Why it matters:

Because the future is what you make it. (Inspirational enough for yah?)

Recap:

This past September, Senators John “Lightnin’” Kerry (D-MA) and Barbara “The Unifier” Boxer (D-CA) introduced Senate Bill 1733. Senate Bill 1733. That sounds awesome! What’s that? They’re calling it The Clean Energy Jobs & American Power Act? Yeah, okay, that is better.

For the banalities, check out the Pew Center for Global Climate Change’s summary of the bill, or if you’re having trouble sleeping read the entire bill in its entirety, right here. But since this is the “Recap” section, allow me to do so.

S. 1733 “Draws heavily from the climate provisions of the American Clean Energy and Security Act” but includes even loftier goals for emissions cuts than its House predecessor. At its core the bill focuses on “a market-based program” for reducing emissions (if this sounds like a potentially disastrous Cap and Trade system, it is). Luckily the bill goes further to include:

Targeted emission standards (the very critical “Cap” in Cap and Trade); support for research, development and deployment of low carbon energy alternatives; and expanded programs to increase energy and water efficiency.  Finally, the bill includes provisions intended to ease the transition to a clean energy economy by protecting consumers, workers, and energy-intensive industries from the impact of higher energy costs.

Putting the emphasis of Cap and Trade on trade is a recipe for disaster. But both the Senate and House bills set concrete, incremental emissions targets:

The Senate bill sets a more stringent 20 percent reduction target from 2005 levels in 2020 compared to the 17 percent reduction in the House bill.  The other targets are the same: a 3 percent reduction from 2005 levels in 2012; 42 percent reduction in 2030; and an 83 percent reduction in 2050.

By the way, this thing is coming up for a vote in the next few months.

Commentary:

Cap and Trade has its flaws — Specifically when it becomes, simply, a “Trade” system –but if the emissions “targets” proposed in both the House and Senate legislation become emissions “caps”, we’ll be in business. Oh, and incentivizing policy and technological innovation, green job creation, and emissions cuts above and beyond the letter of the law? That’s not too bad either.

The Natural Resources Defense Council has scooped up the proverbial red phone and called to action its full army of celebrities with their “This is Our Moment” campaign. I’m not sure where you come down on celebrity soap-boxing (Reality TV idea: Celebrity Soapbox Derby!).

To some its the best thing to happen to politics since Billy Beer, to others it’s the dumbest thing to happen to politics since, well, Billy Beer. At any rate, no one’s political philosophy should be WWLD? What would Leo do? But whether you’d rather drink from the fountain of celebrity glory, or whiz in it, join the NRDC’s This is Our Moment campaign to tell your Senators that you support the bill, and that the status quo of marching toward disaster while dumping loads of cash into OPEC doesn’t do much for you.

Creative Solutions:

• Join the This is Our Moment campaign, I said!
• Promote Alternative Energy by Buying Green Power
• Trade In Your Desktop
• Unplug Appliances When Not in Use
• Line Dry Your Clothes
• Tear Yourself Away From the Tube

Why it matters:

Finally, a way to get the nitty-gritty on your “food environment”.

Recap:

Planet Green is getting the word out, as part of the Obama administration’s Let’s Move program, the USDA has released its “Food Environment Atlas”.

The Yellow Pages this is not. The Food Atlas is a powerful tool for parents, educators, and individuals to get the details on their county’s food environment.

So, what the hell is a “Food Environment”? If you lived your entire life trapped in a Jack in the Box, your food environment would be comprised exclusively of bleached, white hamburger buns, ground beef, American “cheese product”, and large quantities of something called “Buttermilk House Dipping Sauce”. If you lived your entire life trapped at a farmer’s market, your food environment would include fresh (and ideally locally-sourced and organic) veggies, fruits, nuts, eggs, and, if you’re so inclined, you might even find some organic, grass-fed bison. Oh, and ill-fitting crocheted sweaters, but you can’t eat those.

Get it?

But if you’re like most folks, you were raised in a house or apartment and you weren’t trapped (I hope not, anyway), so your food environment probably includes restaurants of varying quality and philosophy, supermarkets, and convenience stores in addition to the fast food joints and (I hope) farmers markets. In fact, the food atlas goes beyond just telling you that you live in a fresh produce wonderland (psht, you already knew that anyway), it can tell you average food prices, restaurant density… every little detail you could possibly want to know.

Commentary:

In fact, if there’s any criticism of the Food Atlas, it might be that it’s a little too detailed. With about 90 indicators to choose from, you can find out just how many gallons of soft drinks your county consumes per capita. But maybe it needs to be a little more Yellow Pages. When I heard about the Food Atlas I was thinking: finally a tool to easily connect people to fresh, local food, whether it be through stores, markets, or restaurants. At best it can tell you whether on not there’s a farmer’s market in your county (A note to the citizens of Harney County, Oregon… you don’t), you’ll have to figure out where to go, and when, on your own.

It’s unclear whether the USDA has any intention of supplementing the atlas with information more relevant to consumers (addresses, hours, etc.)… but they should.

Creative Solutions:

• Check out the Food Atlas
• Go Local
• Find your Farmer’s Market on LocalHarvest
• Join a CSA
• Grow Your Own

Why it matters:

Because if Whole Foods is selling products carrying a “certified organic” label, those products should be certified organic.

Recap:

According to Washington D.C.’s ABC affiliate WJLA, Whole Foods may have some ’splainin’ to do.

The expose is just another in a growing list of charges being leveled at Whole Foods, which has become the supermarket mecca for health nuts and greenies. In the past, Whole Foods CEO John Mackey has come under fire for his stances on healthcare reform and climate change. This time the target is the store’s proprietary line of 365 Organic frozen vegetables.

The charges are these. 365 Organic frozen vegetables… are from China. Even the, *GASP* “California Blend” of broccoli, carrots, and cauliflower. Okay, not a crime. but there are some legitimate concerns. Coming as it does, on the heels of several scandals related to food coming out of China, the WJLA piece asks one very important question, how can vegetables coming from China be certified organic? The packaging carries three relevant bits of labeling.

1. “USDA Certified Organic” (a label with problems of its own)

2. “QAI Certified Organic”

3. Product of China.

According to the report, the USDA does not directly certify imported vegetables. BUT it does authorize 3rd party organizations to do so– in this case, Quality Assurance International (QAI). HOWEVER, correspondence between WJLA and QAI revealed that QAI had “not certified any products from China,” but instead relies on ANOTHER certifier on the farms.

Commentary:

So, uh, what exactly  is going on here? At worst, Whole Foods is egregiously and consciously mislabeling their products as certified organic. At the very least it would seem Whole Foods is the beneficiary of labeling loopholes.

Or are they? After refusing to be interviewed for the WJLA piece, Whole Foods issued this response on their blog (Whole Foods has a blog?). Ultimately both the WJLA piece and the Whole Foods rebuttal, hinge on the validity of QAI’s certification process. But if QAI is able to certify products through “another certifier on the farms”, that process is certainly suspect.

Despite Mackey and company’s dubious reputation in the green world, the WJLA piece isn’t exactly a smoking gun. For starters I can’t believe that anyone, except for dramatic effect, would assume their “California Blend” veggies came from California. I’m fairly certain my English muffins aren’t from England, and I know for a fact my French dressing isn’t from France (no, I don’t really use French dressing). Furthermore, there’s nothing to say that QAI isn’t diligent about what is, in effect, their FOURTH party certifiers.

But it does raise questions. And it seems the only way to verify if your organic vegetables are truly organic is to…

Creative Solutions:

• Research the USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP)
• Join an organic CSA
• Interact with your food, buy from your local organic farmers
• Grow your own fruits and vegetables

Why it matters:

Because the recent record snowfalls along the Atlantic coast proves global warming is a myth, duh!

Recap:

A quick look at a certain news channel named after a notoriously sly canine is heralding the good news: It’s snowing heavily in the eastern United States thus proving that global warming is a myth! Thank God we can put that to rest, eh?

There’s at least two problems with that, the first should be fairly obvious. For everyone under the age of four and/or all you Fox News viewers here’s a little science lesson. Over the course of a year the planet actually tilts. During the winter the northern hemisphere is tilted away from the sun. Just this small shift is enough to bring cooler temperatures, snow, and even shorter days. At the same time, the southern hemisphere is correspondingly closer to the sun. So when it’s winter up here, it’s summer down there! Can you imagine?! Christmas in the summer?! Wild. Now this is gonna blow your minds: over the next few months the earth will tilt back the other way and come June the snow will be gone and summer will return. I guarantee it.

In fact, you won’t even have to wait until Summer for record HIGH temperatures, just turn on your TV and watch this year’s Winter Olympics in Vancouver.

As you know from our piece about winter sports, ski resorts around the world are feeling the sting of climate change. According to this National Geographic blurb the average temperature in Vancouver this year is 44.8 degrees Fahrenheit, up significantly from the historic average of 37.9. Added to this indignity, Vancouver is seeing its lowest snowfall accumulations in years. Proof of global warming! Checkmate.

Well no, actually. Unlike some media outlets, we like to refrain from drawing asinine conclusions from limited and dubious evidence.

There are a number of phenomena involved in Vancouver’s record highs. One of the biggest culprits is El Nino, the crown jewel of weather systems for Southern California weathermen. (”My God in heaven there is water falling from the sky! This is the time to panic, people!”) Basically a temporary warming of the Pacific, El Nino shifts the jetstream South, meaning a warmer and wetter winter for the southern US, and warmer and drier winter for the northwest. Oh, and once those weather systems have pounded the southwest they move east over the Rockies, collecting more moisture and cooling before dumping usually large amounts of snow in the midwest and east! Sound familiar?!

Commentary:

So no, stupid, record snowfall in a small area of the planet does not disprove global warming. And though El Nino is a factor in Vancouver’s unusual weather, this particular El Nino has been classified as relatively mild, which doesn’t jive with record highs and unprecedented lack of snowfall.  Oh and turn off Fox News.  It is making you dumber by the second.

Creative Solutions:

• Take your business to Sustainable Slopes like Squaw Valley (CA), Aspen Mountain Ski Resort (CO), or Sundance Resort (UT)
• Wear Eco-Friendly outerwear like Smartwool, Nau, Patagonia, and REI’s Eco-Concious line.
• Use Eco-Friendly gear like Kingswood, Movement, Karhu, and Venture
• Or, better yet, use hand-me-downs
• Skip the lodges and chair lifts and go cross-country skiing!
• Bust a wicked cossack (backside 720 for boarders)

Why it matters:

“Endocrine disruptor” and “synthetic estrogen”… that’s why.

Recap:

Unless you’ve been living under a rock– an unfairly stigmatized exercise of strength, endurance, and will-power, but sadly also a impediment to education and worldly awareness– you’ve heard all the bad news about BPA, also known as Bisphenol A.

So let’s go over it again… with a twist!

We’ll start with the basics. Bisphenol A (or BPA as the cool kids like to call it) is used in the production of plastics. Specifically polycarbonate plastics, the go-to for baby bottles and sports bottles.

No problems so far…

Except polycarbonate bottles, especially when heated, release that BPA into your beverage of choice, which will of course eventually find its way into your stomach. The human body is unarguably a feat of natural engineering. In this case, the human body is your friend, because the body sees BPA and thinks it looks just like estrogen, and reacts accordingly. Let that sink in… Your body thinks BPA is estrogen.

For infants, whose endocrine and reproductive systems are still developing this is especially troubling, and exposure to BPA has been linked to conditions ranging from sexual dysfunction to increased risk for breast and prostate cancer.

So how can you tell if you’re being exposed to BPA? In many cases the answer is simple… look at the bottom. Plastic containers have a code printed on them– a number from 1 to 7– and a classification of the plastic itself. In this case we’re on the lookout for #3s and #7s with the letters PVC and PC (respectively) underneath. That said, due to public demand, many leading manufacturers such as Camelbak and Nalgene have switched to BPA-free plastic, but because the plastics are technically polycarbonates they still carry the #7 recycling code. The upside of the recent spate of BPA press is that manufacturers are so anxious to tout their BPA-free bona fides, products often display them prominently.

“Psssht, I knew all that. I’m a BPA free brothah!”

Are you? Had a tuna sandwich lately? How about a bowl of soup?

So here’s the twist. With reusable bottle manufacturers leaving BPA in the dust, canned foods have taken their place as the worst BPA offenders. Soup cans, tuna cans, tomatoes, sauces, even pop cans are leaching BPA into your food. Oh, and take a closer look at the jug sticking out of your water cooler at work… #7 PC. If you’re using it to refill your Kleen Kanteen you’re kind of defeating the purpose. (And, if I may be so bold, skip the SIGG bottles… for good. I myself recently learned that, despite their holier-than-Nalgene posturing, SIGG bottles contained BPA until summer 2008, when they quietly reformulated the liner material. Greenwashing of the lowest sort.)

“Oh.”

Darn right, “Oh.”

Commentary:

The bad news is, unlike take-out containers and sports bottles, there’s no way to know if your pre-packaged food is being infused with synthetic estrogen. And though the FDA has finally admitted that BPA isn’t a tasty, healthy additive (or whatever the hell they used to think), and may actually be a danger, there are no plans as of yet to ban the chemical or require manufacturers to disclose its use.

The water cooler is easy. Here goes… DRINK TAP WATER. Considering our piece on the myriad chemicals in tap water, this may sound crazy, but the fact is most bottled bottled water is locally-sourced (read: its tap water) and then filtered. Okay, so get a filter (Britta, PUR, etc.). It should be noted that NO filter, will remove BPA, nor many of the 90 chemicals regulated by the EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Act (nor the many thousands NOT regulated by the EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Act).

Pop’s easy too. Stop drinking it. You read our piece on High Fructose Corn Syrup, you knew it was garbage even before that, and you’ve been trying to get yourself to quit. So quit.

The canned foods and drinks are trickier. Recent tests by Consumer Reports revealed that even canned foods calling themselves “BPA-Free” are, well, full of it (so to speak). The ideal alternative to canned soups, for so many reasons, is homemade soup: Fresher, better ingredients, you control the sodium, and really they’re not hard to make. Really. Worst case scenario, try to find prepared foods and vegetables in glass jars like those by Bionaturae.

Creative Solutions:

• Ban BPA
• Ban phthalates
• Use a water filter
• Check out the NRDC’s drinking water FAQs
• And the USGS’s Water Quality page

Why it matters:

Because bluefin tuna are rapidly facing extinction, and it may be up to the French to save them. In the meantime, put down those chopsticks.

Recap:

When we last visited the Bluefin Tuna, the EU, as part of ICCAT (the international body that regulates tuna fishing), had declined to enact even a temporary ban on Bluefin fishing. The Mediterranean fish is considered the pinnacle of Sushi-dom and prime specimens, some weighing as much as 1000 pounds, can fetch upwards of $100,000. But those prime specimens are becoming harder and harder to find, and fishermen have resorted to catching juveniles and raising them in pens until they’ve reached market weight. This deadly combination of unsustainable fishing practices has doomed one of the ocean’s most impressive inhabitants.

Or has it?

Yes it has. The failure of the proposed temporary ban last fall was largely blamed on Greece, Cyprus, Malta, Spain, France, and Italy, EU nations with a vested interest in the debate and powerful fishing lobbies, and of course, Japan, which consumes approximately 80% of the world’s Bluefin catch.

But there may still be hope. With France, Italy, and Spain accounting for half of the world’s allowable Bluefin catch, a bold move by just one of those nations could be enough to get a Bluefin ban on the books, and according to Reuters, France may have just made that bold move. Well let’s say bold-ish. The French government is proposing a ban on Bluefin fishing… in 18 months, perhaps pending the results of a CITE (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) study of Bluefin, and in exchange for an EU compensation package for French fishermen.

Many folks, both in France and elsewhere are crying shenanigans! Or whatever word the French use for “shenanigans.” The CITES study is due out some time before July 2011 and French officials don’t expect any ban to take effect before September 2011. In the interim, France will be holding nationwide local elections, and many are calling the French proposal nothing more than political theater, meant to appease both fishing lobbies and those supporting a ban. For his part, French president Nicolas Sarkosy favors a “clear ban on Bluefin tuna”, but for local leaders, especially in coastal areas, the issue is muddier. Environmental groups are concerned that by late 2011 the already strained Bluefin populations might already be beyond saving.

Commentary:

So no, sorry, it’s not time to jump in the Hummer and rumble over to your favorite sushi place.

Are we sensing any themes here? From the events in Copenhagen to investigations into Monsanto, government officials around the world find themselves torn between what’s best the planet and the greater good, and what’s best for their constituents, their pocketbooks, and their reelection campaigns. Recent Supreme Court decisions notwithstanding, we would like to think that politicians are free from the influence of lobbyists and corporations.

One can only hope that France is serious about the Bluefin ban, and that they act decisively (and sooner than has been proposed). Barring that, perhaps the French ban will inspire Spain or Italy to propose their own ban.

But there is something you can do to help Bluefin populations. DON’T EAT THEM. Making smart, sustainable seafood choices is easy.

Creative Solutions:

• Go veggie
• Get Monterey Aquarium’s pocket-sized safe seafood list, or download it to your smartphone
• Stay updated with Monterey Aquarium’s Seafood Watch program

Why it matters:

No bees = No fruit and no honey. And which honey-bee populations are thriving? City and suburb bees! So get a smoker and one of those radical net hats and get keepin’… bee keepin’.

Recap:

Okay, maybe you’re hip to this crazy groove and maybe you’re not, but after backyard vegetable gardens and chicken coops, the latest in backyard eco-ccol is bee keeping! (Oh and pygmy goats… and outdoor showers… and cisterns…)

But let’s stick to Bee Keeping. Perhaps you’ve heard of Colony Collapse Disorder. No this isn’t what happened to Jamestown (not to be confused with Jonestown. Mmm, Kool-Aid) after the capital was moved to Williamsburg. No, Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) is none of those things. Where to begin?

Farmers and beekeepers have a pretty sweet deal going. For many trees to set fruit (oranges, apples, almonds, etc.) they need pollen from another tree of the opposite sex (seriously). The easiest way to accomplish this is for birds (of the humming variety) and bees (hence the song) to transfer that pollen. For birds this is more of an accident, but for bees, who feed the pollen to their larvae, collecting the stuff is very important.

So farmer Joe gets his trees pollinated and beekeeper Hubert gets his bees fed. Perfect! Uh, except, over the past several years, and for reasons as yet unknown, entire colonies are simply disappearing at an alarming rate. Fruit and honey producers are feeling the sting. (Zing! Sorry, this is serious. I know.) Scientists have floated theories from the growing presence of modified genes (thank you Monsanto!) to a growing list of pesticides and herbicides (again, thank you Monsanto!), to a lack of crop diversity.

That last one is raising some eyebrows. Oddly enough, the two places where hives seem to be thriving are in cities and suburbs. I know what you’re thinking, “I live in a city or suburb!” As strange as it may sound, cities and suburbs tend to be more biologically diverse than agricultural areas. (Ask the guy who lives downstairs from me!)

And here’s the kicker… that vegetable garden you’re so proud of? Well your tomatoes may not require pollinators to set fruit, but they’ll be much healthier and productive with a few visits from the local honey bees. Think of your veggies like a royal family, they can keep inbreeding, but kids kinda look… off. So what are you waiting for? Time to suit up.

Great. Uh. Okay. Now what?

Don’t worry, I’m gonna walk you through this. First, find out if it’s even legal for you to keep bees where you live. Your local city ordinances will answer this question quickly, you might even be required to acquire permits.

Next, determine whether anyone in the family is allergic to bee stings. Then again, nothing bonds a family like a white-knuckled race to the emergency room. Okay. Legal? Check. Life-Threatening? Negative.

Now all you need is a little gear and know-how. Both can be found in the indispensable Backyard Beekeeper. A quick search for local beekeeping clubs should be relatively productive, and for your kiddos be sure to check out 4-H, an organization dedicated to keeping American kids connected to our agricultural roots (yes it’s still around).

Commentary:

“You lost me at chicken coops.” Okay, vegetable gardening is one thing, beekeeping is something else. But urban beekeeping is booming and though it might sound crazy, aficionados say it’s no more difficult than keeping those tomatoes growing (for myself, a near impossibility).

Obviously there are time constraints, and upfront costs to consider, but the benefits of beekeeping are undeniable. People sink hundreds of dollars into their vegetable gardens every year, thinking miracle grow and a lot of swearing will mean bigger, more productive plants, but a few bees might be all the doctor ordered.

And who can’t get down with pounds(!) of free honey? You may never touch a drop of High Fructose Corn Syrup again!

Creative Solutions:

• Grab a copy of Backyard Beekeeper
• Check out the latest issue of Bee Culture magazine
• Peruse their list of beekeeping clubs in your area
• Lay out a spread for your buzzing buddies by planting Nichol’s Garden Nursery’s Bee mix.

Why it matters:

Take heed, one of the first things climate change is going to wipe out is… sports?

Recap:

Eh?

Okay not all sports, not at first anyway… just golf and winter sports.

Consider this, in arid regions, it can take as much as 5000 gallons of water to support a single round of golf per player. That’s about the amount of water a family of four uses in ten days. In fact, the aquifer under California’s Coachella Valley, home to more than 120 golf courses, is under such stress that some places of the valley have sunk more than a foot over the past nine years.

Something tells me there’s a fair number of climate change deniers in the golfing community. Just a hunch. Are y’all willing to give up golf – GOLF! The sport of lords, ancient highlanders, and masochists – if you’re wrong?

Luckily course owners around the world are taking steps to change the very notion of what a golf course is supposed to look like. For millions of golfers, many of whom call Phoenix and Palm Springs home, courses like St. Andrews and Augusta are the emerald green ideal.

But St. Andrews is in Scotland, which receives as much as 200 inches of rainfall a year (by comparison, Phoenix receives somewhere around… eight). Augusta is a different animal. Each year the course hosts the Masters tournament, one of professional golfing’s premiere events, and they plant and water accordingly, creating the lush oasis we see on TV. Yet the rest of the year the course sees little play (read: upkeep) and it’s closed entirely during the summer. Some courses are taking things even further, watering only tees, fairways, and greens, often with grey and recycled water.

Hey, why are we taking about golf?!  It’s winter! Some of you poor devils have all but forgotten what grass even looks like. Well, fresh or recycled, all that water has to start someplace, and that place is the mountains!

If any sports are in jeopardy it’s winter sports, especially downhill skiing and snowboarding. These favorite winter pastimes are the canaries in the coal mine of wholesome outdoor activities. When your business is snow, and lots of it, the term “climate change” is particularly troubling.

Ski resorts, especially the biggies, are resource hogs. Sprawling remote mountain lodges, massive express chair-lifts draped from base to summit, where, chances are, you might even find another lodge. Food, water, power! It all has to come from somewhere. In the face of climate (and financial) calamity, many resorts are taking the status quo approach of blasting their groomers (ski runs, to non-Warren Miller fans) with water and power-hungry snow machines, “By gum I’m not going without a fight! I’ll make my own snow!”

Many others are seeing the crisis as a learning (and teaching) opportunity. The Aspen Skiing Company, which owns and operates facilities on four separate mountains in Aspen (go figure) has set the gold standards for eco-initiatives. In addition to purchasing wind power and off-setting 100% of its power consumption, the company has a green building policy, and will match employee contributions to green causes. Other resorts are powering their lifts (at least in part) with run-off from the slopes above, and many others (my ol’ haunt Mt. Bachelor included) are fueling their Snow Cats (massive tank-like bruisers that groom the slopes) using recycled cooking oil.

So how do your local slopes stack up? For starters, make sure they’re part of the National Ski Areas Association’s Sustainable Slopes program, then check out the Ski Area Citizen’s Coalition (SACC) report cards. If your favorite resort doesn’t make the cut or, worse yet, finds its way onto the SACC’s “Worst Ten” list, it’s time to make fresh tracks to some new powder.

But your destination is only half of the picture. Unless, that is, you’re a fan of Naked Barefoot Skiing! (Chilly, but invigorating.) Chances are you’ll be in need of some earth-friendly winter duds from the likes of Smartwool, Nau, Patagonia, and REI’s Eco-Concious line. While Kingswood, Movement, Karhu, and Venture are green options for skis and boards.

Or, better yet, if you’re like me and your elfin cousin skis like Lindsey Vonn, chances are her hand-me-downs will work perfectly for your, shall we say, less-than-aggressive style.

Commentary:

So there you have it folks. Now you can hit the slopes without the guilt. If fact, you can carve proudly, knowing that resort owners and gear manufacturers are doing everything they can to prevent global warming… because if they don’t, they’ll go out of business. Would we rather see corporations battling global warming for the principle? Maybe, but, like our last piece about the corporate fallout from Copenhagen, I’d rather see someone fighting for the planet in the name of the bottom line than not at all.

Creative Solutions:

• Take your business to Sustainable Slopes like Squaw Valley (CA), Aspen Mountain Ski Resort (CO), or Sundance Resort (UT)
• Wear Eco-Friendly outerwear like Smartwool, Nau, Patagonia, and REI’s Eco-Concious line.
• Use Eco-Friendly gear like Kingswood, Movement, Karhu, and Venture
• Or, better yet, use hand-me-downs
• Skip the lodges and chair lifts and go cross-country skiing!
• Bust a wicked cossack (backside 720 for boarders)

Why it matters:

Despite the lack of groundbreaking climate action inside the Bella Center, outside NGOs, developing nations, and (most surprisingly) corporations were putting their heads together to develop new, effective strategies in the battle against climate change.

Recap:

For a lot of people the COP15 conference was a lot like one of those live Fox broadcasts of scientists opening an Egyptian tomb — Weeks of dramatic build-up! Promos upon promos! Finally sweeps weeks rolls around and the big day is upon us. Hundreds of Americans tune in with baited breath (everyone else is watching “Two and a Half Men”). Then comes the big reveal… A dark, musty room with a jar lying in the corner. The reporter tries to sound excited, “A jar! My God, this could have been used by an actual Pharoah, perhaps as a bedpan!” (Nevermind that this is a TOMB!) Meanwhile the archaeologists just kind of stand around, toeing the dust with their boots, saying, “Aw, hell.”

In short, a letdown (see our wrap-up here). But in the case of COP15, a letdown with potentially disastrous consequences. (Talk about a curse! How do drought, pestilence, and war grab yah?!)

While U.S., Chinese, and Indian officials were taking bold steps to combat climate change like, “No air conditioning at all on Thursdays! Unless it’s really hot. Like, high 80’s– Wait, mid 80’s. Yeah.” Elsewhere in the Bella Center and beyond, seemingly disparate groups were finding common ground, and developing strategies for actual climate action. Friend of EcoMatters, James Hanusa, was on the ground in Copenhagen (thank you gravity!), and witnessed the fraternizing first hand.

Who were these unlikely bedfellows? Ford and Chevy drivers? Those “Tastes great! Less filling!” fellows? (Did I just date myself?) No! This climate Voltron came in the form of NGOs, developing nations, and… corporations?!

Yes, corporations. Especially the 23 members of the World Wildlife Fund’s Climate Savers program, who met for a CEO roundtable in Copenhagen to discuss big business’ role in climate action leadership. Unarguably, many companies around the globe have made sustainability a priority from their inception, from ice-creamers like Ben & Jerry to clean-freaks like Seventh Generation. From its early days making carabiners, my own personal favorite, Patagonia has vowed to put the planet first. (Just in case founder Yvon Chouinard is a reader, it gets chilly in my apartment sometimes. And I wear a large). But as companies go, Patagonia isn’t exactly a global powerhouse.

Johnson & Johnson, Nike, IBM, HP, Coca-Cola. Now, those are big companies, and all members of the WWF Climate Savers program. While the governments of rich nations take negligible steps to regulate industrial emissions, some giants of industry are happily regulating themselves. Climate Saver participants have crunched the numbers and here’s what they say: Saving the Planet is good for the bottom line, greenhouse gas emissions should be seen as a form of waste, and (as we all know) there’s no time to lose.

Commentary:

Some might say that this Climate Saving sounds a lot more like climate mitigating. (Carbon offsets, anyone?) Granted, the 23 members of the Climate Savers programs are some of the biggest corporations in America, beholden to black ink, and responsible for a ton or two… million of atmospheric carbon each year. But these corporations also understand their place in the ecosystem, or at least have decided that long term growth and success means doing their part to ensure climate stability… unlike some corporations. (It’s tough to convince people to buy radical kicks and sweet LED TVs when they’re shooting each other over who gets the last rutabaga.)

These companies have pledged to take a lead-by-example approach: cataloging the carbon footprints of their products (like *GASP* Walmart) and taking measures to reduce that footprint, stream-lining and cleaning up supply chain and production processes, and engaging and encouraging employees to integrate sustainability into their home life. WWF CS member Johnson Diversey, a giant of cleaning products, has pledge to cut emissions by 25% by 2013.

“Coca-Cola? It’s like mainlining High Fructose Corn Syrup!” All of these companies have their faults, and the government has yet to turn the screws on the corporate world. Nevertheless, these companies are taking up the torch and trying to lead their peers out of the proverbial cursed Egyptian tomb and into the light of sustainability.

And that’s what you call a bookend! Nice!

Here’s what we call…

Creative Solutions:

• See what the Climate Savers are doing to make a difference
• Join 350.org
• Green Your Business
• Go see “No Impact Man”
• Understand Climate Change through Interactive Simulations
• Write a letter
• Support the Center for Public Integrity
• Become a Member of the Rainforest Action Network, Krypotinite to Big Business

Why it matters:

Because, for some reason, chaining ourselves to mountains and singing ballads about ash-laden silt just isn’t having the desired effect.

Recap:

Frequent readers of EMD will know, all objectivity aside, we’re not fans of Mountain Top Removal Mining. Well now it seems we’re not alone.

According to a recent AP article, a group of 12 scientist from the Appalachian region (not to be confused with “Appalachian scientists”, whose idea of delicate instruments include sticks with ornery raccoons tied to ‘em) are calling on federal regulators to put a stop to Mountain Top Removal (MTR) mining.

Mountain Top Removal is no hyperbolic euphemism. The process can be summed up thusly: Blow off top of Appalachian peak, sift through rubble for coal, dump leftover mess into nearby streams.

No. Seriously.

Margaret Palmer, a University of Maryland professor, was the lead author of the original article, which appeared in the “Policy Forum” section of the journal Science. Palmer and her colleagues acknowledge the rarity of scientists taking what amounts to a political stance on an issue, but all agree the science behind the conclusion was “rigorous” (comprising nearly a dozen studies) and the evidence it uncovered “overwhelming.” (Sounds like a climate issue that’s been in the news as of late.)

Not surprisingly, the National Mining Association is incredulous. As far as NMA spokeswoman Carol Raulston is concerned the scientists have it out for the mining industry, and asserts that, while the group is entitled to its opinion, there’s nothing in the research that “points to any new conclusions.”

Commentary:

Maybe that’s because the conclusion has always been the same: destroying mountains (and the resident flora and fauna) and pouring the detritus into mountain streams is bad. In fact, almost 500 mountains have been leveled and 1500 miles of streams choked to death or rendered utterly toxic.

Ah but you can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs, eh? Unfortunately the only people eating the MTR omelet are the CEOs and shareholders of the mining companies. MTR’s ham-fisted approach to mining requires fewer skilled hands, and thousands of jobs have been lost as a result.  Okay, enough with the breakfast analogies.

If the COP15 conference has taught us anything, its that politicians are often more interested in projections from economists and CEOs than irrefutable studies from scientists. The MTR announcement is encouraging nonetheless. And though the two are linked, the MTR debate is not complicated like the climate change debate. If fighting climate change is like fighting cancer, then putting a stop to MTR is removing a suspicious-looking mole: a simple and obvious procedure.

Coal has a well-deserved image problem. At best it’s dirty and dangerous to mine, and dirty and dangerous to burn. Maybe adding MTR to the mix is just par for the course. But as long as we’re stuck with such a nasty fuel for the short term, is it too much to ask that we not destroy hundreds of mountains and streams while we’re busy destroying the atmosphere?

Creative Solutions:

• Send a letter to President Obama
• Donate your Facebook Status & Tweet This: “@barackobama Mr President, please come to Appalachia & see the devastation of Mountaintop Removal for yourself www.ran.org/obamamtr #MTR”
• Sign the petition at ilovemountains.org and stopmountaintopremoval.org
• Find out your connection to MTR
• Call your representative
• Send a letter to your local representative
• Support the Clean Water Protection Act
• Support the Appalachia Restoration Act

Why it matters:

Because the E.P.A.’s “Safe Drinking Water” Act was passed in 1974 (5 years before I was born) and hasn’t been updated since the year 2000, when N’ Sync ruled the airwaves.

Recap:

A recent piece by the New York Times couldn’t be clearer: just because drinking water is considered “safe” by law, it can still contain known toxins in concentrations now considered dangerous, and any combination of tens of thousands of unregulated industrial chemicals in any concentration.

After extensive lab work, studies, and other research, the Times has laid bare the inadequacies of the nation’s regulations on drinking water. “The Safe Drinking Water Act” was a welcome breath of fresh air (or glass of fresh water, to be more precise) when it was enacted in 1974. After decades, drinking whatever swill sputtered from their faucets, lawmakers and scientists in the mid seventies asked themselves a rather poignant question, “My tap water is brown and smells like hot trash. Should I really be drinking this stuff?”

And so the “Safe Water Act” was born and water utilities around the nation were suddenly required to keep tabs on 20 chemicals. By 2000 that list had ballooned wildly to… 91 chemicals. Unfortunately, according to EPA estimates nearly 60,000 chemicals are used in the U.S. Which means the agency regulates roughly .001 percent of the chemicals that may be in our drinking water.

That’s scary.

Commentary:

What’s scarier is that science has advanced since 1974. And in much the same way that  iTunes replaced 8 Tracks and cell phones replaced… what? Walkie-Talkies? Scientists and doctors were conducting ever-advancing research on the effects of chemicals on the human body.

What they’ve found in many cases in that these 91 chemicals are much more dangerous than previously thought, and in much smaller doses than predicted. In the case of arsenic, for example, EPA scientists proposed lowering the permitted concentration to 5 parts per billion (”roughly one drop in 50 drums of water”), but extensive lobbying diluted (Hey-yo!) the new regulations to 10 parts per billion.

But while lobbyists are busy conspiring against us, some of us are conspiring against ourselves. In Los Angeles scientists discovered the presence of bromates (a carcinogen) in the tap water. Bromates are regulated by the SDWA “but officials are required to test for them only when water leaves a treatment plant.”

In the case of LA’s water supply in 2007, Bromates were somehow appearing after testing. Scientists tracked the problem to LA’s reservoirs (including Silver Lake) where exposure to the sun was causing the development of the chemical. Officials solved the problem by covering the reservoirs in billions of plastic balls (much like those found in the ball bin at Micky-D’s, and hopefully sans phthalates, BPA, and kiddie boogers). Yet, with their gorgeous man-made reservoir now covered in plastic balls to protect them from cancer, local residents unleashed on DWP officials insisting the move was a ploy to hike water rates.

So with 59,990 chemicals left to regulate, lax regulations on the 91 chemicals we do regulate, and residents cutting off their noses to spite their faces, we’re in quite a pickle.

Luckily, despite the EPA’s wimpy regulations on drinking water, many city officials are getting tough. LA DWP’s Dr. Pankaj Parekh was part of the city’s solution to the bromate problem. Under his watchful eye the city has made strides to beat the SDWA by a good margin, but LA DWP is a public utility. A full 3/4’s of water utilities are privately held and are only restricted by the decades-old science of the SDWA.

What to do, what to do…

Creative Solutions:

• Ban BPA
• Ban phthalates
• Use a water filter
• Check out the NRDC’s drinking water FAQs
• And the USGS’s Water Quality page

Why it matters:

Because your body metabolizes fructose differently than other sugars (read: very poorly), and since the 1980s fructose has become a ubiquitous part of the American diet.

Recap:

A recent study by scientists at UC Davis lends more evidence to the argument that fructose (and by association, it’s prolific cousin High Fructose Corn Syrup) is worse for you than glucose.

The cane or beet sugar you heap into your coffee every morning is sucrose, a disaccharide (fancy science talk for a natural compound of fructose and glucose in a 1:1 ratio).  Fructose occurs naturally in most fruit, but it’s ingested most commonly today as the main ingredient in High Fructose Corn Syrup.

HFCS is created by converting the natural glucose in corn (stored in the kernels as starch) into fructose, which is then blended with pure glucose in a 55 to 45 % mix, respectively.  To food manufacturers HFCS has become the sweetener of choice: it’s a liquid, it’s stable, it’s concentrated, and… it’s subsidized (read: cheap).

In an unprecedented move, the UC study decided to go directly to human subjects to get their findings.  Over the course of 10 weeks, scientists fed a group of 17 subjects a special diet containing high levels of pure fructose, another group or 15 was fed a control diet using glucose in place of the fructose.  At the end of the study the fructose group had developed fat throughout their abdominal cavities, and around their hearts, livers, digestive organs, in addition to developing symptoms linked to diabetes and heart disease.  Their glucose-gobbling peers showed none of these developments.

Organs packed in fat is troubling, but equally so are the “symptoms linked to diabetes and heart disease.”

Unlike glucose, some of which passes through the liver and is then excreted, 100% of fructose that’s consumed is taken up by the liver.  This is turn leads to increased fat deposition in the abdominal cavity and increased blood levels of triglycerides.

Commentary:

To be clear, the scientists in the study used 100% fructose and 100% glucose.  Both concentrations are extremely rare in the “real world”, though, depending on who you talk to, regular “corn syrup” is pure glucose.  The sugars most Americans consume are sucrose and high fructose corn syrup.

On the surface, comparing sucrose with its 50/50 ratio of fructose to glucose, with high fructose corn syrup’s 55/45 blend seems like splitting hairs.  But over the course of a year the average American consumes 156 pounds of sugar.  That’s like eating a 17 year-old.  (They’re pretty much made of sugar anyway.)

Despite the fact that 30 percent of your sugar comes in the form of sucrose, with the remaining 70 coming in the form of HFCS, you’re still getting about 55% of your total sugar from fructose.  Or to put it another way, an extra 16 pounds of pure fructose a year.

So are fructose  and HFCS the cause of America’s obesity epidemic?  Cause?  No. Contributing factor? Most definitely.  The fact is we consume too much refined sugar.  It’s in pretty much everything we eat, and in growing concentrations.  But when the majority of that sugar comes in the form of fructose, you’re really rolling the dice on your heart and liver.

But this is an environmental website, eh?  Okay.  The government subsidizes corn and soy crops (see our piece on Monsanto), crops that are notoriously fertilizer, soil, and pesticide intensive.  And with corn and soy quickly pushing other crops to the fringes, America is quickly adopting monoculture (or duo-culture), surviving on various forms of just two crops.  So…

Creative Solutions:

• Eat less sugar and avoid GMOs
• Get your sweet fix from fruits
• Grow your own fruits and veggies

Why it matters:

The worlds biggest polluters have decided to try to put out a forest fire with squirt guns.

Recap:

A U.N. climate conference years in the making.  200 countries in attendance.  Heads of state from the world’s most powerful nations gathering to tackle the climate crisis once and for all.  What brilliant battle plan did these charismatic leaders — into whom we’ve placed our deepest hope and faith — come up with?

Drum roll please?

A flaccid, non-binding agreement.

So what does this wimpy accord have to say for itself?  In the “plus” column, signatories include the U.S., China, India, Brazil, and South Africa, the Manson Family of polluters.  And that’s about it for the “plus” column. (Can hardly call it a column, really).

Now for the “minus.”  Despite approval from a handful of powerful nations, there were, as we mentioned, about 200 nations represented at Cop15 and, well, no one else signed on to the accord.  For starters it lacks “overall emissions targets.”

As we’ve mentioned several times here at EcoMatters, the scientific community largely agrees that our atmosphere can safely handle about 350 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere.  We’re currently pushing past the 390 PPM mark and already seeing droughts, flooding, and glacial melt.  Without overall emissions targets even Cap & Trade won’t work (not that it would anyway).

So what did these nations actually agree to do?  By 2020 signatory nations agreed to the following emissions cuts:

• U.S., a 17 percent reduction from 2005 levels (or 3-4 percent from 1990 levels).
• China, a cut of 40 to 45 percent below “business as usual,” that is, judged against 2005 figures for energy used versus economic output.
• India, 20 to 25 percent cut from 2005 levels
• European Union, 20 percent cut from 1990, and possibly 30 percent.
• Japan, 25 percent cut from 1990.

While it should be noted that these represent the first global climate pledges by the U.S., China, and India, these should also be compared to those of the EU and Japan, who will make 5-6 times the emissions cut over the same time period.

One of the biggest hurdles for U.S. commitment to even a flaccid, non-binding accord was verification of Chinese efforts.  As of late, China has insisted on its commitment to climate action, while at the same time balking at the notion of any sort of transparency system or verification process.  After last-minute negotiations, nations agreed to the following verification system:

• Countries are to list actions taken to cut global warming pollution by specific amounts.
• Method is agreed upon for verifying reductions.
• Developed nations already covered by the 1997 Kyoto Protocol (the U.S. is not included) would have their emissions cuts monitored and would face possible sanctions if they fail to meet them.

Finally, there was the issue of economic divide.  The Maldives is widely considered to be the canary in the coal mine.  The small island nation rises just feet from the ocean and faces total annihilation at the hands of rising sea levels.  Likewise, developing nations, especially in Africa are already coping with droughts and famine.  These nations, while at the bottom of the economic ladder, have numbers on their side.

The relatively small club that is the industrialized world creates the most greenhouse gases by a substantial margin.  Our financial mea culpa will include:

• Wealthy nations will raise $100 billion a year by 2020 to help poorer nations cope with the effects of climate change, such as droughts and floods.  This is contingent upon a broader agreement, including some kind of oversight to verify China’s emissions of greenhouse gases.
• Short-term funding of roughly $30 billion over three years beginning in 2010 to help developing countries adapt to climate change and shift to clean energy.

Commentary:

You know when you where sixteen and you came home with a D on your report card, or stumbled home pissed-drunk from a party, or took the car without asking and wrapped it around the neighbor’s blue spruce, and your dad ran his hand over his face before saying, in a disturbingly calm voice, “No. I’m not angry. I’m very disappointed in you,” and you knew that was, like, a million times worse?

Well, I’m not angry with our leaders at COP15, but I’m very disappointed in them.

I don’t envy heads of state.  As Abraham Lincoln once said, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all the people all the time.”  Well the same goes for pleasing them.  I understand that there may be economic hiccups on the road to energy independence, but there will be starvation, storms, and drought on the road to climate-induced apocalypse.  In fact, it’s already happening.

The deal that’s come out of Copenhagen is not terrible.  For one, it marks the first pledges by the world’s worst polluters to change their course and allow the world to keep tabs.

But while the developed world stands around congratulating itself on its bold moves to combat climate change, the developing world might be busy starving to death.  That’s where the 100 billion dollars come in, eh?

That’s not exactly pocket change, and certainly $100 billion, well spent, will help in the global efforts to combat climate change.  But forgive me (and many others) from being reminded of indulgences, the Renaissance-era Catholic practice which allowed parishioners to literally buy forgiveness.

The most serious and concrete commitments of the Copenhagen accord are financial.  And while it’s true that financial commitments are easy to measure and track, they’re not easy to valuate when it comes to environmental impact, much like a Cap & Trade system.  Without a solid, effective “cap,” the trade is nothing more than penance.

So what are we left with?  A limp pledge by the biggest polluters to try to reduce emissions?  Possibly. Before the U.S. can actually commit to any of these pledges we’ll have to get something though the House, Senate, and White House.  This is an opportunity for the U.S. to affect real change.  Strong, binding legislation is what it’s going to take to get the ball rolling.

Creative Solutions:

• Green Your Business
• Go see “No Impact Man”
• Understand Climate Change through Interactive Simulations
• Write a letter
• Support the Center for Public Integrity
• Become a Member of the Rainforest Action Network, Krypotinite to Big Business

Why it matters:

Because Monsanto is creating a literal monopoly on the world’s food supply.

Recap:

A recent expose by AP journalist Christopher Leonard confirms many of the rumors about seed giant Monsanto.  For the uninitiated, Monsanto is one of just a handful of companies that own and oversee the world’s seed stock (read: food supply), and over the past decade has established itself as the unequivocal market leader.  In fact, Neil Harl, an agricultural economist at Iowa State University, asserts that Monsanto controls nearly 90 percent of seed genes.

As recently as twelve years ago Monsanto was just a cog in the seed company machine, but with a surge of scientific and legal innovations the company cleverly established its strangle hold on seed genetics.

Monsanto’s meteoric rise to power started in 1996, when the company’s scientists created a strain of RoundUp-resistant soybeans.  The development meant farmers no longer had to wait for crops to mature before dousing them with the ubiquitous herbicide.  Other genetic innovations followed, including pest-resistant corn.  Before long Monsanto genes were in 95% of all soybean and 80% of all corn crops grown in the U.S.

But it wasn’t until the company’s legal team got involved that they truly crushed their competition. Monsanto licensing agreements include clauses that prevent farmers from combining Monsanto genes with those of their competitors.

With their products so prevalent in the market, the behemoth has concocted several other ways to shut out competition.  For example, should a small seed company decide to sell to one of Monsanto’s competitors like Dow or DuPont, they must destroy any stock containing Monsanto genes.  The companies are stuck in a bind: Destroy most of their inventory and risk losing the sale or sell to Monsanto and take whatever deal they want to give.

Farmers complain that because of their level of control, Monsanto can (and does) raise prices however and whenever it chooses.  In the past year, the company raised corn seed prices 25% and soybean prices 28%, with additional price hikes announced for 2010.

A spate of lawsuits from Monsanto competitors has done little to slow the giant’s march.  The company recently settled with competitor Syngenta in one of these suits.  The result?  To allow “gene stacking” (mixing genes from different companies).  In fact, to hedge its bets, Monsanto has signed several cross-licensing agreements with competitors.

Commentary:

So, Monsanto owns genetic material in 90% of the world’s food supply, sets prices at will, and colludes with its competitors to stay in power.  Um, hello, Department of Justice?

Luckily, the DOJ has decided to get involved.  Or at least, has begun investigating whether Monsanto’s practices violate anti-trust laws.

Monsanto’s monopoly on America’s seed stock has gone largely unreported by the press and unnoticed by the American people, while on capitol hill Congress is busy trying to decide if Bill Gates and Windows 7 are getting too big for their britches.

No one company should dominate any market.  But food?  Food! The only thing besides water we really need to STAY ALIVE!

America’s disconnect with food is astounding.  “Okay, these Monsanto guys sound like jerks, I’ll just eat Cap ‘N Crunch and sausages for the rest of my life.”  Cap N’ Crunch is made of corn, cattle and pig feed is made of corn.  “Fine, soy sausages!”

Soy. They’ve got us over a barrel, eh?

Not necessarily.

Creative Solutions:

• Watch “The World According to Monsanto”
• Grow your own with seeds from Seed Saver’s Exchange, Seeds of Change, or Bountiful Gardens
• Avoid GMOs
• Get a portable farm and grow your own food
• Don’t hassle me, I’m local… and organic

Why it matters:

Because it seems like more happened outside the Bella Center than inside, which is bad news.

Recap:

You’ve likely been hearing the news from the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen: raucous outbursts and sharp crackdowns.  No, not from the U.N. delegates, (I wish) but from the protesters and police outside the Bella Center.

Reports started trickling early Tuesday morning that Danish police were showing little tolerance for demonstrators outside the conference, and had quickly donned riot gear to disperse the crowds.

A much larger rally was planned for Wednesday, organized by Climate Justice Action, to denounce the lack of effective and just proposals in the UN talks.  Protesters were expected to descend on the Bella Center, while NGO delegations inside were expected to stage a coordinated walk-out.

Danish police are said to have made preemptive arrests and many NGO delegations (including Friends of the Earth and AVAAZ) arrived Wednesday morning only to find themselves barred from the conference. Nevertheless, the “People’s Assembly”as it’s being called, went off without a hitch.  There are a few confirmed reports of police violence, but for the most part officers are standing down.

Whew. That’s it right?

No, actually. Connie Hedegaard the chief negotiator and President of the COP15 conference (as it’s also known) has resigned!  With so many heads of state representing their nations at the conference, Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen (also a great pro-wrestling name) has decided to take the reigns. Hedegaard will stay on as Rasmussen’s representative and will continue to take part in negotiations.

Elsewhere in the Bella Center, Senator John Kerry was outlining the U.S. position on Climate action. Kerry reiterated the need for Chinese and Indian involvement in a treaty as a precursor to passing effective climate legislation here at home.

Commentary:

“Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!“  Okay, so it’s not quite as bad as that. Sadly, the debate at the conference wasn’t much of a debate at all.  Poor and developing nations pled for relief from floods, storms, and drought, while the rich nations offered meager pledges and consolation prizes.  The “We will only ___ if ____ promises to ____ as well,” stance from the likes of the U.S., Japan, China, and India crippled the discussion.

The world’s leaders continue to play Russian Roulette with our climate.  The sanest people in Copenhagen are the thousands in the streets calling on heads of state to put down the gun.  Things are grim when white dread-locked Germans, mimes, aliens, and sign-carrying Santa Clauses of all shapes and sizes represent the logical voices in the debate.  But by turning out in the numbers they have, and joining forces with invited guests, these protesters are making themselves heard.

Make yourself heard.

Creative Solutions:

• Check out the World Wildlife Fund’s “Action Guide to Copenhagen”, offering 9 ways YOU can help the effort.
• Fire up Climate Interactive, or…
• At least keep score with the Scoreboard (and add it to your Facebook page).
• Join 350.org.
• Watch the Conference LIVE

Why it matters:

Spend a few bucks to weatherize your home => Save money, GET money, and help the environment.

Recap:

“Insulation is sexy stuff.”  The President’s words, not mine.

Before jetting off to Copenhagen for the final days of the UN climate change conference, President Obama made a pit-stop at a Home Depot store in Virginia.  No, he wasn’t there to pick up a mitre saw or a palate of Poinsettias, he was there to rally support for his energy efficiency incentive program, which the media machine has ill-advisedly dubbed… ahem… “Cash for Caulkers.”

Obama’s plan is simple: a temporary incentive program to weatherize building envelops, replace inefficient windows and doors, and upgrade out-dated HVAC (heating and cooling) systems.

The details of the plan, however, are fuzzier.  It’s unclear how the program will integrate with state and municipal efficiency programs already in place.  There is also the question of what the incentives will cover, and for how much.

Commentary:

One thing is clear.  Energy efficiency upgrades to homes and businesses are some of the most effective ways for individuals to reduce their carbon footprint.  The President himself noted that buildings consume almost half (HALF!) of the energy we use in the U.S.  Worse still, much of that energy goes to waste.  Leaky windows and clunky old furnaces are conspiring against you.

I don’t know if I’d go as far as to call insulation “sexy stuff”, a couple mid-summer days in the attic covered in fiberglass are all it takes to take the sexiness out of it.  But it’s certainly effective stuff, and chances are some insulation, some caulking (there’s that word again), and a few cans of expanding foam could do a lot to reducing your heating and cooling bill (and reducing your carbon footprint). No need to rush out and replace all your windows.

Well, now the federal government wants to pay you for it.  Frankly, it’s baffling that more homeowners haven’t made most of these upgrades already, even without state and municipal incentives.  Heating and cooling costs account a third of household bills (and probably 80% of the complaining about household bills).  Yet many homes still leak like sieves…sieves heated by inefficient furnaces (many as little as 50% efficient).  Obama uses the imagery of twenty dollar bills slipping out through your leaky windows and floating up into the atmosphere.

In fairness, many people don’t know where to start when it comes to energy efficiency upgrades. Many experts say to start with a Home Energy Audit (Eeek!).  Don’t worry, it’s not that kind of audit. A Home Energy Auditor uses special equipment to detect leaks and other areas of your home for potential cash and energy savings.

Unfortunately, like LEED, the field of home energy audits is still in its relative infancy, and there are no federal standards for what they test, or the equipment they use to test it.

Do your homework.  Or, barring that, treat the auditor like a doctor or mechanic.  Many auditors are also contractors, get a second opinion before they start replacing windows and blowing in insulation. Hopefully the… Ugh… Cash for Caulkers program will help create jobs for potential auditors, while at the same time creating best practice standards in the field.

Still need help?

Creative Solutions:

• Seal up those leaks
• Get that home energy audit; If in the Bay Area, call our friends at Recurve
• Reduce home heating costs
• Look for Government freebies on energy audits
• Check out UNC’s database of State energy efficiency incentives and rebates.
• Check out the US Department of  Energy’s tips
• Check out Energy Star’s tips

Why it matters:

Without an effective and binding agreement, the delegates in Copenhagen are just on vacation.

Recap:

Well folks, week one of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is in the record books.

The general consensus, reflected by Climate Interactive’s Scoreboard, is… “Meh.”  The first wave of meetings galvanized an already unfortunate division between rich and developing nations.  While members of the G77 (representing the latter) acknowledge the seriousness of the climate crisis, there is a general sense within the group that the richest nations (the biggest polluters) should be providing economic assistance to poorer nations.  The EU responded in kind, pledging 2.4 billion euro annually for the next three years to assist developing nations, particularly in Africa, reduce carbon emissions.

Amongst developed countries, the 27 nation EU seems to have taken the reigns in guiding the conference to a binding agreement.  In addition to the assistance fund, the EU has set a goal of reducing emissions by 30% of 1990 levels by 2020, but won’t commit without consensus from the rest of the developed world.  This conditional pledge seems to be a recurring theme amongst developed nations.  In September, Japan made a similar announcement, reducing 1990-level emissions by 25% by 2020, besting the guidelines of the Kyoto Protocol.  But in Copenhagen, Japan has added U.S. and Chinese involvement as conditions to this commitment.

Nevertheless, the first official draft of climate action has been floated.  The proposals contained within leave substantial wiggle room, and the six-page document reported reads more like a template than an actual agreement.  The draft aims for 50%-90% emissions reductions from 1990 levels by 2050 with interim goals for 2020.  Already surfacing as a criticism amongst some nations however, is the lack of language requiring U.S., Chinese, and Indian commitment.

Commentary:

So that’s where we are.  It seems that all the nations at the UNFCCC are big fans of climate action, “As long as ____ promises to ____.”

This is neither surprising, nor terribly disheartening.  Consensus has it that any binding agreement will come “late but in earnest” in the final days or hours of the conference, and will indeed require U.S., Chinese, and Indian commitment.

The unfortunate assumption is that serious climate action will be bad for the global economy.  But reducing emissions will require innovation.  Conservation is a critical element of the climate action puzzle, but much of that conservation will likely come in the form of new technologies.

Luckily, for the next two days, between their plates of pickled herring and shots of akvavit, the UN delegates will be treated to presentations on the possibilities of the “green economy” and the latest advancements in renewable energy.

Unfortunately, while emissions levels are important, total atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been disturbingly absent from the Copenhagen conversation.  With current CO2 levels climbing through 390 parts per million (ppm), and the scientific community agreeing on 350 ppm as a preferable cap, its unclear how the current proposals of reduced emissions will translate when it comes to overall CO2 levels.  Grandpa and Uncle Joe can pledge to stop passing so much gas, but if the room’s already socked-in you might still keel over.

Creative Solutions:

• Check out the World Wildlife Fund’s “Action Guide to Copenhagen”, offering 9 ways YOU can help the effort.
• Fire up Climate Interactive, or…
• At least keep score with the Scoreboard (and add it to your Facebook page).
• Join 350.org.
• Watch the Conference LIVE

Why it matters:

This is it folks.  Monday marked the first day of the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen Denmark.  The UNC4, if I might coin a phrase.  Wait, C4, that sounds dangerous.

Recap:

This Monday, the 7th of December marked day one of the two week UN Climate Change Conference. Delegates from around the globe are gathering in Copenhagen to discuss climate change, and hopefully hammer out an effective solution.

Commentary:

The success of the conference will depend almost entirely on the will of the member nations to right our current path, and it’s clear going into the meetings that some countries are more committed than others. To most governments, climate change and climate action are not black and white issues. For some, short-term financial implications are weighing heavily against meaningful action (the US and China, for example). For others, the short-term consequences might mean Armageddon… The Maldives, a small island archipelago nation in the South Pacific will undoubtedly be the first to succumb to rising sea levels. On our current path, the nation would likely be flooded by the end of the century.

The recent British email “scandal” has been a topic of some debate leading up to the conference. Thankfully, member nations are paying it little, if any credence, preferring instead, to focus on the proven scientific evidence: There is a greenhouse effect, greenhouse gases are dangerously high and rising at an unprecedented rate, this rise is strikingly paralleled by the rise of human industrialization.

But keeping score on the events in Copenhagen isn’t like watching the Civil War on ESPN (DID YOU WATCH THAT GAME?! WHEW!). Or is it? Climate Interactive is a system developed by MIT that allows policy makers to see in real time the mitigating (or not) effects of possible policy changes. The simulator is being used by the U.S. and several other delegations for the UNC4 (actually, I do like it). In fact, you can even use it. Like, now. But those brainiacs have taken Climate Interactive one step further, and created the Climate Scoreboard. A daily (or hourly) check of the scoreboard will quickly illustrate the progress being made (or not) in Denmark, and a click of the “Log of Scoreboard Changes” will show you just what’s moving the chains.

But what can you do to help in Copenhagen?!

Creative Solutions:

• Check out the World Wildlife Fund’s “Action Guide to Copenhagen”, offering 9 ways YOU can help the effort.
• Fire up Climate Interactive, or…
• At least keep score with the Scoreboard (and add it to your Facebook page).
• Join 350.org.
• Watch the Conference LIVE

Why it matters:

Cap and trade will only be effective if done with transparency and integrity, as a means to address global warming…not if it’s treated like another housing bubble.

Recap:

Annie Leonard, who brought us ‘The Story of Stuff”, a brilliantly concise treatment on rampant consumerism, has released another animated gem, this time about the pitfalls of the much lauded Cap & Trade system.

For the uninitiated, Cap & Trade is one of the leading legislative proposals to combat climate change.  As mentioned in previous articles, our atmosphere currently contains about 390 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide.  At this concentration we’ve seen melting glaciers, drought, and famine.  Scientists agree the maximum concentration for maintaining “life as we know it” is about 350 ppm.

The first step in Cap & Trade is, obviously, setting the “cap”…let’s say 350 ppm by 2050 (we should be so lucky).  Now comes the “trade” part, where corporate polluters are allowed to emit a certain volume of greenhouse gases each year.  If they are smart enough to “green” their systems and processes, they might have left over “carbon credits” which they can sell, conceivably for a profit.

Enter Annie.  There are three big flaws in most Cap & Trade proposals, according to Ms. Leonard.

1. For obvious ($) reasons, most “Cap & Trade” systems in effect around the world, and those being proposed here in the U.S. are actually more like “Cap & Giveaway” systems, where the allotted carbon credits will actually be given away to corporations, rather than requiring them to purchase them.  As Annie points out, this is essentially rewarding the folks who have caused this problem in the first place, “We know you are egregious polluters, here are some free credits to sell to one another to boost your profits.”

2. Carbon Offsets. Carbon Offsets involve a corporation (or NGO, or individual) paying to “undo” some of their emitting.  If you’re slack-jawed and drooling, you’re not alone.  Providers of carbon offsets (E.G. TerraPass) have made a business out of reducing carbon.  You belch 20 lbs. of CO2 into the air?  No prob, pay $40 bucks to this company that has REMOVED 20 lbs. of CO2 from the air.  By buying carbon offsets you are effectively atoning for your carbon sins.  But technically you are investing in a company.  Unfortunately carbon offsets are difficult to quantify, and if it’s cheaper for company to buy them than actually reduce emissions, you can imagine which option they’ll choose.  Which brings us to…

3. Distraction.  Leonard’s final “Devil in the Details” is actually a condemnation of the concept as a whole.  Despite being much maligned for the supposed strangle hold it would put on the economy, “Cap & Trade” is a popular environmental solution to those on Wall Street.  And why not?  A highly malleable, nebulous security.  Sound familiar?  Sub-Prime Mortgages anyone? Credit Default Swaps anyone?

Commentary:

The real key to a successful cap and trade system is the “cap.”  Unfortunately, most current proposals focus more on the “trade.”  In an attempt to please the corporate world, every effort has been made to make to keep the system flexible.  “You can solve climate change by buying and selling securities.”  Unfortunately someone has to actually, physically reduce emissions.

Some have suggested that a “carbon tax” would be more effective.  Just the word “tax” is enough to send some folks running for the hills, but a carbon tax might be a more effective incentive for corporations to clean up their act.

But why can’t everyone be happy?  Why can’t a “Cap & Trade” work?  It can, actually, but there are a few criteria.

1. “Cap” is key.  The goal is to curb emissions.  Full stop.  Every aspect of the system must be in service of an effective goal. I’d say 350 ppm sounds pretty good.

2. Reduce > Offset.  There must be incentives for companies to reduce emissions rather than taking the easy way out. Maybe…

3. Burst the bubble.  Give carbon credits a significant, non-negotiable value.  If a credit is worth a $1 million, the companies who have the most to sell will have some walking around money and happy share-holders, while the worst polluters will be left in the red with their smoke-stacks in their hands. Pardon the euphemism.

Creative Solutions:

• Share “The Story of Cap and Trade” with everyone you know
• 9 Things to Do to Ensure Copenhagen is a huge success (w/out a cap and trade bill!)
• Watch “The Story of Stuff” again
• Understand Climate Change through Interactive Simulations
• Write a letter
• Become a Member of the Rainforest Action Network, Krypotinite to Big Business

Why it matters:

Are you serious?  The Chevy Volt will be the first commercial plug-in hybrid, it can run battery-only for the first 40 miles, has a triple digit miles per gallon rating and, oh yeah, it’s American.

Recap:

According to the New York Times, General Motors will be releasing the Volt starting in California late next year, with other markets to follow.

Despite the gradual rollout, Chevrolet isn’t messing around.  With a $30 million federal grant, the automaker has arranged to make the Golden State into a sort of demonstration site, setting up of charging stations and delivering hundreds of Volts to various fleets.

Despite being relegated to “concept car” status, the Volt has been the feather in Chevy’s cap since its debut several years ago.  But the release of Tesla’s duo of electric-only luxury cars, the Chevy brass made the push for a consumer version of the Volt.  The result is pretty impressive.  Although technically a hybrid, the Volt runs for up to 40 miles on its plug-in battery before the small gas motor kicks in, extending the car’s range to over 300 miles from its 12 gallon tank.

If you recall, we reported back in May that Tesla and Daimler have been up to some interesting things…things that companies like GM need to make sure they have a competitive option for.  The Volt seems to fit the bill quite nicely.  Especially if the car actually makes good on the claim that it gets 230 mpg in the city…yes, you read that right…230 Miles per Gallon!  GM says the Volt will average over 100 mpgs regardless of where you drive it.

Commentary:

Oh what tangled webs we weave…but in a good way.  To be honest, a few years ago I saw Chevy’s as everything that was wrong with the American auto industry: they were big, inefficient, and ugly.

Cut to present day.  A few new models, new styling, a late-but-in-earnest emphasis on efficiency and new tone of what makes GM tick.  That’s not to say there isn’t room for improvement.  Gas gusslers are still their bread and butter, and Chevy drivers are far-and-away the biggest buttheads on the road (prove me wrong).

But the Chevy Volt might just be lightening in a bottle. It’s the first hybrid of its kind. For 40 miles its an electric car, full stop.  That’s enough to tackle nearly any commute, especially if you can plug in when you get to the office.

But if you read our piece on Detroit, you’ll know that Motown’s hurting.  So what we have here is a ground-breaking domestic auto from a company in which all Americans are invested, literally.  Don’t get me wrong, the Volt may not be an environmental or recession-busting panacea, but its success would be a huge step in the right direction on both fronts.  Also, it looks rad.

So, if driving 100 miles for under 3 bucks excites you, maybe you should consider…

Creative Solutions:

• Buy a Chevrolet Volt
• Take the Train
• Ride Your Bike

Why it matters:

Sheltering kids from nature and showering them with chemical-based anti-bacterial soaps has caused decreased resistance to disease and allergy in the industrialized world.

Recap:

Hippies and Earth Muffins rejoice!  You were right and Proctor & Gamble was wrong…muck does help little kids fight disease.

A recent study by the University of California, San Diego shows that the presence of the bacteria staphylococci on the skin prevents wounds from becoming inflamed.

The findings represent the first molecular basis for the “Hygiene Hypothesis.”  The hypothesis asserts that “a lack of early childhood exposure to infectious agents and microorganisms increases an individuals susceptibility to disease by changing how the immune system reacts to such “bacterial invaders.”

The notion first surfaced in the 1980s in response to reduced childhood disease resistance in industrialized areas, and conversely, to explain why children in larger families are more disease resistant (presumably due to increased incidence of exposure to bacteria and allergies).

Commentary:

The fact is dirt and bacteria are natural, triclosan, surfactants, and toxic ingredients in many conventional soaps, are not.  That’s not to say all things natural are good.  Certainly one can make the case that the bubonic plague and tuberculosis have their downsides.

The human body has two means to protect itself from disease.  The first is, well, avoidance.  There’s a lot to be said for steering clear of infectious diseases.  From my observations, there’s little difference between the passenger compartment of a plane and the quarantine tents in “Outbreak.”  They offer you chex mix on the plane, I guess.

But the “Hygiene Hypothesis” isn’t suggesting that children should be rolled through a sludge of swine flu solids and used hypodermic needles.  We’re talking about “good” bacteria, or at least “not bad” bacteria.

Scientists have known for years that the human digestive system is full of good bacteria, probiotics if you prefer.  Well it follows that a fair amount of good bacteria would be present on your skin.  Unfortunately, antibacterial soap doesn’t discriminate, killing everything within reach.

Which brings us to our second protection from disease.  The immune system basically works like a guest list at a party.  The pathogen, Mr. Mumps, weasels his way into the party and starts close-talking to the invited guests.  The head of security, Carl Antigen, sics the bouncers (the Anitbody twins) on Mumps.  In short order, they’ve dispatched him and are left more prepared for future drop-ins by his brothers and cousins.

The “Hygiene Hypothesis” also suggests that exposing the body to relatively harmless bacteria early and often makes it easier for the immune system to identify bad guys of all sorts.  The UCSD research seems to be the first official step in confirming this theory.

It’s also worth noting that many household and body products may be doing more harm than good.  With rap sheets ranging from eye and lung irritants to proven carcinogens, it’s a wonder we slather any of this stuff on our bodies.

Parents, just use common sense.  Mud, dirt, and grime are okay, scrapes and cuts needn’t be slathered with bleach.  But do avoid lowering your child into a porto-potty at the end of a rope.

Creative Solutions:

• Wash your hands…with natural soaps like Dr. Bronners
• Use natural cleaning products: White vinegar, baking soda, borax, and real soap will cover everything
• Choose deodorant over anti-perspirant
• Use organic cosmetics

Why it matters:

A handful of scientists guilty of improper conduct does not refute the science of climate change and allowing talking heads to make that argument is unacceptable and dangerous.

Recap:

This just in from the New York Times (and many thousands of other new sources)… Hacked and leaked emails from the University of East Anglia in Great Britain have climate change skeptics bristling.  The messages, ten years worth, are considered by some the smoking gun that proves scientists have “conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.”

The emails in question, attributed to “prominent American and British climate researchers,” run the gamut from whether or not to make public certain data, to personal attacks on skeptical colleagues.  In at least one such exchange, the authors suggest finding ways to have skeptical scientists removed from the editorial boards of peer-reviewed journals.

Commentary:

Whoo-boy!  The talking heads are loving this story.  Some (inexplicably) claim these emails are irrefutable proof that global warming is a hoax.  The other side asserts this is just scientists being scientists, at worst guilty of leaving out confusing data that might confuse lay-persons.

Two of the most level-headed commentaries about this “scandal” come from The Colbert Report, where Yale professor Dan Esty asserted that the scientists had (ill-advisedly) omitted some data to simplify the climate change debate.  Well, they got what they deserved, an over simplification of the debate…as Colbert (and some of his pundit peers) put it, “They lied => Global warming not real.”

But if satire isn’t your bag, Popular Mechanics’ Peter Keleman, a geologist with “30 years of research experience, takes a much more clinical approach.  In short, he condemns the authors of the emails, asserting that their actions and attitudes only harm efforts for climate action.  Like Esty, he concludes with what we know for certain about climate change, most notably: the greenhouse effect is fact, CO2 levels are dangerously high and rising at an unprecedented rate, and these CO2 levels have risen exponentially in correlation with human industrialization.

Some of the talking heads are gleefully claiming these emails are the smoking gun that proves climate change is a myth.  But with the vast majority of the scientific community accepting the reality of human-induced climate change, the only thing these emails prove is that a few scientists felt threatened by the skeptics and weren’t willing to let the facts speak for themselves.

There is one gun analogy that does fit beautifully though.  Keleman points out that many climate change models show disastrous effects in the near future, some in the next ten years.  To do nothing, Keleman asserts, would be the equivalent of playing Russian Roulette.

At a recent presentation about just how risky continuing with business as usual would be, MIT Professor Dr. John Sterman took it a step further to say it would be like playing Russian Roulette with 16 of 17 chambers loaded.  I don’t like those odds.

Creative Solutions:

• Turn Off Your TV
• Join 350.org
• Green Your Business
• Go see “No Impact Man”
• Understand Climate Change through Interactive Simulations
• Write a letter
• Support the Center for Public Integrity
• Become a Member of the Rainforest Action Network, Krypotinite to Big Business

Why it matters:

For the first time in the nation’s history, we have the chance to reinvent the American city from the ground up.

Recap:

Poor Detroit.  Literally.  But also figuratively.  The city was once the 4th most important city in the United States, the bustling citadel of American automotive supremacy and the birthplace of Motown.  But it has since fallen on hard times.

The love affair with cars like the Chevy Mobile Command Center and Oldsmobile Relic has come to an end, and over the past few decades the city has become better known as the go-to setting for dystopian epics like “Robocop”, “The Crow”, and “Garfield: The Movie”.   To be fair, it has everything brooding directors look for in a city: crumbling architecture, ample rainfall, and entire city blocks left to the whims of mother nature.

But those supposed flaws have greenies like architect Eric Corey Freed and Detroit resident John Hantz thinking.  About what?  Well “Urban Farming” for one thing.  Forget your notion of urban farming.  This isn’t about your flock of crotchety chickens.  We’re talking about farming, as in a city that can grow enough food in town to sustain its population and create jobs in the process.

Granted, Detroit’s population isn’t what it used to be.  The city’s population peaked around 1950, topping out at about 2 million.  Today the population is about half that, and by 2035 it’s expected to drop to around 700,000.  So what’s the catch?

Commentary:

Uhhhhh, well, there really isn’t one.

Freed lays it all out in his highly-praised presentation “Detroit, Dallas, and Despotism”… Approximately 30% of Detroit is vacant land, an area the size of San Francisco (a city with roughly the same population as Detroit).  No, we’re not talking about a single contiguous tract of land, but we are talking entire neighborhoods.  For instance, St. Cyril, packed Ford to Ford in 1950, is now fully vacant.  “Vacant” can mean a lot of things, but in this case (and most others in the city) it means “completely reclaimed by mother nature.”  And with home prices in the city hovering around $6000, many other tracts can be unified and connected.

This phenomenon is called “urban prairie” where the city has returned to nature to such an extent that you can’t call it “city” any more.  To John Hantz, of Hantz Farms, this is potential farmland in situ.  Hantz has a vision of Detroit reemerging as the new standard for American cities, one that feeds and sustains itself.  Should Hantz’ vision become a reality, it could kill two (or more!) birds with one stone.  (Watch out birds!)

Bird number one: Currently, Detroit is something of a food wasteland, with nearly 80% of its population lacking access to healthy food options, especially fruits and vegetables.  A large agricultural presence would combat this metro-malnutrition.

Bird number two: According to Freed, urban farming produces $5 in job growth for every $1 spent on food.  For Detroit, where unemployment is climbing through 29% this means the potential for a complete economic turnaround.

Despite all this, Detroit is attracting artists who are immigrating to the city with growing momentum.  Despite the dilapidated houses and vacant lots, or more accurately because of them, farmers, artists, and intellectuals see in Detroit an opportunity to reinvent the American city.

There was a time when all cities were fed by the farms just outside their boundaries.  Humans were locavores by default.  For most cities this is the most practical model.  Sadly, Americans have all but abandoned the practice.

Moreover, as American cities grew (or in many cases, sprawled) and their boundaries crept further from the city center, for some reason the farms crept along with them.  In the most extreme cases, the system has effectively been turned on its head.

In California for instance, the farm became the centralized location, with food emanating from the state’s Central Valley to cities around the country, while the pasty, out-of-season produce Americans have come to expect is imported from other countries.

The American Institute of Architects propose reverting Detroit to a city model that worked for centuries, an urban center surrounded by smaller “villages” separated by recreational and functional (as in urban farms) “greenbelts.”

Great, so Detroit will reemerge as the model metropolis, with a practical layout integrating urban agricultural space.  When you’re effectively starting from scratch that’s not such a tall order, right?  Well, yes and no.  No, because commercial interests continue to court city officials with the notion of onwards and outwards.  But more importantly yes, because cities don’t need to start from scratch to affect real change.

Cities all over the nation – thriving, established cities – are slowly returning to smarter, more sustainable design, reclaiming and acquiring land and buildings in the name of urban agriculture, green space, and public transportation.  Portland, Chicago, New York, and Dallas (amongst others) have made such efforts, despite a lack of such abundant property.  Every city has room for improvements, vacant lots are not exclusive to Detroit, and the American City, while in an obviously unhealthy state, may very well be reinvented.

Creative Solutions:

• For God’s sake, grow your own vegetables
• Or at least shop at your local farmer’s market
• Or join a CSA
• Install a rain barrel
• Plant a green roof
• Get involved with local urban farming efforts (hint: check local schools)
• Follow Eric Corey Freed’s blog
• Check out Eric’s “Detroit, Dallas, and Despotism” slides.

Why it matters:

Because climate change doesn’t care how rich you are.

Recap:

According to a recent report by the Center for Public Integrity, corporations around the world are lobbying hard to curb climate action.

The report follows a four-month, eight-nation investigation that included hundreds of interviews, reviews of lobbying and campaign contribution records, and good old-fashioned, dirty-hands reporting.

The result?  The corporate world is desperate to keep the status quo.  The number of corporate climate lobbyists has jumped 400% in the past six years to nearly 3000.  In Washington this growing army of glad-handers has abandoned its pre-Kyoto Protocol approach of denouncing the very existence of climate change, preferring instead to acknowledge the problem but downplay its significance.

Meanwhile in Appalachia (MTR anyone?), coal magnate Don Blankenship (Massey Energy) was busy hosting the “Friends of America” country-music rally to illustrate to the locals how he understands their plight while “environmental extremists and corporate America are both trying to destroy [their] jobs.” Apparently big coal does not fall under the “corporate America” label.  I smell a new Toby Keith song, “Treehuggers Hate America (And Want You to Get Fired)”.

And the problem is not exclusive to developed nations.  In China, which recently pledged ambitious advancements in renewable energy, the old guard still has enormous political clout.  Lu Qizhou (the government appointed head of China’s power industry group – holy conflict of interests, Batman!) assures the switch from coal to renewables will not “outpace the market’s ability to cope.”

Commentary:

It’s no surprise that corporations are fighting worldwide mandates for strict environmental policy (unless you still operate under the delusion that most corporations are interested in anything other than black ink).  But the depth and breadth of the effort is troubling.

Check that, there’s nothing corporations won’t do to stay on top – short of murder, and even that’s debatable to some.  A quick, but painful peek at Blankenship’s “Friends of America” rally website confirms that, yes indeed, Sean Hannity, Hank Williams Jr., and Ted Nugent were in attendance.  Its not surprising that Massey Energy and their sponsor Verizon Wireless are selling patriotism and fear to keep this country addicted to coal, but it is surprising that people are buying it.

Maybe Blankenship was just trying to show people a good time.  Maybe, and they certainly deserve one.  The real problem is when he and his industry cronies take their act to Washington and use the fear-mongering to render impotent any climate legislation.  Average Joes can be forgiven for not having all the details on climate change, but when it comes to our reps in Washington, denying the significance of climate change amounts to willful ignorance, and failing to act, a wanton dismissal of our best interests.

For all their P&L reports and budget forecasts, the corporate world is notoriously short-sighted… Sub-Prime mortgages spring to mind.  But some of those clever little devils made money on our recent economic collapse by passing the buck.  Unfortunately for them, there’s no way to securitize climate change, no way to capitalize on the coming disaster.

When circumstances become dire enough, the only true currencies will be food and water.  It sounds crazy, but if the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere is allowed to reach 1000 PPM (as it’s on track to do by 2100) we’re talking about the collapse of life as we know it.  That’s not that far away.  Hell, with enough green tea you or I might even see the day.  So what’s the plan here Wall Street?  Live in Bio-Domes?

Actually… Have you seen “Bio-Dome”?  Maybe a few weeks trapped in a glass ball with Pauly Shore and Stephen Baldwin is just what these corporate types need to understand that climate change doesn’t care how rich you are.

Creative Solutions:

• Join 350.org
• Green Your Business
• Go see “No Impact Man”
• Understand Climate Change through Interactive Simulations
• Write a letter
• Support the Center for Public Integrity
• Become a Member of the Rainforest Action Network, Krypotinite to Big Business

Why it matters:

Policymakers are not scientists and have never been able to see the impact of their policy decisions on climate change, until now.

Recap:

ClimateInteractive.org is the web-based version of one of the most important pieces of software in human history known as C-ROADS.  Climate Interactive is a tool “to improve the way leaders and citizens around the world think about the climate” by allowing them to see the impacts of changing governmental policy via simulations “that provide immediate feedback, so users can see the results of different scenarios on atmospheric carbon levels and temperature.”

They go on to describe the real purpose of the tool:

C-ROADS is being used within international climate negotiations.  The United States Department of State has used the C-ROADS simulator to understand the climate impacts of various country-level proposals and to share that understanding with other parties to the UNFCCC (for example, Deputy Special Envoy Jonathan Pershing presented C-ROADS analysis at the April ‘09 UNFCCC meeting in Bonn).

Don’t simulations like this already exist?  Not really.  Most existing energy and climate models are extremely complex, take days to run, and can’t be used by untrained people.

We’re working to change that.

Could this be the vital bridge to Copenhagen where policy makers can finally best the difficult learning curve with an easy-to-use software tool, leading to international consensus on how to stabilize climate change?

Commentary:

So much of the what we read in the media from major outlets is based on a couple isolated facts and a great deal of opinion, non-scientific opinion at that.  Will 50% reductions world wide by 2050 be enough to halt non-linear climate change?  What about 80% by 2020?  Well, until now, we’d never really know until we saw it work…or not, at which point it would be too late.

Climate Interactive empowers the public at large, but more particularly, international policy makers to go to Copenhagen with a concrete understanding of the ramifications of their collective actions.  The tool also helps them do something they’re not used to doing: thinking in cycles.  Ecosystems are not linear, they are…ahem, systems.  When CO2 is released, temperature rises which causes ice to melt which releases CO2 which causes temperature rises which causes ice to melt which releases CO2 and so on….

Currently the US State Department is using the tool very actively to determine what the best course of action is for them and the rest of the world.  China, the EU and several other key countries are apparently spending serious time with this tool to play out all the scenarios in advance of the big game: Copenhagen.

Four Creative Citizens (me, Argam DerHartunian, Sarah Backhouse and Tim Donovan), were invited to a private presentation at CAA in Los Angeles to see Dr. John Sterman, head of MIT’s System Dynamics Group, walk us through the reasoning behind the C-ROADS tool and the power of the simulator.  One of the major revelations for all of us: just how stark the results would be for our planet if we take a path they call BAU or Business As Usual.  In other words, without serious international action beginning immediately, life as we know it on this planet is going to take an incredibly unpredictable and dangerous path.

The reality is that the current proposals given by the vaunted nations of our globe would not amount to the change we need, in fact far from it.  Dr. Sterman made the very clear case that the US et al must take their proposed policy changes to the next level…or else.

Despite the stark nature of the presentation, Sterman says there is much to be hopeful for.  He declares (as we here at Creative Citizen have many times) that this is the “greatest business opportunity of all time” and “to never underestimate the power of human ingenuity.”

He went on to correct what he considers to be a common “false mental model” in the minds of our leadership, the concept of a modern Manhattan Project, where the world’s greatest scientists converge in the name of security to take a massive leap forward in technology.   Why won’t it work that way this time?  The green economy must be done in public; where the Manhattan Project was totally clandestine, this must be a public movement.

Dr. Sterman went on to discuss the current evolutionary trend away from the idea and term of a “green” or “sustainable” economy to a “restorative” or “regenerative” economy, where we don’t save 20, 50, 80% on emissions, we go carbon negative.  Imagine cars that clean the air, yards that sequester carbon, factories that leave every element they come in contact with better off than before.

This is the future.  Climate Interactive and the guys at MIT are working with the world to ensure we have one.  If the policymakers get comfortable with this tool in time, the world may see a miracle in Copenhagen.

Creative Solutions:

• Run the Simulations at Climate Interactive and share it with everyone you know
• Donate to Sustainability Institute, creators of Climate Interactive
• Understand the number 350 and why it might save your life
• Become a Creative Citizen and change one life at a time, your own