Weekly Audit: Curbing the Deficit, Cat Food, and You
by Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium blogger
The deficit commission released its much anticipated list of helpful money-saving tips for the federal government last week. These tips include tax cuts for the rich, reducing unnecessary printing costs, and cutting the jobs of federal contractors.
Since national energy reform is on the rocks, ethanol subsidies for the Midwest and ballot propositions to roll back progressive energy legislation in California are the most important policy fights to watch right now.
Neither will revolutionize the way Americans get power, and in both cases, moving forward could actually mean moving away from a sensible energy future. In California, voters could turn back progress the state has made towards holding down carbon emissions. And Washington's support for ethanol reveals the static thinking that's smothering our ability to address climate change.
More important than legalizing pot
In 2006, California passed a law that would take effect in 2011 and put an ambitious plan in place to decrease the state's carbon emissions by 2020. Even after the law passed, however, the debate over its merits continued. This being California, that debate made its way onto this November's ballot.
The most commonly floated line of reasoning against the law focuses on negative impacts to job growth: Increasing the price on carbon increases the cost of doing business, limiting economic growth and the resources that businesses have to dedicate to expansion. Proposition 23, a ballot initiative that will come to a vote next Tuesday, would delay the carbon bill's enactment until the state's economy takes a turn for the better.
But Mother Jones' Kate Sheppard knocks down the economic argument against the 2006 law (AB32):
While enacting AB32 could cause job loss in some sectors, most independent experts actually forecast growth in jobs in the renewable energy, transportation, and efficiency sectors. In fact, green jobs are pretty much the only sector growing in the Golden State. The number of green jobs grew 36 percent in California between 1995 and 2008. The rate of growth for regular old jobs was only 13 percent.
Double trouble
Activists have focused on shutting down Prop 23 (check out, via The Washington Independent's Andrew Restuccia, this clever campaign to flip "yes" voters), but as Amy Westervelt points out at Earth Island Journal, that initiative is not the only one that could free companies from their environmental responsibilities.
It turns out another California proposition, Prop 26, could raise the threshold legislators would have to meet in order to make companies pay for their pollution, including from oil spills. As Westervelt writes:
While some companies have steered clear of the Tea Party-backed Prop 23, which seems to be losing popularity every week, California companies interested in slowing down AB32 and maybe ridding themselves of responsibility for pollution altogether have been quietly funneling money to Prop 26.
California has long been a leader on energy issues. If either of these propositions goes the wrong way, it will be yet another troubling sign of the failure of progressive energy policy.
The other ethanol
Although environmentalists have fought hard since 2008 to pass cap-and-trade, the policy was always fundamentally conservative one. The Obama administration has always tried to map out a middle path on energy policy, and so far it has been ineffective. Ethanol is yet another case in point.
As Lynda Waddington reports at the Iowa Independent, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced last week that the administration was moving forward with a program that aids farmers producing crops (in addition to corn) that could be turned into ethanol. Switchgrass, the foundation of Brazil's much-touted ethanol system is one example. Notably, the arguments Vilsack advanced for the program had more to do with the economy than with energy.
Pros and cons
This type of cellulosic ethanol, Brooks Lindsay explains at Change.org, would go mainly towards fueling cars. Lindsay weighs the pros and cons of producing this sort of ethanol in general, and comes down against it. His reasoning: "At best, cellulosic ethanol is just a stop-gap measure while electric cars slowly replace liquid-powered cars....But, a stop-gap fuel does not deserve massive investments and government attention."
Indeed, progressives across the board have long argued that politicians' support for ethanol derives from political calculation, not from practical policy. (Ethanol states are swing states.) Ethanol is energy-intensive to produce, and it has a slew of negative environmental consequences that outweigh the cuts in carbon emissions.
Rethinking the politics
Before they rush to back the Obama administration's policies, however, policymakers should consider this news from Heather Rogers, author of Green Gone Wrong. Rogers reports for The Washington Monthly:
As I discovered on a recent reporting trip through Iowa, many farmers there would welcome a way to break free of the ethanol-industrial complex. The people I met said they'd rather cultivate crops using ecologically sound methods, if they could do so and still earn a decent living. It's not as if midwestern farmers don't know-better than the rest of us-that growing crops for biofuels damages their soil and keeps them at the mercy of predatory multinational corporations.
The article is worth reading in full, but fast-forward to the end to find Rogers' sensible policy proposal. Instead of enlisting farmers in a complicated energy-production procedure that ultimately keeps Americans in their cars, why not aide the work they're already doing to reduce carbon emissions on their farms? After all, farms are responsible for a huge portion of the country's carbon burden -- they just have lobbyists savvy enough to keep their business from being regulated. As Rogers puts it:
Paying farmers to sequester carbon is sound public policy, but it's also, and just as importantly, good politics. By helping to preserve farmers economically while also allowing them to be the stewards of land most want to be, it peels farmers away from the agribusiness coalition that is pushing the Obama administration to bet the country on a failed biofuels energy strategy.
Now there's a bit of thinking that could move energy policy forward.
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.
On July 14th, Green Change announced the campaign for a Green New Deal, a 10-point program to create economic prosperity together with ecological sustainability.
Since then over 100 candidates for elected office at all levels have joined the Green New Deal Coalition.
The Green New Deal Coalition will cut military spending, create millions of green jobs, and revive the economy by protecting the planet we depend on.
Green Change is inviting all candidates, individuals and organizations that support a prosperous, sustainable future for America to endorse the Green New Deal.
Read the call for a Green New Deal and sign on today.
To date, 11 candidates for governor, 11 candidates for US Senate, and 33 candidates for US House of Representatives have joined the Green New Deal Coalition.
All agree on the need to cut military spending, fund green public works, ban corporate personhood, pass single-payer health care, restore progressive taxation, ban usury, enact a revenue-neutral carbon tax, legalize marijuana, institute tuition-free public higher education, change trade agreements to improve labor, environmental and safety standards, and pass sweeping electoral, campaign finance and anti-corruption reforms.
These candidates represent a clean break with the failed policies of the past that have led America down the road to economic and ecological disaster.
The Green New Deal promises a brighter tomorrow for America – one that combines the New Deal’s promise of freedom from economic hardship with decisive action to protect our planet.
You can help build the movement for real change by endorsing the Green New Deal today and asking candidates for elected office to join you.
The Sacramento Bee reported yesterday that "BP, the energy giant responsible for the largest offshore oil spill in history, helped develop [California's] framework for teaching more than 6 million students about the environment."
That's right; the same people who brought you the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster are helping to shape the education of millions of students. In fact, the environmental education curriculum will be used in "kindergarten through 12th-grade classes in more than 1,000 school districts statewide."
The thought of BP - or any big oil company - playing a role in designing education on environmental issues makes me very nervous. In California, we've got Texas oil companies spending millions of dollars trying to kill our landmark clean energy and climate law. That's bad enough; we certainly don't need a British oil company writing our kids' education materials.
Dollie Forney, a mother of three from San Jose said, "This is outrageous. Now our schools and officials are so cash-strapped and unimaginative and desperate we are allowing Big Oil to write our children's curriculum? "
The fact is, over the years, BP has rightly earned the title of having "the worst safety and environmental record of any oil company operating in America." Of course, that's not much of an honor, especially when you consider how BP came by its miserable environmental reputation. This includes being slapped with "the two largest fines in OSHA history -- $87.43 million and $21.36 million -- for willful negligence that led to the deaths of 15 workers and injured 170 others in a March 2005 refinery explosion in Texas." BP also "agreed to pay a $50 million fine and plead guilty to a felony violation of the Clean Air Act, and was fined "a total of $21 million for manipulating the California electricity market, Enron-style."
It's not a pretty picture. All of which raises the question, why would anyone even think of giving this company a say in designing education materials on the environment, of all topics? As Lisa Graves of the Center for Media and Democracy says, "I'd hate to see how a section in future textbooks mentioning the BP oil spill will look."
It's hard to think how a recent article in the Akron Beacon Journal could have left out any more relevant information. The Journal is a reputable paper, and so we were surprised by the article's flaws.
The article, entitled "Hundreds rally against taxes on oil and natural gas," has several key omissions including:
The article says that there were about 400 energy advocates, and that "Most arrived in four buses that delivered them from the Canton area. One arrived from Mount Vernon." What the article failed to mention, is that at least some of these buses were paid for by oil companies (or their front groups) and were filled with oil company staff. ThinkProgress has a great video clip about it here.
The article mentions that "Karen Wright, president and chief executive of Ariel Corp., a manufacturer of natural gas compressors" spoke, but failed to mention that Karen Wright ridiculed climate change as "questionable science" and referred to pollutants as "so-called carbon dioxide emissions." Wright went on to rail against "so-called green jobs" that were "dubious" and "phony." Given that climate change is an established fact and the U.S. Conference of Mayors indicates there are thousands of currently existing 'green' jobs in Ohio, the article should have commented on the ignorance of a keynote speaker, instead of repeating her talking points. It also bears noting that clean energy reforms would bring between 35 thousand and 61 thousand jobs to Ohio.
Although the article mentions the role of the American Petroleum Institute, it fails to mention their history of using misleading grassroots campaigns and the role of the Koch Brothers. Rachel Maddow has a great commentary about this situation here.
I'd encourage the Akron Beacon Journal to improve its reporting in the future.
Additional Reading:
Koch-Funded Oil Rally Calls Global Warming A 'Hoax,' Dismisses Oil Spill, And Attacks Democrats
This is the sixth article in a continuing series by the NRDC Action Fund on the environmental stances of candidates in key races around the country.
Today, we examine Ohio's 15th Congressional District, which includes downtown Columbus and parts of neighboring Franklin, Madison and Union counties. Columbus is home to the Ohio State University and has the highest proportion of young professionals, aged 25-34, of any city in the country. In 2008, Mary Jo Kilroy became the first Democrat elected in the district since 1982, when she narrowly (by less than 2,500 votes) defeated Republican Steve Stivers. Kilroy and Stivers will be matched up again this fall.
Since coming to Washington, Rep. Kilroy has consistently voted for environmental protections and moving America to a clean energy economy. In her first year in the House, she received a perfect 100% rating from the League of Conservation Voters, which means she voted the right way on every environmental vote. This includes voting for the historic American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), the first climate bill to ever pass in a chamber of Congress. In a statement following the vote, Kilroy said "The clean energy economy is the future of our country and of central Ohio...We are seeing the consequences of not investing in the next big idea with our auto industry. [ACES] secures Ohio's strong position to make the solar panels and wind turbines that will power our nation in the very near future. It will also benefit Ohio's agricultural sector, which can provide the plant material needed for the bio mass products that boost energy production." She added, "This bill puts the central consumers first and insulates them from shifts in prices. For less than a trip to the movie theater, Americans are going to create 1.7 million (jobs), end the stranglehold foreign countries have on energy and work to save our planet."
In sharp contrast, Steve Stivers falsely calls cap and trade a "job killer" that will lead to higher electricity bills for Ohio families. In reality, strong clean energy and climate legislation would create a net of 1.9 million jobs, according to in-depth study by the University of Illinois, Yale University and the University of California. In Ohio, this would mean 61,000 new, good-paying jobs created over the next ten years. And, as analysis by the experts in the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office shows, the effect of ACES on electricity bills will be, as Rep. Kilroy said, less than going to the movies once a month.
Stivers doesn't just stop at opposing clean energy and climate legislation, he also "disagree[s]" with the statement, "Man-made global warming is a scientific fact and immediate action to lower CO2 emissions is necessary to prevent an environmental catastrophe." And, if denying the unassailable science behind climate change wasn't enough, Stivers also opposes our right to hold the government accountable in court for protecting our public health and environment.
Stivers' strong anti-environmental views are not so surprising when you consider the sources of his campaign cash, such as oil and coal services giant Koch Industries, Murray Energy and Rep. Joe Barton's Texas Freedom PAC. What's wrong with these companies and PACs?
Koch Industries is privately owned by Charles and David Koch, who, according to Greenpeace, have "quietly funneled [$50 million] to climate-denial front groups that are working to delay policies and regulations aimed at stopping global warming." Robert Murray, the head of Murray Energy, is an outspoken climate denier, who said in testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works committee that global warming is "one of the biggest con jobs in the history of the Republic." Murray continued to criticize the legacy of Rachel Carson, saying that "She and her environmental followers killed millions of human beings around the World with the ban on DDT." Murray concluded by claiming that climate change legislation will "result in no environmental benefit." Finally, the Texas Freedom PAC is headed by Joe Barton, who infamously apologized to BP, and who also called the BP escrow fund that will pay businesses that lost money because of the Gulf disaster a "$20 billion shakedown."
These are a few of Stivers' big donors, all major polluters or supporters of major polluters, which makes you wonder what they think they're getting for their large donations to the Steve Stivers for Congress campaign.
The NRDC Action Fund believes that it is important for the public in general, and the voters of specific Congressional districts, be aware of this information as they weigh their choices for November.
This is the third article in a continuing series by the NRDC Action Fund on the environmental stances of candidates in key races around the country.
Today, we examine Ohio's 1st Congressional District, which encompasses Cincinnati and parts of nearby suburbs. Cincinnati is home to the Reds, but in the House it's represented by the self-described "raging moderate," Democrat Steve Driehaus. A longtime member of the Ohio legislature, in 2008, Driehaus won election to the House seat his father unsuccessfully sought 40 years ago. This November he is being challenged by former Republican Congressman Steve Chabot, whom Driehaus unseated in 2008 despite being outspent by nearly $1 million.
When a district is home to the company that makes products like "Mr. Clean," one would hope that its Congressional representative would champion clean energy. Rep. Driehaus has been a reliable environmental champion. In his first year in Congress, he received a perfect score from the League of Conservation Voters, meaning that he cast a pro-environmental vote at every opportunity. Most notably, Driehaus voted for the historic American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), the first global warming bill to ever pass a chamber of Congress. After the vote, Driehaus said, "Ohio has the resources and workforce to be at the cutting edge as we move our nation toward a clean energy economy, and [ACES] will promote investments that will bring the potential of clean energy development into our community...This bill will help us end our addiction to imported oil, which threatens our security and sends too much American money overseas. I'm proud to stand with my colleagues today to do the right thing for the future of America's economy and security."
In sharp contrast, in 2008 -- Chabot's last year in Congress -- the League of Conservation Voters gave him a bottom-of-the-barrel 8% rating on environmental issues. Chabot earned his low rating by voting against renewable energy, against removing oil and gas exploration subsidies, against keeping a moratorium on offshore oil drilling, against raising fuel economy standards for vehicles, against prohibiting oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and against implementing the Kyoto Protocol. In short, Steve Chabot voted against the environment at pretty much every opportunity.
Chabot's position hasn't changed since leaving Congress. On the campaign trail, he's said that he "strongly oppose[s] cap and trade," citing fuzzy math claiming that it will "cost the average American family an additional $1,770 a year in higher energy costs." The truth, according to the experts in the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), is that the net economy-wide cost of the cap-and-trade program would be about $175 per household" -- or one-tenth of what Steve Chabot is claiming.
Furthermore, the CBO's estimate doesn't include the benefits of reducing global warming, such as mitigating the record-setting heat and drought conditions we're already seeing around the world.
And just as important, Chabot is ignoring the positive job impact of passing ACES, which would create an estimated 1.9 million jobs, according to a study by the University of Illinois, Yale University and the University of California." In Ohio, this would mean 61,000 new good-paying jobs created over the next ten years.
Chabot doesn't just oppose legislation to move to clean energy, he mocks the unassailable science demonstrating global warming. On his blog, Chabot claims that the absence of hurricanes hitting the United States in 2009 represented an "inconvenient truth" to "environmental alarmists" on global warming. And he promotes conspiracy theories, such as "climategate" -- a non-scandal pushed by climate change deniers and fossil fuel interests, now completely debunked.
Chabot's fiercely anti-environmental views are not so surprising when you consider the sources of his campaign cash - Rep. Joe Barton's Texas Freedom PAC ($6,000) and oil and coal services giant Koch Industries ($5,000), for instance. Rep. Barton is one of big oil's best friends in Congress. You may remember his recent apology to BP when it set aside money to pay small businesses that have lost money because of the Gulf disaster. And Koch Industries is notorious for having "quietly funneled [$50 million] to climate-denial front groups that are working to delay policies and regulations aimed at stopping global warming is no joking matter."
The NRDC Action Fund believes that it is important for the public in general, and the voters of specific Congressional districts, be aware of this information as they weigh their choices for November.
This is the second article in a continuing series by the NRDC Action Fund on the environmental stances of candidates in key races around the country.
Today we're looking at New Jersey's 3rd Congressional District, stretching from the Philadelphia suburbs in the west, across the undeveloped Pine Barrens (the country's first National Reserve) to the Jersey Shore. In 2008, longtime state Senator John Adler was elected to his first term in Congress, winning the seat vacated by retiring 12-term Republican Congressman Jim Saxton. In November, Adler will be challenged by Republican Jon Runyan, a former offensive lineman for the Philadelphia Eagles.
A number of current and former New Jersey Republican Congressmen have been environmental champions - including Jim Saxton - but Runyan seems unlikely to follow in their footsteps. Despite playing for one of the greenest teams in professional sports, Runyan has been taking anti-environmental stands on the campaign trail. He has voiced support for drilling off of New Jersey's shore, echoing Sarah Palin's "all-of-the-above" approach to energy policy. He has been repeating the right-wing Heritage Foundation's fuzzy math about the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES). Runyan claims that ACES will cost "$1,870 for a family of four," when in truth, according to the nonpartisan, unbiased experts at the Congressional Budget Office, it will cost "about $175 per household."
Rep. Adler, on the other hand, has a long history as an environmental champion. In the New Jersey Senate, he sponsored the state's Clean Cars Act and co-sponsored its landmark Global Warming Response Act.
In his first year in Congress, Adler received an impressive 93% rating from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), which means he voted the right way at nearly every opportunity. Most notably, Adler voted for the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) calling it "historic legislation" that will "spur the development of new sources of energy while confronting the threat of carbon pollution." He added, ACES "will lower energy costs and create new jobs for New Jersey families and small businesses....This bill will make America safer. It is time that we stop sending money to Middle Eastern countries that fund terrorist activities. Furthermore, by preserving God's earth, our children and grandchildren can continue to fish, enjoy the outdoors and breathe clean air."
The NRDC Action Fund believes that it is important for the public in general, and the voters of specific Congressional districts, be aware of this information as they weigh their choices for November.
This is the first article in a continuing series by the NRDC Action Fund on the environmental stances of candidates in key races around the country.
Today, we examine Colorado's 4th Congressional District, covering the High Plains of northeast Colorado, plus growing cities like Greeley, Fort Collins and Loveland. Home to wheat and cattle farms, it's a traditionally rural and reliably Republican area -- John McCain carried the district in the last election. Democrat Betsy Markey bucked tradition in 2008, when she defeated three-term incumbent Republican Marilyn Musgrave. Markey is being challenged by Republican State Representative Cory Gardner, in what most describe as a tossup race.
As a freshman, Rep. Markey has been a solid environmental voter, receiving a 79% rating from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), meaning she voted pro-environment on four out of every five opportunities. Markey voted for the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), writing in the Denver Post, "Colorado is blessed with vast energy resources, and as the renewable energy sector is already thriving and growing in northern and eastern Colorado, this bill brings unique benefits to our region. In fact, our corner of Colorado stands to see greater benefits from this legislation than most other areas of the country." And Markey hasn't changed her tune on the campaign trail, writing on her website, "We have a unique opportunity at this time in our history to change the way we power our country and Colorado is poised to become a world leader in this effort....The future of renewable energy is vital to the future of our national security."
Pretty much everything in Cory Gardner's record in the Colorado legislature and in his campaigning suggest that he'd oppose clean energy measures and a healthy environment. According to Colorado Conservation Voters' 2010 scorecard, Gardner voted against legislation promoting clean energy production in Colorado; even against assistance to homeowners for energy efficiency and renewable energy upgrades; and against creating new jobs in clean energy. On the campaign trail Gardner has spent his time attending a $1,000-a-plate fundraiser co-hosted by a BP lobbyist, collecting campaign cash from companies like Valero Energy, (one of the major forces behind the effort to repeal California's landmark clean energy and climate legislation), and lamenting that cap-and-trade legislation "will cost farmers and ranchers, industry in this country, more money than they can afford, and the result will be that they'll move overseas."
The truth, according the Department of Agriculture, is that the benefit of climate legislation to farmers "easily trump" the costs. The USDA analysis shows that ACES would create "annual net returns to farmers rang[ing] from $1 billion per year in 2015-20 to almost $15-20 billion in 2040-50." Gardner is refusing to recognize the huge opportunities that clean energy could provide to the citizens of the 4th district. In stark contrast, Rep. Markey gets it. Voters should be aware of the clear differences between these candidates.
The NRDC Action Fund believes that it is important for the public in general, and the voters of specific Congressional districts, be aware of this information as they weigh their choices for November.
The list of bedrock American laws that Rand Paul is opposed to keeps growing longer. In addition to the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, Paul has made it clear that he doesn't like the Clean Air Act either. Last weekend, Paul said that President Obama should leave Kentucky alone, especially when it comes to pollution. "You need to keep the EPA out of our affairs," he called on the president.
Paul prefers to have things "handled on a local level." But unlike Paul, I grew up in Kentucky, and I question this logic.
My elementary school sat on a cliff above an Ashland Oil refinery, and our playground was about eye level with the top of their smokestacks. When the paint on teachers' car started to peel and children started getting sick, the PTA tried to make Ashland Oil do something about it. After some fighting, the company finally installed air monitors on the kickball field - and a few months later the school closed its doors.
What sticks with me still is the way the problem was solved: As far as I can see, Ashland Oil didn't clean up its act at all. Our school shut down instead.
Federal efforts to cut pollution aren't perfect, but they are the last line of defense for places like my hometown. They literally save our lives: the Clean Air Act, for instance, has been documented to prevent hundreds of thousands of premature deaths.
Kentucky has a long dark history of environmental injustice. Amazing groups like Appalachian Voices have been fighting for cleaner water, cleaner air, and better safety rules for miners. They often find local solutions, but they also turn to federal agencies like the EPA and the Mine Safety and Health Administration when they need to.
Paul may call it "federal overreach," but I call it protecting the health of Kentuckians.
Of course, Paul trots out the old saw that cutting pollution kills jobs. But I think Paul is more concerned about ideology than jobs, because if he really wanted to create jobs for Kentucky, he wouldn't turn his back on clean energy and climate legislation. Clean energy jobs are growing 2.5 times as fast as traditional jobs. Paul would rather shoot down federal climate solutions than bring the jobs of the 21st century to his state.
Instead, he is banking on the same old dirty industries, and he seems to think that if children get asthma because they played on a field next to a refinery, that's alright because someone had a job. I am sorry, but I can't accept the misconception that my classmates and I were the collateral damage of some polluter's payroll. Good companies that are following the law and being good neighbors provide jobs every single day.
Companies have found time and again that a clean business model is part of the recipe for a successful company. That is why 5,171 small businesses from across the country are supporting the climate bill. That is why some of the largest companies in the nation are calling on Congress to take action immediately.
The parents I know in Kentucky have no interest in working jobs that sacrifice their children's health. They want to provide for their families AND keep them safe at the same time. This isn't an either or situation. Paul seems to forget this in the midst of his fixation with "federal overreach." I too respect states rights, but states still have to be good neighbors. Local empowerment doesn't give you the right to endanger your residents' health, export pollution into nearby states, or block national solutions to fight global climate change.
If leaders like Paul forget these lessons in responsibility, then I am glad federal agencies like the EPA can step in and remind them.
This country and the planet cannot afford to delay climate and clean energy legislation. It is that simple. Every day Washington politics puts our clean energy future on hold our economy gets weaker, our enemies get stronger, and the planet gets more polluted. It has been almost a year since the House approved comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation to create jobs, cut our oil imports in half and reduce the carbon pollution that threatens us all, and we are still waiting for the Senate to act. The time is now for comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation that jump-starts our economy, strengthens national security, and leads to a healthier planet.
Yep, earthworms. Our individual work breaks down the waste around us and churns out more healthful substances. We each cover a few square inches of our earth, and sometimes a great number of earthworms can transform a much larger patch of land. According to Charles Darwin, no living thing has had such a profound impact on history as has the earthworm.
What humans have that earthworms don't: brain power. And what many humans have that one human doesn't: collective brain power, and potential for coordinated action.
That's why we're launching and spreading the spores for Environmental Countdown. It's been in development more than a year, and with 300+ members has reached maturity. ECountdown is like a central nervous system for the environmental activist body. It allows individual activists to literally see what is happening so the right and left hands can work in concert.
A web portal that can coordinate the munching plan for earthworms? If only earthworms could clap! On this site, grassroots activists and environmental organizations alike can:
- Share videos and pictures documenting your work on environmental causes with everyone else who is dedicated to similar work across the planet - Team up with other activists for conversation, idea sharing, planning, and action - Share best practices - Be inspiration, be inspired - Get and give resources - Earthworms that have banded together to form organizations can create their own profiles on the site and ECountdown will host and market your media for you.
In a brilliant example of this portal's power, the US Environmental Protection Agency wants to hear from earthworms like you:
Videos such as this one addressing environmental racism have already responded to the call to action. Are you a teacher? Work in the classroom? There's more where this came from.
Really, it's a platform for collaboration for all the earthdwellers that want to improve the health of this patch of ground that we all share. It's free, reliable, and environment-only. It's pro-munching, pro-digestion and open to all earthworms. So come get your dirt, put your own few inches of dirt onto the map, and be a part of this united, global effort to achieve authentic sustainability from the grassroots up. If you have a great environmental video, put it up. Spread the word. A new day is dawning on fresh dirt for environmental impact.
Over the past week, Sarah Palin encouraged Tea-Party candidates to make energy issues a central part of their campaigns. "There's nothing stopping us from achieving energy independence that a good old national election can't fix," she said.
On Monday, climate activists, nonprofit leaders, and governmental officials will gather in Cochabamba, Bolivia, to look for new ideas to address climate change. The conference, organized by leading social organizations like 350.0rg, "will advocate the right to "live well," as opposed to the economic principle of uninterrupted growth," as Inter Press Service explains. In the absence of real leadership from the world's governments, the conferees at Cochabamba are looking for solutions "committed to the rights of people and environment."
The United States certainly isn't stepping up. Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), along with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC), were supposed to release their climate legislation next week, just in time for Earth Day. But yesterday the word came down that the release was being pushed back by another week, to April 26.
No matter when it finally arrives, like other recent environmental initiatives, this round of climate legislation falls short. Even if Congress manages to pass a bill-and there's no guarantee-it will likely leave plenty of room for the coal, oil, and gas industries to continue pouring carbon into the atmosphere. And a wimpy effort from Congress will hinder international work to limit carbon emissions: As a prime polluter, the United States needs to put forward a real plan for change.
Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman
Although the text of the bill is not public yet, it is likely that this attempt at Senate climate legislation will limit carbon emissions only among utilities and gradually phase in other sectors of the economy. On Democracy Now!, environmentalist Bill McKibben called the bill "an incredible accumulation of gifts to all the energy industries, in the hopes that they won't provide too much opposition to what's a very weak greenhouse gas pact."
Climate reform began with a leaner idea, a cap-and-trade system that limited carbon emissions while encouraging innovation. The Nation's editors document the transformation of climate reform from the Obama administration's original cap-and-trade proposal to the behemoth tangle it has become. Both the House and the Senate fattened their versions of climate legislation with treats for the energy industry. The Senate's new idea to gradually expand emissions reduction through a bundle of energy bills only opens up more opportunities for influence.
"Some of these pieces of legislation may pass; others may fail; all are ripe for gaming by corporate lobbies," the editors write. "Kerry-Lieberman-Graham would also skew subsidies in the wrong direction, throwing billions at "clean coal" technologies, nuclear power plants and offshore drilling, a questionable gambit favored by the Obama administration to garner support from Republicans and representatives from oil-, gas- and coal-producing states."
Even with these goodies, the climate bill may not pass. The Washington Independent rounds up the D.C. players to watch as the next fight unfolds, including the Chamber of Commerce's William Kovacs and the Environmental Protection Agency's Lisa Jackson.
Green leftovers
In theory, the climate bill should not be America's only ride to a greener future. But the other vehicles for green change choked during start-up. The EPA was going to regulate carbon emissions, but Congress has reared against that effort. The climate bill could snatch away that power from the executive branch.
If companies won't limit their carbon emissions, individuals still have the option for action. But as Heather Rogers explains in The Nation, carbon offsets, one of the most popular mechanisms for minimizing carbon use "are a dubious enterprise."
"To begin with, they don't cut greenhouse gases immediately but only over the life of a project, and that can take years--some tree-planting efforts need a century to do the work. And a project is effective only if it's successfully followed through; trees can die or get cut down, unforeseen ecological destruction might be triggered or the projects may simply go unbuilt."
The pull of carbon offsets should diminish as energy use in buildings, cars, food, and flights gains in efficiency and uses less carbon. But if the green jobs sector is any indication, that revolution has been slow in coming. ColorLines reports that "there are no firm numbers on how many newly trained green workers are still jobless. But stories abound of programs that turn out workers with new, promising skills-in solar panel installation and weatherization, in places like Seattle and Chicago-and who nonetheless can't find jobs."
Cochabamba's unique approach
These failures and setbacks don't just affect Americans; they keep our leaders from negotiating with their international peers. The United Nations led a conference last winter in Copenhagen that promised to hash out carbon limits, yet produced no binding agreement. This coming winter, the UN will try again in Mexico, but if the United States shows up with the scant plan put forward by Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman, those negotiations have little promise.
In Cochabamba, leaders from inside and outside the government will attend a summit to discuss the future of climate change action. In The Progressive, Teo Ballve writes that,
"One of the bolder ideas is the creation of a global climate justice tribunal that could serve as an enforcement mechanism. And conference participants are already working on a "Universal Declaration of Mother Earth Rights" meant to parallel the U.N.'s landmark Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948."
With U.S. government action paling, it might take outside ideas like these to revitalize the push towards a green future. By the end of next week, we'll see if the Cochabamba group made any more progress than the bigwigs at Copenhagen.
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.
