September 3rd, 2010 · Comments Off on My White House is Solar Cool. Barack, why isn’t yours?
Sometimes, your kids tell you great things.
We have the coolest house on the street.
Wow.
We’re cool — according to the kids.
Certainly isn’t the non-existent slide for the pool that isn’t there. Our lack of a huge media room and the glaring absence of a gym didn’t contribute. And, while I’ve always thought it cool that we live on the white house of the street, that isn’t it either.
Why is it cool? According to my soon-to-be fourth-grader son:
Following up on the 2009 installation of solar hot water, solar pv went on our roof in June and went active in July (and just passed the 1 megawatt of production mark with, even considering the high temperatures and air conditioning, the house having produced 350 more kilowatt hours than we’ve used).
While Barack Obama’s daughters have reason (real reason) to believe that they live on the coolest house of their street, their father has a real chance to make it cooler with a relatively simple action. Follow in Jimmy Carter’s footsteps and put solar (back) on The White House roof.
Bill McKibben and 350.org have come out with a call for the world’s leaders to put solar on it — it being their own rooftops — as a symbol and step toward increasing their political actions to build a clean energy future. As part of this, McKibben and others will be taking a Put Solar On It road-trip, driving one of the original Carter solar (hot water) panels to the White House. McKibben — and many, many others — is hoping that Obama will decide to participate in the 10 Oct 2010 work party and climb on The White House roof (hopefully with entire family) to put solar on The White House roof.
When Dominion Virginia Power (finally) authorized my home’s net metering, there was a bit of a struggle as everyone wanted to turn the system on … five sets of hands, in unison, flipped us from carbon to the power of the sun. It was an empowering moment.
And, that empowerment has reached beyond my household. Numerous friends and neighbors have made inquiries since then. Three households, acting on my (strong) advice, “efficiency before renewable power”, have had energy audits and started investing in energy efficiency with hopes of putting on solar soon. I live on a dead-end street and not that many people come by yet the impact has been real.
When Michelle Obama got her hands dirty gardening, gardening sales boomed in the nation.
What might happen if Barack got his hands dirty helping put solar panels on his (and our) White House roof? (And, well, also conduct a White House barnraising weatherization event?)
Would this inspire people to do energy efficiency in their own homes?
Would that inspires Americans to put solar on their roofs?
Would this help bring visibility to the fact that global warming is real and a serious risk … and that real solutions and opportunities exist?
Would this help build a movement to pressure politicians toward action?
Would that enable Barack to move renewable energy legislation through the Congress to help put insulation in our walls and solar on our roofs?
Barack can have some confidence that Malia and Sasha know that they have a pretty cool dad and a pretty cool house.
On 10/10/10, Barack can add to that coolness … and help change the nation and the globe for the better at the same time.
Bill McKibben on the Dave Letterman show.
[minute 7] Bill McKibben: Look what happened when Michelle planted the garden. Next year seed sales went up 30 percent.
Letterman: But the garden didn’t threaten oil and gas …
[8:30] McKibben: “10/10/10 global work party, that’s why we want Barack Obama on the roof putting those panels back where they belong” [sustained audience applause]
[9:20: McKibben: “During the work party, people will doing things like putting up a solar panel but they will be doing it to send a political message and that message is simple: If I can go to work and do something, then I damn well expect my political leaders to do something.”
Now, I have always written letters and even had many published — just not one every day. WarrenS inspires me to do better.
Many newspapers state that they will reject letters that have been published elsewhere, thus I have not been blogging letters … perhaps that should change. Thus, below is what might be the first in an “unpublished letters” series publishing those LTEs that don’t get picked up by the editors.
30 July 2010
To the editor, The Washington Post,
Steven Stromberg, in How Washington failed on climate change, concludes that President Obama only could pursue a limited number of major initiatives. And, with the ability to have one big win, Obama chose health care over climate
Stromberg, deputy opinions editor of washingtonpost.com, has one glaring gap in an otherwise insightful piece: silence on any media responsibility for a political climate where climate legislation can become a backburner issue.
These types of stories, however, are not front page items for The Washington Post.
And, The Washington Post and Washingtonpost.com “opinions” section have had “balanced” reporting where those seeking to confuse people about the science are given equal — or even greater — billing as reality-based discussions.
That President Obama and the US Senate did not feel a great urgency to pass climate legislation is, in part, because Congress’ home page paper has not accurately reported climate change and has give voice to those peddling falsehoods.
September 1st, 2010 · Comments Off on Expensive, inconvenient, and scratchy: solutions are easy
Let us face a simple fact: no matter how good we get at mitigating climate change, climate chaos and damage from human-driven global warming will get worse before it gets better. We might have control over how bad and influence on the impacts of the disrupted climate system, but the situation will get worse than 2010’s disrupted weather globally.
This guest post comes from mwmwm, who is found normally at ApocaDocs and who recognizes this reality. And, with that recognition in mind, he lays out a perspective on the difficulties (and opportunities) ahead.
In response to a comment in a recent post of mine, I replied,
“I think lots of us know what we have to do — change radically — but far too few are actually doing it. Problems abound, but so do solutions — they’re just expensive, inconvenient, and scratchy.
That’s the theme of this diary — that we can no longer be lazy, and that it can’t be cheap, or convenient, or easy to save ourselves.
Global Warming concern troll Senator Lisa Murkowski has fallen in the Republican primary to a anti-science syndrome suffering hater of a livable economic system, who despises government, and represents fringe extreme views that simply don’t meet basic American ideals or the understanding/beliefs of most Americans. If Murkowski had prevailed in the primary, she almost certainly would have won in the general election.
And, looking at the details, Alaskans seem to know Miller … and not like what they see, as Miller’s favorable/unfavorable rating is 36 / 52. And, we have to suspect that the numbers won’t be getting that much better. After all, Miller hasn’t started well with his ‘prostitution’ tweet and other actions since the primary. Miller is, well, an extremist — in his views on Government’s role in being able to interfere in people’s lives (e.g., abortion) and tirades against government assistance (considering Alaska’s status as the top recipient, per capita, of Federal funds, this might not play well). And, in the state seeing the greatest change in temperatures (warming), with towns lost to global warming already, Miller is an outright global warming denier — spouting false truthiness talking points to demonstrate his anti-science syndrome condition.
The question going into November, in Alaska, will be whether Alaskans like the McAdams that they will get to know in the coming months. If so, Alaska could be a surprise flip from Red to Blue in what is looking to be a dismal election year for the Democratic Party.
This summer represented the longest vacation in over a decade, three weeks spent in the homes of relatives and friends in France driven, in part, by a serious illness in the family. This time, often with (extremely) limited web access, provided some breathing space, too much weight gain with excellent food, and provided some windows on France and French society that reflect back on what is (or isn’t) happening in the United States.
To be clear, no society is perfect … which makes it ever more important to be open to lessons and learning from others … especially if one really is interesting in the continuing struggle to form a more perfect union.
Several weeks in France provide a window — however obscured or partial — on how France is changing in the face of mounting energy and climate challenges (domestically and locally) on the governmental, societal, and individual level. This is the first, of which will likely be several, posts providing some thoughts derived from glancing through that window.
On opening Le Monde (The World), a new element struck me: Planète. Page 4 of every Le Monde that I looked at had a full page on “planetary” issues. And, this full page represented serious reporting on serious issues.
When it comes to the necessity of facing down pollution in the nation’s electricity system and other major polluting industries, it is hard to read recent Obama Administration action as anything other than a strong statement to leading environmental organizations:
Stay out of our way, we don’t need your help … we don’t need it.
With monumental inaction by the U.S. Senate in the face of devastating climate chaos from flooded Pakistan to smoldering Russian to heat records in many nations and many areas of the United States, the paths forward to effective action to turn the tide away from egregious CO2 emissions seem limited (at best). With the President (and his Administration) having, to put it politely, flubbed its leadership role on the climate front in terms of getting serious and meaningful action through the U.S. Congress, we have to wonder seriously at the latest action.
The Obama Administration has decided to side with polluters when it comes to the Clean Air Act (CAA), providing a brief to the Court arguing that Federal administrative and regulatory action obviates any standing for states or private entities to use CAA “nuisance” provisions to act in protection of their citizens’ or their own interests.
As per the brief filed by the Acting Solicitor General,
“EPA has already begun taking actions to address carbon-dioxide emissions.
That regulatory approach is preferable to what would result if multiple district courts — acting without the benefit of even the most basic statutory guidance — could use common-law nuisance claims to sit as arbiters of scientific and technology-related disputes and de facto regulators of power plants and other sources of pollution.”
Over the past century, nuisance law provisions have proved a powerful tool for dealing with polluters who, for whichever set of reasons, are falling outside serious governmental action to curb the damage their “externalities” are causing others.
The Obama team’s action is almost incomprehensible. As Joe Romm notes
As with the decision to embrace offshore drilling, we’ll no doubt eventually learn that this decision — which lies somewhere on the scale between between unproductive and counter-productive — was made without serious input from those in the administration who represent science or the environment. … I couldn’t find anyone who thinks this moves makes much sense. NRDC’s David Donger told the WSJ, “We are appalled.”
That the Administration chose to issue a brief on the side of the Federal government against a state or private legal action really isn’t surprising even if that choice alone would be concerning. What is truly — and seriously — concerning about this situation is what seems to be the blinder-wearing decision-making behind this action.
1. Congress isn’t acting, in no small part due to the influence of Anti-Science Syndrome suffering Haters Of a Life-sustaining Economic System, and the Obama Administration brief does nothing to bolster the chances of Congressional action. With the Obama team working, it seems, to undermine the power of CAA provisions (and the ability of the strong legal teams from organizations like the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, and Natural Resources Defense Council to use the CAA provisions to constrain polluters), why should polluters (and their supporters) feel any greater motivation to come to the table for serious discussions about how to move onto a path for lowering pollution levels moving forward?
2. While the Administration is moving forward with regulatory action, these will be fought (tooth and nail in many situations) by polluters and will take a long time to move forward. Without the actions from state and private institutions, these polluters will be able to focus even more resources on fighting Federal action as they will not need to be concerned about the threat from the (highly) competent NRDC/EDF/Sierra Club/etc legal teams working with state Attorney Generals.
3. The Obama Administration decision seems oblivious to the fact that the Federal Courts are packed with judges with conservative judicial philosophies. (Note that it is likely that President Obama’s two appointees to the Supreme Court would likely recuse themselves from the case if it reached the Supreme Court — thus giving, almost certain, the pro-Corporatist Polluters side the victory in any decision.) The Obama Administration’s brief’s arguments creates an opening for an activist judge (which, after all, is what we are seeing from many of the conservative jurists) to eviscerate the CAA’s provisions for state and private actions to constrain entities’ (utilities, factories, otherwise) ability to dump pollution into the commons — and, by corollary, into our lungs.
4. The Obama Administration action seems to be oblivious to the basic reality of American political structure — elections change government and the next Presidential administration might have far less interest in regulatory action to constrain polluters. (Hmmmm … was the previous Administration very interested in constraining the pollution threatening American lives and security?) The Administration’s arguments, if accepted by the Courts, would seriously weaken the ability for States and private organizations to leverage the CAA to get that future Administration to take action against polluters killing Americans and weakening American security.
Very simply, the use of “nuisance” provisions have contributed to lower pollution levels over the past century. Lawsuits from States using “nuisance” provisions have saved lives and helped reduce damage to communities. Clean Air Act “nuisance” provisions have been a real tool for improving American society and the Federal Court decision upholding that CAA nuisance provisions can apply for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were a real victory that could eventually lead to lowering US emissions that would occur under a business-as-usual scenario, even with Obama Administration regulatory action. The brief from the Obama Administration could undermine this real victory and represents a threat to America’s ability to carve out a lower carbon future in anything remotely resembling a timely manner.
All in all, it is hard to see good in this Obama Administration action.
And, looking at peat fires smoking out Moskovites, flooded Pakistanis, overheated Washingtonians, and other climate chaos victims around the world, it has to be clear to all but the anti-science syndrome sufferring haters of a livable economic system that our planet needs some TLC as well.
That TLC is, of course, some Transparency, Long-term, and Certain when it comes to energy and climate policies …
August 23rd, 2010 · Comments Off on Does BP stand for Begging for Pennies?
Few people earn a living (or even make money) running a blog site — especially not one that focuses on issues of substance. People do it for passion, love, ego, boredom, concern for public service … any number of reasons. And, in almost all cases, doing this costs money from indirect (opportunity costs) to direct (the computer, internet access, web hosting). Advertising provides a route to help reduce those costs. At times, however, one has to ask: at what cost?
I’m a little bit angry right now. For the last 12 hours, unknown to me, the U.S. coal lobby has been plastering EcoGeek with B.S. ads for their B.S. clean coal campaign. I’m not really a big fan of helping to spread their heifer droppings so I’ve blocked the campaign.
bp Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Response: When tragedy strikes, people need help without hassles
Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Response: We will make this right
Since BP didn’t hide their logo and weren’t so directly deceptive, these advertisements weren’t blocked even as they are part of a massive BP greenwashing campaign that has (or seems to have) included attempting to hire and muzzle scientists, stymie efforts to measure accurately the flow of oil into the Gulf, massive use of dispersants that reduce the visibility of oil, stifling of media access (and coverage) of spill areas, disposal of dead animals to avoid photographs that could upset the public, and so on … It does lead to the conclusion that
BP seems to be working harder to protect its brand than to help the people of the Gulf Coast, argued Alabama Attorney General Troy King. He has filed suit against BP because “while BP is spending millions on print ads and airtime, it’s not spending what it should on claims.”
This website isn’t going to pull the BP advertising: the pennies from this campaign will help run this site even the BP greenwashing efforts seek to divert attention from how dangerous America’s oil addiction is and to reduce Americans’ concerns about the damage that BP has caused to the Gulf.
While CSM won’t be told to block BP advertising from this site, this site management expects to hear shortly from BP that the advertising will be pulled.
When I informed the ThinkProgress community in Aug. 2008 that we were introducing one paid advertising spot on our site, I stated: “Please rest assured that our advertisers will have absolutely no bearing on determining or influencing what we do or don’t write about.” The commitment, of course, cost us some advertising money from BP in the short-run. But the cost for maintaining our long-term credibility, our progressive identity, and your readership is well worth it.
BP’s direct linking of advertising revenue, in such an explicit manner, to editorial content is the sort of thing that should make anyone concerned with journalistic ethics blanch. Would The Washington Post or New York Times accept an advertising contract that explicitly stated that the purchaser had the right to cancel the advertising if the newspaper wrote on the advertising campaign in a way that the advertiser didn’t like? Write nicely about us and keep getting the funds … say something negative and say good-bye to revenue.
BP chose, via CSM, to be advertising on progressive sites, on sites (like this one) that focus on climate change and our need to end our fossil foolish addictions, and other sites that almost certainly were not sympathetic to BP’s seemingly criminal negligence — in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere — and not supportive of BP’s Basically Petroleum, Basically Permanently business model. (See, for example, Seeking tools to express outrage and a call for justice: “Prosecute BP” and What I want, and don’t want, to see on my next trip to a major aquarium …) With this in mind, one has to wonder about BP’s real intentions as to advertising at this (and other similar) sites: were BP’s pennies primarily intended as leverage to stifle criticism?
August 19th, 2010 · Comments Off on Seven questions for seven generations
Perhaps the best single piece of advice for societies comes down to one word: generations. To add richness, expand this to three words: think seven generations.
Seven generations … Writ large, keeping this in mind when making deciosns about societal investments and structure creates a sustainable space which offers the chance for an indefinite strengthening of that basic American ideal of a “search for a more perfect union”.
Climate change is,perhaps, the most pressing example of a need to “think seven generations” with the challenge of balancing (legitimate) current demands with the provision of an ability for future generations to meet their needs — indefinitely.
It was with this in mind as I considered a question into the inbox.
What debates should we have on climate change issues?
After the fold are seven questions, for thinking seven generations. In posts to come, I will return to and address these seven seven generation questions. [Read more →]
Comments Off on Seven questions for seven generationsTags:Energy
There is a debate, subdued at times, between various approaches toward changing the planet to the better. There are those who layout the fundamental flaws of capitalism and the huge complexity of market failures (see Sick Planet) which, they explain, require us to move forward to something else to have a chance to survive climate change. In many ways, my viewpoint (on the optimist side) tends toward the ‘enviro-capitalist’, thinking that we can work to structure the make the right choice, the easy (and preferred) choice. (This is, of course, the hopeful perspective that many would say, with basis, is rose-colored glass perspective …) There is a challenge between using financial mechanisms as a tool to move toward a A Prosperous, Climate-Friendly Society and going overboard.
The line can be thin … or thick.
Spend a few minutes to watch GreenSumption and decide whether to laugh or cry.
And, then, ask the question of yourself and society:
If you haven’t noticed, these ads have included lines like:
thing that should make anyone concerned with journalistic ethics blanch. Would The Washington Post or New York Times accept an advertising contract that explicitly stated that the purchaser had the right to cancel the advertising if the newspaper wrote on the advertising campaign in a way that the advertiser didn’t like? Write nicely about us and keep getting the funds … say something negative and say good-bye to revenue.