Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

Bothersome


In case you didn't know, Chevron is behind the new website WillYouJoinUs.com. Not only is the name of the website crafty in its implication that an oil company is leading the way in exploring alternative energies and alleviating America's oil addiction (their business!), but the website is full of little games and tools that make it seem like Chevron is open to a number of options for America's energy future. Take for example their fancy little game called Energyville (click the name to play!) in which players get to choose which energy sources their futuristic city will rely on.


Despite my ability to fulfill 85% of my city's energy needs with a combination of solar, wind, and hydroelectic power, I wasn't surprised to discover it's impossible to complete level 1 without constructing a giant petroleum platform.

The "Your City Needs Petroleum!" message didn't disappoint me as much as some of the scenarios for the future that Chevron assumes in this cute little game. The fact of the matter is that cities today DO need petroleum to fuel cars, power plants, and other critical parts of our infrastructure, but Chevron takes the petroleum assumption too far by inserting petroleum into the energy equation long after it needs to be phased out.

For example, consider the "Breakthrough!" alert that popped up in year 2020 of the game:


Let's face it, oil supplies are finite and it's unlikely (to be generous with my words) technology can fix that. However, Chevron would like us to believe that with more research, more government funding, more tax breaks, and more time that they can discover ways to essentially create oil from thin air.

If you have a few minutes on your hands, give Energyville a shot. Even if the game isn't too "gamey," it's certainly fun to realize it's all a bunch of oil industry propaganda!

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

Looking Cross-eyed at Two Energy Policies


To be fair, Tommy Thompson is an intelligent man with significant experience in politics, and it would be misleading to believe his entire plan for energy and the environment is as short as it appears on his website (see above). But as the signs of serious harm being done to our earth are visible all around us, America (and the world) can't afford four more years of neglect to our environmental problems.

Tommy Thompson throws his three sentences of policy at the very bottom of the issues page on his website, below "marriage," "abortion," and "Second Amendment." I've been hyping Chris Dodd a lot recently, but for good reason. Anyone serious about running for president needs to have a plan for all the big issues--George Bush has shown us that deferring policy decisions to your best friend appointees is more harmful than having to read a dense 16-paragraph energy plan.

Monday, April 16, 2007

The REAL Doomsday Clock

Gen. Anthony Zinni: "We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we'll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll."
~~~

That quote is a pretty good introduction to the "REAL Doomsday Clock," a new feature on this blog that will track the impending disaster that climate change will have on our world in the coming years. What most people consider the Doomsday Clock is the creation of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists at the University of Chicago for the purpose of alerting the public of the possibility of a nuclear war, one that would presumably wipe out large amounts of the world. The image of such destruction being caused by climate change is a less action-packed picture, but the end result is similarly grim.

When "An Inconvenient Truth" was released last year, many thought that Al Gore's focus on the environment and his desire to bring it into the public spotlight would fail miserably. As eager as I was to jump on the "realist/pessimist" view that the issue would get kicked aside after a few weeks, it turns out that there seems to be a mini environmentalist revival springing up everywhere. Even without millions of people marching on Capitol Hill (except for MAYBE this coming July), the world is, without the possibility of denying it, moving towards a state of increased consciousness about our planet and our role in protecting it.... THANK GOD!



My daily sweep of CNN.com usually turns up a story about a symbolic turning off of lights in a major city or a new report on global warming or climate change. Those stories that would have been assigned to the smaller news tab on the side of the page are now the headline story, albeit for only a few hours.

The way in which I internalize all that is going on right now is much different than the approach we're often told to follow to start solving problems. Whether or not you agree with Al Gore on his political stances, I admire the man for his dedication to an issue that doesn't lie in the mainstream and that, at least not yet, isn't aimed at gaining him more votes. In his movie, Gore stresses an attitude of what I call "inspired action." People react to all this news of global warming and climate change in unique ways, and I think Gore's approach is a positive compromise that many of us can learn from. Essentially, most Americans fall into one of these four catagories:

- - - - - - - -

1) Global warming is the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" (United States Senator James Inhofe (R)-OK)

2) The "I'm a conservationist, not an environmentalist" group--basically, I'm not willing to go out and buy a Prius or pressure automakers into improving car emissions standards, but I treasure my woods and rivers so I can hunt and fish. Believe me, this view isn’t perfect, but I think a lot of people are moving from the denial category into this one, and these guys (who include Senator John McCain and Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, both presidential candidates) are the demographic whose support of the environmental movement will start off the (inevitable) protests and demonstrations that will pave the way towards change.

3) Me....and, I believe, a bunch of others--I will elaborate later.

4) The heart of the environmental movement. For the sake of keeping this article focused, I won't divide this group up--doing so would create a mess and get a few people upset.

- - - - - - - - -

"An Inconvenient Truth" stresses that change IS necessary...now. At the same time, however, there is no need for despair, for if we each do our part and shake some of our bad habits, than we can see some positive change. Sounds good to me!

In the past few months since the movie was released, I've run into a major problem. Basically, I'm really starting to get concerned. The mark that "An Inconvenient Truth" has ultimately left on my heart and mind is that we do, in fact, need change right now. Instead of looking at every positive change around me and being inspired, however, I find myself losing sleep over each instance in which someone else shows complete disregard for the environment.

One fitting example of this took place on a series of recent visits to Starbucks in and around Boston, Massachusetts. With all their culturally-conscious books, CDs, fair-trade coffee, etc., I have been completely heartbroken and, frankly, fumingly upset that after finishing my pomegranate ice teas I have no place to recycle my plastic cup. When I asked if there was a place I could responsibly dispose of my cup in the store, the employee's response was a quick and unconcerned "no." While I think a company can and should balance both environmentally-friendly operations and fair-trade practices (just an example issue), I would much rather know that the store that delivers its products to millions and millions of people around the world each day is concerned about more than just making a few more cents by slapping a "our beans our fair trade!" sticker on their products. Like BP with their green and cheery logo, should do more than hide behind a conscious-looking logo. It wouldn't take much for Starbucks purchase some recycling bins, so why don't they?

It's this kind of constant frustration that makes me often want to become an active member of an environmental group, and perhaps, sometime in the near future, you'll see me picketing in front of Starbucks HQ (but that's highly unlikely).

Also, if I had enough influence to get them all together, I'd love to have Al Gore, John McCain, and the head of a large environmental group get together and have a discussion about the environment. Even better, broadcast it on NBC, primetime. No documentaries to sleep through, no musical appearances by Melissa Etheridge, just a serious and practical discussion for everyone to see.


In closing I'd like to summarize what Senator John McCain said at a recent New Hampshire campaign stop that I attended.

-If we ignore all of those that say global warming doesn’t exist, and we don't do anything, what are we going to do in twenty years when we realize that we were wrong? But, if we decide to take steps now to fix the problems that many predict, the worst that could happen is that we leave our kids with a cleaner planet. If the scientists that say global warming does exist are right, perhaps we could avert a crisis with action now-

John McCain is not a pioneer in the field of environmentally orientated politics, but what he said inspired me in a way that I hadn't felt in a long time. Whether you experience God in a church, mosque, or temple, our planet is the largest sanctuary known to man, and it’s our responsibility to protect it.

Anybody want to picket Starbucks with me?