Last week I called out Apple on the lack of any environmental information on the new iPhone 3G. Pre-launch publicity and specs for the new MacBook Air and iMac included information on how Apple was making progress on eliminating the worst toxic chemicals by the end of 2008. There was none of this for the iPhone, but last night I noticed a late addition to the iPhone tech specs:

iPhone 3G embodies Apple's continuing environmental progress. It is designed with the following features to reduce environmental impact:

- PVC-free handset
- PVC-free headphones
- PVC-free USB cable
- Bromine-free printed circuit boards
- Mercury-free LCD display
- Majority of packaging made from post-consumer recycled fiberboard and biobased materials
- Power adapter outperforms strictest global energy efficiency standards

On Friday, Apple unleashes its latest in wireless communications—the new iPhone 3G. I have seen pictures of people already lining up outside of electronic stores around the world waiting anxiously to be one of the first owners of this new phone.

I’m the first to admit that I’m not a technology junky. I only caved and got my first cell phone last fall. So, I won’t be one of those iPhone fans camping out with tents and food supplies for the new phone (that I probably wouldn’t know how to use in the first place).

Among all the hype about this new phone—it’s half the price and about twice as fast as the original iPhone—I haven’t seen any mention of the iPhone being any greener!

The first generation iPhone contained toxic chemicals that competitors like Nokia and Sony Ericsson have already removed from their new phones. What gives?

After the successful Greenpeace campaign, GreenmyApple, Steve Jobs promised all Apple products would be free of toxic PVC plastic and Brominated Flame Retardants.

While Apple has been making progress towards this goal by using less toxic chemicals in the latest MacBook Air and iMac, I haven’t seen any improvements in the iPhone. If engineers can figure out how to get wireless internet access and a touchpad screen on a tiny phone, I’m pretty sure they can figure out how to strip it of toxic chemicals and make it safer for users and the environment.

But, maybe the new iPhone is greener, and Apple is just keeping that information under the radar. I hope that’s the case. If so, I just might support the revolution and buy one for myself. If you read or hear anything about this—let me know!

If that’s not the case, I hope Apple can become greener sooner than later. So many people buy their products and it’d be awesome if Apple could become the first electronic company to completely eliminate PVC and BFRs. That's the sort of revolution that's needed.

--Michelle 

In Washington, you never know who you might run in to, including the rich and powerful. On my way home from work recently, I stopped at Olsson's Books to return some DVD rentals. I was immediately struck by the long lines at the registers.  The last time I'd seen such a crowd was for a book signing by Kristen Breitweiser.  Kristen is one of the 9/11 widows who fought for the 9/11 Commission report. Her book, Wake-Up Call, is a moving account of the loss of her husband at the World Trade Center and how she became a leading voice for holding our leaders accountable.  She has also joined Greenpeace in urging Congress to require U.S. chemical plants to convert to safer chemicals and processes to prevent them from becoming targets of terrorism.

As I scanned the crowd, one face jumped out at me, Michael Chertoff, the Secretary of the Homeland Security Department. He was waiting on line with an armful of books. The reason for the crowd was more mundane, a 50%-off-everything sale because the store is about to close.

My mind raced, what would Kristen Breitweiser do? I looked in my book bag and found a copy of a June 10th letter from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to Congress.  The letter was in opposition to chemical security legislation (H.R. 5577) adopted by the Homeland Security Committee in March. The DHS letter also mirrored the chemical industry's lobbying agenda.

Knowing Chertoff had been criticized for a lack of accountability in the wake of the devastation of New Orleans after Katrina, I decided to appeal to his self-professed independence. After he completed his purchases I introduced myself and showed him the letter and asked him to reconsider his opposition to this critical legislation.

As Chertoff looked at the letter he clearly recognized it as well as the difficulty in defending it.  He abruptly said, "if you want to talk to me, you'll have to go through channels...I don't do DRIVE-BYS." I could see why he’d want to avoid a public debate about his position but comparing my question to a "drive-by," especially in D.C., was way out of proportion.  So I said, "Sorry but as a taxpayer I'm concerned about the millions of Americans at risk from poison gas release due to a terrorist attack or accident at any one of 100 U.S. chemical plants."  He then seemed to realize he may have over reacted and said, "what's holding up the legislation is not me but a rivalry between two congressional Committees" and then he walked away.

However passing the buck is not a sufficient answer. At a June 12th hearing, the House Environment and Hazardous Materials (EHM) Subcommittee grilled Chertoff's DHS for failing to provide the Committee with requested input on legislation. Meanwhile the DHS had already sent their June 10th letter to a different Committee embracing the chemical industry's legislative agenda. Both Committees see through this divide and conquer tactic. The EHM Subcommittee expects to move legislation in July.  Greenpeace and a broad coalition of labor, public interest and environmental groups are pushing to get the legislation to the House floor as soon as possible.

On June 17th Polico ran an excellent summary of the situation at:
www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11123.html

-- Rick Hind 

I'm extremely pumped because Congress is having a hearing on the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2008.  I’ve been an intern on the Toxics campaign at Greenpeace for the last 8 months, but this chemical security bill has been in the making for almost 8 years.  Since 9/11 when chemical facilities went from being considered not only toxic polluters, but also a homeland security threat.  

This is because certain toxic by inhalation (TIH) chemicals, like chlorine gas and anhydrous ammonia, are stored at chemical facilities in bulk quantities (we’re talking 90 ton railcars) with extremely limited and vulnerable security, like chain link fences and cameras.  

These facilities are sometimes located right next to neighborhoods and major cities (google earth is a great tool!).  There are at least 100 chemical plants that would put over a million people at risk if there is an accident or terrorist attack involving a poison gas leak!  That’s like 100 potential Bhopals…  

As you can imagine, I've become sort of paranoid since I started learning about all this stuff.  You’ll see me on the metro, hands pressed against the glass, nose at the window, ogling the rail-cars running alongside the tracks for the chlorine gas label.  

But we aren’t all doom and gloom here at Greenpeace.  The good thing about chemical facility security is that safer alternative chemicals do exist and are used by some companies.  This is actually a preventable and quite solvable homeland security problem.  As it is now written, the bill to be discussed at the hearing tomorrow by an Energy and Commerce subcommittee would require high risk facilities to assess and implement safer chemicals as a way to improve plant security. 

This provision is supported by the labor unions, the railroad industry and environmental organizations.  Not surprisingly, the majority of the chemical industry is opposed to safer technology.  Both sides have been lobbying Congress for years on this issue, and so far the industry has had their way with weak bills and no permanent legislation.    

So the hearing should be pretty exciting!  The witnesses who will share testimony include a well-known lobbyist from the American Chemistry Council, a front group for major chemical producers such as DuPont and Dow, and a homeland security expert from the Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank.  The information they share will hopefully persuade members of the committee to keep the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2008 alive and strong so it can keep moving to the House floor.    

I was. I seriously was born on a bayou. Bayou Teche. My whole family is from three small towns in southern Louisiana. Lafayette, Broussard, and New Iberia. So when Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita through our entire nation into a tailspin of heartbreak and anger, I was particularly emotional. Luck was with my family that August because neither storm did much damage to my family's homes but instead nestled either side of my hometowns.

My little family, who has resided in Southern Florida, (a hurricane mecca in its own right) since 1987 and travel frequently to Acadiana (that's what the Cajun's call southern Louisiana). For Thanksgiving of 2006, we visited a cousin stationed in the National Guard in New Orleans. And I traveled the Ninth Ward with a dear of friend of many Greenpeace staff. Shylia Lewis. In 2004 we helped her build a Habitat for Humanity home for her family that was toxic free. You can read her Greenpeace story here. The Habitat houses on her block had the least amount of damage of all and Shylia said it was because those homes were built with love. I'm no sap even if it is Valentines Day, but I think she's on to something.

The reason I want to talk about the Gulf Coast today is because (1) communities and families are still recovering and they need our help and (2) the toxic contamination from these horrific storms has been outrageous and not widely covered, in fact covered up.

An article came out today from the CDC in Atlanta that discusses the toxic fumes Hurricane Katrina and Rita victims have been living in since 2005. There has been high levels (five times as much as in modern homes) of formaldehyde found in the trailors that FEMA gave to a large amount of Gulf Coast families. CDC announced that FEMA (you know the kids who refused to take any responsibility for the lack of humanity shown from governmental agencies after the hurricane) should move people out of those trailors immediately for fear of respiratory problems.

After complaining of headaches and nosebleeds and asking repeatedly to be moved out of the trailors, families finally talked to some lawyers and demanded that the trailors be checked out to see what could be causing their health concerns. CDC found it. Extremely high levels of toxic fumes.  

The International Agency for Research on Cancer has listed formaldehyde as a carcinogen and the EPA has listed it as a probable carcinogen.  

Read the CNN story.  

------------------------------------------------ 

Greenpeace isn't the only group that has worked on building toxic free homes on the Gulf Coast.

Unity Homes is still helping people live toxic free.  

Habitat for Humanity is in dire need of volunteers.  

And don't forget Jazz Festival is approaching!!  

Happy late Mardi Gras!

Renee