Chevron Realizes Transit is Good For the Earth

I’ve talked before about the energy and auto industry pretending to be green, but in the end all they encourage consumers to do is nice (and undeniably important) things like recycling and stream cleanups, while they keep pushing their environmentally harmful products like cars. In some instances they even bash using cleaner alternatives like buses.

Well there’s one company that seems to finally understand being clean is more than just buying a low energy light bulb. The company I wish to salute is Chevron, for their ad which simply says “I will leave the car at home more.”

Since I often bash said companies for being anti-transit and anti-urban I thought it would be good to point out one that seems to support alternatives.

Navy Sonar Testing Harms Ocean Life

When whales began to beach themselves off the coast of California in March of 2000, many scientists and environmental activists knew something was wrong. An increase in beached whales became evident in 2003, following more common sonar testing under the Bush administration’s effort for greater Homeland Security.

Sonar testing is used by the United States Navy to track enemy submarines or while practicing training efforts in case of emergencies. In 2004, the Bush administration allowed the U.S. Navy exemption from following procedures to protect ocean life and their living environment. Scientists agree that frequencies put out by sonar systems have negative consequences to whales and other ocean life. Noises created by sonar can cause hearing loss, injury, and other disturbances to whales and dolphins. Beached whales are now showing up in hundreds off the coast of southern California where they are unable to get back into the ocean, and they eventually die.

A recent district court ruling stated that the Navy’s exemption from having to follow environmental standards was not in compliance with the law.

In a press release from the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) the organization argues that “The court is saying that neither the President nor the U.S. Navy is above the law.” The NRDC demanded the Federal Appeals Court to reject the Bush administration’s sonar waiver, and that “the Navy must be environmentally responsible when training with high intensity sonar, and that doing so won’t interfere with military readiness.”

The U.S. Navy must now be within twelve nautical miles from the coast to be allowed to practice sonar testing, and if near any ocean mammals, the testing must be terminated. The Navy also plans to appeal the case in an attempt to overturn the ruling.

—

Image from tn_critterman

There’s More to Environmentalism Than Global Warming

Reuters has an article about how Hillary and Obama are playing up the benefits of “clean coal” in West Virginia and Kentucky, a state sitting on top of huge coal reserves:

In a bid to draw voters ahead of Democratic primaries in West Virginia on Tuesday and Kentucky on May 20, both candidates are playing up the ascendant role of commercially untested and so far economically nonviable ways of converting America’s plentiful coal supplies into electricity without spewing massive quantities of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

“We need some big investments right now in figuring out how to capture and store carbon dioxide from coal,” Clinton told a rally in the rural town of Clear Fork on Monday.

[...]

Not to be outdone, Obama’s campaign has distributed flyers in Kentucky stating that “Barack Obama believes in clean Kentucky coal.” The flyers show a picture of giant barges carrying coal down the Ohio River.

Coal-fired power plants generate about half of U.S. electricity supplies, and account for about 40 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions — the biggest single industrial source.

It’s great the candidates are looking at using American energy and at the same time focusing on reducing carbon emissions. What’s wrong is that global warming has become the dominating topic in popular environmentalism. Coal mining, particularly surface mining, which is popular with Big Coal, is an environmental disaster. From destroying pristine mountain tops, to severe water pollution, coal mining can be particularly disastrous to the environment.

But surface mining does more than destroy trees, water, and mountains. Noises, vibrations and dust from the machines and explosions, can create lung cancer and other diseases in local communities. The coal dust also contains sulfur compounds, which corrodes structures. Water contains increased minerals from excess runoff, which lowers aquatic life. A survey by the EPA estimates over 700 miles of Appalachian streams where filled in between 1985 and 2001.

But all is fine, the law requires these sites be “restored.” Unfortunately between waivers and blatant disregard for the law, these sites rarely are. Propents of the half done restoration jobs argue the flatter land has more uses such as farming and game hunting. But opponents note fast growing, non native grass is often planted, which compete with trees for soil nutrients, and thus leave deforested mountain tops more prone to erosion.

Then there’s the issue of sludge ponds, used to store the waste from coal processing. Hundreds of millions of gallons of this waste is stored in dams. The most dangerous dam is located 400 yards above an elementary school. The reservoir’s slowly leaking contents also threaten to flood the school. But there’s also a flash food risk, In 1972 a similar dam broke in what was know as the Buffalo Creek Flood, which killed 125 people.

I’m all for boosting employment in economically depressed rural areas like West Virginia and Kentucky, and having made in America energy is another bonus. But if these candidates are going to use coal they need to strengthen the laws regulating the coal industry. So far Hillary and Obama have shown they aren’t opposed to strengthening these laws. But John McCain is out with an ad indicating he doesn’t believe in “crippling regulation,” political doublespeak for the continued laxness of Bush’s non-environmental policy.

Above image is in the public domain.

Apple Ranked Worst for Climate Change

iPods, Macs, and iTunes should be scratched off the list off anyone who considers them selfs environmentally conscious according to a new report. A group called Climate Counts released their second annual study, and again gave Apple the lowest ranking amoung technology companies.

Other technology companies that pride them selfs in being environmentally friendly like Yahoo!, Dell, Nokia, eBay, and Amazon are also given low markings too. But you don’t have to write off your entire technology life for the sake of the envirmonet. Companies like HP, IBM, Canon, and Google are given some of the highest rankings.

Climate Counts looks at a variety of factors in determining how they rank companies. Companies are ranked on a 100 point scale that looks at facts like what actions they’re taking to reduce carbon emmisions, wheather they supported or blocked environmental legislation, and how public their environmental impact reduction strategies are.

Other companies included in the list for being good to the environment are DHL, Nike, News Corp. (owners of Fox News), Starbucks, and Coca-Cola. The group releases these numbers to help consumers use their dollars to shape corporate policy.

Creative Commons BY-ND photo by Eric.

Energy and True Environmentalism

True environmentalism is about preserving life, human, animal, and plant. But it has been toted as more of a feel good ideal, than true action or care. It’s focus has become perverted by corporate interests promoting the ideas of enviromentalism as merely being about making this earth a better place.

Chevy’s current “From gas friendly to gas free” ad campaign is a prime example of the true goals of environmentalism being subverted. General Motor’s idea of gas friendly and gas free, means filling fuel tanks with food. While this campaign was running, the UN was warning 100 million people are at risk at starvation because of rising food prices created by cars and trucks consuming our food.

True environmentalism doesn’t have to mean everyone moves to a compound and lives off the land. But it does require a radical change from 20th century consumption, to a new 21st century economy that is also compatible with preserving the lives of humans, animals and plants. Here are a few ideas I proposed in an essay about how we should use energy in the 21st century:

“Peak oil has been reached already,” says Saudi Arabia’s King Abdulla¹. Yet few viable energy alternatives currently exist. Wind power, solar energy, and coal all hold great potential. But how will governments, engineers, and corporations implement these new technologies in a way that benefits all parties?

Currently, the United States government favors two forms of alternate energy that are still based on carbon. The first is coal, which also has the backing of corporations. Coal presents several problems including air pollution, scarred mountain tops, and polluted runoff.

The US government also favors biofuels like ethanol. Plants are renewable, so unlike coal they are a sustainable energy source. But biofuels reduce the amount of arable land available for human food consumption. According to UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, the price of corn, wheat and sugar doubled in many countries last year². Biofuels also produce nearly the same amount of pollution as fossil fuels³, and actually cause a net loss in fuel⁴.

That leaves solar, nuclear, and wind energy as the only viable clean and renewable fuels. But wind and solar energy are dependent on weather. No wind, no energy, or cloudy skies and no energy. They also produce far less electricity per dollar.

The future of energy is not within new energy sources, but rather within a change of how civilization operates. This includes changes in business operations, urban planning and how ordinary citizens live.

The key to the future of society is actually in the past. For fifty years American cities have been built to ignore all modes of transportation except the car. Imagine how much fuel could be saved if we used rail based car transporters. For instance, instead of commuting 20 miles by highway, you drove onto a train, the train goes to downtown, and you exit, and then drive half a mile to your office.

Such trains would draw power from an electric third rail. The electricity would power the train, but it could also recharge electric cars. As further incentive a fourth data rail could be added, allowing those on the train to communicate with their office, while they traveled to an important meeting across town.

Developing and building high speed rail lines in dense regions like New England would also cut down on airline trips which consume huge amounts of fuel and generate pollution. Despite that trains are slower than aircraft, when factoring in security, delays, and airports distance from it’s city, high speed rail becomes viable in several parts of the United States.

Another large consumer of energy is agribusiness. Imagine living downtown, but being able to visit the farm we’re your food came from. Towering green houses could provide the solution. On the ground level of a multistory urban farm would be a grocery store where the food is truly farm fresh. Others levels would be a different type of farm, one a cattle ranch, another a slaughter house, and yet another for corn and wheat.

The transportation of food consumes much energy. Take the beef industry for example. Wheat is transported for cattle to feed on. The fattened cows are then driven to a slaughterhouse. Once they’ve been prepared the meat is transported to grocery store warehouses and even food processing centers. Then it is finally transported to the neighborhood grocery store. All this transit takes a tremendous amount of energy which could easily be saved by consolidating the food industry’s supply chain.

The Western of idea of unlimited supply confines our thinking of energy solutions. While clean energy like wind, and solar will definitely become more prominent the true solution is changing our ideas on consumption. The only solution to climate change and peak oil is if corporations and consumers will work together. If they can see more good in change, than change itself, they will embrace new energy saving technology.

References are below the fold.
Read more

McCain’s Energy Plan Will Raise Rates

I know this a few days old, but it sure hasn’t gotten enough coverage. John McCain has proposed to create a gas tax “holiday” during the summer months. He thinks that 29 cents off your gas consumption tax would lower the prices, but it is more likely to increase consumption, and the increased demand will probably outweigh saving money from the gas the tax.

And how does Mr. I’ll Stay In Iraq for 100 years, pay for the war with all these tax cuts? Oh, I forgot destabilizing the Middle East creates lower prices at the pump.

The Washington Post talked to some economists who pretty much share the same view:

“You don’t want to stimulate consumption,” said Lawrence Goldstein, an economist at the Energy Policy Research Foundation. “The signal you want to send is the opposite one. Politicians should say that conservation is where people’s mindset ought to be.”

Mr. Goldstein said that instead of freezing the federal tax, the government should help lower-income populations pay for gasoline. It would be cheaper and benefit those households that need it most.

If anything, the gas tax should be increased. This would make heating bills decrease, because less gas would be consumed. Europe has some of the highest gas tax rates, which may acount for up to 70% of costs at the pump. Coincdently Europe also has the lowest gas consumption.

Having less consumption would also lower carbon outputs, and general pollution. Besides helping the disadvantaged pay for energy, a higher gas tax could be used to fund alternatives to excess oil consumption like mass transit, and green and renewable fuels.

McCain has several lobbyists from energy companies working on his campaign, and no doubt his lobbyists would love to see increased fuel consumption, leading to higher gas prices.

Cross posted at my personal site.

Al Gore Visits My School *updated*

Nobel Peace Prize Winner Al Gore came and spoke to my school today, and it was a very unique experience. Most of the talk was a Q&A with students asking questions and Mr. Gore giving long winded responses. Here are a few highlights from what he said. Read more

Republicans: The Other Environmentalists

Gary Baise was the first EPA Chief of Staff. He has worked on many cases concerning the environment. And now he (a Republican) is running for county chairman in a heavily Democratic jurisdiction. Most of his views are anti-liberal, from his stance that the County needs an “Ironclad immigration lock-down,” to his views that “Education spending should be second or third priority.”

But the one issue he “agrees” with Democrats on is the environment. This may come as a shock, but in reality he’s toting the party line. The GOP views the EPAs goal as “Restoring the balance between the environment and America.” By that they mean allowing oil drilling from the Everglades to Alaskan wildlife preserves, allowing companies to use dangerous pesticides, and a myriad of other offenses.

The Washington Post even did an article on just how many times this so called Republican environmentalist worked against the environment. In the 80s Baise defended building a highway under New York’s Upper Westside, claiming it would not destroy fish habitats, when he had knowledge it would. Gary Baise also defended farmers burning land to such an extent it caused others respiratory issues.

And this guy says the current chairman “Put to much of an emphasis on mass transit.” The current chairman, Gerry Connoly (D-At Large) pushed heavily for metro rail through Fairfax Counties downtown, which is also the Nations 12th largest business district. The current chairman has also put on hold plans to expand some of the main arteries into Tysons Corner. But Baise wants to widen the road, making the 6 lane, highspeed road even more pedestrian unfriendly.

I don’t have a problem with this guy for holding views opposite of mine. But discouraging transit use can not be called environmentalism. Nor can opposing building walkable communities near transit stops be called that. It reminds of how the Republican party are masters at calling right wrong, and wrong right. Sort of like the Patriot Act is perhaps the most unpatriotic law.

Republicans Hate Anything That’s Not a Car

It started with Patrick McHenry (R-NC) mocking those who use bikes for their daily commute. It was in an interview after HR 2776 was passed, which among other transit improvements and incentives included a $20 tax credit for riding your bike to work. And here’s what he said:

“A major component of the Democrats’ energy legislation and the Democrats’ answer to our energy crisis is, hold on, wait one minute, wait one minute, it is promoting the use of the bicycle.

Oh, I cannot make this stuff up. Yes, the American people have heard this. Their answer to our fuel crisis, the crisis at the pumps, is: Ride a bike.

Democrats believe that using taxpayer funds in this bill to the tune of $1 million a year should be devoted to the principle of: “Save energy, ride a bike.” Some might argue that depending on bicycles to solve our energy crisis is naive, perhaps ridiculous. Some might even say Congress should use this energy legislation to create new energy, bring new nuclear power plants on line, use clean coal technology, energy exploration, but no, no. They want to tell the American people, stop driving, ride a bike. This is absolutely amazing.

Apparently, the Democrats believe that the miracle on two wheels that we know as a bicycle will end our dependence on foreign oil. I cannot make this stuff up. It is absolutely amazing.

Ladies and gentlemen, I bring you the Democrats, promoting 19th century solutions to 21st century problems. If you don’t like it, ride a bike. If you don’t like the price at the pumps, ride a bike.

Stay tuned for the next big idea for the Democrats: Improving energy efficiency by the horse and buggy.”

Text from Sreetsblog

But now the secretary of the Department of Transportation, the very people who are supposed to invest in multiple forms of transit, is calling bikes a non valid transportation form. Of course she was further supporting Bush’s view that the gas tax should not be raised, because congress wastes the money that is gathered from it. Apparently one of the ways it’s wasted is by getting cars off the road, by investing in proper safety for bicyclists.

“You know, I think Americans would be shocked to learn that only about 60 percent of the gas tax money that they pay today actually goes into highway and bridge construction. Much of it goes in many, many other areas.

And as we don’t — we’re not disciplined today to say, are we spending that money where it is the highest and best use of that money? Are we giving the American public the best return on investment for that money? And we owe it to ourselves to answer those questions before we ask Americans to dig down in their pockets and pay even more gas tax.”

Text from PBS

One of the things highway users complain of, is traffic congestion. But imagine that 40 percent of the money goes to alternatives - those alternatives are keeping people of roads, reducing congestion, and overall helping the interstate system to run more efficiently. But of course when you’re payed by the car lobby, the only transit that makes sense is motor vehicle based.

Al Gore on Environmental Civil Disobedience

Al Gore wants you to take a stand against large corporations who are building power plants that are harmful to the environment. He believes that climate change is as big a threat as even Al-Qaeda. His solution is to literally take a stand against these companies.

“I can’t understand why there aren’t rings of young people blocking bulldozers,” Mr. Gore said, “and preventing them from constructing coal-fired power plants.” [grist]

It is our future we should be worried about. I hate to sound cliche, but it really is necessary to our livelihood to finally stand up, and demand change. Gore is THE leader of the modern environmentalist movement. Al Gore, after you win the Nobel Peace Prize in December, please run for president.
Read more

FBI: Car Vandals are Terrorists

In DC a Hummer was vandalized in a neighborhood that considers itself environmentally progressive. Most of his neighbors drive a Toyota Prius. Two men in black bashed in the cab, slashed the tires, and inscribed “FOR THE ENVIRON” into the vehicle.

The two men have still not been found. But now the FBI is getting involved and calling it eco-terrorism. I’d expect something crazy like this to come from the Bush administration. But this isn’t surprising, because any movement away from gas guzzlers would be bad for his car industry friends, and his oil interests.
Read more

Climate Change Near Washington

The Chesapeake Bay and Delmarva Peninsula, both popular vacation spots for Washington, DC citizens, is experiencing climate change. Sure the fact that islands were slowly disappearing was evidence to some people. But some scientists have written a report, which actually says the Chesapeake Bay is already suffering from global warming.

According to a Washington Post article , the bay has many days where water temperatures exceed 76 degrees. The problem is some fish species in the Bay can’t survive temperatures higher than this. And since the deeper locations in the Bay are oxygen dead zones, the fish can’t move into deeper and cooler water. Grass that the blue crab depends on is also threatened by these new, higher temperatures.
Read more

Will Democrats Vote For Climate Change?

There’s a plan in New York City to bring in congestion pricing. Basically if you enter the most congested part of a city (for New York that would be Midtown and Downtown), you have to pay a toll. In London traffic saw a 20% decrease, and carbon emissions saw a similar drop. And did I mention business profits have increased?
Read more

At Last Minute, Live Earth to Visit DC

In a series events, from the National Mall being booked, to global warming nay sayers in Congress, Gore decided to move his Live Earth concert, from Washington, DC, to New York. But just in time the Native Americans came to the rescue, and are allowing the concert to be performed on the front plaza of the American Indian Musuem.

We won’t have any big names unless country music is your cup of tea, but Al Gore will be giving the opening speech, which is good enough for me to show up. So for all you readers in the Baltimore/DC area, you can come out to hear Al Gore, watch some global warming videos, and get some live music. And it’s free. The event is at 7/7/7 at 10:30-9:30 at the welcome plaza of the American Indian Museum.

Next Page »