The Obama administration finally agreed to assemble solar panels on the roof of the White House. It's encouraging news, considering that Congress was unable to pass climate change legislation this year.
While Congress may not get it, citizens across the country have committed to building green using energy-efficient guidelines such as LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), a rating system set out by the U.S. Green Building Council. Green buildings are no longer reserved for the wealthy or the province of distant countries. They are becoming a well-traveled path to a sustainable future.
Consideration of inward, rather than outward, urban development encourages major cities to be more self-contained and sustainable in the realms of energy and water usage. Inclusion of building features such as solar panels and energy-efficient window and wall insulation insure that energy is self-produced and not wasted.
The White House panels
Activist Bill McKibben and 350.org led the campaign to reinstall solar panels on the White House. McKibben and several college students began their road trip in Maine and delivered the panels on Sept. 10. The the solar panels were rejected at first because the administration did not want to "give the right another talking point comparing Obama to Jimmy Carter," writes Salon. But the Obama administration changed its stance and accepted the two panels Oct. 5. Beth Buczynski of Care2 has the story.
Setbacks
Although the installation of the solar panels is encouraging, it doesn't change the fact that Congress has not passed any substantial climate legislation this year. Furthermore, President Barack Obama faces an uphill battle with Congress regarding the regulation of carbon emissions, according to Agence France Presse in AlterNet.
At Grist, David Roberts claims that many senators have opposed climate legislation not only to align with their party, but because of ignorance. Roberts quotes a senate staffer:
"That fact is, he said, most senators, even the ones directly involved in the fight over climate policy, don't know the rudimentary facts about climate change or clean energy. They understand very little about the policies in question or how those policies will affect their constituents."
Green buildings
Yet sustainable development has gained momentum, despite a lack of congressional backing. Cities such as Portland and Seattle have championed self-sustaining, inward development, while Chicago is building its first pre-fab home this fall. LEED is a common, third-party evaluation of a building's environmental sustainability. The rating system measures carbon emissions, water conservation, energy efficiency and consciousness about materials and resources used for the project.
Additional building standards have also emerged. Architect Jason McLennan has created the "Living Building Challenge", which requires new structures be self-sustaining in regards to energy and water usage. Jonathon Hiskes of Grist writes that although the rating system is more strict than LEED, around 70 buildings have striven to meet the challenge.
"The point of our whole movement is to create abundance of life, and a healthy ecosystem for all future generations," McLennan told Hiskes. "We have a current industrial system where nobody knows what's in our materials, and there's no plan for where they go with those chemicals when their lifespan is over."
The rise of the eco-city
Congressional members and ecologically concerned citizens should look abroad for the best examples of sustainable building initiatives. Tianjin, China, the country's third largest industrial city, began construction of one of the country's first eco-cities. The proposed city, which would be 11.6 square miles, would house a population of 350,000 and include contributions of sustainable building material from Japanese company Hitachi and Dutch company Philips.
Tianjin's developers say the city "will serve as an ultra-efficient alternative to ill-planned and heavily polluting mega-cities not only elsewhere in the country, but around the world."
Siben Linden, a well-known German eco-village, is composed of straw buildings that serve as multi-family homes for around 80 adults and 30 children, according to Athena and Bill Steen of Chelsea Green. The village is agriculturally self-sustaining and is powered by photovoltaic systems. As a result, the total carbon emissions equal about 10 percent of the average German energy usage.
The future may seem far away, but with regards to sustainable development, it's closer than we think. Congress just needs to realize it.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
Maybe it's time for environmentalists prioritize do-it-yourself climate fixes instead of looking to politicians. There are all sorts of options, including, for those dedicated enough, switching to an insect-based diet, as Change.org reports.
But in the private sector, inventors, corporations, and small businesses - farmers in particular - are finding more palatable ways to scale down their environmental impact. In short, politicians aren't the only ones with the power to make high-profile statements and strong choices on climate change.
No solar on the White House
Environmental crusader Bill McKibben had already given up on Congress; now the White House has disappointed, too. McKibben and other leaders in the climate change movement are eschewing lobbying on legislation in favor of pushing for more visible, direct action on climate issues. To that end, McKibben, along with three students, asked the White House last week to reinstall one of Jimmy Carter's solar panels on the roof. The answer was no.
McKibben describes the Obama administration's response to his request as "uncool...Asked to do something easy and symbolic to rekindle a little of the joy that had turned out so many of us as volunteers for Obama in 2008, they point blank said no," according to Truthout.
The administration officials that they met with, though, wanted to make sure that the climate activists knew something was being done to improve the country's environment. They touted the president's initiative to green the federal government-federal buildings in particular. One official, McKibben says, spoke more than once about a Portland, Ore., building that would soon have a "green curtain," likely a hanging garden.
It's not that McKibben disapproved. "Actually, it's kind of great," he wrote. "Still, I doubt many people are going to build their own vegetated fins."
The talking cure
That's the ultimate question: What will people build on their own? Solar panels could be one answer, although they haven't quite caught on yet. There are all sorts of technologies, though, that could help us minimize our carbon footprint. Grist's Ashley Braun checks out one new idea: drawing energy from sound waves:
Using that standby found in sunscreen, zinc oxide, to turn sound waves into electricity, these scientists have heard the bells of success starting to ring in their ears. Similar to other technologies aimed at harvesting energy from walking or dancing, this concept could also turn the roar of traffic into the hum of low-carbon electrons. How sweet the sound of renewable energy.
Scientists are considering using this technology in cell phones, creating, ideally, a device that would never have be plugged in, assuming, of course, that its owner used it frequently enough, and used it as a phone, rather than an e-mail/web-surfing/GPS device.
Go private?
Another option for climate reformers could be focusing on the private sector. Corporations have gotten the message that consumers buy green products, and more are churning out sustainable, climate-friendly offerings.
Care2's Emily Logan points to Nestle, eBay, and Sunny D as three companies that have heard the green gospel. Nestle is investing in sustainable coffee; eBay is pushing out reusable shipping boxes; and Sunny D, the beverage company, met its zero-waste goal three years ahead of schedule.
"Of course, like most large corporations who are making efforts toward sustainability, some of these companies have a long way to go," Logan writes. "But giving credit where credit is due is increasingly important when it comes to the environment."
You are what you eat
The farm sector is one private industry that deserves more scrutiny and pressure. Recall that agriculture interests ran one of the most successful campaigns to be exempted from the cap-and-trade bill, when it was working its way through the House. Even among liberals, the industry has its defenders: local, sustainable agriculture just won't work to feed the masses, the argument goes.
The problem with that line of reasoning is that we still haven't seen how large sustainable farms can grow. Take Joel Salatin, the crusading farmer made famous by Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma. Salatin has been running a successful operation, Polyface Farm, for years while relying on organic and sustainable methods. As David E. Gumport reports at Chelsea Green, Salatin's farm has only grown:
Standing in front of a group of about 50 romping pigs, [Salatin] proudly revealed that Polyface has hit the the $2 million annual sales level, while sticking to Salatin's policy of not shipping food outside a 100-mile radius. The effect, he says, has been to strengthen local businesses-everything from a local breakfast diner serving visitors to his farm to local feed and supply companies.
Salatin is convinced his methods can be used to feed the entire population. What's certain is that there is room for more of this sort of growth in the agricultural system.
Here, too, would-be reformers run back into politicians: Salatin's food safety practices are not exactly FDA-approved, and to reseed his methods elsewhere, the government would need to relax safety standards for smaller, alternatives operations.
But for now, this sort of effort, and others outside of Washington seem to be making the largest impact.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
Washington has a blind spot when it comes to the environment. BP and the oil spill brought the government's failures into the spotlight, but the same problems crop up across industries: Corporations pollute water, blast through mountains, and pour carbon into the atmosphere with insufficient oversight. But no one-Congress, the environmental community, or the president-seems to have the power to address these issues.
The Senate says it will take up energy legislation soon, but staffers are saying the body won't pass a strong climate bill without more public pressure. Energy companies are ripping resources from the land and leaving destruction in their wake, while clean energy technology, though popular, has yet to form a new platform to fill the country's needs.
And where's presidential leadership on this issue? "The president had a good meeting a couple days ago with senators from both parties that have led on this issue," Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told the press this week, according to Mother Jones. "We have not made any final determinations about the size and scope of the legislation except to say that the president believes, and continues to believe, that putting a price on carbon has to be part of our comprehensive energy reform."
President Barack Obama has taken his time to reveal definitive policy stances on issues like health care and the war in Afghanistan; in those cases, it was clear a decision was coming. On climate, it's less clear that the president is moving towards a decision that will push Congress to act.
The Senate
The problem is not a lack of policy ideas. The Senate has already produced two decent bills that put a price on carbon, an effort that would over time decrease the country's contributions to the world's emissions. The second of those bills-the American Power Act, also known as the Kerry-Lieberman bill-would reduce the deficit by $19 billion, as the Congressional Budget Office announced this week.
Plenty of Senators have trumpeted about the need to reduce to the deficit. But in Washington, even a $19 billion reduction won't help push forward legislation that Senators have decided to shirk. As Aaron Wiener writes for the Washington Independent:
"Will that be enough to get the bill passed? Of course not. The very same centrist senators who frequently raise deficit concerns are wary of legislation that could raise energy prices, and so the APA appears all but dead."
Clean energy technology
At Grist, Jesse Jenkins suggests that enviros needs to reframe the issue altogether. "If you look at what Americans support in poll after poll, it is clean energy technology," he says. "Put investment in clean technology front and center-and oh, by the way, we're going to pay for this with a modest fee on carbon."
Part of the problem could be that the country's waiting for big corporations to lead the energy revolution. At Chelsea Green, however, Greg Pahl argues that smaller projects should play a bigger role, too. "Given the choice between a large, corporate-owned coal-fired power plant or a large, corporate-owned wind farm, the obvious choice is the wind farm, regardless of who owns it," he writes. "But that's no reason to exclude smaller...community projects that are far more effective in promoting distributed-generation strategies."
Yes, your Majesty
It should be embarrassing for the Senate that, as a body, it's more conservative than the Queen of England. This week, Queen Elizabeth told the United Nations that climate change was a front-line issue. Care2 reports that the Queen's "brief statement was largely unremarkable but for the fact that she called out climate change, placing it on a par with terrorism in terms of today's challenges."
On environmental issues in general, though, the American government isn't living up to its potential. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), for example, could be working to minimize the impacts of oil and gas drilling on public lands, but "the agency is reluctant to wiled that power after a drilling lease is granted," Public News Service reports.
National Marine Fisheries Service
BLM is just one of a tangle of agencies that could, in theory, push back against the interests of big energy companies. They haven't done so. In the case of the BP oil spill, for instance, TPMMuckraker reports that the National Marine Fisheries Service missed an opportunity to push back against BP's lease, but, using bad information from the Minerals Management Service, rubber-stamped the operation. Rachel Slajda writes:
"In 2007, the National Marine Fisheries Service, which enforces the Endangered Species Act, was asked to give its 'biological opinion' on the impact of new oil drilling leases-including the lease of the now-leaking Macondo prospect-on endangered species, including turtles, sperm whales and sturgeon. ... In the report (PDF), NMFS estimated the impact of a major spill on endangered species and concluded that the new drilling 'is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of these species.'"
New Dawn
Energy companies are not the only ones tipping the balance against the environment, either. At the American Prospect, Monica Potts delves into Dawn detergent's less than pristine environmental record. The detergent has benefited lately from a spate of good press because wildlife groups are using Dawn to clean oiled birds in the Gulf. But Potts writes that Dawn's parent company, Procter & Gamble spent more than $4 million last year on lobbying and opposed measures that would, for instance, regulate household chemicals.
"Procter & Gamble lobbied against a 2009 effort to disclose ingredients in household cleaning products, instead supporting an industry-led voluntary-disclosure effort. It also lobbied against bans in various states on dishwashing detergent containing high levels of phosphorus and fought to delay the bans' implementation," Potts explains. "The company opposed stricter household chemical regulations in the European Union in 2003 and is rated poorly by Greenpeace for the chemical content of its household products. Those chemicals, including ones banned in the EU because they can be harmful to fish and humans, end up in the environment."
The list of such offenses goes on, and touches legions of companies. However limited, a climate bill would be a good start to addressing the country's environmental woes. The Senate says it needs to hear this from more people before taking real steps to combat climate change; anyone who's concerned about the planet's future might want to start speaking up.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
President Barack Obama is in Louisiana today, and BP is saying it will know in 48 hours if its attempt to "top kill" the leaking oil well in the Gulf Coast by pouring mud and cement over it has worked.
If the scramble to stop the leak has ended, the slog to clean up is just beginning. Thousands of fisherman are still out of work, as ColorLines notes. But there are new jobs in Louisiana. This week Mother Jones' Mac McClelland visited workers raking oil off a beach in Louisiana. One man, she writes, "can't count how many times he's raked this same spot in the 33 hours he's worked it since Thursday, but one thing he's sure of, he says, is that he'll be standing right here tomorrow and the next day, too."
Next moves
Although the regulatory infrastructure that was supposed to oversee companies like BP failed in this case, the administration is stepping up to ensure that the spill is stopped and the clean-up begun. "I take responsibility," the president told reporters yesterday. "It is my job to make sure everything is done to shut this down."
Kevin Drum calls this performance and the media affirmation that came after it "the kabuki of our times"-a show that only pretends that the government has the wherewithal to stop the leak without the resources of private industry.
"The president has to be In Charge whether he can actually do anything or not," Drum writes. "What everyone should be asking is not what the feds are going to do about capping the leak, but what they're going to do to make sure all the oil is cleaned up afterward."
Going forward, the government needs to make sure that BP fulfills its clean-up promises. Without strong oversight, the company could slip out of paying its debts. That's what happened last time an energy company left a lake of oil in American waters, as Riki Ott's Not One Drop documents. The book "describes firsthand the impacts of oil companies' broken promises when the Exxon Valdez spills most of its cargo and despoils thousands of miles of shore," according to Chelsea Green.
BP's behavior
BP has little incentive to clean up its operations or to take responsibility for the damage it has already incurred. As Care2 reports, another BP rig had to shut down this week when a power outage caused crude oil to spill from its storage tank to "secondary containment." And on the Hill, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) charged that the company was deliberately low-balling its estimates of the Gulf spill's size to avoid additional fines.
At The American Prospect, Monica Potts delves into the logic behind BP's operations. Even when using one of the highest estimates of the spill's volume-70,000 barrels a day, or more than 2 million barrels overall-she writes, "Americans burn about 10 times that, 21 million barrels, each day. It would only take us a couple of hours to use up everything in the Gulf. This is despite everything we know about how bad burning oil is. Given that, it's not surprising that an oil company might rank our desire for oil more highly than our undemonstrated desire to avoid ecological disaster."
Environmental obscenities
In Texas, activists tried this week to demonstrate to BP that consumers do desire to avoid such disasters, AlterNet reports. A group of women traveled to the company's headquarters and, wearing little more than sandwich boards, tried to expose "the naked truth about drill, baby, drill."
AlterNet reports that Diane Wilson, who organized the protest "doesn't take nudity lightly." Growing up in rural Texas, "I was taught that flesh is sinful, it's the devil," she said. "So for me, using nudity to expose the truth about BP was WAY outside my comfort zone. But I realized that it's the destruction of our ecosystem by corporate greed that's obscene, not a woman's body."
Real responsibility
It's important to realize that such destruction is not limited to this one catastrophe in the Gulf. As David Roberts writes at Grist:
"We don't get back the land we destroy by mining. We don't get back the species lost from deforestation and development. We don't get back islands lost to rising seas. We don't get back the coral lost to bleaching or the marine food chains lost to nitrogen runoff. Once we lose the climatic conditions in which our species evolved, we won't get them back either."
Fixing the system
If Obama is ready to take responsibility for the oil spill, he might want to focus on strengthening the government regulators who oversee these dangerous industry. The lack of oversight from the Minerals Management Service-which was rotting from the inside-out long before Obama came into office, TPM reports-played a huge role in this spill. Across the country, the government bodies that are supposed to be guarding the environment have stepped away from that responsibility.
Consider, for instance, Forrest Whittaker's report about his state's environmental oversight agency. "In decision after decision, the Texas agency that's supposed to protect the public and the environment has sided with polluters," Whittaker writes.
President Obama may not be able to fix Texas' problems, but he can provide leadership by correctly regulating corporations that pollute. In that way, the president can take responsibility not just for cleaning up this spill, but for preventing the next one.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize today for his accomplishments in international diplomacy, climate change and attempts to curb nuclear proliferation. The Nobel Committee praised Obama for his "constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting," but, Richard Kim of The Nation wonders if the award comes too soon, as Obama has not yet committed to attending the international climate summit at Copenhagen.
International climate negotiations are currently bogged down in smog. Many countries are in disagreement about the best way to go about reducing emissions and curbing climate change. Some, like the U.S. and Great Britain, are working together to cut carbon emissions; while others say it's their way or the highway. Until the air clears, it will be difficult to determine which global leaders are making the most effective choices-or even what the best path to a cleaner earth will be.
Americans have picked up some interesting habits thanks to the Great Recession. Online dating is on the rise because it's cheaper to vet a date online than pay for a night on the town. Interest in urban farming and community gardening has also spiked, but for different reasons: Home-grown foods taste better, cost less and are better for you.
While technology has made online dating easy, urban agriculture has a tradition of mushrooming during the tough times. During World War II, Eleanor Roosevelt inspired millions by planting the first Victory Garden. That tradition continues today: Michelle Obama planted an organic vegetable garden on the White House Lawn.
But urban gardening isn't just for the movers and shakers. And it's not always easy to get a garden in the ground, no matter how clear-cut the benefits are. As Todd Heywood of the Michigan Messenger reports, residents of Flint, Michigan are appropriating abandoned lots as community gardens, but are running into some big problems in the process. Flint has no zoning laws that allow for urban agriculture, which makes the legality of these guerrilla gardens questionable at best. The city council will review proposals to update zoning ordinances in September, but Flint's troubles are a good example of how, even if urban agriculture seems like a practical solution, it's not always feasible.
In contrast to Flint, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has ordered all city departments to audit unused land that could be utilized for urban farming. City officials have also spent the last year preparing approximately 15 sites for growing produce, according to Mother Jones' Josh Harkinson. As part of an initiative to encourage the spread and consumption of locally-grown foods, a colorful quarter-acre victory garden was planted in front of San Francisco's city hall. Newsom's other creative gardening plans including planting strawberry patches atop bus shelters and fruit trees in street medians.
While Newsom's goals are intended to be in the best public interest, there are legitimate concerns: Contaminated soil, city pollution and vandalism could make the food unfit to eat. And his proposal to require jails, hospitals and homeless shelters to only serve high-quality, sustainable fare might not work in other metropolitan areas.
In an interview with Grist, food writer and urban farmer Novella Carpenter defines urban farming as 'growing enough food to trade or sell for added income. Food security and financial savings are big motivators to plant a plot of land, even if it's just to feed one household.
The popularity of community gardens will likely fall when the economy rebounds, Carpenter says, much like the 20 million World War II victory gardens that disappeared after the troops returned home and convenience foods because ubiquitous. That's because sustaining a, well, sustainable land plot takes a lot of energy, planning and dedication.
But attempting to eat locally and seasonally can be frustrating if you live in a climate with a short growing season. Finding locally-grown tomatoes during a North Dakota winter is out of the question. But Tom Philpott offers a solution: Investing in technology and infrastructure "can dramatically extend growing seasons in almost any climate." (Scroll down for link.)
Appropriate technology doesn't mean complicated or expensive. Chelsea Green's Brad Lancaster writes about how his mentor, Russ Buhrow, has defied dry climate conditions since the 1980s by harvesting rainwater to irrigate his crops. Without money for extraneous equipment or fertilizers, Burhrow's sole significant investment was his time.
Deciding which issue to dedicate time and resources to can be overwhelming: Hard times make plenty of big problems to go around. But urban agriculture has the power to alleviate problems related to both healthcare and the recession, which makes it worthwhile despite political, technological or social difficulties.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment. Visit Sustain.NewsLadder.net for a complete list of articles on the environment and sustainability, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health, and immigration issues, check out Economy.NewsLadder.net, Healthcare.NewsLadder.net and Immigration.newsladder.net, This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and was created by NewsLadder.
STATE BLOGS
