Comments Auden Schendler has made

That would make sense if your were only looking at students of color, or if you were only looking at the growing demographic, vs the majority of college applicants.  

Theak:

In Colorado, at least, thanks to the Governor's appointments, the PUC has started an effort to establish regulatory oversight over Tristate , one of the bigger utilties in the region. This is a huge step towards what you describe. Right now, Tristate makes decisions that affect us all, but they do it in private. And they are heavily coal dependent. The PUC wants to daylight their decisionmaking process. The result would be better decsions for society, not just for Tristate, and there are prior examples in CO where PUC involvement led to cleaner, more diversified power. That said, PUC oversight is not a done deal with Tristate, and the Governor recently, and oddly, made amends to the utility, which in turn announced plans for a 30MW renewable energy project. To me, this just shows how well PUC oversight works--even the suggestion of it drove change! Your point is well taken though, about the cluelessness of the public, and the press, regarding this issue. (One exception is the Pulitzer level reporting on Colorado utility issues by David Williams at the Colorado Independent.)  I often tell people that the most important thing they can do is run for their utility board. I usually have to shake them awake after I say that.

Auden

This is a great related post from Climate Progress along the theme of denial and how it is affecting and will affect the GOP.

http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/29/specter-gop-minority-party-conservative-global-warming-deniers/

disingenuous

I find this comment disingenuous:

"The goal of the product -- like everything else we do -- is to provide choices that help move our country beyond fossil fuels."

Unless I'm mistaken, Renewable Choice is simply a broker for RECs. They buy from the utility, mark it up, then sell it. Where does the profit go? Into their pockets. Yes, there is a market mechanism that may, or may not, drive new renewables. But Renewable Choice could be selling encyclopedias--the point of their business is to make a profit. And there's nothing wrong with that, but to claim an environmental mission is disingenuous. UNLESS a substantial portion of their profits is allocated towards driving new renewable development, as is the case with other REC brokers like Community Energy and the Bonneville Environmental Foundation. Allocating a small portion of profits towards education doesn't do it. On The producer of the controversial wind-credit cards speaks out posted 3 years ago 21 Responses

It's a reductionist argument

The most obvious action Aspen Skiing Company could take to address Dan Hughes' concern, above, would be to shut down. Then, of course, we'd also have to examine every business--actually, every aspect of our lives--and run them through the Dan Hughes eco-viability test, and see if they measure up to his standard. It's not clear to me any sector of business, or any act like driving to get groceries, buying the groceries, or using refrigeration for the groceries, would measure up. In short, this is a reductionist argument that suggests the solution to the cliamte challenge is to shut down the global economy. Of course, this won't happen. Commerce is the oldest human endeavor, and it is reponsible for much of the good in the world, as well as the bad. The solution to the climate challenge is to find ways to operate our economy in vastly less damaging ways. One way to start that process might be to patronize businesses, like Aspen Skiing Company, that are aggressively tackling the climate problem. Their economic success will drive further action on that issue. And the dirty guys will go out of business. The solution is not to shut our doors, go to the basement, and shoot ourselves in the head.
Finally, we have to understand that economic viability is often tied to environmental improvements. From old pictures, know what Aspen was like 100 years ago when the economy was limited, not vibrant, and based on mining. We had no trees, the rivers were polluted with heavy metals, there were no tax dollars to fix these problem, no public money for open space preservation, no nonprofit funding, etc. The idea that business is bad and must be eliminated is something from the unexamined start of the environmental movement 30+ years ago. It's not a viable path. Nor is seizing the higher moral ground or using the easiest attack possible--calling someone a hypocrite. Give me a snapshot of anyone, or any business's life, and I'll destroy them as a hypocrite in short order. But to what end? On Humanity faces the fight of a lifetime against heavyweight climate change posted 3 years, 1 month ago 5 Responses