“Belief” and faith are also not words that I apply to our inventions or creations. Some of them are good and beautiful and some that share many of the same basic building blocks are ugly or useful only for evil purposes. Our job as people who want to live on a clean planet and to share the joy in doing so is to think, evaluate and choose, not to “believe”. We should not accept other people’s lists of dogmas at face value; there are many people in the world who are not particularly upfront about their agendas when they suggest that we make certain important choice.

Whenever I hear someone tell me that I need to spend my money a certain way, I am immediately suspicious. In my 48 years on the planet, I have often found that those people have sales or marketing jobs and are looking for a way to “close a deal” even if they have to resort to scaring their potential customers.

Back to the nuke thing. I spent about 5 and a half years in an intensive environmental learning environment where I worked my way up to a position where I was the guy in charge of most of the systems that kept a crew of 150 people breathing clean air, drinking clean water, carefully compacting and disposing our trash, and moving about the world’s oceans without leaving any discernable traces. That time as an engineering officer on submarines taught me many things about cause and effect, about using real math to make difficult choices and about the fact that atomic fission is a beautiful natural phenomenon that produces massive amounts of controllable heat without releasing any noxious emissions.

My boat had an emergency diesel engine and a large storage battery, so I learned quite a bit about the limitations and disadvantages some of the competition. In another part of my life, I have been a real sailor who had to spend a lot of exhausting hours on the open ocean waiting for a gentle breeze so that I could make progress towards a destination so I learned first hand about the beauty and inescapable limitations of wind power.

What I hope to be able to do as a contributor to CleanTechnia is to engage in conversations with people that really want to make a measurable difference in the world’s environment and share what I have learned about some very powerful tools. I also want to share what I have learned about how to recognize the difference between a real solution to a problem and a sales pitch from someone who simply wants to find a “forcing function” that will help him to persuade me to part with my hard earned money.

Please participate in the conversation - I may sometimes come off as a know it all, but I honestly love to learn and enjoy being convinced to change my mind. I will warn you, however, that appeals to authorities who have earned their reputation though the use of shady computational skills will not be very convincing.

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).

McCain’s stance on climate change is out-of-step with many Republicans. Some of those Republicans, including President Bush, suggest governmental efforts to limit greenhouse-gas emissions, like those found in a ‘cap-and-trade,’ will cripple our economy; while other Republicans challenge the validity of global warming and climate change altogether.

As part of McCain’s PR push, his campaign just released a new television ad. I was surprised to find out that the ad’s tone is much more apocalyptic than I would have expected. And I was also struck by the claims in the ad that somehow McCain’s proposed cap and trade policy would somehow circumnavigate regulatory involvement, when that is not the case at all - McCain’s plan will just delay that regulatory involvement.[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/WuRHRRYHKIY" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

The next stop for McCain’s Straight Talk Express will be neighboring Washington. Oregon and Washington are among several potential battleground states in the West, including California, Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada, where voters count the environment as an important issue.

Other posts on the environment in the 2008 Presidential election:

• “Clinton Gas Tax Plan Doesn’t Need Economists, Only Good Implementation?“
• “Obama’s New Ad Rejects Gas Tax Holiday“

Wall St. Journal

Washington Post

Photo: NathanF

Among other things, the Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008 would roll back tax breaks for oil companies and invest the money in renewable energy development and energy efficiency technology. It also would create a windfall profit tax on oil companies failing to invest in increased capacity and renewable energy resources.

According to one of the bill’s co-sponsors, Sen. Bernie Sanders (Ind.-VT):

“The bottom line is that at a time when this country faces a major crisis in terms of the price of oil, when many working families in our state and all over this country are hurting, I think we have brought forth a comprehensive piece of legislation, which begins to attack that problem with the result of lowering the price of oil.”

Reaction Less than Stellar

Thus far, reaction across the blogosphere is just as what might be expected. Dave Roberts at Grist makes no bones about his skepticism and calls the move a “counter-pander.” He writes:

“Look: you can’t promise Americans you’re going to lower the price of gas. It’s a lie, and they’re going to notice when prices don’t go down. It might help you tactically in the short-term, but in the long-term it’s going to come back and bite you on the ass. Gas prices are going to keep going up, and good leadership begins with honesty.”

It’s not just bloggers who oppose the Consumer-First Energy Act, the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) released a statement yesterday decrying the windfall profits title of the bill as “misguided.” According to the statement:

“Regrettably, this proposed margin provision, which would push trading from regulated and transparent markets to unregulated and nontransparent markets, would constitute a significant step backward in transparency and market integrity.”

The problem I see with this legislation is that it does nothing to address the structural problems that are causing a rise in oil prices. Simply put, the only way for us to even try and stabilize oil prices is to use less. Using less would require major investments in public transportation, the kind of investments the feds are very skeptical of providing.

Some of the components of the Consumer-First Energy Act are as follows (adapted from bill summary - available here)

• A windfall profit tax for oil companies - A 25 percent windfall profits tax on companies that fail to invest in increased capacity and renewable energy sources. This provision would not apply to the profits those companies reinvested in clean, affordable, domestically produced renewable fuels, expanding refinery capacity and utilization, or renewable electricity production.
• Stop speculation in the oil markets - First, the bill prevents traders of U.S. crude oil from routing transactions through off-shore markets to evade speculative limits and sets forth reporting requirements. The bill also requires the Commodities Futures Trading Commission to set a substantial increase in the margin requirement for all oil futures trades, contracts or transactions.
• Roll back tax breaks for oil companies and invest the money in renewable energy - Bill would roll back $17 billion in tax breaks for oil and gas companies and instead invest those taxpayer dollars to improve consumer price protection, renewable energy development and energy efficiency echnology through a designated Energy Independence and Security Trust Fund.
• Stop government purchases of oil for the Strategic Petroleum until the price of oil drops to $75 a barrel or less - The Consumer-First Energy Act calls for suspending through December 2008 oil purchases for the SPR. Filling could resume when the 90 day average price of crude oil recedes to $75 or less.
• Protect consumers from price gouging - Give the President the authority to declare an energy emergency should there be a shortage, disruption or significant pricing anomalies in the oil market.

See Also:

• “Clean Energy Tax Credits Will Not Be Passed Without Funding“
• “Senate Passes Renewable Energy Tax Credits: Why am I not More Excited?“
• “Feast or Famine Cycles of US Clean Energy Development“
• “Show Me the Deliberation…Please“

Associated Press

Photo: © Tommyschultz | Dreamstime.com

In the fall of 2001, Jim Gordon of Energy Management Inc. (EMI) announced his intentions to build a 420 megawatt wind farm off the coast of Massachusetts - the nation’s first. Now, the long permitting process that was made even longer by powerful opposition groups, is nearing resolution…finally.

More than 40,000 individuals and organizations have submitted comments on an environmental review of the wind farm proposed for Nantucket Sound, according to an article in the Cape Cod Times.

“I’ve never seen anything like this before,” said Rodney Cluck, Cape Wind project manager for the U.S. Minerals Management Service, the lead federal agency to review Cape Wind Associates’ plan to build 130 wind turbines in Nantucket Sound, off the coast of Massachusetts. Originally, the comments were set to be released last Friday, but officials at the Minerals Management Service postponed the release to give agency staffers more time to organize the overwhelming public response to the proposed wind farm.

As a result of the scoping process’ popularity, the MMS announced that they would be preemptively extending the comment period for all of the remaining “Alternative Energy Leases” from 30 to 60 days.

The final number of public comments submitted on the agency’s Cape Wind draft environmental report has yet to be tallied. But it is quite telling that an earlier 2005 report on the same project issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers produced one-tenth the number of comments than this one indicates that MMS did something right since taking over the review of Cape Wind from the Army Corps as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (As an aside, I think it also says something about the Corps of Engineers’ ability to adequately conduct a thorough public scoping process).

Opponents remain critical; supporters remain confident

The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, the project’s most vocal opponent, enlisted 40 experts to review the report. The hired guns produced a 3,000-page critique of the Cape Wind proposal. One theme of critique coming from private scientists as well as public ones, was that the report’s information on migratory birds and fishery habitats where the project would be located is inadequate. “At the very least, the (report) should explain why recommended studies and analyses were not conducted and the ramifications of not having that information,” Michael Bartlett, supervisor for the New England Field Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Despite the criticisms of the MMS report, the vast majority of comments submitted will be in favor of the project, predicted Mark Rodgers, Communications Director for Cape Wind Associates.

A record of decision from the agency indicating approval or disapproval of the Cape Wind project is expected to be released sometime in the winter. And only then will this long, arduous journey be over…right?

Cape Cod Times

Other Posts Related to the Cape Wind Project:

“The Politicos Chiming in On Cape Wind” :: sustainablog (8/2005)

“(D)emocracy: Tell the Feds What You Think About Cape Wind” :: Planetsave (2/2008)

“Survey Finds Overwhelming Support for Cape Wind” :: ecopolitology (8/2007)

“Breaking: MMS Report Favorable on Cape Wind” :: sustainablog (1/2008)

“Cape Wind Opponent to Step Down” :: sustainablog (1/2008)

Photo: © Kamil Sobócki | Dreamstime.com

What I’m getting at, is that I did not see Hillary Clinton on This Week with George Stephanopolous, on Sunday morning. But since we have a 24-hour media matrix covering every breath and every word in this presidential campaign, I was told all about it by all of my regular news outlets as soon as I got up. I was most struck by Senator Clinton’s reply to Stephanopolous’ question about the pushback her proposed summertime gas-tax holiday has received.
STEPHANOPOLOUS:

“Economists say that’s not going to happen. They say this is going to go straight into the profits of the oil companies. They’re not going to actually lower their prices. And the two top leaders in the House are against it. Nearly every editorial board and economist in the country has come out against it. Even a supporter of yours, Paul Krugman of The New York Times, calls it pointless and disappointing.

Can you name one economist, a credible economist who supports the suspension?”

[Clinton tried to elude the question with a foray into populist appeals of how elite opinion is bringing down the hard-working middle class, but Stephanopolous reiterated the question].

STEPHANOPOULOS:

“But can you name an economist who thinks this makes sense?”

CLINTON:

“Well, I’ll tell you what, I’m not going to put my lot in with economists, because I know if we get it right, if we actually did it right, if we had a president who used all the tools of the presidency, we would design it in such a way that it would be implemented effectively.”

Now, I am usually the last person to be defending economists, but when it comes to designing energy tax policy, perhaps an economist is not a bad person to talk to, no? Former Labor Secretary in the Clinton administration, Robert Reich thinks so. Reich wrote in his blog on Sunday:

“I’m not suggesting economists have all the answers. But when economists tell a president or a presidential candidate that his or her idea is dumb – and when all respectable economists around America agree that it’s a dumb idea – it’s probably wise for the president or presidential candidate to listen. When the president or candidate doesn’t, and proudly defends the policy by saying she’s “not going to put my lot in with economists,” we’ve got a problem, folks.

“Even though the summer gas tax holiday is pure hokum, it polls well, which is why HRC and John McCain are pushing it. That Barack Obama is not in favor of it despite its positive polling numbers speaks volumes about the kind of president he’ll be – and the kind of president we’d otherwise get from McCain and HRC.”

This gas tax holiday is just a bad idea all the way around. First of all, Sen. Clinton proposes that her tax be paid for by the oil companies. Do you actually think something like that would get through the Senate? Let me say this, if Congress wouldn’t repeal tax breaks to big oil to fund renewable energy tax credits, they are not going to pay for a summertime tax moratorium on gas with an increased tax on the oil companies.

Abolishing the federal excise tax on gasoline in the summer leading up to the presidential election is exactly the kind of pure pandering that is not going to get Hillary Clinton or John McCain elected.

Photo: robertstown2001

See Also:

• “Obama’s New Ad Rejects Gas Tax Break“
• “Can Hillary Clinton Take on Big Oil?“
• “Clinton Takes Jabs at Obama’s Energy Policy“

The students are listening and learning. One father (who happens to be a coal mining equipment distributor) candidly remarked that he does not want his daughter influenced and becoming one of those “tree huggers”. His daughter, a student of Miss Litton’s, respectfully comments that in her opinion her father’s generation does not understand the damage that has been done to the environment. Miss Litton sticks to scientific questions and research. She has her students read Meltdown a book written by Patrick Michaels, a professor at the University of Virginia. The book holds the view that Global Warming is cyclical and that the news coverage has been dominated by hysteria. On the other hand, she teaches her students about green house gases and reducing the use of non-renewable energy sources. Her students research and discuss how long energy sources such as coal and oil will last. Miss Litton encourages pursuing clean renewable energy sources.

The president of the National Science Teachers Association states that Miss Litton is an exception to the rule. Most high school science teachers do not hold degrees in this field. He also states that most local school districts in our country view environmental science in the same manner as the evolution debate. He said they consider it “too hot” and stay away from offering classes in the subject.

This brings us to the question, is this possible? Can we educate our children about environmental science without the politics that often accompanies such discussions? Do environmental efforts have to be political or even politically motivated? I think we can embrace this together, from all sides. I agree with and applaud Miss Litton in her efforts!

Photo Credit: Riah’s Photography

The latest case in point comes from Seattle, where a man was denied a liver transplant, after a University of Washington Medical Center committee denied him a place on the liver transplant list.

His crime? Using medical marijuana, even though it is authorized under Washington state law.

The victim, 56 year old Timothy Garon was authorized by his doctor to smoke pot to relieve abdominal pain, ease nausea and help him eat. Garon was suffering from hepatitis C, which he says he contracted as a teenager by sharing needles with what he called “speed freaks”.

He died one week after being denied a place on the transplant list.

Image

The average Chicagoan spends an hour and a half commuting to and from work each day. With the second largest public transportation system in the country, one million people ride city buses each day. Mayor Daley considered both facts when he devised a plan aimed at easing congestion, commuting times, and air pollution in the central business district. A $153 million federal grant can help make this plan a reality.

Priority Given to Buses Over Cars

The first part of the plan entails creating a 100 mile bus corridor with dedicated bus lanes during peak hours. Kiosks selling bus tickets allow passengers to quickly board buses and many routes will run express, resulting in fewer stops. Traffic lights will be programmed to turn green for buses, helping to keep them in motion. Hybrid buses will be used, reducing pollution in these heavily populated areas.

“The Bus Rapid Transit service will give commuters a more modern and faster alternative to driving as well as better connections with rail lines,” said Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. “The result is less congestion and less pollution.”

Driving Discouraged

This plan not only encourages mass transit use, but also discourages driving. Cars will squeeze into fewer lanes as buses have dedicated lanes. Parking meter and loading zone usage fees would increase during peak times.

6,013 meters line the streets of the central business district, according to the Chicago Department of Revenue. They generated a hefty $10.1 million in 2007 for the City. If parking rates increase too much, drives will prefer private parking lots. Some businesses are weary of effects of parking rate increases.

“We’ve expressed concern about past congestion pricing proposals and their impact on both businesses and employees and we will be looking at this in coming weeks,” said Justin DeJong, a spokesman for the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce.

Changing Behavior

The question behind Mayor Daley’s plans is whether a carrot and a shove will get people out of their cars. Is this enough to ease the American love affair with the automobile, at least in times of peak congestion?

Related Posts:
Chicago Generates Twice the Energy for a Third of the Carbon
5 Ways to Reduce Dependence on Foreign Oil
European “Smart Car” Hits the American Market
Decrease Air Pollution Through School Bus Program

The commercial denounces the proposed gas-tax cut, a proposal which Senators Clinton and McCain both support, as the type of quick-fix policy solution that is emblematic of Washington politics. Running time: 1 min.

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/ywQKYga6uMY" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]

See Also:

“Can Hillary Clinton Take On Big Oil?”

“Video: Obama on Climate and Energy”

“Clinton Takes Jabs at Obama’s Energy Policy“

After hearing President Bush blame Congress for our country’s high gas, food, and energy prices yesterday, I still wasn’t convinced that drilling in ANWR would solve all of our problems (note: sarcasm).

It turns out that voters, at least according to a poll of 1,200 Americans conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates Inc., feel the same way.

Not only did fifty-seven percent of voters rate energy issues as “very serious” concern, but they also thought investment in renewable energy was the best solution:

What is the best way to solve America’s energy problems? According to 51 percent of voters, the answer is to invest in renewable energy sources; 28 percent call for energy efficiency and conservation policies; and only 17 percent favor more drilling and mining for domestic fossil fuels.

This wouldn’t be a bad thing for potential presidential candidates to take into account, even focus on, if they can afford to be so bold. I can guarantee it will be at the top of my list of voting criteria.

For more, see yesterday’s post, Bush Blames Congress for High Electricity, Food, And Gas Prices.

According to Ryan Grimm at Politico.com, when asked what the President would do if the current iteration of the farm bill made its way to the President’s desk White House spokesman Scott Stanzel replied, “as it stands now, it is not something the president would support.” Stanzel wrote in an email:

“The proposal before Congress would dramatically increase spending, in part by masking additional spending in budgetary gimmicks and accounting tricks.”

Farm bills pass - that’s what they do

Despite the threat, there may be enough Congressional support to override the veto. According to House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-MN), “If the White House is stupid enough to veto this, they’re going to get overridden.”

The farm bill is a very popular funding mechanism for Congressional spending. Every state’s congressional delegation works extremely hard to get their slice of the agricultural pie - not doing so does not bode well in the eyes of powerful ag interests and the voters of agricultural states. In short, farm bills do not get vetoed. At least very rarely do they get vetoed - there are a few exceptions.

One exception to the rule is when a second term president uses a veto (or threatens to veto) an appropriations bill, such as a farm bill - and criticize Congress for loading it with pork and earmarks - without any serious political repercussions. Interestingly enough, the last time a farm bill was vetoed was nearly 10 years ago, when another late second-term president successfully vetoed a farm bill - a veto which Congress made no attempt to override. But the political climate is quite different from that of ten years ago, and I would suspect that this President does not have the political capital to successfully veto the farm bill.
See also: “Small Wind Remains in Farm Bill” :: Green Options (12/2007)

Photo: mike138

This morning on NPR, President Bush tried to blame congress for the nation’s high gas, food, and electricity prices. Apparently, Congress has been thwarting the President’s attempts to fix the economy:

“I’ve repeatedly submitted proposals to help address these problems,” the president said. “Yet time after time, Congress chose to block them.”

The President proposed dealing with high gas prices by “environmentally safe” drilling the the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, better known as ANWR.

“It’s been more than 30 years since America built its last new refinery, yet in this area, too, Congress has repeatedly blocked efforts to expand capacity and build more refineries,” Bush said.

Drilling in ANWR makes perfect sense, since it would supply 876,000 barrels of oil per day to a country that consumes 20,687,000 barrels of oil per day. To put that in perspective, 876,000 barrels is about 1 hour worth of oil, or over the course of a year amounts to about 15 days of US oil consumption.

Of course, we wouldn’t reach 876,000 barrels of oil per day until production peaked in 2025, assuming the oil started flowing by 2013. According to an analysis by the Energy Information Administration back in 2004 (that’s where these numbers come from), peak oil production in ANWR “might reduce world oil prices by as much as 30 to 50 cents per barrel, relative to a projected 2025 world oil price of $27 per barrel.”

Even if the analysis was spot-on about the price of oil (only $100 dollars off), would 30 to 50 cents make a difference? The analysis went on to say that OPEC (being OPEC) would probably “countermand” any change in price by reducing an equivalent amount of oil exports.

So how is it going to help the average American to drill in ANWR? It probably wouldn’t. With oil at $120 a barrel and rising steadily, the only thing that’s clear is how lucrative the proposal would be for oil companies.

Bush also mentioned lifting federal gas and diesel taxes (18.4 cents and 24.4 cents per gallon, respectively) over the summer, another move that would make a huge difference in long term energy security. I think Barack Obama is right about this one: it’s a “gimmick that won’t provide any significant relief to motorists.”

At a meeting with voters in North Carolina on Monday, Mr. Obama said lifting the gas tax for three months would save the average consumer no more than $30, a figure confirmed by Congressional analysts. Mr. Obama has previously dismissed Mr. McCain’s proposal as a “scheme.”

“Half a tank of gas,” Mr. Obama told his audience. “That’s his big solution.”

How about raising petroleum taxes and investing in renewable energy infrastructure? How about setting up a tax on carbon emissions like British Columbia just did? Anything but continuing to invest so heavily in a resource that’s on its way out.

It’s time to start looking for real solutions, and gracefully acquiescing that it’s the end of an era.

To hear Bush’s speech, listen to the NPR show from this morning. Have a comment on this topic? Share it below.

When Earth Day started in 1970, one of Georgia’s leading politicians tried to warn President Nixon, state governors and other national leaders that it was a Communist plot in disguise.

Others view the choice of April 22 to celebrate Earth Day as a distraction from this birthday celebrated in other parts of the world.

Spurred by shrinking freshwater supplies, U.S. states could begin “water wars” in the next years to claim rights to Great Lakes water, warned American and Canadian scientists at a water conference in Toronto last week.

Nations around the world, such as India and Australia, are already experiencing drought and its effects on access to clean water and increases in food prices–and states in the American South and West are bracing themselves for a time in the near future when water resources will be more scarce.

Scientist Milton Clark, a senior health and science adviser for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, was quoted as saying at the conference, “We will in fact get into major water wars. You will see water wars coming in every way, shape or form.”

To prevent states from fighting over–or selling–water, the Great Lakes Compact was created in 2001 among the eight Great Lakes states, Ontario and Quebec.

Ontario and Quebec have signed the agreement, which bans long-distance water diversions to states not bordering the Great Lakes. Minnesota, New York, Indiana and Illinois have also signed the agreement, and Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania have not.

As one of the world’s largest reservoirs of drinking water, the five Great Lakes contain 18 percent of all fresh surface water on the planet. Conservationists continue to lobby to protect the lakes’ waters from mismanagement and environmental degradation.

Photo: NASA

“Because of his support for U.S. military intervention in the Middle East, neo-liberal economic policies that harm the world’s poor, and especially for promoting bogus solutions to the global climate crisis.“

“We sought to expose the hypocrisy of allowing Friedman, who is known for his influential support of U.S. wars for oil in the Middle East, to call himself an environmentalist,” said Margaret Little, the Brown University student responsible for the creamy projectiles.

In the statement, the Greenwash Guerillas object to Friedman’s support for nuclear power, coal power, industrial biofuels, and carbon trading markets. “These false solutions are smokescreens, intended to generate massive corporate profits while creating global humanitarian and environmental disasters.”

Video of the pie throwing incident was posted on YouTube along with a couple of environmental blogs (including this one). The video had received close to 70,000 views in 36 hours on YouTube, before it was removed without warning or comment by YouTube. The Greenwash Guerillas have now reposted the clip at their blog.

Ms. Little was suspicious of the disappearing video on YouTube, as she indicated in the statement:

“Given the many other pieings on YouTube, the removal of the video can only be understood as an act of political censorship. One has to wonder whether billionaire Friedman has more influence than “you” on YouTube.”

The statement indicates that Little faces University disciplinary hearings, which could potentially lead to expulsion. Colonel Custard, Little’s male accomplice is still “at-large” (although he is listed as the media contact and was probably responsible for emailing us the statement - so he’s probably not that hard to find).

See also:

“Opposition for Opposition’s Sake?” :: Red, Green, and Blue (4/2008)

“The Geo-Green Alternative” :: Sustainablog (1/2005)

Photo: .Larry Page

The action, as well as the ensuing discussions over at the blogs It’s Getting Hot in Here, and the Huffington Post, underscore the longstanding divide within the environmental movement between those who believe we should work within the system to address our most pressing environmental issues, and those who believe that the system itself is the cause of the environmental problems.
From the Brown Daily Herald:

“A female audience member ran on stage last night and threw a green pie at New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, who had just begun a lecture on environmentalism in Salomon 101. The woman had been sitting in the south side of the auditorium’s front row when she pulled the pie out of a Brown Bookstore plastic bag that had been tucked in a red backpack and leapt out of her seat.

At the same time the woman threw the pie, a male accomplice seated a few rows back ran down the aisle and onto the stage, throwing small pamphlets explaining the actions into the crowd.

…The pamphlets thrown by the male accomplice identified the pair as the “Greenwash Guerillas,” who wrote that they were acting “on behalf of the earth (sic) and all true environmentalists.”

One side of the pamphlet contains an excerpt from a September 2006 review of Friedman’s book, “The World is Flat,” written by Raymond Lotta for the journal “Revolution,” which styles itself as the “Voice of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA.” The review is highly critical of Friedman, who the review claims cannot see his own errors while “seated in the business class of his analytical jetliner.”

The other side contains five bullet-points explaining why “Thomas Friedman deserves a pie in the face,” which include reasons like “his sickeningly cheery applaud for free market capitalism’s conquest of the planet,” and “for helping turn environmentalism into a fake plastic consumer product for the privileged.”

The pamphlet declares “Thomas Friedman’s ‘Green’ as fake and toxic to human and planetary health as the cool-whip (sic) covering his face.”

Personally, I think it was a pretty bush-league maneuver. And watching the video, I feel bad for Friedman as a human being, regardless of how I feel about his politics. Running time is 1:39.

I found one comment at It’s Getting Hot in Here particularly poignant, it reads:

“Had you stayed and listened to the speech, you would have learned that Friedman has one of the most comprehensive characterizations of the challenge than I’ve heard in a long time. He spoke about the scale of climate change, global justice and petro-dictatorships, biodiversity loss, energy poverty (i.e. global inequality), and the need for conservation. In fact, he directly addressed most of your complaints, making you come off as reactionary and uninformed. Of course Friedman has major flaws, but if your intention was to start discussion about them, you failed. Instead, you’ve started a discussion on the inappropriateness of your tactics, and left everyone confused as to what you were trying to say.”

See also: “Crazy Acts or Civil Disobedience” :: Green Options (7/2007)

Photo: Charles Haynes

Mostly because I’m not one for ethics, I will not build an ethical argument as to why it is fair for me to be skeptical and even cynical about Earth Day as we currently know it. In stead, I will argue that this skepticism has been a part of Earth Day since its inception in 1970. And until some substantive change is produced by the actions on Earth Day, there will be those who remain skeptical.

Earth Day 1970

Earth Day started out as an idea for a teach-in, a tactic used effectively by the New Left and the anti-Vietnam War movement. Senator Gaylord Nelson (D-WI) was the first to develop the idea for the event, which would be a “National Teach-in on the Crisis of the Environment” designed to help crystallize this new environmental constituency while also distancing it from the counterculture and New Left activists (1).

Senator Gaylord Nelson later wrote, “I was satisfied that if we could tap into the environmental concerns of the general public and infuse the student anti-war energy into the environmental cause, we could generate a demonstration that would force this issue onto the political agenda.” Nelson was proved correct. As the word got out, “It took off like gangbusters…Telegrams, letters, and telephone inquiries poured in from all across the country…That was the remarkable thing about Earth Day. It organized itself.”

But traditional conservationists were not comfortable with the mainstream tone the event was promoting, nor the intense media coverage the teach-in was attracting. Both of these, they argued, were attracting the powerful moneyed interests of industrial manufacturers and utilities. According to environmental scholar Robert Gottlieb, “In the weeks leading up to and following April 22, the media embraced environmentalism as the all-inclusive cause of the day.” On the other hand, some industry groups were not comfortable associating with the first Earth Day event, thanks to the paranoid fears of right-wing politicians who suggested a conspiratorial connection between the date selected for Earth Day and the centennial of Vladimir Lenin’s birthday (2).

The teach-in organizers wanted to avoid the polarizing politics of confrontation. But despite efforts to distance themselves from the activist movements of the 1960s, the new environmentalism was largely seen as an extension of them.” We didn’t want to alienate the middle class…” said Denis Hays, the 25 year old Harvard Law Student and teach-in organizer. And for the most part, they didn’t. Estimates of the overall number of participants were as high as 10 million, and the gatherings were largely peaceful and non-confrontational.

Other events, however, maintained the oppositional flavor of the New Left and anti-war demonstrations of the 1960s. At the University of Alaska, Secretary of the Interior Hickel was booed off the stage when he laid out administration support of the Alaska pipeline. In Denver, antinuclear activists presented the Colorado Environmental Rapist of the Year award to the Atomic Energy Commission. And who could forget about the activists in Florida who presented a dead octopus at the headquarters of Florida Power and Light, a utility responsible for the thermal pollution of Biscayne Bay?

Earth Day 2008

I am not just advocating opposition for opposition’s sake. But it seems to me, for healthy debate to occur, we need to be hearing as many voices as possible – those in agreement, as well as those in dissent – and Earth Day has yet to create that forum.

With that said, I don’t consider Earth Day to be a bad thing – quite the contrary. Earth Day has the capacity to be so much more. It has the potential to be a powerful tool for education, discussion, and the mobilization of concerted political action on behalf of the environment. Earth Day could even be a national holiday, recognized with all of the rights and privileges associated with the title. Earth Day could take on greater political significance were heads of state to assemble along with heads of environmental groups, trade associations, labor unions, and indigenous populations. All of this is what Earth Day could be, but we are not there…at least not yet.

(1) Gottlieb, Robert. 1993. Forcing the Spring: The Transformation of the American Environmental Movement.

(2) Gottlieb (p. 111)

Earth Day 1970 (Video) from the Butterfly Project

Photos: 1. Birmingham, AL (1972) - Courtesy of The National Archives. 2. pingnews.com

Anyone See The Irony Here?

You’ve probably read the story about an estimated 10,000 people gathered on the University of Colorado’s Norlin Quadrangle Sunday, puffing joints till the air turned blue. University police stood by to maintain order, but no one was busted for smoking pot.

In the meantime, the DEA is staunchly defending its policy against American farmers legally growing industrial hemp, citing the law that says all hemp is marijuana.

How’s your war on drugs coming along, anyway, DEA? The sun is shining, and if you’d pull your heads out, you’d see it. Pot is here, lots of it available, if this number of people can show up and get loaded on just one day in one city and no one is arrested.

Where did these pot-heads get their stuff, it surely didn’t come out of a couple of bags, and there was apparently enough to go around to get some 10,000 heads high. How many more smoke-outs were held on April 20th, the annual, internationally recognized celebration of marijuana? How many tons of pot went puff?

Now I’m not in favor of marijuana, primarily because of its affect on the lungs. Pot heads will tell you there’s no danger, but the cigarette companies told us that decades ago, and a lot of us are dying of COPD everyday.

My point here is that while these young people are getting loaded on an illegal drug in public as cops stand by, two farmers in North Dakota are trying desperately to legally grow industrial hemp. Their fight is now in Federal Appeals Court, hoping to overturn a lower court’s decision upholding the DEA’s position.

You can read more about the campaign to legalize industrial hemp cultivation in the U.S. at Vote Hemp.

Farmers in Vermont are ramping up their efforts to the the government to allow farmers there to grow hemp, and other states have passed, or are considering legislation to change the law.

Currently before congress is H.R. 1009, (PDF) the “Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007″

Why have legal hemp? It’s one of the most useful plants on earth. It’s been cultivated for thousands of years and used for everything from food and medicine to clothing and automobile parts. It’s grown legally in many countries, except in the US, so to take advantage of the many products made from hemp, we must import them.

So what can we do to get the government to change it’s position on hemp? Do you think it will ever change?

Source: Daily Camera

Photo: Kasia Broussalian

Breathe Mother Nature, Breathe

UPDATE: We’re so pleased that so many of you are chiming in on this topic, and have created a discussion forum for this topic.  Come by, and continue to chime in…

But I didn’t just come here to bring you down. A new agricultural economics paper has given us some reason to hope, if we can organize our food industry to action.

The International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) released a report today confirming that global food production is sufficient to feed everyone. So why are 800 million people under- and malnourished? Because like all types of wealth, the food we grow is distributed unequally. As global warming impacts growth cycles through desertification and weather changes, our population continues to grow. We have more mouths to feed and less land to do it on and the inequality of distribution causes political instability and resource disputes the world over, threatening everyone’s security.

The 400 scientists who contributed to the IAASTD report recommended that we do several things. First, we have to abandon food crops as sources for biofuel. Rather than focus on maximum output, agriculture has to be practiced in a sustainable way so that soil richness, watershed health and ancient forests are protected. While the report received money from the “GM Industry” (the usual suspects like Monsanto…), a dispute last year saw them removed from the project as the scientists predicted a very minimal role for GM crops. The report also recommended that the current subsidized farming structure must change dramatically, as cheap cash crops from wealthy countries in the Northern hemisphere encourage wastefulness and discourage agricultural growth in developing countries by undercutting prices.

Without these changes made, the report warns, an increase in famine and thus conflict could be in our near future.

(Photo by Tyler Hicks for the New York Times)

Rev. Richard Cizik, vice president of the National Association of Evangelicals, has been leading a compaign to instill “creation care” as a religious imperative. He attended the forum and this was his exchange with Barack Obama:

REV. CIZIK: How do you relate your faith to science generally and science policy, and let’s take an issue like climate and flesh that out, or take stem cells, something like that. Just give us a little more indication of how you think.

OBAMA: Well, first of all…

CIZIK: Is that fair enough?

OBAMA: It is fair enough. And you guys have done some terrific work on this. So I want to congratulate you on that.

OBAMA: And should it be part of God’s plan to have me in the White House, I look forward to our collaboration. (LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: So, look, the — one of the things I draw from the Genesis story is the importance of us being good stewards of the land, of this incredible gift. And I think there have been times where we haven’t been and this is one of those times where we’ve got to take the warning seriously.

I know that Al Gore was mentioned earlier. By the way, I have to say, I think Al Gore won. And…(APPLAUSE)

OBAMA: And has done terrific work since. But I think that we are seeing enough warning signs for us to take this seriously. And part of what my religious faith teaches me is to take an intergenerational view, to recognize that we are borrowing this planet from our children and our grandchildren.

And so we’ve got this obligation to them, which means that we’ve got to make some uncomfortable choices. And where I think potentially religious faith and the science of global warming converge is precisely because it’s going to be hard to deal with.

We have to find resources in ourselves that allow us to make those sacrifices where we say, you know what? We’re not going to leave it to the next generation. We’re not going to wait.

OBAMA: We are going to put in place a cap-and-trade system that controls the amount of greenhouse gases that are going into the atmosphere. And we know that that requires us to make adjustments in terms of how we use energy. We’ve got to be less wasteful, both as a society and in our own individual lives.

And having faith, believing that this planet and this world extends beyond us, it’s not just here for us, but it’s here for, you know, more generations to come. I think religion can actually bolster our desire to make those sacrifices now. And that’s why, as president, I hope to be able to rally the entire world around the importance of us being good stewards of the land.

Eboo Patel, a Muslim who leads an organization called the Interfaith Youth Core addressed Senator Clinton with the following:

PATEL: Americans of all faiths and no faith at all genuinely believe in compassion and want to apply that in addressing global poverty and climate change. Can we do that without changing our standard of living?

CLINTON: Well, I believe there is so much we can do that we’re not doing that would not change our standard of living as an imposition from the outside, but which would inspire us to take action that would impact how we live.

And I don’t think we would notice it demonstrably undermining our standard of living, but it would give us the opportunity to set an example and to be a model.

When I think about the simple steps any one of us can take — you know, turning off lights when one leaves a room, unplugging appliances, changing to compact florescent bulbs — you know, my husband and I have done that — I don’t think it’s impacted our standard of living, but we feel like we’re making a small contribution to limiting the amount of greenhouse gas emissions, you know, being more mindful of our purchases.

I hope that, as president, I can model that and lead that effort so that people don’t feel so threatened by the changes we’re talking about when it comes to dealing with global warming.

In preparation for the pope’s visit, I was reading that the Vatican is the first carbon-neutral state in the world now. Well, that shows leadership. And I don’t think it has impacted the work or the living. You know, Ambassador Flynn, who was our ambassador to the Vatican, might know. But it was a great statement.

And we can do more.

CLINTON: And I think that, with leadership, people will find ways to take those first steps. And then we can take even more.

Now there’s so much that I have to do as president with the cap and trade system, with moving away from our dependence on foreign oil, but I’m going to look for ways that will cushion the costs on middle class and working and poor people. Because I don’t believe that they should have to bear more than what they are bearing right now as we make this transition. And I believe we can accomplish that.

The forum brought out few contrasts between Obama and Clinton, but it was interesting to watch the candidates jump through the hoops of religious voters. It’s also refreshing to see leaders asking new questions and requiring different “moral values” from candidates in this election.