Shop Locally
December 12, 2011
Last Wednesday a group of Louisville citizens spoke at an event called PechaKucha, Japanese for “chat,” which is sponsored & organized by Urban Design Studio, Bernheim Arboretum and Research Forest, 21c Museum Hotel and the Central Kentucky Chapter of the AIA. Fourteen community members were asked to produce 20 slides and talk for 400 seconds each about something that was of interest to them, which educates and often entertains the audience. One of the featured guests on Wednesday evening was Summer Auerbach of Rainbow Blossom Natural Food Markets and Louisville Independent Business Alliance. Her presentation inspired me to include much of her message in this week’s newsletter, which is all about the benefits of shopping locally.
We start with Louisville. “Keep Louisville Weird” is a slogan borrowed from Austin, TX and part of a public awareness campaign created by the Louisville Independent Business Alliance (LIBA). The objective of LIBA is “to preserve the unique community character of [Louisville] by promoting locally owned businesses and educating citizens on the value of shopping locally.” The move to shop locally is not a gimmick, it is something to invest in, literally.
“In August of 2003 Louisville’s largest independent bookstore announced it would be bought by the Borders chain. Hawley Cooke had just celebrated 25 years of being in business in Louisville and by all accounts her store was a local institution and by all appearances “everyone’s favorite bookstore.” But appearances can be deceiving – two chain bookstores – Barnes & Noble and Books a Million had opened stores in Louisville and were cutting into Hawley Cooke’s market share in what proved to be a slow and quite painful death. The purchase of Hawley Cooke by Borders sent a shiver through the independent retailer community here and through consumers – it was kind of a wake-up call indicating that perhaps the local landscape was changing and local businesses were concerned.”
In 2002 Austin, TX experienced a similar situation and launched a campaign against Borders Books & Music, which “had been granted 2.1 million dollars in incentives by the city and was slated to open across the street” from a local book as well as music store. The two local stores “hired a group to conduct an economic analysis of how locally owned businesses and chain stores impact the economy and this is what they found: They discovered that some developments actually hurt the local economy rather than helped it. In this particular case, it found that although the opening of a new Borders store would increase sales of both books and music, it would actually result in a decrease in economic activity in Austin. The study also found that THREE times more money remains in the local economy for every dollar that is spent at a locally owned business rather than a chain store. For every dollar spent at a locally owned business, .45 cents remains in the community, but for every dollar spent at a chain store, only .15 cents stays locally.
In 2004, Ear X-tacy owner John Timmons went to Austin and was captivated by the Keep Austin Weird Campaign. After meeting with the founders, he returned to Louisville with a blessing to bring the same message to Louisville. Without any fanfare, he put up several billboards that said “Keep Louisville Weird.” Bumper stickers and t-shirts soon followed.” This November Louisville mourned the final closing of Ear X-tacy after 26 years of wonderful musical service to the community, which shows that local stores are still under threat from closing their doors for good.
Keeping money within your community may not be your first thought when you are out shopping, but it is something to think about if you can afford to. That difference in cents can determine whether or not a new road or school is built. Whether or not a local charity gets a gift donation for their annual fundraiser and it can determine whether or not your neighbor can make his rent. “Most importantly, independent businesses create a sense of place and identity. Think about what you want to show your out of town guests.” What makes your community truly unique? It’s not the Starbucks or the Wal-Marts, but the locally owned Heine Brothers, Sunrise Bakeries and Greener Groundz. Convenience will always be around, but neighborhoods, charm and community may not.
To watch Summer’s FULL presentation at PechaKucha Louisville “>CLICK HERE.
___
The Future of Small Farmers
December 5, 2011
The idea of starting a farm is romantic. Waking up to the sun, the sound of birds chirping at your window, the smell of fresh, cool air and the feel of dirt at your finger tips. While that romance can be captured brilliantly by a visit or a poem, starting a farm today is harder than one thinks. An article in the New York Times published back in November stated that young farmers were finding it difficult to get bank loans because it is just so hard to turn a profit, thus it is seen as a bad investment.
One way to alleviate the financial woes of starting your own farm is through grants and possibly the 2012 Farm Bill. The The National Young Farmers’ Coalition believes that the 40-year-old Rural Youth Loan program may be a new farmer’s saving grace. This loan was given out to people of all ages in the past, even the very young, but the coalition believes that ” a new category of youth loans could be created for young people ages 21-35″ in the coming year.
Those 21 – 35 are the fastest growing group interested in leaving city life behind in order to get back to the land, raise families and teach others about locally grown food. In 2008 I traveled to Argentina to try out organic farming through a program called World Wide Organization of Organic Farmers. From this website you can travel and work all around the world, even here in the United States and usually stay as long as you please. The experience is intense and after three months I realized that I was probably better off gardening considering my hands were numb from shoveling, but is was a great way to learn the language and a cheap and easy way to see the world. Volunteering and apprenticeships are even available here in Kentucky. The best way to discover one is through your local farmers’ market or University. The Ag Department has a whole list of farmers’ markets from around the state and they also have access to GRANTS, which could help you get started or stay in business.
There is a future in small scale agriculture and the promotion of sustainable food systems. Just look at the Slow Foods Movement and the Know Your Food, Know Your Farmer campaign from the USDA. Drive around some of the neighborhoods in your area and see a growth in community gardens. People are passionate about locally grown food and trusting the hands that cultivated their dinner. Tom Vilsack, USDA Secretary, recently called for 100,000 new farmers due to an aging farming population. While farming is a 24/7 job, rain or shine, sleet or snow it is highly rewarding, creates jobs and adds to the local economy. And while the NYT’s article at first gave a grim outlook at getting started, it did provide some success stories. This shows that if you can find the right land, community and the right soil you might be able to make it work.
You can show your support for local farmers TONIGHT at the Community Farm Alliance’s fundraiser in Louisville. Harvest Restaurant on E. Market is hosting and they have a wonderful meal planned featuring the delights of multiple farmers. Come and enjoy an evening with friends and learn about Louisville’s ever growing local food economy and how you can promote local food growth in your community.
____
Fact or Fiction
November 28, 2011
Jobs. They are needed, wanted and in high demand. The 2010 elections were all about jobs and growing jobs. Next year I’m sure there will be much of the same rhetoric, but who can really create a job? Here in Kentucky our unemployment rate is currently at 9.7 per cent. That is down from 11.1 per cent in July 2009. Many industries contributed to a growth in jobs. To see those sectors click HERE, but our interest and what seems to draw the most attention is the industry of coal. It keeps the lights on, sure, but there is a lot more to it. Whatever your feeling about coal, the practice of Mountain Top Removal is highly controversial and destructive, no doubt. People and communities have been fighting this practice most fervently in Appalachia, but politics has lumped Mountain Top Removal and coal together, thus leaving little room for accurate discussion. Information complied over the last several months show that contrary to what television and politicians may be telling us, with regulation more jobs can be created in the coal industry…this might even trickle down to other industries as well. Regulation is sometimes restrictive, but a lack there of is bad for the economy, people and the environment, after all, we are human. A report provided by KY state government back in May shows an increase of jobs in the mining and logging sectors in April 2011 and overall the “sector has gained 1,400 jobs since April 2010.” Recent campaign ads and advertisements again contradict this evidence, but according to an article from LEO Weekly regulation has in fact caused job growth in the mining industry. It states that due to tighter regulations on Mountain Top Removal employers have been forced to hire people to go back underground instead of buying equipment to replace them. The first quote of the article is as follows: “CHARLESTON, W.Va. — Despite complaints about the Obama administration’s “war on coal,” employment in the Appalachian mining industry is at a 14-year high, according to new government data and congressional testimony.” This is good food for thought as another round of elections spurs on for 2012. It is up to you to decide what is fact and what is fiction.
___
Humans Can Make or Break This Planet
July 2011
Humans are interconnected to the earth. Everything we do impacts the planet from what we choose to buy, how long we shower, what kind of car we drive, to what we eat. Piecemeal actions by humans can definitely add up to planetary change, but it will cost some money and take some time.
We are currently in the age of Anthropocene – that means the age of the humans. With SEVEN billion inhabitants, and quickly on our way to 10 billion, we take up a lot of space and use a lot of resources. Humans have reshaped the carbon and nitrogen cycle on a grand geological scale, creating much of the planet’s current problems.
Although much of the destruction cannot be reversed, technology and common sense can limit the impact we make on the future. Below are some examples:
An example given by a recent article in the Economist discusses the lack of natural sediment flow due to dams. By cutting a river’s natural ability to disperse sediment, the Earth’s deltas, where many people live and have their homes, are diminishing at an alarming rate. Bring down a dam and the ecology of a river is somewhat restored. Not only that, but the release of methane gas, which occurs when water is stored behind a dam, will be diminished. Methane gas is hotter than carbon, but can be reduced at a faster rate than carbon. In some cases, tearing down a dam is impractical, but the US has done it and small scale hydro plants, which do not block the entire flow of water, are becoming a more popular option and more efficient than the large scale dams of the past. Yeah technology!
Agriculture has a huge impact on the environment. We depend on it here in Kentucky as a part of our economy. But because a big part of the agribusiness is to use far more nitrogen than the planet knows what to do with we have dead zones in our ocean. A thousand miles away, we impact the waters of the Gulf. Dead zones are where no oxygen exists for any other plant and animal to survive other than the oxygen sucking algae this access nitrogen is helping to create. imagine is this stuff covered our entire ocean. Smarter farming and better sewage systems can decrease the impact nitrogen is having on our oceans. Organizations are in play to help farmers understand the impact their methods are having on not just their immediate environment, but the entire global environment as well. More efficient practices also lead to dollars saved. Yeah common sense!
Some people cast away these warnings, even within our own state, but the science shows truth behind these statistics and realistically we can all see, smell and taste a difference through health problems, food problems, water and air problems. Instead of wasting time we could at least try to work together. There is no one quick fix, but these issues are bigger than a single person and without solutions there might just be another big flood and a second end to the era of Anthropocene.
___
What My Mother Should Have Told Me
June 2011
It wasn’t until I was well in my 20s that I started to realize that I should have been wearing sunscreen all along. The lines around my eyes were no longer fading and instead of freckles I began seeing brown blotches across my face that were the results of years of letting my skin burn without protection.
What parents should be doing instead of frightening kids with skin cancer is to frighten them with premature aging. After all, at 17 you think your invincible, but the thought of losing your looks before your time is devastating. I remember going to the beach and burning to the point of being bed ridden and yet my girl friends’ and I would do the same thing again the next year. If I had been shown photo of a poor 30 year old who looked 50, perhaps I would have thought twice.
As the earth warms, the ozone enlarges and UV become more intense, wearing sunscreen every day from the time you are born is a must, not just because of wrinkles but yes, because of the risks of skin cancer and different skin diseases. Today there are a number of products that don’t leave you feel greasy or run into your eyes when you sweat, so there really is no excuse.
Now ladies, this may be up to you to enforce. I am not yet a parent, but even getting my husband to wear the stuff is a challenge. Needless to say, start them young. Men tend to age a little better than women, but with sunscreen that fact could be reversed; tell that to your daughter and I bet sunscreen becomes her everyday new accessory.
It’s hot out there!
___
Food Stamps and Fast Food – I’d Like To See My Tax Dollars Spent Elsewhere
May 2011
Listening to the Diane Rehm show on NRP a few weeks ago and seeing an article in the Courier Journal in April about Yum! Brands wanting food stamps accepted at their fast food chains made me ask the questions, why is healthy food still a luxury and as a taxpayer, do I have any say in where my money goes? Subsidies have long been unregulated and abused. Many social programs are mismanaged and in an attempt to take advantage of the millions who are on food assistance Yum!, which owns the Pizza Hut, KFC and Taco Bell chains, registered to lobby Kentucky’s executive branch of government in March because they want the business of the elderly, disabled and homeless who use food stamps.
On principal, wanting everyone in America to have a hot meal is legitimate, but we have an obesity and diabetes epidemic in this country and it greatly affects our state. These problems are largely created by the kinds of foods we eat, mainly fast, cheap food filled with salt and fat. So the first question of healthy food still being a luxury was answered by one of the experts on Diane Rehm. He made a comment about the US and its current financial situation. He told audiences that the US will fare better with the rising costs of food due to their dependence on processed food. This should not be considered good because that counters our rising health care costs, which are far worse. But why is one apple the same price as a large fry, chicken sandwich, wrap or taco? On the surface the latter may look more appealing but begs the questions which one is real food?
Our addiction to salt and fat has made us unhealthy and access to healthy food is difficult for many in areas across the US and within Kentucky. But since the early 2000s food stamps have been accepted by farmers markets across the country and continues to rise. At the end of the 2008 fiscal year, a little more than 750 farmers’ markets accepted food stamp benefits nationwide. The nonprofit advocacy group, The Community Farm Alliance, pioneered the use of food stamps at farmers markets in Kentucky and is fighting the idea that the stamps be accepted at Yum! Brands locations. Jere Downs of the Courier Journal sums up the fight best “While Yum! seeks government subsidies to raise mostly flat revenue at outlets like KFC, local government is using taxpayer funds to combat obesity and persuade residents to make healthier food choices.” If the Yum! proposal is accepted by Kentucky state government this situation seems a bit counterproductive and hypocritical don’t you think? Thus, my second question: do I get a say in where my taxes go?
I personally do not want to see my tax dollars going to increase obesity and other fast food related illnesses in Kentucky. Just because it’s easy does not make it right. Those same people may then need medical assistance as their arteries clog, their weight increases and cholesterol rises and who is going to have to then pay for those medical bills then, you and me!
The answer is simple. Organizations already exists that desperately need funding in order to feed the elderly, homeless and disabled. Help them continue their good work. Continue to increase the use of food stamps at farmers’ markets and keep the tax payer money in the state. In 2004 the federal government replaced the traditional paper food stamp coupons with debit cards, which have to be processed by electronic terminals. The terminals are expensive especially for a local farmer, but non profit groups are helping to obtain the terminals. Help them as well. It would be unfair for farmers’ markets to be pushed out of the “market” because they cannot afford the $1100 dollar machine while for fast corporations $1100 is just a drop in the bucket.
Fast food is a luxury. If eaten every once in awhile people will fare fine, but eaten every other day or every week is not a healthy option and we should not want to support that. There seems to be a lot of mixed messages coming out of Frankfort. Let’s hope that they stick to the First Lady’s campaign to encourage healthy eating and community gardens and Governor Beshear’s announcement that his government is working to combat the state’s enormous obesity problem. Looking at it pragmatically, those are two efforts I’ll put my taxes into, since hopefully it will save in costs on Medicaid and Medicare down the line, which are substantial in Kentucky. Here’s looking to Kentucky’s priorities, let’s hope they keep them in check. Yum! is doing just fine without taxpayer help.
___
The Case For Clean, SAFE Energy
March 2011
Tokyo – We have all been exposed to the horrifying pictures and news reports on the recent destruction of the Tsunami that hit Japan on Friday March 11, 2011. The aftermath has left thousands dead, communities and livelihoods underwater and a potential threat of nuclear meltdown and radioactive contamination of not just those who live nearby the nuclear power plant in Okumamachi, but possibly of those half way around the globe.
The poisoning of land and water is nothing new when it comes to large tidal waves of water brought inland by natural disaster – take the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina on the Gulf Coast. Louisiana is home to a record number of chemical plants, petroleum refineries and other contaminated sites. All of these areas were covered and their pollutants sloshed inland by the floodwaters of Katrina; the contamination was barely reported on in the depth needed to inform US citizens and residents of the areas affected. In September of 2005 the Society of Environmental Journalists (SEJ) “criticized the government’s “tight-lipped approach” in responding to requests for information about the toxic gumbo left by Hurricane Katrina” (Source Watch), but like many things, such as the New Horizon oil rig explosion in 2010, disasters are soon forgotten and the media is onto something new.
The Tsunami that hit Japan is very fresh in everyone’s mind. Perhaps it is the possibility of nuclear meltdown, which will hopefully make nations rethink their nuclear investments. In President Obama’s 2010 State of the Union Address he called for “a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants.” But how can something be safe when natural disasters as well as human disasters happen all around us? Whether it be a Tsunami, earthquake or tornado or human error, like fire or a terrorist attack, these are all foreseen possibilities when thinking of nuclear power. In addition, although it may burn clean, scientists have yet to figure out what to do with the toxic waste that can only be stored and will not disappear for about 100 million years. That’s like leaving my excrement to stew for my grandchildren to clean it up; not pretty.
There are examples of the harmful affects nuclear proliferation can have on communities all over America, left behind by the Cold War. Superfund sites dot our landscapes with fences and “DANGER” signs tacked to their metal fronts. Yucca mountain is another example. Yucca Mountain is a nuclear waste repository in the middle of Nevada. If anything were to happen, say, someone were to blow up this mountain, imagine the devastation to the nearby farmers and the entire Las Vegas community that is just 100 miles away. Needless to say, Nevadans don’t want nuclear waste in their backyard and neither does any other state and no one especially wants to be faced with a toxic disaster.
Japan is facing something that the rest of the world should take into consideration when talking nuclear. Two reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station in Japan have exploded, the cooling system is down, which has exposed the fuel rods and the jet stream could carry the radioactive materials as far as the Pacific Northwest. Although on the other side of the country Kentucky faces its own debate. Just a day before the Tsunami hit Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, the Kentucky Senate approved a bill to end a moratorium on building nuclear power plants within the state unless a permanent storage facility has been created to store the spent nuclear fuel.
In an attempt to cut carbon emissions and reduce foreign dependence on oil; all good thoughts, nuclear seems to be worse than carbon emissions. Would it not make more sense now, more than ever, to really look at wind, solar and geothermal? What is Kentucky’s hesitation? Sure one can find negative impacts from each alternative, but they are minute compared to their cousins. Can solar, wind or geothermal poison an entire community if hit by a natural or human disaster? Do any of these have a bi-products that will last for hundreds of millions of years, poison ground water, the land as well as the air? Sure the parts or solar panels and wind turbines may contain some materials and chemicals that are hazardous, but technology can help recycle and look for alternatives down the line.
It is time to use the other natural resources we have been provided. Creating something out of compounds that is dangerous if something goes wrong as well as if it falls into the wrong hands, should be a grave concern. This is about national security as much as it is about job, community and environmental security. Seriously, what is the hold up on investments and support? Clean, safe energy, today.
___
Carpooling Is Not Just for the Kids! February 2011
Kelsey Forren, kyGREEN.tv
It seems that in today’s world most people rely on their car to get them through their daily routines. Yet, most people probably don’t realize the affect each individual car on the road has on our environment because their first concern usually goes toward their wallet. They don’t even consider that by simply driving a car, they are deliberately polluting the air around them. But what if we could utilize a system that saves not only money, but our environment as well?
The easiest solution is to carpool! Everyone can find at least one situation in which they can apply this practice, whether you’re going to work, a social outing, or even running errands. Every trip counts.
Even carpooling with one other person, one time, automatically reduces greenhouse emissions by half for the distance of that single trip. According to the American Automotive Association (AAA), by cutting back your driving by 10 percent a year, an individual can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 0.2 – 0.8 tons. That means that if a city, similar to the size of Louisville, with a population of one million people, were to reduce their usage by only 10%, that’s 200,000 – 800,000 tons saved a year. There are over 19,000 cities the size of Louisville in the US, can you imagine the amount of emissions we could significantly reduce if each of those cities were to cut back a mere 10%, not to mention the amount of noise pollution and traffic congestion that would be reduced?
Think about the larger cities in the US, like Los Angeles, and how poor their air quality is. I can’t speak for everyone, but I don’t exactly highlight the smog cloud as one of the appealing factors of LA’s skyline. Although in 2010, LA ranked number one as the city with the poorest quality of air, Louisville ranked in the top 20, as reported by the American Lung Association, as one of the worst polluted cities for particle pollution year-round.
Saving money is probably the most important issue today. Gasoline prices are continually on the rise. If every car that commutes in the US were to carry one more person instead of them driving their own car, it would reduce the gas consumed by 8 billion gallons a year.2 It will also prolong the time between routine maintenance, such as oil and tire changes and save you money. Also, parking is increasingly scarce and expensive, especially if you live in a city. It would be much easier to split that charge between a few people than to take it all on yourself. There are even insurance companies who now offer a discounted rate for reduced driving!
Although this sounds appealing, carpooling just may not be convenient for everyone. Controlling your own schedule and the flexibility to change it is a luxury that most people are not willing to sacrifice for the sake of others. So how can we still do their part to better our air quality?
If you are not in any particular hurry, utilizing other means of transportation can still prove beneficial. Bike riding is a popular alternative if you are staying relatively close to your home and the weather permits. More and more streets in Lexington are implementing bike lanes for increased volumes of bikers during their daily commute. Certain neighborhoods in Louisville, such as the Highlands, have frequent bike traffic by locals who are going to work, making a small grocery run, or meeting friends at the local coffee house. The city bus, most commonly known as the TARC in Louisville, is another known alternative that has frequently scheduled stops and can provide an efficient means of transportation citywide. TARC now has 21 environmentally friendly hybrid buses that not only reduce emissions and thus pollution, they cost less to maintain, use less gas, and even ride smoother and quieter than before.
If you do happen to be in a hurry or you are not willing to sacrifice using your car, then just know there are ways to use your car more efficiently. According to the government’s fuel economy website (www.fueleconomy.gov), driving 55 mph is the ideal high speed for efficient gas usage, and every 5 miles you drive over, is equivalent to paying $0.24 more per gallon. One thing that most people probably don’t know, is that if you use your overdrive gears on the interstate, then it will decrease your car’s engine speed which will use less gas, as well as reduce the amount of wear on your engine. Also, some people tend to use their car as a mobile storage device; however, if you reduce the amount of weight in your car by removing any unnecessary items, you can also reduce the amount of gas you use and have to buy.
We must be individually committed to solving our universal problems. It may not be common knowledge, but that does not change the severity of the issue that cars pollute our environment and are a huge expense to maintain and control especially as gas prices continue to rise. There are so many easy steps we can take to start bettering our habits when it comes to transportation, and the first one is awareness and education.
Start talking to coworkers and friends to see if you can coordinate rides when going somewhere, it’s a great way to add to your social network, especially if you live in smaller cities. Remember, every trip counts.
1 30 Simple Energy Things You Can Do to Save the Earth. Los Angeles: South California.Edison. 1990. P 11.
2 “TARC Adds More Air-Friendly Hybrid Buses” Metro Newsroom 9 July 2010.
___
Kentucky in 2011 January 2011
With the new year upon us, Kentucky will definitely not be out of the headlines. In fact, with 2012 so close behind and very few other gubernatorial races taking place, Kentucky with be the state to watch. But enough about what’s happening in two years, we are a state to watch this year!
Our two largest cities, Lexington and Louisville, have just seated new mayors who ran on the principles of job creation and economic growth, something we can all say would be good across the state. By thinking outside the box and allowing conversations to occur instead of quickly backing into corners, perhaps politicians will be able to see the benefits of natural resource preservation, renewable energy dedication and how it can work in tandem with those above two principles. And who better to show us how it’s done than Kentucky’s two economic powerhouses?
Around Christmas, Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson announced new emissions standards for oil refineries and power plants, which Jackson says “will help American companies attract private investment to the clean energy upgrades that make our companies more competitive and create good jobs here at home” (EPA Plans Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for Power Plants and Refineries, Scientific American). Congress might not want to hear it, but it is worth exploring the idea of placing standards on companies who produced half of our CO2 emissions. The science should not be ignored. After all, citizens are fined if caught polluting waterways and according to the Supreme Court citizens and corporations are one in the same.
News surrounding the fate of the coal industry is in abundance these days. First it was the resignation of infamous Macey Energy CEO, Don Blankenship, and now it’s a about a report put out by The Associated Press countering claims that mountaintop removal provides much needed flat land in Eastern Kentucky. “Coal industry supporters say the Knott County Sportsplex in Eastern Kentucky is one of many examples of economic opportunity created by strip mining techniques that include the often-vilified method known as mountaintop removal.” A report and others against mountaintop removal refute this claim.
It is not that it isn’t true, a few places have been able to withstand development, but “data obtained by The Associated Press indicates that just a small percentage of the leveled Appalachian mountain landscape has been transformed into new developments such as businesses, prisons, golf courses and subdivisions.” Thus, the discretion lies in the use of the word “many” compared to “small” perhaps.
A linguist may have to discern weather or not “many” is considered three or a thousand and visa versa, but anyone who has friends in Eastern Kentucky might definitely disagree with the Floyd County Democrat who made this statement: “A lot of people through the years ask why Appalachia is so poor. One of the biggest reasons is we were land poor – we didn’t have any place to build.”
Coal mining safety, coal ash and mountaintop removal are all on the radar and because we are one of only a few states in the Union who will be having a Gubernatorial race in 2012 you can bet that our state is on the political radar due to these contentious issues. Not to mention especially since Tea Party favorite, Rand Paul, took the crown and is now apart of the 112th Congress. Kentucky will have to choose from not four but six, well three, candidates. Yet perhaps Phil Moffett and Mike Harmon who are running under the label of ‘Tea Party’ will run on a third party ticket. We know current Kentucky Senate President David Williams and his basketball star who are running as Republicans will not back down, so it only makes sense. And the first pair of candidates to voice environmental protection, corporate responsibility, green energy and job growth may just push Kentucky into a future that it has yet to grasp!
Raise your glass to 2011. Cheers!
___
The Climate Is Changing and We Will Have To Adapt December 10, 2010
The misconception that climate only changes naturally and is not affected by human activity and consumption is simply mistaken. True, climate has changed before and it is always changing. Between ice ages and warming periods, some thought to be warmer than now (Richard Lindzen), there has always been a natural force reacting with climate. And now, scientists say, that dominant force is humans, which are reacting with climate in a series of not unnatural ways, but perhaps over producing and more harmful ways than can be sustained.
There are many factors that can affect climate on Earth. But saying that humans cannot impact climate change simply because it happened naturally in the past is like saying that humans can’t start fires because they happened naturally in the past. More energy is being trapped in our atmosphere than is being released back into space, (Skeptical Science) that is a problem.
As the earth gains heat, it warms; the sun is not getting hotter, we are. “Our climate is highly sensitive to changes in heat. So past climate change doesn’t tell us that humans can’t influence climate; on the contrary, it tells us that climate is highly sensitive to the greenhouse warming we’re now causing.” (Skeptical Science)
In the 20th century, the world warmed 0.7ºC and every year it has been warmer than the previous year, excluding 1998 (Economist Nov 23, 2010 – Dec. 3, 2010). As CO2 levels continue to rise no nation is really doing anything. We have been in climate talks for over 20 years and although Protocol after Protocol has been signed and some hearts have been in the right places, no real dedication to reducing carbon emissions by individual nations has been made.
“1985 marked the first discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole.” (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) In 1987, 24 countries signed the Montreal Protocol, including the United States. “The Protocol called for the Parties to phase down the use of CFCs, halons and other man-made ODCs.” (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) You can look at 1987 as a landmark year because it showed world-wide dedication to reducing CFC emissions, ozone harming chemicals, which worked. It also shows that in the United States, no matter what party is leading it, environmental (which is also people protection) protection can be a non-partisan issue. This was a good start, but it seems momentum has tapered off and people have forgotten.
Thirteen years later, countries commit year after year to reduce their carbon emissions, but all fail. Last year during the Copenhagen Conference, the International Energy Agency (IAE) said that the world will warm by 3.5º C by 2100. The IAE went on to say that every signatory of the Copenhagen accord would have to hit the top of its range commitments to see a change and that was just the beginning. In addition, between 2020 to 2035, reductions in greenhouse gases would have to double again across the board. Unfortunately, the Economist, which was the catalyst to this posting, published a spread on How To Live With Climate Change goes on to say that this impossible (Economist Nov 23- Dec. 3).
December 10, 2010, today, marks the end of the Cancun UN Climate Change Conference and so we’ll see what comes out of it. Don’t get me wrong, some nations are trying to do something, but the bottom line is that it is not enough.
Now, just because it seems we have to live with it, is not an excuse to stop trying to do something about it. Personally, I like taking walks outside, drinking clean water, eating fish that can’t poison me and swimming in the ocean or rivers without fear of getting a rash, which for many is a common occurrence already. So, I am dedicated so seeing our politicians and people flight against dealing with more unpredictable weather patterns, harsher floods, more drought, food shortages, fresh water shortages, more snow and ice, sea level rise, mass migration and hotter summers. We are not doomed, but these problems are already in motion and turning a blind eye is the way that nations fall. Looking at things with a creative mind set and being open to ideas is a good start. Active participation and reaching set goals is the next.
___
Election 2010 – To Regulate Or Not To Regulate? Nov. 2010
Today is Election Day 2010 and in Kentucky there are many heated, close races. Job creation has been the number one topic in these contested races as well as health care and in a round about way, the environment through the guise of energy, which then comes back to jobs. What is typical, is that party lines have taken to their corners, but here in Kentucky it would be smart to really look at the issue of coal and what’s being said and who is saying it. What jobs are really being lost, why and what jobs might be able to be created by looking at renewable energy and other sources of industry? But that would probably be too reasonable.
Let’s start with Jack Conway and Rand Paul. Both oppose cap and trade, a regulation that if dissected looks like the ultimate answer to both capitalism and climate change, for now. The planet is getting warmer, but that doesn’t mean we are done with epic snow falls, in fact, it means that weather patterns are becoming more server due to a rapid shift in the earth’s temperature. For a more detailed description and the pros and cons of Cap and Trade check out this PODCAST, they can articulate the details far better than I ever could.
The point is, cap and trade really wouldn’t do the destruction some seem to fear, a carbon tax might, but after all, shouldn’t polluters be responsible for their pollution? It affects us all, especially children and future generations. Yes, in Kentucky, rates may go up, but we have to realize that they are going to rise anyway due to inflation, life and because eventually, pollution and fossil fuels will be taxed if a cap and trade system is not put in place. We have some of the lowest energy rates in the union as well as some of the highest rates of consumption. If we reduce our energy usage, turn off some lights and power strips, the unforeseen burden of a cap and trade on the companies might hardly be felt by the consumer. Thus, if you were to choose between Conway and Paul based on their energy strategy, there is very little difference, except for the fact that Conway says he will regulate the companies and help the coal miners; Paul does not pledge to do this.
As for the 3rd District seat, the contest is between John Yarmuth and Todd Lally and their views are starkly different when it comes to energy. Yarmuth is looking towards a future away from fossil fuels. “He believes America’s dependence on foreign energy sources threatens our national security, economy and environment and he supports investments in renewable energy.”
Lally, on the other hand, opposes cap and trade, no surprise, wants to repeal regulations because they keep businesses from hiring. I would hope that a business invested in their community would not choose not to hire someone based on the fact that they had to operate as both safe and fair, but I’m sure I’m being idealistic.
Regulation and being up to code are like health codes for restaurants, aren’t they? We make sure our restaurants are clean and serving food that won’t make us sick, so why doesn’t this apply to all companies?
A business that does not adhere to regulation to some degree may take advantage of the situation. We see this happen every day. Look at the Gulf oil spill. Lax regulations, basically the lack there of, caused a company to loose part of their shirt, reputation and stock holders, not to mention contaminate one of the most important components to our world’s ecosystem.
Regulation is important and can be effective if done properly. Fewer miner fatalities, accidents and benefits should be a goal of Kentucky’s candidates’. Instead, they don’t much talk about the people, only about the company and the bottom line.
Two other candidates that differ on energy policy are 6th District’s Ben Chandler and Garland “Andy” Barr. Barr “vigorously” opposes cap and trade, while his opponent voted for it. This has been a big sour point in Chandler’s reelection campaign.
Barr says that any regulation would cause a loss of jobs. I’m not sure if this has been brought to many people’s attention, but the coal industry employs less than 1% of our state’s employment force, UPS in Kentucky hires more people than the coal industry.
Allowing companies to practice mountaintop removal and a highly competitive market place is the more balanced reason as to why Kentucky coal miners have lost their jobs.
Why not return to underground coal mining if the issue is to create more jobs? Regulation is necessary when it comes to pollution, not to mention safety. I have to pay a fine if I litter, shouldn’t a multi-billion company have to do the same?
I’m almost done.
John Waltz versus Geoff Davis of the 4th district differ on a variety of issues but they both seem to believe in investing in renewable energy. Davis sponsored an Energy Act that plans to pay for the renewable energy research through continued off shore drilling. Waltz believes tax credits and incentives should be expanded. It is a known fact that our major energy companies exist today due to tax breaks and incentives, thus we should extend the same hand to renewable energy sector.
It has been said that if the United States had continued to invest in renewable energy technologies after the Carter years and pushed to reduce our consumption of foreign oil by creating more fuel efficient cars, we would be off foreign oil today. Think about that, no war, a better and healthier economy because of job growth and money would be invested here at home. We must ask ourselves why a president would remove solar panels from the White House and discontinue all research and development of renewable energy technologies, thus letting that knowledge and investment go overseas? We have to ask ourselves why because when you really think about it, the answer makes no sense, but might leave you a little angry.
Alright, six more candidates, I’ll make this quick. 2nd District runners Ed Marksberry and Brett Guthrie. Guthrie indicates that cap and trade regulation is “radical” but does say the we should look towards “clean coal and coal to liquid technology.” For the record, neither one of these technologies exist on a large scale and they are recorded to be extremely expensive to pursue.
1st District’s Ed Whitefield seems to be the only Republican who feels our country should be less dependent on gas and looks to using alternative fuels, which would be produced by Kentucky farmers. Charles Hatchett pretty much sticks to the Democratic point of view and is for cap and trade regulation.
Super incumbent Hal Rogers and his opponent, James Holbert, are running for the 5th District. Rogers has been given the title of “lifer” and “unbeatable, ” and while that may be true we must give props to Mr. Holbert for running. Opposing anyone who is considered a “lifer” is difficult, not to mention the fact that Holbert is considered very progressive for Eastern, Kentucky. Holbert has many ideas to reduce foreign oil dependence and to create a diverse economy in his mono-economic region. He supports a cap and trade system, alternative energy funding, national public works construction program, tax credits and fuel efficient vehicle investment.
Rogers voted against cap and trade, but believes in an energy transition, yet does not state how to get there, only that it should not be mandated. Also, he states that our ability to reduce carbon emissions and protect our environment exists in alternative sources of energy. I may be paraphrasing, but I wanted to point out that he was the only Republican candidate to use the words: “protect our environment.”
Why does the environment, preservation, conservation and regulation have to be so ugly and divisive? Under Bill Clinton, we had one of the smallest governments in our nation’s history and a surplus. In a speech he gave the night before the election he said he should be the poster child for the Tea Party; if that’s really what they’re asking for.
When the keys were handed over to George W. Bush he took us into a recession, major debt, two wars we cannot win and basically dismantled the EPA all in the name of job and economic growth, which actually declined during his eight year presidency. If disasters like the Big Branch Refuse Impoundment spill of 2000 in Kentucky, the Kingston, Tennessee toxic sludge spill in 2008 and the Gulf Oil Spill of 2010 don’t make you see that regulation and renewable investment is needed, I know I will never convince you. However, if you think about it in the terms of what if that sludge spilled across your front yard, drowned your dog and made your land unsuitable to growing food, maybe you might be open for discussion.
Happy Voting!
___
Is Going Green Ever Going Too Far? October 2010
The other day I was listening to a radio broadcast about hotels that are giving their visitors a “green option.” At first glance when patrons hang signs on their doors in order to indicate that they don’t want new towels or the sheets changed, it seems very environmentally conscience. They are saving water. But when you really think about it, hotels are in the business of making money, not being environmentally conscience, and by not having a maid wash towels and make your bed each day, the hotel is probably saving A LOT of money, not only on energy bills but by letting go employees.
The report had a maid talking about the Sheridan’s “Make A Green Choice” card. Her argument stated that to make a “green choice” meant you were making a choice to cut someone’s pay, or worse, their job. Thus, my question to myself as I was driving my car was “what is the ultimate cost of being green and when, if at anytime, has it gone too far?” Ideally, the whole idea of being green is that it will stimulate job creation, not the other way around.
Let’s face it, the hotel industry is anything but green. New sheets, new towels and little shampoos in plastic, one time use bottles, every day. Lights on and concierge service 24/7 and pool and gym availability year round, all so that you can pay an exorbitant price for an evening of rest. I have empathy for the employee on the radio broadcast, so much so, that the next time I stay somewhere I will probably ask for the bed to be made and a new towel. I figure that if a hotel wants to be green than they should take other steps like using energy efficient light bulbs, green building materials in construction, low flow toilets, showers and sinks, have the lights come on only when you’re in the room (some have done this already) and include recycling and composting around their facility. These are actually conscience steps to indicate one wants to be green and the maid, ultimately, keeps her jobs. If a hotel actually asks you not to change your towels and sheets than they should reduce their rates, not their staff.
______________________________________________________
What Is Littering? July 2010
In today’s world, one would believe that most people might think twice before throwing a piece of trash on the ground or out their car window, so then why do smokers tend to think that a cigarette butt is not a piece of litter? For years this phenomenon has baffled me. I’m tired of sitting at a stop light and looking over only to see someone drop a flaming butt out their car window, or driving down the high way avoiding small sparks flying across my windshield, or, watching as my friend carelessly drops their butt onto the pavement, without a second thought. The latter usually ends in me asking them to pick it up and put it in a trashcan, but you get my point. It is a disgusting habit, so why make it even more grotesque and inflict the world to its ugliness?
A recent article in the LEO, Louisville’s news magazine, brought me back to this topic, which is why I’m writing it here. We create a lot of trash each day. We also spend good tax payer money to keep our cities clean, although that’s a tall order. If people were allowed to just throw trash wherever they wanted, could you imagine the mountain of garbage in front of every building?
The author in the LEO article talked about being a watchdog in a society where we are constantly being watched. He indicated that even though he questioned the constant monitoring our society has accepted, he doesn’t feel bad for going over to someone who he has just witnessed flicking a cigarette butt or dropping garbage out their car window and throwing it back their way. Why not? If you make trash you should be responsible for it. I don’t go around throwing my soda can on the ground when I’m finished.
Kentucky has one of the highest rates of smoking in the union so just imagine the amount of cigarette butts that can accumulate if everyone is tossing them on the ground. I believe the same fines should apply to those who toss out their butts as to the one who practice illegal dumping. After all, each time you take the on ramp doesn’t it say: Littering, Fine $500? That has to stand for something.
I’ve never seen someone busted for littering, but I have seen someone busted for peeing in public. The two are pretty synonymous when you think, “I don’t want either in my back yard.”
___
Out Of Site Out Of Mind? June 2010
What kind of sacrifices are you willing to make to reduce our dependence on oil and fossil fuels to run our cars and light our homes? Currently, we are facing one of the worst, if not the worst, environmental disasters in our lifetime. Although we in land locked Kentucky have not directly felt, at least not yet, the death of hundreds of birds, turtles, dolphins not to mention plankton and deep water sea life we can’t even see, there will be repercussions. So, what are we willing to sacrifice, if anything at all?
Does the Gulf oil spill mean we all ride our bikes to work and stop using certain types of plastics or does it mean we eat more land based animals and don’t change our electricity habits because other fossil fuels can take the place of oil? These are all questions that come to mind as reports of death and destruction, joblessness and environmental degradation continue to build in the southern part of our union. Make no mistake, we have all allowed what is happening to occur, through our thirst for oil and not enough stress on our politicians to maintain regulations that apply to safety and health. So really, what do we do now? We can wait, we can keep drilling, we can volunteer; all things that will happen, but how can we ultimately make this disaster end and never happen again?
Even though we are in Kentucky, this does not mean the Gulf oil spill will elude us. We might not be able to see it, especially with attempts to muffle the release of photos and videos that have been made, but it affects the fish we eat, or now will not, where we vacation, of which now we should not, the air we breath, our families and friends who live and work there and the sea life that helps to maintain our fragile ecosystem. Our oceans are where everything begins and ends, thus they should be protected because that means protecting us. Perhaps it’s as easy as changing the word “sacrifice” to “upgrade,” because an upgrade to the way we currently think and do things means that the possibility of a spill like the one we are now experiencing might never happen again. We should not turn a blind eye because the Gulf oil spill is in our backyard.
___
Carbon Nation May 2010
Last week George and I attended a Louisville premier of ‘Carbon Nation,’ a film by Kentucky filmmaker, Peter Byck. This film was touted to provide solutions to Al Gore’s 2006 film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ and it not only provides the solutions, but gives the audience optimism. It was obvious that this film was a three year labor of love, which is what it took in order to find a way to reach diverse audiences. While beautifully put together, too many environmentally minded films this year have rarely taken the approach of ‘Carbon Nation,’ which makes even those who may denounce climate change and drive a Hummer perk up and listen. Here is a film that recognizes there’s a problem, decides not to point figures and features those who are doing something to help curb the amount of carbon we are putting up into the atmosphere. If you have not read the article in Louisville’s Leo, please check out a full spread about Byck and the story of a film that is meant for educating, inspiring and affecting a positive change. http://leoweekly.com/ae/green-light
The film is currently being screened at the Village 8 in Louisville, Kentucky through May 13, 2010. You can also visit http://carbonnation.tv for more information.
