US Energy Bill, California, and the EPA

In this morning's Washington Post, an article caught my eye. It is titled, EPA Chief Denies Calif. Limit on Auto Emissions: Rules Would Target Greenhouse Gases. In the article, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson denied California's petition that would limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. Administrator Johnson said he thinks that the new US Energy Bill would do more for global warming than state mandates. He claims that the California standards would have an average of 33.8 MPG by 2016 while the Energy Bill would have an average of 35 MPG by 2020. California has created its own air pollution policies under the Clean Air Act, and has not been denied a petition until now. At the end of the article, Johnson says the EPA denied California's petition because "climate change affects the entire world" and that "It is a global problem that requires a clear national solution."

I'm not sure how I feel about this. Its not as if California is trying to enact lower standards than the federal government. Also, if California is trying to do its part with the battle against global warming, then why stop it? I don't know if I appreciate Johnson stating the truth about "climate change affect[ing] the entire world" and that "It is a global problem that requires a clear national solution," to defend his action against California...

What are your thoughts OT blog?

Urgent Food News for Global Youth

Last Tuesday, 18 Dec., on page C5 -- not the front page -- the NY Times reported bad news for everyone who wants to eat: a rapid, “unforeseen and unprecedented” dwindling of the world food supply and soaring prices of food.

How bad? Food prices rose an unacceptable 9% last year; this year they rose 40%! Cereals reserves are down 11 percent this year; currently we humans have just 12 weeks of world consumption, compared to an average 18 weeks’s consumption during 2000-2005. Prices of wheat and oil seeds are at record highs. Wheat prices, for example, have rose 52% this last year.

The news is especially bad for young people because changes are “here to stay” reported Jacques Diouf, head of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. There is “a very serious risk that fewer people will be able to get food.”

Why is this happening? Because everything is connected to everything else. Climate change has already decreased crop yields in important areas. Energy shortages and efforts to reduced carbon emissions is stimulating demand for biofuels, the production of which takes land away from producing food for humans. With rising incomes in places like China and India, people are eating more meat, and producing animal food takes land that could be used to grow human food. Some countries heavily subsidize crop production and dump surplus food into markets in food deficit countries, thereby undermining the local farm economy. Meanwhile, human numbers continue to increase, in part because some countries refuse to support international efforts to provide family planning services to couples who want no more children.

Food, energy, climate, water, land, poverty, wealth, trade, population, violence, and values are all linked into a single macro-problem – the Global Problematique. That’s what Our Task is all about.

Youth voice is strong though subtle

One day my aunt randomly (almost off-handedly) mentioned that I was the reason she recycled. "Me?" I asked. "Yeah. You made me realize it was important to recycle because you always cared about it."

Since then I have noticed that youth often have a bigger impact than they realize. In an article about the first "green" office building in downtown Tampa, the developer described his reasoning to build green as "an epiphany".

At the end of the article, he admits,

"I have three amazing daughters, and of all the things I've done over the
years that have changed the skyline, this was the first time I saw them get
excited about what their dad was doing".

I think his "epiphany" might have been inspired by his daughters.