World Warming

7 years to climate midnight

2008-09-09T21:08:00.004-06:00

Commentary by Carlos Pascual and Strobe Talbott

The world may have only seven years to start reducing the annual buildup in green house gas emissions that otherwise threatens global catastrophe within several decades. That means that between Inauguration Day in January 2009 and 2015, either John McCain or Barack Obama will face the most momentous political challenge of all time.

Reflecting a consensus of hundreds of scientists around the world, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has affirmed that greenhouse gas emissions are raising the Earth's temperature. The Earth is on a trajectory to warm more than 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit by around mid century. Exceeding that threshold could trigger a series of phenomena: Arable land will turn into desert, higher sea levels will flood coastal areas, and changes in the convection of the oceans will alter currents, such as the Gulf Stream, that determine regional weather patterns.

Manhattan and Florida would be under water, while Nevada would have no water at all. Some Russians quip that they would welcome a more temperate climate, but they would probably be sorry to lose St. Petersburg. Countries such as Bangladesh and Mali do not have the resources to mitigate or even to adapt to the impact of climate change; millions would flee coastal flooding and the desertification of farmlands, creating instant "climate refugees."

The head of the Nobel Prize-winning IPCC, R.K. Pachauri, recently told us: "The cities, power plants and factories we build in the next seven years will shape our climate in mid-century. We have to act now to price carbon and create incentives to change the way we use energy and spread technology - and thereby avert nothing less than an existential threat to civilization."

Urgent and drastic action by the international community is required, and the United States must take the lead.

Americans produce more than four times as much carbon per capita as the Chinese; 12 time as much as Indians; and more than twice as much as citizens of Germany, France, Britain and Japan. Unless the United States acts first, it will have no credibility in persuading other countries to do their share.

To their credit, McCain and Obama support the creation of a cap-and-trade system that would limit national emissions. Trading among firms would put a price on carbon. That is an essential step toward changing industry behavior, encouraging energy conservation and providing an incentive for new technologies. As the most powerful national economy, the United States can set a example for the world in harnessing wind and solar power; "sequestering" (or capturing) carbon from coal plants; and developing cellulosic ethanol and safe civilian nuclear power as alternatives to fossil fuels.

But the domestic obstacles to these and other measures are daunting. While some industries will prosper, other sectors of the economy, especially those that produce or rely on coal, steel and cement, will contract. Electricity prices will increase in the near and middle terms. Many workers and households will need help with the costs of transition.

Coping with the resulting economic and political hardships would be onerous even if the next president inherited forward-looking climate-change policies. But George W. Bush has pursued and "anti-policy," based on a combination of denial, procrastination and backsliding. His successor will have to make up for lost time while also dealing with a half-trillion-dollar federal deficit, a recession and a national housing crunch, a looming health-care crisis, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and diplomatic showdowns with North Korea and Iran.

The winner in November will need all the help he can get - including from his opponent, who will go back to the Senate as a major voice on this and other issues. The next president will also need support from the private sector, nongovernmental organizations academia and - crucially - citizens who recognize the consequences if they do not consent to sacrifices and changes in lifestyle.

Many Americans will accept that logic, and make real changes, only if they believe greenhouse gas emissions will affect them personally. Today's adults, even if they will not be around at mid-century, must think about the fate of their children and grandchildren. Obama can look to his two daughters, and McCain to his four grandchildren. They are among nearly 75 million Americans - and 2.2 billion people worldwide - younger than 18. That generation will be in its 40s or 50s when on of tow things happens: Either the temperature of the planet warms more than 4.5 degrees and vast regions slide toward being uninhabitable, or the wisdom of the next president and his fellow leaders around the world pays off in the ultimate reward - survival.

Al Gore: A Generational Challenge to Repower America

2008-07-23T20:27:00.001-06:00

Ladies and gentlemen:

There are times in the history of our nation when our very way of life depends upon dispelling illusions and awakening to the challenge of a present danger. In such moments, we are called upon to move quickly and boldly to shake off complacency, throw aside old habits and rise, clear-eyed and alert, to the necessity of big changes. Those who, for whatever reason, refuse to do their part must either be persuaded to join the effort or asked to step aside. This is such a moment. The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk. And even more - if more should be required - the future of human civilization is at stake.

I don't remember a time in our country when so many things seemed to be going so wrong simultaneously. Our economy is in terrible shape and getting worse, gasoline prices are increasing dramatically, and so are electricity rates. Jobs are being outsourced. Home mortgages are in trouble. Banks, automobile companies and other institutions we depend upon are under growing pressure. Distinguished senior business leaders are telling us that this is just the beginning unless we find the courage to make some major changes quickly.

The climate crisis, in particular, is getting a lot worse - much more quickly than predicted. Scientists with access to data from Navy submarines traversing underneath the North polar ice cap have warned that there is now a 75 percent chance that within five years the entire ice cap will completely disappear during the summer months. This will further increase the melting pressure on Greenland. According to experts, the Jakobshavn glacier, one of Greenland's largest, is moving at a faster rate than ever before, losing 20 million tons of ice every day, equivalent to the amount of water used every year by the residents of New York City.

Two major studies from military intelligence experts have warned our leaders about the dangerous national security implications of the climate crisis, including the possibility of hundreds of millions of climate refugees destabilizing nations around the world.

Just two days ago, 27 senior statesmen and retired military leaders warned of the national security threat from an "energy tsunami" that would be triggered by a loss of our access to foreign oil. Meanwhile, the war in Iraq continues, and now the war in Afghanistan appears to be getting worse.

And by the way, our weather sure is getting strange, isn't it? There seem to be more tornadoes than in living memory, longer droughts, bigger downpours and record floods. Unprecedented fires are burning in California and elsewhere in the American West. Higher temperatures lead to drier vegetation that makes kindling for mega-fires of the kind that have been raging in Canada, Greece, Russia, China, South America, Australia and Africa. Scientists in the Department of Geophysics and Planetary Science at Tel Aviv University tell us that for every one degree increase in temperature, lightning strikes will go up another 10 percent. And it is lightning, after all, that is principally responsible for igniting the conflagration in California today.

Like a lot of people, it seems to me that all these problems are bigger than any of the solutions that have thus far been proposed for them, and that's been worrying me.

I'm convinced that one reason we've seemed paralyzed in the face of these crises is our tendency to offer old solutions to each crisis separately - without taking the others into account. And these outdated proposals have not only been ineffective - they almost always make the other crises even worse.

Yet when we look at all three of these seemingly intractable challenges at the same time, we can see the common thread running through them, deeply ironic in its simplicity: our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels is at the core of all three of these challenges - the economic, environmental and national security crises.

We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that's got to change.

But if we grab hold of that common thread and pull it hard, all of these complex problems begin to unravel and we will find that we're holding the answer to all of them right in our hand.
The answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels.

In my search for genuinely effective answers to the climate crisis, I have held a series of "solutions summits" with engineers, scientists, and CEOs. In those discussions, one thing has become abundantly clear: when you connect the dots, it turns out that the real solutions to the climate crisis are the very same measures needed to renew our economy and escape the trap of ever-rising energy prices. Moreover, they are also the very same solutions we need to guarantee our national security without having to go to war in the Persian Gulf.

What if we could use fuels that are not expensive, don't cause pollution and are abundantly available right here at home?

We have such fuels. Scientists have confirmed that enough solar energy falls on the surface of the earth every 40 minutes to meet 100 percent of the entire world's energy needs for a full year. Tapping just a small portion of this solar energy could provide all of the electricity America uses.

And enough wind power blows through the Midwest corridor every day to also meet 100 percent of US electricity demand. Geothermal energy, similarly, is capable of providing enormous supplies of electricity for America.

The quickest, cheapest and best way to start using all this renewable energy is in the production of electricity. In fact, we can start right now using solar power, wind power and geothermal power to make electricity for our homes and businesses.

But to make this exciting potential a reality, and truly solve our nation's problems, we need a new start.

That's why I'm proposing today a strategic initiative designed to free us from the crises that are holding us down and to regain control of our own destiny. It's not the only thing we need to do. But this strategic challenge is the lynchpin of a bold new strategy needed to re-power America.

Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years.

This goal is achievable, affordable and transformative. It represents a challenge to all Americans - in every walk of life: to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and to every citizen.

A few years ago, it would not have been possible to issue such a challenge. But here's what's changed: the sharp cost reductions now beginning to take place in solar, wind, and geothermal power - coupled with the recent dramatic price increases for oil and coal - have radically changed the economics of energy.

When I first went to Congress 32 years ago, I listened to experts testify that if oil ever got to $35 a barrel, then renewable sources of energy would become competitive. Well, today, the price of oil is over $135 per barrel. And sure enough, billions of dollars of new investment are flowing into the development of concentrated solar thermal, photovoltaics, windmills, geothermal plants, and a variety of ingenious new ways to improve our efficiency and conserve presently wasted energy.

And as the demand for renewable energy grows, the costs will continue to fall. Let me give you one revealing example: the price of the specialized silicon used to make solar cells was recently as high as $300 per kilogram. But the newest contracts have prices as low as $50 a kilogram.

You know, the same thing happened with computer chips - also made out of silicon. The price paid for the same performance came down by 50 percent every 18 months - year after year, and that's what's happened for 40 years in a row.

To those who argue that we do not yet have the technology to accomplish these results with renewable energy: I ask them to come with me to meet the entrepreneurs who will drive this revolution. I've seen what they are doing and I have no doubt that we can meet this challenge.

To those who say the costs are still too high: I ask them to consider whether the costs of oil and coal will ever stop increasing if we keep relying on quickly depleting energy sources to feed a rapidly growing demand all around the world. When demand for oil and coal increases, their price goes up. When demand for solar cells increases, the price often comes down.

When we send money to foreign countries to buy nearly 70 percent of the oil we use every day, they build new skyscrapers and we lose jobs. When we spend that money building solar arrays and windmills, we build competitive industries and gain jobs here at home.

Of course there are those who will tell us this can't be done. Some of the voices we hear are the defenders of the status quo - the ones with a vested interest in perpetuating the current system, no matter how high a price the rest of us will have to pay. But even those who reap the profits of the carbon age have to recognize the inevitability of its demise. As one OPEC oil minister observed, "The Stone Age didn't end because of a shortage of stones."

To those who say 10 years is not enough time, I respectfully ask them to consider what the world's scientists are telling us about the risks we face if we don't act in 10 years. The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis. When the use of oil and coal goes up, pollution goes up. When the use of solar, wind and geothermal increases, pollution comes down.

To those who say the challenge is not politically viable: I suggest they go before the American people and try to defend the status quo. Then bear witness to the people's appetite for change.

I for one do not believe our country can withstand 10 more years of the status quo. Our families cannot stand 10 more years of gas price increases. Our workers cannot stand 10 more years of job losses and outsourcing of factories. Our economy cannot stand 10 more years of sending $2 billion every 24 hours to foreign countries for oil. And our soldiers and their families cannot take another 10 years of repeated troop deployments to dangerous regions that just happen to have large oil supplies.

What could we do instead for the next 10 years? What should we do during the next 10 years? Some of our greatest accomplishments as a nation have resulted from commitments to reach a goal that fell well beyond the next election: the Marshall Plan, Social Security, the interstate highway system. But a political promise to do something 40 years from now is universally ignored because everyone knows that it's meaningless. Ten years is about the maximum time that we as a nation can hold a steady aim and hit our target.

When President John F. Kennedy challenged our nation to land a man on the moon and bring him back safely in 10 years, many people doubted we could accomplish that goal. But 8 years and 2 months later, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the surface of the moon.

To be sure, reaching the goal of 100 percent renewable and truly clean electricity within 10 years will require us to overcome many obstacles. At present, for example, we do not have a unified national grid that is sufficiently advanced to link the areas where the sun shines and the wind blows to the cities in the East and the West that need the electricity. Our national electric grid is critical infrastructure, as vital to the health and security of our economy as our highways and telecommunication networks. Today, our grids are antiquated, fragile, and vulnerable to cascading failure. Power outages and defects in the current grid system cost US businesses more than $120 billion dollars a year. It has to be upgraded anyway.

We could further increase the value and efficiency of a Unified National Grid by helping our struggling auto giants switch to the manufacture of plug-in electric cars. An electric vehicle fleet would sharply reduce the cost of driving a car, reduce pollution, and increase the flexibility of our electricity grid.

At the same time, of course, we need to greatly improve our commitment to efficiency and conservation. That's the best investment we can make.

America's transition to renewable energy sources must also include adequate provisions to assist those Americans who would unfairly face hardship. For example, we must recognize those who have toiled in dangerous conditions to bring us our present energy supply. We should guarantee good jobs in the fresh air and sunshine for any coal miner displaced by impacts on the coal industry. Every single one of them.

Of course, we could and should speed up this transition by insisting that the price of carbon-based energy include the costs of the environmental damage it causes. I have long supported a sharp reduction in payroll taxes with the difference made up in CO2 taxes. We should tax what we burn, not what we earn. This is the single most important policy change we can make.

In order to foster international cooperation, it is also essential that the United States rejoin the global community and lead efforts to secure an international treaty at Copenhagen in December of next year that includes a cap on CO2 emissions and a global partnership that recognizes the necessity of addressing the threats of extreme poverty and disease as part of the world's agenda for solving the climate crisis.

Of course the greatest obstacle to meeting the challenge of 100 percent renewable electricity in 10 years may be the deep dysfunction of our politics and our self-governing system as it exists today. In recent years, our politics has tended toward incremental proposals made up of small policies designed to avoid offending special interests, alternating with occasional baby steps in the right direction. Our democracy has become sclerotic at a time when these crises require boldness.

It is only a truly dysfunctional system that would buy into the perverse logic that the short-term answer to high gasoline prices is drilling for more oil ten years from now.

Am I the only one who finds it strange that our government so often adopts a so-called solution that has absolutely nothing to do with the problem it is supposed to address? When people rightly complain about higher gasoline prices, we propose to give more money to the oil companies and pretend that they're going to bring gasoline prices down. It will do nothing of the sort, and everyone knows it. If we keep going back to the same policies that have never ever worked in the past and have served only to produce the highest gasoline prices in history alongside the greatest oil company profits in history, nobody should be surprised if we get the same result over and over again. But the Congress may be poised to move in that direction anyway because some of them are being stampeded by lobbyists for special interests that know how to make the system work for them instead of the American people.

If you want to know the truth about gasoline prices, here it is: the exploding demand for oil, especially in places like China, is overwhelming the rate of new discoveries by so much that oil prices are almost certain to continue upward over time no matter what the oil companies promise. And politicians cannot bring gasoline prices down in the short term.

However, there actually is one extremely effective way to bring the costs of driving a car way down within a few short years. The way to bring gas prices down is to end our dependence on oil and use the renewable sources that can give us the equivalent of $1 per gallon gasoline.

Many Americans have begun to wonder whether or not we've simply lost our appetite for bold policy solutions. And folks who claim to know how our system works these days have told us we might as well forget about our political system doing anything bold, especially if it is contrary to the wishes of special interests. And I've got to admit, that sure seems to be the way things have been going. But I've begun to hear different voices in this country from people who are not only tired of baby steps and special interest politics, but are hungry for a new, different and bold approach.

We are on the eve of a presidential election. We are in the midst of an international climate treaty process that will conclude its work before the end of the first year of the new president's term. It is a great error to say that the United States must wait for others to join us in this matter. In fact, we must move first, because that is the key to getting others to follow; and because moving first is in our own national interest.

So I ask you to join with me to call on every candidate, at every level, to accept this challenge - for America to be running on 100 percent zero-carbon electricity in 10 years. It's time for us to move beyond empty rhetoric. We need to act now.

This is a generational moment. A moment when we decide our own path and our collective fate. I'm asking you - each of you - to join me and build this future. Please join the WE campaign at wecansolveit.org.We need you. And we need you now. We're committed to changing not just light bulbs, but laws. And laws will only change with leadership.

On July 16, 1969, the United States of America was finally ready to meet President Kennedy's challenge of landing Americans on the moon. I will never forget standing beside my father a few miles from the launch site, waiting for the giant Saturn 5 rocket to lift Apollo 11 into the sky. I was a young man, 21 years old, who had graduated from college a month before and was enlisting in the United States Army three weeks later.

I will never forget the inspiration of those minutes. The power and the vibration of the giant rocket's engines shook my entire body. As I watched the rocket rise, slowly at first and then with great speed, the sound was deafening. We craned our necks to follow its path until we were looking straight up into the air. And then four days later, I watched along with hundreds of millions of others around the world as Neil Armstrong took one small step to the surface of the moon and changed the history of the human race.

We must now lift our nation to reach another goal that will change history. Our entire civilization depends upon us now embarking on a new journey of exploration and discovery. Our success depends on our willingness as a people to undertake this journey and to complete it within 10 years. Once again, we have an opportunity to take a giant leap for humankind.

Al Gore's Brilliant Acceptance Speech

2007-12-21T23:22:00.000-07:00

Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech

by: Al Gore 10 December 2007

SPEECH BY AL GORE ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE DECEMBER 10, 2007 OSLO, NORWAY

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Honorable members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Excellencies, Ladies and gentlemen.

I have a purpose here today. It is a purpose I have tried to serve for many years. I have prayed that God would show me a way to accomplish it.

Sometimes, without warning, the future knocks on our door with a precious and painful vision of what might be. One hundred and nineteen years ago, a wealthy inventor read his own obituary, mistakenly published years before his death. Wrongly believing the inventor had just died, a newspaper printed a harsh judgment of his life's work, unfairly labeling him "The Merchant of Death" because of his invention - dynamite. Shaken by this condemnation, the inventor made a fateful choice to serve the cause of peace.

Seven years later, Alfred Nobel created this prize and the others that bear his name.

Seven years ago tomorrow, I read my own political obituary in a judgment that seemed to me harsh and mistaken - if not premature. But that unwelcome verdict also brought a precious if painful gift: an opportunity to search for fresh new ways to serve my purpose.

Unexpectedly, that quest has brought me here. Even though I fear my words cannot match this moment, I pray what I am feeling in my heart will be communicated clearly enough that those who hear me will say, "We must act."

The distinguished scientists with whom it is the greatest honor of my life to share this award have laid before us a choice between two different futures - a choice that to my ears echoes the words of an ancient prophet: "Life or death, blessings or curses. Therefore, choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live."

We, the human species, are confronting a planetary emergency - a threat to the survival of our civilization that is gathering ominous and destructive potential even as we gather here. But there is hopeful news as well: we have the ability to solve this crisis and avoid the worst - though not all - of its consequences, if we act boldly, decisively and quickly.

However, despite a growing number of honorable exceptions, too many of the world's leaders are still best described in the words Winston Churchill applied to those who ignored Adolf Hitler's threat: "They go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent."

So today, we dumped another 70 million tons of global-warming pollution into the thin shell of atmosphere surrounding our planet, as if it were an open sewer. And tomorrow, we will dump a slightly larger amount, with the cumulative concentrations now trapping more and more heat from the sun.

As a result, the earth has a fever. And the fever is rising. The experts have told us it is not a passing affliction that will heal by itself. We asked for a second opinion. And a third. And a fourth. And the consistent conclusion, restated with increasing alarm, is that something basic is wrong.

We are what is wrong, and we must make it right.

Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.

Seven years from now.

In the last few months, it has been harder and harder to misinterpret the signs that our world is spinning out of kilter. Major cities in North and South America, Asia and Australia are nearly out of water due to massive droughts and melting glaciers. Desperate farmers are losing their livelihoods. Peoples in the frozen Arctic and on low-lying Pacific islands are planning evacuations of places they have long called home. Unprecedented wildfires have forced a half million people from their homes in one country and caused a national emergency that almost brought down the government in another. Climate refugees have migrated into areas already inhabited by people with different cultures, religions, and traditions, increasing the potential for conflict. Stronger storms in the Pacific and Atlantic have threatened whole cities. Millions have been displaced by massive flooding in South Asia, Mexico, and 18 countries in Africa. As temperature extremes have increased, tens of thousands have lost their lives. We are recklessly burning and clearing our forests and driving more and more species into extinction. The very web of life on which we depend is being ripped and frayed.

We never intended to cause all this destruction, just as Alfred Nobel never intended that dynamite be used for waging war. He had hoped his invention would promote human progress. We shared that same worthy goal when we began burning massive quantities of coal, then oil and methane.

Even in Nobel's time, there were a few warnings of the likely consequences. One of the very first winners of the Prize in chemistry worried that, "We are evaporating our coal mines into the air." After performing 10,000 equations by hand, Svante Arrhenius calculated that the earth's average temperature would increase by many degrees if we doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Seventy years later, my teacher, Roger Revelle, and his colleague, Dave Keeling, began to precisely document the increasing CO2 levels day by day.

But unlike most other forms of pollution, CO2 is invisible, tasteless, and odorless -- which has helped keep the truth about what it is doing to our climate out of sight and out of mind. Moreover, the catastrophe now threatening us is unprecedented - and we often confuse the unprecedented with the improbable.

We also find it hard to imagine making the massive changes that are now necessary to solve the crisis. And when large truths are genuinely inconvenient, whole societies can, at least for a time, ignore them. Yet as George Orwell reminds us: "Sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield."

In the years since this prize was first awarded, the entire relationship between humankind and the earth has been radically transformed. And still, we have remained largely oblivious to the impact of our cumulative actions.

Indeed, without realizing it, we have begun to wage war on the earth itself. Now, we and the earth's climate are locked in a relationship familiar to war planners: "Mutually assured destruction."

Gloomy Cartoon

2007-12-12T17:36:00.000-07:00

Junk the junk mail

2007-08-12T20:52:00.000-06:00

I read this informative article by Alyson Ward of Fort Worth, Texas, this morning in the newspaper and wanted to share it here. I hope it's useful to you as well.

Junk mail. Piles of it. In your mailbox, every day. You don't want it. Most of the time, you didn't ask for it. But when it arrives, you have to "do" something with it.

DIRECT MARKETING MAIL
The direct marketing association maintains lists of addresses for advertising mail. Companies that are DMA members are required to use the "do not mail" lists that purge your name from the system at your request. (Note: this will cost you $1, whether you do it online for by mail.)
Get off the list: www.dmaconsumers.org/consumerassistance.html
Or send you address and request (include $1 check payable to the Direct Marketing Association) to:
Direct Marketing Association
Mail Preference Service
P.O. Box 282
Carmel, NY 10512

as a backup, contact these other big direct-marketing mailers (there is no charge for these):
Donnelly Marketing -- send a removal request to: Opt Out, Donnelly Marketing, Database Operations, 416 S. Bell Ave., Ames, IA 50010. Remember to enclose your full name (including middle initial) and address.
Equifax -- get off the list 800-873-7655
Esperian Marketing Solutions -- get off the list 888-246-2804
Acxiom -- get off the list www.acxiom.com, click "contact us" and select the "U.S. Consumer Opt Out" form.

CREDIT CARD OFFERS
If you're not shopping for a new credit card, opt out of those pre-approved offers. If you don't want them, they're useless -- and they can be a great tool for identity thieves.
Get off the list: go to www.optoutprescreen.com or call 888-567-8688

CATALOGS
Here's the thing about catalogs. Most of the time, you receive them because you have a relationship with that company -- so they didn't purchase your name on a list.
Get off the list: Start by calling the customer service number when you receive a catalog. Have the catalog handy, because you'll probably need information that's on the mailing label.
Abacus Inc. is a company that compiles a database of catalog customers.
Get off the list: got to www.abacus-us.com and click "Privacy." Choose "Opt Out" for a list of instructions.

CHARITIES AND NONPROFITS
You know how it is: You make a donation, and suddenly your box is filled with pleas (and free labels) from a dozen other nonprofits.
Get off the list: When you make a donation, look for a box to check that indicates you don't want your information to be shared or sold. If there's not an option of that sort, then attach a note with your donation:
"Please do not sell, rent, trade or lease my personal information."

CIRCULARS, COUPONS AND FLIERS
A lot of circulars and fliers are addressed to "Resident" or "Occupant." It'll be hard getting rid of these, because even if you opt out, the post office is likely to keep delivering them.
Shopwise mailers are sent out weekly, accompanied by an address card (usually addressed to "current resident") with a photo of a missing child.
Get off the list: For removal from the list for five years, go to http://www.advo.com/consumersupport.html
Val-Pack coupons arrive in a blue envelope, often addressed to "Resident."
Get off the list: www.coxtarget.com (click "Contact us" and follow the link at the bottom to the Mailing Address Removal Request).

SWEEPSTAKES
You may already be a winner.
Get off the list: Contact the following major sweepstakes companies:
Publishers Clearinghouse 800-645-9242
Reader's Digest Sweepstakes 800-310-6261

WHY CAN'T SOMEONE DO IT FOR ME?
Yes, there are companies that offer to help you get a handle on your junk-mail problem. The convenience my be worth the cost to you -- just be sure to read the fine print to find out exactly how much convenience you're promised.
Greendimes.com --- Cost $36 a year. They contact direct-mail companies for you, requesting your removal from marketing lists. For requests that require a signature, you'll get a stack of postcards to sign and pop in the mail. Plus, greendimes will plant one tree on your behalf each month.
41pounds.org --- Cost $41 for five years. This company chose its name because the average person receives 41 pounds of junk mail each year. They vow to stop the majority of it by contacting companies on your behalf. You'll get preaddressed postcards to mail for requests that require signatures. And the company donates more than one-third of your fee to an environmental or community group of your choise.
Stopthejunkmail.com --- Cost $19.95 a year. This company offers you the use of its junk-mail removal software; when you get unwanted mail, you fill out the information and file your removal request through this site. One tree is planted on your behalf when you subscribe.

NEED MORE HELP?
Contact the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse at www.privacyrights.org. This nonprofit group's web site offers plenty of solutions for protecting your privacy and personal information. From the main page, click on "Sample Letters" to find the proper wording for your opt-out requests.

Idaho Global Warming Forum:

2007-07-19T08:06:00.000-06:00

Thursday, July 19, 7-9 p.m. at The Flicks, 646 Fulton St., Boise. The Idaho Conservation League has teamed up with Conservation Voters of Idaho and Boise Mayor Dave Bieter to hold a forum on solutions to Idaho challenges posed by global warming. Free, but RSVP needed.

I have a sitter. I RSVP'd. I'm going. I'll let you know what happens.

Dalai Lama makes case for animal rights at Irwin's zoo

2007-06-14T22:02:00.000-06:00

Beerwah, Australia -- With creatures great and small around him, the Dalai Lama called Wednesday for a halt to lab experiments on animals and made the case for eating only fruits and vegetables -- all at the zoo of the late "Crocodile Hunter" Steve Irwin.

The spiritual head of Tibetan Buddhists delicately handled a Burmese python and petted a koala as he was feted like a rock star at Australia Zoo, speaking int a sold-out crowd of 5,000 at its open-air "Crocoseum."

"Hunting, beef, sheep farms, piggeries, millions, billions, die," the Dalai Lama said. "We can be so cruel to animals."

Experts say global warming is hitting West hard

2007-06-08T20:12:00.000-06:00

Dam operators, water district managers, farmers, conservationists and scientists all predict mounting problems as scarce water supplies dwindle further in an area stretching from the Pacific Northwest to the desert Southwest.

"The warming in the West can now confidently be attributed to rising greenhouse gases and are not explained by any combination of natural factors," said Philip Mote, head of the Climate Impacts Group at the University of Washington.

* Spring snow pack already has declined at nearly 75% of all weather recording stations in Washington, Oregon, and California, and the spring runoff is coming two weeks earlier than in the past.

* Southern California is experiencing its driest year on record, and Lake Mead, which supplies water to large parts of the Southwest, could be empty in 10 years.

* Tens of thousands of irrigated acres will fall out of production as water supplies tighten, and tensions over water supplies will only be exacerbated as the effects of climate change deepen.

What will the impact be on the people of those states? and the United States and World?? How will we supply water to those people? Are there restrictions to wasteful water practices in place? Are there campaigns to educate the public on our most valuable and life giving resource? Are we collecting what excess runoff there may be in reservoirs for safekeeping? By how much will the food supply be depleted when the fields aren't irrigated? How will we supply that food? Where would the most ideal place be to grow food with this projection? For what purpose are/will we using water on fields? We know that it takes 2,500 gallons of water to produce a pound of beef, but only 25 gallons to produce a pound of wheat. Furthermore, the EPA reports that chicken, hog, and cattle excrement have polluted 35,000 miles of rivers in 22 states and contaminated ground water in 17 states. That doesn't seem like a wise use of water to me. Isn't it about time we scrutinize the exorbitant, destructive, greedy, and reckless nature of our nation's consumption of meat? Are our lawmakers talking about this stuff? Are there committees trying to devise a game plan? I am frightened for my girls future, and I am growing ever more frustrated with our lack of leadership.

U.S. cuts efforts to monitor global warming from space

2007-06-05T12:04:00.001-06:00

I'll tell you , I'm really getting fed up with the Bush administration playing Russian roulette with the Earth! Is it 2008 yet?

Bush and his people are drastically scaling back efforts to measure global warming from space, just as the president tries (unsuccessfully) to convince the world the U.S. is ready to take the lead in reducing green-house gases.

A confidential report to the White House, obtained by The Associated Press, warns that downsizing a satellite program will cause U.S. scientists to soon lose much of their ability to monitor warming from space.

The Dec. 11 report by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says that 7 separate climate sensors are being eliminated or substantially downgraded to save money. (No doubt that money will be used for Bush's war) Those sensors are needed to collect precise data over long periods.

Rick Piltz, director of Climate Science Watch, a watchdog program of the Washington-based Government Accountability Project, called the situation a crisis. "We're going to start being blinded in our ability to observe the planet," Said Piltz. "It's criminal negligence, and the leaders in the climate science community are ringing the alarm bells on this crisis."

Last week, the president proposed the idea of the 15 largest global-warming polluters - the U.S. is the largest, followed closely by China - meeting to set goals for fixing the problem while leaving it up to each nation just how to do it. Another rotton Bush idea!

I'm angry at Bush for being so damn reckless and destructive -- with the environment, and with his war. I'm looking for a big change, and I hope the Democratic candidates are not distracted into debating Bush's war the whole campaign. I'm looking for somebody to take a stand on global warming.

United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report Predicts 3 Degrees Centigrade of Global Warming This Century

2007-04-07T14:46:00.000-06:00

A new global warming report issued Friday by the UN paints a gloomy picture: more than 1 billion people in desperate need of water, extreme food shortages in Africa, a blighted landscape ravaged by fires and floods, and millions of species becoming extinct.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has appealed to all nations to make "decisive efforts" to alleviate the consequences of global warming. As we all know, the report released in Brussels by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), stated that warmer global temperatures have been causing profound changes in earth's natural systems. UN Secretary-General Ban stated concern that climatic changes are increasingly noticeable, and they likely to become more noticeable in the future, as extreme weather events intensify.

The earth is likely to warm by 3 degrees centigrade during this century, a temperature that would have largely negative consequences for biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services, such as water and food supply, and extinction of species appears to be increasingly at risk where there are global average temperature changes in that temperature range.

Also, springtime run-off and glacier discharge results in an early spring, which causes vegetation to green earlier. Plant and animal species are shifting to higher altitudes. Although the report, to my knowledge, did not mention bees, it's interesting that the bees have basically disappeared this year from North America. The IPCC predicts that by mid-century, the annual average river runoff and water availability will increase by 10-40 per cent at high latitudes and in some wet tropical areas, while decreasing by 10-30 per cent in some dry regions at mid-latitudes and in the dry tropics. Also, instances of draught are to increase, as well as reduced water availability for regions using glacier-fed rivers for drinking water (which is about 1/6 of the world's population).

San Francisco bans plastic bags!!

2007-03-29T08:22:00.000-06:00

Paper or plastic? Not anymore in San Francisco. The better option is canvas bags.

The city's Board of Supervisors approved groundbreaking legislation Tuesday to outlaw plastic checkout bags at large supermarkets in about six months and large chain pharmacies in about a year.

The ordinance, sponsored by Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, is the first such law in any city in the United States and has been drawing global attention this week. Mirkarimi calls plastic bags a 'relic of the past' and hopes other cities will follow suit.

Made of filmy plastic, the bags are hard to recycle and easily blow into trees and waterways, where they are blamed for killing marine life. They also occupy much-needed landfill space.

San Francisco will join a number of countries, such as Ireland, that already have outlawed plastic bags or have levied a tax on them.

BRAVO, San Francisco!

The Poop on Poop -- What do you think?

2006-09-18T00:17:00.000-06:00

Photo By Jo-Anne McArthur

THE POOP ON POOP

DOG OWNERS WHO WON'T STOOP AND SCOOP, AND A CITY WITHOUT THE CASH OR THE COURAGE TO PROTECT US FROM THE HEALTH HAZARDS &NDASH; WHAT A MESS WE'RE IN.

The raw numbers

Number of dogs in Toronto

• City officials say about 60,000, but they admit the actual number is closer to 180,000.

Amount of dog feces that makes its way into our waste water stream every year

• Difficult to say, but samples taken from storm water by the city are heavily contaminated with E. coli bacteria, and it's not just human poop.

• Do the math: most dogs do their business twice a day, for a total of 360,000 piles of poop a day, and a whopping 131,400,000 turds in a year. Bow wow!

What the city's animal control bylaw says

• "Every owner of a dog shall immediately remove excrement left by the dog on property anywhere in the city."

The ugly reality

• The bylaw is rarely, if ever, enforced.

• The city doesn't clean up turds left on sidewalks or streets.

Clear indications that the problem of dog excrement is getting out of control

• Many neighbourhoods must hold dog poop cleaning "parties" in spring.

• Been to any of the leash-free parks after a good snow melt?

Steps the city is taking to control the poop problem

• Allowing dumping of animal feces in compost bins, currently up and running in Etobicoke and Scarborough and slated to go citywide by fall 2005.

The one saving grace – sort of – in this messy scenario

• Most dog owners pick up after their pets, but the stuff ends up in plastic bags in landfill, which isn't the best alternative, since pet waste is wet and creates a greater risk of landfill leakage and toxic releases.

A better alternative for poop-conscious dog owners

• Flushing the doo down the toilet so it gets treated.

• How about flashlights and glow-in-the-dark leashes so poop Fido does in the dark doesn't get lost and left there?

What other cities are doing

• In Paris, motorcycles equipped with vacuum cleaners collect canine droppings.

• Closer to home, in Mississauga, local residents committees manage and maintain four off-leash areas through an annual $20 fee per dog as a way of encouraging stoop-and-scoop.

What's saving Toronto from an even bigger pooch poop problem

• The fact that we have more green space for animals to romp in than other cities our size – 1,000 parks, 29 off-leash parks among them.

What's threatening to make the problem worse

• Intensification in the downtown core will mean more people, more dogs and more poop.

What animal rights activists say the city should be doing

• Encourage licensing of all animals (right now, only about 50 to 60 per cent of canines are registered with the city) and use the money from licensing fees to fund stoop-and-scoop programs like the one in pre-amalgamation Toronto that employed students to hang out in parks and hand out poop bags and dog leashes.

If environmentalists had their druthers

• All pet waste would be taken away for composting, but few facilities currently possess the technology to kill harmful pathogens in the waste.

What the experts say

"Municipal stoop-and-scoop laws are a top-10 consideration when it comes to protecting water quality."

Toronto Environmental Alliance executive director Shelley Petrie

"We always hope that the good nature of pet owners is going to look after the issue." Works department spokesperson Stephen Johnson

"Maybe we need to better impress upon people that aside from the fact that there's an aesthetic issue, there's a human health issue and water quality component. What flows into those roadside grates flows directly to the lake or the river. I think the average person on the street thinks it gets treated at a sewage plant. When it's all said and done, our drinking water comes from the lake that all this stuff flows into."

Michael D'Andrea, manager, Toronto waste and emergency services

"I can't believe dog poop is a real environmental issue when you consider all the chemicals we dump in our lakes and rivers. The real eco problem is the plastic bags used to pick the waste up."

Liz White, executive director, Animal Alliance of Canada

Mayor's Climate Pact

2006-08-17T16:48:00.000-06:00

Yesterday, my mayor supposedly signed the U.S. Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement (Though there wasn't a peep of it in today's paper.... Might help to mention that I live in a gun-toting/hunting/red-neck, Republican state) If it actually happened, then he'd be the 280th in the nation to sign the agreement designed to reverse global warming.

This is the Mayor's big quote in the paper yesterday: "Even if non-human factors are involved, addressing human emission sources is most within our control and thus provides the best opportunity to address the problem." What is your reaction to this mamby-pamby quote?

Anyhow, my city's goals are:

1. Try to reduce greenhouse gases by 7 percent by 2012 from 1990 levels. (Don't set your sights too high now!)

2. Urge the state and FEDERAL governments to meet a similar goal. (Think this is as important as Terrorism? hmmm....tough question, let me talk to my advisors)

3. Advocate a federal emissions-trading program aimed at reducing greenhouse gases.

The scientists say this about my city, "Climate change has made the snow melt and run into rivers earlier, reduced hydroelectric generation, and increased the size and frequency of forest fires."

That's for sure. I've lived here most of my life, and I can tell you there has been an indisputably significant climate change. BIG time. I remember several "snow days" in the winter months where the school busses couldn't get through even if they really HAD to. Giant snow drifts as tall as me along the road side once the plow finally came through. Always carrying giant bags of rock salt in my trunk just in case I had to melt some snow & also to weigh it down in the back. We built an igloo in our backyard January 1974 because there was sooo much snow in our backyard -- the snow didn't melt right away -- it stayed for weeks or months. Winter was White. No more. Nope, even if it does snow, it melts before the day is over. I shudder to think what this world will be like for my young girls if this dramatic trend continues at this rate, or God forbid, at a faster rate.

Has your mayor signed?

Pat on the Back for Lucy's (& like-minded coffee shops)

2006-08-11T17:14:00.000-06:00

Local gardeners can get grounds from Lucy's (near BSU) to mulch and compost. Stevens (the owner) saves all the used grounds -- which usually fills up a five-gallon bucket in just two or three days -- until a customer picks them up. "I had to do it because I really feel strongly about it," he said.

Tips on Gardening with Coffee Grounds:

Use up to three cups of coffee grounds per plant. Azaleas, rhododendrons, blueberries, dogwoods and conifers benefit the most from adding coffee grounds to the soil.

Using coffee grounds also will turn your hydrangeas blue because they are pH sensitive for bloom color

Use coffee grounds on top of the soil in the form of a mulch. Mix it with something like shredded leaves or pine needles so it won't mat.

When planting, place grounds in the bottom of the hole to give the plant an immediate boost.
(source: Edwards Greenhouses)

I want to ride my bicycle, I want to ride my bike, I want to ride my bicycle, I want to ride it where I like

2006-08-04T19:20:00.000-06:00

We used the bicycle trailer for the second time yesterday, and we loved it! The girls enjoyed the breeze, view, and adventure. I liked passing cars, not looking for parking spaces, the exercise, feeling of freedom, and knowing that there was one less car on the road. This is actually my neighbor's trailer. She is loaning it to me while she is pregnant and unable to use it herself. Nice huh? I've been wanting to do this for such a long time, but the girls just weren't old enough. If you're looking to get one, may I suggest Craig's List.

In "An Inconvenient Truth" on page 311, it states:

The average car in the United States releases about one pound of carbon dioxide for every mile driven. Avoiding just 20 miles of driving per week would eliminate about 1,000 pounds of CO2 emissions per year.

Perhaps we could learn to get around on less. Reduce the number of miles we drive by walking, biking, carpooling, or taking mass transportation whenever possible.
My goal is to use the bicycle trailer for going to the park, library, destination picnics, the discovery center, zoo, & museum. Basically, anytime that I don't need to go a long distance, or need to carry things back (like groceries), or when time isn't of the essence (pre-planning helps here).
Link here for better biking conditions.

Link here for a free national service to coordinate your travels with other commuters.

Link about how to use & support the expansion of mass transit.

Link for advice on how to lobby for better pedistrian conditions.

From reading other blogs, I know that many others ride their bikes for pleasure and transpo. Do you have any tricks of the trade to share? Anybody else use one of these child chariots?

The Planetary Emergency Of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It

2006-08-02T09:49:00.000-06:00

Back Cover:

Our climate crisis may at times appear to be happening slowly, but in fact it is happening very quickly - and has become a true planetary emergency. The Chinese expression for crisis consists of two characters. The first is a symbol for danger; the second is a symbol for opportunity. In order to face down the danger that is stalking us and move through it, we first have to recognize that we are facing a crisis. So why is it that our leaders seem not to hear such clarion warnings? Are they resisting the truth because they know that the moment they acknowledge it, they will face a moral imperative to act? Is it simply more convenient to ignore the warnings?

Perhap, but inconvenient truths do not go away just because they are not seen. Indeed, when they are not responded to, their significance doesn't diminish; it grows.

See the movie. Buy the book.

Bush bypassed for global warming talk

2006-08-01T15:42:00.000-06:00

California governor, British prime minister call for collaboration on research

Long Beach, CA --- British Prime Minister Tony Blair and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced an agreement yesterday to bypass the Bush administration and work together to explore ways to fight global warming.

Global Warming is "long-term, the single biggest issue we face," Blair said. Arnold added later in a statement that "California will not wait for our federal government to take strong action on global warming."

Environmental groups questioned the value of the agreement, calling it little more than a symbolic gesture. Schwarzenegger, a Republican in a mostly Democratic California, has been trying to distance himself from Bush administration.

Craig Noble of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that "the time for talk is over. The bottom line is, voluntary is not enough, promises to do something about global warming are nothing more than a lot of hot air."

Bag Lady

2006-07-25T23:24:00.000-06:00

Meet my canvas bags. I love my canvas bags because they are so handy, durable, and personally mine. I use them all the time, and I try to keep them in the car so they are ready to hold everything. We use them at the grocery store, farmer's market, garage sales, in lieu of a diaper bag for adventures, for anything & everything. You can buy some fancy-schmancy bags that might be more your style at Reusable Bags, and gain some great information like a form letter you could send to your government officials to implement a plastic bag consumption tax.

Here's my bag line-up:

Free w/membership

Free w/membership

Teacher's Goodie Bag

Left behind by a 6th grader

Promo @ The Body Shop

Free w/membership

Book of the Month Club

Gift Bag

Art's Tour

Free w/membership

Garage Sale find .50

Free @ birthing class

Giant Ikea Bag, which holds all the above bags.

Box of bags & Bag of bags

But look at the last picture. Even though I'm very diligent at always using canvas bags, you can see that I have a brown paper bag filled with other paper bags, and an old kitchen bag box filled to the brim with plastic grocery bags. BAGS! Ughh, we still end up with too many bags. If I forget a bag at the store, I always refuse one of theirs and just carry the items in hand. Most of the time the checker is shocked, "Are you SURE you don't want a bag for that?" And unless I've bought a bunch of little dibble dobbles, "I'm sure". We reuse the plastic bags to pick up Jolie's poop when we're out & about - otherwise a shovel works just fine; and we use the paper bags over & over again.

My Bag Goals:

1. Send a copy of this letter to my appropriate government officials concerning a plastic bag consumption tax, and to follow up as needed.

2. Redouble my efforts in not accepting bags of any kind. Be like a boy scout and always be prepared.

Check this out, in "An Inconvenient Truth," Gore states: An estimated 500 billion to one trillion plastic bags are consumed world-wide every year. In the U.S. alone, an estimated 12,000,000 barrels of oil are required to produce the 100 billion consumed annually. Furthermore, paper bags are no better than plastic. Paper bag production delivers a global warming double-whammy -- forests (major absorbers of greenhouse gases) have to be cut down, and then the subsequent manufacturing of bags produces greenhouse gases. In short, carry a reusable bag and when asked paper or plastic, say neither... (pgs. 315-316).

I don't know about you, but those are C R A Z Y numbers to me. This is consumerism gone umuck. Aren't disposible bags exorbitant?

Can we talk about what's really on my mind?

2006-07-25T22:31:00.000-06:00

"An Inconvenient Truth" Since seeing it (07/08/06), I haven't been the same. At times, I've felt angry, depressed, scared, highly motivated, protective, frustrated, and paralyzed with fear. My thoughts wander to Global Warming and what the future holds for my two young girls and the rest of life on this planet. Sometimes, I cry and it's as if I'm already mourning the devastation of Earth - it's not hard to project into the future given our current impact. Something has got to give. I must to do something with this steam, and in this blog, I will journal my fight against Global Warming.