A Guide For Saving Our Mother

Somewhere Over The Rainbow by John Forrest

For this writer, the painting by John Forrest is a powerful appeal for people everywhere to look at what is happening to Mother Earth.  Dorothy is shown as she was in the 1939 film The Wizard of Oz.  However, there's no Emerald City and no characters like Tin Man, The Scarecrow, the Wizard, et al.  That fantastic tale has disappeared.

Instead, she stands at a juncture on that fabled Yellow Brick Road. One road leads down to a hazy, grimly overpopulated city below her. We can’t see where the other road is headed. But she’s not looking at the nasty city. Her gaze is in the direction of a new path, perhaps one which holds the promise of a better way to live.

This blog will seek to provide a guide to that brighter future for all of us by confronting the most dangerous threat to mankind--climate change. 

The first part of the guide concerns what we can do as individuals, right now, where we  live.

In an article for Odyssey (an online newsletter for numerous american universities), Bonnie Smith 

contributed an article titled "10 Easy Ways To Help The Environment."  Here is a summary: 

1. Switch from beef to chicken

Cow waste emits methane which is more harmful to our environment than CO2 is. By switching to chicken and eating beef occasionally, you are reducing the methane emissions. In the US 47% of our land is dedicated to food production, 70% of this land is used to grow food for cattle. Only 1% of this land is used to actually feed humans. 

2. Cut back plastic usage 

Reduce your use of plastic silverware, paper plates and solo cups at outings and lunch at work or school. You can do a big part by simply packing a real fork for your lunch, or buying a refillable container for whatever you're drinking. 

3. Walk or bike when you can--you will be more active, use less gas, and you will lower CO2 emissions from your car. 

4. Make your own compost bin--it lessens the burden of landfills, provides soil additives and natural fertilizer for your garden and flowers while reducing water usage.

5. Recycle--if your city or state allows for recycling paper, glass, and yard debris, go for it. Also consider printing on both sides of paper and buying rechargeable batteries.

6. Change out your lightbulbs--switching to LED bulbs not only saves you money on your electric bill, but also makes your home greener. LED bulbs last 6 times as long as a traditional bulb, helping reduce waste as well. 

7. Bring your own grocery bags--you will be helping to reduce the plastics in our landfills and the oceans.  

8. Save water--Turn off the water after you wet your toothbrush...just wet your brush and fill a glass for mouth rinsing. Buy a water filter so you stop buying bottled water (cutting back on plastic waste) and only wash your hair every other day or every few days.

9. Switch from disposable to reusable--switch from paper towels to actual hand towels, use real linen napkins, not packaged ones. Check out this link on 15 other ways you can switch from disposable to reusable:  

10. Plant your own garden--it's not possible for everyone, but you will become healthier by eating  fresh veggies and fruit from your own backyard while helping to generate clean air.

In addition, there are many sites that sell hot and cold containers for food and drink that are compostable.  I am not plugging any particular company, but here is one that I found useful .

Now let's focus on what we can do about conserving water.

                                 WATER 

                               

First, let me recommend one of my blog's international articles about water which is right here.  Armed with that knowledge, you can then consider what you can do closer to home. 

This online site has an enormous stash of excellent advice  which is available right here.  Here is an example:

"By using water-saving features you can reduce your in-home water use by 35%. [So]... the average household, which uses 130,000 gallons per year, could save 44,00 gallons of water per year."

Why Conserve Water?

"In addition to saving money on your utility bill, water conservation helps prevent water pollution in nearby lakes and rivers...  Conserving water also prevents greenhouse gas emissions associated with treating and distributing water."

"Conserving water can also extend the life of your septic system by reducing soil saturation and reducing pollution due to leaks. Overloading municipal sewer systems can also [cause] untreated sewage to flow to lakes and rivers ... In some communities, costly sewage system expansion has been avoided by community-wide ...conservation."

Water Conservation in the Home

The most effective way to save water is to upgrade to efficient fixtures. But there are other ways to help reduce the amount of water you use at home.

Toilets

"Don’t Use Toilets as an Ashtray or a Wastebasket. Every time you flush a cigarette,  facial tissue, or [bits] of trash, you’re wasting gallons of water. Put them in the garbage, or better yet, recycle."

Put Plastic Bottles or a Float Booster in Your Toilet Tank

"... put an inch or two of sand or pebbles inside ...two plastic bottles. Fill [them] with water, screw the lids on, and put them in [the] tank...this may save ten or more gallons of water per day...three gallons of water [should] remain in the tank."

Install Low or Dual Flush Models

"Federal regulations state that new toilets must use no more than 1.6 gallons per flush. Replacing an old toilet with [a]...low volume 1.6 gallon... model represents a 70% savings in water and will cut indoor water use by about 30%. [Also] ...consider purchasing a dual flush toilet [one flush for solids. one for liquids] ...saving an average family 15,000 gallons of water a year."

Install Composting Toilets

"Composting toilets...cut water waste from your bathroom since they require no water at all! ...they keep all the ... pollutants out of waterways and make them available for use in non-food landscapes. Check codes in your area to be sure they’re legal before installing one."

Laundry

"Use [your] washer for only full loads [and]

avoid the permanent press cycle, which uses an added 5 gallons for the extra rinse ... adjust water levels to match load size"

Consider a High Efficiency Washing Machine

"The most efficient washing machines use as little as seven gallons per load, compared to a whopping 54 for a traditional washer... New Energy Star rated washers use 35 – 50% less water and 50% less energy per load."

Shower

"Install water-saving showerheads, shower timers, and low-flow faucet aerators..[they] are inexpensive and easy ... to install.  Long showers can use five to ten gallons every unneeded minute. “Low-flow” means it uses less than 2.5 gallons per minute."

Take Shorter Showers

" ... turn off the shower after soaping up, then turn it back on to rinse. A four-minute shower uses approximately 20 to 40 gallons of water."

Dish Washing

Minimize Use of Kitchen Sink Garbage Disposal Units

"[they] require lots of water to operate properly, and also add ... to the volume of solids in a septic tank, which can lead to maintenance problems. Start a compost pile as an alternate method of disposing food waste."

Opt for the Dishwasher Over Hand Washing

"... The EPA estimates an efficient dishwasher uses half as much water, saving close to 5,000 gallons each year."

Extending Your Conservation Measures

Insulate Your Water Pipes

Recycle Your Water Where You Can

"Collect the cold water you run before it’s hot enough to shower and use it to water plants or flush the toilet ..." 

Eat Less Water-Intensive Foods

"Our diets account for roughly half of all the water we use... Eating less beef, one of the most water-intensive foods, is a smart place to start. [Consider] shifting [to] a plant-based diet."

Water Conservation in the Yard and Garden ... Outside Your Home

Don’t Run the Hose While Washing Your Car

"... this simple practice can save as much as 100 gallons when washing a car. Use a spray nozzle when rinsing for more efficient use of water." 

Use a Broom, Not a Hose, to Clean Driveways and Sidewalks

"... brushing with a broom to first loosen the dirt and grime will decrease your water use and save you time in the long run."

Reuse Wastewater Where Possible

"You can harvest grey water in a small way with a bucket in your kitchen or shower, or install a grey water system, which reroutes water from your drains to your landscape, [provided that legal codes permit it.]"

Vegetable Garden

Maintain Your Irrigation System

"... check that it’s operating correctly...Clear any visible clogs, and adjust the settings according to the needs of your plants and the time of year. 

Water During the Early Parts of the Day; Avoid Watering When It Is Windy

Add Organic Matter to Your Garden Beds

"...[it] will help increase absorption and water retention. Areas that are already planted can be ‘top dressed’ with compost or organic matter every year."

Harvest Rainwater for Watering Vegetable Beds

"Use rain barrels...to capture valuable rainwater from your roof. Plants prefer untreated water, so your garden will be healthier while you cut your water bill."

Lawns and Shrubs

Plant Drought-resistant Lawns, Shrubs and Plants

"...use drought-resistant grasses such as “Eco-Lawn”. Many beautiful shrubs and plants thrive with far less watering than other species...

Native plants will use less water and be more resistant to...diseases.  Plant slopes with plants that will retain water and help reduce runoff."

Put a Layer of Mulch Around Trees and Plants

Water Your Lawn Only When It Needs It

"A good way to see if your lawn needs watering is to step on the grass. If it springs back up when you move, it doesn’t need water. If it stays flat, the lawn is ready for watering.  During dry spells, you can stop watering altogether and the lawn will go brown and dormant." 

Water Conservation Summary

"There is a worsening trend in water supply nationwide. Taking measures...to conserve water not only saves you money, it also is of benefit to the greater community."

"By using water-saving features you can reduce your in-home water use by 35%...the average household, which uses 130,000 gallons per year, could save 44,00 gallons of water per year."

Next, let's look at how to eat well.

                                         FOOD

If you are one of the millions of obese Americans, you might want to quit eating like a pig at the trough.  

Seriously, do you need to dig into restaurant fare such as tempura-battered, deep-fried cheeseburgers that ooze brie, 15-pound ice cream sandwiches consisting of  five flavors of ice cream and cookies the size of hubcaps, two foot-long bratwursts, or something called "The Meat Tornado (sold at a barbecue trailer) that packs in rib ends, bacon, sausage, a cheese sauce and sugar cured jalapenos?  (source: food critic Tom Sietsema and The Minneapolis Star's "Outta Control" reports.)

Whatever the size of your waistband, we are also guilty of simply tossing out our food.  Food waste is a global problem, but it’s far worse in America. While 32 percent of all food in the world gets wasted, about 40 percent of food grown in the United States goes unused, according to several studies.  Sadly, the NRDC has noted that "...while this behavior is happening,  42 million Americans don't have enough to eat. Rescuing less than a third of what we waste would cover their daily calorie needs."

In this section, I will focus on eating organically, and my primary source is Greendiary  Check them out here

                                                   

Buy from Local Markets                 

"...[there are foods] in local markets that are not certified organic by  the authorities, but are usually grown using organic methods. Many farmers and gardeners... grow foods using methods that are more organic than the certified standards. However, they would be able to sell these foods at a lesser price as they would not need to pay for official organic certification." 

Buy from Specific Brands

"Look around for grocery store chains that sell their own range of organic foods and products. These are usually available at just a fraction of the cost of designer foods. Do not worry about the health factor ...[because]when purchasing... foods...labeled ‘organic’ definitely meets the standards set by the government."

Buy Foods in Bulk

"... buying organics in bulk can help you reduce costs... Opt to buy foods like oils, cereals, beans, noodles, sauces and other packaged goods in bulk, especially when they are on sale."

Buy During Season

"Organics grown locally during the season tend to be much cheaper than imports... On the other hand, it pays to buy boxed or frozen organic food during the off-season, as they would cost cheaper than fresh food imported from different climatic regions."

Buy products using Coupons and Sales Flyers

"Make it a point to pick up sales flyers at every department or grocery store. [Chances are you will find] bargains on organic foods. Several organic brands out there also offer discount coupons... in coupon books in health food stores." 

"Many families who shift to organic foods usually join a local cooperative... they are organized buying systems that effectively combine the buying power of multiple families ... to [obtain] ... lucrative discounts on certain items in the market...[such as]...local meats, unprocessed diary and fresh farm produce."

                                   AIR

                 

(Also from Green Diary)   

Reduce usage of chemicals and pesticides

"...you can make your own solutions for cleaning...  using distilled vinegar, lemon and baking soda. There are many ‘green’ cleaning products available in the market which is environmentally friendly and conventional cleaners too."

Reduce carbon footprints and cut down air pollution

"... You can lower the temperature of your water heater...reduce the use of air conditioners or heaters...You can also utilize solar lights around your home."

"Stay out of your gas burning cars--walk, ride a bike or use mass transit whenever possible."

OK, I can hear you, dear readers, these efforts taken at home are all well and good, but your blog responses indicate we must also look at the bigger sources of climate change.  So here's an update on the condition of our planet and I will follow with organizations that you can join or support to fight for change. 

Motor bikes riding through the smog at night in China

                           

From the USA Magazine about the March 13th United Nations report on the environment:      

"We've been warned. Again.

Because of a dangerous combination of climate change, pollution, mass extinctions and a growing human population, a massive report from the United Nations said that 'damage to the planet is so dire that people’s health will be increasingly threatened unless urgent action is taken.' "

" 'Already, about 25 percent of all premature deaths and diseases around the world – about 9 million in 2015 – are because of human-caused environmental damage and pollution, the report said. Each year, air pollution kills 7 million people worldwide and costs society about $5 trillion. Another 1.4 million are killed because of water pollution.' "

"The report, the sixth Global Environment Outlook from the U.N. Environment Program, was written by 250 scientists and experts from more than 70 countries. It concludes that 'unsustainable human activities globally have degraded the Earth’s ecosystems, endangering the ecological foundations of society.' "

ORGANIZATIONS FIGHTING CLIMATE                      CHANGE WORLD WIDE

Click here for the mother lode of 200 organizations involved with climate change.  It is organized under these areas: Climate Change and Global Warming / Air Quality,  Directories of  Individual Web Sites dealing with Chemical Leak Disasters and Chemical Safety as well as Ozone Layer Depletion.

You can join these organizations and put your boots on the ground in hundreds of locals worldwide, but you can also contribute money to further their various causes also.  How do you know that your money is well spent?  The easy answer to that question is here.  In 16 years, Charity Navigator (CN) has rated over 9000 charities for their honesty and accurate bookkeeping.  They rely strictly on individual contributions (currently at $61 million.)

In that vein, Outside Online click here  has compiled a list of what they call "The Six Best Environmental Groups To Donate To For a Better World." (ed. note: This is only one list; numerous others have equal merit.)  From their report:

"There are many worthy organizations doing great work for the outdoors...worth supporting, but  here’s a good place to start."


Mission: The Environmental Defense Fund is perhaps the most wide-ranging organization on this list, working to provide solutions under the ... categories of climate change, oceans, wildlife and habitats, and health. The EDF works with other organizations, businesses, government, and communities to create incentives for positive environmental actions; help companies become better environmental stewards; influence policy; and keep tabs on emerging issues.
Top Programs: Climate and energy, oceans, ecosystems
Percent of expenses spent on programs: 79.1
Charity Navigator Score: 94.48

      

                          Mission: The Nature Conservancy protects ecologically important lands and waters around the world with the help of more than 500 staff scientists.
Top Programs: Climate change, fire, fresh water, forests, invasive species, and marine ecosystems.
Percent of expenses spent on programs: 71.2
Charity Navigator Score: 84.35

Mission: The Natural Resources Defense Council seeks to protect the basics—air, land, and water—and to defend endangered natural places, with an eye toward how these long-term decisions affect humans. 
Top Programs: Climate, land, wildlife, water, oceans, energy, food, sustainable communities.
Percent of expenses spent on programs: 83.6
Charity Navigator Score: 96.35

Mission: American Rivers protects wild rivers, restores damaged rivers and the wildlife they support, and conserves clean water for people and nature, with an eye toward recreationists as well.
Top Programs: River restoration, federal river management, clean water supply.
Percent of expenses spent on programs: 74.9
Charity Navigator Score: 88.18

                                       

Mission: The Trust for Public Land creates parks & protects land for people, ensuring healthy, livable communities for generations to come. Works to ensure that everyone has access to nature within a 10-minute walk from home.
Percent of expenses spent on programs: 84
Charity Navigator Score: Not yet rated by CN, but given an A from Charity Watch.

                                                                                                         

Mission: The Sierra Club Foundation is the fiscal sponsor of the Sierra Club’s charitable environmental programs, and promotes efforts to educate and empower people to protect and improve the natural and human environment. The Sierra Club is the principal, though not exclusive, recipient of SCF’s charitable grants. 
Top Programs: Beyond Coal, Chapter and Group Education Project, Our Wild America.
Percent of expenses spent on programs: 88.5
Charity Navigator Score: 94.08

In my opinion there is another organization that should have been included in this list: 


Mission:  The Greenpeace Fund promotes Greenpeace's mission: to halt environmental destruction and to promote solutions for future generations. 
Top Programs:  Greenpeace Fund promotes Greenpeace's mission through public education, grassroots lobbying and grants to other environmental organizations.  Greenpeace has the capacity to conduct international campaigns in countries around the world;  to challenge environmental threats and promote change on issues that transcend national borders.
Percent of expenses spent on programs:  82.6
Charity Navigator Score:  92.38 

In addition, there are organizations who focus their efforts on oceans. Here's a sampling:

Marine debris is more than ugly, it kills.

                      1. THE SURFRIDER  
WHAT: A grassroots non-profit foundation working to protect and preserve the world's oceans by focusing on water quality, coastal ecosystems, beach access, beach and surf spot preservation. 
WHERE: Mainly North America, as well as parts of South America, Europe and Japan.  
HOW: Through a...powerful activist network, people can connect and participate in coastal conservation...The...foundation has a strong social media presence [which encourages]...them to take part in activities such as beach cleanups or to sign digital petitions.

2. OCEANA
WHAT: The largest international ocean conservation organization that works to protect and restore the world’s oceans through targeted policy campaigns.
WHERE: Based in Washington D.C with offices throughout the world.
HOW: Oceana works to protect sea life affected by industrial fishing by using targeted policy campaigns focused on science combined with media, law and public pressure. The clearly defined campaigns, in such fields as responsible fishing and preventing ocean pollution, are designed to produce identifiable policy changes within a 3–5 year timeframe.

3.  ROZALIA PROJECT

WHAT: A non-profit organization goals whose goals are a clean, protected and thriving marine ecosystem. Has been working on the problem of marine debris since 2010. We work surface to seafloor to provide  prevention through education, remediation (cleanup), innovation and doing solutions-based research. 

WHERE:  Gulf of Maine

HOW:   Uses a sailing vessel for research and clean up expeditions as well as inspiring education programs across the country.

4.  3. 5 GYRES

WHAT: A non-profit organization dedicated to understanding plastic marine pollution that works towards oceans free of plastic.

WHERE: All over the world.

HOW: Through exploration, scientific research, education, and action the 5 Gyres Institute engages communities in systemic change and encourages corporate partners, policymakers, and the general public to reduce plastic pollution.

Too many people are blissfully unaware or simply don't give a rip about climate change. Hopefully, the hundreds of climate organizations listed above can help to open their eyes and hearts. 

But corporations and government agencies who support the fossil fuel industry (despite massive evidence of their disastrous effect on the planet) often seem beyond the reach of climate change advocates. What to do?  Why not sue the Hell out of them?

                                                                           

Here is a rundown on some the lawsuits brought against fossil fuel corporations and their enablers.

(1)  The Climate Change Lawsuit That Could Stop The US Government From Supporting Fossil Fuels   The source is here.

From the 60 minutes TV show last March:  "This is a lawsuit filed on behalf of 21 kids which alleges the U.S. government knowingly failed to protect them from climate change…"

"Of all the cases [in] the federal court system, none is more interesting or potentially more life changing than Juliana v. United States. If the plaintiffs win, it could mean massive changes for the use of fossil fuels." 

"To quote one federal judge, 'This is no ordinary lawsuit.'  It was filed back in 2015 on behalf of a group of kids...trying to get the courts to block the U.S. government from continuing the use of fossil fuels."  

"The government’s lawyers...have since watched the Supreme Court reject two of their motions to delay or dismiss the case. Four years in, it is still very much alive, in part because the plaintiffs have amassed a body of evidence that will surprise even the skeptics and have forced the government to admit that the crisis is real."

(2)  I also found a posting on the France 24 website dated on March 24 which noted the following:

"...four French NGOs – Notre affaire à tous, la Fondation pour la nature et l'homme, Greenpeace France and Oxfam France – filed a lawsuit at the Paris administrative court against the French government, accusing it of failing to act upon its environmental obligations. A petition accompanying their initiative, called...'The Case of the Century', has collected a record 2.1 million signatures." 


The...NGOs are basing their legal action on a series of binding agreements, such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the 2004 Environmental Charter, as well as non-binding texts, such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement.

(3)   In a report published April 8,   "...the Friends of the Earth Netherlands organization has filed a climate change action lawsuit against Shell Oil. (Royal Dutch Shell is a Dutch company [so] it is subject to the laws of the Netherlands.)   Friends Of The Earth...and six other environmental and human rights organizations filed suit against Shell seeking to force it to address its role in the climate emergency confronting the world... The lawsuit includes 17,000 private individuals as plaintiffs. They want Shell to reduce its carbon emissions 45% by 2030 compared to 2010 levels and to zero by 2050."

(4)  Big oil got slammed in Boston recently.  

According to The Boston Globe newspaper, "A lawsuit...filed by the Conservation Law Foundation against Exxon over its Everett petroleum terminal [in Boston MA] will advance in Boston federal court, thanks to a ruling that US District Court Judge Mark Wolf made from the bench [in early March.]"

"CLF’s lawsuit...accuses Exxon of failing to adequately protect the property from potential floods caused by storms and rising sea waters that could sweep pollutants off the site. The closely-watched lawsuit could have ripple effects that influence the broader oil industry and how it prepares for future storms."

Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't inform Americans that if you are considering an environmental lawsuit of your own, Earth Justice has your back.  Here is a summary from their website.

       
As the nation’s original and largest nonprofit environmental law organization, Earthjustice leverages their expertise...to fight for justice and advance the promise of a healthy world... . They represent [all] of their clients free of charge, with more than a hundred attorneys in offices across the U.S.

Here are their three goals:

1)  Our nation’s laws protect the...natural spaces and wildlife we have inherited from previous generations. Earthjustice enforces those laws to protect...wildlife and wild places, for this and future generations. 

2)  They fight for a future where children can breathe clean air, no matter where they live; where products in our homes are free of toxic chemicals; and where all communities are safer, healthier places... 

3)  [Their] legal victories strengthen the rise of clean energy, laying the groundwork for the systemic change we must see.

[They] fight for a...livable future by securing national and global rules to cut carbon through work in the courts, Congress and via international negotiations to secure real, enforceable cuts in...pollution. They [work] for clean power through litigation that challenges reliance on fossil fuels...and opens the door to clean, renewable sources of power. They are helping to reduce black carbon...to slow warming and protect ecosystems. And they are building resilience to climate change by taking a proactive approach to promote ecologically rich, resilient refuges that can sustain healthy fish and wildlife populations on land and at sea.


As we face an uncertain future, perhaps it is time to return to the sage advice of  Carl Sagan. (An American astronomer, cosmologist, astrophysicist  astrobiologist and author.)  23 years after his death his inspirational words still ring true.

“Anything else you’re interested in is not going to happen if you can’t breathe the air and drink the water. Don’t sit this one out. Do something. You are by accident of fate alive at an absolutely critical moment in the history of our planet.”



Neon Leon is published on the 15th of each month except on national holidays and times when I am  chasing dreams.  Available on Facebook and the blogosphere -- leon100x.blogspot.com

Next Up:  A review of the progress made in alternative energy sources.
                                           

Neon Leon: THE GREEN NEW DEAL--Last Chance for Survival or Ju...

Neon Leon: THE GREEN NEW DEAL--Last Chance for Survival or Ju...:                                                                                 Global Warming-- Just Another Can To Kick Down The ...

THE GREEN NEW DEAL--Last Chance for Survival or Just A Dream?

                                                                             

 Global Warming-- Just Another Can To Kick Down The Road?

"We could have saved the earth, but we were too damned cheap." Kurt Vonnegut  (1922-2007)  was an American writer. In a 50 year career, he published 14 novels, three short story collections, five plays, and five works of nonfiction.  He is most famous for his gloomily satirical novel Slaughterhouse-Five (1969).

Vonnegut has been a hero to me for 50 years for two reasons.  I shared his hatred of war ( he was an Army veteran who was captured during the Battle of the Bulge in WW II and I was a Marine grunt in Vietnam) and like Vonnegut, I  became keenly aware of the failure of governments to save Mother Earth for decades.


In the 12 years since his death, global warming has increased dramatically.  Here's a couple of charts that provides the scary numbers:

 Lowess Smoothing LOWESS (Locally Weighted Scatterplot Smoothing), sometimes called LOESS (locally weighted smoothing), is a popular tool used in regression analysis that creates a smooth line through a time plot or scatter plot to help you to see relationship between variables and foresee trends. NASA is National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

NOAA is National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

This blog is not a means to argue about the reality of Global Climate Change.  I have covered that subject in great detail in the last few years.  I am utterly convinced that we are in a world of deep doo-doo, but for those who need some background,  here are some of my blogs and sources of information:  Global warming  Food supply

On the subject of water there are two blogs.  One is here  and the other is here .  I also wrote about the numerous naysayers and climate deniers right here .

I stand with the thousands of climate scientists who are deeply alarmed at the existential risk to our planet.   Here is a list of 200 scientific agencies involved with climate analysis who are increasingly ready to hit the panic button.

         THE GREEN NEW DEAL (GND)

Who drafted this massive proposal? According to the February issue of The New Yorker, "When freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez  (AOC) joined members of the Sunrise Movement and the Justice Democrats at a sit-in at Nancy Pelosi’s office pushing a Green New Deal in November, she framed the proposal ...as the only way for the Party and the country to seriously address climate change. 'We do not have a choice,' she told them. 'We have to get to 100% renewable energy in ten years. There is no other option.' " 

Amazingly, in just a few months, some 60 House Dems and 6 Senate Dems as well as many presidential hopefuls are now on board with the proposal.

This blog will consider the pros and cons of this uniquely American resolution that seeks to address climate change holistically viz. by including social and economic reforms along with global warming.   I have included  The text of the resolution  which relies on the facts presented by the October 2018 report entitled ‘‘Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5ºC’’ by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the November 2018 Fourth National Climate Assessment 
    
The GND is fourteen pages long, so I will summarize the major parts. However, before I wade through it, I would also like to note that this is a non-binding resolution, not a legislative proposal.  If the House can cobble enough support to create a bill, it will then go to the Senate for approval, and then to the President's desk for his signature or veto. 

How much green will it cost for this green resolution?  Somewhere between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over 10-years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.  The center-right policy American Action Forum noted that those sums include "between $8 trillion and $12 trillion to eliminate carbon emissions from the power and transportation sectors and between $43 trillion and $81 trillion for its economic agenda. 

Let's take a look at the major elements of the resolution, and then note the pro and con reactions to the GND across the political spectrum.

Here are the goals House Dems are considering:  (1)  Provide for “high-quality health care.” (2) Create “affordable and safe housing (3)  Strengthen antitrust policy, protecting the right of workers to organize. (4)  The resolution also calls for a "green federal job guarantee" in which all citizens will have a job opportunity in the transition to clean and sustainable energy. (5) Provide "100 percent of the power demand through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.”  (6)  There is much in the text about improving  “frontline and vulnerable communities,” defined as “indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth.”  (7)  The GND will also “promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression.”

These ‘‘Green New Deal goals’’ are to be  accomplished through a 10-year national mobilization  that will require the following  projects:  (A) "..building resiliency against climate  change-related disasters...by leveraging funding and  providing investments for community-defined  projects and strategies;  (B) repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas ... as much as technologically feasible; (C) by guaranteeing universal access to clean water."                     

The Republicans have largely chosen not to examine most of the details of the GND, rather they often dismiss the whole project as an impossible,  communist/socialist plot to  destroy America.  

The conservative American Liberty Report click here  is typical of anti GND messages.  Liberty's headline reads "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s ‘Green New Deal’ is Just Socialism in a Pretty Bow."  Consider these statements in the report: 

"The GND includes programs that have nothing to do with renewable energy... energy mandates are [not] the whole story. AOC’s proposal calls for both single payer healthcare policies and a number of basic income programs."

"The resolution would also call for a federal jobs guarantee... the government would artificially create jobs to be given to people who aren’t smart or talented enough to find work on their own." 


"It would have no effect on 'global warming.'  The main reason for the GND...is to curtail the effects of climate change.  However, there is no reason to think that their projections on climate change are remotely accurate.  Even if the US...cuts emissions by 100%, those of Africa, China, and India would more than make up for it. In other words, only the US is expected to participate in any of the green initiatives [in] the program ."

"It would give money to many left-wing interest groups...[who] have little or nothing to do with green energy.... [For instance] there are ...provisions...for the creation of new labor unions and related programs...which would, 'deeply involve national and local labor unions to take a leadership role in the process of job training and worker deployment. It also promises “funding for massive investment in the drawdown of greenhouse gases.'...It seems rather that AOC’s ghostwriters are just as fairy-brained as she is."

"Renewable energy is way more expensive than fossil fuel....[and] fossil fuels are far more powerful and efficient than solar and other so-called green energies...[and] the high tech electronics needed for [renewables]...[requires]... new development in battery technology...[which] is one of the dirtiest and least environmentally friendly processes there are. What’s more...green energy devices call for a huge increase in strip mining for rare minerals." 

"It would blast the national debt into orbit...[because of] the price tag- which comes in at about $40 trillion in the first ten years...[and] add to that the burden of an economy drained flat by the cost of this insane program." 

Finally, Liberty notes that the resolution's name is "...reminiscent of The New Deal, which has made the poor massively dependent on welfare and destroyed the family unit." 


Conservative pundits have been trying to rally the troops by discrediting Rep. AOC by repeating this mantra: "She’s trying to steal America’s burgers." 

President Trump has chimed in by saying that under the proposed deal, airplane travel and electric power would cease to exist. 

Vice President Pence  called the resolution Socialism  and warned in remarks at the recent  CPAC conference that "Democrats want to trade American-made freedom for Venezuelan-style socialism." 

Pence also said  “Under the guise of Medicare for All and a Green New Deal, Democrats are embracing the same tired economic theories that have impoverished nations and stifled the liberties of millions over the past century. That system is socialism.” 

According to The New York Times, Trump's staff is also preparing an executive order to establish a 12 member climate panel headed up by White House advisor Dr. William Happer, a Princeton physicist (no other members listed).  Happer has said that carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas that scientists say is trapping heat and warming the planet) is "beneficial to humanity."  The aim of the panel is to examine potential security threats as well as the validity of climate science. 

My take on the GND:   It's a work in progress that I can only partially address because of the sheer size of the proposal and space limitations in my blog.  Of course, like any legislative proposal, it has some good and bad points. What follows is my take on some of them.

If the goal is to “promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression” is to be reached by paying reparations for the sins of slavery, count me out.  I believe that providing financial redress for those folks is simply impossible because determining financial payments based on 200 years of history would necessitate a huge bureaucracy and endless arguments about who deserves how much and when. 

No, the GND will not take your hamburgers away.  Rep. Ocasio-Cortez addresses that issue thusly:  “It’s not to say you get rid of agriculture. It’s not to say we’re going to force everybody to go vegan or anything crazy like that,” she said. “But it’s to say, listen, we’ve got to address factory farming. Maybe we shouldn’t be eating a hamburger for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Like, let’s keep it real. We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero, emissions in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast.” (The latter comment was quickly removed from the GND site after considerable negative reaction.)  

OK, so the belches and manure of cattle produces more methane than farts.  That's not the point.  Rather it is the amount of methane pollution and it's a lot.  According to researchers at New Zealand's largest Crown Research Institute, AGResearch, "...up to 95 percent of the emissions comes from the cow's mouth rather than its behind.  Each cow lets out between thirty and fifty gallons of methane per day. With an estimated 1.3 to 1.5 billion cattle in the world today, this adds up fast; they are the largest source of methane gas emissions worldwide, contributing over 28 percent of total emissions." 

About those tweets of  Trump that the GND will eliminate air travel:  The resolution does not call for that. It only states that transportation emissions should be reduced “as much as is technically feasible,” and suggests three ways of reaching that goal, including high-speed rail and zero-emission vehicles, which would include electric cars. There is no mention of air travel.

Vice President Pence's comments on the evils of Socialism, standard fare for Republicans for decades, are too narrow in scope.  History shows that the Soviet state eventually strayed far from Marx's idea of socialism towards Lenin's totalitarian communism.  But in its purest form, socialism was a political, social, and economic system meant to empower the working class. Presently though, the most common definition of Socialism refers to the services provided by government which are paid for with taxes.  It is wrongly associated with Communism by the right but is increasingly popular with the left.  

So what socialist services do the federal, state and local governments provide?
*military*police*firefighters*voting*Medicare
*Medicaid*Social Security*healthcare (via emergency room, for people who can't pay)
*public libraries*public schools
*government college grants, scholarships, and loans *the FDA *the EPA *roads (except road tolls) and much, much more.  So, do Americans want to forego these socialistic services?  I think not.

The word Socialism no longer has the dark image of past generations.  There are numerous media reports about a rise in "Millennial Socialism" 
which focuses on some of the failures in Western democracies ( rising inequality, global warming and political corruption.).  

An analysis of those countries who actually have a socialist economic structure  reveals many similarities to the USA (as well as many differences).  Here is Wikipedia's list of some of the most socialistic nations in the world today:
China, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Canada, 
Sweden, Norway, Ireland, New Zealand, and Belgium.  Are these the failed nations Pence speaks of? 

I have some news for The Liberty Report:  There is EVERY reason to think that projections on climate change are accurate.  Here is a partial list of the organizations who have done the research on climate change for decades:   NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL,  NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION,  THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE AGENCY,
WORLD DATA CENTRE FOR GREENHOUSE GASES, PHYSICIANS FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY, and THE UNITED NATIONS INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE.  

Poll after poll has shown that 92% of climate scientists world wide are on record that global warming is a reality and an existential risk for humans.  Do climate deniers have a similar wealth of data to boost their cause? I have researched their claims since 1972 and found little that bears the weight of scientific analysis.

As for the White House's plan for a new climate panel :   Been there. Done that.   There are multiple climate reports already available, to wit:

According to Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton, “The link between climate science and national security has been closely studied for over a decade at the highest levels of the U.S. government ... and all those studies have made a strong case that various aspects of climate change have an effect on national security.”

The report continued, “Climate hazards such as extreme weather, higher temperatures, droughts, floods, wildfires, storms, sea level rise, soil degradation and acidifying oceans are intensifying, threatening infrastructure, health, and water and food security.”

The January  2019 Worldwide Threat Assessment, (issued by Dan Coates, the American Director of National Intelligence, said that climate change and other environmental degradation were “likely to fuel competition for resources, economic distress and social discontent through 2019 and beyond.”  

What we have here, in my opinion, is yet another example of  Trump's desire to ignore the findings and recommendations of his own intelligence and defense officials.

How much green will it cost for this green resolution?  Somewhere between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over 10-years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.  The center-right policy American Action Forum noted that those sums include "between $8 trillion and $12 trillion to eliminate carbon emissions from the power and transportation sectors and between $43 trillion and $81 trillion for its economic agenda  (providing jobs and health care for all)."  

                                    

How do we pay for the GND?

The resolution is hazy on the subject, but some of the suggestions out there include:  A new tax on the very rich (those with $10 million or so), 
printing more money (quantitative easing or QE), public financing and making the fossil fuel industry pay.  (However QE, in my opinion, should be applied only when short-term interest rates are approaching zero and when the economy needs a kick start for economic growth.)

As for this blogger, I would add the proposals of Jacobin Magazine.    I have summarized their ideas thusly:

(1) "One [big] source of ... misallocated capital is corporate America’s vast hoard of semi-hibernating cash. Last year the Federal Reserve reported that nonfinancial corporations held $4.8 trillion in cash. That sum is equal to almost one quarter of the entire US annual economic output, which last year was $20.5 trillion. And this $4.8 trillion in cash is only a subset of a larger, less liquid, hoard of $22.1 trillion worth of financial assets held by nonfinancial corporations."


(2) "This is not money paid out to stockholders as profits or to managers as bonuses. This is money retained by firms for investment...but it is at work...in the financial sector...fueling the next speculative bubble...for the next big thing... something [like]...the advent of the internal combustion engine, electrification, or the rise of  [computers] and the internet. The Green New Deal  [would use] the hoarded corporate cash [for] a...wave of investment in clean energy." 

(3) "... the US government would need to use a combination of regulation, investment, procurement, and subsidy. ...step one should be to stop all fossil fuel extraction on public lands and end all subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) estimates that federal subsidies for oil, gas, and coal production average about $26 billion a year. That sum could shift to subsidizing clean energy production."

(4) "Next, put the fossil fuel sector on an aggressive, legal timeline towards extinction. At the same time, government needs to increase 'renewable portfolio standards' — that is, increase the percentage of clean power each utility company is required to produce.  What would happen to the money...invested in building oil pipelines?  It too would shift into building the clean energy sector such as electric vehicles, retrofitted buildings, massive wind farms, and photovoltaic solar panels on every roof."


(5) "Another tool for...investment is government procurement...[such as] energy-saving retrofits on all of its 450,000 buildings [and] switching from]  gas to electric vehicles in the public sector to the private sector-- auto manufactures would have to invest to meet the demand." 

(6) "Far from “costing too much” the GND promises [what]...Wall Street...[doesn't]: more opportunity and more income for more people."

Liberty Report's statement that GND will "create jobs [for those] who "aren’t smart or talented enough to find work on their own" is ludicrous.  Actually those jobs will be for those who are trained to meet the high tech demands of creating a new energy grid.    

Those folks in dying industries like coal, hardware manufacturing, brick and mortar retail, textiles, footwear,  newspaper publishing and banking will need to upgrade their skill set.  

And while it is true that renewable energies supplies only a fraction of our energy needs, the fossil fuels industry is slowly dying also  
according to a major industry report.   

From the November 2018 article:  "Amory Lovins, co-founder and chief scientist at the Rocky Mountain Institute told [a group] of investors from around the world--who control [some] $8 trillion in assets that it was time to stop investing in fossil fuels because those industries are 'on their last legs.'  Lovins [also] told them they’d be 'foolish if they didn’t invest in the coming renewable energy revolution.' " 

"...Lovins also noted that 'Renewable energy production hit 1 trillion watts of capacity three years ago, the next trillion watts will be added in just four years, pushing fossil fuels out of the market. He added that fossil fuels were more at risk from competition than regulation. 'In the next 4-5 years, cheaper renewables will offset growth in all fossil fuels, tipping them into decline,' he warned."

Finally, The Liberty Report's comments about how oil extraction is more environmentally safer than Lithium mining (for use in  batteries) is bogus. This is just another right wing report which
uses a photograph of a completely different type of mine for lithium, and a misleading photograph of a non-representative site for oil.  Snopes fact check is right here. 

OK, it's time to get real here.  The GND is indeed massive, spendy and politically divisive.
Therefore, in my opinion, it will need to be broken up into multiple bills which will need to be submitted repeatedly.  And given the complicated nature  of our legislative process it will take years, not months to accomplish all of the goals. 

Presently the resolution simply doesn't have a prayer given the long standing denial of climate change by Trump and his loyal Republicans--no bill will be taken up unless Democrats win the White House in 2020.  

Further, any efforts to present a bill will most likely fail to get the sixty Senate votes needed to break a Republican filibuster.  Of course, the majority Party in the Senate can eliminate the filibuster independently if can muster the fifty-one votes for doing so.  But there are no candidates who are on record for eliminating the filibuster,  because it radically changes how federal laws are made.  

For Dems, there remains the possibility of passing some tax and spending provisions via budget reconciliation, which only requires a simple majority.   

As I was working on this blog, tens of thousands of teenagers all over the world took to the streets to plead for the GND.  The response by many conservative pundits was to dismiss their efforts as just a way to skip school in pursuit of a silly dream.  

In fairness, Democrats have some reservations also. I saw a video of Senator Dianne Feinstein  telling young activists “there’s no way to pay for the Green New Deal. “I’ve been in the Senate for over a quarter of a century, I know what can pass and I know what can’t pass.” 

And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in remarks to a Rolling Stone interview (following an activist 
protest that filled her office) said, “In my day—go back 30 years or more—I was pushing strollers and carrying signs myself. I say to these people who come in, I was carrying single-payer signs before you were born."

For this writer, seeing the students reminded me of the millions of young protesters when they began their long, hard, slog to end the Vietnam War and to save the polluted planet during the sixties era, surely one of the most tumultuous decades in American history. 

During the 60s and 70s  millions of young folks formed what would become known as the Environmental Movement. It was a slow process but they were largely responsible for the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Clean Air and Water Acts and The Endangered Species Act. Air pollution and pesticide usage fell dramatically also.

Now the torch has been passed to another world wide generation of young people who seek to awaken our environmental mojo once again, this time to fight for our very existence on this lovely blue marble we call home.  I wish them Godspeed as their  journey begins.

her professional and technical services
> Employment growth 2008-2017: 88.4%> Employment total: 156,497
> Wage growth 2008-2017: 24.8%
> Avg. annual wage: $54,360

Vice President Pence took the administration’s war on socialism to CPAC Friday, warning that Democrats, even 2020 presidential candidates, want to trade American-made freedom for Venezuelan-style socialism.

In remarks provided in advance to Secrets, Pence said, “Under the guise of Medicare for All and a Green New Deal, Democrats are embracing the same tired economic theories that have impoverished nations and stifled the liberties of millions over the past century. That system is socialism.” 

Vice President Pence took the administration’s war on socialism to CPAC Friday, warning that Democrats, even 2020 presidential candidates, want to trade American-made freedom for Venezuelan-style socialism.

In remarks provided in advance to Secrets, Pence said, “Under the guise of Medicare for All and a Green New Deal, Democrats are embracing the same tired economic theories that have impoverished nations and stifled the liberties of millions over the past century. That system is socialism.” 

     

Neon Leon: I'm back again...

Neon Leon: I'm back again...: Okay, I know.  I have posted a few entries in the past six months promising a return of my blog by a certain date.  Unfortunately, my Neon L...

I'm back again...

Okay, I know.  I have posted a few entries in the past six months promising a return of my blog by a certain date.  Unfortunately, my Neon Leon Blog has had to be put on hold due to hospital stays for Pneumonia and Anemia. In addition, I have had to finish working on a bathroom addition in my 110 year old Craftsman home.  The bathroom is nearly finished and I am now in good health now, so I anticipate publishing shortly.  I am asking for some input from you, dear readers, on what you would like me to report on.  I will initially return to the subject of climate change because of the new and compelling research about Mother Earth.  I am also thinking about a series of small town portraits in Washington State, focusing on what makes your definition of home unique. Tell me your tales and I will consider writing about them.  Thanks for your patience--Neon Leon