September 2007 Archives

Unfortunately for the natural world, there is some logic involved in the United States' decision not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol: China and other developing countries are already kicking our butts, and they'll really have a way to tie both arms behind our collective backs if we sign onto the accord and they do not.

And, especially in the case of China, developing countries did opt out. So really, we had no choice but to stay away from the agreement.

Makes sense. Gutless, but it makes sense.

After all, "Made in America" already costs too much to sway consumers away from foreign products - lead-based toys notwithstanding. Environment wins, and America loses, under Kyoto.

Really, what we need is a win-win, something that creates all-new business ventures and has the potential to spread to the rest of the world - like the other American ways of doing things in business has - like the proverbial magic bullet.

Utopian, right up there with when lions sleep with lambs, and Republicans sign on to Hillary's health care proposals.

Well, here's the magic bullet, behind door No. 1

We do it with innovation in the marketplace. Unless you're scared America isn't the best country in the world. And try selling that logic.

Federal regulators have recalled a half million more toys before of lead paint -- including 200,000 Thomas and Friends Wooden Railway Toys.

Learn more here.

Read my previous post about being a parent of a toddler who puts everything in her mouth.


So what does something really cost?

It doesn't, in dollars and cents, cost anything to send stuff into the air or into a river, so quite often, it's not recorded in the price you or I pay at the register - or in the warnings of financial liability that must be filed with the SEC about the financial risks investors, well, risk when investing in a company.

A new movement would change that. How would it work?

Basically, if you invest in a coal-fired power plant, the SEC would need to be told the effect environmental legislation, pending or even just possible, could have on the bottom line. All of a sudden, since the federal government is finally toeing the waters of environmental regulation, all those costs get dollar figures.

Examples?

A company needs to cap those carbon emissions and can't? Slap! Here's your $250,000 fine for chasing polar bears farther into the arctic. Or you need to limit those sulfur emissions that cause acid rain and fail? Slap! Here's your $500,000 fine for killing trout in West Virginia streams.

Those figures probably aren't the most in line with what actual fines are. Unfortunately, companies are probably fined less for killing the planet. But the point is, since investors would need to indirectly pay those fines, they are risks, and therefore must be documented.

The same could be said for catastrophic loss because of “natural” disasters. Investing in businesses in coastal areas most likely would warrant a warning because of possible sea level rises.

The result of such a filing requirement could be greener technology companies, less likely to risk environmental fines, getting preferential treatment by investors and flourishing, eventually replacing old-school polluters.

Would that make you want to invest in greener companies because it is blatantly seen as financially risky to invest in polluters?

Or would it just sound stupid to read an SEC filing that said, "due to the possibility that Florida won't be here in 2050, investors risk a loss of their money in total"?

I'm a 20-something, soon to be married, so I can fully appreciate the idea that parents should get a nod from the boss when it comes to sneaking out of work early or taking days off. But at the same time, more companies are expanding the notion beyond just parents, as seen here, and I think they are on to something.

When I have children, I want to see their baseball games and take them fishing and do all the stuff my father could do for me. It is probably one of the few perks my father had with his low-paying factory job: The shift was 5 a.m. to 1 p.m., so even if he worked a few hours extra, he was always there when I got off from school.

But before I came along, Dad could also keep playing baseball (his passion back then) and, by extension, softball in community leagues. That was important to him then as raising his children became after they were born.

Sadly, most of us work a 9 to 5 - or later - and have a choice between doing well at our jobs and keeping some kind of life outside the cubicle. And I think a lot of what keeps us going is to claw our way up the ladder before our kids come along, because after that, we don't have time for the things we're doing now.

But at what expense now? I'd love to fish more, for example. Other than just enjoying life when I'm fishing, I know I want my kids to learn how to fly fish, but I need to master the sport a little better before I could teach anyone.

Hours on the water, that's what it would take. Hours I just don't have in the afternoon, with the long rush-hour drive to the stream, unless I rearranged my work day around getting off early.

Moms and dads can often do it, because they chose to have kids. What about the rest of us who want a bit of time to do the things we won't be able to do once we have kids? Is it a double standard or a warranted, although unstated, rule that going to a son's soccer match is OK but going to your own softball game isn't?

In other words, should companies differentiate between the stuff you have to do and the things you want to do when dolling out personal life time?

Those of you watching the mess with China and toys, or whose livelihood depends on growing crops or, by extension, eating, might want to take a look at this.

Apparently the hunt for what has been killing honey bees across the United States over the past three years has a prime suspect. Forget China. Blame the Aussies!

Their bees have a virus to which their bees appear immune. No one really checked into this when people in this country decided to import some bees, and poof, all of a sudden the North American honey bees we depend on to aid production of our food began dying off.

It's not just the virus, it's something in North America mixing with something from Australia, apparently with deadly results. So should we be trading across the world when we really don't have a firm handle on how mixing species will turn out?

It sounds like if there is anyone pulling the strings of the world trade explosion, it's the dumb kid from chemistry class who never listened to the teacher and found out whether stuff exploded when mixed the hard way.

The bottom line is, if you want safety and security, you need oversight. And there is no oversight for almost 200 separate governments we allow to play the game of our lives.

So which one is it everyone? Buyer beware? Or shut it down until we can be sure what we're buying?

I never paid much attention to recalls, particularly toy recalls, until I had a baby.

But right now my 2-year-old daughter is very into all the popular characters -- Elmo, Dora, Thomas the Train.

And I live in a (reasonable) amount of fear each day that I'm going to wake up and find all of her toys on a recall list.

Today I'm lucky. We don't have any of the products on the latest list.

I spent $50 on my Pennsylvania hunting license this summer, something that fewer and fewer people are doing across the country. Basically, it gives me permission to bag what an old college professor called "charismatic megafauna" - cute animals and birds, in suburban speak.

But it also allows the state funding to conserve many other species the non-hunting public also enjoys, such as songbirds that live in the same meadows as pheasants and rabbits or the woodpeckers that make their homes in the same trees that break up the silhouette of deer coming my way.

According to the latest numbers, hunters are dropping at an alarming rate for wildlife managers who depend on license fees to conserve everything in the natural world.

Would it be possible to find that money elsewhere? Would you pay for a hiking, kayaking or bird-watching license?