Lately, I’ve been writing about lessons learned during my three-month sustainable living experiment.  Most of them are not concrete facts, but rather emotional insights which came to the forefront when the stresses of my new lifestyle began taking their toll.

Welcome to my most significant understanding: that developing an environmentally sustainable lifestyle MUST be personal, too.  It must reflect the individual.  It is not a one-size-fits-all game plan for green living.  There’s an unfortunate popular “Wonder Diet” mindset pervading American media, which says:

1. There IS one solution.
2. It’s painless and requires no real effort or commitment.
3. It’s quick and tidy–no mess!

I realize I made a mistake in planning for my Sust Enable project by embodying some of these cultural concepts of media in MY media.  For the sake of being easily recognizable and gimmicky, I assigned a strict deadline to my sustainable living project, thus making it sound more like a game show than the life-changing experience it has been.

Three months exactly.  From Day One to Day 92.  A riveting progression from novice to expert, from struggle to smooth sailing.  

Don’t do what I did.

If you are to be successful in your sustainable living venture, your actions need to come organically out of your motivations.  Your goals will shift over time.  You will realize what is feasible for you and what is not; what you need help with and what you can push yourself to do.  

Am I expected to stop living as close to 100% environmentally sustainable as possible once August 1st clocks over?  And when did I really begin?  In wanting to live 100% sustainably, in preparation and research, or on the first day I may have successfully attained “sustainable living?”  Placing constraints on the necessary, urgent, but constantly shape-shifting goal of “living sustainably” is counterproductive.  

I have been plagued the last few days with concerns over how to deal with my current home: the tent. It’s leaking.  It’s damp.  It’s moldy.  It’s small and dirty.  Two days ago, laundry detergent spilled all over the inside.  My bedding is shoddy at best.  In short, it is personally unsustainable for me to really consider “living” there.  

So what are my options?  Couchsurf for four weeks?  Sleep on the boyfriend’s couch or my friend’s couch?  Sleep in the woods?  All of these options turn me off for the same reasons the tent does: they are not stable solutions, nor are they long-term sustainable.  

It makes me think that if I were really to get this experiment right, I would have spent some months prior to 5/1/08 constructing a cob cottage.  A small one, no bigger than my tent space, wouldn’t be too hard nor too expensive to construct.  On the other hand, had I done that, when would my “sustainable living experiment” have begun?  On my move-in date?  Or when I began construction?

I have been compiling a list of possessions and practices that I would never be comfortable giving up, plus a list of what I found easy and satisfying to trade in for a new lifestyle.  Guess which list is longer?  The latter, by 2-3 times more.  

I will be glad to share this list with viewers and readers at the end of the experiment.  It remains my goal to provide insight and direct experience to help guide choices for people who don’t have the opportunity to live “off the grid” or out-of-work for a long period of time.  While I think this is still true, I now see the importance of how my personal priorities, preferences, attitudes and needs crafted this story.

You will never be me, and I will never be you.  However, WE can be the change we wish to see in the world.  Communicating about our desires and experiences is the only bridge we have to paradise.

Read More About:

Shifting priorities reflected in American consumption patterns?
Utah law mandates taking more time off work
Ways to relax in nature
Sustainable Living Rule #1: Be Gentle To Yourself
Sustainable Living Rule #2: Have FUN 

photo credit: public domain image from WikiCommons, “Relax”

Returning to 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide in our Earth’s atmosphere is the level that most of the world’s scientific community agrees as the safe upper limit for carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. When industrial revolution began, it was 275 parts per million. Today, we’re far above that at 385 parts per million and continuing to rise at an accelerating pace, often contributing to the extreme weather, shrinking glaciers and numerous other effects of climate change familiar to more and more of us.

View this stunning 350 video animation on YouTube, created by the innovative Free Range Studios, designed to reach out to the world to foster the coming together of global community to address this challenge — and hold our political leaders accountable to provide the policies that encourage the changes we must all make.

350.org, an organization spearheaded by Bill McKibben, seeks to weave together all communities around the world seeking to help our return to safety and atmospheric stability, to 350. “This is a problem that comes with a time limit,” says McKibben. “If we do not solve it soon, then we’re not going to solve it.” In eighteen months, world leaders will be meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark, to discuss solutions to climate change, but their solutions are tepid at best according to McKibben. So he and several others have taken it their charge to help everyone on Earth — with the help of everyone on Earth — to understand the importance of climate change and returning to 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide, forcing the kind of comprehensive change necessary at all levels of society and with governmental policies that foster such rapid change.

As we write about in ECOpreneuring and Rural Renaissance, we examine our ecoprenuerial enterprise from the perspective of how our business is a catalyst for solving climate change in various ways, like over-producing electricity from the wind and sun. Our B&B serves as a waystation for citizens searching for ways to reclaim self-reliance, self-sufficiency and community interdependence. Others we’ve met at a Green Festival, the MREA’s Energy and Sustainable Living Fair, or a farmer’s market are finding creative ways to solve our problems today with renewable energy, energy conservation, and sustainable food systems, all while thriving in a local economy.

So, how are you helping get to 350? First step, let’s get everyone on the same page and get the arrows of change pointing the same direction. See www.350.org to learn, take action and spread the word to change the world for the better. This could very well be the largest branding campaign ever with the intent of restoring our planet, rather than destroying it with the products or services we use and throw away.

Share the change. Create the change. Be the change.

Related Posts about 350:
Creativity 350: Crafting a Green World

Photo provided with permission: 350.org

As of May 15th, this bill was voted out of Senate Committee on the Judiciary and placed on the full Senate’s intent calendar. That means that the entire Senate will be involved in making the next decision about whether this bill will move forward. You can follow the progress of the bill, as well as media coverage of it, at its page on Open Congress or on its official bill status page on the Library of Congress website.

Preparing to Advocate

Before you communicate with your Senators about this bill, you have to do your homework.

Autumn has provided a summary of the bill and information about the issues with it, which is great. I would also take a moment to read the Congressional Research Service (CRS) summary of S. 2913 as it emerged from committee. To have the best chance of having your concerns heard, you’ll need to be clear on what’s actually in the bill, and what people fear would come about if the bill passed. You can certainly communicate with your Senators about both types of concerns, but keeping straight which one is which will enhance your credibility.

To find out who your Senators are, you can visit the U.S. Senate website. Find your Senators and click on their names to go to their websites. You’ll also want to find out ahead of time whether your Senator has had any involvement with the bill thus far, such as authoring it (Leahy of VT), sponsoring it (Hatch of UT), being on the committee that voted it out (Judiciary), or making public comments about it. If you can’t figure it out on Google, then just call their office and ask.

You’ve Done Your Homework - Now What?

The most effective thing you can do is pay a visit to your Senators’ local offices.

I know it may sound extreme to actually go somewhere and talk to a human in person, but taking the time to meet with a Senator’s office staff is about five thousand times more effective than a letter, email, or phone call. If you have serious concerns about the bill, it’s worth taking the time.

It’s also not as scary as it might seem. I was pretty nervous the first time I did it, but it turned out to be no big deal. You may be more comfortable if you take a couple of friends along, so find a couple of other crafters or artists and make an occasion out of it. Call the Senator’s local office nearest you to schedule the appointment. Ask to speak with the staff person who would be responsible for the bill, and ask if you could meet with them for about half an hour to share your concerns. (If they don’t really know what the bill is, it may take them a bit to get organized, but be patient.)

Before you go, you’ll want to prepare a few written copies of your concerns to give to the staff person. You can bring a fact sheet or talking points prepared by another organization, but if that’s all you bring, it won’t be as effective as a personal letter from you stating your concerns. It doesn’t have to be a great work of literature, but keep it polite and professional. Make sure it includes your contact information.

When you get to the meeting, again, be polite and professional. Don’t be intimidated - chances are, you now know more about this bill than the staff person you’re speaking with. The staff person will probably ask you questions, but probably won’t debate or attack you. They work for you, and it’s in their best interest to at least appear respectful of their constituents. Each person should be prepared to briefly introduce themselves, explain why they’re concerned about the bill, and what they would like to see changed. If you’re asked a question that you don’t know the answer to, don’t be afraid to say you don’t know and offer to call them back with the information.

At the end of the meeting, thank the staff person for their time. If you can send a thank-you note when you get home, so much the better.

If You Can’t Make A Visit…

Electronic communications are easy and quick, but they aren’t as effective as a personal visit. If it’s what you can manage, though, it’s better than nothing. If your Senator’s nearest local office is 200 miles away, for example, a visit just may not be feasible.

All electronic communications are not created equal, however. The easier it is for you to do, the less likely your representative will take it seriously. Elected representatives get a LOT of mail, and they’re suspicious of anything that looks mass produced. (Hey, we have something in common!) Online petitions, for example, are generally a waste of time unless they’re part of a media event. Online petitions rarely contain enough identifying information about the people who signed it for representatives to figure out if any of their constituents are included, even if they were inclined to search through all the “signatures.” Form letters and emails, especially if they seem to be organized by a particular group, are filed in the “answer later when you have time” pile, which may be three to six months later. Many Congressional staff suspect that form emails are sent without constituents’ permission, so they may ignore them completely.

So if you can’t make a personal visit, but you have serious concerns about this (or any other) piece of legislation, take half an hour to write a real letter (preferable) or email. Include the same information you would in a visit: who you are, why you’re concerned about the bill, and what you would like to see changed. Include your full name and contact information so they can see that you’re a constituent. Ask for a response. Send it to the Washington, D.C. office since that’s where the majority of the policy staff work.

For every real letter that an office receives about an issue, they tend to assume that about 10 constituents feel the same way but did not write in. So it’s worth it to invest some time. And the great thing is that you have two Senators, but you can send the same letter to both of them - small tweaks may be required if they have different positions on the bill, but aside from that you don’t have to re-invent the wheel.

Next Steps

Once you’ve made your initial contact with an office, you can always follow up with an email or phone call when something happens with the bill. If it’s voted out of the Senate and goes to the House, you’ll need to shift your efforts to your Representative and possibly update your knowledge of the bill if it was amended during the Senate process.

Any Questions?

If you have any questions about the legislation itself, drop us a note at Autumn’s post. If you have any questions about how to make your voice heard, ask in the comments here. We’re happy to help, and if we don’t know, we’ll find out.

But they don’t just boast, they actually engage in hostage taking and abduction of foreign oil workers working in Nigeria’s oil rich but socio-economically poor Delta region for ransom (they call it pollution reparation); sometimes killing them and even bombing oil pipelines for effect.

MEND said in an email circulated to news media in January 2006: “It must be clear that the Nigerian government cannot protect your workers or assets. Leave our land while you can or die in it…. Our aim is to totally destroy the capacity of the Nigerian government to export oil.”

MEND and other militant groups under their umbrella claim they are campaigning for a fairer share of oil wealth for local communities in the Niger Delta, whose land and water have been polluted by oil extraction for over five decades.

Between 1993 and 2006, MEND and affiliated rebel groups orchestrated vicious attacks on oil platforms, pumping stations and pipelines, effectively reducing the country’s oil production by 10% by the beginning of 2007.

Big oil conglomerate Royal Dutch Shell, which has not been without its fair share of controversies around the world, had by that period withdrawn 330 employees from its oil fields in the region, and shut down four pumping stations. Last week, the wait was finally over. It became official that Shell was pulling out of Ogoniland, part of the larger Niger Delta and which rose to international notoriety in 1995 after then military government of Sani Abacha hanged its defenders, among them the famous Ken Saro Wiwa.

So it was more than befitting that Saro Wiwa’s son, also named Ken Saro Wiwa, now special assistant to the president on international affairs told a news wire: “Ever since Shell pulled out of the acreage in 1993 they have not been able to find a re-entry plan that is workable, that has the agreement of the community.”

But Shell, and other thick skinned big oil firms like Chevron, continue to face the wrath of the pipeline rebels elsewhere in Nigeria and hardly a week passes before another attack is staged on oil installations in Africa’s largest oil producer country. The allure of profit, however, ensures they stay put, despite the dangers and the government’s inability to rein in the heavily armed rebels and their iron-willed backers.

Only Thursday this week, militants in speedboats attacked Royal Dutch Shell’s main offshore facility in Nigeria, cutting the country’s oil output by another 10%, forcing the Anglo-Dutch giant to stop output from the $3.6 billion facility.

It was reported that the strike on Shell’s Bonga field, which lies some 120 km (75 miles) off the coast, wounded Shell’s production of Bonga Light crude where it has a nameplate capacity of 220,000 barrels per day. In a separate incident on the same day, armed youths in military fatigues attacked an oil security vessel and kidnapped two crew members.

In an email to newsrooms, which is now the hallmark of their communication with Big Oil, MEND said: “The location for today’s attack was deliberately chosen to remove any notion that offshore oil exploration is far from our reach.”

MEND has recently sent an array of letters to US president George Bush seeking official US government intervention in Nigeria. They suggested that former president Jimmy Carter and actor George Clooney, a UN Messenger of Peace, mediate between them on one hand and the Nigerian government and the oil industry on the other, to bring about environmental and economic justice in their land.

It is demanding reparations for pollution of their farmlands by the oil companies as well as an equitable share of the profits derived from oil extracted from their region.

Nigeria’s soft-spoken president, Umaru Yar’Adua, seems overwhelmed by this oil business and is beginning to focus elsewhere to address his country’s energy crisis. Yar’Adua is now speculating about nuclear energy and has sought the help of French president Nicolas Sarkozy in this venture.

Whether a long-term electro-nuclear program to help meet the huge energy demands of Nigeria will help alleviate the environmental mess in the Niger Delta shall remain to be seen. But the six billion dollar question shall definitely be about the security of such installations in the wake of the militia successes with oil.

Image courtesy: Stakeholder Democracy Network at Flickr

In what some called a crazy stint, this April the LA crew of riders who call themselves the Crimanimalz hit the highway to make a statement in a city renowned for its hours and hours of commuter traffic. The ride through the city’s Friday commuter traffic jam, also dubbed the “If You Rode a Bike You’d be Home by Now Ride,” is now a monthly event. Check out images of the bold event to bring the car city bike freeways, bike paths and safe bike routes here and video here. The ride even has it’s own Wikipedia entry.

“The consumer advocacy group is working with cities across the nation to urge local restaurants and chefs to sign a pledge to switch to serving only tap water, help educate customers about the benefits of tap over bottled water.”

Participating restaurants in the program are:

Memphis, TN
Circa
Stella
Boscos Squared
R.P. Tracks

Boulder, CO
Sunflower Restaurant
Turley’s
Leaf Vegetarian Restaurant

Durango, CO
Turtle Lake Refuge
Carver Brewing Co.
College Drive Café

Omaha, NE
Dixie Quicks Magnolia Room

Madison, WI
Lombardino’s Restaurant
Harvest Restaurant

Ann Arbor, MI
Zingerman’s Roadhouse
Café Verde Fair Trade Coffee Bar
Weber’s Restaurant

Albuquerque, NM
The Frontier Restaurant
Mario’s Pizza

Image via Food & Water Watch

Via (including image):  Interesting World

The American Public Transportation Authority reports 35% more travelers will use public transportation this summer. They provide this list of the country’s top ten summer city destinations and their expected use of public transportation:

New York City (53 percent - up 5 percent)
Washington, DC (47 percent - up 1 percent)
Boston (48 percent - up 5 percent)
San Francisco (40 percent – remained constant)
Philadelphia (38 percent - up 4 percent)
Chicago (35 percent - up 4 percent)
Seattle (32 percent – up 2 percent)
Las Vegas (30 percent – up 4 percent)
Los Angeles (31 percent – up 5 percent)
Atlanta (25 percent – up 3 percent)

Needless to say in a country where each household owns an average of 2.28 vehicles, this surge in use of public transportation is coming with growing pains. The increase in gas prices is effecting public transportation providers, which will be reflected in the expected increase in fares. Many companies are finding it necessary to increase their fleets and routes. The cost of expanding their operations coupled with the high fuel prices are a concern. Some companies that provide public transportation are making cut backs while others are pressing forward. Overall, it seems those involved in the public transit industry are looking at this increased need for their services as positive.

One of the benefits of living in a free capitalist society is the ability to choose where we spend our money. As Americans we know, money talks! Bus, train, subway or bike….as a society we are joining together and saying no to the rising cost of fuel. There is excitement in the air (and less CO2) as we join together this summer either by choice or forced compliance. I welcome the change!

Other related posts: Public Transit is for Lovers; Why I Sold My Car, or How I Learned to Stop Driving and Love the Bus

Photo Credit: http2007 via Flickr, Creative Commons License

Well, this question can better be answered when you consider that charity knows no copyright, especially when it involves a fashion icon like Louis Vuitton and one of the French fashion house’s creations.

For 26 year old Danish art student, Nadia Plesner, being slapped with a copyright infringement lawsuit demanding “$7,500 for each day she keeps selling the product, $7,500 for each day she displays Louis Vuitton’s cease-and-desist letter and $ 7,500 for each day she mentions the name ‘Louis Vuitton’ on her website” has never overridden a good cause and she is as defiant as ever.

Those sums and more - legal costs for the suit and another $15,000 for related “other expenses”. But what would Louis Vuitton do with the money if their lawsuit succeeds? Of two guesses, only one can suffice; either to fund further research for a hyped luxury product or give away to victims of the war in Darfur.

To raise funds (she has raised more than US$ 30,000 so far) for the charity, Divest for Darfur, Nadia created a motif on a t-shirt with an image of an emaciated Darfurian clutching a bag and her chihuahua. She intended to portray that the Western media was too pre-occupied with celebrity trivia while events of more concern were happening elsewhere in the world.

According to suit papers and a letter sent to the young artist, Louis Vuitton claims the bag in the motif resembles one of their creations: “Although we applaud your efforts to raise awareness and funds to help Darfur, a most worthy cause, we cannot help noticing that the design of the Simple Living Products includes the reproduction of a bag infringing on Louis Vuitton’s Intellectual Property Rights, in particular the Louis Vuitton Monogram Multicolore Trademark to which it is confusingly similar. We are surprised of such a promotion of a counterfeit bag”.

Why a motif on an emaciated Darfurian clutching a designer bag? Nadia explained: “My Simple Living illustration is an idea inspired by the media’s constant cover of completely meaningless things. My thought was, since doing nothing but wearing designer bags and small ugly dogs apparently is enough to get you on a magazine cover, maybe it is worth a try for people who actually deserve and need attention.”

She says on her website: I stand up for my artistic freedom to express my view of the world as I see it without restrictions from anybody. I (have) informed Louis Vuitton’s Intellectual Property Director that I intend to continue my campaign to support the victims of Darfur.”

But the artistic directors at Louis Vuitton are not seeing charity or ethics in Nadia’s creation, or any infatuation with celebrities like Paris Hilton or Pamela Anderson clutching one of their products with a dog in tow.

One simple rule for doing good that must never be forgotten - forget the hype, fashion and charity sometimes do clash, know where the demarcation begins.

Image courtesy: Nadia Plesner

This year was no different, as protesters with HAZ-MAT suits and paper brooms labeled “Clean Up Chevron” greeted shareholders at the company’s front gate Wednesday morning. Inside the meeting, speakers from as far away as Africa told shareholders that Chevron has contaminated part of the Ecuadoran rain forest, subsidized the military regime in Burma and paid Nigerian soldiers who shot and killed protesters at a Chevron oil platform.

According to an article in Thursday’s San Francisco Chronicle, Chevron’s top executives rarely comment on these controversies, relying instead on lawyers and public relations specialists to present the company’s views. But Wednesday’s meeting was different, as there were several coarse exchanges between the activists and Chevron executives.

Speakers addressed a lawsuit in Ecuador that accuses Texaco of contaminating an oil-rich swath of the Amazon rain forest near the town of Lago Agrio. Texaco pumped oil there from 1964 until 1992, before turning over the operation to Ecuador’s state-run oil company, Petroecuador. Chevron bought Texaco in 2001.

Questions of the environment and human rights dominated much of the meeting. Shareholder resolutions up for a vote asked Chevron to put together a human rights policy, set targets for cutting greenhouse gases and investigate the environmental hazards of developing Canada’s oil sands. All were voted down by shareholders. They also rejected a proposal to split the jobs of chief executive officer and chairman of the board. A similar vote was put to the shareholders of ExxonMobil, 40% of whom voted to separate the CEO position from the Chairman position - a number that remained virtually unchanged from a similar proposal voted on last year. Chevron, on the other hand, saw the number of shareholders who wanted to split the two positions drop to about 15% from 40% in 2007.

The voting results from the human rights and environmental propositions at Chevron’s 2008 annual meeting are as follows:

Item 4: Approximately 14 percent of the votes cast were voted for the stockholder proposal to separate the CEO and chairman of the board positions.

Item 5: Approximately 24 percent of the votes cast were voted for the stockholder proposal to adopt a human rights policy and issue a report to the stockholders by October 2008 on the plan for implementing the policy.

Item 6: Approximately 25 percent of the votes cast were voted for the stockholder proposal to report on the environmental impact of expanding oil sands operations in the Canadian boreal forest.

Item 7: Approximately 9 percent of the votes cast were voted for the stockholder proposal to adopt quantitative goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and issue a report to stockholders by Sept. 30, 2008, on the company’s plans to implement the goals.

Item 8: Approximately 8 percent of the votes cast were voted for the stockholder proposal regarding the adoption of guidelines for investing in or withdrawing from individual countries and reporting of these guidelines to the stockholders and employees by October 2008.

Item 9: Approximately 7 percent of the votes cast were voted for the stockholder proposal to report on the policies and procedures that guide the company’s assessment of the adequacy of host country laws to protect human health, the environment and the company’s reputation.

San Francisco Chronicle

Related posts:

• “Liveblogging: Energy’s Future is in Technology”
• “Should Oil Executives be Blamed for Current Gas Taxes”
• “Clinton Gas-Tax Plan Doesn’t Require Economists, Just Good Implementation?”
  

Photo Credits:

• 32mhz via flickr under a Creative Commons License

Tim Hurst: What is the Better World Foundation and how did you get involved with the organization?

Mark Leon Goldberg: I should say at the outset that I am not a spokesperson for the Better World Campaign (BWC). I am a consultant to the BWC, which is a sister organization to the United Nations Foundation. But a good description of UNF can be found here. And BWC here.

I am well qualified to speak about how I got involved with them. From 2004 to 2006 I was a writer for the American Prospect magazine, a political monthly here in DC. At the prospect, I wrote about international affairs, specifically the United Nations and other institutions like the International Criminal Court. I’ve been fascinated with these subjects and have followed these issues closely for a long time. As my stint at the prospect was coming to a close, the United Nations Foundation contacted me and asked if I would help them write UN Dispatch, their new blog about the United Nations and international affairs. I readily accepted.

TH: Perhaps you could explain more about what your mission is at On Day One and the UN Dispatch blog. Who is your target audience?

The target audiences of UN Dispatch and On Day One are slightly different, though there is probably much overlap. UN Dispatch was started to fill what was a void in commentary about the United Nations. In general, when blogs mentioned the UN, the commentary tended to be fairly misinformed. UN Dispatch was founded to try and correct some of the misinformation out there about the UN. Our audience tends to be drawn from the advocacy, think tank, international organization and philanthropic communities.

We are very much part of the on-going foreign policy debate that is forever raging in the political blogosphere. We tend to be slightly wonky, but strive to be accessible to a wider audience. We also aggregate global news in a daily round-up we call “Morning Coffee.”

On Day One is slightly different. For a good description of On Day One’s history, goals and audience I will turn this over to On Day One’s leader, Travis Moore of the Better World Campaign.

Travis Moore: At a staff meeting in about June of 2007, our boss, David, announced that he had an idea for a website that would be all about generating a discussion about how best the U.S. can improve its image and work better with the world. He thought, quite prophetically, that we should call it “On Day One,” because the premise of the site would be about ideas that people could submit, vote on and discuss for Day One of the presidents term. So whether that would be closing Guantanamo, upping our Defense budget, shifting troops from Iraq to Afghanistan or submitting Kyoto for ratification, these would be the things that someone—anyone and everyone, thought the next president should do from the get-go of their term.

After we had the concept nailed down, we spent a bit of time designing the site and conceiving of a strategy, allocating resources in-house, and then launched it a year out from Inauguration Day 2009.

In four months we’ve had a great response, with over 1300 ideas, 14,000 votes and 900 ideas. The ideas have come from across the map and political spectrum, from Tibet protesters to Grover Norquist, Ginger Spice to Mohammed Yunus, to the wonky think tank types that you can only find in a city like DC. In the meantime, both Mark and another one of our writers, John, have been keeping their ears to the ground about the all the foreign policy ideas floating and have put together a stellar blog within the frame of “ideas for the next president.” And we feel like we’ve got something pretty special here—I’ve not seen any other site that allows users to interact and engage with each other over the international issues of the day—and we’re looking for as many people to get involved as possible.

TH: For those not as conversant in the language of “agenda setting,” perhaps you could explain a little more about what it is and how you hope to shape the discussion? How do you hope to use the blog project to help communicate your preferences to the next president?

TM: As we get closer to the election, the goal is to really start to get people thinking about what really are the most important items—from each of our 9 “buckets of issues”—that our 44th President should tackle right away. We’ll push people to vote and discuss what they think these issues might be, and then we’ll present the next president with our list, as voted on by the public, of the “top nine for ‘09,” with the hopes that he or she will take them into consideration at the start of their term.”

TH: In all of my graduate work in political science, I don’t ever reading about the role of blogs in shaping the political agenda for the country - this is a completely new phenomenon. Perhaps you could comment on the growing role of social media in politics.

MLG: I think it’s undeniable that blogs, or social networking applications like facebook, myspace or stumble upon are becoming important parts of the conversation here in DC and around the country. Blogs have been responsible for uncovering and advancing some major news stories. One of the original political blogs, Talking Points Memo, even won a prestigious Polk Award this year for their coverage of the attorney firing scandals. The editors at TPM were at the receiving end of a White House document dump, turned the documents over to their readers, and came out with some devastating information about how a number of US Attorneys were fired for their supposed disloyalty to the Bush administration.

Social networking sites like facebook, twitter, stumbleupon can also been co-opted to serve political and journalistic ends. News stories have broken through twitter and facebook, in what blogger Steve Clemons describes as facebook reporting. I also seem to recall reading about how an anti-FARC, human rights rally in Bogota was organized through facebook.

In general, the real power of social networking sites stems from the fact that they make it much, much easier for people with similar interests to find each other, and if so inclined, take collective action.

TH: Personally, I like one of your readers’ suggestions of installing a vegetable garden at the White House. Of all the submissions to On Day One thus far, do you have a personal favorite?

MLG: I try not to endorse any specific ideas, but what was so in interesting about that particular idea is that it let us at On Day One tap into a large network known as the “Kitchen Gardeners International” which is a group of environmentally conscious foodies that promote the use of local and homegrown food. The idea you reference was even picked up by the New York Times, which ran a feature about the movement and its founder Roger Doiron. Kitchen Gardeners turns out to be a very active, and politically engaged community–precisely the kind of people we are trying to engage through On Day One

TH: As I mentioned before, I think this is a really neat project, and wish you all the best with it. Thanks to both you and Travis for all of your thoughtful answers.

MLG: Thank you, Tim. And I should say I am a fan of Red, Green and Blue and your other sites. The kinds of issues you discuss are precisely the issues we hope On Day One will help propel into the national debate as we enter the depths of this campaign season.

Those were the days when morals as they were then known were riding high and there was not much of the politically-correct language pretense we see in the world today. The H-word is gone, now there is same-sex relationships; the N-word is gone too, now there are proud African-Americans forever patriotic to the beloved country - which is a good thing for all humanity.

In 2004, David Cobb, the Green Party presidential candidate for that year’s election said this in reaction to an earlier decision by the California Supreme Court to void same-sex marriage licenses issued by Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco:

“The right to marry is an equal rights issue. Courts have historically been wrong and socially behind the times and the California Supreme Court is no exception. The Dred Scott decision said a black man was property and had no rights that a white man was bound to respect. In Plessy v. Ferguson, the Court upheld Jim Crow segregation laws. The Supreme Court also upheld state laws preventing women from voting until the Nineteenth Amendment was passed, superceding all those prohibitive state laws. Like these earlier decisions, the decision of the California Supreme Court is an affront to human rights and human dignity and will not stand the test of time.”

More than 150 years since the landmark slavery ruling, Californian gays were this month elated with a court win on their “civil right” to marry whomever they want, boy or girl, following in the footsteps of Massachusetts. Even Governor David Patterson (a black man) of New York has reportedly issued a memo ordering state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states and countries where they are legal.

The Green Party affirms the rights of all individuals to freely choose intimate partners, regardless of their sex, gender, or sexual orientation.

That said, is it time to really green same-sex weddings as the next big thing in the sunny state and in Massachusetts? Will we be seeing green same-sex weddings in the entire United States when the time comes? Or green Gay Pride Parades on the streets of the land of opportunity? Will this concept be the next big export of America to the world?

Image credit: kcjc009 at Flickr under Creative Commons

Join Chic for a Cause : Stop the Spray ~ Our Body, Our Decision   

What? A fashion fundraiser to grow awareness about opposing the harmful effects of the aerial spraying of pesticides. When? May 30, 2008 Where? Muse Studios, 224 6th St. San Francisco, CA 94103 Time? 6-9 pm Admission? $10 Why? To stop the “Light Brown Apple Moth program” which is really a toxin dump on California! 

Last fall a pesticide was dumped on Californians that included ingredients that are carcinogens, mutagens as well as other toxic chemicals in microcapsules that reach deep lung tissue. Soon after spraying in 2007, 600 plus reports of illness were recorded such as respiratory distress, nausea and vomiting, as well as serious skin irritations. Now the spray is back and we need to take a stand! Sign the petition, participate in events if possible, and please help educate others.Monthly for up to 5 Years beginning Summer 2008, there is the threat of pheromone-based pesticides in microscopic plastic capsules that are scheduled to be sprayed from low-flying aircraft over our communities. Brought on by the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) under mandate by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) which classifies LBAM as one of the quarantinable pests that must be eradicated.

This toxic shower of chemicals places children, the elderly, pregnant women, the very ill, outdoor workers, animals, and our native wildlife, bikers and many more at a high risk.“Other ingredients are toxic to aquatic species. Surfactants in the spray might have contributed to red tide and deaths of hundreds of waterfowl.”
 

Not effective: Experts say the moth is impossible to eradicate and best controlled by natural predators that are plentiful in California: birds, spiders, wasps, flies, beetles, lacewings, and earwigs.Not necessary: Twice confirmed in court: the moth has zero impact on CA agriculture or ecosystems. LBAM is a paper pest. Trade issues, not crop damage, are causing quarantines that lead to economic losses for farmers.Not right: Millions of people are being exposed to pesticides against their will. The petition on StopTHeSpray.ORG is calling for informed consent as a condition for pesticide spraying. We must honor the need for “due respect to the preciousness of human life and the right of individuals to determine what is done to their own bodies.” Calif. Health and Safety Code S. 24,171.   

To get involved please visit StoptheSpray.org  Image Credit 

He has also noticed that the weather is a little changed lately and harvesting is now delayed by a couple of months or so. Although he knows this can be attributed to climate change, he does not wholly understand why that is so.

Small holder farmers in Africa are already experiencing the impact of climate change. Weather patterns are changing, extreme weather events becoming more common, and ancient calendars for planting, weeding and harvesting are no longer valid. The threat of food shortages, crop failures, and growing deserts are real and immediate.

While African farmers are adapting and developing some coping strategies on their own, they need new information about farming methods that minimize the negative impact of climate change. A major challenge is providing such information to large numbers of people at low cost.

Radio broadcasts can help address this challenge because they are spoken-word, often in local languages, building on Africa’s oral culture and therefore not constrained by illiteracy. The technology for broadcasting and receiving broadcasts are widely available and affordable. Information can be delivered to farmers’ homes at a cost of pennies per program.

A Canadian charity is leading two new initiatives that help African radio stations to reach farmers with important information about adapting to climate change. Farm Radio International supports broadcasters in meeting the needs of local small-scale farmers and their families in rural communities, and helps broadcasters build the skills to develop content that responds to local needs.

These initiatives facilitate an exchange of information that is aimed at increasing food supplies and improving nutrition and health in a simple, safe and practical manner. Farmers are taught ecologically sound and environmentally sustainable farming methods to improve on their crops which require little or no technical help to implement. What’s more, the initiatives ensure gender sensitivity to meet the needs of both women and men.

“These exciting new initiatives will directly reach the small-scale farmers who will be most effected by climate change. These farmers are on the front lines of climate change, experiencing the effects right now, and radio can reach them where they live with the information they need”, says Kevin Perkins, Executive Director of FRI.

300 radio broadcasters in 39 African countries are involved with FRI to fight poverty and food insecurity. FRI researches and produces radio scripts on rural development issues and distributes them to the broadcasters who interpret and use the scripts to provide their listeners with practical information about farming, land management, health and other issues.

FRI has now launched African Farm Radio Research Initiative (AFRRI), a 42-month action research project in Ghana, Mali, Malawi, Uganda, and Tanzania. A collaboration between FRI and World University Service of Canada and funded by a US$4 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, AFRRI will gather, implement, evaluate, and share best practices for using radio-based communication strategies to enhance food security in rural Africa.

The project hopes to provide answers to questions like:
* How do African farmers use the information they hear on the radio? What information is most useful?
* What format is best able to engage and empower farmers?
* How can radio stations make use of cheap and accessible mobile phones, MP3 players, and other communication technologies to extend their reach and improve interaction with listeners?

Image Credit: Farm Radio International

Call it green spin or not but apart from giving all the applauds to the geeks at Google Earth, he said this about the new tool designed to let users view satellite imagery, maps, terrain, and 3D buildings, or take a journey across the globe:

“I think this will be a huge tool for making everybody aware of the huge climate changes of our time.” Well expressed for now, at least. I can imagine the hushed silence before the clapping in that room that day.

“Climate Change In Our World”, or so the tool is called, is where you get to see and hear the stories of people, living in some of the world’s poorest countries, who are already being affected by changing weather patterns.

In Nepal, you can watch glaciers melt, first hand or see how people in that mountaneous country are surviving mud and landslides. In Myanmar, where Google has been banned, you can still view the devastation by Cyclone Nargis.

In Bangladesh, you will see how people are living on river islands and even the devastation by Cyclone Sidr. In Mozambique, you will see how droughts, floods and higher temperatures bring more disease to city life, or how people are trapped by drought and debt in India, among others, in rare case studies of how people’s lives are already being affected by changing weather patterns.

Brown launched the tool on 19 May at the Google Zeitgeist conference in London, a product of a collaboration between Google, the UK Government, the Met Office Hadley Centre and the British Antarctic Survey.

The new tool is a layer that shows climate change and its effects in various regions of the world now, and even track probable changes in the next 100 years or so. It follows a similar project launched by Greenpeace recently.

It has capability to show global temperatures throughout the next 100 years under medium projections of greenhouse-gas emissions, along with reports of how people in the UK and in some of the world’s poorest countries are already being affected by changing weather patterns.

One animation uses leading climate science from the UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre to show world temperatures throughout the next hundred years under medium projections of greenhouse gas emissions. It also shows stor