California is at it again. State regulators just set energy efficiency standards for new TVs, mostly the big flat panel models that gulp kilowatts. As a result, consumers will save about $8 billion in the next decade in the form of lower electricity bills and carbon pollution will drop equal to removing 100,000 cars from the road. As my dad used to say, “a penny saved is a penny earned” - - so why doesn’t the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) want you to get your share of that saved carbon or those 800,000,000,000 pennies?

The CEA fears that TV makers won’t be able to add more bells and whistles to future products, because such features might draw too much additional power. Given that I can already download every show, movie, and video game ever made - - and control my entertainment center without leaving the couch - - what else would next generation TVs do for me? Make and deliver the popcorn?

In fact, if past is prologue, this new regulation will drive innovation and exciting new technologies that can be adapted into other products. Past California energy efficiency mandates have not only made Californians 40% more energy and carbon efficient than average Americans, they have also inspired the invention of things like laser printing, a process that is now used to “print” layers of materials onto thin film for making new transparent solar panels.

In response to California energy efficiency mandates that were first promulgated in the 1970s, companies like Hewlett-Packard designed the inkjet printer and within a decade were essentially printing money by selling the new technology to both businesses and consumers. After seeing them in action, Nobel Prize winning chemist Alan Heeger figured out that you could use the same process to combine thin layers of compounds that together create electricity when exposed to light. Now companies like Konarka and Energy Conversion Devices (NASDAQ: ENER) are printing their money on rooftops - - laminating solar panels, the thickness of human hair, onto products like roof tiles and windows, turning entire buildings into solar energy power plants.

And this time, the energy misers in the Golden State are not alone in saving those pennies - - the new TV regulations were supported by California’s investor owned utilities (IOUs), including PG&E, Sempra, and Edison International, because it’s good for their bottom lines. To reduce pollution and carbon, the state Public Utility Commission has long rewarded utilities for investing in energy efficiency. Watch now for those IOUs to offer money to consumers to scrap old inefficient TVs (just as they now pay to scrap your old refrigerator or clothes dryer), because it reduces their need to build new power plants and actually increases their profits. They will likely earn billions more in valuable carbon credits when the western carbon market is launched in 2012 from those investments.

Yes, as Senator Dirksen used to say, “a billion here and a billion there and suddenly you’re talking real money.” If he were alive today, he’d be reminding us of that maxim - - beamed into our living rooms on a new energy and carbon efficient TV.

Related Links:

December 19—the day after COP15

Is there a tradeoff between economics and the environment?

Do we need nuclear and coal plants for baseload power?

This weekend marks the twentieth annual occurrence of a vaunted celebration you’ve quite possibly never heard of: the Environmental Media Association awards. The EMAs actually do a pretty good job of attracting A-list stars, or at least A-minus, and are the original “green-carpet” event. Each year, there are a handful of honorary awards (this year’s recipients include Richard Branson and Jason Mraz) and several others given in various film and TV categories. Sometimes it can feel like a stretch: for instance, while the nominating committee must have been thrilled with the documentary selections available to them this year—Fuel, Food, Inc., The Cove, No Impact Man—when it came to TV, they were reduced to choosing episodes of such knock-your-socks-off shows as Better Off Ted and ‘Til Death.

Yeah.

But it’s fun to add some glitz to green, and I tip my newsgirl cap to the EMA for the work it’s done on that front through all its efforts, including these awards. Apparently for twenty years! Who knew.

In search of a little context, I thought I’d see who else is celebrating a “platinum” anniversary this year—since Grist has made it to ten years (tin/aluminum!), why not look to our elders for wisdom. Turns out those commemorating their twentieth include such international heavyweights as the Goldman Prize and the U.N. Environment Program’s information office, known fondly as GRID-Arendal. They also include slightly lesser, but no less fascinating, eco-lights: the National Wetlands Awards, New York City environmental-justice and health organization WE-Act, NRDC’s Southern California office, Canadian grocery company Loblaw’s PC Green product line, and ... Turtle Independence Day!

Which can mean only one thing—it’s time to raise a glass, and it’s time to vote:

Related Links:

Will the Washington Post ever fact check a George Will column?

State of the Climate Movement: Can fasting and asceticism save the world?

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

So earnest it hurts.The new climate anthem is out—you know, the remake of “Beds Are Burning” that features such hip, 21st-century acts as Duran Duran, Bob Geldof, and Youssou N’Dour—and I can’t get it out of my head.

Actually, it left my head pretty much as soon as the 4:02 video ended. But I was struck by, and can’t stop thinking about, the fact that the modified language in the song goes like this: “The time has come/to take a stand/it’s for the Earth/it’s for our land.”

I expect this to resonate with exactly no one.

Right? Of all the ways to get people fired up about the urgency of the climate issue, is “land” going to get the job done?

This notion keeps surfacing in discussions at Grist—first when Obama gave his speech, and laid out the various reasons the U.S. needed to take action. (Not any plan for taking action, but some darn good reasons why we should think seriously about it.) Then with the debut of the latest Ken Burns documentary, the one on the national parks. Associated with that program has been a fair amount of press (and press releases) warning of the damage that climate change could inflict on our treasured parks—Glacier losing its glaciers, Joshua Tree losing its Joshua trees, and so forth.

Which is a bummer, to be sure—even tragic in some sense. But is it tragic to someone who can’t find a job? For that matter, is it tragic to someone who has a great job and all the comforts that go along with it?

There was a time when protecting land was enough to get environmentalists and their allies all fired up. That’s what got the movement going. And to be sure, there is still important work going on in that arena. But as a way in to the climate issue, I think we can do better.

How about drawing the connections to jobs, or health, or the despicable folk who run our slimiest corporations? How about saving money or protecting your children?

Or how about thinking of some shiny new ways to get people to “care” about the climate. How about making it a competition to see which country can lower its emissions most—winner gets free ice cream for every citizen! How about making a new reality show in which industries face off against each other, American Gladiator-style, for the right to emit? How about tying it to sex? Surely there’s a way to tie it to sex.

I think they should redo that video.

Related Links:

It’s Getting Ha! in Here: Featuring Wyatt Cenac

Will the Washington Post ever fact check a George Will column?

State of the Climate Movement: Can fasting and asceticism save the world?

He seems cool.Courtesy Energy Action CoalitionPete Griffin spent three years working at Think MTV, the “social issues” and volunteering arm of the entertainment behemoth. He helped run its Choose or Lose election campaign and its Break the Addiction environmental series. He knew these do-gooder campaigns were far from MTV’s sexiest offerings.

“Social issues weren’t why people tuned in to MTV,” he said. “They tuned in to watch The Hills or Real World and that’s why they interacted with our brand. My challenge there was figuring out to engage people who weren’t interested in an issue. Or they’re interested but don’t know how to take action. It required a lot of creativity.”

Climate-change organizers should be able to relate—they’ve got the same challenge. Now they’ve also got Griffin--he left MTV last month to become campaign director at Energy Action Coalition, a youth-focused coalition that put together the successful Power Shift rallies and the Campus Climate Challenge.  It’s also helping with the “wake-up call” flash mobs on Monday, part of Climate Week NYC. Last week I talked to Griffin, 30, about the new job and lessons he learned at MTV:

He is also named Peter Griffin. This is funny.Q. So how did you make the transition from an animated sitcom on Fox to real-life climate activism?

A.Well, it wasn’t easy getting off the drawing board and into the real world. No, I’d been with MTV for eight years, starting in advertising, then in international marketing, and for the last almost three years I was managing all the social campaigns for MTV networks. That was everything from election coverage to issues like sexual health, human rights, education.

As much as I enjoyed working on all of these different issues, I got to the point where I knew that climate change was the most urgent issue and the most important to me. But I knew that I still wanted to work with young people. The energy and passion that young people bring to their work was something that I wanted to maintain.

Q. You made an unusual move in coming from an entertainment corporation to an activist group. What does the world of MTV have to offer to climate activism?

A.The power that MTV had was our reach. We had an audience of almost 100 million people in the U.S. and almost half a billion people around the world, in almost 80 countries. When you have those tools at your disposal, you know your message is going to be heard, even if it’s just by a fraction of the audience.

Q. So the climate movement needs a worldwide cable network.

A.Yeah, I wish that were possible. MTV had a huge global media platform, which was unique. But we still had to figure out how to get people involved in issues that are so important to young people. I hope I can bring ideas about how to creatively engage people, because I’m coming from a place where people don’t necessarily want to receive our message.

As we look to expand the youth climate movement, I hope some of those skills can be helpful. We need to get more people involved. Just sending them emails telling them to sign petitions doesn’t make them feel like they’re doing something. We need to be more creative.

Q. So what are you working on this fall? (After all of Monday’s stuff.)

A.We’re launching regional Power Shift summits. We did the big national conference in March. Now we’re working with our grassroots partners on developing 11 regional summits across the country. We really hope to put pressure on our elected officials and really display the power of young people, because we can’t wait any longer for bold legislation on climate and energy.

We get a lot of mixed signals about Congress passing an energy bill. But it doesn’t really matter what they tell us because we’re not going to stop fighting. The issue is still urgent, and no matter what they say and do, we’re going to keep the pressure on our elected officials.

Q. How do you make up for the vast funding gap between the fossil fuel industries and green groups?

A.We very much operate from a place of respect. We understand that people will have different opinions, some of them valid and some of them not. We want to make sure we’re sharing truthful information and showing our passion. But sometimes when we’re going up against lobbyists with a lot of money, they’re not interested in those things. They’re only interested in their bottom line. So we fight that with our size and we fight it with our passion. Those are those things that continue to grow, and I think they’ll ultimately make the difference.

For more juicy details than you could ever dream of: follow our coverage of Climate Week 2009 on Twitter and in the news.

Related Links:

Annie Leonard misses the mark in her new video, “The Story of Cap-and-Trade”

Never-give-up fighting spirit: lessons from a grandchild

Learning how to count to 350

Bill McKibben—author, Grist board member, and 350.org leader—appeared on The Colbert Report Monday night to talk climate change and spread the word about the International Day of Climate Action on Oct. 24. He also gave a solid explanation of the significance of the number 350. The ever-courteous Stephen Colbert threatened to upstage him by launching his own 349.org.

Related Links:

Annie Leonard misses the mark in her new video, “The Story of Cap-and-Trade”

It’s Getting Ha! in Here: Featuring Wyatt Cenac

More power, less roadkill: How one professor’s landscape has shifted

Photo: Yuriy via PicasaDive into the NRDC's new documentary Acid Test and you're immediately immersed in a beautiful undersea world complete with vibrant coral reefs, graceful kelp beds, and rhythmic schools of fish.

But Acid Test is no Blue Planet, thanks to heavy use of green-screen technology. And what's in front of those screens is a lot less pleasant than the fish porn projected onto them. (No offense to the scientists, commercial fisherfolk, and other experts who are doing the talking, of course -- it's more about what they're saying.)

The 30 minute film, part of Discovery Planet Green's "Blue August" month of online and onscreen ocean coverage, is about the threat of ocean acidification, the gradual chemical changes in our waters linked to increased levels of carbon dioxide. Just how much CO2? Turns out that since the Industrial Revolution, the ocean has absorbed about one quarter of the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels.

But don't go celebrating all the sequestered CO2 that's been kept from contributing to global warming, because it's beginning to cause more problems than it's solving, increasing the acidity of the water by 30 percent. And that acidity is starting to dissolve seashells in areas as close to home as the California coast, meaning tragic consequences for many organisms -- and the millions more who count on them for food, including us.

It's a scary phenomenon that scientists are only just coming to understand, and it's only going to get worse -- leaving us with "an urgent choice," as narrator Sigourney Weaver puts it, "to move beyond fossil fuels or to risk turning the ocean into a sea of weeds."

As you watch Acid Test, keep an eye on the beauty projected onto the green screen and the choice seems pretty obvious.

Acid Test premieres tonight on Planet Green and continues to air throughout the month. Catch the trailer below:

Related Links:

Annie Leonard misses the mark in her new video, “The Story of Cap-and-Trade”

Soil carbon—a blind spot in the debate on carbon

Monterey Bay Sustainable Seafood Card—Not Worth the Paper It’s Printed On?

American Solutions for Winning the FutureThe people who brought you the “Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less” energy plan have launched a new TV ad opposing the Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill, or, as the new 30-second spot calls it, the “national energy tax.”

American Solutions for Winning the Future, a group founded by former House speaker and Republican “ideas man” Newt Gingrich, will begin airing the ads on TV tomorrow. The ad shows the 1940 footage of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge twisting, heaving, and buckling in a windstorm, then collapsing.

"Factories closing... businesses failing... families hurting," says the narrator. "Now Congress is about to make things dramatically worse by passing a new National Energy Tax."

"We'll lose more jobs, pay more for gas and electricity -- pushing our economy to its breaking point."

The ad doesn’t cite its sources for those dire conclusions. It’s probably not the Congressional Budget Office’s evaluation of the cap-and-trade portion of Waxman-Markey. That report concludes the bill would cost only about $175 per year per household, as Daniel Weiss writes. And it doesn’t include the bill’s other sections designed to further cushion consumers from higher energy prices.

The ad asks viewers to call their members of Congress and tell them to oppose the bill, which could receive a vote as early as this Friday. It fails to note, moreover, Gingrich's own gigantic flip-flop on the climate issue (remember the Nancy and Newt ad?). (Update: Check out this fine "Gingrich vs. Gingrich" switcheroo chart on his changing philosophies from Media Matters.)

On the plus side, the Tacoma bridge footage is pretty cool. But the metaphor could use some reengineering—the message seems to be, “In these times when nothing is going right, it’s no time to start doing things differently.”

Watch the video:

Related Links:

Annie Leonard misses the mark in her new video, “The Story of Cap-and-Trade”

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Bill McKibben says time is running out on climate delays

"You can guilt-trip me and you can moralize and you can gloom-and-doom about it, but there are probably certain behaviors I have that I'm just not going to change. But if you presented me with solutions ... if we can figure out ways to reduce my impact -- that I can afford -- great! I'm going to do them ... I don't necessarily think that's a good thing, but I think that this is the reality and there are probably hundreds of millions of Americans who feel like I do. I'm a lazy environmentalist."
-- Josh Dorfman

And thus was born the brand that has spawned a blog, a (now defunct) radio show, two books (and counting), a Sundance Channel Green television series that premieres tonight at 9 p.m. -- and a ray of hope for couch potatoes everywhere.

But the man known as the Lazy Environmentalist is certainly no sloth himself. In fact, Josh Dorfman has been so busy writing and researching and talking and filming that he's hardly had time to devote to his first green venture, a high-end sustainable furniture store called Vivavi.

It was a coworker from Vivavi, actually, that prompted Dorfman's first use of the "lazy environmentalist" phrase, when he was accused of not being an environmentalist at all (despite his sustainable shop) because of bad habits like long, hot showers. (Which he still refuses to give up -- they help him think, OK?)

Now Dorfman is dedicated to cutting out the typical green-minded guilt-trip crap and helping people find eco-solutions that not only fit their lifestyles but improve them. He's still coming to terms with what kind of role he's playing in this movement, but says maybe he's less journalist/media personality and more "change agent." Change that sticks, that is, and spurs more change -- because it just makes sense.

Here's what Dorfman had to say about his ever-evolving eco-philosophy:

Q. Can laziness really save the world? Because that would be great news.

A. [Laughs] I would say no. Laziness probably can't save the world. But I do think that there are many ways to reduce the impact that our lives have on the planet right now, so it seems foolish to not take advantage of them and instead to be waiting for some future technology that may or may not materialize.

Q. How about this: Can we save the world by buying things?

A. What I think we have to do as a society, as a country, as a civilization, is we have to bring our lifestyles into balance with nature. All of us consume something, almost every day ... we have to do whatever we can to reduce the impact of that consumption. What gets us to solution is a combination of the right laws and policies coupled with greater transparency in the marketplace so that people have a greater sense of the impact of their purchasing decisions. Business is playing a role in that too.

I just focus on the consumer side of [this issue] because, to me, the other things aren't working fast enough. I think that we've had some major, major strides in terms of environmental policy, but at the same time, when you look at our environmental organizations -- be it Sierra Club or World Wildlife Fund or the Nature Conservancy, you name it -- they may have millions of members, and that's phenomenal, but there are 300 million Americans. So how do you gauge the other 280-290 million Americans who aren't in these organizations? How do you reduce the impact of their behavior, because that's really the key. That's what I'm trying to focus on.

Q. You're a spokesperson for Brita and for Clorox's Green Works line. How did that come about? Did you have any hesitation about lending your name to big corporations?

A. Well, it's something that I think a lot about. When [my first book] came out in 2007, Brita approached me about becoming their spokesperson for their FilterForGood campaign. ... [It's] a tremendous campaign. There are lots of campaigns to raise awareness about bottled water, but to be able to be involved with a company like Brita in a larger corporation, you create a bigger platform ... you're able to be a part of something that can have a broad impact across a wide swatch of our society.

As I've thought it through, I've come to feel that if it sits with me as a solution that I think is substantively better than the conventional choice, then that's something I can get pretty excited about getting behind.

As we transform our economy -- which I really believe is what we have to do -- into sustainability, I just think that these large corporations are going to be part of that change. They have to be. Some of them will go out of business, but most of them are going to be here and they have to transform. These are the steps corporations have to take to transform and sometimes it's hard for us as environmentalists to operate in this gray area. We want to see the world in terms of good guys and bad guys, black and white, and that's not a luxury that we have if we're really serious about creating change that's going to make a real difference.

Q. I recently reviewed a number of natural toilet-bowl cleaners, and Clorox Green Works was the winner -- doing the best job for the cheapest price. But a lot of readers commented about how they are skeptical of Clorox and don't want to support the company because of the other products they put out.

A. I think sometimes we get caught up in trying to make the perfect choice. So we argue back and forth saying, "Am I going to support Green Works? Am I going to support Seventh Generation? Am I going to support Mrs. Meyers?" And my feeling is "Great! Support it! Do it!"

But for folks who happen to really love Clorox and trust Clorox, and have Clorox as a valued brand … I've talked to those folks, too, and they have been like, "Hey, I love Clorox, and I'm really psyched that they gave me an option, because I trust them. If they're doing something green, then I'm going to trust that it's going to work." So there are all kinds of way to look at it.

We ought to be saying, "Here's all the good ones; whatever choice you want to make in the good camp, great!" Let's focus on the other products that aren't so good, instead of infighting to try to get the perfect choice.

Q. Do you personally test all of the products and services that you recommend in your blog and in your books?

A. I vet as much as I possibly can, personally. ... [But] there's no science to it, so I do spend a lot of time really trying to think through, "Is this a choice that really moves the ball forward and is this an area ... that's worthwhile to focus on?"

Q. I read that your "epiphany" came about when you realized all of China's bicyclists would turn into drivers. How do you see gently greening U.S. consumers as a fix to rapidly escalating international problems? Is what you're doing really addressing some of these big, urgent issues?

A. I think it is addressing the issues; as an environmentalist and someone who is very, very concerned about these issues, the question that I have in the back of my mind -- which is sometimes in the front of my mind -- is, "are we going fast enough?" I mean, that's the big question. ... We probably don't have time, but the challenge is that there's the cultural reality where we're not really willing to embrace the fact that we're in a crisis. We're just not. We're not willing to take the steps that we would take if we were really listening to the science.

Q. Are we letting people feel like they're doing something great by making one or two different purchasing decisions or lifestyle habit changes -- when in reality, it's not enough?

Dylan Dyer, (host) Josh Dorfman, and Cym Warkov filming the "lazy landscaper" episode of "The Lazy Environmentalist."Photo: Eric SenchuckA. This isn't about one change; this isn't about just unplugging your cell-phone device. That's not what this is about. This is about saying that there is so much rapid innovation taking place that one could transform almost their entire life and be living perhaps a higher quality lifestyle, more affordable, while at the same time reducing their environmental impact. I truly believe that. I'm not like a one-small-step kind of guy.

And I'm not saying this is a terribly original idea here, but I do believe there is an intangible that does take place when people can make good environmental choices that they feel good about. Then, they want to do it again. It's kind of like the magic behind the Toyota Prius. When you buy that car -- and everyone else on the road knows that you're an awesome hero of the planet and that guy in the toll booth gives you a high five because you're this super-awesome person -- it feels good. There are ways to continue to do that that also meet people's criteria that the car works, it's easy to service, it's at the right price point -- all of those things are important to people.

Demoralizing, guilt-tripping, gloom-and-doom, polar bears on a melting ice cap ... people get upset for a few minutes, and then they go on with their day. They don't change how they live. I'm trying to figure out, how you really get people to change how they live.

Let's assume that we start to live in smaller homes or design our communities better or drive more fuel-efficient cars -- what is this really going to mean for our society? What are we transforming toward? What does the future start to look like? For so many other things, politicians paint a vision: "Here's where America is going!" But there's no vision of what America starts to look like yet when it goes green.

Q. You have to get the message of the urgency out without being too alarmist. It's a fine line to walk.

A. Where I'm trying to plug in is to shine the spotlight on things that people can get excited about because it works for them in their lives or in their place of business or wherever they are, and they can feel like they're being part of environmental changes.

It's not just about sacrifice. It's really about living smarter, and that's ultimately what I believe and that's what I think most environmentalists are saying.

Related Links:

You don’t have to be big to go green

Jonathan Safran Foer on his book “Eating Animals”

More power, less roadkill: How one professor’s landscape has shifted

We interrupt your life to bring you this reminder: By June 12, all television signals in the U.S. will be digital. Seriously. So here’s an e-guide to ease your mind.

Wait, WTF is happening again? The signals from all TV stations, which were analog for decades, will now be digital. This transition actually began in 1996, when Congress gave each station an extra channel for digital transmission. There are three official reasons for the full transition: first and foremost, it frees up analog airspace for public-safety purposes; second, it frees up some space for wireless companies; and third, it will bring you prettier pictures on your TV. The fourth, unofficial reason: It forces people to buy more stuff! But you didn’t hear it from us.

OK, so what do I need to do? If you have a digital TV or you get cable or satellite programming, relax and do nothing. (Wait, is that redundant?) If you have a “digital-ready” monitor, you may need to buy a digital set-top box. If you don’t get cable or satellite TV and yours is an analog set—which you should be able to tell from the manual or by the fact that you bought it in like 1987—you’ll need to buy either a converter or a new set. Yeah, that’s 22 million of you.

So if I have to buy a converter, are there green options? Well here’s how to save some green: hit the government up for a coupon. In terms of buying green, there are lots of different converter boxes out there—look for one with an Energy Star rating.

I think I might suck it up and buy a new TV. How can I make the greenest choice? Again, look for Energy Star-rated TVs—it’s the best guideline for consumers right now. In about 18 months, if you can wait that long, there will be a more comprehensive label (tentatively and uncatchily called EPEAT-for-TV) that considers factors in addition to energy. As always, we recommend plugging your gadgets into power strips for ultimate smartiness.

When I ditch my old TV, do I just put it on the curb or what? Your TV is full of lead and mercury. If you just ditch it, those metals will ooze into water supplies and come back to poison you. So please, recycle your TV—or, since analogs still work perfectly well with DVD players, VCRs, and game systems, see if there’s a local school, library, or nursing home that could use it. Otherwise, for proper disposal in your area, check Earth911 or the EPA’s eCycling site.

Hey, by the way, which TV companies are actually doing good green things? Most of the major manufacturers are making noise about greener sets, but there are a few that truly seem committed, and one that’s a real star. We award the Golden Clicker to Sony—not only are they developing innovative products including an organic LED and a TV that saves energy by turning itself off if you fall asleep, they were the first company to launch a national takeback program and were an industry leader on the new labeling program. Samsung and LG are also doing good things; to find out how all the TV companies compare, visit the Electronics Takeback Coalition’s Take Back My TV site.

Maybe it’s the Wipeout-fueled ADD, but that article made no sense to me. Where can I go to find out more? Seriously? We thought it was so clear and concise. Well, the government has a whole useful site about the digital TV transition that should do the trick. We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

Related Links:

You don’t have to be big to go green

Making buildings more efficient: It helps to understand human behavior

Why buying cheap energy certificates worsens climate change

Shrewdly waiting until the buzz died down, George Will weighed in today on Mike Judge’s The Goode Family. His verdict: It sorta sucks, but thank god someone’s taking environmentalists down a peg.

Let’s take a look at my paragraph-by-paragraph CliffsNotes version of his column:

Which ... has literally nothing to do with Mike Judge skewering greens? Among other flaws.

I’m pretty sure George Will is officially the Andy Rooney of the print world.

Related Links:

BPA Babies and Cash Registers

Will the Washington Post ever fact check a George Will column?

This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!

Tonight at 9 pm on ABC, “Bob Woodruff explores what might be the worst case scenario for civilization.”

Hurray for the mainstream media exploring the worst-case scenario aka Hell and High Water! I am very interested in your thoughts on this show — before and after. One of the most commented on posts of this year was “How likely is it that Global Warming will destroy human civilization within the next century?”

You can see video excerpts and viewer submissions on what looks to be an excellent website:

Experts say over the next hundred years the “perfect storm” of population growth, resource depletion and climate change could converge with catastrophic results….

“If we continue on the business as usual trajectory, there will be a tipping point that we cannot avert,” says John P. Holdren, science advisor to President Obama. “We will indeed drive the car over the cliff“….

“A few hundred years down the line, they’ll look back and say the dark ages began with the twenty-first century,” says E. O. Wilson, an award-winning evolutionary biologist and professor at Harvard University.

Here’s more on the two scenarios the show lays out for humanity’s future:

Imagine a world in which cities are abandoned and our population has dropped by 90 percent. A world in which we have wreaked havoc on our delicate ecosystems and nature has begun to reclaim Earth. Once-bustling cities have fallen silent except for the rustle of the wind through the grass and trees that have cracked through the collapsing pavement. Humans have not walked these urban streets for years.

And some people say I’m an alarmist!

Does it seem like the stuff of science fiction? According to the world’s top scientists, it could very well be the legacy we leave our children and grandchildren. They say we are at a turning point, that the choices we make today will determine if the human race, as we know it, will survive.

Imagine our future as two doors. Door No. 1 is our current path, or as the scientists put it, business as usual. If we continue on this trajectory, experts say, over the next 100 years the “perfect storm” of population growth, resource depletion and climate change will converge with catastrophic results. In this scenario the combination of war, famine and disease has the potential to “decimate” the world in less than a hundred years.

Note to ABC: “Decimate” technically means kill every 10th person, but that has changed with popular usage. That said, the ABC scenario is much harsher than mine. Climate change killing every 10th person by 2100 — one billion people — would be a staggering outcome. I personally cannot even conceive of what losing 90% would mean.

“Earth 2100″ takes viewers through door No.1, with the help of a fictional character, Lucy. Born in the year 2009, Lucy guides us through the next century as it may well unfold, if we don’t take drastic measures. With the assistance of some of the world’s foremost scientific experts, she gives us a detailed decade-by-decade countdown to the collapse of society.

But it does not have to be. “Earth 2100″ will conclude by traveling through door No. 2. The clock resets to 2009, and using the same chronology and the same scientists, we leave the viewer with the inspiring story of an alternate future. The experts tell us what actions we must take to survive and describe the world we can create. In this version, Earth in 2100 will be one we would be proud to imagine.

It does not have to be!

UPDATE: This was certainly the best done worst-case scenario mainstream media has ever put in front of the American public. I have a bunch of little quibbles — no one’s going to be abandoning the American suburbs just because gasoline hits $5.50 a gallon, as the show depicts — see “Why I don’t agree with James Kunstler about peak oil and the “end of suburbia.“ Heck, Great Britain has had gasoline costs above seven dollars a gallon for many years and the life goes on. But ABC deserves a lot of kudos for laying out so many realistic threats that humanity faces on the business as usual path.

Related Links:

On ‘climategate’

A scientific hack job that won’t cripple climate talks

Copenhagen, U.S.A. December 7

Let me say one thing: I love Mike Judge. Love. I could watch his cubemate gangstas smashing that copier endlessly, and I can still hear Hank Hill’s voice drawling, “Bobbeh!” The man is funneh—which is why I had high hopes for last night’s premiere of The Goode Family.

Mike Judge and Gerald Goode.ABCIt’s the show that promises to skewer cherished tenets of political correctness. And boy, did it succeed. Skewer, skewer, skewer—Judge and his co-writers crammed every possible stereotype into the pilot, from veganism to well intentioned racism. There was so much skewering going on, it hurt.

I don’t mean it hurt my feelings. There’s a reason I work at Grist, whose mission for ten years has been to help self-righteous environmentalists laugh at themselves and the issues they fret about. I just mean it ... hurt. It hurt not to laugh. It hurt to think that Judge had swung and missed.

I’m not the only one who found the show funny-free. With the exception of a handful of positive reviews—Variety called the show a “smart, wryly funny comedy” that is “flat-out good” and the Miami Herald dubbed it a “scathingly funny report from the front lines of America’s culture wars”—most outlets gave it a serious drubbing. Slow, they said. Weak. Doesn’t live up to its name. Doesn’t hit the bar Judge has set for himself.

All of which is true—but this is where it gets interesting. Because as we all know, the media is full of liberal elites. No wonder they don’t like the show! Everyone knows they can’t laugh at themselves!

“Newspapers Bristle at Thought of Liberalism Being Mocked in The Goode Family,” tsks Newsbusters, while Fox News asks, “Can a show that so aggressively tweaks the values and heroes of liberal Hollwyood establishment ever get the guest stars that stop by Tinseltown-friendly animated shows like ‘The Simpsons’ and ‘Family Guy’?” The Herald muses that the show “will no doubt be labeled right-wing agitprop by some of its trashed targets.”

Right-wing agitprop? Hardly. So far, it’s just mediocre comedy. (And for what it’s worth, it took shots at the right as well as the left: flag pins! chastity! church!) But this little partisan media brouhaha does beg the question: Who is the show aimed at? One of the most thoughtful reviews—among the only ones that gets beyond whether or not the vegan-dog shtick is funny (hint: no)—comes from James Poniewozik at Time:

... much of the green-culture satire is so microtargeted that—even when it’s dead-on—only a handful of urban neighborhoods and college towns (say, my own Park Slope and Ann Arbor) will get the nuance of it.

Even at that, if liberal neighbors like mine even watch the show, they’ll probably quickly write it off as a mean-spirited anti-liberal screed, whereas the rest of America will largely see it as a show about sanctimonious ninnies. I suspect that the sight of the first gag—the Goodes’ bumper sticker, “SUPPORT OUR TROOPS… AND THEIR OPPONENTS”—will make red and blue Americans turn the channel in droves, for entirely different reasons.

Poniewozik aaalmost gets to the heart of the issue. It’s not that liberals will write the show off as mean-spirited—it’s well within the liberal DNA to want to be pointed at, made fun of, and kicked in the ass, and to show that we’re in on the joke. We’re like the perennial seventh-grade weakling in that sense. But if the show isn’t funny to its targets, and it’s just annoying to people who find liberals annoying, then ... who’s left to watch?

Related Links:

It’s Getting Ha! in Here: Featuring Wyatt Cenac

Will the Washington Post ever fact check a George Will column?

AP: Since 1997 “climate change has worsened and accelerated”

Sunday's episode of the Simpsons begins with a wickedly good greenwashing story: Krusty learns from one of his lawyers that "studies show your Krustyburger is the unhealthiest fast-food item in the world."

"Worse than a double Krustyburger?"

"Somehow, yes."

Krusty introduces a green campaign centered on the vegetarian Mother Nature Burger, made of "100-percent wheat-fed barley." So brilliant.

Also featured: Norwegian humor, immigration humor, monkey-smoking-a-cigarette humor.

Related Links:

Annie Leonard misses the mark in her new video, “The Story of Cap-and-Trade”

It’s Getting Ha! in Here: Featuring Wyatt Cenac

Newtongate: the final nail in the coffin of Enlightenment thinking

The progressive group Americans United for Change unveiled a new TV ad today that seeks to put pressure on Republicans to support President Obama’s energy plan.

Titled “Jobs of the Future,” it links Obama’s green-jobs ambitions to President John F. Kennedy’s challenge to the nation to put a man on the moon. “Today President Obama has challenged us again -- to create the jobs of the future for our generation -- millions of clean energy jobs,” says the narrator.

“But the oil companies and the Republicans just say no.”

The ad begins airing tomorrow on DC cable. It urges voters to tell members of Congress to support “the Obama Energy Plan.” It doesn’t mention the Waxman-Markey House bill (American Clean Energy and Security Act) by name, though an accompanying press release does.

Americans United for Change formed in 2005 to oppose President Bush’s attempt to privatize social security. The new ad isn’t especially slick—it has more still images than video, and “futurey” music that could well be from the Kennedy era. Here it is:

Related Links:

Washington Times: “Obama digs in on global warming”

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Related Links:

Annie Leonard misses the mark in her new video, “The Story of Cap-and-Trade”

Jonathan Safran Foer on his book “Eating Animals”

A Penny Saved Is…

Related Links:

Annie Leonard misses the mark in her new video, “The Story of Cap-and-Trade”

A Penny Saved Is…

It’s Getting Ha! in Here: Maria Bamford

Marc Morano: Willing to help you out.Heartland Institute

Say you're a harried cable news producer with 24 gaping hours to fill with finished material every day of the week. Say you're constantly in need of articulate guests to offer a diversity of viewpoints. How do you do it?

One way is to take up offers like this one from the PR folks representing Marc Morano. Refresher: Morano was formerly an aid to climate-change-denier-in-chief James Inhofe (GOP senator from Oklahoma), now heads misinformation clearinghouse Climatedepot.com, and is still the chief supplier of talking points to the climate-denial camp. Here's the PR sent out recently touting Morano:

Hey, give that PR rep a raise, as Fox News happened to go this route.

Related Links:

Will the Washington Post ever fact check a George Will column?

On ‘climategate’

For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow

As promised, The Goode Family, a new cartoon from the King of the Hill folks, is "an animated caricature of every Whole-Foods-shopping, hybrid-driving, African-orphan-adopting, vegan-dog-having do-gooder you've ever met." Find out what's so funny about trying to be Goode when the show premieres May 27 on ABC.

Here's a trailer:

Related Links:

Annie Leonard misses the mark in her new video, “The Story of Cap-and-Trade”

It’s Getting Ha! in Here: Featuring Wyatt Cenac

Newtongate: the final nail in the coffin of Enlightenment thinking

Related Links:

Annie Leonard misses the mark in her new video, “The Story of Cap-and-Trade”

It’s Getting Ha! in Here: Featuring Wyatt Cenac

Newtongate: the final nail in the coffin of Enlightenment thinking

Photo: ehpien via Flickr.Views like this are one of the reasons we Seattleites suffer through our long, cloudy, rainy fallwinterspring season. But the beauty can be quite deceptive.

Beneath that reflective surface flow poisoned waters, contaminated with chemicals from agricultural runoff, prescription meds, cosmetics, industrial pollutants, and more -- reflections, you might say, of modern life.

"The irony is that everybody looks at that [picturesque] scene and thinks that it's great; everything is right with the world in Elliott Bay," says scuba diver Mike Racine. "But in point of fact, not 100 feet away from where they are drinking a nice glass of wine off their white linen, there is this unbelievable gunk coming out of the end of this pipe."

PBS' Frontline tomorrow night explores this irony and reflects on the state of the nation's waterways some three decades after the Clean Water Act. Speaking to concerned citizens like Racine as well as scientists, corporate-folk, and politicians, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Hedrick Smith focuses on the Chesapeake Bay and the Puget Sound to tell the story of how we've neglected these hidden ecosystems and what it'll take to restore them.

"We thought all the way along that [Puget Sound] was like a toilet: What you put in, you flush out," says Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire (D) of the 150,000 pounds of untreated toxins that hit the Sound each day. "We [now] know that's not true. It's like a bathtub: What you put in stays there."

Here's the (depressingly honest) trailer:

The two-hour Poisoned Waters episode airs April 21 from 9-11 p.m. ET on PBS. Check your local listings for more information.

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

A Penny Saved Is…

Congressional watchdog issues update on coal ash regulation efforts