• Home
Showing posts with label Global Warming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Global Warming. Show all posts

Monday, October 19, 2009

PA State Rep Daryl Metcalfe: Veterans supporting global warming and climate change legislation should "Remember Benedict Arnold"

Via Keystone Progress, Pennsylvania legislator Daryl Metcalfe (R - Cranberry Twp) responded to in invitation to an energy independence bus tour with a letter of his own, stating that any veterans "promoting the leftist propaganda of global warming and climate change" would be traitors to "the oath they took to defend the Constitution of our great nation." I'm not making this up. I'm sure the teabaggers are eating this up, but I find it outrageous that an elected official would equate supporting a Cap and Trade system to the treasonous acts of Benedict Arnold.

Below is the letter from Rep. Metcalfe:

Subject: Re: Veterans for American Power Bus Tour coming to your state

As a veteran,

I believe that any veteran lending their name, to promote the leftist
propaganda of global warming and climate change, in an effort to control
more of the wealth created in our economy, through cap and tax type
policies, all in the name of national security, is a traitor to the oath
he or she took defend the Constitution of our great nation!

Remember Benedict Arnold before giving credibility to a veteran who uses
their service as a means to promote a leftist agenda.

Drill Baby Drill!!!

For Liberty,

Daryl Metcalfe

State Representative

Veteran U.S. Army"

Progressive group Keystone Progress is calling on constituents to reject Rep. Metcalfe's position and call for an apology to our veterans. Jon Powers, Iraq veteran and COO of the Truman Project, provides his take on the controversy over at his diary on the Daily Kos.

Monday, September 28, 2009

Paul Krugman: "This truth is just too inconvenient"

Paul Krugman says that some of the doom and gloom scenarios of global climate change may only be years away from affecting the Southwestern United States. If this is true, then why isn't climate change the dominant public policy issue here in the US? In one paragraph Krugman sums up why we can't seem to take big steps towards curbing greenhouse gas emissions and global warming:

But the larger reason we’re ignoring climate change is that Al Gore was right: This truth is just too inconvenient. Responding to climate change with the vigor that the threat deserves would not, contrary to legend, be devastating for the economy as a whole. But it would shuffle the economic deck, hurting some powerful vested interests even as it created new economic opportunities. And the industries of the past have armies of lobbyists in place right now; the industries of the future don’t.

I hope climate change skeptics and even the deniers take a few minutes to read the rest of Mr. Krugman's column on the climate change crisis.

Friday, June 5, 2009

Arguing with Climate Change Deniers in Mt Lebanon PA

Over at Blog Lebo, a blog that covers pretty much everything about Mt Lebanon, my former home just outside of Pittsburgh, there has been an ongoing debate about whether or not it is right for the school district to include text books that offer an alternative argument to Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth and some of the environmental text books already being used by the students. Pardon the pun, but this is a textbook example of school board members injecting politics into the school curriculum. It one thing to object to a certain text being use, but according to a local paper, the board members (both whom happen to be Republicans) "said they did not object to the book, focusing their argument on whether an additional text reflecting the other side of the debate be added."

In the comments thread of that blog post, the Climate Change denier crowd is arguing that offering the students an alternative textbook would help teach them to not only learn that there are two sides of the debate but to learn critical thinking and analysis skill. One of the school board members quoted in the original story in the South Hills Almanac, James Frasch, makes the argument that by introducing an alternative text they would be "teaching our students that there is a debate about the existence of man-made global warming." Add Mr. Frasch to the climate change denier category. The post is followed by 19 comments, some which try to say that there was a scientific "consensus" that the earth was actually cooling rather than warming. This "consensus" around cooling has been proven to be a myth. Comment #20 (if it gets published) is also posted below and includes some very interesting links about the origin of the global warming discovery and the debate that occurred long before Al Gore presented "An Inconvenient Truth." If you haven't read this summary of the book "The Discovery of Global Warming" I encourage you to do so or at the very least take a look at the time line.

The following is my response to a former school board member, who stated that "The flat earth argument has been settled for centuries; the environment is an ongoing current debate that is relevant to all our lives. We need to give our students the respect and balanced curriculum materials to develop their own point of view and prepare them well for life."

Again, I don't see how you can call teaching the students on one hand, a theory that was proven decades ago and then on the other - the the wrong side of that theory, the side that already lost the debate, a "balanced" view. The only difference with this issue between when this debate was first settled and today is that now this has become a hot button political issue because some have chosen to put political ideology ahead of science, research, and history.

The following is a history lesson for anyone out there who thinks that Global Warming is something that was made up by Al Gore and the Democrats as a means to raise our taxes. Please bear with me.

This Global Warming "debate" you refer to already happened - during the first half of the 20th century. The greenhouse gas effect was discovered way back when James Monroe was President of the United States. The initial discovery was followed up by more quantitative research right before the turn of the century. The findings of these researchers led to the conclusion that an increase in CO2 led to an increase in global temperatures. The debate in that early period (late 19th early 20th century) between said researchers was not a matter of if increases in CO2 caused an increase in the earth's temperature, but by how much a certain increase in CO2 increased the earth's temperature. There was also a debate about how long it would take before all of the CO2 emitted by the coal plants and industrialization would have an meaningful impact on the earth's temperature. The "consensus" at that time agreed that worst case scenario it would probably take a few centuries before CO2 emitted by human activity would be substantial enough impact the earth's temperature. A few decades passed until a little known engineer, Guy Stewart Callendar, took notice that the CO2 levels are rising much faster than expected and having an impact on the earth's temperate. His findings were pretty much dismissed by all but a few who picked up where he left off and then, it was finally vindicated when Roger Revelle made a key discovery that the earth's oceans had a more limited ability to absorb the excess CO2 that was being produced by humans. Up until that point, it was thought that most of the CO2 generated by human would be absorbed by the oceans, and hence, would have little impact on the earth's temperature. The time line of global warming's discovery is here. A summarized or a full version of the story behind the discovery and the individuals who made can be found here.

The story does a great job of including some of the arguments against global warming. Some of these arguments happened over one hundred years ago. The debate was settled a while ago so as I said in my first post "there is no 'other side of the debate'" unless you feel the need to teach the students all of the junk science and false arguments against this already scientifically proven theory. With the state of education in this country, can the students really afford to spend time in the classroom learning about the "other side", the earth is flat side of the debate just because some people, James Frasch, Mark Hart, and others, cannot look beyond the politics of issue to come to grips and accept that the earth is warming and it is due because of the increasing CO2 emissions generated by human beings. It would help to at least start reading some of the links I have already posted. You may be skeptical about some of the scientific research I have linked to but how about disappearing glaciers? How about people dying?

Thursday, September 4, 2008

Change we cannot afford to believe in: Sarah Palin chose to protect the oil industry over polar bears!

I've been trying to stay non-partisan on this blog but ever since the general election kicked in to gear it has become harder and harder to out of the fray since energy and environmental policy are two huge issues for this election. After last night's Republican National Convention, where Mayor Rudy Giuliani touted McCain's energy policy with shouts of "Drill drill drill!", I feel compelled to get off the sidelines. John McCain used to be the maverick of his party, as he believes that global warming and climate change are caused by man, and he says that energy independence would be a priority of his administration. However, his pandering to the oil industry and the base of his party, who think that lifting the ban on offshore drilling is the best way to ending our dependence on foreign oil, is just more of the same that we've seen throughout the Bush Cheney years - all talk and no action.

McCain's selection of Alaska's Governor Sarah Palin has definitely energized the conservative wing of the Republican party - but what does it say to independent and swing voters who think energy and environmental policy should be at the top of the nation's list of priorities? Sarah Palin is a total reversal of McCain's previous positions on energy and the environment. She believes in drilling in ANWR, she does not believe that climate change is man made. She even went as far as saying that polar bears should not be on the endangered species list because protecting them may "cripple oil and gas development" in parts of Alaska. Here is the full story from this past May; the following is the key snippet on her position:

The state of Alaska will sue to challenge the recent listing of polar bears as a threatened species, Gov. Sarah Palin announced Wednesday.

She and other Alaska elected officials fear a listing will cripple oil and gas development in prime polar bear habitat off the state's northern and northwestern coasts.

Palin argued that there is not enough evidence to support a listing. Polar bears are well-managed and their population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation, she said.

Climate models that predict continued loss of sea ice, the main habitat of polar bears, during summers are unreliable, said Palin, a Republican
.

Thomas Friedman wrote that John McCain's turnaround on environmental issues to appease his party's conservative base leads one to wonder how he can still claim to be the candidate who will put America on the path to energy independence.

With his choice of Sarah Palin — the Alaska governor who has advocated drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and does not believe mankind is playing any role in climate change — for vice president, John McCain has completed his makeover from the greenest Republican to run for president to just another representative of big oil.


When even George W. Bush has admitted that climate change is a result of human activity, the Republican party's claim that Sarah Palin is a reformer and an agent of change is about as believable as her claim to have been against the poster child of wasteful pork barrel spending, Alaska's "bridge to nowhere."

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Omelets without Eggs / Fuel without Oil

Over at the Freakonomics blog, Steven Dubner hints that we could be in the process of witnessing what Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter called "Creative Destruction."

From his post "Don't Throw out Capitalism just yet."

The turbulence of the U.S. economy has lots of people railing against capitalism itself, and with good reason: capitalism is inherently turbulent. That’s why the legendary economist Joseph Schumpeter called it “creative destruction.” Not only must eggs be broken to make an omelet, but sometimes people may decide they want their omelets made with no eggs at all.

In business school my strategy processor often referred to Schumpeter's theory of creative description throughout our course on renewable strategy. Creative destruction happens when an established process or technology is displaced by newer, more efficient technologies. Think of the iPod replacing the walkman, or DVDs displacing VHS. Schumpeter was one of the earlier figures to discuss business cycles, and his classic book Capitalism, Democracy, and Socialism served as a rebuttal to Karl Marx, who said that capitalism's natural turbulence would eventually lead to it's collapse and it's replacement communism. Schumpeter's response was that, while Marx had a point that periods of capitalism will experience crisis (like we are with energy prices today), but that instead of a collapse of the capitalist system the crisis would motivate capitalists (like a T. Boone Pickens) and entrepreneurs (the Tesla Motors guys) which would lead to the old way of doing things being destroyed and replaced by new ways (wind / solar energy replacing coal and dirty electricity in the case of Pickens, electric cars replacing gasoline powered cars in the case of Tesla).

Periods of creative destruction aren't always as pretty as the iPod example. When an entire industry goes under there can be a lot of pain during the shakeout and transition to new technologies. If this were to happen to the petroleum fuel industry here in the US be negative consequences - jobs would be lost and shareholders would lose money, but in the big picture we would be much better off compared to what typically happens after these massive "gales of destruction." For one, since we would still have a need for petroleum based products such made from plastics and rubber, most of those 150 refineries who would still be in business producing petroleum derivatives including plastics and rubber. Additionally, since our fuels would be grown here domestically, through renewable fuels such as biodiesel or electricity, we would probably end up with a net creation of jobs for our economy.

Furthermore, there would be tremendous benefits to our economy. Our dependence on petroleum means sending upwards of $700 billion a year in oil revenues to foreign oil producing states, and that figure will only get higher the longer we wait to take serious actions to reduce our oil consumption. Sending all of those dollars overseas creates a huge trade imbalance, leading to downward pressure on the value of the dollar. Eliminating or drastically reducing our imports of oil would make the US much more competitive with the nations who have used their flush bank accounts to gobble up foreign corporations and natural resources.

So how likely are we to see creative destruction within the petroleum fuels industry here in the US? The longer oil and gasoline prices stay at these current levels, the more likely that investment into alternatives would increase to the point where we are technologically capable of replacing all of our petroleum based fuels with non-hydrocarbon sources. Creative destruction is a reason why oil states like Saudi Arabia have an incentive to keep oil prices low, and it is the reason why in the past US officials could press the Saudi Royal family into increasing their supply of oil to the marketplace, and once the Saudi's turned on the spigots, the price of crude oil would drop upon a moment's notice. However, this strategy is no longer effective. The Saudis, the largest producers of oil in the world, are now worried that their supplies may be diminishing. It has been documented that some of the largest Saudi Arabian oil fields are approaching their peak production. The Wall Street Journal's Environmental Capital blog had a post on the Saudi oil supply situation not too long ago and I encourage you to read it. Here is an excerpt from some of their interviews:

Even in Saudi Arabia, home to more than a quarter of the world’s known recoverable reserves, the age of cheap and easily pumped oil is over. To tap Khurais, Saudi Arabian Oil Co., known as Aramco, has embarked on the most complex earth- and water-moving project in its history. It is spending up to $15 billion on a vast network of pipes, oil-treatment facilities, deep horizontal wells and water-injection systems that it calls “one of the largest industrial projects being executed in the world today.”

Think Global Warming and the potential for catastrophic climate change is scary? What if top oilman from the largest producer of oil said that their oil was running out?

“Khurais and [offshore field] Manifa are the last two giants in Saudi Arabia,” says Sadad al-Husseini, a former Aramco vice president for oil exploration. “Sure, we will discover dozens of other smaller fields, but after these, we are chasing after smaller and smaller fish.”

After reading the books such as "Oil on the Brain" and following the great Oil Drum blog I'm more worried about us not quitting our dependence on oil before we reach the peak of global oil supply. The risk of a global economic collapse due to an insane increase in crude oil prices could easily result in the next world war if we're not ready to replace oil. This is more likely to happen during my lifetime or your lifetime any of the catastrophic event that are supposed to be a result of global climate change.

The looming crisis of global peak oil and the results of that crisis are why we need to embrace creative destruction by saying goodbye to gasoline powered vehicles and hello to the era of electric vehicles, hydrogen fuel cells, and other sources of renewable fuels. We can actually create more jobs here in the US by depending on home grown fuel sources, such as cellulosic ethanol, and clean electricity from solar, wind, and geothermal plants. Trying to drill for more oil domestically, which most Republicans are calling for, and now some Democrats are calling for, would only delay the inevitable, which is the absolute necessity that our society stops using petroleum for fuel.

Friday, July 18, 2008

Where the greenhouse gases come from

Below is very cool image that shows the breakdown of the activities that lead to global warming. The image comes from a report from the World Resources Institute

Friday, April 11, 2008

More Inconvenient Truths from Al Gore at TED

"In order to solve the climate crisis, we have to solve the democracy crisis"



In Al Gore's brand-new slideshow (premiering exclusively on TED.com), he presents evidence that the pace of climate change may be even worse than scientists were recently predicting, and challenges us to act with a sense of "generational mission" -- the kind of feeling that brought forth the civil rights movement -- to set it right. Gore's stirring presentation is followed by a brief Q&A in which he is asked for his verdict on the current political candidates' climate policies and on what role he himself might play in future

Monday, January 14, 2008

LVC's 2008 Presidential Primaries Voter Guide

The League of Conservation Voters has a breakdown of the candidates on environmental and energy issues. This LCV website lists the individual scores of each Republican and Democratic candidate based on their lifetime voting records. Below are some tables that show how each candidate compares with the others on their responses to an LCV questionnaire.

Friday, December 21, 2007

Jeff Immelt talks about the economy, global warming, and GE's role in providing energy and infrastrucure solutions


Back on December 10th GE CEO Jeff Immelt spent an hour being interviewed for USAToday's CEO Forum in front of Carnegie Mellon Students and Alumni. Mr. Immelt discussed the current state of the economy as well as GE's future with USA Today senior reporter David Lieberman, and, surprisingly, a good portion of the interview questions were about GE's role in energy infrastructure, the environment, and climate change.


A few highlights:

  • 2007 marked the first year that GE's sales outside of the US were greater than sales within the US
  • GE's Wind Turbines have already sold out through 2010
  • GE's Ecomagninaiton line - wind, solar, biomass, batteries, etc is rapidly growing
  • GE spent significant time and resources talking to customers about their feelings on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change - well before oil prices and climate change hype were at their current levels
  • Immelt did not take a position on carbon cap-and-trade systems but says he believes that market based incentives are the best way to bring about change in regards to climate change
  • Immelt stated that GE tries to avoid getting involved in politics, but he feels that our political leaders around the world should be doing the things necessary to protect our environments
Overall, it was a very interesting look at GE, the global economy, and Immelt's views on the economy, politics, climate change, health care, and the energy infrastructure business.

Video of the hour long interview can be found here.

A more comprehensive review can be found over on another CMU alum's blog.

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

"We have a purpose. We are many. For this purpose we will rise, and we will act."


Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Honorable members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Excellencies, Ladies and gentlemen.

I have a purpose here today. It is a purpose I have tried to serve for many years. I have prayed that God would show me a way to accomplish it.

Sometimes, without warning, the future knocks on our door with a precious and painful vision of what might be. One hundred and nineteen years ago, a wealthy inventor read his own obituary, mistakenly published years before his death. Wrongly believing the inventor had just died, a newspaper printed a harsh judgment of his life's work, unfairly labeling him "The Merchant of Death" because of his invention – dynamite. Shaken by this condemnation, t he inventor made a fateful choice to serve the cause of peace.

Seven years later, Alfred Nobel created this prize and the others that bear his name.

Seven years ago tomorrow, I read my own political obituary in a judgment that seemed to me harsh and mistaken – if not premature. But that unwelcome verdict also brought a precious if painful gift: an opportunity to search for fresh new ways to serve my purpose.

Unexpectedly, that quest has brought me here. Even though I fear my words cannot match this moment, I pray what I am feeling in my heart will be communicated clearly enough that those who hear me will say, "We must act."

The distinguished scientists with whom it is the greatest honor of my life to share this award have laid before us a choice between two different futures – a choice that to my ears echoes the words of an ancient prophet: "Life or death, blessings or curses. Therefore, choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live."

We, the human species, are confronting a planetary emergency – a threat to the survival of our civilization that is gathering ominous and destructive potential even as we gather here. But there is hopeful news as well: we have the ability to solve this crisis and avoid the worst – though not all – of its consequences, if we act boldly, decisively and quickly.

However, despite a growing number of honorable exceptions, too many of the world's leaders are still best described in the words Winston Churchill applied to those who ignored Adolf Hitler's threat: "They go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent."

So today, we dumped another 70 million tons of global-warming pollution into the thin shell of atmosphere surrounding our planet, as if it were an open sewer. And tomorrow, we will dump a slightly larger amount, with the cumulative concentrations now trapping more and more heat from the sun.

As a result, the earth has a fever. And the fever is rising. The experts have told us it is not a passing affliction that will heal by itself. We asked for a second opinion. And a third. And a fourth. And the consistent conclusion, restated with increasing alarm, is that something basic is wrong.

We are what is wrong, and we must make it right.

Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.

Seven years from now.

In the last few months, it has been harder and harder to misinterpret the signs that our world is spinning out of kilter. Major cities in North and South America, Asia and Australia are nearly out of water due to massive droughts and melting glaciers. Desperate farmers are losing their livelihoods. Peoples in the frozen Arctic and on low-lying Pacific islands are planning evacuations of places they have long called home. Unprecedented wildfires have forced a half million people from their homes in one country and caused a national emergency that almost brought down the government in another. Climate refugees have migrated into areas already inhabited by people with different cultures, religions, and traditions, increasing the potential for conflict. Stronger storms in the Pacific and Atlantic have threatened whole cities. Millions have been displaced by massive flooding in South Asia, Mexico, and 18 countries in Africa. As temperature extremes have increased, tens of thousands have lost their lives. We are recklessly burning and clearing our forests and driving more and more species into extinction. The very web of life on which we depend is being ripped and frayed.

We never intended to cause all this destruction, just as Alfred Nobel never intended that dynamite be used for waging war. He had hoped his invention would promote human progress. We shared that same worthy goal when we began burning massive quantities of coal, then oil and methane.

Even in Nobel's time, there were a few warnings of the likely consequences. One of the very first winners of the Prize in chemistry worried that, "We are evaporating our coal mines into the air." After performing 10,000 equations by hand, Svante Arrhenius calculated that the earth's average temperature would increase by many degrees if we doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Seventy years later, my teacher, Roger Revelle, and his colleague, Dave Keeling, began to precisely document the increasing CO2 levels day by day.

But unlike most other forms of pollution, CO2 is invisible, tasteless, and odorless – which has helped keep the truth about what it is doing to our climate out of sight and out of mind. Moreover, the catastrophe now threatening us is unprecedented – and we often confuse the unprecedented with the improbable.

We also find it hard to imagine making the massive changes that are now necessary to solve the crisis. And when large truths are genuinely inconvenient, whole societies can, at least for a time, ignore them. Yet as George Orwell reminds us: "Sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield."

In the years since this prize was first awarded, the entire relationship between humankind and the earth has been radically transformed. And still, we have remained largely oblivious to the impact of our cumulative actions.

Indeed, without realizing it, we have begun to wage war on the earth itself. Now, we and the earth's climate are locked in a relationship familiar to war planners: "Mutually assured destruction."

More than two decades ago,scientistscalculated thatnuclear war could throw so much debris and smoke into the air that it would block life-giving sunlight from our atmosphere, causing a "nuclear winter." Their eloquent warnings here in Oslo helped galvanize the world's resolve to halt the nuclear arms race.

Now science is warning us that if we do not quickly reduce the global warming pollution that is trapping so much of the heat our planet normally radiates back out of the atmosphere, we are in danger of creating a permanent "carbon summer."

As the American poet Robert Frost wrote, " Some say the world will end in fire; some say in ice." Either, he notes, "would suffice."

But neither need be our fate.It is time to make peace with the planet.

We must quickly mobilize our civilization with the urgency and resolve that has previously been seen only when nations mobilized for war. These prior struggles for survival were won when leaders found words at the 11th hour that released a mighty surge of courage, hope and readiness to sacrifice for a protracted and mortal challenge.

These were not comforting and misleading assurances that the threat was not real or imminent; that it would affect others but not ourselves; that ordinary life might be lived even in the presence of extraordinary threat; thatProvidence could be trusted to do for us what we would not do for ourselves.

No, these were calls to come to the defense of the common future. They were calls upon the courage, generosity and strength of entire peoples, citizens of every class and condition who were ready to stand against the threat once asked to do so. Our enemies in those times calculated that free people would not rise to the challenge; they were, of course, catastrophically wrong.

Now comes the threat of climate crisis – a threat that is real, rising, imminent, and universal. Once again, it is the 11th hour. The penaltiesfor ignoring this challenge are immense and growing, and at some near point would be unsustainable and unrecoverable. For now we still have the power to choose our fate, and the remaining question is only this: Have we the will to act vigorously and in time, or will we remain imprisoned by a dangerous illusion?

Mahatma Gandhi awakened the largest democracy on earth and forged a shared resolve with what he called "Satyagraha" – or "truth force."

In every land, the truth – once known – has the power to set us free.

Truth also has the power to unite us and bridge the distance between "me" and "we," creating the basis for common effort and shared responsibility.

There is an African proverb that says, "If you want to go quickly, go alone. If you want to go far, go together." We need to go far, quickly.

We must abandon the conceit that individual, isolated, private actions are the answer. They can and do help. But they will not take us far enough without collective action. At the same time, we must ensure that in mobilizing globally, we do not invite the establishment of ideological conformity and a new lock-step "ism."

That means adopting principles, values, laws, and treaties that release creativity and initiative at every level of society in multifold responses originating concurrently and spontaneously.

This new consciousness requires expanding the possibilities inherent in all humanity. The innovators who will devise a new way to harness the sun's energy for pennies or invent an engine that's carbon negative may live in Lagos or Mumbai or Montevideo. We must ensure that entrepreneurs and inventors everywhere on the globe have the chance to change the world.

When we unite for a moral purpose that is manifestly good and true, the spiritual energy unleashed can transform us. The generation that defeated fascism throughout the world in the 1940s found, in rising to meet their awesome challenge, that they had gained the moral authority and long-term vision to launch the Marshall Plan, the United Nations, and a new level of global cooperation and foresight that unified Europe and facilitated the emergence of democracy and prosperity in Germany, Japan, Italy and much of the world. One of their visionary leaders said, "It is time we steered by the stars and not by the lights of every passing ship."

In the last year of that war, you gave the Peace Prize to a man from my hometown of 2000 people, Carthage, Tennessee. Cordell Hull was described by Franklin Roosevelt as the "Father of the United Nations." He was an inspiration and hero to my own father, who followed Hull in the Congress and the U.S. Senate and in his commitment to world peace and global cooperation.

My parents spoke often of Hull, always in tones of reverence and admiration. Eight weeks ago, when you announced this prize, the deepest emotion I felt was when I saw the headline in my hometown paper that simply noted I had won the same prize that Cordell Hull had won. I n that moment, I knew what my father and mother would have felt were they alive.

Just as Hull's generation found moral authority in rising to solve the world crisis caused by fascism, so too can we find our greatest opportunity in rising to solve the climate crisis. In the Kanji characters used in both Chinese and Japanese, "crisis" is written with two symbols, the first meaning "danger," the second "opportunity." By facing and removing the danger of the climate crisis, we have the opportunity to gain the moral authority and vision to vastly increase our own capacity to solve other crises that have been too long ignored.

We must understand the connections between the climate crisis and the afflictions of poverty, hunger, HIV-Aids and other pandemics. As these problems are linked, so too must be their solutions. We must begin by making the common rescue of the global environment the central organizing principle of the world community.

Fifteen years ago, I made that case at the "Earth Summit" in Rio de Janeiro. Ten years ago, I presented it in Kyoto. This week, I will urge the delegates in Bali to adopt a bold mandate for a treaty that establishes a universal global cap on emissions and uses the market in emissions trading to efficiently allocate resources to the most effective opportunities for speedy reductions.

This treaty should be ratified and brought into effect everywhere in the world by the beginning of 2010 – two years sooner than presently contemplated. The pace of our response must be accelerated to match the accelerating pace of the crisis itself.

Heads of state should meet early next year to review what was accomplished in Bali and take personal responsibility for addressing this crisis. It is not unreasonable to ask, given the gravity of our circumstances, that these heads of state meet every three months until the treaty is completed.

We also need a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store carbon dioxide.

And most important of all, we need to put a price on carbon – with a CO2 tax that is then rebated back to the people, progressively, according to the laws of each nation, in ways that shift the burden of taxation from employment to pollution. This is by far the most effective and simplest way to accelerate solutions to this crisis.

The world needs an alliance – especially of those nations that weigh heaviest in the scales where earth is in the balance. I salute Europe and Japan for the steps they've taken in recent years to meet the challenge, and the new government in Australia, which has made solving the climate crisis its first priority.

But the outcome will be decisively influenced by two nations that are now failing to do enough: the United States and China. While India is also growing fast in importance, it should be absolutely clear that it is the two largest CO2 emitters – most of all, my own country – that will need to make the boldest moves, or stand accountable before history for their failure to act.

Both countries should stop using the other's behavior as an excuse for stalemate and instead develop an agenda for mutual survival in a shared global environment.

These are the last few years of decision, but they can be the first years of a bright and hopeful future if we do what we must. No one should believe a solution will be found without effort, without cost, without change. Let us acknowledge that if we wish toredeem squandered time and speak again with moral authority, then these are the hard truths:

The way ahead is difficult. The outer boundary of what we currently believe is feasible is still far short of what we actually must do. Moreover, between here and there, across the unknown, falls the shadow.

That is just another way of saying that we have to expand the boundaries of what is possible. In the words of the Spanish poet, Antonio Machado, "Pathwalker, there is no path. You must make the path as you walk."

We are standing at the most fateful fork in that path. So I want to end as I began, with a vision of two futures – each a palpable possibility – and with a prayer that we will see with vivid clarity the necessity of choosing between those two futures, and the urgency of making the right choice now.

The great Norwegian playwright, Henrik Ibsen, wrote, "One of these days, the younger generation will come knocking at my door."

The future is knocking at our door right now. Make no mistake, the next generation will ask us one of two questions. Either they will ask: "What were you thinking; why didn't you act? "

Or they will ask instead: "How did you find the moral courage to rise and successfully resolve a crisis that so many said was impossible to solve?"

We have everything we need to get started, save perhaps political will, but political will is a renewable resource.

So let us renew it, and say together: "We have a purpose. We are many. For this purpose we will rise, and we will act."

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Gas from Coal? Even Dirtier!

The NRDC posted an excellent cartoon bit on the ridiculousness of the subsidies being paid to big coal companies for liquid coal to fuel technology. From the NRDC's website:

The coal industry is touting a plan to transform millions of tons of coal into diesel and other liquid fuels - an expensive, inefficient process that releases large quantities of carbon dioxide, the worst global warming pollutant, into the air. Instead of offering viable answers to the critical problem of global warming, this senseless industry "solution" would exacerbate the problem: Relying on coal-derived liquid as an alternative to oil-based fuels could nearly double global warming pollution for every gallon of transportation fuel that is produced and used.


"Coal can do anything! It's no longer just another sooty rock to burn..."


"Why, I even drink a delicious glass of Coala every morning for an extra boost of some good old fashioned coal fired energy."

"Burn it. Drink it. Dump it. We don't care what you do - just buy our coal!"

Thursday, November 15, 2007

Book review: Supercapitalism by Robert Reich


I just finished reading Robert Reich's new book, Supercapitalism , and I highly recommend the book to anyone who wants to learn how our roles as consumers and investors have created a Democracy that is run by corporate interests and the lawyers and lobbyists that work on their behalf to shape our domestic and foreign policy.

Basically, Mr. Reich, a professor of public policy at Cal Berkley who was President Clinton's Secretary of Labor, says that we "are of two minds." On the one hand, as consumers and investors, we want the best deals. We want to purchase cheap goods we want the companies that we invest in to give us the highest returns by generating higher margins and profits quarter after quarter, year after year. This creates a conflict with the citizen in many of us. Our "wants" as consumers and investors lead to social consequences that do not support, such as jobs moving overseas, small businesses being closed down by the likes of Wal Mart, and millions of Americans who work 40+ hours a week going without health insurance.

The problem, is that our politics in Washington is run by Supercapitalism, which does not give you or me, as citizens, much of say in public policy, because we are drowned out by the money and power of corporate interests. Supercapitalism has rewarded the consumer and investor in us by creating a frenzied competition among companies to win and retain customers. This leads to better and cheaper products for consumers and higher returns for investors. Because of this intensified competition for customers and higher returns, corporations are also in competition for the influence over members of Congress, and they achieve this through their PACs and corporate lobbying offices in Washington, which spend millions of dollars on campaign donations, lunches, and consultants.

Mr. Reich goes on to provide some solutions to Supercapitalism, and believes that the key to returning power back to the people is aggressive and comprehensive campaign finance reform in addition to enforcing rules that permit only people the ability to participate in the democratic decision making process. The power must be taken away from the corporations - since corporations are not citizens.

Finally, it wouldn't be right if I didn't comment on how Supercapitalism has impacted our environment. If you have read any of op-ed pieces from scientists who claimed that Global Warming is a scam or a farce I have news for you: those "experts" were most likely paid consultants to the big energy companies.

From the book, and Exxon's own internal documents:

  • "In 1998, Exxon embarked on a campaign to give 'logistical and moral support' to any dissenter from scientific findings documenting global climate change, 'thereby raising questions about and undercutting the prevailing scientific wisdom,'"

  • In 2002 Stanford University signed a ten year deal with Exxon and other energy companies in return for $225 million for a "Global Climate and Energy Project." Following the agreement Exxon ran ads on the op-ed page of the New York Times announcing that the "best minds" at Stanford agreed with Exxon's position on climate change. One add even featured the signature of a well known Stanford professor.

  • In 2005 ExxonMobil distributed $2.9 million to thirty-nine groups that would raise doubts about climate change.

Wow, I am shocked that Stanford "sold out" for $225 million. Haven't they made enough money off of Google and the numours alumni who have become millionaires and billionaires many times over? Shame on you Stanford. Maybe this means that the "S" in your logo should stand for "Satan"?

Then again, maybe this example is typical of how universities will operate under Supercapitalism? It is frightening to think how easily the integrity of some of our highest of higher education institutions may be "sold down the river" to the energy industry.

To read Mr. Reich's take on this subject, check out his blog entry at Why Democracy?

Friday, October 26, 2007

We put a man on the moon in 8 years. We can reach 35 mpg by 2020

This summer, members of the House and Senate each worked hard to pass energy bills. Now it’s time for Congress to finish the job and pass a comprehensive bill – one that will bring the nation’s fleet of cars and trucks to an average of 35 mpg and 15 percent of our electricity coming from renewable energy by 2020. This is a critical step in the fight to break America of its addiction to fossil fuels and a down payment in combating global warming.

This is our chance to make our country more energy independent, create good jobs, save consumers money, protect our natural resources, and reduce the growth of global warming pollution.

This legislation would be a monumental step toward stopping global warming. Unfortunately, there is a real chance it will not make it through to the final bill. Do not let Congress back down. Please go to http://www.energybill2007.org and join me in signing the petition to keep this bill alive.




Friday, July 20, 2007

Response from Dell

I just received a response to my post on Dell's plant a tree program from one of their environmental spokespersons. Kudos to Bryant from Dell for following up. Here is the text from the comments:


Hi -this is Bryant, I work on environment issues at Dell. Apologies first for the delayed response -I'm just back from vacation today and catching up.

Thanks for the note about Plant a Tree -- it's important to put this program in context-it's part of a very broad commitment to environmental responsiblity by
Dell. Plant a Tree specifically allows us to partner with customers who want to take action to protect the environment. the program allows customers to offset the carbon impact of the electricity their computer will use.

Meanwhile Dell is making strides to make our products the most energy efficient in the industry (a stated goal - our latest business desktop computers are about 70 percent more efficient than previous generations), offering free recycling for any Dell branded equipment and designing all of our products with the environment in mind.

We'll continue to build out Plant a Tree and continue to invest in the program as we expand it to other markets and try to encourage more customers to take part.

I hope that helps explain the thinking behind the customer donation - any questions please let me know - thanks, Bryant

Saturday, July 7, 2007

Madonna at Live Earth: "Start a Revolution!"

It is almost 11pm Saturday night and Live Earth is currently playing on three different stations on my TV, two of those three are in HD. A few years back I would have had to go pay-per-view for this event. Talk about progress. Madonna just completely rocked it, as did the Police who I just saw performing "Message in a Bottle" with Kanye West.

One thing that annoys me during these events is when the hardcore environmentalists focus on criticizing celebrities like Madonna or Al Gore for flying in private jets or driving SUVs. Yes, it sucks that they have to fly jets all over the place, but the positive impact a Madonna or Al Gore have had on raising the awareness of Global Warming is far greater than the negative impact or "carbon footprint" left behind by these individuals. How are these people supposed to travel around the world to spread their message? A Toyota Prius? I think the focus should be on improving the technology behind the methods they use to travel rather than the actual method itself. If more private jets use biofuels or something more efficient than current jet fuels then that is progress. We cannot expect everyone to start walking or taking the bus to work. That isn't going to happen. If we can get more individuals to use mass transit and car pool that would be great, but in the end not most individuals will not change their habits so we must focus on making our vehicles more fuel efficient and less polluting. Make sense?

Monday, July 2, 2007

How far behind is Pittsburgh?

I often wonder how long it will take to get people in this area to start coming around to the idea of "Going Green." The other day I met Rhette Rogozinski of the Pittsburgh Sierra Club at an event in Mt. Lebanon and talked with her about her involvement for a few minutes. Rhette said that a few other local chapter members from the area meet about once a month to discuss current issues which at the moment include getting the town commissioners on board with an effort to cut the town's GHG emissions. Rhette also mentioned that the senior high school will either be renovated and/or have new construction to expand the school within the next few years. There is some discussion around making the new high school LEED certified but I haven't found any confirmation on that.

Meeting someone like that gives me hope but I still think the average person in this region thinks those of us promoting green initiatives are a little "nuts." We still have work to do when it comes to changing the mindset of individuals. A few examples. People at my work discover I have a blog on alternative fuels and clean tech - they look at me like I am a nut case. People think it is weird that I carpool to work. My wife, among others, asks "Why would you put up with someone else driving to work everyday. Doesn't that get annoying?" Well, parking for $10 a day and $3+ a gallon of gas adds up. I also do not (yet) own a fuel efficient hybrid so for now me driving by myself into work each day makes me feel like a complete a-hole.

So how do we change the mindsets of these individuals who do not have the environment and energy efficiency on their radars? Education is the first place to start. With energy prices playing such a huge role in our economy we need more economic and public policy professors talking about energy efficiency and alternative energy sources. CMU's Tepper School of Business has a professor who is world reknown for his thought leadership in the area of energy policies. Check out these interview clips with Professor Lester Lave on gasoline prices.

How else do we inform the average Pittsburgher or other individuals in the US who do not have a clue on this issue? Incentives in the form of taxes and rebates are something everyone notices. I am against a tax increase at the pump it is a regressive tax that hurts the less fortunate while not making a dent in changing behaviors. What I am for is taxing new vehicle purchases based on their fuel efficiency. Let people buy their Hummers - I am all for free choice. But individuals should pay when their actions negatively affect society and so a tax for purchasing a Cadillac Escalade, in my eyes, is a good "sin tax." By the way - the tax rate for these new vehicles purchases should be on a sliding scale. Average fuel efficient vehicles should have a lower tax rate while those that are ultra fuel efficient should even get a tax credit.

What other methods do we have? It's all about the issue hitting home. For my wife, who is an animal lover, seeing the effects global warming has had on the icecaps and polar bears has led her to get on board the green train, although she is not as "coo-coo" on the issue as I am. Economic development is another way to get people's attention. Cleantech investments have proven to that they can provide growth economies almost over night in certain parts of the country and world.

So what is the tipping point? As Lester Lave points out in the interview posted above and in this editorial, $3 a gallon gasoline has not impacted the behavior of Americans. Unfortunately, higher gas prices and maybe even an oil crisis will have to happen for the majority of Americans to accept the fact that they must change their habits. I wish it didn't have to happen that way but I have to say our culture is pretty sad these days. We spend more time thinking about reality TV, video games, i-Phones, and fantasy football to really make an effort to do what is needed to save the planet.

Thursday, May 31, 2007

Corporate Climate Response - Live

Check out Ogilvy PR's live blogging from the 3 day Corporate Climate Response conference that ends today, May 31st.

http://www.climateresponseblog.com

Wednesday, May 9, 2007

More Candor, Less Pander


This week I need to talk about something that has been greatly irritating me. In the wake of the first two debates for what looks like will be a very long road to the presidency, you can clearly start to hear the political shape shifting that candidates can't seem to stop themselves from doing. This shape shifting is the ambivalent stance they take on issues so they can't be pinned down as being pro or against a certain issue. This is normal behavior but, it can't be tolerated when it comes to pushing forward to save our planet and ourselves.

Recently when certain politicians have been asked "Do you believe in global warming?" they give the type of response that acknowledges that the planet's temperature is rising, and they want to do all they can to help but, are still not convinced that humans are causing this change. What!!!!

Here is an example, Listen to the end of this clip from a presidential candidate. He says "blaming humans for enjoying the environment is extreme"

Maybe his idea of enjoying the environment is pumping extreme amounts of carbon emissions into the atmosphere, dumping waste into our oceans, cutting down rain forests, etc... My concept of enjoyment is a little different.

There is a major problem with the argument that humans can't be blamed for our environmental problems, and we need to call politicians out on it. The problem is that if you are unwilling to identify human behavior as the cause for the environmental problems then you remove yourself of any obligation to change human behavior.

No problem can be approached or solved without identifying the cause of the problem. Yes, I know it sucks to have to change our routine of energy and resource waste that we humans are so used to but, the alternative is much worse.

Going green should not be a divisive political issue. The only reason some candidates are unwilling to blame humans for environmental change is because they are pandering to their corporate interests that may have to change the way they are doing business. That is why instead of pandering we need leaders who will speak with candor about the fact that "yes" we humans caused the problems and now we need to change them.

If we can't agree politically on this issue at least, I'm sorry to say but it is a very sad time in our country's history.

Monday, April 23, 2007

What Is My Earthday Resolution?


Well... Yesterday was Earthday a holiday that's message has been getting more and more urgent with every year that goes by. This year great strides were made in educating the public on the importance of changing the way we interact with the planet. It seems like the media has generally embraced the importance of "going green" and of course there was "An Inconvenient Truth" which won an academy award for documentary of the year.

However, as an individual we should be forced to ask ourselves what are we going to change in our daily lives this upcoming year that will benefit the planet and every living being on it. In the same vein that we look to ourselves and ask what can we do to improve our own individual lives on New Years Day in the form of a New Years Resolution. I make the call that every individual should ask themselves on Earthday, What will be my Earthday resolution? This resolution is not a focus on internal improvement as much as one focused on external improvement that benefits not the individual but the entirety of the planet.

Here are my Earthday Resolutions for this year:

1. Replace all the bulbs in my apartment with CFL bulbs.
2. Join an organization that either takes action to help people learn how they can "go green" or takes action to replace old systems with green/efficient systems
3. Find people to carpool with at work and other places that I normally travel to by car.
4. Use more mass transit, try to implement at least 3 uses a week where I would normally drive.

I am curious about others Earthday resolutions, if your reading this post yours in the comment section so we can all get some more ideas of things to do!!

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

"Global warming has emerged as a major market-moving force"

This USA Today article is a nice overview of how the global warming/alt energy movement is shaping investment decisions.

An interesting point that I've tried to make in a few of my previous posts:

"From an investors' standpoint, it doesn't matter if people believe global warming is real or if greenhouse gases are to blame..... What does matter is if consumers, regulators, governments and corporations react to the perceived threat."
Even if you are a global warming skeptic - do not overlook this issue when it comes to your portfolio - companies that adopt and innovate these clean technologies are going to have at least two things going for them:
1. They will be more popular with shareholders. A perfect example of this is TXU's fallout with the public over the construction of dirty coal plants. The controversy had a negative impact on the firm's share price which then made it a prime candidate for a takeover.

2. They will save money in the long-run and hopefully, will pass that on to shareholders in the form of buybacks and/or dividends. Yes, upfront costs for these clean technologies will be steep, but long term savings and lower threat of environmental related lawsuits

Google