Comments lorna salzman has made

Where's the coalition? Energy that is.

Did Roberts just discover this? For the past year or more I have hassled numerous climate groups to get their act together and formulate their own energy legislation to counteract the Boxer-Lieberman gruel that passes for global warming legislation.  They just sat on their butts. Mostly they didn't answer me; those that did were nasty and told me not to complain or that I was a "purist". So much for environmental activism. And since then nothing has changed. Some groups support carbon trading. Some oppose carbon taxes. All supported the "80% reduction by 2050" in CO2 emissions, knowing that by that date the game is over. There is no leadership.
Even 350.org, Bill McKibben's group, has no clear plan for getting down to the 350 ppm the scientists urge. Do these people think that we should just sit around and pray for a miracle?      Isn't anyone embarrassed?   Or maybe they aren't scared enough? Or just lazy? Whatever the case, we have failed collectively. We complain but propose no alternative. No wonder the politicians are in control.  The activists are sitting in front of their computers instead of storming the doors of congress and marching in the streets.  We have put ourselves at their mercy even though science is on our side. We should just crawl away in shame.On Progressives discover there is no coherent energy movement to take advantage of this moment posted 1 year, 4 months ago 16 Responses

Building in flood plains

Mary Kelly doesn't go far enough in her recommendations. The federal flood insurance program should be eliminated completely. It allows people to rebuild damaged homes in floodplain areas with minimal restrictions, thus enabling people to collect money over and over. Building or rebuilding in flood plains, including coastal barrier islands,should be denied  federal insurance, mortgages and infrastructure. Taxpayers should not pick up the bill for such folly, including any rebuilding of New Orleans. The same goes for fire-prone and landslide-prone areas like chaparral and coastal zones in California. Global warming will continue to induce more severe climate events and taxpayers should not be required to pick up the bills for those who deliberately build or live in these areas. Let private insurers decide if they want to insure these homes. If they don't (and more and more they are cutting back coverage), then homeowners will bear the full cost. On The Midwest will suffer if we don't change our approach to flood protection posted 1 year, 5 months ago 3 Responses

Ward comments on 350 campaign

Yes, 350 is a good shorthand for a public campaign. The challenge to us is concretizing it:  getting it into public policy and most important of all congressional legislation.  Next year the flimsy Boxer bill will be reintroduced and predictably supported by the big, compromised enviros like NRDC and ED as well as USCAP. Phasing out coal powered plants via a steeply declining cap on CO2 emissions from each plant should be our top priority, but if we get business as usual, and that mucky system called carbon trading, this goal will elude us. Even using 2030 as the final date for ending coal violates, in my opinion, the 350 strategy; does anyone believe we can get back to 350 ppm if we burn coal for another 22 years? The coal and nuclear gangs are still pushing for subsidies and tax breaks, which will prolong their life time (if not ours) and squash the emergence of renewabl energy for decades. These are the concrete realities that McKibben's campaign and all the others need to confront. What happens or doesn't happen in the US congress will determine what happens in the rest of the world. We can't afford to accept political deals designed to keep us reliant on coal and fossil fuels for the foreseeable future, and only a united uncompromising legislative agenda, as opposed to a global treaty requiring hundreds of nations to sign on to it, will cut the mustard. I sincerely hope McKibben and all others will put their efforts behind specific strategies and legislation, to be prepared for hot battles next year by adversaries seeking token solutions that protect their profits and control.On The 350ppm challenge to U.S. environmental organizations and the importance of McKibben's 350.org posted 1 year, 5 months ago 2 Responses

Cap and dividend

The debate so far is treading the line between total free market and socialism. We need to decide where on this spectrum we want to be. To return carbon permit/tax revenue to "green" business for renewable technologies, to any degree, is what we have now: socialism for the rich. To return it equally to all citizens WITHOUT other regulations and policies is that Citizen Market in the Sky means "socialism for the poor" so  that people will be able to pay their bills, but it doesn't do anything to construct a new energy economy. What was left out was the imperative need to eliminate all energy subsidies and tax breaks to all energy sectors which would not only raise the costs of fossil fuels but would level the playing field so PRIVATE investors would come in and invest in green technologies, which in turn would create new businesses and jobs. Thus, the dividend is "socialism for the poor" but ending subsidies reflects the "free market".
I shudder to think about all the hands that will reach out for technology subsidies, diminishing the pot of money that , justifiably, needs to be put into infrastructure through PUBLIC programs. We don't want to privatize our electric distribution system do we? No. We want private capital to support the development of green power by removing the barriers to  genuine green entrepreneurship, not by subsidising them. On Peter Barnes' carbon policy proposal would not spur the economic changes we need posted 1 year, 5 months ago 19 Responses

Shellenberger: same old shell game

"Cost containment", otherwise known as cheap energy is what got us into this mess in the first place. This isn't a surprising comment given that Shellenberger's book Break Through says that Prosperity is the answer to the world's problems. I have news for him: Prosperity, in the top 1% of the world's people, is the PROBLEM. This fan of the WTO, IMF and globalization thinks that funneling cap and trade or carbon tax revenues into the grimy hands of industry will solve our problems. Well, they have had decades to solv e them, and if they believe in the free market, then let them raise capital from private investors. I shudder to think of the outstretched hands of industry, including the large oil and coal companies, who think socialism for the rich is just fine. Had we cut off energy subsidies and tax breaks by now, renewable energy companies and entrepreneurs would hav e taken off and would be on the verge of replacing oil, gas, coal and nukes. Now these guys want MORE money from us, while pretending the want to "contain costs". The Shellenberger scam is classic neo-liberalism in green clothing: reinforce existing energy systems, including coal plants for their full lifetime, while drawing up plans to continue corporate control and make sure that nothing, including conservation and reduced energy demand, stand in the way of their new profits. Congratulations, Michael, you have earned your Rockefeller and Cummings foundation grants. The capitalists will be very proud of you. The rest of us, however, aren't joining these cheerleaders. Check out my review of Break Through, at www.culturechange.org or www.lornasalzman.com for the full story of today's snake oil salesmen.On Rep. Ed Markey unveils ambitious new climate legislation posted 1 year, 5 months ago 4 Responses

Corker amendments

The Corker amendments are considered "poison pills" by the Democrats, who are eager to get credit for passing something, anything, to look good. Returning tax revenues to citizens is something both left and right believe in. Limiting use of offsets abroad is a way of preventing cheating, which goes with offsets like beer goes with pretzels. And imposing high tariffs on carbon-intensive imports is being considered by the EU, hardly a hotbed of either lefties or righties. Rest assured that Democrats will call Corker insincere and cynical , because he reveals clearly the disastrous failings of the Boxer-Warner bill which the Dems (the REAL cynics) want to get brownie points for since it makes them look busy. Were the enviros in DC honest they would have been opposing this crumby bill long ago. Were the rest of us not so cynical we would have held their feet to the fire. Let's support Corker, and also Edward Markey whose bill would start the shutdown of all US coal powered plants...the first and most important order of business by  the way. Coal will be shut down if we can make it more and more expensive: end subsidies, force the utilities to bear the full costs of sequestration research, tax carbon, put mandatory annual emissions reductions on all coal powered plants, require auction of permits (if we cant stop cap and trade entirely) with rebates to the public. Once you do this, renewables will compete on a level playing field. When coal gets too pricey renewables will be cheaper for the utilties than sequestration.On Conservative senator offers two progressive amendments to climate bill posted 1 year, 5 months ago 6 Responses

Ken Ward on policy and power

Ken Ward is, as usual, perspicacious and brutally honest in his assessment, in particular his keen insight : that policy is preceded by power. Many activists talk about building that "broad consensus" that they assume will create this power. But so far few have proposed anything more than the usual interim short -term "coalition building", based on the assumption that all progressives in all movements think and evaluate the same and share the same objectives. This is a sad delusion, underscored by the internal conflicts within the Democratic Party, presumed home base for liberals and everyone who isn't a Republican.  What is overlooked is this simple fact: that even though the environment has not taken priority in voter's choices,  there are literally tens of millions of citizens who support, directly and indirectly, environmental causes and organizations, who cut across economic and class lines, and who are the most likely segment of society to be sympathetic to an uncompromising and militant approach to global warming. Instead of a scattershot approach - appealing to the general public or the elites - we should spend our time and money to recruit this base to an undiluted campaign against global warming. And this campaign would directly address the issue of power, through a demonstrably effective mechanism: the PAC. If every one of these 20 million voters gave $10, we would have $200 million dollars to run those candidates who pledge to support a tough  energy policy that includes ending coal, terminating all fossil and nuclear subsidies, imposing carbon taxes, and imposing mandatory efficiency standards across the economy, as well as stopping deforestation, expanding  affordable regional and national passenger rail, and even placing a Border Tax Adjustment on tax carbon-intensive imports. The PAC could both run candidates in key districts and selectively endorse incumbents who support this plan. Some wealthy benefactors might be persuaded to match the PAC-raised funds, thus doubling the intake. Focus should be on the U.S. Senate rather than the House of Representatives, because it would take far more effort to obtain a majority in the House than in the Senate, and getting a green senator onto Capitol Hill means six years of opportunity.  This kind of message to the supposed progressives in congress would be like a pail of cold water on the heads of those Democrats who take the liberal vote for granted by assuming liberals and independents have nowhere else to go. What a powerful statement....and what a giant step toward getting the power that is needed to radically change our energy policy.On The Climate Policy Paradigm has reached its endgame posted 1 year, 6 months ago 21 Responses

Ken Ward looks to religion

While I am a devout atheist, I fear Ken may be right in looking to religious leaders as our last hope to fend off the worst impacts of global warming. Since I don't attend religious services I don't know what your local minister , priest or rabbi is saying, but I have yet to see any actual proposals for action, education, national campaign or legislation come out of any such leader. In fact none of these has come out of the secular environmental groups either. So the problem is not only worse than we think but the solution lies elsewhere, in something we haven't thought of yet. I would like to suggest that the spirituality-based ecological thoughts Ken has expressed will not suffice. Nor has ecological thought yet infused the campaigns of those who look to strictly technological and economic salvation, such as Van Jones and his preaching for "green job" and "green growth". In fact, we must face up to the fact that the integrity of nature and natural systems has never been the basis for political action in this country, notwithstanding the bioregionalists and deep ecologists and groups like Earth First! I would like to suggest that mending  the schism between those seeking economic justice and those seeking an ecological economy and society needs to take place before we can move ahead together. The inherent as well as instrumental value of nature and natural systems must be recognized intellectually, through an understanding and respect for the science that underlies environmental action. Neither the religious community nor the left nor the economic justice movement has made an effort to reach this understanding. Religious preaching and appeals to our sense of morality and justice have never stopped wars or oppression. They are expressions of individual conscience, but when not widely and deeply shared, can never form the basis for a campaign for political reform. Unless and until religious and social justice leaders make ecology the basis for their movements, we are doomed to fragmentation and division.   On By caring for God's creatures, we avert a second flood posted 1 year, 7 months ago 20 Responses

Response to JMG: Let's not kid the public

JMG claimed the mantle of elitism because he wisely understands the need to face the ugly truth about overconsumption and the need to articulate the "inconvenient truth". The more we pretend that the transition to a post carbon-society can be done within the present consumer/industrial growth society with a bit of greening at the margin, the bigger the shock will be when it all collapses. Those who know the truth are in a small minority..but they have one big advantage: they are right. The notion that we must mobilize the know-nothings and care-nothings before our leaders will take the issues seriously sounds like "grassroots democracy" but in reality it is nothing but political paralysis. We need to muster the already-converted choir and put it in fighting trim, to fight the battle with science and all the other ethical and political means at our disposal. In other words, we need a movement, not just a set of discussion papers or on-line debates. While we twiddle our thumbs about what numbers we should use, we are shirking our responsibility to unite behind a muscular energy agenda that focuses on the crucial pressure points: raising the price of coal so the industry shuts down; banning carbon trading as a scam that just keeps coal plants running indefinitely; imposing carbon taxes to enable renewables to attract investment and take flight; mandatory efficiency standards across the board that require LEED-compliant new contruction, industrial and commercial efficiency,;a rapid transition from trucking to rail transport across the country.  How we translate 80% by 2050 (far too late; by then the game will be over) into the reality of energ policy should be our task. It is the ACTIONS themselves that will reduce CO2, but so far we lack any  unified agenda and have let congress and industry call the shots.  Let's not be subverted by those who have let others define the problem and the solution. We need a militant uncompromising movement that will curb consumption and growth quickly, with carbon tax revenues being used to soften the impact on the poor and to retrain workers in the coal industry and elsewhere to move into renewable energy infrastructure construction and public transportation. "Green growth" will happen then..but not before we acknowledge that the consumer society as we know it must end. The green society won't appear until the old one ends. The sooner it ends, the better.On Continuing the debate posted 1 year, 7 months ago 78 Responses

Bill McKibben 350 campaign

Dear Bill: How does the 350 campaign translate into action? Do you have specific proposals and positions that you want the public to support and which you want put into legislative form in congress? I ask these questions once again after seeing the wonderful fervor of Step It Up and the less fervent lack of follow-up. Our adversaries are in congress daily, where they have been for years, promoting toothless "remedies" for global warming that avoid disturbing fossil fuel interests or Business As Usual or even inconveniencing the American public too much. For example, it is abundantly clear that we must curb energy growth and find replacements for coal and oil. But as long as we accept the carbon trading scam, avoid carbon taxes, continue fossil fuel subsidies and lack broad mandatory efficiency standards and measures, we will lose the battle. The energy legislation that passed congress does none of these. Moreover, we have adversarial friends like Adam Werbach, and Nordhaus and Shellenberger who tell us we don't have to make drastic changes in our life styles; we just need to tweak our purchasing choices a little. Your idea is commendable but without the public behind SPECIFIC LEGISLATIVE AND INSTITUTIONAL REFORMS nothing will change. Politicians follow; they don't lead. We need a huge constituency behind tough energy positions, starting with a  ban on new coal fired plants and a rapid phase-out of existing coal plants. Unless this happens, cap and trade will remain the modus operandi and the coal utilities and mining interests will continue to dominate our energy policies. Will you take the lead in developing a real constituency for radical change? Will you focus on stopping coal as  your top priority, so that renewables and efficiency have a level playing field to attract investment? Let's table the generalities about "taking action" and put those brass tacks on the table. This is a political movement, and as such has to have clarity and purpose. I hope you can provide both of these. On McKibben kicks off 350.org, a new international grassroots climate campaign posted 1 year, 7 months ago 12 Responses

Van Jones

Van Jones and I encountered each other last year on line when he made a broad intemperate attack on American environmentalism, charging it with racism and elitism...an old tune now that really should not be taken seriously. I said that activists and movements of color kept apart from environmentalism because they preferred movements and campaigns initiated and headed by people of color; I think this is true today. Environmentalists were and are the most progressive and the most supportive of social as well as enviromental justice...they need no defense. As for Jones' views on green jobs, he has sidestepped the whole issue of economic growth and the fact that it is cheap energy and cheap goods that have fanned the flames of indefensible overconsumption in this country, and that this will not be resolved until we have full cost pricing, particularly of energy. Jones' promotion of "green growth" to provide jobs for poor communities is also misleading because it implies that all we need is a new concept of production and new technologies to solve our ecological problems, in particular global warming. It is dishonest to avoid the truth: that traditional economic growth in production and consumption must be drastically curbed first, whether through price or regulation, and that the American lifestyle, whether in cars, food, homes, transportation and settlements, rests on the backs of the undeveloped world, at the expense of the natural world. Promises of equity, prosperity and sustainability through "green growth" are meaningless and ultimately unachievable, and the public should not be deluded into thinking otherwise. We need, first, an austerity budget  in energy and consumption, and then a commitment to redistribution of wealth, with those overconsumers and overpolluters paying most of the cost. Only then will we have the ability, economically and technologically, to indulge in the idea of a different "green growth" society. Jones needs to balance his understanding of the ecological crisis with this understanding rather than playing into the hands of those who want us to believe that we can greenwash Business as Usual and come out alive and kicking.On GOOD magazine's profile on the black green activist posted 1 year, 7 months ago 2 Responses

congestion in Albany

Brain congestion in Albany, methinks. Or how legislators avoid putting themselves on the line.  Or how the suburbs rule in this country. Blame can be spread wide and thick, but I won't put it on Bloomberg. Put it on Albany, always in the rear pulling us back. And put it on the public who only wants cheap energy, cheap food, cheap goods, cheap anything. They are backed up by the media, the government, the corporations, and anyone who stands to lose if consumers stop consuming. While we blame China we go full speed ahead as if nothing were happening. Legislators follow; they don't lead. Unless and until the public understands that cheap energy is at the root of our problems, and endless mindless consumption must end, legislators won't  stick their necks out  and risk the wrath of automotivated voters. Since when did we think they were smarter and more conscientious than the rest of us?On Manhattan congestion-pricing plan kicks the bucket posted 1 year, 7 months ago 7 Responses

Has everyone given up?

Guys, April's Fool Day is over. Let's get real. You all propose solutions but lack evidence of workability.Some of you say reducing fossil fuel use is pointless. Some of you say eliminating all carbon fuels is a big part of the solution. Some of you say renewables and efficiency will solve the problem. Some of you say existing technology is the answer. Some of you say it isn't. This is getting a bit tiresome and leads me to wonder whether exhaling CO2 doesn't cause brain damage. Can we rewind the tape and get back to the basics?
Greenhouse gases, mainly CO2 at this time, are causing an increase in average global temperature. Existing CO2 from prior releases is irreversible today with existing technology, committing us to a certain increase in this temperature. Restricting future CO2 emissions (and other GHGs) will therefore act to restrain the future global temperature increase. The sooner we restrict energy demand, using a variety of tactics including price, rationing, and mandatory conservation measures, the more we reduce future emissions. Are we all together on this so far?
If so, then the debate SHIFTS to another topic: how and how soon can efficiency and renewable energy technologies come on line to fill the REDUCED future energy demand? The debate has mixed apples and oranges and it is time to focus on the first and most important challenge: reducing fossil fuel consumption. Those who deny that carbon taxes can do this are assuming that such taxes ALONE will do the trick. But no one said that carbon taxes were the only thing we need.They are among the FIRST things. Why are so many purportedly smart people diverting the debate away from the key point: the need to reduce energy demand. Are these people working secretly for the investor-owned utilities? Do they put economic growth above all other considerations? Are they making excuses for the coal utilities and mining industry? Please excuse me for perhaps appearing confused but  I don't see a real debate going on about real issues. Can we refocus our astigmatic argument and agree to agree on the facts before we agree to disagree on speculations about future technology?On Why did Nature run Pielke's pointless, misleading, embarrassing nonsense? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 17 Responses

ACP : does it have specific proposals?

Haven't we had enough of groups calling for action without saying what they want done? How long will Gore's ACP keep us in suspense about its proposals? Will it say BAN COAL? Will it say carbon trading is a scam? Will it actively oppose fossil fuel subsidies and tax breaks? We are holding our breath but we have to let out the CO2 sometime. There is nothing wrong with an ad campaign but the public has to have something to DO after it has been activated. Hey Al, please give us a clue. Hope your plan is truly "commensurate" with the risk rather than something to appease and calm down the Business as Usual people and those in congress who passed the really flabby energy bill. On Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection unveils ambitious $300 million ad campaign posted 1 year, 8 months ago 18 Responses

No pain, no gain on congestion pricing

I was appalled at the "good man " who didnt want to pay more for his garage. If you can afford to garage a car in Manhattan, you can damn well afford to pay the tax. We are cutting to the chase on energy and global warming, which is to say that even good citizens will put their personal convenience ahead of their community and the global environment. This means that some groups and leaders will remain convinced that we can't give any more bad news about global warming and that we can't ask for any sacrifices, no matter how trivial. In turn these groups will soft-pedal their demands for the really tough measures needed to mitigate climate change. And in turn this will mean going along with politicians and policies that are little better than Business as Usual. And this in turn will mean that we will act only when the s--t hits the proverbial plan and we are forced into defensive and protective measures rather than those that could minimize the eventual impact. I find all this very discouraging and depressing. We need to look hard for leaders who will lay the truth out for all to see, and hope that enough people will finally understand what the stakes are. But I dont see these leaders yet. On What we lose if Bloomberg's plan goes down posted 1 year, 8 months ago 5 Responses

My hero, Ralph Nader

If Nader moves global warming to the top of his campaign issues, he will outshine (pun intended) all the other candidates, as he has done in the last three national elections. One of his heroes is the late Dave Brower, who was my boss and to whom I owe my entire environmental career and consciousness. Every single thing Nader says is accurate, true, and vitally important. In this respect he is way ahead of the US Green Party which had the unpersipacity to squash his candidacy in 2004 and thus render themselves irrelevant. Nader is not only our leading public citizen but our national hero. Anyone with a shred of brains, integrity and honesty knows this and knows that we can no longer settle for second or third best, or the lesser of two evils, which is evil in any case. We should all get out and carry petitions for Nader and drop our illusions about the Democrats, especially those in congress who are faking and pretending to be concerned about the environment. They are as fanatic about corporate capitalism as the Republicans and as slimy and sneaky too, having kept Nader off state ballots in the last election. Let's mobilize around someone we like and trust and can vote for without holding our noses or violating our principles.On An interview with Ralph Nader about his presidential platform on energy and the environment posted 1 year, 8 months ago 9 Responses

failure of US Green Party on global warming

While some Green Party candidates actually mention the words "global warming", the national party has sat on its hand  on environment since it was founded. It has consistently refused to become the public voice and warrior for environmental issues. It has refused to make these its policy centerpiece. It has refused to take the lead in the national dialogue. It has refused to insist that any candidates it endorses adhere to some bottom=line positions on global warming and energy policy. It refuses to make such tough positions the CONDITIONS for party support and endorsement. It has deferred to the rag-tag bunch of discontents who rage over war and vague social justice concerns but remain ignorant of the sweeping socio-political implications of climate change. A laundry list that gives one line of lip service to global warming among myriad other things (most of which the party has no influence over whatsoever, such as the Israel-Palestine battle) does not make the party Green. The shaking of fists at Bush and the appeasement of Democrats that involved squashing Nader and supporting a Dem in green clothing in 2004 and a few press release tirades against Republicans do not a campaign make. But this is what you get when you get uninformed marxists, islamists, anti war protesters and retired counterculture hippies together in their "big tent"...they reveal themselves as political clowns and amateurs. There are a couple of good environmentalists running for office here and there but they are running as independent greens. Dont waste your time on the party. Work with the groups fighting mountaintop removal, coal mining and new coal power plants. THEY are the new environmental movement, not the US Green Party.On Why this is the last election, and another look at McCain posted 1 year, 8 months ago 48 Responses

Exelon and Obama

Neither Obama nor Clinton are free of the grip of the nuclear industry and this is one of many reasons that people should vote for neither of them. But Obama has sullied his claim of not being beholden to corporate interests by taking credit for passage of a bill on radioactive waste leaks that was never PASSED...and which he drastically weakened at the behest of Exelon and other Senators in his attempt to get it out of a Senate committee and onto the Senate floor, where it never came to a vote. Incredibly, this same weak bill was introduced this past fall by Obama again! In any case it isn't just the nuclear test that Obama and Clinton fail but coal, which Obama supports as well as corn-based ethanol, an energy loser with big taxpayer subsidies. Voters need to hold both candidates' feet to the fire on  the coal issue as well as nuclear and biofuels, but in the end there won't be a nanotube's difference between them on nearly all the issues. The worst part of the Exelon issue is Obama's holier than thou stand about how he represents "change" and a new beginning, and more of the usual bland but fuzzy promises. I guess he knows how naive and gullible most American voters are: that they won't recognize that both candidates are running purely symbolic campaigns - gender and race - rather than ones based on issues.On If At First You Don't Succeed, Tritium Again posted 1 year, 9 months ago 1 Response

Next year in congress: no change

This outlook on energy legislation in 2009 leads right into Obama's theme song of Change. If elected president, can he and will he propose the changes needed? Highly dubious; he supports nuclear power and favors subsidies for that oxymoron,  "clean coal" and corn-based ethanol. He isn't likely to eliminated fossil subsidies or nuclear ones for that matter, which still amount to tens of billions of dollars, in insurance, uranium enrichment and radioactive waste disposal. No Democrat, Obama included, has proposed eliminating these subsidies. No Democrat has proposed the sweeping comprehensive mandatory efficiency measures that are needed to cut the projected demand in energy touted by the coal utilities to justify  new coal plants and avoid phasing out existing ones. No Democrat is supporting carbon taxes. Will Democrats support auctioning of carbon cap and trade permits? They will meet fierce resistance. Neither Obama's or Clinton's record show any inclination to take the really tough actions needed to reduce CO2 the requisite 80% by the year 2020. CHANGE?
Not from either side of the aisle in congress, regardless of who is president.On Climate legislation may be easier next year, but it won't be easy posted 1 year, 10 months ago 2 Responses

Green Party lacks environmental message

Until and unless the US Green Party prioritizes the environment as its core issue, it will continue to attract only a small minority of the public. Its origins as a "big tent" brought in the counterculture and the Politically Correct, while ignoring the vast potential constituencies still awaiting principled leadership on the most urgent issues of the day: global warming and energy policy. Its misguided focus on running candidates for president or for local school boards ignores the center of power: our congress in whose hands the survival of the planet rests.  Until the party shows credibility on environmental issues, no one will trust them with the reins of power. On What is the Green Party up to, exactly? posted 1 year, 10 months ago 23 Responses

Green Party still misses the ball

Many people think the word Green in the US Green Party signifies their main issue but this is not true and never was. None of the present candidates is running on a tough comprehensive environmental platform, one that should emphasize global warming, drastic reductions in energy consumption, preservation and restoration of wildlife habitats, rescuing the ocean fisheries, controlling population growth broad and consumption in this country, addressing the coming fresh water crisis, the emphasis on economic growth here, in China and in India (which is planning to put half a billion cheap cars in the hands of its citizens as is China), and the imminent Sixth Extinction of species. I ran in 2004 for the US Green Party's presidential nomination, on a tough broad environmental platform that addressed all these issues. Today no one is discussing them, either in the party or elsewhere, and thick-skulled proponents of  increased consumption, growth and globalization like Nordhaus & Shellenberger get worshipped like 21st century gods as they propose salvation through greater "prosperity", consumption and Business As Usual. The American media and public have seemingly lost any power of critical thought, buying into the arguments of those who tell them that everything is just fine and that we don't have to change our behavior or way of life. This kind of denial, and opting into a Pollyanna world seen through rose-colored glasses, is what will doom our country, and no one on the right or left has the brains or courage to point out the nudity of the Emperors of Growth & Prosperity.
This past year the Arctic has lost  twice as much ice as is contained in all the European Alps, the Greenland  ice cover is crumbling into the ocean, and yet governments and business around the world are still bringing new coal powered plants on line without hesitation, while refusing to put a proper price on CO2 emissions. If we put the proper price on gasoline, including its environmental, health and social impacts, it would cost us $15 a gallon...but we complain because we are now paying $3. Are there no honest leaders who will jolt us out of our dreams, before they become nightmares in the coming decade?On U.S. Green Party holds its first presidential debate of the season posted 1 year, 10 months ago 20 Responses

Real hero in this country

Between Jones, Gore and Hansen, Hansen wins hands down. He has the most to lose by sticking his neck out. Jones is promoting growth, and even though he calls it "green growth", it is still more of what we need less of. Gore is great but late.  Hansen still has to abandon his faith in nukes but has come out against coal powered plants, which right now are the biggest threat of all (along with deforestation).  Gore hasn't proposed any specific solutions, and certainly none that challenge the dominant growth paradigm, and this is true of Jones too, who, like too many people, focuses more on economics than ecology and still has a lot to learn.

Lorna SalzmanOn Vote for the most heroic eco-hero of 2007 posted 1 year, 11 months ago 7 Responses

Salmony is right about the enviros failure

As a long time environmental activist and former green candidate, I am outraged at the lack of leadership and political action in the environmental movement. Not only have ignored the biodiversity crisis but they have bought hook, line and sinker the same pathetically weak positions on global warming as our miserable congress is taking, in its feeble attempts to look busy on this issue. Even Al Gore has picked up the timid chorus on CO2 reductions: 80% reduction by 2050. Come on, Al,  you know it will all be over by then. We have maybe ten years. However, the scientific community must assume more responsibility and instead of regarding itself only as a  source of expertise, it needs to become advocates of ecological sanity. We need a Million Scientist March on Washington. We need scientists speaking out loudly, without compromise, to the public, the media and especially to congress. We need political leadership from those who know the truth and are willing to say so. They can't keep their opinions to themselves or within their academic institutions. They need to get out onto the street and tell it like it is.

Lorna Salzman.On A third of avian species on land could disappear this century as a result of climate change posted 1 year, 11 months ago 7 Responses

Feeling good about environmentalists? Not.

I will overlook the subtle cheerleading for the Democrats and Nancy Pelosi. Comparing them to the Republicans is like taking a few drops of poison rather than a tablespoon. Present energy legislation doesn't come close to being commensurate with the huge threat of global warming and the impacts we will feel in short order. Activists aren't here to be a claque for the Democrats or give brownie points for things that both parties ignored for decades. Our role is to be non partisan gadflies, shameless agitators, and above all promoters of Good Science, not appeasers happy with tokenism or what is "feasible". If we don't get really tough laws now, it will be nearly impossible to get them strengthened later because congress will smile, throw up their hands, and say: You want MORE? But we gave you our all. We put ourselves on the line. Come on, lay off us for a while. The Grist commentators who think we just got  goddess gift to humans in a 35 mph AVERAGE fleet fuel efficiency are inhaling something illegal. Trucks and SUVS will still be off the hook, and we all know vehicles can be designed to get over 60 mpg today. Time to stop pandering to Detroit and Dingell, to stop pinning medals on the Democrats, and to stand up for science-based policies and principles. We have nothing to lose from hanging tough..but LOTS to lose by knuckling under to the lowest common denominator on energy policy and global warming. Are we fighters or just part of the Democratic Party brigade?  Too early to celebrate, folks.

Lorna SalzmanOn Greens need to learn how to celebrate their friends and their movement posted 1 year, 12 months ago 31 Responses

future of coal

Coal is in our future only if we refuse to reduce energy demand, do not put a sufficiently high price on carbon, and do not impose mandatory efficiency measures throughout the economy, especially in buildings and transportation. Utilities propose new coal plants assuming past energy growth of 2% per year will continue indefinitely, but this is based on underpriced cheap energy and dismisses the huge potential of energy efficiency. Also, demands for both coal and nukes is contradictory, since, if the utilities really believe coal plants can fulfill future energy demand, why are expensive nukes needed at all? Carbon sequestration must be demanded of all new coal plants, and this would be expensive; Joseph Romm in his book says $40 per ton of carbon, so therefore we should impose a carbon tax of at least that amount, which would reduce demand and undercut the need for new plants!  Amory Lovins' principle of "least cost energy strategy" needs to be heeded, thus forcing utilities to prove that projected demand can NOT be met by less costly and quicker alternatives such as efficiency. Coal utilities cannot be allowed to dictate the terms of debate or base their projections on the cheap energy of the past. The Architecture 2030 people are right on the mark, saying that stopping coal plants must be our top priority. Repeating the renewable energy anthem over and over won't bring it on line fast enough to meet the arguments of the utilities, except for wind power whose potential is being blocked by NIMBY idiots calling themselves environmentalists (like Robert
Kennedy Jr. up on the Cape). The environmental activist community is  failing badly, having accepted the unacceptable in congressional legislation and in believing that  we can delay substantial CO2 reductions over the coming four decades. By 2050, the target date for a 60% reduction in CO2, it will all be over, folks; just look at the most recent IPCC report which says if we don't make radical reductions in the next four years, there will indeed be Hell and High Water. The global warming activists are just helping the phonies in congress like Sanders and Boxer earn brownie points, when they should be storming the halls of congress en masse, with a unified set of demands for high carbon taxes, gasoline taxes and rationing, tough mandatory efficiency, and end to all fossil and  nuke subsidies and tax breaks. But they are scared of their shadow. Why? What do they have to lose? If they don't get their act together, we are ALL lost.  Is anyone else as angry as I am?

Lorna SalzmanOn Jeremy Carl looks at ways to clean up coal posted 2 years ago 13 Responses

Lieberman/Warner energy bill

Friends of the Earth (my former employer when Dave Brower was alive) deserves high praise for not meekly accepting what this bill offers. We need to get it right the first time or we will be tricked by NRDC and ED who want to come out as the heroes on this, when they are the villains in the environmental community. In fact NONE of the bills in congress, including Boxer and Waxman and Sanders, come close to being commensurate with the risk, as I have repeatedly told the activist community. The 80% CO2 cut by 2050 is dangerously misleading and inadequate, when most credible scientists agree that we likely have ten to twenty years maximum to avoid the tipping point (2 degree C. rise in average global temperature, or 450 ppm of CO2). Most of the Washington groups know this, including NRDC and ED, but dont have the cojones to walk into congress and demand a bill that acknowledges the hard science and acts accordingly. But at least Friends of the Earth has moved ahead of the pack and deserves our praise and support for its courage and integrity.  Dave Brower would be proud of his organization were he alive.On Green groups battle over climate bills in the Senate posted 2 years, 1 month ago 13 Responses

Environmental Defense and wiscidea

Yes, it has to be all or nothing, because if it isn't , you get squashed and chopped up in the big soup of compromise, and the really tough demands will never be addressed once the diluted legislation is passed. ED is not a friend though decades ago it led the country in banning DDT. It is now an appendage of corporations who greenwash themselves, a more lucrative location for ED with its huge overhead and reliance on the wealthy funders and conservative foundations who fund only those who don't rock the boat..of which ED is the prime example. The trouble with all the environmentalists today is that they don't regard legislation the same way they regard ethical or moral principles. If someone asked us to soften our demands on racism in order to get the foot in the door or get something that is "better than nothing", how would we respond? "It's too early...".."we will lose some support from some whites"...."we will be regarded as radicals"....etc, ad nauseum. We are fighting a HUGE moral as well as ecological battle to save the planet, and if we willingly sacrifice our scientifically based demands and goals, we cede the power to ED and the other corporate-controlled enviros who regard the environment as a job, not as a cause. The only way the environmental community can regain its credibility and legitimacy is to hold firm and then bring the public and elected officials along. The old anti-nuclear power movement did exactly that: it said NO NUKES, not "nuclear moratorium", and guess what, folks? It won. It took a while but the politicos and the media and the public all eventually came around. If the compromisers (like NRDC, ED, and even Sierra Club) had been heeded, we would have a hundred more nukes operating today. We stopped the industry in its tracks, pretty much, and it won't have an easy time getting back in business no matter what you read to the contrary. So sidestep around ED and the other sell-outs, and revive the fundamental unwavering environmental principles that we established after so much hard work, and kick the compromisers out into the cold where they can freeze their butts off sucking up to tricky congressmen who are afraid to stand up to utilities, the coal industry and the global warming deniers.On Environmental Defense has abandoned other green groups on Lieberman's bill; how should they respond? posted 2 years, 1 month ago 3 Responses

Komanoff is right on the mark

Carbon Tax Center co-director Charlie Komanoff is, as usual, completely correct in his analysis as well as in his criticism of those environmentalists who are still looking for ways of avoiding a carbon tax, much as Nordhaus & Shellenberger are. These people are the ones Al Gore tried to reach with an "inconvenient truth": that rapid radical reductions in CO2 can be achieved only by radical increases in the price of energy. Why are so many activists ready to accept failure? Why are they trying to rationalize their opposition to higher energy costs? Why are they pretending to speak for the entire American public when they complain that 'the public" won't accept higher prices? Why are they pretending that the situation is less dire than it really is? Why are they taking the side of the naysayers, the deniers, the sceptics, and the doubters, by opposing the single most effective mechanism available to us in the remaining time frame for averting the tipping point, the point of no return? Why are these people literally SELLING OUT THE ENVIRONMENT, selling out their real friends, and aligning themselves with the ENEMIES? If there are conspiracy theorists out there, they should get busy and figure out the answers to these questions. Are they being paid by the coal industry? By the utilities? Who has bought them off? And if these are not the answers, then the only conclusion is that these people are STUPID, in which case they shouldn't be listened to any more than we listen to Bjorn Lomborg and his ilk. On Big Green savages Dingell's carbon tax posted 2 years, 1 month ago 26 Responses

Where Nordhaus/Shellenberger fail

Like nearly everyone else in the activist community, N&S don't acknowledge the urgency and short time remaining to adequately reduce CO2 emissions. The 2050 date for 80% reduction effectively dooms us to accommodating (if that is possible) irreversible climate change that has already set in, in the Arctic, thus condemning us and our kids and grandkids to spending public money not on "clean" technology and renewable energy but to defense mechanisms to avert drastic ecological and public health crises, i.e. to living in a permanent crisis mode. I am tired of reading the same cliches, especially from political consultants like N&S, who ignore the climate scientists' warnings and prognostications and  refuse to challenge conventional wisdom or the necessity of higher energy prices. These guys ignore science just like the anti evolutionists, but pose as good guys. They aren't informed; they aren't wise; they aren't realistic. Throw their stuff into the nonrecyclable trash. With friends like these, we don't need enemies. On Stabilizing climate means embracing technology, public investment, and global economic development posted 2 years, 1 month ago 6 Responses

response to Jesse Jenkins

Jenkins covered all bases in his brilliant response to Nordhaus & Shellenberger, revealing their "red herring" approach and their invention of problems that are non-existent or readily solved. Neither N nor S will acknowledge that mandatory and DRASTIC reductions in energy demand must be the prime focus because these are the ones that bring the quickest results; any scientist or economist knows this but they seem determined to deny this. They also want to avoid inconvenience of any kind, including higher energy costs, but again, any scientist - actually any dope - knows that these are not only imperative but unavoidable. None of this is surprising since neither N nor S has an environmental background. Their public relations bias shows at every turn. Their original report (see my web site for my critique: www.lornasalzman.com) was pure baloney, contradictory and abysmally lacking in any environmental consciousness or experience. I am not paranoid (normally) but I can't help thinking, after reading their ridiculous stuff, that their loyalty lies to special interests. Could it be auto workers? The Democratic Party? The financial community? It sure isn't the earth. Let's move their stuff into the circular file and get some more honest and credible dialogue going.
Lorna SalzmanOn Shellenberger & Nordhaus respond to critics posted 2 years, 2 months ago 23 Responses

a question for non deniers

If global warming activists really believe that the situation is as bad as the evidence indicates, then why aren't they sounding all the alarms? Why are they so ready to support proposals in congress that stretch out reduction of GHGs over the next forty-three years, to 2050? Why are they not proposing really drastic reductions in energy consumption, such as gasoline taxes or rationing? Why are they refusing to take tough positions and make demands on decision makers that are commensurate with the threat that they, purportedly, agree, is huge? Why aren't they saying: shut down all coal power plants within five years? Why aren't they opposing carbon trading, which is a clever industry ruse to keep existing coal plants running for their lifetime? Anyone have a clue why the global warming activists talk a good talk but won't  walk the walk?
Lorna SalzmanOn The ongoing humiliations of the tattered 'climate skeptic' movement posted 2 years, 2 months ago 10 Responses

Comments on Pope, Nordhaus, Shellenberger

The comments on Nordhaus  and Shellenberger appall me, being little more than purely technological and materialistic approaches to global warming. It is as if thinkers and philosophers like Dave Brower, David Ehrenfeld, Kirkpatrick Sale, George Sessions, Dave Foreman and David Suzuki never existed. It is as if global warming's heat were the only problem, rather than the impact on the rest of the earth's species and systems. It is as if the biodiversity crisis did not exist. What is glaringly absent is any reverence for the eons-long evolutionary history which brought our own species into existence as well as those species and natural systems on which we depend . Truly, the lack of an ecological, ethical and philosophical grounding for the debate on global warming is in the full sense of the word blasphemous, in that by stressing a purely instrumental attitude towards environmental problems it ignores the methodical shredding of the earth's systems and the web of life which evolution so magnificantly wove.

Lorna SalzmanOn Carl Pope reviews Break Through by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger posted 2 years, 2 months ago 14 Responses

Bjorn Lomberg...again?

Why do the media pay attention to Bjorn Lomberg, who has been accused by the Danish Institute of Science of deception and lying? Second question: why are BOTH the extreme right and the extreme left denying global warming? From the latter we have Alexander Cockburn; from the former we have numerous neo cons from conservative think tanks, such as one Don Kates, a lawyer connected to the Pacific Research Foundation. Of course their intent is to muddy the waters and cloud the issues. But it also is, apparently, to defend capitalism, economic growth and technology from the heathens and neo luddites. Isnt it interesting how the left and right converge in their philosophies? They also converge in their methodology: mock, denigrate and deny anything that deviates from their political ideologies. I have acquaintances on each end of the spectrum - a libertarian intellectual and a Marxist green from the US Green Party, lined up with the deniers. Strange bedfellows.

Lorna SalzmanOn The great polar bear irony posted 2 years, 2 months ago 11 Responses

Lundberg and the big change we need

Is anyone listening? Lundberg is saying that to date, neither individuals nor activists nor congress have proposed or taken action anywhere near commensurate with the imminent threat. Fasting on the steps of congress and shouting for renewable energy do not bring political change. What is needed is 1)Unity.  2)A tough set of demands presented to congress,  and circulated in a widespread citizen petition nationwide, to include carbon taxes, gasoline taxes, gasoline rationing, mandatory reductions in energy consumption and efficiency standards, termination of all fossil fuel and ethanol subsidies; 3) formation of a PAC to run candidates for congress against those who do not support this program. 4)a public statement by scientists on the global emergency, with a Million Scientist March on Washington supporting these demands; 5)full page ads in major city newspapers supporting a 90% cut in greenhouse gases by 2030, with the above demands implemented to achieve this; 6)boycott of all goods imported by airplane; 7)Business Transfer Assessment, taxing hugely goods produced by and transported from large CO2 emitters;
8)Full Cost pricing of all goods to internalize the real costs of production and consumption;
9)Immediate halt to deforestation worldwide in the tropics; 10)boycott of all soybean, sugar and cattle produced in Brazil and other cleared tropical lowland forest;
 On A guest essay from Jan Lundberg posted 2 years, 2 months ago 16 Responses