Green on HuffingtonPost.com

Mike Sandler: Waxman-Markey's "Postage Stamp" Costs Transfer Wealth from the Poor to the Rich

2009-07-09T22:39:34Z

The Democrats used a nice talking point during the House's Waxman-Markey climate bill debate. They said that the bill will only cost a "postage stamp per day." The basis for the talking point was a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report estimating an annual cost of "$175 per household in 2020" or "48 cents a day." This was parroted by Al Gore, Joe Romm and Climate Progress, and Think Progress. Paul Krugman's June 22 NYT blog cites the CBO study at just 18 cents a day per person.

But there are problems with the "postage stamp" approach. Dr. James Boyce of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, notes that the CBO arrived at the "postage stamp" cost by first assuming all costs are recycled to consumers, and then subtracting only the portion of costs that are explicitly directed elsewhere: the purchase of international offsets, the production cost of domestic offsets, true economic costs (e.g. of energy efficiency), and overseas spending on adaptation and mitigation. The CBO estimated the bill's "net impact" not the "cost to households" from higher fuel prices.

CBO assumed that when companies receive free allowances through Waxman Markey's giveaway, consumers would benefit from lower prices for goods and services, even though that did not happen in Europe. They also assumed that the value of the free allowances will be passed along to the shareholders (who live in households?) of the companies receiving the free allowances. The CBO understood that most shareholders are in the wealthiest income quintile. This leads to the next problem with allocation in Waxman-Markey, and you won't hear this in the Democratic talking points: the Waxman-Markey bill actually transfers wealth from the poor to the rich.

Let's contrast the CBO's estimates of consumer net impact across the 5 income quintiles (5 is the wealthiest) in the Waxman-Markey allocation (first set of numbers below) with a Cap and Dividend policy (second set - an equal per capita rebate to consumers of $605), as calculated by Professor Boyce. Comparing the two (third set), Boyce draws the following conclusion:

"Compared to a cap-and-dividend policy, the allocation of allowance value under Waxman-Markey takes $140 per household per year from the poorest fifth of American households, $95/year from the next fifth, $165/year from the middle fifth, and $130/year from the second-richest fifth, and transfers this money ($530/year in total) to households in the richest fifth of the population."

Waxman-Markey
Quintile | Dollars paid back | Share of payback

1 | $465 | 15.4% |
2 | $510 | 16.9% |
3 | $440 | 14.6% |
4 | $475 | 15.6% |
5 | $1135 | 37.5% |

Cap-and-Dividend
Quintile | Dollars paid back | Share of payback

1 | $605 | 20% |
2 | $605 | 20% |
3 | $605 | 20% |
4 | $605 | 20% |
5 | $605 | 20% |

Quintile | Difference (WM - C&D)
1 | - $140
2 | - $95
3 | - $165
4 | -$130
5 | +$530

Four out of five Americans would do better with a dividend.

The Democratic leadership painted themselves into a corner by deciding to give away permits (which are like money) to get votes. This is a typical Congressional strategy. But in this case, the short term strategy which got Waxman Markey the 219 votes it needed could hurt the Dems in 2010 or 2012 if prices go up. Fuel and electricity costs are highly visible, but under Waxman-Markey, the benefits to consumers will be mostly invisible. People will see the costs of the transition every time they fill up their gas tank and they hear the news report the latest gas prices. The CBO assumes that 65% of benefits of free allocation to local utility companies in Waxman-Markey go to the industrial and commercial customers, not to residents. Presumably savings filter back to people in prices of goods and services and in stock prices, but these signals are mixed in with other factors. In the end, people will be thinking about the gross costs, not net costs.

A better strategy would be to acknowledge that there will be costs, but to offer rebates and dividends that compensate consumers at all levels. Instead of gambling that the costs of addressing climate change will be low, proponents would level with the American people, "Yes, we know addressing climate change may have some costs. That is why we are giving you a rebate, and making sure the corporations don't profit off this important transition. It is only fair that if there are any profits to be had, they are recycled back to you, the people of America, who are funding this transition to clean energy and efficient transportation for our grandchildren and future generations." How would opponents respond?

Consumer compensation could be bi-partisan, with Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) joining with Republicans such as Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), who like the dividend because it doesn't swallow revenues into the black hole of general fund deficits or go for more pork barrel spending.

There's still time. The Senate has just started to debate their version of the bill. The Senate version could give the permits directly to the people (the voters) through Cap and Dividend, Carbon Share, or a tax rebate similar to the payroll tax swap. A Senate consumer compensation strategy would be an improvement over the House's "postage stamp" strategy.

Avital Binshtock: Self-Care = Earth Care

2009-07-09T22:12:08Z

What's good for our bodies is good for the planet -- and what's bad for the earth is bad for our health. The idea that caring for the earth must include attending to our own wellness is worth exploring. These are ways to take better care of yourself and the environment.

Mind Your Mind

The link between mental health and environmental degradation isn't commonly discussed, but it's when people feel unsatisfied that they're likelier to overconsume, making the planet a hapless victim. And the unprecedented rates at which Westerners are taking antidepressants and stimulants are polluting our rivers and oceans.

Natural ways to feel better include exercising, getting enough sleep, developing a strong support system, talk therapy, heading outdoors, and pursuing a hobby. If you have to take medications, be sure to properly dispose of them.

Watch What You Eat

You can make dietary changes to help your health and please the planet. Eating less meat, for example, is a huge way to heal the earth (18 percent of greenhouse gases come from industrialized livestock production), as is reducing overall caloric intake.

The term "tread lightly" takes on new meaning now that there's research, written about here, here, and here, citing overeating and obesity as causes of global warming.

Choose Organic

When buying food, cosmetics, or clothing, try to ensure that anything you'll be putting in or on your body is free of pesticides and other chemicals that pollute the planet and your innards. Choosing purer products might cost more in the short term, but in the long run you'll be saving more than dollars. Just look for the seal.

Cut Out the Plastic

Many of us already know how devastating plastic can be for the planet, but most aren't fully aware that the synthetics can harm human health too. From heating food in plastic containers to reusing plastic bottles (and perhaps even using them the first time) to scientific concerns about BPA, there's an ocean's worth of reasons to steer clear. Instead of throwaway plastic, choose reusable glass or metal. If you do find yourself having to use plastic, do your best to recycle it.

Please comment: What are other ways to help your health and the planet?

Brendan DeMelle: 'Justice for Vieques': Resolutions Passed by Both Houses of Puerto Rican Legislature

2009-07-09T21:43:33Z

The United Nations and both houses of the Puerto Rican Legislature have now passed resolutions supporting the people of Vieques in their struggle with disease, contamination and neglect from the United States Navy's 60-year bombardment of the island.

When will the Obama Administration follow through on Obama's campaign promise to clean up the island and provide justice for the Vieques residents sickened by the Navy's actions?

The people of Vieques are experiencing an ongoing health crisis created by the U.S. Navy, which left behind a toxic brew of chemicals and heavy metals, including depleted uranium, napalm, mercury, arsenic, and lead from bombing and other military training activities. Residents of Vieques suffer from abnormally high rates of cancer, birth defects and other serious diseases. Scientific studies show this stems from their contaminated environment.

The U.S. government's ongoing neglect of the cleanup and health effects afflicting the people of Vieques have generated overwhelming public outrage in Puerto Rico and beyond. Groups which have called on the government to provide a just remedy for Vieques include the United Nations; the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC); the League of United Latin American Cities (LULAC); the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO); the National Council of La Raza (NCLR); the American Values Network and others.

The Senate of Puerto Rico passed a resolution on June 19, 2009 calling on President Obama to:

"recognize the extraordinary contributions and sacrifices made by the residents of Vieques to the preservation of our national security over a period covering more than six decades." The resolution further states that "it would be in the best interests of the United States of America to address the losses and ongoing medical and economic needs of the U.S. citizens on Vieques, which could be resulting from the U.S. Navy's long bombardment and contamination of the island" and suggests that "the fastest, fairest, and most efficient way to correct the injustice and health crisis is for the U.S. Government to resolve the claims pending in the US District Court in San Juan as well as those pending for the Municipality of Vieques before the Secretary of Navy." [unofficial translation, PDF]

A similar resolution passed the Puerto Rican House of Representatives a week later on June 25, 2009 [PDF]. And a resolution reaffirmed last month by a special committee of the United Nations:

"Urges the Government of the United States, in line with the need to guarantee the Puerto Rican people their legitimate right to self-determination and the protection of their human rights, to complete the return of occupied land and installations on Vieques Island and in Ceiba to the people of Puerto Rico; respect fundamental human rights, such as the right to health and economic development; and expedite and cover the costs of the process of cleaning up and decontaminating the impact areas previously used in military exercises through means that do not continue to aggravate the serious consequences of its military activity for the health of the inhabitants of Vieques Island and the environment." [PDF]

During his campaign for President, Barack Obama promised the people of Puerto Rico in a February 2008 letter that his administration would:

"actively work with the Department of Defense... to achieve an environmentally acceptable clean-up of the former U.S. Navy lands in Vieques, Puerto Rico. We will closely monitor the health of the people of Vieques and promote appropriate remedies to health conditions caused by military activities conducted by the U.S. Navy on Vieques."

Instead of following through on his campaign promise to help Vieques, President Obama has not yet acted, and - perhaps emboldened by silence from the White House - the Justice Department has pursued a defense of "sovereign immunity" to protect the Navy and deny justice to the people of Vieques.

Hiding behind an archaic principle derived from the Middle Ages when, ostensibly ordained of God, "the King could do no wrong," is hardly the change that the people of Vieques expected from the Obama Administration. While there may be legitimate uses of national security arguments in defending the military's actions in other instances, the U.S. Navy's abhorrent conduct in Vieques does not merit such forgiveness.

Over 7,000 Vieques residents who are plaintiffs in an ongoing mass tort action have documented multiple failures by the Navy to comply with specific, mandatory environmental regulations. They also cite the Navy's failure to warn the people of Vieques of the harmful effects of toxins released into the island's air, water and soil.

But the government is now using the "sovereign immunity" defense to claim that:

"there was no specific and mandatory provision requiring any warning to citizens of Vieques regarding environmental hazards, and any warning would have required balancing competing concerns of secrecy and safety, national security and public health." [pg 21 of PDF]

The Justice Department even has the gall to suggest in a recent court document that:

"With respect to any warning, the Navy would have had to balance its military and national security needs against any perceived benefits to public health and safety in light of the risks and burdens of a warning program and the great public anxiety warnings could create." [pg 23 of PDF]

Yes, you read that correctly. In the government's twisted logic, warning people about the impending bombing that will contaminate their air, water, soil and bodies could harm them more than the toxic contaminants themselves.

How thoughtful. Viequenses now suffering from cancer and birth defects must feel grateful to the government for saving them from the anxiety of being warned about their exposure beforehand.

President Obama must quickly intervene in this matter and ensure that the people of Vieques are not denied their day in court. They have sacrificed greatly for our nation and deserve swift justice, attention to their health problems, and a thorough cleanup of their island.

It's time to deliver on that promise, Mr. President.

Christine Escobar: He's Back! Former VP at Monsanto To Advise FDA Commissioner on Food Safety

2009-07-09T20:58:33Z

Michael R. Taylor, the former Vice President for Public Policy at Monsanto has returned through Washington's revolving doors and will now advise FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg on food safety.

We learn of this discouraging connection on the same day the White House announced its new commitment to upgrading the country's food safety system.

Much hope had been held out for a change in FDA perspective due to Commissioner Hamburg's lack of industry ties. Her career has consisted of public health research and policy positions. Prior to her appointment as FDA commissioner, she worked as the New York City health commissioner. Unfortunately, it appears that with the addition of Taylor, the FDA has remedied that problem.

It seems Taylor is just the man you'd want on the job, if you're concerned about unwanted industry regulation and corporate representation of toxic hormones in your dairy. But, examining bad industry practices that lead to salmonella and E. coli tainted foods? Not so sure about that.

According to a release Tuesday on the agency's website, Taylor will now serve as senior advisor to the FDA head. In the announcement, Hamburg, said of Taylor:

"I am pleased to welcome Mike Taylor back to the FDA," Commissioner of Food and Drugs Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D., said in announcing Taylor's appointment. "His expertise and leadership on food safety issues will help the agency to develop and implement the prevention based strategy we need to ensure the safety of the food we eat."

Taylor's "long and distinguished career" is noted therein without mention of his 7 years of work as an attorney for Monsanto, the giant agricultural biotech corporation.

A few months ago, I posted a story here on The Huffington Post highlighting the insidious way rBGH (the bovine growth hormone) made it into our country's food supply, with the help of Michael R. Taylor. I wrote about the dangerous effects of the addition of rBGH to our dairy supply:

In humans, studies indicate milk from cows treated with rBGH may contain elevated levels of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IFG-1), which can increase the risk of breast cancer and other types of cancer.

Here is a portion of what I detailed about Taylor's connections in that story:

"An excerpt from a 1998 article in The Ecologist magazine details Taylor's journey and its significance:

"In March 1994, Taylor was publicly exposed as a former lawyer for the Monsanto corporation for seven years. While working for Monsanto, Taylor had prepared a memo for the company as to whether or not it would be constitutional for states to erect labeling laws concerning rBGH dairy products. In other words. Taylor helped Monsanto figure out whether or not the corporation could sue states or companies that wanted to tell the public that their products were free of Monsanto's drug."

So, just what will Taylor's duties be?

As Senior Advisor to the FDA Commissioner, he will be expected to:
* Assess current food program challenges and opportunities
* Identify capacity needs and regulatory priorities
* Develop plans for allocating fiscal year 2010 resources
* Develop the FDA's budget request for fiscal year 2011
* Plan implementation of new food safety legislation.

See this page to read more on Taylor's industry and political connections.

Paul Paz y Miño: Chevron Holds a Grudge, but the US Government Won't Budge.

2009-07-09T20:47:05Z

Every year, as if it's tradition, Chevron lobbies the US Government to pull all of Ecuador's trade preferences given to it by the United States. The preferences, called the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA), are intended to help Ecuador boost its economy by granting duty-free access to the US market. Chevron has attacked the ATPA at least three times. It's pretty apparent they are willing to throw an entire country under the bus to cover up it's own crimes. If these trade benefits were to be revoked it would cost nearly 350,000 Ecuadorian jobs and threaten irreparable harm between Ecuador and US relations.

The US government, the Obama Administration, and a number of Senators have wholly rejected Chevron's pleas. Last week 4 US senators wrote a letter to the USTR urging the strong rejection of Chevrons requests.

The letter stated:

"We write to express our concern with Chevron Corporation's efforts to petition your office concerning a pending lawsuit it is facing in the Ecuadorian legal system. It is our understanding that Chevron is seeking the threatened withdrawal of the [trade benefits] for Ecuador if this lawsuit moves forward." (Read the full version of the letter HERE)

Furthermore, on Tuesday the Obama administration upheld all of the ADPA commitments from the US and once again rejected Chevron's desperate campaign to cut Ecuador out on the ATPA entirely.

Now, one might ask why Chevron, a multi-national behemoth of a Corporation, would lobby heavily to yank this away from Ecuador? The answer is simple, Chevron doesn't like the cards they have dealt themselves in Ecuador, and now they want to punish the entire country of Ecuador because they are not getting their way. Chevron would rather steamroll a nation than face the music for their criminal operations in Ecuador.

So why is Chevron so adamantly trying to screw Ecuador? They are a scared bully.
Chevron is facing a $27 billion lawsuit from Amazonian communities that continue to live with the toxic environment Texaco (Texaco was bought by Chevron in 2001) left after decades of oil operations on their lands. It is estimated that 8 billion barrels of waste-water and 3 million barrels of crude oil were dumped in the Ecuador rainforest. Communities along the Aguarico River and beyond continue to live with high cancer rates, birth defects, and chronic health problems attributed to contaminated water supplies due to Chevron's toxic leftovers. Chevron is fighting tooth and nail to save themselves from being held accountable in the court of law to the spills, and the nearly 1,000 open pits they left behind for Amazon communities to deal with.

Chevron knows it has little chance of being acquitted of these allegations, and a verdict in the trial is expected later this year. In fact, Chevron hasn't liked their chances of winning in this suit for a very long time as it tried for nearly a decade to keep the case from ever reaching a court. Finally, it was brought before a judge in New York, where in turn Chevron insisted (and won) that the trail be entirely removed from the US and set to take place in Lago Agrio, Ecuador.

This is where things get confusing.

Chevron demanded that the trial be moved to Ecuador, presumably because Chevron liked its chances to manipulate the courts down there better than in New York. They were sorely mistaken in this assumption when they were greeted by a court system that was determined to rule this case through a just lens rather than be bullied by an oil company that had left a national ecological treasure in disrepair.

So now, Chevron is throwing accusations of judicial corruption and vowing not to follow any ruling that is brought by the Ecuadorian courts. So if Chevron is not willing to follow the rule of law in Ecuador, does that show their intention to not follow the law in any country in which they operate?

Chevron's lobby efforts to the USTR have been realized for what they are; a desperate and vindictive attempt to further cause economic harm to a country that is has already endured a legacy of environmental and social crimes left in the wake of Chevron's operations.

(Originally posted at http://chevroninecuador.com)

Energy Industry Uses Shady Data To Mislead Congress On Drinking Water

2009-07-09T20:45:16Z

The two key arguments that the oil and gas industry is using to fight federal regulation of the natural gas drilling process called hydraulic fracturing -- that the costs would cripple their business and that state regulations are already strong -- are challenged by the same data and reports the industry is using to bolster its position.

Harvey Wasserman: California Should Pay Its People in Pot

2009-07-09T20:20:21Z

California's state finances have gone to pot, and that's what it should use to pay its employees.

Right now the state is issuing I.O.U.'s to those who work for it. Sacramento says they are worth the paper they're printed on, but most Californians know that's true only if they are used to roll joints.

The state's key available assets are in its farms and fields....and in its prisons and legal system.

Medical marijuana is legal in California. Estimates put last year's traffic in prescription-approved pot at around a billion dollars. If the state were properly organized to tax that and non-medical marijuana -- whose dollar volume is many times greater -- it might actually have enough money to pay its employees.

By legalizing marijuana, California could immediately free tens of thousands of prisoners at a savings of tens of millions of dollars. Those quick savings could be a down payment on the salaries of its employees (and cover the unemployment benefits that will be due prison builders and guards who will be laid off).

But they, in turn, could go to work growing marijuana. With its huge agricultural resources, California could immediately become the world hub of the legal marijuana trade. (Mendocino and other counties are already vying for this title).

It could also pay its employees if not in dollars, then in pot. Here's how:

Once the legislature decides to legalize marijuana, the state could go into the business of growing its own. (The offices of the Department of Agriculture are not that far from the Bureau of Prisons).

Various California cities, including Oakland, are already raising pot to keep prices down for the legal medical trade. So official expertise is readily available. Like the current and previous two Presidents of the United States, the current Governor of California is known to have extensive first-hand knowledge about the many uses of this precious weed.

Thus the state could grow its own leafy payroll. Some marijuana will be immediately available from the confiscated stashes that have traditionally been consumed by arresting officers.

But there will obviously be a gap between the moment of legalization and the moment the first officially grown buds are ready to pick.

So while California waits, it can issue marijuana futures as pay instead of I.O.U.'s. The futures would include a special dispensation to sell the existing stashes many of the state employees may already be holding (of course, no state employee would break the law, so these will all be medical stashes).

Being the first state to legalize, California pot would skyrocket in value. Once the actual buds arrive from the government, state employees would be free to sell their redeemed futures in other states, which will then face a dilemma.

In these hard times, the tourist dollars from those "Okies in reverse" fanning out with their pot to sell will be hard to turn down. So will the potential tax revenues. So the other 49 states will be forced to choose between seeing those hard-earned pot proceeds headed to the Pacific in the pockets of previously impoverished California state employees -- or legalizing it, taxing it, freeing their own prisoners, and growing it at home.

Tom Joad will have returned to roost, driving the ghost of a Volkwagen bus.

A dozen states have already legalized medical marijuana, Many are having state budgetary problems of their own.

But California is the only one now issuing I.O.U.s to state employees. Its topography, resident expertise and gubernatorial brain cell history make it an ideal candidate for what is bound to come, sooner or later. Why not now?

Yippie!

---
"Thomas Paine's" PASSIONS OF THE POTSMOKING PATRIOTS is at www.harveywasserman.com.

Frances Beinecke: The Climate Bill and Your Bills: Getting Clean Energy at Low Cost

2009-07-09T19:47:33Z

The American Clean Energy and Security Act, now before the Senate, is poised to transform the way America produces and uses energy, and in the face of such major changes, Americans are asking what this new law might cost them. The answer is very little.

I want to be honest with you: shifting to clean energy will entail some costs. But numerous studies have found that the added price per family will be small.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, America can create millions of green jobs and combat global warming for the cost of 48 cents a day per household. That's about $175 a year, or $15 a month.

That's less than most people pay for Netflix, less than going to see two movies a month. And the return on the investment is extraordinary: cleaner skies, fewer asthma attacks, more job opportunities for friends and family, and the knowledge that you are building a sustainable future for your children. All for $15 a month.

Keep in mind that the Congressional Budget Office produces independent research and is not afraid to release challenging numbers. Earlier this year, it said the economic stimulus plan passed by Congress would hurt America in the long run, and it recently reported that health care reform will cost more than the Obama administration says.

The CBO reached its climate conclusions based on numbers, not politics.

And its findings have been corroborated by other sources. The Environmental Protection Agency found that the overall cost of implementing ACES would be even smaller: between $80 and $111 per household per year. That is less than $10 a month.

The bill also ensures that low- and moderate-income households will not be burdened with these minor increases in energy costs. It calls for selling 15 percent of pollution allowances at auction and using that money to provide energy refunds to families who receive food stamps, senior citizens, and people with disabilities.

The Bill Will Save Consumers Money on Utility Bills
The CBO and EPA reports looked at total costs across the economy. Other studies have examined what the ACES bill will do to your utility bills.

Using data from the EPA and the Energy Information Agency, analysts at MJ Bradley (a research firm that works with PG&E and other utilities) found that your electric bill would be an average of just $2 a month higher if the ACES bill passes. You can see their state-by-state breakdown here.

But this data is missing something important: it does not factor in the numerous energy efficiency measures included in the ACES bill that will save Americans money. Indeed, lots of money--approximately $750 per household by 2020 and $3,900 per household by 2030, according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

How can you achieve these savings? Thanks to smart incentives to invest in energy efficiency upgrades, ACES will encourage consumers to quickly cut their energy use by at least 10 percent, resulting in a net reduction in their energy bills. Even bigger savings -- 30 percent or more -- can be made as they replace obsolete appliances and inefficient vehicles with state-of-the-art models.

NRDC analyzed what would happen to utility bills when the ACES efficiency measures are factored in. We found that Americans in nearly every state will save an average of $5.99 a month. Even in the few states where savings compared to business-as-usual are not projected, bills will still be lower under ACES than they were in 2007.

No Changes While the Economy Recovers
In this economy, consumers are monitoring every bill and watching every penny. People are rightly concerned about even small increases in monthly expenses right now. But the ACES bill will not go into effect until 2012.

That means there will be no impact on energy prices while we're in the depths of the recession: zero impact in 2009; zero impact in 2010; zero impact in 2011.

History Shows that Environmental Regs Don't Cause Price Spikes
I know opponents of climate legislation claim that ACES will cause price hikes (see my colleague Laurie Johnson's post examining how cost data has been misrepresented). We have heard these false predictions before. Do you remember back in 1995? Where you stunned to open you utility bill back then? Was there an enormous spike in the cost of powering your home or business?

That was the year when acid rain regulations went into effect and utilities howled that complying with the new pollution rules would send prices through the roof. My guess is you don't remember your bills from back then, because if they changed at all, it was too minimal to notice.

A national climate law is far more sweeping than the acid rain regulations, but I still believe we will not see dramatic changes in our monthly bills. Rather, we will get a cleaner energy future for just $15 a month--the added cost of one extra pizza per household.

This post originally appeared on NRDC's Switchboard blog.

Senate Delays Work On Climate Change Bill By Months

2009-07-09T19:40:24Z

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's push for quick action by Congress on climate change legislation suffered a setback on Thursday when the U.S. Senate committee leading the drive delayed work on the bill until September.

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer said her self-imposed deadline of early August for finishing writing a bill to combat global warming has been put off until after Congress returns from a recess that ends in early September.

Waylon Lewis: See Food, Inc for Free (Thanks, Chipotle)

2009-07-09T19:28:08Z

Want to see Food, Inc. for free? Thanks to Chipotle, the mindfully-sourced, Boulder, Colorado-based burrito and taco chain, you can. Click below for more info locations and dates.

I interviewed Michael Pollan recently, in Boulder, where I hobnobbed with the founders of Aurora, Horizon, Silk Soy/White Wave and two dozen other big and small natural products companies.

As a vegetarian for six years, one of the most interesting things Mr. Pollan touched on was whether he thought it was eco-responsible to continue to eat meat. He'd decided it was -- as long as the cattle was grass-fed. Check out the video interview to see/hear his reasoning in more depth.

Food, Inc., a new documentary, takes a long, hard look at what's going on with our food system, and how the vast majority of the 48,000 products in your average grocery store all come from corn. The trailer of the film (below), inspires me -- a lazy non-cooking nacho-loving but environmentally-concerned bachelor -- to start getting active with food issues, learning to cook, and to go see the movie. Because while some of the film may be shocking, the truth is always a great instigator of mindful action.

Food writers Eric Schlosser (Fast Food Nation) and Michael Pollan (The Omnivore's Dilemma) move to the big screen in Food, Inc., a film that looks at what's happened to the production of food in the last few decades.

Producer-director Robert Kenner's movie, which had a screening Thursday night at Sony, covers a range of issues, from the effects of corn syrup on health and farming, to the ways animals are raised and killed, food-borne illnesses and the plight of farmers. The filmmakers, as you might guess from this image from the movie, don't like a lot of what they see.

"The idea that you have to write a book to tell people where their food comes from shows how far removed" they are from it, Pollan says in the film.

Food, Inc. opened in June in 20 cities, Kenner said. It was shown at the Toronto Film Festival. Warning to squeamish meat-eaters: Shots in chicken houses, slaughterhouses and elsewhere could be tough to watch.

The film asks viewers to take action...

Click here for the rest of the LA Times article.

Click here to find out what you can do to Take Action, watch videos.

Trailer:

Bonus: my interview with Mr. Pollan, in top 10 google results for both "Michael Pollan video" and "Michael Pollan interview."

Walk the Talkshow: Michael Pollan from Alex King & Mito Media on Vimeo.

Carl Pope: About That Nuclear Revival...

2009-07-09T18:56:27Z

As the Senate gets ready to examine energy and climate legislation, America's most serious welfare dependent is back at the taxpayer trough again. Unsatisfied by a set of federal loan guarantees, subsidies, and other trinkets and baubles that would make the greediest gold digger blush, the nuclear complex is demanding still more. Passage of any legislation that requires those who emit carbon to pay for the carbon sinks they preempt will, appropriately and unavoidably, mean a competitive advantage for nuclear power. If carbon permits sell for $30 per ton of CO2, as the EPA estimates they would under the House bill, the cost of coal-fired electricity vs. nuclear would go up $.03 per kilowatt hour-- a healthy boost.

But that's not enough. Instead Republican senators like Lamar Alexander are calling for a federal commitment to build 100 new nuclear plants. It appears that what is envisaged is that the taxpayers actually pay for building these plants -- but not that the taxpayers would ever be repaid from the sales of electricity. No, the profits from this investment would flow to shareholders in big utility and nuclear companies. This is not even a bailout -- I guess you could call it a bail-forward. And it would be very expensive.

A new report prepared for the Consumer Federation of America suggests that if we were to build 100 new nuclear plants, and they actually ended up producing electricity, the power generated would cost Americans between $1.9 and $4 trillion dollars in extra utility bills, with the power being billed at $.12 to $.20 per kilowatt hour.

In further bad news for the nuclear industry, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has determined that eighteen of the country's existing nuclear plants haven't set aside enough money to pay for decommissioning their reactor shells after their useful life ends. Recent estimates indicate that the cost of dismantling existing nukes has increased by $4.6 billion, while the amount set aside to decommission them has declined by $4.4 billion because of loss of investment value.

Even the Business Round Table, in its recent study calling for major policy initiatives in the climate arena, conceded that in the absence of much larger subsidies than are currently available to nuclear, the most we can realistically expect is to replace the existing fleet of nuclear power plants as they are retired -- nuclear simply is not going to be a bigger part of our energy future unless we just keep throwing more money at it.

But there has always been an interesting question -- is the problem nuclear technology per se, or is it the nuclear industry and its culture of welfare dependence -- something that in other contexts is referred to as the soft-bigotry of low expectations? If we really made nuclear stand on its own, would it learn to build plants that make economic sense? It appears we will never find out.

Instead we are witnessing the collapse in Europe of a much bruited -- and publicly subsidized -- nuclear revival. This is the month that Finland's Olkiluoto 3 nuclear power plant was scheduled to go on-line, the vanguard of a new generation of safe, affordable nuclear reactors. Instead, Olkiluoto is at least three and a half years late and more than 50 percent over budget. A similar plant being built in France is 20 percent over budget and struggling to stay on schedule only 18 months after breaking ground. In Britain, where the nuclear utility is owned by the French utility EDF, there is no sign of new orders being placed, and EDF is complaining that it can't afford to build new plants if it must compete with renewables.

Amory Lovins has acerbically summarized how we should respond to the hoopla about allegedly reviving nuclear power:

But in due course, the aging advocates of the half-century-old reactor concepts that never made it to market will retire and die, their credulous young devotees will relearn painful lessons lately forgotten, and the whole nuclear business will complete its slow death of an incurable attack of market forces. Meanwhile, the rest of us shouldn't be distracted from getting on with the winning investments that make sense, make money, and really do solve the energy, climate, and proliferation problems, led by business for profit.

The nuclear industry's recent whining that it must never, ever be asked to stand on its own confirms that Amory's got it right about the "incurable attack of market forces." And yet, many in Congress appear impervious to this logic. Since most of the advocates of the "build a hundred nukes" caucus in Congress are certified "free market" advocates, this seems oddly inconsistent. Perhaps the way to get them to reconsider is to call the industry's bluff. If the public's money is going to finance the next generation of nuclear power plants, provide for the waste disposal, protect against terrorism, guarantee the risks, and overpay for whatever electricity is generated, then perhaps we should recognize nuclear power for what it is -- a very expensive and socialist way of making electricity that, in the real world, is actually paid for and controlled by the government. It's no coincidence that the one nation widely cited as proof that nuclear power works is France with its socialist and hugely money-losing power sector.

University of Greenwich Professor of Energy Studies Stephen Thomas recently pointed out that to duplicate the French model in the U.S. "you would essentially have to nationalize your electric utilities and have all new power plant siting decisions emanate from the White House."

So why don't the cheerleaders for nukes like Lamar Alexander and Mike Crapo offer the only real nuclear option and see how many votes it gets: an explicitly socialist electricity model where plants are sited, built, paid for, and operated by the federal government (with profits, if any, used to repay our investment)?

Somehow, I don't think that idea would have many takers. But it would be a more honest approach than the one that Congress is currently being peddled (and that it seems likely to approve).

William S. Becker: Obama's Farm Team

2009-07-09T17:39:51Z

Members of the Obama Administration have embarked on a "listening tour" in rural America this summer, but let's hope the visits involve more than listening. This is a moment for the Administration's top officials to engage farmers, ranchers and rural residents in a robust exchange of ideas about their role in a new American economy.

That role seems as obvious as it is dynamic. The "clean energy economy" President Obama advocates can revitalize the nation's long-neglected rural communities. Many of them can become the epicenters of sustainable energy production in the U.S., as well as our principal providers of carbon sequestration services.

In his climate and energy policies, Obama is sowing the seeds for that new era of rural prosperity, but it will be up to rural America to bring in the harvest.

Federal ethanol subsidies seem to be getting all the attention from the farm lobby, but ethanol feedstocks (make that cellulosic) are just one of the new crops that will power America in the years ahead. In parts of the United States, landowners already are making thousands of dollars a year in lease payments to host wind turbines on their fields. Each turbine occupies a very small footprint, which allows farmers and ranchers to continue cropping or grazing the land. That makes wind a very lucrative crop as well as a source of new property tax revenues for rural communities. According to the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory:

"There is a bright spot on the rural economic development horizon: wind. In fact, achieving the goals of the U.S. Department of Energy's Wind Powering America program during the next 20 years will create $60 billion in capital investment in rural America, provide $1.2 billion in new income for farmers and rural landowners, and create 80,000 new jobs..."

Wind energy offers rural landowners a new cash crop. Although leasing arrangements vary widely, royalties are typically around $2,000 per year for a 750-kilowatt wind turbine or 2% to 3% of the project's gross revenues. Given typical wind turbine spacing requirements, a 250-acre farm could increase annual farm income by $14,000 per year, or more than $55 per acre. In a good year, that same plot of land might yield $90 worth of corn, $40 worth of wheat, and $5 worth of beef." (Blogger's note: This report and its numbers are 5 years old. I've heard of lease payments of $5,000 per turbine.)

More than a billion dollars in new income is not loose change; it's change farmers and rural communities can believe in.

Solar farms can be next, along with locally owned bio-refineries that turn agricultural and urban wastes into fuel and a variety of other consumer products. By harvesting methane gas from animal feedlots and local landfills, farms and rural communities can obtain renewable energy while preventing one of the most potent of greenhouse gases from entering the atmosphere. (Methane's heat-trapping properties are more than 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide.)

Tomorrow's farms will earn new income from dedicated energy crops such as switchgrass and other perennials and from non-food crops that can be turned into a wide variety of products now obtained from petroleum, ranging from cosmetics to road de-icers and biodegradable plastic bags.

In a robust carbon market, farmers also will earn money by managing their woodlands for carbon sequestration and by using low-carbon tillage methods.

Meantime, farmers must begin practicing sustainable agriculture to restore and preserve our soils, water and forests. This is an area rich for discussion as Obama's team makes its rural visits. It means fundamental changes in farm policy, including federal subsidies that encourage crop diversity. It implies much more careful management of fertilizers to keep them out of waterways and much better management of nitrogen, itself a greenhouse gas. It means more efficient irrigation, the use of less-thirsty crops and the preservation of wetlands to help protect water supplies.

National farm policy must begin to resolve the conflicts between food, fiber and energy crops, as well as water conflicts between rural, urban and traditional energy production.

While members of the farm team are on the road, they might take along a copy of the Presidential Climate Action Plan's chapter on sustainable agriculture. It details several changes in federal policy that would help rural farms and communities lead America's transition to a new energy economy - changes such as focusing rural electrification and economic development subsidies to capitalize rural renewable energy development and extending electric transmission lines to rural areas with good wind and solar resources.

Before it heads back to Washington, the Obama team should pay a visit to the Land Institute in Salina, Kansas, and listen to Wes Jackson. Wes is one of the country's apostles of sustainable agriculture. He proposes that we have a forward-looking 50-year farm bill rather than making policy by tweaking the law every five years in reauthorization bills.

The Land Institute has held its own "listening tours" from coast to coast with farmers and experts in sustainable agriculture. Jackson and the Institute propose fundamental, systemic change in national farm policy. As the Institute puts it:

"Our vision is predicated on the need to end the ecological damage to agricultural land associated with grain production - damages such as soil erosion, poisoning by pesticides and biodiversity loss. The most cost-effective way to do so and stay fed is the perennialized the landscape. The transition of agriculture from an extractive to a renewable economy in the foreseeable future can now be realistically imagined...We have little doubt that we can make the agricultural transition faster than the adjustments imposed upon us by climate change and the end of the fossil fuel era."

That brings up two other huge farm issues: global climate change and national energy policy. Agriculture will be one of the sectors most affected by changes in precipitation and temperatures and by the spread of pests that affect crop production. It also is heavily dependent today on fossil fuels whose prices will rise when Congress puts a price on carbon.

If Obama's farm team is ready to talk about these issues - the pressing as well as the promising - it wasn't evident in the Administration's announcement of the rural listening tour. In a sound bite that could only have been written by a staffer with no license for boldness, the White House quoted President Obama explaining the listening tour this way: "A healthy American economy depends on a prosperous rural America."

That may turn out to be the most obvious understatement of Obama's first year in office. In fact, our ability to build and sustain a healthy economy has everything to do with the health of our soils, woodlands and water supplies and with the renewable energy resources available in rural America. As every good farmer knows, you can't achieve prosperity if you leave good crops unharvested (in this case solar, wind and biomass energy), if you deplete the natural resources on which your livelihood depends, or if you fail to plan for the weather (in this case, climate change).

Rural America and the Obama team have a lot to talk about. The team should indeed listen on this tour, but on all of these important topics it shouldn't be shy about starting the conversation.

Margie Alt: A Clean Energy Moment: Where Hope and History Rhyme

2009-07-09T17:28:17Z

"'There's a point in time where hope and history rhyme.' I think we have now reached that [point] on the issue of energy and global warming."
-- Congressman Ed Markey, quoting the poet Seamus Heaney, upon passage of the Waxman-Markey bill 11 days ago.

If you're like many of our members, you're probably wondering if Congressman Ed Markey is right.

Does the American Clean Energy and Security Act, sponsored by Reps. Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, deliver the transformative change that President Obama promised during the election? Will it launch a revolution in the way we produce and consume energy and initiate change quickly enough to spare our children from a climate catastrophe? Or is the bill so seriously compromised, as a few of our close friends in the environmental movement have suggested, that we who care about clean energy and the fate of the planet should have opposed it?

I wish the answer were quick and simple, but it isn't.

There are three main reasons why Environment America decided to support the legislation, even though it's far from perfect.

Reason #1: It's a sharp break from the past.

For the last eight years, our country's federal policy toward global warming could be summed up in three words: denial, delay and distraction.

President Bush reversed his campaign promise to regulate carbon dioxide, belittled the "bureaucracy" that warned of global warming's consequences, censored federal scientists who spoke about the issue, effectively ignored a Supreme Court ruling requiring the government to regulate carbon emissions, opposed renewable energy requirements and refused to let states reduce carbon pollution from cars and trucks.

The Waxman-Markey bill is an honest attempt to reverse course. It commits our country to energy efficiency, clean and renewable power, and a cap on the carbon pollution that's driving global warming.

Unfortunately, there are problems. The bill's clean energy mandates don't get us much further than business as usual. The bill undermines President Obama's authority to enforce the Clean Air Act. It hands billions of dollars to some of the industries that create and use the dirtiest energy. And it may allow the most polluting industries to exploit loopholes in the cap on global warming emissions.

How and why were these provisions included in the bill?

Simply put, powerful special interests pushed for them and the bill's sponsors had to acquiesce in order to win passage on the House floor. Indeed, even with these concessions, and a full-court press for votes waged by President Obama, members of his administration, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leadership team, the bill passed by only seven votes.

Believe me, seeing the bill compromised in this way has turned my stomach. Yet I can't get past this reality: As ugly as the process has been, passage of this bill would mean we'd see billions of dollars invested in energy efficiency and renewable power, we'd see new green buildings sprouting up across America, and we'd see a path opened toward significant, mandatory reductions in carbon pollution.

Reason #2: Time is not on our side.

Nature often has the power to heal itself. We've seen wildlife return once we curb the polluting of our lakes, rivers and bays. We've seen skies clear once we cut emissions from power plants and cars. If the worst impacts of global warming occur, science tells us that the planet will inevitably recover and survive -- but many species, including our own, may not.

We have precious little time -- a few decades, perhaps only a few years -- before we reach an irreversible turning point on global warming. If we do too little or act too slowly to reduce our dependence on carbon-based fuels, future generations will face rising seas, drought, floods, hurricanes and spreading disease.

We know staving off the worst impacts of global warming requires acting swiftly and boldly. This bill heads in the right direction but doesn't go nearly far enough. Thus the question is whether establishing a framework for capping global warming emissions, albeit a compromised one, is better than waiting and hoping that the next Congress (or the next one or the next one after that) will have the political will to do what scientists say is truly needed.

In December, President Obama will travel to Copenhagen to negotiate a climate treaty with other world leaders. We don't want him to arrive empty-handed. We believe that, given the closing window of opportunity to solve global warming, given the uncertain future on Capitol Hill, and given the pressing need to reach an international agreement, passing legislation now offers our best hope for saving our planet and future generations.

Reason #3: It sets us on the path to a greener future.

Imagine a future where every home, every workplace, every school is powered by the sun or the wind or other clean energy source that will never run out. Imagine a future where millions of Americans are employed in this project, erecting wind turbines, installing solar panels, weatherizing homes, and building new mass transit and high-speed rail. Best of all, imagine a future where we no longer need to pump pollution into our atmosphere, blast away the tops of mountains to extract coal, clean up spills on our beaches, or risk the very lives of future generations.

This clean energy revolution has already begun, but it needs to happen faster, and on a bigger scale, than anything we've seen so far. The Waxman-Markey bill is a step in the right direction.

The bill's energy efficiency and green building standards will reduce our dependence on coal and create new green jobs that can't be shipped overseas. The bill's renewable energy standard and federal clean energy purchasing requirements provide a push for the wind, solar, geothermal and biomass industries. Most importantly, the bill's global warming emissions cap, if done right, will set a price on carbon that will unleash the transformation of our energy systems.

In summary...

These are the reasons why we decided to support, and to work extremely hard for, passage of the Waxman-Markey bill -- even as we endeavored to strengthen it at every opportunity.

Since the bill passed, I have talked with some of the strongest clean energy champions in Congress, including Congressman Markey and Speaker Pelosi. We all agree that we wish the bill were stronger and we need to do much more to drive clean energy and stop global warming. But given where we are -- the powerful interests arrayed against us, the only lukewarm support for change on this issue in a few politically important parts of the country, and the economic slump facing the nation -- this is the best the House can do at this time.

During the July 4 recess, our adversaries aired a series of television ads harshly criticizing members of Congress -- especially those who risk losing their seats in the next election -- for supporting the Waxman-Markey bill. Our organizers were hard at work drumming up grassroots support for members of Congress who voted the right way and holding members who voted the wrong way accountable. But it is clear from the reaction to this bill that the opposition is more energized than ever and will continue their assault on this legislation and those who support it.

Looking ahead, our first priority is to push the Senate to improve the bill and avoid any further backsliding. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid hopes to hold a vote on the bill this fall in time for President Obama to sign it before he travels to Copenhagen in December.

We know that the most critical thing we can do is the thing we do best -- building the breadth and depth of public support we need in states across the country to overcome the global warming deniers and the powerful polluting industries aligned against us. Join us.

Margie Alt is the executive director of Environment America. Environment America's federation of state-based, citizen-funded, environmental organizations advocate for clean air, clean water, and open space in 28 states and our nation's capital. www.environmentamerica.org

Australians Ban Bottled Water

2009-07-09T16:58:48Z

SYDNEY — Residents of a rural Australian town hoping to protect the earth and their wallets have voted to ban the sale of bottled water, the first community in the country _ and possibly the world _ to take such a drastic step in the growing backlash against the industry.

Residents of Bundanoon cheered after their near-unanimous approval of the measure at a town meeting Wednesday. It was the second blow to Australia's beverage industry in one day: Hours earlier, the New South Wales state premier banned all state departments and agencies from buying bottled water, calling it a waste of money and natural resources.

"I have never seen 350 Australians in the same room all agreeing to something," said Jon Dee, who helped spearhead the "Bundy on Tap" campaign in Bundanoon, a town of 2,500 about 100 miles (160 kilometers) south of Sydney. "It's time for people to realize they're being conned by the bottled water industry."

First popularized in the 1980s as a convenient, healthy alternative to sugary drinks, bottled water today is often criticized as an environmental menace, with bottles cluttering landfills and requiring large amounts of energy to produce and transport.

Over the past few years, at least 60 cities in the United States and a handful of others in Canada and the United Kingdom have agreed to stop spending taxpayer dollars on bottled water, which is often consumed during city meetings, said Deborah Lapidus, organizer of Corporate Accountability International's "Think Outside the Bottle" campaign in the U.S.

But the Boston-based nonprofit corporate watchdog has never heard of a community banning the sale of bottled water, she said.

"I think what this town is doing is taking it one step further and recognizing that there's safe drinking water coming out of our taps," she said.

Bundanoon's battle against the bottle has been brewing for years, ever since a Sydney-based beverage company announced plans to build a water extraction plant in the town. Residents were furious over the prospect of an outsider taking their water, trucking it up to Sydney for processing and then selling it back to them. The town is still fighting the company's proposal in court.

Then in March, Huw Kingston, who owns the town's combination cafe and bike shop, had a thought: If the town was so against hosting a water bottling company, why not ban the end product?

To prevent lost profit in the 10-or-so town businesses that sell bottled water, Kingston suggested they instead sell reusable bottles for about the same price. Residents will be able to fill the bottles for free at public water fountains, or pay a small fee to fill them with filtered water kept in the stores.

The measure will not impose penalties on those who don't comply when it goes into effect in September. Still, all the business owners voluntarily agreed to follow it, recognizing the financial and environmental drawbacks of bottled water, Kingston said.

On Wednesday, 356 people turned up for a vote _ the biggest turnout ever at a town meeting.

Only two people voted no. One said he was worried banning bottled water would encourage people to drink sugary drinks. The other was Geoff Parker, director of the Australasian Bottled Water Institute _ which represents the bottled water industry.

Australians spent 500 million Australian dollars ($390 million) on bottled water in 2008 _ a hefty sum for a country of just under 22 million people.

On Thursday, Parker blasted the ban as unfair, misguided and ineffective.

He said the bottled water industry is a leader in researching ways to minimize bottled beverage impact on the environment. Plus, he said, the ban removes consumer choice.

"To take away someone's right to choose possibly the healthiest option in a shop fridge or a vending machine we think doesn't embrace common sense," he said.

But tap water is just as good as the stuff you find encased in plastic, said campaign organizer Dee, who also serves as director of the Australian environment group Do Something!

"We're hoping it will act as a catalyst to people's memories to remember the days when we did not have bottled water," he said. "What is 'Evian' spelled backwards? 'Naive.'"

Graham Hill: Better Than Meatfree Mondays

2009-07-09T16:49:11Z

Paul McCartney and his daughters aren't trying to make us all full-time vegetarians, though they themselves eschew meat.

"It's an environmental conversation, not a vegetarian one. It's ok to just give up meat for one day. It doesn't make you a vegetarian if you hate vegetarians. It doesn't make you a cranky, hemp wearing pot smoker. It's alright, it's allowed. It doesn't make you a kind of person you don't want to be. It just means you are doing something positive," Stella McCartney said in June when she and her dad and sister launched their Meatfree Mondays campaign.

Lowering our meat consumption will lower our carbon emissions - potentially having as much of an impact as if we all leave our cars at home and get on our bicycles to ride to work. On a personal basis we can cut our carbon in half with just three steps, one of which is weekday vegetarianism.

The McCartney's gentle approach - suggesting less meat instead of pushing no meat - may also have some sustainable agriculture benefits, supported by scientific research.

Cornell researchers looked at land requirements of the diets of New Yorkers and found that low-fat vegetarian diets took up the least amount of land, less than half an acre per person, while high meat and dairy diets required more than 2 acres.

Here's the interesting part, however. If a local, sustainable food production system is what we are aiming for, then a mixed diet may be the most efficient use of the land we've got. Fruits and vegetables need lots of high-quality cropland, while pastureland of lesser quality can be used to support grass-based farming.

"It appears that while meat increases land-use requirements, diets including modest amounts of meat can feed more people than some higher fat vegetarian diets," Christian Peters said in a report Cornell's research on Science Daily.

This basically echoes what sustainable agriculture advocates and small farm advocates have been saying for a while. Joel Salatin of Food Inc. is the most ardent of the grass farming advocates, but he is not alone.

And meanwhile, how much meat? For New York, Cornell's researchers actually established a number and it was 2oz. per person per day, or 14 oz. per week. Which makes meatless weekdays and occasional splurges seem like a very smart thing.