If you haven’t been getting enough of me here — and on Lime.com and BlogHer — you’ve got two new places to read my stuff:
SCI FI channel’s How You Can Save The World. You may wonder what my name’s doing alongside those of famous people like Sir Richard Branson and Esther Dyson, but really, I’m a contributor. My first post, Why Your Personal Carbon Footprint Matters, is up top at the moment. I’m excited to be blogging alongside Jamais Cascio and Gil Friend, both of whom I met as co-panelists at the Green Blogging panel in San Francisco’s Commonwealth Club way back when.
The FilterForGood blog. The Brita + Nalgene anti-disposable plastic bottles campaign‘s got a new eco blog, and I’m one of the six contributors, along with Blake Makes, Citizen of the Month, Melting Mama, teensygreen, and Whoorl. My first post’s about starting a balcony garden on the cheap!
Thanks to all blogs for having me on their team — and for letting me go last-name-free. The web’s great that way.
Update, 11/18/08: Brita’s new filter recycling program will begin Jan. 2009.
Thanks for the post about FilterForGood. It gives me an idea for another idea for a catagory on our Austin (TX) green directory – http://www.FindGreen411.com
Comment by Green Bob — September 19, 2008 @ 4:03 am
And while your blogging for Filter For Good, how about mentioning this wicked new subvertisement that just went up on YouTube yesterday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV6ztwmLsco
Yes, it’s awesome that Clorox, maker of Brita filters, is urging people to give up bottled water. But how can we get them to publicly announce that they will also recycle their plastic Brita filters?
And now that you are blogging for them, will you still be able to mention the Take Back The Filter campaign?
Comment by Beth Terry — September 19, 2008 @ 1:09 pm
Yikes. I hate when I type “your” instead of “you’re.”
Comment by Beth Terry — September 19, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
Beth — In your last comment, you said that Clorox has good intentions and said it’ll have a recycling program in by next year. The tone in this comment is quite different — Did something negative happen? Or is this just your way of trying to get people to watch your youtube video?
In any case — I’m not sure if you checked it out, but the FilterForGood blog’s primarily a lifestyle blog that’s not specific to Brita’s products. My plan thus far’s to use the space to keep better track of my efforts to balcony garden.
Comment by Siel — September 19, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
Yeah, here’s the thing about that. We think they have good intentions based on a note that the CEO jotted on a form letter to a consumer who wrote to Brita about recycling (and which that consumer shared with me.) But they have not been in touch with us directly and we’re not having an easy time getting responses from them.
We’ve decided it’s important for us to keep up the effort until they are willing to publicly announce that they will, in fact, have a recycling program in place. Which they are not yet willing to do.
It’s not that something negative happened. It’s that nothing has happened.
And of course I want people to see the video because it’s awesome and because this couple just made it for us yesterday without even being asked. They just did it, and we think it’s totally cool.
And please don’t think I’m ragging on you for blogging for Filter For Good. I have nothing against Filter For Good at all. In fact, I think it’s great. I just want Brita to be recycled too!
Comment by Beth Terry — September 19, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
I think my main point’s that it’s v. odd to one day proclaim “I do think Clorox has good intentions” and tout what the CEO said — then a few days later, in a comment on the same blog, announce a neg vid about Clorox that basically says they DON’T have good intentions b/c they’re not announcing initiatives as publicly as you think they should.
I’m even more baffled by your hinting that I may be biased and disinclined to talk about your campaign — “And now that you are blogging for them, will you still be able to mention the Take Back The Filter campaign?” — about a company that, according to you, may or may not have “good intentions.”
Which is to say: While I’m sure you have “good intentions,” your tactics at promoting your cause are confusing and demotivating — and don’t make me particularly inclined to either trust what you assert about Clorox at any given time, much less promote your campaign further. And that’s despite the fact that I do think Clorox is a multinational company with an unfortunate history of fighting environmental and health regulations.
Comment by Siel — October 7, 2008 @ 1:06 am
Woah there Siel! I think you’re picking up mixed messages because this issue just isn’t that straight forward. Clorox isn’t all bad or all good. Their campaign to get people to give up bottled water is awesome. And we say so on our site. In fact, that’s exactly what we said before showing the video:
http://www.takebackthefilter.org/2008/09/092108-campaign-update-viral-video.html
But convincing consumers that they have to switch to a plastic product they may or may not need in order to give up bottled water is not so awesome.
Clorox may or may not start a recycling program. We just don’t know. We think they are working on it, (they say they are working on something) which gives us hope, but they won’t tell us what it is, so we worry that it will be the same old shipping plastic off to China scenario.
My contact at Sierra Club, which is working with Clorox on this issue, says that continuing the campaign is necessary to keep the issue on the front burner.
So, yes, there is confusion because Clorox is not willing to shed much light on the issue. In an article in the NY Times today, Drew McGowan told a reporter, “the cost of a nationwide recycling program would be ‘absolutely astronomical, and there’s no way any one company can afford to do this.’ Nonetheless, a test program may begin within the next year that will let people return the filters to retail stores….”
See, that kind of statement is confusing to me. On the one hand, it’s too expensive for them to do it. On the other hand, they expect to start a test program. What does this mean? They will not say.
So anyway, please don’t think that I am trying to be anything but up front about this campaign. Or that I question your motives or intentions regarding Filter For Good. My question, I’ll admit, was kind of a knee-jerk reaction. And I apologize. I just assumed that Clorox would not want its bloggers to promote a campaign directed at them. Please forgive me if I assumed wrong.
But also, please don’t blame me for the confusion. The issue is not black or white. And Clorox is not good or bad. But what I do know is that continued consumer pressure for them to do the right thing can only help.
Beth
Comment by Beth Terry — October 7, 2008 @ 1:26 am
Actually, I think I’m picking up mixed messages because you’ve sent out mixed messages, as I pointed out above.
I suggest rethinking your messaging to just point to the contradictions from Clorox you now say you’re seeing, vs. seemingly jumping from one side to the other at random in a knee-jerk manner. I think it’ll be helpful for your campaign.
Comment by Siel — October 7, 2008 @ 10:21 am