 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In one small step for mankind, several CEOs have formed a group called the US Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), which has advised the President: We can and must take prompt action to establish a coordinated, economy-wide market-driven approach to climate protection. In other words, Mr. President, please tell us we have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 60% by 2050. Yes, that is the group's goal, but it appears the first item on the agenda is to get the government to tell them to do it. Huh? I know, I'm not naive. The forward-thinking men who came together to form USCAP have serious concerns regarding global warming and they have to worry about competition. It's a dog-eat-dog world, after all, and the first one to lower emissions is wearing milkbone underwear*. So where does that leave the environmentally concerned citizens of the world? We're left with the most polluting country governed by a President who is finally willing to legislate increased use of alternative fuels, but makes the choice all about terrorism, with a single reference to environmental stewardship and "global climate change" embedded in the last of six paragraphs on the subject of energy. We have a business class that wants the President to tell them to reduce their emissions, rather than forge ahead on their own. And we have a population at large that appears to be too busy with the demands of every day life to make significant changes. There are, of course, exceptions to all of these cases. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has really worked herself into a frenzy, becoming a whirlwind of legislative activity. Ray Anderson and hundreds of other business owners and executives have made large and small adjustments in the way that they do business. And, of course, citizens everywhere are altering their lives, some in the extreme. The bottom line: while the big-wigs argue over who should take the first step into sustainability, many people are finding ways to make changes in their own lives and businesses. Hopefully, we'll soon reach a point when the sum of these changes causes a significant reduction in greenhouse gasses. In the meantime, keep your fingers crossed and stay out of the car as much as possible! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ *With all due apologies to Norm: WOODY: How's it going Mr. Peterson? NORM : It's a dog eat dog world out there, Woody, and I'm wearing milkbone underwear. Tags: alternatives, carbon, politics
Current Mood:  hopeful
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After several months of no action on this blog, I went all out and did a (very brief) presentation at last night's fundraiser for The Women's Mosaic. My subject was the same as the title of this blog post - Living the Green Life in NYC. In light of this being my first speaking engagement on the subject, the evening went rather well. At least, everyone who commented told me that it went well. The event itself was well-organized and successful. The vendors had beautiful wares - homemade organic body mousse from Gahlou Wellness, LLC, knitwear, pillows, biscotti (that didn't break your teeth!), and more. One vendor's work really caught my attention. Joan Huggard produces stained glass designs and had quite a few photo-based works that were truly worthy of being called art. She expects her new website, displaying her photo-based art, to be operational by the end of January.
Speakers informed us about many feminine topics, it being a fundraiser for The Women's Mosaic, after all. PMS and the Vagina Festival were both covered, as were holistic health, emotional finances, why *not* to pay for PR, empowerment, and living green in NYC. It was a great night!
Next time, I'll post before I speak. Tags: collaborate, public speaking, the women's mosaic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article linked below discusses a carbon cap & trade program being considered in England. The difference between this program and others that have been proposed/implemented around the globe is that it is traded at the individual level, rather than at the corporate level. Here is an example of how this could work: Johnny and Juanita each get a "carbon credit card" with online access to their balance and eBay style trading websites. Let's say each card comes with 15 tons of CO2 emissions per year. Every time they purchase something with a measurable CO2 output (ie, groceries, gasoline, clothing, etc), they pay with their bank card or cash, then swipe their carbon card to cover their emissions. Johnny drives and flies a lot for his job, so he is responsible for 25 tons of CO2 output each year.
Juanita, on the other hand, works from home and rides her bike to run errands. When she needs to travel further than her bike will take her, she uses public transit. She also has 100% renewable energy sources for her home. Juanita's total CO2 output is closer to 10 tons of CO2 emissions because she flies from coast to coast a few times a year for work, and occasionally takes a taxi. Using the carbon trading website of her choice, Juanita can now go online to sell Johnny her 5 extra annual tons of CO2 output. Johnny will need to find another person willing to sell him 5 tons of credit to make up his total output of 25 tons. Executing this type of plan at the individual level (rather than corporate or governmental) introduces more complexity to the process, but could be a strong motivator for folks who are currently not paying any attention to their footprint. This motivation would not only be to reduce their own direct CO2 output (ie, via travel, home heating/electricity, etc), but also to encourage stores and business to stock low-carbon products on their shelves. How would this be enforced? Well ... if you run out of credits on your carbon card, you can't purchase whatever it is you're trying to buy. Or, if you absolutely must have the product (up to the consumer's discretion), a CO2 surcharge can be added to your purchase. This would provide incentives not only to monitor and maintain CO2 levels, but also to reduce, reduce, reduce as much as possible. Any CO2 surcharge collected directly by merchants (ie, not part of the personal cap and trade program) could be put to use developing renewable infrastructure, training businesses how to reduce their output, etc. In the scenario above, for example, Johnny could purchase a vehicle with reduced CO2 output (ethanol, hybrid, etc), since most of his output is from transportation. Juanita could reduce her footprint further by signing up with zipcar and using a hybrid vehicle when she requires use of a car. As a result of the market shift away from carbon emissions, sustainably developed products would gain market share, potentially reducing cost to consumers. In other words, poor people would not be forced to bear the burden of this transition. I know this program is unlikely to take off, even in the UK, but I am optimistic. If elected officials are making these suggestions, then the road ahead will (hopefully) be easier than it has been thus far. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6167671.stmTags: alternatives, cap and trade, carbon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a sixth grader, I was interested in saving the environment. When our GATE teacher asked us, "If you could stop one thing in the world, what would it be?" some children answered along the lines of changing or eliminating their bedtime. I replied that I would stop offshore oil drilling because oil spills were slowly causing animals to become extinct.
I included some misguided logic in my argument, ("We could buy oil from other countries and pay the same amount or even less than we do now"), and I was pessimistic regarding the outcome, ("Companies would go out of business"), but my heart was in the right place.
Having now exposed myself to data that is more accurate, I am heartened to realize that moving away from oil does not necessarily mean the global economy will come plummeting down. In fact, moving away from oil may be the key to *avoiding* a global market crash. Trouble is, we need to convince the big corporations (and, yes, the small mom and pop shops) to "go green": explore sustainable methods of development, make the switch to renewable energy sources, consider the costs of environmental degradation/cleanup when reporting profits to shareholders, etc, etc.
For this writer there are two primary goals involved, which are best reached consecutively:
1. Corporations need a financial plan to modify infrastructure and production methods. Being sustainable requires less energy and fewer raw supplies. By definition, operations should be less expensive - after the initial capital outlay to upgrade equipment and facilities, and to train employees.
2. Consumers need to demand green goods. There is still a bias against organic food in American supermarkets. Many people still consider recycled paper to be of lesser quality despite great advances in its production. These are two easy examples of cultural perceptions that need to change. In today's media-saturated environment, advertising must be the way to go. Once consumers begin demanding sustainable goods on a large scale, corporations will be jumping all over themselves to fill the growing gap. There's money to be made! Those corporations and private entities that have a plan ... will have a huge advantage over those who continue with business as usual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
