Green Options

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

With each passing year a new score of problems arise out of Earth’s changing climate. Whether you blame it on man, natural cycles or the crazy neighbor next door, the effects are unmistakable and must be acted upon.

One of those effects that have fallen by the wayside is the massive political and sociological effect taking place in Africa. Sadly, issues of this import falling by the wayside in Africa are not a new phenomenon. Too often the individual lives of Africans are overlooked and ignored.

However a two-day Climate Change Summit, that took place earlier this week, and hosted by the City of Johannesburg in partnership with the SA Local Government Association, endeavored to seek out solutions to one of these problems; forced migration.

Rising prices at the pump, big jumps in home electricity bills, certain increases in global energy demand and, of course, the mounting global climate challenge, have people wondering if technology is the answer. Technophiliacs will argue until silicon wafers start spewing from their major orifices that technology is indeed the answer, and that all we need is more investment in R&D to help us find that silver bullet, or to borrow a term from Stanford economist Jim Sweeney, “silver birdshot.”However, while I do see technological advances as part of the solution, I am concerned that an over-reliance on technology will make us complacent about seriously addressing the politics of our major energy and environmental concerns.

Last week’s Newsweek/American Petroleum Institute panel at Stanford that I was invited to helped shed light on the very technology v. behavior problem I addressed above.** The panel moderator, Newsweek Senior Editor of Business and Technology, David Jefferson kicked off the event by admitting that, while he is certainly cognizant of the pressing environmental issues we are currently facing, he could be doing be more. He candidly admitted that he drives a Mustang convertible, that he has installed compact fluorescent lightbulbs in his outside lights, but not his indoor ones, and that he does not shy away from using his home’s thermostat, although he is also not afraid of throwing on a sweater if it is a little chilly.

Kennedy set the event off on an interesting note by taking an editorial position that struck me. Kennedy said something like, “it is not about changing consumer behavior,” and this is where Kennedy and I have a theoretical and philosophical divergence.

[Note: I included the photo above as evidence of the rapidly changing world of media. Five to ten years ago, who would have guessed that oil executives would ever sit down with green bloggers to talk about energy policy? Certainly, not me. Pictured left to right are Maria Surma Manka of Maria Energia, me (Tim Hurst) of Green Options & EcoPolitology, Paul Siegele of Chevron, and Brian Westenhous of New Energy and Fuel].

From the man who has sent an occupation force to another country with no feasible exit-strategy and thus its own budgetary concerns, comes this gem of a quote; “I urge the Congress to be very careful about running up enormous costs for future generations of Americans.” George W. Bush – as if you hadn’t guessed that already – continued by saying that “We’ll work with the Congress, but the idea of a huge spending bill fueled by tax increases isn’t the right way to proceed.”

This hypocritical posturing by a man, who is now less than a lame-duck president, comes in response to a bill that will be up for debate much of this week in the US Senate. The bill calls for legislation that will cut carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by approximately 70% by 2050, from power plants, refineries and transportation.

And though no one really expects the bill to look the same by the end of this week, compared to its introductory stage, both Democrats and Republicans are eager to debate the issue of climate change.

I’m a bit behind the curve in getting to Fred Krupp (the president of Environmental Defense Fund) and Miriam Horn’s new book Earth: The Sequel– my reading time ain’t what it used to be! While other green bloggers have beat me to the punch on this one, I still wanted to weigh in on this book, especially since the US Senate begins its debate of the Lieberman-Warner-Boxer Climate Stewardship Act today. While this timing was a matter of luck, as opposed to planning, Krupp and Horn’s book provides some valuable insight into the debate that will occur on the Senate floor this week… let’s hope a few of our esteemed representatives have read it.

At it’s core, Earth: The Sequel is an argument for cap-and-trade as a viable, market-based mechanism for addressing climate change. While long-time sustainablog readers are likely up on the concept of cap-and-trade, it’s worth a quick explanation. Krupp and Horn define the concept in the book’s first chapter:

The U.S. Congress must set a legal and steadily declining limit on global warming pollution. The allowances will be divvied up among emitters, or auctioned by the government to raise revenues — or some combination of the two. Polluters who emit more will need to pay for the extra pollution reduction achieved by others; those who can reduce global warming pollution further will profit by selling those reductions in an open market. We can, in short, use the power of the market system to climb out of the hole created by flawed markets.

One might worry that what follows such an introductory chapter might be a long, boring treatise on market-based economics and the environment; rather, the bulk of the book focuses on the companies (mostly start-ups) involved in innovative research and development of next-generation clean energy technologies. I’ll be discussing some of those stories in subsequent posts at CleanTechnica and Ecopreneurist. Today, I want to stay focused on this main argument: cap-and-trade is the mostly viable method of achieving significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Chevron’s annual stockholder meeting held at company headquarters in San Ramon, California, has become a magnet for criticism in recent years as environmental and human rights groups use it to voice their grievances with the company.

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.

State Joins North Dakota in Seeking Permission from Feds to Grow Hemp

The Hemp for Vermont Bill was allowed to become law by Governor Jim Hughes on May 29th, without his signature. The bill overwhelmingly passed both the House and Senate several months ago, setting the stage for Vermont’s entrance into the industrial hemp arena.The non-profit advocacy organization Vote Hemp made the announcement, saying the new law regulates growth of industrial hemp by Vermont farmers. The interest in Vermont is for using hemp in food products and bedding for some of the state’s 140,000 cows.

In the wake of yesterdays annual meetings at ExxonMobil and Chevron that saw shareholders vote down several [...]

A new project sponsored by the Better World Foundation called On Day One is designed to help you do just that. Recently, I was able to ask Mark Leon Goldberg and Travis Moore a few questions about this exciting new project, as well as the Better World Foundation’s UN-themed blog called UN Dispatch.

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.

As a barrel of oil hovers around $130, the news has been bombarding us with the obvious effects of high oil prices. As most people weep at the pump, some environmentalists are rejoicing. Gas consumption is down, but there are additional hidden costs to high gas prices that leave even green minded folks with a frown.

1-Difficult to Extract Oil & High Environmental Impact

High oil prices are making it economically viable to utilize oil that is difficult to extract. One example of this is just north of the border.

In the U.S., our single biggest source of foreign oil is from Canada. Although this may be reassuring from a foreign policy standpoint, much of this oil comes with a steep environmental price tag. Known as tar sands oil, 2 tons of sand are needed to produce one barrel of oil in a very resource and energy intensive process.

Pop Quiz: The following are statements made by each of the current presidential candidates–Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Barack Obama. Try to match the comment with the candidate. For answers, see the end of this posting.

1) “My friends, I am most proud of the change that I brought about in Iraq that saved Americans’ lives.”1

2) “Change is just a word without the strength and experience to make it happen. And I know some people think you have to choose between change and experience. Well with me, you don’t have to choose.”2

3) “…the ways of Washington must change. The genius of our founders is that they designed a system of government that can be changed. And we should take heart, because we’ve changed this country before. … This campaign has to be about reclaiming the meaning of citizenship, restoring our sense of common purpose, and realizing that few obstacles can withstand the power of millions of voices calling for change.”3

No matter how difficult this little quiz was for you, I hope my general point is fairly clear. It seems that nowadays, if someone has any aspiration for any political position, from commander-in-chief to bridge-club president, then that person must be seen as the “candidate for change.” (If somehow President Bush were allowed to run for a third term, would he too try to sell himself as the “candidate for change”?)

And it is not just politics. Even environmentalism and other areas of social activism are simply electrified with the energy of “change.”

Again and again, we see or hear Mahatma Gandhi’s monumental statement, “You must be the change you want to see in the world.” If he were alive today and we gave him a nickel for every time someone used this phrase, the poor man would have a terrible time maintaining his vow of poverty!

So we are told we must be the change by making changes in our lives; we are asked to take part in activities that are making change; we support organizations that are working for change; we get inspired and fired up by promises of real change soon to come; we hear about all the changes that have been and will be made by this, that, or another….

At this point, you will have to forgive me if I say that I am simply sick of change.

My colleague Jennifer Lance recently wrote that both of the major parties would be trying to “out-green” each other for this summer’s national conventions. Republicans and Democrats alike have made efforts to green (or appear to green) what is, for all intents and purposes, a very non-green affair. But Democrats want this August’s convention in Denver to serve as a blueprint for not only how to make a convention greener, but how to make the host city greener long after the convention has ended.

“We are hoping that everything we are doing for greening (the convention) has some legacy value,” said Parry Burnap, “greening” director for the host committee. The committee has launched plans for local river clean-ups, tree-planting and tree care events, and is sourcing its food from local and organic sources. Other programs aimed at leaving a legacy include (after the jump)…