Posts with the tag Climate Change

Republican Global Financial Climate Change Gate - Plankton and Oxygen

Unknown user — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 05:57:14 EST

Like the economic crisis that had been collapsing but ended on a more violent note, global change is going to happen the same way with more violent weather changes, crop failures, and other unpleasant results.

Like the U.S. economy that was run off a cliff by the Bush administration and people "didn't know" until the economic collapse, the oil industry has run the health of our planet off a cliff and taken the human race with it too, we just "don't know" or see it yet.

Like, here’s a past and future Republican pattern with the economic crisis and climate change.

My Research on Climate Change

ThinkNonlinear — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:49:01 EST

I am civil engineer specialising in sanitary environmental engineering. For most of my professional life, I have worked for engineering firms in a consulting capacity. I am currently working in a software company.

Impressed by Al Gore's film 'An Inconvenient Truth', I have been privately researching material on climate change and global growth for nearly two years in my spare time and have published the key results and references on www.e-lambda-t.eu. On this basis, I believe the need for action is much more urgent than most decision-makers indicate.

In the field of engineering, so-called load assumptions are mandatory when planning an object (such as a building or aircraft). Accordingly the object is designed for rated loads (such as wind or payload) which are so high that it is guaranteed to withstand the actual loads (such as wind or payload).

Republican Denial of Global Warming Contradiction

Unknown user — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 11:18:13 EST

During the Bush administration terms tensions escalated between the U.S. and Canada over territory claims and the Northern sea passages given the fact that the Northern sea passages are melting.

Climate Change Initiatives

Russell Wyllie — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 17:01:06 EDT

More money needs to be allocated by Governments toward PROMOTION of climate change evidence. Plenty of television programmes have been produced to underline the impact on the planet of global warming, the melting of sea ice, rising sea levels, the knock-on effect of weather patterns from melting ice, destruction of habitat and wildlife such as in the Amazon rainforest and the impact on human life etc.

With more funding various top networks could be utilized to broadcast these programmes on a dedicated climate change television and internet channel. Many networks only show programmes which get high ratings, so the creation of climate/environmental television and internet channel must be created to get more support, to generate more investment in alternative energy industry, and to broadcast energy saving initiatives to the public.

Government could easily find more money for a climate-only television channel. For example, the amount of money spent on defense spending could be reduced by a mere 1 or 2 percent to make funds available to get a climate channel going. The World Bank could be used for the creation of a dedicated climate channel in many countries, and to have it broadcasted via the web. A proportion of alcohol and cigarette tax could be allocated for a climate fund, to assist in the initial stage of the creation of a climate change channel.

The public needs to be educated more on these issues, and investors will follow the trend of alternative energy creation very quickly if the climate issue is promoted more and more.

Russell S.Wyllie of http://www.Youtube.com/RealClimateNews

Weather Modification Awareness 2- cloud seeding

Heather R — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 12:12:17 EDT

another paper i wrote on weather mod. this semester.

11 September 2009

Weather Modification

In Jeff Hull’s article “The Modern Rain Dance” in The New York Times, he writes about “cloud seeding” which has been taking place in the United States since around the 1940’s. The idea of weather modification has been around since the late 1800’s. It's a process in which man manipulates the weather. Whether they halt rain, make rain, or make man-made clouds that reflect sun-light back into space, they are changing our weather on purpose. Hull, though, specifically writes about “cloud seeding” which is dropping silver iodide into clouds, creating ice crystals, and making precipitation. This process is currently being used in major drought areas such as California and Wyoming. Hull tells us that in 2003 the National Research Council stated that there is no scientific proof that weather modification is helping us. Hull starts questioning whether this could be harmful at all to us. No questions about the process have been addressed by our legal system. Hull concludes by stating that we should be careful with what we can do.

I am a strong believer in putting a stop to weather modification. I believe it’s not only harmful to the environment, but it could be harmful to the people here on Earth. “Cloud seeding” is only the beginning. “Many communities have experimented with “Cloud Seeding”, the introduction of artificial nuclei into clouds to spur precipitation.”(Hull, page 1) There are much worse experiments and manipulation going on, but the government will not confirm it.

First of all, I believe it’s wrong for the government to keep information from current experiments from its citizens especially if these experiments could potentially be harmful. I would think that there would be some form of harm on us or the environment, and maybe that is the reason the government is not giving us information. Do the particles being sprayed in the atmosphere disintegrate somehow? Could these particles be affecting our water supply? Many Americans don’t even have a clue that these actions are being performed right above them.

Another big concern with weather modification is the environment. Could this be harming plants and animals? Could this be ruining our atmosphere? The only way we will know is when it happens and everything begins to unfold. For now, though, many are not paying much attention because they don’t know! How can the EPA, NASA, and NOAA overlook this issue? Do they not realize how harmful this could be? I ask so many questions because our government does not address this experimentation, nor do they answer questions regarding the issue.

When I earn my Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Science I hope to put a stop to weather modification. I understand drought areas need water, but putting particles in the air is not the way to fix the problem. What if the rain water they receive is contaminated? I believe this is an eye-opening issue that more of us need to look into. Some reporters and columnists, such as Hull, have already taken a look at the issue, but it hasn’t blown up the media because the government wouldn’t allow it. Many other countries are doing the same experimentation, but our country needs to take a look at what is happening above them before it is too late.

Stewardship of God's Creation!

Greg M — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:47:32 EDT

I would encourage any Christian who holds to that always distinctive and classic evangelical notion that was deeply planted within us from very young that "Jesus is coming again soon and this world's going to burn, so I don't want to waist my energy focusing on the enviornment, but rather keep an eternal focus," to go back and truly look into what the scripture actually teaches us and not just blindly repeat what we have all heard for so very long, which I'll admit, up until the past decade of my life I repeated blindly too.

To be honest, we don't really know what will happen with the actual earth after Jesus returns for us. Most hold that it will be utterly destroyed, and perhaps this is the case, but actually the Bible is in no way clear about that. It says that humanity will cease to exist in the flesh, thus, "there will be deep mourning among all the peoples of the earth." (Matthew 24:30 NLT) But, unless you're a hardline dispensationalist fundamentalist, you can admit that there is really no way to know the fate of the earth. Yes, there is the passage, "Heaven and earth will disappear, but my words will never disappear." (Matthew 24:35 NLT) However, does this refer to actual places? or perhaps states of being? who is to say? And everything Jesus says earlier in this same chapter has probably already taken place just as Jesus prophesied when the Temple was destroyed in Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70; at least this was the actual perspective of Matthew himself.

Either way, the way Matthew 24 ends is the clincher for me, as to our role as good stewards of God's Creation. Jesus uses the example of a faithful and sensible servant in the household of the Master. Of course, if we're to honestly translate Jesus' meaning here we have to recognize what God's household is. It is certainly not some actual house on the earth, nor would God's household servants who need to be fed only be humans in an earthly house. Jesus is certainly referring to all of God's creation in this passage.

"A faithful, sensible servant is one to whom the master can give the responsibility of managing his other household servants and feeding them. If the master returns and finds that the servant has done a good job, there will be a reward. I tell you the truth, the master will put that servant in charge of all he owns. But what if the servant is evil and thinks, 'My master won't be back for a while,' and he begins beating the other servants, partying, and getting drunk? The master will return unannounced and unexpected, and he will cut the servant to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 24:45-51 NLT)

I'll take the frightening challenge of putting this scripture into words we might be able to relate to our situation today: "A human who is a Jesus follower is one to whom Jesus can give the responsibility of being a faithful steward of all of God's creation. One who will see to the proper use, protection and distribution of the resources of the earth, even the universe. If Jesus returns and finds that his follower has done a good job, there will be a reward... But what if that human believes that Jesus will not return in a very long time and begins to treat God's creation in ways that please himself or herself or only select humans? What if this human says 'I have everything I want at my figertips and I will use it all as I see fit and will eat, drink and be merry, and so will my friends. Besides, Jesus won't care all that much anyway since He is going to just throw it all away right after He returns!' Jesus will return unannounced and unexpected, and will be deeply hurt and disappointed with how the human He entrusted God's creation to as a steward of it has utterly misused and destroyed God's creation." I'll be kind and leave the rest for everyone else to translate for herself or himself.

As for me, I've decided to throw out the old picture from my fundamentalist past of being a Christian on a sinking ship (the earth) with my eyes to the sky waiting to be rescued off the ship before it sinks with everyone else on it! I don't even necessarily believe I'm on a sinking ship anymore. But, even if I am, I've discovered that my eyes had better be fixed on caring for the ship and all of the people on it as best I can so that when Jesus does come for rescue, many, many more will hopefully be rescued, and who really knows? maybe even the ship itself! Blessings... Greg

Eliminate Pre-existing Conditions Clauses, and Gasoline!

Nor Cal Hillbilly — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:20:05 EDT

My fellow citizens,

I am a survivor of Acute Meyloid Leukemia, or AML. I recieve care from one of the finest institutions in medicine, UC Davis Medical Group, with help along the way from Stanford Medical. I had a bone marrow transplant in 2005 and have been doing great considering the trauma to my system. We need to do everything we can to help with healthcare reform, and eliminate pre-existing conditions. The relief on Emergency Rooms alone will save countless taxpayer dollars and hospital's lost revinue. The other side of the equation is to improve our personal health and environment.

When researching the environmental causes of my form of cancer, I found that it is associated with exposure to Benzene. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/17/1044

The "Benzene Ring" is the building block of Gasoline, paint and solvents.

I do not believe in prohibition, but I do believe that government can create strong incentives to limit the use of gasoline by endorsing clean diesel, biofeuls and natural gas production and consumption.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is obviously owned by the large oil companies who have their refineries in the San Fransico Bay Area. CARB continues to block efforts of auto companies to sell diesel cars in California, one of the largest and most important automobile markets in the world. If you can't sell a car in California, you can't produce it for sale in the US.

Barack Obama gave us the funding, let's get up and do something with it!

I am applying for a grant from the US Dept. of Energy (DOE), to create a prototype truck that will be powered by a Capstone Microturbine Generator, and use DC electric hub motors at each wheel, called the Hi-Pa Drive, manufactured by PML FLightlink of the UK.

Microturbines can be powered by Natural Gas, Hydrogen, Biodiesel, Ethanol, Methanol, Petroleum diesel, Jet Fuel, and Gasoline.

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/18365

Even when burning the stinky fossil fuels, the microturbine can qualify under CARB's standards as a low emissions vehicle.

With the use of the Hi-Pa Drive built by PML Flightlink, the vehicle would have no gears, axles, or drivelines. With the microturbine powerplant, my early estimates guarantee at least 80 MPG, in a large SUV or Truck! http://www.hipadrive.com/

Barack Obama is the leader that can, and will, help us bridge the gap to the Hydrogen Economy. His grants to the DOE are being pursued by lots of other people like me, and in the end, we can all drive our cars without polluting, and spread our technolgy to help the developing world as well as the US.

We all breathe the same air. Let's take a stand to clean it up!

So get out and help the cause America! Tell your Representatives how important healthcare reform is to our lives and economy, and do something in your own life to reduce future healthcare costs.

Run, bike, hike and swim to the future! When you get there and you are too tired to run home, just get in your clean green car and drive!

OFA is not just for Democrats

LindaLu Nordling — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:48:47 EDT

Dear ALL:

I would agree with the authors of this letter. As this is a letter seek to clearify what has become quite a fiasco of camps of self interests.

Nothing about this congress is representative of the INTEREST of the People of United States of America other than on issues which have been grossly under-represented.

As far as all "reforms" including the Green Movement, HealthCare, Sustainability, Climate Change... has each been nothing more than self interest for the MONEY people behind the poppets of Politicians. It is obvious NOTHING in each of those TOPICS has anything to do with the reality of people losing and lost their job, room, apartment, house,..
.

It is very disappointing but nothing surprising given Barack H. Obama does not have ALL the GOP kind of influence, power, money behind him when WE started the road to White House.

There's saying: Keep your friends close
Keep your ENEMIES CLOSURE (closer)

so, here's a TOAST to y'll who are continueing to be of SELF interests and NOT for America or Americans.

You know who you are...and so do the rest of the "peeps" which COMPLETELY OUT # YOU...of course, there was/is/has been "UNCLE TOMS" pardon for borrowing a phrase not from my race but i'm sure y'll know exactly AGAIN who you think you might be...get it MIGHT just BE. ... and so do THIS Transparent information TIME. Good luck to all your self-interest committment and to your health.

Sincerely,

Linda Lu-Nordling

-----Original Message-----

To: San Francisco for Obama <SanFranciscoforObama@groups.barackobama.com>
Sent: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 10:38 pm
Subject: [SanFranciscoforObama] FW: [GroupAdministratorsforObama-Collaboratio] OFA/DNC

From: alanhny@aol.com
[mailto:alanhny@aol.com]

Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 7:31
PM

To: Group Administrators for Obama
- Collaboration Group

Subject: [GroupAdministratorsforObama-Collaboratio]
OFA/DNC



Dear Kurt, Ben, Brent,
Greg, Jennifer,

I started out replying to
each of your very thoughtful comments but got sort of overwhelmed, so I'm
taking this collective route.

There is no question in
my mind that on all the most important issues we are on the same page. This
dialogue itself, respectful, logical, passionate, is just one more confirmation
for me of the power and beauty of the movement we created over the course of a
long election campaign.

=0 A

Believe me, there is
absolutely no despair here. We are working harder than ever for the President's
agenda, with complete confidence in his leadership, and I believe we continue
to make a modest but valuable contribution to the overall effort.

All of you make a
persuasive case for the grass roots party organizing you are doing. We have a
lot of campaign volunteers here in NYC doing the same. Hopefully there are many
more around the country making similar progress.

But the question under
discussion is the relationship between OFA and the DNC and how it impacts our
work.

If OFA were to say
clearly tomorrow that it wants all of its volunteers and the people we sign up
for various activities under the OF
A banner to throw ourselves into
transforming the Democratic Party into an instrument of people's needs rather
than corporate profits, I would salute and try to figure out how to do that in
our own little piece of the world here.

But there's a good reason
OFA hasn't said that. There is that 30% of the electorate who define themselves
as Independents, there is the unknown but large percentage of the electorate
who vote Democrat while holding their noses, and there is even that 30% of
Republicans who today say they disagree with the policies of their party. In
addition to loyal active Democrats, we will have volunteers from each of these
other three categories participating in our June 27 Health Care Day of Service
event. They will eagerly work with OFA, because th ey see it as something
really new and different from the existing party political system, but they
would tell us to take a hike if we asked them to show up at the next meeting of
our local Democratic club. I guess it's different where you are.


I happen to agree with
them that what came out of the campaign, which took the organizational form of
OFA, is truly something new and different, one of those social/political
movements that come along once every generation or two with tremendous
potential to change the country and the world f
or the better. We see it at work
every day, with the battle for a decent health care system and in so many other
ways in which this President continues to make us proud. That is why OFA
correctly continues to project itself as a movement built on the agenda of a charismatic
political leader, whose politics, fortunately, are fundamentally progressive.

When the decision was made after the
election to fold the campaign base into the DNC, there were advantages and
disadvantages to it. I might have disagreed with the decision at the time, but
I understand why it was made and it has not deterred my participation in OFA,
whose leadership and staff are absolutely doing the best they can with the hand
they've been dealt. But the disadvantages are clearly making themselves
felt.

While very specific and
powerful members of Congress are killing, undermining or going wobbly on key
provisions of the President's agenda, OFA does not target any of them,
presumably because of its DNC relationship, and so organizers and activists are
drawn to groups that are doing that kind of targeting. The same happens with
specific features of the agenda. I don't recall seeing anything, for example,
about the public plan option in the material for the June 4 kick off event. I
understand why this happens, but I think it's a
significant disadvantage.

The OFA/DNC relationship
had this movement/party contradiction built into it at birth, and it needs
to be resolved. It blurs the strategic focus with its generalities and
therefore appears lacking in transparency. Even going by what I think is
Jennifer's accurate characterization of the thinking behind the decision, of it
being a way to hold together the base and keep the buzz going for 2012, I don't
see the numbers telling us that is happening. The numbers I see on the site, the numbers released by OFA, I do not find encouraging--and I doubt that the
hard-headed realists who run OFA do either, despite the obvious need to remain
publicly positive. And what about the 347 other people on this list, who apparently
lack the time or interest to weigh in on a subject we seem to agree is pretty
important? My hunch is their attention a nd energies are otherwise engaged.

Which reminds me, we all have day jobs and I've gone on much too long.

In conclusion, he said, to deafening applause: I think we face great and unprecedented challenges but they can be met; I think we have an obligation to communicate our concerns to each
other and to OFA leadership because I know they want to hear them and because
this is=2 0our organization and we need to make it thrive.



Best,

Alan Howard

NY 8th CD







Dell
Deals: Don't miss huge summer savings on popular laptops starting at $449.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

This email was sent to 353 members of Group Administrators for Obama -
Collaboration Group

Listserv email address:
GroupAdministratorsforObama-Collaboratio@groups.barackobama.com

Your reply will be sent to: alanhny@aol.com

Unsubscribe or change your email settings:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/GroupAdministratorsforObama-Collaboratio/listserv-unsub

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

This email was sent to 646 members of San Francisco for Obama

Listserv email address: SanFranciscoforObama@groups.barackobama.com

Your reply will be sent to: brent@trealestate.net

Unsubscribe or change your email settings: http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/SanFranciscoforObama/listserv-unsub

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Climate Change - Atmosphere is infinite

Brian — Fri, 08 May 2009 11:36:10 EDT

The republican premise: The atmosphere is too large for us to have an effect; it’s practically infinite.

Climate Change - Ocean CO2 Sink

Brian — Fri, 08 May 2009 10:46:44 EDT

The republican premise: The oceans are a great “sink” that absorbs carbon dioxide, so we don’t have to worry about atmospheric carbon emissions.

President Obama's EARTH DAY PROCLAMATION

N. Julio Barthson - E-Campaign Leader — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:07:11 EDT

Let's support the President in his struggle to save our planet.

One world, one issue

Leader of the FUTURE — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 00:54:19 EDT

We can be divided by region, by color, by geography, by weather, by nation, by name we can be divided for many reason. Even United Nation is not united for many reasons. But we all are UNITED for our world, our living green world. You might have no time to think about me, to think about others but you must think about your self, about your family, about your children. For you, for your family, for your children you need this world. So keep the world clean, keep the world green. In future scientists can discover that people can live in Mars. But it will be expensive for you to travel there and also you have to face VISA problems, good health is also required for the long journey way to Mars. So without thinking for your living world keep it clean. Otherwise one day from other planet someone will come to your grave to research, is in this planet has ever life, water, tree!!!!

Be the change for Obama!!

Keith from West Chester, PA — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:59:42 EDT

Putting Obama in office was just the beginning. We’ve won a major battle but not the whole war. Now we have the equally daunting and critical challenge of making sure that Obama is able to fulfill the promise that he represents. We need to keep working to take back our democracy and advance Obama’s progressive agenda.

That’s why I’m working with a network of progressive people throughout Maryland to get communities across the state organized and mobilized to in support of building a new clean green, inclusive energy economy and bold federal climate action – two major priorities for president Obama. We’ve teamed up with an amazing national grassroots climate campaign called 1Sky whose goal is to build volunteer climate action teams in every community that will push our congressional leaders to be champions of bold federal climate and clean energy policy. For more info go to http://local.1sky.org/en/.

As you may know, Maryland Congresspeople including House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Chris Van Hollen, and John Sarbanes are extremely influential and will have a big impact on the type of climate policy that congress passes. By influencing them we can have a huge influence on the climate fight, but we need to act now because Congress is working on climate legislation as we speak.

2009 is going to be the pivotal year for climate action! If you care about the issue this is the year to act. You can make a difference in just a few hours a month. Help us make history. Please contact me today to let me know if your interested in joining our local 1Sky climate precinct team!

Keith Harrington

MD 1Sky Field Organizer

Chesapeake Climate Action Network

240-396-1985

keith@chesapeakeclimate.org

It is all about energy, stupid!

James from Madison, WI — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 15:11:13 EST

Many of us think that the economy is about money. But it isn't. it is about energy.

First meeting--Bill McKibben's Deep Economy

Beverly from New York, NY — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 11:49:35 EST

Sunday, March 1st we will be discussing Bill McKibben's book Deep Economy. One of the stated goals of the book is to challenge us to evaluate an economy not just by growth but also by human satisfaction and by ecological durability. McKibben suggests that part of the solution to the many problems we face lies in the wealth of communities.

He writes that the upheaval promised by global warming is more disruptive than any military threat humans have yet faced. On Monday March 2nd Mr. McKibben (along with NASA climate scientist James Hansen) will probably be arrested for acts of civil disobedience at a coal-fired power plant in Washington, D.C. He believes it's important for us all to raise our voices loud and clear now because "We need a powerful and active movement not to force the administration and the Democrats in Congress to do something they don't want to, but to give them the political space they need to act on their convictions. Barack Obama was a community organizer--he understands that major change only comes when it's demanded, when there's some force noisy enough to drown out the eternal hum of business as usual, of vested interest, of inertia." To read his full comments go to e360.yale.edu.

So, if you live near our community of Inwood (in northern Manhattan) join us. Even if you haven't read the book. I anticipate that there will be different levels of participation at different times. Some people may just come and learn and change their buying habits. Others may read every book, talk to their friends and relatives, write to their local and federal representatives. Others may want to start a local project. Any level of participation is welcome.

Next meeting will be April 5th and we'll be discussing Tim Flannery's The Weather Makers.

Forget Bailouts! Let’s nationalize the Auto Industry & make Amory Lovins Sec of Trans

Andy Caffrey the Virtual Candidate — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 00:24:37 EST

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Are you watching cable news today? The Auto Industry CEOs are begging Congress to turn the U.S. into another China: State-managed capitalism. Some people think that sounds a lot like National Socialism or Nazism.

I've got a different perspective. Instead of bailing out the private-jet-setting CEOs and their omnicidal* automobile industry, I say nationalize it!

Because the fossil fuel, automobile and military industries have brought us this Climate Crisis, creating our greatest national security threat EVER, isn't it apt and just that we take them over and use them to reduce the crisis? In the name of National Defense and Homeland Security.

All the Auto Industry will do if it gets bailed out is increase fuel-efficiency by a few miles per gallon. They won't abandon the Hummer.

For ten years I've been calling for a Retool Now! conversion of Detroit. Back then I said retool the factories so that only vehicles that get 75 MPG are made from now on. Of course, most of the industrial capacity should be shifted away from private vehicles entirely and used to create advanced public transportation vehicles. The future is in the public transportation sector and the rental, not ownership of personal vehicles.

So lets nationalize the Auto Industry and tell Obama to appoint Amory Lovins the Secretary of Transportation, and forget about bailing out any capitalist institutions. Oh, and lets not forget to...

Jail the CEOs,

Andy Caffrey

*omnicidal means, the death of all living things

Europeans Focus on Water and Climate Change

Tim Brick — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 23:48:40 EST

There is an increased focus in Europe on the centrality of water in dealing with climate change as reported by this article from EurActive.com

Elegant nature: Why election bliss went global

Angel Garet — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:37:20 EST

No matter for whom or if you voted, a new rung in the ladder of human evolution is beneath your feet. For Americans who have lived long enough, election night 2008 may have produced the first palpable change felt in forty years. The monumental sense of loss that seemed to last forever after the passing of Dr. Martin Luther King has suddenly waned, allowing us to reflect on how we changed during a time when changes were too insignificant to feel or we were too numb to feel them.

In the interim, and not by coincidence, science has observed in nature a self-correcting mechanism responsible for the evolution of all that we know. Breakthroughs in cell biology and fractal geometry and mathematics have revealed a universal pattern of branching toward balance and perfection in a nonlinear yet persistent manner. It is present in galaxies as well as the systems of every living thing, and it tells us we are born stewards of the planet, wired to be receptors and processors of nature’s input.

Global Leadership

Jim Walsh — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 22:05:51 EST

It's clear that the global reception that Barack Obama has enjoyed puts him in the position of a moral leader of the world -- not just the free world. Even before he takes office he will be doing a great deal of leading in a world eager to align itself with his ideas. His solutions during the campaign have already begun to prove prophetic.

He has recognized the relationship among the financial crisis, infrastructure renewal, jobs, energy, and climate change and sees solutions to each as complementing solutions to the others.

I suspect that whatever program he puts together and proposes to the US Congress the program will be closely watched throughout the world for hints of what other nations should do. He should remain acutely aware of his influence on the world and address the world explicitly. He need not even wait until his inauguration to do this. The financial crisis is global and solutions are needed soon.

Barack Obama USA president created history

Unknown user — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 20:19:48 EST

It is a history an immigrant has made to white house. American is multicultural country black, white, African, Asian , Hindus, Muslims and Christians live together happily and it is a land of opportunity. Martin Luther king the civil rights activist who has fight for the rights of black may be happiest person if he would have lived. From nothing, a black leader Barack Husain Obama has become the president of United States of America, born to Kenyan Father and American mother. People of America want change, did not bother about the cultural issues and want to live happily with dignity. With recession gripping up, many banks are declared bankruptcy, energy crisis, climate change, three trillion dollar Iraq war, people fear to lose house in subprime crisis, with these problems every American wants a change. American wants happy living and show the world that American are not against any race and religion. They want peace and happiness and good living.

A virtual unknown until his stirring keynote address at the 2004 Democratic Convention, the President-elect’s meteoric rise to the White House has personal style, a gift for stirring oratory and a commanding ability to deploy new technology to raise funds and organize supporters
"Americans have sent a message to the world," Barack Obama, the man who would be the United States' first African American president, "If there is anyone out there that still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible... who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer." He said it was the answer told "by lines that stretched around schools and churches..." as they waited for hours to vote. It was the answer, he said, spoken by the young and old, rich and poor, Hispanics and Asians, Democrats and Republicans”
With the United States having its first African-American President in Barack Hussain Obama and the Democrats got full control the Senate and the Congress. Ever one in the world seeing towards USA for change and in India the group of techies from Bangalore have collected money for funding the election in USA they formed an association Barack Obama association. In Coimbatore people have conducted “homa and puja” and have shown the birth chart of Barack Obama to astrologers, and they were sure of his victory and this happened. Obama has taken donations even two dollar and five dollars from the individuals and has funded election expenditure, there is a transparency in election funding.
What are the challenges to new president?

•His first task is to revive economy of USA, economy is in a grip of recession
•Subprime crisis, every American wants a shelter and the prices housing sector should not fall any t more.
•The greatest three trillion war with Iraq, which is the tax payer money America has spent on Iraq war. Withdrawing of troops from Iraq.
•Energy crisis, USA is biggest consumer of energy and it has not signed Kyoto Protocol,(Climate Change) many American wants that USA should go to green technology and save the energy and sign the Kyoto protocol.
•Control of terrorism is one more problem the new president may face.
•Tackling of unemployment problem and out sourcing is some more big issues.

India has to learn lot of lessons from US election
•We have to see Americans who have elected an immigrant and half Muslim to the white house, Indian are not tolerating the fellow Indians the recent Maharashtra riots is example.
•The funding of elections is transparent in USA, the election expenditure is audited, where as in India the election expenditure is all unaccounted money there is no proper records maintained.
•American election campaign is transparent, Obama has used internet, text messages, Utube, and media. Indian election campaign is not transparent.
•Obama is nothing four years back, today he is a President of USA, which shows even a new person, can become USA president which is not possible inIndia.

Barack is the Greener Candidate with the Cleaner Campaign

LauraT — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 21:26:10 EST

While blogging about the League of Conservation Voter's endorsement of Democratic Senate candidate Jim Martin in Georgia, I took a closer look at the environmental group's analysis of Obama's environmental positions. The LCV published a comparison chart (in PDF format) outlining the environmental policies of Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain. Obama has a lifetime enviornmentally-friendly score 86 percent vs. 24 percent for McCain. And for 2007, the most recent year scored, McCain was given a 0 (yes, that’s zero) vs. 67 for Obama.

Here in Georgia, Republican encumbent Senator Saxby Chambliss is rated at only 5 percent in LCV’s 110th Congress 2008 National Environmental Scorecard. According to the LCV, Senator Chambliss has accepted $107,500 in contributions from oil and gas interests for his 2008 re-election campaign. His signature negative advertising is therefore funded, in part, by oil companies. Considering the recent gas shortages and high prices we've suffered here, along with all Chambliss' negative TV ads we've had to endure, it's clear that Jim Martin is the cleaner candidate-in more ways that one. You can check out my full blog post on the environmental issue at lifeonq.com.

Earth Charter Global Community Summit - Tampa, FL

Lyndsey from Lutz, FL — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:36:23 EDT

On October 11, 2008, people will gather in cities worldwide to discuss global climate change and to work together to address its effects on the local level. Earth Charter U.S. is coordinating the summits in celebration of U.N. International Year of Planet Earth. They are also underwriting the web connection among participating cities so that people will feel the global connection by being able to see and hear each other.

Earth Charter U.S. is a nonprofit organization that spreads the message of the Earth Charter, an international declaration of principles for building a just, sustainable and peaceful global society ( www.earthcharter.org).

Here in Tampa, our summit will be held at the University of Tampa. Registration begins at 10am in Faulk Theater, and the schedule of activities can be found at http://www.earthcharterus.org/summit-wkend.html

Speakers include:

Dr. Gary Yohe, co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize (with Al Gore) as a senior member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Alexander Likhotal, President and CEO of Green Cross International and adviser to Mikhail Gorbachev

James Hansen, NASA scientist and Columbia University professor who exposed White House editing of climate-related reports to make global warming appear less threatening

Bill Becker, executive director of Presidential Climate Action Plan, 300 policies that can be enacted by the new president without congressional approval

Michelle Weyman, executive director of ICLEI-US, leading organization for Mayors’ Climate Action Program in 1500+ cities

The Earth Scouts Festival will be held on the same day from 10am-3pm in UT's Plant Hall. The Earth Scouts are "changing the world one fun badge at a time" by participating in hands-on activities that reinforce the principles of human rights, economic justice, participatory democracy, respect for nature, and cultivating a culture of peace and nonviolence. Some common activities include tasting and learning about fair trade chocolate, making slogan buttons, and making seed necklaces that sprout while being worn!

We hope to see you at one of these great events!

Sarah Palin is a Far-Right Wing Extremist: My Top Ten Reasons

David Drissel — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 01:36:05 EDT

Over the past few weeks, I have become increasingly concerned about the prospect of Governor Sarah Palin becoming the next Vice President of the United States. Certainly, the idea of Sen. John McCain serving as commander-in-chief is indeed a frightening prospect, but with his advanced age and numerous bouts with melanoma, he is quite likely not to survive four years in office if elected, thus allowing Palin to become President.   

The prospect of a Palin presidency (or vice presidency for that matter) is troubling for many reasons. Besides her obvious lack of experience, abuses of power as governor, and apparent ignorance concerning national and international issues, Palin also is a far-right extremist. I have decided to list my Top Ten Reasons why I am convinced that Palin is an ultra-conservative fanatic that makes Pat Robertson or maybe even David Duke look moderate.  

1. Sarah Palin and her husband Todd are former associates and long-time supporters of the anti-American, secessionist-based, Alaskan Independence Party (AIP). Supporting a statewide “vote” for Alaskan secession from the U.S., the fringe AIP touts itself as a “states rights party.” As one AIP leader states, the party has "a plank that challenges the legality of the Alaskan statehood vote as illegal and in violation of United Nations charter and international law." AIP’s founder, Joe Vogler, has repeatedly professed his "hatred" for the American government. As reported by ABC News, AIP leaders have claimed that the Palins are former members of the party and attended statewide conferences in 1994 and 2000. Though official records indicate that Palin has been a registered Republican since 1982, nothing has disproved the AIP claim that Palin was an active supporter of this rabidly anti-American party. Besides, one can certainly be a “member” of more than one party simultaneously. More telling is the fact that Gov. Palin sent an official videotaped message to the AIP’s annual convention in early 2008, in which she endorsed their “party’s vision” and referred to AIP as “inspiring:”

2. Palin is a Christian fundamentalist extremist who endorses a church that condones modern-day witch-hunts. For years, she was a member of a Pentecostal church, the Wasilla Assembly of God, which not only speaks in tongues and conducts faith healing, but also believes in exorcisms and witch-hunts. In fact, her former preacher and spiritual mentor, Pastor Thomas Muthee, purposively incited violent mobs in Kenya that physically drove alleged “witches” from various towns and villages. Such activities are clearly sexist and are a centuries-old form of “spiritual warfare” directed against influential women living in traditional communities.  

3. Palin is a theocratic extremist who believes that God actively supported the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and even the construction of oil pipelines in Alaska. As she told the Wasilla Assembly of God in June 2008, the Iraq war and the Alaskan pipeline were part of "God's Plan." She also takes pride in the fact that her minister, the witch-hunting Pastor Thomas Muthee, beseeched God to help get her elected governor.

4. Palin is an apocalyptic survivalist who currently attends a church whose main tenet is the belief that Alaska has a “special role” in God’s divine plan for the “last days.” The Wasilla Bible Church, of which she and her family have been members since 2002, actively promotes the radical survivalist view that Alaska will provide a “shelter” as a “refuge state” in the aftermath of the impending apocalypse.

5. Governor Palin has an extreme position on abortion rights. For years, she has advocated the nationwide criminalization of abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. Going beyond the primary conservative approach of calling for the overturn of Roe v. Wade (which would return the issue back to the states), Palin favors national legislation and a constitutional amendment that would criminalize abortion in all states, with only one exception: If the mother’s life is in imminent obvious danger. In fact, she stated as a gubernatorial candidate in 2006 that she would oppose abortion “even if her own daughter was raped.” So if Palin has her way, she would legally force a 16-year old girl who was raped by her uncle to carry the fetus to term.  

6. Palin is a rabid homophobic extremist. For starters, her current church clearly advocates the “conversion” of gay men and lesbians into “heterosexual Christians.” As reported by the AP, one of her church’s major theological tenets is known as “pray away the gay,” which Palin apparently supports, judging from her active support of Wasilla Bible Church’s programs and philosophy. More importantly, at the beginning of her administration, Palin actively supported a bill that would have denied state benefits for gay partners of public employees. As governor, she also sought to remove books from public libraries that were gay-tolerant. Like other far-right extremists, she supports a constitutional amendment that would ban same sex marriage nationwide. She also opposes hate crime legislation that includes provisions for sexual orientation. So, this supposedly “Christian church lady” apparently does not think that the law should offer any legal protection to the victims of hate crimes whose attackers were motivated by anti-gay bigotry.

7. Palin is an anti-environmental extremist. She not only constantly demeans science, but also decries mainstream scientific theories of climate change. Disagreeing with her running mate on this position, Palin has repeatedly argued that global warming is not man-made, but rather a “natural” phenomenon. Moreover, she favors opening up Alaska’s entire protected wilderness areas (including ANWAR) to oil exploration and development. In a recent interview, as reported on ABC News, Palin stated, “A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made.”

8. Palin is a jingoistic bellicose extremist in foreign policy. Like Bush and McCain, she favors rash military action as a substitute for genuine diplomacy and careful negotiations with other countries. Though her ignorance about the Bush Doctrine was revealed in a recent ABC News interview with Charlie Gibson, she nonetheless reaffirmed her belief in American unilateralism and preemptive military attacks on sovereign nations. Moreover, when asked about her response to alleged Russian aggression in Georgia, she indicated that the U.S should consider going to war with Russia if further “unprovoked” incursions occur. If Palin indeed welcomes Alaska’s role in the Apocalypse, then she may get her wish if a U.S.-Russian war is ignited over a small obscure former member of the Soviet Union.

9. Palin is a major “gun nut” who believes that the Second Amendment is absolutely sacrosanct. Like the most extreme members of the NRA, Palin is opposed to virtually all forms of gun control – including waiting periods for gun purchases and bans on assault weapons. As a gubernatorial candidate, she even argued that gun control was “as much of a threat to families as drugs and gangs.” Talk about right-wing erroneous hyperbole. No wonder Palin received the NRA’s “highest possible rating” while running for governor in Alaska. Palin recently claimed that she would be one of the most pro-gun vice-presidents in American history.”

10. Palin has taken numerous other extremist positions on a whole range of issues. For example, she actively supports and promotes “abstinence only” sex education in public schools. She favors the teaching of religious-based creationism in biology classrooms, including the “young earth” theory that promotes the ardently unscientific idea that dinosaurs coexisted with mankind literally thousands of years ago. As one commentator noted recently: “It is quite scary that someone who rejects the fundamentals of basic science, and who shows such a shocking inability to engage in rational thought, could wind up being a heartbeat away from the presidency.” 

Inspire us with hope

Candice — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:34:17 EDT

Barack Obama, you changed the tone of the campaign this week. You brought it back to politics and policy. With all of the right policies, you should be winning in the polls.

Now look at the electorate. The stock market is in crisis and the Gulf coast is reeling from Hurricane Ike. We are eager for change, yet catastrophic change is already upon us. Now more than ever, we need our leaders to stand up with a message of hope, and deliver.

Again, I say it: Barack, take the highest of high roads. Right now, be the change you want to see.

You want a campaign free of smears? Praise your opponents.

You want a campaign based on truth? Tell us the truth about you. Your plans. Bring it back to you.

Barach Obama, you inspired a nation during the Democratic convention. You inspired us to believe for so many months. We learned all we could about you. We had the audacity to hope.

Then McCain pulled a rabbit out of his hat and inspired his own base.

You have no more rabbits. We all know your message.

All you can bring us is you.

Inspire us again. Speak only kindness. Focus on helping in Texas, even before the financial markets. Go to Texas. Fix things! Be the hope you talk about! Be the change you promise! Start your presidency of hope and kindness and fairness today. Lead us now! Inspire us again. We need you.

Join the WE Campaign action network for clean fuels!

Irish Musician for Progressive Solutions — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:53:23 EDT

Together, we can repower America with clean electricity and help solve the climate crisis.

Make a difference today, take action on our campaign to make electricity production carbon free:

http://www.wecansolveit.org/content/pages/291/

EIGHT POINTS TO WIN – FUNDAMENTALLY, TELL THE TRUTH!

Ken Stark — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 12:43:17 EDT

(Capitalizations are to make finding the points easier, not to “yell.”)

How to respond to the outrageous distortions and lies of the McCain campaign? How to counter the Palin impact? As one who makes a living advising others, I find that TELLING THE TRUTH works best. So here is the truth as I see it:

ONE: Obama’s policies on the economy, taxes, health care, climate change and other ISSUES OF REAL IMPORT to most Americans are much closer to what the people want than McCain’s. Then – FOLLOW UP WITH SURROGATES around the country making the detailed policy case, especially the Clintons with their considerable economic bonafides.

TWO: Because the extremist Right Wing that owns the Republican party is so out-of-step with the majority of Americans… because people do not want a president McCain tossing more bones while lavishing the wealthiest… because people want REAL FAIRNESS in our system, REAL OPPORTUNITIES to pursue the American dream of success-through-hard-work, not more backroom deals and privilege for the well-heeled and well-connected… because of all that, the REPUBLICANS CAN OFFER ONLY LIES, DISTORTIONS AND DISHONORABLE INNUENDOES. Tell the truth – while John McCain may have once been honorable and driven the Straight Talk Express, his campaign behavior and that of his surrogates is of liars and scoundrels.

10 Reasons I'm Supporting Obama

Elana Fertig — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 16:11:27 EDT

1. Obama was a lecturer in constitutional law at one of the most respected law schools in the country, University of Chicago and was the president of the Harvard Law Review. Both of these positions require high grades and achievements while in law school and take a top level intellect. He has backed these positions up with 10 productive years in both local and national politics, with state and federal service.

2. Obama recognizes the important of federal ethics and public accountability. His first task as a new senator was to bring an ethics reform bill to the senate and in 1998 passed the toughest campaign finance law in Illinois history. He also reached across the aisle and with Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) passed a law to create a Google-like search engine to allow the public to track federal grants, contracts, earmarks, and loans online. Having previously worked for a government contractor, I recognize the necessity of having both public and government oversight to avoid million dollar hammers.

3. Obama is surrounding himself with experts with diverse opinions to get a broad view on all the issues. He expects and inspires a healthy and productive dialog among people with differing opinions that produces cogent, well thought out, and productive actions and policies. Moreover, his superb communication skills enable him to explain these complex ideas to the general public and inspire action in otherwise apathetic groups of people. This has been exemplified in how much he has inspired the youth of this country. Also, though a religious man , Obama recognizes the sanctity of the separation of church and state and refuses to change his principles to appeal to the religious right in his attempts to court their votes. Moreover, he refuses to let religion play a role in education, promising science-based education and more realistic sex education.

4. Even Americans like myself with insurance covered by employers are feeling the effects of rising medical costs. Obama has a carefully constructed a health care plan that would oversee insurance companies to reduce costs and provide health care for those who cannot afford it (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/) In 2003, Barack Obama sponsored and passed legislation that expanded health care coverage to 70,000 kids and 84,000 adults. In the U.S. Senate, Obama cosponsored the Healthy Kids Act of 2007 and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Reauthorization Act of 2007 to ensure that more American children have affordable health care coverage. He also understands the need for women's health care, and in Illinois and Washington and has created a task force on cervical cancer, provided greater access to breast and cervical cancer screenings, and helped improve prenatal and premature birth services.

5. Obama has first hand experience devising solutions for the less fortunate that empower them to build themselves up through work opportunities, not merely accept a check from the government. He is back ing this commitment up with ideas to support parents through reasonable health care and day care plans that would enable parents to better balance work and family. On a state level, Obama created the Illinois Earned Income Tax Credit for low-income working families in 2000 and successfully sponsored a measure to make the credit permanent in 2003. The law offered about $105 million in tax relief over three years.

6. Obama recognizes the importance of strong public education to put future generations of Americans at the same level as their international counterparts and to have opportunities in a society with increasingly fewer "blue collar" jobs. He has promised to fund all levels of education, from zero to five early education to supporting more student loans and need based assistance at the university level. He has promised to back this up by recruiting more teachers, and paying them the salaries they deserve for all the hard work that they put in. This area is one of Obama's greatest strengths politically. In the Illinois State Senate, Obama was a leader on early childhood education, helping create the state's Early Learning Council. In the U.S. Senate, Obama has been a leader in working to make college more affordable. His very first bill sought to increase the maximum Pell Grant award to $5,100. As a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee, Obama helped pass legislation to achieve that goal in the recent improvements to the Higher Education Act. Obama20has also introduced legislation to create Teacher Residency Programs and to increase federal support for summer learning opportunities.

7. Obama listens to scientists in his policies, including support for stem cell research and science based education, not biblical public education. He is also pushing for more funding for science research and education, which have historically been responsible for many of America's accomplishments and status internationally.

8. Obama has strong environmental policies, and is pushing for additional jobs and national security through funding of real alternative energy policies. His policies are based on the scientific necessities outlined in the Nobel Prize winning International Panel on Climate Change document. Though this document is controversial in the media, speaking as a PhD scientist in Numerical Weather Prediction, I can verify that this document is well accepted within the meteorology, environmental science, and broader scientific community. Because of the importance of these environmental issues, Obama has not succumbed to short-term and short-sighted bandaids like a gas tax holiday or off shore drilling.

9. In spite of the rumors to the contrary, Obama has been consistently strong on Israel, introducing the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007, co-sponsoring the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, and publicly supporting Israel in its war against Hezbollah. Though he has been outspoken against the war in Iraq, Obama recognizes the=2 0need for force in the fight against terrorism, and is calling for our forces to be redeployed in Afghanistan, where the Taliban and Al Quada are alive and well. Moreover, he's also willing to negotiate with our enemies with much needed dialog and has no intentions of acting as a unilateral force.

10. It seems very likely that the next president will have the opportunity to appoint two supreme court judges in his next term. Obama has pledged to appoint scholars of the constitution and people not swayed by political hot issues like abortion. While I have tried to keep this positive for Obama, I must mention here that in an appeal to the religious right, McCain has pledged to appoint judges who will overturn Roe vs Wade, even in cases of rape and incest. Any moderate should think carefully about this before voting McCain and remember this is a life time appointment that has far longer lasting consequences than any actions of an individual president.

qualifications to lead: belief in science

Jonathan — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 13:39:19 EDT

From my unfortunate vantage point as an unenfranchised voter, it is incredible to me that people in the US can consider as qualified for high office someone who has no respect for science. Especially after 8 years of such leadership. There is an element of the "right" that considers science to be "opinion". This element threatens the future of the US as a scientific, technological, and, in fact, intellectual leader in the world. If they have their way, the US will be a nuclear armed country populated by ignoramuses. This is extraordinarily dangerous and threatening to our future.

Denial of such well-established scientific theories (in the scientific sense) as evolution would leave our children ignorant of the processes by which biological systems form. It threatens our ability to cultivate the eager minds of our youth to become the discoverers of cures for terrible diseases.

Denial of the profound evidence for global climate change is not simply stupid, it is colossally dangerous. The implications of climate change are terrible to contemplate, and such denial asks to leave our children with a world that spirals into the worst of all possible scenarios. These are not just environmental, but geopolitical and economic as well.

Shell Chairman's 6-2004 Climate Change Worries While McCain-Palin Fiddled

gregbirddizelec — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 14:07:47 EDT

Oil chief: my fears for planet

Shell boss's 'confession' shocks industry

David Adam, science correspondent
Thursday June 17, 2004
The Guardian

The head of one of the world's biggest oil companies has admitted that the threat of climate change makes him "really very worried for the planet". In an interview in today's Guardian Life section, Ron Oxburgh, chairman of Shell, says we urgently need to capture emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, which scientists think contribute to global warming, and store them underground - a technique called carbon sequestration.

"Sequestration is difficult, but if we don't have sequestration then I see very little hope for the world," said Lord Oxburgh. "No one can be comfortable at the prospect of continuing to pump out the amounts of carbon dioxide that we are pumping out at present ... with consequences that we really can't predict but are probably not good."

His comments will enrage many in the oil industry, which is targeted by climate change campaigners because the use of its products spews out huge quantities of carbon dioxide, most visibly from vehicle exhausts.

His words follow those of the government's chief science adviser, David King, who said in January that climate change posed a bigger threat to the world than terrorism.

"You can't slip a piece of paper between David King and me on this position," said Lord Oxburgh, a respected geologist who replaced the disgraced Philip Watts as chairman of the British arm of the oil giant in March.

Companies including Shell and BP have previously acknowledged the problem of climate change and pledged to reduce their own emissions, but the issue remains sensitive, and carefully worded public statements often emphasise uncertainties over risks.

Robin Oakley, a climate campaigner with Greenpeace, said: "This is an important statement to make but it does have to come with a commitment to follow through, and that means making the case to his peers in the oil industry who are still sceptical of climate change."

Mr Oakley said a gulf was opening between more progressive oil companies such as Shell, which invests in alternative energy sources including wind and solar power, and ExxonMobil, the biggest and most influential producer, particularly in the US.

In June 2002 ExxonMobil's chairman, Lee Raymond, said: "We in ExxonMobil do not believe that the science required to establish this linkage between fossil fuels and warming has been demonstrated."

Lord Oxburgh's words will also fuel arguments over sequestration. Supporters say it will allow a smoother transition to reduced emissions by allowing us to burn coal, oil and gas for longer. Critics argue that the idea is an expensive and probably unworkable smokescreen for continued reliance on fossil fuels.

Last year the Guardian revealed that ministers were considering plans for a national network of pipelines to carry millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide from power stations to be buried under the North sea.

"You probably have to put it under the sea but there are other possibilities. You may be able to trap it in solids or something like that," said Lord Oxburgh, who claimed even vehicle emissions could be trapped and disposed of. "The timescale might be impossible, in which case I'm really very worried for the planet because I don't see any other approach."

Courage is the key to renewable energy change

Andrew Duggan — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:25:20 EDT

The world we live in today has been structured in a way that favors the safe and predictable path. Risk taking is avoided, or worse, shunned. Security and certainty drive the very core of day-to-day decision-making. When risks are taken, they are taken with a tenacious measurability, to ensure a soft landing should the tides turn in an unwanted direction.

In this way, the foundation of our world, both social and economic, is maintained…With this in mind, how can a Renewable Energy Revolution unfold?

Solving this puzzle is the key to unlocking a bright future for America and the world. I believe that the millions of us who have come together under Senator Obama's banner of Change are the ones to make this a reality.

The Greenest Building

Carl from Takoma Park, MD — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 14:53:36 EDT

The following article was first published in the National Trust for Historic Preservation's Forum Journal, Summer 2007 issue, and is reproduced here as a courtesy of the National Trust for Historic Preservation with permission of the author.

The Greenest Building Is…One That Is Already Built

By Carl Elefante, AIA, LEED AP

A page has turned. In decades hence, 2006 may well be regarded as the year when the national discussion about the future of our cities, perhaps our civilization, changed from a debate over whether human impacts on the environment are leading to potentially severe problems to one focused on what we can do to diminish and even reverse them. Halleluiah!

Evidence for this supposition is widespread. Certainly, Al Gore’s Oscar-winning film, An Inconvenient Truth, has been singularly important in raising public awareness and defining environmental stewardship as a fundamental trait of American patriotism. Today, preventing climate change is the rallying call for millions, not just the environmental intelligentsia. There are hundreds of examples of how deeply our sense of national purpose has transformed. My profession accepted the Architecture 2030 Challenge[1] laid down by Ed Mazria at the 2006 AIA National Convention to cut in half fossil fuel consumption in architect-designed buildings by 2010, yes 2010, and create carbon-neutral buildings by 2030 (thus the name). Green building is maturing. Green Buildings and the Bottom Line, published by Building Design + Construction [2] states the business case for green building, documenting increases in productivity, performance, and profitability and reductions in risk, insurance premiums, and financing costs. Green has found its way into the board room.

However, this growth process is far from complete. Largely, the green building movement remains blind to its most troubling truth: We cannot build our way to sustainability. Even if, with the wave of a green wand, every building constructed from this day hence has a vegetative roof, is powered only with renewable energy sources, and is built entirely of environmentally appropriate materials, sustainability would still be far from fully realized.

Seeking salvation through green building fails to account for the overwhelming vastness of the existing building stock. The accumulated building stock is the elephant in the room: Ignoring it, we risk being trampled by it. We cannot build our way to sustainability; we must conserve our way to it.

Consider the numbers. The U.S. Department of Energy maintains a database of America’s non-residential buildings, its Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey.[3] As of its latest update in 2003, there are some 65 billion square feet of non-residential buildings in the U.S. According to economic projections reported by Architect magazine in 2006,[4] a prolonged building boom of historic proportions will produce an estimated 28 billion square feet of new construction by 2030, an increase of more than 40 percent. The report also notes (almost as an aside) that during the same period, more than 54 billion square feet of the existing non-residential building stock, about 84 percent of it, will undergo substantial modification.

Picture it this way: Four out of every five existing buildings will be renovated over the next generation while two new buildings are added. Can sustainability be achieved if our green vision extends only to new buildings, ignoring the enormous challenges of existing buildings and communities? After two decades working to promote green building within the architectural and environmental policy sectors, I believe that it is up to the preservation community to call attention to the elephant in the room.

Sustaining the Existing Building Stock

About 6 percent of the existing building stock was constructed before 1920. This small slice contains America’s best-loved historic buildings, the “poster children” of historic preservation. From a green design viewpoint, this segment also includes those structures built before the introduction of climate-control and lighting systems powered with fossil fuels. There is a wealth of traditional, vernacular, and indigenous structures that deserve close study, by preservationists and green building professionals alike.

Another 11 percent of the non-residential building stock consists of mid-20th-century buildings constructed up to the close of World War II. Building technology began to change rapidly during this period, turning away from traditional construction materials and methods and dramatically increasing the complexity of mechanical and electrical systems.

The buildings that make up these two, older segments of the building stock garner by far the most attention from preservationists. Over the past four decades, tried-and-true conservation treatments have been developed that employ remarkably efficient methods to sustain these traditional structures. Preservationists are justified in heralding these achievements as sustainable in their own right. Indeed, we need to make a much more methodical effort to measure, document, and report the effectiveness of preservation as a green building strategy based on the work we have accomplished with these core elements of the historic building stock.

However, it must also be acknowledged that the buildings preservationists most frequently address represent a very small percentage of the entire stock. Preservation will become more relevant to sustainability by expanding the scope of the buildings we conserve. In my view, this expanded role should be paralleled by a shift in priorities among preservationists toward neighborhood revitalization models, where ordinary buildings are embraced for their contribution to a larger context. I see it as emphasizing more of our Main Street preservation culture.

The Modern-era Building Stock

By the sheer force of numbers, preservation will have to address a much larger building stock when modern-era buildings become more fully the stuff of preservation. The buildings of the 1950s, ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s constitute more than half, about 55 percent, of the existing non-residential building stock in the United States, a whopping 36 billion square feet. In part, the postwar building boom was made possible by new design attitudes, ones that emphasized the new building forms and the application of new technology over traditional building types and craft.

Modern-era architecture is markedly different aesthetically from its traditional predecessors and generally performs very differently as well. Both preservation and green building advocates readily agree that modern-era buildings present greater challenges to both disciplines. Preservation professionals have begun to wrestle with the problems of modern-era structures, including their construction using materials and assemblies that often lack durability and their absolute reliance on equipment that consumes fossil fuels.

This large and problematic segment of the building stock is going to require new thinking about both preservation and green building. I see it as both a challenge and an opportunity. In practical terms, the quantity of the modern-era building stock dictates that we find ways to use these buildings far into the future. Their (lack of) quality requires that we find efficient yet effective ways to transform them, elevating their performance to sustainable levels.

The need to transform the modern-era building stock is an important point deserving more elaboration. Quite frequently, with the preservation of 18th-, 19th-, and early 20th-century buildings, we endeavor to retain or restore their original function as well as fabric. Repairing operable windows, shutters, and awnings on a Victorian house in a historic neighborhood overarched with 100-year-old trees is so obviously a win-win for both preservation and sustainability. The character of a historic resource is preserved and effective weather- and climate-responsive devices are returned to their intended function. But it is hard to discover such win-win scenarios with many, if not most, modern-era buildings. Far too frequently, the windows never operated and the mechanical system never performed efficiently. Something different, something new, something layered on to what already exists is needed.

By accepting the need to transform modern-era buildings, we may also need to accept that preservation will transform as well. In my view, preservationists have been somewhat too quick to embrace historic exemptions, most relevantly, from standards like the National Energy Code. As we face our responsibility to sustain the existing building stock, we should challenge ourselves to meet every high-performance benchmark possible. There are alternatives to historic exemptions. Achieving reasonable accommodation and proposing alternative compliance methods are two.

For both preservation and green building professionals, it is absolutely critical to study in detail and truly appreciate the characteristics that define the existing building stock. The preservation community needs to invest more resources into this endeavor. Even a brief overview makes it obvious that the scope of the challenge is monumental and that the issues we must tackle together are complex and varied. Although emerging green building principles and practices must be duly credited for identifying solutions to many of the unintended consequences of the industrial age, we cannot ignore the necessity to both preserve and transform the buildings and communities we already live in.

What Is Sustainable, Really?

If preservation is going to make a valuable contribution to sustaining our communities, it needs a deeper understanding of what constitutes sustainability. In today’s “green marketplace,” where green claims are made about virtually every product and service, clarification is required. What makes clarity most illusive is that our perspective on sustainability is evolving so rapidly.

Take recycling as an example. Most everyone recognizes that recycling is an effective and productive sustainable strategy, which it is. However when recycling is studied in more detail, it becomes apparent that things are not as simple as they seem. Much of what is called “recycling” is more accurately “down-cycling,”[5] where high-value materials are cycled down to low-value ones. While this approach may divert millions of tons of waste from landfills today, how many more cycles can these materials endure into the future? With the expenditure of energy, glass bottles can be recycled into glass bottles time and again; however, plastic bottles are reduced to a pulp material that can only be formed into the most elementary objects. Can it be said that both examples of recycling are sustainable?

What is sustainable, really? There is no easy answer. Study the partnership between The Natural Step and Interface Carpets.[6] For more than a decade, Interface has been leading a revolution in the building products industry. It has conducted perhaps the most complete analysis of its products and processes of any company in history. Yet Interface is still looking quite far into the future, 2020, to realize its mission of eliminating all negative impacts on the environment.

Both scientifically and culturally, we simply don’t know everything we need to know to say with authority what comprises sustainability. Then how does the preservation community proceed toward sustainability? I believe there are three fundamentals which translate directly into new directions that will help bring preservation into partnership with green building.

As biological creatures we are, literally, one with the environment. To appreciate this best, study the work of Dr. David Suzuki,[7] who documents in scientific terms our direct connection with nature’s four elements: earth, air, water, and energy. What we do in the environment, we do to ourselves. To create sustainable communities, we must fully appreciate that they are seamlessly part of the natural world.

To paraphrase architect and industrial philosopher William McDonough: “Being less bad is not being good.”[8] Today, we are taking the first steps toward sustainability, reducing our “environmental footprint” by consuming less energy, releasing fewer harmful substances, and increasing the efficiency of technology. Such retooling is important; however, sustainability goals must reach beyond doing less harm. To be sustainable, human activities need to increase the vitality of the planet, not diminish it. Increasingly, green building professionals seek regenerative solutions that restore the natural environment. We need to break through to new plateaus. Why can’t buildings produce safe, affordable, reliable, and renewable energy instead of consuming fossil fuels? Why can’t buildings harvest rainfall and recharge aquifers with drinkable water instead of releasing “stormwater” and “wastewater”? (Listen to the language!)

Over the past decade I have coined a phrase: The greenest building is… one that is already built. Many who hear me say it assume that I am being metaphysical. I’m not. In the same way that the wisdom of indigenous cultures taught David Suzuki to see the links between humans and nature, preservation philosophy has sensitized me to see the value in the existing world, especially the built world. Taking into account the massive investment of materials and energy in existing buildings, it is both obvious and profound that extending the useful service life of the building stock is common sense, good business, and sound resource management. To fully capture the value of the existing building stock requires merging two disciplines: historic preservation and green building. It requires an understanding of how to respect and renew what is already here and a vision for where and how to transform the legacy of the past into the promise of tomorrow.

Practicing Green Preservation

The intersection between preservation and green building is becoming well traveled. Significant cross-pollination has occurred and the rate of collaboration is exploding. The inherently green aspects of historic and traditional buildings are being assessed and documented.[9] Greening existing buildings, including important historic structures, is gaining recognition in green building circles.[10] This body of work contains many exciting projects involving traditional buildings that protect their material and cultural value while significantly improving their energy and environmental performance characteristics. Many well-publicized examples are worth “Googling.”[11] I leave it to you to explore.

Building Life-Cycles

As we conserve buildings, which treatments are undertaken is often determined by careful, even exhaustive, assessment of the conditions of each material and element. Buildings are complex assemblies. Conservators pick apart each assembly into its components and repair or replace what needs to be attended to. Following this process gives preservationists a very clear view of the life-cycles of buildings.

Life-cycle analysis (LCA) and life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) are considered fundamental tools of green building. For construction materials and products, there are quite a number of well-developed LCA protocols for rating their cradle-to-grave performance and environmental impacts.[12] However, there are considerable obstacles to applying LCA to entire building projects. The number of variables is simply overwhelming. Few tools have been developed that even attempt to encapsulate all the elements of a building project into a single impact assessment.[13] For those of us with an ingrained preservation outlook, more frequently than not, we find the use of LCA tools in green building practice to be short-sighted and shallow. Even the most rigorous LCA standards ignore any after-use impacts other than demolition and disposal. What about restoration and renewal? Where is the work of preservation that gives buildings new life?

In my architectural practice, I am working to codify building life-cycles by drawing from preservation. The overall outline is a simplification of one posed in Stewart Brand’s thought-provoking book How Buildings Learn.[14] The process begins with sorting building elements into four categories: structure, building envelope, interior elements, and systems. I have found this to be a workable list that differentiates building components according to their life-cycle.

Preservation teaches firsthand the practical limits of durability. Structural elements can, and really should, be constructed to last for a very, very long time. By code and for life-safety reasons, structural elements must be constructed for survivability, that is, the ability to survive fires, earthquakes, and storms. (Oh, add to the list terrorist attacks!) In most cases, when survivability is achieved, almost unlimited durability is achieved at the same time. Doesn’t life-cycle design suggest that there should be an intentional relationship between survivability and durability?

On the other hand, building envelope elements are exposed to weathering. Periodic renewal is an unavoidable reality, ranging from simple routine maintenance, like painting, to more substantial reconditioning and selective replacement. Preservationists familiar with the restoration of traditional wood windows know every trick to restore their operation and material integrity with the most minimal means possible: a segment of rotted wood replaced here, a patch of glazing compound there, replace a broken pane with salvaged glass that matches the characteristics of the original glass. Many of us have experience restoring 100-year-old windows through such straightforward means.

For preservationists, it is an absolute mystery why so many “high-performance” windows are designed without any consideration for their renewal. Such systems are sold as maintenance-free. In fact, they cannot be repaired.[15] For example, today’s glazing systems are complex, multi-component assemblies. While their thermal and solar heat-gain performance characteristics may be admirable, window assemblies made out of materials that last for hundreds of years (aluminum, glass) are doomed to early retirement due to “differential durability” problems, for example edge seals that fail in a couple of decades. A 20-year guarantee should not mean that a building element is guaranteed to need replacement in 20 years.

Currently, we are designing our first new-building project using an aluminum window wall system that allows the glazing stops to be removed, exposing the entire internal water management system. All gaskets and seals can be inspected, accessed, and repaired or replaced if needed. Even the frames’ thermal break elements can be replaced.[16] You see, progress is possible.

Energy Performance

Preservationists must accept the need to improve the energy performance of the existing building stock. We simply cannot ignore the fact that the electrical power that runs our buildings contributes substantially to global warming and climate change. Seeking exemption from this requirement does nothing more than marginalize preservation. We must rise to the challenge. The carbon-neutral goals that have been adopted across a wide spectrum of the green building world are not beyond reach. However, let’s be clear that meeting sustainable energy targets will require substantially improving building envelope performance, upgrading the effectiveness of all energy-consuming systems, and converting to renewable energy sources both on and off site.

Far too many preservationists bristle at the mention of using renewable energy at historic sites. Images of solar collectors that are promoted as looking absolutely just exactly like a slate roof immediately come to mind. (Believe me, I’ve heard it all.) But preservationists should understand more than most that good solutions come from well-integrated design. Our office has installed ground-coupled heating and cooling systems at two National Historic Sites where open land made the requisite well-fields practical.[17]

Over the past 20 years, green building practitioners have developed technologies that make changing the energy performance of existing structures achievable. Many preservationists are adopting them today. In my experience, energy modeling is the most powerful one. Energy modeling has become a routine step in our project development protocol. Energy models are simulation tools that predict the energy performance of a building using computers. The characteristics of the building are entered including climate data, building orientation and form, roofing, wall materials, and window sizes and types. The performance characteristics of all energy-consuming systems are input, including mechanical systems, lighting, and plug loads. Finally, operational and interior environmental settings are input. The program predicts energy use around the clock and year. Energy simulations can be calibrated to provide amazing accuracy. Many scenarios can be simulated so that trade-offs between building alterations and system design can be tested.

Over the past few months, our office has used energy modeling to help design two very different preservation projects that serve as revealing examples of its use. The first project is the restoration of Eastern Market in Washington, D.C.[18] The energy model showed that implementing a repair-in-kind approach to window restoration did not have an adverse impact on the energy performance of the building. Window “upgrade” scenarios were shown to reduce energy consumption by no more than 3 percent, nowhere near justifiable using an LCCA cost-benefit analysis. The second project is the stewardship and greening of the American Institute of Architects National Headquarters Building, also in Washington, D.C.[19] Quite to the contrary of the Eastern Market example, energy modeling showed that achieving energy goals was, essentially, impossible without making significant upgrades to window performance. Nearly 60 percent of the annual heat loss and gain is directly attributable to the window system. However, this does not necessarily require window replacement. We studied alternatives for achieving the required performance upgrades both with and without window replacement. Energy modeling gives us choices.

A Final Thought

“The earth is not given to us by our parents, it is lent to us by our children.”[20]

My professional immersion in preservation has revealed to me something about our culture that I believe to be of the very greatest importance in the pursuit of sustainability. Our culture is drunk on the new and now. This intoxication clouds our judgment, causing us to profoundly undervalue the legacy of our forbearers. Clearly, preservation itself is a calculated reaction to our culture’s insensitivity to the past and to the vandalism that it has perpetrated in the name of progress. I am certain that all preservationists recognize truth in this observation.

Beyond regretting these blows to history’s legacy, my deepest concern is that our intoxication blurs our vision of the future. I worry that our culture equally under-appreciates the significance of our actions today on the future; not a distant future, but our children’s. As preservation teaches us all to better value the past, it is my hope and prayer that it also helps us to fully awaken to our responsibilities to the future. In my eyes, this is the unbreakable bond between preservation and sustainability.

[1] For information about Architecture 2030 founded by Edward Mazria, AIA, go to www.architecure2030.org where his speech laying out the 2030 °Challenge can be downloaded.

[2] “Green Buildings and the Bottom Line”, A Supplement to Building Design + Construction, published by Reed Business Information, November 2006, Chapter 3. Financing Green Office Buildings, pages 10-17.

[3] United States Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), 2003 Detailed Tables, Table B1. Summary Table: Total and Means of Floorspace, Number of Workers, and Hours of Operation for Non-Mall Buildings, 2003, can be found on the internet at www.eia.doe.gov

[4] Arthur C. Nelson, “The Boom To Come, America Circa 2030”, Architect, Volume 95, Number 11, Mid-October 2006, Hanley Wood Business Media, pages 93-97.

[5] William McDonough and Michael Braungart, Cradle To Cradle, 2002, North Point Press, page 4.

[6] For information about the sustainability program adopted by Interface Carpets, go to www.interfaceinc.com/goals/sustainability

[7] David Suzuki is a prolific writer and lecturer. The David Suzuki Foundation website is a good source of information about his activities promoting the science of sustainability, at www.davidsuzuki.org

[8] William McDonough and Michael Braungart, Cradle To Cradle, 2002, North Point Press, Chapter 2, Why Being “Less Bad” Is No Good, pages 45-67.

[9] For a good sampling of recent green preservation articles, see the APT Bulletin Special Issue on Sustainability and Preservation, Volume 36, Number 4, 2005, Mount Ida Press.

[10] Two widely recognized sources for green building case studies are the American Institute of Architects Committee on the Environment Top 10 Green Buildings (www.aiatopten.org) and the United States Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Green Building Rating System Project List (www.usgbc.org). Both green building lists include quite a few existing building projects including historically designated ones that demonstrate the best practices in green preservation. However, I cannot help but note that neither list specifically acknowledges building re-use and historic projects in their database.

[11] Google these four projects which present an informative spectrum of green preservation: Draper Hall at Berea College by Sim Van Der Ryn, Jean Vollum Natural Capital Center (Ecotrust headquarters) in Portland Oregon by Green Building Services, California College of Arts and Crafts (former Greyhound Bus Maintenance Facility) in San Francisco by Leddy Maytum Stacy, and Chicago Center for Green Technology by Farr Associates.

[12] Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) tools are largely targeted at products and, more specifically, the impacts associated with their manufacture and use. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have developed the Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES) software tools for rating environmental performance, in essence the “official” U.S. government LCA tool.

[13] In my experience, the most comprehensive LCA system to address entire building projects is the Environmental Impact Estimator (EIE) program developed by The Athena Institute, a Canadian non-profit organization. Athena has applied EIE to two existing building renovation projects, testing contrasting approaches to assessing the value of re-using buildings: “benchmarking” and “avoided impact”. It should be noted that even the EIE does not capture the life-cycle implications of future building renewal regimens.

[14] Stewart Brand, How Buildings Learn, 1994, Penguin Books, Chapter 2, Shearing Layers, pages 12-23.

[15] I have shamelessly borrowed this point from Michael Jackson, FAIA, with the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency.

[16] Headquartered in Germany with U.S. manufacturing and distribution, Schuco International KG produces an aluminum window wall, curtain wall, and skylight system that can be taken apart down to the structural frame and fully reconditioned by inserting new gaskets and other weatherizing inserts. Go to www.schuco-usa.com for more information.

[17] QUINN EVANS | ARCHITECTS has installed ground-coupled heating and cooling systems at the Monroe School in Topeka Kansas, the Brown vs. Board of Education National Historic Site, and the Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site in St. Louis Missouri. Ground source systems provide heating and cooling by passing water through a series of wells extending into the earth which maintains a constant temperature year-round only a few feet below its surface. Electricity, generated using fossil fuels or nuclear power throughout most of the U.S., is used only to power pumps and fans. A far greater power need for chillers and boilers is eliminated.

[18] QUINN EVANS | ARCHITECTS has prepared recommendations for the rehabilitation of Easter Market in Washington DC, Washington’s only remaining 19th-century market building and one of six remaining buildings designed by Adolph Cluss. The energy model showed that adding insulation to the roof is the only envelope improvement that would have measurable results.

[19] QUINN EVANS | ARCHITECTS has prepared recommendations for the greening of the American Institute of Architects Headquarters building designed by The Architects Collaborative (TAC), founded by Walter Gropius. Quite to the contrary of the traditional architecture of Eastern Market, the continuous ribbon windows at AIA make window upgrades a matter of the greatest necessity.

[20] Soka Gakkai International, War and Peace, From a Century of War To a Century of Hope, UN Department of Disarmament Affairs, attributed as a “Kenyon Proverb”.

Defense Dept. Climate Change and Bush Lied in 2004

Robbrian — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 19:17:24 EDT

Let Them Drown, Fry, Blow Away I don't Care--G.W. Bush

Wednesday, February 25, 2004

Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

Climate change over the next 20 years the Pentagon says, could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..

A secret report, suppressed by the White House and Defense Chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

An Open Letter to Senators Obama & Clinton

Unknown user — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 00:14:37 EDT

PROFESSOR HOVHANNESS I. PILIKIAN, B.A. in Eng. Lit. (American Uni of Beirut),

B.Sc. Hons. in Psych. (Open Uni), M.A. in Soc. Anth. (Sch of Oriental & African Studies),

Gulbenkian Foundation Scholar in Econ. (LSE) (London Uni),D.A.A.D-Fellow (Uni of Munich),

D.G.G.B, Dip. Th. Pr. (R A D A), Cert. Hum (Open),

Adamian Award (Ministry of Culture – Armenian S.S.R.), F.R.A.I.,

Contributor to Encyclopaedia Britannica

10th August 2008

Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL)

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY)

Dear Senators Clinton and Obama,

You may like to know that my personal letter (dated 1st July, copy below) to your good selves is now an Open Letter published on the Web on

http://www.gibrahayer.com/index.php5?&page_id=21&path=29,21

My letter contains (1) A new Theory of History – that History advances by mindset-shifts,

(2) A radical historical interpretation of Warmongering – that it manifests masculinist obsessions contingent on the rape of women and the murder of ‘their’ children, and finally

(3) A proposition for a new socio-economic paradigm – universal CHILD-WELFARE, for all, to achieve global peace... with the sound-bite;

All For Child-Welfare and Child-Welfare For All

Yours truly

Professor Hovhanness Israel Pilikian.

***

Initially Exclusive to the Addressees 1st July 2008

Entirely Private and Totally Confidential

Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL)

713 Hart Senate Office Building

District of Columbia 20510-1305, Washington DC

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY)

780 Third Avenue Suite 2601

New York, NY 10017

Dear Senators Clinton and Obama,

If only the two of you would join hands, there can be no reasonable doubt that you two shall win the forthcoming presidential election, from that moment onwards ... and assuming that you shall resist all electoral fraud from the Republicans – for the very good reason that, with baited breath, the whole world expects America to change. The horrendous neo-Cons succeeded not only destroying Iraq, with Depleted Uranium bomb-winds blowing towards the Israeli nation they pretended to defend ... the inhuman neo-Cons destroyed as much America’s good name, dragging it into the sewage of History. The American people deserve desperately your healing powers to pull them out of History’s murderous mires of genocidal sludge.

Senator Obama is absolutely right that America is ready for change – and Senator Clinton has the right idea for that change – hence this letter to provide the clinching philosophical argument and deep conceptual grounding of your cause to make it irresistible for the whole world to adopt.

I think Human civilization evolves by paradigmatic shifts in Mindset – by which I mean that a nation’s mind – meaning the communitarian-brain – is re-wired through the processes of social relations and modern communications-media into certain ways and patterns of communal thinking.

Mankind’s History hitherto, alas, has manifested the Primates’ barbaric survivalist mindset of crude brutal power for its own sake. It took millennia for the parochial Italian Renaissance humanism to follow, and several centuries for the French Revolution to reflect and universalize by then the re-wired mindset of the Renaissance humanism. The American Revolution earlier for the first time in history had affected an ethical mindset shift by exemplifying the concept of Power-To-do-Good, and not for its own crude sake. Unfortunately the neo-Con Bushites wished to revert to the Malthusean-Hobbsean Jungle Law, demeaning the principles of the American Revolution. Thus, overall, human history hitherto (even at its best with the American Revolution, never mind now in the genocidal dumps with the Bushists) has manifested the humanoid Darwinist mindset of the proto-fascist (and Nazi) masculinist brain-wiring, set on the oppression and rape of women and children, and the elimination of ‘useless people’...

I shall propose to you a new paradigm to wire-up a new mindset to evolve in our post-modern human brain, if only the United States of America, as the dominant world-power, would agree through yourselves to pioneer its globalization ... Like a panacea, it shall solve all socio-economic problems, including all dangers from Climate change, which must be turned into the single most important issue of international politics. And it is this, and where Mrs Clinton already possesses the inkling by virtue of her maternal instinct – CHILD-WELFARE – pure and simple, it must be made the single slogan, the cornerstone of ALL complex policies held together in consistency. In the immortal words of Britain’s Silver Poet, Alexander Pope – “The Child is the Father of Man”.

History hitherto has been the ruthless product of bi-gender competitiveness, the male always oppressing, dominating and ultimately raping the female – well-proven by antique myths – females, be they divine or mortal, are always ‘ravished’ against their will – and endless modern warfare – even today, now, women are being raped in ... Zimbabwe, and everywhere else where genocidal wars are active, stretching back in time to Herodotus – the first Historian who lived in the 5th c. BC, and whose very first paragraphs record the gang-bang by Phoenician sailors of the free ‘feminist’ women of Argos – thus, according to the Herodotusean historical record, the very first of the countless series of world wars have begun with a ... gang-bang, literally, a group rape by foolish men of a group of innocent women!

The only way this awful bi-polar human stupidity can be eliminated once and for all from the disturbed human psyche and sexualized Freudian mindset is by creating a focus on a deeper perspectival third-dimension ; the child-and-its-welfare.

Both genders must focus all life-force on tending a healthy child, literally and metaphorically, in a healthy geophysical and social environment – it can become the measuring stick and guideline for all ethical human behaviour and action, individually, on the micro-, and politically on the macro-levels.

Marriage throughout history and in all cultures is played out as a power-game for the benefit of the adults in the game – Divorce in the West consequently, has been riddled with adult partners’ power-obsessive narcissism – their children as mere inconvenient extensions of their egos. In Britain, child-welfare is a byword for corrupt legal practices, and serving equally as political football for governmental publicity stunts.

A new categorical imperative in the style of Emmanuel Kant, one of the great thinkers of all time, in my proposed new paradigm would be – Do nothing that will shame your children, and you in their eyes - Adopting this as the cornerstone of all social and couple relations – it may reduce Divorce, one of the great Western social ills hitherto based on parental narcissism and gratification rather than the needs of child-welfare. And Hollywood film-industry shall produce less public nudity, if actors considered the shame of their children felt at their parental pornographic exposure.

Thou shalt not do anything that harms a child – which ensures that paedophilia for example, never takes hold of society – there are serious high-powered post-modern attempts in Anglo-America to render it acceptable ... And the British American Tobacco (BAT) company would be stopped immediately from the crime of selling tobacco to African children!

Thou shalt not kill children, or their mothers, can serve as grounds for all wars all over the world to be stopped – a good reason to dismantle globally the military-industrial complexes, against the inhuman dangers of which President Eisenhower first of all so wisely warned the American nation back in the 1950’s. A very simple undeniable post-modern historical fact is that America is armed to its teeth and ... toes with thousands of nuclear bombs - it simply does not need more of any ordenance! You need not waste a cent more on further armaments - instead, release all those trillions onto societal health and well-being!!! According to the Bible, Peacemakers are the children of God – I can never understand how and why an American Christian can ever be a warmonger.

Child-welfare must force the realization of Mrs Clinton’s humanitarian policies of universal health-insurance for the people of America – the first and only one of its kind (overdue) in American History. And according to the new paradigm I am proposing, Thou shalt not kill children and their mothers, now add to it – and their fathers, and grandparents – We all are the children of God!

And now to the ultimate problem of all global problems – Climate Change, which is a deceptive turn of phrase to camouflage the horrendous evil truth of destroying the very Oxygen in the Earth’s atmosphere we need to breathe second-by-second ... Never mind polar ice-caps melting, oceans rising, we are (like the foolish individuals who smoke cigarettes on the micro-level) as nations destroying on the macro-level by-the-second the very Oxygen we need to survive and live by! Such destruction is evidence of sheer human cultural stupidity – dumping each year 7 billion tonnes of pollutants in the atmosphere of this sweet little child-planet.

Even the Nobel-prize winning Mr. Al Gore won’t dare speak the truth – the global car and aviation industries are satanic evils that need be controlled, transformed and absolutely rationalized, not-expanded. There can be no stupid glee and Big Business hand-rubbing in the lunatic economic predictions that China shall be helped to have ... 900 million cars in the next decade.

Hitherto, the planet Earth was conceived as a ‘mature woman’ – Mother Earth/ Mother Nature – and messed about, abused and finally ‘proudly’ raped by the Macho-male-warmonger-idiot. At the odd occasion in history when a Woman had acquired such power – Queen Elizabeth the First of Britain, and Catherine the Great of Russia – they have strangely morphed into the macho-male paradigm – with Ms Madeleine Albright, the elder Bushite lacking any female nurturing instincts, declaring infamously to the world that the death of half a million Iraqi ... children is a price worth paying for the discomfiture of one male idiot – the banana-tyrant Saddam Hussein, ex CIA operative and ordained murderer of Abdul Karim Kassem, his predecessor.

If one conceives of this planet – a grain of dust in the vastness of the universe – as yet another little child of the great Creator – then the politicians must do EVERYTHING to save it from the violent stupidities of bi-gender power-obsessed politics, as my noble wife Clarice puts it, “child-planet is precious, in need of care and protection, like all children”.

All for child-welfare – and Child-welfare for all should be the hub of the new neural network out of which the new mindset of the future mankind can and must be wired before we destroy ourselves through sheer stupidity – narcissistic greed and waste of our planet’s resources.

Only thus, dear ... President Obama, and Vice-President Clinton, can you change America, and the rest of the world, into a new order and Pax Americana, not by genocidal warmongering all over the world that is reducing day-by-day the very Oxygen we need to breathe merely to live as God’s little children!

Yours truly

Professor Hovhanness Israel Pilikian.

8th July 2008.

P.S. Please forgive me for the awkward lay-out, as I do not know enough computers to have done a better job ...

Feedback to Campaign

Unknown user — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 21:03:32 EDT

Hello distinguished organizers of the Obama Presidential Campaign. Today is an historic moment, for the United States, but also for other countries who are witnessing an unprecedented movement of positive change and watching attentively to learn how the perceived impossible can become truly achievable. Congratulations! I saw on CNN that unique moment at the onset of the proclamation – where a large number of delegates were manifestly transposed through emotions – tears in their hopeful eyes. I am also glad to read recently the newly unveiled Obama policy position paper on space policy. I have in the past submitted ideas for Mr. Obama to reconsider his initial stance on space policy (diverting $$ towards much needed education in priority over the moon, mars exploration large budget requirements). I don’t think (I am a realist) my contributions in the form of ideas on the Obama energy policy web page and links to policy position paper I wrote from a Canadian standpoint had anything to do with the update in his campaign. However, I rejoice to the idea that it has been understood that to solve the energy dependence on fossil fuels and climate change, one needs to look beyond earth confines for solution. It is time to answer humanity biggest question: Do we want to expand our frontiers as a human race because if we don’t do it now we will never do it ever, and we will regress has a civilization for good. Anyway, there is so much to write about how exploring Moon, Mars and beyond can bring tangible socio-economic benefits here on Earth in terms of energy independence and climate change solutions. The Moon (or the south pole scientific station) can be viewed as a pristine laboratory to live in a sustainable approach through near-zero waste and bring those new teachings and perspective back on Earth. In the face of the emerging 21st century crises, sometimes taking a step back (a little detour if you will) can go a long way to solve what appears to be impossible to solve. Just like Barrack did in his campaign – that his grassroot, one vote at a time, with small contributions spread over the whole population of the United States of America. Yes you can Barrack. Get us to the Moon once again and let your Canadian cousins bring you some interesting new perspective. Per Ardue Ad Astra Louis L. Grenier ing.Strategic Planning (space)

Energy Crises

Bill from Mahwah, NJ — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:11:36 EDT

I think any reasonable thinker would agree that the quickest way to reduce our use of fossil fuels is conservation. People have demonstrated this on their own as they have reduced the use of their cars by combining trips and reduced fuel consumption by choosing smaller vehicles. The role of government should be to review the transportation and energy consumption infrastructures to improve the efficiency of the existing networks while we continue to work on alternatives.

The whole Interstate Highway System needs to be reviewed for situations where considerations besides efficiency caused decisions that we still live with despite today’s high fuel prices. This ranges from adding additional lanes to putting in exits at locations which were politically unpopular 20 or 30 years ago. States should (especially along the crowded northeast and west coast corridors) be encouraged to reduce time spent at traffic lights by computerizing the timing and enabling light adjustment based on time of day and traffic flow. This could be combined with the efforts to provide public broadband Internet access and reduce the need for people to drive. All electrical devices should be evaluated for the need to have “sleep states” that reduce their power consumption and government standards should be established so that all devices meet the same requirements. All new construction should require zone heating and thermostats that allow independent temperature settings. Home owners should receive tax credits for installation of new heating systems in existing homes.

I think the whole tire pressure thing was a great idea. The only thing, it did not go far enough. I know it takes legislation, but what if all the corporate gas stations went back to providing free air? It just seems logical that if we want people to keep their tires full we should make it easy for them to do so.

The Style to Which We Have Become Accustomed

Lucy Edwards — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 08:19:01 EDT

This article was written for The Forum, our local on-line newspaper. http://www.forumhome.org/

Last night I was awaken by the sound of rain pounding on the roof right over my head. Our bedroom is right under the eaves, with a metal ice dam strip right over us. Last night the noise was like someone was pouring an ever-filled bucket, a big one, lasting probably 10-15 minutes, on my head. I checked the rain gauge in the garden this morning. Two inches of rain. On top of the 5 or 6 inches I have emptied in the past week or so. I am sure, however, that Foster’s Daily Democrat will tell me that this is just as usual in NH as the recent tornado (http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080726/GJNEWS_01/291230990&SearchID=73326224487531). Move on, folks, nothing to see here, is still the refrain of the establishment media.

747

Jan — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 01:21:46 EDT

… Continued from August 4, 2008

August 6, 2008

Dear Senator,

Again, I apologize for the tone of my words in my previous letter. As one blogger from your website rightfully commented I shouldn’t get angry over expressions of pride to be an American. The United States of America enjoys a lot of credit in the world, and that credit has been earned.

Tap the strategic petroleum reserve? No! Transform the economy? Yes!

Dr. Jeffrey Kargel — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 17:33:00 EDT

Dear friends:

An AP report today quoted Barack Obama as saying that he now favors releasing 10% of the nation's strategic petroleum reserve to help reduce gas prices at the pump. I have little doubt that this step would have some effect, but because petroleum is a global market, such a release shares the benefit globally while we bear the full cost nationally. The cost in this case is a 10% reduction in the size of a vital national asset that helps us be prepared for the very worst kind of disruption in oil supplies; reducing that strategic reserve for the temporary benefit of reducing gas prices a bit for a few months can leave the U.S. more vulnerable to hostile foreign pressure and makes it more likely that lethal military force would have to be used to counter a hostile move, such as an oil embargo by select members OPEC.

Barack: unfortunately, as you know, our energy and fossil fuel/climate crises also has a vital economic security and national military security aspect. If our desperation to reduce gas prices at the pump leads us to whittle away the Strategic Reserve, and if we are then possibly forced to use military force to keep petroleum flowing, then those are military forces that cannot be used for other defensive purposes. There are some "if's" here, but the tendencies are clearly as I suggest. Any new oil war would weaken our international standing and enhance the standing of China, of Venezuela, and al Qaeda, and so on. Reducing gas prices at the pump is an important objective but it is not as critical a national security objective as urgent conservation and ensuring that we have the tools available hopefully to prevent an embargo or other critical disruption of supplies. One such tool is the strategic reserve, and 10% less reserve is 10% less sharp of a vital tool. If things were not so critical on the global political scene, then sure, tapping the reserve would make economic sense. But this is an all-out confluence of crises we face, and high gas prices, bad as they are, is one element among many others, some more severe than high gas prices.

We can do much better by distributing fuel stamps, like food stamps, but do so for every citizen; then start the gas tax I mentioned yesterday; phase it in. People can use the fuel stamps for gasoline, diesel, home heating oil, butane, or electric utility bills; or they can choose to conserve as best their situation allows, and spend the fuel stamps like money on food or hybrid vehicles. That way, the retrogressive impact of an across-the-board fossil fuel tax is partially evened out by the fuel/food stamps, and appropriate conservation incentives are emplaced across society and the economy. I do not suggest parity in the gas tax and fuel/food stamps, however, because we need federal money to support improvements in transportation infrastructure, new-home insulation mandates, and so on. So I say a resounding "no!" to tapping the strategic petroleum reserve unless the situation becomes a pivotal national security issue; take the steam out of petroleum speculation by publicly spelling out details of a petroleum-conservation plan; and go forward fast and hard. We in the U.S. can easily--with relatively little pain (in comparison to the challenges we face and the alternative of doing little or nothing substantial)-- reduce oil consumption by 33% in 8 years (25% cuts from the 80% hybridization of our vehicle fleet I mentioned yesterday, plus 15% cuts from other conservation measures; minus 7% due to population growth). The further reductions that are clearly needed according to the best scientific evidence will be more painful and challenging and will require a 2-generation-long rebuilding of our cities, development of modern subway systems in all major and mid-size cities, and other deep measures.

The details how we do this are almost irrelevant; the greater point is that 8 years from now, the restructuring of our economy will be firmly in place-- it must be, or else America and possibly civilization will not survive in good shape. That may sound pessimistic, but in fact I am an optimist. Faced with dire challenges, people generally respond in ways that assure their survival. So let's survive and thrive!

Gulf oil drilling OK? Conservation is #1; hybrids and gas tax needed

Dr. Jeffrey Kargel — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 21:26:49 EDT

The New York Times today, page 16, says that Barack Obama has agreed to some increased petroleum drilling in some heretofore off-limit areas offshore in the Gulf of Mexico contingent on some measures to improve conservation and promote alternatives. This is a pragmatic approach. But how far to go in conserving? Quite a bit, considering that the U.S. is lagging far behind the energy efficiency of Japan, Western Europe, and some other Industrialized nations when measured in economic output per unit of energy. Those nations are on a crash-course path to improve their already far-better efficiency records, whereas the U.S. has been roughly stable in its consumption of energy while not greatly increasing economic output in the past decade. The cost of our inefficiency is realized at the gas pump, but even more markedly in our national balance of payments, our rising national debt, our current oil war in Iraq, and our inability to respond effectively (diplomatically and economically; and militarily) to Iran in its provocations. We cannot drill our way into economic well being, as is often stated, and for good reason.

By far the single largest "energy sector wedge" (when various energy components are viewed as pieces of a pie) to meet projected future demand is simply conservation. When waste is so rampant as in the U.S., saving energy becomes far easier than making more of it. Conservation becomes so much more attractive when all the myriad ill effects to our nation, our people, and on global political stability and planetary climatic stability are considered. I won't go into all that, as it is well known even by our short-sighted political opponents. But what would constitute appropriate conservation measures? I can easily fire up some angst here, and so I want to be sure that this blog is--obviously--my own opinion and not that of Senator Obama. But I'd like him and you to listen closely. The needed measures are pretty simple when viewed within a context of how urgent are the myriad converging crises caused by our oil and fossil fuels addiction. So yes, as a part of the future energy pie, let's do what we can to maintain a petroleum production wedge into future decades; overall, our fossil fuel production MUST decline in order to stabilize climate; however, we have an oil-based economy, and that will remain so for some time to come. We cannot ignore petroleum exploration and production or we will have major political and economic troubles and we will be unable to afford the other solutions to the energy and climate problems; anyway, paying some heed to petroleum exploration and production will tell our opponents and also middle-of-the-road voters how serious the problem is and how serious we are about tackling the problems. So let's also widen our nuclear power wedge. Let's do all these horribly nasty things in the sober recognition of what a dilemma Bush's head-in-the-sand has placed us and the world (and I will not neglect to mention that even under Clinton, automotive and light truck fuel efficiencies stagnated when the impending energy and climate crises were already evident and scientifically proven).

So about conservation. What to do? Senator Obama has part of the solution; tax credits for alternative non-fossil-fuel energy sources and conservation. Improved tax credits for hybrid cars would be a great idea, to make those cars appear equal to conventional vehicles in cost to consumers and producers; that way, almost no more conventional vehicles would be produced in a matter of perhaps 4 years; the cost to the nation of hybridization of the entire vehicle fleet is roughly $50 billion/year (conservative, considering economies of scale) for 15 million vehicles per year. The cost of full hybridization of of nation's vehicle fleet, done on a decade timescale, is just 50% or so of an Iraq war per-year costs: about $500 billion versus $1 trillion per decade. In one decade, most vehicles--cars, light trucks, semi-tractors, heavy construction vehicles, and tanks) on our roads would be hybrids. Full fleet hybridization alone would save 30% of our petroleum/transportation sector, providing savings of about 4 million barrels a day-- saving the nation about $200 billion a year at a cost of $50 billion per year (net savings $150 billion per year). This does not include savings on oil wars not waged, pollution-induced cancer deaths and medical premiums not incurred, and so on. There is NO REASON WHATOEVER that nearly full hybridization should not become the first thing our nation does under President Obama (or McCain, if he can be brought to think so broadly); there may be some exceptional places, where severely cold weather hinders battery performance to such a degree that hybrids are not worth the cost. Those are the exceptions.

Basic economics--thinking no farther than the immediate cost of petroleum versus the much smaller cost of hybridization-- says we must do this: that 4 million-barrel-a-day national savings The saved oil consumption is more than can realistically be hoped for in terms of potential total Iraq exports, if ones assumes optimistically that stability there improves and Iraqi oil production ramps up. More likely, the savings equals total Iraqi exports plus potential production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Which leads me back to the other conservation issue: let's save ANWR production for the 2030's, when our children actually will need the oil, and when technology might improve to a point where we can make safer and less impactful extractions, and when the possibility of sea ice interference with shipping is eliminated and a need for a new trans-Alaska pipeline is eliminated (one positive side benefit-amidst the many negatives-- of global warming).

FORGET ANWR FOR NOW: let's make a grand conservation bargain: we hybridize our vehicle fleet 80% of the way by 2018, 100% of the way by 2028; we allow slightly expanded oil production in the Gulf of Mexico, especially where China is poised to extract if we don't; we establish a conservation deal now, where oil companies will restore depleted offshore fields and onshore fields and the land (and seafloor and marine waters) reverts in 2028 to Nature; and in 2028 we initiate a careful extraction plan for ANWR. Which leads now to the real hot-potato, but it will be more effective than anything else. Start in 2009 a transportation fossil-fuel tax equivalent when fully implemented by 2018, to $5/gallon. Ramp it up 50 cents a year. I think most Americans would rather be paying $5 of taxes per gallon than $5 of profits to the Saudis and Venezuelans. The funds raised would go strictly back to the transportation and overall energy sector: helping the poorest pay for the gas; building improved roads and urban parking infrastructure; building mass transit to fit redesigned cities; assuring profitability of the energy sector as we convert to a new economic and energy structure and as they are pushed and pulled into alternative energy sectors.

Although millions of new jobs will be created, drastic change is almost always painful, and this will be painful. It is part of a needed through-cutting revolution akin to the Industrial Revolution. But under a Bush-Cheney-McCain alternative that underemphasizes conservation and continues the oil addiction and keeps the future locked in to extend the bleak trends of the Bush era, how painful will it be for our nation to be forced into new oil wars over fast-depleting reserves? How painful will it be for our nation to continue to bleed its financial reserves to unfriendly or failing states? How painful will be a confrontation especially with China over oil? How painful will it be to see America increasingly slide to the bottom ranks of the Industrialized world, if indeed we can somehow remain solvent at all? How painful will it be to see American values and our economic and social and political structure at home become increasingly abused by the corruption due to multinational oil politics? How painful will it be to endure climate change that is more drastic than anyway is already inevitable? How painful are these and so many other impacts of not dealing wisely with our future?

Hybridization of our vehicle fleet will circumvent at least one more oil war. (You can figure that will save us at least $1 trillion not accounted for in the $150-billion/year net savings assessed above.) A $5 gas tax will go a long ways toward making our nation viable and competitive into the mid century, by which time oil will have become a minor part of the energy pie, compared to solar and other energy sources. I am not an economist, but I'd warrant that at least for the next decade, a phased-in $5 gas tax would not markedly increase the total cost of gas, or certainly not our total gasoline bill, because consumption will be reduced and demand alleviated. It might have one shocking and positive side benefit; the rest of the world-- those parts not already paying an equivalently large gas tax-- will probably follow the U.S. America will resume a dominant leadership role. America will be respected once again for its fearless and wise attack of problems afflicting it and the whole globe.

Hello

GreenFunkDanCass — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 19:58:05 EDT

Hello there,

I am an Australian environmentalist who is fascinated by what is happening in the US at the moment. The Obama campaign, the turn against the Iraq war and this huge, spontaneous rise of good, funky green things : farmers' markets, wind farms, localization and peak oil initiatives, solar research...

My main blog includes comments on the US and Obama in particular because what happens in the US does matter to the rest of the world and us in Australia.

Some of you might be interested to see a point of view from down under that is very critical and yet also very supportive of the different ideas, values and politics playing out in the US of A.

So I am just joining in and sharing my thoughts in the hope you might find them funny, funky or useful.

cheers,

dan

US Politics and Obama posts from greenfunkdan.blogspot.com

Sydney Coffee and Silicon Valley

Republican graphic communication

Iran-contra scandal lingers in McCain campaign

Obama's pre-legacy making change cool

Peak oil and The Clash

Iran information site

Play games and get $100 off your solar panel

From peak oil to peak coal

James Hanson, the hero of climate awareness

The Hussein name change craze

Obama's Leadership on Climate

marguerite manteau-rao — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 11:52:46 EDT

In case you missed it, Obama was featured three times on my environment blog, over the last week. Here are the links:

http://lamarguerite.wordpress.com/2008/07/26/obama-says-us-needs-to-take-the-lead-on-climate/

http://lamarguerite.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/barack-in-berlin-a-new-chapter-in-environmental-history/

http://lamarguerite.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/climate-high-on-obamas-list-during-berlin-speech/

Besides the posts, you may also enjoy reading some of the comments from readers.

Can Climate Change Sell Candy? Should It?

Charley James — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:08:17 EDT

It seems that ad agencies are glomming on to global warming as a cool new way to sell products.

I’m not talking about the oil company ads that want us to believe that ExxonMobil or BP or Shell are environmentally conscious and seeking non-fossil fuel energy sources even as they continue to pump out millions and millions of gallons of products that continue to pollute the planet each year, and generate record profits in the process.

Nope. I am talking about something completely different: Selling candy to babies (regardless of their age).

Imagine my surprise last night while watching the Red Sox-Angels game to see my screen suddenly turn a bright, glowing orange during a commercial break. Framed in a deep yellow, up came the words “Stop Global Warming Now” followed by a dissolve to a second screen in the same colors with the words “Or All The Reese’s Pieces Will Melt” appearing along with a shot of candy with the chocolate turning all runny and gooey.

I suppose it was only a matter of time before some 23 year old creative director earning a half-million dollars a year said to a client, “Hey! Let’s show the real impact of global warming. All the chocolate will melt!” And the idiot client clapped their hands together and shouted “Great idea! Finally something positive to come from climate change!”

Next thing you know, George Bush and John McCain will protest the spot claiming that there is no proof climate change will cause chocolate candy to melt.

Madison Avenue has never been loathe taking the low road to sell anything. All you need as proof is seeing McCain's latest TV spot to realize this. But the destruction of the planet probably is going too far, even for the vast bulk of the advertising industry.

Values, Statesmanship, Competency, Infrastructure - A Shared Vision for a New America

Doug Robinson — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 16:29:47 EDT

Values, Statesmanship, Competency, Infrastructure: These four principals highlighted tonight’s Grass Roots Democratic Platform forum in Great Falls. Eight people, assisted by an able moderator, Chuck Tyler wove together an effective tapestry of issues in their discussion of primary concerns they would like to see addressed by the Democratic Party and its Presidential Nominee during the next four years. Though the overall discussion centered on domestic policy, the group was unanimous that foreign policy was of equal importance, one of its members pointing out that a balanced concern between domestic and foreign policy was indicative of a truly successful and responsible nation.

Global Predatory Chaos

Social Entrepreneur - Supporter Indigenous People — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:19:35 EDT

I am a 57 year old, 100% permanent service-connected disabled American Veteran, that is committed to bringing forth a conversation of becoming with my fellow citizens regarding the political, economic and social Predatory Chaos happening in the American culture. I also consider this a defining moment in the history of the world and "hope" is not enough in our current circumstances; we must demand accountability, ethical integrity and militant responses to un-ethical behaviors of an elite class and status that has turned our social relations into a den of lying cheating criminals. George Bush was the last straw in a history of elite tyrants who have abused the good will and ethical virtue of the American people. I assess the Global Peak Oil Crisis is the 'trigger tipping point' for a global convergence where humanity decides between two worlds! One world view is human beings are aggressive and arrogant, and 'only the strong survive.' This way of being and living is based on a patriarchal/paternal pattern in human history where exclusion and appropriation of elite power's control the fundamental organizing generative principle of our world! The Second and emerging worldview is human beings are social loving animals, and have the wisdom throughout all the units and pathways of humanity's journey to embrace social relationship in an understanding one human family, one blood and one earth - home! I have two topics I offer to explore in this blog with interested citizens: 1st Global Predatory Chaos - a grounded discussion concerning the patriarchal design of modernity based in a cultural distinctions of exclusion and appropriation as the fundaments for current global economic standard practices and the possibility of creating a sustainable capitalism through 'individuated personal responsibility and empowerment' and 'solidarity in global human concerns.' If the American Spirit is to thrive we must face our shadows and disowned voices within our community in legitimacy-in-coexistence. Personally, I am an advocate for American Natives and First Nations People in the world. Politically it is time to address 'broken promises' and the aggressive oppression and incarceration of American Natives on reservations. I am outraged and indignant with the standard practices of the American/Paternal/Imperialistic aggressiveness with these respectful, generous, knowing, courageous and wise people. I intend to share my personal experience of predatory chaos in this American culture as a veteran of the Viet Nam era conflict and as an entrepreneur who sued American Family Insurance Company and the law firm of Harris, Karsteadt, Jamison & Powers in Denver Colorado. I personally want to confront the right-wing pundits who are paid $500 million for eight years to maintain denial, cynicism and hypocrisy in the conversation of American culture on behalf of the elite corporate and political powers! Please join this exploratory in bringing forth solidarity and political will to sculpt a new vision of who we are as Americans!Thanks Patric

Jason Burnett, Bush EPA official, who resigned to support Obama...

Inspired in Florida - a Recovering Republican — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:35:43 EDT

Is testifying before Congress today about Climate Change...currently on C-Span.

Jason Burnett has made a lot of news lately, criticizing the Bush administration for rejecting California’s request for a federal waiver that would allow the state to enforce greenhouse gas restrictions.

Burnett, until recently the associate deputy administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, last month testified before a congressional panel about the possible White House role in overruling the EPA staff’s recommendation of the waiver. Since then, Burnett has given numerous interviews on the issue.

Now Burnett is using his checkbook to do his talking. After quitting the administration last month, he donated $3,600 to Democrat Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. That came on top of a $1,000 contribution he made to Obama before joining the EPA.

A Stanford-trained economist and a Democrat, Burnett, 31, said in an interview that he is moving back to Northern California to campaign for Obama and Democratic Rep. Sam Farr of Carmel. He's counting on them to support more efforts to curb greenhouse gases.

“Climate change endangers health and welfare," Burnett said. "The EPA is required to use existing law to reduce greenhouse gases. The sooner we begin addressing it in earnest, the better off we’ll be.”

Burnett predicted that California will get its waiver, either by court order or after the next president--Obama or his Republican opponent, John McCain--takes office.

--Dan Morain

McCain - No Friend to Climate Change, the Earth, or Human Rights

Inspired in Florida - a Recovering Republican — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 08:45:50 EDT

McCain is UNFIT to hold public office!

Native Americans: Navajo Indians targeted for brutal genocide, in Arizona, USA ...by Sen. John McCain & a few greedy Senators, which brutally displaced thousands of Navajo farmers onto a Nuclear Waste Dump to live after brutalizing them for two decades in peaceful resistance.

Not long ago, the United Nations performed a Human Rights Investigation of the forced Navajo resettlement from Arizona to Nevada, under Special Rapporteur A. Amor. A law revised and submitted to Congress by Senator John McCain and others before him was determined to be the root cause of violations, which after ratification by President Clinton in 1999 during a globally publicized sit in by Songstress Julia Butterfly Hill at Big Mountain, Arizona. The enactment led to the removal of the Dineh band of Navajo from the Black Mesa to free the lands up to mining, and could lead to relocation of the Dineh-Navaho from Big Mountain, all based on a tissue of deceit, false claims of prior ownership by a small group of paid Arizona locals of Indian descent led by one Wayne Taylor, working for McCain, Bechtel and Peabody.

The ACSA challenges Senator McCain on his legislative history of Human Rights Violations: "a Skeleton in his closet: UNFIT to hold public office!

(Public Law 93-531 as amended in 1996 (Partition), 1999 (Settlement), 2001 (Enforcement of Resettlement) and 2005 (Expansion of Resettlement) by bills introduced by Senator McCain - has led to the United Nations Special Rapporteur, Hon Abdeltalif Amor's condemnation of human rights violations inside the US, over the stripping of rights and forced resettlement of these gentle and deeply spiritual band of Dineh-Navajo Indians from Arizona, swept off of lands they'd owned since 1500 A.D. so that Peabody Western Coal could mine the Coal from beneath their farmlands and tap their wells to slurry pipe it to a power station in Nevada).

ACSA study reveals that after assembling a team of "pro-Peabody Western Coal" Indians and obtaining a false "Hopi-Navajo" Tribal Counsel designation by the Bureau of Indian Affairs for these paid Tribal representatives, in the period 1974-1996, Senator McCain was able to get large bands of the Dineh-Navajo relocated off their lands, so that Peabody Western could mine the coal under their farms at nominal expense. Common Cause has suggested McCain was indirectly compensated by street name cash contributions to his Federal Election Fund during three Presidential runs, and through family business with Las Vegas Casinos who benefited from the coal driven power he supplied.

Gore's Bold, Unrealistic Plan to Save the Planet

Derek Gulbranson — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:49:09 EDT

From Time's article "Gore's Bold, Unrealistic Plan to Save the Planet":

But doing it in 10 years? If the earlier, personal solutions to global warming -- drive a hybrid, put in better insulation -- were far too little, Gore's goal seems far too much. Less than 28% of our power currently comes from carbon-free sources, and the vast majority of that is hydroelectric and nuclear. High-tech renewables account for less than 3%. Wind and solar are growing far faster than fossil fuels such as coal or natural gas, but considering that we don't even know if economical carbon capture and storage will ever be possible, it's hard to see how Gore's target is remotely attainable. This isn't negative thinking, or fiction put out by the oil industry. This is reality.

I'm confused. Gore wasn't talking about economical carbon capture, he was talking about using existing renewable energy technologies. And the science doesn't care if it's achievable. You don't get to adjust the facts to fit what we think we can do.

He's right. A number of scientists, though not all, warn that the world has a decade at most to reverse the growth in greenhouse gas emissions, or risk catastrophic climate change. But here's the fact that keeps me up at night: Gore and his allies could be right. We may simply be technologically and politically incapable of doing anything about it. Maybe we've already run out of time, and we just don't know it.

First, in no area of scientific theory will all scientist agree about anything. Second, the fact that they disagree does not avoid the fact that one side is right and one side is wrong. There is an objective reality out there that's happening now regardless of our opinion of it. We use evidence, observable data, to decipher who's right and who's wrong.

I watched Larry King where they had a full panel of commenters saying how ridiculous it would be to produce 100% of our electricity from renewable resources in 10 years. None of them were scientists. Geraldo Rivera was one of the commenters if that tells you anything.

Here's a few things we need to realize.

Your opinion does not matter. Climate change is happening or it's not happening independent of your opinion. This is not religion, you do not get to pick what you want to believe based on what you're comfortable with. The wind does not care what you think of it and not believing in it just means your picnic is over sooner than you thought. Or, if it's a tornado, your house is destroyed and the wind is neither happy nor sad about it. It is completely self-less, without purpose or meaning of any kind, and your opinion of it has no effect on wether it happens or not.

The economy is not part of the climate change equation. There is no constant in the equations governing climate change theory that represents the economy or money. Climate change does not give a crap what Wall Street thinks is economically possible/comfortable.

It would be way more convenient if climate change were not happening, not our fault, or if we could do nothing about it.

People are offended when you tell them their lifestyle is killing the planet. The planet doesn't care if you're offended.

Nobody talks about the science, the facts, the observables when people talk about climate change on TV. Everyone talks about what they believe or hope or think is possible, but never what we know. What you believe is irrelevant.

Fact: Global CO2 levels are rising.
Fact: Humans today produce billions of tons of CO2 annually.
Fact: The CO2 we produce does not go away to never never land.
Fact: Historically, CO2 levels and temperatures are linked.
Fact: Global temperatures are increasing.
Fact: Burning fossil fuels for energy is not sustainable indefinitely.

That's what we know. These are each undisputed facts, regardless the theory you use to explain them.

I think it turns out that we are the posterity we have left this problem for. Sticking your head in the sand and humming won't work on this one.

Sign the Move On petition to show your support for Gore's call to action.

How to recover $3 trillion for the Gore Plan

John Messerly — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 01:24:40 EDT

Gore can and should propose Transportation fuel displacement as a mechanism for financing his plan that his July 17 speech described.

One substantial source is the revenue that will otherwise go to OPEC for gasoline for our cars. Next year, we will send $700 billion out of the US to pay for oil. If we put in policies that effectively discourage the sale of non plug in hybrids ("PHEV"s) in the US by 2012, assuming a 3% turnover in the vehicle fleet*, by 2019 we will have 24% of the fleet in plug in hybrids. Today, newer cars account for 1.7 times the mileage driven as older vehicles (source). If PHEV owners effectively are paying $2.40 per gallon instead of whatever gasoline costs by then (it's already $8 per gallon in the UK), it is not unlikely that these newer cars will be driven substantially more often than the current multiplier of 1.7. But let's say the multiplier is only 2.0X. Lets also conservatively assume that gasoline prices by some miracle are held down to an annual increase of 5% per year. If you run the numbers, this means that we save 3.12 trillion dollars that would have otherwise gone to OPEC by the year 2021.

That's where we get the 3 trillion dollars to pay for Gore's proposal.

"A New Strategy for a New World"

Compassionate Badger — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:25:15 EDT

See Original Post

"I want to focus on a new strategy for Iraq and the wider world," Senator Barack Obama on July 15, 2008 in Washington, D.C.

He just sounds like a President! Take the time to watch Senator Obama's 36 minute speech or read the outline of his 5 points below.

Sixty-one years ago, George Marshall announced the plan that would come to bear his name. Much of Europe lay in ruins. The United States faced a powerful and ideological enemy intent on world domination. This menace was magnified by the recently discovered capability to destroy life on an unimaginable scale. The Soviet Union didn't yet have an atomic bomb, but before long it would.

The challenge facing the greatest generation of Americans - the generation that had vanquished fascism on the battlefield - was how to contain this threat while extending freedom's frontiers. Leaders like Truman and Acheson, Kennan and Marshall, knew that there was no single decisive blow that could be struck for freedom. We needed a new overarching strategy to meet the challenges of a new and dangerous world.

. . .

. . . "The whole world of the future," Marshall said, "hangs on a proper judgment." To make that judgment, he asked the American people to examine distant events that directly affected their security and prosperity. He closed by asking: "What is needed? What can best be done? What must be done?"

What is needed? What can best be done? What must be done?

Today's dangers are different, though no less grave. The power to destroy life on a catastrophic scale now risks falling into the hands of terrorists. The future of our security - and our planet - is held hostage to our dependence on foreign oil and gas. From the cave-spotted mountains of northwest Pakistan, to the centrifuges spinning beneath Iranian soil, we know that the American people cannot be protected by oceans or the sheer might of our military alone.

. . .

Our men and women in uniform have accomplished every mission we have given them. What's missing in our debate about Iraq - what has been missing since before the war began - is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq and its dominance of our foreign policy. This war distracts us from every threat that we face and so many opportunities we could seize. This war diminishes our security, our standing in the world, our military, our economy, and the resources that we need to confront the challenges of the 21st century. By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe.

I am running for President of the United States to lead this country in a new direction - to seize this moment's promise. Instead of being distracted from the most pressing threats that we face, I want to overcome them. Instead of pushing the entire burden of our foreign policy on to the brave men and women of our military, I want to use all elements of American power to keep us safe, and prosperous, and free. Instead of alienating ourselves from the world, I want America - once again - to lead.

As President, I will pursue a tough, smart and principled national security strategy - one that recognizes that we have interests not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi, in Tokyo and London, in Beijing and Berlin. I will focus this strategy on five goals essential to making America safer: ending the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy security; and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

. . .

Iraq is not going to be a perfect place, and we don't have unlimited resources to try to make it one. We are not going to kill every al Qaeda sympathizer, eliminate every trace of Iranian influence, or stand up a flawless democracy before we leave - General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker acknowledged this to me when they testified last April. That is why the accusation of surrender is false rhetoric used to justify a failed policy. In fact, true success in Iraq - victory in Iraq - will not take place in a surrender ceremony where an enemy lays down their arms. True success will take place when we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future - a government that prevents sectarian conflict, and ensures that the al Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge. That is an achievable goal if we pursue a comprehensive plan to press the Iraqis stand up.

To achieve that success, I will give our military a new mission on my first day in office: ending this war . . .

. . .

We will make tactical adjustments as we implement this strategy - that is what any responsible Commander-in-Chief must do. As I have consistently said, I will consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government. We will redeploy from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We will commit $2 billion to a meaningful international effort to support the more than 4 million displaced Iraqis. We will forge a new coalition to support Iraq's future - one that includes all of Iraq's neighbors, and also the United Nations, the World Bank, and the European Union - because we all have a stake in stability. And we will make it clear that the United States seeks no permanent bases in Iraq.

. . .

In fact - as should have been apparent to President Bush and Senator McCain - the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was. That's why the second goal of my new strategy will be taking the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

It is unacceptable that almost seven years after nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on our soil, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahari are recording messages to their followers and plotting more terror. The Taliban controls parts of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has an expanding base in Pakistan . . .

. . .

Senator McCain said - just months ago - that "Afghanistan is not in trouble because of our diversion to Iraq." I could not disagree more. Our troops and our NATO allies are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq. That's what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said earlier this month. And that's why, as President, I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win.

. . .

Moreover, lasting security will only come if we heed Marshall's lesson, and help Afghans grow their economy from the bottom up. That's why I've proposed an additional $1 billion in non-military assistance each year, with meaningful safeguards to prevent corruption and to make sure investments are made - not just in Kabul - but out in Afghanistan's provinces . . . The Afghan people must know that our commitment to their future is enduring, because the security of Afghanistan and the United States is shared.

The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan. We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as President, I won't . . .

. . .

Make no mistake: we can't succeed in Afghanistan or secure our homeland unless we change our Pakistan policy. We must expect more of the Pakistani government, but we must offer more than a blank check to a General who has lost the confidence of his people. It's time to strengthen stability by standing up for the aspirations of the Pakistani people. That's why I'm cosponsoring a bill with Joe Biden and Richard Lugar to triple non-military aid to the Pakistani people and to sustain it for a decade, while ensuring that the military assistance we do provide is used to take the fight to the Taliban and al Qaeda. We must move beyond a purely military alliance built on convenience, or face mounting popular opposition in a nuclear-armed nation at the nexus of terror and radical Islam.

Only a strong Pakistani democracy can help us move toward my third goal - securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states. One of the terrible ironies of the Iraq War is that President Bush used the threat of nuclear terrorism to invade a country that had no active nuclear program. But the fact that the President misled us into a misguided war doesn't diminish the threat of a terrorist with a weapon of mass destruction - in fact, it has only increased it.

. . .

. . . I'll lead a global effort to secure all loose nuclear materials around the world during my first term as President. And I'll develop new defenses to protect against the 21st century threat of biological weapons and cyber-terrorism . . .

. . . America seeks a world with no nuclear weapons. As long as nuclear weapons exist, we must retain a strong deterrent. But instead of threatening to kick them out of the G-8, we need to work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert; to dramatically reduce the stockpiles of our nuclear weapons and material; to seek a global ban on the production of fissile material for weapons; and to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global . . .

We cannot tolerate nuclear weapons in the hands of nations that support terror. Preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is a vital national security interest of the United States. No tool of statecraft should be taken off the table, but Senator McCain would continue a failed policy that has seen Iran strengthen its position, advance its nuclear program, and stockpile 150 kilos of low enriched uranium. I will use all elements of American power to pressure the Iranian regime, starting with aggressive, principled and direct diplomacy - diplomacy backed with strong sanctions and without preconditions.

. . . we must pursue these tough negotiations in full coordination with our allies, bringing to bear our full influence - including, if it will advance our interests, my meeting with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing.

We will pursue this diplomacy with no illusions about the Iranian regime. Instead, we will present a clear choice. If you abandon your nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives. If you refuse, then we will ratchet up the pressure, with stronger unilateral sanctions; stronger multilateral sanctions in the Security Council, and sustained action outside the UN to isolate the Iranian regime. That's the diplomacy we need . . .

. . . my fourth goal: ending the tyranny of oil in our time.

One of the most dangerous weapons in the world today is the price of oil. We ship nearly $700 million a day to unstable or hostile nations for their oil.

. . .

This is not just an economic issue or an environmental concern - this is a national security crisis. For the sake of our security - and for every American family that is paying the price at the pump - we must end this dependence on foreign oil. And as President, that's exactly what I'll do. Small steps and political gimmickry just won't do. I'll invest $150 billion over the next ten years to put America on the path to true energy security. This fund will fast track investments in a new green energy business sector that will end our addiction to oil and create up to 5 million jobs over the next two decades, and help secure the future of our country and our planet. We'll invest in research and development of every form of alternative energy - solar, wind, and biofuels, as well as technologies that can make coal clean and nuclear power safe. And from the moment I take office, I will let it be known that the United States of America is ready to lead again.

. . .

. . . my fifth goal - rebuilding our alliances to meet the common challenges of the 21st century.

For all of our power, America is strongest when we act alongside strong partners. We faced down fascism with the greatest war-time alliance the world has ever known. We stood shoulder to shoulder with our NATO allies against the Soviet threat, and paid a far smaller price for the first Gulf War because we acted together with a broad coalition. We helped create the United Nations - not to constrain America's influence, but to amplify it by advancing our values.

Now is the time for a new era of international cooperation. It's time for America and Europe to renew our common commitment to face down the threats of the 21st century just as we did the challenges of the 20th. It's time to strengthen our partnerships with Japan, South Korea, Australia and the world's largest democracy - India - to create a stable and prosperous Asia. It's time to engage China on common interests like climate change, even as we continue to encourage their shift to a more open and market-based society. It's time to strengthen NATO by asking more of our allies, while always approaching them with the respect owed a partner. It's time to reform the United Nations, so that this imperfect institution can become a more perfect forum to share burdens, strengthen our leverage, and promote our values. It's time to deepen our engagement to help resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, so that we help our ally Israel achieve true and lasting security, while helping Palestinians achieve their legitimate aspirations for statehood.

. . .

We will have to provide meaningful resources to meet critical priorities. I know development assistance is not the most popular program, but as President, I will make the case to the American people that it can be our best investment in increasing the common security of the entire world. That was true with the Marshall Plan, and that must be true today. That's why I'll double our foreign assistance to $50 billion by 2012, and use it to support a stable future in failing states, and sustainable growth in Africa; to halve global poverty and to roll back disease. To send once more a message to those yearning faces beyond our shores that says, "You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now."

. . . For eight years, we have paid the price for a foreign policy that lectures without listening; that divides us from one another - and from the world - instead of calling us to a common purpose; that focuses on our tactics in fighting a war without end in Iraq instead of forging a new strategy to face down the true threats that we face. We cannot afford four more years of a strategy that is out of balance and out of step with this defining moment.

. . . the defeat of the threats of the past has been replaced by the transnational threats of today. We know what is needed. We know what can best be done. We know what must done. Now it falls to us to act with the same sense of purpose and pragmatism as an earlier generation, to join with friends and partners to lead the world anew.

Welcome Message

Tim Brick — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 14:47:41 EDT

This group has been formed to create a greater focus on the importance of water in the Obama campaign. Across the US and throughout the world, it is becoming increasing clear that water has emerged as a central concern of the 21st century.

Internationally more than 1.2 billion people lack access to safe drinking water and more than 2.6 billion lack adequate sanitation, Domestically our lakes, rivers, groundwater basins and oceans have been seriously degraded. Providing reliable water supplies for people and the economy, while protecting the environment, is an increasingly difficult challenge. Developing a plan for sustainable water supplies should be a key national and international goal.

Water is central to many of the great environmental challenges that face us:

The Great Lakes
Chesapeake Bay
The Everglades in Florida
The Bay Delta in California

Providing safe, healthy drinking to Americans has been complicated by environmental deterioration, rapidly growing population in water-scarce regions, and aging infrastructure. Water is also central to climate change response and adaptation. It is the medium through which many climate change impacts will affect Americans. An effective response will rely on improving water efficiency and developing new technologies for treatment and cleanup of water resources. A key component will be to energize educational institutions to produce a new generation of engineers, scientists, planners and technicians imbued with a comprehensive strategy for water and the environment to ensure that current and future needs are met.

On a global level, solving the critical water needs for poor and developing countries should be a key tool for democracy and peace as defined by the Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act. It's time for the US to play a more dynamic role in achieving the Millennium Development Goals of providing safe drinking water and sanitation throughout our planet.

We welcome the participation of water policy makers, professionals, environmentalists and concerned citizens in this group to ensure that water receives the focus that it merits in the Obama campaign and administration.

How to measure Obama's presidency?

Liz — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 02:59:51 EDT

Let's assume triangulating Democrats and screaming progressives don't screw it up for us, and Obama is elected the next president.

I feel strangely confident that this will occur.

But it's been widely noted that President Obama will be taking over a wounded nation; by what measure should we judge his ability to lead us towards a brighter future?

The problems President Obama will inherit: (not in order of importance)

1. The Iraq War

2. The Recession/Depression with rising gas prices

3. Climate Change crisis

4. The crimes of the Bush Administration and how they've undermined our democracy

5. A highly stratified population with a growing divide between rich/poor

6. A furor over illegal immigration

7. Crumbling infrastructure

8. Outdated free trade policies stealing jobs

9. Endangered species of Social Security

10. Exponentially increasing health insurance rates/Universal Healthcare

I'm sure there's more that I've missed, and I'm sure the Kos community will be kind enough to point those out.

What I'm thinking about, in the wake of the outcry about Obama's FISA decision and other recent statements, is what are the non-negotiables for an Obama presidency? Which items above must absolutely be addressed in order to consider him faithful to his vision and a successful leader?

I say this knowing, unfortunately, that all of the above will be impossible to fully solve or deal with by a single president in a single term. The term "choose your battles" is not one that progressives like to hear, but I find myself wondering which of the above will the left be watching the most closely?

Here are my non-negotiables:

A. I think the most obvious is the Iraq war. If President Obama does not honor his commitment for an IMMEDIATE change of mission for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he will already become a disappointment. Seeing as he's repeatedly stated that this meeting will take place on his FIRST day in office, we won't have to wait long to see if he's moving forward on this. The mission, he's stated, will be to bring the war to an end. If he commits to this on his first day of office, even if the timetable ends up taking longer than what he's been saying in the campaign, I'll deem it sufficient.

B. The next issue which many on the left will be watching carefully is in what way, if any, an Obama Administration begins to investigate the constitutional abuses of the Bush Administration. He has committed many times to the possibility of holding people accountable if the law was knowingly thwarted, and that we must do this in order to restore our democracy. If President Obama assigns a task force in his cabinet, or includes a directive to Congress in his first state of the union address that demands hearings, to address any of the Bush crimes (torture, warrantless wiretapping, Plame incident, distorting intelligence to get us into war), then I will consider this a move in the right direction. If he simply wishes the country to move forward without delving into a "witch hunt" that will divide the country, I will consider that a failure on his part.

C. Next comes the climate crisis. Obama has stated he wants to pump billions into creating a green economy. This will have the effect of creating jobs in the energy sector. I see this as part of a package that will also create jobs to update our national infrastructure. If President Obama presents a legislative package in his first state of the union address that includes such a provision for green jobs and infrastructure, I will be pleased and see it as a step forward. I think this legislative package also needs to include strict proposals of new laws to cap carbon emissions in an aggressive way, and fund research into a comprehensive renewable energy program, including a demand of cars that get a minimum of 50 mpg or use hydrogen/electric power.

D. Now healthcare. He says he'll pass universal healthcare by the end of his first term. I know there was a debate during the primaries about whether his plan that has no mandate is really universal. I happen to think that we'll never have universal healthcare if we start with the demand for a mandate. I also think that a mandate is heaven to the insurance companies, and we need to take our universal healthcare approach in stages. If we can start with Obama's plan and put regulation in place to lower costs while creating government packages that are affordable that anyone can purchase (no more worries about preconditions), then I think we'll be moving in the right direction. If he truly accomplishes this by the end of his first term, I will be full of deep respect and admiration and appreciation.

E. Finally, I will be watching out for what President Obama does with No Child Left Behind. As a public school teacher, this is an issue close to my heart. I also think it's an issue that's tied directly to struggle against poverty. He has proposed an investment in preschool --this is vital. He has proposed paying teachers more, using merit pay -- I could go either way on this. He has proposed directing money to fund Science and Math, as well as drama and art programs. Also vital. And his program to mandate community service for middle school and high school students, as well as offer credits/tuition for college students, is a very powerful idea. I expect to see, by the end of his first term, a clear agenda for education from pre-k all the way through university, and a complete rehaul of No Child Left Behind. If NCLB stays put with only minor tweaks, I will be horrified.

I could go on with all the rest of my expectations and my dreams, but I have chosen to elaborate on what I think are the key ways in which I will measure the Obama Administration. What about you?

Tell Congress...Wind and Solar NOW!!!

Inspired in Florida - a Recovering Republican — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 09:20:03 EDT

Texas oil man testifies in front of Congress debunking a lot of the myths about renewables and plans for more domestic oil drilling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akA9rloYiDI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlWyyDBrzYw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPymFoggtmY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsH09YvJqzY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu9YOT90Ui4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnFgp0oPLhE

The Pickens Plan.

http://www.pickensplan.com/about/

We Are in a Crisis

Our dependence on foreign oil forms the intersection of the three most critical issues America currently faces: the economy, the environment and our national security.

There is a Solution

America is blessed with the world's greatest wind power corridor and abundant reserves of clean natural gas. The Pickens Plan will utilize these tremendous resources to build a bridge to the future — a blueprint to reduce foreign oil dependence by harnessing domestic energy alternatives and buying time for us to develop even greater new technologies.

The Plan calls for building new wind generation facilities that will produce 20% of our nation's electricity and allow us to use natural gas as a transportation fuel. The combination of these domestic energies can replace more than one-third of our foreign oil imports. And we can do it all in 10 years.

We Can Bring Change

On January 20th, 2009, a new President will take office. We’re organizing behind the Pickens Plan now to ensure our voices will be heard by the next administration. Together we can raise a call for change and set a new course for America’s energy future in the first hundred days of the new presidency — breaking the hammerlock of foreign oil and building a new domestic energy future for America with a focus on sustainability.

You can start changing America's future today by supporting the Pickens Plan. Join now.

=========

Call or email the members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee Office and tell them you support the Pickens Plan...NO MORE DRILLING, NO MORE INCENTIVES TO BIG OIL.

Tell them you support incentives for the PICKENS PLAN...AND GET STARTED NOW.

Think of the jobs it would create!!

Committee Members

Chairman Jeff Bingaman (NM) Daniel K. Akaka (HI) Byron L. Dorgan (ND) Ron Wyden (OR) Tim Johnson (SD) Mary L. Landrieu (LA) Maria Cantwell (WA) Ken Salazar (CO) Robert Menendez (NJ) Blanche Lincoln (AR) Bernard Sanders (VT) Jon Tester (MT) Pete V. Domenici (NM) Larry E. Craig (ID) Lisa Murkowski (AK) Richard Burr (NC) Jim DeMint (SC) Bob Corker (TN) John Barrasso (WY) Jeff Sessions (AL) Gordon Smith (OR) Jim Bunning (KY) Mel Martinez (FL)

Some Questions for "Pro-Lifers"

GoBlackEagle — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 20:42:12 EDT

And I use the term "pro-life" loosely. I posted a version of this on the WaPo's On Faith board. Here's a longer version.

I want to hear from those people who are against abortion rights, and for overturning Roe vs. Wade. What are your plans if that does happen? What would be the consequences for women, for the Government, and society in general?

If you are going to equate abortion to murder, then what will be the punishment for having an abortion? For performing one? Who will ensure that each woman who gets pregnant does not have an abortion? How will you guarantee that a miscarriage is not induced? Will we have the "pregnancy police"?

How will foster care and adoption services be revamped to handle the influx of unwanted infants, many of whom will have profound disabilities? And, for those women who do keep their children, are you going to expand pre-natal care, SCHIP, WIC, and other social services? What about child care? And public schools? Where are we going to get more child care workers and teachers?

What about contraception? Many pro-life people believe that contraception is wrong, also. Are you going to curtail it or outlaw it as well?

We realize that you don't believe in global climate change, but how do you feel about overpopulation? Do you feel that an American fetus has as much right to life as one in Zimbabwe? If so, do you support pre-natal programs in Third World countries?

And how much is all of this going to cost the taxpayers? How much do YOU want your taxes to be raised to support all of these babies you claim to be saving?

So, let's hear it, pro-lifers! Put your cards on the table! We're waiting to hear from you!

The Elephant's Extinction

John HG — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:00:32 EDT

I believe in giving anyone a fair chance at my support. That's why, over the course of this election, I have visited both BarackObama.com and JohnMcCain.com to look at each candidate's stance on important issues. I have found many things that have encouraged me to stay behind Obama. This is a revolutionary time in America and in the world. We are smarter than ever, yet are making so many terrible mistakes. One of those mistakes is overlooking the problem of climate change. If my support were based on only one category in this election, it would be the issue of environmental protection, and in that case, I would still choose to support Senator Obama. We have put this problem off far too long. We have known about this issue since the early 1970s - when the Hippie movement, LSD and political music were still making their way into American households other than those in the Haight-Ashbury district. Why did what little good that was in that movement fail? In nearly four decades, why hasn't change yet come about? Well, it would be false to say that we haven't made any improvements. Cars no longer burn lead fuel, no longer take as much fuel to run, and put out fewer emissions per unit. But we are still a long way from back at home. Cars have gotten bigger. More people are owning more cars, and driving short distances rather than walking. Cars aren't alone, though. Air travel produces huge amounts of pollution - just look at how desperate the airlines are for cheap fuel - and water travel isn't entirely clean, either. It's unfortunate to think that the American public can't care enough to do anything until it affects their wallets, but sadly, to a certain extent it is true. Could it be a blessing that gas prices are at an all-time high? Perhaps Americans are too used to doing without thinking. Listen up, We the People. It's time that we start making change. You can be a good citizen of the earth on your own. But we also need to get bills into Congress that limit pollution. We need a cap and trade system, and one that works. John McCain wants to reduce emissions to 60% below 1990 levels by 2050. Barack Obama hopes to get them at least 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Until we can be a truly clean country, we need to be a cleaner country. The earth is not at the disposal of the human race. It is in the care of the human race. There are two kinds of elephants on this planet. By this, I do not mean the African elephant and the Asian elephant. I mean the magnificent, helpless, overhunted animal, and the Republican Party. If one is extinct, the earth continues to fall apart. If the other is, the earth makes progress. But instead of hunting to kill, we must hunt to change. We must band together as a national and global community to fight our climate crisis. It's our responsibility to leave a better world for our children than our parents left for us, and we cannot wait to accomplish that goal. We have to stand behind Barack Obama, and we have to campaign for change. In one of the most revolutionary elections in our country's history, this issue is as important as any other, if not more so. We must stop climate change now. There is no other way.

I encourage you to visit the following page to find out more: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/

Thank you,
John HG

AGW, Florida, Obama & Victory

kenlevenson — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:52:28 EDT

It was heartening news from Kos that a recent poll shows Obama ahead in South Florida, thereby putting the state truly into play. But given the utter insanity that is Florida electoral politics - not too heartening. If we want to ensure an Obama victory in Florida we need a paradigm shift away from Cuba, away from immigration and the drug war and health care - and even energy for that matter. Obama should clear the deck in Florida for a new "single issue".

That issue, I dare say, will be/can be: Global Warming, or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).

A better bioenergy solution

Todd.B. (office of citizen) — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 22:01:56 EDT

What if you could take any organic material, and turn it into energy, and solve the climate change crisis at the same time?

Research is being planned to demonstrate just such a system at Cornell University.

One of a suite of approaches presently under consideration to reduce our collective carbon footprint involves utilizing an anaerobic biodigester, or as I call it, an artificial stomach. Utilizing bacteria, this system can convert any organic material into a biogas, which would then be burned in a refitted traditional power plant.

Let's gift our generations : A planet to live

Rajesh KC — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:08:44 EDT

Dear Obama,

We can change the climate change pattern if we understand its impact on the top of the world- Mt Everest.

Study says since the mid-1970s the average air temperature in Nepal measured has rose by 1 degree centigrade, with high elevation sites like Namche Bazar in the Everest region warming the most. This is twice as fast as the average warming for the mid-latitudinal Northern Hemisphere over the same time period, and illustrates the high sensitivity of mountain regions to climate change.

Over the past century, the majority of mountain glaciers monitored have been shrinking. Many glaciers at lower latitudes are now disappearing, and scientists predict that, under some plausible warming scenarios, the majority of glaciers will be gone by the year 2100. There are 2323 glaciers monitored above 3500 meter in Nepal.

Offshore oil drilling is another step backwards

Michael Laval — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:22:53 EDT

In yet another act of defiance against the realities of climate change and America’s energy crisis, President George W. Bush planted his head further into the sand yesterday by demanding that oil drilling be allowed off our coasts. Not surprisingly, Sen. John McCain and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist flip-flopped on their previous positions to march in lock-step with W.
Republicans once again are willing to sacrifice the overall good of ordinary Americans and the entire human race in favor of stuffing billions of dollars into the pockets of the corporate entities they serve. We don’t merely need to “end our dependence on foreign oil,” we must end our dependence on oil, period!
Even if enormous oil reservoirs were discovered off our coasts, while it hypothetically might end dependence on foreign oil, it would only serve to prolong America’s dependence on an antiquated fuel and further delay the necessary change to alternative energy sources. If offshore drilling were given the green light today, it would still take years before one drop of oil makes it from the ocean floor to an American’s gas tank. The time, money and resources wasted on this futile endeavor could and should be spent on transforming our country’s energy infrastructure.
We must break free from the 19th century corporations that keep us shackled to their fossil fuels. McCain’s new stance on offshore drilling illustrates his obedience to George W. Bush and a willingness to shift positions at the whim of those same entities to which Bush is beholden. We must reverse our current course and step forward into the 21st century — an era in which ending carbon dioxide emissions and utilizing clean, renewable energy sources will be necessary to counter changes in the Earth’s climate that will redraw the world’s shorelines, as well as result in many other devastating consequences for human life.
We cannot wait any longer for the 21st century to begin. We’ve already lost eight years.

McCain: Lock-step and (oil) barrel

Janet Ritz — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 07:09:30 EDT

From THE ENVIRONMENTALIST

In a campaign year where John McCain is seemingly doing everything he can to publicly distance himself from George W. Bush, he's also been emulating the historically unpopular president by walking in lock-step with him along the path to Texas oil.

While Barack Obama was in Illinois shoveling sand in bags to hold back the Bush-neglected infrastructure crumbling around him -- resulting in a multi-state version of Katrina with both an oblivious Republican president and Republican presidential candidate -- John McCain just happened to be on his way to Texas to accept the whoops and cheers (and money) from oil industry insiders for his proclaimed flip-flop on offshore drilling as the answer to America's oil-supply woes.

Want something worse? Aside from the fact that he did it while Senator Obama was showing empathy to those impacted by an unstable climate and deteriorating infrastructure, it turns out that John McCain gave his oil pandering speech CONCURRENT to the release of his new ad-buy proclaiming his independence from the Bush Administration on global warming.

Why I support Barack Obama

Michael Laval — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:40:55 EDT

America must reverse the course that has been set and repair the damage caused in the past eight years by the most catastrophic presidency in U.S. history. We can only hope that it is not too late to halt changes in our climate that could make Earth uninhabitable for mammals. Only through radical change in society can this be accomplished. Obama inspires hope that our democratic system can take back control of this country from the fascist corporations, lobbyists, religious fanatics and war profiteers who hijacked the federal government eight years ago. Only Obama can restore America's reputation abroad and usher in a new era of American history, in which we think globally, end extreme political partisanship, provide universal healthcare and build an energy infrastructure for the 21st century.

Global Warming 101 - a short reading list for everyone

kenlevenson — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 14:36:35 EDT

While supporters of Obama appreciate his commitment to fighting climate change many may still be a bit unsure of what climate change/man-made global warming - a.k.a. anthropogenic global warming or AGW - is really all about. Like the tobacco battles disinformation is everywhere.

We have only a few years to understand the enormity of the crisis and successfully act, so that our children might avoid the worst effects in the following decades. Therefore ignorance of the subject should not be excused.

This post (slightly modified from a post I put on DailyKos a few days ago) attempts to provide a short list of resources that clearly and succinctly explain global warming. Please read what you can. Pass a link to this post on to those you suspect have questions or doubts about it - express your concerns and ask them to read too.

(The fun starts after the jump.)

Green City of the Future

Jack — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:46:47 EDT

First zero-carbon, zero-waste city fully powered by renewable energy. The headquarters will be the world’s first large-scale, mixed-use “positive energy” building, producing more energy than it consumes.

Are we moving agressively enough with plans to implement this type of building into our economy? Watch the video and see how cool this city is: http://greenenergytv.com/Watch.aspx?1459206194

Jack , GreenEnergyTV.com

McCain good on Climate Change?

kenlevenson — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:18:34 EDT

Have you heard from family or coworkers that McCain is good on climate change? Alas one gets far too much credit for just being able to say "global warming" in BushWorld. Sure McCain's better than Bush - so what, his prescription amounts to little more than communal suicide.

If you know of anyone who retains the fantasy that McCain can be expected to deliver on climate change please forward them this link to a great Boston Globe opinion piece comparing McCain and Obama.

More after the jump...

Obama Issues Statement on Climate Change Bill

kenlevenson — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 13:45:08 EDT

I wished Obama had made a statement on the Senate floor during the debate of the Lieberman-Warner climate bill. But with his statement over the weekend, I now understand why he probably chose not to speak - because like many of us, he was conflicted on the legislation.

I'll clip it up here with some brief comments.

This is a really sad day....

Inspired in Florida - a Recovering Republican — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 09:52:44 EDT

While some continue to focus here on soothing wounds of the Obama and Clinton supporters, the senate voted this morning on whether or not to move to final debate on the Climate Security Act, or let the legislation die on the vine. They needed 60 votes to move the legislation forward to final debate. They got 48 : (

While some continue to focus here on soothing wounds of the Obama and Clinton supporters, debating about power plays, Congress was engaging in their own games and power plays. While the legislation was not perfect, and you could see how it was going to go based on the same old alliances to the oil, coal and nuclear power lobbies, in the same old ways of how business is done in Washington, Democrats and Republicans blamed each other for political chicanery in causing debate to end without any substantive votes. It was doomed even before this morning's vote.

Sponsors of the measure did not have the 60 votes needed to limit debate in this mornings cloture vote, which Majority Leader Reid scheduled after limiting amendments to the bill to only ones he signs off on. These two procedural moves from Reid came late Wednesday after Republicans forced a full reading on the Senate floor of the 492-page climate change bill, a process that took more than nine hours.

Republicans said that was done to protest an impasse on judicial nominations. The impact was a global warming debate shorter than some expected and which only featured politically charged procedural votes. "We really didn't expect to have such a truncated debate," said Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer, a leading sponsor of the bill. The initial plan, she said, was to have an "open debate" for two weeks, which Republicans said was not long enough.

Meanwhile, Republicans used the same arguments in voting against limiting debate. "This isn't the way we used to discuss large bills," Minority Leader McConnell told reporters. He said Democratic leaders also manufactured a scenario where they can blame Republicans for obstruction and prevent skeptical Democrats from heavy manufacturing and energy-producing areas from casting difficult votes on amendments. "Don't you find it highly suspicious?" McConnell asked reporters. "You've exposed your members to no bad amendments and you're in a position to complain to the Republicans that you've killed a bill that's the most important thing affecting the planet."

Barack as president can only bring change in Washington to those things the president controls. It is up to US to force our congressional representatives in the house and senate to stop the special interest games, and focus on America's interests.

*Sigh*

A Green New Deal

Joe White — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 09:45:12 EDT

Preparing men and women with barriers to employment for green collar work, and providing them with consistant access to green collar jobs, can help to reduce poverty and unemployment, and bring the benefits of green economic development to low-income people and communities.

The Green Jobs and Service Collaborative's Green New Deal!

We propose $10 billion in new funds over the coming decade for enhanced national environmental service combating climate change, including Americans of all ages but with prime focus on a Clean Energy Corps, where low-income disconnected young men and women in Service and Conservation Corps would improve energy efficiency in their communities while preparing for jobs in the green economy.

We also propose $50 billion for state and local green jobs development during that time, to provide low-income and working-class Americans with the training and other assistance they need to gain jobs in the clean energy economy. At least half this new investment should go toward job preparation, matching, and retention efforts for the unemployed or poor. This investment will pay for itself in direct energy savings, increased worker productivity, reduced social service and health costs, and reduced green house gas emissions.

$140 billion for a revolving loan fund will help to capitalize this work. Supplemented with other public dollars from states and cities, and used throughout to leverage private capital investment, the fund would be paid for through realized energy savings or fines imposed from Caps and Trades.

Add to our discussion or post your questions

Corporate Plea for Climate Legislation Falls on Deaf Ears

Janet Ritz — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 08:09:24 EDT

A vote today will tell whether the Senate is "kicking the can" to the next administration on climate change.

Cross-posted from THE ENVIRONMENTALIST

Eleven corporations have issued an open letter to the Senate urging the passage of the Climate Security Act (S. 3036), stating that it "represents a real effort to establish the regulatory framework that we need."

The June 2nd plea by: Allianz of America; Catalyst Paper Corporation; FPL Group, Inc.; JohnsonDiversey, Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; Levi Strauss & Co.; National Grid, Nike, Inc; Novo Nordisk; Tetra Pak; and Xanterra Parks & Resort, working in conjunction with the World Wildlife Fund, seems to have fallen on deaf ears, as it appears that Senate Democrats will fall short of the 60 votes required to overcome a Republican filibuster.

If Inspired in Florida Screams in the RAINForest, Does anyone Hear?

Inspired in Florida - a Recovering Republican — Fri, 30 May 2008 18:20:22 EDT

Sometimes I wonder. Sometimes I feel the need to scream louder. But the question remains. Is anyone listening?

Certainly the media isn't. They'd rather chew on another preacher scandal.

Certainly the DNC doesn't. They'd rather play politics as usual' in this ongoing drama, rather than educate their constituencies about the realities and dangers our children and grandchildren if WE DON'T ACT NOW.

Certainly the RNC doesn't. They don't want to lose that fat support from the oil and coal lobby.

HELLO AMERICA...THERE IS LANDMARK LEGISLATION COMING UP FOR A SENATE VOTE ON MONDAY,THAT DOESN'T EVEN GO FAR ENOUGH.

I've laid out my case in my blog...and it scares the crap out of me. But it seems no one is listening to my cries...except Obama.

He gets it. But is too busy fighting the political games, fuzzy math, and politics as usual in DC.

No one ever said it would be easy to change politics in DC. By the way...why hasn't Al Gore endorsed the candidate that has the most aggressive/progressive plan?

If YOU are listening...please read my blog for the truth about climate change.

IMO - There is a greater national security threat to the US than ANYONE has dared tell us.

Our voices together get much louder. HELP!!!

CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE URGENCY OF NOW

Inspired in Florida - a Recovering Republican — Fri, 30 May 2008 12:25:34 EDT

As Albert Einstein once said, ―If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe, then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man.”

Unfortunately ...it's already happening, according to ScienceDaily (May 26, 2008)

Honey Bee Losses Continue To Rise In U.S

======

A LONG, BUT SOBERING READ

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, United Nations Environment Programme

STATEMENT of AHMED DJOGHLAF EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

at the OPENING SESSION of the NINTH MEETING OF THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

Bonn, 19 May 2008

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Last month while visiting St John in Antigua and Barbuda, I learned about a poem that schoolchildren throughout the Caribbean region are taught:

―June – too soon.

July – stand by!

August – look out you must.

September – remember.

October – all over.

This saying stems from local knowledge about the hurricane season built up over centuries—knowledge that has withstood the test of time and enabled communities to survive and flourish. However, this saying may very soon lose its wisdom. Last year the United Nations launched 13 appeals for humanitarian assistance, breaking a record. Twelve of them were climate-related disasters. Last March, unusually large waves reaching as high as 30 feet, lashed coastlines from Guyana to the Dominican Republic causing serious damage to coral reefs across the region. Indeed, while providing fertile fishing grounds, and protection from storms, coral reefs are among the most vulnerable ecosystems on Earth.

To raise awareness of their tremendous value and fragility, the international

community is celebrating, this year, the International Year of the Reef. Twenty per cent of coral reefs have been destroyed worldwide. Twenty-four per cent are in imminent danger, and a further 26 per cent are threatened over the longer term. Even the disappearance of sharks is affecting coral reefs, and the dramatic decline in shark populations is affecting the stability of the entire marine system.

Some areas of the world have recently seen a decline of up to ninety-nine per cent in some large-shark populations. As a result the population of their prey is expanding dramatically, which in turn results in a depletion of populations lower on the food chain.

Carnivorous groupers feed on algae-grazing parrotfish. With fewer parrotfish, algae growth is increasing the stress on coral reefs. Indeed, sharks are an essential element for the health of coral ecosystems.

The loss of 73 million sharks is not only affecting coral ecosystems, but is also leading to the devastation of shellfish populations, which play a major role in water filtration by reducing sediments and improving water quality.

The rapid decline of large sharks in the world’s oceans is leading to an increase in the number of shellfish predators, thus disrupting marine ecosystems as a whole. The fact is that every species has a role to play and its disappearance disturbs its ecosystem. This is what the web of life is about.

Albert Einstein once noted that, ―We still do not know one thousandth of one per cent of what nature has revealed to us.

In spite of unprecedented scientific discoveries and technological advances, we human beings still have much to learn from Nature. All life on Earth is interconnected. Species cannot survive without their natural habitat and, in turn, the latter is being impacted by their disappearance.

In Kenya, fences were erected around acacia trees to keep away giraffes and elephants, in the belief that this would allow the trees to thrive. This severed a vital symbiotic relationship. Without herbivores, the trees produce fewer thorns. With fewer thorns and less sap, ants move on to other trees, giving way to wood-boring beetles that invade the tree. Instead of protecting the acacia trees, the fences isolated them from nature, increasing their vulnerability. Conservation of biodiversity is not about keeping one species away from another. It is not about building fences around national parks and keeping humans out. It is about interaction between all species and their natural ecosystem.

It is about ONE NATURE.

Climate Change - as an Economics Issue

Inspired in Florida - a Recovering Republican — Fri, 30 May 2008 11:44:02 EDT

Nature Loss 'to Hurt Global Poor'

By Richard Black

Environment correspondent, BBC News website

Damage to forests, rivers, marine life and other aspects of nature could halve living standards for the world's poor, a major report is to conclude.

Current rates of natural decline might reduce global GDP by about 7% by 2050.

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) review is modeled on the Stern Review of climate change.

It will be released at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) meeting in Bonn, where 60 leaders have pledged to halt deforestation by 2020.

"You come up with answers like 6% or 8% of global GDP when you think about the benefits of intact ecosystems, for example in controlling water, controlling floods and droughts, the flow of nutrients from forest to field," said the project's leader Pavan Sukhdev.

"But then you realize that the major beneficiaries [of nature] are the billion and a half of the world's poor; these natural systems account for as much as 40%-50% of what we define as the 'GDP of the poor'," he told BBC News.

Globalized decline

The TEEB review was set up by the German government and the European Commission during the German G8 presidency.

The two institutions selected Mr Sukhdev, a managing director in the global markets division at Deutsche Bank, to lead it.

At the time, in an article for the BBC News website, Germany's environment minister Sigmar Gabriel wrote: "Biological diversity constitutes the indispensable foundation for our lives and for global economic development.

"[But] two-thirds of these ecosystem services are already in decline, some dramatically. We need a greening of globalization."

The document to be released at the CBD is an interim report into what the team acknowledges are complex, difficult and under-researched issues.

The 7% figure is largely based on loss of forests. The report will acknowledge that the costs of losing some ecosystems have barely been quantified.

The trends are understood well enough - a 50% shrinkage of wetlands over the past 100 years, a rate of species loss between 100 and 1,000 times the rate that would occur without 6.5 billion humans on the planet, a sharp decline in ocean fish stocks and one third of coral reefs damaged.

However, putting a monetary value on them is probably much more difficult, the team acknowledges, than putting a cost on climate change.

The report is expected to highlight some of the planet's ecologically damaged zones such as Haiti, where heavy deforestation - largely caused by the poor as they cut wood to sell for cash - means soil is washed away and the ground much less productive.

'Too little, too late'

There are some indications that biodiversity and ecosystem issues are now being heard at the top tables of politics.

G8 environment ministers meeting in Japan last weekend agreed a document noting that "biodiversity is the basis of human security and... the loss of biodiversity exacerbates inequality and instability in human society".

It also emphasized the importance of protected areas and of curbing deforestation.

At the CBD on Wednesday, 60 countries signed pledges to halt net deforestation by 2020.

But the main CBD target agreed by all signatories at the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992 - to "halt and begin to reverse" biodiversity loss by 2010 - is very unlikely to be met.

An early draft of the TEEB review, seen by BBC News, concluded: "Lessons from the last 100 years demonstrate that mankind has usually acted too little and too late in the face of similar threats - asbestos, CFCs, acid rain, declining fisheries, BSE and - most recently - climate change".

The Stern Review talked to governments in a way that earlier climate reports could not, because it was written by and for economists; and the architects of TEEB hope it will eventually do the same thing for biodiversity.

Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

Under Pressure, White House Issues Climate Change Report

Inspired in Florida - a Recovering Republican — Fri, 30 May 2008 11:18:14 EDT

I predict there will be fireworks in congress next week when they debate the Climate Bill

From the NYTimes

May 30, 2008

Under Pressure, White House Issues Climate Change Report

By ANDREW C. REVKIN

The Bush administration, bowing to a court order, has released a fresh summary of federal and independent research pointing to large, and mainly harmful, impact of human-caused global warming in the United States.

The report, released Thursday, is online at climatescience.gov, along with a new report updating the administration’s priorities for climate research.

Most of the findings, like the spread of warmth-loving pests and the inevitable loss of low-lying lands to rising seas, are not new. But the report included new projections of how the poor, elderly and communities with lagging public-health and public-works systems will face outsize health risks from warming.

Among the report’s new conclusions on health: “An increased frequency and severity of heat waves is expected, leading to more illness and death, particularly among the young, elderly, frail and poor.” It added that deaths from cold would decline, but said uncertainties on both projections made it impossible to characterize the overall risk.

It gave high odds (essentially a two out of three chance) that Lyme disease and West Nile virus would have expanded ranges because of warming. The report gave the same odds that some food- and water-borne diseases would also increase among susceptible populations, but said “major human epidemics” were unlikely as long as public-health systems remained effective.

Under a 1990 law, presidents must submit a report to Congress every four years summarizing what is known about impacts of climate change and other global environmental problems on the United States.

The last such assessment, undertaken in the Clinton administration and published in 2000 in the early days of the Bush presidency, was attacked by groups and industries opposing restrictions on greenhouse gases. References to it were deleted from some government reports by political appointees in the White House.

Environmental groups sued to force the completion of a new study. In court, the White House contended that a series of more than 20 studies requested by President Bush in 2003 satisfied the 1990 law, but Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong of Federal District Court for the Northern District of California rejected that assertion last August and ordered a comprehensive assessment to be published by the end of May.

“This assessment is an example of what federal scientists can and should be doing when they are freed from political interference and allowed to actually do their jobs,” said Kassie Siegel, climate program director for the Center for Biological Diversity, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who was the lead author of the 1990 law, strongly criticized the White House.

“The three-year delay of this report is sadly fitting for an administration that has wasted seven years denying the real threat of global climate change,” Mr. Kerry said in a statement. “In these lost years, we could have slowed global warming and advanced clean energy solutions, but instead America’s climate change strategy has been at best rhetorical, not real.”

Climate Change

andrew — Tue, 20 May 2008 11:43:30 EDT

Barack Obama is the most dedicated canidate when it comes to climate change. He supports a wide varity of energy sources so that wen can reduce our need of forgien oil and reduce our emissions. He also supports a cap and trade program. However one question I still have is will Barack Obama listen to the IPCC and implement the majority of their recommendations so that the catastophic consequences of Climate Change can be avoided?

If extensive actions are not taken to resolve the climate crisis by 2015, I fear it then may be too late and the consequences will be unavoidable.

New Congressional Priority: Climate Change, not Steroids in Baseball

Taube — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 04:18:39 EDT

Amherst College beat Williams College in 26 innings, 73-32, in 1859, in the first inter-collegiate baseball game, played at North St. and Maplewood Ave. in Pittsfield, Massachusetts. Hard to explain a baseball score like that without insulting the many alumni of Williams and Amherst, three of whom currently serve in the House of Representatives. Chris Murphy, D, CT, and Mark Udall, D, CO (Williams), and Tom Davis III, R, VA (Amherst) teamed up with John Olver D, MA 1st CD representing all of these historic towns in Western Massachusetts in March, 2008 to

"introduce a bill to recognize Pittsfield, Massachusetts, as being home to the earliest known reference to the word "baseball" in the United States as well as being the birthplace of college baseball. ...The resolution was introduced with 26 original co-sponsors, including the members of the Massachusetts delegation and graduates of Amherst and Williams Colleges. It will now move to the House Committee on Education and Labor for review." according to a press release from Congressman Olver's office dated March 14, 2008.

Olver has a PhD in chemistry from M.I.T., and was previously a chemistry professor at UMass. He is currently co-chair of the House Climate Change Caucus, which is how I stumbled over his baseball bill and couldn't resist getting your attention with that score.

More importantly, Olver sits on two sub-committees of the House Appropriations Committee, chairing "the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and related agencies. This panel has jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation, including the Federal Aviation, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Federal Railroad Administration and Amtrak. The Subcommittee also is responsible for the annual budgets of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. ...In 2007 John Olver was named to the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee. This panel has jurisdiction over the Department of Energy, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, among other agencies." from Olver's official website.

The House Appropriations sub-committees were re-organized to make more sense with the change in leadership in 2007. It's educational to understand how committees are organized, especially the powerful Appropriations Committee.

So, I'm throwing out a pitch to consider John Olver as a key player in the next administration's team on Climate Change, based on being a scientist with deep knowledge of how all of the related Federal agencies function, and how they are funded. Based on how hard it is to get a baseball resolution passed in the House, a man of patience. Based on the quality of roads and bridges in Olver's district, a man of action. Thank you Congressman Olver for Routes 116 and 9 up here in the Hilltowns!

A+ from middleclass.org for 2008, up from A.

Age: 72, representing MACD1 since 1991.

Uncommitted super-delegate, along with Mark Udall. Chris Murphy is pledged to Obama.

Hey, it's April!

"Free" Hybrid Batteries- any advice on making State proposals?

John Messerly — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 16:26:07 EDT

I am a retired engineering manager knowlegable about politics at executive levels in a corporate setting, but don't understand how things work out here in the real world of public sector politics. I am asking for advice on how to present a business plan associated with energy independence in my state of Hawaii. The plan requires state legislation. I understand the problem that folks in public office may have with crackpots coming in with their brilliant ideas, and admitedly it is possible that I am in that category.

The basic idea of the proposal is that we can leverage the price differential between cost of gasoline and the cost of electricity to finance the cost of automotive batteries and the higher cost of alternative power generation. This battery cost is substantial- adding anywhere from $8K to $36K to the price of the car. However, since these automotive batteries have a planned life of 10 years, there cost can be successfully recovered through a surcharge on the electricity used to charge the vehicle. So as far as the consumer is concerned, the battery is "free".

Though this scheme is revenue neutral and in the economic interest of all the commercial players, it requires government policy to initiate as will become clear from the description.

James Hansen: Practical Moves to Halt Climate Change

Doug Simpson — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 11:28:31 EDT

James Hansen is one of the most respected scientists on the topic of climate change. His 1988 Congressional testimony (yes, 20 years ago) opened the policy agenda when he testified that he was 99% confident that the globe was warming and that human CO2 emissions were the cause. Despite documented attempts by the current administration to muzzle Mr. Hansen and others with messages inconvenient to what he calls “well oiled” politicians, he has continued to grow in respect and has refused to be silenced. That is largely because facts over the last 20 years have shown his predictions to be consistently and highly reliable.

He has just released a draft paper now available on Columbia University’s website, "Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?" In a short summary of his well-reasoned but technical paper (second link below), NRDC reports on his conclusions that current concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (about 385 ppm) are already in dangerous territory and that we should be aiming to lower concentrations back to 350 ppm, rather than aiming to stabilize them at about 450 ppm, as previously suggested.

In a separate short message, "Rampant Negativity -- No Reason to be so Glum," Hansen dismisses claims that halting climate change is impractical. “What nonsense,” he says in his non-technical message, where Hansen provides his guidance that is directly responsive to the coal plant proposal:

(more after the jump)

Study documents hotter, drier American West due to climate change.

Doug Simpson — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 11:21:36 EDT

Temperature data from eleven western states over five years shows the Colorado River basin was 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than the historical average for the past century, more than twice the global average increase during the same period. This is according to a study by the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization (RMCO), a coalition of 17 local governments, Colorado's largest water provider, 17 businesses and 11 nonprofits.

In a press release on March 27, study author Stephen Saunders said: “Since 2000 we have seen $2.7 billion in crop loss claims due to drought. Global warming is harming valuable commercial salmon fisheries, reducing hunting activity and revenues, and threatening shorter and less profitable seasons for ski resorts.”

Prolonged drought in the Colorado River basin threatens water supplies for the 30 million people in fast-growing western cities such as Denver, Albuquerque, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Los Angeles and San Diego. Seven of the eleven states (Arizona, California, Montana, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Washington) and two Canadian provinces (British Columbia and Manitoba) have joined the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), agreeing to cut global warming pollution through a market-based system, such as cap-and-trade.

The full report, jointly published by the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and RMCO, "Hotter and Drier: The West's Changed Climate," draws on 50 scientific studies, 125 other government and scientific sources, and NRDC-RMCO's own new analyses. It documents the evidence that the West is being affected more by a changed climate than any other part of the United States outside of Alaska.

(read more below the break)

James Gustave Speth: "The Bridge at the Edge of the World" on The Diane Rehm Show

Glenn Lieding — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 01:34:17 EDT

This was a really great interview. Listen to it, and if anybody you know still thinks we can go on with business as usual and the environment will be just fine, MAKE them listen to it! I can't wait to read the book.

James Gustave Speth: "The Bridge at the Edge of the World" (Yale)
on The Diane Rehm Show, WAMU 88.5 FM American University Radio (NPR) Mar. 27, 2008 11:00

http://wamu.org/programs/dr/08/03/27.php#19158

A leading environmentalist explains how American-style consumer capitalism harms the planet and what must be done to save the earth for future generations.

Guests

James Gustave Speth, dean of the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale University and co-founder of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Listen to this segment

Order a copy

CD |
Transcript

Oil Change International Report - A Climate of War: The War in Iraq and Global Warming

Doug Simpson — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:27:51 EDT

News release: "On the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war, a new report from Oil Change International, entitled A Climate of War - The war in Iraq and global warming, quantifies both the greenhouse gas emissions of the Iraq War and the opportunity costs involved in fighting war rather than climate change. Here are some facts on the war and warming:

Projected total US spending on the Iraq war could cover all of the global investments in renewable power generation that are needed between now and 2030 in order to halt current warming trends. The war is responsible for at least 141 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) since March 2003. To put this in perspective, CO2 released by the war to date equals the emissions from putting 25 million more cars on the road in the US this year."

Oil Change International Report - A Climate of War: The War in Iraq and Global Warming

Doug Simpson, Hartford, CT
DougSimpson.com/blog
Yes, I'm LinkedIn!

Jobs for GM cars that run on "gas" for $1.99/ gallon

John Messerly — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 17:14:14 EDT

Dear Chairman Dingell, (House Energy and Commerce committee),

Perhaps your committee would be willing to consider a "modest proposal" for expansion of the idea of subsidies for batteries found in HR. 5351. The idea is that maybe it is boneheaded to have answer the battery finance problem with tax policy. Instead we can tap into a huge source of capital from surcharging electricity used to recharge the batteries. It would mean huge numbers of jobs for Michigan if we could make the pitch to consumers of gas at an equivalent price of $2 per gallon by buying a Chevy electric instead with a free battery financed by Federal surcharges on recharrge electricity.

A tipping point has been crossed. Ask yourself- Has the spike in petroleum prices made the relative cost of electricity as a fuel so low that it is enough to defray the costs of the battery? If so, wouldn't it be smart energy independence policy to implement a sort of toll road approach to finance the battery infrastructure and pay back the investment through electricity surcharge tolls? It looks like there is way more money there to pay cover the cost of 100% subsidy of batteries within their lifetime (about 10 years). A variation of the scheme would simultaneously provide incentives for clean energy source of electricity for the switchover.

The idea is that demand would be rapid and immense, since new vehicle customers would be attracted to the idea of paying for fuel at half the rate they pay for gasoline. This policy mechanism is proven- similar to the "Feed-in Tariff" scheme for financing alternative power that has been wildly successful in Germany, but differs in the respect that it does not impose higher rates on all electrical customers. Only those customers that are electric car users are surcharged, and even for them, it is frictionless because they are getting a bargain compared to the cost of gasoline.

I footnote my calculations, so maybe someone can assist me in seeing why this is not a winning proposition .

I start by calculating the cost of power required by an electric car to deliver the same power utilized from a gallon of gas. Using an electric car it turns out I would pay the equivalent of 89 cents per gallon *

If each US vehicle uses on average 2.2 gallons of gas per day**, this means that the yearly cost of gasoline per vehicle is $3194. So an equivalent electric vehicle would save $ 2486 in fuel costs. 2.2 gallons of gas per day would require a battery with 20 Kwhs***. So that battery at 62 cents per Watt for Li-Ion**** would be paid off in 4.5 years.

There are many ways to leverage this price differential. One is the so called toll road approach. To allow consumers to see this savings up front, one policy approach would be for the federal government to subsidize 100% of battery cost up to 62 cents per Watt for domestic vehicles, and then add a surcharge on electricity used to charge the battery (metered by the car). The electricity company is required to add a surcharge for the electricity used at say 50% of the prevailing equivalent cost of gas. Instead the consumer pays the equivalent of $2 per gallon of gas- creating a stampede for domestically built electrical vehicles. The cost of the battery is spread over current battery life of 10 years.

Like toll roads the investment is amortized over an extended period. The scheme is revenue neutral.

One variation would attempt to maximize electricity use among high mileage drivers. One half of US vehicles drive less than 25 miles per day. The other half will be burning fuel after their 20Kwh battery is exhausted. A business model that would maximize efficient use of capital investment in batteries would be to put the resource in the control of an entity whose profit motive drove efficient utilization of that resource. Renault-Nissan, and Israel have committed to a major nationwide Electric vehicle plan that separates the cost of a vehicle from the cost of the battery. So for example for the US, there would be a federal standardization for the form factor and connector of the battery that car manufacturers must adhere to. The battery packs are owned by the electrical company, and the electric company is motivated to provide an additional pack for high mileage customers so that they may maximize their electricity sales. The number of packs that are subsidized by the federal government is proportionate to customer demand, so the packs are a scarce resource that they have a disincentive to waste on low mileage cars. This standardized power pack scheme has the advantage that "filling stations" could swap out batteries for extended road trips, long haul shipping, and commercial fleets. Battery utilization is maximized to the full 10 year life, and maintenance and inspection extends the life and safety of batteries.

Another variation to spur alternative energy supply is to use the same price differential as a weapon against the objections that the ROI isn't there for expensive CO2 free sources. EG- tell power companies that they can pocket a portion of the surcharge if the power used by electrics is covered by new CO2 free power capacity built after the start of the program. 89 cents per KWH can provide some handsome margins- justifying the cost a whole lot of solar in the Nevada desert. Solar is just an example, and policy ought not perscribe technology- we just aren't that smart- let the swarm decide. If wind or wave power makes more sense, then that is up to the provider. This would generate demand for the building of new plant at a furious pace: An all electric fleet would require generation capacity of 3.49 billion KWH per day, requiring total yearly production of an additional 1,275 billion KWHs per year (an increase of 31%)*****. That is politically attractive since it creates a lot of domestic alternative power jobs- since many of these sources require more labor per Kwh of capacity than CO2 generating technologies. Note in this variation, the unused battery capacity can be used to augment distributed grid storage- something that is needed due to the inconstant nature of most CO2 free power sources. With a portion of 3.49 billion of KWHs of electric company batteries available during the day, the electricity company will be motivated to provide power connectors in commuter parking garages so that this resource may be fully utilized for grid storage. This significantly reduces the requirement for CO2 generating schemes to balance power, such as CAES.

I would note that although I focused on all electric vehicles for simplicity, a hybrid approach using a generator to provide a 200 mile range of the mostly electric vehicle might well be the preferred scheme.

Legislation modifications needed: The Senate bill corresponding to H.R. 5351 would increases the subsidy for Hybrid vehicles to 62 cents per Watt up to a capacity equivalent to 1KWH per 100 pounds of curb rate. A requirement is added for vehicles to meter charging in a way that power companies may efficiently surcharge to recover the cost of the battery. Suggest the subsidies only be for domestic vehicles as a recession fighting measure. The surcharge rate is set to price vehicle power at 50% cost of the same power from gasoline. From the start of the program, if the electricity company builds or purchases new CO2 free power from qualifying sources such as the solar grand plan, then they are entitled to a portion of the surcharge to defray cost of the more expensive power source. Homeowners that generate their own alternative energy via net metering need only pay surcharges on elecricity exceeding what they generated during the month. Unlike Germany's EEG, this does not finance via raising electrical rates for all customers. It is a way of igniting demand for small businesses installing home systems. Sundowns: Both Homeowner and Electric company have their entitlement to the surcharge benefit phased out as the calculated cost of their investment is paid back via the surcharge. Vehicles with paid off batteries do not have to pay a battery surcharge, only the alternative energy surcharge.)

I am new to this and so it wouldn't be surprising if I have made some serious errors here. If so, I would be indebted to anyone who can take the time to point out my errors. Is there something wrong with the calculations or data?

Notes:

*Assuming a national rate of 10 cents per KwH. Assumes 20% efficiency for a gas car, and 81% for electrical- including mechanical inefficiencies. At 36.4 KwHs of energy per gallon of gas used in a 100% efficient car, actual power utilized is 7.28KwHs/gallon. To deliver the equivalent power, and 81% efficient electrical vehicle would require 8.99 kwHs/ gallon, making its equivalent cost per gallon at 89cents.

** DOE cites R.L. Polk estimate of 181.4 million registered vehicles (residential and non residential) ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/consumption/alternative.fuels/stock2b.pdf see page 2-6. They base their estimate of US cars on this 1991 figure. Presumably, they regard that as representative of the current fleet numbers. Diesel Industry Forum states that 3% of new vehicle sales are diesel. (source) This puts gasoline vehicles at 175.9 million.

DOE's Energy Information administration page states US daily consumption of finished motor gasoline was 9.253 million barrels per day for 2006 (388 million gallons) (source)

388 million gallons divided by 175.9 million gas vehicles yields 2.2 gallons per day per vehicle.

*** 2.2 gallons times the previously calculated 8.99 kwhs/gallon would require a battery with 19.85 KwHs

**** GM states the cost of the Volt's Li-Ion will be $10K for 16Kwhs (source)

***** 388 Million gallons/ day means 3.49 billion KWHs /day (1275 billion per year). Total US electricity produced in 2006 was 4063 billion Kwhs, so new production needed is 31% of this.

References:

Solar grand plan testimony

Proposal: How to finance a rapid energy independence policy

John Messerly — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 01:14:54 EDT

My proposal below uses some ideas about energy policy embodied in legislation such as the recently passed H.R. 5351 (link). It could be coupled with the Solar Grand Plan's idea for use of $400 billion in seed money to initiate building of an significant solar generation (For more information see Scientific American 1/2008 issue and thread discussion following (link)). Power requirements to replace all petroleum vehicles with electrical vehicles is around 1300 billion KwHs (assuming 146 billion gallons of gas/ year times 9 Kwhs equivalent energy utilized by an electric vehicle to generate the same power utilized by a gallon of gas [20 percent efficiency for gas, 81% efficiency for electric vehicle]). So that is something like a required increase of 25% beyond our current 3 Terawatt capacity. Unlike the solar grand plan, this does not require some unspecified mechanism to efficiently and economically force the retirement of undesirable sources.

This creates a huge new demand and restricts the technologies that can be used to answer the new demand.

The central idea is financial- it is the insight that an untapped source of revenue may be leveraged: the difference between electrical energy cost and price of gasoline at the pump. This difference can be used to incent demand for electric vehichles, defray the cost of car battery technology, and guarantee a good return on investment (ROI) for energy companies investing in the required more expensive alternative energy sources. No specific technology for electrical vehicles or alternative energy technology is mandated.

Scheme outline:

1) Federal government subsidizes the cost of the batteries for domestically manufactured all-electric vehicles at the rate of $1 per 1KW per 100lbs of curb weight. (this metric allows for a 100 mile range).

2) Power companies are required to surcharge for electricity at 75% of the prevailing national rate for price per gallon of gas. So for example, at $4.00 gas, cost per KwH would be 33 cents**, not the prevailing national rate of 10 cents per KwH.

3) The power company totals the power used for electric cars. With the clock started at the beginning of the program, if the power company has built additional capacity from a renewable non CO2 generating source*, then they keep the revenue from the surcharge. If less, they only keep the revenue for which they had actual capacity to generate. The remainder of the surcharge fees are submitted to the federal government and is used to defray the cost of the battery susidy.

*qualified sources include solar, wind, hydroelectric, wave. If the company had 100MW of such power but electric car rate was 200MW, then they keep the surcharge only for the first 100MW of capacity.

**(Calculation: There is 36.4 KWh of energy per gallon of gas. At 20% thermodynamic efficiency typical of car engines cruising, that's 7.28Kwh of energy utilized per gallon. Electrical vehicle motor and mechanical energy efficiency is about 81%, so an electrical vehicle requires 8.99 Kwh equivalent power per gallon of gas. That means for the equivalent energy of a gallon of gas at $4.00/gal, you would have to pay 45 cents per KwH, making the 75% discount rate come out to 33 cents.)

Analysis-

The consumer has an incentive to buy a vehicle that is guaranteed to have a fuel cost of 75% of current rate. This gives an incentive to domestic auto producers.
The electric company has a strong incentive to build non CO2 energy capacity, or figure out where it can buy some off the national HVDC backbone.
Wholesale producers have incentive to build capacity since they have a ready market for alternative power.
Electrical generation margins from alternative sources increase as petroleum prices increase.

Q/A section:

Q: What makes the car owners pay the higher rate?

A: The same technology that is used by cable video or cellular phone systems to authenticate devices before they access services. In the same way that your cell phone is challenged and authenticated on a cellular network to confirm it is allowed to use the system, software in an electrical car challenges the charging device to verify that it is a legitimate charging device. All legitimate charging devices communicate to the electrical company the amount of KWHs that were used to charge the electrical vehicle.

Q: Couldn't the charging system be gamed?

A: Some hackers may learn how to bypass security on smart meters that charge vehicles. An encryption algorithm in the car authenticates the charger as a valid source of energy. Even if the security is bypassed, the electrical company can detect the fast surge of power required to recharge an electric car overnight. This second level of detection could be avoided by slowly charge batteries (assuming the gamer only traveled short distances per day), or if the gamer had multiple packs of batteries.

Q: Why not 200 mile range? Why not 50% not 75% surcharge? Why not perscribe battery type? Why exclude Hybrids? Why not allow $1.50 per watt if Altairnano or other advanced battery types are used?

A: Lots of variables are there to work with- I made a rough sketch setting these parameters for the purpose of illustration of the core concept of the scheme. To evaluate the options, an economic model would have to be constructed to determine the optimal weights on each of the parameters to achieve the optimal outcomes. I think that due to the sustained high price of petroleum due to demand in the rapidly industrializing third world (especially China and India), this leverage will not evaporate as after previous petroleum price spikes.

Why Nasa matters to Climate Change

John Messerly — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:58:55 EDT

Current research indicates that the anticipated changes that might result from an increase in atmospheric CO2 are not so simple. Computer models are being used to project climate change, but because the actual mechanism of climate change is not well understood, doubts have been raised in the science community about their accuracy. Recent papers suggest that previous studies have significantly underestimated the phenomenon, and that the "fierce urgency of now" actually happenned 8 years ago.

Even with extensive measures of CO2 emissions, scientists agree that the processes that govern the carbon cycle are not very well understood. This fact is siezed on by extremists who would deny climate change due to human activity exists.

There are two responses to this. The first is political. Many of those swayed by such rhetoric are actually reflexively responding to the notion that this is some sort of hippie environmentalist fad hoax. This can be disarmed by reloading the problem as an energy independence issue and that we must get off oil because it sends money to the terrorists. This appeals to their sense of patriotism, mom, and apple pie. I don't think this is a dishonest tack to take. The point is accurate, and while the consequences of global warming are far more crushing than those of dependence on foreign supplies of energy, energy independence is a vital national security issue, and rallies us to the defence of our nation even if global warming were a fantasy.

The second response is that it is just as true that we could be underestimating the threat as overestimating it. When threat assessment is weak due to poor understanding of fundamentals, both consequences are equally dangerous A juried paper published two weeks ago in Geophysical Research Letters shows that if stabilization targets are to be reached, CO2 emissions must go to zero. Simple reduction to 20% of 1990 levels (Barack's plan for the US), even if achieved on a global scale would be insufficient. Further, the study shows that the climate changes are likely to be virtually permanent. [WaPost article] [Research paper]

If true, that's bad for the "wait and see" approach. Maybe these early reports are alarmist, but maybe they are like Billy Mitchell's demonstration in 1925 that the age of battleships was over. "Wait and see" was costly but not crippling at Pearl Harbor, because we had time and resources to bounce back and build carriers. But if this latest study is correct, "Wait and see" won't work. Farmlands lost due to warming won't return to production for centuries. Extreme storm conditions that emerge will become the norm for the forseeable future.

Bush's war on science has not missed opportunities to reduce knowledge of climate change. Built at a cost of 100 million dollars, since 2001, the Deep Space Climate Observatory has been sitting in a closet. That's 7 years of information not collected on climate change. The reason? Republicans politicized the project- referring to it as "GoreSat", and although the NAS reported that the science it would return was "vital", the Bush White House had NASA quietly kill the project.(NYTimes opinion: Scorched Earth)

It's nuts. Whether you are someone that thinks climate change is a hoax, or someone who thinks the threat has been seriously underestimated, given the stakes, it is important to know for sure one way or the other.

What we are stuck with are ground based observations, but measurements of atmospheric CO2 vary drastically from year to year, and the datasets are sparse. Without a better understanding of these variations, scientists will have difficulty predicting how the atmosphere will respond in the future. Although NASA has defunded study of climate in order to pay for Bush's idiotically expensive scheme for Mars exploration, JPL's Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) will be launched next year and will provide scientists with some of the information that they will need to better understand the carbon cycle. It was scheduled for launch in 2007, but the Bush administration's cuts forced this out to the current December 2008 launch date.

It's pretty cool, because it's spectrometer produces a 3 dimensional model of CO2, and it leads in a formation of US and French climate satellites known as the "A-train", so that data samples can be correlated. The OCO data will revolutionize our understanding of the carbon cycle, obtaining data on CO2 sources and sinks using reflected sunlight to measure carbon dioxide concentrations down to a 1% accuracy – around four parts per million molecules of air. The entire earth will be coverred every 16 days for a period of 2 years. Each column sample of CO2 will be less than 3 cubic KM, and a remote sensing algorithm will produce CO2 concentrations at various altitudes. That's a hefty dataset. (source)

It is crucial this data be acquired as soon as possible. The increases in CO2 were 1.1 percent in the 1990s. Since 2000, the increases have been 3 percent. In 2004, the increase was 5.41%. (source)

Could be a fluctuation, or things may get real nasty real fast. -Especially if the CO2 sinks are getting saturated. (study) Given the rate of Coal plant construction in China, my guess is that ahead of us is a challenge much greater than Iraq, the economy, or health care.

Meanwhile, the media is talking about red phones, plagiarism, vp offers, and monsters. Yep, it's silly season.

Barack Obama and the Environment

Qaliqo — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 16:28:18 EDT

Barack Obama has a unique opportunity to change the United States and the whole world when it comes to environmental issues. Natural charisma is only as good as the fruit it bears; rational policies on energy production, environmental conservation, and climate change have the potential to drastically alter our collective destiny, as a nation and as a species. Most politicians in the United States don't have the conviction, courage, or charisma to play a leading role in preserving the world in a condition suitable for our children and grandchildren.

Hope. Vote. Change.

Earth Hour 2008

Andy — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:37:22 EDT

If you're having trouble viewing this email, you may see it online.

Will You Go Dark?

Earth Hour 2008

What are you doing on Saturday, March 29?

We've got an invite for you: Take an hour to power down.

On March 29, Chicago will lead the U.S. in Earth Hour. The global event encourages governments, businesses and residents in major cities worldwide to turn off lights and unplug unnecessary appliances for 60 minutes between 8 and 9 p.m. Organized by the World Wildlife Fund, Earth Hour is meant to show solidarity in the fight against climate change.

In Chicago, which was chosen as the U.S. flagship city, officials and businesses will dim city buildings and major landmarks like the Navy Pier ferris wheel, downtown skyscrapers and shops along the Magnificent Mile. (Streetlights, hospital lights and other necessary lights will remain lit.)

According to the Earth Hour website, the city of Sydney, Australia recorded a 10.2% drop in energy use during the debut Earth Hour event on March 31 last year. The energy savings were equivalent to "taking over 48,000 cars off the road for an hour." This time around, ComEd will help measure how much energy Chicago saves during the demonstration.

The goal of Earth Hour, however, isn't really to promote coordinated hours of darkness as a long-term strategy to stave off climate change. It's to get people thinking--and to let them know they're not alone. So we like their suggestion to use that hour to reduce your footprint in a more lasting way.

If you buy the supplies ahead of time, you can use Earth Hour as a time to replace all your incandescent light bulbs with energy-saving CFL bulbs and plug your small appliances into power strips for easy turn-off when not in use. And, in the true spirit of solidarity, sit down with family and friends to discuss the importance of responding to climate change...then make your own plan of action.

Watch EarthHour's cool video, and sign yourself up, here. Want more suggestions for reducing your impact on global warming? Check out the A Fresh Squeeze archive for more down-to-earth green news, food tips, shopping info and more.

Like this article? More to try:

Toilet Talk: Eco-Friendlier Flushing

Heat Smart: Efficient Temperature Control Tips

Compact Your Energy Bill: Compact Fluorescent Lighting

Thoughts on this article? Read and post comments here.

info@afreshsqueeze.com
213 N Racine Ave, Suite 201, Chicago IL 60607

No thanks- we already have a dream team

John Messerly — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:50:50 EDT

Announce Al Gore as VP now.

Take the Florida primary. There are a lot of folks that still feel cheated in 2000. To a lesser extent in PA, with democrats that want some pay back.
Hillary is using a former president as the true basis of her implicit but unreal claim to experience. Gore would explicitly be in the race, and can crisply make the case that Hillary was a very good first lady, but that she did not have a security clearance, nor did she undertake any foreign policy negotiations.
Gore can make the economic case for energy independence jobs. He is a known quantity- and important attribute apparently among the working class.
Pre-empt the move of requiring Clinton as VP as the price of superdelegate endorsement. No thanks. We already have a dream team.
Independents in the center get a powerful suggested message- you voted against Gore before, and look what you got. Don't make the same mistake again.
In the primaries and in the general, Barack can unleash his soaring rhetoric. Gore is great at wonk talk and can connect the policy dots to show how the rhetoric has a concrete plan for action. For those that admire Barack's ability to fly, they want to see him grounded. Gore has the gravitas of an M-1 tank. So Barack does the air war, and Gore takes and holds ground won by Barack's persuasion of everyone's hearts.
With Gore, Michigan auto workers have a much stronger reason to believe the promise of Energy independence auto jobs (see my post "it's the Energy stupid, part 2"). They know this is his life work. They know he means business. They associate him with the Clinton good economic times. (He was VP. Hillary was just first lady).

The challenge is why Al would do it. Barack talked about this back in October 2007:

“I can promise you that as president I will have him involved in our administration in a very senior capacity in his role,” Obama responded that, “having won the Nobel peach prize and an Oscar that being Vice President again would be probably a step down for him.”

It's true. It would be a huge risk for Gore because normally the VP position involves going to funerals in foreign countries. The truth is that VP position can be as powerful as the president allows it to be. When Cheney said something in a foreign country, it was listenned to more closely than what Bush said. Similarly, Barack could give near total control of the energy independence portfolio to Al Gore. When Gore made a statement at a climate change conference with global leaders attending, Al could deliver immediately by implementing energy policy. With sweeping majorities in congress, we pass bills to give Al sweeping discretion with energy policy. When Gore meets with Exxon, BP, and the coal industry, they will be meeting with an effective combination of the offices of EPA, DOE and the man second in line to the presidency who won a nobel prize for his dedication for his work towards changing the way the energy companies do business. Those are meetings that can't be easily brushed aside with glad handing and empty promises to a secretary of the DOE. That's why Al has good reason to take this. For him, it is a promise that this will be a co-presidency. That he will have a piece of what should have been his in 2000. That he will have the power to achieve real change on global warming. It's a risk because promises can be broken. His bet is on whether Barack is good to his word.

Turning Glare Into Watts (New York Times)

Glenn Lieding — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 04:02:19 EDT

(Thanks to Birdalone for suggesting this article.)

"... the world appears to be on the verge of a boom in a little-known but promising type of solar power.

It is not the kind that features shiny panels bolted to the roofs of houses. This type involves covering acres of desert with mirrors that focus intense sunlight on a fluid, heating it enough to make steam. The steam turns a turbine and generates electricity.

The technology is not new, but it is suddenly in high demand. ..."

Turning Glare Into Watts (The New York Times):
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/business/06solar.html

See also:

Bill Foster wins Congress seat; physicist, solar thermal energy supporter
my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/glennlieding/gGBbxP
By Glenn Lieding - Mar 19th, 2008 at 10:00 pm EDT

Obama needed to help save our Sacred Planet

Bill of Positive Reflections — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 05:56:41 EST

“Well, I don't believe that climate change is just an issue that's convenient to bring up during a campaign. I believe it's one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation. That's why I've fought successfully in the Senate to increase our investment in renewable fuels. That's why I reached across the aisle to come up with a plan to raise our fuel standards… And I didn't just give a speech about it in front of some environmental audience in California. I went to Detroit, I stood in front of a group of automakers, and I told them that when I am president, there will be no more excuses — we will help them retool their factories, but they will have to make cars that use less oil.”

As a student at Columbia University, Obama worked for three months as an environmental activist to promote recycling in Harlem. As a community organizer, before holding public office, he fought against environmental racism by helping public housing residents demand to have their apartments tested for asbestos and repaired.

He noted, "Environmentalism is not an upper-income issue, it's not a black issue, it's not a South or a North or an East or a West issue. It's an issue that all of us have a stake in."

Bloomberg - Nader - Climate Change - ????

Jason Myers — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 22:52:02 EST

Some interesting thoughts about potential allies and rivals in the general election:

http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2008/02/28/bloomberg-out-nader-in-us-presidential-race/

I find it interesting that Obama might be able to adopt a policy that I strongly support -- a carbon tax -- and do two very different things at the same time:

Obama & Clinton: Who's More Likely to Confront Global Warming?

Paul from Seattle, WA — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 14:56:34 EST

If we ignore global warming much longer, we'll face a world of perpetual disaster, so there's no larger question for presidential candidates than who is more likely to tackle it successfully. Although Obama's and Clinton's positions are similar, he seems far more likely to. The key difference is their ability to mobilize a grassroots base to demand that the necessary changes get passed.

The shape of lights to come (USA Today)

Glenn Lieding — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 21:10:32 EST

One of the easiest and most significant things we can do as individuals to save energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions (or demand for nuclear power) while also saving money in the long run is to replace incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent ones. Yet in the US, only 11% of households have at least one compact fluorescent bulb installed. Why?

An article today in "USA Today entitled "The shape of lights to come? Not everyone's buying it" explains the consumer (mis) conceptions behind many people's reluctance to make the switch. The article also explains that for most of these objections, for most applications, it is really no longer an issue due to improvements in the technology.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-02-28-light-bulb_N.htm

Criteria for reasonable biofuels: Seven points

Glenn Lieding — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:37:59 EST

I think biofuels only makes sense if they are made from non-food sources that are grown in areas unsuitable for food production. I think it's a sin to use up a whole village's worth of food just so that you can keep a Hummer fueled up. Also, the source should yield several times more energy than it takes to produce it. Corn-based ethanol fails badly on all of these criteria.

However, there is another plant that has been with mankind since the beginning that would solve our biofuel needs while at the same time help to solve worldwide hunger and malnutrition.

Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler (New York Times)

Glenn Lieding — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:36:30 EST

There was a great article in The New York Times ( http://www.nytimes.com/ ) on January 27, 2008 regarding how worldwide increasing demand for meat production is consuming energy and other resources at an astonishing rate.

It is ironic, and poetic justice, that unnecessary and excessing prodution and slaughter of animals is putting our own survival at risk by depleting our resources and endangering the world environment.

Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html

Obama wrong about nuclear power

Glenn Lieding — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:44:07 EST

(I originally composed this post (now slightly enhanced) as a comment in the discussion on EnvirObama.com ( http://envirobama.com/ ) entitled "Climate Change" ( http://envirobama.com/2008/02/21/climate-change/ ). A great site, by the way!).

There are many reasons why Barack Obama should reverse his stance on nuclear power and work instead to support alternatives to both fossil fuels and nuclear power. Let's do everything we can to let him know that on this issue, he's just plain wrong.

Nuclear power is not the answer to climate change or cost-efficient job creation. Among other objections, there are six that I consider especially convincing...

Green Matters! (One-Day, Mass-Donation Event on Earth Day, 4-22-08)

Rye — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:46:11 EST

PURPOSE:
The "Green Matters" event is a grassroots, one-day mass-donation event with the purpose of bringing the ENVIRONMENT into the forefront of the 2008 Presidential race.

HOW IT WORKS:
A massive one-day donation event on a nationally celebrated day of environmental awareness (Earth Day), and on the same day as the Pennsylvania primary, will penetrate the national dialogue, once again moving the environment to the forefront of Presidential politics. Our idea is to combine concern for the environment with Barack Obama's wide appeal and extensive grassroots support by recruiting people to make an official campaign donation in support of Barack Obama and the environment, on Earth Day - April 22, 2008.

The success of this endeavor will show that the environment is a strong viable issue in the 2008 campaign, that Barack Obama is the right candidate to tackle the issue, and that Green Matters to many Americans.

WHY?:

Why do we feel it is so important to send this message now, more than ever?

* The health of the environment is a health care issue

* Environmental insecurity is an issue of national security

* A poor environment disproportionately affects the poor

* The environment is an issue that affects everyone

WHAT TO DO:
1. Go to www.envirobama.com/greenmatters to sign up and be a part of making history this Earth Day.

2. Sign up for the MYBO Environmentalists for Obama group at my.barackobama.com/page/group/EnvironmentalistsforObama

3. RSVP for the Green Matters! event at http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/4r89v

4. Go to www.envirobama.com to learn more about Barack Obama's strong environmental positions.

5. Pass all of this info on to as many people as possible, spread word across the internet, and help us get word out to powerful people and media outlets.

6. JOIN US BY PARTICIPATING ON APRIL 22 IN A ONE-DAY, MASS-DONATION EVENT TO SHOW THE WORLD THAT GREEN MATTERS!

Thank you,

Environmentalists for Obama

Envirobama.com

Green Matters! (One-Day, Mass-Donation Event on Earth Day, 4-22-08)

Rye — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:46:10 EST

WHY?:

Why do we feel it is so important to send this message now, more than ever?

* The health of the environment is a health care issue

* Environmental insecurity is an issue of national security

* A poor environment disproportionately affects the poor

* The environment is an issue that affects everyone

3. RSVP for the Green Matters! event at http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/4r89v

Environmentalists for Obama

Envirobama.com

Green Matters! (One-Day, Mass-Donation Event on Earth Day, 4-22-08)

Rye — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:45:53 EST

WHY?:

Why do we feel it is so important to send this message now, more than ever?

* The health of the environment is a health care issue

* Environmental insecurity is an issue of national security

* A poor environment disproportionately affects the poor

* The environment is an issue that affects everyone

3. RSVP for the Green Matters! event at http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/4r89v

Environmentalists for Obama

Envirobama.com

Green Matters! (One-Day, Mass-Donation Event on Earth Day, 4-22-08)

Rye — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:45:48 EST

WHY?:

Why do we feel it is so important to send this message now, more than ever?

* The health of the environment is a health care issue

* Environmental insecurity is an issue of national security

* A poor environment disproportionately affects the poor

* The environment is an issue that affects everyone

3. RSVP for the Green Matters! event at http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/4r89v

Environmentalists for Obama

Envirobama.com

Green Matters! (One-Day, Mass-Donation Event on Earth Day, 4-22-08)

Rye — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:45:37 EST

WHY?:

Why do we feel it is so important to send this message now, more than ever?

* The health of the environment is a health care issue

* Environmental insecurity is an issue of national security

* A poor environment disproportionately affects the poor

* The environment is an issue that affects everyone

3. RSVP for the Green Matters! event at http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/4r89v

Environmentalists for Obama

Envirobama.com

Green Matters! (One-Day, Mass-Donation Event on Earth Day, 4-22-08)

Rye — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:45:31 EST

WHY?:

Why do we feel it is so important to send this message now, more than ever?

* The health of the environment is a health care issue

* Environmental insecurity is an issue of national security

* A poor environment disproportionately affects the poor

* The environment is an issue that affects everyone

3. RSVP for the Green Matters! event at http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/4r89v

Environmentalists for Obama

Envirobama.com

Green Matters! (One-Day, Mass-Donation Event on Earth Day, 4-22-08)

Rye — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:45:25 EST

WHY?:

Why do we feel it is so important to send this message now, more than ever?

* The health of the environment is a health care issue

* Environmental insecurity is an issue of national security

* A poor environment disproportionately affects the poor

* The environment is an issue that affects everyone

3. RSVP for the Green Matters! event at http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/4r89v

Environmentalists for Obama

Envirobama.com

Green Matters! (One-Day, Mass-Donation Event on Earth Day, 4-22-08)

Rye — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:31:04 EST

WHY?:

Why do we feel it is so important to send this message now, more than ever?

* The health of the environment is a health care issue

* Environmental insecurity is an issue of national security

* A poor environment disproportionately affects the poor

* The environment is an issue that affects everyone

3. RSVP for the Green Matters! event at http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/4r89v