Temple has already installed vertical gardens to green the urban landscape, serves organic drinks in biodegradable cups, and is installing solar panels into the building’s facade. Now that makes for a night of debauchery that I can feel good about. —Kirsten Koba

Starting January 1st, Pennsylvania is putting a ban on dairy labels that recognize milk and other products which haven’t been treated with artificial bovine growth hormone, or are rBGH-free. Apparently Pennsylvania believes that the labels are “too confusing” and consumers just don’t need to know this information. Ohio may be following suit soon.

rBGH-free products have been filling store shelves lately thanks to consumer demand (stores ranging from Trader Joes and Whole Foods to Costco and Kroger all provide it), but Pennsylvania is blatantly stripping consumers of their power and giving into big-business, namely Monstanto’s, will. Regardless of whether or not shoppers decide to purchase rBGH-free dairy products, they have a right to be informed about what they are purchasing.

After all, both the European Union and Canada have banned rGBH due to safety concerns. Manufactured by Monsanto under the trade name POLISAC, rBGH is a genetically engineered, super-strong variant of the natural growth hormone produced by cows. Essentially, injection of this hormone forces cows to increase their milk production by 10%—and about one-third of dairy cows are in herds where it is used (visit the Organic Consumers Association for more info). Monsanto, supported by the FDA, claims that the milk is indistinguishable from natural milk and that it poses no health risks, however research has shown astounding evidence to the contrary.

“What’s In Your Milk,” a 2006 book by Dr. Samuel Epstein, chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, uncovers the health risks of rBGH milk and bravely unravels the interwoven conflicts of interest between Monsanto and the White House, regulatory agencies, and the American Medical Association and American Cancer Society. Not only does rBGH make cows sick (Monsanto has been forced to admit to about 20 toxic effects, including mastisis—which contaminates milk with pus—on it POLISAC label), but it also has been linked to breast, prostrate, and colon cancer in humans. Ultimately rBGH enriches Monsanto, while furthering the demise of small farmers and providing no benefits to individual consumers. For a full background on the American dairy industry and more on rBGH, I highly recommend perusing the Sustainable Table website, an inexhaustible resource.

This isn’t a new fight for Monsanto—in 2003, the company asked the state of Maine to stop issuing an official Quality Seal, which the state only grants to dairies that do not use rBGH. While Maine refused, Monsanto later sued the state’s largest dairy, Oakhurst Dairy, over its rBGH-free labels. Oakhurst ultimately gave into changing its labels. With Monsanto’s new ally in Pennsylvania, agriculture secretary Dennis Wolff, the company is heightening its staggering power.

Monsanto is already raking in $6.5 to $8 billion in profits annually, and has a market value of over $28 billion. And now, the biotech giant is also getting heavily invested in genetically modified seeds for biofuel crops, which given the company’s inbreeding with the US government, sheds further light on my last post about Republican’s new-found commitment to alternative fuels. Indeed, the web of the dark side is intricately woven. But I have to believe that it isn’t impossible to unravel. So, even if you could care less about the cancer risks of rBGH dairy, demand natural milk from your local grocer, if only to strip a few extra dollars from Monsanto’s deep pockets. —Kirsten Koba

Perhaps it has. It appears that Mr. Gore’s Peace Prize has indeed forced Republicans to own up to the fact that global warming does exist. But in “owning up” they’ve also failed to take responsibility for suggesting any real change.

Front-runner Rudolph Giuliani has recently framed his “global warming” argument as a need to cut free from foreign oil sources. Both he and Mitt Romney have discussed the necessity for more reliance on domestic energy sources like coal and ethanol. Romney is also advocating drilling in ANWR. But these band-aids to our global warming problem do little more than momentarily mask the issue. And in the long run, they may actually cause more problems than they solve.

• While options like ethanol may sound all warm and fuzzy, serious concerns have arisen around the issue, which I’ve touched on in past posts (see Fill ‘er Up). Beyond the fact that ethanol, for example, actually uses more energy to produce than it provides, the production of biofuels may have detrimental impacts on our global food security. Treehugger ran a great post on the issue, replete with pretty graphs that you can check out here.

• Meanwhile, hydrogen, the pet alternative of Bush and Schwarzenegger, will never be a viable option unless billions of dollars in infrastructure is put in place, and wind and solar power are used to generate it (right now, the majority of hydrogen is created from fossil fuels anyhow). The New Atlantis recently ran a detailed article about the perils of hydrogen, or what Robert Zubrin is calling “The Hydrogen Hoax.”

• Amping coal production is the most appalling of all the suggested alternatives—the EPA has reported that resorting to liquefied coal as opposed to petroleum will actually increase greenhouse gas emissions. But that’s an issue that deserves its own post, so stay tuned for more on coal.

We need to shift our attention from one-off solutions to some serious 1st order change. Candidates—both Republican and Democrat—need to re-frame the dialogue, and tackle the ways in which we get cars off the street through better public transportation and community development that doesn’t dislocate people from the shops and services that sustain them. The focus needs to be on conservation, not additional energy sources.

As global warming receives more attention during the campaign season, it is imperative that active citizens still question the motivations of presidential nominees. Whether the rhetoric is coming from left or right, it is not enough to think “well, at least they are talking about global warming.” We’ve got Al Gore for that. — Kirsten Koba

As the recording industry reels over illegal downloads, grasping for control through slippery suits like the recent Minnesota case that left a suburban mom owing $200,000 for illegal pirating, In Rainbows is a reminder that music belongs in the hands (and ears) of the people. Radiohead and other musicians dedicated to sharing songs, along with groups like Creative Commons that provide innovative open licensing agreements, are proving that music is indeed communal capital, and that it can be financially viable outside of the existing economic paradigm.

While the band isn’t officially releasing numbers, a recent report from online music site Gigwise stated that 1.2 million copies of In Rainbows sold within the first few days, and according to an October 14th New York Times article, those sales have averaged around $8 an album. Radiohead has far exceeded the 10-15% royalties (typically around $3 an album before other deductions) artists usually garner through major label deals. Despite traditional notions of “rational consumption,” fans are obviously willing to shell out cash to support music they love, even when they don’t have to pay for it.

Radiohead is by no means the first band to cut out the middleman—indie artists have perfected the act—but the group’s epic stature solidifies the fact that music is about more than dollars and sense. After all, it isn’t common sense that inspires some listeners to pay over $20 for an album they can get for free. Perhaps it stems from a feeling of charity or obligation. Or perhaps, In Rainbows sales are rooted in a desire on the part of listeners to be involved in the music process, to be more than passive consumers. When shoppers decide how much to pay, they directly influence the band’s success, and project greater value onto the music itself. There is a collective buy-in that gives listeners a sense of control and bands that much more of a loyal of a following.

EMI Chairman Guy Hands told Forbes last month that the industry has “stuck its head in the sand” in regards to dealing with the digitization of music. But for musicians who refuse to stick around in that sand, it’s increasingly easy to work outside of privatized labels. Affordable home-recording programs and immediate distribution and publicity through peer sites such as Myspace allow unsigned artists to gain monumental fan-bases, without signing away 90% of their profits (just look at the snowballing success of Myspace celeb Tila Tequila, whose 1.7 million “friends” have earned her a reality TV show and surprisingly successful album). Myspace lets people create their own celebrities rather than be force-fed the latest industry confections.

Meanwhile, sites like Creative Commons provide a way for musicians to chose their own licensing conditions and open up their songs to use and even manipulation by others, or as the site says, “use private rights to create public goods.” Suddenly, music is no longer static; it can be recreated, repackaged, and embraced by an entirely new audience. Magnatune, an online record label whose slogan is “We are not evil,” not only uses Creative Commons licensing for its artists, but then lets shoppers listen to albums for free or choose how much they’d like to pay to download them. Magnatune’s artists publish the source code of their music so that anyone can create remixes or covers of their songs, and allow their tunes to be used for non-commercial projects free of charge. The site helps artists get exposure and still make as much money as they would through a traditional label, and helps browsers experience a world of music that they may never have heard had they been forced to throw down $15 bucks at the record store. And ultimately, they download more music because of it.

It is apparent that music no longer has to be commodified in traditional ways, nor should it be—by sharing control, musicians and listeners can return music to its rightful place in the creative, rather than corporate, domain. As more mainstream bands follow Radiohead’s lead (Nine Inch Nails just announced that they’ve broken free from their label and are planning to distribute directly to fans), and independent artists continue to make music within a cultural commons, the prevailing paradigm will indeed change. And that’s a cause that I, no longer a disgruntled twenty-something, am happy to fight for. — Kirsten Koba

Last night, under the darkened skies of Fremont and the shadow of the Aurora bridge (Seattle’s most infamous suicide jump), the Bride Motel’s neon sign burned, as partyers poured into its parking lot and onto its roof and through its rooms converted to art, in a final farewell to this institution of sketch. Scheduled to be demolished today to make room for seven new sustainably-designed town homes, for one evening the seedy Bridge was turned in a living performance and an exorcism of sorts, with graffiti covering its exterior and instillations filling its rooms.

The Bridge’s history is typical of urban development. It was built in the 1950s by a retired police officer as a place of rest for traveling salesmen. It replaced a house built in the 1900s on forest-cleared land. And now, the wayward Bridge, which has become a haven for prostitutes and druggies, is being replaced by the sort of ubiquitous (albeit green) luxury housing that is crowding into cities across the country. The new million dollar homes will certainly be a shift from the Motel’s $40 a night or $200 a week rates, but its past was celebrated in full this Saturday thanks to dk pan, a performance artist and the motel’s manager.

Pan took over as manager and moved into the motel last November when his friends purchased the property in order to sell it. He had one stipulation: that before it was torn down, he could turn the space over to artists for a night of revelry. Orchestrated spectacles included an upstairs room with its ceiling ripped out, exposing the sky, and a fire burning where a bed once was in a nod to transients of America’s past; a Pepto pink lobby overflowing with room keys and absurdist surveys; and in reference to the peephole nature of the motel, a darkened room filled by a camera obscura casting images of the Bridge onto the wall. The old motel furniture was thrust outside, turning the parking lot into a lounge.

The Bridge was crowded and joyous and properly kissed farewell. And luckily for lovers of art and mayhem in Seattle, this was only the first of three “Motel” events planned for the upcoming months. Find out what’s next at motelmotelmotel.com. —Kirsten Koba

Yikes! Like many body products, my bronzer was filled with toxins just waiting to seep into my skin and bloodstream. The unsettling thing about cosmetics (a definition that includes lotions and cleansers) is that the regulatory requirements governing their sales is not nearly as stringent as other FDA-regulated products like food and medicine. In fact, cosmetics and their ingredients are not required to undergo approval before they go to market under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

Which means that you really need to be a vigilant label-reader when it comes to buying body products. To learn more about what ingredients to avoid—and what to look for—check out the Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep cosmetic safety database, which is an amazing storehouse of information, or Terressential’s Guide to Personal Care Products, an easy break-down of common ingredient terminology.

As for those tanning lotions, I was happily surprised to learn that there are a couple completely natural alternatives to the chemical-laden L’Oreal stuff. Caribbean Solutions, based out of Orlando, offers a self-tanning creme that relies on natural DHA, a vegetable substrate, to work with your melanin and create a healthy golden glow. The company also has a lovely collection of biodegradable tanning oils and sunscreens. The Organic Pharmacy, one of my favorite new skin care lines based out of the UK, also has an all-natural self-tanner made from beet-derived DHA, jojoba oil, shea butter, and aloe.

Now, I can not attest to these products abilities to keep your body streak-free, but at least you don’t have to worry about them messing with your hormones—and that’s enough of a reason for me to give them try. So, if you see me walking around looking like I’ve contracted some strange skin disease, you’ll know to avoid natural self-tanners…otherwise, hello swimsuit season! —Kirsten Koba

Indoor farming is certainly not a new idea, but vertical farms—urban sky-scrapers equipped to grow an abundance of food, without further depleting precious soil—have the potential to curb our impending food crisis. According to the Vertical Farm Project, run by Columbia professor Dickson Despommier, by 2050 nearly 80% of the earth’s population will live in urban centers—and there’s going to be another 3 billion of us. Which means we’re going to need a lot more food (even as land suitable for food production diminishes) and we’re going to need it a lot closer to cities if we really want to be sustainable (I won’t even get into the ramifications of international food transport right now). Besides providing much needed produce, depending on the crops being grown, a single vertical farm could allow for thousands of farm acres to be permanently reforested; all these indoor crops would be organic since there’d be no need for pesticides; and they’d dramatically reduce fossil fuels thanks to no tractors or transport.

One of the most talked about plans has been Chris Jacobs’ buildings for New York, 30-story glass towers topped off with massive solar panels and the potential to use city waste-water for irrigation. New York magazine recently ran a spread on Jacobs’ vision for a cluster of such buildings on Governor’s Island or in Hudson Yards. The Vertical Farm Project contends that 150 of these farms could feed the entire city for a year. Another hyped plan is Gordon Graff’s Sky Farm proposed for Toronto’s theater district, which has 58 floors, 2.7 million square feet of floor area and 8 million square feet of growing area.

The only drawback: for now these farms are just a vision. But scientists say that they are completely feasible with the right amount of capital investment. Are you paying attention Mr. Gates? —Kirsten Koba

No, I am not on a diet, but I did recently come across a series of old (circa 2005) but under-publicized articles on the “blood chocolate” plight in Africa. According to CorpWatch, on the Ivory Coast of Africa (the origin of nearly half of the world’s cocoa) approximately 286,000 children between the ages of nine and twelve have been reported to work on cocoa farm with as many as 12,000 likely to have arrived in their situation as a result of child trafficking. These children, who work up to 100 hours a week, are often at risk of injury from machetes and exposure to harmful pesticides. With world cocoa prices so low (ranging from $30-$108 per household member per year), many farmers maintain their labor force through trafficking; West African parents living in poverty often sell their kids to cocoa farmers for $50-$100 in hopes that the children will make some money on their own, which they never really do.

In 2001, following an flood of bad publicity, the major chocolate companies agreed to a voluntary protocol to eliminate child labor on West African farms by 2005, rather than face binding legislation from Congress that would have required them to label their products “slave free.” None of the chocolate companies at the time would have qualified, and even if they had, the industry obviously didn’t want the word slavery anywhere near their saccharine cash cows.

Not surprising, producers failed to meet their July ‘05 deadline. After four years without serious change, chocolate companies wanted four more years to reach a lesser goal: Instead of eliminating child labor on cocoa farms, they promised to reduce child labor by 50 percent in two West African countries by 2008. I’ll be paying close attention to this story as the new deadline draws near. But until then I’m just saying no to any chocolate produced by Hershey’s or M&M/Mars, the two companies that dominate this $13 billion industry.

Luckily, my hip Mom had picked up fair-trade bulk chocolate chips from Whole Foods for this particular cookie feast, so I was able to put my fear to rest. If you’re looking for some chocalternatives of your own, you can feel good about eating as many sweets as you’d like from Green & Black’s, Endangered Species, Dagoba, or any number of other organic chocolatiers that don’t source from Africa. Just don’t blame me if you get fat. — Kirsten Koba

Well, it may not be to the glittering backdrop of midtown’s advertisments, but UK inventor Robin Hamilton is utilizing the power of the sun in his very own rotating room—actually, his own rotating house, which is even more awesome. In a super-sweet feat of architecture, he is building an environmentally-friendly home featuring solar panels and using tyres and railway tracks to rotate, according to a recent BBC article.

For a mere $100 grand once completed, the home will also integrate recycled materials and wind turbines. As the sun moves, the house will follow, capturing as many rays as possible. Ultimately, the rotation of the home will create more energy than it consumes. The planned home should take about two years to finish, and I can only hope that by then I strike it rich enough to commission one of my own.

Growing up, my family business mortified me. I’d hide in our VW van parked in the Goodwill lot while my dad scoured for goods inside, terrified that someone might see me. I didn’t want my friends to know that my clothes and toys were all second-hand. Now I respect it. My father was an environmentalist by default of poverty. And I’m sure that his garage sale ways instilled in me my obsession with reduce, reuse, recycle. But I picked up his bad habbits along the way.

I am a collector of everything. My apartment is filled with boxes of brittle magazines and postcards, piles of vintage scarves, bags of leather scraps. I have bacalite purses that stack to the ceiling and collected stones that topple off my mantle every time I walk by. These things take over subtley. Just another picture frame or broken type-writer snatched off the street doesn’t seem like much at first…

I’m moving accross country to Seattle in three weeks, so my stuff and I are now having a stand-off. I stare down each item, scrutinize its worth (which simply cannot be calculated) and throw it in a pile of keep or give. I’ve donated five bags of clothing and there still stands a teetering tower of books in the middle of my living room waiting for a new home. I counted my shoes. I have 73 pairs. There are 35 ready for the Salvation Army and I still should part with more.

I cannot bring this life of stuff with me when I move. I want to start fresh, to be minimalist. I need a home that leaves room for my thoughts, so they aren’t crowded out by my accumulations. And I want to know why, with all my musings on our culture of consumption, I simply cannot shake my need to get more.