When I first began speaking publicly ten years ago, I eschewed anything to do with politics. The sustainability movement should be nonpartisan, nonpolitical in order to appeal to everyone, I thought. My talks and articles were designed to appeal to everyone, but in developing solutions for helping municipalities develop green buildings, I kept confronting the limitations of government and the game of politics that acts as a block to real progress.

This frustrated me to no end, and I found political opinion creeping back into my slides and writings. Some in the audience felt alienated, some even walked out, but most thoughtfully listened…and I got through.

This November, California voters will vote on a measure called Proposition 23. Prop 23 officially calls for a “suspension” of California’s landmark global warming law (called AB32) “until unemployment drops to 5.5 percent for four consecutive quarters.” The proposal positions itself as a “jobs initiative” and tries to pass itself off as merely a temporary measure until the economy gets back on track.

Passed in 2006, Assembly Bill 32 (AB32) is referred to as the California Global Warming Solutions Act. It was the first legislation in the world to comprehensively regulate and reduce greenhouse gases. Under AB32, emissions from vehicles (oil) and energy generation (coal) are required to be cut about 15 percent by 2020 and an additional 20 percent by 2050. AB32 would push California to the forefront of the clean energy revolution, produce green jobs and stave off the threat of global warming.

Although this would only immediately affect California, it would, in reality, have an impact on the entire country. The eyes of the nation are watching California and our wonderfully progressive policies. When they succeed, other states will follow suit.

But here is why Prop 23’s call to suspend AB32 is so particularly sinister: It was placed on the ballot by Assembly Member Dan Logue, who calls it a “jobs initiative” to hide the real backers behind the bill. The bill is supported by two Texas oil companies, Valero and Tesoro and a coal company, Koch Industries. Valero alone has pumped over $4 million and counting into Prop 23. Valero and Tesoro are among the nation’s biggest polluters, and their California refineries are among the top 10 polluters in the state.

The proposed suspension may take a while. The state’s current unemployment is around 12.3 percent and hasn’t dropped to 5.5 percent for an entire year since 1976 (34 years ago). The cleverly crafted language was designed to ensure AB32 never sees the light of day.

You may be asking, “If AB32 was passed back in 2006, why the rush to stop it now?” Simple: The requirements set forth in AB32 are set to take effect this January. The November election gives the polluters just enough time to try and stop it.

This battle will play out as you’d expect: Conservatives will claim this will destroy jobs, raise taxes and increase your energy costs (using fear); while environmentalists will unsuccessfully provide the facts, only to be ignored by the middle class voters susceptible to the fear play.

Some in California worry that by regulating carbon emissions we’ll be putting our economy on the back burner. But nothing in our recent history has indicated that California must choose between economic stability and environmental responsibility.

Innovative energy policies established in the 1970s have saved California consumers $56 billion and created 1.5 million full-time jobs with a payroll of $45 billion. From 1995 to 2008, clean, safe energy-generation jobs grew by 85 percent with the highest concentration in solar and wind. In 2008, energy efficiency jobs grew by 91 percent, according to Next 10, a nonpartisan think tank.

If new, better-paying jobs, healthier air, driving money into the local economy and saving money are attractive, then AB32 is a breath of fresh clean air and worth keeping.

LINKS:

Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/19/antienvironment-californi_n_687719.html

Stopping Prop 23:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/08/22/five-things-you-can-do-to-fight-global-warming-and-advance-clean-energy-proposition-23-ab32/

Campaign to stop Proposition 23:
http://www.stopdirtyenergyprop.com/

California Bright Spot:
http://www.CABrightSpot.com

California Air Resources Board AB 32 Information:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cc.htm

My editorial in Desert Sun:
http://www.mydesert.com/article/20100730/COLUMNS26/7290387/AB-32-a-breath-of-fresh-air-that-saves-money-and-adds-jobs

Originally posted: here

An open letter to the President, the 535 members of Congress and thousands of local politicians across the country

Dear Legislators:

Tell us the truth. We can handle it.

I’m willing to overlook your past ridiculous stunts like the Birther Bill or claims of Death Panels. After all, that’s just the game of politics. I would like to believe you don’t really believe some of these things you say. Politics is, after all, a form of theater, and in the world of a 24-hour news cycle, we need an endless supply of theater.

But lately there have been a series of sorely missed opportunities in regard to our survival. And your actions just don’t add up. So this leads me to think there must be something else at work, something you’re not telling us, and so I am asking for the truth. Honestly, we Americans can take it.

For example, take a look at the UN Climate Change Conference that took place this past December in Copenhagen, Denmark. When it was first announced the U.S. was going to participate, some of us optimistically referred to it as HOPEenhagen. This was a real chance at a global, comprehensive policy toward controlling climate change. But the lack of an adopted accord by the conference quickly had many referring to it instead as NOPEnhagen.

Or the continued drive for more natural gas at the expense of our health and safety. Gas companies control the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by pushing out the tired, old (and proven untrue) threat that regulations stifle competition and will eliminate jobs—so you better not hold us to any. Eighteen members of the Colorado State Legislature sent a letter (PDF) to the EPA demanding they ignore their own two-year study and stop regulating the hazardous drilling practice of “fracking.” I suggest you watch a new documentary entitled, Gasland, currently on HBO. One of the more vivid scenes in the film shows tap water lighting on fire due to poorly regulated nearby drilling. How do you think your constituents will feel about reelecting you if this happened to them?

Or the way Representative Joe Barton (R-TX) publicly apologized to BP (you know the company that dumped 5 millions barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico?).

This came as no surprise. Barton is the ranking member of the House Energy & Commerce Committee and one of the chief authors of the Cheney Oil Act that gave BP the exemptions to drill Deepwater Horizon without the required impact reports. Barton himself has received $14.4 million from oil and gas companies over his career. That’s why his committee is referred to as the “Honey Pot” on Capitol Hill, receiving $42 million in the 2010 Election Cycle alone.

Barton’s apology was echoing the real loyalties and feelings of Congress. Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) labeled it a “shakedown” and a “redistribution-of-wealth fund,” with 100+ other House members just the day before.

Unfortunately, there is always a loser in these games you are playing. We cannot wait any longer for a substantive bill combating climate change.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), our planet has just finished the warmest decade, the warmest 12 months, the warmest six months and the April, May and June on record.

In response to this horrific news, the U.S. Senate decided… to do nothing. Seriously. They preserved 30 years of bipartisan inaction on what the Defense Department referred to as the “greatest threat facing our country.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) decided not to even bother to schedule a vote on legislation that would have capped carbon emissions. Both Democrats and Republicans continue to play these games while the American people are headed off a cliff. Some of you even invented a fun, new derogatory term to describe anyone who dare want to do something about climate change: “carbon taxer.”

Last month, the NOAA called climate change “unmistakable.” The IPCC issued their judgement back in 2007, calling climate change “undeniable” and “unequivocal.”

Even some of the politicians themselves are getting sick of the partisan games, as seen last week with a passionate Anthony Weiner (D-NY) venting his frustration over a partisan vote on a bill that would provide healthcare to 9/11 workers. “If there was ever a bill that I thought would be above partisan politics,” he said, “that was it.”

The explosion and subsequent oil spill aboard the Deepwater Horizon rig should be a wake up call. The thousands of miles of decimated shoreline and millions of destroyed families should shake you into action. Historically, disasters have always driven sweeping legislation.

The BP oil spill should have done for Climate Legislation what the 1969 Santa Barbara Oil Spill did for the EPA; what the 1969 Cuyahoga River fire in Cleveland did for the Clean Water Act and what the 1979 Ixstock Gulf Oil Spill did for drilling regulations. This is a critical turning point and we are missing it.

President Obama’s address from the Oval Office on June 15th was another missed opportunity. He did not once mention the words “carbon,” “emissions” or “greenhouse.” This was his first speech from the Oval Office and he failed to provide one tangible idea on how to solve this problem. George Will called the speech “magnificently awful.” This is more confounding given the progress his administration has made in having the EPA regulate climate pollution under the Clean Air Act.

(Side note: For an incredible version of what Obama’s speech should have and could have been, watch Rachel Maddow’s take on it here.)

You may think that by doing nothing, you are playing it safe, but your inaction is having consequences. Private sector companies are stalled in their decisions by an uncertain future for the price of carbon. As Fred Krupp, President of the Environmental Defense Fund,
recently wrote, “U.S. utility companies today are sitting on billions of dollars in job-creating capital—but they will not invest in new energy projects until they have certainty on what their future carbon obligations will be…” Jobs, investments and private stimulus are waiting for you to do something.

This is why my fellow environmentalists are taking matters into their own hands. This is why the West Coast Green Conference, one of the largest green building conferences in the country, has changed its theme this year to “Innovation & Convergence.” Thousands of the most respected leaders in sustainability, planning, public policy and design will meet for three days in San Francisco to share ideas and determine the next course of action.

So, please, Legislators, please explain these crazy actions of yours. I am hoping you have a good reason. I am hoping it is more than mere ego and hubris and that you wouldn’t dare play a game of chicken with our future in the balance. Take advantage of this Gulf Oil Spill by leveraging it into some tangible and effective policies. We can’t wait any longer.

It’s ironic that the first half of 2010, the same year we removed all hope of having a true climate change bill, turned out to be the hottest year on record. I propose we turn off the air conditioning in the Capitol Building until you emerge with some real legislation.

Sincerely Yours,

Eric Corey Freed
Author, “Green$ense for the Home: Rating the Real Payoff from 50 Green Home Projects”

——————————-

MORE INFORMATION:

Fracking:
In The New York Times
In the Huffington Post

Gasland Documentary:
The website: http://gaslandthemovie.com/
Coverage in the Huffington Post

West Coast Green Conference
September 30 – October 1, 2010
www.westcoastgreen.com

One of my favorite books, Ecotopia, is being reissued by the publisher this month and the New York Times has a nice story about the book.

The story starts with the Pacific Northwest having seceded from the United States to form its’ own country named, Ecotopia. Washington, Oregon and Northern California make up the new country and base their economy on sustainable principles. The rest of the remaining US is thrust into a recession driven by partisan politics and old models of industry and energy.

Sound timely? Yes, except that it was written in 1974.

I had the prescient author, Ernest Callenbach, give a talk to a packed house at The Commonwealth Club in May 2005. He is the most charming and delightful man and lives just across the bay in Berkeley.

While you’re reading it, be sure to also read the follow up prequel he wrote, entitled, Ecotopia Emerging. In many ways, I like it so much better than the first book.

The brilliant minds over at WorldChanging recently called their smartest, most interesting friends they know to answer the following question:

In 100 words or less, what should the next president do in his first 100 days to address the planet’s most pressing problems?

I was flattered to be included in that group. The resulting ideas for our next president are astounding. Some highlights:

from Simran Sethi:
Aggressively address climate and energy. Fossil fuel combustion accounts for 80 percent of the rise of CO2 in our atmosphere.

from Jeremy Faludi:
Appoint the following cabinet:
- Amory Lovins, Secretary of Energy
- William McDonough, Secretary of Housing & Urban Development
- Thomas Barnett, Secretary of Defense
- Vinod Khosla, Secretary of Commerce
- Wes Jackson, Secretary of Agriculture
- Bruce Schneier, Secretary of Homeland Security
- Peter Newman, Secretary of Transportation
- Stewart Brand, Secretary of State
- Frank Rijsberman, Secretary of the Interior
- Van Jones, Secretary of Labor
- Dee Hock, Secretary of the Treasury

READ FULL STORY HERE: To The Next U.S. President: 100 Words for 100 Days

My advice?

Our next President must embrace the idea of an inevitable future free of fossil fuels. I propose a call to action similar to the civilian rationing programs of World War II. Back then, it was in the name of “victory” and so our next President must redefine “victory” to mean a sustainable economy free of fossil fuels. The $78 billion of taxes used to subsidize the oil industry will be reapplied to renewable sources instead. Gasoline that is rationed and adjusted for true costs is no match for abundant subsidized solar or wind power.

Dr. James E. Hansen is the chief climatologist at NASA and one of the leading experts on Global Warming and the Climate Crisis.

He testified to Congress twenty years ago (June 23, 1988) on the dangers of global warming. This week, he returned to testify again and shared his thoughts on the differences between those two briefings.

An excerpt:

“There are striking similarities between then and now, but one big difference…

The difference is that now we have used up all slack in the schedule for actions needed to defuse the global warming time bomb.”

He goes on to write of an ominous foreshadowing for the past 20 years:

“My testimony two decades ago was greeted with skepticism. But while skepticism is the lifeblood of science, it can confuse the public…
The evidence was strong enough that I could say it was time to “stop waffling.” I was sure that time would bring the scientific community to a similar consensus, as it has.”

And then he proposes a clear plan, something no government official seems able or willing to do:

“The steps needed to halt carbon dioxide growth… Phase out of coal use… Solution of the climate problem requires that we move to carbon-free energy promptly.”

Hansen also talks about why things have barely progressed in 20 years of threats:

“Special interests have blocked transition to our renewable energy future. Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, as tobacco companies discredited the smoking-cancer link. Methods are sophisticated, including disguised funding to shape school textbook discussions.

CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing… In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”

I love that part!

read the FULL STORY here.

Elizabeth Edwards wrote this wonderful piece (yes, John’s wife) in the New York Times today about the election.

A snippet:

Did you, for example, ever know a single fact about Joe Biden’s health care plan? Anything at all? But let me guess, you know Barack Obama’s bowling score. We are choosing a president, the next leader of the free world.

It seems most people are fed up with the way the press handles itself, yet they continue to focus on the insignificant details.

Of the 3000 questions asked of the remaining three presidential candidates, only 8 had to do with the environment or global warming. Over a dozen were asked about Obama not wearing a flag pin in his lapel. That is the problem.

via New York Times

In the New York Times is this item as to whether the environment suffers during hard ecomonic times.

An excerpt:

The environment is actually hurt in hard economic times. Companies will reduce their investments into research and development and green programs…

The Greener Side of Recession

Why Economic Stimulus Should Be Green

James Boyce has a thought-provoking piece in the Huffington Post on what the government should be doing to protect our environment:

There are hundreds, nay thousands, of examples of politicians talking the talk about the environment, how we need to create green jobs, and green industries, encourage green living, blah, blah, blah, alternative energy is my energy, blah, blah, blah…

Part of the problem with our current economic woes is massive short-term overconsumption.

Part of our environmental problem is massive short-term consumption.

I’m currently in New Orleans speaking at the Traditional Building Conference. It seems an unlikely place for a modernist, I know, but Historic Preservationism is finally starting to make the connection to sustainability. After all, it makes sense. Durability, reuse, preservation of history and culture all fall well within the purview of green building.

This is my first visit to New Orleans, and it has delightfully surprised me. Filled with a rich history and hidden charms, NOLA also offers some interesting lessons. I didn’t quite know what to expect here over two years after Hurricane Katrina.

The damage by Hurricane Katrina was devastating, and evidence of it still remains today. Boarded up, wind damaged buildings appear randomly among otherwise undamaged neighborhoods. The difference seems to be the surrounding economy not being able to support repairing these abandoned structures. So they sit, alone, empty and reflecting a weakening of the overall economy. But these examples are only a handful of the real damage.

The subsequent flood was the real cause of the majority of the structural damage, and this ongoing economic damage. It is important to not blame the Hurricane. After all, it was the failure of man-made levies that created the flood. Mother Nature and wind didn’t destroy New Orleans, the raging flood waters did. Over 80 percent of the city was flooded, some areas by as much as 15 feet. It all could have been averted, especially in light of the ever-prescient reports on the inadequacy of the levee system.

This failure by our government is the real tragedy. Had the Hurricane been the source of the damage, we could look upon New Orleans as we did when Hurricane Hugo hit Charleston, or Andrew hit Florida.

To the contrary, New Orleans is a living reminder of the mediocrity of our government. Instead of empathy, I feel anger; instead of sadness, I feel disbelief. In addition to the 1,464 people who lost their lives, this incompetence continues 26 months later. A series of scandals including no-bid government contracts, toxic temporary shelters and illicit distribution of recovery money continues to cloud the recovery efforts.

What’s left is a shell of the former city. Over half of the downtown storefronts remain closed (* by my estimation, not by any hard data). The streets seem bare and uncrowded, especially along the most touristy areas.

The famed French Quarter was a wonderful surprise. Part of the original plan for the city, the French Quarter is located above sea level (five feet to be exact), allowing it to be spared from the flood. The original settlers had the foresight to locate the original neighborhoods above the line of the inevitable floods. The Industrial Revolution brought the engineering and technology of the levee system, allowing the low lying areas to be filled in. This blind faith in technology is reminds me of the story of Icarus, and dozens of other parables.

The Quarter was surprisingly genuine. To be honest, I expected something as phony as Pier 39 at Fisherman’s Wharf, ignored by the locals and filled with gawking tourists buying t-shirts. The empty streets of the French Quarter show a rich history, wonderful lessons of urban scale and a beautiful local vernacular architecture*.

(* A more technical explanation: these older buildings typically consist of deep, wraparound balconies at the second and third floors. These balconies shade the interior and keep the thermal mass of the stone and brick walls cool. Large windows on all sides allow for ventilation and cross-breezes for more cooling. Wooden shutters shade the windows from direct sunlight when needed. These are textbook examples of using an appropriate strategy to design for a hot, humid climate.)

For the most part, the stately homes of both the Garden District and Jefferson Parish today seem undamaged. What is evident is a lack of activity on the streets. While most children were in school (hopefully), I still expected smaller kids playing in the neighborhood.

Within walking distance to the French Quarter was the Lower 9th Ward, a long-time poverty stricken area. It was perhaps hardest hit by the effects of the flood. The streets look shockingly unchanged from the images you saw just after the flood. Most of the homes are abandoned and uninhabitable. A majority are damaged beyond repair. The spray painted tags by the rescue teams sit as an eery reminder of the grim discoveries found inside. The number in the bottom of the X indicates the number of dead found inside.

The remaining residents were unfazed by our presence. Although I felt like an embarrassed voyeur who was trespassing on their tragedy, no one seemed to mind, much less notice. Either they are used to this new kind of tourist, or they simply assumed we’re there to help. We stared in silence as we toured the streets, as the sheer amount of the damage is simply overwhelming.

But there are signs of hope. Throughout the city, and across social and economic neighborhoods, you’ll find the locals slowly rebuilding their city. Bright and shiny pockets of hope lie scattered amid the ruins. Standing next to a rotting skeleton of a house you’ll see a newly renovated one sporting a fresh coat of paint.

The biggest sense of hope comes from the locals themselves, all of whom give a new meaning to the term “Southern Hospitality.” Without exaggeration, I can say that every single person with whom we came into contact was friendly, engaging, helpful, polite and just generally grateful of our presence there. Tourism is clearly struggling, and the people of New Orleans are resoundingly determined to change that. Without any sense of being obsequious, the residents are genuinely happy to see visitors. And the best part: it works. I found that I wanted to spend more money, infuse more into the economy. If you’re looking for a place to take a trip, NOLA would be a wonderful choice. If you can’t travel, order some of Sally’s amazing pralines.

New Orleans has long been synonymous with good food, wonderful music and even the legendary corrupt government. The tragedy of the flood is now cemented into that and is inseparable from any experience with this wonderful place.

Al Gore returned to Capitol Hill to urge Congress to act now to combat Global Warming. He found a heated debate from several dubious Republicans.

Al Gore, at the House hearing: “I promise you, a day will come when our children and grandchildren will ask: What in God’s name were they doing? Didn’t they see the evidence?”

Although this should not be a partisan issue, several seem set on making it one. This politicizing of the issue might be why some feel Gore might be the wrong spokesman for Global Warming.

As Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) said at the hearing: “You’re not just off a little. You’re totally wrong.”

Of course, Barton receives a large portion of his campaign money from big oil and big coal, namely TXU, Anadarko Petroleum, Suez Energy, Reliant Energy, Exxon Mobil and GM. You could say he has a vested interest in increasing carbon emissions.

Gore’s Response: “The planet has a fever. If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor. If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don’t say, ‘Well, I read a science fiction novel that tells me it’s not a problem.’”

Barton added that Gore’s proposed freeze on carbon emissions would mean “no new industry, no new people and no new cars.”

Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) was also a skeptic, debating Gore on the soundness of Global Warming. He cited some dubious reports while ignoring the Peer Reviewed Scientific Report that announced they have “removed the question mark on whether Global Warming is man-made.”

Inhofe was the one who famously called global warming the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”

And as expected, Inhofe is also funded by big oil and war mongers, including Murray Energy, Union Pacific, Chevron, BP and Lockheed Martin.

Inhofe was also referred to as the “Dumbest Senator of all.”

Many Republicans did turn their opinion. Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. surprised fellow lawmakers by agreeing with Gore’s assessment that climate change is a real threat.

It is hard to not politicize Global Warming when so many politicians are being paid to ensure nothing will ever change.

Via AlGore.com

Watch the entire 40 minute talk here