Taking Earth Day Back

Earth Day is 40 years old.  That means it just can't party like it used to, music seems a lot louder and kids have no respect, and things like 401(k)'s and fiscal responsibility mean a lot more.  Plus there's that weird urge to buy a sports car.

The Gang of Four at Earth and Industry got together for a quick podcast to talk about how commercialized Earth Day has become, and how we might bring the idea of Earth Day back to its roots.   It's less than 15 minutes long - go listen.

Hurry While Supplies Last!

I'm probably just going to throw everything over to WordPress soon - blogger just can't seem to give me the elements and layout I want.  But enough about that - Thursday is Earth Day.

Forty years ago Earth Day was about teaching and learning.  Today, it seems Earth Day is about buying and selling.   I'm not exactly sure how that happened.  There's nothing wrong with "buying green" - it's actually a very good thing.   But I'm pretty sure the people who started this thing were not hoping for a new round of consumption.  They were trying to educate people on the consequences of their actions.

Here's one thing we could learn about - my pal Jeff wrote a great piece about stray animals and sustainability.

The Gang of Four is getting together soon to talk about Earth Day, what it has become, and how it might get its groove back.   Stay tuned...

Ah, Denmark in December.

Today marks the beginning of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. To be honest, I think the announcement about 3 weeks ago that there won't be a binding deal on carbon emissions was a bit obvious. While that's certainly depressing, at least political leaders aren't setting themselves up for a shock.

I tried to give a preview of the conference over at Earth & Industry. While I'm sure a lot people will come out of this meeting insisting that a lot has been accomplished - after all, they don't want all this time and money to be wasted - my prediction is the real results of the summit will be to just punt the agenda down another year, Of course, we'll have a piece of paper that says everyone promises to take it very seriously next year, but that's it. Because once you filter out all the "fierce urgency of now" rhetoric, once you get past all the knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers who still want to question the science here, the whole issue boils down to two words: "You first." But more on that later.

Despite the cynicism, I do think it's important for world leaders to get together to focus everyone's attention on a crucial issue. So here's what you should look at to get the REAL scoop on what happens in Copenhagen this week.

The IPCC home and report: This is the online home of the UN group that writes and revises the analysis on the climate change science. This is the site you visit first to know the facts.

COP 15 home: The conference home page. You can learn who's meeting where and so on.

Reuters Copenhagen page: Reuters did a phenomenal job covering the G20 Summit, I expect them to do the same here.

Crowd-sourced newspaper editorial: OK, not really "crowdsourced" the way techies define it. But the Guardian led a group of 56 newspapers in 45 countries to publish an editorial about the summit and the issue. I don't usually take newspaper editorials very seriously but this constitutes a very high level of collaboration in an industry that isn't really known for playing well with others. That alone makes it worthy of reading.

Communication Tips for Scientists and Reporting Tips for Journalists: UC-Berkeley cranked out a couple of very useful one-pagers for scientists and journalists who may be getting together for the first time thanks to this summit. Sarah Kuck at Worldchanging reproduced both. The lasting legacy of this summit may very well be how people talk about it - so let's hope everyone gets this right.

The #cop15 twitter hashstag rss feed: I'm putting this in my sidebar for now. There doesn't seem to be a consensus yet on a hashtag, some people are using #climate, but that strikes me as more general.

Those hacked emails everyone is talking about: No, they don't disprove the science about climate change. They really don't even throw it into question. But this is a problem - scientists, perhaps reacting to the incredibly politicized environment here, may have attempted to exclude critics from the scientific discussion. That's not cool. This issue is too serious for people to be excluded - scientists have an obligation to explain to the lay public why their critics are wrong and why further delay is dangerous - but they don't have a right to exclude people because of their political leanings or financial motivations. (They can start by using those UC-Berkeley tip sheets.) Here in America we just had an administration where one side of a scientific argument was routinely silenced. We can't give them an excuse to do it again once they come back.

I'll be on the look out for more news coverage of the summit - online and off - and try to give a list as soon as I can. I'm really curious to see what the GVO folks will do, since climate change has really morphed into a foreign policy issue more than anything else, at least in my mind. Meantime I hope this gets people started...

I guess I'm a real green blogger now...

I'm very pleased to say I'm "officially" a contributor to Earth & Industry, a new blog that takes a look at sustainability and business issues. Some of the other contributors are familiar to people who read this blog - Tim Hurst, Jeff McIntire-Strasburg, and Maria Surma Manka, the three co-conspirators in the "gang of four" podcasts. Another contributor is William Sarni, the Founder and CEO of Domani Sustainability Consulting. Tim serves as the editor.

Here's my first contribution - it took a little longer than I hoped it would but I'm looking forward to adding more thoughts.

So thanks to Tim for inviting me to contribute, and I hope I don't screw up the great gig you have going...

Carbon Tax vs. Cap and Trade? Ask the Green Tweeters!

A few colleagues of mine were having a discussion about some of the options policy makers have to reduce carbon emissions in the United States and we quickly boiled it down to "carbon tax or cap & trade." Of course, we're a bunch of PR flacks (not that there's anything wrong with that) and not enviro-brainiacs, so I thought I'd ask some of my green peeps on twitter where they fell on the issue. These are the people I trust the most on environmental issues.

I have to admit I was a little surprised at their answers, but I probably shouldn't have been. Among this non-scientific sample of quick responses from a handful of tech-savvy environmentalists, it seems the carbon tax idea is seen by most (not all) as the more practical solution, though there are some doubts about its political feasibility. At the very least, I think it's safe to say you can find some environmentalists with some serious green street cred willing to work with either idea.

Obviously this isn't an issue that gets resolved in 140 characters or less, but it does give a good snapshot of first reactions. And it opens the door to more substantive discussions. Here's a sample of the reactions I got:

sustainablog I used to say cap and trade, but, more and more, I lean towards the carbon tax... it's simpler...

ecopolitologist I'd say carbon tax. In some respects, there's more certainty. It would be a Herculean shift, but we could replace income tax with it.

GreenSmith ...market fluctuation with permit values, and includes those that don't necessarilly have an enviro bent.

GreenSmith Carbon tax. That way, it's a straightforward proposition. You pollute, you pay. The more you pollute, the more you pay. This eliminates...

greenbiztweets I think cap & trade gets the ball rolling towards improving the political climate for a carbon tax. One begets the other.

LighterFootstep I think carbon tax is the most direct solution. Sure could use a better name, though. The complexity of C&T hides its real costs.

thegoodhuman i like cap better, but carbon tax prob easier to implement/follow.

MariaEnergia Cap and trade: there's a set limit to the CO2. Haven't heard of limits w/ carbon tax. If there could be a limit w/ tax, I'd revise opinion.

tomkimmerer C tax would be easier to administer than cap-and-trade. C&T is vulnerable to market speculation (AIG!).

tomkimmerer It's that awful word 'tax'. A huge tax increase, even if directed only at a segment of economy, is hard to sell.

tomkimmerer Cap-and-Trade is working for Sulfur could work for C. Devil in details. Carbon tax is simpler, but politically unacceptable

drjonboyg cap and trade did work very well for acid rain, so it could work as long as appropriate limits were set, but what about China etc

jtshelton carbon tax, most definitely. turning to markets when they started the problem doesn't make a bit of sense.

drjonboyg A carbon tax that included China would be OK I guess.

jetsongreen very tough ... c&t has more problems, but I'm more apt to go market-based than a tax. C&T needs accuracy, should apply to everything.

Sustainable Communities

I'm back in the office and I had some ideas for posts that I haven't had a chance to get to but I did want to mention this.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is blogging about the new partnership between DoT and HUD on Sustainable Communities:

After housing costs, transportation takes the biggest bite out of the typical household budget. That's why a partnership between HUD and DOT can be so effective; we have the ability to ease the largest financial burden on many American families. We're talking about 60% of the average working American family's expenses. HUD Secretary Donovan and I can cut these costs by focusing our departments' efforts on creating affordable, sustainable communities.

It's great to see government working in a bipartisan way (LaHood is a Republican) to do something meaningful. This didn't get a ton of press - granted, there are some other newsworthy things going on - but if this is done right it's going to be a big deal.

Now I'm just wishing EPA was in on it. Make those communities sustainable from a financial AND environmental perspective.