first 100 days

Yale e360 is a fantastic site, for those who have never visited it. This week they have gathered some of the best minds to address what Obama should do in his first 100 days.

Although the respondents — including entrepreneur Paul Hawken, Rajendra Pachauri of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, activist Van Jones, and green investing leader Mindy Lubber — represent a broad range of interests, they were largely in agreement on how best to solve the current economic and environmental challenges. Basically, they agree that weaning the country off fossil fuels and onto renewable sources of energy is the single best way to rebuild the U.S. economy; that Obama must use all the tools at his disposal — from invoking the Clean Air Act for regulating greenhouse gas emissions to persuading the new Congress to put a price on carbon — to tackle climate change and spur the move to alternative energy; that under an Obama administration the United States must lead in forging a new global climate change treaty; and that, given the rapidity of global warming, Obama must be made fully aware of the “scary” scientific facts — as environmentalist Bill McKibben puts it — and move with a sense of urgency.

You can go HERE for the full article. It will be interesting to see if he follows any of the advice.

our first video

can you hear me know?

There have been many posts in the past about out water issue… ahem, CRISIS.

Los Angeles is in a drought. Without more rainfall, this city will be starting rationing very soon. New data was also released today and our water shortage.

Seven Western states will face more water shortages in the years ahead as climate change exacerbates the strains drought and a growing population have put on the Colorado River, scientists say.

Without fundamental shifts in water management, the result will be shortages and difficult decisions about who in the seven states the river serves will get water and who will go without, said Dave Wegner, science director for the Glen Canyon Institute.

Several models have shown that there will be strain on the river due to over-population and the affects of climate change, therefore warming temperatures, can only make that worse. Because current usage is just simply not sustainable, the most effective strategy is to reduce our use.

You can go HERE for the whole article, via Huffington Post.

I also think it is worth visiting LA DWP for rules about water use during times of drought. And, also visit their drought busters site and tattle on a neighbor, if you feel so inclined.

holiday gift suggestion, day 3

OK. So let’s say you ignored days 1 and 2… so you have your junk mail or your real mail, you may have even put up a tree, either way, you for sure got some cut down. Let’s make amends, shall we!

TREE PEOPLE

Well, all these trees are gone to make your Holiday cards and junk mail. So give the gift of a tree. Gifts start at $25 and increase from there. This is from their website:

Contributions made to the Gift of Life program provide funds to support TreePeople’s restoration efforts. This includes both planting and caring for trees, fostering a healthy natural environment surrounding Los Angeles. Due to the nature of our work, we do not have tags or plaques on each of the trees. Specific trees are not designated to specific dedications.

You can go to their website and make your purchase on line. Although, you can send to anyone you want, all around the country, trees will only be planted in Los Angeles. I’m sure with simple research you can find someone local to your area, if not in California. Or, contact TreePeople to see if they have partner organizations.

Go HERE for their donation page.

top 10 list

Ten Technologies to Save the Planet, by Chris Goodall… this is top ten list I can really get behind.

1.) Wind Power
2.) Solar Energy
3.) Power from the oceans
4.) Combined heat and power
5.) Super efficient homes
6.) electric cars
7.) Second-generation biofuels
8.) Carbon capture
9.) Biochar
10.) Biogas stoves

To read more you can go HERE, to see the article via The New Scientist… or buy the book using the link to Amazon, above.

american in transition, part 2

Barack Obama announced his Security Team, yesterday, which included the appointment of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.

Something that has been buzzing for a while is that idea that climate change, and not enacting sound policy, can be a risk to national security. For example, if we are the only ones that have clean water or food, then another country may try a terrorist attack to get our resources. That is a very simple explanation behind the idea of two things being linked.

So, in my mind, it becomes critical that the people making national security policy have a strong environmental track record and see what we are up against. I feel that Clinton is a strong choice for this reason, alone.

In a past interview, while running for President, with Grist:
“Global warming is a global problem that’s going to require a global solution,” she said. “As president, I will work to involve both China and India. But I think it’s important for the U.S. to provide leadership by taking aggressive steps to reduce our contribution to global-warming pollution.”

Why this is significant is because this is the person who will be representing us in the upcoming rewrite of the Kyoto Protocol and other global issues about climate change. We need someone who supports the science and, more importantly, supports change in our current policy, i.e. we don’t have one.

All in all, I think Clinton is a fantastic representative for the United States for the rest of the world.

buffer zone

New data suggests that the ocean acidity levels are raising 10 times faster than previously thought.

Professor Timothy Wootton from the department of ecology and evolution, University of Chicago, in Illinois, says such dramatic results were unexpected as it was thought that the huge ocean systems had the ability to absorb large quantities of CO2.

“It’s been thought pH in the open oceans is well buffered, so it’s surprising to see these fluctuations,” he said.

The findings showed that CO2 had lowered the water pH over time, demonstrating a year-on-year increase in acidity.

As a result, mollusks like barnacles and muscles are being affected. Most of their shells are made of calcium carbonate, which cannot be sustained in high acid environments. The populations are shrinking at very high rates. In fact, the scientists feel that all of our past models on ocean acidification need to be erased, since the ocean is not buffering the CO2 absorption as thought.

The entire article can be found HERE, via BBC.

i really don’t know what to think

Lately, I have been reading a lot about Wal-Mart’s to be a more sustainable company; switching to CFL’s, lowering air conditioning, new buildings being LEED certified, and the list really does go on and on.

I just read an article about Wal-Mart’s Personal Sustainability Project (PSP). It is program where employees are encouraged to live a more sustainable life, even going so far as ‘vowing” to do something, or not do something.

Since 2007, all Wal-Mart employees in the US have been asked to take a simple, concrete step to benefit their health, their local community, or the earth. PSP pledges, which can involve work or home life or both, have included vows to drive the speed limit (to save gas), clean up trash, quit smoking, switch to a reusable bottle, or turn off the tap when toothbrushing.

Wal-Mart has reported that 45% of its employees enrolled in the program, and this is with no financial incentive to them. However, maybe there should be? In many cases employees have found things that the stores can do to improve their sustainability (i.e., turning off lights in the breakroom). These changes have saved the company over $1Million dollars.

The criticism is that yes, these employees are doing this on their own, as encouraged by the company. But, the company has a long history of demanding things from their employees without any gain to the employee. So, do you praise the company for implementing green initiatives or do you criticize the company for bullying its staff to change how they live without any benefit except they don’t get fired?

It is an interesting debate. I, personally, have had trouble with ‘ends justify the means’ attitude. We saw with gas prices, that when the cost was high, people were trying to incorporate ‘green’ ideas to keep the personal cost low. Now that prices have gone back down, they are back in their SUV’s having not learned a thing about being sustainable.

I think we will see more and more of this in many other companies, with many more examples. It will be interesting to see what effect it has….

You can find the article HERE, via MotherJones.

mein kempf… (not the book you are thinking)

A new book is coming out called “How the Rich are Destroying the Earth” by Herve Kempf, and ENN was able to print a passage that I think is well worth the read.

Here is an excerpt, after the question “what are the obstacles?” is posed:

The second of these ideas, less cocky although very broadly disseminated, proclaims that technological progress will resolve environmental problems. This idea is propagated because it allows people to hope we will be able to avoid any serious changes in our collective behaviors thanks to technological progress. The development of technology, or rather of certain technical channels to the detriment of others, reinforces the system and fosters solid profits.

You can find the book at amazon: How The Rich Are Destroying the Earth (Foreword by Greg Palast)

It looks to be a very good read.

deadly bacteria found in meat

In my book, there are two things at the top of my list for what you can do to help stop Climate Change. The first one, stop watching television, which requires a more lengthy discussion at another time. The second, stop (preferred option) or dramatically reduce your meat intake.

There are many reasons why I think you should get away from meat and you can go HERE for one of my articles on the topic. But it has been shown time and time again that the meat industry is, I think, the third leading cause of greenhouse gases, water usage, dead zones in soil, and the list goes on.

Yesterday, new data was released that highlights another reason that you need to stay away from meat: Tainted meats point to superbug C. diff in food, via MSNBC.

More than 40 percent of packaged meats sampled from three Arizona chain stores tested positive for Clostridium difficile, a gut bug known as C. diff.

Here is what C. diff is:
C. diff has long been a common, usually benign bug associated with simple, easily treated diarrhea in older patients in hospitals and nursing homes. About 3 percent of healthy adults harbor the bacteria with no problem. But overuse of antibiotics has allowed the germ to develop resistance in recent years, doctors said, creating the toxic new type that stumps traditional treatment.

About 80 percent of C. difficile infections now occur in hospital or health care settings — and the number of infections is rising. About 13 in every 1,000 hospital patients is infected or colonized with the bacteria, a rate between 6.5 and 20 times higher than previously estimated, according to figures released last week by the Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, or APIC.

Of course, the CDC says there is no link between tainted meat and the disease. This is the CDC that is under the direction of the Bush Administration and we all know their policies behind science. Meaning, don’t trust them. They are under a similar branch as the Bisphenol-A passing FDA.

One of the reasons the CDC feels so confident in their claim is that it takes weeks to get symptoms after ingesting C. diff, which makes finding it’s source nearly impossible. This bug is very hard to kill, in fact it DOES survive most cooking techniques.

In other words, this is not good and I highly recommend, if you do choose to eat meat, know where it came from.

Next Page »