It's a whole new world, hopefully...

Obama: the post-environmental president

What does the election mean for climate change and energy policy?
by Adam Stein – November 5, 2008

There’s been a bit of chatter in recent weeks about whether an Obama victory would truly be as transformative as many progressives hope and expect. Some have quietly suggested that nothing in Obama’s record, temperament, or platform should make us expect dramatic gestures. They say that those who think otherwise are letting the man’s remarkable personal story cloud their judgment of his governing philosophy, or discounting the extent to which every president is constrained by Congress.

There’s something to this, and ultimately any president’s legacy is determined as much by events as by his or her personal qualities. That said, I think that Obama’s presidency has a good chance of being a transformative one, particularly in the area of climate and energy. Circumstances have delivered up a set of interlinked crises — economic, environmental, and security-related — at just the moment that we’ve elected a person who seems to fully grasp the scope of the problem and the proper shape of the solution.

Obama has often been referred to as the first post-racial politician. When we someday evaluate his tenure, we may come to see him instead as the first post-environmental president, the leader who was able to connect the dots on energy, the economy, and security in way that elevates these issues above narrow interest group concerns and places them at the center of the political agenda.

Read the rest of the article HERE.

Best of Earth Day - 2008

Since I spent most of yesterday home with an ailing 17 month old who sounded more Tom Waits than Yo Gabba Gabba, it looks like I'm playing Earth Day catch-up. As a result, I decided to take a look to see what transpired in my absence.

I was a little surprised.

Times are shifting and attitudes are changing; specifically, mine. As I sat at home covered in baby grime, I couldn't help but watch the boobtube and think, "If I hear the word "green" one more time, I'm going to dump my television in a lake!"

Not very environmentally friendly, I know.

So I sampled various areas of the interweb to see if their green-washing was as bad as their Hollywood brethren and came back with a little more than I bargained for. Apparently, you can have waaaaaaaaaaaay too much of a good thing....especially if the good things are intentions.

***

The Candidates
Both of the Democratic candidates for president addressed Earth Day in formal statements, while it appears as though John McCain sat idly by on a sweaty turnbuckle.

Barack Obama: ...we can choose a different future – a future where America is energy independent, and no longer funding both sides in the war on terror; a future where we’re leading rather than undermining the global effort to combat climate change; and investing in green energy technology, and creating the jobs of the future.
Hillary Clinton: When I am president, our nation will lead the world to tackle the climate crisis - and lead the global economy in new clean energy industries.
John McCain: Tonight John McCain will show why he will "drop kick" the competition in the upcoming election with his appearance on the WWE's Monday Night Raw.

Full "Sports Entertainment" Disclosure: While all three candidates did, in fact, appear on WWE's wrestling program, it looks as though John McCain was the only to suffer from Hulkamania, seeing as his WWE appearance post was the last one published on his blog. There was no mention of Earth Day or Earth Day-related activities on his blogroll. We hope he gets well soon.

While you're here, why not check your candidate to see how they formally address the issue of global warming?

Obama on Energy & Environment
Clinton on Powering America's Future: New Energy, New Jobs
McCain on Stewards of Our Nation's Rich Natural Heritage

Not much to comment on here...just your typical political hoop-jumping. I never give political accolades on policy, they're an eight year commitment.

***

The Search Engines
In the spirit of another holiday, Yahoo and Google continued their battle to out-logo one another on their front pages. No offense to Yahoo, but somebody in their graphics department really phoned this one in. In their defense, the still shot shown below is not how it appears. It's actually a nice Flash transition, going from their old red logo to the one shown...that is, if anybody actually enjoyed flash images bogging down their webpages. But does this actually do anything? Sadly, AOL and Ask.com users were unable to ever see the logos, considering they were all unable to turn on their computers.
Really? That's the best of the best on the front pages of the world's top search engines? Where's the creativity? While I understand that my posts are never world-changing, I do it because I'm my own audience. The information I learn here carries over to my work. But when your company name is, in itself, a noun and a verb, you can afford to move a mountain or two with your audience.

Meh.

Google did, however, have an interactive pop-up thingy where you could see what the rest of the world was doing to support Mother Earth, but that was about it. Looks like some employees need to stop hackey-sacking in the nap room with their Jamba Juice after their in-house yoga class and start working.

***

The Tech Industry Big Guns
I'm beginning to understand that the best events/releases seem to be the most somber, not to mention that the process is made that much easier when you make a bazillion dollars per year. So here's the big whigs.

If you can learn anything from these guys, it's that understating your achievements will make them appear to shine a little brighter - something I never really noticed before until now. Let your work prove itself and let others extol the virtues therein.

See for yourself...you can really tell who's earnestly making an effort and who's got their drinking bird working the keyboard.

IBM: They took the SIMS and made it 50 times more boring by making their earth-saving video game, PowerUp, free to users online. Check out the game here. They also participated in events hosted by the Earth Day Network. Check out their corporate environmental policy here.

Microsoft: Bill and the gang took the creative step of turning the front page of MSN.com green. Yep, that's about it. Don't hate too much, though...the B&M Gates Foundation is still one of the most amazing and effective charities in the world. I'll support an annual approach to global issues than a one day bash any day.

Intel: They kept it simple with a front page sign that said Earth Day, Every Day. You could then click on a sign directing you to learn why Intel is the largest purchaser of renewable energy certificates. I was actually quite impressed with their work. Read more about it here. They're proof that if you are doing good things, you don't need to shout.

Dell: Dell hosted a computer recycling event in Washington DC in conjunction with the EPA, TechTurn and the National Recycling Coalition. They also accepted monitors, printers, cell phones and PDAs, as well as any other crappy Dell items you might have purchased that finally crapped out.

Sun Microsystems: Sun passed on the party hats (like Intel) and kept their Earth Day activities low-key, focusing instead on their core participation year-round. This concept probably has PR traditionalists up in arms, but will undoubtedly surpass the current model for horn-tooting (read: green washing). Check out their feature Earth Day story here and anticipate awesomeness.

Sidenote: And as much as the corporate big boys and mainstream search engines would (apparently) like to tout their environmental stewardship, there's a severely diseased branch of their tree that's extending from all of their trunks: the data centers. The google's and Yahoo's and Intel's of the world are nothing without their data centers, which are growing in size and need year after year. So while these mainstream corporations continue to steam forward (pun intended) with plans to save the planet, studies show that they're leaving their energy hogging data centers behind:

-Fifty-one percent of companies have a solid plan to green their IT operations, down from 55 percent in 2007.

-60 percent said they turn instead to green building standards from the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) from the nonprofit U.S. Green Building Council.

-Fewer company representatives expressed plans to pursue carbon credits to make up for their operations' emissions: 18 percent in the recent survey, showing a drop from one-quarter in 2007.

-Power demand by data centers doubled between 2000 and 2005.

-65 percent said they lacked precise plans for improvement.

It was interesting to note that the companies doing the most were often the companies publicizing the least. And while it's safe to say that the Intel's, Sun Systems and B&M Gates Foundations are making tremendous headway, I'm interested to see how they move forward and adjust to new market developments, specifically in the area of data storage. It won't be long before such important parts of their companies will be required by LEED and BREEAM to comply with self-sustainability standards. So if 90% of your building is environmentally friendly but the other 10% is using the same amount of energy as the 90%, what kind of impact are you really making?

***

The Environmental Protection Agency
In honor of Earth Day, the nexus of environmental protection known as the EPA, formally announced a winner to their 2008 photo contest. Out of over 750 entrants, a picture from Richard Burkhart of Battlecreek , MI (below) was chose as the winner of the Enjoying the Environment catagory. Two other categories, Protecting the Wildlife and Nature & Wildlife were also up for grabs.

On this spring day my wife and I were enjoying the environment and beauty of Battle Creek River. I find it extremely interesting that this photo was taken within four blocks from the heart of Battle Creek, MI. Sometimes we can find true beauty and enjoy nature real close to home or in our own back yard. The reason I chose this scene was of the reflections of the trees and natural framing of the picture in this location.

Granted, this isn't the extent of their actions. The EPA, in fact, joined up with many other businesses and corporations to sponsor and participate in much smaller events. But isn't it a little surprising that a Photo Contest was one of the only features on their front page.

***

Non-Profits
Just a small sampling of Earth Day events from some of the major environmental non-profits. I know this isn't much in terms of relevancy and scale, but I had to at least make a mention of their efforts.

National Wildlife Federation: Asked you to make your own Earth Day checklist [here].
World Wildlife Fund: Asked readers to make every day Earth Day and share their Earth Day experiences [here].
Greenpeace: Nothing unusual.
Earthcorps: They're celebrating the entire month of April as Earth month with various activites [here].
Arbor Day Foundation: Surprisingly, they're more in to Arbor Day than Earth Day. Who knew?
The Nature Conservancy: They're not doing much...just trying to plant a billion trees by Arbor Day [here].
Sierra Club: They helped recruit for Earth Day events [here].

More proof that if you're celebrating the Earth year-round, why need a special day? Notice that all the sites made the information available to the reader without forcing it down their throat. 5-10 years ago these sites would have been just as saturated with green backwash as green peakcock of NBC or the ironically sponsored Caterpillar Green Spot on the Discovery Channel website.

***

The Interweb
I also took a small moment to summarize the Earth Day happenings of various websites, but wasn't really sure where to begin. There is such a large pond to fish from, so where a good place to start?

Many, myself included, would agree that Time Magazine's Top 15 Greenest Websites isn't the best place to start, but it'll have to do. While I don't agree with the way the sites were ranked, what can it hurt?

The daunting task of sorting through the web, however, was all the more proof that environmental information is now readily available on the net, so much so that it loses credibility. The reader is becoming more and more savvy to empty facts and graphic persuasion that websites that can simply offer an arena in which to learn are rewarded with the largest audience. Basically, give us the facts in a timely manner and let us decide. Feed us compost and get called on it immediately.

I'd like to see a corporate website with an unmoderated comment section :)

1. Grist
A whole heck of a lot of articles. They also asked you to stop recycling...annoying green cliches [here].
2. Treehugger
Asked its readers what they were doing for Earth Day [here].
3. Dot Earth on the NYT
Looks like they also rest on the hippie Sabbath. No blog update yesterday.
4. Climate Change on the Guardian UK
Just the usual articles [here].
5. Real Climate
A simple wrap-up about the Eauropean Geophysical Conference [here].
6. Environmental Capital on the WSJ
Wondered aloud if Earth Day was actually good for the Earth [here].
7. No Impact Man
Colin Beaven asks how he can be the kind of person who wants to try? Can the way you live really make a difference [here]?
8. EcoGeek
Just the usual articles [here].
9. Ecorazzi
Covered the Green Apple Earth Day and it's usual celebrity-related events [here].
10. Switchboard
Covered a story about the Sox and a family in the Bronx trying to live green [here].
11. Mongabay
Featured an interesting, non-Earth Day article on the nomads of northern Kenya, the Turkana [here].
12. Climate Ethics
No update since 4/21.
13. Climate Progress
Asks you to intellectually dump Earth Day [here].
14. World Changing
(First, can somebody tell me how WC is #14? Top three, at least!). Anywhoo, WC covered some of the top Earth Day stories of 2008 [here].
15. Planet Ark
Nothing out of the ordinary.

Once again nobody is really celebrating or actively participating in Earth Day per se, other than the fact that most are going about their business as environmentally friendly way.

***

If the above sampling is any indication how future Earth Days will come to pass, I give the planet only a couple more years before the celebration is not only commonplace in every household, it will last year-round.From what I can tell it's a banner year for Earth Day, insomuch as it might be facing an enthusiastic death on its own accord. And I think corporate America is starting to fear the fact that we might find the other two r's: Reduce and Reuse.

No longer will shoppers grudgingly accept a petroleum-based bag at the grocery on days when they forgot their cloth, but rather reduce their trip to only what they can carry. No longer will the SUVs be accepted as status symbols on suburban streets simply because Oh, the Midwest is just a car-oriented community, but rather ridiculed with the same absurdity they merit on their 7-mile per gallon trips to the soccer field. And no longer consumers consume for the sake of consuming, but rather necessity.

The notion and need for April 22nd as an individual day of awareness is naive. Such celebrations used to be necessary, but have expired under the weight and saturation of information. The public is ready and able.

And I know my words --particularly the previous paragraph-- have been said time and time again, but the culture has shifted (i.e. yes, dagnabit...and this time we mean it!). There's an EV hybrid mass transportation unit purring quietly off in to the future. If you're a corporation, a television company, a search engine, industrial magnate, celebrity, or even (have you checked the stock prices lately?) a commodity, your position of history on the totem pole no longer matters. If you don't jump on board, you could easily be left behind.

It's go time...

Seeing as my son's first birthday party kicks-off at dawn (Oktoberfiesta), I'm still slacking on posts. So here's an article to tide you over till Monday.

UN issues 'final wake-up call' on population and environment

By James Kanter
Published: October 25, 2007

PARIS: The human population is living far beyond its means and inflicting damage on the environment that could pass points of no return, according to a major report issued Thursday by the United Nations.

Climate change, the rate of extinction of species and the challenge of feeding a growing population are among the threats putting humanity at risk, the UN Environment Program said in its fourth Global Environmental Outlook since 1997.

"The human population is now so large that the amount of resources needed to sustain it exceeds what is available at current consumption patterns," Achim Steiner, the executive director of the program, said in a telephone interview. Efficient use of resources and reducing waste now are "among the greatest challenges at the beginning of 21st century," he said.

The program described its report, which is prepared by 388 experts and scientists, as the broadest and deepest of those that the UN issues on the environment and called it "the final wake-up call to the international community."

Over the past two decades the world population has increased by almost 34 percent to 6.7 billion from 5 billion; similarly, the financial wealth of the planet has soared by about a third. But the land available to each person on earth had shrunk by 2005 to 2.02 hectares, or 5 acres, from 7.91 hectares in 1900 and was projected to drop to 1.63 hectares for each person by 2050, the report said.

Read more HERE.

I stand in silent protest...

Blog Action Day?

On October 15th, bloggers around the web will unite to put a single important issue on everyone’s mind - the environment. Every blogger will post about the environment in their own way and relating to their own topic. Our aim is to get everyone talking towards a better future.

My uncertainty for the future is far too overpowering, so I don't think I can partipate.

"Can someone make hybrid cars as comfortable as a Bentley, please?" -Yoko Ono

Where are you, John? We could use a voice.

Oh right...shilling for Nike.*

*I know it's not his fault, but it still hurts.

Nobody *&$% with the Jesus....

US scientist heralds 'artificial life' breakthrough

Sat Oct 6, 4:03 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Controversial celebrity US scientist Craig Venter has announced he is on the verge of creating the first ever artificial life form which he hails as a potential remedy to illness and global warming.

Venter told Britain's The Guardian newspaper Saturday that he has built a synthetic chromosome using chemicals made in a laboratory, and is set to announce the discovery within weeks, possibly as early as Monday.

The breakthrough, which Venter hopes could help develop new energy sources to combat the negative effects of climate change, would be "a very important philosophical step in the history of our species," he told the newspaper.

However the prospect of engineering artificial life forms is highly controversial and likely to arouse heated debate over the ethics and potential ramifications of such an advance.

Pat Mooney, director of the Canadian bioethics organization ETC Group, told the paper that Venter was creating "a chassis on which you could build almost anything.

"It could be a contribution to humanity such as new drugs or a huge threat to humanity such as bio-weapons."

The chromosome which Venter and his team has created is known as Mycoplasma laboratorium and, in the final step of the process, will be transplanted into a living cell where it should "take control," effectively becoming a new life form. [Is anybody else thinking of the guy at the diner in Spaceballs? I can't help but picture a little alien popping out of a guy's stomach with a top hat and cane]

The single cell organism, which ETC has coined "Synthia," is piloted by a chromosome with just 381 genes, the limit necessary to sustain the life of the bacteria so it can feed and reproduce.

The new bacteria will therefore be largely artificial, though not entirely, because it is composed of building blocks from already existing organisms. The idea is to make it into a universal tool for biologists by according it the genes necessary to accomplish certain tasks.

The project, which Venter has been working on for five years along with a team of researchers, has been partially financed by the US Department of Energy in the hopes that it could lead to the creation of a new environmentally friendly fuel.

"We are going from reading our genetic code to the ability to write it. That gives us the hypothetical ability to do things never contemplated before," Venter said.

A Venter spokeswoman however declined to confirm any breakthrough.

"The Guardian is ahead of themselves on this," Venter spokeswoman Heather Kowalski told AFP.

"We have not achieved what some have speculated we have in synthetic life," Kowalski said. "When we do so there will be a scientific publication and we are likely months away from that."

Venter's laboratory, the J. Craig Venter Institute, filed in 2006 for a US patent on the organism, claiming exclusive ownership of a set of essential genes and a synthetic "free-living organism that can grow and replicate."

The ETC group publicized the patent application, which would apply in the United states and 100 or so other countries, in June.

"Venter and his colleagues have breached a societal boundary, and the public hasn't even had a chance to debate the far-reaching social, ethical and environmental implications of synthetic life," Mooney said in a statement at the time.

The group also added that "patent experts consulted by the ETC Group indicate that, based on the language used in the application, the Venter Institute researchers had probably not achieved a fully-functioning organism at the time of the filing."

Nevertheless, "many people think that Venter's company has the scientific expertise to do the job," Mooney added.

Generic posting due to chaos...

My world is imploding right now, so I'm just going to do a quick post...


Architects, Designers and Urban Planners should all check out Smart City Radio, a weekly, hour-long public radio talk show that takes an in-depth look at urban life, the people, places, ideas and trends shaping cities. Host Carol Coletta talks with national and international public policy experts, elected officials, economists, business leaders, artists, developers, planners and others for a penetrating discussion of urban issues.

They also have a wonderful archive of past shows. Check it out!

Daddy never spanked us...

Partisan leanings notwithstanding, if you consider yourself to be any kind of environmentalist, you can not be happy with our current administration. Likewise the same can be said about the previous administration and their refusal of Kyoto. Moreover, the administrations prior to Clinton and their lack of prosecution for industrial polluters. And so on, and so on, and so on....

America's denial of the environment is a literal speed bump that impedes the correction of our problematic majority share in the environment (whew), and you know what? It's not a result of your party affiliation, but because you're the owner of the party.

Like it or not, these politicians/administration/agency/policy are yours.

I never really thought about it until I saw this headline: Bush's EPA Is Pursuing Fewer Polluters. While Bush might, in fact, be Commander in Chief, it needs to be said that he has tenure, not ownership! And while I understand these branches of the governmental tree are ultimately superintended under his supervision and guidance (and the headline did not actually intend to show ownership) I can't help but put that story's blame on us.

Under a democracy, the fault lies with the voter. Even after the votes have been cast, we are still in charge. When did this mountable fact go by the wayside?

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s words to Western Illinois University could have been true under Bush, Clinton, Bush and Reagan. So what the hell are we doing, what the hell have we done, what the hell are we going to do?


If Obama is elected to office, will we hold his feet to the flame if he doesn't come through with his promise to comprehensively study climate change and its impact on low-income communities? If future president John McCain does not protect the clean air, safe and healthy water, sustainable land use, ample greenspace he claims to ensure, will we hold him responsible? If our fearless leader in chief Hillary fails to create a (successful) $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund for research and development, do we call for her resignation? If Rudy is elected, will we fight to oust him from office for his failure to even recognize the environment as issue?

Now is the time to jump.

That's Ecofantastic!!! Day 2...

This whole week I will be honoring ecofantastic items...

Ecofantastic: A product/method/ideology so absurdly priced/developed/formulated that its irrationality transcends any purposeful usage and/or implementation into the present-day green movement, to the point of almost becoming fantasy.

Ecofantastic: The notion that green buildings are inherently good for the environment...

Normally, I would try to sum this up in my own words, but Geoff Manaugh at bldgblog has written a much better article than I could ever pen. So here's an infographic summary of the article instead:




Some highlights from their article:

Unless a "green" building actively remediates its local environment – for instance, scrubbing toxins from the air or absorbing carbon dioxide – that building is not "good" for the environment (see: Kunstler's eyeysore of the month, see: 9800 sf house). It's simply not as bad as it could have been...

If the U.S. military had solar-powered Abrams tanks, or hydrogen fuel-cell-powered long-range bombers, or wind-powered bases in the Middle East, would the sustainable design community be encouraging them to build more and more of the things? Probably not. But when a multimillionaire developer puts up a skyscraper in the center of London, or Paris, or New York, full of space devoted to, say, investment banking, with a few arbitrary wind turbines on top, the sustainable design community actually gives that person free publicity and encourages him or her to build more. There seems to be a moral issue here.

Keep reading

How green is your candidate?

We all know that the political air is thick with fertilizer, but that doesn't mean that your candidate is as green as you think.

Grist and Outside have recently teamed up to sort out the BS from the greenspace. They've already spoken with the Democratic candidates and will soon be publishing the rest of their interviews with the Republicans.

I, like the rest of America, wait on bended knee to see what kind of bats&%t crazy responses Mike Gravel will give. If you want to do your own research, I also posted links to the candidates' websites and Wikipedia pages. I'll update the Republican section when Grist and Outside finish their interviews.

If you would like a full list covering all the issues, 2Decide.com has an interesting table.

Democrats
Senator Joe Biden - Website Wikipedia Grist
Senator Hillary Clinton - Website Wikipedia Grist
Senator Christopher Dodd - Website Wikipedia Grist
John Edwards - Website Wikipedia Grist
Mike Gravel - Website Wikipedia Grist
Representative Dennis Kucinich - Website Wikipedia Grist
Senator Barack Obama - Website Wikipedia Grist
Governor Bill Richardson - Website Wikipedia Grist

Republicans
Senator Sam Brownback - Website Wikipedia Grist
Rudy Giuliani - Website Wikipedia Grist
Mike Huckabee - Website Wikipedia Grist
Representative Duncan Hunter - Website Wikipedia Grist
Senator John McCain - Website Wikipedia Grist
Representative Ron Paul - Website Wikipedia Grist
Mitt Romney - Website Wikipedia Grist
Representative Tom Tancredo - Website Wikipedia Grist
Fred Dalton Thompson - Website Wikipedia Grist