Green Options

Like this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and stay up to date.

Tries to woo Western Dems by touting climate change as key

It might be argued, that the only way for John McCain to win in November’s general election would be by setting himself apart from President Bush enough to attract support from the middle - and one way he is doing that is by emphasizing his stance on environmental issues. Last week, the Straight Talk Express began a PR campaign aimed at courting independent-minded environmentalists, especially in the swing states.

In remarks he prepared to give at a wind technology firm in Portland, Oregon, on Monday, the Arizona senator said he would seek international accords to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and would offer an incentive system to make businesses in the United States cleaner. McCain said:

“We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great. The most relevant question now is whether our own government is equal to the challenge.”

The presumptive Republican presidential candidate is using his stance on energy and the environment to draw distinctions between himself and President Bush, whose approval rating has sunk to a near-record low of 28% (Pew, Gallup, USA Today).

Or, more evidence for the skeptics. Thanks, as always, to Brad and Peter. Check out more of their work at The Green House.

There’s nothing quite as nice as a really catchy title that perfectly sums up your story. If you want to leave it at that, then you’ve probably got the whole of the story. However if you want to know just a bit more about how climate change is affecting our planet’s poles, then keep reading.

Speaking in a telephone briefing last Friday, Jennifer Francis, an atmospheric scientist at Rutgers University in New Jersey, said that the Arctic and Antarctic are exhibiting opposite effects to the climate change affecting our planet.

Your house may not be your biggest contributer to globalwarming. Credit: Jim Gunshinan.

My focus in this blog had been on green homes, but there are other areas of our lives that account for our total carbon footprint–how much carbon we are responsible for adding to the atmosphere–a measure of our contribution to global warming. Our houses and apartments, but also our cars, air travel, and the food we eat all contribute.

Don Fugler, who does research for the

[…]

[kml_flashembed movie="http://youtube.com/v/ViK1sFO7SPI" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

While we’re on the subject: good Stumbleupon friend HarleyJane18 sent this to me last week. Houston Chronicle cartoonist Nick Anderson does some great 3D animation videos with song parodies… this one is based on Stevie Wonder’s “Higher Ground” (specifically the Red Hot Chili Peppers cover of it).

See also:

Ecoscraps: Shades of Green — The Four Horsemen

sustainablog: Shades of Green and The Green House: by Brad Gilchrist and Peter Menice (interview)

Every now and then one side of an argument or another will get a landfall win that just puts them over the top for awhile. In science, it doesn’t necessarily always hold, but just occasionally, this win does manage to help in the long run.

Well, for those of us who see man-made global warming as the backbone of our current climate change, that win has just been put in our laps.

A blog I had yet to hear about, DeSmogBlog, has managed to find at least 45 “outraged scientists” that once belonged to the famed Heartland Institute article entitled “500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares” that, in reality, don’t doubt anything.

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/QO5osis7UNI" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

Musicians keep cranking out the eco-songs… and that’s a great way to bring the green message to a broader audience. Wirehead’s “Losing Ground” is a call to action that’s a little bit 80s pop-rock (they list Toto as an influence), a little bit jazz-rock fusion (think Steely Dan), and a whole lot of of environmental awareness. Thanks to Wirehead drummer Clive Edwards for sharing this…

May 1: May Day.

For the average American working for a paycheck, May Day — a pagan spring ritual where you dance around a Maypole — marks yet another, less festive occasion.

From the first of January until around the first of May, all the money many of us will earn goes to pay our share of income tax to the US government.

Kiss those months — that money — goodbye (the present tax stimulus package is really just a refund).

We followed the advice of our parents, as most children do: get a good education, go to college and get a job — a nice, secure, well-paying one, with great fringe benefits, stock options or profit-sharing. But the bimonthly paychecks — after the government gets its share for income, Social Security and Medicare taxes — aren’t enough to keep up with the bills. Even with raises and promotions, many of us feel that we keep getting further in the hole, since the more we earn in earned income, the more it’s taxed. The reality is that the system is largely devised this way, not to tax the very rich but to exact a fee on the middle class and poor to keep these wage earners on the treadmaster of a job — or “promising career.”

Written by Dr. Bill Chameides, dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment and lead author of the forthcoming blog The Green Grok.
This post is Part 1 of a 2-part series on biofuels. Today’s post looks at corn; Part 2 will examine the most promising biofuels.

Who doesn’t want to be green? But beware of automobile ads claiming environmental benefits from home-grown ethanol. Almost all U.S. ethanol comes from corn and, as a fuel, corn just isn’t as “amaizing” as they say.

“What if we could live green by going yellow?” one TV spot asks. “What if we could lower greenhouse gas emissions,” it continues, promisingly, “with a fuel that grew back every year?” Sounds great doesn’t it? Sorry folks, it’s just not so.

Today’s topic is inspired by Solar Today magazine. “Scrubbing Carbon from the Breeze” was written by Rona Fried, Ph.D., president of SustainableBusiness.com in the May/June 2008 issue. Unfortunately this particular article is not available online.

As climate change become a more central issue for people and governments around the globe, a lot of people are looking for solutions - fast solutions. If there were a quick and inexpensive way to dramatically reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, we should go for it right? Well a number of “quick fix” solutions, which have centered around hacking the environment to fight climate change, have been floating around for years. One strategy is to capture the CO2 with plankton and bury it in the ocean (which is much easier and cheaper than pumping it into the ground). Another is to change the composition of our atmosphere to reflect sunlight. Others tend to be more sci-fi and outlandish - but all of them might just turn out to be disastrous.

“When you look in detail at the science behind the recent Arctic changes it becomes painfully clear how our understanding of climate impacts lags behind the changes that we are already seeing in the Arctic,” warned Martin Sommerkorn, one of the authors of a new report from conservation group the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).

This report adds weight to a growing number of reports and findings that are pointing to 2008’s summer as a turning point for the Arctic region; one where there could be no sea-ice at all.