Green Options

Editor’s note: Let the race begin! As Senator Obama is now the presumptive Democratic nominee, it’s time to start comparing his plans and record with that of presumptive Republican nominee Senator McCain. Our friends at Low Impact Living get the ball rolling… This post was originally published on Wednesday, June 4, 2008.

Now that we seem to have a Democratic candidate, we all need to be digging into the environmental views and policy plans of Senators Obama and McCain.

To help us sort it out, Reuters has published a featured called FACTBOX: U.S. Presidential Candidates on the Environment and Energy. It’s a good piece and we encourage you to read it. Here are some highlights:

On Climate Change

• Obama would cut carbon dioxide emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and require fuel suppliers to cut carbon content by 10 percent by 2020.
• McCain favors a cap-and-trade approach to carbon emissions. He sponsored legislation in 2007 to cut emissions by 30 percent by 2050.

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?

It looks like Hillary Clinton has another “3 a.m.” political ad out. This time it’s about the economy.

I’m not sure what it is about these ads that have captured the nation’s imagination; John McCain has his own version of it, and, of course, it inspired scores of parodies on YouTube and among late-night talk show comedians.

Still, I wonder if the candidates will get around to making one of these ads about the environment.

It’d be really easy to do, actually. All you need is a ringing phone…and no one to answer it.

That’s because the environment has somehow become a non-issue during this campaign season. All three candidates have fairly progressive views when it comes to addressing climate change, and they all tout the benefits of weening ourselves off foreign oil, so we’ve basically been told by the media that there’s nothing more to discuss on the topic.

The only problem is that voters WANT to discuss it.

Who knew Stephen King was a prophet?

No, I’m not talking about the demon-possessed hot rods (I think we all saw that coming). I’m talking about America’s zombie-like loyalty to a certain cash crop — one that has turned our entire nation into the children of the corn.

Lately, of course, you can’t watch, read, or listen to the news without someone touting the benefits of corn ethanol and how it’s the key to leading us on a path of energy independence.

There might be a *cough* kernel of truth to that argument, but… (sorry, I suffer from a cousin of Tourette’s that requires me to uncontrollably shout out useless puns)…

Seriously, corn is not the answer. It’s not even a major part of the answer. In fact, it’s a major part of the problem.

What do I mean? Well, lend me your *cough* ear (jeez, the medication is wearing off quicker)…

As I start to stockpile bourbon (it’s made from at least 50% corn) as an investment strategy, I wonder why we are doing this to ourselves.

You practically can’t read a newspaper or news magazine without someone condemning the use of corn as an alternative fuel source these days. And who wouldn’t. The ethanol boom has driven the price of corn up, which in turn makes everything that uses corn go up in price. Corn is in a lot of products.

Why are we investing so much in corn-based fuel?

I think the answer is fear. Fear of rising oil prices. Fear of global warming. Fear of our dependency on foreign oil.

Five years have gone by. The U.S. casualty toll is now 4,000. It is estimated that some 80,000 plus Iraqi civilians have lost their lives in the war.

Photo Courtesy of Luke Plunkett @ Kotaku.com

There isn’t a body count for wildlife, native plants, or eco-systems that have been killed in the struggle.

War takes a priceless toll on everything natural. Yet, nature may be the last thing that nations go to [...]

[UPDATE: After posting this, I was introduced to a wonderful piece on the same topic written by A Siegel for his blog Energy Smart. Please be sure to check out his post, too--it contains lots of great information.]

We’ve got five years, stuck on my eyes
Five years, what a surprise
We’ve got five years, my brain hurts a lot
Five years, that’s all we’ve got

Okay, so maybe the above David Bowie lyric was about alien invasion and the impending end of humankind as we know it, but it’s been playing on a loop inside my head ever since Wednesday, when we “celebrated” the fifth anniversary of our war in Iraq.

Five years. My brain definitely hurts a lot.

While the current administration will have us believe that the surge is working and that stability has returned to once volatile regions, the truth is probably closer to a “whack-a-mole” strategy that shows no signs of leading to a peaceful resolution for this ongoing nightmare.

A majority of Americans now say this war was a mistake, and we continue to hear reports—be it from the peripheries—of civilian lives lost, soldiers’ lives lost, soldiers injured, vets suffering from PTSD, tax dollars spent, etc. Still, perhaps one of the greatest casualties of this war gets very little mention.

I’m speaking, of course, of the environment.

I don’t know if you caught it, but the whole Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama flap over NAFTA exposed a dirty little secret: The North American Free Trade Agreement isn’t about American jobs or cheap Mexican labor—it’s about Canadian oil.

Think as far back as two weeks ago. I know you can do it. Remember, Britney’s dad started taking control of her life… everyone you know bugged the hell out of you by constantly saying: “I drink your milkshake…”

Anyway, back then, Hillary and Obama were campaigning among blue-collar crowds in Ohio when news broke out that someone from the Obama camp called the Canadian government and reassured them that the tough talk on NAFTA was all just an act. Later, it was revealed that Hillary probably made a similar call.

All of which begged the question: Why would they care so much about Canada if this was about NAFTA? Hasn’t Uncle Lou told us time and time again that NAFTA is all about Mexico: its cheap labor, and its non-existent regulations, which entice American factories to relocate south of the border?

Presidential election campaign 2008 is well underway. And already the grade school politics are brought to the election playground.
In recent news, both Democratic front runners, in an attempt to woo voters, called for renegotiations of NAFTA. They also threatened to pull out of the trade agreement if U.S. demands aren’t met. Clearly a case of, “do what I want because our economic and military might can beat up your economic and military might.”

The North American Free Trade Agreement, has been under scrutiny since its inception.

Thankfully we have Republican Candidate John McCain to defend this groundbreaking trade agreement.

NAFTA isn’t perfect. It was the first time a free trade agreement existed among such economically disparate countries. It was definitely a great experiment, and a lot has been learned from the results. There is no denying that there have been significant advances in a globally sustainable market that was enabled by NAFTA.

Editor’s note: Welcome to “Tangled Up in Green,” Red, Green and Blue’s weekly debate over the hot issues in environmental politics. Each week, writers Ranjit Arab and Adam Bowman will “throw down the glove” on current events involving environmental policy, legislation and citizen action. Adam and Ranjit are both graduate students in journalism at the University of Kansas, and currently enrolled in Professor Simran Sethi’s “Media and the Environment” course.

In Holcomb, Kansas, there rages a battle over energy, jobs, and economy.

The Sunflower Electric Company has a plan to build two coal-fired power plants that would produce 1400 megawatts of power. And until the Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), Roderick L. Bremby, denied the application for an air quality permit, they probably would be breaking ground right now.

People in the more populated Eastern part of Kansas, (which is pretty much all powered by coal), want to abandon the coal for sustainable wind energy. For Kansas, wind makes a lot of sense. Wind maps show that we are sitting in a very productive wind energy area. Basically any state in the Great Plains has an abundance of wind at their disposal. And the good news is, there isn’t any waste emissions or land ruining strip mining to harvest this energy.

But what about Eastern and Western States that aren’t sitting on a wind gold mine?

Editor’s note: Welcome to “Tangled Up in Green,” Red, Green and Blue’s weekly debate over the hot issues in environmental politics. Each week, writers Ranjit Arab and Adam Bowman will “throw down the glove” on current events involving environmental policy, legislation and citizen action. Adam and Ranjit are both graduate students in journalism at the University of Kansas, and currently enrolled in Professor Simran Sethi’s “Media and the Environment” course.

Does the town of Holcomb, Kansas sound familiar?

I’m sure it does if you’ve read “In Cold Blood,” or seen the movies based on the book and its author Truman Capote.

In a perverted way that negative association has been somewhat of a godsend. People remember Holcomb; they immediately recall it as the place where a senseless and unspeakable crime was committed.

Unfortunately, it looks like Holcomb may be preparing for a sequel, featuring yet another heinous act. This time it involves the attempts of Sunflower Electric Corp.—along with several lawmakers—to force an expansion of the power company’s Holcomb facilities, which would include two hazardous coal-burning electric plants.