truegreencore’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Fields of Study

  Tim,

  There are several fields of study you might consider.  Of course, being mindful of the environment now, you should pursue your strengths and interests in order to reach a fulfilling and successful career.  I will limit myself to fields not already suggested.

  Geography - studying anything spatial (health impacts of global warming, pollution downwind from smokestacks, migration of people, food distribution, watersheds, etc.).  GIS is a very useful tool and is one of the 14 fastest growing industries in the country.

  Business - for all the waste and pollution generated by business, we need leaders; people who can do it right.  Read Natural Capitalism for an inspiring story of the difference a green businessperson can make.

  Urban Planning - though generally a graduate degree is required to advance in the field, there are undergraduate programs.  Cities are incredibly important to combating the adverse of effects of global warming.  The opportunity to help build better transit systems and more walkable communities is very important.  Help to end environmental racism, build better communities, allow kids to bike, etc.

  International studies - the emerging need to work internationally suggests someone with international political knowledge as well as the transnational nature of environmental problems would be a qualified candidate.

  Education - we need great teachers.  Very few teachers are conversant, let alone educated, in environmental issues.

  Journalism/Writing - come on people, we're reading an environmental magazine.  Don't you think it would be nice if more people were writing on environmental issues?

  Philosophy/Religion - okay, probably not a wedge into a career, but many important thinkers on the environment have approached the environment from a moral perspective (Emerson, Thoreau, Singer, etc.)

  I'm not sure how picking a school based on the presence of green buildings on campus got into the conversation.  It's a really silly thing to consider.  If you go to a public school, they probably won't have a terribly green campus.  That's okay, you can be THE AGENT OF CHANGE.  And, that's good experience.

  Feel free to contact me as well, Tim.  I'm applying to grad schools.

  --Robert
  robertnanderson@gmail.comOn Umbra on choosing a college posted 1 year, 10 months ago 21 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Definitely Not Impressive!!!!

  Hillary just released her energy plan in Cedar Rapids,IA and in reviewing her policies she continues to fall short of the other three major democratic candidates (Richardson, Edwards, and Obama).

  Of note:

  1.) She wants to bribe automakers with $20 billion.  She has swallowed automakers load of crap that they are unable to improve fuel efficiency without the government paying the way.

  2.) She provides a fantastic (note my sarcasm) incease in public transit by $1.5 billion.  Hmmm, $20 billion to automakers and $1.5 billion for mass transit -- I wonder how our country will continue to develop.

  3.) She wants to "link federal public transit funds to local land use policies that encourage residential developments that maximize public transit usage and discourage sprawl."  How about linking more than just public transit funds?  And, I don't know what kind of pathetically weak language "encourage" is?  All federal and state funds that are given to municipalities for infrastructure purposes should be REQUIRED to follow smart growth policies.  Of course, she doesn't use the words smart growth at all, unlike at least Richardson and Edwards (think Obama, too).

  4.) She doesn't once mention the fantastic energy use of freight transportation.  While transportation is a significant contributor of greenhouse gas emissions, transportation itself is comprised of passenger transportation and freight transportation.  Hillary seems to believe automobiles are the only thing deserving of our attention.  

  I encourage all individuals to look at Governor Bill Richardson's policies.  As a former Energy Secretary, his knowledge of issues is incredibly nuanced.  He develops in fantastic detail benchmarks with coordinated policies to achieve goals.  And, he is the only candidate urging for a reduction of carbon emissions 90% by 2050.

  I am an Iowan and I AM going to the caucuses (only about 40% of Iowans go).  I am taking others with me if I have to hog tie them and drag them into precinct sites.On An interview with Hillary Clinton about her presidential platform on energy and the environment posted 2 years ago 32 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  litigation

  My comment that Paul is for litigation but not laws was not illogical.  The point was he's in favor of suing.  Unfortunately, his political philosophy - that laws must be derived directly from the Constitution - does not allow for laws capable of dealing with modern environmental problems.  In other words, he is in favor of litigation; there just won't be any laws to protect the environment he so strongly urges people to protect.

  The global nature of environmental problems is a perfect example.  How does one establish the guilt of an individual or a specific company to their property from 1500 miles away?

  I would sue the manufacturers of toy companies using phthalates but in Ron Paul's world the EPA would not exist to set acceptable human levels.  Oh, but don't worry, the chemical company told me it was safe.On An interview with Ron Paul about his presidential platform on energy and the environment posted 2 years, 1 month ago 55 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Progressives should look elsewhere

  Ron Paul's ambivalence on the environment is very clear when asked about global warming.  He is not convinced about the degree of human influence and doesn't consider it a big deal.  A previous post is absolutely accurate that his ideas - particularly his reliance on the market - sound a lot like George Bush.

  Allowing the market to operate can potentially do some good.  Obviously, ending oil subsidies can assist in the development of renewable technologies.  But, his view of the world is pretty limited: perceiving everything in terms of markets.

  There is a reason the government exists.  Corporations cannot pass laws and cannot be trusted to abide by them.  In fact, they are frequently in blatant violation of laws that have been set.  Ron Paul's faith in markets is frankly a little naive when talking about the environment, something which has consistently been undervalued in the marketplace.

  There are also obvious inconsistencies within his worldview.  The harm of coal is just one instance.  How do you internalize mercury in the burning of coal?  And, how do you ensure that corporations are internalizing harm of their products or services?  This is the province of government agencies, again, because corporations have proven they are quite unwilling to abide by laws.

  Paul's solution to violation of environmental principles (he doesn't really believe in laws) is litigation.  It is bizarre that he relies so heavily on the ability of people to sue when courts have been reluctant to grant standing to people harmed.  And, by the by, how do you argue harm has been caused if you dissolve the EPA responsible for setting limits?  

  Anyway, I digress.  This guy just scares the hell out of me because so many progressives are on the Paul bandwagon due to his position on the war.On An interview with Ron Paul about his presidential platform on energy and the environment posted 2 years, 1 month ago 55 Responses