How to deal with Polar Bears

It's an interesting situation now that the US has named polar bears as a "Threatened" Species. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said that "the loss of Arctic sea ice in a warming climate could drive them to the brink of extinction in less than four decades". Kempthorne goes on to say that in saving the polar bears, it is not a time to look at policy. Really?

Per the Washington Post, "Under the law, the federal government is now required to draft a recovery plan for the species, which entails assessing the population and its habitat. The ruling also compels federal agencies to consult with the Interior Department when considering decisions that could further imperil the polar bears."

I see no way that we can "save" the polar bears without looking at our current policy, or lack thereof. As has been proven before, greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for the sea ice melting. Therefore, how can you stop or at least lessen the ice melt without addressing greenhouse gas emissions?

Is there anything else we can do to save the polar bears in the immediate or long-term future? Are we going to have to wait until January 2009? I think this YouTube video speaks for itself...

Happy? Earth Day!

It's Earth Day! Do anything exciting?

There's a ton of press leading up to today, all really interesting. The Washington Post looks at the death of Earth Day today and also had a good look at Mountain Top Removal on Sunday. They also launched a new "Green Section" online.

MSN has a special section and there was a ton of press coverage of Bush's climate change "initiative", if you can call it that. There's talk of fuel economy guidelines being released to meet the 35mpg standards in the next decade, and more and more.

So, suddenly everyone cares - or it looks like they care. My question is does it matter? Is it too late? There seem to be lots of magic solutions to climate change, but nobody mentions that the use of ethanol could lead to higher food prices (which, by the way, have been increasing and are now called a "Silent Tsunami").

Also, how do you or did you celebrate Earth Day? I suggest planting a tree - maybe Apple.

Protect Globalization?

By guest blogger Devin McIntire,
based on a conversation with Natasha Hanshaw about the article

"The political threats to globalisation" in the Financial Times

We are still far away from fair or even free global trade and yet protectionism, on a national level, is still a pretty bad idea.

This article was a bit peculiar in that it tried to analyze political threats to globalization objectively, yet gave an illusory definition of globalization and by discussing "threats" rather than "course corrections", "evolution of" or even just new globalization this guy made clear that he's endorsing his narrow thatcher/regan-did-it view.

You can't talk about globalization productively without giving a precise definition and there are hundreds of readily available definitions so it's basically plug and play, you just have to remember to respect whichever you choose.

I like my globalization big and holistic. Yes we've had periods of "globalization" before, yes today's trends are largely driven by economics, yes it's state-enabled, but as some of our complex system folks will remind us us, globalization is really just a convenient label for the state and trajectory of our increasingly complex 'people universe.' Globalization is an infinite number of Thomas Friedman's silly reductionist "ah-ha" platitudes.

Globalization has depth, layers and complexity. It's not some conception of elites in western countries despite how much havoc they cause. It's far bigger than that, like a strong ocean current, when it pulls you sometimes you have no choice but to follow, other times you know you better get up and start swimming.

There are no threats to globalization, because globalization doesn't represent them or anyone else, it simply is. Political gaffes, imbeciles taking us back to the 20th century so we can do nationalism again, and people who believe that I don't deserve bananas all year-round in the US; these are all simply bad things. Yes they're implicitly part of globalization, but so is cell-phone banking in Africa, so are pro-local consumer movements around the world and so are technological advances in health solutions driven by India's and China's hundreds of thousands of doctors and engineers.

In with the Good out with the Bad.

Race to Be Green: 2008

Today, Newsweek landed in my mailbox. I was excited, but not just because I got mail. The cover story of this week is - Environment and Leadership: Who's the Greenest of Them All?

So, I'll spare you most of the story, because although it's interesting, you can read it here, and in all honesty you'll probably not be surprised if you've been staying up-to-date with the race. It does a good job of summarizing the three Presidential candidates' positions on the environment. My favorite part: no matter what happens, next year the policy in the White House will be different.

The worst about this article though was the ad in the middle and the statistics. First the ad - for a hybrid Chevy Tahoe, "America's first full-size hybrid SUV." Oh yay! It gets 14mpg in the city and a whopping 20 on the highway. Are we seriously celebrating this? This is why the United States has this problem in the first place. You don't see SUVs, hybrid or not, in Europe. It's time for smaller cars.

The second thing that got to me was the stats. Newsweek cited that "The environment has emerged as a leading concern. Last year, three in 10 voters said they cared about the issue, up from 11 percent in 2005." As much as I'm excited that the number grew from the measly 11%, 30 isn't really amazing. Do we not realize that without the environment we couldn't live?

How can we seriously expect a change in the public's perception of the environment when we're selling hybrid SUVs that get worse gas mileage than most sedans? How much harm do you think the next 9 months will have on the environment until we get a new set of ideas in DC? And, realistically, how fast do you expect any action to happen?

Just some thoughts, feel free to weigh in and ask questions of your own!

Pepsi did WHAT????

I read an article yesterday about Pepsi's efforts to be more environmentally responsible…but this article didn't give Pepsi a pat on the back for social responsibility. This article was deriding Pepsi for investing in risky activities that might not be profitable for its shareholders. Citing the Free Enterprise Action Fund, the article emphasized that businesses should live by the sole principle of generating profits for their shareholders. Indeed, that idea makes sense – I was taught that the purpose of business is to generate profits and that they should all have competitors so that each business must compete to make the most money and the cheapest product. This free market "game" is supposed to ensure that the most efficient processes prevail and consumers get to choose the cheapest products.

But there is a slight problem with this model. In an effort to drive down prices and make big profits for CEOs and shareholders, most business practices are destroying the environment, depleting resources, and not paying suppliers and/or workers fair wages. When we created this "game" we call the free market, we forgot to include checks and balances that protect the common good and future generations.

Currently, we rely on the government to provide the checks and balances that protect the common good – in the U.S., the EPA is supposed to regulate pollution etc, the FDA is supposed to make sure products don't harm our health, and we rely on laws (and unions) to protect workers' rights. But relative to the size and scale of companies, especially large corporations, these checks and balances are tiny, and the organizations protecting the common good are underfunded and understaffed. Further, the government organizations that are supposed to be working for the good of the people rely on lobbying groups (often funded by large corporations) to inform them about issues that might harm the common good.

Some businesses have introduced the concept of the "triple bottom line" so that their companies strive not only for maximum profits but for social and environmental "profits" also. However, until shareholders, governments, consumers, and the international community are all on board, these companies will struggle to compete with those who strive to increase profits at all costs.

Do you think corporations should play a greater role in promoting social justice and environmental protection? Do you think the government should play a greater role? What role can consumers play and how can we educate ourselves?