Greenpeace

This weekend, Green for All, Greenpeace and hundreds of others organizations are sponsoring a national mobilization to say, "I'm ready for the green economy." The goal is to bring attention to a solution for the two biggest problems we now face--a faltering economy and climate change. The solution? We should build a green economy strong enough to lift people out of poverty and to save our weakening economy.

What would a green economy look like? Imagine millions of workers working on thousands of old buildings that need to be weatherized, installing shimmering solar panels, and building towering wind turbines. There are public transit systems to be set up and smart electricity grids in need of engineers and electricians to design them.

Like most big problems facing the country, this is really a question of priorities. While Congress is debating this week about golden parachutes for failed CEOs and a $700 billion dollar bailout for Wall Street, others are looking at a cleaner, greener future as a way out of this economic mess.

From a Greenpeace op-ed in the Nation:

A recent report report by the Center for American Progress estimates that investing just $100 billion in the green economy (one-seventh the amount contemplated in the administration's proposed Wall Street bailout) would create 2 million new jobs, with a significant percentage of those coming in the struggling manufacturing and construction sectors. In contrast, investing that much money in the financial services sector would generate just 1.1 million jobs, according to an analysis conducted by the study's authors, Robert Pollin and Heidi Garrett-Peltier of the University of Massachusetts. In other words, Wall Street's offering about half the jobs for the same money: hardly a smart bet for the taxpayer.

A green investment on the level of the Wall Street bailout could create growth on a much larger scale, almost entirely eliminating unemployment and significantly raising middle-class incomes. Instead of golden parachutes for CEOs, the government could finance America's transition from an oil- and fossil-fuel-dependent economy into one run completely on clean energy. Instead of buying up bad McMansion mortgages, we could pay people to retrofit their houses with high-efficiency appliances and green roofs.

The green stimulus could reach far beyond the energy sector to provide income and employment for rural America as well. It could finance the conservation of tens or hundreds of millions of acres of wildlands, providing income to farmers and other landowners--and make possible a whole new generation of national parks. (Many of those lands are now under threat exactly because of too-easy credit: without limits on lending, it's been all too easy for real estate developers to find the cash to pave over back-country wilderness for sprawl and ranchettes).

 

The time has come to take a hard look at where we are in this nation and where we want to go. This weekend will be a chance to reflect on the possibilities before us and the consequences of our choices. The question is this: Do we want to leave the next generation in debt and in crisis from a dangerous climate or do we want to take the initiative and start the inevitable conversion to a green economy? To me the answer is obvious. What's less clear is what Congress will do. Make your voice heard at www.projecthotseat.org.

Ths week, Al Gore called on young people to practice civil disobedience on any new coal plant that is not CCS ready. Seeing that CCS is 20 years off, at the very least, perhaps Mr. Gore meant for action on all new coal plants.  In any case, I've got a Greenpeace jumpsuit with your name on it, Mr. Vice President.  

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. published an excoriating op-ed today in the LA Times takking Exxon to task for funding phony front groups that are designed to confuse the American public about global warming. Kennedy says that after a 1998 meeting, Exxon executives decided to create information so that "recognition of uncertainties become part of the conventional wisdom" and that "those promoting the Kyoto treaty ... appear to be out of touch with reality."

Kennedy goes on:

"Since that meeting, Exxon has funneled $23 million into the climate-denial industry, according to Greenpeace, which combs the company's annual report each year. Since 2006, Exxon has cut off some of the worst offenders, but 28 climate-denial groups will still get funding this year." 

You can read more about Exxon's deceptive and dangerous business practices over at Exxon Secrets. 

At a campaign stop last week in Maumee, OH, Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) talked to a young 1Sky campaigner about energy policy.  The question was about the Obama/Biden ticket's position on coal. Biden answered by defending his record of support for renewable energy, and then he said this:

"No coal plants here in America. Build them, if they’re going to build them over there make ‘em clean because they’re killing you."

The "over there" he's referring to is China. That's a remarkable statement from the potential veep and one that begs for further explanation. Biden has been mum since he said this, but allow me take a stab at what he likely meant.

On their Web site, Obama/Biden say this about coal:

"Obama’s Department of Energy will enter into public private partnerships to develop five “first-of-a-kind” commercial scale coal-fired plants with clean carbon capture and sequestration technology."

That policy position is at odds with Biden's statement. Presumably, Biden is saying no new coal plants here, period, CCS-ready or not. China, he seems to be saying, can't be stopped from building new coal fired power plants so what we ought to do is develop the technology to make them run cleaner.

This logic is inline with what Thomas Friedman has been saying: The next revolution will be energy technology, so we need to own the innovation and then export it. That's the way to help the American economy and lead by example.

Friedman and Biden certainly are right about the need for innovation. The question is why the focus on coal, which we know will never be clean? Those who say that it can be tout Carbon, Capture and Storage (CCS), a plan to capture carbon emissions from power stations and bury them underground. The technology won’t be ready for at least another twenty years, too late to save the climate. Yet the vague promises of CCS are being used to justify building new coal-fired plants. These plants will spew out enormous amounts of CO2 pollution for at least the next twenty years and probably during their whole 40-year lifetime. In short, any new coal fired power plant will contribute massively to the climate crisis.

Hopefully, this topic will come up in the veep debate, scheduled for Oct. 2. But don't count on it. According to Media Matters, the progressive media watchdog group, only four percent of the questions asked during the primary debates were on energy and the environment. Only three questions touched on renewable resources and conservation, including one asking if candidates used compact fluorescent bulbs. Seriously.

Given America's energy problems and the threats from global climate change, the inclusion of conversation about coal's future and what Biden exactly meant should be part of the upcoming debate. You can email your Congressional representative here and tell them what you think of coal. 

 

The NY Times is reporting today on a possible confirmation that the legendary Bigfoot is real. Two hunters claim they have found the hairy beast and then chose to store him in a refrigerator.  I wonder if the Big Guy frequents the Boreal Forest, where Kimberly-Clark harvests ancient virgin forest for their disposable products? If so, his home is disappearing.

SAN FRANCISCO — In the hairy and hoax-filled history of Bigfoot, those who believe in the mythical beast have offered up all manner of evidence, from grainy photos to hoarse recordings to tracks of those aforementioned feet.

But on Friday at a hotel in Palo Alto, Calif., a pair of Bigfoot hunters say they will present what they contend is the most definitive proof yet of an animal that science says does not exist: DNA evidence and photographs of a dead specimen they say they found in a remote swath of woods in northern Georgia. More here.

Update: Surprise! It's a hoax. Reuters is reporting that genetic testing shows the Bigfoot was really a human and an opossum. 

New update: Bigfoot Body Revealed To Be A Rubber Gorilla Suit.

Richard Brooks of Greenpeace Canada makes the list for the 50 Most Influential People in Pulp and Paper Today, according to RISI. Here's what they had to say about Richard:

14. Richard Brooks, Greenpeace

A group of citizens came together in 1971 to create Greenpeace. Their mission was to protest US nuclear testing off the coast of Alaska. These activists made history by bringing worldwide attention to the dangers of nuclear testing. The focus of the organization has now turned to other environmental issues, including targeting Kimberly Clark for their unwillingness to create a fiber policy that increases the use of recycled fiber. Richard Brooks is the coordinator of Greenpeace’s forest campaign in Canada, which aims to preserve intact forest areas, implement sustainable forestry and transform the forest products industry. He and his team have leveraged Greenpeace’s unique brand of markets mobilization and direct action campaigning to pressure some of the largest forest product companies in the world. Richard has brought international attention to the globally important Boreal Forest and the role that the pulp and paper sector plays in deciding its future.

Congrats, Richard.

--DJK

 

 

 

 

 

 

Think the Bush Adminstration is connected to Big Oil? This is real, by the way.