would prevent public funds from being used “either directly or indirectly, to promote, support, mandate, require, order, incentivize, advocate, plan for, participate in or implement sustainable development.” The prohibition would extend to “any activity by any state governmental entity or municipality.”

The bill defines sustainable development thusly:

“sustainable development” means a mode of human development
in which resource use aims to meet human needs while preserving the
environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but
also for generations to come, but not to include the idea, principle or
practice of conservation or conservationism.

In other words sustainable development—development that has the audacity to meet human needs now and into the future—would become ineligible for any government funding in Kansas. Forget about a school building designed to last 90 years, or even 25. Forget about economic incentive programs that use the green economy to create jobs in impoverished. How could sustainable development make an enemy?

Especially since the business case for sustainable development is so strong. All the research I’ve seen shows that sustainability pays huge dividends to companies, governments, and consumers.

If this ridiculous bill were to become law, presumably government money could only be used to build buildings or bridges that disintegrate in less than one human generation…that have zero energy efficiency features…that will lock their owners into a downward spiral of spending more and more money to feed an avoidable fossil-fuel “jones.” And how you can separate conservation from sustainability or sustainable development is beyond me.

One could even read the definition as preventing any contracts with companies like GE, Ford, General Motors, Walmart, even oil companies that have also invested in solar wind, or hydro.

But wait—it gets worse! There’s a nice little bit of reactionary censorship and thought-control in the legislation—just the sort of thing that right-wingers who claim to love freedom should oppose:

This prohibition on the use of public funds shall apply to: (1) Any activity
by any state governmental entity or municipality;
(2) the payment of membership dues to any association;
(3) employing or contracting for the service of any person or entity;
(4) the preparation, distribution or use of any kit, pamphlet, booklet,
publication, electronic communication, radio, television or video
presentation;
(5) any materials prepared or presented as part of a class, course,
curriculum or instructional material;
(6) any current, proposed or pending law, rule, regulation, code,
administrative action or order issued by any federal or international
agency; and
(7) any federal or private grant, program or initiative.

And yet this guy claims to be such a defender of liberty that the bill contains this explicit agenda:

to support, promote, advocate for, plan for, enforce, use, teach,
participate in or implement the ideas, principles or practices of planning,
conservation, conservationism, fiscal responsibility, free market
capitalism, limited government, federalism, national and state sovereignty,
individual freedom and liberty, individual responsibility or the protection
of personal property rights…

What kind of nutcase would write and submit such a law? How about one who happens to have a day job as a geophysicist whose clients include some 30 oil and gas companies (according to this article in TriplePundit). And one who has also introduced legislation to have school teachers argue against the evidence of climate change. Liberty, apparently, does not extend to those with whom Rep. Hedke disagrees.

When all those plants were shut down following the 2011 accident (and only two restarted since), a lot of experts predicted that Japan would have an energy crisis. However, the whole country went on a deep conservation spree, and the results are terrific.

Now, Japan’s utilities are predicting a surplus of electricity even during the summer crunch. Yippee!

And this means the whole world really can learn to live more lightly with the same standard of living, replacing environmentally disastrous coal and fossil-fuel plants with conservation and renewables.

Yet somehow, those who have been vilifying Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice over this were strangely silent. No outrage from the likes of Lindsay Graham and John McCain when a Republican, even an unelected one, was at the reins. Democrats were quiet too. They actually believe their own rhetoric about defending our president in times of crisis, even when he’s wrong.

It shouldn’t be a surprise. After all this is the same Republican crowd that fiddled while His Imperial Delusional Majesty burned up the Bill Clinton budget surplus and replaced it with soaring debt and massive deficits stemming from his two illegal and immoral wars, from corruption, and from giveaways to corporations that didn’t need them, at the expense of the safety net—but turned into deficit hawks and affordability watchdogs the moment Obama took office. And why does the media give these clowns a platform, under the circumstances?

I certainly have my issues with Obama, and have criticized him often in this space and elsewhere. But we all need to call attention to the blatant Republican hypocrisy on this and a host of other issues. Let’s be fair, people!

Hot product categories: Fair-trade handicrafts from recycled/reused materials (necklaces from magazines and newspapers, flip-flops from tires—Mushana.com; purses from tires—Aria; rainbarrels that used to be olive barrels (Hudson River Rainbarrels)…

By far the most ethnically and racially diverse green event I’ve ever been to: lots of blacks and Latinos especially, both exhibiting/performing and attending

Less in the building trades than in previous large urban green fairs I’ve been to—I did see a solar tube skylight and a very few solar panel vendors, much more in home, fashion, food. Food aisle is mobbed, especially Sunday. Lots of free samples: hemp seeds, chocolate (Theo and Equal Exchange), nutrition bars (Clif Bar, Raw Revolution, crunchy snacks including not just kale chips but arugula and cabbage. Lots of attention to gluten-free, GMO-free, organic. Much on reusable/compostable alternatives to throwaways: Kleen Kanteen (reusable water bottles), Susty Party (compostable plates, straws, napkins, etc.). One vendor had rewashable glass straws. Great concept but I’d worry about breakage, especially with kids.

Gardening products included a few different vertical small-space garden kits, a manufacturer of polypropylene breathable flowerpots and compost bags, business cards with embedded herb seeds.

Several local green retailers, relatively few environmental organizations.

Very few books other than speaker books.

First, there is Walmart’s pressure on its suppliers to green up its act. Walmart puts all of its suppliers through a rigorous evaluation process that examines both manufacturing and packaging practices,

Second, Walmart has looked at its energy footprint, and taken big steps to use less energy—saving hundreds of millions of dollars in the process. Looking at everything from the way its truck cabs are climate-controlled to store design to optimizing delivery routes, Walmart has discovered that green business practices can also save boatloads of money.

Third, Walmart sells enormous quantities of organic food to people who never shop at Whole Foods.

Walmart’s quest for green-friendly practices ripples throughout its massive supply chain with global impact.

The net effect is far more than I or any other green activist can hope to achieve.

Watch a video of Shel Horowitz discussing Walmart’s sustainability strategies, interviewed on Earth Day on the Bill Newman Show, WHMP, Northampton, MA:

 Shel Horowitz on Bill Newman Show, Earth Day 2013

And that’s certainly true—but it’s nowhere near the whole story.

We can gain converts to the clause of reversing catastrophic climate change on several grounds:

• Economic
• Health
• Environmental preservation

And probably others. In all of it, we need to focus on the direct benefits to the people we’re talking about, who may not be committed greens. To put it another way, we need to reach each person with the arguments that resonate with that specific person

I can think of many talking points on each of these three broad topics, and I’ll be writing about them in my June Green And Profitable column. And I’d welcome your ideas on how to expand this discussion—you may even make it into my article (and if you do, I’ll credit you publicly). Please comment below.

After almost five years on Twitter, I still don’t understand why people would want to do this, and why Twitter actively encourages new users to protect their Tweets. It’s not any kind of security feature. All it does is make your tweets invisible unless someone’s following you. And why would anyone follow you if they can’t see what you’re posting and decide if you’re worth their time?

When you “protect”—a more accurate word would be “isolate—your tweets, they cannot get passed around. And people who are checking you out will not tend to follow. A far better way to inoculate yourself against Twitter spam is to follow people who post intelligent and interesting tweets. Yeah, you’ll get the occasional nasty tweet with a virus link, when some idiot hacks into one of your friends. But you’d get those even if your tweets are protected, as it does nothing to stop inbound tweets. And they’re easy enough to spot and ignore/delete. (Hint: if anyone’s saying they saw a funny picture of you, they can’t believe you’d do this, etc. and a link—or just a link with no text—don’t click, and drop them a note that they’ve been hacked.)

If you’re so impressive and famous that new followers want to follow you without knowing what you’re saying, well, OK—but you’re still shooting yourself in the foot. More followers—more REAL followers, not autobots—give you more influence, and even more status.

People with protected tweets tend to have very small numbers of followers of which a fair percentage are autobots. And this means they exclude themselves from a lot of co-marketing and self-marketing possibilities; no company is going to want to partner with someone whose tweets are invisible, no one will visit your blog on the basis of a tweet they can’t read.

Fortunately, it’s easy to turn the “protection” off again. If you’re not on Twitter so people can read your stuff, notice you, and build relationships, why ARE you on Twitter?

Yesterday, the Senate keeled over in front of their corporate masters, represented by the NRA, despite overwhelming public support for the tiny steps toward sensible gun policy. How can anyone make a coherent argument that criminals or crazy people should be able to walk into a gun show and buy a weapon of mass destruction without getting a background check? And yet the Senate balked at this simple and sensible little step, just two days after the Boston marathon bombing.

You need a license to cut hair or drive a car. We have a long list of behaviors that are subject to government regulation. Why can’t the federal government take even the slightest step toward sanity around gun control? Assault weapons are far more dangerous than a barber’s shears and shavers.

My conservative friend Ted Cartselos thinks gun control will happen state-by-state, as it did in Connecticut. But Connecticut is a liberal, northern state, still reeling from the Newtown tragedy. I can’t see that happening in, say, Mississippi.

Let me state clearly: I am not opposed to gun ownership per se. In the rural community where I live, most of my neighbors—good, friendly, caring people—have guns. But there’s a big difference between a hunting rifle or a personal-protection pistol and an assault weapon that has no defensive purpose.

Voters will remember this betrayal. We, the people, have the right to walk down the street or go to school or shopping mall without some lunatic coming after us with an assault rifle. Let’s invoke the spirit of our wise revolutionaries from 200 years ago and say no to corporate intersts and their government bootblacks that trample on our rights.

He was fine, but he and a group of friends decided to walk home (several miles) rather than take the train as usual.

9/11 was also very personal. I was one connection removed from at least two people who were killed, and it took me two frantic weeks to find out that my ex-housemate from my Brooklyn days, who was at that time living just two blocks from the WTC, was all right.

But what made me want to write tonight was not those deep personal connections. It was a question by my friend @PeterShankman, founder of HARO, about how he can talk about this sort of random violence to his daughter, due to be born in a few days.

My answer, I admit, talked around his question rather than going straight for the center. I wrote:

We explained to our young kids (now 20 and 25) why we were bringing them to protest various wars and injustices and environmental atrocities, and to talk of the importance of NOT accepting evil, that we could always do SOMETHING and whether it worked or not was less important than that we did not turn a blind eye.

My remarks went something like this:

Back when I was a teenager protesting the Vietnam War, we had a president named Richard Nixon. We thought he was pretty conservative—but his record is to the left of Barack Obama.

Obama blows with the wind. He feels the breeze of the Tea Party—but he doesn’t feel us. We have to ‘have his back’ when he does the right thing—and make a lot of noise when he doesn’t.

Richard Nixon brought us the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency, detente with the Soviet Union, a newly opened door with China…

Barack Obama took nearly three years to get us out of Iraq, failed to close Guantanamo (and hasn’t tried very hard), escalated drone strikes, backed away from his early rhetoric on climate change, and refused to provide the deep change he was elected to bring.

Even on his signature issue, health reform—one area where he was actually willing to act presidential–he wouldn’t even talk about the real reforms, like single-payer. Yes, I know he has done many good things, and I now he’s been battered by a hostile Congress. But he could have done much more, if he’d enlisted the support of progressives around the country.

And not only has he failed to undo most of the policies of the Rogue State Government of George W. Bush, he has let the treasonous, anti-moral crooks and liars of the George W. Bush administration, including Karl Rove, walk free.

Obama is weak and susceptible to public opinion. Yet, only the opinions of the right-wing fringe seem to sway him—because the left does not understand how to pressure politicians. We elected him twice, and we can get him to listen to us. But for that, we need different strategies and much much better framing.