Do you know where your pension coming from? For some US teachers, it’s Chinese coal.

The Chinese coal industry is known for its lucrative returns: the China Shenhua Energy Co. gained 65% from July to September, and many investors claim they can’t afford not to be in China. In fact, 20% of Shenhua’s stock is held by U.S. investors — one of whom is the Teachers Retirement System of Texas.

But China’s coal is also a huge polluter. According to the New York Times, China uses more coal than the US, the EU, and Japan combined, contributing an enormous amount of CO2 to the atmosphere. Coal-fired plants emit more than 60 different hazardous air pollutants. The large amounts of sulfur dioxide produced by Chinese coal cause acid rain, which pollutes water sources. But because of China’s rapidly advancing economy, the country needs energy — fast and cheap. Coal-fired plants are much cheaper and quicker to build than natural gas, nuclear, or hydroelectric plants, and it’s widely available.

China’s booming coal industry is also harmful to its citizens, producing so much sulfur dioxide that the World Bank estimated 400,000 premature deaths happen each year due to pollution-related illnesses. Not only that, but as much as 40% of air pollution in South Korea and Japan is believed to originate in China, and many experts believe that pollution from China is reaching the western part of the United States.

Do Texas teachers know where their pensions are coming from? For that matter, are other teacher retirement systems investing in Chinese Big Coal? I checked out Missouri’s Public School Retirement System, in which my husband and I have each invested. With my little financial knowledge, I was able to determine that PSRS has invested with Merrill Lynch, which is a shareholder in Shenhua. Just how much of my money is in coal remains to be seen. Looks like it’s time to work towards divestment…

Source: Associated Press

Americans eat more than a ton of corn every year. Literally, a ton. Right now, you’re thinking, "There’s no way. No one eats that much corn, even in August." Well, that ton is not really corn in its unsullied, fresh-from-the-field, bought-at-a roadside-stand form. Nor is it in its canned-creamed-or-not form. Most of the corn we eat is in the form of processed additives and sweetners. Green Options’ Philip Proefrock wrote about how we eat corn, and why we eat so much of it. In the new documentary King Corn, director/producer Aaron Woolf attempts to bring the prevalence of corn to the big screen.

King Corn focuses on co-producers Ian Cheney and Curt Ellis as they move to Iowa, rent an plot of farmland, and attempt to grow an acre of corn using typical industrial methods: genetically modified seeds, nitrogen fertilizers, powerful herbicides, and government subsidies. They show us exactly how industrial corn production works today, from seed to table, in the convoluted journey of a commodity. From Ian and Curt’s one acre, they harvest enough corn to make 57,348 sodas, 3,894 burgers, or 6,726 boxes of cornflakes. And yes, corn is a major ingredient in all of those foods.

The two major corn byproducts King Corn focuses on are high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and beef. The average American consumes 73.5 pounds of HFCS per year, mostly in the form of soda. Ian and Curt talk to a cab driver whose family is plagued by diabetes and who lost 100 pounds, just by cutting soda out of his diet. They also visit a beef feedlot: a large percentage of corn grown in the US goes to feed beef, even though cows’ bodies are not designed to eat corn and it can make them seriously sick and definitely uncomfortable. But, as the panoramic shot of a feedlot populated by 100,000 head of cattle shows, indigestion is the least of most cows’ worries — they barely have room to turn around on their way to the slaughterhouse.

Cheney and Ellis are fairly charming, but leave little impression on the viewers other than they seem like nice guys with whom to share a beer. The time spent on the backstory of their families’ connection to Iowa is unnecessary and detracts from more content Woolf could have included about the impact of corn: namely the environmental impacts of industrial corn production at the scale we’re at right now. Just when I felt the filmmakers were about to talk about the degradation of topsoil, the carbon impacts of CAFOs and corn-fed beef, or the externalities created from industrial agriculture, they skirted away and went in another direction. And although they do inform on the gross use of farm subsidies and how those subsides have changed over time, they neglect to mention the impact of government subsides to American corn farmers on corn farmers in other countries, namely our Mexican neighbors.

However, industrial agriculture is a wicked problem, and the filmmakers do note that they wanted to focus on the food system. In my mind, though, you can’t talk about the problems with the food system without talking about the condition of the land we use to grow our food. With the environment so prominent in current discourse, one would think they would have at least touched on that area.

Despite this, I was entertained and informed, and not just because I’m a born-and-raised Iowa Girl. The vast majority of Americans have no idea how their food is produced, and King Corn gives a general glimpse into what Old MacDonald’s farm has become. If you liked Super Size Me, Sicko, or The Future of Food, King Corn is a hybrid of the three, and well worth checking out. Just don’t expect green themes to be prevalent.

When I talk to people about thinking sustainably, they inevitably ask for books to read, and although there are several books I love about sustainability, they’re all very specific to one area of sustainability. Want to read about food? Try Michael Pollan, Peter Singer, or the new Barbara Kingsolver book. Climate Change? How about The Weather Makers? Looking for the classics? Rachel Carson and Aldo Leopold are a good starting place. But I haven’t yet found the primer, the comprehensive text that really gets into why humanity desperately needs to embrace a greener way of life.

The Future of Nature: Writing on a Human Ecology from Orion Magazine (Milkweed Editions, $18.00), just might be that book. A collection of thought-provoking essays selected and introduced by Barry Lopez, The Future of Nature includes writings by such heavy-hitters as Wendell Berry, Bill McKibben, and Derrick Jensen, all originally published in Orion, the seminal magazine covering the intersection of culture, nature, and the environment.

Released this past Thursday, the book is divided into six loosely-themed sections. Actions runs the gamut of activism, from small suburban grassroots efforts to stop construction on a SuperTarget store to bailing out direct-action activists in Appalachia. Refugees discusses those displaced by humanity’s interactions with the environment, giving a face to the faceless victims of climate change and the unending hunt for resources. Boundaries addresses the idea of the wilderness and our relationship with it. Reverence discusses how appreciation for nature, a love of and respect for it, is the essential guidepost for sustainable living. Monsters lays out just exactly what sorts of devastating things we’re doing to our only home, and Native leaves the reader with both hope and guidance for living in harmony with our ecosystem.

Highlighting both theory and practice of sustainable (and unsustainble) living, the causes of our ecological crises, and a vision for a lasting future, The Future of Nature provides a plethora of contexts for understanding just why we desperately need to change the way we live. Elegantly written and compiled, this book should be required reading for those interested in sustaining our future on Earth. The themes balance each other nicely; the reader understands the reality of the direness of humanity’s situation but is left with hope that good things are happening everywhere, those little pockets of positive change that will lead to a more balanced way of life. It immediately made me want to go read not only Orion, but every other piece of writing by this insightful group of writers.

Imagine my shock when I opened my mailbox to find the latest issue of Newsweek sporting a fire-glowing orb and the headline "Global Warming is a Hoax.*" It’s hard to believe (particularly for the GO family) that there are still people who deny that climate change is happening and caused by humans. With the influx of pro-green exposure in the media, many greens saw this past year as the tipping point in awareness and activism on global warming. Yet, "deniers" still exist, and Newsweek’s cover story (complete with tongue-in-cheek headline) aims to track the foundations of the denial movement, the major players behind it, and the motivations behind the well-coordinated effort to keep the American public doubting that global warming is real. (That asterisk? It noted "Or so claim well-funded naysayers who still reject the overwhelming evidence of climate change.")

"They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Worth, quoted early in the article. The key tactic? Creating doubt in the minds of both policymakers and the public by disputing the science behind global warming. As soon as then-senator Al Gore brought global warming to Washington’s attention in 1988, groups with benign names such as the Global Climate Coalition and the Information Council on the Environment, which were actually lobbyist groups from the petroleum, steel, auto, and utilities companies, began an all-out war to contradict the overwhelming body of science that supported global warming.

The rhetoric changed as the science supporting global warming grew more and more conclusive. It started with "the science behind global warming is wrong", moved to "global warming is happening, but it is not the fault of humans", and ended with the current denier mantra, "global warming is happening, and we may be causing it, but it’s effects are hardly anything to worry about."

Also impossible to ignore in the article is the amount of money and power changing hands between lobbying groups, policymakers, and scientists. One Exxon-Mobil-backed group has offered $10,000 to scientists willing to speak out against global warming. And that might be what’s so depressing about the "deniers": it seems that from day one, their motives were entirely based on the acquisition or preservation of money and power. As Gore demonstrated in a graphic in An Inconvenient Truth, what’s more important: bars of gold, or the entire planet?

The article is fascinating and puts a face (and clear strategy) on the campaign against the planet. This issue of Newsweek is on newsstands now, and the entire article can be found on Newsweek’s website.

I recently profiled the success of TerraCycle, the New Jersey corporation selling worm tea from vermicomposting in reclaimed plastic soda bottles. Looks like bigger corporations are starting to notice Terra Cycle–and not in a good way.

The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company has filed a suit against TerraCycle, claiming their plant food bottle looks too much like their own Miracle-Gro bottles; both bottles, though dramatically different, both have yellow and green on their lables along with pictures of flowers and vegetables. Interestingly, at least 120 other lawn and garden products currently on the market also have green and yellow packaging.

Scotts is also demanding that TerraCycle hand over results of scientific tests conducted at Rutgers University that support the eco-friendly company's claim that their plant food is "as good or better than the leading synthetic plant food", although Scotts has refused to hand over their own similar study to TerraCycle.

Further investigation notes that Scotts, whose annual sales total an estimated $2.2 billion, has sued 20 different competitors for infringement of intellectual property in the past ten years. TerraCycle, whose annual sales came in at an estimated $1.5 million, has started a blog documenting the David versus Goliath drama. You can find more information there, including information on how you can help.