"If we had no winter, the spring would not be so pleasant: If we did not sometimes taste of adversity, prosperity would not be so welcome."

Anne Bradstreet, poet

http://www.annebradstreet.com/anne_bradstreet_bio_001.htm

Obama Names Environmental and Energy Team

Today President-Elect Obama named his leaders for his environmental team.

A Nobel Prize winner -- no not that Nobel Prize winner -- will head the Obama Administration's Energy Department, while a former state-level environmental chief will lead the Environmental Protection Agency and Clinton's former EPA chief will step into a new role as an "energy czar."

Steven Chu, Energy Secretary

The Department of Energy is mostly about nuclear weapons and nuclear power, along with a bunch of energy industry analysts, but it also holds the biggest grouping in the world of renewable energy researchers. Chu -- unlike Al Gore, that other Nobel Prize winner -- doesn't believe that the world has all the technology it needs to solve the global warming crisis ... which means he's likely to push for increased research. That's a good thing. Also a good thing: He believes there's a global warming crisis.

Andy Revkin's DotEarth blog has more on Chu.

Lisa Jackson, EPA Administrator

A former Clinton EPA official and more recently the head of New Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection, Jackson has a mixed record. The New Jersey chapter of the Sierra Club had kind words about Jackson, according to the Associated Press, but a coalition of smaller groups expressed concerns about the agency's allegedly lax enforcement of environmental laws, like the cleanup of hazardous waste sites.

Carol Browner, Energy Czar

Browner is a well-respected environmental advocate, having led Florida's Department of Environmental Protection, advised Gore as a senator, led Clinton's EPA, chaired the National Audubon Society, and most recently acted as a private attorney and investment adviser on issues related to climate, energy and the environment. The only question is exactly what she'll do, since her title and responsibilities aren't clearly outlined.

Nancy Sutley, Chair, Council on Environmental Quality

Sutley, the Los Angeles Deputy Mayor for energy and environment, has been involved in that city's significant greening efforts, such as its goal of drawing 10% of its power from the sun, its requirement that public buildings meet LEED green building standards, its effort to improve carpooling and public transportation in the notoriously freeway-based region and its plan to plant 1 million trees.

Recap: Obama's Speech on Global Warming

In a speech delivered via video to a bipartisan climate summit in California in November, Obama pledged to take strong action to combat global warming:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvG2XptIEJk&eurl=http://www.thedailygreen.com/print-this/environmental-news/latest/obama-energy-environment-47121102&feature=player_embedded

What The Obama Victory Means for the Environment

Barack Obama's presidential election victory sets the stage for a potential major change in U.S. energy and climate change policy, a major focus of the campaign, and could also usher in new efforts on a wide range of issues.

Perhaps one of the most significant efforts expected from an Obama EPA is the development of mandatory limits on carbon dioxide emissions. Jason Grumet, the campaign's environment and energy adviser, said recently that an Obama EPA would regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act within 18 months if Congress fails to act.

Obama supports a cap- and-trade program that relies on auctioning of emissions credits, rather than giving away emissions allowances to companies at no cost. Before the election there was also significant speculation on whether Obama would appoint an energy or climate czar to coordinate White House activities on climate change.

Environmentalists backed Obama in the election due to his support on a range of other environmental issues. For example, the League of Conservation Voters said when it endorsed Obama that they welcomed several of Obama's policy positions, including his calls for a 52-mile-per-gallon automobile fuel efficiency standard, $150 billion federal investment in clean energy technology, a 25 percent renewable portfolio standard for utilities and his backing for a cap-and-trade program to cut global warming pollution by 80 percent.

Meanwhile, activists and others are awaiting Obama's pick to head EPA, with former and current state environment chiefs topping the list of contenders for what we expect to be a vastly rejuvenated EPA under President Obama. We hear that the list for possible EPA administrator is down to four choices: former New Jersey environment chief Brad Campbell; former Pennsylvania environment secretary Katie McGinty, current California air board chairwoman Mary Nichols; and Jonathan Lash, president of the non-profit environmental group World Resources Institute.

The bible says seven fat years are to be followed by seven lean years (Genesis 41). I remember that when President Clinton was elected, the next seven years were the busiest of my professional career. The past seven years under President Bush, in contrast, have been the slowest of my career.

Here's hoping.

When one door of happiness closes, another opens; but often we look so long at the closed door that we do not see the one which has been opened for us.

Helen Keller

When I Liberate Myself, I'm Liberating Other People

This past Sunday I had the pleasure of serving as liturgist at church. Our reverend went out on a limb, which I always think is a good idea. Instead of providing a traditional service and sermon, in light of the upcoming election she focused the celebration on the American Dream.

We sang tunes and words from the vast repertoire of distinctly American music. And we heard readings from each of the centuries of American history. These readings describe and illustrate the various facets of the illusive American dream.

Some of the readings spoke heartily of the individual, while others spoke to the national collective; some were irrepressibly exuberant, others challenging and disturbing in light of current events.

I particularly liked how Reverend Vader said the following: "Some may wonder why we do this in worship today. We do it because we are citizens. We do it because we are Christians who believe that all are welcome and loved by God. We do this because we have a voice and because our voice needs to be heard."

I read several passages: one from the Iroquois Federation Constitution, I read the preamble to the Constitution. I even read the Gettysburg Address.

But the one that stuck most with me is from Fannie Lou Hamer. Hamer is known as the lady who was "sick and tired of being sick and tired," and was born in 1917 in Mississippi. She was the granddaughter of slaves. Her family were sharecroppers. Hamer had 19 brothers and sisters. She was the youngest of the children.

In 1962, when Hamer was 44 years old, SNCC volunteers came to town and held a voter registration meeting. She was surprised to learn that African-Americans actually had a constitutional right to vote. When the SNCC members asked for volunteers to go to the courthouse to register to vote, Hamer was the first to raise her hand. This was a dangerous decision. She later reflected, "The only thing they could do to me was to kill me, and it seemed like they'd been trying to do that a little bit at a time ever since I could remember."

When Hamer and others went to the courthouse, they were jailed and beaten by the police. Hamer's courageous act got her thrown off the plantation where she was a sharecropper. She also began to receive constant death threats and was even shot at. Still, Hamer would not be discouraged. She became a SNCC Field Secretary and traveled around the country speaking and registering people to vote.

Hamer co-founded the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP). In 1964, the MDFP challenged the all-white Mississippi delegation to the Democratic National Convention. Hamer spoke in front of the Credentials Committee in a televised proceeding that reached millions of viewers. She told the committee how African-Americans in many states across the country were prevented from voting through illegal tests, taxes and intimidation. As a result of her speech, two delegates of the MFDP were given speaking rights at the convention and the other members were seated as honorable guests.

Here is the reading I was privileged to present.

The special plight and the role of black women is not something that just happened three years ago. We've had a special plight for 350 years. My grandmother had it. My grandmother was a slave. She died in 1960. She was 136 years old. It's been a special plight for the black woman. And right now, sometimes, you know I work for the liberation of all people, because when I liberate myself, I'm liberating other people.

Whether you have a Ph.D., D.D., or no D, we're in this bag together. Not to fight to try to liberate ourselves from the men -- this is another trick to get us fighting among ourselves -- but to work together with the black man, then we will have a better chance to just act as human beings, and to be treated as human beings.

I would like to tell you in closing the story of an old man. This old man was very wise, and he could answer questions that was almost impossible for people to answer.

So some people went to him one day, two young people, and said 'We're going to trick this guy today. We're going to catch a bird and we're going to carry it to this old man. And we're gonna ask him, 'This that we hold in our hands today, is it alive or is it dead?'

'If he says 'Dead,' we're gonna turn it loose and let it fly. And if he says 'Alive' we're gonna crush it.'

So they walked up to this old man and they said, 'This that we hold in our hands today, is it alive or is it dead?'

He looked at the young people and he smiled. And he said, 'It's in your hands.'

Run Faster, Longer

I just read a study that was published this week in the Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology. It shows that music can enhance endurance and help exercisers feel more positive even when they are working out at a very high intensity.

But not just any music.

The researchers used tracks by Queen, Madonna, and the Red Hot Chili Peppers, and they found when runners kept in strict time with the beat, music enhanced endurance by 15 percent. The point is to match the tempo of music with workout intensity. (We should tell the organizers of the Army Ten Miler this weekend that it's not a crime to run with your iPod!)

A reviewer of the study made a good point. He wrote that this research also has applications beyond the power of pop music. Any means you can find to stay motivated in your workout will deliver better results and more consistency in the long run.

FOR THE RECORD: I have never listened to Bohemian Rhapsody while running, and don't have it on my iPod. Now, as far as Fat Bottom Girls goes, that's a completely different story.

Cheers

How Has The Bush EPA Failed? Let Me Count The Ways

This was Sen. Barbara Boxer's (D-CA) opening statement Sept. 24 during a hearing on President Bush's environmental legacy. The Administration did not send representatives to the hearing. A link to the testimony and the hearing webcast:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=724c7b97-802a-23ad-464e-0e960de2af74

The purpose of this hearing is to examine the Bush Administration’s record on important public health and environmental matters. Unfortunately, instead of reviewing accomplishments—we look back on years filled with environmental rollbacks that serve special interests, and do not serve the American people.


Today, this Committee will shine a light on the Bush Administration’s efforts to undermine EPA and the Department of the Interior’s mission to protect public health and the environment.

A clear picture of the Bush Administration’s environmental record can provide a roadmap for the next Administration and Congress which will be useful in the effort to reverse these dangerous decisions.

Time and again, the White House has interfered in EPA decisions that should be based on science and the law. Time and again, EPA has ignored the law and the advice of its own scientific experts.
Let’s take a look at a few examples of this disturbing record:

1. In one of its first official acts, the Bush EPA announced that it was suspending the newly strengthened standard for arsenic in tap water. After a public outcry and legislation blocking it, EPA finally retreated.

2. EPA proposed to do what it called the “CHEERS study” jointly with the chemical industry, in which low-income families were offered gifts and other incentives if they agreed to enroll their newborn children in pesticides studies in their homes over a two year period. After a great outcry, EPA cancelled the study. EPA recently tried to revive a study much like CHEERS, but retreated after our Committee’s staff asked detailed ethical questions about it, which EPA could not answer.

3. EPA set a weaker clean air standard for toxic soot than its independent scientific advisors, children’s health advisors, and its own scientists recommended. Soot kills thousands of Americans every year, especially children and the elderly.

4. EPA also rejected the advice of its own scientists, scientific advisors and children’s health experts, and set a weaker health standard for smog than the scientists recommended. Smog poses a serious health risk to millions of people, killing thousands of people every year.

5. EPA set a weaker standard for lead pollution in air, and for lead paint cleanup, than its independent scientific advisors recommended. As we all know, lead is highly toxic to children and can reduce IQ, cause learning and behaviour problems, and damage children’s developing brains.

6. The courts, including Bush-appointed judges, have repeatedly struck down EPA rules that weakened public health protections. Judges have used strong language to express their frustration with EPA’s failure to comply with the law, saying for example “only in a Humpty Dumpty world” would EPA’s explanations make sense, or that EPA “employs the logic of the Queen of Hearts” in Lewis Carroll’s classic Alice in Wonderland, in two EPA clean air cases.

7. According to a recent GAO report prepared at my request, EPA political officials worked with the White House and the Pentagon to undermine the process for evaluating toxic chemical risks. The Bush Administration’s system puts polluting agencies like DOD in the driver’s seat, with an ability to secretly stop or weaken EPA actions to control toxic chemicals like perchlorate, TCE, and other pollutants.

8. EPA has severely weakened its Office of Children’s Health Protection and largely ignored its Children’s Health Advisory Committee, as we learned from GAO just last week.
EPA’s record on global warming could hardly be worse.

9. Despite the President’s campaign promise to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, the White House reversed course and rejected actions to control global warming pollution.

10. It literally took an order from the U.S. Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA to force EPA to begin to address the problem. Even then, the White House blocked EPA from issuing its proposed “endangerment finding” under the Clean Air Act, which would have given the green light to action on global warming.

11. The Bush Administration denied the California waiver, which would have allowed California and other states to set limits on global warming emissions from vehicles. EPA management, after meetings at the White House, reversed the agency’s plans and ignored unanimous career staff recommendations for the first time in 40 years under the Clean Air Act.

12. EPA has slowed down its Superfund program to practically a crawl. Over the last seven years, the pace of Superfund cleanups has dropped by about 50% compared to the last seven years of the prior administration, from about 80 cleanups per year to 40 or less.

13. We just learned that EPA has decided that it will not set a health standard for the toxic rocket fuel perchlorate in our drinking water, even though EPA data show that up to 16.6 million people are exposed to unsafe levels. Perchlorate is especially risky for infants and children, because it interferes with their thyroid, which controls normal development.

14. On occasion, EPA has taken a positive step, including the issuance of cleanup orders to the Department of Defense, though more work is needed to ensure DOD follows through. Unfortunately, the Bush record of rollbacks overshadows these efforts.

15. The Department of Interior record is causing concern as well. The Bush administration has also proposed to dramatically weaken the rules under the Endangered Species Act — another 11th hour attempt to undermine environmental protections in a manner that is not authorized by law.

The Endangered Species Act is one of America’s most successful environmental laws. Indeed, just last year, the Fish and Wildlife Service removed the Bald Eagle—the very symbol of our country—from the Endangered Species List.

The Bush Administration has proposed to rewrite the rules so that the most expert agencies in protecting endangered species, the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service, can be largely cut out of the process when agencies that want to build roads or big projects and must make a decision about whether their actions “may affect” a listed species. These two agencies are America’s primary wildlife agencies and have extensive expertise in assessing, protecting, and recovering threatened and endangered species.

- Sen. Barbara BoxerRemarks delivered to the U.S. Senate, Sept. 24, 2008

In Memoriam: Phil Clapp

Those how know me well know that at heart I am a hero worshiper. Today I lost one of my heros, and the environmental movement lost a true friend.

Philip Clapp, a lifelong champion for environmental causes and an early, eloquent voice on global climate change, died early this morning. He was 54. We will miss his vision, insight, and heart.

In 1994, Phil was tapped by Josh Reichert, environmental director of Pew Charitable Trusts, to start "Environmental Strategies," which would "assist environmental organizations to conduct public education campaigns on priority national environmental issues."

Environmental Strategies became the National Environmental Trust, and Phil helmed the group for over 14 years as it grew into one of the nation's most influential green groups. (Last year NET merged with the Pew Charitable Trusts to form the Pew Environment Group, with Phil as deputy managing director).

Phil was not only as a committed environmentalist, but also a savvy political operative. Many consider him the environmental movement's best strategist. In statements issued today by friends and foes, Phil's praises are being sung. Fred Krupp, executive director of the Environmental Defense Fund, noted not only Clapp's "considerable political and strategic skills," but also "the intelligence and style" he brought to the environmental effort. Indeed, even his political enemies came to respect him. Said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), "while we were often on opposing sides of the political arena I always appreciated his commitment to public policy and passion for the environment."

I sat in several meetings on climate change and other issues over the years where Phil was present. I did not know him, but I knew his work and his reputation. One of the things I liked most about him was his sense of humor and irreverent nature. I appreciated it greatly, particularly during interminable treaty talks in gray humorless halls in places like The Hague and Bonn and Montreal. He was as witty as he was fierce.

He will be missed.

"Ambitious Incrementalism"? Please, we need "Courageous Reform"

Reform of the way the UN handles environmental issues is badly needed, argues Joy Hyvarinen. However, she says, governments may be getting mired in a fruitless dispute that will leave the basic flaws untouched.

The EU and the US are at loggerheads again in the international environmental arena.
After years of disagreement about climate change, the issue now is whether the UN's environment program (UNEP;http://www.unep.org/) should become a fully-fledged organization, with more power, money and autonomy.

The international organizations that look after the global environment need reform, but arguing about the institutional format for the UN's main environmental body is not necessarily going to help resolve the problems. The first thing to understand is that the UNEP is not the only UN body that concerns itself with the environment - far from it. Scores of UN organisations, agreements and programs tackle environmental issues.

Looking at the state of the world environment, business as usual is not an option
For example, a tropical forest country that wants to have a say in international decisions about forests should be attending meetings of the Rome-based UN Food and Agriculture Organization, the UN forest forum in New York, the Montreal-based global agreement to protect natural diversity, and the annual climate change meetings, to name a few.

A major problem with international environmental decision-making is that the various UN bodies are not joined up. Priorities are unclear and there is much overlap and duplication of work. Another problem has been an explosion of new multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), put in place to deal with the increasing problems that require international cooperation.
There are currently more than 500 of them.

International treaty meetings are very complex. For example, the main UN treaty to protect species and ecosystems can require specialist knowledge of issues ranging from shrimp farming and desertification to intellectual property rights and the legal regime for marine life on the deep sea bed, at a single meeting. Government representatives spend an enormous amount of time at international conferences about issues such as climate change, biodiversity, desertification and wildlife. A huge number of decisions and recommendations emerge from these meetings; but few will ever be read by those who are supposed to put them in practice on the ground.

Developing countries in particular are struggling with implementation, lack of financial assistance from the international community and the many reporting obligations under various MEAs.
Implementation raises an important question about international diplomatic decision-making and in-country realities.

Nothing will change without greater political will and unless rich countries provide more funding to tackle international environmental issues.

The discussions about strengthening international environmental organisations and agreements are taking place at UN headquarters in New York. It is hard to see how lessons from the ground on what actually works - and what doesn't - can find their way into these discussions.
Now, a new debate threatens to distract attention from the real needs for reform.
The EU wants a UN Environmental Organisation (UNEO), which would mean turning the UNEP into a freestanding agency, with its own budget. The EU's proposal is backed by a group of about 50 countries called "Friends of a UN Environmental Organisation". The US opposes the proposal.
Would a UNEO be more effective than UNEP in stemming the rising tide of environmental destruction? Maybe; but no institutional format will ensure good environmental decision-making, unless the political will is there.

The UNEO would not depend on voluntary funding, as UNEP does, which could make a difference; but the EU has not yet presented detailed proposals, making it difficult to assess what the added value of an UNEO would be. However, it is essential to tackle the problems in the international decision-making architecture for environment. The system of organizations and agreements that we have now is not effective enough to deal with the world's escalating environmental problems.

There is a need to move beyond the stalemate about whether UNEP should become a UNEO, with imaginative proposals that make the best of the existing structure and fill institutional gaps where needed.

Following the UN's 60th anniversary in 2005, the UN ambassadors from Mexico and Switzerland have been leading discussions with other government representatives in New York about how to strengthen international environmental organisations and agreements.
Last year the ambassadors presented a set of "building blocks" for further discussion.
The building blocks are issues which governments agree need to be tackled to make international decision-making work better: strengthened scientific assessments, better monitoring and early warning capacity, closer co-ordination and co-operation among UN agencies, and financial assistance to developing countries.

Progress has been slow. One issue to be decided now is whether the discussions could move into negotiations, ie actually making decisions about what should be done to improve international organisations and institutions.

Even if the discussions become negotiations, the Swiss and Mexican ambassadors have noted that the time is not right for decisions about major changes, because states have such different views. The task of the ambassadors is not one to be envied.

Looking at the state of the world's environment, business as usual is not an option. It is time for decisive action to improve international organisations and decision-making.
The world needs UN organizations that are set up so that they can deal effectively with our current problems, monitor the state of the world environment and respond to new threats, and take the lead in ensuring that countries do their bit.

Last year the UN ambassadors identified "ambitious incrementalism" as a guiding principle for the discussions in New York. This diplomatic-speak is intended to reflect lofty long-term aims, based on a step-by-step approach, while taking into account that governments do not agree on what the long-term aims should be. This year, the ambassadors stated that "as for ambitious incrementalism, they now hope to move with speedy circumspection".

Nice turns of phrase, but they risk describing plain old business as usual. Perhaps what is needed now is something like "courageous reform". The bottom line is that nothing will change without greater political will and unless rich countries provide more funding to tackle international environmental issues. Without that, restructuring the international environmental decision-making architecture will simply be a diversion.

Eat Beef, Kill The Planet

If you want to help fight global warming, be a vegetarian one day a week. People should have one meat-free day a week if they want to make a personal and effective sacrifice that would help tackle climate change, this according to the world's leading authority on global warming.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which last year earned a joint share of the Nobel Peace Prize, said that people should then go on to reduce their meat consumption even further. Pachauri, who was re-elected the panel's chairman for a second six-year term last week, said diet change was important because of the huge greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental problems - including habitat destruction - associated with rearing cattle and other animals. It was relatively easy to change eating habits compared to changing means of transport, he said.

Here is a fact I found surprising: the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation has estimated that meat production accounts for nearly a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions. These are generated during the production of animal feeds, for example, while ruminants, particularly cows, emit methane, which is 23 times more effective as a global warming agent than carbon dioxide. The agency has also warned that meat consumption is set to double by the middle of the century.

'In terms of immediacy of action and the feasibility of bringing about reductions in a short period of time, it clearly is the most attractive opportunity,' said Pachauri. 'Give up meat for one day [a week] initially, and decrease it from there,' said the Indian economist, who is a vegetarian.
However, he also stressed other changes in lifestyle would help to combat climate change. 'That's what I want to emphasise: we really have to bring about reductions in every sector of the economy.'

A Refresher Course on Recycling

Most of us toss cans in the recycling bin and never give them a second thought. But they’re big business to the country’s thriving recycling industry: 56,000 operations (according to the most recent study by the National Recycling Coalition), which collectively make $236 billion a year and employ 1.1 million people. That’s more than the trash-disposal industry brings in. So how does it all break down? Here is a primer.

Plastic

Most plastics are recyclable, but not all plastics are recyclable everywhere. Almost all recycling programs accept plastics numbered 1 and 2. (Look for the number on the underside of a product, inside the ubiquitous triangle of chasing arrows.) But the numbers are not regulated federally; 39 states have various rules, so what you see can be inconsistent. Here, a cheat sheet.

No. 1: Polyethylene terephthalate (PET, PETE), the most widely recycled plastic, is used for soft-drink bottles and is also commonly found in textiles, which explains why a bottle can be turned into fleece.

No. 2: High-density polyethylene (HDPE) is used for detergent bottles and grocery bags.

No. 3: Polyvinyl chloride (PVC or vinyl) is what salad-bar containers are made from.

No. 4: Low-density polyethylene (LDPE) is used for dry-cleaning and fresh-produce bags.

No. 5: Polypropylene (PP) iswhat makes bottle caps, yogurt cups, and drinking straws.

No. 6: Polystyrene (PS) is also known as Styrofoam.

No. 7: These “other” plastics, such as polycarbonate baby bottles, are generally not recyclable at most centers.

Paper

Putting the wrong type paper in the wrong bin can make a difference. Recycling facilities work to keep similar papers together so they can get the most money for their products. (For example, office paper, which has long fibers, is worth a lot more than the “mixed paper” of cereal boxes, which has shorter fibers.) Another factor is food contamination. Plastic, glass, and metal containers are cleaned to remove food, but paper is not. Food particles can contaminate an entire batch, as the food (along with the paper) begins to biodegrade if it is left to sit. When paper is recycled, it is pureed into a pulp “smoothie” and passes through screens that take out anything that’s not paper: chunks of wood, plastic, or glass; paper clips; staples. It’s then treated with chemicals to remove inks, which means recycled office paper can still be white.

Metal

Recycling metal saves an enormous amount of energy and money. All steel products, for example, contain at least 25 percent steel scrap, which requires 75 percent less energy to produce than “virgin” steel and explains why scrap metal has become a valuable commodity. Recycling just one aluminum can saves enough energy to run your TV for 2 1⁄2 hours. Metal is separated into two piles — ferrous (containing iron) and nonferrous. The device that figures this out? An industrial-size magnet that attracts ferrous metals, like steel, but not aluminum, which is nonferrous.

Glass

Recyclable glass almost always refers to “container” glass — that is, bottles and jars. Other types, like windshields and Pyrex, have different melting points and are not accepted by most recyclers.

Why I Bought Carbon Offsets

I've heard alot of buzz about carbon offsets and the different views people have on it. I went to www.beacarbonoffsetter.com and calculated the amount of carbon I personally put into the air by doing all of the things I do on a daily basis. I used the second calculator under information and it gave me the carbon emission in tonnage. It was eye-opening to say the least.

Until now, I thought I was doing my fair share of protecting my environment in the ways I knew how, but I don't feel that it is enough. I am growing weary of hearing all the political views that say that I shouldn't be concerned with the direction we are headed and yet I know in my heart that alot of things we do can't possibly be good for the earth that my children are inheriting. I cannot think of the day I will be gone and my three kids will be left with a mess that we all could have helped to prevent but not take enough of an active role. It is just as much my problem, if not more than their problem.

In the end, because I am still searching for ways to personally change my ways. I purchased offsets off of the beacarbonoffsetter.com site. I figure that I can help to fund projects through people or organizations who have the knowledge and the resources to delegate the money to the best place. I liked this particular site because I could easily navigate through it and it wasn't fussy. I actually am considering donating funds monthly.

I am comforted that there are people and organizations out there that are doing more to work toward a better understanding of our earth and how we can make it better today and for tomorrow. Anything else just seems irresponsible on our part. We only borrow this earth for the time that we are here. We should take care of it.

And for anyone who reads this blog, go to the website and calculate your yearly tonnage. Maybe it will open your eyes too.

Is A Bad Economy Good for the Environment?

I’m a pragmatic environmentalist. By that I mean that we should examine environmental issues factually, from all sides, without rancor or hypocrisy. That doesn’t always put me in good standing with “pure” environmentalists. But the problem for the green lobby these days isn’t how they are perceived by the public, it is the chilly economic climate that has frozen the shoots of environmentalism. Espousing the green life is increasingly being seen as a luxury.

Only a year ago, one poll showed that 15% of those polled put the environment in their top three concerns. That figure has dropped by a third to 10%. According to Andrew Cooper, director of the research company, Populus: “There is a direct correlation between how people perceive the economy and the importance they place on the environment. When times are tough people resent paying more to salve their conscience.”

It's not just the economic downturn that has harmed the green order. People are growing wary of environmental causes that can turn out to do more harm than good. They don't want wind turbines marching across the landscape when nuclear power stations can do more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They worry that washing and bleaching all those non-disposable diapers may be damaging the ozone layer, and that the massive incentives for biofuels have distorted the world food market.

But paradoxically, we may be becoming greener. People are driving far less due to the price of gasoline. We are buying fewer white goods, buying less impulsively, and thinking carefully before heading out on a trip around town to run errands. Bottled water sales have fallen. Garden centers have reported a rise in the sales of vegetable seeds in the past 12 months. People are saving money by growing their own potatoes and carrots. They are turning off their central heating for a few more months of the year.

It's the downturn that has made greenery look unappetising - but it may yet prove to do more than anything to save the planet.

A Guy's Rules for Getting Through Divorce

Ok, I know that this has nothing to do with the environment, but I have several close family members who are going through divorce. So I thought I would share what I have learned about the dissolution of the institution of marriage, at least from a guy's perspective.



I'm no expert on divorce -- I've only gone through it once and don't intend to repeat, but I did learn to live with it. So here are things I learned, some the hard way, some with the help of friends and others. Take what helps, toss out what doesn't.



1. Divorce is not fatal (although marriage typically is). As Shakespeare wrote, "Men have died from time to time, and worms have eaten them, but not for love." Relax. you'll live. The sun will shine on your ass again. Today is better than yesterday and tomorrow will be better than today, unless you are a Redskins fan, then you're eternally screwed.




2. Focus on the kids, if you have them. If not, don't go out and try to make some with your ex's best friend. Continue to be Dad. You're divorcing your wife, not your kids. Talk to them, listen to them. This is scary, probably one of the most butt-puckering, frightening things they will go through as children. When communicating with your ex or soon to be ex about the kids, make it business-like and positive; don't be a jerk. Your kids deserve you to be you. Also, if your ex is getting re-married, that doesn't mean that you will stop being their father. Only dying will cause you to stop being their dad, and I don't recommend that. (See item 1 above.) And if your ex's new guy loves your kids, great! The more people that love your children, the better off they will be. (That was taught to me by an exceptionally beautiful person.)




3. Don't be a rotten jackass. There's a big difference between being a dumbass and a rotten jackass. Don't be bitter, that's boring. Don't spew out blame to whomever will listen, that's boring, too. Easy to say, hard to do, but try, would you?




4. Keep your finger off the send button. Ah, the beauty of e mail and texting. It is so tempting to blast your ex with a barrage of nasty, scornful, hate-filled messages. Been there, done it, felt good about it at the time. Knock it off. Hate is never a good thing, and your ex can always use those messages against you. More importantly, doing that just continues to foster the negative nature of the situation. Think before you send. Abraham Lincoln had a habit of writing nasty-ass letters to his generals and others, and then sticking them in the drawer of his desk. After a few days, weeks, etc., he would take another look at the letter and then either rewrite it or just toss it.



5. Beer and booze do not help. Trust me on this one. Drinking only makes things worse, a lot worse. You'll end up getting fat, a DUI, the kids taken away from you, beaten up in a bar, sitting around a crummy apartment in a soiled wife beater t-shirt, or all of the above. None of those are an asset in anybody's accounting ledger.




6. The guys don't want to hear about it. Seriously. We're guys. We don't talk about this stuff. The most we should say is "That sucks, dude." Sitting there and pouring out the sordid (or not) details of your unraveled marriage to your friends is not a good idea. It's boring. Smile, say thank you and move the conversation to baseball.


7. DO talk to professionals, if you think you need it. Professional counselors, therapists, etc. have thriving businesses for a reason: they help people. I have been to counseling many times and it always helped. Help can range from psychiatrists to licensed social workers to groups at the local church. Get it if you need it.


8. Exercise. I can't overstate how much exercise has helped me through this rough patch. It puts you in a better frame of mind, eases anxiety, etc. etc. You know all the benefits, so, to quote a famous shoe company, just do it.


9. God. Faith, prayer, meditation, all help. I'm not a bible thumper, but I have been able to rely on my particular faith. It didn't make things all better, no angel came down and kissed me on the forehead, but it does help.


10. Divorce does not define you. You're divorced, big fat deal. You and a zillion other people. Being divorced doesn't define you. It isn't a filter through which you have to view life from now until you die. Your friends aren't going to think of you as "my divorced dumbass friend Joe." They'll just think of you as "my dumbass friend Joe."


It is what it is. Walk it off. Live your life. The world spins madly on

Running in China: No Easy Feat

Yesterday Chinese officials announced emergency contingency plans to improve air quality. Too little, too late.

The Olympics kick off in eight days in Beijing. Endurance athletes are expected to be hardest hit by the air pollution so prevalent in the world's most populous nation. In recent days, the Chinese capital has been blanketed in a haze, and vehicle emissions have been higher than those expected by experts. Olympic organizers fear the pollution could not only prove a nuisance to spectators but also hinder the performance of athletes if they inhale the pollutants deep into the lungs.

Up to this point, Chinese authorities have ordered many gunk-spewing factories to move out of town or shut down. On Thursday, the Ministry of Environmental Protection announced that officials would close 220 more factories, coal-fired power plants and steel plants in Beijing, as well as in nearby Tianjin city and surrounding Hebei province if air quality is forecast to be poor for any 48-hour period.

I've been to Beijing and other cities in China many times. I've run there. It sucks. After a run of even a moderate distance of say five or six miles, my lungs and throat ached. It felt like I had been been sucking on a tailpipe. I wish the athletes all the luck in such trying conditions.

Enviro Groups Stand Behind Him, But Is Obama Really The “Green” Candidate?

Yesterday the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) announced that it is strongly endorsing Sen. Barack Obama for president. LCV is the second major environmental group to endorse Obama, joining the Sierra Club in its support for Senator Obama.

To many this seems an easy choice, but is it really?

Let us turn back the clock to when the Democratic primary season was just getting underway in early 2007. At that time, some environmental groups were not pleased with the prospect of an Obama presidency. In fact, some cheered Obama's decision to leave the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee in March 2007 because of concerns that the senator was backing key coal industry efforts to promote liquefied coal, a move that could make him an unreliable vote on global warming legislation.

In particular, there were concerns with Senator Obama's collaboration with Republican Senator Jim Bunning to promote coal-to-liquid (CTL) fuels. Environmental groups generally oppose CTL fuels due to the high carbon dioxide emissions that result from the fuels’ production. Senators Bunning and Obama reintroduced a bill encouraging CTL fuel development and had also launched a bipartisan CTL fuels caucus. Consequently, some in the environmental movement breathed a big sigh of relief when Senator Obama left the committee.

In the attention-deficit land of politics, however, all of that seems to be forgotten. With Obama now the presumptive Democratic nominee, LCV and other environmental groups are strongly backing him. LCV said in its July 21 statement that Senator Obama's “impressive” 86 percent score in the group's rankings was significantly better than GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain's 24 percent score (duh, even I can do that math). The group cited several of Obama's policy positions, including his calls for a 52 mile per gallon automobile fuel efficiency standard, $150 billion federal investment in clean energy technology, a 25 percent renewable portfolio standard for utilities and his backing for a cap-and-trade program to cut global warming pollution by 80 percent. To be sure, these are all fine ideas.

However, American politics are far more complicated than to assume that Democrats are pro-environment and Republicans are pro-business. To my knowledge, no politician has ever publicly said “screw the environment.” And remember that almost every piece of major environmental legislation was signed by a Republican President: Nixon created EPA and signed the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act; Reagan signed sweeping amendments to RCRA, the nation’s hazardous waste law and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act; the first President Bush signed into law the massive Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Ironically, the most maligned piece of environmental legislation -- CERCLA or Superfund -- was signed into law by a departing Jimmy Carter.

Political realities are just that – realities. We can’t assume that any candidate is green, will stay green and will, on his or her own, “do the right thing” every time. We must monitor and apply pressure, regardless of who sites behind that desk in the oval office.

100% Clean Energy in Ten Years? Al Gore Says Yes

Former Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore issued a bold challenge last week: that 100 percent of U.S. electricity production come from sources with zero carbon emissions within 10 years. Gore also clearly made the case that the biggest problems we are facing right now are connected and must be solved together. "We are borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that's got to change," he said.

"But if we grab hold of that common thread and pull it hard," Gore continued, "all of these complex problems begin to unravel and we will find that we are holding the answer to all of them right in our hand. The answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels. I'm convinced that one reason we've seemed paralyzed in the face of these crises is our tendency to offer old solutions to each crisis separately -- without taking the others into account. And these outdated proposals have not only been ineffective -- they almost always make the other crises even worse."

In the speech hosted by the "We" Campaign, Gore challenged all Americans to solve America's economic, environmental and national security crises by rallying behind a single, comprehensive objective. "This goal is achievable, affordable and transformative. It represents a challenge to all Americans -- in every walk of life: our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers and every citizen," said Gore. Among the dangers in not creating a new energy infrastructure, Gore
said, is that fuel prices will continue to rise and weaken the U.S. economy. He encouraged Americans to not accept the solutions of the past, like drilling for more oil.

Gore described the following as components of meeting this challenge:
-- Expand the wind and solar sectors through continued investment and innovation.
-- Add other renewables should be added to the mix, such as geothermal and solar thermal.
-- The greatest gains can be made in energy efficiency. For instance, existing technologies can raise household efficiency by 30 percent.
-- America must invest in a Unified National Grid that would link every household and move cost-effective renewable electricity from places where the supply is vast to where the power is needed most.
-- We should retain the existing fossil fuel-free energy production from nuclear and hydroelectric power.
-- We must learn to safely store and capture carbon from coal and gas.

Go T. Boone, Go!

Here is an awesome video of T. Boone Pickens speaking about how wind energy can easily become the dominant energy supply of the world. T. Boone at a whiteboard. Doesn't get any better than this!

http://vcr.csrwire.com/node/9159

Naturally Successful

Most of the recent change in the US in the environmental arena has not come from governmetns. Rather, it is springing forth from a new type of entrepreneur, people who are changing the world AND making a profit. Here is a video from just a handful of business leaders speaking about their vision, passion, and fun. It's under three minutes and well worth the time.
http://vcr.csrwire.com/node/9236

The cofounders of Method discuss their new book, "Squeaky Green"

The co-founders of Method, the world's "largest eco-friendly home care brand" talk about their new book "Squeeky Green," a guide for cleaning and detoxifying your home. Here is the link to the video: http://vcr.csrwire.com/node/9221.

Woodsy Owl, Where Are You?

Remember Woodsy Owl? As a kid growing up in the 1970s, the ever-present “Hoot Hoot, Don’t Pollute” was, if annoying, a potent reminder that individual Americans bear the burden of protecting the environment. Some thirty years after first hearing that irksome bird, his message echoes in my ear whenever a gum wrapper falls out of my car, or I see one of my children toss a piece of trash onto the ground. Just as a 12-step program “ruins” drinking for recovering alcoholics (such as myself), that stupid, glassy-eyed little owl made it impossible for me to ever think about littering or “polluting” again. Damn him.

And whatever happened to The Ecology Movement? I remember plastering my notebooks with Ecology Flag stickers, sifting through cereal boxes for ecology compasses, and signing up to the Ecology Club at school. Somewhere along the way grown-ups took over the movement, changed its name to environmentalism, like, made it all serious, and consequently ruined it for kids.

Where are the stickers, flags and annoying owls now?

The only way that we are going to save our planet is to hold ourselves accountable and to take individual actions to reduce our impact. Governments at almost every level are hamstrung by politics, inertia, funding, and fear. Individuals must win this war. And focusing on the younger generation – just as Woodsy Owl did – is really the only way to do it.

Thank You, President Bush

No, really. Thank you President Bush for doing nothing. It is the only credible step you could have taken at this stage in your presidency. It took guts to do it, seriously.

Last week the Bush EPA issued a notice that, in the stilted vernacular of the government, is called an "Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking." In the notice, the US Environmental Protection Agency essentially was silent on whether global warming is a threat to human health or the environment. This astounding reversal of a previous EPA finding ensures that the current administration will do nothing on global warming, leaving it to the next president and Congress. Although the notice puts forth several options for dealing with global warming, it brings nothing new to the table, charts no tangible course to deal with the problem, and likely will do little to help curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Just about a month ago EPA said that it could use the 38 year old Clean Air Act to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases, which are thought to contribute to global warming. But the White House rejected that notion, stating that the law was outdated and that any attempts to regulate greenhouse gases using it would cripple the economy. The EPA Administrator, Stephen Johnson subsequently said that the Clean Air Act is the wrong tool for the job, and that the issue is now in Congress' hands.

I agree.

President Bush's decision is, in my view, and paradoxically, the right decision. It is the only honorable thing President Bush could have done at this point. Anything else would have been irresponsible and, in the words of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, "bogus." President Bush also agreed with other world leaders at the recently concluded G-8 summit to a voluntary 50% reduction in greenhouse gases worldwide by 2050. Of course, there are no details on how to reach this goal, but it is a step in the right direction.

So the issue is now back in the hands of Congress and the next president. Have we lost valuable time in the fight to combate global warming? Of course. Is it too late to take meaningful action? Some scientists believe it is. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/too-late-to-avoid-global-warming-say-scientists-402800.html.

Being the eternal optimist in all things (except for the Baltimore Orioles), I don't think it is too late. But it is time for us all to take those individual steps to reduce our own impact on the Earth. More on that later.