Does the fact that I am really into this year's presidential election make me a big dork? JB, who is much cooler than me, claims that it's true. Oh well.
Anyway, I was listening to Living On Earth, the PRI radio program today and discovered that they have a great series of stories on how the presidential candidates stand on the envronment. I did some digging online, and found a few really cool things:
First, there was a Presidential Candidates Forum on Global Warming and Energy Security in Los Angeles on November 17th - did you know that? I didn't! All Republican and Democratic candidates were invited; Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. John Edwards and Rep. Dennis Kucinich responded, and here are transcripts and video of the event.
Second, the Living On Earth website is great, and has a bunch of great stories to listen to, including some really interesting special features, with topics like:
Recently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) denied a request by the State of California to enact strict environmental regulations (which are much stricter than federal guidelines). Under the Clean Air Act, California, and any other state for that matter, may file a waiver to enact these regulations. This has been more or less a formaltiy, as the EPA has never turned down a request... until recently.
California would like to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles by 30% between 2009 and 2106. But funnily enough, the EPA (aka Bush administration) has turned down this request. EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson said, "The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution, not a confusing patchwork of state rules." "I believe this is a better approach than if individual states were to act alone." Mmm-hmmm.
This is pretty bogus, if you ask me. Gee, do you think the Bush administration is in cahoots with the auto industry?
What a frustrating situation. I'm happy to hear that California, as well as 12 other states who want to adopt the same emission standards, is planning to file suit. But seriously, what a waste of time and taxpayer dollars. I'll be glad when this administration is out of office.
Wow. Did anyone see that coming? Congratulations to Hillary Clinton for her surprise win in the New Hampshire primary - which proves that whoever does the polling in these elections is not doing a good job.
In honor of Senator Clinton's victory, we're taking a look at her stands on global warming.
From her site, a few highlights:
Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050
A $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund to fund investments in alternative energy. The SEF will finance one-third of the $150 billon ten-year investment in a new energy future contained in this plan
Aggressive action to transition our economy toward renewable energy sources, with renewables generating 25 percent of electricity by 2025 and with 60 billion gallons of home-grown biofuels available for cars and trucks by 2030
An increase in fuel efficiency standards to 55 miles per gallon by 2030, and $20 billion of "Green Vehicle Bonds" to help U.S. automakers retool their plants to meet the standards
[She has] one of the most comprehensive and well-researchedenergy plans of the campaign season... The plan is not radically different from those of the other frontrunners, but in typical Clinton fashion, all the i's are dotted and t's crossed.
Congrats to Barack Obama for his victory in Iowa yesterday. I have to say, the energy and enthusiasm around the Obama campaign, have got me hooked too. And what a great speech...
In light of his victory, take a look at Obama's positions on the environment. His site, lists his positions, as well as this money quote: "I don't believe that climate change is just an issue that's convenient to bring up during a campaign. I believe it's one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation." But a better place to go is Grist, which has this great factsheet.
So I've been reading on TreeHugger.com the dire reports about how the ice will be gone from the Arctic by 2013, and how Greenland really will be green soon, have been reflecting on what it's really going to take to solve this problem.
What we need collectively is, as Arnold Schwarzenegger, our governor put it, “action, action, action." If you're reading this blog, or any of the other much better enviromental blogs (see our blogroll) you probably already know that, and you're making changes. To date, JB and I have done a few things here or there, including starting this blog, writing to our representatives, trying to drive and fly less, and buying some carbon offsets.
But I think it's not enough. Don't believe me? Here's my simple logic. Let's say we as a green-conscious community could, but individual action and influencing others, get 10% of the U.S. to totally reduce or offset their carbon emissions. I would think that would be a fantastic achievement - that's 30,000,000 people, and we would have reduced the US GHG emissions by 10%! But if the rest of the country does nothing that's way less than the 50% we need minimally, and the 90% that some scientists say we need.
At the scale that we need action, we need our government and our international institutions to act, and the way to do that is not by individual acts of conservation, but by leveraging the political process. What we need is a stronger lobby. Imagine if the 10% in my previous example joined an interest group fighting against climate change, and each person gave $100. That would be $3B dollars that could be used to support candidates and influence policy. Just by way of comparison, the NRA has something like 4 MM members, and an annual budget of $200 MM. Even without a truly strong environmental lobby, our congress just signed in a 40% increase in the Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency standard. But who fought for lower standards? The car companies. The unions. Lobbies.
So if we have the courage of our convictions, we need to move beyond small comforting individual actions, and think about how we can really move the bar. I think we need to group together, and make our voice truly heard. The politicians need to understand that if they don't act, they will be punished. Let's do it!
I guess the question is how. I'll be posting more on this in the next few days, but would love to hear your thoughts!
Does the fact that I am really into this year's presidential election make me a big dork? JB, who is much cooler than me, claims that it's true. Oh well.
Anyway, I was listening to Living On Earth, the PRI radio program today and discovered that they have a great series of stories on how the presidential candidates stand on the envronment. I did some digging online, and found a few really cool things:
Wow. Did anyone see that coming? Congratulations to Hillary Clinton for her surprise win in the New Hampshire primary - which proves that whoever does the polling in these elections is not doing a good job.
In honor of Senator Clinton's victory, we're taking a look at her stands on global warming.
From 
So I've been reading on