Politics is applesauce providing progressive political analysis since 2006

Is this good government?

Today the Guardian had an article exposing the wrongdoings of the American Enterprise Institute (closely liked to the Bush administration). It turns out that this ‘thinktank’ has been bribing scientists, policy makers, and economists to stop a recent climate change report.

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world’s largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasize the shortcomings of a report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

How is this ‘thinktank’ linked to our government here in America? It turns out that this ExxonMobil funded organization has provided 20 staff members to the Bush administration to work as consultants. This disturbing link was articulated well by Ben Stewart of Greenpeace:

The AEI is more than just a thinktank, it functions as the Bush administration’s intellectual Cosa Nostra. They are White House surrogates in the last throes of their campaign of climate change denial. They lost on the science; they lost on the moral case for action. All they’ve got left is a suitcase full of cash.

Stories such as this lead me to question the health of American democracy. A poll taken in March of 2006 revealed that 85% of Americans believe that climate change is occurring (this number has no doubt risen due to recent reports). In a healthy democracy the government, which in theory is representing the people, should act based on this popular concern. This has simply not occurred.

Our governments reaction has been to hide the truth (by bribing scientists and appointing AEI staff), and insist on providing the most environmentally dangerous corporations with tax cuts and subsidies so that they can continue their destructive anti-environmental agendas. This is not good government, nor do I find it an acceptable path for American democracy.

It may be time that we as Americans examine the current state of the political system. When two of the most important issues of the day (Iraq and climate change) are headed in a direction contrary to the way the electorate prefers, something disturbing is taking place in government.

Hopefully this foul smell in government is simply George Bush and his appointees. If this is the case, the federal government will perhaps actually resemble a democratic institution in the near future.

Diet, energy, and global warming.

During the President’s state of the union address, he expressed the need for America to reduce it’s appetite for gasoline. He proposed cutting our consumption by twenty percent, which in turn would provide security for the country by cutting back on the importation of energy resources. Such a change would also help combat global climate change, and help clean up our environment.

Much like last year’s speech, this statement will most likely be followed with little or no action concerning energy policy. This sobering fact led me to write this blog, and point out a change that we can make at an individual level to combat climate change. There is in fact a decision we can make about our own lifestyle that if adopted widely, will do more to combat global warming than say… purchasing a hybrid car and cutting gasoline consumption.

There has been numerous studies that conclude that becoming a vegetarian is one of the most effective ways to combat global climate change. In fact, a recent report from the United Nations concluded that “the livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.”

So what effect does the consumption of meat have in the United States? Kathy Freston writing on the subject, highlights the significance of the meat based diet in relation to global warming:

…the real kicker comes when looking at gases besides carbon dioxide–gases like methane and nitrous oxide, enormously effective greenhouse gases with 23 and 296 times the warming power of carbon dioxide, respectively. If carbon dioxide is responsible for about one-half of human-related greenhouse gas warming since the industrial revolution, methane and nitrous oxide are responsible for another one-third. These super-strong gases come primarily from farmed animals’ digestive processes, and from their manure. In fact, while animal agriculture accounts for 9% of our carbon dioxide emissions, it emits 37% of our methane, and a whopping 65% of our nitrous oxide.

It’s a little hard to take in when thinking of a small chick hatching from her fragile egg. How can an animal, so seemingly insignificant against the vastness of the earth, give off so much greenhouse gas as to change the global climate? The answer is in their sheer numbers. The United States alone slaughters more than 10 billion land animals every year, all to sustain a meat-ravenous culture that can barely conceive of a time not long ago when “a chicken in every pot” was considered a luxury. Land animals raised for food make up a staggering 20% of the entire land animal biomass of the earth. We are eating our planet to death.

What we’re seeing is just the beginning, too. Meat consumption has increased five-fold in the past fifty years, and is expected to double again in the next fifty.

Also worth noting, is the overall benefits for the community when vegetarianism becomes more common. Kathy Freston also highlights this in her blog when she points out that a cleaner planet will also result from a societal (starts with the individual) change:

Not just a cooler planet, also a cleaner one. Animal agriculture accounts for most of the water consumed in this country, emits two-thirds of the world’s acid-rain-causing ammonia, and it the world’s largest source of water pollution–killing entire river and marine ecosystems, destroying coral reefs, and of course, making people sick. Try to imagine the prodigious volumes of manure churned out by modern American farms: 5 million tons a day, more than a hundred times that of the human population, and far more than our land can possibly absorb. The acres and acres of cesspools stretching over much of our countryside, polluting the air and contaminating our water, make the Exxon Valdez oil spill look minor in comparison. All of which we can fix surprisingly easily, just by putting down our chicken wings and reaching for a veggie burger.

If you need even more convincing evidence, the University of Chicago has also done a study on the topic. This study takes a scientific approach, comparing and contrasting the environmental costs of animal production and slaughter with the use of fossil fuels. The results of this study support what the recent United Nations report concluded.

I am not implying that those who decide to eat meat are immoral or unethical, it’s simply important to know all of the facts when making lifestyle decisions. I have been a vegetarian (due to what I learned in an environmental ethics class) for a while now, and see it as purely a personal decision.

It is however something for everyone to consider, given the fact that meat lacks nutritional value (must eat meat to get protein is a myth) and its consumption has been proven to damage our environment… and there is also the fact that meat consumption is now centered on a questionable ethical foundation. Is it ethically acceptable to eat the flesh of another living thing simply because it tastes good?

Again, this is a choice that needs to be made at a personal level. I simply wanted to provide some facts about the meat industry and its effect on our environment. If you want to personally help combat global climate change, changing to a vegetarian lifestyle is a great way to start (even more effective than reducing your use of fossil fuels).

Corporations urge Bush to take action.

It’s a sad day when corporate America begins to ask our government to take action to protect the planet and it’s citizens… and our government says no. Today CNN has an article that highlights CEO’s of 10 major corporations, all of which are pleading with the government to take action to combat climate change. These corporate entities are asking for mandatory carbon reductions.

The chief executives of 10 major corporations, on the eve of the State of the Union address, urged President Bush on Monday to support mandatory reductions in climate-changing pollution and establish reductions targets.

“We can and must take prompt action to establish a coordinated, economy-wide market-driven approach to climate protection,” the executives from a broad range of industries said in a letter to the president.

Bush, who in the past has rejected mandatory controls on carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse” gases, was expected to address climate change in his State of the Union speech Tuesday night, but has repeatedly argued that voluntary efforts are the best approach.

Major industry groups such as the Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers continue to oppose so-called “cap and trade” proposals to cut climate changing pollution, mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels.

But the 10 executives, representing major utilities, aluminum and chemical companies and financial institutions, said mandatory reductions are needed and that “the cornerstone of this approach” should be a cap-and-trade system.

The officials, expected to elaborate on their plan at a news conference later Monday, include the chief executives Alcoa Inc., BP America Inc., DuPont Co., Caterpillar Inc., General Electric Co., and Duke Energy Corp.

It will be interesting to see what these corporations have to say when they meet with the media to elaborate on their plan. I never thought I would see the day when corporate America would be serving the interests of the people, while our government (by the people, for the people?) would continue to fight for policies that are dangerous to the country and the world as a whole.

Worthwhile spam… it’s my lucky day

Someone calling themselves Charles left a comment on my most recent post related to climate change. Although this comment could be described as “spam,” it’s useful spam so therefore I am going to highlight it.

Here is the comment:

Next week Bush is going to deliver his State of the Union address. We want him to get serious about global warming this year.

We have heard his plan for Iraq. Let’s try to influence his plan on the environment by gathering 500,000 signatures stating that we want America to invest in renewable energy and address climate change - NOW.

Please sign the petition and send it to your friends.

We have one week to be heard! Thanks!

It’s definitely a worthy cause. Use the link below to sign the petition and join the thousands who already have.

Let us unite and tackle global warming.

It seems that evangelical leaders and scientists have joined forces in an attempt to tackle global warming, as well as force our current President to put his ignorance and love for business interests aside for the sake of humanity. While the article indicates there is little hope for the latter, at least the evangelical community is beginning to act… they are a powerful voice in modern day America.

Here is the transcript of an interview with Richard Cizak (national association of evangelicals), Eric Chivian (director of the center for health and global environment at harvard), and David Sandalow (from the brookings institution).

EMMA ALBERICI: In the United States, scientists and evangelical Christian leaders are joining forces to help battle global warming.

The unlikely alliance was struck after they agreed to put aside their differences about the origin of life to work together to protect the environment, and it seems their timing couldn’t be better.

The US President’s annual State of the Union address next week is likely to offer some minor changes in climate change policy.

Washington Correspondent, Kim Landers, prepared this report.

(sound of organ music)

RICHARD CIZIK: We will not allow the creation to be degraded, destroyed by human folly.

KIM LANDERS: Richard Cizik is from the National Association of Evangelicals, which represents millions of Christians in the United States. What sounds like a church sermon is in fact a political message.

RICHARD CIZIK: God will judge us for destroying the creation. We as evangelicals are saying that science can be an ally in helping us to understand what creation is telling us about itself and about its maker.

KIM LANDERS: Scientists and evangelicals have put aside their distrust to form a new coalition, because both sides agree that human activity is putting in danger the earth. Eric Chivian is the director of the Centre for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School.

ERIC CHIVIAN: We agreed that there was no such thing as a Republican or Democratic, a liberal or a conservative, a religious or secular environment. That we all breathed the same air and drank the same water and relied on the same organisms for our survival.

KIM LANDERS: President George W Bush is expected to offer some slight policy change on global warming in next week’s State of the Union address.

But the White House insists he won’t be dropping his opposition to mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

In last year’s speech the President said the US was addicted to foreign oil. This year, he’s likely to again call for an increase in the use of ethanol.

American evangelicals have been credited with helping George W Bush win and hold onto the Presidency.

David Sandalow from The Brookings Institution says their decision to join forces with scientists is significant.

DAVID SANDALOW: Churchgoing Americans are a powerful political force in this country and when they get mobilized to take on the issue of global warming it’s going to make a big difference.

KIM LANDERS: The leaders of this new alliance have already written to the President calling for action.

DAVID SANDALOW: President Bush’s global warming policy is almost as unpopular as his Iraq policy. Members of the evangelical community are raising concerns as well.

KIM LANDERS: The group is also having meetings on Capitol Hill and it plans to craft a “pastor’s toolkit” which will include biblical references to the need for humans to protect the environment.

This is Kim Landers in Washington for PM.

Source: PM - Christians and scientists unite to tackle global warming