Obama Might Be Able to Overturn Bush’s Environmental Measures, After All

President Bush has been all too eager to use his last few months in office to get in as many favors for industry buddies as he can. He’s been pushing forth measures left and right that compromise our water quality, open national parks to destructive drilling and invade the habitats of endangered species. It’s been looking as though Bush’s final desperate moves would be difficult for Obama to quickly reverse, leading many conservationists to feel as if years of work have been lost. But, Congressional Democrats might just have found a way to roll back Bush’s midnight regulations, including ones that have already taken effect.

From Politico:

“Fortunately, [the White House] made a mistake,” said a top Senate Democratic aide.

Last May, White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten instructed federal agency heads to make sure any new regulations were finalized by Nov. 1. The memo didn’t spell it out, but the thinking behind the directive was obvious. As Myron Ebell of the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute put it: “We’re not going to make the same mistakes the Clinton administration did.”

President Bill Clinton finalized regulations within 60 days of the 2001 inauguration, meaning Bush could come in and easily reverse them.

It could take Obama years to undo climate rules finalized more than 60 days before he takes office — the advantage the White House sought by getting them done by Nov. 1. But that strategy doesn’t account for the Congressional Review Act of 1996.

The law contains a clause determining that any regulation finalized within 60 legislative days of congressional adjournment is considered to have been legally finalized on the 15th legislative day of the new Congress, likely sometime in February. Congress then has 60 days to review it and reverse it with a joint resolution that can’t be filibustered in the Senate.

In other words, any regulation finalized in the last half-year of the Bush administration could be wiped out with a simple party-line vote in the Democrat-controlled Congress.

Despite the fact that the Congressional Review Act can’t be filibustered, Congress could still run into difficulty overturning Bush’s midnight regulations. But Jerry Brito, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University thinks the Obama administration can simply package all the Bush regulations it wants overturned into one large vehicle to be voted up or down. That will limit the special pleading that’s sure to come from the people who stood to benefit from Bush’s moves.

What a relief. There’s hope after all! Imagine the mess Obama would have had to wade through trying to fight these final desperate acts of Bush’s while also dealing with the economic mess. That’s probably what Bush was counting on. If Congress can overturn all f these business-first, environment-last regulations, it’ll be a huge victory for anyone who cares about the earth.

Link [Politico]

Department of Energy Stopping Important Global Warming Research Project

For over a decade, scientists have been working on a federally-funded research project called ‘Free Air CO2 Enrichment’ (FACE) to determine the effect of carbon dioxide on forests. Millions of dollars have already been spent pumping elevated levels of CO2 into experimental forests, and scientists say they’re on the cusp of receiving key results that may be crucial to our understanding of how global warming will affect the planet. But, the Department of Energy is ready to cut the trees down, saying they need the funding for other things.

From The Huffington Post:

That plan has upset some researchers who have spent years trying to understand how forests may help stave off global warming, and who want to keep the project going for at least a couple of more years.

“There has been an investment in these experiments and it’s a shame we are going to walk away from that investment,” said William Chameides, an atmospheric scientist at Duke University, where one of the experimental forests is located. “There is no question that ultimately we want to cut the trees down and analyze the soil. The question is whether now is the time to do it.”

Ronald Neilson, a U.S. Forest Service bio-climatologist in Corvallis, Ore., said the experiments should continue because they still have potential to answer key questions about how rainfall and fertility affect how much carbon a forest will store long-term _ essential to understanding how forests may soften the blow of climate change.

The Energy Department is insisting that cutting down the trees now and digging up the soil will allow the first real measurements of how much carbon various parts of the trees have been storing. They also say that ending the experiments will allow them to forward the funding to new research that will examine the effects of higher temperatures, changes in rainfall and variations in soil fertility.

Some of the scientists associated with the project say that if it’s stopped now, all of the time spent on this all-consuming project will be for nothing. Ram Oren, associate professor of ecology at Duke University and principle investigator of the experiments there, says “To stop an experiment that cost $55 million, $10 million before it reaches its real conclusion makes no sense to me.”

What’s the deal with the Bush Administration lately? It seems as if this is yet another part of their recent hackjob on the environment, destroying progress and ensuring that Obama’s task of cleaning up their mess is even more difficult.

Link [The Huffington Post]
Photo credit: Duke University

Democrats Might Have a 60-Vote Bloc on Energy, After All

Despite the fact that Democrats didn’t reach that magical number of 60 filibuster-proof seats in the Senate, they might be able to get a lot done without interference from staunch business-first Republicans after all. Democrats currently have 56 seats with a few still undecided, and both candidates in Oregon are pro-clean-energy. Beyond that, there may be as many as half a dozen Republicans willing to reach across the aisle and help pass important clean energy legislation.

From The Wall Street Journal:

New Energy Finance says that could include both Republican senators from Maine, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Ms. Snowe worked with California Democrat Diane Feinstein on energy-efficiency and solar-power incentives. Ms. Collins is a true “all of the above” energy advocate, supporting biofuels, tougher fuel-economy standards, and a national renewable-energy standard.

Longtime Republican senators Chuck Grassley of Iowa and John Thune of South Dakota are both big-time ethanol supporters. And as prairie-state senators, they have both become vocal advocates of federal support for renewable energy, especially wind power. In Nevada, Republican Sen. John Ensign worked with Washington Democrat Maria Cantwell to bolster federal support for alternative energy.

Other possibilities include incoming Republican Senator Jim Risch, and Obama’s former opponent John McCain.

This help from Republicans won’t necessarily come across for all issues, especially cap-and-trade schemes. But, it will make all the difference in moving forward the way we need to in order to properly address the energy crisis, global warming and the economy all at once.

Link [The Wall Street Journal]
Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons

Greenies Win Some, Lose Some in Historic Election

There was much at stake in Tuesday’s election, and environmentalists were keeping a close eye on certain senate and house races as well as an important ballot measure in California. As they say, you win some and you lose some, and although not every candidate endorsed by the League of Conservation Voters was victorious, quite a few were.

The biggest victory of the night – aside from that of President-elect Obama, of course – was claimed by animals across the country.  California’s Proposition 2 sought to require that egg-laying hens, calves raised for veal, and pregnant pigs be given enough room to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely.

Market Watch has a statement from Farm Sanctuary on the victory:

“The passage of Prop 2 in the country’s largest agricultural state marks a monumental victory for farm animals. This campaign did an amazing job of raising public awareness about the cruel treatment farm animals endure at the hands of an industry that has consistently fought meaningful change for animals. Farm Sanctuary supporters and campaign volunteers have seen California voters respond with reason and compassion agreeing that all animals deserve humane treatment. Today marks a significant change in the way we view and treat farm animals and falls closer in line with public sentiments and values of compassion. We look forward to seeing these confinement systems phased out nationwide.”

Grist has a rundown of the outcomes of environmentally notable races and ballot measures.  Prop 2 was far from the only green measure to pass – others include CA Prop 1A, which will partially fund a high-speed train linking SoCal and the Bay Area, and MO Prop C, which will require 15 percent of the state’s electricity to come from clean energy sources by 2021.

Among the Senate winners were Sierra Club- and LCV-endorsed Mark Udall of Colorado, Jean Shaheen of New Hampshire and Kay Hagan of North Carolina.

Check out the whole list over at Grist!

Link [Market Watch] + [Grist]
Photo credit: Flickr user gemsling

Obama Victorious! Let the Green Collar Economy Begin

‘President Obama’. Doesn’t it feel great to say that? We’re ecstatic about Barack Obama winning the presidency for so many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that we’ve now got the government on our side in the push toward a green collar economy. His historic victory means that instead of fighting against our leaders, we can be confident that they’ll be on our side.

Cleaning up Bush’s mess won’t be easy. We can’t fool ourselves into thinking that an Obama administration will magically be able to make everything better.  With the state the economy is in, we need swift, decisive action to prevent the situation from getting any worse.  That’s where Van Jones and his Green Collar Economy come in.

We already know that Obama and Biden plan to set bold new goals for America on energy efficiency; they want to create 5 million green collar jobs and start a shift toward renewable energy sources. They will increase fuel economy standards, add millions of plug-in hybrids to the roads, enact a windfall profits tax on oil companies and aggressively work toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Watch Obama’s August 4th 2008 speech on energy, if you haven’t already:

Obama and Biden will have the power to get these initiatives rolling, and Van Jones has the on-the-ground experience to help them achieve their ambitious goals.  Jones’ background in social justice and environmental activism makes him the ideal green economy advisor for Obama’s administration.

So, how about it, President-elect Obama? Last night, you made history and the world will never be the same. We’re a rejuvenated America, damaged by eight years of mismanagement but so hopeful about the future, so eager to pick up the pieces and start anew. It’s as good a time as any to create a new position in your administration – one that will allow Van Jones to help you bring your energy plan to fruition. Here’s to a green collar economy, and all of the good it will bring this country!

Link [Barack Obama] + [Amazon]

Sarah Palin Prank Called, Agrees Taking Animals’ Lives is Fun

If you haven’t already heard about the hilarious prank call Sarah Palin received last week, you’ve got to check out the audio over at The Huffington Post. A Canadian comedian convinced Palin that he was Nicolas Sarkozy, France’s President, making jokes and saying lewd things as Palin awkwardly laughed. Clearly, most of it went right over her head, but she seemed to perk up when fake Sarkozy mentioned hunting.

From The Huffington Post:

He tells Palin one of his favorite pastimes is hunting, also a passion of the 44-year-old Alaska governor.

“I just love killing those animals. Mmm, mmm, take away life, that is so fun,” the fake Sarkozy says.

He proposes they go hunting together by helicopter, something he says he has never done.

“Well, I think we could have a lot of fun together while we’re getting work done,” Palin counters. “We can kill two birds with one stone that way.”

The comedian jokes that they shouldn’t bring Cheney along on the hunt, referring to the 2006 incident in which the vice-president shot and injured a friend while hunting quail.

“I’ll be a careful shot,” responds Palin.

How her camp didn’t realize this was a prank, I have no idea, especially as they were calling from Canada – not France (hello, caller ID?).  Unsurprisingly, Palin sounds like a complete moron, thanking fake Sarkozy (Marc-Antoine Audette of Montreal comedy duo ‘Masked Avengers’) when he complimented her on the ‘documentary’ about her life, ‘Nailin’ Paylin’.

After learning it was a prank, Palin’s camp said “C’est la vie”, while the Obama campaign commented, “I’m glad we check out our calls before we hand the phone to Barack Obama.”

Perhaps what Palin’s hiding by not releasing her medical records is that she’s had a full frontal lobotomy. I mean, really.

Link [The Huffington Post]

California’s Proposition 2: Money vs. Animal Rights

Proposition 8 isn’t the only battle raging in California this election season, with the lives of millions hanging in the balance. Farm animals raised for food will either get a big break next Tuesday, seeing better treatment than they’ve ever received in America, or they’ll continue to be treated cruelly, confined to tiny cages so they can’t even stand up or turn around.

From Grist, via The Huffington Post:

It’s not just another one of those far-out Left Coast things. The Prop. 2 campaign is playing on a mainstream, national stage. Oprah Winfrey devoted a show to the issue of food-animal care and Prop. 2 last week, and the New York Times editorial page voiced support for the proposition.

The changes called for in Prop. 2 are small but significant. The ballot wording says simply that Prop. 2 “requires that calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens, and pregnant pigs be confined only in ways that allow these animals to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely.” It would take effect Jan. 1, 2015.

There’s a lot at stake here, not just for the animals who live such heartbreakingly sad, painful lives before ending up on our plates or producing the eggs we eat, but for the quality of our food in the future. The nation’s big factory farmers will be watching the results of Prop 2 carefully, because if it passes, it’ll be sending them a strong message from voters: that we do care where our food comes from and how it’s raised.

If you’re a California resident, please vote yes on Proposition 2. Learn more about it at the California Voter Guide.

Link [Grist] + [Huffington Post] + [Voter Guide]
Photo credit: LA Times

Once More, With Feeling: Palin’s Abysmal Environmental Record

Just in case we haven’t hammered the point home yet, let’s take some time to go back over GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin’s environmental record.  Since the decision to include her on the Republican ticket was announced, we’ve reported a few times on various stories about her record, but haven’t included all the facts in one place. Since she may very well have to step in as President for John McCain at some point if they win the election, it’s important for anyone who cares about the environment to know what we’d be getting ourselves into.

MSNBC reports that Gov. Palin’s environmental priorities are ‘crystallized’ in the small town of Wasilla, Alaska, where she served as mayor and still resides with her family:

Palin declared Wasilla “open for business,” and business rushed in: Dozens of strip malls sprung up along the city’s two glacial lakes.

The costs of such fast — and sometimes haphazard — growth can be seen even from Palin’s lakefront home. Once-pristine Lake Lucille is plagued by high levels of phosphorous, which chokes off oxygen from the salmon and trout. Scientists put the blame on nearby development.

Palin refined her pro-business attitudes after becoming governor in 2006. Faced with choosing between development and the environment, she has sided more often than not with business interests.

According to MSNBC, Palin has also occasionally made choices that were good for the environment, such as when she restricted the use of old two-stroke engines in the Kenai River, which reduced oil pollution by 66 percent in one year.  However, examples like these are few and far between.

She likes to trumpet the fact that she started a climate change committee in Alaska, but her committee set no goal for reducing emissions, focusing only on ways to adapt to warmer temperatures (!). Not to mention the fact that her insistence that global warming is probably not caused by man undermines their efforts.  As Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden noted, we’ve got to know the cause of global warming if we’re going to fight it effectively.

“If it’s all just a natural, cyclical thing, maybe we should just all go home and read a book,” said Kathie Wasserman, an adviser to Palin’s climate change committee.

Palin is a vocal supporter of offshore drilling – hence the “drill, baby, drill” chants heard at her rallies.  In fact, she’s such a fan of offshore drilling, she’s willing to let oil and gas companies set up shop anywhere in Alaska, including in the Arctic National Wildlife refuge, which is home to bears, gray wolves, sandhill cranes and a herd of caribou, as well as fish-rich Bristol Bay and Cook Inlet.

Furthermore, Palin has proven to be no friend to animals.  As we’ve learned, she is an avid hunter who routinely kills caribou, moose, bears and other animals for fun. Her office is decorated with dead animals.  And worse yet, she advocates shooting wolves from low-flying airplanes.  Scientists recently revealed that half of all mammals are in decline, and we’re facing an uphill battle to protect and preserve these animals.  With Palin in office, it’s doubtful that conservation would be a top priority.

Here are more details of her record as Governor of Alaska, from Seattle PI:

Endangered species. Earlier this year, Palin approved a $2 million state appropriation for a conference on the “economic impacts” of the Endangered Species Act, designed to persuade the public that ESA listings were too costly and unwarranted. Recently she agreed to use the money instead to fund the state’s lawsuit against the Bush administration over the polar bear listing — a likely violation of the state constitutional provisions on appropriation. She opposes additional species listings and other protections in Alaska, where many species are at risk because of climate change and other threats.

Pebble mine. Palin aggressively opposed the “clean water initiative” on the August ballot in Alaska (which then failed), favoring instead foreign mining company desires for fewer government regulations controlling their toxic effluent into salmon streams. She has supported virtually any and all mining proposals that have come her way, even likely the enormous Pebble gold and copper mine proposed in the Bristol Bay watershed. That plan put at risk the largest runs of sockeye salmon in the world, where this summer fishermen caught more than 27 million salmon.

Predator control. Palin approved and expanded the state’s aerial predator control program, where wolves are shot from aircraft and bears hunted from aircraft and killed upon landing. This year, her state biologists even dragged 14 newborn wolf pups from their den and, having already shot their parents, then shot each of the pups in the head at close range. Last year, her administration offered a $150 bounty for each wolf killed until the bounty was ruled illegal by the courts. Hundreds of wolves are killed each year by this antiquated state program that has no scientific justification whatsoever, but rather is designed to appease Palin’s urban sport hunter supporters.

Exxon Valdez oil spill damages. Palin refuses to push Exxon to pay the government for the unanticipated environmental injuries from the disastrous 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. Almost 20 years later, the private case is still unresolved and the governments likewise have yet to collect full payment from Exxon. Shortly before Palin took office in 2006, the governments presented Exxon with a demand to pay $92 million for this additional environmental damage, but her administration has since not pressed the issue nor taken Exxon to court to collect the money. Meanwhile, Exxon reaps record profits from Alaska.

Combine all of the negative things Palin has managed to do during her short time in power with John McCain’s hypocritical performance, and you’ve got a recipe for environmental disaster.  Read all about John McCain’s environmental record in our previous post, ‘9 Reasons a John McCain Presidency Would be a Disaster for the Environment’.

Link [MSNBC] + [Seattle PI]
Photo credit: EarthFirst composite/Wikimedia Commons

Why is Gas So Expensive? Here’s a Breakdown

As gas prices rise and fall seemingly on a daily basis lately, it might seem like the shift in price is totally arbitrary.  After all, what can happen during one weekend to make gas go from $3.69 to $3.09 and back up to $3.36? A complex set of transactions has to take place before the price of gas is calculated, and The Consumerist has broken it down for us.

From The Consumerist:

The Three Markets: Contract, Spot and Futures

Both oil and gas are traded on three markets: the contract market, the spot market, and the futures market. Each is influenced by different factors and impacts the price of gas at different stages of production. Unlike the futures market, the contract and spot markets are not the kind of markets found on Wall Street; they are informal networks of businesspeople.

The Contract Market
Though it seems like oil companies spend most of their time ruining your day by raising the price of gas, their primary business is exploration. Once an oil company finds a field and coaxes it into producing crude, it takes that unrefined oil and sells to refiners. The vast majority of oil is sold by contracts. A veritable orgy of contracts signed between oilcompanies and dealers, oil companies and refiners, refiners and independent dealers predetermine the fate of most oil and gas.

Refiners plan their purchasing and refining activity to ensure that these contracts are fulfilled. In exchanged for this privileged standing, refiners charge contract customers a premium.

Check out the article on The Consumerist for the rest, including the spot market, the futures market, refineries, gas stations, taxes, and more.  It’s a fascinating look into what causes prices to fluctuate, and as described by The Consumerist, sometimes all it takes is a butterfly flapping in the wind to send gas shooting up in price halfway across the world.  And remember - though you might not be able to do anything to control the price of oil, you can control how much you consume.

Link [The Consumerist]
Photo credit: Flickr user micah.d

Be Green, Get Rich: Money-Saving Tips Good for the Planet, Too

There’s a definite upside to this whole mess with the economy. It’s simple: nearly all of the tips we’re getting from experts on how to save money also benefit the planet.  It’s a matter of consuming less.  We’re reigning in our big-spending habits and instead reusing things, cutting back and doing without. In the process, we’re reducing the amount of junk that’s piling up in landfills, using less energy and consuming fewer resources.

Grist noticed this when checking out budget-saving tips from TheStreet.com.  Among the tips were:

You care what your car looks like: A car is a means of transportation to get from one place to another, but many people don’t view it that way. Instead, they consider it a reflection of themselves and spend money every two years or so to impress others instead of driving the car for its entire useful life and investing the money saved.

You buy things you don’t use: Take a look around your house, in the closets, basement, attic and garage and see if there are a lot of things you haven’t used in the past year. If there are, chances are that all those things you purchased were wasted money that could have been used to increase your net worth.

Your house is too big: When you buy a house that is bigger than you can afford or need, you end up spending extra money on longer debt payments, increased taxes, higher upkeep and more things to fill it. Some people will try to argue that the increased value of the house makes it a good investment, but the truth is that unless you are willing to downgrade your living standards, which most people are not, it will never be a liquid asset or money that you can ever use and enjoy.

After so many decades of pointless, debt-amassing excess, we’re finally learning that small is beautiful, and less is more. Perhaps this shift toward a simpler way of living will help people detach themselves from the obsession with image that has gripped our society for too long.  I won’t hold my breath, but it’s a nice thought.

Link [The Street] via [Grist]
Photo credit: Flickr user Refracted Moments

The Latest Thing in Kitchens: Less Remodeling, More Cooking

With the economy the way it is right now, people are looking for ways they can trim their budgets in order to sock away some extra money.  Green Daily caught a recent article in The Washington Post by Elizabeth Razzi, which offered up some simple money-saving tips, and noted with amusement one that said “The latest thing in kitchens: less remodeling, more cooking.”

It may seem absurdly obvious, but it’s definitely true that over the last decade or so, people in America have gone crazy over kitchen remodeling.  It was a craze that snowballed into panic attacks over “ohmygod my appliances are white, MUST HAVE STAINLESS STEEL” and “if I have to look at those ugly cabinets one more day I’m going to the bell tower with a shotgun”.  Luckily, the current economic conditions have calmed people down so they are taking a moment to realize that commercial-grade stove hoods and granite countertops are not exactly the smartest thing you could be spending your money on right now.

Think of the green angle of this: all of that debris from annihilated 80’s kitchens isn’t continuing to pile up in landfills.  People aren’t ripping down perfectly good (albeit dated) kitchens like having a brand new modern kitchen is going to save them from a zombie invasion or something. And that’s definitely a plus.

Link [Green Daily] + [The Washington Post]
Photo credit: Flickr user rtgregory

During Economic Crisis, No Recession for Bicycle Makers

It’s a good time to own bike stock.  And, according to Stephen Colbert, soup stock.  But we digress.  Though the current state of the economy has hit carmakers hard, it certainly hasn’t put a dent in the profits of bicycle makers – not even close.  Bicycle makers are unsurprisingly selling more than ever, with demand up so high that in some areas, there are bicycle shortages. “Giant Manufacturing, the world’s largest bicycle-maker, sold a record 460,000 units last month and is heading for its best year ever.”

From The Economist, via Treehugger:

After a slow 2006, sales took off last year in Europe and America as fuel prices shot up. Suddenly a bicycle seems like the remedy for many modern ills, from petrol prices to pollution and obesity. Each market has its own idiosyncrasies. Europeans mainly use bikes for commuting, but have the odd habit of ignoring models made explicitly for that purpose in favour of sleeker, faster models which are then expensively modified. Americans prefer off-road BMX trail bikes. Taiwanese demand is led by racing-style bikes used for exercise.

Treehugger notes that, looking back on Giant Manufacturing’s stock performance over the years, they’re actually up by 5.65% right now whereas the market as a whole is way down over the same period of time.  Maybe it’s a good time to open that bicycle shop you’ve been mulling over, or work on that design you’ve had in the back of your mind for years.  Bikes FTW!

Link [Treehugger]
Photo credit: Flickr user Bitpicture

Contents of Foreclosed Homes Going to the Dump. Where are the Green Entrepreneurs?

‘Foreclosure Alley’: that’s the nickname of one area in Southern California that’s been so hard-hit by the mortgage crisis, there’s barely a home in the neighborhood that’s still occupied.  The beautiful valley filled with spacious homes with formerly sparkling pools and manicured lawns is now decaying.  So many homes have been foreclosed, the banks can’t clean them out fast enough.  So, they’re resorting to the cheapest way to empty the homes of their contents: hiring companies to haul it all away to the dump.

Check out this video from KCET SoCal Connected:

Shocking, isn’t it? Surely there’s a better way. Especially once you consider the fact that the vast majority of this stuff is perfectly good – better than the quality that most charities receive as donations for people in need.  It’s sickening to see giant trash bins full of clothing, bedding, televisions, brand new computers, cookware, toys, baby supplies and other valuable items being poured into a dump truck.  The company featured in the video ‘trashes out’ an average of 15 foreclosed homes a day.  That’s a lot of trash.  Apparently, they’ve tried to donate this ‘trash’ to charities, but the charities aren’t well-organized enough to get the stuff fast enough to please banks that are eager to keep things fast and cheap.

Max Gladwell speaks for a lot of us when he asks, “Where are the green entrepreneurs?”  This is a prime opportunity to step in and not only make a big profit, but get items to people in need AND prevent all of this stuff from crowding landfills.  It’s a win-win.

From Max Gladwell:

We envision an operation that rents cheap warehouse space in strategic locations near current and pending foreclosure areas. One would partner with the trash-out companies and hire teams of low-cost labor to work with them to identify and recover the most valuable items in a highly strategic manner. Much of it can be sold through eBay and Craig’s List. Other items can be Freecycled. As the operation scales and diversifies, one could take over for the trash-out companies and offer banks a green alternative. As the company gains momentum and scale, it could operate more cost-effectively than the non-green competitors because revenue would be generated at both ends, while also saving on the landfill fees.

Somebody jump on it!

Link [Max Gladwell]

Eating on a Dollar a Day: The One Dollar Diet Project

Last month two social justice teachers, Christopher and Kerri, set out on a 30-day experiment in what it’s like to live off only a dollar worth of food each day.  The couple hoped to use the experience to gain a better understanding of poverty, consumerism and waste as well as raise money for Community Resource Center and ONE, an anti-poverty organization.  The project was documented on the ‘One Dollar Diet Project’ blog.

Some of the rules the couple imposed upon themselves include not accepting free food or ‘donated’ food unless it’s available for everyone in their area (i.e. dumpster diving or foraging), and that ramen noodles were only acceptable if there was nothing else to eat. They asked people to sponsor them as they went, taking donations via PayPal, and their efforts paid off – they got a total of $1,032 (their goal was $1,000).

On the first day, Kerri remarked, “It seems odd to me that we have the luxury of doing this as an experiment when there are millions of families who have to budget their meals like this everyday.”  That’s what makes this experiment especially interesting – considering the fact that millions of people across the world would be ecstatic to have $1 a day to spend on food.  Plus, Christopher and Kerri had the luxury of items like peanut butter, frozen broccoli or wheat gluten cutlets – things that most of the world’s poor never have access to.  It really makes you realize how much we take for granted.

One thing that’s great about this experiment is that it calls attention to how much food most people waste on a daily basis.  We don’t think in terms of needing every morsel of food that’s available to us, yet the food we collectively throw away could feed millions.  Plus, imagine all the trash that Kerri and Christopher avoided while taking part in this experiment!

Check out their journey, which just ended on October 1st, at the One Dollar Diet Project blog.

Link [One Dollar Diet Project]

Van Jones: A Green Bailout Would be Twice the Bang for Half the Bucks

The historic $700 billion bailout package might – might – avert a total economic meltdown.  But, it’s probably not going to stop America from going into a recession.  So believes Van Jones, and he’s taken to The Huffington Post to explain why a ‘green bailout’ would be a better idea.  A $350 billion investment in green energy could provide millions of new jobs, boost the economy and help us move forward into clean energy independence.

From The Huffington Post:

A new report just released by the U.S. Conference of Mayors says that we can create over 4 million green jobs if we aggressively shift away from traditional fossil fuels toward alternative energy and a significant improvement in energy efficiency.

Another report just released by the Political Economy Research Institute and the Center for American Progress shows that the U.S. can create two million jobs over two years by investing $100 billion in a green economic recovery plan. The report also shows that this investment would create four times more jobs than spending the same amount of money within the oil industry.

Green For All and its partners are proposing a Clean Energy Corps that includes a revolving loan fund to finance the ambitious retrofitting of the nation’s building stock. An investment of less than $3 billion per year would provide financing and can be expected to create close to 120,000 green jobs a year and 600,000 over five years, while also lowering home heating and electricity bills for homeowners and small businesses.

As Jones points out, a green economic package like this would be expensive up front but would pay for itself in energy savings and in tax dollars generated by new jobs and businesses.  Read more about the Clean Energy Corps proposal at the Green for All website.  Jones also goes into greater detail of his vision for a better future in his new book, The Green Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems.

Link [The Huffington Post] + [Green for All]

McCain and Obama Spar on Energy, Environment During 2nd Presidential Debate

During the second Presidential debate of 2008, candidates Barack Obama and John McCain answered questions relating to the environment and how they believe we should move forward on energy concerns.  McCain, while pointing out that he disagreed with Bush’s record on the environment, offered nuclear power as a solution – never mentioning renewables like solar and wind.  Obama stated that we can help the American economy grow with alternative energy innovation, pointing out that McCain has voted against alternative energy 23 times.

Check out the video:

“Senator McCain talks a lot about drilling, and that’s important. But we have three percent of the world’s oil reserves and we use twenty-five percent of the world’s oil.  So what that means is that we can’t simply drill our way out of the problem.  And we’re not going to be able to deal with the climate crisis if our only solution is to use more fossil fuels that create global warming.  We’re going to have to come up with alternatives and that means that the United States government is working with the private sector to fund the kind of innovation that we can then export to countries like China that also need energy and are setting up one coal-fired power plant a week.”

Once again, while McCain’s solution is to look back to the 20th century for help with solving a 21st century problem, Obama is looking forward toward green tech as a way to solve our energy crisis, boost the economy, battle climate change and help ensure that countries like China don’t undo our efforts with their ever-increasing reliance on dirty fossil fuels.  Whose plan sounds better to you?

Link [YouTube]

Urban Farming in Cuba: Adapting to Survive

So, America is in a state of financial breakdown that is trickling down to the everyday consumer.  A lot of people are nervously asking themselves, what would we do if the worst happened? What if the credit system broke down entirely, and businesses – including grocery stores – couldn’t afford to operate?  It’s a fair question to ask, since all of this turmoil is making us realize how much we depend upon the current system to get by, even for the most basic of necessities.

We could actually turn to Cuba to learn a valuable lesson about getting by in such a scenario.  From Green Daily:

Cuba has dealt with worse. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989, “[Cuba] lost 85 percent of its foreign trade, including food, agricultural imports and petroleum. Already crippled by the U.S. embargo, the country was financially devastated with its food supply hit hardest.” This, according to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle from the year 2000.

Fast forward to 2008. An Associated Press article printed in June talked about how, faced with food crisis, Cubans started farming in empty lots in urban centers (with support from the Cuban government). This agricultural shift prompted a cultural shift. Instead of eating rice and beans supplied by Eastern Europe, Cubans started eating tons of fresh greens. The farms also currently provide about 350,000 jobs nationwide.

The smart thing to do, really, would be to start doing this in America right now, regardless of how big of an impact this financial crisis ultimately has upon the everyday life of most Americans.  Reflecting on and preparing for worst-case scenarios shouldn’t solely be the territory of fringe conspiracy theorists – there are plenty of things that could happen that would necessitate being inventive about things like where our food comes from.

As we’ve mentioned here on EarthFirst many times before, we’re too far removed from the sources of our food, and it makes us very vulnerable.  We’d love to see urban farming take off all over America.  It’s a matter of taking not just your health but your potential survival in a crisis into your own hands.

Link [Green Daily]
Photo credit: City Dirt

9 Reasons a John McCain Presidency Would be a Disaster for the Environment

Republican presidential nominee John McCain may be doing all he can to present himself as a green candidate, but don’t believe the hype. McCain’s efforts to brand himself as a steward of the environment simply don’t mesh with the man’s own life, viewpoints and voting history, and offering a line of eco-friendly merchandise isn’t going to change that.

A McCain presidency would be an utter disaster for the environment, especially in terms of the fight against global warming and the emerging renewable energy industry. If you care about any of these things, here are 9 reasons that should keep you from voting for McCain in November.

9. He’s shown a fundamental lack of understanding about important concepts related to the environment, from energy to conservation. McCain’s campaign ridiculed Barack Obama when the Democratic presidential nominee stated that if everyone kept their vehicles properly maintained, including keeping tires properly inflated, we could save as much energy as offshore drilling would produce. However, Obama was right.

Despite claiming that he’s a conservationist in the vein of Theodore Roosevelt, McCain has shown a staggering lack of understanding about conservation issues. In his haste to display a ‘tough stance’ on earmarks, McCain derided efforts to fund a study on grizzly bear populations in Montana as an example of congressional excess. He oversimplified and mischaracterized the bill as an ‘expensive bear paternity test’ that would cost $3 million dollars to “study the DNA of bears in Montana”. The study, in fact, was needed to protect these endangered animals by surveying their populations. This is far from the only example of McCain’s failure to live up to his carefully crafted ‘environmentalist’ image – he has earned a lifetime League of Conservation Voters score of just 24 out of 100, including a 2007 score of 0.

McCain is also completely out of touch with technology. At a town hall meeting in Portsmouth, New Hampshire on December 6th of last year, McCain stated that “the truly green technologies don’t work”, claiming that “most every expert that I know says that if you maximize [renewables] in every possible way,” the contribution they would make is “very small.” It shows how narrow McCain’s circle of experts really is – even the Bush administration admits that we could get most of our electricity growth over the next couple of decades from wind power alone.

Note also that he said “given the present state of technology”. That brings us to…

8. He’s not going to help green energy get off the ground – he doesn’t believe that solar, wind and other renewables need government assistance. According to him, “I’m not one who believes that we need to subsidize things. The wind industry is doing fine, the solar industry is doing fine.” And yet, his energy plan includes subsidies for getting nuclear power off the ground.

Considering that solar and wind power are cleaner, safer sources of renewable energy, it would make sense to ensure that businesses can afford to move forward with these technologies. Subsidies for wind and solar are critical for projects like the Solana Generating Station, a $1 billion, 280-megawatt plant slated for construction near Gila Bend in Arizona. McCain has instead placed the priority on offshore drilling and nuclear power.

7. He’ll cave to pressure from more conservative Republicans. In the course of his campaign, McCain has moved further and further away from his original, greener, more left-leaning stances. He was once a staunch opponent of offshore drilling, but that stance slowly died an awkward death, finally succumbing completely when running mate Sarah Palin roused a chorus of “drill, baby, drill” at the GOP national convention.

Indeed, the GOP’s death grip on oil as America’s main source of energy – and their many financial and personal ties to the industry – would hardly give McCain the opportunity to accomplish anything substantial in the environmental arena. Despite the fact that he’s often held views on green issues that are unpopular with his fellow Republicans, he has taken his party’s decidedly pro-corporation, anti-environment stance on plenty of others. Whether this is due to pressure from fellow lawmakers, lobbyists or other influences is impossible to tell – McCain’s record on environmental issues is wildly erratic with no clear rhyme or reason (see #2).

As The New Republic mused back in March, “However uneven his record, it would be a real tragedy if the GOP changed McCain’s position on the environment, rather than the other way around.” Given his softening on environmental issues during the course of his campaign, it’s looking more and more likely that that’s exactly what would happen if he became President.

6. McCain’s own life shows how much personal dedication he really has to the environment. It’s the argument that conservatives have tried to use against Al Gore for years, only in this instance, it’s true. John McCain and his wife, Cindy, own 13 vehicles and somewhere between 7-12 homes, depending on who you ask. When asked by a reporter how many homes he owns, McCain wasn’t even able to provide an answer.

Climate Progress estimates that the carbon footprint of McCain’s homes to be around 150 million tons, or about 10 times that of the average American. Mind you, this isn’t counting the trips he makes back and forth between those homes on his wife’s private jet. And, somehow we doubt that McCain is powering his homes with 100% renewable energy, like Al Gore does (and for the record, Obama owns just one home and one car.)

5. He wants to build 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030. McCain claims on his website that “nuclear power is a proven, zero-emission source of energy, and it is time we recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power.” The fact is, nuclear power is unsafe and expensive – and there are better alternatives out there. A single nuclear reactor costs between $6-$8 billion to build, and shipping hazardous materials during the construction process would be extremely dangerous. Mining the uranium required to power the plants would be an environmental disaster. And then there’s the issue of disposing of nuclear waste.

We’re not wild about the fact that Obama backs nuclear power, either, but here’s an important distinction between him and McCain: Obama is cautiously supportive of nuclear energy as a small part of a comprehensive clean energy overhaul, if and only if all safety issues are addressed. Obama has said, “I have not ruled out nuclear… but only [would support it] so far as it is clean and safe.”

McCain’s stubborn insistence that nuclear power must be a major player in the clean energy of the future again affirms the fact that he’s disconnected from modern technology. He’s clinging to the energy sources of the 20th century, not looking toward the cleaner, greener energy tech of the 21st century and beyond.

4. He supports offshore drilling and falsely claims that it’s an important part of America’s short-term energy solution. In fact, offshore drilling is now a key strategy in his energy plan. McCain’s campaign has consistently sought to mislead the public about a tie between current gas prices and offshore drilling, as if offshore drilling is some magical answer. They’ve gone so far as to blame Obama for high gas prices in an attack ad, which states that “some in Washington are saying no to drilling in America… no to independence from foreign oil. Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump?” Cut to a photo of Obama. Then, “One man knows that we must now drill more in America and rescue our family budgets.”

It’s just plain not true. FactCheck.org notes of the ad, “The federal government’s estimate is that if the moratorium on offshore drilling were lifted today, it would be 2030 before we’d see a noticeable effect on supply and prices. For the same reason, it’s simply not true that drilling more now will ‘rescue our family budgets.’” But that’s exactly what McCain’s campaign is drilling into the minds of the American public – just so they’ll vote for him. We’ve got to wean ourselves off oil, period – not simply squeeze every drop we can out of America at the expense of the environment.

At least McCain doesn’t want to drill in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, right? Oh, wait – Palin does. And she’s Alaska’s governor. Umm…

3. He has given in to lobbying from the dirty energy industry time and time again. McCain has taken at least $1,069,854 from the oil & gas industry, and at least 22 top McCain advisors and fundraisers have lobbied for Big Oil at one time or another. McCain has also personally advocated for huge tax breaks for oil companies, and has voted against a windfall profit tax on oil companies multiple times. In fact, McCain has a long record of being very cozy with lobbyists. How can we trust this so-called ‘maverick’ to keep our interests in mind, and not those of the corporations he’s in bed with?

2. His record shows that he’s all talk and no action. McCain has missed dozens of important votes on environmental issues, and when he did show up, he often voted against measures that would support renewable energy. In fact, his environmental record in the Senate is aligned with that of James “global warming is a hoax” Inhofe.

McCain claims to have a long history of supporting alternative energy, but his record shows otherwise. He has missed key votes on issues like extending renewable energy tax credits, and voted against renewables at least eight times in the last decade, including the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which was the biggest congressional effort to push alternative energy in more than a decade. Even Senator Inhofe voted for it.

He has also voted to weaken requirements for energy-efficiency in appliances, voted to let coal states bypass the Clean Water Act, voted against increased EPA funding to clean up Superfund toxic-waste sites and also against requiring polluters to pay for the cleanup of Superfund sites. All in all, he has voted against clean energy and the environment (or said he would have, for those votes he missed) more than 50 times since the early 1990s. So much for being a ‘green candidate’.

1. Two words: Sarah Palin. It’s not just possible that this woman would have to take over the presidency at some point, it’s highly likely. And in the brief time we’ve known her, Palin has terrified people the world over with her narrow-minded viewpoints on a range of topics from creationism to – gulp – the environment.

Palin is so far to the right on the environment, her inclusion on the GOP ticket for this election effectively cancels out any environmental cred John McCain might have left. She supports offshore drilling anywhere, even if it doesn’t solve our energy problems. She doesn’t believe that global warming is man-made. She has opposed strengthening protection for Beluga whales in Alaska’s Cook Inlet, where oil and gas development has been proposed. She supports drilling in the ANWR, which is home to bears, gray wolves, sandhill cranes and a herd of caribou – but what does Sarah Palin care for such animals? She’s got a bear carcass in her office, regularly hunts caribou and supports shooting wolves from low-flying planes.

And finally, this about sums it up: she sued the federal government in response to polar bears being listed as endangered, because the classification that aims to protect these animals will interfere with oil drilling in Alaska’s coastal waters. Putting the oil industry before the environment: sounds familiar, doesn’t it? It’s the same old Republican policies, thinly veiled by a fading green cloak.

A Different Take on Obama and Clean Coal. Could He Be Right?

If you’re a greenie like me, you probably got a little steamed up at Joe Biden going on and on about his tickets support for Clean Coal during the recent Vice Presidential Debates (which Tina Fey nails perfectly, again). The term “Clean Coal” is bullshit- even if you could suck up all the emissions from burning coal, you’d still be left with the gaping scars and missing mountains removed to get at the black stuff.

My buddy and Green Blogger badass Kevin Grandia runs a brilliant parody site at http://coal-is-clean.com/ (any click takes you to http://coal-is-dirty.com) and has done a lot to get the word out about the downsides of coal. I’ve done enough reading to know that a lot of the support for the boondoggle that is Clean Coal comes from the coal and power industries who have massive financial stakes in the dirty status quo.

But I also know that most of the worlds energy comes from coal and that it’s not going to be easy to change outside a few decades work. With an Obama win in November we’ll get the ball rolling on getting serious about solar, wind, geothermal, and muppet power, but in the meantime it makes sense to develop technology that can mitigate the emissions side of coal’s negative environmental impact.

Joseph Romm wrote a great article over at Gristmill about why it’s important to work on Clean Coal, or as he prefers to call it, “Coal with Carbon Capture and Storage (also coal with CCS). He also defends Obama’s position on coal with CCS as a smart and balanced.

What precisely does Obama’s energy plan say about what kind of investment he and Biden would make in clean coal? Here is every mention in his energy plan:

Invest In A Clean Energy Economy and Help Create 5 Million New Green Jobs. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will strategically invest $150 billion over 10 years to accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial scale renewable energy, encourage energy efficiency, invest in low emissions coal plants, advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, and begin transition to a new digital electricity grid. The plan will also invest in America’s highly-skilled manufacturing workforce and manufacturing centers to ensure that American workers have the skills and tools they need to pioneer the green technologies that will be in high demand throughout the world. All together these investments will help the private sector create 5 million new green jobs, good jobs that cannot be outsourced …

Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology. Carbon capture and storage technologies hold enormous potential to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions as we power our economy with domestically produced and secure energy. As a U.S. Senator, Obama has worked tirelessly to ensure that clean coal technology becomes commercialized. An Obama administration will provide incentives to accelerate private sector investment in commercial scale zero-carbon coal facilities. In order to maximize the speed with which we advance this critical technology, Barack Obama and Joe Biden will instruct DOE to enter into public private partnerships to develop 5 “first-of-a-kind” commercial scale coal-fired plants with carbon capture and sequestration.

That’s it. He has committed to pursue R&D and then have five commercial scale pilot plants. Almost everything else in this detailed 8-page plan focuses on renewables and energy efficiency. And his climate plan is equally detailed about his commitment to sharp reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

So don’t freak out Obama nation, there might just be a middle of the road take on Clean Coal and it looks like Barack is just tacking that way. And let’s not forget, a McCain/Palin presidency would be a disaster for the environment.

What do you think?

Next Page »