“Brandwashed” is full of both hilarious and shocking stories of how companies get people to buy. Sure, you may think you’re above all the ads that unrealistically promise everlasting love and fantastic sex — yours simply for buying a product. But did you know companies start grooming you for their goodies — while you’re still in utero? Some of the crazy tactics companies use — from stealth social marketing to skeevy online info mining — will likely shock you.

Buying unnecessary products means buying into more enviro damage — so greenies have a clear impetus to avoid such clandestine marketing ploys. But “Brandwashed” will open your eyes to even more reasons to avoid conventional products, to shop less, and to opt for eco-friendlier products on the occasions you do need to buy. Did you know, for example, that some conventional lip balm products actually contain ingredients that chap your lips? Or that Silk, when it started selling conventional soy milk, simply kept the same packaging while swapping out the word “organic” for “natural,” thereby fooling harried shoppers into buying their unorganic stuff?

The news in “Brandwashed” isn’t all doom and gloom for environmentalists. Sure, there’s a lot of greenwashing going on, and even more goods being marketed quite fantastically without even a nod to eco-friendly ideals. But one of the strongest form of marketing, according to “Brandwashed,” isn’t even done by companies. Instead, it’s done by individuals like yourself, through word of mouth.

Walk your green talk then talk about your walk — in an attractive, non-creepy, non-judgemental manner, of course — and you’ll be able to influence your neighbors into doing the same.

“Brandwashed” is available at bookstores now — and online. Amazon has it for $15.39.

Can the Grammys go green? The Grammys are working on reducing their impact on the environment by implementing a series of steps to minimize energy, food and packaging waste, and to raise public awareness on the need for individuals, events, and corporations to make changes now for a healthier future. Natural Resource Defense Council‘s helping The Grammys learn ways to implement these goals -– definitely a step in the right direction.

This year the Recording Academy (the institution behind the Grammys) organized the 2nd Annual Greening Summit: The Sound Of Social Change at the Conga Room at L.A. Live. The event was sponsored by Waste Management, and featured a panel focusing on “Corporate responsibility in sustainability and how industry insiders can use their collective power to drive change in greening.”

The panel of corporate executives representing four companies working on incorporating initiatives to lessen their impact on Earth’s ecosystems, and two companies focused on sustainability consulting featured Bridgette Bell, global sustainability manager for Yum! Brands (owners of Taco Bell, KFC and Pizza Hut); William Brent, executive vice president of Weber Shandwick’s Cleantech; Jennifer Miller DuBuisson, associate manager of global sustainability for Mattel; Michael J. O’Brien, vice president of corporate and product placement at Hyundai; and Tim Sexton, co-founder of environmental policy business association Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2). Greg Baldwin, executive director of Environmental Media Association, moderated the panel.

There are definitely two ways to interpret the success of this event, a la Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, due to the complexity of the issues surrounding corporate sustainability.

On the one hand, (cue Dr. Jekyll) the Greening Summit should be considered a success and a motivation for other companies around the globe, whether staffed by 5 or 500,000 people. It was also a bit of relief for those (like me) concerned about the impact of non-environmentally sustainable business practices on Earth’s health now and in the future.

The featured panelists concluded that being “green” is a movement and not just a trend, applying this conclusion both to change in the corporate realm and to observed patterns of consumer demand. Considering that each of the panelists represented companies through which pass billions of dollars, this was no small statement.

When asked if they see green practice in their business, each of the individuals presented various strategies that their companies are involved in to lessen ecological impact. For example, Mattel’s toy packaging is now made of sugar cane and they are using sustainably sourced fibers for their toys, Yum! is investing in making their eateries LEED certified, and Hyundai has implemented a zero-waste policy at its manufacturing facilities. Hyundai also has its own steel plant, designed to capture released gases to power the factory itself (a $6 billion investment).

In talking about green strategy, Sexton (E2 co-founder) mentioned that 10 years ago all companies had internet strategies; today there are no internet strategies, as these are fundamentally integrated into a company’s main business strategy. He sees green strategy as being of a similar vein. He also hearkened to the 60s, pointing out that today’s “green movement” is a result of many years of struggle for change.

With regard to “greenwashing,” Brent of Cleantech mentioned that his company’s clients are not interested in implementing strategies that will only market sustainability without having attainable results. Clients are looking for “green” strategies — like using internet conference technologies to replace air travel for business meetings — that can cut costs while saving the planet. He also mentioned growing consumer interest in the greening of businesses, visible through different forums such as carrotmob.org.

It was great to hear individuals in strong positions in the corporate sector talk passionately about wanting to move ahead with sustainability practices in their companies, until the day when their jobs are no longer needed. As a colleague of mine present at the event pointed out, it is good motivation for smaller and mid-sized businesses to see large corporations incorporate waste and eco-impact minimizing strategies into their business plans; if changes can be made on such a large scale, so can they on the smaller scale.

On the other hand, (and out comes Mr. Hyde) there were several shortcomings to this event that demonstrate areas in which serious challenges to true human symbiosis with the earth remain (is symbiosis our ultimate, collective goal? I think so, do you?).

A Waste Management (WM) manager opened the event with a very scripted talk about WM’s sustainability practices. At one point she talked about how our generation is the first ever to be in a position to leave the Earth better than we found it. This unhistorical comment is emblematic of some of the underlying problems within how “sustainability” is framed today, which leads to serious limitations in how “sustainability strategies” become formulated and implemented in businesses.

It is a historical truth that Native American peoples held the Earth in stewardship, until colonization of the Americas meant that American land was transfered from Native stewardship to land ownership by British (and other) colonists, followed by industrialization (which inherently requires natural resource consumption), the post-Great Depression transition from family farming to industrial agriclture, and real estate sprawl. The beauty that John Muir saw in Yosemite was so because of how the Native American peoples worked with forests and ecosystems; their impact on our ecosystems is still visible in today’s remaining wild spaces.

Destruction of native ways of living and subsequent transition to an industrialized, mass production and consumption society is a fundamental reason for the massive problems we face globally today, whether considering the burning of the Amazon for soy, cattle and sugar, the razing of Appalachian mountain tops for coal, or the transformation of our world’s rivers into manufacturing corridors. No matter how you phrase it, Barbies are unnecessary tolls on the Earth, and are simply not ‘eco-friendly’, even if packaged in sugar cane plastic (the ‘eco-friendliness’ of which is itself dubious).

Hyper-processing raw materials (wood, petroleum, corn, sugar cane, iron, etc.) into products with only temporary purpose for humans and limited ability to healthily reintegrate with the Earth cannot be sustainable; it presents a huge toll on the Earth from material extraction and sourcing, the building of factories, toxic outputs from product creation, waste generated by product packaging (and other marketing efforts), and waste generated by the product after it is discarded by human consumers.

Even if there are some native peoples in different parts of the world who did not go out of their way to steward the Earth (or who maybe engaged in damaging practices like slash and burn), their impact was miniscule compared to that of modern industrial practices.

The point is, there have been many generations before ours that left the Earth in a better way than they found it; our generation is the first to face the threats of human induced climate change and mass extinction in a way so pervasive that we are being forced to rethink what it means to “live with the Earth” because of how ill the planet and its people are becoming due to irresponsible use of land and Earth’s resources.

Concerns such as these lie at the root of the “green” movement, which is in turn inspiring many people to invest in local economies, goods and services, while cutting unnecessary consumption out of their lives (nevermind the pathetic state of our economy, generally speaking). It might just be that companies that produce unnecessary goods have to face this reality and start considering how to restructure the goods and services they provide in a more holistic manner – for the benefit of consumers and the futures of their own children and grandchildren.

This event also made me realize how intrinsic food production is to the sustainability movement. Local growers are uniting with raw foodists who are in turn forming food coops to provide things like raw milk. These efforts are being spawned by the exponentially growing number of people who have come to realize how enormously detrimental “conventional” farming is on human and environmental health, while also discovering the superior potential of responsible, sustainable, live agriculture to augment the Earth’s ability to grow and regenerate, while still providing more than enough food for the world’s peoples.

My food epiphany came to me during the question and answer period (which was very short-lived). An audience member representing the Clean Agency asked the Yum! Brands rep (Bell) if Yum’s transition to sustainability included sourcing food from sustainable and organic food growers and farms that use humane practices to raise animals for meat consumption. Bell responded by saying that another department handles food matters. Prior to the q&a, Bell had mentioned that Yum!’s goal is to feed the whole world, meaning that the primary purpose for the existence of Yum! is to give lots of food to lots of people. Industrial agriculture is a primary contributor to global warming, behind automobile and factory exhaust – a fact that a global sustainability executive should know. If Yum! is not looking at alternative sourcing of its food ingredients, then by existing, it is ultimately choosing to be a significant cause of environmental degradation, regardless of measures taken by its stores to “green.”

At that point, I also realized that the panelists seemed to be blurring the difference between implementing sustainability practices to satisfy consumer demand versus creating company sustainability policies based on a prioritization of environmental health. I decided to ask the panel a question about what training they have had that qualifies them to be sustainability experts. A Local to Global volunteer filmed their response (see video below). What do you think of their responses?

My final Mr. Hyde criticism is to emphasize that the Greening Summit lacked any connection whatsoever to organizations contracted by the Recording Academy to build sustainability into the Grammys. There were no introductory or concluding remarks from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the nonprofit advising the Recording Academy on how to plan a more sustainable celebration, and I was unable to meet any NRDC staff. The food served was the standard continental breakfast fare of cantaloupe, pastries and cheap coffee. The only Grammy/Greening Summit connection seemed to be the event’s location at L.A. Live, which uses enormous amounts of energy and water 24/7.

Criticism can be constructed either as means to degrade something, or as an opportunity to make something (like a movement!) stronger by pointing out flaws and weak spots.

The Mr. Hyde criticisms presented here were not written to disparage efforts made thus far in the corporate sector, but instead to challenge green LA girl readers, the corporate sector and the global community toward increasingly innovative thinking — and NOW!

The Greening Summit panel clearly consisted of a group of powerful individuals who are excellent at their jobs, want to care about the planet and its people, are pioneering the drive in the corporate sector to think about human impact on the planet, and seemed to be coming from internal places of honesty and passion. While the work they are doing is crucial, there is just so much more that needs to be done right now by all individuals and businesses throughout the globe.

Through efforts to “green” the Grammys and by organizing the Greening Summit (more photos here from the event), the Recording Academy clearly seems to be interested in opening dialogue and spurring education on how to green businesses. As an inherently cultural institution, they also seem to be interested in inspiring cultural change toward sustainability.

So what are your thoughts on these issues? Let’s keep this dialogue going.

Photo by Nisha Namorando Vida

Green bloggers struggle with their own set of strange, unanswerable questions. Would sending in this raggedy bra to the Bosom Buddy Program be a help or an insult? Can I justify going to this green nonprofit’s fundraiser if the only way I can get there is by car? Are these climate change-denying trolls hired to comment for a living by the tea party?

And most importantly: What happens to all those free reusable bags given out at practically every green event?

Longtime readers know that too many reusable bags are a pet peeve of mine — so much so that I actually came down on readers who seem to be stockpiling reusable bags in some sort of black hole instead of actually reusing them! Yet, in the six years I’ve been writing this blog, I’ve been unable to stop the incessant flow of reusable bags into my life. At first, I gave away these bags one by one on my blog. Then I had to resort to giving them away en masse — a strategy I still employ from time to time.

Doing so, I’m still left wondering — What happens to all the other reusable bags that were given out to attendees who, say, don’t have blogs on which they host weekly giveaways? Where do these bags disappear to?

Well, if reading this is making you go red in the face because you’ve been a reusable bag stockpiler, I’ve got a solution for you. The City of Santa Monica’s just launched a Share A Bag program. The gist: Those with too many reusable bags can drop off their extras at Share A Bag locations, while those without reusable bags can pick some up for free. It’s like those leave a penny / take a penny dealios at cash registers — except with bags instead of coins.

The city’s even put together a handy Google Map with all the Share A Bag locations — which include farmers markets, some government offices, and resale stores — including my favorite consignment store and pre-loved fashion store.

View Share a Bag Program Locations in a larger map

This program’s launched to prep the city for the recently passed plastic bag ban in the city, which starts going into effect this September. Locally, L.A. County’s bag ban for the unincorporated areas of the county went into effect at the beginning of this month, while Long Beach’s will go into effect in August. Nationally, Portland just made news for passing its own bag ban — to go into effect in October.

So tell me: What is the reusable bag situation in your home? Do you have too many? Not enough? And more importantly — Do you feel a strange compulsion to grab a reusable bag if it’s free — even if you don’t actually need one? That last question is the one I really wonder about — because I do think the “It’s free? I’ll take 2!” attitude of our consumer culture can be tough to kick….

Earlier: Styrofoam and the City: The fate of plastic bags and polystyrene in LA

And when it comes to online shopping, there are two eco-beauty stores that exemplify these two options. NuboNau goes with choice one (above), wrapping each of its eco-luxe high-end beauty products in recycled paper and nestling everything in beautiful, recycled honeycomb protective packaging.

In contrast, Soap Hope‘s trying to make ugly the new eco-pretty.

Soap Hope’s one store that’s taking upcycling to the extreme — by celebrating just how ugly it can be. Case in point: The store ships its products in what it calls the “Ugly Box” — made by roughly cutting up and taping up used boxes. Each of these come with a label on top — explaining why the packaging’s ugliness is really eco-smart.

As you may have guessed, the inventory at NuboNau and Soap Hope differ quite a bit, with the former focusing on more high-end, eco-luxe beauty brands like Strange Invisible Perfumes and John Masters Organics, and the latter on more affordable, basic beauty products from companies like Hugo Naturals. Soap Hope also has an additional altruistic goal with a Kiva-like model. The company lends all of its profits, interest free, to a nonprofit that works to empower women — getting back the money a year later.

What type of packaging do you prefer from your eco-beauty online store? I’m more likely to opt for Soap Hope’s method when shopping for myself — but to go with NuboNau’s way when shopping for gifts. Do you think your order should arrive prettily packed — or do you celebrate the ugly of reuse?

Would you pay a grand for a pair of shoes? How about a pair of used shoes? Before you answer, keep in mind these shoes come gently worn with great stories — and attached to a great cause. Buy a pair of these pricy pre-loved shoes, and you’ll be sending a grand to the Rescue Union School District in Northern California, which is facing serious budget cuts.

Shoes to the Rescue is the brainchild of Michele Miller, the principal of Jackson Elementary in El Dorado Hills. According to Sacramento Bee, Michele decided to donate the shoes “hoping they will help close a budget gap she says is estimated at a minimum of $1.4 million.”

If you love shoes — but often have trouble justifying the high cost of new shoes both to your wallet and the environment — buying from Shoes to the Rescue should be a near guilt-free experience. After all, all your money goes to keeping libraries open and supporting personnel at public schools. And the shoes are pre-loved — so you’d be reusing!

Interested in the shoes? You can pick from a wide variety — from boots to sandals to sneakers — which come in sizes between 6 1/2 and 7 1/2. Each pair of shoes will be delivered with a little card with a handwritten story by Michele, recounting the favorite time when she wore that pair of shoes.

It’s unclear how many shoes are up for sale, exactly. Sacramento Bee says 285 pairs, Shoes to the Rescue’s website says 300 pairs, while Michele herself says 350 pairs in the video she made for her fundraising effort. What is clear is the price per pair of shoes: A simple $1,000, regardless of the type of shoe.

Of course, you can always give more than a grand to the cause. Want to give less? Shoes to the Rescue will take donations of any amount! You won’t get to walk in Michele’s shoes, but you’ll give support to Michele’s school district.

Earlier: How to shoe shop green while saving green