Al Gore Speaks Today on U.S. Energy Policy

A New York Times article from earlier today reported on a global warming speech Al Gore made in Washington D.C. According to the article, Gore called on Americans to work towards completely quitting our reliance on fossil fuels within the next ten years. The speech echoed Gore’s consistent messaging regarding the life-threatening danger the world is currently facing due to global warming, and also highlighted how the goal to end our use of fossil fuels “is achievable, affordable and transformative.”

A couple of interesting scientific facts re-stated in the Times are highlighted below:

“’We’re borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet,’ Mr. Gore said. ‘Every bit of that’s got to change.’

And it can change, he said, citing some scientists’ estimates that enough solar energy falls on the surface of the earth in 40 minutes to meet the world’s energy needs for a year, and that the winds that blow across the Midwest every day could meet the country’s daily electricity needs.”

To read more about this speech, visit New York Times or Al Gore’s website.

Is pricey gasoline the best solution to global warming?

When teachers are educated about the best way to instruct a diverse group of students, they are taught to use a variety of different methods to ensure they are properly addressing dissimilar learning styles.

For those of us that track and participate in the fight against global warming, we are sometimes overly idealistic about what motivates people to work on decreasing their carbon footprint. For some, the motivation is as simple as helping the environment. For others, there has to be a more tangible reward involved.

A New York Times article from the weekend, “At $100 for Tank of Gas, Some Choke on ‘Fill It’,” highlights the continuously rising gas prices and the heavy financial burden placed upon owners of larger vehicles to fill their tanks. The article discusses how many owners of large SUVs are now looking for alternatives.

So perhaps we should look to the way teachers use a variety of teaching methods and apply that to educating people about the damage global warming is causing our planet. Everyone has a different tipping point. To assume that all people are inspired by the same information is both naïve and dangerous, as it inevitably means certain groups of people will not understand the implications that global warming could ultimately have on their lives.

To combat this, it is essential for those of us doing the educating to cater to a variety of different audiences – the environmentalist, the intellectual, the businessperson, to name just a few. Value is in the eye of the beholder, and keeping that in mind will ultimately make us more successful at our endeavors.

Sustainable Summer Ideas

Summer has officially begun. Gas prices are at a record high. And concern for global warming has never been greater.

At a time when the kids are out of school and our vacations are under way, it behooves us to keep focused on trying to live more sustainable lifestyles. We've got a few suggestions for ways to do that:

Summer Tip #1: Summer is all about getting outside and exploring. This year, think about skipping the annual road trip and travelling by train instead.

Summer Tip #2: Save money! Figure out ways where you can cut energy costs to save money at home. Turning off lights/computers/appliances at home and walking or bussing instead of driving are some easy ways to save some cash that can then be applied to more interesting activities.

Summer Tip #3: If your kids are staying home with you, now might be a good time to spend learning about ways to be more environmentally-friendly. You can even turn it into a game - offering prizes for remembering to recycle, taking public transportation or dropping energy usage. Remember to keep it simple and don't expect too much right away.

We hope you enjoy your summer!

The Irony of Information

Over the weekend, the New York Times posted a story from Alex Williams entitled, “That Buzz in Your Ear May Be Green Noise.” As you can imagine from the title, the article was largely about the incredible amount of [sometimes conflicting] information on going green. As Williams describes it, “Two years after ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ helped unleash a new tide of environmental activism, green noise pulses through the collective consciousness from all directions.”

Ironically, I read this article shortly after I picked up National Geographic’s “Green Guide” magazine, one in a series of publications produced by top tier media corporations tailored at those interested in living a more sustainable lifestyle and understanding some of the key issues involved.

While scientists are nearly all in agreement regarding the existence of global warming, it seems consumers are reaching a level of information overload regarding “green living,” and sometimes this information is not all complementary.

In closing the article, Williams highlighted a couple organizations who have specifically tried to simplify the process for consumers, pointing to the Natural Resources Defense Council’s website www.simplesteps.org, where users can choose the depth of information they receive. In addition, Williams cited Greenpeace’s new strategy to help people to better understand environmental concerns through combining them all under the umbrella of climate change instead of separating them into distinct categories.

We’d like to hear from you - what organizations do you find produce the most consistent and helpful sustainability information?

Debate on Climate Change Legislation – Join the Conversation

A New York Times article posted yesterday discusses the climate change legislation slated for debate in the Senate this week. The goals of this bill are as follows:

(1) to establish the core of a Federal program that will reduce United States greenhouse gas emissions substantially enough between 2007 and 2050 to avert the catastrophic impacts of global climate change; and

(2) to accomplish that purpose while preserving robust growth in the United States economy, creating new jobs, and avoiding the imposition of hardship on United States citizens.

The article cites concerns about whether this bill, in its current form, should get passed, noting that “the debate will force senators to take a stand on some of the most difficult, expensive and potentially life-altering questions that will face the world in coming decades.”

At the heart of this debate are two central themes. Proponents argue that our nation cannot wait until fuel prices come down in order to deal with these larger issues. Opponents believe “the bill would direct the largest changes in the American economy since the 1930s and should not be rushed through Congress without painstaking debate.”

This is what Frank Ackerman, an economist at Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University, had to say:

“How do you price the increased deaths, the losses of endangered species and unique habitats, the increased damages from hurricanes that are becoming more intense...Those numbers dwarf any reasonable estimate of the cost of doing something about climate change. The choice is a no-brainer.”

What do you think? Your comments and insights would be greatly appreciated.