Comments NonprofitWatch has made

Re RFK Jr.

Hey Ed, about caving "on privatization of the Commons and to centralized power", have you not noted the criticism against RFK Jr. and his brother Joe regarding their involvement with efforts to do this very thing in the Western deserts.  

Note to Earth, yes he's the real deal, the real hypocritical deal.

I find it pathetic that he as an environmentalist and his sister the human rights activist had no problem with Chevron underwriting their family's charity honoring their Dad and that they remained silent while the Clinton administration was caving in to Chevron and  big oil in regards to human rights issues in Nigeria, Angola and elsewhere.

There's more to be said, but deserves an essay.  

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

Dave, wrong No On H website

The correct website for the opposition to Prop H is http://www.stoptheblankcheck.com/ suggesting that if approved, Prop H would be quite costly to San Franciscans.

There are so many propositions and they seem to keep their websites up as the case of your link to the 2005 opponents of Prop H in San Francisco which intended to ban sale and possession of firearms -- maybe an interesting mistake in that the supporters of Prop H are driven by a wish to shift us from dangerous fossil fuels and nuclear energy to safe renewable energy.

As I understand, the proposition does not specifically call for the takeover of PG&E though that is how it seems to be commonly portrayed and could be an outcome of the measure.   Below the language from the Yes on H website which I think is insightful.

"Yes on H"!  The San Francisco Clean Energy Act is a measure appearing on the November 4, 2008 ballot that amends the city and county charter to require the City to transition from fossil fuels to clean, non-nuclear, sustainable energy production at affordable rates.

"Yes on H" directs the SF Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) to establish one document laying out the long-term integrated resource plan for transmission, distribution and electricity resources.

The plan will assess the most effective means of providing clean, sustainable, reliable, and reasonably priced electric services to residents, businesses and City departments.

This Act {"Yes on H"} provides policy direction to achieve the City's existing goals to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 20% below 1990 levels (per the 2002 GHG resolution) and to procure 51% of the City's energy needs through renewable energy and conservation by 2017 (per the 2007 Community Choice Aggregation ordinance). Specifically, the Act directs the City to analyze, identify and pursue strategies that:

By the way, Prop H in 2005 passed; considering that the planet faces climate-chaos and thinking about the massive recent failure of the free market system driven by the societal elites, I'd like to see Prop H approved this year as well to see how this grassroots-driven alternative to investor-oriented approaches works out. If well, maybe others would be inspired to copy it.

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

As opposed to the

conflicted and corrupted nature of NRDC putting a green stamp on business as usual.

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

Any bets . . .

that the president and the party that have done so much to oppose dealing with global warming end up being won over by the "Enron Environmentalists" ( Environmental Defense, NRDC) and agree to a global warming bill that in the short and long run does little to substantively address the problem but acts as great window dressing for politicians, the "Enron Enviros", and their corporate funders?

The USCAP corporations claiming concern about the issue have noted that the next administration might make stronger demands upon them regarding global warming.

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

re:That's what USCAP wants

Well I'd like to think that others aren't game for a phased in auction system

by the way,in case it's not been obvious,I don't hold much regard for the integrity or judgement of the leading enviros backing USCAP.

:)

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

A Few Questions

Perhaps too late . . .

In his essay he states that "We need to be the world's technology leader of the 21st century, not a stubborn follower of our old inefficient  ways."  In this vein and considering the dire situation regarding global warming, does he support Gore and Hansen and McKibben in their opposition to new coal plants?

He states support for IGCC.  Would he support opposing new coal plants until such technology is available?  Should not those companies that want to use coal which has numerous other eco-problems be the ones which underwrite the research into cleaner use of this dirty energy source as opposed to research for other energy sources such as wind and solar which are more typically thought of as "alternative" and in general are far cleaner and have suffered from lack of subsidies for extraction and research that coal,  nuclear, and oil have received from politicians?

The group which he now heads,  the Institute of Ecosystem Studies,  and its former director did critical work regarding acid rain and were associated with the market based approach to addressing the problem, but clearly this has been inadequate in that forests are still recovering, and the problem is far from solved.  Going forward regarding global warming, should we not pursue and ask for far stronger measures in a precautionary effort to try to ensure we won't go over the brink.

Should we perhaps consider both a carbon tax as well as a cap and auction, plus alot more along the big vision dramatic changes that others have called for?

Finally, in his essay he complements Paul Anderson of Duke Energy regarding Anderson's support of a carbon tax.  While I probably am supportive of a carbon tax, I would like to ask if Schlesinger has raised money from Anderson or Duke Energy. Reason being, we've gone through a process of pointing out how the denialists are bought by the oil companies.  In this vein, I have a concern of whether worthy scientists may associate with weak or moderate or questionable policies in the interests of their sponsors.

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

Hopefully You Don't Mean This as Dereg Example

http://www.prwatch.org/node/6459

The ExxonMobil Protection Agency

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency allowed an ExxonMobil employee "to peer review the science behind the agency's proposal to deregulate incineration of some industrial by-products," reports Integrity in Science, a project of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. The peer review was overseen by an EPA contractor, Syracuse Research Corporation (SRC). The ExxonMobil employee, Thomas Parkerton, told SRC that his "current employer (and the chemical industry in general) would benefit from" the proposed rule, yet he was allowed to review it, in an apparent breach of EPA guidelines. The rule would allow more than 107,000 tons of hazardous waste burned annually in specially-designed incinerators to instead be disposed of in industrial boilers or municipal incinerators. Consumer and environmental groups decried the "undue agency tolerance of conflicts of interest in its rulemaking process," and urged the EPA to "re-review the science and, if necessary, rewrite the proposed rule."

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

Whoh, re ERT

Seems like inspite of changes to the board, ERT stays true to the founding ethos imparted upon it by its creator Environmental Defense (Fund) and has not changed much from the group that I came to know and love.
http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1999Q1/edf.html

Oddly to me, Alden Hathaway who seems quite pragmatic about nuclear coming online is all about green energy in his work. Oh, and he was at ERT in the past.

It seems that there's this dynamic of certain groups promoting green energy but at same time being accepting of nuclear; don't think many of their members and customers supporting and buying the green energy would feel the same way.

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

PS. Anyone from Grist Covering DC Event ?

of www.IFG.org ?

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

NRDC's energy director promoting Whitman?

Ashok Gupta is Natural Resources Defense Council's (NRDC) Air and Energy Program Director. He is also a board member of Clean Air Cool Planet for which he is also Chair of the Program Committee. http://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/about/board.php

Clean Air Cool Planet will be hosting a conference, Global Warming & Energy Solutions for which NRDC's Gupta is a member of Conference Steering Committee.
http://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/conference_GWS07/index ...

Speaking at the conference is none other than Christine Todd Whitman. I can't see
anyone scheduled whom I'd identify as a critic of nuclear power comparable to the pro-nuke role that Whitman has adopted.
 http://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/conference_GWS07/progr ...

Looking at past speakers of the group's conferences, I also see a pro-nuclear disposition.

Bill McKibben is also a speaker at this conference, but while I believe he has been against nuclear power in the past, he is not as far as I can tell currently making that position an emphasis of his work, certainly not in the manner that Whitman is advocating for nuclear.

Some might say I'm reading too much into this, but to me in light of other actions by
NRDC, this reflects the pro-nuclear bias by NRDC in spite of their anti-nuke rhetoric.

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

New Report Coming out Against BioFuels

The False Promise of Biofuels being released on Friday as part of D.C. teach-in on climate and resource depletion/extraction sponsored by www.IFG.org .

The press release is at
http://www.ifg.org/pdf/biofuels%20press%20release_final.p ...

Apparently there'll be a press conference on Friday with

Dr. Jack Santa Barbara, former Canadian businessman and director of the Sustainable
Scale Project. Author of The False Promise of Biofuels.
* Dr. David Pimentel, professor of agricultural sciences at Cornell University and author
of 23 books.
* Dr. Tadeus Patzek, professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of
California at Berkeley, and a former petroleum engineer for Shell Development in
Houston.

The teach-in should be interesting, featuring a wide variety of speakers, including Bill McKibben, Vandana Shiva, Frances Moore Lappé,
Martin Khor, Michael Klare, Maude Barlowe, and Ross Gelbspan and many others.

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

But E.D. Loves Wal-Mart, on the other hand . . .

this dropped into my email box re Wal-Mart

23 Organizations (including ILRF) Release Joint Wal-Mart Critique:

Wal-Mart's Sustainability Initiative: A Civil Society Critique

 full PDF of report at http://www.bbc.wikispaces.net/space/showimage/CounterSust ...

Nearly two years ago, Wal-Mart CEO H. Lee Scott announced a bold initiative to turn the world's largest company green. A long-anticipated first progress report on these sustainability goals is expected to be released soon. In advance of the company's report, 23 environmental, farm, labor, and other civil society groups have offered their own critiques of Wal-Mart's approach to sustainability.

Some of these critiques focus on specific Wal-Mart commitments and offer recommendations for change.  Others argue that even if Wal-Mart achieved all of its stated goals, the company's business model makes it inherently unsustainable.  All of them remind us of what's at stake by demonstrating Wal-Mart's huge and often devastating impacts on real people and places in the United States and around the world.

This report was coordinated by the Big Box Collaborative, and includes contributions from ActionAid International USA, Agribusiness Accountability Initiative, American Independent Business Alliance, American Rights at Work, Center for Health, Environment and Justice, Centro de Investigación Laboral y Asesoria Sindical (CILAS), Cornucopia Institute, Corporate Ethics International, Dogwood Alliance, Environmental Investigation Agency, Food and Water Watch, Friends of the Earth, Good Jobs First, Global Exchange, Gulf Restoration Network, Institute for Policy Studies, International Labor Rights Forum, Mangrove Action Project, STITCH, WakeUpWalMart.com, Wal-Mart Alliance for Reform Now (WARN), and Washington State Jobs with Justice.

November 17 Day of Action Against Big Box Retailers and Supermarkets
http://intldayofaction.bbc.wikispaces.net/On Wal-Mart's eco-initiatives turning Arkansas into sustainability hotspot posted 2 years, 2 months ago 9 Responses

Wouldn't it be even more ironic

if towards the end of Bush's presidency the enviros and the corporations behind USCAP convince Bush to change his feelings and sign a cap and trade bill (probably with allocations and not auctions).

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

What do you mean by "woot" ? ? ?

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

? re the Enviros in Calif. dereg.

Kristina and Jason,

What's your view of the role that the enviros played in California's deregulation?

From my perspective, there seemed to be a divide that peaked in '98 with an initiative by grassroots enviro and consumer groups to repeal the deregulation coupled with the massive stranded cost recovery for the nuclear utilities.  

This effort to repeal deregulation was heavily opposed by the utilities with the aid of ED and NRDC who sold deregulation as a means to let individual consumers buy green energy.  A counterpoint as I recollect was that this would only be done by a few enviro-minded people while most big energy users would shift to the cheapest (and often dirtiest sources of energy) available.

At the same time, there were extensive ties between these enviros and the old and new energy companies.  For example, John Sawhill, then head of the Nature Conservancy, was on the board of Pacific Gas & Electric.  The CEO of Southern California Edison had been a founder of NRDC.  Enron's Ken Lay seems to have been close with ED -- various articles talk about him working closely with ED's president Fred Krupp.  Also, Lay was a board member and probable heavy donor to a project of ED's then vice-chair Teresa Heinz, herself a major donor to ED.  There are many more such ties, but I won't burden this post with them.  These ties raise questions for me regarding the ability of these groups to impartially and with integrity weigh in on major matters relevant to the interests of the energy companies.

Now what I find to be a conflict others might call a synergy, but it would seem that several years later a major debacle occurred.

I'll try to add your book to the long list of books that I'd like to read.

Cheers, b.

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

Priest Taking Green Confessions

came across this article and thought some might find it of interest

Priest offers festival-goers the chance to confess their green sins
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article234 ...

also, the Free Republic site picked it up:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1888423/posts
check out their comments as an example of how the right looks at this

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

Re methyl bromide and strawberries . . .

Jon, very witty commentary.  

However, in your post at switchboard, you point out that

And don't forget the heat-trapping carbon dioxide released clearing forest for pasture, or the supercharged greenhouse chemical methyl bromide, which is used to wipe out naturally occurring microbes in the soil so that we can grow eerily huge strawberries and tomatoes.

This is amusing in that as I recollect a former leading NRDC staffer Mary Nichols was point on weakening efforts to ban methyl bromide when she was at the Clinton EPA.  Ironically as I recollect, this was a matter that current Gore spokesperson Kalee Kreider was quite incensed about at the time when she was a campaigner at Ozone Action which I believe was created in part because the founder Passacantando didn't think the mainstream groups were doing enough about ozone depletion.   Considering that Nichols is married to a lawyer who defended Exxon, what can you expect.   Sadly, I don't recollect NRDC taking Clinton or Nichols to task on the matter -- an example of policy that contributed to disheartening the grassroots with Clinton/Gore.  But during the Bush years, the methyl bromide issue has been used as a cudgel against Bush by enviros and even by a Mary Nichols-associated group.  ( If you like, I'll dig up citations for these charges. )

Also, my guess is that most vegetarians folks would be very inclined to protect forests and stand up to timber folks, probably more so than NRDC has been, beyond the rhetoric and public relations.  

And besides, you ignore that a animal-based diet sadly contributes to far more clearing of forests in order to plant grains and legumes to feed to cattle, chickens, pigs, etc.

CheerioOn Animal-rights groups point out the climatic effect of meat-eating posted 2 years, 3 months ago 15 Responses

Maybe this could be an offset technique ?

China's hyping what Mr. Bailo states.
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL30472 ...

Perhaps this could be a model for an offset biz -- I  can make like RFK Jr. and have 8 kids while underwriting family planning progams and abortions and other efforts to limit births.

Maybe China can securitize its one child per family agenda and this could be part of the international greenhouse offsetting and emissions trading regime.

;)

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

Maybe there's data we don't know about

but which has not been published or announced because of disinclination to acknowledge negative results, as occurs with negative data in big pharma funded medical studies that pharmaceutical companies would find embarrassing.

Years ago Environmental Defense (Fund) polled its members about an effort by its spinoff Environmental Resources Trust (ERT) to legitimize a self-chilling beverage can by marketing it with carbon offsets -- trees or maybe nuclear power credits;  but their membership didn't take well to this idea regarding a product that promiscuously released a potent greenhouse gas -- a refrigerant;  even some chemical and beverage companies did not support this product.  One of these self-chilling cans was described as comparable to driving 100 miles.   Did ERT put this data out?  No.  But its internal memo regarding this matter got leaked.  Fortunately the product died.  But seems like an obscene example of offsetting.

Perhaps there'll be academic or other studies in the future.

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

Reminds me of Calif. deregulation

This discussion of Terrapass reminds me of how deregulation in California was sold by some of the elite enviros as a means to let people buy green energy, but critics raised the concern that this would be a boutique option for a few concerned folks while facilitating a systemic change which would have major long term anti-environmental adverse impacts

Now it seems to me that these same enviros are legitimizing a limited and flawed offset concept which I believe is integral to giving credibility to the whole emissions trading agenda.

I think there's a major paradigmatic outlook associated with offset approach which is at odds with other approaches, but that alternate paradigms are too difficult to ponder since the proponents of the offset/trading approach are major players with lots of money to cultivate warmth and promote themselves.

Sadly, I fear the offset/trading regime will prevail and in our old age we will look back and ponder whether we should have done more now to raise concerns.  Imagine if the global warming agenda of the "Enron Enviros" turns out to be as disastrous as electric utility deregulation in California.

Just saying . . .

PS.  There's alot more to be said about grassroots concerns and conflicted if not corrupted and coopted enviros and the historical record, but these issues need to be taken to broader arenas than Gristmill.  

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

Perhaps an Op-Ed is in order

Just to clarify, I was merely drawing attention to the propaganda and rhetoric of others; I didn't mean to ascribe those views to myself.

Biodiversivist, I appreciate your critique of the CEO's rhetoric.

Perhaps you, maybe along with GreyFlcn, might want to compose an op-ed to submit to the Seattle media.  Maybe start with the biggest most mainstream newspaper and see if they bite.

Duff Badgley seems to have been doing good work on the front line, but perhaps some assistance from others could be of help to him.  Also, he seems to have set an example that others should see about replicating in their own localities, especially as cities move to pass laws calling for the purchase of "biofuel".

To me, folks like Duff are the ones who truly need financial support for their grassroots work as opposed to many of the big mainstream enviros, which can always call up one of the billionaires with which they're cozy.

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

"Hardcore [enviros not] pragmatic"

The Seattle Weekly article Should It Matter Where Your Biodiesel Comes From? includes the below from the founder of Propel Biofuels, a company which will be selling the fuel from Imperium Renewables.

For his part, Propel's Elam, who grew up in Minnesota, says he's been environmentally active since he was a kid, but adds that he's become isolated over the years from "utopian hardcore" environmentalists.

"The hardcore environmental movement has become so disconnected from pragmatic solutions," says Elam. "They do nothing but yell from their ivory tower, which allows big oil to keep the status quo. We want the most local, sustainable biodiesel that meets our cost and quality standards. But you have to put one foot in front of the other and understand it's one step at a time to get there. We must understand it will be a dirty, clumsy process to make change."

This reminds me of someone's comment that

Progressive environmentalism embodies the reality that we don't have to pit the environment vs. economics, and we can in fact use economic thinking and mechanisms to improve environmental policy."
From this link

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

Example of Failure of the Market ?

Here's another nut from that essay.  Thanks for bringing our attention to it.  (Also, there's an extensive piece about offsets in the Washington Post.  I think it deserves to be highlighted.)

The lesson for policy makers is that economics alone won't help solve the world's greenhouse-gas problems. The markets care about money, not the environment, so the most important alternatives to oil will be the biggest and cheapest, not the greenest.

What's needed, say many clean energy advocates, isn't just high oil prices, but high carbon prices. If fuels were taxed on their carbon content, climate change would be priced into the economics of energy production.

"If you have a carbon tax, or some other concerted carbon policy," says Mike Jackson, an energy analyst with Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, "then high oil prices drive industry toward clean technologies."

Otherwise, he says, "you're just going to see more people building these wacky projects that are a disaster for the environment."

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

Regarding fashion community . . .

what are your thoughts and suggestions regarding the possibility of motivating the fashion industry to urge use of recycled paper by the print magazines which cover the industry but are also underwritten by the fashion biz through advertising?

I understand that the Sept. Vogue has over 800 pages with no recycled fiber.

Good to see that Lagerfeld is being challenged.

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

Brief response

David, I'll try to attend to your request.

Attempting to get to Green Drinks NYC (perhaps I'll see some of you there) so I'll just paste something I posted in the past which I think has relevance to this discussion.  

I'm reminded of a debate on NPR years ago where a group was trying to halt the sale of pollution credits from power plants in New York to ones in Ohio as the dirty facilities in Ohio would spew pollution that drifted back to New York and harmed the forests and lakes in the Adirondacks.  It was surreal when the Environmental Defense (Fund) representative said something to the effect of it being critical to not hurt the emissions market.

I can dig up the transcript and citation if someone asks.

I'm all for uniting economics and environment, but it seems pretty wide open in terms of how you define market-environmentalism and apply the concept.  The above case to me exemplifies that you can become so enamored of your approach that you may be disinclined to see problems that occur with it.  The E.D. person seemed more concerned about the market mechanism than that the practice was adversely impacting the environment and specifically failing at its purpose in this case.

Later I'll post about Enron as a great example of corporatist environmentalism gone awry (I wouldn't label it "progressive environmentalism") and why I'm hesitant to entrust addressing climate chaos to the same folks that loved Enron and Ken Lay.  

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

I like Gar's example

The problem as I see it with the corporatist approach -- what with their emissions tradings and offsets and opportunity costs -- is that the advocates are not thinking big enough and pondering that the problems of global warming are upon us and underway right now.

Forty years from now the reduction targets may have been met in some fashion or other, but the climate and earth may be destroyed because these were insufficient in the face of the problem.

By the way "naturescene", I'm thinking of changing my handle to "CorporateView".  What do you think?

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

Congratulations!

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

Silly Brown, He's Going to Cripple the Economy

Seems that that he's daring to "hurt the economy".  Clearly he's not aware that these companies can continue on with business as usual and offset their actions with the appropriate purchase of an offset.

Obviously he needs to sit down with TerraPass, Environmental Defense and Natural Resources Defense Council so he can be instructed in the wonders of their market-based approach to global warming.  

Please back me up Naturescene or Sheryl Canter.

Isn't there more HFC-23(trifluoromethane) in China that needs to be destroyed and could be used as an offset to maintain business as usual for the Californian economy.  Very much on top of  these matters, Treehugger.com celebrated such an example of this approach.  This creative economy-saving approach was also highlighted by the New  York Times in an article on Dec. 21, 2006.  

.

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

Re your partnership with NRDC

Mr. Mann, your partnership with NRDC at first struck me as an example of where this elite corporate friendly enviro group does good work.

However in consideration of the comments here and elsewhere, it seems that perhaps I was wrong.

The article Derailed Dreams in the LA Weekly doesn't reflect well upon you and the work of BRU.
http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/derailed-dreams/10606/

Nor do the subsequent letters in response.
http://www.laweekly.com/general/letters/letters/3972/

But good news for BRU -- the partnership with NRDC should help bring in funds from their jet-setting donors if not from the group itself, and get you press protection as well -- the LA Weekly and most mainstream press has in the past never been inclined to criticize NRDC and its corporatist policies as far as I can tell ( excepting of course from the hard right Fox News perspective ).

But for your critics, they'll just have another sentence or two to add to their comments about your work:  Recently BRU and Mann partnered with NRDC, the group that  backed NAFTA and designed and defended utility deregulation in California and around the United States. In Los Angeles in the matter of the Ballona Wetlands, NRDC took a dive while soaking up donations from the developers, thereby undercutting grassroots groups attempting to stave off development and restore one of the largest parcels in Los Angeles.  Furthermore, NRDC has backed the emission trading approach to Los Angeles pollution which has been shown to be fraught with faults and loopholes.

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

re offset vested interests and other matters

In the past I expressed my concern that the offset paradigm creates beneficiaries with a vested interest in maintaining that system -- the offsets marketer(for example TerraPass), the offset seller(for example the industrial feedlot), and the buyer.  These interests then have a stake against a regulatory approach -- for example a requirement that feedlots implement methane collection -- which would eliminate this as a project for the marketer and force the seller to absorb the cost and let the buyer seek out other projects.  Isn't the whole voluntary nature of the "offset paradigm" repugnant to some of you --- smacks of George Bush environmentalism to me.

I had hoped for a  response in that thread http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/7/9/94458/59897/#3
from Adam of TerraPass who was responding to others therein,
but didn't occur -- maybe in this thread?

I did get a response from someone's sock puppet "naturescene"
who commented that,

"The real question is, why do you think it is necessary to harm businesses in order to address climate change?  We would like to see some changes in the way businesses function, but that in and of itself does not imply that we must harm businesses to do so.  I think that environmentalists need to drop the anti-corporate position,"

which is reminiscent of E.D.'s Sheryl Canter's comment that,

"It's good for businesses to be able to meet emissions targets while keeping their businesses strong. A crippled economy is bad for everybody, and no one would cooperate if that was the price." http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/5/8/9412/65181

The problem for me with the above "pro-corporate" and "protect the economy" positions is that these ignore the immense harm that corporations have and are doing to the environment as well as people, as exemplified by global warming.  And while the corporations are partnering and donating to E.D. and Nature Conservancy and CI and others, they are simultaneously marketing/selling (their greenhouse gas-spewing SUV's for example), as well as  funding anti-environmental think tanks and Republicans -- thereby making it all the harder to attain environmental goals.  And the mainstream enviro groups through befriending, partnering and being funded by the corporate sector aren't going to dare put on the table the matter of liability for the global warming perpetrated by the products of these companies.  (Meanwhile E.D. has one or two lawyers on its board from the law firm that defends Exxon.)

Re the concern by "naturescene" to not "harm business" and Canter for a "crippled economy", it would seem that their own "let's partner with and be gentle to business approach" may in of itself be quite harmful in various ways.  Let's recollect deregulation in California which was sold by E.D. and NRDC as a means for people to buy "green energy" while these groups were playing footsie with Enron and the other utilities.   Where do we start in regards to pondering the harm that occurred from that fiasco -- blackouts, higher prices for energy, many billions paid from public coffers and ratepayers to utilities to payoff their nuclear power plants and for expensive energy ( think of the loss opportunity of those funds having not been used for green energy projects;  furthermore, Wall Street, the utilities, and pension funds did not bear the true cost of the first generation of nuclear plants, thus they will be all the more game to embark upon future nuclear power plants;  by the way USCAP partner G.E. has just announced plans for a new nuclear energy venture  http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/10/business/hitachi.p ...  - does this fall under their Ecomagination division?)

Besides, business and the economy are quite brutal.  Ponder the effects of Walmart ( an E.D. partner and funder -- via Walmart heirs ) upon other businesses when it sets up shop and drives an  agenda of production to far away places with weak human rights and environmental standards.

All for now.  Next up -- a specific example of an obscene product that a group tried to legitimize with carbon offsets.

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

Ethanolics Anonymous

This essay seems appropriate to this thread:

Ethanolics Anonymous
By DENNY HALDEMAN

. . .

While some crops are superior to others and forest eating cellulostic ethanol technology scams are still in development, corn ethanol primacy is devouring the nation's alternative energy focus. Billions of taxpayer dollars are being thrown into this unsustainable technology and we subsidize each gallon of auto alcohol to the tune of 51 cents per gallon. The ethanol fumes are leaving us drunk on delusion, ignoring the consequences and refusing to face the future when the oil dries up.

the complete essay can be found at
http://www.counterpunch.org/haldeman06262007.html

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

Re NRDC and auctioning

It's interesting to see NRDC's person speaking favorably about auctioning.  Is that the policy of the NRDC/ED-created US Climate Action Partnership?

Or is support of auctioning the righteous posture to the grassroots while NRDC/ED will be simultaneously working with their Partnership on advancing the trading regimen which in the final wash will be without the auction component?

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

Plus let's not forget

the comment regarding the partnership that I found of interest in the NY Times article about the partnership.

Timing also played a role in the executives' thinking. As Mr. Darbee [chief executive of PG&E] said, ''We have the opportunity to construct something more pragmatic and realistic while President Bush is in office.'' A future political climate, after 2008, he said, might produce ''solutions less sensitive to the needs of business.''

Unfortunately, I'm pretty cynical about the integrity and judgement of the two leading enviros  involved in the partnership, Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Defense (Fund), and thus have reservations about this partnership, beyond my general concerns about the "carbon-trading" approach to addressing global warming.

bernardo issel - http://www.NonprofitWatch.org - bernardo (at) NonprofitWatch.org

Criticism of Emissions Trading @ Montreal Meeting

Hello, there seems to be a dynamic community critical of the emissions trading approach to address global warming.  These critics are holding various events during the Montreal meeting.

Here are a few links to relevant websites of the critics.
http://climatejustice.blogspot.com/
http://www.tni.org/ctw/

At the below link you can find an article "Kyoto Credits System Aids the Rich, Some Say" from the Washington Post where the criticism of trading emissions credits is examined.  
http://www.seen.org/pages/media/20050312_washpost_kyoto.shtml

I realize this goes against the grain of many NGOs, corporations, governments, and other bodies, but seems like it deserves to be given attention to, especially at Grist.org.  Perhaps good to recollect that Ken Lay and Enron were big fans of emissions trading from which it was hoped Enron would make billions from handling of the trades in credits.  Imagine if the Enron-favored approach to global warming turns out to be as much a house of cards as Enron's business model turned out to be, then we are definitely f***.On What to expect from the U.N. climate-change negotiations in Montreal posted 4 years ago 5 Responses