What happens when California’s landmark legislation to address global climate change meets green digital media? Find out at the next BREATHE LA Green Salon panel — titled “AB 32.0 and the Rise of Green Digital Media” — on which I’ll be a panelist!

When: Tues., March 16, 9 am – 10:30 am
Where: California Endowment Center, 1000 N. Alameda St., Los Angeles
Cost: Free with RSVP

The other panelists are Fuel’s Josh Tickell, Jennifer Gooding of EcoTuesday, Nicole Hansen of The Green Blog Network, and CEO of Veggie Van Organization Rebecca Harnell. Ray Gonzales, BREATHE LA Board Member and former Channel 5 KTLA host, will moderate.

I hope to see you there! Coffee and a light breakfast will be served to sweeten and caffeinate the discussion.

BREATHE LA’s a local environmental nonprofit that works to improve air quality and lung health in Los Angeles. This panel will be the first of of five in Breathe LA’s series of panels dubbed “Green Streets of LA,” which explore “how our community is rising up to address sustainable solutions as they relate to California’s landmark legislation, AB 32 Global Warming Act.” Future panels will discuss greening everything from the ports to hospitals.

Image via BREATHE LA

0 Comments

You voted for them — or voted against them only to see them get elected anyway. Either way, since they took office, your members of Congress have been voting for or against the environment in Washington D.C.

Now, your members of Congress are getting graded on their eco votes by the League of Conservation Voters. Yesterday, the LCV released its 2009 National Environmental Scorecard, revealing scores in the first session of the 111th Congress.

How were the senators and House members graded? The League looked at 11 Senate and 13 House votes on environmental issues like clean energy, climate change, and water and wildlife conservation. When your elected official voted on the side of the environment, their scores went up. When they didn’t, scores dropped.

I feel pretty lucky: Both my California senators, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, and my Representative Henry Waxman, earned perfect 100% scores in 2009. Many members of Congress, however, scored a lot lower — with quite a few, including 9 Californian members of the House — scoring a 0%.

Find out how your members of Congress scored by checking the Scorecard.

0 Comments

>> First, for alt fuel newbies unclear as to what’s wrong with corn ethanol exactly: Catch up by reading an oldie but a goodie — Rolling Stone’s “The Ethanol Scam: One of America’s Biggest Political Boondoggles.” You can also watch Fuel – or read my review.

>> Now that you know the environmental and farming-related problems behind ethanol, you might understand why a Cali regional panel doesn’t want more ethanol fueling stations. The Southern California Association of Governments “turned down nearly $11 million in federal stimulus dollars targeted to build 55 ethanol fueling stations across Southern California.” This issue’s still a somewhat controversial one among environmentalists though.

>> The current debate over fuels in California has a lot to do with our tough global warming mitigation law, a.k.a. AB 32, and how best to meet its requirements. That law is under attack, by the way — by a group that wants to block it from being implemented until California’s unemployment drops below 5.5% for four consecutive quarters. Despite the fact that such a move would block efforts to create new green jobs, the anti AB 32-ers wanted to put it on the ballot as “California Jobs Initiative.” California Attorney General Jerry Brown renamed it “Suspends air pollution control laws requiring major polluters to report and reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.” Yay Jerry!

>> Unfortunately, the U.S. EPA’s embraced ethanol — as well as “clean coal” and nuclear power. Writes Tom Philpott at Grist: “The Obama EPA has signed off on the absurd, abysmal Renewable Fuel Standard established under Bush a couple of years ago—ensuring that farmers will continue to devote vast swaths of land to GHG-intensive corn, of which huge portion of will ultimately be set aflame to power cars—but not before being transformed into liquid fuel in an energy-intensive process.”

Image via thefuelfilm.com

0 Comments

>> L.A. got a new medical marijuana shop law. “The ordinance caps the number of dispensaries at 70 and creates a buffer zone around schools and places of worship.” It’ll be at least 45 days before the new rules will start being enforced.

>> Vaccines and autism aren’t linked — and a 12-year-old paper linking the two was formally retracted by the medical journal the Lancet. Slate republishes an article about why the myth that vaccines can cause autism lives on; NPR has an interview with risk consultant David Ropeik discussing how the risk of vaccines got so overblown.

>> Relatedly, Wired published a great feature piece a few months back: An Epidemic of Fear: How Panicked Parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All.

>> Can a heroin maintenance program work for addicts? Vancouver’s experiment sounds promising: “88 percent of the heroin maintenance group stayed on their course of treatment, versus 54 percent in the methadone group.” Why this news should be interesting to non heroin addicts: “An untreated heroin addict costs the state $45,000 a year in legal and medical bills; heroin maintenance costs $7,000.”

Questions remain, though, about whether other programs might be safer or more effective, or whether this program is flawed because it doesn’t actually get addicts unaddicted.

Photo by Anthony Citrano

1 Comments

>> Controversial Whole Foods founder John Mackey’s no longer the chairman of the company’s board — though he’s still on the board and continues to be the CEO of the company.

>> In case you forgot, John Mackey wrote an anti health care reform editorial in the Wall Street Journal, arguing that health care — and even food and shelter — are commodities people shouldn’t feel they have a right to.

>> Despite John Mackey’s views on health care and seeming skepticism that global climate change is indeed happening, the guy’s resignation isn’t exactly cause for rejoicing, Tom Philpott points out at Grist:

The investors now taking control of Whole Foods are likely more interested in the money than in the good. When profits falter, the “power of conscious capitalism” (the subtitle of Mackey’s book) succumbs to the power of unfettered capitalism. If I were a Whole Foods “team member,” I’d be seriously considering starting a union to protect wages and benefits. And as a backup plan, I’d be agitating for universal health care.

>> Did you know John Mackey’s tried “a therapeutic session of holotropic breathing” and followed the very veg Engine 2 Diet? A long profile on the guy in The New Yorker tells you more about the guy than you probably ever wanted to know: “The right-wing hippie is a rare bird, and it’s fair to say that most of Whole Foods’ shoppers have trouble conceiving of it.”

Earlier: Whole Foods to do more fair trade

Logo via Whole Foods

0 Comments

The Copenhagen Climate Talks closed last week with the sinking hopes of many enviro-groups who, expectedly, called the summit a failure — and with a “sinking” mural by world-renowned graffiti artist Banksy.

“I don’t believe in global warming,” reads Banksy’s new mural — with the bottoms of the letters painted below the water, as if sinking in disbelief. That message is one of four new Banksy works painted on the Regent’s Canal in Camden, north London, according to the BBC. (via Social Vibe)

Not sure what exactly went down in Copenhagen? Fellow MNN blogger Karl Burkhart’s post has skinny on the Copenhagen Accord, the non legally or politically binding agreement with no real timeline many enviro groups are upset about.

But don’t despair — The fight isn’t over yet. Ken Ward at Grist notes that although the Copenhagen Accord is basically “utterly useless language, unenthusiastically scrabbled together in hours by 5 out of 192 nations,” a few good things basically came out of it — namely, global acceptance of the fact of global warming, and the fear and clarity that we really need to start working to mitigate global climate change. NRDC’s Jake Schmidt is hopeful that the Accord will be “further fleshed out in the coming months.” And Geoffrey Lean of London’s Daily Telegraph goes so far as to outline 7 steps that need to be taken as we work toward a real, binding international climate deal.

Sign up at 350.org to stay on top of the news and keep fighting for a fair, ambitious and legally binding agreement.

Earlier:
>> Stay an eco-activist after Blogger Beach Cleanup — and the Copenhagen Accord
>> Disillusioned in but hopeful after Copenhagen
>> Californians in Copenhagen

Photo by unusualimage

0 Comments

Here’s what Californians are doing at the Copenhagen Climate Summit, which is now in its second and final week:

>> Cali Governor Schwarzenegger spoke to the crowd at Copenhagen, urging the U.N. to host a climate summit not for countries, but for cities, states, provinces, and regions. And he’d like said summit to happen in California.

>> Grist’s Amanda Little calls Schwarzenegger’s comments “a shockingly defeatist speech tricked out with sunny language about private-sector innovation”:

In an attempt to raise spirits, the Governator lowered expectations: failing in Copenhagen won’t discredit all the amazing progress that’s happening at state and local levels…. For a guy who was introduced by Canadian premier Gordon Campbell as “a climate action hero for the globe,” the Governor’s comments reflect staggeringly low expectations for the officials at Copenhagen.

>> The L.A. Times reports that Copenhagen’s full of “hundreds, if not thousands, of Californians — the governor, as well as the mayor of Los Angeles, academic superstars and green tech gurus, environmentalists and college students”:

None of the Californians, however, are involved in the actual negotiations: Those are led by diplomats behind closed doors…. But that’s not the point. At hundreds of side panels, conferences, receptions, and exhibits, everyone who is anyone in the world of carbon control gets a chance to rub shoulders with other players.

Earlier: Disillusioned in but hopeful after Copenhagen

0 Comments

The general consensus among the respected enviro experts seems to be that the negotiations in Copenhagen won’t actually save us from climate disaster — but that there’s reason to be hopeful post-Copenhagen.

>> Why are Copenhagen negotiations flawed? As 350.org founder Bill McKibben pointed out, the nations are negotiating a political deal for a middle-of-the-road consensus — that’s likely to fall far short of what science demands as a response to global climate change.

>> Climate scientist James Hansen agrees, going so far as to say that it’d be better if Copenhagen climate talks collapsed, because a half-assed agreement would give the false impression that we’ve “solved” a problem. (via Good Human)

James Hansen, the world’s pre-eminent climate scientist, said any agreement likely to emerge from the negotiations would be so deeply flawed that it would be better to start again from scratch.

In Hansen’s view, dealing with climate change allows no room for the compromises that rule the world of elected politics. “This is analagous to the issue of slavery faced by Abraham Lincoln or the issue of Nazism faced by Winston Churchill,” he said. “On those kind of issues you cannot compromise. You can’t say let’s reduce slavery, let’s find a compromise and reduce it 50% or reduce it 40%.”

>> No Logo author Naomi Klein also agrees that there’s little hope in Copenhagen. In an interview with UpTakeVideo, Naomi says the official negotiations at the conference “creates an illusion of having addressed a dire crisis” that has yet to be adequately addressed.

She does sound optimistic about what activists will demand from their governments post-Copenhagen, pointing out that since economic and trade policy groups are now also working on environmental issues due to sheer necessity, the numbers of people pushing for change have automatically doubled.

>> On a slightly more optimistic note, Geoffrey Lean points out in Grist that countries are making emissions cutting pledges that far surpass past expectations. Of course, “the pledges do not yet add up to enough to avert dangerous climate change.” Hmmm….

What’s clear is that the fight to avert climate change won’t even come close to ending with Copenhagen, regardless of whether or not the negotiations are declared a “success.”

4 Comments

>> The climate talks will be a disaster, says 350.org founder Bill McKibben — if we negotiate in the politics-as-usual manner instead of the physics-doesn’t-lie manner:

What I’m saying is: even the best politicians are treating the problem of climate change as a normal political one, where you halve the distance between various competing interests and do your best to reach some kind of consensus that doesn’t demand too much of anyone, yet reduces the political pressure for a few years — at which time, of course, you (or possibly someone entirely different) will have to deal with it again….

Physics has set an immutable bottom line on life as we know it on this planet…. And here’s the thing: physics doesn’t just impose a bottom line, it imposes a time limit…. It’s like nothing we’ve ever faced before — and we’re facing it as if it’s just like everything else. That’s the problem.

>> Connie Hedegaard, Minister for the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen 2009, sounds more optimistic. Granted, that’s sort of her job — I guess it would be odd if the Minister said talks are unlikely to be productive or meaningful….

In any case — In a post for the official COP15 blog, Connie writes that striking an international deal is “not easy” but “doable”:

Over the last weeks, countries have come forward almost on a daily basis. Norway will cut emissions by 40 % in 2020. South Korea will deviate with 30 % from business as usual. Russia has stepped up its commitment and will now reduce by up to 25 %. And then there is Brazil, Japan, Indonesia, and Mexico.

President Obama has announced US targets, not only for 2020, but maybe more noticeable for 2025 and 2030. 4 percent below 1990 might not be what the world has been hoping for, but the US seems to know that the price for coming late is that the pathway for reductions after 2020 will be extra steep with 18 % below 1990-levels in 2025 and 32 percent in 2030.

It is also new and very encouraging that China comes forward internationally. We must analyse more carefully what the new Chinese announcement translates to when it comes to a percentage for deviation from business as usual.

>> Can’t keep track of what country’s agreed to what eco-goals? The Wall Street Journal’s put together a handy map. (via Earth2Tech)

>> Grist’s put together Copenhagen Climate Talks site, What the føck is going on in Copenhagen. The articles aren’t as funny as the title, but are more informative….

>> You can also follow the COP15 blog and the Climate News page at TckTckTck to stay on top of the latest Copenhagen news.

Earlier:
>> Copenhagen Climate Talks begin!
>> Cutting through the confusion over Copenhagen Climate Talks

0 Comments

>> The Copenhagen Climate Talks begin today — and 56 newspapers in 45 countries printed the same editorial this morning. Dubbed “Fourteen days to seal history’s judgment on this generation,” the editorial calls for action from world leaders on climate change marking the start of Copenhagen. The Miami Herald was the only U.S. paper that agreed to sign on.

>> Finally, the U.S. EPA’s determined that greenhouse gases are bad news for our collective future. From the New York Times:

The Environmental Protection Agency on Monday will complete its determination that greenhouse gases pose a danger to human health and the environment, paving the way for regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles, power plants, factories refineries and other major sources.

>> Obama has changed his schedule; he’ll now be attending the last day of the Copenhagen Climate Talks — “a notable increase in commitment (and political exposure) from the administration,” according to Dave Roberts at Grist.

>> A sustainable fashion show sent Danish eco-couture designs down the runway at Copenhagen last weekend.

Earlier: Cutting through the confusion over Copenhagen Climate Talks

0 Comments