Good environmental policy is good economic policy. We are not only helping to save the planet in terms of global warming, we are also moving to get this country out of the economic crisis that we are in right now. Are we making some progress? We really are. In the stimulus package, for example, we are spending more money on energy efficiency and sustainable energy then in the history of the United States of America. We certainly have moved far more aggressively in the last year then Bush did in eight years. Here is what I think we have got to do. I think the low-hanging fruit and a real job creator is energy efficiency. And as we struggle with the most significant economic crisis since the Great Depression, it is imperative that we create millions of good-paying jobs and, as I said, the interesting thing here is that good environmental policy is good economic policy.
Sanders is absolutely right. Greening the economy with jobs is the ONLY way we are going to work our way out of this recession. The National Jobs for All Coalition is building a new movement for jobs at living wages to meet human needs, rebuild our infrastructure and provide an environmentally sustainable future. Join the movement! Write us at: www.njfac.org.
This is the kind of bold thinking needed in the US.
Andrew
Energy efficiency alone is not the solution to the environment because of Jevons Paradox. Energy has to be made expensive regardless of supply. The most obvious way to do this is to tax fossil fuels and then direct those revenues to the building of a renewable energy infrastructure.
MGSelig
Senator Sanders, there is is very little reason to hope that the Obama administration OR Congress will act fast enough to save this planet. Here is the Obama administration's action on behalf of the environment so far:
1) approve yet another mountaintop approval in West Virginia 2) approve the clearcutting of 365 acres in the Tongass National Forest in Alaska 3) approve the shooting of wolves 4) approve the poisoning of prairie dogs (in addition to the fact that this is animal cruelty--their deaths are slow and agonizing--it poisons the land--so much for Lisa Jackson's "concern" about chemicals in the environment) 5) appointing Ken Salazar as Secretary of the Interior (every rancher's friend, he is the fox guarding the henhouse) 6) appointing Lisa Jackson head of the EPA. When Bill Maher asked her about the devastating effects of factory farming, she looked like a deer caught in headlights. She doesn't have a clue. 8) a commitment to "clean coal"--are they kidding??? Sadly, no.
And neither does Obama--who gets his environmental education by reading Tom Friedman--you know, the journalist who told us all how wonderful life would be with globalization? Why should Obama read Gus Speth, Tom Wessels, Paul Hawken, David Suzuki, Karl Hendrik-Robert, Bill McKibben, etc., when he can rely on the soundbites of Tom Friedman?
The fact is that neither Obama nor the members of Congress (yourself and a couple of others aside) have any ecological education, and are completely clueless when it comes to figuring out how to revision our world. They are all operating in a 19th-century paradigm of "truth." Hence, the CONSTANT capitulation to industry interests. And, I'm sorry, but cap-and-trade is a joke. We are waaaay beyond that now.
So forgive me if I have absolutely zero faith in Obama's plans for a "green economy." We have a bought and ignorant Congress. Realistically speaking, there is little reason for hope.
richardstein
I have recommended this weekly message to members of the Pioneer Valley Biochar Initiative headquartered in Belchertown, MA. Biochar is a form of carbon prepared by pyrolyzing biomass (heating in limited air) which may then be buried in the ground where it remains inert for long periods of time. I refer to it as "coal mining in reverse" in that it removes CO2 from the atmosphere (Through photosynthesis during its formation) and buries its carbon in the ground where it serves as an aid to agriculture. It is one of the few techniques that is "CO2 negative" in that it serves to reduce atmospheric CO2 and helps us get back to the desired 350 ppm. Studies are currently in progress at the New England Small Farm Institute. A national symposium will tale place in Amherst on Nov. 13 with demonstrations in Belchertown on Nov. 14. For more information, please contact me at <stein@ecs.umass.edu>.
Richard (Dick) Stein Goessmann Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus University of Massachusetts, Amherst (413) 549-0245
mgselig
Except that burning CO2 in the ground is playing with fire. According to David Suzuki, we have NO IDEA what the biological/ecological ramifications are in doing this. Far from "[serving] as an aid to agriculture," it may very well be an extremely dangerous act.
I agree that pumping CO2 underground is a risky procedure. We don't understand enough about what happens to it to be sure that there will be no bad effects in the future. If the approach proves wrong, reversal would be extremely difficult.
I believe that conversion of biomass to biocat, a form of carbon, and burying it is much safer. This has been shown to be stable over very long periods of time and does serve as an aid to agriculture.
mgselig
Interesting. Is it possible to effect that conversion with a low-carbon footprint, as well? Also, do we know anything about how it is an aid to agriculture? Or whether its burial will affect the surrounding ecosystem?
Dave Kisor
(Video problems, so I’ll as my questions here.) Hemp is one of the most versatile and sustainable plants ever grown, as it can be used for food, fuel, fabric, paper and building materials, but thanks to the bureaucratic intransigence of the DEA, those of us who support it can not get it past a mental block in congress. Hemp does not have sufficient THC and is as related to marijuana as the tomato is to the deadly nightshade. One you can eat, while the other a deadly poison. A Canadian grower once stated she stood in a field of burning hemp and all she got was a headache, for a buzz she needed to drink a beer. Will congress consider legalizing the growth of industrial hemp in this country? Many other countries grow it, so why can’t we?
anonymiss
Dave, I agree with your assertion that hemp is a versatile and sustainable material and we should look past the moral roadblocks we've had erected for us over the past half a century or so. What I don't agree with is your comparison of the relationship between "marijuana" and hemp to the relationship between a tomato plant and "deadly nightshade", or atropa belladonna. Hemp and "marijuana" are the same plant (cannabis), while the tomato and belladonna plants are two different plants in the same family (solanaceae). Hemp is cannabis grown to maximize seed production and fiber content, and marijuana is cannabis grown to maximize cannabinoid content and flower production. I'm not trying to nitpick, I just wanted to clarify for anyone who may read your comment and walk away under the impression that hemp and marijuana come from different plants, when really they are both from the same plant that's been bred and grown for different purposes.
