Green Options &#187; environmental movement

2001

(via redskinfan.de )

2002

2003

2004

(via U.S. Army)

2005

(via AboutUtila)

2006

(via vjfashton.com)

2007

(via Metro Transit)

2008

(via Ecoworldly)

2009

(image via studio KIND)

Carl Pope to Step Down as Sierra Club Chief

Timothy B. Hurst — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:58:47 +0000

Carl Pope, the longest-serving Executive Director in the Sierra Club’s storied history, announced today that he will step down from his leadership position, effective as soon as the Board of Directors finds a replacement. Mr. Pope has been the head of the organization since 1992 and has been with the Club for over 30 years.

After a replacement is named sometime in the next few weeks, Pope will transition to Chairman of the Sierra Club, focused on climate change.

From Fuming to Praising: Twitter and the Green Reaction to Obama’s Selection of Salazar as Interior Secretary

Timothy B. Hurst — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 23:11:28 +0000

On Tuesday afternoon, as I was working on another piece about president-elect Barack Obama tapping Colorado Senator Ken Salazar for Interior Secretary—this time about how Salazar’s appointment to Interior won’t leave his successor much time to win over Colorado voters—I heard Jeff Brady report on National Public Radio that environmentalists were fuming over the Salazar appointment.

“Fuming?” I thought to myself, “maybe that’s a bit of a mischaracterization.” So, as I will often do, I decided to share my thoughts with the Twitterverse and sent out the following message on Twitter:

In Brady’s report (and in his defense) he cited an action last week, when more than 150 environmental groups signed a letter to Obama backing Arizona Congressman Raul Grijalva. But I still thought the instant assumption that “most environmentalists are fuming” was hasty. And then I got the following response from @HuffingtonPost/@COindependent:

Protests Turn Violent in Germany as Train Loaded with Nuclear Waste Rolls Through Countryside [Updated w/ Video]

Timothy B. Hurst — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 05:17:21 +0000

Thousands of anti-nuclear campaigners have assembled along a train route in Germany to protest the annual convoy carrying tons of nuclear waste from France to a storage facility in northeastern Germany.

In what is becoming an annual ritual of civil resistance and direct action in Germany, more than 15,000 anti-nuclear protesters turned out along the route to Gorleben on Sunday—twice the number at a similar protest at the site two years ago—in the largest and most violent anti-nuclear protest in Germany since 2001.

Greenpeace Launches Coalfinger Campaign with Kitchy New Cartoon

Timothy B. Hurst — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:42:19 +0000

Spoofing on the James Bond 007 brand of spy thrillers, Greenpeace has just launched a new campaign called “Coalfinger,” aimed at stopping the construction of any new coal-fired power plants.

According to the saga, Coalfinger plans to cover the world in coal-fired power stations and destroy the climate, but the hero, Graverson Green is set upon stopping the super-villain with the help of his assistant Katrina Hurkane. Watch it:

This post contains additional media. Click here to view the full post.

“Although this is an animation, it greatly relates to the world we live in today. The use of coal for energy is having an incredibly negative effect on the climate, and like Coalfinger, many energy companies around the world are forging ahead with plans for new coal-fired power stations despite the evidence of their impact. Green, on the other hand, reminds us that we must work together to stop dirty coal plants and fight for clean and renewable energy.

2001

(via redskinfan.de )

2002

2003

2004

(via U.S. Army)

2005

(via AboutUtila)

2006

(via vjfashton.com)

2007

(via Metro Transit)

2008

(via Ecoworldly)

2009

(image via studio KIND)

Seeing the Forest for the Trees: Evolution and Evaluation in Green Living and the Green Movement

Zachary Shahan — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 10:40:11 +0000

If you are reading this blog, it is likely that you consider yourself “green,” or, at least, you are trying to do your part to be more environmentally minded, environmentally sensitive and environmentally responsible. Whether you are aware of it or not, you are a part of the green movement. And each part makes the green movement what it is — the entity it is — (on the global scale, the national scale, the regional scale, the local scale, and the personal scale).

Throughout the course of our life and our efforts, we have to step back and look at how effective we are at achieving our goals, how far our good intentions are actually taking us, how “green” our lifestyles are. We have to look at how much our green actions are doing to really protect and conserve the environment. At the same time, if we are trying to be a part of this green movement (which is growing in name, in respect, and, to some degree, in overall influence), we have to step back and evaluate the trajectory of the green movement, how effective the overall movement is in making our dreams of a safe, secure, sustainable, lively, and vibrant environment a true reality.

To be honest, I have been involved in the green movement since childhood and am fairly “extreme,” sincere, or devoted in my efforts to be green and to do my part. Nonetheless, I just moved to Poland from the U.S. and I have found that I have habits and ways of thinking that are greatly less sustainable, less environmentally sensitive, than the normal, average Pole who does not have any special care or concern for the environment and may just have the vaguest sense of what the “green movement” or “green living” is.

Why the great disparity in our actions and ways of life, despite the fact that I am the “green”?

ROTHBURY Festival Draws Big Names in Music and the Environmental Movement

Timothy B. Hurst — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 01:42:49 +0000

Why would some of the nation’s top environmental leaders, activists, and academics be sharing the same stage with some of the most influential and well-known people in music? And why did a sizable portion of the audience consist of unshowered, sleep-deprived, politically active 20 and 30-somethings? In a word, ROTHBURY.

The ROTHBURY Music Festival held at the idyllic Double JJ Ranch near the eastern shore of Lake Michigan attracted about 40,000 music lovers from all 50 U.S. states and 15 countries. And while the four-day festival attracted musical acts as diverse as Widespread Panic, Trey Anastasio, Snoop Dogg, Modest Mouse, and Primus, politically-engaged attendees were also invited to participate in a dozen “think tank” events with the theme: “Finding Energy Independence.”

To curate ROTHBURY’S series of think tank events, Festival organizers brought in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change climate scientist and Stanford University professor, Dr. Stephen Schneider. Schneider helped kick-off the Think Tank series of events with a live taping of the national radio show E-Town. Joining Schneider was former Green Party Vice-Presidential candidate Winona LaDuke. The pair discussed how we might move forward with political solutions to climate change and they both put particular emphasis on the tremendous importance of the upcoming 2008 election.

“This is the fusion of information and emotion,” Schneider said of the dual roles of speakers and musicians. “The message will spread way beyond ROTHBURY.”

Think Tank events were scattered throughout the four-day festival and to keep things fresh, they were also scattered throughout the Double JJ Ranch, to give the events as broad exposure as possible.

With panel discussion names like: “The Path to Energy Independence and a New American Revolution;” “How America’s Youth are Driving the Energy Revolution;” How Do We Motivate the Masses to be Part of the Energy Revolution?” And “The Energy Revolution will not be Televised - Demanding Change from our Political Leaders and the Media,” this ecopolitical geek was in heaven. But catching all of the great panel discussions would have been a Herculean task for anyone, let alone a devoted music junkie like myself.

The ones that I did catch (besides the ones at the larger stages), were attended by a very thoughtful and interested cadre of folks, spanning the spectrum of environmentalism from committed enviros to the “green curious.” But what may have been the most special aspect of the Think Tanks themselves was seeing and hearing some real big names in music talk about what they do as individuals or as a band to lessen the environmental impact of their touring.

Speaking with particular candor about this very matter was one member of the band Sound Tribe Sector Nine who noted that they were more than a little aware of the ecological footprint of their touring the country with large coaches, tractor-trailers to haul the gear, and electricity-sucking light shows and sound systems. And even though they took steps to mitigate that impact (at one point the band used to claim carbon-neutral tours) the large footprint still tugged at him a little bit.

Festival organizers Madison House and AEG Live spoke openly about raising the bar for music other music festivals, both in terms of the actual sustainability of such a large undertaking, but also in terms of harnessing the energy from that large undertaking and focusing it on a larger social cause. And while they succeeded at raising that bar, I’m guessing they see room for improvement and will come back with an even more impressive festival experience next year and for years to come.

2001

(via redskinfan.de )

2002

2003

2004

(via U.S. Army)

2005

(via AboutUtila)

2006

(via vjfashton.com)

2007

(via Metro Transit)

2008

(via Ecoworldly)

2009

(image via studio KIND)

US Missing Opportunity to Recycle Vast Amounts of Energy
Its Time to Start Paying Attention to John McCain’s Ideas on Climate Change
75% of Greens OK with Nuclear Power
EIA Predicts 50% Increase in World Energy Consumption by 2030
What Do You Do About the Waste? Recycle and Reuse.

Reduce, Reuse and Recycle Should Apply to Used Nuclear Fuel

Rod Adams — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 09:25:38 +0000

Each year, US nuclear power plants prevent 700 million tons of CO2 from entering the atmosphere. In order to equal that achievement by reducing emissions from personal automobiles, the owners of 96% of the cars on the road today would have to agree to never drive again. Why then, are so many people in the “Environmental Movement” so firm in their opposition to nuclear power?

I used quotes and capital letters to emphasize a point - I recognize that there are individual people concerned about the environment who have a more open mind and are willing to accept the notion that nuclear power has a place at the table in any discussion about our reduced carbon energy future. The officially recognized groups and spokesmen for The Movement seem unimpressed and continue to firmly oppose nuclear development. The remaining arguments end up being cost, waste and nuclear weapons.

Cost is an issue for another day, but the arguments against nuclear power on the matter of waste and relationship to nuclear weapons rest on shaky ground that is beginning to give way. More and more people, including some in responsible leadership positions, are beginning to realize that the tired arguments originated in the 1970s no longer apply. They actually never did.

There are about 55,000 tons of used nuclear fuel resting quietly in cooling pools and dry storage containers on the sites where the fuel was initially used. That may sound like a large amount, but compared to the fact that a single 1000 MWe coal fired power plant can release 45,000 tons of waste to the atmosphere every single day, 55,000 tons of used material after 50 years of nuclear plant operation seems vanishingly small.

You may have noticed that I have carefully avoided calling that slightly used material “waste”. Unlike the gases, ash and soot released to our common atmosphere from coal, oil, gas and biomass fired power plants, the materials left over from nuclear fission reactors are sealed in corrosion resistant cladding and look a lot like they did when they first entered the reactor. Inside those tubes, the material is still mostly solid uranium dioxide - only about 4-5% of the initial material has been converted into other elements.

Essentially all of the remainders from nuclear plant operation could be recovered and reused; some of it would best be used as feedstock for future reactors, other parts should be segregated and used in other material applications for long life batteries, catalysts, and irradiation source materials.

Both of the remaining US presidential candidates seem to be open to the idea that used fuel should be recycled and reused. That is a welcome position since it looks like there will be a number of new reactors under construction soon and they will provide a ready market for the recycled fuel. There will need to be a bipartisan effort to establish rules that do not change with political winds, however, before private industry will invest in the system.

ALL of the used fuel has been carefully stored away in a form that is easy to control and easy to keep segregated. It does not take up much space, does not cost much to watch (compared to the heat value that it provided), and it has never hurt anyone because the people that watch it understand the simple concepts of time, distance and shielding.

As a life time procrastinator, I am actually encouraged by the fact that while we continue to debate and pontificate about the pros and cons of long term disposal, the natural process of radioactive decay continues to make the fuel easier and easier to handle. That process can reduce the cost of recycling, when we finally get around to it.

Perhaps those of us who are advocates of the increased use of nuclear energy as a clean, emissions free source of reliable, low cost power should thank the people who have prevented the used fuel from being too hastily moved or recycled.

Not only do we have a growing volume of seasoned raw materials, but when we finally do get around to building facilities, we can do so using up to date methods and the lessons learned from the first generation facilities in other countries. The democratic process really does favor the patient.

2001

(via redskinfan.de )

2002

2003

2004

(via U.S. Army)

2005

(via AboutUtila)

2006

(via vjfashton.com)

2007

(via Metro Transit)

2008

(via Ecoworldly)

2009

(image via studio KIND)

75% of Greens OK with Nuclear Power [redux]

Timothy B. Hurst — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:15:35 +0000

[Update 11.9.2008: Over the last several days, thousands of environmental activists in Germany have blocked and delayed a train carrying nuclear waste from France into the country to be stored in an old salt mine. The story reminded me that there is still substantial opposition to nuclear power, despite the fact that it has been touted by many as an essential component of our energy mix because nuclear power generates little in the way of greenhouse gas emissions. The story also reminded me of the following post. ]

This past spring we conducted a reader poll that concluded with some rather unexpected results. Nearly 75 percent of the respondents believe that nuclear power is good because it is a source of “abundant carbon free energy.” Granted, this simple reader’s poll with an admittedly minute n of 133 is not a statistical representation of the public attitude of any particular group of people. But attitudes towards nuclear power have undergone a palpable shift amongst self-identified environmentalists in recent years. The change is especially striking considering that the anti-nuclear cause had been one of the core issues for the environmental movement for almost four decades.

Celebrating Africa’s Ugly on Earth Day

Sam Aola Ooko — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:45:30 +0000

Arguably, April 22, 2008 will pass as a non-event in Africa, because celebrating Earth Day on this day will be a celebration of the ecological disasters and sustainability failures of a continent believed to be the cradle of mankind.

As a dual citizen of both the Earth and Mother Africa, I am inclined to think that 2008 AD should have heralded a better world for every single human being. But, sadly, that is not so. Earth Day 2008 will be a celebration of the ugly in Africa.

For we cannot justify the fact that majority of the world’s poor are Africans, surviving on less that US$ 1 a day, living in gigantic slum neighborhoods awash with tons and tons of filth, without adequate clean water, and without access to basic health care. A great irony for a continent so richly endowed with natural resources.

Week in Review: How the World Views Environmentalists

Gavin Hudson — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 00:01:49 +0000

Dear Readers,

Our goal this week was to help , bring you eye to eye with people of many nationalities to explore what environmental issues motivate each of us to care and inspire us to take action.

In case you missed it or are coming back for more, here’s our week in review:

Sam Aola Ooko offered a Kenyan perspective from the streets of Nairobi.

Pem Charnley reflected on the rise of the Industrial Revolution in the UK and its implications for the world and environment.

Mark Seall went to the Swiss Alps, wondering why the idea of personal responsibility for the environment is lacking, then to the streets of Switzerland for a taste of some real attitude.

17 Signs That You Might Be A Korean Environmentalist If…

Gavin Hudson — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 20:29:02 +0000

1. You care about wellbeing, but you still smoke. Give yourself 1 point.

Over 40% of Korean men smoke. And this is the good news. Before the recent wellbeing trend, the number was almost 60%. Smoking seems less common among Korean women.

2. When you eat cow you call it cow. Give yourself 1 point.

Koreans love meat and the don’t mince words when talking about it. You’re not eating “steak” and “prosciutto;” you’re eating “cow” and “pig.” Especially popular are variations on galbi, which ranges from Korean BBQ to stir-fried meat and hot peppers. There are, however, a modicum of vegetarian and even vegan restaurants in Korea.

3. You ride the bus and the train, but you still love Hyundai. Give yourself 2 points.

This Week: How Does the World View Environmentalists?

Gavin Hudson — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 00:00:43 +0000

Dear Readers,

In the first week of February, we explored and compared methods of public transportation around the world.

This week, from February 18-24, we’d like to introduce a topic that’s a little more personal. How do people in different nations view the environment and environmentalists?

To help answer this question, our correspondents around the world will shed light on four areas:

traditional cultural views: how different cultures see nature and the environment
attitudes on the street: what the average person has to say about environmentalists
levels of activism: how environmentally active people are in a particular country
motivation: what local environmental issues are making people talk

Hopefully, over the course of the week, we will have a better appreciation of the emerging environmental consciousness around the world.

We also hope to bring you, our reader, eye to eye with people of many nationalities to explore what environmental issues motivate each of us to care and inspire us to take action.

As always, please freely contribute your thoughts and observations as we explore attitudes toward the environment and environmentalists around the world.