Green Options

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

Over the last month or so, I’ve been keeping my eye on a fantastic new project called On Day One (which I’ve written about here). The organizing theme behind the project is to help ’set the agenda’ for the next president of the United States by providing policy suggestions and political direction based on user-submitted material.

Now, On Day One is honing-in on the critical environmental issues of today in an upcoming five-day online debate co-sponsored with Grist.org’’s Gristmill, and UN Dispatch. And I am excited that I’ve been invited, along with Dave Roberts and Kate Sheppard from Grist, Nigel Purvis from the Brookings Institute and Resources for the Future, to be one of four online panelists invited to debate and discuss the user-submitted ideas - one idea a day throughout the week.

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.

In honor, or dishonor, of Earth Day, a Gallup poll is conducted each year about Americans’ opinions on environmental issues. For 19 years, Americans have been asked to rate their personal environmental concerns and what level of action is required to solve these problems. Despite Al Gore and all of his efforts, public opinion has changed very little in almost two decades on this important global issue.

According to the Gallup poll, 61% of Americans say the effects of global warming have already begun, and they are right. March 2008 recorded the warmest temperatures ever over land surfaces of the world, even though the United States saw average temperatures. Despite these statistic, Americans are not personally worried. In 1990, 35% of Americans worried a “great deal” about global warming. Today, that number has only risen to 37%.

One thing that has increased is Americans’ understanding of global warming, which has increased from 53% reported 16 years ago to 80% currently; however, this understanding has not prompted action. Only 34 % of Americans believe drastic action is needed to curb the effects of global warming, but thankfully governors disagree. On Friday, 18 states signed a decree to reduce greenhouse gases due to federal impotence. “In the absence of federal leadership the states have stepped up,” said Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. For example, by 2050 California plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from all sources by 80 percent.

Being an environmentalist on Earth Day is kind of like being Irish on St. Patrick’s Day (since I am both, I feel I can speak with some authority). I look at my environmentalism much as I do my national heritage – foundational elements of who I am. So, on Earth Day, I am happy to see others celebrate what is an important part of my identity. However, I think I may also harbor a tiny bit of resentment and even a tinge of animosity toward those individuals, the media, and corporate interests that co-opt the environmental issue for the sake of increasing ad revenue or pawning their newest eco-friendly wares. Is it fair for me to do so?

Over in the TalkClimateChange section of the new Green Options Discussion Forums, my colleague Mark Seall recently wrapped-up a “Live Debate” on the merits of nuclear power. In addition to the excellent and informed discussion with nuclear experts and environmentalists, there was also 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.”

Yes, this is a reader poll, and it is not a statistical representation of the public attitude of any country in particular. But it is striking that the 133 readers who did vote, were all doing so from a blog network called Green Options. Get it? Simply put, the public attitude towards nuclear power has undergone a seismic shift in recent years. This evidence indicates that this is not the same environmental movement that emerged in the early 1970’s.

But as consumed as I am with energy issues and the politics that surround them, I remain somewhat agnostic about nuclear power. Why is that? There’s no simple answer. Part of it is not wanting to reconcile the tensions between nuclear power as a low-carbon alternative with the ecological dangers of mining uranium and the big issue of transporting and storing nuclear waste. [If you want to know more about the specific dangers and problems facing nuclear power, Judith Lewis has written an excellent article in the most recent issue of Mother Jones addressing these issues in great depth.]

I would also argue that the reason I (and many other greens my age) are not particularly averse to nuclear power is because the pressing environmental issues that were building blocks to my own environmentalism were generally not related to nukes.

There has been talk recently of boycotting the 2008 Beijing Olympics for any number of valid reasons. Whether it is for the freedom of Tibet, the atrocities in Darfur, or China’s environmental policies.

However, what would be achieved by boycotting the Olympics? Is China going to step back and say, “Whoa… the United States is right. We are all messed up and need to change.” Probably not.

And who are we to tell another country that they aren’t perfect? If the Olympics were here, who would be boycotting our games?

As a child I was led to believe that the Olympics were a coming together of different cultures and nations for the sake of sport and international cooperation. And in fact that WAS part of the basis for reinventing the Olympics in the first place. As the father of modern Olympics, Baron Pierre de Coubertin once said,

“May joy and good fellowship reign, and in this manner, may the Olympic torch pursue its way through ages, increasing friendly understanding among nations, for the good of a humanity always more enthusiastic, more courageous and more pure.”

Of course, I grew up and found that most of my dreams and fantasies taught to me by society were pure poppycock. But do all of our childhood misconceptions about the world have to be disproved? I mean, Santa Claus is a given, but what about the concept of peace on earth and goodwill towards man?