Since it first appeared online two and a half years ago, the Story of Stuff has garnered over six million views and made its way into classrooms across the United States. The kid-friendly, 20-minute video is an unflinching look at the pitfalls of our production and consumption patterns, super-sized American style in particular. Activist Annie Leonard produced it with money from numerous nonprofit groups.

A school board in Missoula County, Montana, declared the “Story of Stuff” to be biased, and the local parent who complained that it contained “not one positive thing about capitalism” is right. But the video's fundamental message about the ecological and human cost of our linear system — from extraction through manufacture through sales to use and disposal — is accurate and important. As a recent article in the New York Times reports, it's been embraced by teachers eager to supplement textbooks that lag behind scientific findings on climate change and pollution. Take a look and tell us what you think.

Familiar with the term NIMBY (the acronym for “Not In My Back Yard”)? New Brooklyn-based nonprofit ioby.org turns that model on its head, by connecting donors and volunteers directly to green projects in their communities. Designed to redress decades of policy that placed environmental hazards in low-income areas, ioby.org also reminds us that city streets and sidewalks are as much part of “the environment” as the Amazon or Arctic.

Search a map on the ioby site for a project that appeals. Click “donate,” or walk down the street to find out how to get involved. The average price of a project is $410, which might plant a few trees, or buy a rainwater harvesting system, or design a green roof nearby. As co-founder Erin Barnes points out, “A small amount of money can go a long way.”

Have a good idea for a green project in your neighborhood? Does it fit the criteria explained on the site? (It has to be local, help the environment, be site-specific, and make no profit -— and small and simple are a plus.) Apply online, and connect directly to the money and manpower you need to make it happen.

Find out from Alec Loorz, a 14-year-old from Ventura, California. He’s speaking at 1 PM on Tuesday April 14th, in the Museum's first-floor Kaufman Theater.

After watching Al Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” Alec became an impassioned environmentalist. Convinced that he and his peers could make a difference, he founded Kids vs. Global Warming. This youth-led non-profit organization educates other kids about climate change, and teaches them how to speak up and take action. In this talk, Alec will share his message and suggest ways for kids and families to get involved in protecting the environment. A question-and-answer session will follow. It's free with Museum admission.

Last October Al Gore invited Alec to be formally trained with The Climate Project; he is now their youngest U.S.-trained presenter. On the heels of his Museum presentation, Alec will be speaking at the United Nations “Global Partners for Global Solutions” conference on April 15th.

Whether or not you read about it in the Climate Change exhibition, you probably already know that bottled water carries a high environmental cost. But have you thought about the hit your wallet takes? Eric Yaverbaum, of Tappening, an anti-bottled water enterprise, has done the math. He estimates that “if you drink 8 glasses a day you will spend $1400 a year buying bottled water” — versus 49 cents for the stuff that comes out of the tap. Based on a typical price of $3.79 per gallon, the Environmental Working Group prices bottled water at 1,900 times the cost of public tap water — and reports that Americans drink twice as much of it as they did ten years ago. That’s probably because they’re worried about crud in the water supply, but tap water in the U.S. is subject to more rigorous purity and testing standards. An October, 2008, study of 10 major brands conducted by the Environmental Working Group found “a surprising array of chemical contaminants,” including disinfectants, fertilizer residue, and pain meds. So ditching the habit can be good for our health, as well as for our budgets and our planet.

What will these solutions look like? A distinguished panel will explore this issue on Thursday,  March 12th, at 5:30 in the Museum's first-floor Kaufman Theater.

Panelists include Joseph Romm, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress, and executive director and founder of the Center for Energy and Climate Solutions; Ashok Gupta, Air and Energy Program Director, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC); and Ariella Maron, Deputy Director, New York City Mayor’s Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability, discuss efficiency goals, sustainable alternative energy options, and our outdated distribution infrastructure. The discussion is moderated by Michael Oppenheimer, Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs, Woodrow Wilson School and the Department of Geosciences, Princeton University, and co-curator of the AMNH exhibition Climate Change: The Threat to Life and A New Energy Future.

To buy tickets, visit the AMNH public programs calendar.

Trademarked by the nonprofit BrainShift Foundation, the phrase captures the spirit of a movement that’s making headway across the country: ecologically conscious homeowners are competing to see who can reduce carbon emissions the fastest. Now in its second season, the Energy Smackdown™ uses television and a webcast to document the energy-saving efforts of teams of households from three Massachusetts towns. Ten cities are following Sacramento’s example by sending out monthly utility bills that compare energy consumption among neighbors. Efficient consumers get a smiley face. (Frowns turned out to be too upsetting.)

As this New York Times article documents, harnessing a little healthy competition turns out to be a really effective way to raise awareness and change behavior. Are you keeping down with the Joneses? How would you feel about comparing utility bills over the back fence?

Heard the term “greenwashing?”It refers to the act of misleading consumers about a company’s green credentials or a product’s ecological benefits. From shelves to showrooms, consumers face a growing array of choices that claim to be “non-toxic”, “all-natural”, "sustainably sourced", “earth-friendly” and more. How to separate the green from the greenwashed?

The TerraChoice website presents the Six Sins of Greenwashing — on a convenient wallet-size card, even. These include the Sin of the Hidden Trade-off (how green can water be if it’s flown across the Pacific?), the Sin of Vagueness (how can anything be “chemical-free”?), and the Sin of the Lesser of Two Evils (“green” insecticides, for example). For an international perspective, check out Fred Pearce’s Greenwash column in the Britain’s Guardian newspaper. Pearce suggests you keep an eye out for claims that are ludicrously general, overspecific, or simply absurd.

We all need to pay attention. To comparison shop — Is the claim true of every product in the same category, for example? And to do our homework, especially when it comes to big purchases. Check whether a company that claims certification is listed on the certifying organization’s website. Find out whether its actions match its marketing.

Have you ever bought something with the best of eco-intentions, only to find out that you’d been greenwashed? Pass along your stories and suggestions.

Last week the Museum hosted an energetic discussion about the role of the media in public understanding of climate change. Moderator Bud Ward, of the Yale Forum on Climate Change & the Media, asked a panel of journalists to consider what they’d learned from decades covering global warming. “Let’s assume that journalists didn’t do a flawless job,” he asked. “What have we learned?”

Much of the response focused on how the issue has long been politicized, with the New York Times’ Andrew Revkin pointing out many people benefited, and that the Bush administration was a great target. “But this masked the underlying story,” said Revkin, describing it as “energy, energy, energy. Climate is a symptom of this much larger problem,” he continued. “Current energy choices do not remotely match what the world will need in 2050 to give nine billion people reasonable lives—and there’s nothing on the table.” Nor do most Americans seem inclined to rise to the challenge. Despite signs of progress like the box-office success of An Inconvenient Truth, a survey conducted last April by the Pew Research Council showed that less than half of Americans understand that pollution is causing the earth to warm. We’re also out of step with the international community, “where climate change is a major part of the Green platform,” as American University professor Matthew Nisbet pointed out. “Here the two-party system polarizes the debate, with most Republicans rejecting the idea that climate change is real, and most Democrats relegating it to a second- or third-tier policy issue.”

One reason global warming is easily viewed through a partisan lens is because it’s still pretty abstract for most of us. Panelists were optimistic that more targeted media coverage could change that. “It’s a political issue, like many others,” said ABC News reporter Bill Blakemore, “but it's a remarkably transformative event story, a foreign relations story, a trade story...The challenge is defining the new ‘beat.’” Ward concurred: “This story has to get off the science desk. Show me a beat that doesn’t have some connection to climate.” And Nisbet had a bunch of practical suggestions for reframing the issue to emphasize the local and the personal: as a moral and ethical and imperative, through a story on a local religious group; from an economic perspective, through a story about a local green-energy initiative; as a public-health story, but relocated from the poles to the suburbs. “The public should see climate change as a major political and personal priority, and see ways that they can act.”

What media source do you trust to give you the real scoop on climate change?