Environment | The Barefoot Spirit

Pakistan Takes a Stand on Single-Use Plastic Bags

Michael Houlihan & Bonnie Harvey — Thu, 15 Aug 2019 17:00:47 +0000

Taking a trip to Kenya? Leave you plastic bags at home or face a $40,000 fine with up to 4 years in prison! Seems a little over the top? Two years ago, the Kenyans suddenly enacted the world’s toughest ban against single-use plastic bags. According to the Kenyans, “A sudden ban is easier to enforce than trying to collect tax or a fee, because there is no incentive to bribe (your way out of it).”

Drowning in Plastic

According to Pamela Constable of the Washington Post, just yesterday Pakistan suddenly banned all single-use polyethylene bags from their capital, Islamabad. Officials estimate that the city of about 1.5 million people produced and discarded 55 billion plastic bags a year. The bags ended up in parks and vacant lots, clogging sewers and drains, eaten by goats and dogs, and ultimately polluting canals and streams. Sound familiar?

“Something We have to Do!”

According to Malik Amin Aslam of the Ministry of Climate Change, which is spearheading the effort, “This is something we have to do. You cannot burn, bury, reuse, or recycle these bags.” This is part of a larger Green Initiative that Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Imran Khan is pushing. Last year it began with a program to plant 10 billion trees to combat deforestation. The fines in Pakistan won’t be as stiff as Kenya, but will certainly get everyone’s attention: $31 for using one, $63 for selling one, and $31,000 for manufacturing plastic bags. Since the national per capita income is only $1,200 per year, these are still pretty hefty penalties.

Time to Join the Parade

Over 40 countries have now either banned or taxed single-use plastic bags. Interestingly, Americans have yet to do so. We evidently think as a country that we can continue to use them without consequence, even though the “urban tumbleweeds” are right there blowing across our roads, hanging in our trees, and raggedly splayed out on our fences. China stopped taking plastic garbage from the US two years ago. Now, South East Asia is clamping down. Today, it’s our problem. Like the Pakistani Minister says, “You can’t burn, bury, recycle, or re-use them.” Why are we disregarding what other countries already know and are taking action on?

But, where will they Work?

Of course, the manufacturers of plastic bags in Pakistan have protested, citing layoffs of a half-million people. The Ministry is meeting with them to discover how the factories that produce plastic bags can be converted to produce other goods. Perhaps the message to business is why wait ‘til there’s a crisis and an outcry that forces change, like Kenya and Pakistan? Why not anticipate this mega-trend and make moves now to produce alternatives? Why not support fledgling companies who are solving this problem? This is a huge financial opportunity! There’s obviously a market for alternatives with 40 countries now on board. And what about laborers? These new companies will need that labor. The way we see it, producers of single-use plastic bags must change over now or get outlawed and out-sold by their competition that is doing so.

Many thanks to Kenya and Pakistan for showing the world “a brand new bag!”

Who We Are

Michael Houlihan and Bonnie Harvey co-authored the New York Times bestselling business book, The Barefoot Spirit: How Hardship, Hustle, and Heart Built America’s #1 Wine Brand. The book has been selected as recommended reading in the CEO Library for CEO Forum, the C-Suite Book Club, and numerous university classes on business and entrepreneurship. It chronicles their humble beginnings from the laundry room of a rented Sonoma County farmhouse to the board room of E&J Gallo, who ultimately acquired their brand and engaged them as brand consultants. Barefoot is now the world’s largest wine brand.

Beginning with virtually no money and no wine industry experience, they employed innovative ideas to overcome obstacles, create new markets and forge strategic alliances. They pioneered Worthy Cause Marketing and performance-based compensation. They built an internationally bestselling brand and received their industry’s “Hot Brand” award for several consecutive years.

They offer their Guiding Principles for Success (GPS) to help entrepreneurs become successful. Their book, The Entrepreneurial Culture: 23 Ways To Engage and Empower Your People, helps corporations maximize the value of their human resources.

Currently they travel the world leading workshops, trainings, & keynoting at business schools, corporations, conferences. They are regular media guests and contributors to international publications and professional journals. They are C-Suite Network Advisors & Contributing Editors. Visit their popular brand building site at www.consumerbrandbuilders.com.

To make inquiries for keynote speaking, trainings or consulting, please contact sales@thebarefootspirit.com.

The post Pakistan Takes a Stand on Single-Use Plastic Bags appeared first on The Barefoot Spirit.

The Lungs of the World are in Brazil

Michael Houlihan & Bonnie Harvey — Thu, 01 Aug 2019 17:00:23 +0000

As the clock runs out on the world’s opportunity to mitigate the climate crisis, the new president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, is poised to continue the destruction of the “lungs of the world,” the Amazon Rain Forest. He thinks the environmentalists in his own government have been lying about the importance of the Amazon to oxygen production and carbon sequestration. He ran and won on a populist platform of “Brazil First.” Bolsonaro argues that Brazil’s economy has been held back because of restrictions on the development of the Amazon. He accuses other nations of wanting to develop the Amazon for themselves. He says the Amazon is in “our country” and nobody can dictate to Brazil what to do with it.

Eight former Brazilian environmental ministers wrote in a joint letter in May, “We’re facing the risk of runaway deforestation in the Amazon,” arguing that Brazil needed to strengthen its environmental protection measures, not weaken them. But Bolsonaro himself has violated environmental laws in the Amazon and has been fined. Since he has been elected, enforcement has been significantly diminished sending a land rush signal to short-sighted developers.

According to the Global Change Biology, 2014 report, 30% of our carbon emissions come from burning the rainforests. Climate scientists Karen Vandecar and Deborah Lawrence report that as deforestation increases, global warming is exacerbated, global temperatures increase, and precipitation patterns are altered worldwide (including in the United States).

Destroying Brazil’s Conservations Efforts

In the 1960s and 1970s, the Amazon Rainforest was in the news. It was threatened with logging for short-term agricultural benefits. Several international groups came forward and mounted a global educational campaign to try to stop the deforestation. They were somewhat successful. Brazil was hailed internationally for its conservation efforts at the time.

But just in the past six months since the populist president Bolsonaro, took office, more than 1,330 square miles of the Brazilian Amazon Rainforest have been destroyed. This is almost 40% more than what was destroyed last year. Most of the deforestation takes place in June when it’s drier and cooler. 80% more forest cover was removed this June over last June. Why? Because enforcement required to protect this fragile area has dramatically decreased.

So the question is: Can one country take action that has a dramatic negative effect on the life and wellbeing of all the other countries on the planet? Can one country destroy life-supporting international assets simply because they are on their soil? And can they do this at such a critical time in our existence when we are already in a full-blown climate crisis? Can they push the planet over the edge to the point of no return? Evidently, they can!

An analogous question might be: How did we, the inhabitants of the earth, forget the importance of the Amazon to our existence? Was it generational change? Was there so much “noise” that we forgot priority? Did we forget history? Or did we get caught up in the reality show of the latest news cycle? Why was is so easy to convince the citizens of Brazil, the long-time protectors of the “lungs of the world” that they could now destroy this life-giving asset without consequence?

Mixing Business & Conservation Causes

We have long been conservationists. When we began our Barefoot Wine business, we were following an opportunity rather than our passion. But we found a way to incorporate our passion into our business with Worthy Cause Marketing. By using our advertising money to support conservation causes, we like to think we made a small difference in the general public’s awareness of the fragile balance between our environment and our health. Our passion is still in conservation and now is a much more critical time. Today we are writing about companies that are making a buck by making a difference. See our monthly articles in Entrepreneur.com.

But what’s driving the destruction of the rain forest? Companies that are doing just the opposite by indirectly supporting and financing the destruction of the Amazon to offer processed and fast food convenience items for the US and Europe.

Nation vs the World

The US, once the moral compass of the world, has not only abdicated that role several years ago, but it has encouraged the opposite message: “It’s OK to be selfish, and it’s a race to the bottom for the world’s resources no matter the consequences.” Our own administration has negated and dismantled EPA information and protections. Our own administration has an “America First” attitude that is playing out to be counter-productive. And our own administration has left The Paris Accord. So the message is “Every nation for itself!” We are giving the world permission to destroy the environment upon which we all depend. We all need carbon sequestration; we all need oxygen! But who are we to tell the Brazilians what to do?

Read more in the New York Times and do something about it by joining the Amazon Aid Foundation.

Who We Are

To make inquiries for keynote speaking, trainings or consulting, please contact sales@thebarefootspirit.com.

The post The Lungs of the World are in Brazil appeared first on The Barefoot Spirit.

Entrepreneur – Taylor Stitch Makes Us Rethink Our Wardrobe

Michael Houlihan & Bonnie Harvey — Mon, 08 Jul 2019 14:30:10 +0000

According to McKinsey & Company and the Council for Textile Recycling, the world fashion industry produces 100 billion garments for seven billion people each year, the average American throws out 80 pounds of clothes each year, and 85 percent of all apparel ends up in landfills, even the ones we feel good about donating! Those shocking statistics were seen as an opportunity for an increasingly popular San Francisco based startup.

Why not fashion new clothes out of used clothes and recycled fibers? Why not address the growing number of consumers who are making purchasing decisions based on their desire to preserve and improve their own health and welfare, as well as that of their families and the environment? Why not offer consumers a chance to demonstrate their concern with the very clothes on their backs?

To read the complete article, please visit Entrepreneur

Who We Are

To make inquiries for keynote speaking, trainings or consulting, please contact sales@thebarefootspirit.com.

The post Entrepreneur – Taylor Stitch Makes Us Rethink Our Wardrobe appeared first on The Barefoot Spirit.

Would You Drink Water Out of a Can?

Michael Houlihan & Bonnie Harvey — Mon, 08 Jul 2019 02:04:40 +0000

A New York Times article released over the weekend, by David Yaffe-Bellany, raises some serious practical questions about water packaging we feel need more consideration.

Would you drink water out of a can? Or would you balk because you couldn’t see its clarity? Would you buy water in a clear glass container so you could see the water inside, even though it would cost more for heavy glass that was inert? Or would you buy it in clear, single-use, light, inexpensive plastic so you could see it even though you knew it was less likely to be recycled and more likely to poison the environment? This is the great dilemma: Convenience vs. Environmental Damage. So far, consumers are voting for convenience and price over safety.

Blind Trust

But now Pepsi’s betting that in order to save the environment, you will give up your demand to see if the water you buy is clear. They are betting that you will trust them to produce it clean and pure, and you will buy it from them in an aluminum can – even though you can’t see it until after you buy it. It will still be light, convenient, and inexpensive! You just can’t see it. They will be test marketing the concept next year in their purified still water brand, Aquafina.

This is an interesting gamble because aluminum is lightweight like plastic and apparently more inert. And according to the article, is more likely to be recycled due to its redemption value. In fact, worldwide only 9% of all the plastic ever made has been recycled while well over 50% of aluminum bought by consumers is reused. Pepsi says these changes should eliminate more than 8,000 metric tons of “virgin” plastic annually and 11,000 metric tons of greenhouse-gas emissions.

What’s interesting about the proposition is that, all things being equal, if you trust the producer, you could save the environment from a major source of plastic pollution. Even so, according to the Beverage Marketing Corp., plastic bottled water was up more than 5% in 2018. Consumers still want convenience at the expense of the environment. As of 2016, for the first time, American consumption of bottled water exceeded all other packaged soda combined. There is still a huge and growing demand for bottled water sometimes due to the lack of other drinkable water.

Is Aluminum the Answer?

Single-use plastic water packaging is a growing challenge that needs to be addressed. According to Sherrie Rosenblatt, spokeswoman for the Can Manufacturers Institute,

“In a world that is increasingly concerned about scarce resources, aluminum cans have the ability to be recycled over and over, forever, without losing quality.”

But is aluminum the answer? According to the EPA, nearly half of the aluminum consumed by Americans still winds up in landfill. This and the growth of the market mean more mining. This means more open-pit and strip bauxite mines (the ore from which aluminum is made), with more potential for air, water, and soil pollution. So aluminum is still not a panacea. But it may be an improvement. Never mind that giving up packaged water entirely might be the best thing for the environment.

A Better Way

We’re putting our money on more education, reusable containers, home tap water purifiers, reusable bottle refilling stations, outlawing single-use plastics, and significantly increasing the redemption value of glass and metals. How does your water get to you?

Who We Are

To make inquiries for keynote speaking, trainings or consulting, please contact sales@thebarefootspirit.com.

The post Would You Drink Water Out of a Can? appeared first on The Barefoot Spirit.

Small Towns Stand Up to Big Plastic

Michael Houlihan & Bonnie Harvey — Mon, 01 Jul 2019 06:29:08 +0000

Just imagine what it might be like to eat a credit card. Now imagine eating a credit card EVERY WEEK! According to the World Wildlife Fund, humans now ingest the equivalent amount of a credit card in microplastics each week! This happens because microplastics are now ubiquitous in our environment from the water we drink to the food we eat.

The trillion dollar plastics industry is opposed to any efforts by the Federal Government and the State Governments to stem the tide of single-use plastics by law. But two states, Maryland and Maine, recently passed laws banning the use of at least polystyrene foam food containers, generally known as Styrofoam.

Meanwhile, in the last decade, in California alone, 120 cities and counties have passed some kind of regulations on polystyrene food containers. It’s evidently harder for the industry to affect the decisions of smaller governing bodies. Sebastopol, small town just down the road from us, recently passed an ordinance prohibiting the sale or use of disposable cups, burger boxes, clamshell containers and ice chests made of expanded polystyrene. This particular type of single-use convenience food and packaging material is especially dangerous since it is brittle, breaks up easily. It is mostly air so it blows around, and degrades into microplastics that get into the soil and waterways. It is very hard to capture.

Level Playing Field

So, what’s the effect on business? Well, for one thing, the regulations will create a somewhat level playing field in terms of competition. All retailers will be held to the same rules. Here-to-fore, businesses could claim that their competition was using the cheaper polystyrene and that if they voluntarily chose compostable products, they would be at a disadvantage because of the greater cost.

Reduced Costs for Compostables

Interestingly, as the demand for the alternatives grows, as we have seen in so many other alternative industries, the costs of those alternatives goes down. Sheer volume creates efficiencies of scale that are passed down through the competitive sales process to the retailer.

New Jobs and Industries

Opportunities for compostable and reusable containers are bound to increase. In the little town down the road, for instance, customers who bring their own reusable to-go containers get a 25-cent credit. All customers have to pay a takeout charge up to 10 cents to defray the costs associated with conversion to compostable lids, cups, straws, or utensils that may be more expensive in the short run. This, in effect, subsidizes the cost of reusable containers and single-use compostables.

Out of Control

So, how did the poisoning of the wildlife, the waterways, the soil, and even ourselves ever become so competitively advantageous to the takeout food industry? Simply, the entire cost of the post-sale packaging, including the hazardous effects were dumped on the environment and the consumer, not the producers. Now we are actually eating it! And because we gave them our money for their products, the producers became so strong, they could fund giant PR campaigns and lobbying efforts to protect themselves against the full costs of their packaging. The polystyrene producers are not fighting the ordinances so much as they are trying to use the government to stifle competition. This is just plain unfair and, as we’ve seen, dangerous!

Conclusion

We are business people and we support business, but not the monopoly of any industry. We think ordinances like this are good for business and innovation. They give new businesses a chance to compete. They raise the big picture issues that have to do with the real costs to the environment and our own health for which we as consumers are being asked to pick up the tab.

As Tip O’Neill, the former Speaker of the US House of Representatives used to say, “All politics is local!” When little towns have to pass ordinances against big companies to protect the health and welfare of their citizens, wildlife, and environment, we are witnessing a failure of State and Federal Governments to protect the health and welfare of their broader constituents. It’s not OK to allow big plastic to say, “Eat our plastic!”

Who We Are

To make inquiries for keynote speaking, trainings or consulting, please contact sales@thebarefootspirit.com.

The post Small Towns Stand Up to Big Plastic appeared first on The Barefoot Spirit.

NYC Sues Big Oil for Climate Damage Reparations

Michael Houlihan & Bonnie Harvey — Thu, 03 May 2018 17:00:15 +0000

In January, the City of New York joined eight other local governments in the United States in filling a landmark lawsuit holding the major oil companies accountable for climate change related damages. In the May/June 2018 edition of Sierra Magazine, the editor, Jason Mark, lays out the history and the reasoning behind holding whom he calls the “Carbon Barons” responsible.

Alluding to the behavior of big tobacco to mislead the public, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio said, “For decades, Big Oil ravaged the environment, and Big Oil copied Big Tobacco. They used a classic cynical playbook. They denied and denied and denied that their product was lethal. Meanwhile, they spent a lot of time hooking society on that lethal product… It’s time for them to start paying for the damage they’ve done.”

The New York City lawsuit is based upon the fundamental principle that a corporation that makes a product causing severe harm when used exactly as intended should shoulder the costs of abating that harm.

How can you determine any one company’s contribution to climate change harms? Richard Heede found in his 2013 peer-reviewed paper published in the Journal of Climate Change that “the 20 largest investor-owned Carbon Barons have, over the past 150 years, extracted enough fossil fuels to produce up to 30% of global emissions. The five companies named in the suit resulted in 181 gigatons of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere during the previous century and a half. That’s 12.5% of all human greenhouse gases.” Further research by Heede concludes that the collective business practices of “90 fossil fuel corporations have driven nearly 2/3 of the observed increases in global surface temperatures.”

Who knew what and when? According to the suit, the leaders of these companies have been aware their products were emitting dangerous greenhouse gases for nearly 40 years. In 2015, The Los Angeles Times cited Exxon scientists warning their own company that the use of fossil fuels “should not be encouraged because of the risk they poised” back in 1977. They also cited a director in Exxon’s research unit warning that the CO2 emissions modeled in the company’s 50-year planning documents “will produce effects which will indeed be catastrophic at least for a substantial fraction of the Earth’s population.”

But aren’t we, as consumers, equally culpable since we are the ones who purchase and burn the stuff? According to Jason Mark, we could certainly make a statement by skipping that vacation or walking to work. But the Carbon Barons alone had the ability to intervene when they learned their products could have catastrophic consequences. They alone possessed the scientific awareness, economic might, and political influence to have avoided climate chaos – and they chose not to.

The lawsuits come down to the argument that the Carbon Barons knew about the dangers of fossil fuel combustion for decades yet failed to disclose them and even spent money to confuse the general public. Doesn’t this sound like the Tobacco industry’s tactics?

The U.S. Government Accountability Office released a report stating that more than $350 billion have already been spent in response to climate-change-related extreme weather events, and “these costs will likely increase over time.” Meanwhile, in 2014, Exxon Mobil posted a record profit of $32.5 billion.

We have been lifetime supporters of conservation and the environment. We believe that the producers of the fossil fuel energy we have become dependent upon should pay reparations for the damages caused by fossil fuel related climate change. Once the entire cost of burning fossil fuels becomes apparent, the alternatives will become much more financially attractive. Thank you, Jason and The Sierra Club, for your in-depth and insightful article. Read his entire article here.

Who We Are

To make inquiries for keynote speaking, trainings or consulting, please contact sales@thebarefootspirit.com.

The post NYC Sues Big Oil for Climate Damage Reparations appeared first on The Barefoot Spirit.

3 New Year’s Resolutions to Improve Your Bottom Line

Michael Houlihan & Bonnie Harvey — Thu, 21 Dec 2017 18:00:36 +0000

In interviews and podcasts, we are often asked to boil down the Barefoot Spirit to three words that would capture the essence of our business philosophy – three words that thread across everything we advocate, everything we write, and everything we speak about. It’s a tough order!

With the new year upon us, and folks determined to make resolutions that will truly make a difference in their business, health, and peace of mind, it seems like this is the perfect time to embrace the Barefoot Spirit with what we call the 3 “E’s”: EMPATHY, ENTHUSIASM, AND ECOTHERAPY.

1. EMPATHY. Resolve to be more empathetic. Put yourself in the other person’s shoes at every level of business and community. This practice forces you to understand what the other person wants. It may not be what you are offering. It may even surprise you, but knowing what they want will help you understand how what you are offering better fits into their plans.

Be sure to asks lots of questions of everyone who touches your product or service. Do more listening than selling. Remember, the world’s greatest sales pitch is, “I can help you achieve your goals!” That means you know what their goals are and you know how you can help.

We had a buyer that said, “I’m trapped in this office all day but I love buying from you guys because you always update me on my competition, the current trends, and what going on in the marketplace!” We had a customer who said, “I buy your products because you supported my community fundraiser.” And we had a salesperson who said, “I love working for you guys because I get to go where I want!”

2. ENTHUSIASM. Resolve to be more enthusiastic. If you’re excited, they’re excited. Enthusiasm is contagious. It’s probably the best way to motivate folks and to get them on board with your plans.

It’s not easy to stay in a constant state of enthusiasm, but you can certainly resolve to be more enthusiastic. Get yourself in the right frame of mind in the morning, before you start your day. Think about your long and short-range goals and how much value they will bring to everyone upon completion.

When we started we couldn’t get into the big chains stores. We were kind of depressed until we realized that there was a whole market of smaller independent buyers out there that were glad we weren’t in the chain. They wanted a product the chains didn’t offer. We got excited about making lemonade out of lemons!

When our salesperson came in one day all down and out, we said, “Hey! What’s the problem?” He said, “The competition’s tearing down our signage in all my stores.” To which we replied, “Great! That proves they’re scared of us and we’re on the right track!” He enthusiastically returned to those stores and replaced all our signage, determined to prove to the competition that we were in the stores on a regular basis and they could not stop us! Then we heard the rumor going around, “Barefoot is a brand that will not die!”

3. ECOTHERAPY. Resolve to take a walk in nature every day. Sure, you will skip a few days, but making it part of your routine will help you improve your mental and physical health. It will also improve your business by boosting your creativity, attitude, and determination.

Last month NBC News reported that 50 physicians in 11 states believe so strongly in the health benefits of connecting with nature, they have joined together in a non-profit organization, Park RX. These doctors actually give prescriptions to take a walk in the park! Finally, we are getting official endorsement for something we have been advocating for decades.

It’s great to get off the screen, out of the office, and beyond the confines of a man-made environment. You’ll think more clearly, make better decisions, and put things in perspective. Your stress will go down and your enthusiasm will go up. You’ll become more resourceful, solve problems faster, and get your priorities straight.

Once, we were perplexed because our business was expanding so quickly, we didn’t quite know how to handle it. So, we just took off to Kauai. Went hiking for a week! No screens, no phones! On the plane, on the way back, a whole new organizational plan hit us all at once in every detail. We just had to spend some time in natural surroundings to give our brains a chance to reboot and solve the challenge.

People ask us “If you are business advisors, why do you post so many pictures of nature on your Instagram?” We say, “We are promoting the best way to get ahead!”

So, practice the 3 E’s and your new year will be happier and more prosperous – all the way around! Thanks for following us in 2017, and we look forward to sharing more with you in 2018! Happy New Year everybody!

Who We Are

To make inquiries for keynote speaking, trainings or consulting, please contact sales@thebarefootspirit.com.

The post 3 New Year’s Resolutions to Improve Your Bottom Line appeared first on The Barefoot Spirit.

Is High MPG a Selling Point Any More?

Michael Houlihan & Bonnie Harvey — Thu, 23 Mar 2017 17:00:36 +0000

When we heard the auto industry’s recent request for lower federal miles per gallon standards, we were stunned! They argue that since gas is so cheap, and there is such a demand for low MPG trucks that the 2025 Standards are too costly to achieve. There was no mention of the cost to all of us if we continue to burn that amount of carbon.

Are there no financial consequences to damaging our health and quality of life, or the destruction of property if we burn more? Acting like gas is going to be cheap forever and control on pollution isn’t necessary is very short-term thinking at best. The consumer will be ultimately victimized.

What about the ultimate cost to auto buyers stuck with gas guzzlers? What about the cost of lost auto industry jobs to more efficient imports? What about the cost of reduced American exports because they no longer meet the importer’s mileage standards? The auto industry is only citing cheap gas.

We guess the thinking goes that if gas is cheap, why would a consumer want to buy a high MPG vehicle? Consumers want bigger, more inefficient vehicles. So, lower the standards and give them what they want.

But the state governments may have something to say about this. For instance, if California has stricter standards, what is the cost for the industry tooling up for two markets, one that has lower standards and one that has higher standards?

We think the auto industry is underestimating the consumer.

The consumer is beginning to realize that climate change related catastrophes are expensive and the costs are ultimately borne by them through taxation and increased insurance premiums. How many more superstorms, how many more super fires, how many more floods, droughts, vector-borne diseases will it take? How much more will the consumer pay for food, clothing, and everything consumable before they all connect the dots?

There is a good reason for regulations and standards. Any organized society has an obligation to protect its own citizens and future generations from their consumers’ own short-sighted buying patterns. The auto industry has not been held responsible for these associated costs – yet. And they can always point the finger at the consumer and say, “Well, that’s what they asked for!” And in the absence of environmental and health standards there is no long-term protection. Is it OK to hurt the environment permanently along with your health and property – and that of your children – for a temporary reduction in your fuel bill? We think not.

How far do we take this laissez faire philosophy? Do we do away with warning labels and prohibitions on poisonous ingredients in our food so that industry doesn’t have to bear the cost of compliance? Let the buyer beware? “Oh, come on,” you may say, “That’s a bit of a stretch.” But we are allowing the growth of a technology we already know to be poisonous to the environment and ultimately to us? And before all those warning labels on food? People were buying and consuming products that were harmful to them.

Let’s not give up on what most of the rest of the world has committed to: Higher mileage standards. It is about saving our environment and all the long-term costs associated with losing it. We shouldn’t burn more gas because it’s cheap! We shouldn’t burn more gas, period. Not today and not tomorrow. Take a stance and do the thing that is right for the environment, your healthy, and future generations.

Who We Are

To make inquiries for keynote speaking, trainings or consulting, please contact sales@thebarefootspirit.com.

The post Is High MPG a Selling Point Any More? appeared first on The Barefoot Spirit.

Can the Kids Save the Environment?

Michael Houlihan & Bonnie Harvey — Thu, 16 Mar 2017 17:00:45 +0000

Do children and young people have a constitutional right to a healthy environment? Is the government liable for promoting fossil fuel production and greenhouse gas emissions that accelerate climate change? According to the Washington Post, a pioneering lawsuit being brought against the US Federal Government by 21, 9- through 20-year-olds is claiming exactly that.

They contend that their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property are being violated by the government. They also contend that the government’s behavior is violating the public trust doctrine that holds the government responsible for the preservation of certain vital resources for use by the public, including, in this case, a healthy climate system.

Interestingly, the lawsuit was originally filed under the Obama administration. In November of 2016, the lawsuit cleared a major hurdle, thanks to U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken, who denied motions filed by the government and the fossil fuel industry to dismiss it. She so ordered that it should go to trial.

“Exercising my ‘reasoned judgement,’ I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society.” – U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken

This is major! It could disrupt the way environmental advocacy is being conducted globally. Already in the Netherlands, a court hearing a similar plea ordered the Dutch Government to reduce carbon emissions by 25% over a five-year period. Other analogous lawsuits are being brought in South Africa, Austria, and Pakistan.

The issue here is simple. If the government is in a position to promote or discourage the use of fossil fuels through laws, taxes, and permissions, are they liable for negatively effecting your life, liberty, and property? And if they promote the use of fossil fuels, are they violating the public trust?

So, the crux of the issue boils down to whether it can be proven in a court of law, that human activity and burning of fossil fuels in fact causes climate change. Unlike politics, where you can have 99% of the scientists agree that human activity causes climate change, and still say “It’s a debate,” in a court of law, a preponderance of facts still matter.

Speaking of facts, the plaintiffs had to submit a request that the Department of Justice preserve all documents relevant to the lawsuit, including climate change information and information on energy and emissions, and, get this, cease any destruction of these documents! This was right after the new administration’s immediate ploy to remove climate change information from the White House and other federal agency websites.

Julia Olson, chief legal counsel for the plaintiffs and executive director of the advocacy group, Our Children’s Trust, said “Destroying evidence is illegal and we just put these new US Defendants and the Industry Defendants on notice that they are barred from doing so.”

The new administration especially does not want this to get to court where a decision will be based on the facts. That’s why they have filed a motion to stay litigation and appeal the district court’s decision to clear the lawsuit for trial. They know that if this gets to trial and the plaintiffs prevail, like they did in the Netherlands, they could be ordered to reduce emissions whether they wanted to or not.

Unbelievably, the government’s argument against preserving the critical documents that could prove the relationship between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change is that it would put an unnecessary burden on the government just to maintain these files that already exist!

We support the children and young people who are taking this novel and noble action. We put our faith in the court system which must decide on the facts. Let the court end the “debate” and demonstrate its counterbalancing power to help future generations avoid catastrophe. Even a reluctant government would have to execute a court order. Find out more about this landmark lawsuit at Our Children’s Trust.

Who We Are

To make inquiries for keynote speaking, trainings or consulting, please contact sales@thebarefootspirit.com.

The post Can the Kids Save the Environment? appeared first on The Barefoot Spirit.

Saving the Environment is Good for Business

Michael Houlihan & Bonnie Harvey — Thu, 17 Nov 2016 18:00:12 +0000

Anytime there is a demand, business will rise to satisfy it – at a profit! We now face a huge demand. Our very livelihood is at stake. The denigration of our environment will put us out of work, out of our homes, and in the hospital. Already we see the effects of a major drought increasing the cost of fruits and vegetables. The acidification of the oceans from CO2 is resulting in sky high prices for fish and the collapse of major fisheries. Climate-caused immigration is flooding Europe and soon the Americas. And the air pollution in China is choking their citizens and blowing across the Pacific. This is a real and serious demand for businesses that mitigate or reverse this situation!

Want to solve the balance of payments problem? Export clean energy production equipment and technology to China and India. There’s a huge demand! Want to reduce your taxes? Invest now in the businesses that mitigate the high cost of super storm recovery and drought related food costs. There’s a huge demand! Want to create jobs? Provide tax advantages to producers and consumers of alternative energy. It’s a market that’s not going away. In fact, it comes with an ever-increasing demand.

If the federal government is hamstrung by the carbon producers, let the states like California, and local governments, like Chicago, lead the way. They can provide rules and regulations that give alternative energy the advantage over carbon. They can provide tax credits and other incentives to businesses addressing this issue. And they can provide the volume of purchases for their own uses that will reduce the price of these alternatives.

For instance, shouldn’t every government vehicle be electric? We are excited by the new businesses we see popping up every day that address this demand. All electric and drive-train-conversion garbage trucks and busses are great examples. These are coming from new businesses that create local jobs and can lower taxes by reducing government and public service energy costs.

What about the postal service, the police, the utilities and so on? There’s a huge market here that is only just beginning to be accessed. Local government and public service organizations can tip the scales by providing large purchases that reduce the cost of production and make alternatives competitive with conventional carbon-producing choices.

The creation and mass production of efficient home battery systems will ultimately cut the cord to the carbon-producing utility companies that argue that they are not getting paid for “storing” your solar power on their grid. Fine, cut the cord. Store it in your garage.

We live in a local government district that recently used its power of eminent domain to take over the utility company within its jurisdiction. Then it required the purchase of alternative energy to provide its subscribers. This not only sent a message to other local governments, but increased the demand for alternatively produced energy and reduced its cost.

At some point, it will become obvious that the utility companies heavily invested in carbon energy sources are trying to use their influence to stop alternative energy because they simply don’t want the competition. The gas lighting companies were the largest obstacles to Edison’s electric light. What changed things was the price tag. Electric lighting was eventually cheaper than gas.

This is what business, with the help of local government, must do today. Make alternative energy cheaper than carbon producing energy. They can do this with regulations, purchases, and tax breaks. In the end, producers and consumers alike want to spend less money. If the environment is saved, it will be because it’s cheaper to save it, and it’s also good for business!

Who We Are

To make inquiries for keynote speaking, trainings or consulting, please contact sales@thebarefootspirit.com.

The post Saving the Environment is Good for Business appeared first on The Barefoot Spirit.