Comments mtneuman has made

Need a Plan for All 50 States?

Terry Tamminen's success in getting California's governor to push for CO2 emission caps needs to be duplicated in all 50 states.  Every day that goes by that the all 50 States fail to reduce their fuel burning - in their cars, airplanes, houses, commercial businesses, institutions, recreational outlays and factories - pushes us further and further behind the 8-ball.   The sooner that our representatives in state government realize how terribly important it is for them to stop avoiding meaningful action aimed at reducing aggregate greenhouse gas emission from their state, the better.

Regarding the interview with Terry Tamminen, I would have liked to have read more Tamminen's vision of how states can accomplish CO2 emissions reductions.  There may be some situations that are unique to one state in terms of emissions reductions but for the most part the major emission sources are the same from state to state.   Every state contributes greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere which, for the most part, come from 3 primary sources:  (1) motorized transportation (cars, trucks, airplanes, motorized recreation), (2) space heating and (3) electric power generation and use.  Motorized transportation is the largest contributor.

In highway transportation, there are essentially three major ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation.  One is to switch to fuels that, when the fuel is burned, emit fewer pounds of greenhouse gases per mile traveled in the vehicle.  Another is to use a more fuel-efficient vehicle that burns less gasoline per mile.  The third way is for those who drive motor vehicles to reduce the number of miles they drive every year, and substitute driving with more fuel-efficient mass transit, bicycle use and walking; or at least car-pooling (or alternatively moving their place of residence or their place of business closer to one another to reduce the number of required miles of travel).  All 50 States have failed miserably on all three of these accounts.
http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport....

In the Great Lakes region where I live, in spite of the Union of Concerned Scientists' release of its "Confronting Climate Change in the Great Lakes Region" report in April 2003 at the State Capitol in Madison, the state has done little to reduce the aggregate annual greenhouse gas emissions within the state.  As a member of the Preserve Our Climate Coalition, I actively participated in the press release and news conference on the report -- a report that was authored by 14 prominent Midwest university scientists and that projected serious economic, health, environmental and economic consequences to the state from the continued buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere if actions were not taken to reduce aggregate greenhouse gas emissions. The event failed to stir action by the state's governmental representatives at every level.  

Wisconsin's annual carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fuel burning increased 26% from 1990 to 2004, resulting in 31 million more tons of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere from Wisconsin sources in 2004 compared to 1990 (122 million vs. 91 million tons).  And since CO2 is additive (builds up) in the atmosphere from year to year, this means Wisconsin added approximately 1.5 additional billion tons of CO2 gas to the atmosphere during that 15 year period.  Business has continued as usual in Wisconsin, despite the public release of the report.

In April 2005, the Preserve Our Climate Coalition presented state lawmakers and the governor with their "Wisconsin Climate Change Petition", containing the names of over 500 residents of the state demanding the state to establish climate change legislation, including a program that would provide positive financial incentives to citizens who minimize motorized travel and energy use in the home on a yearly and per capita basis. It is doubtful that many of them took the time to even read the petition since they did nothing about it in response.

Although state legislators did manage to pass (and the governor signed) an energy bill last spring, which set goals for renewable energy sources in utility plants, the law omitted the whole area of reducing greenhouse gas from transportation the largest end-use sector emitter in Wisconsin.  In the area of electric power generation, coal still dominates as a fuel source in Wisconsin, supplying more than two-thirds of the state's power plants according the U.S. Energy Information Administration.  More and larger coal burning plants in Wisconsin have been approved since 2003 and are presently under construction.

Several years ago now, I authored a strategy to address the largest contributors to global warming on a statewide basis in Wisconsin. While not implemented, the concept may still have merit.

In a nutshell, the strategy is for government to reward citizens and families who conserved energy by offering financial incentives to them to reduce activities that contribute the most greenhouse gas emissions.  Funding sources would be the same as those already in place, but instead of financing  more highway expansion and power plant construction, the moneys collected would go back to the public as rebates at the end of the year.

I'm providing a link to paper I wrote that document the proposal, below.  Also included is a copy of the letter to the people I sent the proposal to.
http://www.danenet.org/bcp2006/neuman_gw.pdf

www.madison.com/communities/preserveourclimate
On An interview with California environmental adviser Terry Tamminen posted 2 years, 10 months ago 8 Responses

Appreciate Your Extra Effort

Excellent!  It's good to see the Bush administration's recalcitrance on the global warming fight has finally made it to the judicial powers that be.  It's too bad it took this long.

One of the comments I sent to the U.S. EPA admininstor when he was deciding to accept or reject responsibility for regulating CO2 emissions from tailpipes was that air quality in the U.S. will get worse with global warming (because ozone levels and fine particle in the air will naturally increase with rising temperature and humidity).  I wish someone had brought that up to the court, since the EPA regulates those pollutants now already.

Scalia's comments seem to reflect an understanding that "the atmosphere" is somewhere off in the wild blue yonder and thus shouldn't concern us much.  Someone needs to tell him that the atmosphere is also all around us here on the surface, and that we breathe it and live in it everyday - CO2, oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor and all!  

Jay Leno had Al Gore on his show last night.  Jay asked Big Al to fill him in on the case.  Big Al mentioned what Justice Scalia said - that he didn't want to deal with the issue of global warming, and then he added that the judge should have felt the same way about the 2000 elections.  (Score one for the good guy.)

Has the court finished hearing introductory arguments already or are there more to come?  Anyone know?On The justices speak posted 2 years, 12 months ago 7 Responses

If You Pay Them, They Will Drive Less

Absolutely, Umbra.  The quickest way to not only reduce American's overall demands for oil, but also reduce the need for continued paving of the landscape (for highway development) together with the aggregate emissions of greenhouse gases from fuel burning in the U.S. is to offer American automobile drivers MONEY to drive less (miles), every day, week, month and year.  

Yes, you can count on Triple A, the automobile and highway building industries, and their subsidiaries and protectors.  But make no mistake about it, if you offer to pay the average American household a cash rebate amount of money at the end of a year provided they drive significantly fewer miles over a year's time (or no miles), they will try their hardest to earn it.

After that, you could get Americans conserving on energy use in their home much more than do now, too, by applying the same principle - that using less (fuel derived energy) is best".  But that is the topic, for another story I suppose.

Read about both approaches at:

FINANCIAL INCENTIVES FOR REDUCING HIGHWAY TRAVEL
AND ENERGY DEMANDS IN WISCONSIN
http://www.danenet.org/bcp2006/vmr.pdf  
On Umbra on ethanol posted 3 years, 6 months ago 28 Responses

Conserve, NOW!

Yes, and here's your opportunity:

If Government offers the public the billions of dollars that would be collected from the higher fuel taxes back to the public in the form of annual "rebates" for DRIVING LESS miles (as recorded on their registered motor vehicles' odometers over the year), then JQ American Public just might abandon his SUV out in the suburbs and come back into the city to live, or at least choose his resident location to be closer to his job, so he doesn't have to drive so much.  That we he would not only save money by burning less fuel, but he would also earn the monetary rebates for driving significantly less than the average.  

Read more at:

Conserve, NOW!: Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Other Environmental Costs By Offering Financial Incentives that Reward Less Driving, Flying and Home Energy Use, Nov. 2000.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ConserveNOW/

 On Americans support a gas tax if revenues go toward energy independence posted 3 years, 9 months ago 7 Responses

No Government Action = No Action

Relying on the good will of the people to cut back on driving, flying and wasting energy in their home and everyday living isn't working now nor is it likely to.  That's the George W. Bush plan, and it's failing miserably.  

Government needs to develop new programs that will encourage people to conserve energy.  Financial incentives (rebates) to encourage less driving, flying and home energy use - funded by increases in fuel taxes.  The incentives have to be high enough to make it worthwhile for people to change to a less energy intensive way of living.  

How you get government officials to implement the changes is the hard part.  

  On Why the Montreal climate summit was too painful to watch posted 3 years, 11 months ago 5 Responses

District Court of Appeals Ruling is Absurd

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals' decision in favor of regulation of global warming gases by only states who have the authority and choose to do so makes no sense whatsoever.  The reason is that greenhouse gases not only rapidly diffuse through the atmosphere; they eventually will accumulate in amounts that will adversely impact the whole.

So, in effect, it doesn't benefit anyone if California, Oregon and Washington regulate greenhouse gases down to some certain level, but then New York, Illinois and Wisconsin turn around and allow greenhouse gases to increase.  The negatives from states that don't regulate the emissions cancel out the positives gained by the states that do!  That's why federal oversight is necessary to insure all states do their part in reducing emissions, just like it works under the Clean Air Act.   On Appeals court rules EPA doesn't have to regulate CO2 emissions from cars posted 4 years, 4 months ago 2 Responses

Funny Not is Right

I'm not laughing, either.  Those in government toeing the line by being silent on global warming the last several years were doing so to save their own skin.    

I know a few scientists and engineers in government who could not toe the line on the federal global warming position.  They said global warming is a problem that ought be considered throughout the government, because it's changing everything. They refused to be quiet about it.

As a result, they got skinned alive.  Nobody came to their rescue.  Nobody would even come near them.On From now on, those that would do nothing about global warming will have to lie about it. posted 4 years, 5 months ago 7 Responses

Conservation is Key

Yes it would.  And there would be widespread revolt and anarchy.  People would be siphoning gas from each other's tanks like was common place in the early 1970s when there was a shortage of gasoline.  But it would still work.
I love this statement by Dave Roberts:  "Modern-day American exurbians are living in a way that's making them obese, diabetic, asthmatic, and disconnected from communal support, not to mention dead from heart disease and auto accidents."  It says it all.  We are victims of our own success.  The dominant land-use paradigm in this country is most definitely oil-sucking, as Roberts says.   And it's got to change.  It's just go to....

But it won't change by itself.  Positive lifestyle changes don't just happen by themselves, they have to be prodded somehow. The negative ones might, but not the positive ones.   So we have to find a positive way to do that, one that doesn't create the kind of anarchy nobody wants in this country.

The government has to have a role; it's up to the people who created the government to tell it what is needed, because the government in this country has gone adrift, off into never land, and has taken us all there with it.  Mostly because of those three little letters:  o-i-l.

I propose we tell the government we want our taxes to go to the right kinds of things, not the things like oil that will destroy us and the planet along with us.   We need to do that now, with a sense of urgency, because we don't have much time left anymore.  We have waited too long to act on this already.  We have to act now.  

What it all comes down to is people need to be rewarded for saving energy.  So that if they choose not to buy so much fuel, to not drive so much, to not fly, to use less energy in their home (per capita), they get financially rewarded at the end of the year with energy rebates for conserving energy.  That's the basis concept.  It's foreign to our economic system, so government has to be behind it.  But they would be behind it unless people tell them it is necessary for them to hold on to their jobs.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/message/229On Why can't we change our oil-sucking land-use preferences? posted 4 years, 5 months ago 5 Responses

Reparation First, then: "The Dream"

I read "The Death..." when it first came out and must say I don't recall any special consideration to the problems remaining for people of color who have been badly discriminated against in the past and, and for those who are still being discriminated against, though not as blatantly so, in the present.  In no area of the environment will the growing disparities between Americans of color and "The Haves" be more apparent that in suffering from the ill-effects of global warming.

Global warming will be most devastating to the poor and unhealthy in America.  It should be no surprise to anyone that African-Americans score highly in both these areas - unfairly so, of course.

The poor are predicted to suffer more from heat waves which will become more numerous, longer, hotter and more humid (more deadly) with continued global warming.  The poor live in housing units without air conditioning, or they can't afford to run the air conditioning even if they have it.  

The poor are also most often located in large cities which more commonly experience heat island effects (from excessive levels of heat-absorbing asphalt), which can cause temperatures to rise 10 degrees F. above the temperatures outside the city.  

Statistics also show African Americans suffer the most often from asthma conditions, heart attack, stroke and many other ailments related to their environment.  

As temperatures increase with continued global warming, air quality will increasingly get worse as well, resulting in more hospitalizations needed for asthmatics and for people with heart, circulation and lung ailments.  The warmer temperatures will also contribute to higher ground level ozone levels, which more frequently causes irreparable damage to small African American babies and young children.

It is a fact that African Americans have knowingly paid the unfair price for being different and singled out for living in America for centuries.  Although it will not be possible to right any of these wrongs, America still needs to make restitution to its African Americans for the discrimination and injustices the country inflicted upon them as a race of people for so many years.  Paying reparations would show them America is still aware of their suffering from the wounds and insults inflicted on their great heritage and ancestry of the past, and that is is well aware of they're having been denied so many economic opportunities over the years, due to ignorance and racial motivations that have been present in the American population and still continue to this very day.

In the city where I live, a petition drive was initiated a couple years ago by a brave leader in the Black community calling on city government to go on record in support of the legislation by Rep. John Conger, which would have authorized a study to look into the feasibility of the federal government paying reparations for slavery.  I actively helped with the petition drive because I agreed that America still owes a tremendous debt to African-Americans - for the numerous generations of abuse and confinement.

Environmentalist organizations could be a natural fit in working for the reparations for slavery. After all, all human beings are also part of nature and the environment, and it is our duty to protect them along with other elements of "nature".

Environmentalist organizations have many good, hard working and caring individuals, most of whom are willing (and do) go to the mat for many good causes, including social causes.  It is time for environmentalist organization to add reparations for slavery to their list of environmental causes.  Just as the harming of the atmosphere and the environment has many long-term negative impacts, so also too has the slavery that was inflicted on the African American population in the past had many long-lasting negative impacts on the African-American population.

It only stands to reason that in order for the traditional environmental organizations (non-Blacks) to gain the cooperation of the African American population in fighting for environmental causes like global warming, they ought first earn that cooperation by supporting reparations for slavery.  Only then will it be possible to move forward into fulfilling Dr. Martin Luther Kings Jr. dream - a dream for prosperity, a good education, freedom from discrimination, and justice for races, creeds and nationalities.

After all, are we not all our brother's keepers?  Then we best all start reducing our fossil fuel emissions - in driving, flying and using energy in the home.  

CONSERVE, NOW! to reduce GHG emissions
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ClimateArchive/message/229On An environmental-justice advocate insists he's not dead yet posted 4 years, 6 months ago 7 Responses

Petition for Climate Change Legislation

Sorry.

Here should be the correct URL for the Wisconsin Climate Change Legislation petition:

http://www.petitiononline.com/climateOn Global warming probably won't do the job. posted 4 years, 6 months ago 6 Responses

Better Late than Never?

The reason we're seeing utility companies pivot and demand climate change action sooner rather than later is that they have done their homework and learned for themselves where we're heading.

Thanks to the media and our government officials, most Americans are still ignoring the problem of global warming and we'll continue to do so until our President tells us to do otherwise.  By then, the end may be all over but the shouting.On Immelt goes green(ish) posted 4 years, 6 months ago 1 Response

Ken Ward Analysis: Part III

The author argues environmentalists should resist efforts to make "environmental justice" the core tenant of the movement, claiming it would risk making environmentalism "just one more slice of the pie".

I guess Ken Ward has never heard that "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" (Martin Luther King, Jr.), or that "injustice must be rooted out wherever and whenever it exists".

If we are to have any hope of resurrecting the environmental movement, JUSTICE MUST BE CORE.

Injustices must be acknowledged and corrected, without inexcusable delays.  When human beings are being adversely impacted, any amount of delay in mitigating the impacts prolongs the time of the injustice.

Environmental injustices occur also to individuals and communities who are not poor or minority populations.  Those injustices should also be eliminated!  

Environmental justice applies to the condition we leave the environment in for future inhabitants as well.   Earth belongs to us no more than it belonged to past inhabitants or will later belong to future inhabitants.  Therefore, it is only right and just that we leave Earth in at least as good a condition as it was in when we received it.  To leave it otherwise would be environmentally unjust and not right.

Finally, I believe environmental justice also means eliminating economic injustices in the populations.  "Environment" is commonly defined in laws to include the natural, social and economic environment, including the human environment.  

Most of the article deals with the importance of protesting as integral to achieving results.  But the article neglects to talk about the important role that the media plays - particularly the TV media - in fairly (or unfairly) presenting the merits and behavior of protesters.  Moreover, the dismal lack of success of the protesters of the Iraq War the last two years is not even given any mention, despite the fact that with the Bush administration's being in power, it seems that no amount of protest - no matter how large and boisterous - seems to have much of an effect on decision-making in the White House, which calls in question its relevance.   On Response to "Death": Part III posted 4 years, 8 months ago 3 Responses

Kristof's Critique Self-serving and Dishonest

How is it that everyone including Dave Roberts seems to miss the point that "The Death of Environmentalism" doesn't support the main thesis of Nicholas Kristof critique?

Kristof is being flat out dishonest in suggesting the paper "The Death of Environmentalism" accuses environmental organizations of alarmism and exaggerating environmental problems.  The paper does no such thing!  In fact, the paper criticizes the environmental movement for not acting more fervently against the Bush administration's propaganda war to downplay the global warming threat.  

The "alarmism and exaggeration" accusation that is being waged against environmentalists today is a ploy by professional lobbists for the fossil fuel industry who are dishonestly twisting the truth for their own personal gain.  It needs to be met head on whereever it sticks up its ugly head.

Nicholas Kristof clearly had a preconceived notion of what he wanted his review to say beforehand [that all environmentalists are alarmists]; so he jumps in on the feeding frenzy over the paper "The Death of Environmentalism" to state his case; then he dishonestly attempts to buttress his own standing by saying  Shellenberger and Nordhaus were 100% right in coming to the same conclusion he reaches - despite the fact that S&N made no such conclusion [regarding environmentalism being too alarmist].

NGOs working to save the environment today could improve their effectiveness if they became less turf-minded and more collaborative with each other and organizations that have broader socio-economic agendas.  The global warming problem and other broad environmental type problems of today require a much more comprehensive and radical set of solutions than traditional geographically-specific challenges.  Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus are right in saying an Apollo-scale effort is needed if we are to have any hope of achieving sustainability this century, and that effort must begin with massive energy conservation measures now along with improvements in technology.
On An open letter to Nicholas Kristof posted 4 years, 8 months ago 19 Responses

Ken Ward: Response to "Death": Part I

Ken Ward wrongly states in his review that other critics of The Death of Environmentalism paper offered no alternatives to the status quo. That is simply untrue.

My comments included an alternative that differs radically from business as usual. Ward either didn't read it or chose to ignore it.

Briefly, my proposed "Conserve, NOW!" proposal would improve sustainability by reducing automobile travel and congestion, air travel, and emissions from power plants and residential sources of fuel burning.  It would do this by offering "rebates" to people who chose to drive less, fly less and/or use less energy in the home.  The use of energy intensive modes of travel (driving automobiles, flying airplanes) would be discouraged while the use of more sustainable modes of travel (walking, bicycling and using buses and trains) would be encouraged by rewarding
individuals who don't fly or drive over the course of a year, or drive very little, with meaningful rebates to supplement their annual income.

Conserve, NOW! would offer residences a way to earn additional income by reducing
their use of electricity and fuel throughout the year -- on top of the saving they would accrue for using less energy.

The drive-less rebates would be funded by federal and state gasoline taxes charged at the pump, the revenues of which are now being used widen state and federal highways and freeways but which will no longer be necessary.  Similarly, the fly-less rebates would be funded with revenues already obtained from airline ticket taxes used for airport expansion projects that can be avoided since there will be less people flying.   Rebates from using less energy in the home would be funded with the savings generated in delaying or eliminating costly power plant expansion and fossil fuel burning.  

This plan would also reduce air pollution, such as mercury, nitrogen oxide and particulate emissions, in addition to greenhouse gas emission reductions from combustion sources, all of which collectively inflict a heavy health care cost to society, in addition to the costs result when natural resources are degraded (e.g. mercury contamination of fish).

Additional information on this proposal can be found at:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate_Articles/message/486  On Response to "Death": Part I posted 4 years, 8 months ago 5 Responses

Injustice Anywhere is Injustice Everywhere

Global warming is the mother of all environmental injustice issues.  I'll defer my points on this to the discussion on "The Death of Environmentalism" for now.

Airplane travel and excessive automobile driving, both which add serious amounts of pollutants and greenhouse gases to the atmosphere - run a distant second and third.  

Highways and airports cause sickness to the urban poor and to those who live closest to highways and airports (often low-income residents).  They are done mostly by people who can afford to fly and drive excessively.  The poor, who 9 times out of 10 are minority populations, can't afford to do either.  

The injustice occurs because their quality of living is adversely impacted by activites in which, because of income level, they cannot participate in.    

P.S. The subject line is by Martin Luther King, Jr.On MLK Jr. posted 4 years, 10 months ago 3 Responses