May 26th, 2007
The BBC recently ran an article on US opposition to G8 climate proposals, which will be presented at a meeting in Heiligendamm, Germany. Key points of the proposal include:
* Agreement to slow the rise in average temperatures this century by 2 degrees (Centigrade).
* A cut in global emissions by 50% below 1990 levels by 2050.
* A rise in energy efficiency in power and transport by 20 percent by 2020.
While looking into this, I came across an interesting timeline at Equitywatch.org, which traces the foundation of today’s opposition, from the Carter Adminstration through the Vice President Cheney’s (secret) Energy Task Force.
Equity Watch is based in India and has an interesting perspective which I find very worthwhile. I recommend reading both, before thinking further about the G8 uphill battle ahead.
May 14th, 2007
It seems like lately, eveyday, I am seeing more news of glaciers melting too soon, global climate change gaining credibility and people and governments (local, state and federal) taking action to prevent or at least mitigate the consequences of global warming. Several nations have outlawed the incandescent bulb, are developing more alternative energy resources such as solar, wind and biodiesel and developing policies that will curb their dependence on fossil fuels.
As we come to accept the existence of global climate change, we must also come to terms with what to do with potentially toxic by-products, or those that will increase heat-trapping gases and compound their impact. The most common example of this is the harnessing of methane gas, a by-product of decaying waste (and cow feces), as a source of clean energy. Other than that, no one I am aware of, has any idea what to do with the other greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2), other than sequestering it, or and nitrous oxide, which in this case does not leave us laughing.
A significant effect of global warming has been an increase in the production of algae in our oceans, which is toxic to the life it surrounds. In essence, as ocean water temperatures rise, algae blooms abound and cut off the oxygen fish, corral and other organisms depend on for survival. Recently a burst was discovered along a stretch of California coast. Even though I am pleased global climate change is gaining traction as being real, every time I hear stories like this, I view it as one more nail in our collective coffin.
Imagine my surprise at the news an Italian paper company, Cartiera Favini has developed a process for converting algae and other waste products into paper. “EcoFavini” was launched in 1991, as part of a project to reduce its use of natural resources and develop using new raw materials to produce paper, instead of the traditional tree pulp.
One such alternative is the algae blooms found in the Adriatic Sea, which in the 1990’s, measured 50,000 tons. Their research and development team established a way to use that amount (the equivalent of 30,000 tons of trees) as a substitute for some of the cellulose fiber used in producing paper. No chemicals are used, and the process requires only half the amount of energy used to process wood. This is a savings of 20 trees and forty tanks of fuel on a daily basis. (I’ll let you do the math for annual savings). At present, the costs production are still higher than the traditional paper process, but given the rise in fossil fuel prices, it could be just a matter of time before algae paper becomes competitively priced.
Also in the works is Sugar and Maize Paper, which are made from the waste of processing sugar beets for the sugar, and maize for the corn. The most compelling and far reaching are Smog and Sludge Paper. What all these projects have in common is they demonstrate the viability of using one industry’s waste for another’s raw material.
If the rest of the world can take note of this, it could represent a significant inroad in curbing global climate change.
April 28th, 2007
As some may have noticed by now, I tend not to jump on the bandwagon of whatever is the topic of the moment. Such is the case with Sheryl Crow and Laurie David’s mix-up with Karl Rove at the Correspondents Association Dinner in D.C. last week. After all the he-said-she-said, I have to admire Ms. Crow and Ms. David for having the chutzpah to approach Karl in the first place. There’s something to be said for getting past being intimidated by someone because of his office, and seeing him as a possible aide in a worthwhile cause. In reading Sheryl’s recounting of the event, I have to say her intentions looked to be more good than ill-conceived albeit a little naive. I mean did she really think Mr. Rove was capable of having a decent conversation with someone not of his own camp?
Nevertheless, she and Laurie have invigorated my sometimes-flagging optimism that we can do something to stop or at least mitigate the destruction global climate change is sure to bring. Sheryl and Laurie’s two-week Stop Global Warming College Tour focused on the right audience, receptive to changing their daily activities for the good of our world. Additionally, they offered simple changes one could make that according to them, could make a difference. The one that has received the most attention is saving paper by using only one square of toilet paper to use per sitting, which actually was a joke. However, mainstream media jumped on it, making it a good conversation starter.
The connection Sheryl made with toilet paper is that most TP is made from virgin wood, and trees are our major source for converting earth-warming, people-choking carbon dioxide (CO2) to breathable oxygen (Aahh!). When we cut down trees, we cut off our own supply of a vital life-supporting gas. More realistic was her proposal to reduce paper napkin use. She also suggested an idea for a detachable sleeve, on which people could wipe their mouths when dining. This kind of brings to mind Merry Old England, and I think it could start a fashion trend among teens and twenty-somethings. Considering how many Baby-Boomers refusing to age tend to duplicate the younger generations’ habits, we might not be far behind. As one Boomer, I think it might be kind of fun. Of course, using cloth napkins might be easier until we want to make our meals resemble something from the Renaissance.
My whole point is, since the SGW Tour, the idea of preventing global warming is something that appears to be taking off. Doing something for all our good, is a idea whose time has finally come. Not only does NPR have a year-long series planned, Climate Connections, but Mainstream Media outlets such as ABC’s Good Morning America have launched a similar pieces such as “Go Green America.” Randi Rhodes of Air America often says, “If it doesn’t happen on TV, it doesn’t happen.” Well it is, and
the more of us who are willing to think in terms of pariticipating and shaping this new wave, the better it will be for us all.
April 7th, 2007
Recently there has been a flurry of doom-and-gloom, I-have-seen-the-future-and-it’s-awful reports on global warming. From the recent United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report , which includes a projection the Southwestern US may be at the beginning of a repeat of the “Dust Bowl” days of the Depression, to “Tipping Point” discussions becoming more commonplace among veteran environmentalists, it’s hard not to just throw our hands up and prepare to bake.
Being the perennial Polyanna “I still believe” all is not lost — we may be already condemned to losing something, maybe even a lot, but it is not a foregone conclusion we will lose it all — especially if we take mitigating action. Imagine my delightful surprise when I received an email from the Progressive Democrats of America (PDA), asking my opinion of which “green energy” project to invest in. Upon investigation (click here to find out), I discovered PDA has decided while it may not be possible to function without some fossil-fuel energy use, it is possible to neutralize your contribution to gloabl warming and commensurate damage to the environment.
PDA is partnering with Nativeenergy.com as a resource for promoting renewable energy development and offset its own contribution to greenhouse gas production. The idea is pretty simple, and can be used by individuals as well. At NativeEnergy.com is a carbon calculator, which people can use to determine how much they contribute to the production of greenhouse gases. For example, even though I have cut my fossil fuel consumption considerably by replacing my 4-cylinder car with a Honda Civic Hybrid, replaced all my lightbulbs in my house with Compact Fluorescents, and participate in a Green-energy program with Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, I still produce some greenhouse gases in my everyday life. By going to NativeEnergy, I can determine how much I contribute to global warming, and offset that with monthly or yearly fee. That money would help pay for one of several renewable energy projects. My favorite of these is the Wanner Family Dairy Farm Methane project…You can guess what they do and with what.
That would create green energy for others to use, which would make it possible for them to less fossil fuel energy. Of course anyone could just contribute freely, but there is something to be said about taking responsibility for your own contribution to global warming, without preaching to others that they should do it also. And it doesn’t hurt that most financial contributions would be tax deductible, and that NativeEnergy is majority-owned by the Intertribal Council On Utility Policy (COUP), a non-profit coalition of Native American tribes.
By supporting Native Energy, we can help to heal our world and preserve Native American communities at the same time — not to mention feel good making a difference without proselytizing others by forwarding emails.
March 24th, 2007
I suppose it was in the interest of being “fair and balanced” that Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish Global Climate Change denier (deny-er) was asked to speak at the invitation of Republicans looking to protect the investments and profits of their benefactors, Chevron, Standard, Brtiish Petroleum and Shell Oil.
Most people have not heard of Dr. Lomborg, but in the environmental arena, he threw that culture in a tailspin when he published “The Evironmental Skeptic” in 2001. In short, it accused various environmental groups of exaggerating information and data to preserve their own organizations: If most people felt air and water were no longer polluted, or whales were no longer in danger of being extinct, there would be no reason for groups like World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace and the Sierra Club to exist.
I became aware of this text as required reading in a Global Environmental Politics class I took at UCLA in 2002. What we discovered was, while Dr. Lomborg raised some important questions, his logic and use of footnotes left something to be desired. For one, the footnotes did not always directly support his statements, but it looked as if he was using them to infer it. However, the use of these footnotes, which were about one-fourth of the book implied validity — which I thought to be an interesting strategy. He has since come under more scrutiny, but will no doubt be considered a darling of Republican naysayers and deniers, especially Oklahoma Senator Inhofe.
One of the first things Lomborg said to the Senate panel this week was “Climate change is most commonly constructed through the alarmist repertoire – as awesome, terrible, immense and beyond human control…” No one is currently saying it is beyond human control. It is very much in our control. We started it, and we can at least mitigate, if not stop it. It’s just a matter of will and determination. People are free to recycle, use energy-efficient lightbulbs, purchase fuel efficient vehicles as well as recycle waste as much as possible. Governments can also subsidize develoment and purchase of clean energy such as solar, wind and fuel cell. The only thing that makes us helpless is the stranglehold Big Oil has on our politicians and thus our energy policy.
Lomborg also said “Very often, we only hear about the heat deaths but not the cold deaths –…repeated in the official literature, as in the US 2005 Climate Change and Human Health Impacts report, where heat is mentioned 54 times and cold just once. We need to know just how much more heat deaths we can expect compared to how many fewer cold deaths.”
Why? Dr. Lomborg appears to reason more people currently die of cold than heat, as if to imply global climate change could actually save lives. The reports he refers to are estimates whose logic I fail to see (again, the inference trick). Further, I have yet to see any massive death tolls related to cold documented in recent history, other than the recent cold snap in the U.S. Northeast.
Fortunately, the mainstream media gave very little attention to this performance, so most people are not aware of it. However, I have no doubt soon supporters and beneficiaries of large, multinational energy companies will quote Dr. Lomborg as a basis for their continued denial of global climate change. Anyone not versed in the abundant evidence of the existence of global warming should be prepared for this onslaught of denier “intellectually-based” arguments.
Nevertheless, it is NOT the scientists who are debating the existence of global warming and climate change. Think about who is, and consider the source.
March 11th, 2007
Demonstrating countries with diverse interests can compromise, the 27-member European Union (EU) reached a tentative agreement that would establish it as the world leader in the fight against global climate change. The primary goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020, was reached by allowing member nations to set their own levels.
This was done through recognizing significant advances in well-developed renewable energy resources by several nations such as Latvia, Denmark and Spain, as well as those who are lagging in renewable technologies. Several countries, like Poland, who joined the EU in 2004 are still heavily dependent on coal, and others like Slovakia and Hungary are without coastlines. This makes access to solar and wind development a difficult challenge, which they themselves argued was an unfair burden.
In probably one of the most controversial compromises, included in the agreement was an acknowledgement of nuclear power as a non-carbon energy alternative. This was a result of France’s heavy use of nuclear power, in spite of strong objection from Ireland, Austria and Denmark. It’s possible many countries were more willing to compromise in a effort to reduce their dependence on suppliers like Russia, who shut their oil pipelines to the Germany, Poland and Ukraine last January. Nevertheless, Chancellor Merkel, along with European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, should be commended for being able to hammer out a pragmatice agreement with achievable goals.
My only concern with this, is the goal of 2020 is four years after Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth projected tipping-point deadline of 2016, but who knows? Maybe if significant gains are made early, local governments, states and nations might step up their efforts and tip the scales back in the environment’s favor before it’s too late.
Finally, in a challenge to the United States, China and India, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the bloc would commit to a 30 percent cut if other nations followed suit. President Bush has claimed his refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions was based on the likelihood it would hurt the U.S. economically. If the EU is able to achieve or surpass its goal without suffering econmic consequences, he and members of Congress would be hard-pressed not to take their lead.
February 8th, 2007
When it comes to politics, Hollywood often gets slammed for speaking out about issues of which they supposedly know nothing. The first punch is these are only actors, and therefore lacking in the brains department. The second slam is, even if they are mildly intelligent, they should not be allowed to take advantage of their high visibility the Common Man does not have access to — although if that’s the case, then people like Michelle Malkin and Melanie Morgan should also give up their blogs and careers in “opinion journalism,” something I consider an oxymoron.
If that doesn’t work, then a sucker punch of “they are hypocrites” — arriving at the Oscars in eco-friendly rides while their Hummers are parked in their driveway — something even the journalist, David Colker could not resist when he wrote a piece on an eco-friendly limosine service for the LA Times. “A spin with Ecolimo allows Hollywood figures to be environmentally correct in public even if that’s not the case in their private lives.” But what about when it IS the case in their private lives?
For example, not only is Edward Norton an Academy Award nominee, he is also the founder of GreenBuilding.com, a non-profit organization that makes green power literally available to low income Los Angelenos, through a partnership with BP’s Solar Neighbors Program. Specifically, when a celebrity purchases a solar home, BP Solar Neighbors provides a solar system for a resident of a low-income neighborhood. Not only do both provide clean energy, it also makes that energy available and affordable to a population that would not otherwise have access to it.
Some Green Building celebrities who have participated in this program are Larry Hagman, Daryl Hannah, Don Cheadle, Robin Williams, Ed Begley, Jr., Alicia Silverstone, Danny deVito, Salma Hayek, Rhea Pearlman and Brad Pitt, proving they are not only willing to walk the talk, but available to make the same resources and opportunites accessible to those less fortunate than themselves.Furthermore, the tradition of environmentally clean, upper class neighborhoods juxtaposed to environmentally toxic ,low income regions is altered.
Can the same be said for right-wing talk-show hosts and bloggers?
January 28th, 2007
When the Academy Awards take place this year, on February 25, they will present a significant indicator of a change of attitude in our country. I’m not talking about an organic menu, or bio-degradable gowns (although that would be nice!). Rather I am bringing attention to a new trend: Instead of arriving in fuel-sucking, luxurious limosines of the past, a significant number of Oscar nominees and presenters will arrive in eco-friendly vehicles, provided by Santa Monica-based limosine service, Eco-limo . Eco-Limo is a brainchild of Y Fray, who created the service in late 2004. Over the years, her service has grown in demand, by not only high-profile celebrities, but business executives as well, for jaunts to the airport or high-profile events. Regardless of motivation, whether an evironmentally conscious choice, or just wanting looking good in public, every step in the right direction, is a step in the right direction.
Not only has Eco-Limo expanded its fleet from a few Prius’ in ‘04, to now include Natural Gas (NG), Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) and bio-diesel Mercedes, Suburbans and Excursions. Business is so good, Ms. Fray has opened an office in San Francisco, and is working on expanding to Washington D.C. and New York. I’m sure as Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth gains more notoriety at the upcoming Academy Awards, high-profile people on both coasts will be more sensitive to appearing insensitive and irresponsible about the future of our earth.
By cutting fuel costs, Eco-limo is able to provide these vehicles at affordable prices, which start at $45 an hour for a Prius, and $65 for a bio-diesel Mercedes. It’s also a good way for people to familiarize themselves with these vehicles, if they are considering them for a purchase, or want to see how a vehicle can run on walnut oil.
Hooray for Hollywood!
January 3rd, 2007
As we wrap up 2006, and head into 2007, there is a lot to take into account. As global temperatures continue to rise, icebergs continue melt, ice-shelves continue to break off with more regularity, and a significant number of Americans continue to drive SUV’s, V-8 trucks, and Hummers (non-hybrid or fuel cell), we are all going to end up in a heap of trouble no amount of money or government regulation will be able to fix.
During the last few months, I have struggled with finding something to write about global warming, here at The Millennial Files. Our original purpose was to educate, inform and prove the existence of global warming/global climate change. 2006 brought so much publicity, especially with Al Gore’s film (thanks to Laurie David) An Inconvenient Truth, I (wrongly) figured our job, in conjunction with many other environment activists had been done. On top of that, during the mid-year, I saw several articles talking about a Tipping Point, a projected point (2016)of no return.
How anyone could argue the reality of global warming, especially when those who did, ’fessed up they had been funded by vested interests like ExxonMobil was beyond me. Further, when it was disclosed many of the arguments presented against human activity being responsible for global warming, originated from the Bush Administration, it seemed that the general public probably understood global warming was not a myth, and they would take responsible action, and change their old habits — especially regarding alternative and efficient energy consumption. Also, how could they ignore the 10-year deadline for change? I figured they were duly educated and given just the right dose of fear to inspire/instigate action on their own.
However, a November Showtime special featuring magicians, Penn & Teller (see below), proved me wrong. Had it only been aired on that somewhat-viewed channel, it could have been just considered harmless entertainment, but unfortunately, it was uploaded to the internet.
What bothered me most, was not so much the sleight-of-hand, deceitful and misleading load of misinformation (bordering on outright lies) presented to debunk the validity of recycling, but rather the amount of people who used (and continue to) the link in order to support their self-centered lifestyle. For example coyoteblog.com introduced a link to P&T’s shil with “ I have long suspected, but can’t prove, that most of the recycling we do is worthless“, and then reinforced by another bogus study invalidating hybrids.
This is especially disconcerting, not only in terms of the potential pigstyes created and landfills overburdened, but also because a signficant greenhouse gas, methane is emitted in landfills in large amounts, and is a larger factor in global warming than carbon dioxide. As much as P&T may have been just “having a little fun,” they were also preparing & justifying the slitting of our own, as well as generations’ to come, throats.
Last week, when the Bush Adminstration proposed listing the Polar Bear on the ‘threatened’ species list, alarm bells went off that would put sonic boom to shame. Not only are the Polar Bears drowning, but as the nearby permafrost also melts, (more) methane gas is released into the air. This is what Al Gore refers to in An Inconvenient Truth as the first of two environmental canaries– the Arctic, and Antarctic. When one goes, we are in trouble. When the other, we are shafted.
With this in mind, the Millennial Files will continue to work on informing, debunking and being part of the light that guides the way back to a healthy and life supporting world. On a personal level, we must do what it takes to reduce our methane and CO2 contributions to the world. We can also encourage our local governments to do the same with using hydrogen fuel cel mass transit vehicles, and solar powered municipal buildings. On a national level, we must push our representatives to implement an Apollo-style energy program NOT designed by Big Oil and energy companies. For more specific and accurate information and suggestions, I cannot recommend highly enough viewing An Inconvenient Truth, preferably with friends. In all honesty, the most important question of the film is directed at the audience: ”What will you do?”
The following words have never been more true: The future is in our hands.
Happy New Year.
December 21st, 2006
Just when I thought the Millennial Files and any number of environmental activists and educators had achieved the goal of proving global warming, and the advantages of energy efficiency and recycling, along comes Penn & Teller with a Showtime special declaring recycling a waste of time and ‘grigri,’ (voodoo amulet) or bulls–t.
Having been a fan of the famed magicians, I expected to find some entertaining satire, maybe even a “mockumentary.” Instead, I found a hackneyed, “documentary” loaded with slight of hand, misleading information, and poorly planned gags (For a team as creative as Penn & Teller, with such a rich history of sardonic, push-the-envelope comedy, this was a real step-down).
Fortunately, there were enough people posting comments at the site who saw through the act to set my mind at ease, but when I clicked on links associated with the site, alarm bells went off. I found more than several using this as evidence to support their long-held belief recycling is a waste of time. For anyone who might have been swayed, here is what I found:
Penn Jillette set the foundation for validating his claim that recycling is a Grigri/BS by quoting the New York Times, saying ”Recycling may be the most wasteful activity in modern America.” What he doesn’t say is the piece from which he quotes,”Recycling is Garbage,” is a column, NOT an article, which is the writer’s opinion. He also does not credit the columnist: conservative/libertarian John Tierney.
John Tierney replaced conservative William Saffire at the New York Times, after the his retirement, for a few years. According to the Columbia Journalism Review , not only does Tierney have a history of “a tendency to support his point of view using sources with a clear ideological or special interest agenda, without properly identifying them,” but he is also known for advancing ”arguments in ways that border on outright intellectual dishonesty.” He is known for willfully ignoring major sides of a debate and ignoring basic journalistic practices which might weaken his case — also known as being free and loose with the facts.
Penn Jillette also neglects to tell his audience that the article quoted, “Recycling Is Garbage,” broke the record for generating hate mail to the New York Times Magazine. It must have slipped his mind to mention Environmental Defense, a legitimate environmental advocay group, issued a significant rebuttal of 10 of Tierney’s major points, and that Dr. Allen Hershkowitz, a National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) scientist, called Tierney’s story “an intellectually dishonest piece of advocacy.” HHmmmmmmm.
The Showtime Special also featured “expert” Daniel K. Benjamin of Clemson University if South Carolina. According to Jillette, Dr. Benjamin wrote a ground-breaking-paper on recycling. Unfortunately, Penn never named it, and when the camera went in for “close-up,” the lettering was illegible. As it turns out, the paper was Political Environmentalism, publlished by conservative think tank, The Hoover Institution in 2000. Hardly groundbreaking.
Dr. Benjamin, as it turns out, is a Senior Fellow at Property and Environment Research Center (PERC), a conservative think tank that promotes “free market environmentalism.” capitalism based on the premise that private property rights encourage stewardship of resources, government subsidies often degrade the environment, market incentives motivate individuals to conserve resources and protect environmental quality, and polluters should be liable for the harm they cause others. The latter seems like a good idea, but considering PERC received $115,000 from ExxonMobil, from 1998 to 2005, I find it hard to believe that principal is heartily developed.
Apparently, Penn Jillette thinks most people recycle only if it’s convenient, and if there are enough obstacles, they won’t do it. So he set up a fake recycling company who are taped informing “recyclers” they will have to recycle using more than the traditional green, blue, or grey containers. They come up with ridiiculous categories that each, require their own bin. I’m guessing the punchline was supposed to be “lightly-soiled toilet tissue” or animal carcasses like dead rats, which should have made them recoil. When the participants do not balk (as expected) at the additional inconvenience, instead of scrapping the bit, an incredulous and irate Penn shouts “These folks should get a medal! —Citizens of the F—ing world!”
This is followed by Dr. Benjamin “explaining” if people were “more informed,” aware their recycling would make “the budget situation for local communities worse off,” they would not be so willing to do so. This is similar to one of Tierney’s arguments in his New York Times column, and was debunked by the Environmental Defense rebuttal mentioned above.
Suffice it to say, I found enough problems within the first ten minutes of this program to be able to sit through the entire 30 minutes. If P&T could not have been informative, they should have at least been funny — or done some tricks that could not be solved with a little research.
Thank goodness Teller kept his mouth shut.
