Get Energy Smart! NOW!

Shocklingly unreported by most of the nation’s media, easily 100 people collapsed outside Salt Lake City’s Gallivan Center.  Exact numbers are hard to come by,  but this tragic moment sends a signal of a much larger catastrophe that will kill millions and, without action, billions in the years to come.  The bodies on the ground outside Gallivan Center should serve as a wake-up call to all of us.

[Read more →]

For awhile, I’ve noted We Add + Up.  From their “about” page:

WE ADD UP is a global campaign using organic cotton t-shirts that literally “counts you in” to help solve the climate crisis. Every shirt is printed by hand with a unique number. YOUR number is your position in our sequential global count of people who are taking steps to do their part. As the count grows, we demonstrate to the world that “WE ADD UP.” On the back of each shirt is a word or phrase that describes an action almost anyone can take to reduce their carbon footprint – the contribution their lifestyle makes to greenhouse gases – such as, Unplug, Lights Off, Carpool, Hybrid, Bike, Buy Local, and 27 others. You choose which action you are committed to doing and get counted in. No one can do everything. Everyone can do something. And, WE ADD UP.

To be honest, I’ve discomfited by the effort.  My reaction has been along the lines of:

In the name of saving the planet, you too can get yet another t-shirt. Yeah, yet another way to buy our way to a better planet.

Okay, that just didn’t sit well with me. Just how many t-shirts do you have?  Just how many do we need.

Recently, I ended up face-to-face with the Jill Palermo from We Add Up and was pretty direct about those concerns.

This lead to an interesting conversation, with an interesting twist. Jill argued that the shirt opens the door for conversations in a way that many other shirts don’t. As she put in an email after our conversation,

unlike wearing a “Stop Global Warming” t-shirt (where no one wants to talk to you), a We Add Up t-shirt invites questions.  I get emails all the time from people saying how they were stopped in the middle of the street, in the grocery store line, etc, with “What does that number mean?”   Education is the way to create lasting change and We Add Up is literally a street marketing and education tool for the climate.

Okay, I’m not sure that I need yet another t-shirt but this is an interesting argument. I’m not sure that wearing a 1 Sky shirt (as I was when we chatted) is such a turn off. And, unlike the We Add Up shirts, that 1 Sky (or 350.org or Greenpeace or …) shirt is making a direct political comment, like having a bumper sticker on the car.  But the idea that those t-shirts could create openings (at the grocery store or in the park) for conversations that might not otherwise have occurred makes some sense.

We Add Up does make sense in other ways, as well. If you have a child in America’s schools, you know that you are inundated with fundraising efforts, for wrapping paper and lots of other rather ‘disposable’ and climate-unfriendly products.   We Add Up fundraising path offers a range of potential products (reusable bags, steel bottles, …) that can be used in a school fundraising effort (which has the benefit of providing a cash stream for the PTA and a bit of an educational opportunity).

So, at the end of the day, I’m uncertain that many of us need yet another t-shirt, but if given the choice between wrapping paper sales and a steel bottle purchase, the choice becomes pretty clear. And, that t-shirt just might lead to some interesting conversations …

There is a fundamental framing and analysis challenge that pervades much of the Washington (and national) discussion of moving forward toward better policy. This is true in health care, transportation, prison reform, decriminalization of marijuana (and industrial hemp), clean energy, global warming, and very many other important policy arenas.

At Netroots Nation, on a panel discussing environmental policy, I opened a short statement with a question:

Do compact flourescent light bulbs cost more than incandescents?

Without exception, those who answered the question said (or nodded their head) yes.

My response: you are utterly wrong.

While CFLs cost more to buy (perhaps $2-3 bulb vs $0.25-$0.50 for an incandescent), they cost far less to own due to their 73% lower electricity use and their 5-10 times longer expected life. Dependent on usage, payback time for that extra CFL purchase price can be measured in weeks.

We tend to look at the “cost to buy” rather than the “cost to own” a product in our own lives.

Sadly, this limited thinking often extends into the larger societal discussion.

When it comes to health care reform, there is no valuing of the likely improved productivity (due to lower sick leave, less time spent on health care administrative issues) and likely entreprenourial gains (as people feel more secure in taking the risk to start a business knowing that they have health care) of moving toward a more sensible health care system. And, there is typically no valuing of avoided costs (what change might help prevent from happening). Thus, a CBO report speaking to the “cost” of health care reform has zero accounting of huge potential benefits nor does it adequately place “cost” to the Federal budget against “gain” through reduced costs throughout society.

When it comes to climate change and energy, nearly without exception, the analyses and reports are stovepiped and do a poor job of valuing the costs of inaction. Thus, the CBO and EPA reporting on the “costs” of the American Clean Energy & Security (ACES) Act did not accounting for improved health due to reduced fossil fuel pollution, improved productivity and school performance (due, again, to improve health conditions and better work environments with more energy efficiency), and did not account for the costs of unconstrained climate change.

Even though these studies were so, in fact, pessimistic, too many people (politicians, organizations, others) trumpeted that ‘acting on climate change will only cost a postage stamp a day’ or other such nonsense. This “cost” places the discussion in the framing of opponents of action, who have been purveying falsehoods with exorbitant cost figures coming from so-called “reports”. Stating that ‘it will only cost’ creates the space for a debate over “how much will it cost”. In fact, if one doesn’t stove-pipe and considers a fuller range of the costs and benefits, we are not talking about a “postage stamp a day” in costs, but whether the benefits for the average American are the equivalent of a postage stamp or 100 postage stamps every day, day-in and day-out.

By falling into the trap of a stove-piped analysis structure, those advocating for progressive policies undermine their ability to build and maintain support for those policies.

Thus, it is important to remember: CFLs cost less!

As we consider the challenges of climate change and the paths to reaching an international accord that will lead to real efforts to turn the tides on global warming’s rising seas, we need to wonder whether all nations will be represented in Denmark this December.

Today’s question: Will the Colbert Nation be duly represented in Copenhagen and fight for a number: 350?

This is a repost, with minor editing, of something published several years ago.  This is adapted to look at the Obama Administration and its efforts in each of the five arenas. Let me know what you think.

The Republic is at a critical crossroads – a point where Americans must understand and take action to ensure a future for ourselves, our children, and the unborn Americans of tomorrow.

For eight years, the nation was driven down a path of fiscal failure, rotting of industrial strength, immoral and unethical governance, selling of our common heritage and future to a cabal of highest bidders, destruction of the environment, isolation of Americans in the international environment, and decaying of American security. In Nov 08, Americans faced a choice as to whether there is a tomorrow – and acted accordingly.

I believe that there will be a tomorrow.

I believe in acting and planning as if tomorrow exists.

Recognition of this demands implementation of new policy to unite America and Americans to strengthen this great nation.

The following five arenas provide a core basis for setting the stage for a healthier, more ethical and moral, richer, well governed, more secure America.  In other words, a stronger America.

[Read more →]

The saga of Bonner & Associates / Hawthorn Group / American Coalition for a Clean-Coal Electricity and the sending of fraudulent letters to Congress opposing the American Clean Energy & Security (ACES) Act continues with documents submitted by these organizations to The U.S. House of Representatives’ Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, whose chairman (Congressman Ed Markey) launched an investigation after learning of this fraud.

Now, the Lynchburg News Advance has a reasonable piece on this: Groups accused of sending forged letters to Perriello respond to Congress. Reasonable, that is, with one glaring exception: the 959 word article gives not indication of the simple truth that the involved groups have histories of engaging is similar questionable behavior and of using, essentially exactly the same lame excuses as they peddling to the media — evidently with success since this long article doesn’t mention this record.

The insanity of truth denying is somewhat staggering to considering, with people who are so disconnected from the real world that they seek to create some form of near 50 year long conspiracy of how Barack Obama wasn’t actually born in the United States (as long as you consider Hawaii as one of the 50 United States of America). From the “birthers” the insanity extends to “death”, with those fighting health care reform outright lying with their assertions that a proposal to have reimbursement of counseling and writing a living will is somehow a devilish path to put Americans to death. Tom Toles captured this insanity with a cartoon and term with a clarity that shows the power of an insightful political cartoonist: Cradle-to-Grave Crazy

Cradle-to-Grave Crazy … this truly does capture a stream in the American dialogue that seems to be striving to make members of the Flat Earth Society look like deep thinkers with their feet solidly on the ground.

What we should realize and recognize is that this “Cradle-to-Grave Crazy” is not just the bookends of life, but everything in between. The same denial of reality comes not just with racist attacks on Barack Obama and impassioned misinformed outrage about moving forward to a better health care system in the nation, but also with global warming denial with concerted and often-funded efforts to distort the science, confuse the public discussion, and stifle our ability to deal with the serious challenges and seize the opportunities that global warming represents and that a clean energy future offers.

This denialism is a form of reckless endangerment to the future security and prosperity of the nation.

As an example of the recklessness and taking “cradle-to-grave” analogy in another direction. Take a look, for example, at mountain-top removal in our national sacrifice zone of Appalachia and its “cradle-to-grave” impacts. From the damage to the mountains, to the dust silicate and the impacts on one’s lungs, to the damage (destruction) to streams through “fill”, to poisoned water supplies, to the slurry ponds (and the risks from potential linkage of into water supplies), to the burning of coal (and the variety of significant impacts).

President Bill Clinton spoke at the Netroots Nation conference 13 August. (Parts 4 and 5 in this discussion … for the rest.) While too many Americans have their ears shut when they hear his name, he speaks thoughtfully and has continued serious service post his Presidency. His comments, undoubtably discussed elsewhere multiple times, about how he ended up pursuing a post-Presidency path with non-governmental organizations and the impacts of the Clinton Global Initiative were both interesting and worth watching.

Considering that, just a short time ago, I wrote on the intertwining and similarities of health care and energy challenges, his comments about health care and climate change were sparking my interest and had me sitting up in my seat. His comments about health care seemed to be heading toward a similar balancing and interconnection conversation … This didn’t occur so let’s take the President’s remarks and draw the very clear parallels that his discussion implied.
[Read more →]

Last year,  National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and that American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) made noise with a report written by SAIC showing that the Lieberman-Warner Coal Subsidy Act (misrepresented as the Climate Security Act)  would have devastating impact. Now, NAM and ACCF have long fought against any moves to clean energy and any addressing of climate change issues, thus something from NAM/ACCF arguing that action would have devastating impacts would be something expected.   That the report came from SAIC seemed to add more weight to the matter, with NAM/ACCF press releases and discussions highlighting SAIC’s role as if it were some form of independent analysis.  This blew up in their face due to SAIC’s team being professional enough to include the following footnote.

“The input assumptions, opinion and recommendations are those of ACCF and NAM, and do not necessarily represent the views of SAIC.”

Wow. Assumptions matter and driving assumptions drive the results.  As discussed a year ago in ASS-U-ME , this is a pretty strong renunciation of the work coming from SAIC.  With this note, the SAIC team essentially said that they took absolutely no responsibility for the conclusions and recommendations coming from the report. Thus, the fig leaf that this was some sort of independent analysis fell to the wayside, unmasking that NAM/ACCF sought to make ASSes out of U and ME.

Today, NAM/ACCF rolled out this year’s analysis … also done by SAIC (media briefing).   All three of their scenarios say that acting on climate change, via the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act, would be disastrous to the economy.  This year, lets start the reading with the footnotes.

Footnote 3 tells us that SAIC is a wonderful organization:

SAIC is a FORTUNE 500® scientific, engineering and technology applications company that uses its deep domain knowledge to solve problems of vital importance to the nation and the world, in national security, energy and the environment, critical infrastructure, and health.

Footnote 5 is quite interesting.

SAIC is a policy-neutral organization. SAIC executed the NEMS/ACCF-NAM 2 model in this project using SAIC’s and ACCF/NAM’s interpretation of the bill, and input assumptions provided by ACCF/NAM. The modeling was performed independent of EIA. Analysis provided in this report is based on the output from the NEMS/ACCF-NAM 2 model as a result of the ACCF/NAM input assumptions. The input assumptions, opinions and recommendations in this report are those of ACCF and NAM, and do not necessarily represent the views of SAIC.

Yet again, the SAIC team has stepped away from taking responsibility from this work: “Don’t blame us, we just ran the model, we take no responsibility for what went in and what comes out.”

In modeling, one of the standard abbreviations: GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Yet again, NAM/ACCF is seeking to sell a bill of goods to those who don’t read the footnotes. They are seeking to, via the driven assumptions, make ASSes out of U and ME yet again with a widespread campaign to distort the conversation using GIGO analysis.

Actual analyses of the NAM/ACCF 2008 “SAIC” study showed it to be shoddy, deceptive, truthiness-laden work.  (See also Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Statistics from industry on pollution control costs.) On first glance, this year’s work is similarly shoddy and deceptive. For example, there is no valuing of improved health due to reduced fossil fuel pollution. There is zero valuing of how improved health of workers means lower absenteeism and therefore higher productivity. There is zero valuing of reducing the risks and impacts of catastrophic climate change. There is zero …

A GIGO ASS-U-ME study that will become part of a sound machine to argue against sensible action toward a clean energy future.

Today we have news of a Wise decision when it comes to what should be referred to Dominion Virginia Power’s unWise plan to build a massive new coal-power plant in Wise County, Virginia.

[Read more →]