Current Thoughts

Listen to the first statement. The point of this is that it does not matter what the president thinks about such a trifling matter. Something like this would never come up in our everyday lives in a country run by Ron Paul. I may disagree with any one of his statements, but what I agree with is that something like evolution, Christianity, anyone's personal beliefs are not matters for presidents to decide. They can have their opinions, that is their personal right. A president who cares more about the people than himself can honestly say he does not believe in the theory of evolution. I believe in science. I also believe in Christ. That is my personal right. Point being, I don't have to believe what the president believes, and the stupid public wants an answer about everything dumb and trivial. Subjects that actually matter, like "what are you going to do about this problem, what can be done about this problem," are questions that need to be addressed. People need to realize the things that actually matter in this country, not "oh, he believes this is silly, I don't vote for him." That is retarded. In the future we will see a further separation of church and state and science for that matter. Nothing will influence government except the people and their needs.

It's too early.

I am a morning person, but it is too early to be enraged. What gives the EPA the right to do something catering to the exact opposite to what they stand for? Is the EPA not the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Agency? What gives them the right to deny an individual state of trying to get ahead with the green revolution? The prick-head in the oval office, that is who.

The Clean Air Act in fact gives the government on the federal level the right to deny any state legislation it feels like. Yesterday a number of states, including my own, wanted to get a jump start by improving fuel standards earlier than goals previously set at the federal level. One of those regulations would have been on cars getting at least 33 miles/gallon. Guess who put the stop on that? Stephen L. Johnson, an EPA administrator, said "The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution -- not a confusing patchwork of state rules." That is humorous, I wonder where the Bush administration has taken us over the past 7 years, besides to an inescapable war over oil and an absolute destruction of our sound economy. Do I have confidence or the patience for a federal law maker to give us permission to breathe? Not really. I want results now. And finally when I see state law makers doing their jobs, I can be happy. This is injustice on so many levels. I am sure the leaders of oil companies and auto makers are dancing their fat-asses in their executive chairs high above eye level, watching the proles with condescending eyes.

Johnson's excuse was invalid. He cited the legislation called the supposed Clean Air Act which set an industry-wide standard of 35 miles/gallon by 2020. Tell me it's a bad thing, Johnson, that states who pride the outdoors, such as New York and California, want to expedite this retarded goal. Politics and capitalism should never get in the way of human kind attempting to progress to a sound environment. Money will have to be sacrificed, not lungs. After the last carbon molecule is emitted, people will realize they can't breathe in money.

"This federal agency blunder is bad policy and worse law," Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said. "We will take the EPA to court if necessary and once again demonstrate that no one is above the law. If the EPA won't obey the law or take the lead, at least it should get out of the way so states can protect our environment."

I hope my state's officials can be this aggressive. I don't want states to compromise. I want states to realize they have power. Vote for Ron Paul; there won't be an EPA or a federal government that gets in the way of states making conscious decisions for their citizens. Hell with the federal government, and hell with the EPA. Give the people back their rights and freedoms.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/19/california.epa.ap/index.html?eref=rss_politics

A letter to Dr. Paul

Dr. Paul

I am a Fairport, NY citizen eager to know more about your stances on certain issues. I realize the answer to just about every question you have ever been asked has been fairly consistent: get big government out of our lives and live by the constitution.

However, along with the war in Iraq, I believe one of the most pivotal issues on the board for all politicians is the environmental pattern we humans are so clearly altering. I realize you believe and have confidence in the free market to correct the problem itself, and I feel the same way. If the government stops giving billions in tax subsidies to huge oil companies, American business will find another way to power cars, heat homes, and light our rooms. I am a candle light man myself, but the fluorescent light bulbs in my lamps have proven quite the energy-saver.

I don't know if I necessarily agree with your plan to get rid of the EPA altogether. I see what the abolition of other government agencies could do for our country and revolutionary intention, and correct me if I am wrong, but without certain governmental regulations, wouldn't the affects of say, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge be slightly more detrimental than abolishing the EPA?

I enjoyed one of your interviews on the topic, saying from a historical perspective, that the private sector has been much more successful in protecting the environment. Even historical communist nations have been irresponsible with pollution. I hate the cap and trade program for big businesses. My undergraduate degree is in economics, so I can see what affect it has on the economy, but in my opinion the environment cannot be sold, traded, or exploited. It is outside ones personal liberty for his neighbor to pollute his land, but air travels. It is against my personal right to breathe that my neighbor might be polluting HIS land and have it travel over to mine.

I want to know what sort of regulations you see fit to be consistent with your political approach, but won't support an "isolationist" approach to the environment. Studies have proven how sensitive it is to human activity. I believe that if small choices are made, a big change will be seen. I am a supporter of your campaign but I haven't seen this issue be an important one on any campaign. It is important to know for my future and my children's future that certain things will be safeguarded, and certain other things, such as target related goals, be an important issue on your approach. Thank you.



Live Green and in Peace

Lucas



lucashine1984@mac.com

From http://english.aljazeera.net

US agrees 'compromise' climate deal
The US decision to adopt the road map was a swift reversal from its earlier position [AFP]
The United States has dropped its opposition to a compromise deal with developing nations towards negotiations for a new pact to fight climate change by 2009, at UN talks in Bali.

The US's agreement on the Bali road map on Saturday appeared to clear the way for two years of talks towards a new climate accord to succeed the Kyoto protocol.

Paula Dobriansky, head of the US delegation, said: "The United States is very committed to this effort and just wants to really ensure we all act together. We will go forward and join consensus."

The reversal came minutes after US delegates said Washington was in opposition to a compromise deal.

In depth

Key points of the deal
World reaction to Bali
Delegates from other countries applauded as the US announced its support for the road map.

Step Vaessen, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Bali, reported: "Some delegates had given up on this road map and started to pack up, but an agreement came at the very, very last minute.


"A lot of negotiations are still to be made. There are no emissions targets in this road map, but for developing countries it looks a lot better after this US concession… they want rich nations to take the lead on climate change."



Mandate details



The agreement between the 190 member countries of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) came after an extension to 13 days of talks.



European and US delegates had sparred over the European Union's proposal that the Bali mandate set a 25 to 40 per cent cut in industrial nations' emissions by 2020, compared to 1990.



Ban Ki-moon, centre, appealed to delegates
to reach a consensus [AFP]
Those numbers were omitted from the text of the final agreement, with only an indirect reference present.



The negotiations had also stalled over appeals by developing nations that their need for technological help from developed countries receive more recognition.



A compromise deal had looked increasingly unlikely before the US decision, prompting Ban Ki-moon, UN secretary-general, to call for delegates to work together.



"Your work is not yet over ... everybody should be able to make compromises. You have in your hands the ability to deliver to the peoples of the world a successful outcome," he said.



Amid concerns that no deal would be reached on a road map for negotiations, Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UNFCCCC, broke down in frustration.



Climate talks



The agreement is a step towards talks aimed at slowing climate change, which the UN climate panel says is caused by human activity.



Rising global temperatures could cause a significant rise in sea levels and storms and intensify droughts, prompting mass migration of climate refugees.



After the road map was agreed, talks towards a new treaty to succeed the Kyoto protocol are scheduled to take place in Copenhagen, Denmark, in 2009.



Kyoto binds all industrial countries, except the US which has not signed up to it, to cut emissions of greenhouse gases between 2008 and 2012.



The new negotiations will seek to bind all countries, including developing nations, to limits in emission from 2013.

Bali and other stuff.

From a certain bill not passing in the senate, to the same bill being revamped to make big oil companies happy and then passing, to waiting on the house to resign the bill to make it a law, to the complete bs that is happening at the so-called conference for climate change in Bali, quite a bit has been on my mind. The former subject has to do with a bill that would aim to cut quite a bit of carbon emissions by 2020, detailing many procedures to do so including requiring all auto makers to make most of their vehicles run at a standard 35 miles/gallon. The bill also called for a large increase in the amount of cars able to run on ethanol, to facilitate our move toward energy independence. The house passed the first version of it, but the senate turned it down for reasons news sites are calling 'too ambitious.' So after being revamped it will likely pass. It is a good thing, but probably like many others, not enough.

[Representative Randy Kuhl

If you haven't already, please say yes to the bill that would require most vehicles to standardize a 35 mile/gallon efficiency. I was disappointed that the first version of the bill did not pass, but since the second one made the senate happier, it will have to do. Please say yes to this bill that would assist our country to move further toward energy independence and would also help us combat deadly climate change. Thank you.




Your Constituent

Lucas Hine]





Now on to more bs.

The UN Secretary-General had some pretty bold things to say about the drafts made at the Bali conference. ["Realistically, it may be too ambitious" to set guidelines now, Ban told reporters, when asked about steadfast opposition by the United States, though he urged Washington to be flexible.] -from cnn.com. Evidence is so ridiculously apparent, it baffles so many of us that the people in power (mainly from my own country) continue to "cut" bills down to dry versions that make sense on paper, but hardly do anything at all. Even the goals set out by incredibly ambitious countries (such as ones in the EU) to cut emissions by 40 percent by 2020, goals our country have rejected and have said they are prejudice against goals set by the Kyoto Protocall, which expires in 2012, are not enough. Al Gore said it best. Yeah, the US might not be along for the real ride. We can be as mad as we want at it, but what we do about it will make the real difference. He was taking a real shot at the US leaders, and I believe really speaking to leaders from other countries. However I took his rant rather differently. I took it as speaking to us US citizens. We can only do so much in such a limitless government (vote for politicians that will be in favor of our ideals) as far as what our country will do about climate change. We can, however, affect the demand of certain things that emit immense amount of pollutants. Use less! It's not hard! It really only takes the smallest choices. I found it interesting and almost like he was speaking to me. That is my thing. Make small, individual choices that you know can change things.

On quite an off-topic note, I have unofficially decided I hate tofu. I tried this recipe on goveg.com for lasagne, and, well, I either completely screwed it up or tofu might not be my thing. I say unofficially because Christina claims it is pretty good when done right. I am fairly cynical that even when done right I will like the taste. I will have to stick to eggplant next time.

A paper by Bill McKibben.

This was posted in the City Newspaper, along with several other papers. It's main purpose is to show how little the Kyoto Accord has done for the effort, and how imperative it is that a new protocol be stricter and harder. It is very depressing, but read the whole thing. There is some optimism at the end.

Make the little choices. They make the biggest difference if everyone is influenced. And hope something actually gets accomplished in Bali.




ENVIRONMENT: You're getting warmer
By Bill McKibben on Dec. 5th, 2007
The Kyoto Accord began the race to halt global warming. On its 10th anniversary, why are we barely past the starting gate?

I remember so well the final morning hours of the Kyoto conference. The negotiations had gone on long past their scheduled evening close, and the convention-center management Advertisementwas frantic - a trade show for children's clothing was about to begin, and every corner of the vast hall still was littered with the carcasses of the sleeping diplomats who had gathered in Japan to draw up a first-ever global treaty to curb greenhouse-gas emissions. But when word finally came that an agreement had been reached, people roused themselves with real enthusiasm - lots of backslapping and hugs.

A long decade after the first powerful warnings had sounded, it seemed that humans were finally rising to the greatest challenge we'd ever faced.

The only long face in the hall belonged to William O'Keefe, chairman of the Global Climate Coalition, otherwise known as the American coal, oil, and car lobby. He'd spent the week coordinating the resistance - working with Arab delegates and Russian industrialists to sabotage the emerging plan. And he'd failed. "It's in free fall now," he said, stricken. But then he straightened his shoulders and said, "I can't wait to get back to Washington where we can get things under control."

I thought he was whistling past the graveyard. In fact, he knew far better than the rest of us what the future would hold. He knew it would be at least another decade before anything changed.

Ten years warmer: The important physical-world reality to know about the 10 years after Kyoto is that they included the warmest years on record. All of the warmest years on record.

In that span of time, we've come to understand that not only is the globe warming, but also that we'd dramatically underestimated the speed and the size of that warming. By now, the data from the planet outstrips the scientific prediction on an almost daily basis.

Earlier this fall, for instance, the melt of Arctic sea ice beat the old record. Beat it in mid-August, and then the ice kept melting for six more weeks, losing an area the size of California every week. "Arctic Melt Unnerves the Experts," the headline in the New York Times reported. And they were shaken by rapid changes in tundra-permafrost systems, not to mention rain-forest systems, temperate-soil carbon-sequestration systems, oceanic-acidity systems.

We've gone from a problem for our children to a problem for right about now, as evidenced by, oh, Hurricane Katrina, California wildfires, epic droughts in the Southeast and Southwest. And that's just the continental United States. Go to Australia sometime: It's gotten so dry there that native Aussie Rupert Murdoch recently announced that his News Corp. empire was going carbon neutral.

The important political-world reality to know about the 10 years after Kyoto is that we haven't done anything.

Oh, we've passed all kinds of interesting state and local laws, wonderful experiments that have begun to show just how much progress is possible. But in Washington, DC, nothing. No laws at all. Until last year, when the GOP surrendered control of Congress, even the hearings were a joke, with "witnesses" like novelist Michael Crichton.

And as a result, our emissions have continued to increase. Worse, we've made not the slightest attempt to shift China and India away from using their coal. Instead of an all-out effort to provide the resources so they could go renewable, we've stood quietly by and watched from the sidelines as their energy trajectories shot out of control: The Chinese now are opening a new coal-fired plant every week. History will regard even the horror in Iraq as one more predictable folly next to this novel burst of irresponsibility.

A hint of a movement: If you're looking for good news, there is some.

For one thing, we understand the technologies and the changes in habit that can help. The last 10 years have seen the advent of hybrid cars and the widespread use of compact fluorescent light bulbs. Wind power has been the fastest-growing source of electric generation throughout the period. Japan and then Germany have pioneered with great success the subsidy scheme required to put millions of solar panels up on rooftops.

Even more important, a real movement has begun to emerge in this country. It began with Katrina, which opened eyes. Al Gore gave those eyes something to look at: His movie made millions realize just what a pickle we were in. Many of those, in turn, became political activists.

Earlier this year, six college students and I launched stepitup07.org, which has organized almost 2,000 demonstrations in all 50 states. Last month, the student climate movement drew 7,000 hardworking kids from campuses all over the country for a huge conference. We've launched a new grassroots coalition, 1sky.org, that will push both Congress and the big Washington environmental groups.

All this work has tilted public opinion - new polls actually show energy and climate change showing up high on the list of issues that voters care about, which in turn has made the candidates take notice. All the Democrats are saying more or less the right things, though none of them, save John Edwards, is saying them with much volume.

The race of all time: Now it's a numbers game. Can we turn that political energy into change fast enough to matter?

On the domestic front, the numbers look like this: We've got to commit to reductions in carbon emissions of 80 percent by 2050, and we've got to get those cuts underway fast - 10 percent in just the next few years. Markets will help - if we send them the information that carbon carries a cost. Only government can do that.

Two more numbers we're pushing for: zero, which is how many new coal-fired power plants we can afford to open in America, and 5 million, which is how many green jobs Congress needs to provide for the country's low-skilled workers. All that insulation isn't going to stuff itself inside our walls, and those solar panels won't crawl up on the roofs by themselves. You can't send the work to China, and you can't do it with a mouse: This is the last big chance to build an economy that works for most of us.

Internationally, the task is even steeper. The Kyoto Accord, which we ignored, expires in a couple of years. Negotiations begin this month in Bali to strike a new deal, and it's likely to be the last bite at the apple we'll get - miss this chance and the climate likely spirals out of control.

We have a number here, too: 450, as in parts-per-million carbon dioxide. It's the absolute upper limit on what we can pour into the atmosphere, and it will take a heroic effort to keep from exceeding it.

This is a big change: even 10 years ago, we thought the safe level might be 550. But the data is so clear: The Earth is far more finely balanced than we thought, and our peril much greater. Our foremost climate scientist, NASA's James Hansen, testified under oath in a courtroom last year that if we didn't stop short of that 450 red line, we could see the sea level rise 20 feet before the century was out. That's civilization-challenging. That's a carbon summer to match any nuclear winter that anyone ever dreamed about.

It's a test, a kind of final exam for our political, economic, and spiritual systems. And it's a fair test, nothing vague or fuzzy about it. Chemistry and physics don't bargain. They don't compromise. They don't meet us halfway. We'll do it or we won't. And 10 years from now, we'll know which path we chose.

Bill McKibben, a scholar in residence at Middlebury College, is an author and environmentalist who frequently writes about global warming. McKibben's essay was commissioned by the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. Approximately 30 AAN member papers will be publishing the essay this week.

States are going it alone

There's been a frustrating lack of action at the federal level when it comes to greenhouse gas regulations. There is no national cap on carbon emissions and lawmakers have taken only baby steps to wean the country off heavily polluting fossil fuels.

So what's a state to do? New York, California, and a host of others are unwilling to ignore the void created by this federal paralysis. Instead, they've pushed ahead with their own environmental agendas, with New York and California leading major greenhouse-gas reduction initiatives.

In the 1990's, California enacted strict vehicle-emissions standards and other states soon followed. New York is spearheading the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a coalition of northeastern states from Maine to Maryland to impose limits on power-plant emissions through a cap-and-trade system.

There's a lot New York can do on its own, too. There are simple actions individual residents can take, such as replacing standard light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs, better insulating their homes, or limiting trips in cars. (Over the weekend, Congress did come to an agreement on stricter fuel mileage standards for autos, though critics will inevitably argue that standards need to be higher still.)

Immediate conservation measures will result in the quickest payoff, says Hugh Mitchell, who co-chairs the state Sierra Club's Global Warming Committee. "It's not going to solve the whole problem, but at least it's going to start us on the right direction," he says.

More substantial actions could come from New York State and RGGI is a good example. From the plan's implementation in 2009, the focus will be on stabilizing the amount of power-plant emissions. Beginning in 2015, there will be a 2.5 percent yearly cut in the cap, continuing through 2019.

"Getting the program up and running in New York is a key piece of a greenhouse- gas reduction strategy," says David Gahl, air and energy program director for Environmental Advocates of New York."We've got to get this done and we've got to get it done quickly."

New York generates less greenhouse gas than Texas or California, but it's still one of the highest-producing states. It contributes 4 percent of the nation's carbon dioxide, based on U.S. Energy Department data. In 2003, the last year for which data is available, New York generated 214 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. That's a 13-year increase of six metric tons.

It's critical for New York to cut back on greenhouse-gas emissions. And there has been some movement in the public and private sectors to do that. The state has adopted policies that emphasize renewable energy. By 2015, 15 percent of New York's electricity must be produced by renewable means - solar, wind, biomass, or hydroelectric generation, for example. The Sierra Club, however, calls for 20 percent of the state's electricity to come from renewable resources by 2020, Mitchell says.

The state has adopted California's new vehicle-emissions standards which require automakers to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. They have until 2009 to begin making reductions.

California has special legal standing that allows it to set stricter air standards, provided the EPA issues a waiver. Other states can then choose to adopt those standards. California passed its regulations last year, but the EPA has stalled on the waiver decision. Earlier this month, California, backed by a New York-led coalition of 14 states, sued the agency in an attempt to compel a decision.

There are conservation efforts at all levels of government. Many of the traffic signals in Monroe County use L.E.D. lights, which help reduce consumption of electricity. In New York City, Mayor Michael Bloomberg backs plans for a 30-percent reduction in the city's emissions by 2030. Moves to cut down on downtown traffic, incorporate hybrid vehicles into the taxi fleet, and planting green roofs on buildings should be commended, Mitchell says.

Landfills, including Mill Seat and High Acres in Monroe County and Seneca Meadows in Waterloo, have started capturing gas generated by decomposing waste to power electric generators. That, says Mitchell, keeps the landfill gas from escaping into the atmosphere. Landfill gas has a high content of methane and other greenhouse gases.

Those initiatives are just a start, say environmental activists. More needs to be done.

New York needs to make RGGI a top priority, Gahl says. Right now, the state Department of Environmental Conservation is holding public hearings on the plan. (A hearing is scheduled for 1 p.m. December 13 at the DEC Region 8 office in Avon.)

Part of the state's efforts to cut power plant-generated greenhouse gases should involve a moratorium on dirty coal power plants, Mitchell says. The coal industry says plants could capture carbon dioxide and bury it, but environmentalists and experts worry the technology may not be sound and carbon dioxide could still seep into the atmosphere.

Pressure from politicians and the public is building against coal plants. In September, Senator Charles Schumer urged RG&E to rebuild its coal-fired Russell Station plant as a natural gas-powered facility. The company agreed.

The state should set targets for reducing all its greenhouse gas production and then develop a comprehensive plan to accomplish that, Gahl says. The state should also, he says, revamp laws that prohibit businesses with renewable power sources - solar cells or wind generators, for example - from selling excess power. There are matching bills in the Senate and Assembly that, if passed, would allow businesses with solar panels to sell unused electricity. Already, homes and some farms are allowed to sell unused electricity generated through renewable means.

Updated building codes and green building standards could help promote widespread energy conservation, Gahl says. Even new lighting standards would help. An Assembly bill would require bulbs sold in New York to be at least as efficient as compact fluorescent bulbs, Gahl says. The bill has no Senate counterpart.

One state isn't going to stop global warming. But New York can at least take action so it doesn't make the problem worse. If all states come to that realization, then there will be changes for the better.

"The crisis is really here now," Mitchell says.

Day at Papa's

Small world after all? It turns out my good friends Nik and Anya know and have known my grandfather for years. Yesterday we all spent the day at his farm. I actually hadn't been there in years, so it was nice not only seeing him outside of the holidays but also being is such a beautiful and remote place. We all had lunch at the local diner, hung out outside, played with the dogs, and had some great conversation. Here are some pics of the day (taken from Nik's iphone.) Peace.

Current Thoughts

I hate the mass opinion on politics. Why is it that if people do not think one politician might even have a chance at winning they won't support him. It is that attitude alone that gives power to the popularity contest that is the presidential election process. Support someone if you believe in that person's beliefs, not because you think he can win.