The Blog

Gabe Elsner: The Class of Talkers Playing Down the Cost of Fossil Fuel Dependence

2012-02-11T15:35:23Z

The fossil fuel lobby aggressively uses lobbying and propaganda to block public health protections, manipulate the energy debate, defend their massive government handouts and attack clean energy sources that threaten to displace them.

No tool goes unused: Traditional lobbying, "super PAC" donations, software that floods opinion websites with favorable comments, and a network of well-funded front groups and commentators who launder fossil fuel industry talking points.

Robert Bryce and his employer, The Manhattan Institute, are among the most aggressive of a growing class of talkers underwritten by fossil fuels to write commentary talking down clean energy and playing down the cost and public health problems of fossil fuel dependence.

Bryce has written four books and appeared in hundreds of articles and opinion pieces, from the conservative National Review, to mainstream media outlets such as the New York Times, CNN, National Public Radio and PBS. Mr. Bryce is quickly securing the top position as the leading multi-million dollar marketer for fossil fuels.

Bryce, a former journalist, has consistently been able to position himself as an intellectually independent energy expert. He has never acknowledged fossil fuel underwriting -- though Manhattan Institute records show that since 1985, it has received $6.7 million from fossil fuel interests, including the Koch brothers and ExxonMobil.

I asked Bryce if he had financial ties to the fossil fuel industry after his debate appearance before the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners conference on Monday. Not only did Bryce refuse to answer the question, he also launched into an angry, finger-pointing tirade saying that I'd "made up" the amount of fossil fuel support documented by Manhattan Institute records.

I break it down here:

As 50 current and former journalists told the New York Times in a petition we launched last year, it's fine for Bryce to echo fossil fuel talking points. But it's not acceptable for him to hide that he's doing that for the fossil fuel industry and leave himself positioned in bylines as somehow intellectually honest. Based on records and Bryce's response, it seems pretty clear that Bryce is functioning as a paid spokesman of the natural gas industry (and other fossil fuels). But wearing that on his sleeve would lose his "echo chamber" effect because he wouldn't be the seemingly independent voice that fossil fuel industries need to say things they don't have the credibility to say themselves.

Note: Based on our experience from last year's True Ties petition, this will draw a pretty aggressive response from Bryce's fellow travelers, such as Washington Examiner Editorial Page Editor, Mark Tapscott (CPAC "conservative journalist of the year"), and National Review Online Editor, Ed Craig, a former Manhattan Institute PR guy. To put their mind at ease, we do answer the funding question here. We're unabashedly clean energy, and we'd love to get support from clean energy industries (potential funders -- please consider!).

Visit Checks and Balances Project here.

Rob Perks: House Transportation Bill Would Worsen Traffic

2012-02-10T22:12:52Z

House Republicans have an opportunity to pass transportation legislation that would help create new jobs, fix our roads and bridges, and improve our commutes. What have they decided to do instead? Load up their version of a transportation bill (HR. 7) with an ideological wish list that will prevent Congress from passing a measure that could provide real transportation improvements.

Unfortunately, House Republican leaders are doing exactly what they promised they wouldn’t do. In their “Pledge to America,” after taking control of the House of Representatives, the GOP promised it would not package unpopular legislation with must-pass bills. They promised they would take up major legislation one piece at a time, and not sneak in politically motivated provisions. They’ve done the exact opposite with the transportation bill.
Among many reasons, NRDC strongly opposes the legislation because it is a blatant bait-and-switch to boost drilling off our shores and even in the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But another big problem with this partisan "poison pill" bill is that it essentially declares war on public transportation.

Everyone should be alarmed that the House transportation bill threatens to derail dedicated funding for mass transit throughout the United States. Currently, roughly 3 cents of every 18 cents collected from the federal tax on a gallon of gasoline goes to fund light rail, subways and buses in cities and towns all across the country. Since President Reagan created this cost-share arrangement in 1982, approximately $1 out of every $5 in federal funding has gone to transit, with the rest spent on highways. House Republicans are now seeking to undo the Reagan legacy by restricting gas tax revenues to highways and leaving transit projects to compete for shrinking general funds.

Less Transit, More Traffic

Make no mistake: It is a really bad idea to slash transit funding, not just for riders who rely on that system but for drivers too. After all, less money for transit means fewer alternatives to travel than by car. So the House bill perversely promotes congestion on our roads and highways. Washington Post political satirist Tom Toles captured this problem perfectly in his cartoon today.

In her blog "Seven Fatal Flaws in the House Highway Bill," Donna Cooper noted increased congestion as a big problem:

Increased access to affordable and reliable mass transit is a certain way to deal with congestion. Millions of Americans already spend the equivalent of a week of work or more a year sitting in traffic.[1] Frustration with gridlock is a raging bipartisan complaint. The late Paul Weyrich, a central player in the forming of the Heritage Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council, said in 2009, “Conservatives are just as tired as everybody else of sitting stuck in traffic.”[2]

Yet this bill terminates the Reagan legacy of using a small portion of gas tax revenues to pay for mass transit. To assuage the pro-transit outrage, the bill cynically establishes a separate four-year fund for transit improvements. But that measure has been widely attacked by business leaders, mayors, and others who looked behind the curtain and found out that the special transit fund is far too small and worse yet dependent on imaginary annual appropriations of federal general-fund dollars. It’s a farce to think that general-fund dollars will be allocated for transit when the federal deficit is the Republicans’ favorite cudgel.

The inevitable result of this bill will be more Americans stuck in their cars, higher cost for American businesses that will pay truckers even more to sit in traffic, and higher fares for transit- and rail-reliant commuters.

A book I read recently -- Moving Minds: Conservatives and Public Transportation -- reinforces why transit is a non-partisan solution, not a partisan problem:

If transit suddenly ceased operating in any large American city, commuting would become almost impossible. Rush-hour traffic is already horrendous, to the point where in places like Los Angeles and Washington...the rush hour itself has become rush many-hours, even "permanent rush hour." In urban areas, there isn't any place to put more higways...If all the people now on trains, subways, light rail lines and buses suddenly joined the rush-hour drive, getting to work might take as much time as the job itself.

Consider this: every rail car has the potential to remove up to 125 passengers from our roadways (and every bus full of passengers removes 40 cars from traffic). Therefore, the more people who have access to trains -- as well as buses, carpool lanes, bike baths and walkable communities -- the less they have to hit the roads in their cars to get where they want to go. But aside from traffic reduction, there are several other societal benefits of transit:

More transit means more jobs: Spending on transit makes economic sense because every $1 invested in public transportation generates approximately $6 in economic returns. In fact, over 300,000 jobs and $30.8 billion in economic activity is supported through transportation spending in the recent congressional appropriations bill -- including some 6,200 jobs in Virginia.

More transit makes us more secure: Giving people the freedom to travel other than by automobile is good for national security because less driving helps lessen America's dependence on oil. On average each person riding transit rather than driving alone in a car saves 200 gallons of gasoline a year. It's worth noting that the House bill, by boosting oil drilling, would only feed our nation's fossil fuel addiction.

More transit means less pollution: Simply put, reducing the distance and frequency people may be forced to drive reduces dirty, harmful, unhealthy tailpipe exhaust that pollutes the air and cook the planet. Federally mandated vehicle-pollution controls help, but more cars on the road idling on congested roadways will drive up pollution and make it harder for all us to breath clean air.

NRDC is joined by environmental advocates, transportation experts, fiscal conservatives and even right-wing think tanks in calling on Congress to kill this bill for a variety of reasons. The threat to federal transit funding is a major concern of NRDC and many others who are fighting the bill. Feel free to visit our website to learn more about the bill and to take action. You can also make your voice heard by dialing 1-877-573-7693 and urging your representative to vote NO on HR.7.

This post was first published on NRDC's Switchboard blog.

Heather Taylor-Miesle: Voters Want Obama's Clean Energy Plan

2012-02-10T22:10:32Z

Another major poll has confirmed that American voters across the political spectrum welcome clean energy development. It also found that when given the facts, the majority of Democrats and independents oppose the Keystone XL pipeline for dirty tar sands oil.

The support for clean energy isn't news -- many pollsters have determined that Democrats, Republicans, and Independents embrace clean energy and want to develop more of it. But the timing of this latest poll is instructive.

It should remind candidates that clean energy is a mobilizing issue. It offers a positive way to address voters' biggest concerns right now: jobs, economic growth, and the health of our families.

But as NRDC's Action Fund mapped out in the report "Running Clean," in order to win on clean energy, candidates can't just name check the issue.

They have to lead on it. They have to offer a vision for America's clean energy future, and they have to do it before their opponents frame the issue for them.

This latest poll, conducted by Geoff Garin and Allan Rivlin of Hart Research, focused on four swing states: Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, and Ohio. Those same four states have been bombarded with ads funded by oil companies attacking President Obama. And yet the poll found that 45 percent of voters trust the president more than the Republican Congress when it comes to energy issues. The GOP-led House only got 38 percent on energy.

The poll also asked voters if they supported the president's decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline. At first, voters opposed his decision by 43 to 32 percent. But when pollsters offered more detailed arguments for and against the pipeline, things changed. More voters started to back the president and resist the pipeline.

Of those, 79 percent of Democrats thought the president was right to deny the pipeline, while 9 percent did not. Forty-eight percent of Independents agreed with the president's decision to reject it, compared to 33 percent who want it go forward. For Republicans, the split was 69 percent to 13 percent.

GOP supporters of the Keystone XL pipeline have been out front with their message over the past few weeks. They have been using wildly inflated jobs numbers and downplaying the fact that much of the tar sands oil would be imported out of the U.S. to other markets. But their story seemed to break through.

Media Matters released a survey analyzing coverage of the Keystone XL pipeline from August 1 to December 31, 2011. A full 79 percent of the time, broadcast news reporting on Keystone XL interviewed a pipeline proponent. They interviewed a critic of the tar sands pipeline only 7 percent of the time.

With coverage like that, it's no wonder voters aren't getting the whole story. But when they learn more -- like that the pipeline will create as few as 2,500 jobs according to a Cornell University study, will increase gas prices in the Midwest, and send its dirty oil to the "Foreign Trade Zone" in Port Arthur, Texas, where companies get incentives to export around the world, then their opposition grows. The Hart Research poll confirms it.

But leaders have to get their message out about why the dirty stuff hurts America and why clean energy helps it grow. Voters respond to the clean-versus-dirty message, but candidates have to deliver that message clearly and quickly. This isn't just about the race in November; this is the race every day to frame the debate first.

Obama has done a masterful job of framing the benefits of the clean energy economy. He consistently says clean energy can deliver more jobs, safer air, and a bigger competitive advantage for Americans businesses, and he enacts policies -- from clean car standards to incentives for wind and solar power -- that are delivering those benefits right now. He believes so strongly in the appeal of clean energy that he made it the topic of his first presidential campaign ad last month.

In the end, this isn't about campaign rhetoric. It's about our country's future. The polls show that Americans trust Obama on energy issues and support his clean energy plan. They are giving him permission to lead the nation into a cleaner future.

The dirty tar sands pipeline has no place in that future. But if Obama continues to head down the cleaner path, voters will follow.

Christine Todd Whitman: New Reactors Signal U.S. Nuclear Energy Resurgence

2012-02-10T21:59:31Z

The United States has taken an important step toward efficiently meeting the country's rising electricity demand by ensuring a greater supply of clean, safe nuclear power.
With plans in place in Georgia for the construction of the next generation of nuclear energy facilities, this industry expansion will promote economic prosperity and continued development of a sustainable clean energy source. We need a cost-efficient, low-carbon solution to the nation's increasing electricity demand -- projected to rise 24 percent by 2035. Expanding nuclear energy as part of the mix of electricity generation options is necessary to meeting our nation's growing power needs cleanly and cost-effectively.
As co-chairs of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, a grassroots organization comprising nuclear energy supporters from the business, industry, labor, academic, health, and environmental sectors, we believe that nuclear energy expansion paves the way to create tens of thousands of American jobs, broader economic benefits, and a clean energy future.
This week the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved combined construction and operating licenses (COLs) for two new reactors at the Vogtle nuclear energy facility in Georgia. The Vogtle project has the support of the Obama administration through a Department of Energy loan guarantee as part of the administration's clean energy initiatives.
These next-generation reactors will power scores of businesses and homes -- 1.6 million in Georgia alone -- and it will do so affordably and reliably. At about two cents per kilowatt-hour, the production cost for electricity at nuclear energy facilities is lower than all other major sources of power. By comparison, energy from natural gas-fueled plants doubles that cost at roughly four cents per kilowatt-hour.
Because of the stable, low price of uranium used to fuel the production of electricity at nuclear energy facilities, the price of electricity from nuclear energy varies little. Georgia residents whose power comes from the new reactors could realize up to $20 in savings on each utility bill by 2034. These two new reactors, Vogtle units 3 and 4, are expected to save Georgia customers up to $6 billion in lower electricity rates over the life of the units as compared to a coal or natural gas plant. These are savings every American needs, deserves, and can have with a greater reliance on nuclear power. The savings complement the more than half a billion in annual tax revenues the communities surrounding the reactors and the state can earn from construction and ongoing plant operation.
The good news for American workers is that new nuclear energy construction creates thousands of jobs and 800 career-long jobs to operate the reactors for at least 60 years. Georgia Power is committed to hiring local workers and suppliers to build the largest construction project ever in the state. These jobs will help abate the near-record unemployment rate, which stands at 9.7 percent in Georgia.
The next generation of nuclear facilities will be safer than ever, beginning with Vogtle Units 3 and 4. New reactor designs being built in Georgia demonstrate the U.S. nuclear energy industry's commitment to safety. The industry continuously updates and improves its best practices based on lessons learned. The COLs represent a new federal licensing model. Subject to a three-year NRC review, the project undergoes the most rigorous, transparent, and collaborative assessment process of any nuclear proposal to date. During the review, the NRC confirms the safety and environmental protection of the reactor site.
These facilities will be built and operated according to the standards set by the NRC, the industry's independent regulatory body. As the NRC determines how best to incorporate lessons learned from Fukushima -- like all American companies that operate nuclear facilities -- Georgia Power will make changes during construction to adhere to NRC requirements. The American nuclear industry is committed to continually updating and improving its best practices throughout the construction and operation of all its facilities. This is an industry that strives not only to meet NRC standards, but exceed them.
The design of the new reactors further testifies to the stringent measures taken to keep Americans safe. Developed out of 50 years of operational experience, the design underwent the NRC's most thorough pre-construction review ever. Westinghouse's AP1000 reactor design layers precaution upon precaution, including backup cooling systems that run without human intervention, and a steel and reinforced concrete building shield able to withstand the impact of a natural disaster or even an airliner crash.
Plans for new reactors at Plant Vogtle mark a critical step forward to make America's energy supply more secure, jumpstart the economy, and protect the environment, all while enhancing safety. The NRC's license approval reinforces nuclear power's role as the leading clean-air electricity source. More than 100 reactors in 31 states already produce more than 70 percent of all low-carbon electricity produced in the America.
The simple truth is that more abundant American-made nuclear energy is a vital part of our brighter energy future, but for many decades and many reasons, our nation failed to expand our energy security by building more nuclear facilities. States like Georgia have established the way forward for nuclear energy expansion. With the right policy support, more states should follow their lead to ensure a sustainable clean energy future for all.
Christine Todd Whitman is the former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and former New Jersey governor. Dr. Patrick Moore is a co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace. Together they co-chair the industry-funded Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, a national grassroots coalition that promotes the economic and environmental benefits of nuclear expansion as part of a sustainable clean energy portfolio.

Jeremy Symons: Canadian Government Plans to Poison Wolves Due to Tar Sands Project

2012-02-10T19:31:38Z

The toll of tar sands development has been largely hidden hundreds of miles to the North. Canadian forests once provided the last undisturbed refuge in North America for migrating songbirds, ducks and geese, and the vast stretches of wilderness in northern Alberta have been ideal for wild wolves and caribou that have thrived in balance with nations of native Canadians for countless generations. But that was all before oil companies moved in and took control of the Albertan government.

Alberta's carefully constructed web of secrecy was pierced this week by news that Canada is planning to poison thousands of wolves in a desperate effort to save caribou decimated by oil development. Recent scientific studies have proved that Canada's Woodland caribou herds are heading toward extinction due to habitat destruction from tar sands and other oil development. Today's Los Angeles Times article sums up the story:

Woodland caribou herds in Canada are declining, and tar sands development is a big part of the reason why. But Canada's national and provincial governments know what do about that: Kill the wolves.

The news was uncovered by the National Wildlife Federation, whose biologists concluded:

Canada's proposed solution to habitat destruction from tar sands development is to destroy the wolves that prey on caribou, instead of protecting their habitat.

Two particularly repugnant methods of destroying wolves -- shooting wolves from helicopters and poisoning wolves with baits laced with strychnine -- would be carried out in response to the caribou declines. Strychnine is a deadly poison known for an excruciating death that progresses painfully from muscle spasms to convulsions to suffocation, over a period of hours. Wildlife officials will place strychnine baits on the ground or spread them from aircraft in areas they know wolves inhabit. In addition to wolves, non-target animals like raptors, wolverines and cougars will be at risk from eating the poisoned baits or scavenging on the deadly carcasses of poisoned wildlife.

Americans have been dragged into this mess via the controversial Keystone XL pipeline proposal, which would move the thick black crude under 1,700 miles of the U.S. heartland. So now the same oil companies that have ravaged Alberta's wilderness have brought their deep pockets to America to fight President Obama's prudent decision to deny a permit for this massive new tar sands pipeline.

They're running millions of dollars in TV commercials and spending millions more on lobbying. By turning tar sands into a kitchen table issue in the United States, Transcanada has drawn more scrutiny on what is really happening with the massive tar sands expansion than Alberta was prepared for.

This story is gaining a lot of attention and picking up steam and has gone viral, which isn't surprising since National Wildlife Federation is the United States' largest conservation organization with four million supporters. National Wildlife Federation was also a leading voice in the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park -- wolves imported from Canada thanks to the generous cooperation of the Canadian government in the mid-90's.

Wolves aren't the only wildlife impacted by tar sands. Waterfowl that land on the industry's toxic tailing ponds have been killed in the thousands.

You can learn more about tar sands' impacts on wildlife by reading our November NWF magazine story.

We have a voice and a role to play here in the United States. Oil companies have convinced some members of Congress to try to overrule the president's prudent decision on the tar sands pipeline. Let Congress know that America shouldn't reward Alberta's oil industry by reviving Transcanada's tar sands pipeline project. This tar sands pipeline is the oil export gateway that oil companies need to drive a massive expansion of habitat-destroying tar sands operations. And it would amount to an American seal of approval for the strychnine-poisoning of Alberta's wolves.

Stephen Hren: My Decade of Being "Peak Oil Aware"

2012-02-10T19:19:56Z

Science Magazine just published a great article about peak oil, and I realized it's been exactly a decade since I became "peak oil aware." 9/11 had just happened, and to try and understand the world I did something I wasn't, as an American, supposed to do -- I listened to Osama bin Laden and his complaints to try and understand why these attacks on my country had happened. It turns out I found them pretty legitimate. That is, I agreed with his reasons for being angry, but certainly not his method of killing civilians. Even if a percentage of those civilians could be considered "guilty" for their complicity in advancing American hegemony, death without trial was certainly not an acceptable punishment.

Instead it was his complaint about the permanent stationing of U.S. troops on Saudi soil that resonated. It was not hard for me to imagine being so pissed off if the situation were reversed, and Saudi troops were permanently stationed on U.S. soil, that I would join some rebel campaign against them. Patriotism, mixed with empathy, allowed me to understand the attacks from Al Qaeda's perspective. Granted those two emotions rarely join hands, but somehow I was able to fuse them enough to understand the motive for the attacks even if I abhorred the results.

So, why were American troops permanently stationed on Saudi soil? It certainly wasn't to defend freedom and democracy. There was only one answer -- oil. So I started to read about oil, and quickly came across a recently published book by Kenneth Deffeyes titled Hubbert's Peak. In it he explained something that I'd intuitively known for a long time but had never intellectually grasped -- oil is a finite resource, and will begin, at some point, to decline in production. Not stop flowing, and this is key, but simply to slow, stagnate, then decline. Armed with a bachelor's degree in Economics, my first instinct was to not seriously worry -- higher prices would mean more production. But I was also a grounded soul -- a carpenter and a gardener who understood that if there's a pile of rocks and you keep hauling increasing amounts of them away every day, eventually you'll reach diminishing returns. In terms of oil, the energy lifeblood of our economy, this implied an inflection point -- a peak.

Deffeyes estimated this peak to occur between 2004 and 2008, and used graphs and solid math to back it up. I bought it. A young man in my mid-20s, recently married and starting out in life, I felt that the assumptions guiding the world around me were built on a rotten foundation. Economic growth fueled by never-ending increases in consumption by an ever-expanding population on a planet that from all I could tell was staying the same exact size, was an outright impossibility. Oil price spikes and world-wide economic crises had the potential to wipe out civilization as we knew it. I freaked out.

It's been a long haul since then. I'm no longer married, for instance. Some of what I thought would happen came to pass. Most of it did not... or has not yet anyways. You don't change civilization on a dime, even though that's what I wanted to have happen when I dove into the sustainability movement and became heavily involved with renewable energy, edible landscaping, and all things local. I figured out a while back that the problem isn't peak oil, or global climate disruption, or peak anything else. And it isn't us. Humanity isn't inherently evil.

It's our attitude and the expectations that come with it that are the problem. Being the first species (but hopefully not the last) to evolve to the point of having an extremely powerful combination of intelligence and manual dexterity means we have the capacity to remake the world, literally from the ground up. We can do this in the way we've been doing it, and probably destroy almost every other species on the planet. But we also have the opposite potential -- to take this garden of Eden we were granted by luck or design and coax it along into an ever-increasing diversity of life and abundance. To accomplish this we need to come to the epiphany that we are an integral part of nature and do not stand in opposition to it, and from there we need to rearrange our behaviors and expectations so that we enjoy the fruits of this new relationship. That is, rather than gaining our satisfaction by consuming nature, we need to learn (or rather relearn) how to gain our satisfaction from the gifts that nature gives freely and sustainably -- healthy and delicious local food, energy from renewable resources, meaningful relationships with members of our local community, and spiritual connections with our surrounding environment, to name a few.

Stephen Hren is the author of Tales From the Sustainable Underground: A Wild Journey with People Who Care More About the Planet Than the Law, and maintains the website www.earthonaut.net.

Jorge Cervantes: Mary Jane, You've Come a Long Way Baby

2012-02-10T19:16:02Z

When I published my first book -- Indoor Marijuana Horticulture -- back in 1983, there was no way to know how much things would change in the next three decades.
Back then Ronald Reagan was President of the United States, M*A*S*H went off the air and no one had ever heard of Vice President Bush's eldest son.
In the realm of cannabis things were quite primitive in comparison to today. Poll numbers for legalization had dipped below 25% in the midst of Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign. And general knowledge about cannabis growing was barely existent at best and confined to a relatively small group of people.
What information there was on growing was mainly misinformation. I realized a lot of people were just out to make money instead of giving people solid information on cannabis horticulture. That's when I decided to start writing about it.
My goal was to apply good, simple information; information that was easy for people to understand. But I didn't just write from my own experience. I talked to other growers about their experiences and found out what they knew. And in listening, I learned so much.
I've been very fortunate over the last 30 years because I've been able to hang with some real smart people who have a lot of experience. We've been able to trade and share information, and in doing so, we made ourselves better.
Thirty years ago the phrase "medical marijuana" didn't exist and as I mentioned before, the thought of legalization in the U.S. was a pipe dream (no pun intended). Very little was known about cannabis strains (or varieties, the term I prefer) and less was known about how different varieties could affect different ailments.
The last three decades have been busy ones for cannabis growers as they have bred hundreds, if not thousands of different varieties, many tailored to suit the needs of people in desperate need of relief. These advancements are reflected in Indoor Marijuana Horticulture itself; what started as a 96-page book is now 512 pages. The list of contributors has grown to over 300 people. Again, the value of listening and learning from others.
The political nature of the cannabis community has evolved as well, from a rag-tag and isolated group to a powerful force that changes laws and dominates internet political discussions. Medical marijuana is legal in 16 states and Washington, D.C., and recreational legalization measures will likely be on several state ballots this year.
But advancements haven't been confined to the United States. From the slopes of Vancouver Island in Canada to the vertical grow rooms in The Netherlands to the massive outdoor gardens in the rugged mountains of my beloved Spain, cannabis growing is a worldwide phenomenon that shows no signs of abating.
And why would it? Cannabis horticulture is an enthralling science that we are still learning so much about, and the cannabis plant itself is an incredible living, breathing being that benefits so many people and still has so much left to teach us.
Thirty years ago cannabis growing was something many got into for the challenge or because they loved gardening or simply because they loved consuming marijuana. Today literally millions of people around the world depend on the quality of the cannabis plants being grown. They suffer tremendous hardships, and the quality of their relief is directly correlated to the quality of the medicine that is grown for them and by them.
The key is information. Listening and learning is something a good grower will always be doing. That is why cannabis has made such amazing strides over the last 30 years, and if growers continue to listen -- to others and to their plants -- it will make even more amazing strides in the next 30.

Danielle Nierenberg: Innovation of the Week: Rewarding Farmers for Providing Ecosystem Services

2012-02-10T18:39:34Z

The Sasumua dam supplies Nairobi, Kenya with 20 percent of its fresh water, but land use changes have started to contaminate this important source of water. Forests and wetlands are being converted into agricultural land and commercial plots. This reduces water flow during the dry season and increases surface runoff during the wet season. It also increases soil erosion and the run-off of chemical and biological pollutants from agricultural fields. This negatively impacts the livelihoods of both city dwellers and smallholders living in the watershed.

Pro-poor Rewards for Environmental Services in Africa (PRESA), is a research project created by the World Agroforestry Centre to improve livelihoods by enhancing ecosystem services. PRESA works on eight sites in the highlands of East and West Africa and collaborates with national partners, research institutions, universities, and NGOs to generate and share information that supports payments for ecosystems. By rewarding environmental stewards, instead of punishing wrongdoers, PRESA uses market-based approaches to induce behavioral change among ecosystem stewards to reduce poverty and conserve the environment.

The market-based system works by rewarding the individual or community that provides a certain environmental service. Building a grass waterway 20 kilometers long and 3 meters wide in the Sasumua watershed, for example, can reduce soil sedimentation by 20 percent. This amounts to savings of US$23,000 a year in purification costs for the Nairobi Water Company, which operates downstream and provides the city with clean water. The cost of maintaining the waterway is only US$3,000 a year for the 500 households involved, making it a win-win scenario for both farmers and urban residents.

Rewards can come in many different forms. The community-based rewards can be a powerful incentive for protecting the environment -- schools, roads, and wells can be built in return for using sustainable farming techniques. The farmers in Sasumua prefer assistance to implementing land conservation measures over cash payments, and want the Nairobi Water Company to help them establish rain water harvesting techniques.

The major issue is setting a price that is agreeable to both buyers and sellers. In many cases, it is difficult to establish a price for an environmental service, and because buyers can't choose their suppliers, the two parties must strike a deal. But PRESA's work in Africa shows that rewarding communities for environmental services can be a very effective way to support rural livelihoods while conserving the environment at the same time. Supporting poor rural farmers and including them into business discussions can have big payoffs for all -- especially the environment.

Carin Bondar: In Honor of Valentine's Day, Some Animal Lovin' (VIDEO)

2012-02-10T18:08:00Z

Recently I was a guest on Urban Rush, a Vancouver-based talk show, to discuss one of my favorite topics: the weird and wonderful world of animal sex. Because Valentines Day is quickly approaching, I thought I'd take the opportunity to discuss some of the lovin' going on in our animal cousins. From tillilating earwigs with extremely long "appendages" to koala battles, frog orgies, and butterfly incest, this is an interview quite unlike any other!

Nathan Currier: Methane in the Twilight Zone (Third Episode)

2012-02-10T17:32:29Z

Do you like CSI? I remember the esteemed climate scientist Michael MacCracken once saying that climate researchers need to be like CSI investigators, prying out the truth from obscure clues. But how often has a CSI episode been a whodunit where the outcome could effect everyone? So, kick up your heels, and get into some details.

We've been discussing Eastern Siberian Shelf (or ESAS) methane emissions (for a refresher, see episodes #1, #2). Andrew Revkin at the New York Times, at first bizarrely dismissive of worrisome new findings by leading ESAS researchers, asked his readers if they didn't feel reassured by dissuasive arguments from various methane experts and academics. I'll summarize those arguments, and you can see how you feel:

There is no big spike in global methane emissions yet, and while global methane emissions have picked up again, this new rise has been attributed to wetlands emissions.
The vast majority of the ESAS carbon is locked up for a very long time, perhaps more than a thousand years.
In 800,000 years of ice cores, methane hydrate (i.e., 'frozen' methane) doesn't seem to have been a major player in deglaciations (when methane rose most steeply), and methane followed temperature, so it was not the driver of those changes.
The current ESAS emissions are part of a process still ongoing since the ESAS was re-submerged 8,000 years ago by rising seas after the end of the last ice age.

"What a relief," I can hear you sigh. "And all undeniably accurate facts! I feel better, much better!"

Not so fast. We'll examine each 'reassurance,' but first let's review why the ESAS is unique.

• It's the world's largest continental shelf, and methane exists there in massive stores of different kinds, depths, and ages. It is by no means just methane in methane hydrate at issue. Indeed, much stored carbon there was formed along with the various stores of land-based frozen carbon discussed recently on the front page of the New York Times: indeed, it was that land permafrost until re-submerged. The graph shows why the New York Times' approach made little sense, ignoring these ESAS emissions while discussing land-based emissions right nearby, sometimes coming from the very same stores. And these different emissions and their local impacts will strongly interact, and therefore need to be considered together.

• There is thus a unique 'cap' of submarine permafrost (alone estimated to contain 500 Gt carbon) on top of the hydrate, functioning to stabilize the shallow hydrates and prevent migration of free gas (estimated at another 700 Gt) which lies beneath the hydrate, itself estimated to be ~1,000 Gt carbon.

• It's the world's shallowest shelf, so these hydrates depend mostly on temperature for stability (opposed to pressure, like for deeper hydrates).

• It's about the fastest warming part of the arctic, itself the fastest warming part of the world.

• Being so shallow, consumption by microbes of any released methane in the water column might well be less efficient, so more methane could reach the atmosphere.

The second point is probably most important for the current discussion. The 500 Gt in this 'cap' is not very secure. It has warmed from about -17 ºC (when re-submerged) to just slightly below freezing (-1 - -.5 ºC), bottom waters there having warmed about 1 ºC per decade recently. It is perhaps 3-5% degraded already with taliks (thawed areas within permafrost), which can become migration routes for gas from below. And just 10% of this cap's carbon itself, released rapidly (within a decade) as methane, could create the catastrophe we envisioned last episode. Thus, the hydrates themselves do not even necessarily need to destabilize for the ESAS to have major climate impacts. Reassurance #2 is therefore empty.

For Reassurance #1, let's start with this metaphor: a doctor tells you the malignancy they just found on you hasn't grown much, yet. And it's just the tiniest fraction of your body weight! Feels reassuring? And adding that there is some recent methane growth, but attributable to wetlands, depends upon isotopic analysis. Isotopic analysis is one of the great wonders of modern science, as important to climate research as to CSI-style forensics. But while some things give very clear isotopic signals, deciphering others is an art. A paper just published a few months ago, Arctic methane sources: Isotopic evidence for atmospheric inputs (Fisher et al, 2011), says, of nearby air sample methane isotopic signatures, "this bulk result is strikingly similar to typical wetland emissions, though with the caution that it may record a mix of disparate sources," and later adds that, "there may also be significant input from East Siberian Arctic Shelf emissions with variable d13C," and again later, "this does not exclude inputs from isotopically lighter shallow sourced CH4 emitted from clathrates further afield such as in the eastern Arctic." Indeed, discussing the isotopic signatures of different ESAS methane, leading ESAS researcher Natalia Shakhova said recently,"It is incorrect to say that anyone is able to trace that signal yet." Reassurance #1 is thus quite weak.

Reassurance #3 is a not uncommon form of faulty logic made by professionals who occasionally get bleary-eyed and lost in their charts: ice cores give a detailed record of changes from periods cooler than ours to today. Unfortunately we are likely exiting this Pleistocene range soon, with temperatures rising to levels unseen during recent interglacials -- and these particular hydrates are uniquely sensitive to temperature, as already noted. Reassurance #3, dead on arrival.

Ah, Reassurance #4, we still have #4! Modeling, indeed, has suggested ESAS permafrost destabilization 5-10,000 years after inundation, depending on conditions of prior freezing. The permafrost cap is now hovering just below freezing. Without humans, ESAS bottom waters would surely be several degrees cooler today. Now they will certainly warm more and are doing so fast: our human signal here will clearly be added on top of underlying long-term degradation, making something that has probably been benign in recent interglacials potentially catastrophic. And current warming is clearly causing vast changes there. A key to the region is the Lena river, a prime source of its rich sediments, its carbon stores, methane, etc. It is fed by methane-rich lakes underlain by yedoma (wind blown matter making organic-rich permafrost), with its quickly warming waters largely driving a 500% increase in flaw polynyas (ice-free sea areas in winter) over the ESAS, around the river's mouth, during the last two decades alone.

Our reassurances now are ended, and have melted into air, into thin air, and I don't wish to unduly frighten you, but one calculation based on sonar acoustical data, would, if correct, actually suggest we've already arrived at catastrophic-level ESAS emissions, but for one thing: obviously there's no big atmospheric methane spike yet (as said at the outset), so, if accurate, the reading would indicate that massive methane releases there must be getting consumed prodigiously by microbes in the water column, as during the Gulf oil spill. For now, let's just hope those were schooling fish the sonar was picking up!

How now? Still feeling reassured? You have to admit, if you ask yourself what the initial stages of a catastrophe there might look like, it would probably look much like what we're seeing today: researchers on the ground frequently finding larger and larger plumes of methane bubbles, hotspots of super-saturated water column, greatly elevated atmospheric methane levels nearby, and slightly elevated levels over the whole arctic sea, with various academics questioning all these extraordinary findings. We don't know, but it doesn't look nice at all.

Major funding should go right away to figuring this out. And if we were smart, since we can't all get into lab coats with our excellent CSI researcher friends like Natalia Shakhova and Igor Semiletov (watch one of their Powerpoint presentations here), we should also be discussing what we could do if the news there soon goes from bad to worse. Indeed, let's discuss that next episode.

Bill Chameides: Has the Earth's Missing Heat Been Found?

2012-02-10T17:14:17Z

NASA climate scientist Jim Hansen and colleagues weigh in on the missing heat issue.

In 2009 Kevin Trenberth, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, raised the issue of missing heat in a paper (PDF) titled "An Imperative for Climate Change Planning: Tracking Earth's Global Energy." In principle, the excess heat trapped in the Earth as a result of greenhouse gases must show up somewhere on the Earth as heat; and, given its large heat capacity, we expect most of that heat to end up in the ocean.

Starting in about 2003, though, a slowdown in heat buildup was observed in the ocean while greenhouse gases continued to build up in the atmosphere, trapping more heat. Six years later, Trenberth asked in the journal Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, where was the missing heat? In his now famous hacked email message, Trenberth lamented that our observation systems' inability to resolve this issue was "a travesty."

Missing Heat Investigated in the Journals

As I described in a post last week, Norman Loeb of NASA's Langley Research Center and colleagues argued recently in the journal Nature Geoscience that, given the uncertainties in current observation networks, it's not clear that heat buildup in the ocean slowed down or, ergo, that any heat has gone missing at all.

Today, let's look at another paper on the subject, one that appeared in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics late last year and that reached a different conclusion. This paper, by Jim Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and colleagues, is a very lengthy and meaty paper that covers a plethora of issues related to the climate and the Earth's energy budget. Despite its technical weightiness, it contains some wonderfully clear, accessible statements for non-climate-science types about how the greenhouse effect works and where some of the fundamental uncertainties lie in our understanding of the climate's response to greenhouse gases. If nothing else, the introduction is worth a read.

Tracking the Earth's Energy Flow During Two Periods: 1993-2008 and 2005-2010

My focus will be on just one aspect of the Hansen et al. paper -- their take on the Earth's energy budget during two periods of time: 1993-2008 and 2005-2010. which we'll call Period 1 and Period 2.

(These two periods reflect two improvements in the accuracy of ocean measurements: Period 1 marks the start of satellite measurements of sea level; Period 2 begins with a nearly fully deployed Argo float system with good spatial coverage of the oceans. More on Argo.)

Ocean Heat

The major factor in assessing the Earth's energy budget is the ocean -- that's where some 90 percent of the excess energy absorbed by the planet due to greenhouse gases ends up going. In other words, to a very rough approximation, whatever energy is added to the Earth's system should show up in the ocean as extra heat.

Hansen and colleagues estimate from ocean data that the oceans absorbed about 0.8 watts per square meter in Period 1, but only 0.58 watts per square meter in Period 2. Loeb et al. found a similar decrease in the oceanic heat uptake over time, but calculated a large uncertainty and dismissed the difference as being insignificant. However, Hansen et al. estimate a smaller error uncertainty than that of Loeb et al., and argue that the difference is significant.

So Hansen et al. come down on the side of Trenberth in the sense that they conclude the ocean is absorbing less heat now than before (about 0.2 watts per square meter less).

The Sun's Role

But where Hansen et al. diverge from Trenberth is on the issue of whether there is any missing heat. Hansen et al. say no. Here's their reasoning.

It turns out that the Sun has been going though its own peregrinations over this period as well. If you remember, between 2008 and 2010 we went through one of the most intense solar minima in recent history, during which time the Sun sent us a little bit less energy in Period 2 relative to Period 1.

How much less? Funny you should ask: On the basis of satellite measurements of solar radiation, Hansen et al. estimate that the energy we've been getting from the Sun dropped by 0.14 watts per square meter between 2000 and 2009. This drop-off in the Sun's output plus an increase in cooling due to aerosols is roughly the same as the difference in the heat buildup in the ocean over the two periods. And voilà, the budget is in balance -- there is no missing heat because the Sun never sent it our way.

Hansen et al. make a special point of noting the fact that the Earth continued to accumulate excess heat even during a period when we had a less active Sun delivering less energy:

"The strong positive energy imbalance during the solar minimum ... constitute a smoking gun, a fundamental verification that human-made climate forcing is the dominant forcing driving global climate change. Positive net forcing even during solar minimum assures that global warming will be continuing in the decades to come."

It would appear that the Sun isn't the only driver on this planetary bus.

Crossposted with TheGreenGrok.

Nil Zacharias: Sinfully Good and Cruelty-Free: Vegan Recipes for Valentine's Day (PHOTOS)

2012-02-10T16:33:49Z

What does Valentine's Day mean to you? A commercialized holiday promoting consumerism in the name of love and romance, or a day that reminds you to appreciate loved ones in your life?

If you're trying to be mindful of your lifestyle choices, this day presents some unique challenges. Let's start with chocolate and flowers, two of the most popular gifts that also happen to be the worst offenders.

Unfortunately, most of the world's cocoa production occurs in West African countries like Ghana and the Ivory Coast, where child labor, human trafficking, poor wages and terrible working conditions are commonplace. Workers on cocoa farms are exposed to toxic chemicals and children as young as seven have been found working in the fields. Doesn't sound very decadent, does it?

But don't despair, because you can still enjoy chocolate sourced from areas that are not steeped in slavery. And while you're at it, avoid milk chocolate and the cruelty that is inherent in the dairy industry.

When it comes to flowers, a majority of the cut flowers sold in the U.S. are imported from countries like Colombia and Ecuador, where flower workers are paid poverty-level wages to work long hours. In addition, flowers are one of the top pesticide-intensive agricultural crops and workers face a range of health issues as a result of it. Hardly very romantic!

If you want to gift someone flowers, try to find locally grown ones, or better yet, gift a potted plant.

Want to really show your love and appreciation? Make something delicious from scratch! Here are some amazing vegan Valentine's Day recipes to get you started. All recipes that require chocolate include information about companies that do not source their cacao beans from areas known for unjust labor practices. Not to mention, they are all free of dairy and other animal products, without compromising on great taste.

So, that's how you can have your (Valentine's Day) cake and eat it too (if you choose to), while minimizing your negative impact on people, animals and the planet!

Got a good vegan recipe you'd like to share? Please contact us to find out how you can get involved.

Mike Bellamente: Sustainability Runs Deep in Ethics Ranking

2012-02-10T16:19:06Z

Of those named to Ethisphere's "2011 100 Most Influential People in Business Ethics" last month, readily apparent is the occupational diversity of the field. Rare is the occasion that one sees the likes of Michelle Obama (#53) and Stephen Colbert (#48) listed alongside the Annie Kishens (#36 - Director of CSR for PepsiCo India) and Leo Bonannis (#50 - CEO of Sourcemap) of the world.

The more subtle point to be drawn, however, is the unique cross-section of environmental thought leaders represented in the rankings. A sign that eco-consciousness has become a mainstay in what is deemed ethical business practices, the 2011 list included several professionals either loosely or intricately tied to corporate sustainability trends.

While former Timberland CEO Jeff Swartz (#24) made it his mission to embed resource conservation into his company's psyche, sustainability blogger Marc Gunther (#66) was keeping companies honest through the written word. Joe Keefe (#82), President and CEO of Pax World Investments, made his mark by way of innovative sustainable investing solutions, while Annie Kishen pioneered a pledge to make Pepsi's operations in India water positive by replenishing more water than is consumed.

Although few operatives of environmental stewardship penetrated the top-quartile of the list of 100 -- not surprising when up against the likes of corruption activist and hunger striker Anna Hazare -- the increasing visibility environmental movers and shakers is cause enough for optimism.

Below is a list of honorees recognized for ethical contributions related to the environment (full disclosure -- the author of this article was awarded a spot on the list). To view the complete list of the 2011 100 Most Influential People in Business Ethics, click here.

The Ethisphere Institute is a "leading international think-tank dedicated to the creation, advancement and sharing of best practices in business ethics, corporate social responsibility, anti-corruption and sustainability."

• #24 Jeffrey Swartz - CEO, Timberland
Category: Business Leadership

• #36 Annie Kishen - Director of CSR, PepsiCo India
Category: Business Leadership

• #45 Mike Bellamente - Project Director, Climate Counts
Category: Thought Leadership

• #50 (tie) Yalmaz Siddiqui - Director, Environmental Strategy, Office Depot
Category: Design and Sustainability

• #50 (tie) Leo Bonanni - CEO, Sourcemap
Category: Design and Sustainability

• #66 Marc Gunther - Blogger, MarcGunther.com
Category: Media and Whistleblowers

• #82 (tie) Joseph Keefe - President and CEO, Pax World Investments
Category: Investment and Research

• #92 Jacquelynn Henke - Real Estate Green Strategy Officer, TD Bank
Category: Design and Sustainability

• #94 Dennis Smith - National Clean Cities Director, Department of Energy
Category: Government and Regulatory

• #100 Dan Phillips - Contractor and Home Builder, Independent
Category: Design and Sustainability

Astrid Caldas: Shooting the Messenger Is Not the Answer

2012-02-10T15:48:53Z

Note to readers: This post builds on the one taken down last week. Many apologies.

Yet another blog post commenting on the WSJ debacle about non-climate scientists' opinions versus climate scientists' opinions got me thinking (again) why the conversation about climate change is so charged. There are always conflicting opinions on many issues, especially those that have the potential to affect our way of living. But when a vast majority of specialists around the world agree on something, I would argue that they probably have a basis for that. Freedom of speech is an important part of the democratic process, but it should be used to bridge paths and not divide them. Having strong opinions about something is certainly warranted, and debate is welcome. However, it seems that when it comes to climate change, some not-so-civil behavior has become acceptable.

Just in the past couple of weeks, various articles have decried the personal attacks climate scientists have been receiving, simply because they do science that some people do not agree with or choose not to believe in. These articles (examples here, here, and here) describe (some in detail) what types of threatening emails and other acts climate scientists are being subjected to. Emails saying "I know where your kids go to school" and "you are nothing but a liar" are disrespectful at best and harassment at worst, which is unacceptable in any context. Why do some people feel the need to resort to personal attacks about climate?

A lot of misunderstandings about climate science stems from the scientific method itself. Science is almost never certain -- it mostly deals with probable causes and certain relationships, some stronger than others. In the case of climate, there is a rather large amount of uncertainty related to the actual warming we will see, since it largely depends on what people do in the coming years, but there is no uncertainty that it is getting warmer. This post gives a good analogy of climate science, in that it is not a house of cards that if one card (or fact) falls, the whole thing collapses. Rather, it is more like a jigsaw puzzle, where some pieces may be missing, and some may be in the wrong place, but one can still see the big picture. Why is it then, that so many people cannot see the jigsaw picture?

There are various reasons why one doesn't believe in global warming, and this post does a great job explaining the different types of climate change denial. There are those who follow a common human tendency to interpret the facts in a manner that agrees with their social (or political) group, in an unconscious behavior that leads to acceptance in that group. A recent study stating that media coverage and information from politicians and advocacy groups are among the most prominent drivers of the public perception of climate change seems to largely support this rationale (comments on that study here). But then there are those who consciously choose to not believe, purposefully "creating doubt about climate change, lobbying and campaigning against efforts to reduce the risk or even just to adapt to its effect". Somehow I don't see people in this group changing their rhetoric, and unfortunately, they are primary drivers of climate change perception. We are indeed stuck. How can we move from here?

Because move we must. In the end, this is not about what people think of carbon-reducing measures or lifestyle changes. It is not about the accuracy of climate models. This is about the real facts. The proof that temperatures are going up is here. Not accepting it is akin to looking at your thermometer before leaving the house, seeing it is 80 degrees out there, but putting on a heavy coat anyway -- and then sending an offensive email to the thermometer manufacturer. That's what the attacks on climate scientists amount to. The scientists state their findings, and are not responsible for the temperatures going up -- we all are. So it's up to us to fix our mess, and shooting the messenger is not a good strategy to accomplish that.

Annie Leonard: Don't Be Stupid, Cupid -- Show Your Love Responsibly

2012-02-10T15:03:03Z

For holidays tainted by commercialism, Valentine's Day gives Christmas a run for the money -- big money. The National Retail Federation estimates Americans will spend $17.6 billion on Valentine's gifts this year, including $4.1 billion on jewelry, $1.8 billion on flowers and $1.5 billion on candy. But for consumers with a conscience, the very things Madison Avenue markets as expressions of love are some of the worst stuff you can buy.

Chocolate: A heart-shaped box of truffles may be a sweet dream for chocolate lovers, but it's a nightmare for many workers. Most of the world's cocoa beans come from plantations in Ghana and Ivory Coast, where a 2010 BBC investigation exposed the widespread use of child labor, human trafficking and even slavery to harvest cocoa.

Flowers: Most roses and other flowers sold in the United States are imported from Colombia, where the cut flower industry is also known to use child workers and forced labor. Because the flowers have to look perfect, they're treated with immense amounts of toxic pesticides, which contributes to high rates of lung and nerve disease in a workforce dominated by women and children.

Jewelry: Child labor, forced labor and dangerous conditions are well-documented in the mining industry. Gold mining uses mercury and cyanide to separate the metal from ore, and leaves behind mountains of toxic waste -- more than 20 tons of waste to make one gold ring. The film Blood Diamonds dramatized the role that diamond mining plays in fueling and funding brutal wars in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Angola and other African nations that have killed and displaced millions of people.

So should you boycott Valentine's Day? I'm not. I'm all for showing my loved ones how much I care, on Valentine's Day tomorrow and every day. A hand-crafted card, a heartfelt note, a home-cooked meal or (ahem) a special favor are all ways to express your love. And for a gift that keeps on giving you can get involved in efforts to change the way these destructive industries do business. Joining a campaign not only amplifies your voice but brings you together with others who share your concerns.

Last February, Change.org mounted a petition drive that persuaded 1-800-Flowers to add Fair Trade-certified bouquets to its collection and create a code of conduct that prohibits its suppliers from using forced and child labor. Now the Fairness in Flowers campaign is asking consumers to write other major florists urging them to ensure their flowers are not grown and processed with the use of exploited labor or child labor.

More than 100,000 consumers have joined the No Dirty Gold campaign, which works to get jewelers to promise to use only gold mined responsibly. To date, 80 leading jewelry retailers worldwide have signed the pledge. Global Witness, a human rights group that helped bring attention to the bloody truth about the diamond trade, recently pulled out of a flawed United Nations-backed program to certify conflict-free diamonds, but remains active in the campaign to reform the industry.

OK, here's the toughest one to pass by (at least for me) -- chocolate. Global Exchange is among the groups working with schools, churches and community groups to get leading chocolate companies to promise that their sweet treats don't exploit or endanger workers on African cocoa plantations.

Real love doesn't trash the planet or force children to work in dangerous mines or pesticide-drenched fields. There's no reason that jewelry, chocolates and flowers have to take such a heavy toll. This Valentine's Day, let's show our love not only to our sweethearts, friends and family, but to the Earth and people around the world.