The Future is Green

The Story of Bottled Water

Annie Leonard wants to redirect the flow of water. In her new Youtube video (which you can watch below) she takes aim at he bottled water companies, who, she insists, are "scaring us, seducing us, misleading us" into buying their products. 

Americans buy more than 500 million bottles of water each week. Much of it is not as good as tap water and 80% of the supposedly recyclable plastic bottles end up in landfills. Some brands are nothing more than bottled tap water, but when sold in plastic bottles it costs 2,000 times as much as you pay for the water that comes out of your kitchen faucet. It even costs more than gasoline.

Maybe it's time, as Annie urges, to "take back the tap."

The Story of Bottled Water

Annie Leonard wants to redirect the flow of water. In her new Youtube video (which you can watch below) she takes aim at he bottled water companies, who, she insists, are "scaring us, seducing us, misleading us" into buying their products. 

Americans buy more than 500 million bottles of water each week. Much of it is not as good as tap water, and 80% of the supposedly recyclable plastic bottles end up in landfills. Some brands are nothing more than bottled tap water, which you can get for free, but when sold in plastic bottles it costs 2,000 times as much as you pay for the water that comes out of your kitchen faucet. It even costs more than gasoline.

Maybe it's time, as Annie urges, to "take back the tap."

Build a Green Economy for Earth Day

I've been thinking about how to commemorate the 40th anniversary of Earth Day tomorrow. After considering a dozen topics I concluded that I could do no better than to direct your attention to a recent  NY Times column by Paul Krugman, called Building a Green Economy. If you do nothing else to observe Earth Day, please read Krugman's article.

Addressing the arguments of scientists and skeptics, alike, Krugman's piece offers the clearest and most comprehensive explanation of the causes and effects of climate change, possible remedies, likely costs of mitigation - as well as likely costs of inaction, and rationale for action that I have read in a long time.

After citing the most current scientific evidence, Krugman writes

"models based on [this] research indicate that if we continue adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere as we have, we will eventually face drastic changes in the climate. Let’s be clear. We’re not talking about a few more hot days in the summer and a bit less snow in the winter; we’re talking about massively disruptive events, like the transformation of the Southwestern United States into a permanent dust bowl over the next few decades.

UNCERTAINTY MAKES THE MOST URGENT CASE FOR STRONG ACTION

Despite the high credibility of climate modelers, he concedes that there is still tremendous uncertainty in their long-term forecasts, which leads to his most original conclusion - that it is this very uncertainty that makes the most urgent case for strong action. 

"You might think that this uncertainty weakens the case for action," he continues,but it actually strengthens it." Even if utter catastrophe is not the most likely outcome, the fact that there is a significant chance of catastrophe, which the science supports, acting on that chance — rather than what is most likely to happen — should dominate cost-benefit calculations. 

Quoting Harvard professor, Martin Weitzman, Krugman emphasizes that it is

". . . this risk of catastrophe, rather than the details of cost-benefit calculations, [that] makes the most powerful case for strong climate policy. Current projections of global warming in the absence of action are just too close to the kinds of numbers associated with doomsday scenarios. It would be irresponsible — it’s tempting to say criminally irresponsible — not to step back from what could all too easily turn out to be the edge of a cliff.

During a heavy snow storm this winter, I blogged about how happy such weather must make climate change skeptics, who would have us believe that the continued existence of winter disputes the evidence that the planet is warming. Krugman also notes that "a snowy winter on the East Coast of the U.S. has given climate skeptics a field day, even though globally this has been one of the warmest winters on record."

But one heavy snowstorm isn't going to make this issue go away. There is a good chance, Krugman says, that record temperatures around the world this year will deprive climate skeptics of one of their main talking points, and that, "given the twists and turns of American politics in recent years — since 2005 the conventional wisdom has gone from permanent Republican domination to permanent Democratic domination to God knows what — there has to be a real chance that political support for action on climate change will revive.

"We know how to limit greenhouse-gas emissions," he concludes. "We have a good sense of the costs — and they’re manageable. All we need now is the political will."

Earth Day is a good time to muster that political will.

It's About Time: Obama Administration Limits Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Cars

Can you believe it? Good news from Washington!

The Obama administration announced on Thursday that the US Department of Transportation and the EPA have set new fuel efficiency standards that will cut greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles by about 30% by the year 2016.

The new combined fuel economy average of 35.5 miles per gallon will not only reduce emissions by nearly a billion tons of greenhouse gases over the lives of all regulated vehicles, but will save owners of an average 2016 car about $3,000 in fuel over the life of the vehicle.

An editorial in today's NY Times summed it up nicely:

The new automobile fuel economy standards formally adopted by the Obama administration on Thursday will yield a trifecta of benefits: reduced dependence on foreign oil, fewer greenhouse gas emissions, and consumer savings at the pump.

Don't drill, baby, don't drill. Tell Obama we want clean energy, not more drilling.

In a 2008 debate, President Obama refuted John McCain's call for more offshore drilling (drill, baby, drill) as a solution to our energy problems. "We can't simply drill our way out of the problem," Obama said. "And we're not going to be able to deal with the climate crisis if our only solution is to use more fossil fuels that create global warming." (see video clip, below)

Yet this week, President Obama announced that he plans to open vast coastal areas to offshore oil drilling. This was a great disappointment to me and to millions of concerned Americans. Drilling won't create nearly as many jobs as clean energy, it won't make us energy independent, it won't help solve the climate crisis, and it won't help the economy.

A major commitment to clean energy will be the engine that revitalizes the American economy. Congress needs to pass comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation that puts a price on carbon and provides incentives for renewable energy sources. This will launch whole new industries, create millions of jobs, and cut our dependence on (and support of) countries that wish us ill.

The president knows this. But perhaps he needs to be reminded that we know it, too.

Please make your voice heard. At the Repower America web site you can add your name to a petition that says,

Dear President Obama:

“It’s time to end the dirty energy policies of the past, wean ourselves off of fossil fuels and pass comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation. It’s time for you to show real leadership, stand up to big oil, and stand with the American people in saying: CLEAN ENERGY, NOT OFFSHORE DRILLING!”

It will take you about 30 seconds. Please do it today.