I haven’t seen the movie, but the end credits for The Other Guys—that Will Ferrel, Marky Mark Mark Whalberg cop film—feature some great looking info graphics that, if you haven’t already brushed the popcorn off your lap and headed to the door, might make you stop and think.

The standouts for me:

• Average ratio of Executive Pay to Employee Pay, 1914: 7:1. Today: 319:1.
• Average Execute Salary 1998: 2.3 Million. In 2005: 11.8 Million.

I’m not trying to foment a revolution of the working class here. But have executives become that much more valuable? Or the rest of us that much less so? Did your salary quintuple in 7 years? Most of all: does this make sense?

Can’t find an embeddable version, but check out the credit sequence here.

How on earth has no one told me about The Scout before now? The Brooklyn-based web mag recently launched the third in a series of films about craftsmanship—something that those who know me will recognize as close to my heart, and work. This profile of the Mast Brothers, Rick and Michael, offers a beautiful, and occasionally humorous look inside their Brooklyn chocolate shop.

In their quest to imbue their bars with as much of the adventure and curiosity of their craft as possible, they’re planning on sailing their beans back from Dominican Republic personally. “Any idea that makes us nervous, or scared that it won’t happen—we know that we’re definitely on to something. And sailing the beans is definitely the biggest thing…we know we’re onto something.” For making the connection between food and farm—or, in this case, cocoa plantation—you can’t do much better than that.

“If we start treating people like people, and stop assuming that they’re slower, smaller, better smelling horses; if we get past this ideology of carrots and sticks and look at the science, we can build organizations and work lives that make us better off, and that have the promise to make our world a little bit better.”

An awesome inquiry into why we do what we do, adapted from a lecture by Dan Pink at RSA (the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce.) Check it:

(via 18th & Hoyt)

You know composting is good. Perhaps you’re doing it yourself on a small scale, collecting the organic waste from your kitchen and turning it into rich soil for your garden. But what happens to that larger scale organic matter that sometimes passes through your life? Where does yard debris go after you put it on the curb?

The surprising answers to those questions led two young entrepreneurs—Tyler Miller, and Nau alum Pierce Louis—to start Dirt Hugger, a local composting company that creates sustainable economies by collecting, processing, and utilizing valuable organic nutrients locally. It turns out that without access to composting services, organic materials are mostly processed in unsustainable ways: they are dumped in landfills where they produce 40% of the nation’s methane gas emissions, burned in open air piles, or trucked long distances to urban processing centers.

Tyler and Pierce are in the running for the Myoo Create Beat Waste Startup Challenge: as one of ten finalists, they’re up for a $15,000 grant from Adventure Ecology, the folks behind the Plastiki expedition. For nurturing the idea that organic waste has real nutrient value and that communities are strengthened when they retain that value locally rather than trucking it out of town, they’ve got our vote. Whether in compost or clothing, we need more of this kind of closed-loop thinking.

Back in March, we gave bottled water a pretty hard time—enough to even catch the ire of the International Bottled Water Association, who accused us of ‘mis-reporting’ their greenwashed pro-bottled water film. They said their piece, but the facts remain: billions of plastic bottles are thrown away each year while less than 30% are recycled; shipping water needlessly wastes energy and contributes to climate change; bottled water is no safer than tap water in the United States; tap water actually outperforms bottled water in taste tests; and—perhaps most galling of all, almost a quarter of bottled water is just tap water repackaged by Coke and Pepsi—it’s just thousands of times more expensive.

So I was interested when a link to a new product floated across my desk: boxed water, labeled simply enough “Boxed Water Is Better.” No plastic, easily recyclable, made from materials largely produced from a ‘renewable’ resource. They’ve even pledged to donate 20% of their profits to water and reforestation organizations. Sounds pretty good, right?

Well, maybe. The question is: better than what, exactly? Despite their optimistic rhetoric, many of the fundamental flaws of bottled water really have less to do with the bottle, and more to do with the idea of packaging, shipping, and selling something we can get for free in our homes. While paperboard isn’t made from petroleum, it still takes energy (usually from coal and oil) to package, ship, and dispose of the box—thousands of times more than just turning on the tap. And only about 50% of states in the U.S. have access to carton recycling, meaning many (if not most) of those boxes will end up in landfills. Based on that, boxed water only looks better than one thing: bottled water. Which isn’t a high bar to clear.

While I admire their pluck and positive intentions—20% of profits is an admirable benchmark, even for a company not yet turning a profit—I have to wonder if this really is, as they claim, ‘a step in the right direction.’ Boxed Water Is Better describe themselves as an “ever growing and adapting project…committed to constantly exploring new technology to lessen the impact of the portable water market.” So maybe down the road they’ll invent a solution that’s better than just ‘less bad’. But as Nau’s Grant For Change gets underway, it’s interesting to ponder the limits of innovation and design in solving problems of manufactured demand. Perhaps sometimes, the best solution isn’t to change the package, but to change ourselves.

So what do you think about Boxed Water? Step in the right direction? Or, as the Seven Sins of Greenwashing would put it, just a ‘lesser evil?’

When a company misleads consumers regarding the environmental properties of its products, services or practices, it’s called greenwashing.  It’s like putting a veneer of green-ness over the exterior of the actual business practice.

To combat this trend, the folks at TerraChoice, an environmental marketing company, have defined and enumerated the types of sins committed by companies that (intentionally or not) are guilty of greenwashing.  Trade-Offs, No-Proof, Vaugeness and more: The list is cartoon-cute, clever, and entertaining, while still being clear and thorough. By reading it and playing the accompanying ”Name that Sin” game, consumers will become better able to rationally evaluate the eco-claims companies make in order to lure dollars from eco-conscious wallets. Hopefully,  consumers who are better educated about greenwashing techniques can force companies to back up environmental claims with substantive actions or risk lost sales and soiled reputations.

Check it out for yourself at sinsofgreenwashing.org.

In light of this morning’s post on bottled water, it’s worth watching this short TED presentation by inventor Michael Pritchard on his “Lifesaver” water filter bottle. One of the arguments that bottled water companies employ in support of their product is that, in emergencies, ‘clean, safe’ bottled water is the only viable option. But as Pritchard points out, even in the US, it took five days (five days!) to get bottled water to the Superdome after hurricane Katrina. What’s more, by forcing people to congregate around bottle distribution points (whether they’re football stadiums or refugee camps) in order to have access to water, the problems of sanitation and disease are perpetuated.

But Pritchard is thinking different about more than just emergency situations: he may just have a solution to making a serious dent in providing sanitary water worldwide. Also, it’s fun to watch a guy drink from water that moments before was full of rabbit shit. Check it out:

As a fully functioning adult living in a world as a ‘normal’ person (of course, that could be debated) I never had the opportunity to spend any time with the developmentally disabled population until the creation of Search for Adventure (SFA). About 6 years ago, Horny Toad (Nau’s sister company) and Search, Inc. got together to create SFA. The big idea here is that people without disabilities regularly have experiences that shape them outside of home, work or family – the developmentally disabled are often dependent on the government for benefits and services – rarely do they get the chance to experience the world beyond their day to day regiment. The primary goal of SFA is to give access to life experiences based on what they want to do instead of on what others have thought they should or shouldn’t, could or couldn’t do.

I have learned first hand that these trips empower people with developmental disabilities. They are able to see the world outside of the daily routine; not just survive but thrive, learn and experience. In 2004, one of the first trips was to the Powderhorn Dude Ranch in Colorado. One of my favorite quotes from this first trip is from Ed.  Ed is a horse enthusiast and budding cowboy. He got off the plane, took in the scenery and asked, “Is this heaven?”. If I could share the twinkle in his eyes or the excitement in his voice… you would understand.

This program has been so successful that we would like to offer additional experiences to more people. In our dream state we conjured up the idea of the “Adventuremobile” – essentially, a modified van. This vehicle would allow more accessible and economical trips to the most severely and profoundly disabled individuals. Here’s the cool part – you can help us reach our goal with the simple click of a button. (Seriously, it is that easy.) SFA has applied for a grant and the one with the most votes wins. You can learn more and, of course, we welcome your vote.

embedded by Embedded Video

YouTube Direkt

Today marks the launch of our first annual Grant for Change, a $10,000 grant designed to support those who instigate lasting, positive change in their communities.

It’s a project we’ve been working on for months, trudging feverishly through hours of meetings, debates, and revelations. It’s been a collective effort, with late nights, scattered moments, no blood or tears but definitely some sweat (though that could be from our recent heat wave, too).

And we’re finally ready to share it with you. This is exciting.

We’ll shift the focus of the grant each year, but this year, we’re dedicating it to those who move in the spirit of the Nau Collective, accepting nominations for

ATHLETES who are challenging assumptions about what it means to move through the world.

ARTISTS, designers or other creatives who are moved to design better solutions to the world’s greatest problems.

ACTIVISTS who are seeding positive change in their communities, and moving others to do the same.

You can learn more about the details of the grant – what it’s about, who it’s for, how it works, and why we’re doing it – on our website.

It’s inspiring stuff. There are amazing efforts in positive change happening all over the country. While working on this grant, we’ve met remarkable people with tireless commitment to causes as varied as climate change, transportation, urban agriculture, and clothing design.

The grant is nomination-based, and voter-driven, which means we’ll need your help to get it off the ground. Maybe this means you nominate yourself, or maybe it means you nominate your friends, or maybe it means you just spread the word and vote. When you check out our site to learn more, we hope something in there will trigger you to get involved.

Nominations for the grant are open ‘til August 17th, the voting ‘til August 31st.

And once you’re in, don’t hold back. The more nominees we get, the more stories of change we get to tell.

Nominate. Learn. Vote. This is the Grant for Change. Have at it. We hope you’ll like it as much as we do.

A historic thing happened in Washington DC last week.  The House of Representatives voted on the Waxman-Markey climate change bill. 44 Democrats voted against it, 8 Republicans voted for it and with only one “yay” to spare, the bill passed on Friday, June 26^th with 219 votes.

I’ve been reading about the pro’s and con’s and why two Democratic Representatives from my home state of Oregon voted against it. Honestly I can’t say for sure if I’m entirely for or against it, but I do know this is a big deal. The health and well-being of our planet for future generations is dependent on legislation like this.

If you’re like me and didn’t take the time to educate yourself about the climate change bill before the House voted, here is a short list of resources I recommend reading to help navigate all the buzz.

Here are two useful summaries of the bill from Climate Progress and Salon.com

This NYT article talks about who is for and against the bill and why.

Here is Grist’s light-hearted but informative take on it.

The Huffington Post talks about the flack the 8 lonely republicans are getting post “yay”.

Treehugger, my personal favorite, wrote a lot about the bill.  Here are two are must-reads; “Everything You Need to Know” and “Green Groups Mustn’t Surrender When the Battle is Just Starting”.