustainable palm oil policy.
Thanks for all that you do,
Kaytee, Fatah, and the team at SumOfUs

Mitt Romney As Governor Pushed For More Energy-Efficient Light Bulbs 22MAR12

HERE is just a bit of the environmental record "gov" mitt romney is trying to hide from, including his comments on high gas prices, energy efficient light bulbs and other energy saving products as well as government tax credits for consumers purchasing energy efficient products and government regulations mandating increased fuel efficiency for all vehicles. Oh mitt, this is more from your past that can't be erased like an Etch-A-Sketch!

WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney's effort to turn up the heat, so to speak, on President Barack Obama over the issue of rising gas prices has had various elements and layers. He's called for Obama to fire top cabinet officials; ridiculed the president's reluctance to approve critical portions of the Keystone pipeline; and denounced the burden of government regulations.
In one recent campaign stop, Romney accused the president of banning "Thomas Edison's [incandescent] light bulb."
On Thursday morning, The New Republic did a deep dive into Romney's record as a governor and discovered that he pursued many of the same policies he now denounces: While in Massachusetts, Romney responded to high gas prices by stressing that they were a result of the global market. He pursued policies of conservation and vehicle efficiency. He even went so far as to suggest high gas prices would have a positive effect on consumer behavior.
"I don't think that now is the time, and I'm not sure there will be the right time, for us to encourage the use of more gasoline," Romney said, according to the Quincy Patriot Ledger's report at the time. "I'm very much in favor of people recognizing that these high gasoline prices are probably here to stay."
As for those incandescent light bulbs, Romney's statement has been challenged by fact-checkers, who note that the bill that requires minimum efficiency standards for those bulbs was signed into law by President George W. Bush. Obama has subsequently blocked Republican attempts to repeal the law.
But while Romney may be opposed to the federal government regulating minimum standards for the light bulb market, he certainly wasn't opposed to the government promoting energy-efficient light bulb use itself.
In his 2004 Climate Protection Plan, Romney pledged that Massachusetts would work with other states "to foster legislation and other approaches" that would encourage energy efficiency standards for many products, including "Torchiere lighting." Elsewhere in that proposal, he noted that "lighting accounts for 20 to 25 percent of all electricity consumed in the U.S," and that improvement in this field "offers a significant opportunity for the state and for municipalities to save energy and money."
"To that end, the state is working with other states to assist municipal officials to encourage the use of Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs), high-efficiency street lighting, or other energy-saving lighting technologies," the plan reads.
A search of Lexis-Nexis also reveals that in late November 2005, Romney signed a bill that gave families a $600 tax credit for the purchase of energy-efficient products. The bill, as The Boston Globe reported at the time:

will raise the minimum energy efficiency standard for residential boilers and furnaces, incandescent reflector lamps, and laptop computer power cords -- something Rhode Island, New York, and several other states have done. Such a measure could have a dramatic long-term effect in reducing energy consumption in Massachusetts, and even the country as a whole, Romney said. "This is going to be paying dividends for the people of Massachusetts for a long, long time to come, and we're not finished," he said.

(emphasis added) A month and a half before he signed that bill, meanwhile, Romney joined then-Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman for an "Easy Ways to Save Energy" campaign that included, among other suggestions, "replacing existing light bulbs with Energy Star qualified fluorescent lights." The full press release announcing the campaign is below.

DEDHAM, MA -- With higher home heating costs expected this winter, U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman and Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney today highlighted easy, inexpensive ways consumers can save money by reducing home heating bills. This visit to New England is Secretary Bodman's first stop on the national "Easy Ways to Save Energy" campaign. "As a longtime Boston resident, I know how tough New England winters can be," Secretary Bodman said. "Because of tight oil and natural gas markets and the damage to our energy infrastructure caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, consumers can expect to see higher energy bills this winter. There are, however, simple, inexpensive, yet extremely effective measures consumers can take to reduce their energy bills."
"As a state, Massachusetts and its people have led the way in pursuing energy efficient programs for our homes and businesses," said Romney. "This year, it's especially important for consumers to know that winter doesn't have to burn a hole in their wallet. Families can save hundreds of dollars by following some common sense tips."
Secretary Bodman and Governor Romney's visit to Lowe's also highlights the company's October 8, 2005 kick off of energy saving How-To Clinics at its 1,200 stores nationwide. Held each Saturday at 1 p.m., these clinics aim to educate consumers about the many ways they can conserve energy and money this winter.
In launching the national "Easy Ways to Save Energy" campaign on Monday, October 3, 2005, Secretary Bodman announced that the Department of Energy will take a comprehensive approach to improving energy efficiency for consumers, businesses and the government. The campaign features: For Consumers:

• An informative "Energysavers" guide outlining easy ways to improve home energy efficiency available through the Department of Energy, or, online at www.energysavers.gov;
• An aggressive public education effort including online, print, radio and television ads featuring the "Energy Hog" - a character similar to McGruff the Crime Dog and Smokey the Bear;
• An "Energy Hog" curriculum to be used by teachers in grades 3-8 featuring web-based games and take-home activities;
• A series of radio public service announcements in English and Spanish featuring energy saving tips that have been distributed to 4,500 stations across the United States;
• For Business:
• Industrial Energy Saving Teams that will be dispatched to help improve the efficiency of 200 of America's most energy-intensive factories;
• Department of Energy is making the Energyavers guide available to be reprinted and distributed by manufacturers, retailers and local utilities;

For the Federal Government:

• Secretary Bodman has directed teams of qualified energy experts to deploy to federal facilities to identify quick and easy ways to save energy this winter. The federal government is the largest consumer of energy in the United States.
• Easy tips for consumers include:
• Making sure your home is properly insulated. Proper insulation in attics, ceilings, floors, crawlspaces and exterior and basement walls can save 30 percent on home heating bills;
• Installing a programmable thermostat. Turning down a thermostat from 72 to 65 degrees for eight ours a day will save up to 10 percent on your heating bill;
• Replacing existing light bulbs with Energy Star qualified fluorescent lights in the lamps and fixtures in your home; this can save up to 50 percent on lighting costs.

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/22/mitt-romney-light-bulbs_n_1372892.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications

The Obama Administration Must Abandon Its Nuclear Energy Policy 17MAR11

THE Japanese nuclear disaster notwithstanding, the fact that no insurance company will provide coverage for nuclear power plants in the U.S. and no financial institution will insure financing of the construction of new nuclear power plants (so the government does at enormous cost to taxpayers), the U.S. government MUST abandon it's support for more nuclear power plants and commit to renewable energy, expanded mass transit, high speed rail and higher CAFE standards to meet our energy needs. This from HuffPost....
Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, Wednesday, confirmed to Congress that the Obama administration would continue to propose more than $8 billion in loan guarantees for the construction of a new fleet of nuclear power plants. As Secretary Chu cautiously acknowledged the administration's budget request during congressional testimony, reactor number four at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station was on the verge of melting down -- one of its spent fuel tanks completely drained of water.
It's confounding why and how the White House can continue to endorse this policy, given what we've witnessed in Japan, while everyone from Europe to China is backing away from nuclear power until they can reassess the dangers of a Fukushima-style event.
Originally, the administration's inclusion of nuclear as part of its comprehensive energy policy wasn't quite as head-scratchingly bizarre as its support for, say, the fairy tale of "clean coal." But it still indicated a major shift for the Democratic Party. Democrats are doing nuclear power now. Okeedokee. What's the idea here? Was it a political move -- a compromise in which a push for cleaner, safer energy sources would win some additional Republican support? Regardless of the political angle, it's clear now that the policy remains intact and they don't appear afraid to mention it in public, even while Fukushima disintegrates.
I was one of many supporters of the president who vocally disagreed with the policy, and for three specific reasons: 1) nuclear power is dangerous, 2) the lesson from The West Wing, and 3) the Republicans tend to deregulate things.
Having lived in Pennsylvania for 20 years, equidistant between the Limerick power plant and Three Mile Island, the thought of another meltdown always lingered in the back of my neurotic mind. It already happened once at TMI, and Limerick is built in an earthquake zone. While fossil fuel consumption, both in terms of immediate disasters and the impact of climate change, is remarkably deadly, nuclear power has registered an enormous death toll. Following the Chernobyl disaster, chromosomal abnormalities and neural tube defects have occurred. Around four thousand cases of thyroid cancer have been documented by the United Nations as a result of Chernobyl, with various estimates of 200-985,000 total deaths between 1986 and 2004. German agencies predict another 50,000 cases of thyroid cancer into the future. So, yes, there are fewer meltdowns than there are mine collapses and oil spills, but the death toll of one meltdown is far greater than other near-term energy-based fatalities.
During the final season of The West Wing, a significantly less dangerous crisis occurred at a nuclear power plant in California, and it turned out the Republican candidate for president, Arnold Vinick played by Alan Alda, had pushed through the licensing for the facility. Of course it was a political disaster for the Vinick campaign. A dramatic storyline, but also, in keeping with a variety of story arcs in that series, a prescient one.
Future events notwithstanding, at least two nuclear power plants, Oyster Creek in New Jersey and the Yankee station in Vermont, continue to leak radioactive material into the surrounding area. Consequently, it seems politically and ethically foolhardy for the president to vocally support nuclear power while ballyhooing its "safety." (The Oyster Creek plant shares the same design as Fukushima, by the way.)
Does President Obama, like the fictional Arnold Vinick, really want to be associated with another potential nuclear disaster -- even by simply repeating the myth of nuclear "safety?" And, looking ahead, would anyone want to be the public official who greenlighted a loan guarantee for a power plant that eventually melts down? The West Wing nuclear story was a cautionary tale. And now, with Fukushima as a backdrop, all that talk about the "safety" of nuclear power makes the president, not to mention every Republican including John McCain, appear seriously disingenuous on the topic of nuclear safety.
But part of me wanted to support the president's nuclear policies. After all, I was told, he's going to push through serious regulations to guarantee safety with top shelf technology and significant advances in terms of containment. The administration, this week, said it will continue to pursue nuclear power "safely and responsibly." Yes, nuclear is clean (except for the toxic waste) and it's renewable. But can anyone seriously vouch for its safety -- or can anyone vouch for the regulatory responsibility of future presidents and congresses?
Republicans are all about rolling back regulations on industries. It's not outside the realm of possibility for a future Republican president -- and, yes, there will be a Republican president one of these days -- to deregulate the nuclear industry. How do we know this for sure? The previous Republican president did that exact thing.
As I wrote earlier, Limerick, where Bush delivered these remarks, is third on the list of nuclear plants at the mercy of potential earthquakes. Number three out of 104 American nuclear facilities. Just 39 miles or so from Philadelphia. And a Republican president called for the deregulation of that and other stations while standing in the shadow of those familiar cooling towers. So it's naïve to believe that whatever regulations the Obama administration establishes with its new fleet of loan-guaranteed stations won't eventually be deregulated by the Republicans. Republicans deregulate. It's what they do. Incidentally, it's worth noting here that Fukushima was tightly regulated by Japan and, had it not been, the current meltdown situation could have been far worse -- if that's even possible.
So where does that leave us with our national energy policy? With an ocean of oil still lingering at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico and the situation in Japan deteriorating by the second, now isn't the time to beat our faces against the same old school energy sources, and to expect different results.
Now is the time for an Apollo program for clean, affordable and renewable energy.
Imagine if, in May of 1961, President Kennedy had said, "First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the North Pole -- perhaps by airplane or blimp." Exciting. But that's what we're doing with our current energy goals: more of the same. Not unlike President Kennedy's actual remarks to Congress, it's time once again for "this nation to commit itself" to another moon-style mission, but dedicated to finding a new source of fuel that meets our needs in a way that won't be cost prohibitive for average Americans; that won't compound the effects of the climate crisis; and that's both renewable and sustainable.
Why not do this, and why not now? It's not unthinkable or impossible. And given the tragic events of the past year, not to mention the impending future disasters at the hands of man-made climate change, we simply don't have the comfort of time or the lethargy of modest expectations. Let's get going.