Greenlight News

Starting an Office Recycling Program: How I Did It & How You Can Too

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 17:14:00 +0000

I recently took a full-time writing job and was surprised to learn there was no recycling program in place -- not only for my own office of 12 people, but for the dozens of offices in our building complex. When I brought it up during a weekly meeting, I was tasked with making it happen, which turned out to be no easy task at all.

Getting Started

My first step was contacting the City of Phoenix. As I learned, they do not provide recycling pick-up (or any waste services) to businesses. My contact there suggested my best bet was to go through whatever company currently picks up our trash. To find that out, I had to contact the management company of our office complex. That's when I really started to get a clear picture of just how challenging the implementation of an office recycling program could be.

There's only room for 4 bins in our office complex parking lot. So to install a recycling bin would mean getting rid of a regular trash bin. And since the management company operates at what she called a "zero operating budget" it may be something that would have to be put off until next year. It was a decision that would be up to the board of directors, and as luck would have it, a board meeting was coming up -- not just any board meeting, but one of four they have throughout the year when represenatives from each office are invited to come.

The Memo

Rather than rely solely on my oral persuasion skills at the meeting, I did what I do best -- wrote my thoughts down. In memo form, I submitted my "argument" to my contact with the management company and she promised to make copies and put it in each packet that would be distributed during the meeting -- to board members and everyone else.

Essentially, I said it was hard for us to come to terms with the fact that we take such care in recycling at home, and yet do not have the same opportunity to do so at work. Even if adding a recycling bin meant getting rid of a trash bin, it should all even out, as much of what is thrown away as "trash" in our office complex is actually recyclable materials, like cardboard boxes, paper and water bottles. Finally, I pointed out that whatever nominal fee for recycling would be passed on to us and other businesses in the complex would be well worth the priceless impact of helping to protect the environment.

The Board Meeting

I guess I was expecting a big room filled with "audience" members sitting in front of an intimidating panel of board members, sort of like what Kevin Bacon faces in Footloose when he's trying to convince the town its high school students are responsible enough to handle a senior prom. But as it turns out, this board of directors was almost equally suspicious of our ability to handle a recycling program.

Apparently, us "owners" (i.e., businesses in the complex) don't do a very good job of following directions when it comes to waste disposal. Many of the offices are doing inner construction and disposing of the materials in the trash bins, a big no-no. We're also apparently really bad about remembering to keep the gates to the trash bins closed. The board members worried we'd really screw things up if we had another set of directions to follow, questioning our ability or commitment to properly keeping recyclables and trash in their respective bins.

One of the meeting attendees (not sure if he is a board member or not) actually questioned the importance of recycling at all, pointing to the "fact" that recycling requires three times as much energy as simply sending it to a landfill. Fortunately, one of the board members runs an environmental services company. Considering the fact that these recyclables go toward producing new products, he explained, the carbon footprint does not even compare -- recycling is definitely the more eco-friendly option.

I wish I could say all of that were enough to convince the board to "get on board" with office recycling. But what it came down to is this -- instead of costing them more money to implement, a recycling program actually costs them about fifty bucks less per month. (As the environmental guy explained, that's because the waste company is reselling it.)

That said, it was decided to give the recycling program a try and review its progress in three months time.

Office Recycling in Action

That was a little over a week ago. In my office we've already purchased two recycling cans -- one for upstairs, another for downstairs, each with a sign above them detailing what is okay to put in them. There's only 12 of us, so two is plenty, though we are talking about getting individual smaller ones for each of our desks. As for the big recycling bin in the parking lot, it's expected to replace a trash bin any day now.

I never imagined I'd be responsible for instigating such eco-friendly change at work, but it just goes to show that it just takes one person's expression of interest to influence the behavior of many.

Click the following link for more info to start an office recycling program of your own.

IKEA Gives Green a Bad Name: Solar Panels Made in China?

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 23:01:00 +0000

A few months ago I took my first trip to IKEA. I wasn't looking for anything in particular -- just tagging along with my family. I think my mom was looking for lamps. We got there before it opened, and I was shocked at the grand opening-sized crowd, even though I'm certain that store had opened months before.

The big crowd only fueled my excitement. I'd been meaning to check out these Swedish designs for a long time, but up to this point had only seen them in ads. The store displays did not disappoint. From the furniture to the prints to the bamboo plants, I wanted everything ... that is until I saw the sticker my family and I were trying so hard to avoid -- "Made in China."

For one, we were tired of giving China all our manufacturing jobs and money. For another, the quality of their products is generally inferior to those in made in the USA. And most importantly, I'm just not interested in the manufacture of a product I buy contributing to the greenhouse gases in the most polluted place on earth!

So I couldn't help but shake my head when I read this:

"[IKEA] plans to invest some $75 million in a handful of cleantech startups, focusing on the areas of solar energy, lighting, sustainable materials, energy efficiency, and water conservation."

Apparently, they want to offer affordable solar panels in their stores, among other green things.

This kind of hypocrisy is reminiscent of Wal-Mart, a company that boasts about its record sales of compact fluorescent light bulbs so it can illuminate aisle after aisle of products mostly made in China, not to mention the monstrous meat case (the livestock industry emits more greenhouse gases than all forms of transportation combined).

So next time you buy "Made in China," consider this -- exports from China contribute to one-third of its annual greenhouse gas emissions. For those "affordable" products we're buying at IKEA, Wal-Mart and countless other stores around the world, we're costing ourselves the future.

Every week, a new coal plant gets built in China just to meet global demand for manufacturing -- the same kind of coal plants that are being denied left and right here in the States. We don't want coal emissions dirtying up American air, but we PAY to do the same to the air over China -- air that our Olympic athletes are breathing today.

Why do we have so much trouble connecting the dots?

Related posts:

Beijing's Olympic Facade of Greenery: Killing Cats & Kicking Migrant Recyclers Out of Town

Why Gas Costs More: Demand Rising Among China's Middle Class

Beijing's Olympic Facade of Greenery: Killing Cats & Kicking Migrant Recyclers Out of Town

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 23:41:00 +0000

We all know how hard China is working to "sanitize" and "green" Beijing for its summer Olympics. Problem is, China's idea of sanitizing is anything but green.

I was haunted for weeks by the Chinese government's rounding up of stray cats from city streets -- not to humanely euthanize them, but to stack them in tiny cages in a warehouse, one on top of another, and leave them to die. It's their way of "sanitizing" the city of cat diseases that it says could spread disease to humans, but there's nothing humane or "green" about China confining cats with no food or water to die a slow, painful death.

Now Beijing is engaged in a similarly hypocritical, though non-lethal, behavior.

Migrant workers recycle one-quarter of Beijing's trash. But apparently the image of tens of thousands of people rummaging through trash for recyclable items isn't "sanitary." So the Chinese government is kicking these migrant worker recyclers out of town.

In other words, China is eliminating probably the only "green" thing that comes naturally to the most polluted city on earth.

Related posts:

Petition For Media Coverage of Cat Killings In Beijing
Killing Cats In Beijing: The Lies, The Fear, The Olympics

Save On Gas and CO2 Emissions With the Moletech Fuel Saver

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:29:00 +0000

"You don't have a hybrid, do you?" my boss asked the other day. I told her no and she pulled out this little yellow box. "This can save you 20 percent on gas," she said -- something I've been desperate to do since starting full-time and going through a tank of gas a week at $40 to $50 a pop.

So she opens up this box and shows me the Moletech Fuel Saver. It's four small metal tubes with little holes in them -- two that you drop into the gas tank, one that you install in the air intake tubing, and another that gets clamped on to the outside of the top radiator hose. "And it only costs around 200 bucks," she added.

The reason she was show-and-telling this around the office instead of installing it into her own vehicle is that after ordering it she learned that it won't work for her Hummer. Well, it will but installing the fuel sensors would mean a BIG bill from the mechanic for installing it in her Hummer -- presumably a much more complex procedure than Moletech installation in regular cars, like my Toyota Corolla.

This Hummer of hers is currently costing around $135 to fill up the tank, and she goes through a about a tank every single week. Trading it in would mean paying someone to take it off her hands since no one is beating down any doors for these gas guzzlers. So she's planning on parking it and hoping the technology is developed soon for for converting Hummers into my eco-friendly means of transport (eco-logically and eco-nomically).

I just checked out the website for more info on how this technology works. I'd try stating it in my own words, but that would take much longer than I'd planned on devoting to this post. So here it is verbatim from the site:

"The Moletech Fuel Saver has the ability to change three areas within the spectrum of gasoline by absorbing the CH (Benzene) of saturated and unsaturated hydrocarbon. According to the university research papers, the ceramics absorb the thermal energy from their surrounding environment then release it in a specific wavelength, breaking the intermolecular van der Waals force (the force that binds molecules) between the gasoline molecules. This results in the change of aggregation of gasoline molecules from 'cluster' to 'single molecule'. This changes several properties of the gasoline, such as surface tension and flash point. The surface tension is decreased, resulting in better atomization (smaller droplets) of the fuel, which provides a greater surface area to make contact with air, leading to far greater fuel efficiency. This in turn increases horsepower, reduces fuel consumption, reduces carbon build-up and reduces toxic and greenhouse exhaust emissions."

Click this link to learn more about Moletech Fuel Saver at moletech.com.

Related Post: Why Gas Costs More: Demand Rising Among China's Middle Class

Why Gas Costs More: Demand Rising Among China's Middle Class

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 19:35:00 +0000

I recently took a full-time writing job 35 miles away from my house. I drive a Toyota Corolla, which gets 32 mpg in the city and 40 mpg on the highway. So far, it looks like getting me there five days a week costs about 40 bucks. But that's paying for gas at less than $3.90. I've heard rumors it could go as high as $6 a gallon before the end of the year! And the way gas prices have been rising so steadily, it doesn't sound too far-fetched.

You can't help but wonder -- what gives?

Today I found out from NPR's interview with Salon.com staff writer Andrew Leonard. In "What Accounts for the Spike in Gas prices," Leonard lays it on the line. (And no, it has nothing to do with George Bush.)

Essentially, four factors are worked into the price of gas:

1) The cost of crude oil
2) The cost of refining crude oil into gasoline
3) The cost of getting the gas from the refinery to the local filling stations
4) The cost of excise and sales taxes

And of these four factors, it's the cost of crude oil that accounts for most -- 75 percent of the total cost of gas!

So why is crude oil so expensive?

It's a simple matter of supply and demand.

In recent years, the middle class in China has reached a point where they can afford cars, and the gas that goes in them. The same is true in Brazil and India, just on a smaller scale. That's billions more people wanting the same gas we do while, at the same time, the supply of gas is stagnant.

What that tells me is that rising gas prices are here to stay. As populations and their economies grow, so will their driving. It's doubtful that the supply of crude oil is going to rise, and even if it does for a time, we all know it's destined to run dry.

I love my Toyota Corolla, but next time I buy a new car, it's going to be electric. My first pick -- the 2009 Tesla Roadster. Sure it's $109,000, but I like to dream big.

The Rising Price of Electricity: Coal, Cost and Conservation

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Sat, 17 May 2008 00:26:00 +0000

I write fundraising letters for non-profits and for the past few weeks have been drafting pieces explaining to donors about the impact of the rising cost of electricity. These charitable organizations have already been hit hard by the struggling economy. Gifts are down, and they'll fall even further when summer hits, as they always do.

Now with the rising price of coal, electricity is going up. For one domestic violence shelter I write for, that's going to mean several thousand dollars more on their electric bill than for the same time period last year.

Yesterday I received a notice in the mail about the rising cost of electricity. Not from non-profits I support, but from my electric company. The Salt River Project (SRP) here in Arizona sent out letters this week explaining to residents how our electric bills are going to change in the coming months.

"As SRP faces higher costs to continue providing you reliable service," they write, "unfortunely, we need to increase prices, effective May 1."

(Incidentally, I got this notice on the 15th. A letter received before the increase date would seem appropriate, but I guess since I have no other choice for electricity in this area, they feel like they can let me know whenever they please.)

So in May, the price went up by 3.9 percent. In July and August, that increase will jump to 9.5 percent.

SRP did a breakdown for me based on how much electricity I used May through October of last year. Theoretically, if I use the same amount, the increased cost of electricity I'm paying (over that six-month period) will be a total of $99 more.

It doesn't sound like much, but when you have a summer electric bill of close to $300 (quite common here in Arizona), every dollar counts.

To SRP's credit, they're constantly encouraging us to conserve -- from weather-proofing our homes to replacing incandescent light bulbs with CFL's. And coal isn't the only resource SRP relies on -- solar, wind, geothermal and hydropower are all part their Earthwise Energy program.

If you're concerned about paying higher electricity prices in your part of the world this summer, check out this link on how to conserve.

Go Green Yourself: Green Fatigue & the Myth of Water Conservation in the Desert

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Wed, 07 May 2008 22:37:00 +0000

I don't usually read the Phoenix New Times, but last month this cover caught my eye, and I knew I'd be blogging about it. Not because it pissed me off, but because I sympathized. I'm the greenest person I know, with two "green" blogs and a "green" website and all the "green" advice my family and friends could ever want (or not want) to know.

Frankly, sometimes I get sick of myself.

But the series of articles in this paper's "Green Fatigue" feature was about more than green-overload. It was about discrediting the Green Movement itself, at least here in Phoenix:

"This week, we made the ultimate sacrifice: Our writers put on their thinking caps, got out their calculators, and told the true stories about what it really means to be green in this corner of the desert....

"The most inconvient truth of all, it turns out, is this: the Green Movement might make you feel warm and fuzzy, but it won't stop global warming."

Of course, I was skeptical that there would be anything within its pages to convince me of such a bold statment. And I was almost right.

As I learned in "Waterlogged" by Megan Irwin, as much water as I try to conserve here in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area, it makes no difference except to my pocketbook.

"Because of the way water rights work, we can't share our water," writes Irwin. "We can use it, or it can sit there until it evaporates."

Problem is, we're not using it fast enough. That's right. I said it. And the leftover water is literally going to waste:

"We had to let water go down the drain this past winter. The system that supplies water to the Valley, run by the Salt River Project [SRP], was actually too full. Throughout the first three months of 2008, SRP released enough water from its reservoir system to supply a Phoenix household for a year."

If only I could have been there with my buckets. But wait -- I don't have to conserve anymore, do I? Old habits do die hard.

What really sucks is that if we were allowed to share our water, other parts of Arizona could have really used it, Strawberry, Pine and Payson among them.

None of this sits well with any of us, which is why the Arizona Department of Revenue and SRP are investing in "water banking." Instead of dumping excess water with nowhere to go, we'd pump it into underground aquifers instead, essentially storing it until we need it.

As I said, old habits die hard. I can't explain the psychology, but since reading this article, I've actually started conserving water even more.

It takes forever for my water to get hot in the bathroom. So I've started sticking a pitcher under the sink and a bucket in the bathtub to catch what would otherwise go down the drain. As it turns it out, my water takes 2.5 gallons to get hot!

I do dump the water, but onto my outdoor plants -- plants that otherwise wouldn't get watered much at all. My water usage is the same. My bill is the same. But at least here in the desert, I have lush, green plants.

My Brush With Greenpeace: Strangers, Secrets & Spies

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:39:00 +0000

A few weeks ago I was being considered for a field organizer position for Greenpeace's Project Hot Seat campaign. During the first round of interviews, I spoke by phone with a field organizer from another state.

In sharing with me the mission and background of Greenpeace, my interviewer also alluded to some of their clandestine operations -- specifically the "Wiping away ancient forests" message found by consumers in some Kleenex boxes. Though she didn't admit that Greenpeace was directly involved, that was certainly the implication. And she outright told me that Greenpeace staff members had been able to access a computer of some corporation (it may have been Kimberly-Clark, which makes Kleenex), and replace an existing PowerPoint presentation with one of their own.

I remember feeling excited about these clandestine operations, but also reluctant. I respect Greenpeace for their work, but questioned whether I would personally feel comfortable being involved in those kind of tactics.

Though I debated over whether or not to share this information here in my blog, it occurred to me. If Greenpeace didn't want this notoriety, they wouldn't have shared it with me -- a stranger whose true intentions they had no way of verifying -- a stranger who could have been a spy.

It's been reported in Mother Jones Magazine that in the late 90's through 2000, a group of former Secret Service Agents spied on Greenpeace and other environmental organizations:

"This security outfit [Beckett Brown International (BBI)] collected confidential internal records," writes article author James Ridgeway, including "donor lists, detailed financial statements, the Social Security numbers of staff members [and] strategy memos."

They also collected phone records of activists and tried planting spies inside the organizations.

BBI would then put all this information together into "intelligence reports for public relations firms and major corporations involved in environmental controversies. "

I don't know which I'd feel weirder about -- performing clandestine activities or being the subject of them. I guess I'll never know. Though I made it through the first round of interviews, the questions were much tougher in the second round. As a writer, I have all the time in the world to formulate my thoughts. During my phone interview, I didn't have that luxury.

As a Greenpeace field organizer -- whether you're staging a public rally for the cause or a secret mission against the opposition -- you need to be able to think fast on your feet. Maybe I'm just better-suited to thinking leisurely here in my seat, with the luxury of questioning the tactics on both sides.

Greening at the Speed of Light: Phoenix to Unveil METRO Light Rail System

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 18:28:00 +0000

I live in the suburbs of Phoenix and work from home, so I rarely experience the congestion downown. Yet, no matter where you live in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area, if you look off in the distance toward the mountains that surround this valley, you can almost always see a haze in the air. Get close enough to downtown Phoenix, and that haze thickens into a light brown cloud.

We have High Pollution Advisory days now and then, advising limited outdoor activity, especially for those with asthma and other respiratory conditions.

Four years ago, Phoenix began construction on part of the solution.

The Phoenix METRO light rail system is 20 miles of steel rails with cars that will run on electricity from overhead wires, in a lane separated from traffic. It will connect central Phoenix to Tempe (big college town), Mesa (biggest suburb in the country, and also my home) and the airport. They started construction four years ago, and it's scheduled for completion by December 2008.

Though getting around downtown during this construction period has been a real headache for drivers, once it's finished it has the potential to take thousands of cars off the road -- the Phoenix METRO light rail system can carry 3,000 to 5,000 passengers an hour!

Of course, the key to it all is getting the public to ride it. The cost is comparable to riding the bus -- $1.25 per ride. It runs 20 hours a day, 7 days a week -- arriving at each station every 10 minutes during the day, and every 20 minutes nights, weekends and holidays.

The Phoenix METRO light rail system is a smooth, quiet ride, with air-conditioning, tinted windows, security cameras, bike racks, wheelchair accessibility, intercoms for passengers to talk to the light rail operators, and the cars are flush with the street for quick and easy on-and-off access.

There is a downside, though, when it comes to the Phoenix METRO light rail system's carbon footprint. Though more than half of the parts for the light rail vehicles are American-made, they're being manufactured in Japan. That means long, carbon-emitting trips back and forth -- delivering parts to Japan, and them delivering the final product to us.

As part of the public outreach campaign, there's a free-ride weekend on the Phoenix METRO light rail system the weekend of December 27th and 28th. I'll plan a trip and report back on the experience.

Click this link to learn more about light rail. Click this link to learn more about the Phoenix METRO light rail system.

Related blog posts: Essential Skill #36: Decongest Downtown, from Living the Live Earth Pledge's blog series on The Live Earth Global Warming Survival Handbook.

Melting Before Our Eyes: Antarctica, Wilkins Ice Shelf Collapse and Global Warming

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:38:00 +0000

It's the fastest warming place on earth, and it's melting before our eyes.

The Antarctic Peninsula is 160-square miles smaller today. A piece of ice seven times the size of Manhattan has fallen off the Wilkins ice shelf in the western Antarctic Peninsula. Scientists first noticed a change in the ice on February 28, and it took less than one month for it to fall off into the ocean.

As explained on Wikipedia, "an ice shelf is a thick, floating platform of ice that forms where a glacier or ice sheet flows down to a coastline and onto the ocean surface." Antarctica is one of only three places in the world where ice shelves exist, the others being Greenland and Canada.

Ice shelves collapse when cracks fill up with water, then slice off and topple into the ocean.

The British Anarctic Survey calls this collapse a sure sign of global warming.

What's worse is that the rest of Wilkins ice sheet is barely holding on, supported by one thin beam of ice. At 5,000-square miles -- or about the size of the state of Connecticutt -- the collapse of the entire ice sheet would be devastating. Scientists predict it though -- some within 15 years, others as soon as 2011.

Click this link for a read the CNN article on the ice shelf collapse in Antarctica.

Campaigning for the Job: My Continuing Candidacy for Greenpeace's Project Hot Seat

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:49:00 +0000

Greenpeace is hiring field organizers for its Project Hot Seat campaign, and I just finished my second phone interview for the job.

It's an interview process unlike any I've gone through before.

First I had a 30-minute phone interview with Sara Lee who's been working as a Project Hot Seat field organizer in South Dakota for about a year now doing what I would be doing here in Arizona -- putting pressure on Congress to support legislation to help stop global warming.

My second 45-minute phone interview today was with Diana, who manages the Project Hot Seat field organizers here on the West Coast. I'll find out within a week whether I make it to the final round -- an in-person interview in San Francisco. Those who make "the cut" go back to San Francisco for two weeks of training before heading out into the field to recruit volunteers, organize events and keep everyone focused on the goal.

Though I've worked on grassroots campaigns before, I've never led one. Greenpeace doesn't seem to mind though, interested more in my passion, personality and ideas than my resume, though I suspect my experience creating fundraising campaigns for non-profits is what got my foot in the door.

As honored as I'd be to work for Greenpeace, what's honestly more important to me is that they find the strongest candidate for the job. If that's me, I'm thrilled. If not, I'll be the first to sign me on as a volunteer for the Project Hot Seat campaign here in my home state of Arizona. No doubt it's going to be an uphill battle. Jon Kyl is one of my Senators, considered one of the most conservative Senators in the country, with a voting record to prove it.

Just last year, Arizona Senator Jon Kyl voted no on factoring global warming into federal project planning and no on getting rid of oil and gas exploration subsidies.

Three of Arizona's House Representative look to be a big challenge as well. John Shadegg, Trent Franks and Jeff Flake all voted no on getting rid of oil and gas exploration subsides, yes on new oil refineries and no on homegrown biofuel.

Fortunately, four other represenatives have notably green-leading voting records, including Ed Pastor, Harry Mitchell, Raul Grijalva and Gabby Giffords. Incidentally, Diana told me today in the interiew that Greenpeace is in talks with Gabby Giffords asking for her support of the Safe Climate Act, which is the legislation that Project Hot Seat will pressure all of Congress to support.

When passed, the Safe Climate Act will call for:

A national cap-and-trade system on industry emissions
20% of our energy from renewable sources by 2020
Increase in fuel-efficiency standards to 40 mpg

So how does Greenpeace plan to apply this pressure? Reaching out to constituents with the facts. We've got to stop global warming now and we need legislation to do it. Our representatives in Congress work for us. Let's show and tell them what we want -- through rallies, the media, letters, emails and phone calls so plentiful that they cannot be ignored

Ten Arizona mayors have signed the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. Since most of the U.S. mayors who signed the agreement have yet to follow through (see my Cool Cities Not So Cool? post), Project Hot Seat seems the ideal opportunity to pressure them into doing what they've already promised -- not only striving to meet Kyoto Protocol targets in their communities, but also urging their state leaders to support the kind of policies necessary to curb emissions.

From mayors to mothers, it's going to take all of us to convince Congress of the kind of urgent action necessary to stop global warming before it's too late. If you'd like to help, please click this link to get involved in Project Hot Seat in your community.

Related Blog Post: Project Hot Seat: Greenpeace, Congress & Me

Project Hot Seat: Greenpeace, Congress & Me

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 00:20:00 +0000

I thought it was a just a childhood fantasy, but now it's a dream come true. Tomorrow I have an interview with Greenpeace! They're hiring field organizers all over the country to build a base of support for Project Hot Seat -- putting pressure on Congress to draft, support and pass legislation to help stop global warming before it's too late.

Going into this year's elections, it looked like we had the momentum for global warming to be a big issue. Both Obama and Clinton are serious about addressing climate change, as they've made evident in all of the speeches I've heard. Granted, it's a sentence or two out of hundreds, but at least it's there. As for McCain, he went into the election talking tough on climate but then seemed to shy away from it, never mentioniong it any of the speeches I heard -- that is until he was the presumptive nominee. I guess then he didn't have to worry about making his most conservative supporters nervous by focusing too much on what they view as a left-wing issue. What's worse though is that McCain wants to agressively pursue nuclear energy despite the danger of nuclear waste that stays radioactive for up to 1,000 years.

The lack of focus on global warming in the 2008 elections thus far as been blamed on the media -- reporters aren't asking about it on the campaign trail and moderators aren't asking about it in the debates.

Greenpeace is taking matters into their own hands with Project Hot Seat.

The government works for us and we want them to work on the environment. American citizens are making the effort -- recycling, changing light bulbs, conserving more on water and electricity, investing in solar panels, buying locally-produced organic food, offsetting our carbon emissions with carbon credits, and the list of eco-friendlier living goes on and on. Now it's time for the American goverment to step up to the plate.

Project Hot Seat will demand of Congress:

A national cap-and-trade system on industry emissions
20% of our energy from renewable sources by 2020
Increase in fuel-efficiency standards to 40 mpg
No more subsidies for Big Oil

If you too want to help make global warming a hot issue in the 2008 elections, check out this link to get involved in Project Hot Seat in your community.

Utility Companies Get Wise to Renewable Energy

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 01:02:00 +0000

A few months ago, I blogged about how to get "green power" from your utility company for my Living the Live Earth Pledge blog. I learned something too, surprised to find that I was already getting it from my own Arizona electric company -- Salt River Project (SRP) -- in the form of solar, wind, landfill gas generation, hydroelectric and geothermal. The only difference now is that I signed up for the SRP EarthWise Energy program, through which I pay an extra $3 every month to to help generate even more renewable energy, with every dollar going toward the installation of additional solar panels for my electric company to use.

I guess signing up for the EarthWise program automatically subscribed me to "SRP Environmental News," a 4-page, 4-color newsletter I got in the mail the other day. (Incidentally, it says it's printed on recycled paper, but makes no mention of soy-based inks.)

Trees for Change is the top story in this winter edition. For another $3 a month, I can help plant Ponderosa pine seedlings in an area of Arizona where the trees were destroyed by wildfire more than five years ago. For every dollar I contribute, SRP will match it. They'll do the same for every other customer up to $80,000 a year.

Here's putting it into perspective.

With me donating $3 a month and SRP matching it, I'll be directly responsible for planting 72 trees in over the course of one year! "These 72 trees," states SRP, "will have sequestered enough carbon dioxide to offset the annual electricity usage of 26 average U.S. households."

Does your utility company get some of its electricity from renewable resources? If you don't know, find out by visiting their website or calling customer service. And if they don't offer it, tell them you want it. SRP says it was customer demand for renewable energy through which their EarthWise Energy program was born.

Click this link to learn more about renewable energy. And by no means exhaustive, check out this list of some green-powered utility companies in the US. Incidentally, SRP isn't listed so I've emailed a note to the administrator requesting that it be added. If your green utility company isn't on the list, you may want to do the same.

One Crafty Way of Recycling

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 23:40:00 +0000

I started collecting carboard toilet paper rolls in recent months. Not because I have some interest in hoarding odd household discards, but because I wanted to do something creative with them. They're one of those materials that just lend themselves perfectly to craft projects and I felt guilty throwing them out. What I wasn't prepared for was how quickly they piled up. By the time they took over one-third of my closet, I knew it was time to stop. So while all my "new" toilet paper rolls go straight into recycle now, my collectibles are sitting in trash bags waiting on their final calling.

Probably because it's the only way I'll stop procrastinating this project, I have committed to writing a How To article for eHow.com on How To Make a Toilet Paper Roll Collage. Yes, I'm one of those people who only makes time for fun craft projects if I can find a way to turn it into work. My vision is this -- cover each toilet paper roll with pictures and words from magazines then glue them together into a canvas. of sorts, to create a creative, colorful collage for my wall.

As it always is with synchronicity, it came just when I needed it. Last week in Tucson, I picked up a copy of Tucson Green Magazine. In it, writer Tim Hull shares his interview with green crafter Regina Lord.

"Going to the mall makes me a little sick," says Regina. "I don't like seeing all that over-consumption. Most people have enough, so why pile up more and more new stuff? You'd be amazed at all the old cool stuff that's out there just waiting to be found."

You can find Regina's crafts on her website, CreativeKismet.com. I do not know her and there's no strings attached to this endorsement. She's just a talented crafter whose story inspires me and I want work like hers to do well. (A Google search for environmental art also turned up JohnDahlsen.com.)

"It takes a person who really wants to make a difference," says Regina of green crafting. "It's not easy, going to thrift stores, searching for ideas; it takes a lot of time and effort, but it's really fulfilling.

Want to try green crafting for yourself? Check out Make-Stuff.com for ideas.

Losing Trust In John McCain: A Green Point of View

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 01:15:00 +0000

Just yesterday in "An Independent Take On Super Tuesday " for The Freelance Observer, I blogged about why I prefer John McCain over the other Republicans (if I had to choose) -- because you get the feeling that he's telling you the truth. To quote myself, which I don't do nearly often enough, "He's one of those people who you feel like you can trust."

Sure, I wish McCain had mentioned the environment in his speech after his wins on Super Tuesday, but I consoled myself: We know where he stands on the issue, he's just not putting it out there right now for scrutiny by the skeptics in the Republic party, whose votes he needs to get nominated. John McCain will be there for the environment when it counts.

Then bouncing through the blogosphere last night, I discovered this headline "McCain a No-Show on Clean Energy. Again." in David Sassoon's blog over at SolveClimate.com. Turns out McCain didn't show up to vote on the Senate's version of the economic stimulus bill. It included the rebates that the House had already approved (you can read what I think about those here), but with some eco-friendly add-ons, like more green jobs in the marketplace and renewable energy incentives.

Not only did the this greener version of the bill not pass, but it lost by only one vote. My Arizona Senator Jon Kyl is quoted just about everywhere as saying McCain's presence wouldn't have mattered anyway (i.e., he would have voted against it). Instead of having to make that decision, McCain apparently decided indecision was the safest route to go. This inaction on the part of McCain worries me because this is no isolated incident of his absence on the Senate floor.

Turns out my other Arizona Senator, John McCain, has missed all eight Senate roll call votes this year. Though I've read no official statement from him since all this scrutiny of McCain's absence, note this quote from the Associated Press article: "Asked Wednesday morning to comment on the pending vote, McCain talked about the need to pass a stimulus measure quickly. Later, on his plane, he said he was not sure he would make the vote."

Yet the most striking string of words in the article are McCain's himself:

"I haven't had a chance to talk about it at all, have not had the opportunity to, even," McCain said. "We've just been too busy, focused on other stuff. I don't know if I'm doing that. We've got a couple of meetings scheduled."

If John McCain is too focused on other stuff to be bothered with environment policy now -- as a Senator -- what's to lead us to believe that we can trust him to act any differently if he lands the job as President of the United States, (arguably perhaps) the most demanding job in the free world?

Cool Cities Not So Cool?

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:41:00 +0000

A couple of weeks ago, I highlighted the Sierra Club's "Cool Cities" initiative as the Live Earth Leader of the Week at Living Live Earth. Cities considered "cool" are those whose mayors have signed the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement -- a non-binding pact among them to follow the Kyoto Protocol that our own federal government rejected.

In researching Cool Cities, I was pleased to see that my own hometown of Phoenix, Arizona is one of them. What I wasn't thrilled to see was a link that read: "be the first to sign up as an activist in this city and help the mayor follow through on his or her commitment."

As intimidated as I was by the thought of becoming the first (and presumably only) Cool Cities activist in Phoenix, I signed up anyway. If I'm asking Living Live Earth readers to get involved, I better be willing to do the same, and was shocked that no one else had taken the initiative.

Considering how high-profile the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement has been in recent months, I expected a response to my email almost immediately. Surely they'd be overcome with excitement that a concerned citizen like me had finally signed on to help push the mayor, Phil Gordon, into adopting the changes he'd "promised."

Wrong.

It's been at least two weeks since I emailed Cool Cities about becoming an activist in my area, and I have yet to receive a response. I forgot all about it until I read this headline in one of my Grist newsletters last week:

"Not in a Bind: Mayoral climate-protecting agreement hasn't necessarily translated into action."

The article cites the failure of the mayors themselves, but as the Cool Cities initiative states, the real action should come from community members pushing our leaders to follow through:

"Your campaign may ask for a carbon inventory and creation of a climate action plan," reads the Cool Cities website. "You might ask for the creation of a citizen task force, or you may have determined that your next step is to push for a specific policy in green buildings, green fleets, or renewable energy."

In other words, it's up to the citizens of member cities to not only hold our mayors responsible for their promises, but also to tell them what we want and why so they know what to do. Of course, it doesn't help when the infrastructure for a plan of action breaks down.

Though I wrote Cool Cities at least two weeks ago and said I'd do it, the Phoenix profile still reads "be the first to sign up as an activist in this city." So now I've taken a different approach, by "joining the campaign" on the "Get Involved" page. I received an email urging me to, among other things, sign up as the team lead for my city if there isn't one already. I'll try again and report back with my findings.

Getting Over Oil: Lester Brown's Plan B

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 23:40:00 +0000

Oil production has either reached its peak or will very soon. That's according to Earth Policy Institute President Lester Brown and author of Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization. Brown explained the implications to Ira Flatow on today's NPR Talk of the Nation: Science Friday.

With world oil production at its peak, that means no state can increase their consumption of oil unless another state decreases theirs. The problem is this: of the world's top 20 "failing states," 17 of them are increasing their populations by 2 to 3 percent every year. At that rate, these populations will grow twenty-fold in a century's time. It stands to reason, then, that energy needs will increase at the same rate.

Obviously, the response to a decrease in oil production and increase in population growth is the development of renewable energy techonologies to close the gap. One would think a post-Kyoto treaty, like that discussed by world leaders during December's climate change conference in Bali, would help lay the groundwork for the necessary renewable energy technologies. But Brown doubts change can come soon enough through a treaty that won't be ratified for years.

Instead of the mandatory goals and actions associated with a post-Kyoto treaty, Brown says the kind of change we need to see will come from the kind of voluntary steps already being taken by countries like the Netherlands, Iceland and Germany. Brown also mentions California, the state that leads several others (my home state of Arizona included) in a lawsuit against the U.S. government. The feds denied California the waiver it needs to impose stricter regulations on vehicle emissions than that required by federal law.

Brown also reiterates what many critics have said of the ethanol industry. Corn as food and corn as fuel are competing against each other. Those in the corn industry are going to sell their product to the highest bidder and, considering the increasing demand for ethanol all over the world, it's clear that corn as food is losing out. Though most of us could probably live just fine without ever eating another kernel, its widespread use as feed for livestock seems to be the biggest concern. (Just one more reason for a healthy vegan diet!)

If you'd like to learn more about Lester Brown's plan for sustainability, check out this link to his website for an overview of Plan B 3.0.

Investigating Carbon Offsets: The FTC and You

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 00:07:00 +0000

Even if you've never purchased carbon offsets you've probably heard all about them, both good and bad. The "good" is that it's a way for you to offset your own carbon dioxide emissions -- from electricity, driving, etc. -- by investing in carbon reduction projects. The "bad" is that these carbon credits may discourage people from reducing their carbon-polluting ways because they can just buy their way out and make themselves "carbon neutral."

As someone who is intrigued by, and supportive of, the carbon offset concept, I was interested to learn from National Public Radio today that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is launching an investigation into the carbon credit business. They want to be sure consumers are getting what they pay for through this $100 million dollar a year industry.

Though a spokesperson for the FTC says they're not presuming there are any fraudulent practices going on within the carbon credit business as of yet, he says the potential is there and precautions are necessary.

The FTC seems to have two primary concerns:

1) Double-selling, which would mean the credit for a carbon reduction project is sold to more than one buyer.
2) Whether the carbon reduction project would have happened anyway. If so, then your purchase of the credit isn't really making any difference.

But you need not wait until the FTC finishes its investigation to buy your next (or your first) carbon credits. You need only do a little investigating of you own, and I'd like to recommond an article I wrote just last week for eHow.com -- "How To Buy Carbon Credits." I break it down into six easy-to-follow steps, including the types of carbon reduction projects you can invest in and how to choose the right carbon credit provider for you.

Summary of the Summary: A Breakdown of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Tue, 20 Nov 2007 00:15:00 +0000

If there's one thing our current climate needs, it's the unbiased information we can depend on from the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC), founded in 1990 to gather and analyze all available scientific research on climate change.

In 2007, the IPCC released its fourth assessment report in three separate installments. Now they've condensed these findings into one "Summary for Policymakers of the Synthesis Report of the IPCC Fourth Assessement Report."

Though a summary, it's still an intimidating 25 pages. Yet, everyone on the planet needs to know what's in this report, which inspired this "Summary of the Summary."

1. Observed changes in climate and their effects

Scientists know global warming is happening because of the following observational evidence:
- Increases in global average air and ocean temperatures
- Widespread melting of snow and ice
- Rising global average sea level

Other observations likely linked to global warming are:
- Increased precipitation in some areas, increased drought in others
- More hot days and nights that cold ones
- Increased frequency of heat waves
- Increased intensity of tropical cyclone activity

We've already seen the effects on natural systems, such as the warming of lakes and rivers, ground instability in permafrost regions and shifts in plant and animal ranges. We've also seen life-altering effects, such as the dying of coral reefs, heat-related human deaths and changes in infectious diseases.

2. Causes of change

The report cites four "changes in atmospheric concentrations" that "alter the energy balance of the climate system." They are 1) land-cover, 2) solar radiation, and increases in 3) aerosols and, yes, 4) greenhouse gases.

Anyone who doubts that industrialized human activities are causing global warming need only consider this:

Between 1970 and 2004, human-produced greenhouse gas emissions rose by 70%! The biggest climate change offender -- carbon dioxide (CO2) -- went up 80% during that same time period.

Now let's put that into perspective.

"Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 ... in 2005 exceed by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years."

3. Projected climate change and its impacts

If we do not take immediate, dramatic action to find more sustainable ways of creating energy, then greenhouse gas emissions are only going to grow. At this rate -- continuing to use fossil fuels as our main energy source -- greenhouse gases in our environment are estimated to increase by 25-90% between now and 2030!

By region, here's some of what we can expect in:

Africa -- Increased water stress; 50% reduction in yield from rain-fed agriculture; sea-level rise in highly populated coastal areas.

Asia -- Decrease in fresh water availability; increased flooding from the sea; disease associated with floods and drought.

Australia and New Zealand -- Loss of biodiversity, such as in the Great Barrier Reef; water insecurity; decrease in crop and forest production; and coastal flooding.

Europe -- Increased risk of inland flash floods; more frequent coasting flooding; increased health risks from heat waves and wildfires. In mountainous areas, glacier retreat; reduced snow cover and winter tourism; and extensive species loss. In southern Europe, reduction in water availability and crop productivity.

Latin America -- Signficant species extinction; decrease in crop productivity and food security; decrease in availability of drinking water.

North America -- Decreased snow packs and more winter flooding in western mountains; increased intensity of heat waves and stress on coastal communities.

Polar Regions -- Detrimental impact on animals due to thinning glaciers and ice sheets; detrimental impact on human ability to continue their indigenous ways of life.

Small Islands -- Storm surge and erosion from sea-level rise; deterioriation of coastal conditions; erosion of beaches and coral bleaching; reduction in fresh water availability; increased invasion of non-native species.

Affecting every region, though, is the melting of Greenland's ice sheet. The predictions for it are "virtually complete elimination," which will result in a sea-level rise of 7 meters.

Also affecting many regions is the increased threat of extinction to an additional 20 to 30% of species.

4. Adaptation and mitigation options

To adapt to, and mitigate, climate change, we must incorporate sustainable practices into every sector of our lives, most of which will benefit from international cooperation.

Energy Supply Sector -- Supply and distribution efficiency; hydropower, solar, wind, geothermal and bioenergy sources; Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage; reduction of fossil fuel subsidies, taxes or carbon charges on fossil fuels.

Transport Sector -- More fuel-efficient vehicles and hybrids; biofuels; public transportation; mandatory fuel economy, biofuel blending and CO2 standards.

Buildings Sector -- Efficient lighting and daylighting; appliance standards and labels; improved cook stoves; solar heating and cooling; building codes and certification; incentives for energy service companies.

Industry Sector -- More efficient end-use electrical equipment; material recycling and substitution; performance standards, subsidies and tax credits.

Agriculture Sector -- Improved crop and grazing land management to increase soil carbon storage; improved rice cultivation techniques and livestock and manure management; financial incentives and regulations; efficient use of fertilizers and irrigation.

Forestry Sector -- Reduced deforestation; reforestation; harvested wood produce management; financial incentives.

Waste Sector -- Landfill CH4 recovery; waste incineration with energy recovery; composting of organic waste; controlled waste water treatment; financial incentives; waste management regulations.

5. The long-term perspective

Most of the information in this section touches on the points already made in the sections above. Worth nothing, though, is the monetary cost of climate change.

The cost in 2005, for example, was an average of US$12 per ton of carbon dioxide.

"Choices about the scale and timing of greenhouse gas mitigation involve balancing the economic costs of more rapid emission reductions now against the corresponding medium-term and long-term climate risks of delay."

To read the full report, which includes many graphs and tables, click this link to the PDF document of "Summary for Policymakers of the Synthesis Report of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report." For more information about the IPCC, click this link to the IPCC website.

Waveyard Wasting Water In Arizona Desert

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:15:00 +0000

I live in Arizona, the home of a 12-year drought. Yet just last week, my hometown of Mesa, Arizona, gave 65% "yes" votes to the construction of Waveyard, a new $250 million water park.

As inexplicable as at it seems, it's clear to me why Waveyard passed.

The Entertainment Value
Waveyard is a water park that developers call the "first adventure super-park and adrenaline cocktail," featuring a white-water river for floating, a wave pool for swimming and surfing, a lagoon for scuba diving and snorkeling, an indoor water park, retail shops, restaurants and resort amenities.

The Press
Local news coverage included a front page article in The Arizona Republic -- our paper of widest circulation --that justified the water usage like this:

"City officials estimate the water use would be roughly the amount needed for the annual upkeep of an 18-hole golf course -- like those that abound in the East Valley. An average Arizona golf course uses about 144 million gallons of water per year. Waveyard park's water features would use up to 50 million gallons to fill and 100 million gallons annually to replenish after evaporation and spillover."

The Money
The City of Mesa will sell a 120-acre property to the Waveyard developers for $30 million. They'll pay $10 million up front (which will be used to relocate the ballparks currently on the property), and another $2 million every year for the next 10 years.

The Campaign

For weeks, maybe months, roadside signs plastered all over town urged me to "Bring the Waveyard to Mesa" by voting yes on proposition 300. I never saw a single sign urging me to vote no, and even when I searched online, I was found no organized opposition.

What sealed the deal, though, is that proposition 300 was the only thing on our November 6th ballot. Voting yes or no on a water park isn't much of an incentive to get many registered voters to the polls. Unless, of course, you're strongly in favor of it, or strongly opposed, and with no public opposition it's pretty clear why the majority ruled as it did.

To be fair, there was a time when I entertained the idea of voting yes myself, especially after I saw the artist's rendering on the front page of the paper that made the Waveyard look like the kind of fun, bustling water park you might see on the strip in Vegas.

But the biggest reason I considered a yes vote is that I'd heard the water for Waveyard would be coming from a city well that has never been pumped into the public water supply anyway because of high arsenic levels.

What changed my mind from yes to no?

The drought in the Southeast, where the severity of drought conditions surprised them, and they're paying dearly for it.

Sure, our water supply in Arizona -- despite the drought -- is holding steady. Our governor has asked us to conserve, but there's certainly no sense of urgency about it. We've proven our water supply can do just fine under drought conditions, so what's there to worry about?

It's going to get worse.

Arizona is a sub-tropic climate, in which the atmosphere takes our moisture and carries it somewhere else. Greenhouse gas emissions are only going to make the air hotter. And hotter it is, the more moisture it can hold and carry out of the region.

It's no surprise to scientists. According to a recent study, human-caused global warming is forcing Arizona into another 90 years of perpetual drought.

We may not need that Mesa city well water now, but who's to say we won't 25 or 50 years in the future. Sure, there's arsenic in the water now, but that can be removed as the Waveyard developers are well aware -- they have to treat the water to make it safe enough for people to be in it and, presumably, for them to ingest as we all tend to do during water sports, especially children.

Instead of dumping it into an amusement, isn't water in the desert something we should be saving up in reservoirs for emergency water needs in the future?

What is China Doing Right?

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 01:09:00 +0000

This blog was inspired by Blog Action Day.

I recently mentioned to my brother that China was making some environmentally-friendly changes. He laughed at me the way he and my mother tend to do when they assume I have no credible knowledge of current events. "They're the biggest polluters on the planet," he said. I wish I'd had the stories about China in front of me that I've covered for Living Live Earth in recent weeks.

Reward Encourages Chinese Cities to Go Green (any Chinese city that drops off the country’s “10 worst polluters” list gets 2 million yuan, the equivalent of $263,800).
Beijing Tries 4-Day Vehicle Ban (during this four-day trial, vehicles with license planes ending in even numbers were banned from the roads one day, with odd-numbered plate banned the next).
China Ups the Ante On Global Warming (they're investing $925 million into energy efficiency for 50 million CFL’s … alterations to boilers … the development of oil substitutes and more).
China Moving Away From Corn-Based Ethanol (a move intended to protect land needed for food crops, and to avoid food price inflation).
China Phasing Out Incandescent Light Bulbs (a big announcement for the world's largest light bulb manufacturer).

Then there's the headline that sticks out like a sore thumb:

China’s Coal a Hard Habit To Break (the country is dependent on coal for 70% of its energy, compared to the 30% worldwide average).

Most say regulatory limits are the answer, for China and other developing nations.

At least two people disagree.

In an essay entitled "Environmentalism's Existential Moment," the authors of Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibilty say this:

"Developing nations like China will not sacrifice their economic growth to reduce its emissions.... There is no reason to believe that if China does eventually set a price for carbon it will set it [a] high enough price -- at, say, $100-$200/ton -- for carbon capture and storage facilities to become cost-competitive. Doing so would dramatically slow the rapid climb that hundreds of millions of Chinese are making out of poverty.

But even if the Chinese government were to set a high price for carbon as early as 2030, China will have already constructed hundreds of coal-fired power plants -- few of which will be compatible with carbon capture and storage plans.

In the end, the only way the Chinese government will be able to substantially reduce its emissions is if the price of clean energy and carbon capture technologies come down enough to get within striking distance of the price of fossil fuels -- with or without a price for carbon."

Today Chinese leader Hu Jintao addressed China's Communist Party congress during a nationally-televised broadcast. During what is considered his most important speech since taking over as party leader in 2002, Hu said of China's future, "Ecological and environmental quality will improve notably." He went on to say that Beijing will "promote a conservation culture by basically forming an energy- and resource-efficient and environmentally friendly structure of industries, pattern of growth and mode of consumption." (Click this link to read full story.)

Also today, I received a press release from ChinaDialogue.net, a non-profit organization owned by Open Trust, a London-based educational charity and the world's first fully bilingual website devoted to the environment. Its aim -- for the world to talk to China ... and for China to talk to the world, promoting a common understanding of the challenges we all face. I'm intrigued by the concept, format and content.

What's China doing right beyond the politically-correct press releases and sound bites?

With the help of China Dialogue, I intend to find out.

Al Gore for Peace

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 01:05:00 +0000

Al Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize today, along with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change with whom he shares it. Every time I've heard it mentioned -- on the radio, the Internet or in conversation -- it's been suggested that Gore could (or should) use the notoriety of this award as a springboard to launch his bid for the 2008 presidential campaign.

I don't want Al Gore running for president, at least not yet.

According to the official press release of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, he won the Nobel Peace Prize because, "He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted" regarding climate change. In other words, Al Gore has given 100% of himself to the cause. As president, that would not be possible, his time and energy divided among a myriad of issues.

Though there are many people devoted to the cause, I doubt any one of them could bring to the issue of climate change Al Gore's combination of passion, commitment, education and influence. So if he were elected president, who the hell could step into his shoes?

Besides, the shoes of the next president are lookoing like high heels to me.

On the opposite end of the spectrum are those who criticize the choice of Gore for the Nobel Peace Prize at all -- a hypocrite, they call him because he has a big house that uses electricity. What I find most intriguing about those who accuse Al Gore of hypocrisy are that these critics seem to be the people who are doing the least to reduce their own carbon footprints.

None of us are perfect. I could swear off cars forever and only take public transporation. I could turn off all my lights at night and use battery-operated flashlights. I could get rid of my hot water heater and take cold showers every day instead. I'm not going to do any of that, but does it discount what I AM doing -- the recycled toilet paper ... the biodegradable cleaning products ... the canvas grocery bags?

Some critics of Gore are critics of climate change itself (my own mother included): "Global warming is cyclical!" they plead for us to believe, as though we've been duped. Yes, the earth has warmed (and cooled) dramatically over billions of years, but that doesn't change the fact that we're now signficantly contributing to the problem. That's why the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change shares the Nobel Peace Prize with Gore. Since 1990, they've been publishing reports that synthesize all the evidence on global warming collected all over the world, and this evidence speaks for itself -- human activity at its current status quo is warming the earth fatally faster than necessary.

“Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind,” the Norwegian Nobel Committee says. “They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.”

Draftgore.com ran a full-page ad for Al Gore in Wednesday's New York Times -- an open letter to him urging Gore to run for president in 2008. Well here's mine.

Forget Al Gore for president.

I want Al Gore for peace.

Shocked To Attention In The 11th Hour

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 18:32:00 +0000

If An Inconvenient Truth was the wake-up call we needed to acknowledge our role in global warming, then Leonardo DiCaprio's The 11th Hour is the jolt of caffeine that keeps us from falling back to sleep.

I was immediately shocked to attention by the opening scene -- a series of images individually dramatic, but collectively heartwrenching when pieced together to show the story of what we're doing to the earth, the animals and ourselves.

Then one after another, what seemed like dozens of experts in their fields put every one of these images into perspective. Even if I'd given in to temptation and taken notes by flashlight, I probably couldn't have jotted down even a quarter of what these scientists, environmentalists and humanists said. (That's what I'll use rewind for when I buy it on DVD.)

Instead, I simply let The 11th Hour wash over me, just as I would with any other film. And because I made no effort to memorize details, I'm struck by the facts that have been boucing around in my head ever since:

If the history of the earth were one calendar year, humans didn't come on to the scene until December 31st at 11:59 p.m.

99.9999% of all species that have ever existed on earth are extinct.

We're prematurely shortening the human species' existence on earth by contributing to the creation of an atmosphere in which we cannot exist.

The earth has all the time in the universe to heal from what humans are doing to it, but this is the 11th hour for us.

It's not the earth that needs saving. As the Live Earth Movement has been telling us all year, we need to save our selves.

Political Will: Olympics, Elections & Live Earth

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:05:00 +0000

"One World, One Dream" – that’s the motto for the 2008 Olympics. But considering where the Games of the XXIX Olympiad are going to be held, I cannot say that I agree.

It’s not my dream to send the best physically-conditioned athletes in the world to Beijing, China, a city with pollution two to three times higher than what the World Health Organization considers safe. And if you take a look at the Olympic Charter, it’s not the dream of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) either – yet they’re the ones responsible for choosing this host city.

"It hurts to breathe."

The Olympic Charter states several of its goals in the "Mission and Role of the IOC" including:

"To encourage and support measures protecting the health of athletes" and
"To encourage and support a responsible concern for environmental issues, to promote sustainable development in sport and to require that the Olympic Games are held accordingly."

So it’s beyond me how the 115 members of the IOC, all of whom are representatives of their respective countries (including just two from China), could have come up with a majority vote in favor of holding the Olympic games in this country, where there are an estimated 750,000 premature deaths each year caused by pollution-related disease. Now it seems the IOC may be wondering the same thing.

Though Beijing promised to clean up the air in time for the games in August of 2008, progress is apparently so slow (or completely non-existent) that the IOC President recently announced that some Olympic events may have to be canceled.

That’s no surprise to Dr. Greg Anderson, the exercise physiologist for the women’s Canadian soccer team. In a recent interview on National Public Radio, Dr. Anderson described what it was like for his team this past April and May when the women were in Beijing training for the Women’s World Cup of Soccer that will be held there in September.

"Once you play, and you start to have high air flows in and out of your lungs, the really high ozone levels in Beijing cause a real burning sensation in your lungs," said Dr. Anderson. "About four days in, they ended up with low-grade inflammation in the back of their throat. Mucous was being produced to try to trap all the particulate matter in the air, which is very high."

George Bush To the Rescue?

Despite the health hazards, the Canadian women’s soccer team will return to Beijing for the World Cup in September, the same month in which U.S. President George Bush is holding a global warming conference in Washington DC. The invitees – representatives from 15 national governments (including China). The goal – deciding how to proceed when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. (You know this one – it’s the treaty Bush refused to sign because it would have limited the emissions the U.S. was allowed to pump into the atmosphere.)

"We can all make major strides," Bush has been quoted as saying of global warming, "and yet there won’t be a reduction until China and India are participants."

Grist recently pointed out the hypocrisy of this statement:

"Since 1995, two federally controlled agencies – the U.S. Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corp. – have spent $21 billion in loans and loan guarantees for fossil-fuel projects in more than 40 countries." (Of course, that covers Bush’s entire time in office.)

Equally disturbing is the role that the United States plays as the largest shareholder in the World Bank. Instead of encouraging this organization to approve loans for projects that are least harmful to the environment, our government has done just the opposite. As reported by Grist, "newly released documents show that the U.S. has pushed the bank to exclude climate concerns from investment calculations."

Kennedy for President

Considering how much the Bush administration’s policies have directly contributed to global warming, it’s no surprise that only Al Gore was referenced more than George Bush during the Live Earth Concerts on 7-7-07 – in the music, on the clothes and, most notably, in the speeches.

There are excerpts from several speeches in the Live Earth Concert Review Series I wrote for Watch7-7-07.com. But there’s one that stands out as particularly important in this context, not only for what it implies about the Bush administration’s responsibility for "environmental injury," but for what it says about us.

With the passion, confidence and strength of will I’d love to see in our next president (though he’s not running), Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. said this at the U.S. Live Earth Concert:

"Environmental injury is deficit spending. It’s a way of loading the cause of our generation’s prosperity onto the backs of our children…. The good news is we have the scientific and technological capacity to avert its most catastrophic impact. We only need the political will…. It is more important than buying compact fluorescent light bulbs or than buying fuel-efficient automobiles. The most important thing you can do is to get involved in the political process, and get rid of all these rotten politicians that we have in Washington DC…."

The 2008 election for a new U.S. president is more than one year away. But we cannot wait until then to exercise the "political will" Kennedy is talking about.

In a new game show called "The Power of 10," host Drew Carey asks this question of a contestant: "What percentage of Americans would rather watch a hot dog eating contest over a 2008 presidential debate?" Though the answer was (thankfully) just 26%, the question itself speaks volumes for how we view the political process in this country – as something too boring or inconsequential to concern ourselves with. (If you disagree, check out Grist’s series of interviews with presidential candidates.)

And as for Kennedy’s point that it’s going to take more than buying CFL’s and fuel-efficient cars to save the environment, he’s right in more ways than one.

Equally important to voting at the polls is voting at the cash register.

Made In China

The thick, pollution-filled air that our Olympic athletes will be breathing next year in Beijing is largely caused by the coal-fired power plants that are manufacturing products for us as cheaply as possible – maximizing profit for companies and minimizing cost for consumers. Toys in the most recent Chinese recall are a perfect example -- a toy that costs a manufacturer in China $3 to make, costs an American manufactuer $10. One of the most notable reasons is this. Workers making toys here in the States make as much as $18 an hour, while the average hourly wage of a worker making toys in China is just 42 cents.

Now I’ll give you one guess (because that’s all you need) to figure out where American-owned GE manufactures those "Energy Smart" CFL’s … and where Japanese-owned Toyota manufactures the nickel foam for the hybrid Prius battery.

Am I saying we should return all the CFL’s we finally finished installing all over our homes? No. (Like me, you probably saw just one choice of CFL brands on store shelves anyway.) What I am saying is this:

There are no simple solutions to global warming because "environmental injury" is so deeply embedded into every layer of our society. That’s why Live Earth is more than a concert. It’s a movement that’s going to last the rest of our lives.

"One World, One Dream"? Living the Live Earth Pledge -- that's mine, a dream best expressed by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in his closing remarks at Live Earth:

"We are not protecting the environment for the sake of the fishes and the birds. We’re protecting it because nature is the infrastructure of our communities, and if we want to meet our obligations as a generation, as a civilization, as a nation … we’ve gotta start by protecting our environmental infrastructure – the air we breathe, the water we drink, the wildlife, the public lands, the things that connect us to our past, to our history, that provide context to our communities and that are the source, ultimately, of our values and our virtues and our character as a people and the future or our children. And I will see all of you on the barricades."

Related Articles: "Crossing the Border," The Freelance Observer

Is the Live Earth Concert Playing Politics?

noreply@blogger.com (Meredith Simonds) — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 23:27:00 +0000

"I'm already tired of hearing about the 2008 elections," my mom told me recently. "Don't worry," I said. "Pretty soon everyone will be talking about the Live Earth Concert in July."

We were in the car at the time and, right on cue, my mom pulled from between the seats a book by Ayn Rand called The New Left.

As though she'd rehearsed it, my mom said (and I am paraphrasing): "Ayn Rand predicted 30 years ago the left would use the environment as their next big political issue." As a "rightie," my mom's response didn't surprise me. But aside from Ayn Rand's stance on the issue, my mom wasn't telling me anything I hadn't already heard dozens, if not hundreds, of times before.

Why is "Politics" Such a Dirty Word?

The word "politics" has infiltrated so many a parts of my daily life that I'm not even sure what politics means anymore. Kind of like when you say the same word over and over again enough times and it doesn't sound like a word at all.

So I looked it up in Merriam-Webster Dictionary online, and was pleasantly surprised by the actual definition:

"Politics: the art or science of government."

Funny. That doesn't sound like a dirty word to me, yet that's exactly what it's become. When the "righties" say that the "lefties" are using global warming as a political issue, it comes with a negative connotation, which I interpret as meaning that the left (i.e., Al Gore and other Democrats) are exaggerating the threat to the environment in order to scare people into supporting the left's politicians.

(It's worth noting here that An Inconvenient Truth didn't scare me at all. I walked out of that film feeling more hopeful and empowered by what I could do for the environment – and why I should – than I've ever felt in my life.)

So in context of the dictionary definition of "politics," don't we want the art and science of government involved in environmental issues – especially global warming, a phenomenon that people on both sides of the issue now recognize as scientific fact?

Regardless of how much you believe we're contributing to global warming, the point is it is happening ... and something must be done. All we need to do is concentrate on the goal we all have in mind – not only sustaining life on this planet as long as we can, but also continually improving upon the quality of that life – for our children's, children's, children.

Isn't that what our ancestors did for those of us here in the United States back in 1787? They knew the threats to our way of life, so they created laws that addressed those threats in a way that has protected our freedoms for 220 years.

Now it's our turn.

We know the threats to our way of life 220 years from now. Don't we have the same responsibility to the people who will be living then as our forefathers had for us? Isn't that the "moral imperative" Al Gore's talking about?

I know. I know. Even if we can agree to focus only on solutions to global warming, we'll still disagree as to what those solutions should be. Why? Because we still disagree on the degree to which human behavior's current "status quo" is warming the planet. Yet no one can dispute the solution to the cloud of pollution that hovers over your nearest major metropolitan city.

If You're Looking for Dirt, Look at the Sky

That brown cloud, haze or whatever you call the air pollution that sits on top of the city is mostly carbon dioxide and nitrogen dioxide gases. What puts these substances into the air? The burning of fossil fuels (oil, coal and natural gas) in our cars and factories.

Aside from being an eye-sore, what's the problem with these carbon dioxide and nitrogen dioxide particles in the air? Just ask any doctor in town. This air pollution can cause or aggravate asthma and other respiratory illnesses. That's why we have "high pollution advisories" here in Phoenix basically telling us "Hey, it’s not a good idea to go outside today."

The solution to the air pollution problem is obvious – we need to stop burning the fossil fuels in our cars and factories that are putting the carbon dioxide and nitrogen dioxide gases into the air.

Hmm. That sounds awfully familiar. Oh yeah - it's the same solution suggested for global warming by scientists all over the world and, yes, by Al Gore!

"My friend, the late Carl Sagan," says Gore in An Convenient Truth, "used to say 'If you had a big globe with a coat of varnish on it, the thickness of that varnish relative to that globe is pretty much the same as the thickness of the earth's atmosphere compared to the earth itself.' And it’s thin enough that we are capable of changing its composition." (Click here to read more quotes from An Inconvenient Truth.)

Cleaning Up the Politics of Global Warming

I'd like to end where I began – with The New Left by Ayn Rand. My mom said that, in the book, Ayn Rand writes about an experiment she did in which she lived without "conveniences" for a specified period of time (i.e., machines run by fossil fuels), presumably to prove what a regression it would be to impose limitations on the burning of fossil fuels "to save the environment."

Guess what? There are no limits to the sun or the wind.

Unlike oil and coal which take millions of years to develop, solar power and wind power are renewable energies. Shouldn't we be putting all of our efforts into implementing these technologies now, not only to make the air cleaner, but also to make the transition as smooth as possible when the oil and the coal run out?

The purpose of the Live Earth Concert is to raise awareness and resources necessary for solutions to global warming.

Will the art and science of government need to be involved?

Frankly, I’d be worried if they weren’t.

"There are good people who are in politics in both parties who hold this [global warming] at arm’s length because if they acknowledge it and recognize it, then the moral imperative to make big changes is inescapable." ~ Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth