It’s World Environment Day, and all I can think about is how the Gulf oil disaster has been book-ended by two environmental commemorations. The BP oil well blew out two days before Earth Day in April, though it was barely covered in the news until a few days later when people realized that oil was leaking into the ocean unabated. (In the back of our minds, we tend to assume that someone has a plan for these contingencies. Surprise! No plan.)

Now, six weeks later as the crude splatters the shores and marshes of the Gulf Coast, we’re noting World Environment Day.

Nothing like an oil spill to take the bloom off an Earth celebration, eh? As anyone with a computer or TV has seen, the pain of this catastrophe is only worsening as the oil laps ashore full blast now, suffocating everything from shellfish to seabirds. And unbelievably, the oil keeps coming, despite efforts to “junk shot”, cap or “top hat” it.

Sink hole in Guatamala (AP)

Looking away from the Gulf is not much help. In Colorado, major tornadoes this past week reminded us that this is not just hurricane season. In Guatamala, tropical storm Agatha blew through at the end of May, forcing mass evacuations and opening a sink hole that swallowed a three story building.

In other apocalyptic news, we’re headed for 105+ temperatures this first weekend of June in the Southwest. Please send a note to climate denier Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma who likes to measure the climate by the daily weather. (It was Senator Inhofe’s family who built an igloo during heavy snows this past winter so they could sneer at climate activist Al Gore and claim snow disproved global warming.)

It’s difficult to say if the more erratic weather and severe storms are related to climate change. Tornadoes, hurricanes and big snow

Aurora, Colo., tornado (Photo: Brittany McKown)

events cycle on and off. Sink holes I’m not so sure. But if there are connections, and many scientists are convinced that global warming brings more severe weather — super hurricanes for sure, tornadoes probably and drought definitely — then it all rolls back to our oil issues. To the carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels that are changing the planet at a frightening pace, pushing it toward tipping points that could bring unimaginable losses even worse than the current disaster.

The last two centuries we’ve made fantastic advancements for our civilized world, many of which were underpinned by coal and oil.

Now the challenge is on us to move forward again, beyond these finite, dirty-burning crude energy sources toward the next generation of energy, on behalf of the next generation.

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

After reading today’s news about yet another study linking pesticides to yet another health issue, in this case ADHD, I thought maybe this time, we’ll pay attention to this dark undercurrent in modern life.

Perhaps now, with 3-7 percent of kids affected by ADHD, and the disorder possibly triggered by pesticide exposure, we’ll finally see that it really is something in the water — and the food — that’s causing this crisis.

Unlike cotton, these man-made chemicals should not be the fabric of our lives, and yet they seem to have networked their way into and onto everything from bug sprays to lawn treatments to the berries, veggies and meat we eat. (Think livestock’s not got pesticides in it? Animals get a dose the same way we do — from the plants they’re fed.) Even cotton gets doused with pesticides, unless it’s grown organically. The t-shirt you’re wearing may have been washed free of the chemicals used to grow the cotton. But then, where did all that malathion go? Into the soil and the water.

With our ever-growing population and its expanding consumer needs, all taking place on a finite piece of real estate called earth, it would stand to reason that our per person chemical exposure could be increasing, like ADHD has been increasing.

Tests by watchdog groups indicate it has been. The Environmental Working Group found that there were 287 chemicals present in the blood of 10 people they tested. In fact, these “10 Americans”, as the EWG titled its study, were among the most vulnerable and least culpable. They hadn’t engaged in any risky behavior nor did they work in a chemical industry. They couldn’t have — they were tested at birth.

(If you’re interested in this topic at all, settle in for talk by EWG founder, which I’ve embedded below.)

Pesticides are a distinct component of this chemical brew. The breakdown of the findings showed that the chemicals could be traced back to consumer products, industrial chemicals and byproducts, including more than 200 chemical and pesticides that had been banned more than 30 years ago, according to EWG.

That’s right. Those chemicals tend to hang around, albeit in small amounts, in the water and the soil.

So EWG’s point is that try as we might — washing our food off, staying away from household pesticides, cleaning up dust — we may not be able to avoid chemical exposure. We live in a polluted world.

And this accumulation has had real health effects. In his presentation, Cook points to the rise in lymphocytic leukemia, which has increased by 84 percent between 1975 and 2002, and the rise in brain cancer and autism among children.

ADHD doesn’t steal lives like some of those dreaded diseases, but it’s prevalence is shockingly high.

EPA records show that the use of organophosphate insecticides actually declined in real numbers, from more than 130 million pounds of “active ingredients” produced a year in 1980 to about 73 million pounds in 2001. (The numbers were taken from Crop Science America, an association representing pesticide makers.)

But the EPA report doesn’t address the bio-accumulation of these products being applied to crops year after year. Nor has the EPA historically taken an aggressive protective stance toward these chemicals, which also turn up in household products. An EPA chart list the top ten organophosphate pesticides in use at the time:  Malathion, chlorpyrifos, terbufos, diazinon, methyl-parathion, phorate, acephate, phosmet, azinphos-methyl, and dimethoate.

I don’t know about you, but I recognize some of these. Malathion as the stuff that governments often turn to for mosquito control, even though there are effective non-toxic ways to kill mosquito larvae. (And with West Nile in the offering, communities often demand a good spray over of chemicals.)

Others from this group, like diazinon, are are used in industrial produce-growing operations. I never use these home products (my grass is green and I’m not worried about what the dogs are getting into). But I do sometimes read the labels and shudder. One I read recently advised that the handler wear goggles and gloves and change clothes and shower afterward. And I need to use this product, why?

The answers to this pervasive problem of chemical exposure? There are two, and neither are completely easy. First, try to minimize your exposure. Wash  those veggies well. Buy organic. Eat the meat (if you eat meat) of grass-fed livestock. Don’t let your pets run around on a chemically treated lawn (and then cuddle up with junior). Better yet, don’t chemically treat your lawn. Put the bug spray down. Try natural mosquito repellents and for camping adventures, use the harsh stuff on clothing instead of skin.

Second, support the proposed Safe Chemicals Act of 2010, which would reform the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA), a law that advocates say has been virtually toothless since inception. (People are already saying this law could get lost amid the higher profile politics of energy and financial bills. So really, send word of your support, if you do support it)

Under the old law, TSCA, most chemicals submitted for approval are considered safe until shown to be dangerous. The new bill would flip that paradigm, requiring chemical makers to show a compound is safe before it is approved.

The “Safe Chemicals Act of 2010” would require safety testing of all industrial chemicals, and “puts the burden on industry to prove that chemicals are safe in order stay on the market,” according to a press released from Sen. Frank Lautenberg, (D-N.J.) author of the proposal.

“Under current policy, the EPA can only call for safety testing after evidence surfaces demonstrating a chemical is dangerous. As a result, EPA has been able to require testing for just 200 of the more than 80,000 chemicals currently registered in the United States and has been able to ban only five dangerous substances,” Lautenberg’s office reports.

The new legislation will give EPA more power to regulate both chemicals in production and those proposed for market.

Congressmen Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) have co-authored a House version of the bill.

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

Nearly nine months in the making, the Kerry-Lieberman clean energy bill has been born, and is available for nursery viewings in the U.S. Senate. The little bundle, some 987 pages long, has been received with polite congratulations.

But in all honesty, some of the viewers seem to be silently whispering: “God what an ugly baby!” And some are visibly put off.

We knew there would be mixed feelings. This American Power Act may be a classic case of trying to please everyone and failing to please anyone. It tries to do it all: curb emissions, appease hostile Republicans, mete out the requisite treats for industries both clean and dirty, and weave in support for new jobs. That’s quite a high wire act, certain to teeter with so many special interests hitching a ride.

It’s got the same meager carbon reduction targets it always had — aiming to reduce U.S. carbon emissions by 17 percent by 2020 compared with 2005 levels. That’s what Obama threw out in Copenhagen and it’s no surprise, though to ardent climate advocates this has been a festering thorn. It sets the U.S. on a dangerously slow road to climate mitigation, they say, flouting warnings that we have only a short few years to reel in greenhouse gas emissions.

“The American Power act doesn’t meet the test of atmospheric science since the [emission reduction] targets are very weak, and the offsets mean even they won’t be met in time to prevent climate catastrophe,” says 350.org, a global group that wants strong greenhouse gas emission curbs.

The group opposes the offsets in the APA as too lenient toward polluters because they allow dirty industries to continue emissions if they invest in “offsetting” activities like reforestation.

Friends of the Earth, another environmental group, opposes the APA because it fails to change the energy landscape much at all, and may even do more harm than good. FOE president Erich Pica likens the bill to BP’s amateurish “junk shot” plan to blast debris into its leaking oil well.

The APA, writes Pica in an article today, is wrong in so many ways, from its support of further offshore oil drilling to the proposed wasteful spending on clean coal.

“The American Power Act isn’t about reducing pollution, it’s about expanding production. It’s not about conservation, it’s about ramping up domestic production of fossil fuels and other energy sources that are dirty, dangerous, and unsustainable,” Pica says.

And yet, most major mainstream environmental groups support the new draft of the APA, though their lack of enthusiasm is palpable. They laud the senators for getting something on track, no matter how wobbly. It’s better than the stalmate that has ensued; an “important first step” in the words of the Alliance to Save Energy.

The bill’s shortcomings are stark. It insists on conscripting the EPA’s authority to regulate air pollution under the Clean Air Act, an attempt to smooth over Republican concerns about strong federal oversight.

The idea of loosening the government’s grip on air pollution controls horrifies the American Lung Association, which sees they see this compromise to keep the bill oxygenated as an assault on everyone else’s breathing.

Their ALA’s strong statement against provisions in the bill should make environmental defenders who’ve not flagged these problems blush in shame:

“We at the American Lung Association were shocked to read language included in the draft American Power Act introduced today by Senators John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman that would unleash a dangerous process to attack life-saving rules on coal-fired power plants and threaten to permit much more air pollution around the nation. The outrageous proposal creates an open door through which millions of tons of life-threatening pollution could be allowed to flow. We oppose these provisions. The American Lung Association cannot support legislation that includes changes to the Clean Air Act that undermine the protection of public health.

The Sierra Club’s Executive Director Michael Brune calls out this problem as well in his group’s response:  “We are pleased that this draft allows EPA to move forward with performance standards for existing power plants including coal, but we are disappointed that the bill still waives some key safeguards from the Clean Air Act.”

Brune also articulates another concern shared by many groups, that the bill has too many pre-packaged concessions to fossil fuel providers.

“…we regret that bitter opposition from the dirty energy sources of the past like coal, oil and nuclear has watered down this proposal in order to unduly subsidize energy technologies which already receive an unfair public bailout.  The proposal must do more to acknowledge the need for America to serve as a world leader in protecting forests and helping the world prepare for climate disruption.”

This has been an ongoing concern as advocates awaited the final draft of the bill. How can America break its fossil fuel addiction while continuing to fund the pushers?

You can imagine the head banging over this last point. We’ve got almost unlimited untapped wind and solar energy potential, enough wind alone to power the entire nation of electric cars; and yet Congress dithers over tax incentives for new power sources, and fails to tax dirty energy sufficiently to force changes or even pay for its present-day harm to the environment.

All that said, most mainstream environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, argue that nudging the American economy toward more clean energy and “energy independence”  is preferably to continuing to flail our arms and debate climate change until the last glacier melts.

More than 20 leading environmental and conservation groups (see the list below)  issued a joint statement on Wednesday supporting Kerry-Lieberman:

“Every day the Senate fails to pass comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation we put our economy, our national security and our environment at greater risk. Americans overwhelmingly support action on clean energy and climate. Inaction is too costly, and the challenge is too urgent. The Gulf Coast oil catastrophe is yet another reminder that the United States must reduce its dependence on oil to protect our security, economy and environment.”

This hairball’s going to need a lot of nurturing.

• The groups stating support of the Kerry-Lieberman bill

Alliance for Climate Protection
Audubon
Center for American Progress Action Fund
Ceres
Climate Solutions
Defenders of Wildlife
ENE (Environment Northeast)
Environment America
Environmental Defense Fund
Environmental Law and Policy Center
Fresh Energy
Green For All
League of Conservation Voters
National Tribal Environmental Council
National Wildlife Federation
Natural Resources Defense Council
The Nature Conservancy
Oxfam America
Sierra Club
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy
The Wilderness Society
Union of Concerned Scientists
World Wildlife Fund

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

Up around Cape Cod, they were so worried about how the Cape Wind project might affect their views, or more precisely, their property values, that the opposition to this groundbreaking project dragged on and on. It took nine years to get final approval, which came yesterday from the Department of the Interior.

Two years ago we ran a story about another wind project, in nearby Hull, Mass., where the vast majority of residents are quite pleased with their money-saving wind turbines, which are a lot more up close and view-affecting than the Cape Wind project will ever be. Richard Miller, operations manager of the Hull Municipal Light Plant (HMLP), said then: “There has been no resistance on the part of the residents.”

Perhaps wind is a little less intimidating once it’s saving your school district $20K a year.

Around that time, we also ran a conceptual photograph of what Cape Wind is projected to look like from the Cape. Here’s one example of the developer’s vision of how the view won’t (or will, depending on your perspective) be affected:

Projected view of wind installation from Nantucket (Cape Wind Associates)

You can see that the horizon is dotted with something on the right. Those are the planned wind turbines at five miles out.

I can understand that this is a change. The view is altered — a bit. Ted Kennedy, ardent proponent of many progressive causes, didn’t like it at all. But it seems pretty benign looking at it here.

Contrast that picture with those showing the current oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico:

Oil slick, April 25 (Photo: NASA)

Oil rig explosion April 20 (Photo: U.S. Coast Guard)

Some will say, these are apples and oranges. Wind will power homes, replacing coal, natural gas and maybe nuclear power generation. Crude oil mainly serves the transportation sector. You need both. They’re not a replacement for each other. Check that.

But this does illustrate the power spectrum — from the vastly dirty example of this large oil slick creeping toward the still-recovering estuaries in Louisiana to the cleanest, greenest power source.

This view-altering oil spill is not just a bummer for coastal real estate, it’s life-threatening for nesting birds, marine life and the entire coastal ecology, which has been in recovery since Hurricane Katrina blasted through, also carrying spilled oil. As an estimated 5,000 barrels of oil a day continue to spew into the Gulf from the collapsed BP operation, it will certainly affect shrimp and other fishing enterprises, hurting Gulf region employment and your dining options.

Like the Massey coal mine collapse earlier this spring, this is just one more example of how the true cost of our energy infrastructure cannot be tallied by adding up the price of the produced commodity. Starting with the loss of 11 lives in the initial explosion, the costs are steep. There’s the cost of the clean-up — in the billions, though President Obama says BP must pay the total tab. But BP will never be able to reimburse the region for the likely millions that will be lost in tourism dollars and shrimping revenue. This damage, like the harm to dolphins and threatened sea turtles, can never be fully recaptured. (Bloomberg estimates that the disaster will cost the insurance industry $1.5 billion.)

This oil mess serves as a potent reminder that we need to change our transportation priorities. This year, a handful of Americans will begin running their vehicles on wind and solar power. How? Take an EV coming onto the market, plug it in to a home running on clean energy. That’s a wind-powered or solar-powered car. When you consider all that wind can do — or for that matter, solar, the ultimate on-site power solution — it’s hard not to conclude that we need to make a hard turn in that direction.

Climate change or no climate change, we’ve got to get our head on straight about our energy priorities.

This latest political mantra of trying to please everyone, and appease oil interests, this plan that brought us to Obama’s decision to open more U.S. coastline to oil drilling, has some merit. We do not want to fight wars to find oil. But it risks tethering us to dirty energy sources for too long.

This psuedo-patriotric “it’s all good” strategy in which Barack Obama’s rhetoric and BP’s commercials seemed to eerily echo each other, may not find the right balance. And we need to re-balance our plan, in favor of the future.

I will refrain from quoting Marx here (such a turnoff when Americans quote communists!) but let’s just say that those in power tend to remain in power because they control things. I’m speaking here of big oil or Big Oil. The status quo exerts major inertia, and can justify its continued maintenance, given all those jobs (and Congressmen and women) it supports.

At the end of the day, though, we wouldn’t want to find ourselves lost in a petrified forest of fossil fuels, still searching for a greener path. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar saw that when he approved the Cape Wind project this week.

So if the sight of that oil spill terrifies you, (see ABC’s Good Morning America coverage for video), then consider making changes to reduce your oil consumption.

We ran a piece on that topic called Travel Lighter for Earth Week — when this oil spill occurred on April 20, just in time for Earth Day, April 22.

And if you live on the Eastern Seaboard, which Obama just opened up for oil exploration, you can tell your governor’s office that you’re OK with what wind does to the horizon, but not so fond of the idea of drilling for oil off your beautiful coast. Just explain that you’d prefer a tiny intrusion on the horizon to the potential beach-annihilating, wildlife killing, Maryland-sized occasional uncontrollable oil spill.

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

Today, I’d hoped to write a story about the big Earth Day celebration in D.C. with its war whoops for a climate bill — or climate solutions.

Earth Day rally (Photo: Gita, Earth Day Network Facebook page)

Indeed, there was a major 40th Anniversary Earth Day celebration in D.C.

Tens of thousands attended. There were strong calls for change. But sadly, this event seems not to have captured the imagination of the media.

The Washington Post carried a story that gave the flavor of the event, and quoted a few people explaining what it was all about. However, the story was heavy on band reviews — Sting got a compliment for his “nuanced performance” — and light on political details. I mean I love Jimmy Cliff and John Legend too, but really, what did Jesse Jackson, James Cameron and James Hansen say, about you know, climate change? The story quaintly mentioned that “Congress-folk” took the stage. I wonder what those people had to say too.

I pick on The Washington Post here only because we turn to them for political coverage. (And maybe the rally was a lot of mush-mush rhetoric. God knows those Congress-folk can be circuitous.) It’s really the overall sweep of coverage that’s most concerning, and I fear that this is part of a larger message malaise around climate change. My local news did not mention the rally. I didn’t pick it up on the CNN evening news.  (I didn’t watch all day). And apparently I’m not alone.

Here’s Bill from Middleton, Wisc., looking in at The New York Times online coverage (which did cover the rally) on Sunday:

So proud to be the first commenter, if I’m the first, at 3:38 p.m. CDT. I typed in “climate” and “rally” in Google News and got four stories. If this had been a tea partier rave with a much smaller turnout, how many hundreds if not thousands of stories would there have been? Fox would have covered it wall to wall.
Another dent in the myth of liberal media bias.

And here’s Paul, from Illinois, replying:

Bill from Wisconsin….My thoughts exactly! As I’m reading the story it occurred to me that the scroll on the bottom on the screen this afternoon on CNN and MSNBC, (during the Coal Miners Memorial), didn’t even allude to today’s rally. Yet, as you said, if it were a few hundred tea klux klanners screaming nonsense and holding mean-spirited signs, my God, how much coverage would have been given? Indeed, another dent in the myth of the liberal media bias. I’m off to complain–again–to CNN.

So I wasn’t the only one perplexed about how such a large event, on this over-arching topic, could fly under the radar.

I have a theory though. As a nation, we’ve settled into political trenches. Bill and Paul have it right, we’re busy watching Fox News and railing about the liberals. Or busy watching MSNBC and railing about the right wing. We like the really contentious stuff. We’re transfixed by fringe elements. Environmentalism doesn’t sate our thirst for drama. It’s going mainstream. Clean energy, especially, has support all around. A recent wind power poll released last week found that 89 percent of Americans think increasing wind power is “a good idea”.

And yet, as Congress readies its Climate/Clean Energy bill, we’d all best pay attention. Word is the bill gives enough  bouquets to fossil fuel interests to outfit a funeral — ours. We public-folk need to stay in the game, even when the media’s not wrestling the details to the surface.

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

There’s a big disconnect when it comes to climate change in the U.S. It seems that we’re too busy arguing along partisan political lines or trying to dig our way out of the recession to notice that the world… as we know it… is melting.

Let’s look at some of the recent headlines from a few credible news sources.

Massive Arctic Ice Cap Is Shrinking, Study Shows; Rate Accelerating Since 1985 — This story from Science Daily posted Tuesday documents how the Devon Island Ice Cap in the Canadian Arctic is losing mass because of warmer overall summer temperatures.

Glaciers Shrinking at Montana’s Glacier National Park — Come to find out, the park named for its many glaciers is now down two, with 25 to go. The story gets full treatment in Audubon Magazine online this week. The reason the park has lost two glaciers: Oh…warmer summers, on average for the last decade or so. See when it’s warmer the ice melts, and then one day, poof, it’s gone.

So, um, what’s not to get here?

Oh yeah. It wasn’t we humans who caused all this. This is just a normal cycle of cool, warm, cool, warm phases that the Earth goes through. Check that. And this particular phase just happens to be on steroids, happening within a vastly shorter span of time than ever before, concurrent with rising carbon in the air since the onset of the industrial age (circa 1850), because it’s, it’s, it’s — perhaps caused by humans burning fossil fuels?

Yet, despite headlines like those above, a Gallup Poll in March found that fewer Americans today (50 percent) believe the “effects of global warming are already occurring” than did two years ago (61 percent).

And among self-described political conservatives, only 30 percent believe the effects of global warming are already happening.

I’m wondering what Americans are thinking. Could this skepticism be part of a belief that, yes, we know there’s climate change but we aren’t so very worried because someone will be able to fix it? Does our doubt about the imminent threat of climate change reflect a lack of confidence in our scientists, media and government — all of whom are the message bearers here?

It certainly reflects a rift with what scientists say about tipping points, those junctures at which ecosystems are so changed that a cascade of events inevitably follows, which is why so many climate experts are urging quick action and talking about a three to five year window in which to begin reducing carbon emissions. (A good book to read more about tipping points in nature ecosystems is the recent release Last Chance by Larry J. Schweiger, president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation.) But then, you can’t even get to a discussion of tipping points with someone who doesn’t believe climate change is happening, even though glaciers are melting before their eyes.

Is this denial a part of the Tea Party “revolt”? Sarah Palin is cheered when she jeers about climate change and a significant segment of the population seems to delight in thumbing their noses at experts. But there’s nothing really new about that. There are always nose-thumbers. Besides, the Tea Partiers seem more unified on the issue of slowing federal spending.

Perhaps the deniers are a segment of a larger pool of Americans who are just railing mad about the Obama Administration’s “liberal agenda”  (which I put in quotes because, personally, I see unemployment benefits and regulated health care as nonpartisan) and part of the Obama plan includes fighting climate change. Or so it seems on most days.

Looking at the components, though, that doesn’t quite add up. Are people upset that the EPA is poised to regulate carbon? Clearly, but I’m not sure they could tell you why, exactly. Are people worried that the Department of Transportation and the EPA are raising fuel economy standards? Maybe. But then they’d be against lower gasoline bills?

Are climate skeptics worried that taxing or auctioning carbon credits or whatever it comes down to — if Congress ever steps in and passes a climate bill — will raise their electricity costs?  Is that what drives climate denial, Americans’ fear of higher utility bills — when so much else is at stake?

It’s certainly concerning that our electric bills could rise in this turgid economy, but estimates put these potential increases within the budgets of most families. So the equation Higher Electric Bills vs. The Collapse of Eco-systems, the Loss of Coastal Cities, Billions in Storm Damage and later, the Collapse of Economic Systems, seems a little absurd.

On the other hand, if climate change does devastate economies, isn’t that what many conservatives –  I’m thinking of the 70 percent who don’t believe climate change is happening now — are concerned about, overspending and economic collapse?

So if the loss of pika and polar bears aren’t high on your list of concerns, you could chalk up your support of climate change action to concern about the economy. Many corporations already do. Those that are pursuing genuine sustainability plans see the writing on the wall. That’s why dozens of Fortune 500 corporations are trying to lower their carbon footprint. Some for show, but others because it makes fiscal sense.

Yet a large piece of the public seems to be running behind this curve. If we’re to believe Gallup.

Maybe Gallup needs to ask a different question, say, “Would you be in favor of drilling in the Arctic and continued reliance on fossil fuels if it meant your grandchildren would swept away in catastrophic flooding or frizzled in relentless heatwaves?

Maybe that’s the question to ask.

I think, in the end, the denier phenomenon boils down to two natural human tendencies. The first, the tendency to bristle at authority. That’s probably a good instinct. (In a democracy anyway.) The second, to aim for stasis. We want things to continue as they are. But that’s not always adaptive. If you told people there would be an earthquake tomorrow in their neighborhood, would all of them leave, or would a few remain behind? Some just wouldn’t believe it.

(Next week, the Earth Day Week: GRN will feature a story on what you can do to seriously and effectively fight climate change, from your own back porch. And we’re not talking about turning off the water while you brush your teeth. You already do that, right?)

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

With President Obama’s announcement that he supports opening vast new areas to offshore oil and gas drilling, it is certain that environmentalists will react. But how?

Some will attack the president’s grating tendency to appease oil interests, as he has already done with the coal and nuclear industries. (And what old-energy concern is even left to mollify now?)

But don’t expect a knee-jerk, across the board negative reaction. Some groups may play along, in the hope that offshore oil and gas leases will never really materialize as proposed – it will be expensive to drill, and in some areas, the amount of accessible oil may not be worth the trouble.

They may see Obama as employing a tactic somewhat akin to telling your youngster he can go ahead and climb the big tree, knowing he’ll only get so far.

Others who might otherwise vigorously oppose offshore drilling may hope that the inevitable fight in states such as Florida where offshore drilling would threaten tourism and marine ecology, will protract the process. As the years unfold, clean energy efforts would pick up more of the slack, reducing the need for oil, somewhere down the line.

Still, others may see this, or come to see this, as Obama has stated, as a necessary move to keep a mix of energy available to Americans. If we’re all, Republicans and Democrats and Independents, on a page about anything, it’s the need to keep energy supplies flowing without any more expensive wars in the Middle East, which is the clear subtext when our leaders talk about our “energy security”. (Obviously certain global businesses would not mind continued access into foreign oil supplies, but that’s a different discussion.)

We’re also pretty much on the same page, here in the USA, about our admitted untamed appetite for oil, or whatever, to power our homes and cars. Changing the culture, ramping up cleaner alternatives will take time. Bridge solutions are needed.

(There’s a grain of truth to those testy comments on blog threads that take off on liberals who whine about oil drilling while driving cars and jetting around the world.)

Finally, there will be environmental leaders and NGO’s who see this opening of oil drilling as necessary to grease the skids for the coming climate legislation in Congress. The trade off, more wells in exchange for greenhouse gas regulation, may be worth it.

Which is the wisest strategy, the perception closest to reality? Only time will tell. But as we enter this new era of “pragmatism” which Obama alluded to in his speech – using, in fact, the words, “pragmatic steward” to describe his Secretary of the Interior Steve Salazar – it is worth remembering that until now, many, if not most, mainline environmental groups wanted no compromises on off-shore drilling. Just to keep ourselves honest.

Here’s an excerpt from an NRDC document on Protecting Our Oceans and Coastal Economies:

“Expanded offshore drilling poses the risk of oil spills ruining our beaches from Florida to Main and along the Pacific Coast, bringing harm to those who live, work, and vacation along the coasts, as well as harming habitats critical to plants and animals.”

“Oil spills can quickly traverse distances. For example, when powered by the Gulf of Mexico’s Loop Current, an oil spill in the eastern Gulf of Mexico [now proposed for drilling under the Obama plan] could affect Florida’s Panhandle beaches and even travel around the Florida Keys to wreak havoc on estuaries and beaches from the Everglades to Cape Canaveral.”

It is worth remembering this, because offshore oil drilling could be very environmentally unfriendly. It could degrade already stressed coastal areas. It increases chances of a catastrophic oil spill.

“The hard lessons of the Exxon Valdez oil spill still haunt us,” said World Wildlife Fund Vice President for Arctic and Marine Policy, Bill Eichbaum in responding to the president’s announcement. “And, as we saw with the recent catastrophe in Australia’s Timor Sea, even the latest advances in technology cannot prevent a major spill from happening or get it cleaned up quickly enough to prevent a natural disaster.” (WWF praised the Obama announcement for banning oil and gas leases in the fragile Bristol Bay in Alaska, though it expressed concern that the plan would allow exploration in other areas of the Arctic.)

The Obama Administration knows this. We think, we hope, they see offshore drilling as a stop-gap measure.

Obama talked today about our need to plump up domestic oil supplies. But he spent almost as much time envisioning a clean energy economy. He noted that China and Germany were moving aggressively in this direction, and that they could claim preeminence in clean energy economy if the U.S. doesn’t move quickly.

He referred to how even the U.S. military [translation: the conservative and war-weary military] is marching  toward clean energy solutions for its fighter jets and armored vehicles.

“Now, the Pentagon isn’t seeking these alternative fuels just to protect our environment; they are pursuing these homegrown energy sources to protect our national security. Our military leaders recognize the security imperative of increasing the use of alternative fuels, decreasing energy use, and reducing our reliance on imported oil. That’s why the Navy, led by Secretary Mabus who is here today, has set a goal of using 50-percent alternative fuel in all planes, vehicles, and ships in the next ten years. And that’s why the Defense Department has invested $2.7 billion this year alone to improve energy efficiency.

“So moving towards clean energy is about our security.  It’s also about our economy.  And it’s about the future of our planet. And what I hope is, is the policies that we’ve laid out — from hybrid fleets to offshore drilling, from nuclear energy to wind energy — underscores the seriousness with which my administration takes this challenge.  It’s a challenge that requires us to break out of the old ways of thinking, to think and act anew.  And it requires each of us, regardless of whether we’re in the private sector or the public sector, whether we’re in the military or in the civilian side of government, to think about how could we be doing things better, how could we be doing things smarter — so that we are no longer tethered to the whims of what happens somewhere in the Middle East or with other major oil-producing nations.”

Next, we find out if this has any resonance at all with Congressional Republicans and conservative Democrats, who stand ready to block the energy and climate legislation being readied by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

Recently I was hashing over with a family member about the reasons people are vegetarians, or vegans or mostly veggie. We agreed that people get off the meat, for a variety of reasons, often complex and intertwined, regardless of whether they’re just cutting way back or drawing a hard line deep in vegan territory.

(Image: FoodandWaterWatch.org.)

I proposed that health reasons were the paramount motivator, given the United States’ high rate of heart disease, still the number one killer here. Not to mention our obesity issues. And I was about to further dominate the conversation when my companion blurted that he thought more people were primarily motivated by animal rights concerns, followed by health reasons. Vegetarians think that way, he said.

Come to think of it, animal rights probably are front of mind for most vegans and strict vegetarians. Thinking of my vegetarian kids, and my years as a vegetarian or mostly veggie person (don’t get me started on that, NO ONE likes you when you eat ethically raised meat sometimes), it made sense.

I mean, how many videos of some poor, limping cow being shoved onto an intake ramp does it take before you start to cringe at the sight of your hamburger? For some people, that visual message is indelible. And yet, I’m recalling Steve Kinnear in Fast Food Nation chomping away on a hamburger after a stroll through the packing plant. I think a lot of people are like that, also, divorced from what they feel about their food — or not wanting to think too much about where it came from. Or they’re simply OK with humans at the top of the food chain. After all, we aren’t the only carnivores/omnivores in the world. I can respect that.

On the other hand, maybe they also haven’t heard that the burger they’re eating has most likely been sanitized with an ammonia treatment to tamp down the E.coli that plagues ground beef, a necessary evil necessitated by the way industrial beef are speed-raised and handled.

Did I mention the muck and overcrowding these bovine endure? Consider that unmentioned.

After mulling these reasons for trimming back on the beef (and pork and chicken), I stumbled on some information that illustrates how difficult it is to separate the key twin issues — the well being of livestock and the healthfulness of the product they provide.

It comes from Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, a doctor and chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, a group that often stands just outside the mainstream cancer treatment community, hollering from the sidelines about matters others seem content to ignore.

The CPC is asking the Food and Drug Administration to issue “an urgent ban on hormonal meat” because it increases the risk of certain cancers in humans that eat it.

Not a new issue, true. But Dr. Epstein, a professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the University of Illinois School of Public Health, is an agitator. And agitators don’t give up.

Epstein, sincere and committed to his advocacy of showing how chemicals increase cancer risks, knows that the FDA is unlikely to drop everything and heed his call. In fact, his press release explains why: This is a matter that the federal government has side-stepped for 30 years.

But Epstein’s group sees that as no excuse for continued inertia. The coalition’s petition wants a label for meat similar to the admonishments on cigarette packages.

Feed lot (Photo: USDA.)

The warning  Dr. Epstein proposes for commercial meat – the vast majority of which is today “beefed up” with hormones: “Produced with the use of sex hormones, and poses increased risks of breast, prostate, and testis cancers.”

Cattle are routinely implanted with sex hormone pellets to fatten them on feedlots (a government- allowed practice), increasing their meat production — by about 50 pounds per animal, according to the coalition. The result is more meat, and, the coalition believes, riskier meat; meat pre-marinaded in chemicals that raise our chances of getting breast, prostate and testicular cancers.

Increased hormones, for example from birth control pills, have been implicated in cancers. And increased red meat intake also has been found to play a role in the development of the most common type of breast cancer, according to large studies of American women.

Of course it could be the meat itself that is the larger part of the problem, and not the hormone residues. That question is moot anyway, according to the U.S. government, which maintains that the meat produced by hormone-treated animals is free of harmful hormonal residues.

The FDA and the USDA both report that industrially produced meat is safe in this regard, even becoming embroiled in a long running debate with the EU, which refuses to import American meat because of the widespread use of growth hormones. (For more on how the EU does it differently, see this NPR report. For info on how some ranchers in the U.S. raise livestock humanely and healthfully see American Grassfed Association.)

Dr. Epstein simply points to an increase in hormonal cancers since 1975, which roughly coincides with the introduction of the wholesale use of hormones to grow livestock. He says that since that time:

• Breast cancer is up by 23%
• Prostate cancer by 60%
• Testicular cancer by 60%

In fairness, this is a debatable point. Some people believe we’re better at detecting cancers. There also have been studies suggesting that some early cancers, say some found on mammograms, might not ever become full-blown cancers, but because of our excellent screening system, they now get counted and treated.

So we have to add a caveat — these statistics may or may not be the ones to go by.

On the other hand, the practice of fattening animals on hormones raises many questions, even before we get to the one about the ethical treatment of animals, which this is surely not.

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

Green news is just streaming out these days, like a ticker tape parade, but without the paper waste.

Carleton College, in Northfield, Minn.

First on my notes, the College Sustainability Report Card people have issued their 2010 list of schools making A’s for green initiatives. Actually, no campus has earned an A yet, but 27 are  getting A-’s for a range of innovative efforts. My native Minnesota has propelled Carleton College, Macalester College and the University of Minnesota into the top ranks. Uffda, that’s exciting.

Depending on your roots and alma mater, you’ll likely find a campus to cheer on. The sheer diversity of activities being launched — from eco-peer training to building retrofits to food co-ops — makes our mouth water for local food and a pesticide-free place to eat it. Kudos to the Gen Y’ers and administrations behind all this.

Now a word about that younger generation. No matter what our age, we can all do something for ourselves and our descendants. We can reduce carbon pollution. Every step we take counts, from our backyard garden to our carpool. But in the U.S., we need to take some BIG BITES out of our out-sized contribution to global warming. And we can do that by supporting cap and trade legislation.

As the President prepares to deliver his State of the Union address, I am waiting for the word: We need action on climate change. Year two. Let’s get on with it.

I know, it’s not perfect legislation, those bills that have been hanging around Congress, gathering mildew and exemptions for polluters. They have prompted vicious partisan battles. (But then hasn’t everything pending in Congress prompted vicious partisan battles?)

But we need something on the books. It could bring fundamental change, or kick the ball in that direction.  If Congress moves in the spirit of creating a greener future instead of looking for ways to insert loopholes for special interests, this legislation could help clear the air, trigger other countries to do the same and help slow climate change.

A politician once promised a chicken in every pot. Not to mix food metaphors, but this law could do much more. It could mean keeping salmon on your plate, weather catastrophes off your doorstep and clean water available for your children.

On one level, cap and trade is pretty simple: Fossil-fuel burning businesses will start paying for their pollution. They will be penalized. Clean energy and clean tech businesses will not. This will have the effect of tugging the economy in the right direction. And because it will be staged in, it does not create economic shock. Many argue, in fact, that it will do the opposite, creating green jobs, spurring innovation and curtailing wasteful practices.

Fossil fuel industries are not happy about this. Duh.

We could spend another 1,000 words on this topic. But I’d like to refer you to someone who can explain it better, an expert at the Environmental Defense Fund.  Watch this video, and if your kids are old enough to read a 6th grade textbook, share it with them. It’s their future.

The Facts of Cap-and-Trade from Clean Energy Works on Vimeo.

By the way, if you’re worried that cap-and-trade legislation is not sufficiently bipartisan, know that the EDF works with many major corporations that support cap and trade as a way to reduce carbon pollution. Many on the left believe a simple carbon tax would be more efficient. This video also notes that it was a Reagan-era cap and trade measure that brought acid rain under control, verifying that this market solution can work.

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

I’ll save the puns and bragging about what a bright idea it was to illuminate a dark interior room with a solar tube. I’ll just cut right to the details of how the process worked, for those who want to know.

Home office before solar tunnel; a dark spot

First, a couple guys, or one guy, (or it could be a woman, but the two companies we got bids from sent guys) poke around in the attic above the approximate place where the solar tube will have to travel to carry outside light through the attic and into your dim and dreary space below.

In our case, the installer we chose, a fellow named Juan who has been putting in solar tubes for more than a decade, immediately went to work advising us on the positioning of the tube and assuring us that the light would be sufficiently diffused. He saw that we would be limited by the placement of the furnace in the attic above. But he found a way to angle the tube past a beam and some duct work, so that we could have the light installed where we needed it.

While in the attic, Juan found that he could access the Eastern slope of the roof instead of going to the Northern slope, which was a little closer but wouldn’t provide the best light. (Our advice, remember to consider where you’ll be collecting light from, not just where it will be delivered to inside the house/office.)

We appreciated that Juan was able to finesse the tube placement in the attic; maybe competitors would have done the same, but you know what they say, nothing substitutes for experience.

The bubble on the roof was raised later to capture more light as the sun moved over the house.

We were picky customers. We also wanted to capture a smidgen of light from the Southwest, to carry the daylighting a little longer into the afternoon. Juan had a solution: A “chimney” or extender for the outside that raised the dome just enough to gather some illumination from the other side of the roof. (As you can see in the picture, the sun tunnel cap is near the ridge of the roof — raising it may have extended its capacity to provide bright light for a couple hours.)

Now if all that makes sense, stick with me for the next step, when the guys cut the holes in the ceiling, attic subfloor and roof. This is really the only nail biter part of the process, because you want the solar light well positioned and as Eminem would say, you’ve got one opportunity; though technically, if you got it wrong you could patch the ceiling and start over.

Juan advised that we place the light a little to the side of where we originally wanted it, not because of the furnace above, but because it would illuminate two of our dark corners in this room of dark corners. This turned out to be excellent advice and further confirmation that one should choose an experienced installer.

Back to the hole-cutting….I was curious about the order of things and when I peeked in the attic a moment after we finalized the interior positioning, I got my answer. Juan was already on the roof, looking through the hole he’d cut. This was a top-down operation.

Solar tube position: locked in

We chose a brand of solar tunnel called Sun Tunnel, made by Velux Skylights. It came with the widest skirting around the outside dome top (compared with competitor Solatube). This made me feel a little better about potential leakage around the opening, but in reality, leakage is not a big problem with professionally installed solar tubes and both brands have a reputation for quality. The less expensive DIY solar tubes sold on the consumer market have been cited for inferior performance, because their bendable, ridged tunnels are not as reflective as the shiny rigid interiors most often used in contracted installations.

Solatube (left) and Sun Tunnel (right)

What did our little home improvement project cost? If you must know, it was $804. That might seem steep for an energy upgrade that effectively replaces just two table lamps and one overhead light, and only during the day. But we’ll make some of this up with a 30 percent tax credit, available in 2009 and continuing through 2010. (Is it possible that prices for solar tubes stiffened up as soon as those credits were announced? Undoubtedly. They’re more costly than two years ago when we surveyed them, finding prices to be in the $550 to $650 range.)

And yet, we are happy with our new light. And adding natural illumination to this room was about more than just saving energy dollars and carbon emissions. We wanted daylight streaming in on a sunny day. It brightens the room and our mood.

Is the natural light too bright? Juan and others tell us some people are shocked at how much light they get from their solar tube(s). We get a lot of light, too, and in Facebook parlance, we like it. It took a little getting used to. It’s a bluer light, even compared with our soft CFLs. But in a good way. We’ve seen several solar tubes before, so we were prepared. A bonus, the light hitting the desk top does not add glare to the computer screen, in the same way diffuse overhead office lights minimize glare.

The bottomline: We’re glad we punched a hole in the ceiling. My husband no longer complains that his work space is an upstairs dungeon and I don’t have to feel guilty about my ensconcement elsewhere, near a nice big window.

Voila! A much brighter spot.

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network