I now seem to be on some media distribution list to gin up early PR. Green publicists of the world, bring it on!
Here are links to key stories (plus some summaries, from Time):
This Week's Cover Features a Green Border -- Only the Second Issue in TIME's 85-Year History Without the Trademarked Red Border
(New York, April 17, 2008) -- In this week's issue, TIME managing editor Richard Stengel writes in his Letter to Readers, "This is our latest environment special issue but also a historic first: for this one issue, we've exchanged our trademarked Red Border for a green one. By doing so, we are sending a clear -- and colorful -- message to our readers about the importance of this subject, not just to Americans but to everyone around the world as well." The cover story -- "Green Is the New Red, White and Blue" -- written by TIME's Bryan Walsh, "is our call to arms to make this issue -- perhaps the most important one facing the planet -- a true national priority."
(Note: It's a pretty good story, as one expects from this magazine. That said, I take issue with one of the paragraphs in the cover story -- honorable mention to whoever figures out which paragraph it is. I'll post the answer tomorrow.)
Walsh's piece lays out a three-point plan for combating climate change that deals realistically with the price of handling -- and overcoming -- the environmental crisis:
- Establish a price on carbon through a cap and trade system;
- Encourage massive improvements in energy efficiency -- what TIME calls an "efficiency surge" -- to slow the growth in energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions; and
- Vigorously support research and development into the new forms of alternative energy that will truly make a difference.
(Actually, that's not quite what the story's third point is, but such is life ... )
Key to achieving these three goals is engaging policy-makers and politicians, TIME's Eric Pooley writes in a separate piece (here): "Climate leadership will come not from this president but from the next. So how will voters be able to tell which candidate is going to take real action? If there's a canary in this coal mine, it's the policy known as cap and trade, an idea Environmental Defense Fund president Fred Krupp calls a 'silver bullet.' At an environmental forum in Washington the other day, advisers to all three candidates promised that if elected, their candidate would make global warming a First Hundred Days priority. But if they don't help sort out the details of it now, they won't have the mandate they'll need to pass something quickly. If that impasse happens, it could drag on well into the new Administration."
Also in this issue (here): United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon writes, "Every problem of the world finds its way to the U.N., our global crossroads of politics and diplomacy. But if the problems come together at the U.N., so do the often hidden connections among them -- and through those connections, the ways to real solutions. Nowhere is that more apparent than in our approach to climate change. Many of the challenges we face, from poverty to armed conflict, are linked to the effects of global warming. Finding a solution to climate change can bring benefits in other areas. A greener planet will be a more peaceful and prosperous one too."
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
N.Y. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand answers Grist’s questions on the Kerry-Boxer bill
Seven reasons for optimism about the Senate climate bill
Comments
View as Threaded
maxgladwell Posted 10:19 am
17 Apr 2008
I appreciate the efforts of media like Time and Vanity Fair to cover these issues simply because they are relevant and important (like the Iraq war or Darfur or the '08 election). But I don't expect them to throw us a bone with one issue of recycled paper, only to go back to virgin stock the next month. Mainstream media is a HUGE part of the solution; its reach is invaluable. But we also have to realize that these are HUGE corporations that will find their way to sustainability sooner or later one way or another. Should we pressure them? Absolutely. Should we settle for one issue per year on recycled paper? Hell no. Should we call them hypocrites for reporting on green issues when the issue and the company itself are not green? No. Because they're not hypocrites. They don't claim to be green. They are just reporting on it. And the net impact of that reporting can be 1000X the value of Time-Warner itself going green.
www.MaxGladwell.com
The Nexus of Social Media and Green Living
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:56 pm
17 Apr 2008
The cap and trade system seems to me more of a "sales tax". It only regulates industry and passes the cost on to us in terms of higher priced goods.
As we know, sales taxes are regressive. They affect the poor -- who end up paying more for food, clothing, transportation as a percentage of income.
What about Carbon income (or rather Outgo) taxes?
What about consumption?
Under this example, Richard Branson is free to pursue his carbon spewing lifestyle, while Joe Slobobnik is taxed further into the grave.
Yet, as we know, a single airplane flight (of which Sir Richard takes many) can equal the carbon output of an entire regular family for half a year!
J. Bailo
Participant
Texeme.Construct()
Permalink
TheGreenMiles Posted 5:45 am
18 Apr 2008
Join the discussion on global warming, recycling, and organic beer at The Green Miles!
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 5:46 am
18 Apr 2008
I am imagining that the following questions are rhetorical ones to many people in the Gristmill community.
"Why are politicians and skeptics so willing to risk their future and everyone else's future on blindly clinging to a course of action that has a high probability of leading to a seriously crippled future? If you even suspect that global warming represents a serious risk to your survival (and we have far more than suspicion these days), why wouldn't you do everything protect and conserve your planet?"
It would please me to hear from others; but from my humble perspective the "answers" to these questions are all-too-obvious.
The leaders in my generation of elders wish to live without having to accept limits to growth of seemingly endless economic globalization, of increasing per capita consumption and skyrocketing human population numbers; our desires are evidently insatiable. We choose to believe anything that is politically convenient, economically expedient and socially agreeable; our way of life is not negotiable. We dare anyone to question our values or behaviors.
We religiously promote our shared fantasies of endless economic growth and soon to be unsustainable overconsumption, overproduction oand overpopulation activities, and in so doing deny that Earth has limited resources upon which the survival of life as we know it depends.
My not-so-great generation appears to be doing a disservice to everything and everyone but ourselves. We are the "what's in it for me?" generation. We demonstrate precious little regard for the maintenance of the integrity of Earth; shallow willingness to actually protect the environment from crippling degradation; lack of serious consideration for the preservation of biodiversity, wilderness, and a good enough future for our children and coming generations; and no appreciation of the understanding that we are no more or less than human beings with "feet of clay."
We live arrogantly in a soon to be unsustainable way in our planetary home and are proud of it, thank you very much. Certainly, we will "have our cake and eat it, too." We will fly around in thousands of private jets, own fleets of cars, live in McMansions, exchange secret handshakes, go to our exclusive clubs and distant hideouts, and risk nothing of value to us. Please do not bother us with the problems of the world. We choose not to hear, see or speak of them. We are the economic powerbrokers, their bought-and-paid-for politicians and the many minions in the mass media. We hold most of the Earth's wealth and control the power it purchases. If left to our own devices, we will continue in the exercise of our `rights' to ravenously consume Earth's limited resources; to expand economic globalization unto every corner of our natural world and, guess what, beyond; to encourage the unbridled growth of the human species so that where there are now 6+ billion people, by 2050 we will have 9+ billion members of the human community and, guess what, even more people, perhaps billions more in the distant future, if that is what we desire.
We are the reigning, self-proclaimed masters of the universe. We have no regard for human limits or Earth's limitations, thank you very much. We are idolaters of the global political economy. Please understand that we do not want anyone to present us with scientific evidence that we could be living unsustainably in an artificially designed, temporary world of our own making...... a manmade world filling up with distinctly human enterprises which appear to be approaching a point in human history when global consumption, production and propagation activities of the human species become unsustainable on the tiny planet God has blessed us to inhabit........and not to overwhelm, I suppose.
Sincerely,
Steve
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/
Permalink
enki Posted 12:38 am
19 Apr 2008
Mike Johnston
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:22 am
19 Apr 2008
I can't actually read it. It was hard enough reading the excerpts.
So please don't tell me, let me guess.
No mention of hedge fund bubble problems with the trade part.
No mention that caps can be raised at will by a GOP government.
No mention of a distributed renewable smart grid powering plugin hybrids and geo heat exchange heated/cooled buildings.
No mention of direct subsidy diversion from fossil, nucleatr, and fuel farming industries straight to homeowners and farmers who install solar, wind, and farm biogas power.
Plenty of blah, blah, blahing about cellulosic ethanol, clean coal, and newer, safer nuclear power.
Am I right? Of course, mass delusion, Time reports, we throw it in the recycling bin.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 1:34 am
19 Apr 2008
On raising the pine tree: Yes, that is a weak image.
After all, the original image of raising the flag on Iwo Jima is notoriously concocted.
Which is more American, and more patriotic: loving the erection of a flag, or loving honesty, sincerity and truth?
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:45 am
19 Apr 2008
"...naive wish lists that could cripple America's growth"
I bet the nitwit who wrote this trash doesn't even know what a plugin hybrid is or geo heat exchange. And has never heard of a distributed renewable smart grid.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:06 am
19 Apr 2008
Let's look at the alternative.
Direct subsidy diversion. Take even 50 billion in subsidies away from fossil, nuclear, and agribizz industries. How much will that cost industry? 50 billion.
Put the 50 billion into direct per kwh payments to homeowners, farmers, and small business who install solar, wind, and biogas systems. And direct payments for geo heat exchange and plugin hybrid conservation.
This bypasses hedge funds, the cash goes to consumers, thenfrom consumers to industries that provide the energy systems and vehicles.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:09 am
19 Apr 2008
I decided to use their lies against their pet project, cap and trade. Internal inconsistency!
The mark of liars and sophists down through the ages.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:16 am
19 Apr 2008
Yes consumers will bear the brunt of a hedge fund bubble caused by cap and trade.
With direct subsidy diversion, energy prices will only rise an incremental amount when the subsidies for big oil and coal are withdrawn. Consumers who invest in plugin hybrids, solar, and geo heat exchange will quickly reap rewards in lower energy costs and subsidies to pay off the investments.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink