Ed Schultz interviews Florida Rep. Alan Grayson about Congress finally demanding more transparency from the Federal Reserve, and auditing their massive secret bank bailouts. The recently passed legislation will now allow the Government Accountability Office to independently audit the Fed, and their nefarious Wall Street deals.  Alan Grayson and Ron Paul co-authored the amendment, which also had a whopping 311 co-sponsors in the house.

This post contains additional media. Click here to view the full post.

“We need to stop giving money to the bad banks, they just eat it, they don’t actually hand it out to people and do anything useful with it. We have to give money to the good banks. The fundamental strategy that has been followed since the Bush Administration to try to recover from this is flawed…the good banks will go and make good loans to people, to businesses, to small businesses in particular, and the economy will recover.”

—Rep. Alan Grayson

In a memorandum issued last Thursday, Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), stated that “water in the United States is not meeting public health and environmental goals. Too many of our streams, lakes and rivers do not meet our water quality standards.” It is the poor condition of our nation’s water that prompted Administrator Jackson to make some changes and lengthen the EPA’s stride in water protection and quality standards this week.

In order to maintain a higher water quality standard, Jackson looked at the state of things and realized that one way to clean up our rivers and streams was to clean up the streams of information that flow from administrators to the public. She decided that transparency in the agency would help create transparency in the water.

Read more of this story »

Why make an exception for Ode? It’s quickly become my favorite magazine… the first (and, so far, only) one I’ve subscribed to on Zinio. Ode’s not only focused on issues that matter to me — social, environmental, and economic change — but also on stories about people making a difference in these areas.

In short, there’s a lot of good news in Ode… and, more and more, we need that.

Read more of this story »

Ecopreneurist recently received a question from a reader about whether manufacturing an eco-friendly product in China is a good idea.  We thought his question would make a good topic for discussion and encourage other Ecopreneurist readers to give Chris your advice too by commenting below.

Chris wrote, “I have designed some great eco-friendly items [...that...] are not eco- or green-washed, but [are] designed from the start to be green and are made with fully sustainable and recycled materials… The problem I am having is, the only place I can find a supplier to make these green products is in China. I am afraid that there could be criticism, backlash or negative comments made about the brand because the products are not made in a more eco-friendly perceived Country. I have made a huge effort to have the items made elsewhere without any luck… Do I make the items in China if that is my only option and risk criticism?”

Chris, you are right to see this as an important branding question.

I assume that you have checked into the potential manufacturer and have confidence in that factory’s environmental record and labor practices. If you know that it is possible to manufacture a product in China in a sustainable way, then it is just a matter of either transportation or image. And, for products sold on the West Coast of the US, shipping from China can have less impact on the environment than other transportation means, such as trucking or air freight.

So, let’s assume that your product will be truly green in all ways (materials, manufacturing and shipping) and that your issue is only a matter of impression. What can you do?

Read more of this story »

The first of the major components of fair trade we will look at is transparency. In order to obtain Fair Trade certification, the producer must, among other requirements, be “organized into cooperatives or associations that are transparent, accountable and democratic.” IFAT defines transparency and accountability as “transparent management and commercial relations to deal fairly and respectfully with trading partners.” Transparency appeals to me as a consumer. If you need to cover your operations you have something to hide, right?

Wired magazine agrees that transparency has high potential commercial value. Wired used a very literal take on transparency in the March 2007 issue with their lead article “Get Naked and Rule the World” featuring a transparent cover that pulls away to reveal a naked Jenna Fisher from The Office… along with a strategically placed sign. While it is the image that garnered a lot of attention, it is the article that is truly controversial. It features a series of stories about "radical transparency, our notion that the next model of business success is laying your company bare to the world—sharing secrets with your rivals, blogging about ideas as you have them, and copping to fumbles and foibles as you make them.”

Sharing secrets (gasp), owning up to mistakes (no!), utter madness! What could possibly come from such openness? Perhaps consumer trust? Maybe innovation and advancement? Perhaps even ethical business?

The requirement that producer cooperatives be transparent and accountable has proven to benefit the Fair Trade movement greatly by establishing trust amongst members of the cooperatives and providing a means to account for the spending of Fair Trade social premiums, which are to be used only for community development purposes. One of Fair Trade's major shortcomings is that this requirement is not extended to the purveyors of the products in Western markets. Many Fair Trade retailers and wholesalers have chosen to emulate the transparent cooperative model (perhaps the best example is coffee roaster Equal Exchange), and all retailers and wholesalers who are members of the Fair Trade Federation are commited to transparency. However, since transparency is not strictly required, large retailers that offer Fair Trade certified goods are not living up to the same standard required of the producers of those goods. JustThings.info has a good example of this failing:

While 100% fair-trade roasters like Just Coffee are proud to post their producer contracts on their website and share solidarity stories of the relationships they’ve developed with communities from Chiapas to Ethiopia over the years, this is not the case for a player like Starbucks. Instead, one hears tales of price gouging, corruption, insider trading, racketeering, ghost buyers – all the worst hallmarks of corporate capitalism.

All of this is to say that despite the many successes of the Fair Trade movement, until it requires the same standard of transparency and accountability from retailers that is required of producers, the burden of holding all companies accountable still rests squarely on the shoulders of the consumer. There are plenty of retailers and wholesalers from which to choose that do meet this standard. As Fair Trade has moved into the mainstream, popping up everywhere from McDonalds to Wal-Mart, there is great oportunity for such companies to take advantage of the marketing edge available through the Fair Trade label without committing to the true purposes of the movement. Should these companies be forbidden from selling fair trade? Perhaps not, as we can seize this opportunity to get a foot in the door and demand that these companies commit 100% to the ideals and criteria of fair trade, transparency included. I want to see every business standing naked and proud before the world, their fair and just business practices stripped bare for the entire world to see and respect.