Comments MClemens has made

Rationality changing

Do you suppose that the American rationale is changing in the face of the economic + environmental crises? It seems to me that back when things were good (before this economy crashed, fuel prices rose dramatically, etc) Americans were worked into almost a spending frenzy. Buy what you want, as big as you can, and pay it off later.

I think it was that frenzy that shook the boat up so much that it took on water and nearly capsized. It wasn't just one person/company/lender that shot the hole in it. The frenzy I think has pretty well died, we're bailing now and maybe thinking a bit more rationally. Will Americans now realize that they don't need 4,000 lb 4x4 SUV's to commute to work when they can just as easily afford a hybrid electric? I don't know but I'd say there is a better chance of it now than there ever was.

MClemens

Balance

Richard said, "It's coming, folks" and I suppose he's right. It is. It has been for a while and I am even more confident of that with the appointment of Vilsack, the former governor of my state.

But here's my take on it. We may now be seeing strong initiatives by auto companies (Toyota, the one in China, now Chrysler) to electrify their vehicles. Thus, maybe (and that's a hopeful "maybe") we're seeing a transition in our personal transportation sector. Big-O has promised big investment in renewable electricity generation in his proposed economic package so maybe soon we'll be able to charge those electric vehicles with renewably-generated electricity. I don't have any numbers to cite, but I can't help but assume that those two efforts alone would cut way down on CO2 emissions and they're both feasible in the near future. Couple that with an apparent shift among many of the large municipalities toward implementing some sort of sustainable public transportation system, and we've actually made some big steps toward fixing the biggest problems we're faced with today (i.e. climate change, dependence on foreign oil and over-use of coal-generated electricity).

Granted, that's not all we should be doing but we can get that done quickly. We still have to deal with the long-distance transportation issues associated with airlines and semi-trucks. If, in the short term, we can a) use less of both, and b) power them with domestically-produced, cleaner burning biofuels while we work on developing other, more sustainable equivalent transportation systems, then I suppose we should. It continues to reduce dependence on foreign oil, and it's less polluting, albeit not by much. If we're poised to get production going quickly, then it might not be that bad of a transitional effort - so long as we keep working toward completely sustainable systems for the not-so-distant future.

Now, don't think for one second that I'm an ethanol supporter - I'm not. However, cellulosic ethanol is better than corn-based ethanol, no doubt about that. The rub lies with our ability/inability to harvest the raw materials for it without completely degrading the land. I cringe at the bioengineering idea - we don't need any more genetically altered species out there. But here in Iowa, using switchgrass (or better, mixed grass stands) for ethanol production would be better than corn from a soil-holding and water-quality standpoint. In the timber regions of the country, maybe wood products can work. Keep it localized, and implement some conservation measures and it might be a decent way to bridge the gap between where we are today and where we want to be in future.

MClemens

2x4

I hear ya Dr. X. We have the 2x4 in our hands and could easily wield it on Detroit through the bailout they're begging for. Unfortunately, Bush is still at the wheel and I don't see him using it as anything more than a cane. Let's hope Big-O will be able to start swinging it when he finally gets in office. There is absolutely no reason Detroit shouldn't be jumping ahead in this game. They've been making Hummers and F350's long enough and look where that got them. It's high time to actually manufacture something in this country that is more desirable to the public than a comparable good from China or Japan. If we can't/won't do it than the big-3 should fold. On BYD Auto: China's first mass-produced hybrid car goes on sale posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 35 Responses

Farm Bureau

That's great news especially when not long ago I was a bit appalled by a "Policy Development Questionnaire" published by the Missouri Farm Bureau in its July/August issue that stated under its "Climate Change" heading:

Climate Change is receiving increased attention in Washington, D.C. and in a number of states as environmental organizations push for restrictions on greenhouse gasses (GHG) like carbon dioxide. GHG's are perceived as contributing to rising global temberatures even though scientists have not reached a consensus on man's impact on the global climate.

It goes on to say that 5 states have imposed mandatory caps on GHG emissions and 19 have set non-binding targets for reducing emissions. Then follows with:

Proponents argue state action will prompt the federal government and possibly other countries to adopt climate change policies. Opponents cite the lack of conclusive data and the increased costs of fuel and utility bills that will result from GHG restrictions as reasons to oppose such measures.

The Yes/No questions that followed were:

• Do you support a mandatory cap on GHG emissions in Missouri?
  
• Do you support a voluntary target fro reducing GHG emissions in Missouri?
  
• Do you believe a comprehensive study of a cap on greenhouse gas emissions and it's (sic) economic impacts on agriculture and other sectors should be conducted before any action is taken?
  

Am I the only one that senses a bit of a slant to the wording of this? Am I wrong for supposing that the aforementioned ballot measure might meet stiff resistance from the ag community?

MClemens

Superb idea...

Billhook. So how do we go about striving for (and acheive) said Treaty? I'm sure such a discussion will likely result in this thread continuing ad infinitum and for that I apologize. But I'd like to know what your thoughts are on this.

MClemens

Better than a letter...

Is a call to your elected officials. I put one in last week per the urging of the WE campaign. Of course I talked to a staffer and not the actual congressperson but I at least got a word in. The last time I called and left a message about an issue (it was related to ANWR), I got a hand-signed response letter back in the mail so I'm confident my messages do get delivered. Whether they're heeded or not is another story.

Here's the link that WE gave me to find contact numbers.

MClemens

Touche

Thanks Vakibs.

MClemens

Face value

As I mentioned on a separate post, I'm finding that people take too much information at face value and don't feel it necessary to really get to the source of the issues. Should an election be about what the candidate will do if elected or what he/she has done in the past (or what she CLAIMS to have done)? I agree, a little of both should be discussed but the have done shouldn't be dwelled on and made a perpetual point in campaigning.

Unfortunately, the McPalin ticket is reverting to the time-tested, tried-and-true method of playing on people's national security fears, and boldface lying about what they (she) have done because they know that the shallowness of much of the American public won't see through it, or even care to try to examine the claims closely. They're going to hear a war hero vehemently claim that he will "defeat muslim extremism" and hear a previously nameless Alaskan tom-boy say what a pit-bull with lipstick she is and think, "hell yeah!" Yet those same hell-yeah-ers won't pay any mind to the fact that nations, religions, and societies have been battling "muslim extremists" in some form since practically the dawn of time; or to the fact that that naughty-librarian-looking pit bull simply says what she's told to say in order to gain the most shallow-minded votes, even if her statements are outright lies.

Now I'm sure that's delving into the very subject that warrants a "different too-long post other than this one" but I can't help it.

When I showed up at work the days after both Palin's and McCain's RNC speeches, my predominantly-conservative co-workers were all in a hubbub about how great Palin's speech was and how surprisingly impressive McCain's was (even they don't expect much from him when he's at the podium). When asked what I thought about them, I agreed they were well-delivered but completely lacked sustenance. I told them that there just weren't any real "action statements" or any concrete evidence that either candidate would do anything more than 'more of the same'. After thinking about it, they really couldn't argue - or if they could, they didn't bother.

I subsequently passed around some emails and articles I printed out showing the two-facedness of Palin. That information was either immediately rebutted by a copy of the transcript from her speech, or a discussion about national security, gun control, or moose hunting.

I'm not going to claim that the majority of voters don't value honesty, but I do believe that many of them don't care enough to find out when a candidate isn't being honest.

Self-induced, intentional, shallow ignorance will likely get McPalin elected. And their campaign strategy shows that they are keenly aware of that.

/Rant.

MClemens

I too...

...have noticed an increase in trolls just in the short time I've been following Grist. Some of them are fine and simply add to the intellectual discourse (props kmp), but some seriously detract from the real subjects of the thread. Does anyone have any suggestions where I might find the blogs these folks might frequent where they're not considered trollish? I'd like to keep tabs on the sites that share their ideology on environmental issues so I can stay in the loop on what the deniers are thinking/saying?

On a totally unrelated note, amazingdrx mentioned an upcoming visit to the Baraboo, WI area and a run or ride at Devil's Lake SP - Dr. X, you're in for a treat, that place is gorgeous! If you can, be sure to check out the Leopold Legacy Center. That is a shining example of what I think we're shooting for in all this chit-chat.

MClemens

I don't see

a hockey rink being built at the white house but I could see a ginormous sports complex being built at Camp David...with taxpayer funds of course.

MClemensOn Drinking game rules for Sarah Palin's big speech posted 1 year, 2 months ago 14 Responses

Human overpopulation...

...is a problem, I agree. But it begs the questions of what do we do about it? Can we legitimately ask people to stop having children? Can we force them to? Can we just limit the number they have? Can we inspire people to not have children as part of a moral obligation to society?

Looking at climate change from a bit of a different angle, I see it as this:

The earth is a living organism in which we are simply an interacting component of - much like the bacteria in our own digestive tracts, or the flu viruses we pick up in the winter. As a living organism, the earth has an immune system that kicks in when something goes amok. In relation to wildlife species, we refer to the interaction between that 'immune system' and the wildlife population as 'carrying capacity' - a sort of balancing act that keeps things in a perpetual reverberating state of homeostasis. Humans, in all their technological advances, have done everything they can to trump their own carrying capacity. Thus, we see (just as we would with any wildlife species), and overuse and subsequent depletion of life-sustaining natural resources (food shortages, peak oil?, competition for various land uses). When any population, human or otherwise, goes blowing past carrying capacity, the earth's immune system eventually has to counteract with a 'shock-and-awe' campaign to get the system rebalanced as quickly as possible (such as hemorrhagic fever and CWD in white-tailed deer).

That being the case, would it then not make sense that AIDS, cancer, autism, heart disease, etc...as well as hurricanes, droughts, floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, and maybe even civil unrest and war are simply population control mechanisms imposed upon us by the organism from which we were all conceived? Is it not correct that in a single generation the human population on this earth more than doubled (or close to it) and that growth rate remains unchecked still? If that growth rate was witnessed among cells within our own bodies, wouldn't we call that a cancer?

I know that only brings us back to the question of "so what do we do about it?" but I wanted to throw that out there to see what kind of responses I get. I suppose we can look at it two ways, if climate change is simply an immuno-response by the earth then maybe there's nothing we can do about it. But on the other hand, maybe if we start living more symbiotically with this earth-organism, its immune system won't be triggered. I'm hoping it's the latter.

Mitchell ClemensOn IPCC needs to update projections to include deforestation feedbacks posted 1 year, 3 months ago 13 Responses

Contacting Legislators

StopGreenPath-
I've also attempted to contact legislators before and I know the frustration of receiving nothing more than "unrelated form letters" from them. It really is aggravating. Most recently, I contacted my legislator using one of LCV's forms I received in an email alert about drilling in ANWR. Amazingly, Kenny Hulshof (R-MO) sent me a hand signed letter in response. Granted, I'm sure it wasn't written by him but likely by one of his staffers but he at least took the time to sign it himself (I studied the signature closely to see if it was legit and it is - near as I can tell). Of course he didn't see things my way as he pointed out that oil exploration there should be part of a "comprehensive energy strategy that, among other things, incourages increased conservation...renewable fuels...and allows improved domestic energy exploration when it can be accomplished in a manner that does not harm the environment."

I wanted to write him back and point out the flaws with his strategy but the letter came on the eve of the legislator's break and I really didn't figure I was going to get through to a politician carrying a LCV lifetime voting percentage of 12%. Plus, with his running for Governor this year, he's pretty much a lame duck anyway. I figured I'd spend my time working on (and voting for) those that might actually do something in the next administration.

I've digressed a bit here. What I really wanted to suggest was something that LCV encouraged me to do during the legislative break - use the media to reach these people. Write letters to the editors of newspapers in your areas (and in the legislators' hometowns) describing your frustration at not being heard out on these major issues. There have been some great posts here on Grist that would make great press releases (and editorials). Get that info out there to those people that aren't tuned into to anything more than what the day-to-day media feeds them. Put these issues on the general populace's front burners and (I would hope anyway) the legislators would listen to a large group of contituents rather than just a couple "tree hugging chicken littles" we're often made out to be.

I know it works around here but then again the media outlets in my county of 10,000 are itching for stories, especially when they're fed to them on a silver platter, already formatted and well written. I can't say it would work in larger metro areas, but when you tie in the political side of it and how you're frustrated with politicians not doing their jobs and not listening to their constituents, I think the media might be apt to gobble it up - they seem to be good at publishing that stuff.

That's my take on it. Best of luck!

-Mitchell ClemensOn Meetings about clean energy conspicuously fail to identify the main barrier to it posted 1 year, 3 months ago 4 Responses

I do know

of a place in Baraboo, WI that is projected to be 110% energy efficient (thanks to the solar panels on it's roof), is carbon-neutral, and at last check, had received the highest LEED rating of any building in the world. It is the Leopold Legacy Center, a conference/office/nature center facility that houses the Leopold Foundation. Having been there, I can attest the fact that yes, they do have refridgerators, computers, TV's, and it doesn't feel like a tomb (even in winter as one of the staff informed me when I, too, was skeptical of that being possible). It is truly a testament to the potential of this country being able to convert to sustainable means of existence when there is demand to do so.On With research breakthrough, solar power could work when the sun don't shine posted 1 year, 3 months ago 49 Responses