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.

When Amy wrote about green magazines, she mentioned GOOD as being one of her favorites. I, too, a self-described magazine junkie, am a big fan of GOOD since it’s inception last year. With all the depressing news out there on any given day, GOOD always reaffirms my faith in humanity. Its focus is, like its name implies, good stuff: those things that are making our world a little bit better, and when I’m feeling down about what’s going on around me, GOOD usually perks me up. It’s a rare magazine that doesn’t need an annual "green" issue: sustainability has been a priority since the magazine was founded.

The latest issue (Sept/Oct 07) is no exception. The issue, which commemorates their one-year anniversary, focuses on design solutions. A topic I covered a while back, green schools, gets a feature nod from Eva Steele-Saccio. Steele-Saccio highlights different schools’ efforts to reduce their footprint and become more energy efficient, and acknowledges that there are benefits beyond energy savings: "Green schools create a healthy atmosphere for learning that has measurable results. The combination of natural light, fresh air, open plans, and multi-use facilities that encourage community involvement has helped student test scores rise by 20% and reduced asthma rates by 39%."

There’s also a feature about a village in England that launched a community effort to reduce their carbon footprint, with the ultimate goal of becoming the first carbon-neutral village in the U.K. GOOD’s product reviews almost always include items produced with sustainability in mind, and in this issue, they create a proposal for better CFL packaging: create a package that can be used to ship burned-out bulbs back to the producer for proper disposal. There’s also a profile of Rogan Gregory, founder of clothing company Loomstate, who was virtually responsible for bringing organic cotton to the fashion industry though his work with Loomstate, and his other two companies, Rogan and Edun

Even subscribing to GOOD can make you feel good: 100% of your $20 subscription costs goes to your choice of twelve charities, including the World Wildlife Fund and Oceana. Good is printed on 30% recycled post-consumer paper that is EcoLogic certified, and 100% offset by projects Good is actually involved in.

The September/October issue of GOOD is on newsstands now.

School started yesterday, and with it came a whole new crop of students in my environmental sustainability class. Although I wish the summer was longer, and getting back into the routine is hard (falling…asleep…now), I love the first few days of the semester, when I first start to see kids reaction to the idea of sustainability.

Teens, by nature, don’t have a ton of impulse control. Parents of teens are thinking to themselves, "Well, duh." But seriously, many lack the frontal lobe development to fully consider how their actions impact others. It’s why many make stupid choices.

However, this doesn’t prevent them from grasping the notion that how most Americans live might not be the best way to live. I started our first full day by having the class go through the Earth Day Foundation’s online eco-footprint calculator. This simple test asks participants questions involving such subjects as the size of their home, their eating habits, and their transportation habits. Though far from comprehensive, it’s quick enough that I can get a whole class through, working in small groups, in enough time to tabulate the class average, and the results, though probably not 100% precise, give students a rough idea of the magnitude of how they live.

Not only does the quiz give students a score of approximately how many acres of resources they use, but it roughly calculates "how many planets" it would take to sustain humanity if everyone lived like them. After each student finished the quiz, they came up to the SmartBoard, where I had an Excel file with everyone’s name, and entered their scores, then calculated a class average. On average, if everyone lived like my class, we would need 3.5 planets to sustain us. When I explained what this number meant, the class guiltily looked at each other, particularly those who had high numbers.

"Why is that number a big deal?" I asked.

"There aren’t 3.5 planets," a student volunteered. "Well, there are, but we can only use one. So…" he sheepishly trailed off. The class laughed.

I asked the kids what questions from the quiz surprised them. Remember, most of them are coming in with little prior knowledge of sustainability other than "recycling=good; global warming=bad." The number one concept they didn’t expect was questions about their diet. Why does it matter how much meat I eat? Why does it matter where my food comes from? I explained the them that a lot of resources go into food production, like water and fossil fuels.

"Wait, so it basically takes gas to make our food?" one student asked cautiously. I smiled slyly because I love watching the synapses fire!

"If it’s Twinkies, there might be actual petroleum in your food itself," I countered.

"So what are we gonna do?" another student asked panickedly.

"Well, that’s what this class is about. Getting the number down to one," I said Like a television show, the bell rang.

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.

Looking for an educational and sustainable vacation for your family this summer? Maybe pick up a foreign language while you’re at it? Moorhead, Minnesota’s, Concordia College-sponsored Concordia Language Villages have offered children and families language immersion programs since 1961, and, in 2006, opened Waldsee BioHaus Environmental Learning Center, a camp that combines principles of environmental education, sustainability, and sustainable building with German culture and language.

Waldsee BioHaus is modeled on Germany’s Passivhaus standard, which is similar to, but more extensive than, the LEED standard used here in the US. The BioHaus incorporates cutting-edge green tech, including a green roof, solar panels, vacuum insulation passive solar design, and is the most airtight building in the United States. The building also has transparent siding, allowing visitors to see the building materials. In addition, BioHaus won the Minnesota Environmental Initiative Award for air quality and climate protection, based on their 24-hour air/heat exchange system and 85% efficient heat recovery unit.

Concordia has taken pains to ensure that Waldsee BioHaus is not just German language in a green building. Along with instruction in German language and culture, BioHaus also features an extensive sustainability curriculum focusing on sustainable living practices in Germany and including green roof gardening, energy conservation, fresh-water ecology, and sustainable forestry practices.

For more information on Waldsee BioHaus’s programs, visit their extensive blog or Concordia Language Village’s website.

I’m not ashamed to admit it: I’ve got food on the brain these days. Who can blame me? The farmers markets are teeming with a variety produce at the height of their flavor. I wrote Tuesday on some of my favorite food blogs where I glean recipes to test out in my kitchen. But what about those days when I don’t feel like cooking, when it’s too hot to fire up the stove, when I just don’t have much in the fridge? What about special occasions? Going out to eat, particularly for a special meal with good wine and a group of friends, is a treat I look forward to. But how to find greener options? In a word: local.

Local restaurants are more likely to use local ingredients (read: less food miles), cook seasonally (again, less food miles), and invest in the local community. In fact, local restaurants often partner with farmers markets for cooking demos or classes. I see one of the chefs of my favorite local restaurant at a farmers market every Saturday, checking out produce and talking to farmers.

Here in St Louis, along with several other cities in the US, there’s another incentive to dine locally: the DineOriginals program. Started by independent restauranteurs looking to promote their restaurants in the face of expanding chains, DineOriginals offers a rewards program for diners, and a fairly decent one at that: for every $150 you spend at DineOriginals restaurants, you earn a $10 credit. For my husband and I, it’s not hard to earn credits, particularly since our, ahem, local microbrewery participates. It’s free to join, you can sign up at any participating restaurant, and a no-brainer for those of us who try to eat local anyway. See if your city participates, and find a list of restaurants, here.

America is becoming a land of foodies. From the popularity of the Food Network and shows like Bravo’s Top Chef, to the popularity of cooking gear stores like Sur La Table and Williams Sonoma, more and more of us are finding out how sublime and satisfying preparing and eating dishes at home can be. Just yesterday I lingered over a bowl of perfectly-ripe tomatoes from the farmers market, dressed simply with extra-virgin olive oil, salt, pepper, purple basil from my garden, and a little bit of grated parmesano-reggiano cheese.

My favorite part of the foodie-fueled kitchen craze? Food blogs. I love the democracy of blogging, the connecting with people passionate about cooking, the recipes tested by real! live! people!, and the sumptuous photos of prepared dishes. There’s a ton of food blogs out there, so many that it can be quite overwhelming. For those of us in the know about how our diets impact our environment, there is a thriving community of online bloggers focusing on vegetarian, vegan, organic, seasonal, and local foods. We’ve got great recipes coming from our writers every weekend, but if you’re looking to expand, check out my favorite in greener-eating blogs.

Mighty Foods
According to their site, Mighty Foods is about "natural foods, organic ingredients, fair-trade products, veg-friendly recipes, sustainable farming, whole grains, organic wines, ingredient spotlights, news, profiles, reviews, gift ideas, new product information, culinary travel ideas, studies and trends - information and inspiration, all wrapped up in one food-loving bundle." It’s a mouthful, but it’s a comprehensive blog with information about all areas. A great starting point for food blogs that is updated often.

What The Hell Does A Vegan Eat Anyway
These are the gourmands of the vegan world. If you’re really into food, here’s where you get vegan ideas. Full of gorgeous photos, the recipes can be skeleton, but this is a great site to be inspired by vegan cuisine.

VeganYumYum
Again with the mouth-watering photos! Lolo’s blog features recipes for a variety of vegan dishes from a wide range of cuisines.

Vegetarian Cookster
Chronicling the life of a vegetarian who is trying to experiment more with vegan and vegetarian cooking, this candid blog highlights quality food that amateurs can prepare without fear.

Vegan Cupcakes Take Over The World
Finally, if anyone needs any convicing that vegan foods, particularly vegan baking, can be devastatingly, addictively tasty, look no further than Isa Chandra Moskowitz and Terry Hope Romero’s Vegan Cupcakes blog. I can’t say enough good things about the recipes from the authors of a cookbook of the same name, and I had no idea that there were so many different kinds of cupcakes. Great links, too.

Ontario's Liberal Party unveiled its plan for statewide environmental sustainability education, Education Minister Kathleen Wynne announced yesterday. "We must help students build on the knowledge and leadership they have already shown on climate change issues," said Wynne. "Our government is committed to reaching every student with an environmental education that inspires them to take positive action."

The Canadian province's plan infuses environmental education in all grade levels across disciplines, as well as creates an optional Grade 11 course focuses exclusively on environmental education. Ontario previously had mandatory environmental education, but that initiative was eliminated in 1998. The new initiative will cost $4 million.

The plan was partially in response to a report issued by the Ontario Ministry of Educations's Curriculum Council and their Working Group on Environmental Education that recommended the standardization of environmental lessons and inclusion of parents in that education. The report, titled Shaping Our Schools, Shaping Our Future, is available online.

The plan is just part of a string of environmentally-friend initiatives the Ontario government has supported, including the EcoSchools program, two green-themed websites targeting high school and elementary students, and a Clean-Air and Climate Change artwork and essay contest.

Image Credit: Rolling StoneRolling Stone joins about every other magazine on the planet (score!) by publishing an environmental issue, specifically, a "special report on climate crisis". Apparently, that warrants a sleeveless Sting, along with the rest of The Police, gracing the cover, but I kept reading anyway. In any event, Rolling Stone's environmentally-focused content runs the gamut from clueless rock-star flightiness (sorry, Roger Waters, but I'm looking at you) to downright scathing allegations against Bush and Cheney and their attempts to mislead the American public on global warming and is well worth the read for those of us involved in green lifestyles.

RS uses an article on Live Earth, the worldwide series of concerts promoting global warming awareness set to take place on July 7th on all seven continents, to lure it's music fan readers into a green frame of mind. Set to be the biggest concert in history, yet drawing fire from many environmentalists because of the massive energy resources involved in staging ten large-scale concerts (technically nine…the Antarctic show, and there is one, will probably be an intimate affair) and the real purpose of the shows. To some, they seem like just, well, big concerts. However, the article gives some reassurance from organizer Kevin Wall: "You can't depend on your governments anymore. We have to mobilize an army, and that's what we're going to start doing."

RS follows the Live Earth article with its traditional celebrity-focused pieces. In one, singer/songwriter Jack Johnson's attempt to build a green record label, Brushfire Records, and recording studio is profiled. This is followed by brief interviews on sustainability with several Live Earth musicians such as Dave Matthews, Melissa Etheridge, and John Legend. Let's just say some really know what they're talking about, and a few seem, well, still clueless. Perry Farrell's eco-style is profiled in the regular Style profile (including a very cool organic-cotton hoodie from H&M).

Just before RS gets into the meat of their issues — three features on climate change — they take a page to introduce these articles and to announce that they are the first mass-marketed magazine to be printed on carbon-neutral paper from Catalyst Paper, although they've received considerable flak for the recycled content (zero) of the paper.

To start, Eric Bates and Jeff Goodell (whom you may remember I saw a few weeks back at Wakarusa) interview Al Gore. Although Gore interviews are hardly rare since An Inconvenient Truth, Bates and Goodell do a fine job. I enjoy Gore interviews much more than any other eco-celeb, mainly because I feel he is able to combine knowlege of climate change with extensive knowledge of our political system, making him an ideal leader in the fight for real change.

RS juxtaposes the Gore interview with, ironically, an all-out assault, condemning the Bush administration, specifically Dick Cheney, and its refusal to take any type of real action on climate change. Writer Tim Dickinson goes even further, citing multiple examples of the current administration's attempt to downplay climate science and censor government scientists. Included in the article is one clever insert showing the revolving door of conflicted interests that is the environmental advisors to the Bush administration, and another chart documenting statements Bush has made about environmental policy, and the reality of what happened after those statements were made.

The trio of features ends with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s proposal for what must be done to cut carbon emissions. The five big things? Establish an emissions cap along with a global carbon market, eliminating new coal plants that don't sequester CO2 underground, build more efficient cars, ban incandescent light bulbs, and make net metering nationwide, with Kennedy explaining these ideas more fully throughout the article.

In conclusion, Rolling Stone's issue is worth the read, particularly if you were already going to check out the review of the new White Stripes album. It is more big-thinking than some other green issues, taking on policy and larger changes than just changing your light bulbs. If only it was printed on recycled paper with soy-based ink…a girl can dream, can't she?