Blogging World Against Bush on Climate Change

On April 17th, George Bush gave a speech on climate change, but the response seems to bear no difference to the reactions of green supporters and environmentalists to previous proposals.

—

Bush cited no short term goals, but aimed to start reducing carbon emissions in 2025. Bloggers are quick to spot flaws. Grist Magazine’s David Roberts writes:

…international folks are pushing for a peak in global emissions by 2020. If U.S. emissions keep rising until 2025 — and that’s what Bush is calling for, rising CO2 emissions for another 17 years — efforts to keep global CO2 levels below 450ppm, or even 550ppm, are futile…

He is not alone in his thoughts. Many environmental groups have quickly rejected the plans; in an article titled ‘Bush’s Lame Duck Climate ‘Plan”, Greenpeace open with strong words:

United States President Bush has tried again to make the world believe that he will rectify his shameful record of ignoring, denying and fuelling climate change.

Greenpeace have never been supportive of George Bush, even funding a recent advertising campaign aimed directly at the US president and what they believe is a bad climate record. His climate change speech did not do much to sway green campaigners to support him, and history has not been any different

Coming from a background in the oil business, the current president seemed doomed to fail in the eyes of environmentalists. George Bush entered politics in 1994 when he successfully beat Ann Richards to be governor of Texas, and when he won the presidency in 2000, he lost the nationwide popular vote. Since then, support has not been easily found among pro-green campaigners.

Following the introduction of his 2002 Clear Skies Legislation, many claimed that it would allow for more pollution in some areas than its model, the 1990 Clean Air Act, which was America’s first cap and trade program for pollutants. The 2002 legislation, first put forward on Valentine’s Day, aimed to set madatory caps for three air pollutants - nitrogen oxides, mercury and sulfur dioxide, with a view to power plants reducing these by 70%.

The plans proved controversial with many, who claimed that more pollution would be allowed than under the current laws, with less protection against smog and soot inhalation air pollution in certain areas. Environmental group Sierra Club stated:

By the 15th year of Clear Skies: 450,000 more tons of NOx, one million more tons of SO2, and 10 more tons of mercury would be allowed than under strong enforcement of existing Clean Air Act programs… “Clear Skies” delays the enforcement of public health standards for smog and soot until the end of 2015.

With so many critics, the Bush administration seemingly will have to do a lot more than it already proposes, and learn that the economy it claims to be protecting with these proposals may end up disappearing altogether if nothing is done about the America’s pollution.

—

Sources

Grist Magazine - www.gristmill.grist.org
Clear Skies Act - www.epa.gov/clearskies
Greenpeace - www.greenpeace.or
BBC History: George W. Bush - www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/bush_george_w.shtm
Sierra Club - www.sierraclub.org

Tuuli Platner is American correspondent for newssource ENO, Environmental News Online. Find this article here.

 

Google’s Carbon Footprint Project

Google has a fantastic option that I recently discovered - the UK Carbon Footprint Project. You calculate your carbon footprint, then go through some energy-saving options where you can tick, ‘I already do this’ or ‘I will do this’. It then shows your current carbon footprint and what you will save by the options you choose to implement. As you can see, I’m doing pretty well:

This is pretty basic - very similar to what’s done on most carbon footprint sites - but what’s different, is that you can then have your footprint stuck on a map - and you can compare it to everyone else’s.

Here’s an example of London:

If you struggle with simple traffic - light code, let me break it down for you:

Green = Good. Your carbon footprint is well below the national average.

Yellow/Amber = OK. Your carbon footprint is similar to the national average.

Red = Bad. You’re evil.

Now, if the evil people have stupidly put in their entire postcodes, we can go hunt them down on our bicycles and force them to eat organic and live in the dark for the rest of the year. Just click ‘zoom’.

Now, can you only imagine what Al Gore’s print would be…?

—

Sources

Google UK Carbon Footprint Project

 

The Maasai Marathon for Water

The third largest London Marathon happened a week ago, and one of the most interesting and most anticipated runners were a group of Maasai tribesmen from Tanzania, Africa.

Running for Water

The six warriors had decided to run the 26mile route to raise £60,000 needed to drill a borehole in their village and provide clean water for themselves, and they approached ‘green expedition company’ Greenforce for help.

April 13th saw four of the six warriors finish the race in 5 hours and 24 minutes, though the group’s spokesman, Isaya, was forced to drop out halfway through and was accompanied to hospital by a sixth warrior. However, they were not to be dismissed so easily, for the two decided to complet the marathon the next day and recorded a total running time of 4 hours and 45 minutes.

The Goal

A lot of work was involved to get them to London in the first place. Estimating the cost of drilling a borehole is difficult, as a lot of analysing and preparation needs to be done first. They said:

The process of locating, analysing and supplying water is complex and it is difficult to predict the exact costs.

The money raised will fund a sonar ground survey, which will help locate subterranean water. Test holes will be drilled to ascertain the quality and quantity of the water discovered. A full bore hole will then be drilled and a concrete cap and pump unit fitted.

Greenforce valued it as being anywhere between £20,000 and £60,000, and the Maasai chose the upper limit as their goal.

The group behind the Maasai’s achievements managed to help secure seven free places in the marathon for the six warriors and ‘Soldier Bob’, their pacemaker. They also aided them by setting up a website and encouraging donations.

Who is Greenforce?

The not-for-profit organisation offers opportunities for people to get involved in marine and wildlife conservation projects, as well as community projects and ‘adventures’. They began in 1992 after the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, and it was seen as an important venture on many fronts. There website reads:

This was the first global recognition of the urgent need to preserve the diversity of life on earth, culminating in a resolve of 168 countries to undertake bio diversity surveys of their “at risk” regions.

In response to these surveys, Greenforce works to develop action plans for the local people to promote sustainable development in their communities and countries. They currently offer opportunities to become involved in projects including orphanage work in India, penguin rescue in South Africam rainforest conservation in South America and, among others, wildlife conservation and a chance to live among theMaasai in Tanzania.

—

Find this article at ENO: environmentalnewsonline.com

Sources
Greenforce.org - Maasai marathon
maasaimarathon.org
guardian.co.uk - Isaya’s diary

 

Bush Addresses Climate Change

So George Bush’s recent climate change speech in the Rose garden leaves a lot of people unsatisfied. Many are in fact very sceptical as to whether any of what was said will ever amount to much, recognising a distinct lack of short term targets and vague goals for 2 decades in the future: to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 18% by 2012 and still maintain a ‘healthy, vibrant economy’.

The economy seemed to be a major part of his argument against ratifying the Kyoto treaty, which is mentioned within the first 5 minutes. He goes on to explain the lack of limits placed upon developing nations as the other reason. He cites China and India’s rapid economic growth as ‘good for the people, and good for the world’ but goes on to question the increasing greenhouse gas emissions as a problem.

Last I heard, America has a good economy as well, and its carbon emissions are still thought to be higher than India, though China is not far behind. In December 2007, the Guardian released their ‘Carbon Atlas’, a graphic representation of the world by their greenhouse gas emissions (a PDF is downloadable here)

It’s a complicated situation, and for sure, China shouldn’t be allowed to be given a ‘free ride’, as Bush puts it, to a good economy without accountability for its global harm. However, this shouldn’t stop the US from imposing greater objectives for itself - to meet a better target sooner - otherwise it sounds a lot like refusing to go to school because the neighbour’s kid gets to stay at home whenever he wants - we all know,  in the end, it turns out better for you than him…

Still, it’s encouraging to hear the progress made so far. Lots of ‘tax incentives’.

–

Sources
Youtube: Bush’s Speech part 1 and part 2.
Guardian.co.uk Newspaper.

 

Al Gore’s ‘We’ Campaign - Another Distraction?

flickr - Yodod

So Al Gore’s still on his mission to save the world, which is a noble cause, to be sure, but I’m still unsure in some ways about how he goes about things.

Anyway, that’s besides the point.

The newest campaign he’s proposed is the ‘We (Can Solve the Climate Crisis)‘ campaign. Now, the website is nice, clean, heavily relying on the green and blue (nature represented here, methinks) and has interesting video clips stuck in, which bear a resemblance to an Apple ad. Except without the quirky music. Nice use of different media to promote the cause.

Still, I’m not here to comment on the site.

No, what I was drawn to was their ‘we are succeeding‘ section, filled with various press updates on what actions have been taken, various milestones in different areas, that kind of thing. Here’s the one that interested me most:

Thousands Urge the Press to Ask Questions on Global Warming

According to a recent study by the League of Conservation Voters, TV’s top five political reporters have asked 2,484 questions of the presidential candidates, but have mentioned global warming only three times. Sadly, other political commentators and reporters have shown a similar disregard for this key issue.

So, 3 out of 2484 questions posed to politicians concerned the environment… that’s a little over 0.12%. Not impressive. What I’d really like to know is what the other questions were about. The League of Conservation Voters (those who conducted the survey) are unlikely to have recorded that kind of information, which is sad because, as much as I believe in our responsibility for the planet and the importance of environmental issues, I still believe that in some ways it’s forcing other issues, which are jsut as important, to take a back seat.

Issues such as renewable energy - a lot of countries don’t have energy to begin with, millions of people life without electricity.

Issues such as organic food/clothing - millions of people again could not afford to pay any extra for food that’s GM/pesticide-free, or clothing that’s been made ethically.

Issues such as carbon off-setting - there are those who live in huts and can only dream of brick houses that have the potential to be fitted with solar panels.

The main argument, like a broken record, is played back: ‘If we don’t look after the environment, there would be no planet for these millions to live on.’

Sure, and I agree - the earth is important, and without it there would be no need to even consider basic human rights as everyone fights to survive floods, food shortages and energy crises.

But the environment has become a trend in some places, and of a much higher importance than these other problems in a lot of other places, with charities facing the possibility of being neglected because people believe they are already ‘doing their bit’ saving the earth by buying reusable shopping bags and clothing made out of recycled potato sacks. I say, ‘kudos to you’, but don’t forget your fellow man.

 

Want Money Off Your New Shoes for Your Old Pair?

So I haven’t been able to post much recently, I’ve been busy helping to organise a conference happening this weekend, so lots to do!

Anyway, recently the Brantano shoe chain has started a new campaign called ‘New for Old’; the idea is to bring in your old shoes and get £10 off towards a new pair. The TV advert definitely perked my interest, but I wanted to see exactly what they did with the old shoes - where was the profit?

What I discovered was a really cool concept! Here’s what the site writes:

The footwear that you will bring in will be shipped to distributors in Afrixa who will pass them on to local traders who will repair, clean and polish the shoes back to their best. The shoes will then be sold locally for a very small amount of money but this will help a cottage type industry going in almost every small village across Africa.

Frankly, from what I can tell (you can never be entirely sure how much of the story you’re getting is unbiased on company websites…) it seems that this campaign is a really impressive idea. Benefits for the company: more customers, more shoes sold, and encouraging loyalty among customers. External benefits: One, the environment - less shoes in the landfill, or at least, a longer time before they end up in one. Two, jobs are created and low-cost shoes are made available where originally there were none in Africa, helping to reduce poverty there. Again, here’s what the website says:

Thousands of people are working and earning a living in this business, who would otherwise be unemployed and in need. There is no local footwear industry that could produce footwear as cheap as this system.

A win-win situation? You tell me! Do you know of any similar campaigns? Are there hidden problems not shown in the company splurge?

 

Second ENO Podcast

In light of the recent technical problems, I know that some will be missing out on the awesome podcasts. So, I have decided to upload them for this blog specifically so that you can all have the joy of listening to them in your biofuel cars or on your wind-up iPods (- is there such a thing? If not, bagsy the idea!!)

Have a listen and drop a comment about what your views are, I’d love to get some discussion going concerning this - is climate change more important than the humanitarian situations in places like Africa?

ENO: The Big Issue
Four ENO journalists tackle the problem of whether climate change should take a backseat in regard to more imminent humantarian crises.

Features West Europe correspondent Kaspar, education correspondent Stephen, Australasia correspondent Ashley, and myself: journalists for ENO, environmental news site.

To download, right-click here and select ’save as’ or whatever it says. Otherwise, listen to it on the snazzy WordPress player below:

—

For those who missed it, the first ENO podcast our group did can be found here.

 

Give us a Hand, Please?

I’ve just uploaded two podcasts (yes two! I managed to finish editing Monday’s recording yesterday!) and according to some listeners we sound like chipmunks on it, ie it’s running at superspeed. However, on my laptop it all sounds fine, even in different browsers.

Now, I’d like to know if it’s just a Windows thing (I will use Apple forever!) or isolated to just a few computers. And why.

So! Listen to the podcasts (even if it’s just the first bit) to determine whether they play super-speed for you, and drop a comment on how it sounded - good, bad, ugly? - and what computer platform and browser you’re using.

You’ll find the ENO podcasts all here. The newest one is ‘Climate Change: The Big Issue’ which you can find at the bottom of the page.

Also, tell me what you think of our discussions, anything you’d like to add on top of it?

PS: Garageband remains my favourite audio-editing tool, I mean, it was MADE for podcasts!

 

First ENO Podcast

As you may know, I write regularly for the ENO website: environmentalnewsonline.com. I’m the America correspondent, hence the snazzy name of this blog!

Last week four journalists, including myself, decided to record a podcast answering the question: Is Climate Change Real?

Listen to it here:

Or download your very own eco-friendly, paper-free version of it by right-clicking and selecting ‘Save As’ or whatever it is here.

Bear in mind, this is a [very] draft version, hence the dodgy editing in some places and inconsistent volume of voices… but enjoy anyway!

 

Guide to Greenwashing

It’s becoming more and more obvious to me that in order for a company to get any recognition and become more ‘customer-approved’ it needs several things, among them the environmentally-friendly tag. Here’s my list of how to make your products appear more ‘green’:

Food must be:
Organic/GM-free/locally grow/Fairtrade/made with ‘fresh’ ingredients/certified organic

Choose at least one - though a combination would be even better - and design a massive sticker or colourful green label to advertise each to slap on the front. The more, the merrier, regardless of how much additional plastic and paper is wasted in the process. Little logos of green leaves and ‘plant stuff’ works, too - and when we say ‘fresh’ ingredients… so long as it was growing at one time, it counts. Mould, too.

Plus, for ‘certified organic’ the certificate doesn’t have to be more than a quick mock-up in Publisher with your signature at the bottom. And you’re free to define ‘organic’ however you will…

Products must be:
100% recycled/100% recyclable/energy efficient/carrying a green sticker.

Generally, ‘recycled’ and ‘recyclable’ are mixed up to mean the same thing - you know and I know that ‘recyclable’ is only worth something if the customer recycles it… but they don’t know that, and it’ll cover up the fact that you used a ton of nice, fresh oil hot off the Arab tap to make the plastic in the first place. They also won’t know if you had it shipped halfway around the world on a giant boat, either. But if it’s energy-efficient, you can slip in a few hazardous materials to level out the evil-carbon vs good-green balance.

If you’re looking for a nice, green sticker, remember! anything will do. Those wonderful customers rarely look beyond the colour, but keep the random print small in case they check what it’s really about - lorem ipsum works brilliantly. And remember what we said about the green leaf pictures?

Use obscure terms to label your product:

CFC-free - regardless of the fact this has been a legal requirement for 20 years, there’s no harm in advertising it is there? AND it’ll still pull in some suckers.

Earth smart - It’s obvious there’s no plausible way to raise the planet’s IQ through your product, but it seems to work, regardless.

Eco-safe - ie. ‘…because it won’t kill your plants so long as you keep it in the bottle, in a locked box, in the fridge.’ Oops, that bit didn’t fit our word limit…

Environmentally safer - Than what? My neighbour’s 4×4? A jet-plane? - See! So long as that question is left unanswered, you’re gold.

One-hundred percent natural - The existence of this product is one hundred per cent natural - See? It doesn’t disappear when you touch it! And you know those naturally-occuring hazardous materials? I’ve heard arsenic works a treat in shampoo.

Earth-friendly - You know - ‘friendly’ as in the ‘if you give me your sweets I won’t sock you in the face’ friendly neighbourhood bully from middle school. Duh.

Essentially non-toxic - If you go back far enough in the design process, you’ll find that one proposal that was for an entirely non-toxic version of our final product. ‘See, essentially we were non-toxic …but now we’re on proposal 348…‘

Image by Nicest Alan on flickr.

Look Green Yourself:
You know that gas-guzzling SUV of yours that got a nice couple of dents in it a while back when you got stuck in that ‘Save the Earth’ protest? $7 gets you a nice ‘this is a hydrocarbon vehicle’ bumper sticker that will save you money and a trip to the body repair shop next time.

But seriously, folks

The latest news in the headlines however, has been that the Federal Trade Commission is heading towards a review of its 1998 Green Guidlines, setting May 19th as the deadline for comments against its new green guide. Good news for consumers - bad news for you; soon you’ll have to prove every claim you make!

—

Find out more

Federal Trade Commission
Is Greenwashing potentially good for you?
General Electric + Greenwashing article
A brief history of Greenwash
A Definition of Greenwashing
Wikipedia: Greenwash