K . The Surveyor

Thank you to Matt for the words of encouragement and inspiration regarding this blog, your words have motivated me to knock the dust off of K. with some fresh material.

For those familiar with this blog, my original intention was for it to be a “survey” of my thoughts regarding current events, matters of social justice, and issues of political, spiritual, and personal import - I believe this particular entry is a fluid cross-section of all these streams of thought. In conjunction with this entry I’ve edited the Who is K. section to more accurately reflect my ideological location (as evidenced by this post) at this point in my life.

That being said…

I’ve always been deeply intrigued by the words people use to explain and define themselves. For example, one person might express their opposition to the war in Iraq by stating, “the U.S. was not attacked or provoked by Iraq, there was no “real and certain danger” and therefore the war in Iraq is an unjust war that should be brought to a swift and sustainable conclusion”, while another opines, “I am a pacifist, therefore I oppose and call for an immediate end to all works of war; in Iraq, Afghanistan, Columbia, and everywhere else in the world. I advocate non-violent solutions in all situations of conflict.”

Although sharing similar ends, each interlocutor arrives at his or her position via much different avenues of language. While both advocate for an end to the war in Iraq, the former does so in a utilitarian way, drawing upon the language of Just War Theory to conclude that the “usefulness” of the war is far outweighed by the suffering and damage caused by it. For the utilitarian,

“the morally right course of action in any situation is the one that produces the greatest balance of benefits over harms for everyone affected. So long as a course of action produces maximum benefits for everyone, utilitarianism does not care whether the benefits are produced by lies, manipulation, or coercion.”

This definition of utilitarian ethics comes from the aptly titled article, Calculating Consequences: The Utilitarian Approach to Ethics.

Here are some questions I’ve been wrestling with in response to this article and other writings on utilitarian ethics.

In so far as human beings balance the benefits and harms of their actions before they act, “acting as consequence calculators”, are humans nothing more than complex machines (e.g. calculators) bound to select the most efficacious ends, regardless of the means? At what level is our behavior determined by our internal circuitry (nature/essence) and at what level is it our programming (nurture/education)? Do the labels that we use to define ourselves confine us, and dictate patterns of behavior and thought that become narrow, predictable, mechanistic? When we identify ourselves with a group, (e.g. Orthodox Christians, Republicans, Anarchists, Environmentalists, Quakers), how much do we then conform our thoughts and behaviors to reflect the prominent values of the group to which we identify? How much do the labels/signposts that we use to signal to others, “this is who I am, this is how I am defined”, determine our actions? Can human beings develop any new sense of themselves, or re-imagine their identity, underneath the shade of these labels? Would we all be better off if we abandoned the labels that we use to define ourselves?

Returning again to our two hypothetical interlocutors, is wisdom found in the rational calculation of the utilitarian, or the unwavering principles of the pacifist? Is it possible to have both, or does one way of thinking compromise the other?

In my opinion, there is a most delicate balance that we must find between the independent calculation and reasoning behind our beliefs and actions, and our identification with and submission to established patterns of thought and behavior. So with caution, I’ve decided to “strike-through” the labels I’ve used to define myself on this blog, (Who is K.). However not in an attempt to abandon these labels entirely, but in recognition of the fact the labels themselves and my embodiment of them are both deeply flawed.

Maybe this is why the wisest sages have counseled their students to “become like children”. Children don’t really spend too much time “calculating their actions” and they aren’t that concerned with labels and identifying with groups. Maybe we would all be better off if we took the following advice more seriously.

“Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” - Jesus

“Become as a little child once more” - Lao Tzu

I read an article today about the “fast clip” at which U.S. schools have been “resegregating themselves for the past 15 years or so”. Please check out the full article here -

Young, Brown and Weird

In the article the author states that:

“Ever since the initial breakthroughs in the years following Brown v. Board, schools have been tending toward resegregation through redistricting, strategic community planning, and prohibitive housing costs. In some school counties now it’s Jim Crow in all but name, and that’s a real shame. Diversifying schools gives more minorities the resources to earn their way to college in a less symbolically violent atmosphere. It’s going to take effort on all levels – policy, institutions, community, and individual – to reintegrate neighborhoods and schools in a meaningful and lasting way.”

Coincidently, tonight I finished a chapter on education in Murray Rothbard’s book - For a New Liberty.

While the author of Young, Brown and Weird, Anna Almendrala, is content to urge unspecified changes “on all levels – policy, institutions, community, and individual”, Rothbard digs much deeper, right down to the root of the problem itself. According to Rothbard, “the very nature of the public school requires the imposition of uniformity and the stamping out of diversity and individuality in education.”

So for Rothrbard, there is something deep within the “DNA” of a public school that resists the diversity that Almendrala believes is lacking. One very influential component of this DNA would have to be the system of districting that most public schools rely upon to carve out their student body from the wider population of the city in which they are located. Rothbard states:

“bureaucratic convenience has invariably led the states to prescribe geographical public school districts, to place one school in each district, and then to force each public school child to attend school in the district closest to his residence. While in a free private school market most children would undoubtedly attend schools near their homes, the present system compels a monopoly of one school per district, and thereby coerces uniformity throughout each area. Children who, for whatever reason, would prefer to attend a school in another district are prohibited from doing so. The result is enforced geographic homogeneity, and it also means that the character of each school is completely dependent on its residential neighborhood. It is then inevita­ble that public schools, instead of being totally uniform, will be uniform within each district, and the composition of pupils, the financing of each school, and the quality of education will come to depend upon the values, the wealth, and the tax base, of each geographical area. The fact that wealthy school districts will have costlier and higher-quality teaching, higher teaching salaries, and better working conditions than the poorer districts, then becomes inevitable. Teachers will regard the better schools as the superior teaching posts, and the better teachers will gravitate to the better school districts, while the poorer ones must remain in the lower-income areas. Hence, the operation of district public schools inevi­tably results in the negation of the very egalitarian goal which is sup­posed to be a major aim of the public school system in the first place.”

There is indeed much more to the DNA of a public school than simply the districting system, and Rothbard analyzes many of the complex issues involved in a most illuminating fashion. If you’re at all concerned with the process of resegregation that Almendrala laments, I would highly suggest taking some time to read and contemplate the entire chapter - For a New Liberty - Education.

and flood the malls with your credit cards.

Here is a great quote from Shane Claibourne that I thought was appropriate for the Christmas season.

“Why do we celebrate the birthday of a refugee born in a manger by buying stuff?”

Good question.

Today is October 15th - Blog Action Day. Today more than 15,000 bloggers will unite to put a single important issue on the front of everyone’s mind – the environment. Each of the bloggers involved will write a post about the environment that represents their unique perspective and opinions on the issue. For my part, I would like to revisit one of the more devastating facts in my recent post, Sustainability: Economic revolution - Ecological necessity, and I would like to consider the political implications of this fact in light of the upcoming presidential election.

Here is the fact:

“The EPA currently regulates less than 10% of the 191 lethal toxins identified by the 1970 Clean Air Act – (entirely a result of the “influential power” of corporate lobbyists)

If I were writing this blog a few months ago I would have descended into an indignant tirade about the evils of corporate lobbyists and the “profit over people” corporations they represent. However this past summer I experienced a serious paradigm shift at The Rutba House which has redirected my focus away from the social ills caused by government ineptitude and corporate complicity and towards the social ills caused by the ineptitude and complicity of “the church”. I no longer believe that the changes I wish to see in the world will come through presidential leadership or congressional oversight. What I learned at The Rutba House is that the primary catalyst for social change and justice in the world should be the church. More broadly, I believe that anything the federal government is doing to promote social justice, provide poverty assistance, protect human rights, and in this case preserve the environment, could be done with more efficiency and effectiveness by an NGO (non-governmental organization) - a category in which we could include “the church”.

Thus I believe the problem with protecting our environment does not find its solution in reforming the EPA; rather the problem is the EPA. I would rather have the money that I am taxed to maintain the ineffective bureaucracy at the EPA redirected to an NGO with a history of passionately protecting the environment. For example, I wonder if The Sierra Club, (the oldest and largest environmental NGO in the U.S.), were in charge of regulating the 191 lethal toxins identified by the 1970 Clean Air Act, would the number of lethal toxins currently regulated be larger or smaller than 19 – it’s hard to imagine they could do much worse. For those with a political mindset, you might be picking up on some libertarian ideology here – less government more private industry. This is indeed true, but while these views may fall most in line with those espoused by the libertarian party, my particular motivation for advancing such views is connected less with privatization and property rights and more with religious conviction and spiritual optimism. I simply believe the church can and should be about the business of bringing “the kingdom of God on earth as it is in heaven.” I have a strong suspicion that if the church had more liberty to operate and more wealth to operate with, we would see less poverty, less injustice, less violence, less corruption, and less environmental degradation in our world.

So how does this translate into a vote at the 2008 presidential ballot box? I would say that to increase the wealth and influence of NGO’s we must first decrease the wealth and influence of the federal government. For NGO’s like the Sierra Club to gather more financial resources and public support to do their work, the EPA must get out of the way, stop hoarding all the wealth, claiming all the responsibility, and abusing the monopoly power it has on environmental policy. Therefore I will be voting for the individual that I believe will most systematically dismantle wasteful, ineffective, and unnecessary federal organizations like the EPA - organizations that drain U.S. citizens of their wealth and rob them of their liberty. In other words, I will be voting for the candidate that I believe will provide the clearest vision of Hope for America.

I recently picked up The Gospel According to America by David Dark for $1.00 on a used book table. With a sticker price that low I didn’t expect much from Dark, a Presbyterian high school teacher from Nashville I’d never heard of, but the price was right and the title was provocative enough so I thought it might be worth a try. At this point I’m only 26 pages in, but so far I’ve been inspired, convicted, and enlightened by what I’ve read. In a section entitled, “The Salvific Power of Self Doubt”, Dark argues eloquently that a healthy sense of humility should guide the U.S. media in everything they print and broadcast about the politics of the U.S. Similarly, Darks points out that the consumer of media should develop a critical eye and a skeptical mind as they sort through the ocean of simplistic dichotomies and divisive rhetoric that often defines most of the media’s coverage of political issues. Together with a deep concern for how the critical issues of our nation are presented by the media and decoded by the public, Dark suggests that U.S. citizens should demand not only the most objective and transparent presentation of political information, but also the highest quality content from the powerful media conglomerates that saturate our airwaves, bandwidth, and daily prints.

Unfortunately, one of the primary sources of news for many in the U.S., TV networks, are often guilty of both heavily biased presentation and absurdly insignificant content. Concerning the latter, a recently published study by FAIR, (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting), reveals that while the most recent U.S. Census Bureau data reports that 37 million Americans - one in eight - lived below the federal poverty line in 2005, the subject of widespread poverty in the U.S. is simply not a priority for the 3 major news networks (ABC, CBS, NBC). Read the full report here:

The Poor Will Always Be With Us–Just Not on the TV News

During the more than three years studied by FAIR, (9/11/03–10/30/06) there were only 58 stories about poverty aired on the three network newscasts. With roughly 815 weekdays worth of newscasts in that time frame, multiplied by 3 for each different network, that is approximately 2445 broadcasts.

Furthermore, “24 of the 58 stories during the study period ran during the six months immediately following Hurricane Katrina—during the other 32 months, barely one network news segment a month so much as mentioned poverty or the needy.” Most of the other stories focused on the elderly or those in the armed forces. This fact isn’t inherently negative, however this bias towards the elderly and armed forces redirects coverage away from the largest subset of the U.S. population suffering from poverty – children. Just another sad example of the media not understanding, or choosing to understand very narrowly, the issues they are covering.

The survey also revealed that, “TV networks had an abysmal record at following up on stories, even when they implied they would. An NBC segment (3/25/05) mentioned high poverty as a cause of suicides among Native Americans and noted “the problems must be taken seriously”—yet NBC never revisited the issue of Native American poverty.” Although the language of the report appears to suggest it, I am not personally suggesting in any way that NBC is responsible for fixing the problem of Native American suicides. However, if NBC feels the need to tell their viewers to take the issue seriously, why doesn’t NBC commit more resources to investigating the issue?

Just for a little context - “During a study period that saw 58 stories about poverty, the three network programs dedicated 69 stories to Michael Jackson’s legal woes. Of the three networks, only NBC aired more stories on poverty than on Michael Jackson (25 to 24). Moreover, in 2005, the year that saw the Katrina disaster and the culmination of Jackson’s rather less consequential trial, the networks deemed the pop star’s legal problems twice as newsworthy as the economic plight of tens of millions of poor citizens, running 44 stories on Michael Jackson to 22 for poverty.”

To conclude, a story of one of America’s most dearly loved pop culture icons - in fact the king of all media idols, Elvis Presley - might serve us well as we process the findings of the FAIR study.

Sitting in front of his television reading from the Bible one afternoon, Elvis is suddenly struck by the painful tension between the glowing box in front of him, beckoning him to consume, and the ancient text below, encouraging him to “sell all of his possessions and give them to the poor”. In a moment of rebellious clarity Elvis picks up his shotgun and fires upon his TV set. While this story may be folk legend, the scene remains a potent metaphor. The “mass hypnosis of entertainment industry”, to borrow a phrase from David Dark, is put to death by the very man the industry sustained itself on for so long.

I believe the same choice remains for us today. We can continue to allow the TV networks to ignore the crucial issues of our time, (global poverty / Darfur / Aids / cancer / obesity / the national debt), or we can simply turn off the TV and force their ratings down into the garbage dump with their content. Now I wouldn’t suggest shooting it, a remote will do just fine.

Here is an interesting statement that General Petraeus made today in his second day of testimony before Congress.

When asked by Republican John Warner, “Are you able to say at this time, if we continue what you have laid before the Congress here as a strategy, do you feel that that is making America safer?”

Petraeus first attempted to evade the question by stating that the current U.S. strategy was the best course for achieving U.S. objectives in Iraq.

So Warner asked again, “Does that make America safer?”

Petraeus replied, “Sir, I don’t know, actually. I have not sat down and sorted it out in my own mind.”

My question is simply this, if the rationale for continuing the war in Iraq is to prevent future terror attacks in the U.S., why hasn’t Petraeus “sorted out” whether or not continuing the war actually accomplishes this? With so many lives at stake, (Iraqi and U.S.), how does he NOT know?

Read a report from the Chicago Tribune for more:
Senate grills Petraeus on Iraq strategy

“Setting an example is not the primary means of influencing another, it is the only means.”
-Albert Einstein

Six years after the attacks of 9-11 the words of Albert Einstein shine like a piercing light of truth and clarity through the dense fog of rhetoric that currently surrounds the violence in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yesterday the fog grew thicker as General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker sounded the triumphant horn of the Bush administration before Congress that the 30,000 strong U.S. troop “surge” into Iraq is in fact creating the diplomatic space necessary for sectarian factions in Iraq to peacefully mediate their differences. Col. Dan Smith, U.S. Army (Ret.), who is not a Quaker but writes to educate them about the complexities of military affairs, reports on his blog, The Quaker’s Colonel, that the reduction in violence touted by Petraeus and Crocker is indeed happening in some areas of Iraq. However, Smith also notes that the reduction in violence may in fact be due to a number of other intervening factors.

On the other hand, the BBC recently published a survey that polled the opinions of more than 2,000 Iraqi’s, in more than 450 neighborhoods, across all 18 provinces of Iraq. The overwhelming consensus among this large sample set is that the U.S. troop surge has been nothing short of an abysmal failure. The BBC reports that, “Between 67% and 70% of the Iraqis polled believe the surge has hampered conditions for political dialogue, reconstruction and economic development.” The full report can be found here:
US surge has failed - Iraqi poll

As I continue to filter the results of the BBC’s extensive poll and the testimony of Petraeus and Crocker through the same filter of skepticism, my better judgment tells me the truth of the matter exists somewhere in the middle. Disputes will surely continue as people of all ideological backgrounds continue to measure and analyze what is happening in that complex area of the world. Regardless, one fact remains crystal clear - the cost of the war grows larger and more unmanageable with each passing day. As reported by the New York Times in January, the cost of the war in Iraq is quickly approaching 1.2 Trillion. The article provides a powerful look at What $1.2 Trillion Can Buy. Some quick facts:
- A doubling of cancer research funding
- Treatment for every American whose diabetes or heart disease is now going unmanaged
- A global immunization campaign which would save millions of children’s lives
- Universal preschool for every 3 & 4 year old child across the country
- The city of New Orleans could receive a huge increase in reconstruction funds
- National security: A few crucial recommendations of the 9/11 Commission that have not been put in place could be easily financed — better baggage and cargo screening

Although it is clear the U.S. government has decided the best way to create peace in Iraq and Afghanistan is through violence, I do believe that the citizens of the U.S. can still choose a different way, a better way, a way that I believe truly honors the victims of the 9-11 attacks. As Einstein so brilliantly suggests, we must become the type of people that seek to influence others by the example we set with our own lives. I can think of no greater honor to those lost on 9-11 than to make their tragic deaths an occasion for a sincere personal commitment to first transform our lives and then to share the fruit of that transformation with others. If we want peace, we live and cultivate peace in our own lives, if we want justice, we seek reconciliation not retribution, if we desire forgiveness we offer it to others first. If I ever die in a terrorist attack my prayer is that my death will not be a catalyst for more killing and death, but a clear and convicting statement to the world that we all need to be transformed. My spirit tells me the victims of the 9-11 attacks pray with me.

I recently finished reading The Ecology of Commerce, by Paul Hawken. I discovered both the book and the author after watching The Corporation, an award winning documentary about the genesis, evolution, and nature of the “dominant institution of our time”. In one of the film’s many compelling interviews, Ray Anderson, the CEO of the world’s largest carpet manufacturer Interface, mentions that after reading Hawken’s book he was so deeply convicted about the negative effects his company was having on the environment that he vowed to completely restructure the Interface business model. In a campaign called, Mission Zero, Interface carpet has promised to “eliminate any negative impact our company may have on the environment by the year 2020.” Needless to say, after hearing from Anderson that Hawken’s book was capable of so dramatically transforming his managerial approach at Interface, I put The Ecology of Commerce at the top of my “to read” list. (For more of my reading list, check out What I’m Surveying)

The book is packed with statistics, expert analysis, research citations, and creative solutions to the complex tensions that currently exist between economic growth and ecological sustainability. At the outset of the book Hawken states clearly that the goal of his book is not to disseminate radical propaganda about the treason of capitalism or the inherent evils of corporate America, but rather to shine a light on “a path that restores the natural communities on earth but uses many of the historical effective organizational and market techniques of free enterprise.” A “restorative economy”, as Hawken puts it, is one in which eco-systems flourish alongside profits and global standards of living. Unfortunately, the sense of hope that springs fresh for the reader at the thought of an economic system that provides for the masses and respects the fragility of nature, is heavily tempered by the reality of our current situation. For example:

- 25 million people die every year from pesticide poisoning
- The EPA currently regulates less than 10% of the 191 lethal toxins identified by the 1970 Clean Air Act – (entirely a result of the “influential power” of corporate lobbyists)
- 25 billion tons of fertile topsoil are lost every year
- Overall world production of food is declining in relation to world population

Sadly these are just a few of the brushstrokes in a terribly shameful picture of humankind’s arrogant abuse of our habitat painted by Hawken. In consideration of these facts, and the mountain of others that accompany them, it is increasingly clear that fundamental changes are now necessary to avoid any further loss of the basic ecological resources that are so often taken for granted in the industrialized world. However this does not mean that jobs must be lost or profits must be sacrificed, on the contrary, Hawken’s restorative economy is one in which respect for investors and care for the environment go hand in hand. For example, “By reformulating products, changing processes, redesigning equipment, and recovering waste for reuse or recycling”, (as mandated by their “3P” program – Pollution Prevention Pays ), global technology giant 3M has been able to save 1 billion dollars and prevent more than 2.5 billion pounds of pollutants from entering the biosphere. That’s a pretty simple inverse equation — profits up & pollution down.

In other words, another world is possible. Given the resolve, the largest and most powerful corporations in the world can become more sustainable and more profitable at the same time, and given the right information, I believe that consumers will consistently shift their dollars in the direction of companies that recognize this.

For more, I highly suggest watching The Corporation. You will surely be moved to transform your own personal habits of consumption to send a strong message to the world’s most powerful corporations that we will not tolerate plunder and greed. I would also suggest reading The Ecology of Commerce for a broader perspective of how business and the environment can interact for either our welfare or demise.

On this date 44 years ago Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his “I Have A Dream” speech at a civil rights rally near the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. The rally was organized by a number of civil rights groups that partnered together to mobilize the public to put pressure on congress to pass a strong civil rights bill.

44 years later the U.S. Department of Justice reports that while African Americans comprised only 13 percent of the U.S. population in 2005, they were victims of about 49 percent of all homicides that year.

Is the dream still alive?

“Be inspired to change the world” is the marketing slogan for Starbucks current in store and online promotion of the new film Arctic Tale. To publicize the new film Starbucks entertainment division, “Hear Music”, is currently partnering with Paramount Pictures and National Geographic to saturate the market with Artic Tale posters, billboards, toys, and memorabilia. The trailer for the film explains that Arctic Tale is the story of a baby polar bear and walrus as they grow up in the Great North. As images of furry, playful animals tug on your heart strings with one hand, Starbucks makes use of the other to smack you in the face with a heavy dose of global climate change rhetoric. Unfortunately, Starbucks promotion of Arctic Tale appears to be much less of an attempt to inspire people to care for the environment and more of an attempt to distract the public from their lack of a corporate recycling program.

I contacted Starbucks via email to find out why they don’t provide recycling bins for their customers paper or plastic cups and cardboard sleeves. I asked specifically why the decision to recycle is not corporately mandated and why the decision is left up to the individual store owner. A Starbucks “Customer Relations Representative” replied to my inquiry and stated that,

“Most of our retail store recycling is conducted “behind the scenes” in the back room (boxes, milk jugs, etc.).”

To confirm this I spoke with two former employees of Starbucks stores in Bloomington, IN.

Employee #1 – “Starbucks finds it cost prohibitive to have a corporate recycling program. Although the Bloomington market is capable of recycling milk jugs and cardboard, we didn’t consistently separate milk jugs from the other trash. Additionally, we would break down our cardboard boxes so they lay flat then sit them out with the other trash.”

Employee #2 - “As for behind the scenes recycling, I only know about Bloomington (and Bedford) and there is nothing like this going on. When I worked there, the manager seemed to care about recycling, but claimed there was nothing that could be done because the city doesn’t come to that area to pick up recycling”

So apparently recycling at Starbucks takes place “behind the scenes” for two reasons:

1. If Starbucks were to operate their recycling program in plain view of the public eye people would quickly realize that Starbucks has no real commitment to recycling and is more concerned with appearing environmentally sensitive than actually conforming their business practices to the ideals they profess in their PR statements and marketing campaign for Arctic Tale.

2. Starbucks managers are somehow under the impression that the burden to recycle their waste is actually the responsibility of the taxpayers (via the city’s recycling services). My question is, does the city receive any benefit from the increased profit margins that Starbucks collects by refusing to spend a dime on a recycling program of their own? The answer is no. Taxpayers in Bloomington simply get more unnecessary and perfectly recyclable content dumped into their public landfills.

Although unwilling to make any significant changes to their own business practices for the good of our earth, Starbucks is more than willing to point the finger at their customers. To “inspire change” in the lives of others, Starbucks has partnered up with eco-groups Conservation International, Earthwatch Institute, Earth Day Network, and The Climate Group. Starbucks also organized a “National Day of Discussion” on August 15th in their stores and coordinated a discussion forum online featuring Michael Totten, Senior Director of Climate, Water and Ecosystem Services at Conservation International. In the Conservation International Forum, only two mentions of recycling occurred in the entire discussion of more than 8,500 words. Not surprisingly, neither of those two mentions was in any way connected to Starbucks unwillingness to implement a corporate program to recycle the millions of perfectly recyclable coffee cups they push across the counter everyday. In fact, none of the questions regarding Starbucks business practices made it past the screeners. Apparently Starbucks believes it is more important to discuss how you and I should change our behavior and lifestyle than to acknowledge that without a serious recycling program they continue to produce more unnecessary waste in one business day than the average family could in years.

Furthermore, if you check out the websites for all of the organizations that Starbucks has partnered with for their promotion of Arctic Tale, you will find that recycling appears on each and every list of “what you can do” to stop global climate change. Please take a look for yourself.

Conservation International -10 Things You Can Do Every Day

Earth Day Network -What You Can Do Right Now

Global Green USA – Recycling Fact Sheet

On their resource page, the Earthwatch Institute encourages people to move beyond simply recycling paper. For the Earthwatch Institute, recycling paper is so fundamental to environmental conservation they feel comfortable encouraging people to move beyond this basic practice. By not offering the most basic recycling resources to their employees or customers, Starbucks is neglecting what their partner views as one of the most basic principles of responsible earth care.

A small ray of light does glimmer for Starbucks on the website for The Climate Group, which states that, “The EPA has ranked Starbucks the 6th largest purchaser of renewable energy in the USA as of April 2006.” However, according to their profile on The Climate Group webpage the benefits of Starbucks current efforts to reduce their greenhouse emissions is listed as, “Not Documented”. Does that sound like the behavior of a profitable mega corporation like Starbucks? Engaging in environmentally friendly activities and then NOT tracking the results to tout as evidence of their “concern” for the environment? Sure, offsetting their massive consumption of fossil fuels is a start, but no mention of recycling appears anywhere amongst The Climate Group’s “accolades” for Starbucks. Accolades which are significantly diminished by the fact that one of the founding organizations of The Climate Group is, (drum roll please), Starbucks! The roster for The Climate Group finds Starbucks in great company, BP and Duke Energy, (two of the largest polluters in the world), are also charter members of the organization. Could it be that The Climate Group is little more than a PR conglomerate created to protect the image of corporations with environmentally damaging business practices?

Finally, here are a few prescriptions for curing this problem, (please post more if you can think of any).

1. Don’t go see Arctic Tale. We don’t need Queen Latifah, (narrator of the film), telling us how to live our lives. Reuse, Reduce, and Recycle because it’s the right thing to do for the future generations of our earth.
2. Only buy coffee from Starbucks stores that offer recycling for both the materials they use to make their products and the cups which they serve your drink in.
3. Bring your own mug. The best way to avoid the creation of more beverage container waste is a reusable mug.
4. Find a locally owned coffee shop. As a general rule, always patronize businesses that have a vested interest in the wellbeing of your community and not simply the maximization of their profits.
5. Recycle this blog. Tell someone about Starbucks corporate hypocrisy today.