Bill McKibben

I don’t know how many times I can mention this man’s name and essays before you finally go pick up one of his books and read them.

I think he is one of the greatest topical writers of this generation, and fortunately, his topic is the environment. I don’t know how to most effectively explain it, but he doesn’t lecture about changing light bulbs and turning off your water. He helps you understand why we got into the mess and his suggestions for getting us out.

The first of his books that I read was “Deep Economy”. In it he “offers the biggest challenge in a generation to the prevailing view of our economy. For the first time in human history, he observes, “more” is no longer synonymous with “better”—indeed, for many of us, they have become almost opposites. McKibben puts forward a new way to think about the things we buy, the food we eat, the energy we use, and the money that pays for it all. Our purchases, he says, need not be at odds with the things we truly value.”

I also have read “Age of Missing Information” in which he juxtaposes a week in the wilderness to 2400 hours of television. Guess which one leaves you a more well-rounded, educated, critically thinking adult?

He has started the website 350.org which has lead a campaign to get President Elect Obama at a critical climate change conference in Poland later this year. (Sign the petition if you haven’t already.)

I bring this up because of another article that he wrote, The Most Important Number on Earth, via Mother Jones. In it, he writes about the necessity of bringing our carbon level back down to 350ppm. He makes it clear what we are up against with global warming and uses a metaphor that I think we can all agree would be true for us:

…the doctor has said, “Your cholesterol is too high. Scaring me. You’re in the danger zone. You need to change your diet and then you need to pray that you get back down where you’re supposed to be before the stroke that’s coming at you.” When that happens, you clean the cheese out of the refrigerator and go cold turkey.

But what stops us when it comes to the cholesterol of the Earth?

He writes about the challenges ahead, and in my favorite passage, really illuminates the kind of challenge it is:

The consensus must be broad, it must come quickly, and it must encompass the whole earth—they don’t call it global warming for nothing. The list of things on which we’ve achieved a broad and deep global consensus is pretty much limited to…Coke Is It. And that took billions of dollars and several decades, and it involved inducing people to drink sugar water. The odds against a strong global movement about anything tougher than that are low, with language barriers, religious barriers, cultural barriers.

I find in his writing a man who is passionate and compassionate. And, I think his final sentence states best the kind of moral and ethical challenge before us:

To be human in 2008 is to rise in defense of the planet we have known and the civilization it has spawned.

Please go and read the article. Pick up one of his books. I think it should be required reading for every human.

why you should listen to your kids

GOOD magazine, which you know is a favorite, published a map of how the election looked with just the vote of our youth. (Isn’t it sad that I still think of myself in this group even though I am very much not… anyhoo.)

If the youth vote was the only voice in the election, Obama would have won 455 electoral votes–91 more than he has in the official count.

More statistics at the site, which is HERE. And more stuff HERE.

I got to say… I LOVE THE MAP!! I will think twice before I yell at one of “them” about their loud music and the clothes they wear.

and then there were 5

7 OF THE “DIRTY DOZEN” WERE NOT RE-ELECTED IN THEIR DISTRICTS!!!

The Dirty Dozen is a list put together by the NRDC of the government officials that have the worst environmental record.

1. Rep. Tim Walberg – R, Michiga – Walberg served only one term, but distinguished himself as a reliable vote against the environment. He scored just 5% (out of 100) on LCV’s annual ranking of votes on environmental issues. In 2007 and 2008, he voted against ever piece of legislation but one that LCV identified as key for improving energy efficiency and investing in clean energy. He also voted against the No Child Left Inside Act, which funds outdoor programs for school age children.

Democrat Mark Schauer won his seat Tuesday.

2. Rep. Anne Northrop – R, Kentucky – Northrop had a dismal 7% lifetime LCV score when she was voted out of office in 2006, and voters opted to give the incumbent who defeated her, Democrat John Yarmuth, another term.

3. Sen. Elizabeth Dole – R, North Carolina – Dole’s 2008 reelection campaign will be remembered for the ad that accused her challenger, Democrat Kay Hagan, of being “godless” with a fake voice-over meant to sound like Hagan. But Dole’s record as a Senator did more damage to the country. She had just a 4% lifetime LCV voting score.

In 2008, she voted against renewable energy production and energy conservation measures, but supported subsidies for oil companies while they were reaping record profits. (She also took more than a quarter million dollars of campaign contributions from Big Oil, according to LCV.) In 2007, she voted against raising the fuel economy of American vehicles and for the development of liquid coal fuels. And that just scrapes the surface.

4. Dean Andal – Andal had a 9% LCV rating as a state senator when he chose to run against Democrat Jerry McNerney, a renewable energy advocate, for his Congressional seat. Voters didn’t buy it.

5. Rep. Steve Pearce – R, New Mexico – In just one of 80 chances, over five years as a U.S. representative, did Pearce vote in favor of environmental protections favored by the LCV. He consistently voted against renewable energy development, and in favor of oil and gas drilling. In his race for a Senate seat, voters opted for his challenger, Rep. Tom Udall, for the seat vacated by Sen. Pete Domenici, who never scored better than 20% on LCV’s annual Scorecard (and twice scored zero) in the last decade in the Senate.

6. Rep. Bob Schaffer – R, Colorado – A former congressman, Schaffer lost to Rep. Mark Udall in a race for the Senate in Colorado. He left Congress to work for an oil company, and his campaign received significant funding from the oil industry, according to LCV.

7. Rep. Joe Knollenberg – R, Michigan – Knollenberg is synonymous with inaction on global warming. He twice tried to pass an amendment that would have barred federal agencies from doing anything about global warming, including holding educational seminars. That line of thinking was of a piece with his voting record, which has favored polluting industries over clean energy. Voters opted for something new, Democrat Gary Peters.

Election Round-Up

I ended up not posting last night, because Obama’s win became too thrilling and non-environmental propositions became too heartbreaking.

But here is the final tally of the ballot measures across the country:

California:
Proposition 1A: Approved, 52.3%
Proposition 2: Approved, 63.3%
Proposition 7: Defeated, 65%
Proposition 10: Defeated, 59.9%

Colorado:
Amendment 58: Defeated, 58% (so many 58′s… too funny)

Georgia:
Amendment 1: Approved, 68%

Maine:
Question 3: too close to call

Minnesota:
HF 2285: Approved, 56%

Missouri:
Proposition C: Approved, 66%

Ohio:
Issue 2: Approved, 69%

Rhode Island:
Question 1: Approved, 76%
Question 2: Approved, 68%

updating often, refresh

Missouri, Prop C: YES: 66.1%, NO: 33.9%…. 5% reporting

Georgia, Amendment 1: YES: 66.3%, NO: 33.7%…. 5% reporting

Ohio, Issue 2: YES: 72.5%, NO: 27.5%….. ?? reporting

*** go HERE for full election results

First results coming in: Georgia

Georgia, Amendment 1: YES 64%, NO 36%….. 3% of reporting precincts

Good Morning

Good Morning everybody!

Today is a very special day where we exercise our constitutional right to VOTE.

So get out there and do it.

I will have results, as they comes in, through out the day.

If you haven’t yet, and need help with environmental propositions or candidate positions please go HERE.

tomorrow is the day

After the 2000 debacle, I am always hesitant to say this, but… tomorrow we will know who our new president is and the results of the individual propositions.

I have spent the time researching the issues that concern the environment and I hope they have been of help to you. Please go to the “Election 2008″ category (on the right) for a full write up of each ballot measure, as well as links to the different positions of all the candidates.

I look forward to reporting the news as it comes in tomorrow.

Please get out and VOTE.

GOOD sheet – Election ’08

You know I love those GOOD Sheets! Starting today, you can find them online and in Starbucks discussing the differences between the two candidates. Well worth the read for someone who may be undecided.

HERE is the link.

California Propostion 10

This is the final ballot measure having something to do with the environment. Tomorrow, I will post a summary of the ballot measures. But remember, you can go to the link on the right hand side of the screen labeled “Election 2008″ and get all the information you need about ballot measures and candidates.

Proposition 10: California Alternative Fuels Inititative

It sets up a rebate program to give money back to people who purchase vehicles that are powered by fuel sources other than regular gasoline, as well as a rebate for people who buy fuel-saving vehicles (like the Toyota Prius). The state government would pay for the rebates, up to a total of $5 billion.

The initiative authorizes $5 billion in bonds paid from state’s General Fund, allocated approximately as follows:

* 58% in cash payments of between $2,000 and $50,000 to purchasers of certain high fuel economy and alternative fuel vehicles;
* 20% in incentives for research, development and production of renewable energy technology;
* 11% in incentives for research and development of alternative fuel vehicle technology;
* 5% in incentives for purchase of renewable energy technology;
* 4% in grants to eight cities for education about these technologies; and
* 3% in grants to colleges to train students in these technologies.

Argument FOR:
– The funding it provides will allow the generation of electricity from renewable sources, and provide consumer rebates for the purchase or lease of “clean alternative fuel vehicles”.
– The funding will allow the replacement of “older polluting diesel trucks with clean alternative fuel trucks” and provide for research into alternative fuels.
– The programs funded by Prop. 10 will help reduce dependence on foreign fuel produced by “hostile foreign governments.”
– The diesel trucks that could be replaced produce dangerous pollution.
– Alternatives to high-priced gasoline are important

Argument AGAINST:
– Would require taking $10 billion out of the state’s general fund over a 30 year period at a time when the state is already in debt.
– Average consumers would not benefit from the rebate created by Proposition 10 that goes to those who buy vehicles that run on non-petroleum based fuels; instead, critics say, the main beneficiaries of the rebate would be “companies that have large vehicle fleets.”
– There are relatively few mechanics who know how to fix natural-gas engines and few filling stations offer natural gas.
– The proposition was initiated by one person/interest group and as such lacks the vetting that would have come had it gained input from a wider variety of sources. Shames says, “A well-intentioned individual with an excessive amount of money doesn’t necessarily have the capacity to present a comprehensive policy initiative on a complex topic.”

Recommendation: NO

It comes down to this… natural gas vehicles can provide a moderate reduction in pollution contributing to global warming. But this measure is not worth the cost to the state. It legislates a market for natural gas, therefore adding pressure to drill, while diverting funds and research from other alternatives. It is no surprise that the major investor in the “yes” campaign, has the most to profit from such a move; T. Boone Pickens.

link to the website in FAVOR
link to the website in OPPOSITION

Next Page »