Climate Change Ignored in First Presidential Debate

by

As everyone analyzes last night’s first presidential debate, it seems that a focus on the important and often urgent concerns of voters were sidelined by concern with style and appearance, resulting in a journalistic award of a “victory” for Mitt Romney.  This win for Romney clearly signals an ideological loss for the green movement.

First and foremost, Mr. Romney brazenly misstated President Obama’s investment in “green energy”, erroneously claiming that the administration had spent $90 billion on “green energy”, but that half of the companies that he had spent the money on had failed.  A report by the Washington Post declares this is a “flat-out false claim”.  Rather, the $90 billion was the sum set aside for “green” tech and research in the stimulus bill.  A substantial portion of these funds was used for efficiency projects, research and development, carbon sequestration, and upgrading the nation’s electric grid, among other projects.  Only a small percentage was spent on direct loans to clean energy companies, and contrary to Romney’s statement, very few of these companies have failed.

Secondly, to the dismay of the electric car industry, Romney called electric car companies “losers”, specifically Tesla, which is well on its way to becoming a successful and profitable business.  While President Obama did not call Mr. Romney out on the importance of clean energy and electric cars, he did look the camera in the eye and spoke to the American people, noting that he differed from Romney in that he was more interested in the development of renewable energy sources.  Additionally, he voiced the need to end federal oil subsidies.  Perhaps Romney summed up his commitment to the protection of the environment and the health and safety of its inhabitants by stating, “I like coal”.

Proponents of the green movement also are disappointed that Jim Lehrer, as moderator, disregarded climate control as an issue even worthy of discussion in the debate.  Despite receiving 160,000 letters from a coalition of nonprofit organizations dedicated to green initiatives requesting discussion on climate change, Mr. Lehrer ignored this issue.  Supposedly, the purpose of the debate was to give millions of voters an opportunity to “hear how the candidates plan to address the nation’s most urgent challenges”.  It appears that the moderator does not consider the climate crisis that important or urgent.

The green movement is a strong and dedicated one that is not going to go away.  It will not and cannot be dismissed alongside Big Bird.  While it cannot force a discussion of its issues at a debate, it can ensure that it is a force to be reckoned with at the ballot box.  It is clear to the green movement that climate change is devastating and a threat to our very existence.  Any discussion on education, construction, health care, or job creation must include climate change and environmental concerns to be effective.  Any voter who is concerned about health, welfare, employment and family issues and who wants to make sure there will be a healthy planet around for their children to inherit has a clear choice.  Hopefully, we will live green, be green.

Mitt Romney clearly takes a stand against green.

Commentary on NBC Education Nation Summit

by

Earlier this week, I commented on the 2012 NBC Education Nation Summit in New York City.   I voiced concerns that the education dialogue failed to address green issues, which potentially could be affected by its suggestions.  After a lively discussion with other “green” bloggers, I feel that I should qualify some of my stated concerns.

First of all and perhaps most importantly, I agree that technology is a key element in the education of America’s youth.  Tablets, computers and smart phones definitely deserve a place in the hands of students because they offer immediate global access to knowledge.  The exercise of using these devices in itself aids in the development of skills in critical thinking and problem solving.  Nonetheless,I stand by my concern that any movement to supply these devices to all students carries with it a responsibility and accountability for the proper management of these electronics in order to avoid pollution of the environment.  A plan has to be in place to properly recycle and/or dispose of obsolete devices.  Students simply cannot “throw them in the trash” and move on to the latest and greatest device.  Landfills simply cannot tolerate the potential volume of debris.

Secondly, any dialogue on the incorporation of digital instruments in the educational system must include concern over the lack of access to Internet service by many communities in this country.  An examination of recent statistics by the Federal Communications Commission indicates that 19 million Americans still have no access to high-speed Internet.  Approximately 14.5 million of these individuals or around 5% of the total U.S. population, “live in rural areas, where Internet providers do not offer services because ‘there is no business case to offer broadband’ services”.  Although the Telecommunications Act of 1996 required the FCC to ensure that broadband was rolled out on a “reasonable basis” to all corners of the country, the current report indicates that this is not happening.  It now is the FCC’s goal to have “universal broadband deployment” in the country by 2020.  Any recommendations by education summits and conferences, as well as any national education benchmark programs to incorporate digital technology through the use of electronic devices for all students will need to address the problems of the digital divide so as to guarantee the availability of these services to all public school students.

Another issue in my previous blog addresses the subject of online courses for all students.  While I do agree that there is a place in the educational system for online courses as a learning tool, and I acknowledge that they positively impact the green movement with reduced transportation of students to classrooms, I still believe that we need to be careful about initiating programs that potentially limit or eliminate the requirement for face-to-face interaction between students and teachers.  We have to proceed cautiously here to avoid overzealous efforts of some government administrators and elected officials to adversely impact the public education systems through harsh budget costs and elimination of teacher positions, books and supplies.  Also, while it would be great for students to meet at area museums, galleries and other cultural centers to get a hands-on experience in many subject areas, the proponents of these ideas must face the reality that there are many towns and even counties in this country that either do not have these cultural attractions or who have eliminated them because of economic restraints.  Access to cultural centers for hands-on education is great, but any dialogue must address the availability of this for all students.

In conclusion, any education summit or conference that aims to improve America’s education system must be mindful of the needs of all students served by the system.  The respected experts who are entrusted to establish the guidelines for programs to improve public education must be fair and just in their decisions.  Education and the green movement go hand-in-hand.  The green movement strives to preserve our planet for future generations, and “education is simply the soul of a society as it passes from one generation to another” (G.K. Chesterton).  Let’s learn green, live green, be green!

Youth Program Tackles Global Warming

by

Plant for the Planet is a nonprofit organization dedicated to planting trees and combating climate change with operations in 131 countries.  To date, it has planted more than one million trees in Germany alone.  The most amazing fact about this group is that is founder, Felix Finkbeiner, is only 13 years old and founded this organization when he was only nine years old.  Finkbeiner has taken it upon himself and his group to get something done.  This is reflected in the their motto:  “Stop talking.  Start planting.”  This young man is well aware that just planting trees cannot save the world, but he knows that you have to start somewhere.

The members of Plant for the Planet are called Climate Justice Ambassadors.  They meet to discuss issues relative to global warming and present papers, often from science reports that provide factual evidence of the magnitude of climate change.  The Climate Justice Ambassadors note that even though they as children generally “hate to follow rules,” they are convinced that global laws and regulations are needed to preserve the planet.

Plant for the Planet has published a book, Tree By Tree, in which they detail steps that can be taken by everyone (often small ones) that can help save the planet.  These include driving less, flying less, cooking foods with lids on pans and lowering the heat settings, using energy-efficient bulbs and eating less meat.  They recognize the power of numbers and debunk the motto of people who assume that whatever they do as individuals will not make a difference.

The organization is very critical of broken promises by the car industry, particularly German car manufacturers, who failed to keep promises to produce automobiles that would emit less carbon dioxide.  They point out that in Germany, people who drive bigger cars receive greater tax benefits from the government. They criticize the finance ministers from the EU, who failed to regulate taxation of aviation fuel in order to promote tourism at the expense of the climate.  On the subject of food, they criticize the mass consumption of meat and the transportation of fruits and vegetables out of season to the far parts of the earth to satisfy tastes despite the carbon dioxide emissions.

Plant for the Planet believes their organization has history behind it to support its fight to save the planet.  They pointedly state, “countless individuals, groups, communities and even whole nations have had to fight for their rights.  What about us kids?  Slowly it is clear that we kids have no other choice but to fight for our own rights and future too.”

The children in Plant for the Planet are amazing ambassadors for climate change.  They recognize the need to inherit a healthy planet.  Adults should take heed and get on board with this movement.  As stated in Isaiah 11:6:  “And a child shall lead them.”  Let’s live green, be green.

Why Go Green?

by

Now we know many ways to go green.  Most of us have incorporated some of these steps into our personal lives, either by personal choice or by government mandates.  For this movement to be successful and widely embraced, it is important that each of us feel a sense of empowerment from a decision to go green.  In order to sustain a green movement, there must be an immediate payoff.  We realize that in some areas, particularly those of climate change and clean energy, change will be slow, cumbersome, expensive and embroiled in politics.  However, there are some simpler areas of green causes to endorse that bring a more immediate sense of payoff.  These include health and wellness, frugal living, minimalism, spiritual environmentalism, and self-sufficiency.

1.  Health and wellness.  Perhaps this is the subject area that is of utmost importance to most people today.  Scientific evidence has associated several diseases and adverse health conditions to environmental pollution and use of harmful products.  Many cancers are linked to the use of chemicals in cleaning products and fertilizers used to grow food.  Cancer incidence rose significantly from 1950-1998.  Presently it is estimated that 1 in 2 American men and 1 in 3 American women will develop cancer in their lives.  Secondly, with the increased rate of air pollution, the diagnoses of asthma in adults increased 75% between 1980 and 1994 while the same diagnoses in children increased 150%.  Thirdly, the incidences of autism have shown an alarming increase of 56% since 2002.  Other statistics note higher rates of reported infertility problems, along with more reports of birth defects in newborns.  Tests of breast milk samples consistently have shown the presence of pesticides, herbicides and household and industrial cleaners.  Obviously our transition from a natural to an inorganic style of living has caused our cells to mutate, breaking them down and polluting our bodies with toxins.  Adopting green standards in the selection of food and cleaning products goes a long way to protect our bodies.

2.  Frugal living.  At first glance, a walk through the grocery store gives the impression that organic foods and products are more expensive than non-organic products.  However, upon close inspection, this is not necessarily the case.  Local farmers and farmers’ markets are a great source to purchase fresh foods and vegetables.   Local merchants often are available to answer any questions regarding fertilizing and growing techniques of their crops, as well as freshness of the products available for purchase.  When eating out, the new trend of local farm-to-table restaurants offer an opportunity to get well-prepared food that supports local farmers and merchants.  Frugal living also involves (1) purchasing reusable containers and cleaning materials as opposed to disposable paper and plastics; (2) walking, biking, carpooling or taking public transportation to get around town; and (3) even choosing to live in planned urban developments with parks, restaurants, shopping and entertainment facilities and schools strategically located in close proximity to residences and/or the provision of clean-energy public transportation to travel around our communities.  Frugal living enables us to save money, time and the environment while going green.

3.  Minimalism.  A major complaint often voiced today by many people is that life is so complex.  We often are so over-committed to work, social activities and chasing the American dream that we have cluttered our homes and minds to an unhealthy degree.  A minimalist lifestyle urges us to slow down, eliminate distractions, reconnect with family, friends and the universe and to feel less stressed, rushed and exhausted.  By necessity, minimalism incorporates frugal living.  We avoid wasteful consumerism, using only what we need, thereby being able to downsize our living spaces, possessions and activities.  This truly is a green concept with an immediate payoff.

4.  Spiritual environmentalism.  Perhaps the first known environmentalist was Henry David Thoreau.  His recognition and embracement of the environment was from a spiritual perspective.  Thoreau recognized that “in wilderness is the presentation of the world”.  Thoreau was an extremist regarding man’s need to coexist with the planet.  A study of his writings reveals his understanding of the need to wisely manage all resources, including, but not limited to time, money, work, talents and health.  For living space, Thoreau states:  “[e]ach town should have a park, or rather a primitive forest, of five hundred or a thousand acres, where a stick should never be cut for fuel, a common possession forever, for instruction and recreation”.  Thoreau Journal, October 15, 1859

Finally, on the need to protect the environment Thoreau writes:  “[w]hat is the use of a house if you haven’t got a tolerable planet to put it on?”  Familiar Letter, Thoreau to Harrison Blake

And finally, “[a]t the same time that we are earnest to explore and learn all things, we require that all things be mysterious and unexplainable, that land and sea be infinitely wild, unsurveyed and unfathomed by us because unfathomable.  We can never have enough Nature.”  Thoreau, Walden, Spring

Spiritual environmentalism is a very personal journey for many people, and provides a response to the recognition that the Earth does not belong to us, but rather is on loan.  We are the stewards of the Earth and are responsible to preserve it and pass it along to future generations.  Another great reason to go green.

5.  Self-sufficiency.  The foundation of green living is self-sufficiency.  We cannot expect private businesses to promote individual self-sufficiency as this is contraindicated to their main goal, to increase the bottom line.  Also, we cannot afford to wait to break through government gridlock to enact laws mandating use of renewable energy, sustainable care of land, and protection of natural resources or to enforce the ban of harmful chemicals in foods and other products of daily living.  Self-sufficiency affords us the opportunity to prepare for natural disasters and potential catastrophes through education; become savvy in recognizing political corruption and using our vote to repudiate it; maintain awareness of flaws in the present social structure which heavily relies on over-consumption and waste and to take pride in adopting a satisfying lifestyle that promotes a healthy balance of work and family life.

These are just a few reasons to go green.  The list goes on and on.  There is so much that we can do to reduce our carbon footprint and protect our environment.  Let’s live green and be green.

An excellent source for environmental articles and statistics can be found at http://www.sustainablebabysteps.com/environmental-articles.html.

 

Drought Proven To Be A Key Element In Collapse of Ancient Cities

by

Drought! Drought! Drought! We hear it everyday. We feel its effect in the grocery store in the form of higher costs for produce and meat. Our daily television and web-browsing experiences often include stories and pictures of parched farmlands and the individuals who are negatively impacted economically and socially by this year’s extremely dry weather. At the same time, we hear the naysayers’ criticisms of the insistence that the drought is caused by climate change. They contend that we are experiencing a natural cycle that will change soon. They admonish that proposed EPA standards to protect the environment from pollution are part of a political agenda and are based on a myth.

A study cited this week by the U.S. Geological Survey notes that “humans have a long history of having to deal with climate change”. http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=3359#.UD9kbI5vd8u. The results of this research was published in July’s edition of Geology and points to the lack of available water in Egypt and other ancient civilizations as the major player in the collapse of these societies. The researchers examined pollen and charcoal preserved in the Nile Delta sediment dating back 7,000 years to present to define the physical mechanisms affecting critical events in ancient Egyptian history. The goal was to see if changes in pollen assemblages would reflect ancient Egyptian and Middle East droughts in archeological and historical records. Additionally, the researchers examined the presence and level of charcoal because increased fire frequency during extended periods of drought also would result in larger charcoal deposits.

The study results did support the hypotheses, with findings of increased microscopic charcoal in the core sediment during four recorded periods of drought. These findings are from recorded events, independent of political agenda, occurring in Egypt and in the Uruk Kingdom when modern Iraq collapsed. A second event was noted in the eastern Mediterranean and is collaborated with the fall of the Ugarit Kingdom and famines in the Babylonian and Syrian Kingdoms.

Studies such as these are crucial to our very existence. The objective and scientific determination of factors resulting in the collapse of ancient civilizations provides us with the knowledge and direction to find present-day solutions to these problems. This study concludes that climate change leading to severe drought led to the destruction of these societies. Water conservation,drought prevention, and other measures associated with environmentally friendly living are mandatory to ensure our continued existence on Earth. Yet more reasons to live green, be green!
,

Plastic Bag Bans Heat Up Local Politics

by

A rippling effect of the green movement has witnessed many cities either imposing taxes to consumers on plastic bags or banning them altogether. This movement has triggered a change in behavior for many consumers and businesses. Some establishments have responded by offering for sale customized reusable cloth bags that not only are trendy, but also offer advertising for companies. Some shoppers now opt out of plastic bags and request paper bags.

San Francisco was the first city to ban plastic shopping bags back in 2007. Since then, other cities have followed—Los Angeles, Seattle, Westport, Connecticut and the entire state of Hawaii. Other jurisdictions, including Washington, D.C., find local councils embroiled in debates over taxes on plastic bags.

Unfortunately, some trade associations refuse to accept the fact that plastic bags are harmful to the environment because they take up valuable space in landfills and litter streets, streams and shorelines. One organization of plastic manufacturers now argues that the ban of plastic bags could threaten more than 30,000 manufacturing jobs in the United States. Donna Dempsey, the spokeswoman for the American Progressive Bag Alliance, even states that “the plastic bag has gotten a bad rap”. Dempsey goes on to say that 90% of consumers reuse plastic bags, that these bags require less energy to produce than paper bags and that they take up less space in landfills.

This is a very touchy issue. While no one wants to see any manufacturing sector decrease in size or disappear, one has to wonder why the experts in the plastics field would rather concentrate on portraying as a myth the hard facts about the negative impact of plastic on the environment as opposed to making a better product. We have witnessed other industries being forced to make drastic changes to stop pollution. For example, most localities have had to overhaul public transportation to provide clean buses and electrically powered trains. The auto industry has been forced to upgrade vehicles to use cleaner fuels. These changes actually have stimulated the economy in terms of providing new educational opportunities, jobs in research and development and employment implementing new technology in factories.

Let’s stop the politics here. Plastic bags are harmful to the environment. As stewards of this planet, let’s stand behind the movement to adopt alternatives to plastic bags. This movement begins with our refusal to use plastic bags. Let’s shop green, live green, be green.

Global Warming Becomes Political Hot Button Topic

by

With the Presidential and Congressional elections approaching quickly, globing warming and climate change are becoming hot topics. The League of Conservation Voters is targeting five House Republicans who either question or totally deny human links to climate change. The organization has labeled these Congressmen the “Flat Earth Five”. To date, two names have been released. They are Reps. Sam Benishek (R-Mich) and Ann Marie Buerkle (R-NY). Three additional names will be forthcoming.
Despite the fact that hard science data proves that global warming is a reality, i.e., melting icebergs, severe storms, extreme heat and cold weather, and crop destruction, just to name a few, the “Flat Earth Five” Republicans state there is no climate change, and the notion of global warming simply is a liberal ploy to tax large oil companies. Rep. Benishek specifically says that global warming “is just some scheme” and is “all baloney”. Rep. Buerkle first voiced doubts about climate change in 2010. On the League of Conservation National Scorecard, she has a lifetime score of 9 percent out of a possible 100. This scorecard annually rates members of Congress on conservation and clean energy issues. Rep. Buerkle has the most conservative voting record of all New York Congressional members.
It is difficult to understand and disappointing to know that protection of the environment is caught up in the crosshairs of politics. It is mind boggling that this is such a political issue in this time when 77% of Americans believe that climate change is a reality and that we all need to make lifestyle changes to save the Earth. (http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/07/rep_ann_marie_buerkle_named_on.html)

It is promising to see schools incorporate green living standards in curricula and refreshing to witness families work to conserve energy and employ green and healthy practices in the home. Although we often have differing beliefs about environmental issues, the unifying belief should be that this is the only planet we have on which to live. We do not own the Earth. Rather we are the stewards. We work hard to provide a future for our children, and the protection of the environment must be considered a major component of that future.
In the upcoming elections, we must be mindful of the issues crucial to our very existence. The best way to do this is to educate yourself on the candidates and what they stand for. Researching scorecards and voting records is a great start in this endeavor. This is especially true for local and state elections. While we cannot change the whole world in an instant, we can band together and improve our communities through the creation of recycling programs, instituting clean water projects, constructing safe and healthy schools and building “green” neighborhoods. To be the building blocks of the green movement, let’s vote green, live green, be green.