http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/20/opinion/to-save-the-planet-dont-plant-trees.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0

This article in The New York Times is talking about the UN meeting this Tuesday.  The UN is meeting to talk about the climate crisis and measures that can be taken to reduce carbon emissions.  One measure they will talk about is stoping deforestation and planting trees, but researchers have found this might not be the best route to take.  Climate scientists have found that planting trees in the tropical areas would lead to cooling, but in colder areas it would cause warming. The article goes into more detail about their findings, but overall the measure to plant trees is probably not the best route to take for reducing climate change.  President Reagan quote that, “Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do,” might be less wrong than many assumed.  This is indeed a sad conclusion because it is one of the easier measures to accomplish but the end results are proven to be unhelpful.  Hopefully the UN will come up with better action plays, which are scientifically proven to help reduce climate change.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/dialing-911-climate-change

This article was actually written by the Keynote speaker, Sandra Steingraber that was hosted yesterday at Lafayette College. Steingraber talks about fracking in her home state of New York. She offers a parallel of the New York her daughter sees and the world she once lived in. Steingraber offers many of the same points in this article as she did in her keynote speech. If anyone missed her keynote speech last night, I would highly suggest reading this article.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/09/18/349562067/sweet-dunkin-donuts-and-krispy-kreme-pump-up-pledge-on-palm-oil

On a lighter note as the People’s Climate March is about to stream through New York, it looks like marchers might be able to reward themselves with donuts and no longer feel guilty. This NPR post states how Krispy Kreme and Dunkin Donuts have pledged to use palm oil from sources that don’t clear cut rain forests.

The campaign director of Forest Heroes called it a rapid shift in the fast-food industry, indicating that consumers have an impact on companies’ practices after all.  Environmental groups have used direct action approaches to get the attention of company leaders and speed up environmental action within the companies. For example, one advocate found his way into an earnings conference call last year and asked Kellogg about the company’s palm oil policy.

Although we have talked about direct action approaches like marches, I wonder if consumer practices like boycotts had anything to do with these companies’ changes in palm oil sourcing?

Does this signal a larger shift in environmentally safer mainstream foods?

Germane to our discussion in class today: From the NYT today, “With Eye on 2016, Christie Resists Climate-Change Plan for New Jersey”

Also, here is the Marco Rubio climate change denial comment: From the LA Times, “Marco Rubio Says Human Activity Isn’t Causing Climate Change”  and a video of him saying just this.

Check out these reports from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication for stats and info on partisan affiliation and perceptions of climate change:

http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/republican-views-on-climate-change/

http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/climate-stability-as-understood-by-global-warmings-six-americas/

http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/public-understanding-v-scientific-consensus/

And this article, “Many Republicans Privately Support Action on Climate Change”

Poor water quality, coastal development, and climate change have been significant factors in killing off half of the coral in the Great Barrier Reef… in only 27 years. This article discusses the interplay by governments, international groups, and conservation movements in creating environmental policy.

Firstly, it took action from the UN for Australia to be woken up about what they needed to be doing to save the reef. When the UN hinted that the Reef would be reclassified as a “World Heritage in Danger in 2015″, Australia issued a 35 year plan to manage risks.

Secondly, the Australian government relied on contributions from conservation groups like WWF-Australia to even come up with policy. Then of course, they didn’t take the recommendations as far as they should have. The plan will manage sea-life, improve water quality, and wants to limit runoff from farms getting into the water. As great as this sounds, WWF-Australia stated that billions of dollars was needed to fix these problems… and Australia doesn’t seem to want to budge. For example, the area is coal-rich and 30,000 jobs are estimated to be created if mining becomes operational.

Why don’t the UN and environmental groups have greater power over policy than big business does? Is it a problem stemming off of corporate personhood and conglomerate international business?

So a while ago I subscribed to this emailing list through facebook that keeps me up to date with stemming issues currently going on in the environmental community. It turns out that in fact the mailing list is linked to an environmental organization called Sum of Us. Relating this too our most recent Bosso chapter, Sum of Us occupies a very unique advocacy niche that is the product of technological innovation. Furthermore, it’s mission is to share global awareness on current environmental issues and promote a sustainable path for the future through mass social media. I found this very unique because the organization occupies a niche that could be very popular in terms of membership in years down the road as the younger generations of society get older and take leadership roles in their respective communities. They also make it very easy for people to donate money, or sign an electronic petition. This ease of participation from a microeconomics perspective could very well grow the organization exponentially because more times than not the average person will act morally if the moral option is available and manageable.

Nevertheless, I only bring up this because I would not know about a growing fight with new pesticide regulations that could have adverse effects on pollinators in the mid-west without being on Sum of Us’s social media list. To give a short background to the article, pollinators, most notably honey bees and monarch butterflies, have experienced large declines in their respective populations over the past few decades; this is incredibly bad because without pollinators our ecosystems do not work. A new petition put together by Syngenta aims  to increase the tolerable neonicotinoid pesticide level by 400 times! This to me is messed up. The pesticide is scientifically proven to destroy the immune systems of honeybees, our most prominent pollinator in the midwest where this pesticide would be mostly used. The even more frightening detail is that the EPA is considering Syngenta’s proposal. As educated individuals we cannot have another bald eagle incident. To get involved go on sumofus.com. And if you don’t believe me read the article http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060005321

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/09/140916-climate-economy-report-sustainability/

A report title “Better Growth, Better Climate: The New Climate Economy Report” recently came out on behalf of the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate. It calls for an adjustment of policies so that the trillions of dollars that is to be spent on infrastructure in the coming years will be shifted from high-carbon systems to low-carbon systems. The report came out a week before world leaders will meet in New York to discuss global warming issues at the United Nations Climate Summit. It calls for a carbon tax on emissions and a phaseout of subsidies on fossil fuels. The report claims that #3 trillion dollars could be saved in capital infrastructure expenses. While many people applauded the report, some skeptics think that the goals laid out are unfeasible.

There have been may attempts to regulate global warming, and mitigate climate change- most of which have not been successful. What is different about this report that will change people’s opinions? I will be interested to see how the UN Climate Summit reacts and what conclusions they draw.

The group Friends of the Earth has seemingly altered their outlook on Nuclear Power recently. In a radio interview, their campaigns director, Craig Bennett, stated that they had previously opposed nuclear due to ideological differences, but now, they oppose nuclear because of its costliness in time and money. Even so, they are still divided within their organization, “some members want it to accept nuclear’s role in the UK’s low-carbon energy mix, whilst others are as passionately anti-nuclear as in the old days of the cold war and nuclear armageddon.” The author of this article believes this is a good sign and that soon, they could warm up to nuclear power. Even so, they released this statement, “Friends of the Earth is certainly not now pro-nuclear, we have not changed our position.” The author sees the subtle shift as a “maturing” of the green movement, which is interesting.
This shows just how divided even microcosms within the green movement can be. With such controversial issues, I can see why it is so difficult to gain widespread support for these organizations.
How do you think the environmental movement can be effective while its so divided?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/sep/12/friends-of-the-earths-shift-on-nuclear-should-be-celebrated-not-denied

http://watchdisruption.com

This is a 50 minute video about climate change and about the People’s Climate March next Sunday.  It talks about the history of climate change and how it is not a new idea.  There are a lot of prominent scholars who talk in this video.  Denis Hayes, the organizer of Earth Day, is in this video!  There is a lot of video and discussion about the changes in weather as a result to climate change and the impact of devastating storms like Katrina, Sandy and Typhoon Haiyan.  The main message in this video is that we need to stop using fossil fuels.  There needs to be public support and people need to be in the streets to make a change for the future.  The UN is meeting in NY on September 23rd.  This is why there is a mobilization of people and organizations to have the largest climate march in history on September 21st.

It has been rumored that the agency appears to be laying the groundwork for new measures to curb Methane. Questions have been raised as to whether or not Methane is the answer to the climate change issue. Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy has said that the EPA is “looking at what are the most cost-effective targeted regulatory and/or voluntary initiatives that we may be able to put on the table that significantly takes a chunk out of the emissions from the oil and gas sector.” I personally cannot wait to see what doors the use of methane could open for the preservation of our fossil fuels for future generations.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/09/04/environmental-protection-agency-setting-its-sights-on-methane