As if the dire predictions about the sad state of the planet aren’t enough, we’re now being treated to gloomy forecasts about whether our leaders have the will to do anything about it.

At the Climate Summit at the United Nations in NYC observers had hoped for a breakthrough pledge or statement from either US President Barack Obama or China’s President Hu Jintao. But the event was long on rhetoric, short on serious commitment and left many advocates muttering their disappointment, mainly because the leaders of the two most polluting nations are still playing chess.

Catherine Brahic of New Scientist noted: “Obama said once again that the US could do nothing if developing nations didn’t take steps towards reducing their own emissions. Given hopes that the summit would break that deadlock, this was almost shocking.”

Jintao, meanwhile, spoke in terms of lowering China’s carbon pollution as a proportion of GDP units, which meant that China would try not to pollute as fast as it has been. He was silent on the topic of outright carbon reductions.

Neither leader’s remarks matched the urgency or eloquence of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the convener of the UN conference, who warned that the world has only 10 years to try to avert the worst-case climate change scenario predicted by scientists and told the 100 world leaders in attendance: “Now is your moment to act.”

Obama and Jintao seemed no where near acting, or perhaps they were being great actors, delivering well-crafted speeches. (And I mean that in the worst way.)

Other global leaders at least noticed the vacuum.

“What we lack today is confidence and determination,” said French President Nicholas Sarkozy. “The time has passed for diplomatic tinkering, for narrow bargaining. The time has come for courage, mobilization, and collective ambition.” (For the skinny on all the post-summit grumblings see this WorldWatch post-mortem.)

Everyone , it seems, is beginning to worry about the chances for a strong climate agreement at the December conference in Copenhagen. Some think it won’t matter much. Some think it would be devastating.

Will this become a self-fulfilling prophecy? Is Obama just too mired in the health care debates to be bothered with a melting planet — and recall his campaign promises to put global warming high on the priority list?

When will China get over its stubbornness about being a developing country in need of help and recognize that it is both a major carbon polluter and potential great green leader?

One might ask nearly the same about the US, a country willing to lead endless military excursions, but not yet firmly grasping that we need a “surge” to save Earth.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

The world is scrutinizing every shred of news from the Obama camp these days, trying to guess who’ll have an office in the West Wing. But a group of gardeners based in Maine are more focused on what’s going to happen just outside the White House — on the lawn, in fact.

Eat the View is the name of a petition encouraging the Obamas to plant an organic garden on the White House lawn, using the produce both for the residents of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and to feed the hungry at area food pantries.

Organizers at Kitchen Gardeners International (KGI) realize that the idea isn’t new. They’re careful to use the word “replant” in their message to the President-elect, noting that “the White House has had fruit and vegetable gardens before”; they’ve dug up the photo above to show just how farm-friendly the seat of power once was.

So just as Eleanor Roosevelt led by example during wartime, KGI hopes the Obamas will use a plot of highly symbolic soil to demonstrate a commitment to healthy eating, show how easily financially-strapped Americans can help support themselves, and chip away at the pollution that comes with shipping food hundreds of miles from farm to store to dining table. It may not be as dramatic as the prospect of a former foe becoming Secretary of State, but it would cost practically nothing while sending a clear, positive message to the nation’s potential locavores.

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media

There’s science, and there’s applied science. Here’s some interesting applied science: Nanobamas. OK. We get that everything’s Obama right now. Obama-drama. Obama-rama. But nanobamas?

The scoop: John Hart, an assistant professor in the mechanical engineering department at the University of Michigan wants to expand our understanding of nanotechnology, which could be vital to developing better solar cells and batteries, disease treatments and the continuing perfecting of computer processors. Solar power could benefit from nano-thinking and already is, with experimental fabrics and even spray-on solar particles under development that could collect the sun’s energy wherever they go.

So who better to raise the profile of nanotech than the latest president elect?

Each tiny Barack Obama is smaller than a grain of salt. The images were based on Shepard Fairey’s red, white and blue poster of the president-elect. Scientists used lasers, glass plates and silicon wafers to miniaturize the picture, then grew the nanotubes on the pattern. Then they photographed the results under high magnification with an electron microscope.

And yes, that’s weird and a little scary that nanotubes grow.

Every portrait contains a mind-boggling 150 million carbon nanotubes “stacked vertically like trees in a forest,” according to a statement on these presidential electrons and protons. And the construction is drum-tight, with each carbon nanotube being very strong — and small, about 1/50,000th the width of a human hair.

That’s nano nano. Sure, jokes come to mind. Let’s just say we hope this is more foreshadowing of a mighty, new energy future, and not a metaphor for our shrinking economy.

(To read about nanotechnology see the U.S. government website, National Nanotechnology Initiative.)

Copyright © 2008 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

The cork is off the champagne on the presidential election – and many environmentalists who’ve felt stifled by the Bush Administration’s indifference, hostility or lukewarm interest in ecological issues, including global warming, are giddy with new possibilities.

Frances Beinecke, head of the non-profit Natural Resources Defense Council, sounded buoyant in an address on the NRDC website: “Barack Obama’s election is a huge win for everyone exhausted from playing defense. Count us among them. It rekindles our hope that environmental protection may be restored to its rightful place as a treasured American value.”

Gene Karpinski, head of the League of Conservation Voters, was no less ebullient. “America embraced change today. And the planet will be better for it,” he announced.

Karpinski noted that, along with Obama, the nation also elected some environmental-minded senators, such as cousins Mark Udall (D-Colo.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.), from a family with a long conservation history.

Greenpeace cleverly marked the moment with a electronic picture postcard to Obama with a “to do” list affixed with checkmarked items like “create jobs”, “boost economy”, “save the world”.

Save the world indeed. But where to begin? As with the economy, the path forward will be complicated. Barack Obama’s election may mean a warmer reception for environmental advocates, but many clashing interests and priorities still clutter the green highway.

Should coal power be nurtured into a new era of “clean coal” production, or summarily replaced with alternative electricity generation that doesn’t consume mountains — but hasn’t been scaled up? Are more incentives needed to boost solar, wind and geothermal research? Where will the money come from? How does the U.S. lead on global warming, when it is the second biggest emitter of greenhouse gas emissions (now that China is passing us) on the planet? Can Americans conserve enough to break their dependence on foreign oil? Will struggling automakers deliver on their promise of more efficient cars?

So many questions, such a long agenda, and such a poor economy — no small detail as witnessed by the defeat last night of an initiative in California that would have given rebates to clean-fuel car buyers. Voters apparently didn’t think the state could afford it.

So where does the new president tee off?

We asked a few professional environmental policymakers how they’d advise President-elect Obama.

Some said the new administration should immediately signal that it is ready to lead on the urgent issue that looms over all others: climate change.

“We’ve got to take a long term outlook and restore our image globally… demonstrating that we are serious about our commitment to reducing our own carbon emissions, engaging China and taking a leadership seat at that table,” said Ginette Hemley, senior vice president for policy at the World Wildlife Fund, which recently put out a “Greenprint” for the nation’s newly elected leaders.

Specifically, the incoming administration should send an observing delegation to the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poznan, Poland in December, a prelude to re-crafting the Kyoto Treaty, she said.