The Fiscal Cliff & Our Environment

by

Much has been made of the potential sequester the U.S. faces this New Years’ Eve, which the masses have affectionately labeled the “fiscal cliff.”  Well, with the possibility of large impacts to the average person and small business, rightly so.  However, what has not been rightly emphasized, in our opinion, is the potentially devastating effects this cliff could have on our nation’s environmental sector.  The cliff would lead to higher taxes and governmental budget cuts in the defense department, yes.  But what is less well-known is that the governmental cuts will also most likely include environmental victims.

For one, the energy industry could be significantly hurt, both at governmental and private sector levels.  Solar energy contractors who rely on receiving current 1603 cash grants for installation projects will not see those cash grants should the US see the cliff.  This could strongly hinder the financing of solar energy projects, depleting a relatively small but significant portion of the necessary cash for such projects.

Moreover, the cliff would trigger a $148 million retraction of funds from the US Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program.  To help put this into perspective, this loss is the equivalent of cutting the US Department of Energy’s solar energy program completely in half.  These cuts to agencies like the Department of Energy threaten not only a decrease in energy development, but also a decrease in energy usage, as programs would lose funding for research and loans used now for innovation projects.  The future would be increasingly questionable.

A second instance would have harmful effects for the US National Parks, National Forests, wildlife refuges, and other public lands.  For instance, the 258,000 jobs scattered among US National Parks and the 35,000 jobs among wildlife refuges could be jeopardized by the expected cuts in science and law enforcement positions at these establishments.  Similarly, the 2 million plus jobs within the Bureau of Land Management, which oversees the US National Forests could also find themselves in limbo, as awaited budget cuts loom large.  The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, which employs 66 million scientists, educators, researchers, and technicians, among others, could see devastating effects, as well.

As the list goes on, the bottom line remains ever evident.  In cutting governmental agencies’ budgets, the environmental agencies will surely be among those who see drastic cuts.  Further, those cuts could prove disastrous, and at the very least, detrimental to the US’s management, protection, and research of the environment.  There are millions of jobs at risk, in addition to the health and lives of the organisms living among the zones over which these agencies keep watch.

Overall, based on the observations and predictions surrounding the seemingly imminent sequester our government currently wrestles, there could be hampering effects on government agencies who will see severe cuts, US citizens who will see layoffs, and wildlife who will see the harmful effects of increased neglect.  So God Speed to our government representatives, in hopes that their efforts add up to a reasonable solution that can avoid harmful cuts to the essential beings of such agencies, people, and wildlife.

[polldaddy poll=6799106]

Sources for More Reading:
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/guest-post-what-would-the-fiscal-cliff-mean-for-the-u.s.-solar-market
http://www.governing.com/news/state/gov-fiscal-cliff-full-coverage.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/eco-nomics/2012/11/15/the-fiscal-cliff-and-the-environment/
http://blog.cleanwateraction.org/2012/12/06/dont-let-the-fiscal-cliff-devastate-our-environment/

Oroeco Campaign to Track Sustainability of Personal Impacts

by

Oroeco is running a campaign to “realign the economy for GOOD!”  This group has developed an app that tracts the sustainability of individual spending and investment choices.  With the app, an individual can “link his or her spending and investment transactions to scientific data that calculates the impact of each choice.  In addition to improving the environment, participants can compete against friends and earn “oro” points, which can be cashed in for both virtual and real world prizes.  This program clearly allows people to make better environmental choices and encourages businesses to produce more sustainable products or lose money.

Oroeco recently launched a campaign on the crowd funding platform, Indieggo, as a means of acquiring additional fucning to complete the app.  The campaign specifics are presented in the exceptional Indieggo style– very clear and concise with top tabs and sidebars that thoroughly detail all the aspects of the application, including galleries, updates, comments and funders.  There also is a bar graph that accurately notes the funding received to date, as well as a clock that displays the time remaining in the campaign.

The Oroeco app that they are working to launch, more specifically,  provides useful tools to aid users in their education on the personal impacts of their spending and investment choices.  The Oro 1.0 app, as it is called, tracks spending transactions and provides a visual of the climate change impact of each transaction a person makes.  It allows users to set goals, and it gives reminders to fulfill them.  Users can customize the appearance of their Oroeco profiles, and they can compare and compete against friends to earn rewards for better investments.  There also is a sidebar which delineates perks for the different levels of contributions, the expected dates of delivery, and the number of perks available, as well as the total already claimed.

Oroeco is extremely passionate about climate change and has truly developed a unique program to involve each of us in the movement to live green.  Unlike most current “green” applications, Oroeco uses scientific data to provide a clear picture of the impact of our personal choices on the environment.  Oroeco is backed by a solid team of scientists and engineers to accomplish this goal.  Ultimately, in order to be successful, the company needs funds to pay for a user interface designer to make its platform totally functional.

The idea here is a great one worthy of consideration and support.  Please go to http://www.indiegogo.com/oroeco to learn about this exciting project.  LGBG encourages support for Oroeco financially so that we all can benefit from its work to help people and live green, be green.

Crowd funding powers green movement

          Crowd funding powers green movement

Indiegogo, The World’s Funding Platform

by

INDIEGOGO

With the advent of crowd funding, a popular business funding approach that allows good ideas that do not fit the pattern required by conventional financiers to attract cash and break through, Indiegogo clearly is a leader in this industry.  This global platform allows people all over the world to raise money, millions of dollars, for all types of campaigns.

Indiegogo presents a refreshing and attractive website, with fully functional tabs on the top and sidebars that are engaging and simple to follow.  This site incorporates lots of graphs and charts, thereby giving customers the power to make educated decisions on where to spend their hard earned money.  The site provides an excellent education on fundraising campaigns, and the company does not charge a fee or require an application  to get started.  Indiegogo invites inquirers to design a campaign and raise funds by engaging others to connect with their passion for a cause.  For the novice in crowd funding, this website provides thousands of success stories which anyone can browse to find inspiration.  It also displays featured successful campaigns with in-depth descriptions of programs and the funds raised.

This company’s “Customer Happiness” tab reinforces its emphasis and commitment to customer satisfaction.  A review of this section indicates easy accessibility to knowledge based information, help center access and contact information.  Indiegogo uses a step-by-step approach to browse the site, learn how to design a campaign and to follow through with the creation.  It hosts a well delineated breakdown of types of causes, entrepreneurial sectors, quick picks, locations and partners.

Indiegogo is the go-to company for crowd funding applications.  It is a great source to seek funding for fundraising campaigns, particularly for the green movement.  The impressive list of partners and supporters on the website speaks strongly of the role of this company as an industry leader.  As such, this platform comes highly recommended by LGBG as a great place to initiate programs to raise money to help us live green, be green.

Crowd funding powers green movement

Crowd funding powers green movement

Conservation and Business: An Intersection

by

The conservation movement and the business world are typically portrayed in the mass media as two entities locked in continuous conflict. They are seen as two opposing viewpoints always at loggerheads. How many times, whether it is in a movie or in TV, have we seen this plot unfold: unscrupulous business men want to engage in an action for profit, no matter what the cost? A group of typically plucky youth then engages them in a variety of ambiguous legal and illegal ways and the day is saved. The businessmen are defeated and the environment is saved, or possibly more environmental damage is deterred. However, conservationists around the country are beginning to challenge this notion of eternal conflict and look for a solution in sustainable growth.

One conservatory group taking charge in this movement is the Sierra Foothill Conservancy.  The Conservancy owns outright 6,500 acres of land and manages another 20,000 for ranchers in the counties of Fresno, Madera, Merced and Mariposa in California. At first this may seem to be an oxymoron. We have conservationists managing land on behalf of ranchers and participating in the razing of cattle themselves. Admittedly, it was a controversial idea at first, but over the past decade, studies have shown that cattle grazing can help the land, especially vernal pools, temporary collections of water that provide crucial habitat for native plants and invertebrates.[1]This partnership has spread to other industries that one typically finds at odds with the conservation movement:

“Other conservationists are teaming up with private timber investors such as the Lyme Timber Company based in New Hampshire. The company acquires quality habitat that doubles as timberland, gives up development rights by selling conservation easements to land trusts and public agencies throughout the U.S., then logs the land in a sustainable way to generate an income.

Timber is harvested at or below the annual rate of growth, said Peter Stein, the company’s managing director, and harvesting methods are third party certified by the Forest Stewardship Council and the Sustainable Forestry.

The approach is key, Stein said, as conservationists aim to preserve larger tracts of land – in the hundreds of acres – which are too expensive to buy outright.

The Nature Conservancy is also partnering with the timber industry in California and Alaska to restore salmon by felling trees to create stream habitat.

The group has also partnered with the fishing industry. It bought out fishing permits in California and in Maine to protect millions of acres of ocean habitat, then leased the permits back to fishermen who agreed to fish sustainably.”1

                The whole idea rests on the notion that certain actions are never going to be entirely deterred. Our entire economic system rests on the notion of continual, infinite growth and that requires the input of base resources. Whether they are lumber, cattle, salmon, or what we extract from the earth, they all play a vital role in our economy. Recognizing that a total determent is impossible, these conservationists have recognized the value of partnership. Much like the arguments for marijuana legalization, the value of this idea rests on mutual benefits. The argued benefits of the legalization of marijuana are the added tax revenue/jobs, reduction in profits for drug dealers, and development and control of a safe and well regulated product. The idea here is very similar. Instead of having no control over the outcome, they now have some input. In doing so, both sides reach a compromise where there is sustainability, where before the loggers/ranchers could have possibly done as much devastation as they please. At the same time, they are turning a profit that allows them to further invest in continued conservation. It’s a simple case of economics. Instead of engaging in zero sum activities (where one side’s win is another’s loss) they are engaging in a mutually beneficial contract. It is truly the tenets of capitalism and democracy at work for the best.

By Sean Maguire

[1] http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/12/15/4486985/conservationists-team-up-with.html

College Students Call For Endowment Divestment in Fossil Fuels

by
Bill McKibben, by Jennifer Esperanza

Bill McKibben, by Jennifer Esperanza (Photo credit: 350.org)

Over the past few weeks, college students on several companies have demanded that university endowment funds sell off coal, oil and gas stocks.  This growing movement is spurred by the recognition by students that climate change is an urgent issue that needs to be a priority on the national agenda.  Many of the students have connected with Bill McKibben of 350.org, an advocacy group for carbon reduction.  McKibben has been traveling the country visiting campuses and educating students on the subject of climate change and global warming.

I find this idea for this movement interesting and refreshing, especially in light of comments made in response to a recent blog entitled “Exxon Hates Your Children– Fact, Fiction or Propaganda” in which one responder pointed out the need to get the attention and involvement of shareholders invested in fossil fuel companies in order to find solutions to cleaner energy as opposed to trying to use tactics of consumer boycotts to force change.

While this movement has witnessed some success at some smaller institutions, namely Unity College in Maine, which voted to get out of investments in fossil fuels and at Hampshire College in Massachusetts, which has modified its investment policy in regards to fossil fuels, several of the larger colleges and universities are not budging.  In fact, “no school with an endowment exceeding $1 billion has agreed to divest itself of fossil fuel stocks”.  Harvard University has stated that it is not considering divesting from companies related to fossil fuels, despite the support of 72% of the undergraduate student body’s recent vote supporting such a measure.

It will be interesting to see the progression of this movement.  With climate change becoming a major issue and with the public demanding action on alternative energy sources, it is likely that colleges and universities will be forced to reexamine their policies and fall in line.  Interestingly, this movement is seen as an imitation of the successful effort of the 1980s whereby colleges, universities an businesses were successfully pressured to rid themselves of investments in companies doing business under apartheid South Africa.

The green movement is growing everyday, and as the young people, who are the future stewards of this planet get on board, we all can definitely expect to see a day where we all live green, be green.

Sources for Article:

  1.  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/business/energy-environment/to-fight-climate-change-college-students-take-aim-at-the-endowment-portfolio.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&hpw&
  2. http://livegreenbegreen.com/2012/12/06/exxon-hates-your-children-fact-fiction-or-propaganda/

“Exxon Hates Your Children”– Fact, Fiction or Propaganda

by

The recent ad launched by opponents of the fossil fuel industry declaring “Exxon Hates Your Children” is disturbing, provocative and unsettling.  Two advocacy groups, Oil Change International and The Other 98%, launched the controversial ad on its website on Wednesday in an effort to cajole Congress to “eliminate fossil fuel subsidies amid fiscal cliff negotiations”.   The ad portrays an actor posing as a representative of Exxon, stating, “We all know the climate crisis will rip [your children’s] world apart, but we don’t care because it will make us rich”.  The targeted markets for this advertising campaign includes the very same areas where the American Petroleum Institute is running ads arguing that “[m]ore energy development produces more jobs, revenue and energy.  More taxes produce less of all three”.

This ad war comes on the heels of the budget crisis and looming fiscal cliff.  Proponents of climate change face the possible elimination of wind energy tax credits amid the arguments of conservatives voicing objection to the 2% subsidy by the federal government.  If not extended the PTC credit will expire.  Conversely, opponents of the fossil fuel industry voice objections to not only the huge subsidies received by oil companies, but also to their business model, which requires continuous drilling for oil, which is proven to be responsible for climate disruption.  They cry foul also because in the last year alone, renewable energy, though recognized as important for a healthy environment, received six times less support worldwide than fuel subsidies.

While the declaration that “Exxon Hates Your Children” grabs the attention, it is propaganda.  We all know or should know that Exxon and all major corporations exist at the will of the people.  As long as Exxon (the current poster child for the fossil fuel industry)  has a viable market, it will be around, doing what it does–  drilling and manufacturing oil for oil-hungry consumers.  Exxon does not hate children.  Rather, it loves money, and in its quest to make the money it loves so much, it harms the environment.  Perhaps the best analogy for this scenario can be found in the circumstances surrounding Timothy McVeigh‘s bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City.  It was not McVeigh’s intent to kill the children in the nursery in the federal building.  Rather, they were “collateral damage” in his quest.

Currently, the earth and its inhabitants all are the “collateral damage” of the fossil fuel industry.  However, we do have a choice.  Let’s strive to reduce our carbon footprint and reliance on fossil fuels.  We can start at home by conserving energy, reducing our use of water and electricity, recycling and using energy-efficient products.  Moreover, we can make sure we are heard by our representatives, who serve at our will.  Demand that they vote green or be voted out of office.  Let’s fight to live green, be green!

Sources for article:

  1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/05/exxon-hates-your-children_n_2246481.html
  2. http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/reflections-on-mcveigh.html
Exxon

Exxon (Photo credit: Tom Haymes)

FDA Poses A Threat to Green Living

by
Food and Drug Administration logo

Food and Drug Administration logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As evidenced by the frequent news reports on outbreaks of food-borne illnesses and now hospitalizations and deaths from contaminated medical products, it is apparent that there are major problems within the ranks of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Some policy analysts attribute the FDA’s deficiencies to “the haphazard manner in which it has grown”.  The agency began operations in 1852 with a single chemist working within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and operated without regulatory duties until 1906 when news stories about horrible conditions at food-processing plants became the rage.  The public uproar from these graphic stories culminated in the passage of the Federal Food and Drug Act.  Future instances of health disasters in 1937 and again in the 1950s and 1960s heightened awareness of the need for the FDA to have greater oversight of the food supply and led to the passage of laws regarding pesticides and food and color additives.  It is important to note that the FDA still shares the responsibility for the nation’s food supply with the USDA, with the latter agency overseeing the safety of meat and poultry, and the former assuming control of the rest of the food supply.

Repeatedly in reports by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the FDA has been noted to have “systemic problems . . . that threaten the health of anyone who consumes food in the U.S.”  These problems include, but are not limited to:

  • An ineffective and confusing inspection process.
  • Poor performance in addressing overuse of antibiotics in livestock feed.
  • Lack of scientific capacity for the agency to do its job.
  • Failure to take enforcement action in more than half of its uncovered violations.

A review of articles and news stories regarding the activities of the FDA reveals that the agency’s inspection and investigation work is severely flawed.  Routine inspections are limited and audits sometimes are performed by third-party auditors who advertise work at an”unbelievable price” and give out “superior ratings”.

One major area of concern with the FDA is oversight of seafood sold in the United States.  More than 84% of our seafood is imported, with 50% of it coming from Asia.  These fish farmers produce large volumes of seafood, including shrimp, catfish and tilapia in polluted and overcrowded ponds and then use antibiotics and fungicides to sterilize the seafood to pass inspection in this country.  Amazingly, the FDA is charged with keeping these very same ‘drug-tainted fish” out of the food supply, but as the GAO reports, the agency is failing to do this and really is not even trying.   In 2009, the FDA tested only one out of every 1000 imported seafood products for 16 different chemicals.  Reports indicate that Canada tested 50 of every 1000 products for more than 40 different chemicals, and Japan tested 110 of every 1000 products for more than 57 chemicals.  In addition to posing a health threat to people who eat seafood, the actions of the FDA threaten the very existence of domestic seafood farmers, who must compete with foreign counterparts, who employ cheap labor and who get away with using chemicals that are banned for use by seafood farmers here.

The failure of the FDA to do its job puts the life of every American at stake.  For those of us trying to live a green life and eat healthy, this news is particularly unsettling.  Every citizen has the right to a safe and healthy food supply.  The federal government is obligated to perform dutifully regarding this.  We must stand together and demand effective oversight of the nation’s food supply so that we can live green, be green.

PTC Stirs Evil Wind Debate

by

In a statement released earlier this week, a bipartisan group of legislators from both the Senate and House of Representatives warned that the expiration of the wind protection tax credit (PTC) would result in the loss of a substantial number of manufacturing and construction jobs, thus triggering a great debate on the relevance of this credit and the efficacy of wind energy.  The PTC “subsidizes new wind generation by 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour of wind electricity produced”.  If this credit is not renewed by Congress, it will expire at the end of the year.  The impact of the threat of expiration of this credit already is being felt as wind companies are pushing back projects and laying off workers because of the looming uncertainty of federal funding.

After reading articles and blogs on this subject, I could not help but notice some of the comments made by other readers, many of which were constructive, but others, concerning.  I use the term “concerning” because I see that in most debates or discussions regarding green initiatives, education and understanding of the issues, or the lack of such, clearly guides the dialogue on these topics.

Living green and understanding the need to effect environmental change requires education.  Research and development and technological advancement enable scientists to find solutions to cleaner and efficient energy.  This definitely comes at a cost, albeit a worthwhile expense.  The push to advance science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) in schools today recognizes the benefits of providing opportunities for students to explore new ideas and new worlds related to science.  Education programs, such as STEM, provide a bridge from the old to the new and are so important because they enhance vision, which is a key ingredient in the success of any scientific venture.

Unfortunately, there are many diehards in this country, who are resistant to change, even if it is for the good of people and the environment.  The green movement should not and cannot be dragged down by resistance to change, and modern technological solutions to energy problems should be welcomed, especially in the face of scientific evidence of looming catastrophes relative to climate change directly attributed to human behavior.  This negative mindset is not new in America as history gives us many instances of innovative ideas that prevailed but were met with great resistance.  An immediate example that comes to mind is the case of Henry Ford, who was successful in mass marketing the gas engine automobile in a time when many Americans would have settled for “faster horses“.  In the same spirit of Henry Ford, the green movement must promote efficient wind energy solutions as the future of our nation rather than “clean oil” solutions as suggested by some people.

Another major issue with detractors of wind power, who would be happy to see the credit expire, surrounds the willingness to destroy the job market.  Job creation is crucial to the recovery of the economy, and the market in wind energy projects presents the opportunity to add jobs.  This is especially good for veterans because “work in wind energy offers vets the opportunity to use a wide variety of skills they learned in the military, such as risk analyses, problem-solving and contract negotiation. . .”  So many of us voice our appreciation for the sacrifices of veterans and their families to protect us, and the promotion of wind energy projects through the PTC presents opportunities to reward returning soldiers with jobs, rather than just handshakes and pats on the back for their service.

Another potential base of support which needs to be tapped for wind energy advancement in this country is couples with young children or who are planning to have children.  Today’s energy solutions will frame your children’s tomorrow.  Living green should be the top priority on your agenda so that you can ensure a safe and healthy environment for your children.  Issues of renewable energy, such as wind power should become routine in articles in parenting magazines and blogs designed to educate families on living healthy.

The time is running short to extend the PTC.  As Congress haggles over the many issues dangling on the fiscal cliff, it is urgent that supporters of the green movement band together and speak up to protect the PTC so as to ensure the advancement of wind power as a viable source of energy in America.  We cannot allow the defeat of innovation technology such as this that enables us to live green, be green.

Sources for this article:

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_21990652/four-governors-including-hickenlooper-urge-renewal-wind-power-credit

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/11/30/us-veterans-fight-for-wind-jobs-as-tax-credit-hits-the-cliff/

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/08/henry_ford_never_said_the_fast.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/28/wind-tax-credit-fiscal-cliff_n_2207581.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green

Wind Energy

Wind Energy (Photo credit: janie.hernandez55)

 

New York Tackles Comprehensive Storm Preparedness

by
SANDY BB Tunnel Gov Cuomo press conf-3808 crop...

SANDY BB Tunnel Gov Cuomo press conf-3808 crop crop (Photo credit: MTAPhotos)

In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has outlined a storm preparedness plan that addresses power maintenance and prevention of flooding from hurricane-driven waves.  These are two of the major items under consideration by Cuomo’s NYS 2100 Commission.  The governor is well aware that it will be difficult to obtain the necessary federal funding required for his plans, but he emphasizes that prevention and mitigation of risks now, although costly, will save money and lives in the future.

The plan to protect New York City from future super storms comes at a price of more than $9 billion.  The current price for damages to the state from Sandy is $32.8 billion, with $19 billion apportioned to damages in New York City alone.  With this data available, hopefully this proposed investment will be deemed wise, particularly in light of the dire predictions of increases in the frequency of super storms.

The current proposed plan would rearrange the location of huge electrical transformers from the basements of large commercial buildings to the upper levels to prevent power failures.  Also, the state would have the systems in place to shutter key tunnels, airports and subway systems, locking out floodwaters.  Additionally, Cuomo wants to construct a seawall to prevent beach erosion and destructive surges into the city and Long Island.  Another item on board in the plan calls for the requirement for health care facilities to be equipped with backup power located at upper levels, rather than in basements.

It will be interesting to see how Gov. Cuomo’s plans play out in the current political environment, especially with the looming fiscal cliff,  Clearly the ultimate concern here is to take adequate steps to prevent injury and loss of life during extreme weather occurrences.  While there is an expectation that the federal government will offer financial support to address these problems, it also will be mandatory for each of the states affected by the storm to step up to the plate financially.  This is especially true regarding seawall barriers.

An excellent case study on the role of states in the construction and maintenance of water protection systems can be found the study of post-Katrina recovery efforts in New Orleans.  After the devastation by Katrina, the Army Corps of Engineers spent $12 billion to build a system of gates, walls and armored levees to protect the city during future storms.  There still remains approximately $1 billion worth of work to be completed.  A looming issue here is the cost of upkeep of this system, which carries a hefty and ongoing, but mandatory, price tag.  By necessity, New Orleans instituted a levee tax, which was just renewed by voters.  Consequently, if a seawall is approved and constructed in New York, the citizens there can expect to shoulder the financial responsibility for its maintenance.

Another issue that will have to be addresses is oversight of any water protection projects.  Under the Flood Control Act of 1936, the Army Corps of Engineers transferred the maintenance of water-control projects to local and/or state authorities.   New York State and/or City would have to put in place the necessary authorities to handle any seawall projects constructed there.  This project will be a very expensive system which will require strict inspections and maintenance to be effective.

The recovery from Hurricane Sandy will be long, difficult and expensive.  This storm has forced New York and surrounding states to “rethink” its infrastructure.  We can expect long debates and compromises to fix the problem, and we know that the cost of any solutions will be large and ongoing.  Hurricane Sandy and the expectation of future storms of this magnitude have forced all of us to “rethink” our relationship with the earth.  Now more than ever, we need to live green, be green.

Sources for this article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/new-orleans-levee-upkeep-_n_2200667.html?ref=topbar

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/28/new-york-storm-preparedness-cuomo-9-billion-new-york-city_n_2203662.html?ir=Green&ref=topbar

 

U.S. Holds To Current Climate Goals at Doha

by
Kyoto Protocol Convention

Kyoto Protocol Convention (Photo credit: Marufish)

The opening sessions of the United Nations Climate Change meeting in Doha, Qatar witnessed the United States resisting pledges of steeper cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.  U.S. Deputy climate envoy John Pershing stated, “President Obama was sticking to his 2009 goal of cutting emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020″.  Even that target was rejected by the U.S. Senate.

The United States’ refusal to back the Kyoto Protocol has been joined by China, Russia, Japan and Canada, leaving the European Union and Australia as the larger countries supporting the pact, along with ore than 100 developing countries and Kyoto backers.  The recent protocol dropouts agree with the position of the United States that “it is meaningless to extend cuts under Kyoto when big emerging countries have no curbs on emission”.  It is for this very reason that the United States never ratified the Kyoto Protocol.  The worry here is that without extension of the Kyoto Protocol, there only would be national actions without any legally binding UN pacts.

With the devastation of Hurricane Sandy and its ever-increasing price tag still on the minds of Americans, along with the acknowledgement of key political figures that climate change and global warming are harsh realities that need urgent attention, it is evident that Americans are ready to tackle these issues.  Additionally, President Obama pledged to do more to address the issues of climate change in his second term.  With or without the Kyoto Protocol, it is important that we as citizens educate ourselves on the issue of global warming and greenhouse gas emissions, keeping dialogue on the forefront.  More than ever, we must demand that our elected officials commit to plans to upgrade failing power grids and outdated infrastructure and to implement solutions for cleaner and more efficient energy.  Now is the time for America to take the lead and be the driving force to effect change so that we live green, be green.

Source for this article:

http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/us-holds-to-climate-goals-despite-poor-nations-pleas-2012-11-27