Green Options

Energy didn’t get a sniff in last night’s Obama press conference. That wasn’t really a surprise given the way that health care has elbowed its way into the political spotlight. You can count climate change among the “priorities” now in the shadows.

Often stressed ecological systems emerge, evolve and reorganize in the most innovative ways.

The same holds true for T. S. Designs, the nation’s largest maker of the most sustainably printed T-shirts.  It’s a company that revolutionized the very process of manufacturing.  Isn’t this the kind of innovation and creativity President Obama is calling for?

Ironically, T.S. Design’s transformation was brought about by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), championed by the US government under the Clinton Administration, that nearly destroyed their business when their customers shifted to off-shore sources for cheaper T-shirts.

T. S. Designs, founded by Eric Henry and Tom Sineath, now uses 95 percent American-made organic cotton in their T-shirts. Its patented REHANCE printing process allows them to avoid using plastisol, normally made out of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), thus reducing the harmful ecological impacts of these ubiquitous products. As I write about in ECOpreneuring, T.S. Designs doesn’t just make an eco-effective product; it transformed its business model from a focus on profits to operating by a triple bottom line: people, planet and profits. Instead of selling to the Gap and Nike, it now sells to Whole Foods Market and Greenpeace.

“Although Tom and I have always taken care of our employees and tried to make socially and environmentally responsible decisions with our business, our transition to a triple-bottom-line business was not spurred by inspiration, but by desperation,” admits Eric, about their transition. “We believe that if you go outside your market to source a product that your market is capable of supplying, that is not sustainable. Unfortunately, this is due to NAFTA’s and the World Trade Organization’s missions that are driven solely by consumer price and do not consider environmental or quality-of-life costs.”

Extraction and refining heavy oil from Canadian tar sands would have a devastating impact on avian populations, according to a new report from the NRDC.

Fox News’ Carl Cameron reports that a McCain-Palin rift began to develop, and was due in no small part to Gov. Palin’s lack of knowledge of basic civics, politics, and geography - and her unwillingness to prepare more thoroughly in light of those those deficiencies.

A Quebec think-tank, the Montreal Economic Institute, recently released a report encouraging bulk water exports from Canada to the United States.  The report concludes that Quebec could sip on a cool $65 billion a year by selling just 10% of its ”renewable blue gold” to its thirsty and heavily urbanized southern neighbor. However, the report’s not just making waves in small economic circles, it’s rocking the already-unsteady boat of Canadian public opinion on US export policy.

Since the 1960’s, when Canadians learned of plans to privatize and divert large quantities of Canada’s water, many in the country have been wary that the US will view Canada as a “great, green sponge” and come after its water resources. They may not be far from the mark. Since he came into office, President Bush began using his dry home state of Texas in talks to push then Prime Minister Jean Chretien to turn on the tap of Canada’s water. Past US Ambassador to Canada, Paul Celucci, also made regular attempts to convince Canada that water should be a trade commodity, like oil. Moreover, in a time when much of the American public seems to rely on South Park for information about Canada, there’s very little understanding in the US about Canadians’ sensitivity over the issue of resource exports (and water exports in particular) to the United States.

Of nearly 2,000 Americans responding to a survey by The Regional Economist magazine of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis zero percent say they favor lifting import tariffs on ethanol. That opinion bodes badly for lifting the $0.54 a gallon tariff on Brazilian ethanol made from sugar cane. This view reflects America’s new dream of energy independence. But is it wise or even ethical for America to shut its doors to Brazil’s hottest new fuel?

Without Brazil, Can America Reduce Gas Consumption 20% Over Ten Years?

This ambitious “twenty-in-ten” gasoline reduction is the Bush administration’s goal. But without Brazil’s ethanol it may be an uphill battle. With US corn setting record prices this year, it’s no surprise ethanol made from US corn is $2.90 a gallon while ethanol from Brazilian sugar cane is less than half the price at $1.40 a gallon. Even after the tariff, Brazil’s ethanol would be almost a dollar a gallon cheaper than ethanol produced domestically from corn.

George Bush and Hugo Chavez, former political enemies, announced plans this morning to dismantle the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, replacing it instead with the North American Fair Trade Agreement, also NAFTA.

“The new agreement marks a turning point in US-Venezuela relations,” said Juan Johnston of the North American Monitor of Bribery in Latin America (NAMBLA). “It also underscores the magnitude of recent growth in demand for ethically produced goods.”

I don’t know if you caught it, but the whole Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama flap over NAFTA exposed a dirty little secret: The North American Free Trade Agreement isn’t about American jobs or cheap Mexican labor—it’s about Canadian oil.

Think as far back as two weeks ago. I know you can do it. Remember, Britney’s dad started taking control of her life… everyone you know bugged the hell out of you by constantly saying: “I drink your milkshake…”

Anyway, back then, Hillary and Obama were campaigning among blue-collar crowds in Ohio when news broke out that someone from the Obama camp called the Canadian government and reassured them that the tough talk on NAFTA was all just an act. Later, it was revealed that Hillary probably made a similar call.

All of which begged the question: Why would they care so much about Canada if this was about NAFTA? Hasn’t Uncle Lou told us time and time again that NAFTA is all about Mexico: its cheap labor, and its non-existent regulations, which entice American factories to relocate south of the border?

Presidential election campaign 2008 is well underway. And already the grade school politics are brought to the election playground.
In recent news, both Democratic front runners, in an attempt to woo voters, called for renegotiations of NAFTA. They also threatened to pull out of the trade agreement if U.S. demands aren’t met. Clearly a case of, “do what I want because our economic and military might can beat up your economic and military might.”

The North American Free Trade Agreement, has been under scrutiny since its inception.

Thankfully we have Republican Candidate John McCain to defend this groundbreaking trade agreement.

NAFTA isn’t perfect. It was the first time a free trade agreement existed among such economically disparate countries. It was definitely a great experiment, and a lot has been learned from the results. There is no denying that there have been significant advances in a globally sustainable market that was enabled by NAFTA.