If Global CO2 Emissions Were Black Smoke Coming From a Giant Broken Pipe in Texas

Watching the video of the BP oil gusher bleeding into the Gulf of Mexico, I got thinking about how this imagery (and all the heart-wrenching photos of oiled wildlife) makes the problem so real and easy to comprehend.  We get it, and it makes us sick.

One of the widely-discussed problems with the public's acceptance of the science underlying global weirding is that the heat-trapping gases that are disrupting the climate are invisible.  Plus, these heat-trapping pollutants come from so many different places -- cars, trucks, buses, inefficient homes and buildings, industrial processes, deforestation, landfills, you name it -- that their flow into the atmosphere and their impact on the earth's climate and people is hard to "see".

Which leads me to a question: if all the Earth's heat-trapping pollution was colored black and came from a giant broken pipe in the middle of, say, Dallas, (1) how big in diameter would the pipe have to be, and (2) how long would it take for the plume of black smoke to spread from Dallas to other major metropolitan areas around the world?

If somebody with graphic design skills could put together this kind of computerized imagery, it would be powerful stuff...
...

A Green Jobs Revolution

Here's a fun read from Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo:

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) and former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt explain why retooling our carbon-based energy sector for clean growth can spur the kind of investment and job growth that we saw in the telecom industry after the market opening of the early 1990s.

Congressman Markey and FCC Chairman Hundt compare the benefits we can achieve now from passing bold climate change and clean energy legislation to the benefits America reaped from passing 1990's legislation that lead to revolutions in telecom products and services:

In the ten years that followed the spectrum auctions that created competition in digital cellular and the regulatory framework that opened Internet access to competition and the telephone network to innovation - 1997 to 2007 - investors, according to McKinsey and Company, poured more than $850 billion in new capital into mobile, data, and expanded cable networks in the United States.

This investment drove job creation beyond any economist's prediction. Unemployment fell to 4 percent by the end of 1990s, and nearly 65 percent of the population was employed. That's a remarkable contrast to the numbers today: 9.7 percent of Americans are unemployed and only 58 percent of people are employed. The job growth led to national income growth and increased tax revenue, so that the federal budget, contrary to every estimate at the beginning of the 90s, was balanced by 1998.

We can get the same upside surprises if we pass a law that retools the carbon-based energy sector of the last century and encourages private investment in a 21st century energy economy built on alternatives such as wind, sun, biomass and geothermal. That's the purpose of the Waxman-Markey bill, which passed the House of Representatives last June.

Reform in communications stimulated creative destruction. For example, the old long distance industry charged ten cents a minute for a call when we passed the Telecommunications Act. Now people are not even aware that there used to be a long distance charge when they use their phones to call anywhere.

The replacement of the old networks with the new led to waves of innovation. Our reforms permitted everyone to unplug the phone line from the back of the telephone and stick it into the back of the computer. That connection was the first pathway to the World Wide Web - in large part because we did not permit the telephone company to charge extra money for all that extra and unpredicted use. The new demand for data connections drove telephone companies to buy routers and switches, to build data centers, and to upgrade lines. Cable companies were driven to respond by switching some of their capacity from one-way video programs to high speed two-way internet access, giving rise to broadband. In response, the phone companies are now installing fiber, taking broadband to new levels of speed and lower price per bit.

Similarly, in the energy sector we need to retool the existing generation and distribution networks with cleaner forms of generation, open markets to innovators who will build power lines that lose fewer electrons and connect new sources of clean power to users, and reward investors for installing more efficient ways of using electricity. Creating the right framework for our communications networks led investors to commit about $850 billion to rebuild those networks. With the right set of policies, it is reasonable expect a similar explosion of private sector investment in the energy sector. This will result in consumers paying less for heating, cooling and lighting, and America's energy sector will be firmly based on abundant, cheap and clean fuels. Nothing will pull innovation into the energy sector more than wind farms demanding better storage technology, solar farms demanding better ways of capturing and converting sunlight into electricity, and appliances and electric vehicles that can talk to the grid if it is smart enough.

There are other areas of the economy where Americans can and should find new jobs. In the energy sector we not only will need millions of employees, but we also know that those millions will help us achieve independence from foreign oil and an end to the pollution of the environment from carbon emissions. The trifecta of huge employment, national security, and protection of the environment is a winning ticket for America. We have found that winning formula before in hard times that proved to be the dawn of economic growth; we can turn the dark days of the present into sunny optimism about our future once again.

Superb piece -- they've clearly got their messaging down on the importance of passing bold climate change and clean energy legislation.  Note to the Senate: let's make it happen, already!

Kudos for TMP for bringing us this kind of high quality content, which is worthy of the op-ed pages of the world's finest newspapers.

Read more>>
...

Want to Cut Emissions in the U.S.? Change the Discussion

How do we motivate the American public to action on climate change and our transition to a clean energy economy? Appeal to patriotism, says this piece in the C.S. Monitor:

The way to get Americans to take action? Appeal to their patriotism.

Historically in times of war, the US government has successfully gotten citizens to join the armed forces, to buy war bonds, and to accept rationing by appealing to their patriotism.

The Obama administration should begin by asking Americans to curb their oil use. Fighting global warming entails curtailing oil consumption. Given the location of the world's petroleum reserves, when Americans pull out their credit cards at the gas pump or pay for their heating fuel, they indirectly fund Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's nuclear and missile programs, enrich Muammar Qaddafi (while he rants at the UN against the United States, and give assistance to Vladimir Putin as he threatens American interests in the Caucasus and Central Europe.

Other beneficiaries of American oil imports include Hugo Chávez's Venezuela and Ahmad al-Bashir's Sudan – not to mention Al Qaeda, whose financial backers include many who would be penniless were it not for fossil fuels exports. At the very least, without their petroleum exports all these countries would be far weaker.

Even if the oil sold in the US comes from Alaska, Texas, or allies like Norway, American demand drives up the price of the commodity, thereby pumping huge flows of dollars into the treasuries of its enemies.

On the other hand, when the US invests in alternative energy sources and energy conservation, it helps spur technological innovation in America and other advanced liberal democracies.

A "post-oil" world is one where the major winners will include California's high-tech industries, Japan's battery manufacturers, and German solar panel companies, while the losers will be the oil exporting autocracies of the Middle East and Russia.

Refocusing the climate debate would significantly increase the chances of success. If Americans start thinking about their dependence on oil as equivalent to providing assistance to Iran, Venezuela, and Libya, more citizens will be open to looking for and practicing alternatives.

The public needs to understand that global warming policy – and its attendant sacrifices – are less about protecting the polar bear, and more about protecting the American people from losing economic boosts to foes that thrive on our oil exports. 

This type of message has broad appeal and definitely needs to be repeatedly hammered into the American psyche...

Read the full piece>>
...

Bridging the Apathy Gap

Recent findings by environmental messaging studies are showing that simply using the "it saves money" appeal to get people to buy green isn't enough to motivate lasting change.  Here's some new food for thought on the subject, via GreenBiz:

In our forthcoming Energy Pulse study, we’ve discovered another reason why screaming “save money” doesn’t work, and we’re calling it The Apathy Gap.

Here’s how it works:

When we asked consumers how much their bill would have to go up in order to force them to undertake energy efficient renovations, the average answer matched last year, exactly -- $129.00. This would be a 69 percent increase over average reported winter heating bills ($185.58) and a 76 percent increase over average reported summer cooling bills ($169.20).

In other words, consumers are willing to waste more than $1,500 a year, or more than $4 a day to do nothing. That’s The Apathy Gap -- the price people are willing to pay to do nothing. For that same amount of money, the average homeowner could install additional insulation, or purchase one or two new Energy Star appliances and replace all incandescent light bulbs in his/her home with CFLs.

What does the piece advise for motivating people to actually make changes?

We think it’s about making consumers aware of the waste. They didn’t come right out and tell us they were willing to waste $4 a day -- that’s just how the math works out. We think most consumers would likely feel pretty financially irresponsible/stupid if informed of the numbers above -- after all, $1,500 is nothing to sneeze at, even if you make $100,000 a year. And when we asked, “What’s the No. 1 reason to participate in energy conservation activities or buy an energy efficient product or service” the No. 4 answer (which was a new one we tested this year) was “to be responsible and not waste resources.” That answer beat out “protecting our nation’s economy and reducing our dependence on foreign oil” and to get more control over personal energy consumption and costs,” which seem like pretty compelling reasons.

Given that our Mammas all told us “waste not want not,” we think a little shame around wasting money (particularly in this economy) could go a long way towards bridging The Apathy Gap.

Now let's have some fun thinking about how this finding and recommendation translates into educational campaign strategies and tactics!  I can already think of some pretty funny photo and video contest ideas...

Read the GreenBiz piece>>
...

Noam Chomsky on Motivating Sustainability and the Future of Humanity

Here's some food for thought from Noam Chomsky on how we need to provide a consistent and powerful flow of messaging to create a more sustainable human civilization that lives in balance with our environment (and each other):

Repetition--if not always truth--is precisely how Corporate America does it...the same messages pounded into our brains until we submit. Such indoctrination is not easily challenged and it often requires the same brand of replication to do so. Thus, the Chomsky-inspired message for the green movement:

Speak the truth. Speak it loudly. Speak it often.

"All over the place," he explains, "from the popular culture to the propaganda system, there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are helpless, that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and to consume."

The green movement is here to create a constant counter-pressure (so to speak) to stop all this acquiescing to political power and corporate marketing. Leading by example, we each can demonstrate how much power we have and how urgent it is that we think for ourselves and exert this influence...now.

I particularly liked how Chomsky summed up the need for the New Green Economy and Sustainability Revolution that we work to advance here at CV notes:

"Modern industrial civilization has developed within a certain system of convenient myths. The driving force of modern industrial civilization has been individual material gain. Now it's long been understood--very well--that a society that is based on this principle will destroy itself in time. It can only persist--with whatever suffering and injustice it entails--as long as it's possible to pretend that the destructive forces that humans create are limited, that the world is an infinite resource, and that the world is an infinite garbage can. At this stage of history, either the general population will take control of its own destiny and will concern itself with community issues guided by values of solidarity and sympathy and concern for others or--alternatively--there will be no destiny for anyone to control."

Yep, that's pretty much our mission -- and choice -- right now.  Either we get it right, or, as Jared Diamond's Collapse reminds us, Mother Nature will get it right for us...

The good news is that from sustainable, secure sources of clean energy, to healthy organic foods, to walkable communities interspersed with networks of open space that dazzle us with their rejuvenative power and biological diversity, there is so much hope in the solutions offered by the Green Economy movement...
 
Read the full post at Planet Green>>
...

The Genesis of the Climate Change Stalemate

Why are so many Americans still so stubbornly in denial about climate change?

Here's one explanation:

A plausible explanation was supplied by a Harvard Law Review article I recently read. The article links disputes over technical issues to clusters of values that form competing cultural worldviews, most notably “egalitarian” and “individualist” worldviews.

The article asserts that egalitarians are “naturally sensitive to environmental hazards, the abatement of which justifies regulating commercial activities that produce social inequality.”

By contrast, the article notes, “individualists” generally “dismiss claims of environmental risk as specious, in line with their commitment to the autonomy of markets.” Because climate change appears to threaten the core idea of individualism, individualists will engage in considerable intellectual gymnastics to avoid climate regulation.

In sum, most people (other than a few scientists and economists who actually know what they are talking about)* with strong opinions on climate policy are responding less to objective reality than to their cultural values. As a practical matter, this means that Americans are going to have a great deal of difficulty reaching a popular consensus on climate policy; because the issue is so technical, ill-informed public opinion is likely to be impervious to new scientific evidence. The stalemate can only be broken through policies that appeal to both sides.

The good news, as we emphasize here at Conservation Value Institute, is that it IS possible to get people with widely differing views on climate change to support related clean energy solutions.

Read more>>
...

Poll: Americans Getting Greener, But Still Have a Long Way to Go

Here are some numbers from yet another poll indicating that Americans are getting greener:

A sampling of results, with the percentage reflecting people who said they "always" or "often" did this activity in the last year:

• Turned off lights when leaving a room: 83 percent.
• Recycled: 68 percent.
• Installed more energy-efficient light bulbs: 63 percent.
• Made an effort to use less water: 60 percent.
• Started paying bills online: 46 percent.
• Donated an electronic device for recycling: 41 percent.
• Switched to paperless financial statements: 40 percent.
• Purchased locally grown produce: 39 percent.
• Purchased energy-efficient appliances: 36 percent.
• Switched from bottled to tap water 29 percent.
• Purchased locally manufactured products: 26 percent.
• Purchased used as opposed to new products: 25 percent.
• Installed a low-flow showerhead: 17 percent.
• Made compost: 17 percent.
• Purchased organic products: 17 percent.
• Carpooled or used public transport: 16 percent.
• Bought a more fuel efficient car: 13 percent.
• Bought hybrid cars: 2 percent.

Only 13 percent of the respondents said they did none of the green activities that Harris asked about. On the flip side, only 13 percent said the phrase "I am green" described them "completely" or "very well."

The numbers could be overstated, Harris warned, because people tend to give "socially desirable" answers.

I know I'm always shocked when I visit some of my supposedly conscious friends' homes and find that they still haven't taken the simple step of replacing easily-replaceable incandescent bulbs with CFL's or LED's.  A fortunately decreasing number of my peers produce as much trash in a day as my wife and I produce in a week -- it's amazing how wasteful too many people still are, though things seem to be getting better.  On the bright side, I'm both impressed and thrilled when I get to check out cool green features like backyard gardens (as an avid gardener, I love to talk shop on the subject).

How can YOU help?  Behavior change studies indicate that the more we change our habits, and the more our peers see us changing them (e.g., I not only blog, but also FaceBook and Tweet about my sustainable behaviors), the likely our peers are to change theirs...

Read The Oregonian's full take on the poll>>
...

Meeting With the Dalai Lama, Energy Secretary and President on Climate Change

Here's a wonderful piece to end the week -- a story, written by Rep. Jay Inslee of Washington, about his climate change conversations this week with the Dalai Lama, Energy Secretary Chu, and President Obama.

Says Inslee of the Dalai Lama:

That the Dalai Lama is an important voice in the climate change debate might strike some as surprising. After all, he has his hands full trying to protect the religious liberty of the Tibetan people. But in our meeting with him and Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the Capitol, he made it abundantly clear that he considers climate change a mortal threat to his people as well as to all of the one and a half billion people who depend upon the rivers flowing from the threatened glaciers of the Himalayas.

Of his meeting with Chu:

Secretary Chu made a statement that might stun many Americans. He believes China has passed America in the field of high-tech manufacturing, not low-cost manufacturing. His statement revealed a new truth. We have historically feared the ability of China to beat us due to their low-wage rates. That fear now properly should be replaced by a concern about its ability to dominate high-tech manufacturing.

But Secretary Chu has an answer to that gloomy prospect: America can become a major provider to the world of clean energy products and services, if we play our cards right.

And finally of his meeting with President Obama:

In (a) way his basketball game is just like his strategy on clean energy legislation—his forthcoming score is going to surprise a lot of people. Until we passed our energy bill in the House, most said it couldn’t be done. Now they are saying we cannot get a bill out of the Senate. Those folks are wrong, just like the folks were wrong who might have thought that Obama is too skinny to go to the hoop in traffic. The dynamic is in our direction. All the relevant pressures are breaking our way.

Of course, we still have lots of work to do to give Congress the support they need to make this happen.  Again, those of you in swing states, especially, please call your Senators at 202-224-3121 and urge them to support and strengthen the Kerry/Boxer bill.  Tell them that if California has a new standard that requires 33% of electricity to come from renewable sources by 2020, certainly America can do the same...

With that thought, I'm going to crack a beer and enjoy the last couple of innings of the Yankees/Angels game.

Read Inslee's full post>>
...

Bottled Water Sales Down, But Why Are People Still Paying For It?

Treehugger has a good post that reports a small decline in bottled water sales, and then gets into the behavioral question of why people still spend way more per gallon on it than they do on gasoline:

I suspect that convenience and a recently acquired habit are major reasons why most people still buy so much bottled water. The BPA in water bottles thing didn't help. That said, there have been gradual social and political changes which have come to reinforce the convenience factor.

As we've reported here in the past, drinking bottled water is both a wasteful and environmentally destructive habit. If convenience is the motivation, what are other options?  Well, we use our own refillable stainless steel water bottles -- and they're pretty convenient (plus it's comforting to know I'm not drinking any plastic particles).

If your home drinking water isn't safe, the most eco-friendly option is to explore the wide variety of filtration systems.  A secondary option is to explore the re-fillable 5-gallon jug services, which are both cheaper per gallon than bottled water and generate far less waste. 

If you work for a business that insists on selling bottled water, what are your best choices?  The Better World Shopping Guide gives "A"-level grades to Biota and Ethos and "B"-level grades to Trinity, Crystal Geyser, Aquafina and Essentia.

Read the full post>>
...

Musicians Inspiring Fans to Act on Climate Change Solutions

Another Medium ... The Same Message: Action on Climate 

Note: This is a re-post of my new article in the Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media

In 2007, Live Earth held massive climate change-themed concerts in stadiums around the world. The star-studded shows, broadcast globally, were intended to leverage the power of music to raise awareness, change individual behavior, and increase public pressure for governments to enact solutions.

How did the American public respond to the programming?

Not so well, according to a 2008 study by experts at Yale University, Gallup, and ClearVision Institute. “Live Earth appears to have had no immediate impact on American public opinion as a whole,” the study concluded.

Could it be? With an effort committing untold millions on A-level talent, and with global media coverage, could Live Earth have fallen so short?

With many mainstream news organizations in disarray, musical acts and events are joining with visual artists, sustainability experts, and others in developing greening strategies to educate fans on solutions even as they strive to reduce their own environmental footprints. The fate of Live Earth may offer them a powerful lesson: motivating fans to become a part of climate change solutions takes more than a concert with a cause.

The Times … and the Climate … are a-Changin’

The rising numbers of musicians and event producers who are moving decisively to help fill the science information void resulting from newsroom disruptions couldn’t come at a more critical time. Climate legislation on Capitol Hill is mired in delay, compromise, and needless controversy, leaving some pointing fingers at real and perceived news media shortcomings as responsible for inadequately educating the public on the urgency of the need for solutions. This even as polar ice melt accelerates at eyebrow-raising rates, economic growth remains a hostage of Oil Addiction as Peak Oil looms, and large swaths of the America public remain dangerously clueless about the potentials of - and critical need for - wise investments to jumpstart a new, clean tech-powered economy.

Those old enough will recall well the galvanizing impact of songsters and poets Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, Peter, Paul & Mary, Woody Guthrie, and others from the 1960s. Back in the Woodstock Era, artists from Joni Mitchell to Marvin Gaye composed lyrics that are still as relevant now as they were then, such as these from Canned Heat’s “Let’s Work Together”:

Together we’ll stand, divided we’ll fall
Come on now people let’s get on the ball

Can today’s music community again take up its historic mantle as a change maker?

Musicians: What They’re Doing	Messaging Tips For Promoters

For proponents of action, the lyrics of Samantha Stollenwerck’s “Oblivious” may better reflect the challenges that the music community faces in motivating fans to get involved in climate change solutions.
Consider, for example, the results of a recent study finding that 39 percent of Americans cannot accurately name a fossil fuel, nor 51 percent a source of renewable energy. Climate change doubters, in particular, appeared particularly misinformed: 63 percent said drilling offshore and in Alaska would eliminate the need to import oil. That is, of course, a far cry from the estimate of the U.S. Department of Energy that such drilling would constitute about 0.2 percent of world production in 20 years - too small to have a significant effect on oil prices.

The study’s authors concluded that many Americans simply lack the basic knowledge about energy needed to competently influence policy decisions. Their conclusion may not come as much of a surprise to those concerned, given that some of the country’s most pervasive news organizations have inadequately informed the public on energy issues.

Enter into this climate and environmental communications morass increasing elements of the music community, striving to inspire fans to get involved in climate change “solutions.”

But are musicians making a difference? Who are some key players? How are they succeeding? What obstacles are they encountering? And what can they do better?

Rothbury Festival’s ‘Think Tank’ and Greening

Seeing these challenges, Rothbury Festival co-founder Jeremy Stein dreamed up the “Think Tank.” “We’re in a phase where education is most important with the whole greening issue,” Stein said in a July 2009 interview. At the Think Tank, “you can hear some of the most advanced minds in the world talk about where they’re at with this subject … Our speakers … they’re the real doers. I think that resonates a lot, especially with the younger crowd … They want to hear what the real guys are doing.”

Of course, pioneering a “Think Tank” at a music festival - where mostly young audiences come precisely to NOT think - is no easy task. The inaugural 2008 Rothbury event, focused on “Finding Energy
Independence,” included three panels per day, showcasing such sustainability experts as National Academy of Sciences member and Stanford climatologist Stephen H. Schneider, natural capitalist Hunter Lovins, activist Winona LaDuke, educator and climate activist Eban Goodstein, and others (see disclaimer below).

Joined by musicians from performing groups and Rothbury attractions such as Widespread Panic, Spearhead, The Crystal Method, The String Cheese Incident, Citizen Cope, and STS9, panel discussions about climate change solutions, energy independence, and how to motivate change covered a wide range of issues for audiences consisting primarily of “20 somethings.”

Rothbury’s Think Tank

In the July 2009 second Rothbury Festival and its related “Think Tank” - themed “Joining the New Green Economy” - planners had to deal with significant budget cuts resulting from the difficult economic climate and with festival management’s reluctance to spend money on a program whose impact on ticket sales is, to say the least, hard to measure.

After the Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC) stepped in as a sponsor and saved the Think Tank from possible cancellation, organizers developed a more diverse program designed to reach more fans. They cut panels to two per day - each featuring musical participation, including by members of The String Cheese Incident, Guster, STS9, Railroad Earth, Toubab Krewe, Four Finger Five, and Giant Panda Guerilla Dub Squad. They added components such as interactive skills workshops in green jobs; home energy savings; organic gardening; and what turned out to be a very popular green fashion show.

To reach beyond panels and workshops, Think Tank speakers made daily calls to action from two of the festival’s big stages. Joined by HeadCount, the Think Tank held a “Vote With Your Actions” photo contest - rewarding winning fans with VIP treatment for submitting photos of themselves engaged in green actions, hundreds of which were showcased on FaceBook. To reach fans during musicians’ evening programming, the Think Tank joined forces with Our Future Now to produce inspirational video messages. The 2009 program filmed each panel, and plans are in the works to encourage festival attendees and fans to view and share clips of Think Tank speakers year-round.

Involving more of the Rothbury Festival’s most popular headliners - such as the Dave Matthews Band in 2008 and Willie Nelson, Bob Dylan, and The Dead in 2009 - remains a challenge. This is an unfortunate obstacle to reaching more fans, as Think Tank panels featuring the biggest-name musicians have consistently been the best attended.

Singer-songwriter Jack Johnson - letting his lyrics make his case

In many cases, the challenge with such headliners is that their busy touring schedules have them in and out of the Rothbury Festival grounds too quickly to participate. In other cases, an artist comfortable singing or playing into a mic just isn’t big on speaking.

That’s not an uncommon barrier after all. Friends of singer-songwriter Jack Johnson, for example, say he does not feel comfortable preaching, but rather likes to set the example by letting his very impressive green actions and lyrics speak for themselves.

Rothbury Festival organizers say they expect to unveil new program components in 2010 to further tailor the Think Tank to its western Michigan festival setting.

The Path Forward - Partnerships with Experts

They say that even the worst of enemies can dance to the same song. In that context, the music community can be an especially appropriate vehicle for informing the public and inspiring support for bold climate solutions.

Currently, however, many in the music community aren’t actively talking to their fans about climate change. Rather, they are focusing their efforts on greening tours and events to reduce their own environmental and carbon footprints. And in that respect, events from Rothbury to Bonnaroo are making important progress, some quite creatively so. Even for those who are working to educate fans, however, most lack the time and resources needed to measure whether their messaging is motivating action, a key for assuring their time and resources pay off and make a difference.

If they are to achieve their promising potential of having a game-changing measurable impact on advancing climate change solutions, musicians and promoters should aim to pioneer new and innovative partnerships with respected science and policy experts, and also with funders, the latter always a challenge.

There are many promising matches to be made, as partnerships with musicians and major events can offer corporate sponsors valuable branding and public relations benefits. Additionally, these partnerships can provide grant makers with innovative ways to support initiatives that help them achieve their program goals.


Editor’s Note: The author of this piece, Jon Gelbard, was the director of the Rothbury Festival “Think Tanks,” and the editor of The Yale Forum was among the official participants both in 2008 and 2009.

---

Jonathan L. Gelbard, Ph.D. is Executive Director of Conservation Value Institute in El Cerrito, CA., which works through its Entertainment Industry Partnerships program to leverage music to inspire fans to act on climate change and sustainability. He produced and directed the Rothbury Think Tank and served as sustainability producer for Green Apple Festival from 2007 – 2009.
...

For all You Teachers and Professors Out There...

A note from my colleague, Eban Goodstein, who is heroically organizing the National Teach In:

Dear Colleagues and Friends,

Swamp the Senate! (with invitations). This fall, engage your US Senators in dialogue about global warming at your college, university, high school, faith organization or other institution.

Invite the Senators to join you at a 90-minute “Signs of Change Teach-in”—we have a template for a session that is easy to organize, including sample invitations, here.  The Senators may not come, but you can insist that they send a representative from their office to talk with you. In DC and in Copenhagen, this is the year that the world decides the future. With the stakes this high, we owe young people a day of focused discussion, and the opportunity to join this critical national debate. Sign up today!

Find out more in the phone discussion following sustainability expert Hunter Lovins on The National Climate Seminar, our twice-monthly, half-hour discussion, at 3 PM Eastern on Wednesday, 10/21. Lovins will talk about why smart businesses are abandoning the Chamber of Commerce, and why they are making the case for climate action. After the Seminar, learn how you can help Swamp the Senate!

Send advance questions for Lovins to climate@bard.edu. Joining us later in the term: the Honorable Edward Markey, Andy Revkin, David Orr and others. Click here for Seminar details.

Thanks for your ongoing work engaging students and citizens in the Senate debate.  Don’t forget to support the 350 International Day of Action, on October 24^th.  And please register your own views with your US Senators, every week.

Professor Eban Goodstein,

Director National Teach-In on Global Warming Solutions

More about National Teach In>> 

Of course, if we can be of assistance to any Bay Area Teach In's, please do drop us a line.

...

Reasons for Hope on Climate & Energy Legislation

After reading David Roberts' post on Grist detailing 7 reasons for optimism on passing the Senate Climate Make Renewable Energy Cheap and Create Millions of Green Jobs Bill, I feel...hope!

Ten years ago, every hot-sh*t entrepreneur, engineer, and investor wanted to change the web. Today they want to change the grid. They understand that clean energy legislation will unlock enormous business opportunities. Big companies want to get their hands on those opportunities, which is why they’re actively lobbying for a bill.

The majority of the American people want to see this bill passed.  They are tired of the economic instability, public health problems, security issues, and of course environmental catastrophes wrought by fossil fuel dependence.  Now the Senate needs to step up and deliver for its constituents.

Read the full Grist post>>
...

Local Towns Setting Green Policy Solution Trends

The N.Y. Times reports on innovative policy solutions that suburban towns are developing to incentivize sustainable living and business practices, and help people afford things like energy efficiency upgrades that both reduce pollution and benefit public health:

FOR two years, Valerie Williams had been considering making the five-bedroom home she grew up in more energy efficient — hoping to shrink her $350 monthly utility bill — but more pressing expenses always came first.

Then the town of Babylon came up with an offer she couldn’t refuse: if she and her husband, Carlos, paid $250 for an energy audit, the town would finance the recommended upgrades. The couple would repay the town at a monthly rate below the savings on their utility bill. The audit, done this month, found that by insulating walls, basement and attic, at a cost of $6,879, the Williamses could save about $1,300 a year.

“This is a program that helps the environment, helps homeowners save money, creates local jobs, reduces our reliance on fossil fuels and it’s at no cost to taxpayers,” said Steve Bellone, Babylon’s town supervisor.

I love reading about local solutions like this.  It's often at the local level where these types of programs are easiest to implement, politically, and can serve as test cases for scaling solutions up to state and national levels, where the politics of...everything...is more contentious.  

Read more>>
...

Climate Bill Strategy - A Mistake To Hold the Debate During Winter?

A provoking 'Deep Thought' from Josh Marshall:

Is it really time for a climate change bill when it's getting so cold outside?

Given America's inept Fourth Estate and politics, it's sadly a legitimate question to ask...
...

Supporting Climate and Energy Legislation Is a Moral Issue, Say Pastors

Support Climate Change and Clean Energy Solutions legislation or face the wrath of God!  So say 3 pastors from Oregon.  Well, not quite in those terms, but their short piece brought a smile to my face.

Say the pastors:

This is not just a political issue but it also is a moral one. It has to do with the soul of our society. The scriptures tell us, "The earth is the LORD's, and everything in it." (Psalm 24:1) It does not belong to us. We are caretakers in God's garden. To act as though it is ours to use up and destroy is to misunderstand our place in the universe. Conversely, acting responsibly and compassionately toward the earth and her resources restores us to our right role as children of God.

So we are inviting people of good will throughout our community to contact U.S. Sens. Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden and encourage them to support this legislation. In fact, ask them to strengthen the bill by closing loopholes that allow some of the worst polluters to continue to destroy the environment.

Here's the piece, from Portland's Oregonian...

Green Products -- Consumers Can't Find Them, Don't Know Which to Trust

Couple of bits from this week's LOHAS Weekly Newsletter:

• Consumers can't find green products where they shop.  Which means they need more tools and resources to find the green products they need.  And of course, manufacturers need to step up and seize the opportunity to provide products whose production, use, and/or re-use potential is sustainable
  
• Consumers are bewildered by the proliferation of over 400 green seals or "eco-labels" designed to help consumers find green products they can trust.

There's gotta be a better way to do this.  I like the resources provided by Good Guide, but still, there's something not quite intuitive about its rating system.

It's a topic we're working on -- helping consumers get what makes a product 'green'...