Researchers have found a low-grade cotton from West Texas that might be able to clean oil spills more effectively and more eco-friendly than other methods currently in use. According to the study, one pound of the cotton can soak up more than 30 pounds of oil.

In a new study, researchers used unprocessed raw cottons to soak up oil, becoming one of the first studies to collect data on cotton and oil spills. Seshadri Ramkumar, the lead author of the study, said that he and his colleagues found that low-micronaine cotton is the most effective type of cotton at soaking up oil. Because this type of cotton is low-quality, it could also prove to be a cheaper option for cleaning up oil spills.

“In this region, about 10 percent of the cotton grown in West Texas is low micronaire,” said Ramkumar. “It doesn’t take a dye well, so it gets discounted. However, because low-micronaire cotton is less mature, it shrinks, and you are able to pack more fiber into a given area. The strength here is that the low-micronaire cotton absorbs the most crude oil. The oil is not only stuck to surface, the oil gets absorbed into the fiber.”

Barley straw and polypropylene wool have also been tested by other scientists for oil spills, but Ramkumar said those fibers still left big gaps in research, leaving room for improvements. This low-grade cotton proves to be significant in oil cleanup because it picks up oil by both absorption and adsorption, which makes the oil stick to the outer surface of the cotton.

A hidden epidemic is poisoning America. The toxins are in the air we breathe and the water we drink, in the walls of our homes and the furniture within them. We cannot escape it in our cars. It is in cities and suburbs. It afflicts rich and poor, young and old. And there’s a reason why you have never read about it in the newspaper or seen a report on the nightly news: it has no name – and no antidote.

The culprit behind this silent killer is lead. And vinyl. And formaldehyde. And asbestos. And Bisphenol A. And polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). And thousands more innovations brought to us by the industries that once promised ” better living through chemistry “, but instead produced a toxic stew that has made every American a guinea pig and has turned the US into one grand unnatural experiment.

Today, we are all unwitting subjects in the largest set of drug trials ever. Without our knowledge or consent, we are testing thousands of suspected toxic chemicals and compounds, as well as new substances whose safety is largely unproven and whose effects on human beings are all but unknown. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) itself has begun monitoring our bodies for 151 potentially dangerous chemicals, detailing the variety of pollutants we store in our bones, muscle, blood and fat. None of the companies introducing these new chemicals has even bothered to tell us we are part of their experiment.

None of them has asked us to sign consent forms or explained that they have little idea what the long-term side effects of the chemicals they have put in our environment – and so our bodies – could be. Nor do they have any clue as to what the synergistic effects of combining so many novel chemicals inside a human body in unknown quantities might produce.

How industrial toxins entered the American home

The story of how Americans became unwitting test subjects began more than a century ago. The key figure was Alice Hamilton , the “mother” of American occupational medicine, who began documenting the way workers in lead paint pigment factories, battery plants and lead mines were suffering terrible palsies, tremors, convulsions and deaths after being exposed to lead dust that floated in the air, coating their workbenches and clothes.

Soon thereafter, children exposed to lead paint and lead dust in their homes were also identified as victims of this deadly neurotoxin. Many went into convulsions and comas after crawling on floors where lead dust from paint had settled, or from touching lead-painted toys, or teething on lead-painted cribs, windowsills, furniture and woodwork.

Instead of leveling with the public, the lead industry through its trade group, the Lead Industries Association , began a six-decade-long campaign to cover-up its product’s dire effects. It challenged doctors who reported lead-poisoned children to health departments, distracted the public through advertisements that claimed lead was “safe” to use, and fought regulation of the industry by local government, all in the service of profiting from putting a poison in paint, gasoline, plumbing fixtures, and even toys, baseballs and fishing gear.

As Joe Camel would be for tobacco, so the little Dutch Boy of the National Lead Company became an iconic marketing tool for Dutch Boy Lead Paint, priming Americans to invite a dangerous product into their children’s playrooms, nurseries and lives. The company also launched a huge advertising campaign that linked lead to health , rather than danger. It even produced coloring books for children, encouraging them to paint their rooms and furniture using lead-based paint.

Only after thousands of children were poisoned and, in the 1960s, activist groups like the Young Lords and the Black Panthers began to use lead poisoning as a symbol of racial and class oppression did public health professionals and the federal government begin to rein in companies like the Sherwin-Williams paint company and the Ethyl Corporation, which produced tetraethyl lead, the lead-additive in gasoline.

In 1971, Congress passed the Lead Paint Poisoning Prevention Act that limited lead in paint used for public housing. In 1978, the Consumer Products Safety Commission finally banned lead in all paints sold for consumer use. During the 1980s, the Environmental Protection Agency issued rules that led to the elimination of leaded gasoline by 1995 (though it still remains in aviation fuel ).

The CDC estimates that in at least 4 million households in the US today children are still exposed to dangerous amounts of lead from old paint that produces dust every time a nail is driven into a wall to hang a picture, a new electric socket is installed, or a family renovates its kitchen. It estimates that more than 500,000 children ages one to five have “elevated” levels of lead in their blood. ( No level is considered safe for children.) Studies have linked lost IQ points , attention deficit disorders , behavioral problems , dyslexia and even possibly high incarceration rates to tiny amounts of lead in children’s bodies.

Unfortunately, when it came to the creation of America’s chemical soup, the lead industry was hardly alone. Asbestos is another classic example of an industrial toxin that found its way into people’s homes and bodies. For decades, insulation workers, brake mechanics, construction workers and a host of others in hundreds of trades fell victim to the disabling and deadly lung diseases of asbestosis or to lung cancer and the fatal cancer called mesothelioma when they breathed in dust produced during the installation of boilers, the insulation of pipes, the fixing of cars that used asbestos brake linings, or the spraying of asbestos on girders. Once again, the industry knew its product’s dangers early and worked assiduously to cover them up.

Despite growing medical knowledge about its effects (and increasing industry attempts to downplay or suppress that knowledge), asbestos was soon introduced to the American home and incorporated into products ranging from insulation for boilers and piping in basements to floor tiles and joint compounds. It was used to make sheetrock walls, roof shingles, ironing boards, oven gloves and hot plates. Soon an occupational hazard was transformed into a threat to all consumers.

Today, however, these devastating industrial-turned-domestic toxins, which destroyed the health and sometimes took the lives of hundreds of thousands, seem almost quaint when compared to the brew of potential or actual toxins we are regularly ingesting in the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat.

Of special concern are a variety of chlorinated hydrocarbons, including DDT and other pesticides that were once spread freely nationwide, and despite being banned decades ago, have accumulated in the bones, brains and fatty tissue of virtually all of us. Their close chemical carcinogenic cousins, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), were found in innumerable household and consumer products - like carbonless copy paper, adhesives, paints and electrical equipment – from the 1950s through the 1970s. We are still paying the price for that industrial binge today, as these odorless, tasteless compounds have become permanent pollutants in the natural environment and, as a result, in all of us.

The largest uncontrolled experiment in history

While old houses with lead paint and asbestos shingles pose risks, potentially more frightening chemicals are lurking in new construction going on in the latest mini-housing boom across America. Our homes are now increasingly made out of lightweight fibers and reinforced synthetic materials whose effects on human health have never been adequately studied individually, let alone in the combinations we are all subjected to today.

Formaldehyde , a colorless chemical used in mortuaries as a preservative, can also be found as a fungicide, germicide and disinfectant in, for example, plywood, particle board, hardwood paneling and the ” medium density fiberboard ” commonly used for the fronts of drawers and cabinets or the tops of furniture. As the material ages, it evaporates into the home as a known cancer-producing vapor , which slowly accumulates in our bodies.

The National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health suggests that homeowners ” purchasing pressed-wood products , including building material, cabinetry and furniture… should ask about the formaldehyde content of these products”.

What is inside your new walls might be even more dangerous. While the flame retardants commonly used in sofas, chairs, carpets, love seats, curtains, baby products and even TVs, sounded like a good idea when widely introduced in the 1970s, they turn out to pose hidden dangers that we are only now beginning to grasp.

Researchers have, for instance, linked one of the most common flame retardants, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, to a wide variety of potentially undesirable health effects including thyroid disruption , memory and learning problems , delayed mental and physical development , lower IQ and the early onset of puberty .

Other flame retardants like Tris (1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate have been linked to cancer . As the CDC has documented in an ongoing study of the accumulation of hazardous materials in our bodies, flame retardants can now be found in the blood of “nearly all” of us.

Nor are these particular chemicals anomalies. Lurking in the cabinet under the kitchen sink, for instance, are window cleaners and spot removers that contain known or suspected cancer-causing agents. The same can be said of cosmetics in your makeup case or of your plastic water bottle or microwavable food containers. Most recently, Bisphenol A (BPA), the synthetic chemical used in a variety of plastic consumer products, including some baby bottles, epoxy cements, the lining of tuna fish cans and even  credit card receipts , has been singled out as another everyday toxin increasingly found inside all of us.

Recent studies indicate that its effects are as varied as they are distressing. As Sarah Vogel of the Environmental Defense Fund has written :

Teflon, or perfluorooctanoic acid, the heat-resistant, non-stick coating that has been sold to us as indispensable for pots and pans, is yet another in the list of substances that may be poisoning us, almost unnoticed. In addition to allowing fried eggs to slide right onto our plates, Teflon is in all of us, according to the Science Advisory Board of the Environmental Protection Agency, and “likely to be carcinogenic in humans”.

These synthetic materials are just a few of the thousands now firmly embedded in our lives and our bodies. Most have been deployed in our world and put in our air, water, homes and fields without being studied at all for potential health risks, nor has much attention been given to how they interact in the environments in which we live, let alone our bodies.

The groups that produce these miracle substances – like the petrochemical, plastics and rubber industries, including major companies like Exxon , Dow and Monsanto – argue that, until we can definitively prove the chemical products slowly leaching into our bodies are dangerous, we have no “right”, and they have no obligation, to remove them from our homes and workplaces. The idea that they should prove their products safe before exposing the entire population to them seems to be a foreign concept.

In the 1920s, the oil industry made the same argument about lead as an additive in gasoline, even though it was already known that it was a dangerous toxin for workers. Spokesman for companies like General Motors insisted that it was a “gift of God”, irreplaceable and essential for industrial progress and modern living, just as the lead industry argued for decades that lead was “essential” to produce good paint that would protect our homes.

Like the oil, lead and tobacco industries of the 20th century, the chemical industry, through the American Chemistry Council and public relations firms like Hill & Knowlton , is fighting tooth and nail to stop regulation and inhibit legislation that would force it to test chemicals before putting them in the environment. In the meantime, Americans remain the human guinea pigs in advanced trials of hundreds if not thousands of commonly used, largely untested chemicals. There can be no doubt that this is the largest uncontrolled experiment in history.

To begin to bring it under control would undoubtedly involve major grassroots efforts to push back against the offending corporations, courageous politicians, billions of dollars and top-flight researchers. But before any serious steps are likely to be taken, before we even name this epidemic, we need to wake up to its existence.

A toxic dump used to be a superfund site or a nuclear waste disposal site. Increasingly, however, we – each and every one of us – are toxic dumps and for us there is no superfund around, no disposal plan in sight. In the meantime, we are walking, talking biohazards and we do not even know it.

David Rosner is a professor of history at Columbia University and co-director of the Center for the History of Public Health at Columbia’s Mailman School of Public Health.

Gerald Markowitz is a professor of history at John Jay College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York.

Rosner and Markowitz are co-authors and co-editors of seven books and 85 articles on a variety of industrial and occupational hazards, including Deceit and Denial: The Deadly Politics of Industrial Pollution and, most recently, Lead Wars: The Politics of Science and the Fate of America’s Children , (University of California Press/Milbank, 2013).

A version of this article first appeared on  TomDispatch.com .

Paintbooths are costly and complicated purchases, and even the thought of making this large-scale purchase can intimidate a shop owner who doesn’t have all the right research in front of them. That’s why Col-Met Auto Direct has published “Paintbooths 101: How to Purchase A Paintbooth.”

This free buyer’s guide includes sections on paintbooth manufacturers, laws and regulations, safety, warranties, airflow configurations, installation and best practices.

“Col-Met has been selling paintbooths since 1997,” said Steve Russell, director of sales for Col-Met Auto Direct. “We know that a large expense like this can be difficult for body shop owners, so we created this guide to help you understand exactly what you’re purchasing, and what you’re can expect when you purchase a paintbooth.”

Click here to download “Paintbooths 101: How to Purchase A Paintbooth.”

Old mining sites, contaminated farmlands and closed chemical facilities don’t offer much more than an eyesore. That was until the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) saw the potential for redeveloping these brownfield sites into renewable energy facilities. The estimated 15 million acres of potentially contaminated lands can house an unfathomable amount of photovoltaic (PV) arrays, generating energy on land that is otherwise unusable. A solar power plant on an old landfill seems like a win-win situation. But it’s easier said than done.

Cleaning up a contaminated site improves the environmental quality of the area, while restoring community pride with an aesthetically pleasing and productive piece of land. Faced with liability uncertainties, permitting challenges and land-use ordinances, developers haven’t been overly anxious to construct clean energy facilities on brownfield sites. To encourage the reuse of contaminated lands for renewable energy projects, the EPA launched its RE-Powering America’s Lands Initiative in 2008. By offering incentives, technical advice, and assistance to local communities to identify potential sites through mapping and screening tools, the EPA has facilitated installations in 26 states.

An April 2013 update on the RE-Powering initiative reveals that more than 70 renewable energy projects have been completed on contaminated lands, combined with 99 projects in development for a total 217 megawatts of clean energy—a majority of which is solar PV. “Mining waste sites have been converted into solar arrays, abandoned industrial sites into wind farms, and closed landfills into solar farms,” the report states.

“When the EPA develops and announces a protocol to encourage alternative energy development on contaminated sites, states respond,” says environmental attorney Lanny Kurzweil of McCarter & English, LLP. “The potential liability regime has a very wide net, and the risk that a developer may become saddled with the cost of cleanup could easily affect the financing of a project.”

In December of 2012, the EPA amended the “polluter pays” CERCLA law to expand its “bona fide prospective purchaser” protection to more tenants who acquire ownership of a contaminated facility. The expanded liability protection hopes make the estimated 490,000 contaminated sites throughout the U.S. more attractive to clean energy developers.

From an old Florida refinery to an industrial park in New Mexico, the EPA and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) have conducted feasibility studies for a number of contaminated properties across the nation. Recommendations have been based qualities such as existing electrical infrastructure, transmission capacity, industrial zoning and access to roads. The EPA’s Re-Powering program includes utility-scale and small-scale clean energy projects, with solar PV projects that range from a 10 kilowatt system on a landfill in Wisconsin to a 35 megawatt solar farm on “disturbed land” at the Department of Energy’s Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island. But the New York facility pales in comparison to the anticipated 2,400 megawatt Westlands Solar Park in Kings County, California.

The Westlands Solar Park project would span about 24,000 acres of land contaminated by selenium and saline due to years of heavy irrigation. Although the master plan is in place, the details still need to be hammered out. “We’ve already done years of environmental analysis. Now it’s managing the political process and understanding where the commercial interests are,” said Bob Dowds, CEO of Westside Holdings, which conducted the impact report. If development of the Westlands Solar Park begins this year as intended, 200 megawatts will be constructed annually for the next 12 years. This could generate enough electricity to power between 2.5 million and 4 million homes.

“We’re very interested in finding the least environmentally sensitive places to develop,” said Carl Zichella, Director of Western Renewable Energy Programs for the Sierra Club. “Early on, we felt Westlands had a lot of potential in this regard … it takes the pressure off of other lands that are more ecologically sensitive.”

Pro-Spray Automotive Finishes has launched its branded YouTube channel to help users improve the quality and efficiency of their jobs.

Visitors can view a library of resourceful, high quality videos featuring veteran Pro-Spray technical trainer and instructor Bill Warner. The channel’s current playlist includes:

• Pro-Spray in Action: Awesome rides with Pro-Spray paint
• Basecoat Tips and How-Tos: Best practices to improve your paint job and bottom line
• Bumper Repair and Refinishing: Review of the six simple steps
• Spray Gun Essentials and Tips: Simplifying the process
• Tech Tips and How-Tos: Application tips from the pros

“Pro-Spray’s passion for our industry, product and people drives our content decisions,” said Laura Yerkey, Pro-Spray marketing manager. “With the Pro-Spray YouTube channel in place, we now have the opportunity to share our knowledge and expertise with refinishers around the world.”

Future plans for the Pro-Spray YouTube channel include regularly delivered original content focused on tech tips, how-tos and FAQs, as well as introductions to new Pro-Spray products and discussions of industry events and trends.

More information:

Subscribe to the YouTube Channel

Masters School of Autobody Management has announced its summer schedule of classes.

All of the following courses will take place at the Masters campus in Galesburg, Ill.:

• May 6-9: Bodyshop Management Essentials
• May 10: The Nuts and Bolts of Sales and Estimating
• June 17-20: Bodyshop Management Essentials
• July 22-26: Bodyshop Management Essentials

To register, click here or call (800) 563-1883.

More information:

Masters School of Autobody Management

As more cities adopt citywide composting programs to divert food waste from landfills, the market for compostable products continues to expand.

But with so many companies in the market making unverified claims about their products, the meaning of the term “compostable” has become muddled for consumers.

“There’s a lot of confusion with what’s compostable and what’s not,” said Doug Hill, general manager of EcoSafe Zero Waste, a compostable product manufacturer.

In the absence of a federally mandated certification process for compostable products, manufacturers can label their products as “compostable” or “biodegradable” without any scientific verification that the product will break down.

Agencies like the Federal Trade Commission attempt to regulate deceptive “greenwash” marketing techniques, but it’s not always easy to prove a product’s label is misleading.

That’s because the FTC doesn’t pre-screen products labeled as compostable to verify they are actually certified, said Michael Davis, an attorney with the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. However, they can pursue companies that make compostable claims without scientific evidence to prove the product can break down completely in a timely manner.

Still, it’s very difficult to police deceptive labeling without an across the board mandatory standard, said Dr. Ramani Narayan, professor in the Department of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science at Michigan State University.

“With all these issues of people making false or misleading claims, composters may take a position that, ‘Well, this is too much work, and I can’t tell the difference between the regular compostable product or a non-compostable product,’ ” he said.

As a result, many commercial compost facilities will accept only compostable products verified through certifiers like the Biodegradable Products Institute, or ASTM International.

Officials in California have gone as far as passing a law prohibiting products from bearing compostable labels without an ASTM certification.

“A lot of composters don’t have the time and resources to trust and check each independent item that gets sent to their facility,” said David Brooks, certification manager for the Biodegradable Products Institute. “If a manufacturer does not have that certification, then there will always be a question, ‘Why don’t you have it?’ And it leaves a doubt in the mind of the composter.”

ASTM International has two standards related to compostable products that ensure their timely biodegradability in a commercial compost facility.

“It’s a pretty strict pass/fail test,” Brooks said.

Since starting its own certification program in 2000, BPI has verified more than 2,400 compostable products, he said.

There is no easily accessible data on either the ratio of uncertified to certified compostable products available or the actual size of the compostable product market. But because non-compostables can contaminate commercial compost and cause a need for costly additional screening, commercial facilities often show a preference toward certified products.

“[Manufacturers] can claim anything they want, but the market is conditioned to check and ask for proof,” Brooks said. “If you run a compost facility and you want to sell good quality humus, if that contains little bits of plastic film and plastic junk, people won’t buy it and it screws up the economics of your entire operation.”

Even if a commercial composter accepts only certified compostable products, however, it can’t always keep residents from putting falsely-labeled products in their food waste bins.

That risk is enough to deter some commercial compost facilities from accepting compostable products at all, Narayan said. Still, many facilities do accept compostable products and do it successfully; and a lot of that comes down to consumer education, he said.

Cedar Grove, a commercial compost company in Washington state, is working with local manufacturers to color-mark all the compostable products Cedar Grove accepts, so residents can more easily determine what is allowed in their food waste bin. Cedar Grove also developed its own compost certification system.

“We were finding that compostable plastics were reacting differently in our system,” said Susan Thoman, director of public affairs and communications for Cedar Grove. “So that’s why we started a whole approval process for our customers.”

Despite the absence of a mandatory certification program, the certification systems that are in place have really brought the compostable product industry a long way, Narayan said.

“Standards and certifications are a critical complement for the successful acceptance of these products, and that is what was lacking before,” he said. “It’s the misleading false claim products that are confusing the industry.”

SAN FRANCISCO – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announces today it has selected the U.S. Forest Service Region 5 office based in Vallejo, Calif. to receive a Federal Green Challenge honorable mention award for innovation in its energy conservation efforts.

“EPA is pleased to recognize the U.S. Forest Service Region 5 for its outstanding leadership to reduce their environmental footprint,” said Jared Blumenfeld, EPA’s Regional Administrator for the Pacific Southwest. “By taking the initiative to reduce waste and conserve water and energy, this agency will not only help motivate other federal agencies and organizations to follow suit, but save the government money as well.”

U.S. Forest Service Region 5 office, which manages activities in 18 national forests within California, Hawai’i and the U.S.-affiliated Pacific Islands, was selected as an honorable mention award-winner for its work to reduce energy consumption and related costs through various innovative initiatives. For example, the office’s participation in the “Power-IT Down” program, which had employees power down their computers and unplug their appliances twice a month, resulted in an energy reduction of over 22,000 kilowatt hours, saving $3,650 in electricity fees.

In total, Federal Green Award participants nationwide:

• reduced over 57.5 million kWh of electricity and 342 million cubic feet of natural gas (equivalent to the energy used in a year by almost 2200 households);
• prevented over 40,000 tons of waste from reaching landfills, through composting and recycling, resulting in reduced greenhouse gas emissions by over 107,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (the equivalent of taking over 22,000 cars off the road for a year);
• reduced water usage by over 357 billion gallons; and
• saved over $16.6 million by reducing waste, water and energy use.

The Federal Green Challenge is a national effort to challenge EPA and other federal agencies to reduce the federal government’s environmental impact. Offices or facilities start their participation by selecting a minimum two of the six target areas—waste, electronics, purchasing, energy, water, or transportation—and commit to improve by at least 5% per year in their selected target areas.

For more information on the Federal Green Challenge winners, visit: www.epa.gov/region9/federalgreenchallenge/awards/pacificswawards/

The California Green Business Program (CAGBP) is a legislatively legitimized (AB 913, 2011) voluntary program offered by local government agencies that validates sustainable business activities, establishes a green marketplace, and tracks and promotes measurable economic and environmental outcomes from practices changes implemented by business participants.

In the program, local public agencies provide free or low cost expert technical assistance in air quality, solid waste, water supply, wastewater, storm water, hazardous waste and materials, and energy. Businesses who achieve a minimum level of compliance and sustainability practices become Certified Green Businesses and receive free marketing. The CAGBP is one of the few governmental environmental assistance programs that also result in economic development and beneficial governmental relations.

Launched in 1996, the program is now available in 21 California jurisdictions representing almost 40% of the state. More than 2,700 small to medium-sized businesses (SMBs) are certified statewide.  In 2012 those certified businesses achieved the following environmental protection and cost saving outcomes:

The programs work together as part of the statewide California Green Business Network. In 2012, in addition to local program funding challenges, the Network was informed that some critical state funding that supports the statewide database would not be available past the next fiscal year. This reduction in resources came at a time of unprecedented program expansion with agencies from Humboldt to Los Angeles beginning to launch programs and needing support. With the opportunity to really engage and support a robust statewide program, combined with resourcing challenges, the Network hosted a two-day “Charting the Path to Sustainability” retreat March 20-21, 2013 that led to a prioritized nine step action plan and working groups signed up to move those forward.

Eighteen of the twenty-one programs were represented, and the retreat attracted the participation of Cal EPA agencies (CalRecycle, DTCS, and CARB) as well as the Governors “Go Biz” program.  Small and medium certified businesses and the program auditing and certification partner agencies also participated for a total of almost 60 attendees. The retreat was designed and facilitated by nonprofit Institute of the Commons, who also helped with the formation of the California Product Stewardship Council as an extended statewide organization.

The group started with identifying key timeline activities and appreciations of the people and successes we’ve had along the way.  They then did scenario and trend identification for things that affect green businesses and the programs.  Individual work and breakout groups were then formed to identify and prioritize key areas for action to help the CAGBP move forward to sustainability in the face of all of those trends.  Participants were amazed that, at the end of a day and half retreat, we were leaving with action plans and commitments to further them!  The key areas where committees formed to take action are listed below,

The California Green Business Program:

• Is driven by accurate and current performance data
• Leverages technology
• Practices collaborative governance
• Attracts sustainable, reliable funding
• Maintains high and consistent performance standards
• Develops and implements effective marketing and branding for certified green businesses
• Fosters sustainability education in schools
• Promotes green workforce development
• Continually expands our program impact and reach.

The transcriptions of the retreat with specific action plan steps are currently being approved by participants and, once complete, will be available to the public.  Please contact Jo Fleming at jo.fleming@envirocentives.com if you would like a copy or to find out how to participate in one of our action planning groups!

About the Author:

Kirsten Liske is one of the California Green Business Program’s biggest fans.  As Vice President of P2 and Zero Waste at Ecology Action she helped the Monterey Bay Area GBP launch and has leveraged her nonprofit’s mission and resources to help the statewide Network develop the database and its organization. Ecology Action facilitated the Network’s Strategy and Policy Committee through the retreat planning process.

Ecology Action, a California based non profit, has been a leading provider of innovative marketing and engagement programs that overcome barriers to reducing energy use and achieving environmental sustainability. Learn more at www.ecoact.org

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development has released Eco4Biz – a toolkit aimed at businesses looking to assess, measure and value the natural resources they use.

The toolkit has been released in report form and is titled Eco4Biz – Ecosystem services and biodiversity tools to support business decision-making. WBCSD says that the report is a “one-stop resource kit” to help environmental managers and companies navigate and choose from a range of available tools to better understand how they rely on nature, leading to more informed and better sustainability decisions.

Eco4Biz features a decision tree, which helps cluster tools around the scale of assessment that an organization may need and the type of outputs the organization would prefer. Tools are identified as primarily focusing on either ecosystem services, such as provisioning, regulating and cultural services, or biodiversity. The toolkit will be updated on a regular basis to keep pace with developments as more companies proactively measure, manage and mitigate their impact and dependence on nature, WBCSD says.

The toolkit was developed collaboratively, in partnership with both WBCSD member and non-member companies, NGOs, academic institutes and tool developers.

In April, WBSCD released a report calling for companies to develop and implement a more holistic watershed approach, which takes into consideration upstream and downstream interactions, direct and indirect impacts, and the needs of the environment.

For many businesses, this approach is a more cost-effective method to mitigate water risks and provides significant benefits and opportunities through new revenue prospects, reputation enhancement, improved compliance and cost-savings, Sharing Water: Engaging Business says.

In 2007, WBSCD launched its free Global Water Tool, which companies can use to map their water use and assess risks relative to their global operations and supply chains.