Go Green Yourself

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

Posted April 3, 2008 | 05:23 PM (EST)



Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

While the price of oil is throwing the country into an economic tailspin, do any of our presidential candidates have any type of environmentally sound policy that would free us from the grasp of the Middle East, while at the same time helping eliminate global warming and keeping the planet green?

From what I have seen so far, it isn't looking very likely. All the candidates are doing a great job of "greenwashing" the American people. A lot of talk and no real solutions.

It was during one of the early rounds of the Democratic debates that it really hit me: politicians in this country are never going to be the answer to our environmental problems or the solution to the global warming crisis. The past seven years have been a gift to big polluters; the slash and burn of Clinton era environmental legislation, energy policy formed by oil companies and lies designed to fool the American public who "want to believe." Fortunately, by this time most people are onto the Bush administration tactics in almost all areas of government.

It's time for a fresh start and the Democrats should be our environmental saviors. Then I heard Barack Obama utter the words, "clean coal and nuclear power" as part of the answer to our energy woes. Could this be true? Could the people I was depending on to fix the mess of the past seven years really be saying a line that could have come from Bush himself? I felt betrayed! Not long after an article in the Los Angeles Times hit the message home. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were now recipients of some large campaign contribution from nuclear power interests.

This big payoff seems even more suspect because Barack Obama went so far as to soften legislation that would require nuclear power operators to publicly disclose any nuclear releases. The legislation sounded pretty common sense in its original state, but Obama changed it so that the words "nuclear" was stripped and so was the immediate notification. It is so watered down that nuclear energy company and campaign contributor Exelon now supports the legislation after working with Barack Obama. In its present state, it's almost useless, and Clinton pulled her support. Unfortunately, this is just another example of politicians accepting contributions from companies who do not have our best interests or the best interests of our planet at heart.

So what can we do?

There's no doubt we are in need of some strong environmentally friendly legislation; but in the absence of that, what we can rely on most is ourselves. Ultimately, we vote our leaders into office and it's up to us to make them aware of the importance of environmental issues. But when the voice of rich corporations is being heard above the voice of people it is up to us to make a difference.

Big oil and other polluters only have power because we are addicted to their product. We need to vote green with every dollar we spend. How many of us really need that Hummer or Escalade?

Vote green for transportation. If the next new car purchase we made was a Prius, hybrid or even one of the electric vehicles that will be coming on the market in the next few years the demand for green transportation would continue to increase and prices on these vehicles would come down. The success of the Prius is just an example of what the green marketplace can accomplish.

Vote green with our food choices. Eat organic fruits and veggies when possible and less meat. It's better for our waistlines and the planet.

Vote green with our investments. Companies that provide green goods and services are becoming more and more profitable, so why not devote part or your entire portfolio to them.

Vote green with our businesses. Think about what you can do to make your business more eco-friendly. From carbon offsetting to using recycled paper or even creating your own green business what we do for a living has an impact on the planet.

Vote green at home. The paint you use, the furnishings and appliances you buy, and how you heat and cool your home are some more ways to help.

Vote green by example. Live what you believe.

We need to change our demand for green products so that they become the norm, not just a Hollywood trend. As much as humanly possible, we need to make a commitment to living green and it will become and every day way of life. In doing so, we are also cutting the supply of cash to big polluters forcing them to change.

Let's hope that whoever our next president is they make a real, honest commitment to the environment. But no matter what happens we should remember that we can create change ourselves.


 
 

Comments
15
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:

Indeed. I'm a Republican and a huge fan of going green. I also think the IPCC is a load of bull that doesn't address basic climate and astronomical factors, like solar albedo.

However, I strongly support going green. Why? Oil's gonna run out sooner or later. It's fairly plentiful, but it's not going to be there forever. Why not jump the gun on it? Why not make some good green things, then make 'em better. When business sees the PR opportunities and green money, they'll bite.

There. A perfect reason to go green without the controversy of the IPCC. It's not dishonest, developing green technology would be good for business.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:39 AM on 04/04/2008

Right! Put up or shut up! Oil is for bicycle chains!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:57 PM on 04/03/2008

(...continued)

We also need to defeat the two major building design blights of the post-war era: glass box syndrome and deep footprint disorder. Architects may love the look of that uninterrupted glass skin, and business owners may prefer the possibilities of that uninterrupted expanse of open office space, but the laws of physics doesn't like either of these designs. We have so many thermally-challenged glass boxes with most of the blinds closed and so many sprawling cubicle cities that need interior cooling in the dead of winter. Contrast this with the C-shaped and E-shaped buildings of the pre-war era that only need baseboard radiators and operable windows to be comfortable all year round in many climate zones.

As soon as compressor-based cooling became feasible, we threw the rules of efficient building design out the window (no pun intended). Techniques such as natural ventilation and daylighting, which were well-known to the Ancient Greeks and Romans, are now considered cutting-edge design. My firm routinely designs buildings that consume 50-80% less energy than the conventional design, and that's primarily because the conventional design is so terrible. In favorable climates (Northern California, for example), it's possible to build a zero-carbon office building (100% solar offset) for the same initial cost as the typical brain-dead office building. All it requires is a little bit of creative thinking, but unfortunately, there seems to be a shortage of that in America today.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:41 PM on 04/03/2008

(...continued)

Much of the focus of the "green coalition" is on alternative energy sources. While this is an important piece of the puzzle, the largest and most immediate progress can be made in terms of efficiency. We can have the same comfortable and productive standard of living with substantially less energy consumption. Some of these efficiency measures are small things. For example, I was shocked to hear on the radio that Motel 6 is still using their popular slogan: "We'll leave the light on for you." Haven't they heard of occupancy sensors?

Some of them are big things. The blogger mentioned building HVAC, which is my field of expertise. There are some opportunities for individual homeowners, especially double-pane low-e windows and blown cellulose roof insulation. But furnaces, boilers, and resistance heaters are always going to be horribly inefficient, as are packaged air conditioners.

Increased centralization is really the only way around this. I'm talking about municipal water plants that furnish chilled and hot water through insulated pipes to fan-coil air systems in a geographic cluster of housing units. Large ground-loop heat pumps and water-cooled centrifugal chillers in the central plant would reduce heating and cooling energy consumption substantially. But this won't happen in the GOP's Ownership Society, where businesses are encouraged to leverage economies of scale, but for individuals, that's the symptom of a debilitating dependency on the Nanny State.

(continued...)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:41 PM on 04/03/2008

Let's be honest here. Obama was clearly pandering for political capital with his "support" of nuclear power. The fact of the matter is that the nuclear power industry in America is dead. We haven't built a new nuclear power plant in America since the Nixon Administration. We don't have the human resources in terms of engineers and contractors skilled in the field, so it will take more than two presidential terms to even break ground on a new plant. Obama is one of the leading congressional supporters of nuclear non-proliferation, and the proliferation of nuclear power has a deleterious impact on curtailing the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

There is such a thing as "clean coal", but the industry's definition is a bit broader than what I would consider clean. Coal gasification processes allow nearly 100% of liberated carbon to be sequestered underground instead of released into the atmosphere. The pulverized coal plants favored by China are nearly as efficient as the gasification method, but for a given amount of coal, they emit as much CO2 as the inferior lump coal plants in the United States. Given the increased first cost and negligible life-cycle savings, public policy is the only means of encouraging gasified coal over pulverized and lump coal. The market won't do it by itself, at least not without a cap-and-trade system.

(continued...)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:37 PM on 04/03/2008
Moderator's Pick

HuffPost's Pick

Michelle:

Thank you for your post littered with Republican talking points, ie. "addiction to oil" and "Hollywood trend."

On my drive home in my Mazda3, I was pondering the very idea of our "addiction to oil." I don't think, us, the end users of oil products, can be accused of being "addicted to oil". I can tell you that I, and most people don't get a high purchasing oil products. I don't get euphoric when I see gas prices increase. I don't laugh my brains out when I see prices rise and rise. I think the only persons that are addicted to oil are people like Bush and his ilk, that undoubtedly experience a eurphoric feeling as gas prices increase, along with all petroleum byproduct increases.

Secondly, I don't think being green is a Hollywood trend, and we get no-where calling it that. In my very un-Hollywood, St. Louis, MO, I can't go a day without seeing a Prius. News is out that two more Wholefoods locations are opening, ie., demand for greener products and grocers that invest in green energy. I will, however, have to wait a few more years to buy a Tesla.

Finally, no doubt that Obama will be our next president. We should celebrate that our next president will not be addicted to oil, but will look for energy alternatives, and invest more of our tax dollars in those products that we vote for with our precious dollars.

Tony

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:28 PM on 04/03/2008

How far is that drive? If I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is virtually untenable for you to do other than drive, I can tell you this: There are an awful lot of people driving who don't need to who are contributing to the gas price you so lament. If they aren't addicted, I don't know who is.

I know a talking point: "SUV!" It's muttered by the hybrid driver on the way around the corner to get an organic ice cream.

Oil is for bicycle chains!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:03 PM on 04/03/2008

hmmm...not sure we read the same blog...seems like the point was that environmental policies should be a huge issue and instead, the candidate who is supposed to represent change has offered up coal and nuclear power as answers to this crisis. the only thing that sounded republican to me in this post is the fact that obama is offering the same answers to this crisis as the bushers have. i voted hillary but seems like the point is we may be on our own when it comes to going green. at least we have al gore!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:27 PM on 04/03/2008

I am not really against nuclear power flat out. France and some other European countries do it, and have had great success in reducing emissions. I'd like to hear the arguments against nuclear.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:24 PM on 04/03/2008

Some of the waste stays deadly for one million years.
Yucca is designed to store the waste for 10,000 years - or 1% of the time it will be deadly.
Happy birthday great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandkids.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:05 PM on 04/03/2008

Not necessarily if we recycle the waste like every other industrialized nation not only will the volume be dramatically reduce but also the half life. Instead of 10,000 years it would take 300 years. And if you have cup of coffee that would be the volume of waste for a family of 4 during their whole lifetime.
All countries that actually meet the kyoto protocol depend heavily on nuclear Finland, Sweden,Norway and France among others. They also have the cleanest air in the world.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:51 PM on 04/05/2008

And the rising temperatures are already making the cooling process more difficult and dangerous now.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:11 PM on 04/03/2008

Oh gosh........funny. I was so excited to read this until I got to the "slash and burn" of Clinton environmental policies.

Goodness.....gotta go pretty far back there!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:44 PM on 04/03/2008

Thank you for this post. Many activists have been calling for this for months, but apparently we have been speaking into a void. Climate Change and Universal Healthcare are the weakest spokes in Obama's wheel, and are the reasons I choose not to support him in the Primaries.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:05 PM on 04/03/2008

As Hillary said, "it takes a village¦" In today"s times it"s going to "Take A Village to Go Green". We can"t depend on the candidates or Congress. We need to take the matter to the people. Thank you for your post! Much appreciated.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:56 PM on 04/07/2008
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in

 
 

Related Tags
 

 Site  Web ask.com