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

Not convinced that climate change matters? The Union of Concerned Scientists has concluded that if Americans adopt that stance, they’ll be gambling not just with their lungs, but with their pocketbooks.

The UCS surveyed 60 studies to better examine the anticipated financial toll of global warming if we fail to “dramatically curb emissions.” The nonprofit released the findings today in a report called “Climate Change in the United States: The Prohibitive Costs of Inaction”.

It found that rising sea levels, intense hurricanes, flooding, impaired public health and strained energy and water resources would all add up to one monumental price tag.

“By late this century, the Midwest could be inundated with more torrential rainstorms costs tens of billions of dollars [in crop and property damage]. California, Washington and Oregon could be hit with an additional billion dollars in property damage from wildfires every year. The Northeast and Northwest, meanwhile, could lost most of their snowpack, which would kill the ski industry,” said Lexi Shultz, deputy director of the Climate Program at UCS.

But wait, there’s good news: The US Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration says that developing clean energy and taking steps to slow global warming emissions would be affordable. The EIA says that the cost of fighting global warming would only cost each American household about $10 a month in increases in their energy bills by 2020.

The UCS wants us to stack that price tag of about $120 a year against the staggering costs of inaction. If climate change continues unchecked, with temperatures climbing by 7 to 11 degrees by 2100, the UCS report projects that:

• The federal government could end up spending billions fighting wildfires (which would increase by as much as 53 percent in 2100) considering the feds spent $200 million fighting just three wildfires last year in California.

• California would also suffer from heat-related public health issues and associated costs of billions to mitigate the human effects of ground-level ozone, which would worsen under climate change.

• The loss of snowpack would make many recreation areas in the Northeast and the Northwest unsuitable for skiing and snowmobiling, costing, conservatively, a loss of $405 million in annual skiing revenues.

• Reduced snow melt in all of the nation’s mountainous regions could affect water flow in streams and ultimately cost farmers, such as those in New Mexico where the loss of water from reduced snowmelt could cost $21 million a year by 2080.

• Shrinking snowpack would have huge impact in Oregon and Washington on many industries. Losses to the coldwater fishing (angling) industry could ultimately cost about $1 billion annually.

• In the Northeast, sugar maples would lose habitat, meaning annual loss of $5 to $12 million just to that industry.

• Sea level rise all along the East Coast would require seawalls. Possible cost in the Northeast: Up to $1.2 billion, and more in the Southeast

• In the Southeast, where a projected rise of 18 inches is anticipated in sea levels, the beach recreation industry could incur $11 billion in cumulative damages by 2080.

• Georgia alone could lose 5,000 tourism jobs.

• Florida could be especially hard hit, experiencing residential real estate losses of as much as $60 billion a year by 2100, due to sea level rises. The tourism industry could be slapped with more than $175 billion in annual losses due to beach erosion. Property damage from hurricanes could top $100 billion annually by 2100.

• In the Midwest, flooding and heavy downpours predicted by a collaboration of 13 federal agencies, could cause billions of dollars of crop damage and exacerbate erosion, raising the price of food production. Looking at just one state, Illinois, the annual costs to agriculture could reach $9.3 billion.

• Alaska, where warming is occurring disproportionately faster than in other states, would suffer continued damage to infrastructure as the permafrost melts, costing up to $6 billion just by 2030.

As for those who might ask whether these projections are alarmist, a spokesman for the UCS notes that the report was based on “mainstream” studies and that scientists, if anything, tend to err on the of conservatism.

“Most climate scientists acknowledge that current methods of predicting the consequences of climate change may underestimate the real impact and costs of climate change. More carbon dioxide is staying in the atmosphere as the ocean absorbs less and less over time. At the same time, ice sheets appear to be melting more rapidly than scientist have expected,” said Aaron Huertas, press secretary for the UCS, which is based in Massachusetts.

“…If these costs seem large it’s only because our dependence on the relatively stable climate of the past century or so is immense,” Huertas said. “Every home, every crop, every road — our entire civilization — has been built for today’s climate. A rapid shift in our climate will mean major disruptions for our way of life.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Once, long ago, a winemaker promised to sell no wine before its time. Now, a different company is promising to sell no wine (one label of wine anyway) without helping humans atone for past crimes.

The rhyme may not be as good, but the thought is more altruistic.

Trinity Oaks, a wine brand in the portfolio of Trinchero Family Estates, is pouring itself into this project by partnering up with Trees for the Future, an organization that plants trees around the world, promising that for every bottle of wine consumers purchase, they’ll plant one tree.

The California company also is diverting money usually spent on printed marketing material toward environmental causes, to combat global warming.

“The tree planting campaign, in collaboration with the nonprofit organization Trees for the Future,
helps restore tree cover to tropical landscapes throughout Africa, Asia and Latin America,” said Juliana French-Arnold, public relations specialist for Trinchero Family Estates.

“The purpose of our work is to improve people’s livelihoods in developing countries through helping them restore health to their land, increase their food security, and improving their ability to generate income. This is all possible primarily through planting multi-purpose, beneficial trees in gardens and fields, and on degraded lands. Furthermore–though this was not how we began planting trees twenty years ago, it is of increasing importance presently–planting trees is also the best way we have available to remove carbon dioxide from our atmosphere thereby helping to reduce pressures from climate change,” said Gabriel Buttram with Trees for the Future.

“For instance, if Trinity Oaks plants one million trees with us over the course of a year in the tropics they would sequester around 25,000 tons of CO2 each year,” at the beginning of the campaign, Buttram said.

There is no limit to the amount of trees the company will plant. To date, the One Bottle One Tree program has planted more than 1.8 million trees. The campaign that began in the summer of 2008 will run until next summer.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Barbara Ettinger and Sven Huseby knew their documentary about ocean acidification would have to pass a high test to avoid overwhelming a public already grappling with the many technical facets of climate change.

To sound the alarm about yet another looming global warming catastrophe, the potential destruction of all marine life, their film would have to be engaging, accessible, down-to-earth.

Happily, A Sea Change: Imagine a World Without Fish succeeds on all those levels. Humanizing this critical issue like no previous film or book, it follows the soft-spoken Huseby on an odyssey of discovery as he meets with scientists and activists in Alaska, Seattle, California and Norway trying to understand the phenomenon of ocean acidification.

Gently, the story drives home what’s at stake: A healthy planet for future generations, embodied in this case by Sven and Barbara’s spirited grandson, Elias, age 5. The irrepressible Elias serves as the film’s touchstone, reminding us of the urgency of his grandfather’s mission and of the simple wonders of beach and ocean.

Sven writes “home” about his discoveries to Elias, who lives in California (where in real life, he watches Blue Planet and is known as “a very verbal fellow”). He tells him he’s deeply worried about the oceans, but adds that as a former teacher, “I really believe the power to change begins with knowledge.”

On his travels, Sven considers how he’ll explain to Elias about this problem that should rightly fall outside the scope of childhood — the potential complete destruction of the oceans via acidification, the result of the seas absorbing humankind’s carbon dioxide emissions.

In asking, what are we leaving behind for our kids and grandkids, A Sea Change doesn’t mince words.

But this inter-generational interplay also lends the film a warmth, and keeps it clear of the rocky shoals where more strident, proselytizing documentaries sometimes crash. Sven is on a fact-finding mission, not a soap box. His director and wife, Barbara Ettinger, uses ample footage from expert subjects, but also keeps them off the preaching podium.

A Sea Change deliberately reaches out to people of all ages and political stripes. Kids will enjoy Elias’s viewpoint. Newcomers to the subject will appreciate Sven’s Mr. Rogers-like approach to interviews. The film is paced to allow for periodic reflection, and beautifully filmed along the rocky coasts of the Pacific Northwest and Norway, all the way to the Arctic, where we see and hear the ice dropping into the sea.

Sven ultimately meets a score of scientists and environmentalists who are passionate about their mission to save the oceans (which cover more than 70 percent of the Earth’s surface). He also visits with artist Maya Lin to ponder the psychology of why we haven’t been better ocean stewards.

The film, released this spring, is being featured this week at the Downtown Film Festival-Los Angeles on Aug. 20 (Thursday at 7 p.m.) and will have its New York City premiere at the American Museum of Natural History on Sept. 13. It is also playing at cinema festivals around the world. It was conceived of in late 2006 when Sven and Barbara were both struck by the New Yorker article, “The Darkening Sea” by Elizabeth Kolbert. Barbara, a filmmaker, and Sven, a former teacher and headmaster of the Putney School in Vermont, considered themselves enlightened people; Barbara’s last film had even tackled a regional environmental fight. Yet the ocean article was startling.

“We were flabbergasted that we’d never heard of the phenomenon of acidification of the sea,” Sven said last week from his home in upstate New York.

The couple set out to investigate. Sven pursued financing (eventually signing several foundations to back the movie), as Barbara figured out how to turn the story into a film that could reach a wide audience.

“We made a very clear decision. I guess part of it is who we are as people. We didn’t want to make an apocalyptic film. But what we see in this area of ocean acidification are some very big issues,” Sven said in an interview with GreenRightNow.

Much of what the film crew uncovered was disturbing, he said; “I got pretty depressed the first half of this film as we interviewed scientist after scientist.”

As the native Norwegian and former private school headmaster travels from Alaska to the Pacific Northwest US to a scientists’ outpost in Tromsoe, Norway, a dark cloud emerges. Everything out in the deep blue is in jeopardy. The oceans have been absorbing the earth’s mounting CO2 emissions, but now, all life, from the tiniest marine creatures to those at the top of the food chain – to humans – is paying a toll.

“For 20,000 years, we’ve had a relatively stable environment. Now, there are going to be a lot of extinctions,” reports Dr. Jeff Short, then with NOAA, now the Pacific Science director for Oceana.

“Ocean chemistry is being altered on a scale not seen for millions of years,” says marine professor, Dr. Edward L. Miles, ot the University of Washington: “And we don’t know what the consequences will be.”

When the oceans turn acidic, Sven explains in our interview, “it’s like dropping a piece of chalk into vinegar.” That’s an exaggeration, but what happens to the chalk shows how shellfish, coral and the delicate, tiny pterapods at the foundation of the marine food chain are being affected.

Increasing carbon emissions here on land mean more ocean acidity, which is sapping the oceans’ capacity to support life and pushing them to the brink. Fish populations are thinning, coral is dying and the Ph of the water is nearing fatal levels for many species.

We get many visuals. Sven interviews a chemistry teacher who demonstrates with baby teeth what acid (in the form of a soda) can do to a calcium coating, like those on the pterapods. (You’ll understand the oceans better, and reconsider your next Coke.)

Similar mini-tutorials keep us hanging in with Sven as he bikes, hikes and hovers on several coastlines, explaining the threat to our oceans – and during the last part of the film, what can be done to save them.

It’s an enjoyable ride, even under that brooding cloud. Our amazingly robust 65-year-old narrator, his glib grandson, and the fleet of people working to solve things make for an eye-opening tale. There are poignant moments, like when the author of the New Yorker piece Kolbert commiserates with Sven about leaving such an ailing planet for our children.

“I continue to think about that remark and trying to turn this thing around,” Sven says in our interview.

A Sea Change does offer hope, on several coasts. There are the lawyer activist in California, wind engineers in Norway, executives at Google and others, who believe pollution can be stopped and alternative energy harnessed to turn back the carbon clock.

Even in unlikely spots, such as the century-old Solstrand Hotel in Norway, which now operates on renewable energy from the ocean, there’s hope.

How can ordinary people help? “They can think about their carbon footprint,” says Huseby. “They can ask themselves how can they decrease the fossil fuel they use for transportation. They can ask how well have they insulated their homes…through conservation alone we can do the most. It’s not that expensive and it can have a huge impact.”

And, he adds, you should contact your Congressional representative.

“It sounds old-fashioned, even quaint. But it’s really important that people write to their representatives and stress that they want to get off fossil fuels…They all say they need the push. So let’s start pushing.”

Details:

A Sea Change: Imagine a World Without Fish
Director/producer: Barbara Ettinger; co-producer: Sven Huseby; co-producer: Susan Cohn Rockefeller; editing: Toby Shimin; cinematography by Claudia Raschke-Robinson; associate producer: Ben Kalina.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Related video:

Watch the trailer for A Sea Change:

At a time when most 15-year-olds are thinking about sports, learning to drive and dating, Alec Loorz is trying to stop global warming.

The Ventura, California teen is the creator of Kids vs. Global Warming, a non-profit group dedicated to getting youth involved in the fight against global warming. “As young people, we are the ones who have to face the consequences of global warming,” he says, in an interview from his home. “We need to get involved now.”

Alec says he was 12 when he was first introduced to the topic. His mom, Victoria, had rented An Inconvenient Truth. “She tried to persuade me to watch it. I thought it was going to be a boring documentary. Instead, it changed my life forever. I watched it two more times, including the special features.”

“I knew then that I wanted to do something about it. The next day at school, I talked about the movie to my friends. One of my friends said, ‘global warming was a hoax and Al Gore is a psycho.’”

Just to prove his friend wrong, Alec went home that night and researched everything he could about global warming. “That was when I realized that I could do something about it.”

He applied to be trained as a presenter for Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth programs, but they rejected him. “I was still 12 and you had to be 14,” Alec says. “It bugged me a little, so I decided to do it on my own.”

Alec began giving his own global warming presentations to area schools, churches, colleges and adult environmental groups. A few years later, Alec says, “Al Gore personally invited me to his next training session in Nashville. He felt bad. He had learned about my rejection.”

Like many environmentalists, Alec agrees, that by not becoming president, Al Gore has made a bigger impact on the world. “If he had become President,” Alec says, “I’d probably still be playing video games.”

Now, at the ripe old age of 15, Alec has met the former Vice President five times. At a presentation in San Diego, Gore brought Alec up on stage with him. “Whenever I’ve been with him, he always includes me in his presentations.”

You gotta love it when people show they care. Greenpeace activists made their passion for the environment manifest in yet another creative way today, posting a sign urging Obama to show strong leadership on global warming.

On Mount Rushmore.

Next to Lincoln, our president’s favorite president.

They were arrested, which for Greenpeacers is not a negative. Though the group noted in the news release that the sign posters were all trained rock climbers, so no lives were endangered. The “heads” were unharmed and the activists took care to use established climbing anchors used for routine cleanings.

As for the inevitable hundreds of tourists on the viewing deck below, it no doubt created an exciting moment worthy of a footnote in the vacation scrapbook, or a weird flashback to that scene in which Cary Grant saves Eva Marie Saint in North by Northwest.

Why was Obama poked at this particular moment? He is meeting with G-8 leaders this week in Italy and the enviros want to make sure he doesn’t weenie out and become too compromising on climate matters. In light of Obama’s tendency to instinctively meet people halfway and the recent passage of much-mauled, arguably weak and alternately praised and maligned Waxman-Markey climate legislation, this seems like an appropriate message.

And now we get to show you the picture:                

The banner reads, “America Honors Leaders. Not Politicians. Stop Global Warming”.

Greenpeace wants the Obama Administration to set policies that result in global emissions peaking by 2015 and falling back to zero, compared with 1990 levels, by 2050.

The group also wants President Obama to personally attend climate talks in Copenhagen in December to push strong policies, such as a global fund to help less developed nation’s cope with the impact of global warming and stop tropical deforestation. Whether or not that all comes to pass remains a huge question.
Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

The Obama Administration, via the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), issued a wake-up call today, a massive report on climate change called Global Climate Change Impacts in the U.S..

It concludes that the effects of climate change are here, they’re worsening and they must be dealt with soon if future generations are to enjoy ample food, water and comfortable living conditions

Quite simply, it’s a message about impending disaster. Average temperatures are getting hotter and could rise as much as 10 degrees by the end of the century. Our use of fossil fuels is mainly to blame. If we don’t stop polluting the air with heat-trapping gases, the ensuing climate changes will continue to promulgate drought, flooding, severe storms, stressed agriculture, thinning glaciers, earlier snow melts, rising sea levels, declining ecosystems and deteriorating air quality.

End of story. Literally. (For life as we know it.)

On the one hand this report, the work of 13 government agencies assembled under the USGCRP and directed by top scientists, is brimming with stuff you’ve heard before — about wacky storms, vanishing water supplies and imperiled croplands.

On another level, though, it’s a clarion call that is scary as Hades, which is about how hot its getting.

Furthermore, the 188-page report makes it official, we must act now, not later, if we’re to stem the damage: “Implementing sizable and sustained reductions in carbon dioxide emissions as soon as possible would significantly reduce the pace and the overall amount of climate change, and would be more effective than reductions of the same size initiated later.”

Key point there, doing something now matters. Waiting might render the rescue ineffective. It’s that tipping point thing.

A coalition of environmental groups responded to the release Tuesday with a short statement concurring that urgency is the right stance. “Scientists are telling us that our climate future is in our hands. We’re seeing the effects of climate change now and we have the power to prevent it from getting much worse. We owe it to ourselves, our children and our grandchildren to address global warming and dramatically lower heat-trapping emissions as quickly as possible,” said the group, which included the Union of Concerned Scientists, Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, 1Sky and others.

Read the U.S. government full report at the website, where you also can pull out detailed information on each section of the country.

Here are the key findings (with page notations where you can read more within the full text):

1. Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced.
Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. (p. 13)

2. Climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow.
Climate-related changes are already observed in the United States and its coastal waters. These include increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasons in the ocean and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alterations in river flows. These changes are projected to grow. (p. 27)

3. Widespread climate-related impacts are occurring now and are expected to increase.
Climate changes are already affecting water, energy, transportation, agriculture, ecosystems, and health. These impacts are different from region to region and will grow under projected climate change. (p. 41-106, 107-152)

4. Climate change will stress water resources.
Water is an issue in every region, but the nature of the potential impacts varies. Drought, related to reduced precipitation, increased evaporation, and increased water loss from plants, is an important issue in many regions, especially in the West. Floods and water quality problems are likely to be amplified by climate change in most regions. Declines in mountain snowpack are important in the West and Alaska where snowpack provides vital natural water storage. (p. 41, 129, 135, 139)

5. Crop and livestock production will be increasingly challenged.
Agriculture is considered one of the sectors most adaptable to changes in climate. However, increased heat, pests, water stress, diseases, and weather extremes will pose adaptation challenges for crop and livestock production. (p. 71)

6. Coastal areas are at increasing risk from sea-level rise and storm surge.
Sea-level rise and storm surge place many U.S. coastal areas at increasing risk of erosion and flooding, especially along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, Pacific Islands, and parts of Alaska. Energy and transportation infrastructure and other property in coastal areas are very likely to be adversely affected. (p. 111, 139, 145, 149)

7. Threats to human health will increase.
Health impacts of climate change are related to heat stress, waterborne diseases, poor air quality, extreme weather events, and diseases transmitted by insects and rodents. Robust public health infrastructure can reduce the potential for negative impacts. (p. 89)

8. Climate change will interact with many social and environmental stresses.
Climate change will combine with pollution, population growth, overuse of resources, urbanization, and other social, economic, and environmental stresses to create larger impacts than from any of these factors alone. (p. 99)

9. Thresholds will be crossed, leading to large changes in climate and ecosystems.
There are a variety of thresholds in the climate system and ecosystems. These thresholds determine, for example, the presence of sea ice and permafrost, and the survival of species, from fish to insect pests, with implications for society. With further climate change, the crossing of additional thresholds is expected. (p. 76, 82, 115, 137, 142)

10. Future climate change and its impacts depend on choices made today. The amount and rate of future climate change depend primarily on current and future human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases and airborne particles. Responses involve reducing emissions to limit future warming, and adapting to the changes that are unavoidable. (p. 25, 29)

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Who is Christopher Swain and why is he swimming through 1,000 miles of Atlantic Ocean muck?

Freestyling around the net looking for answers, we found the YouTube video, “Dirty for Swain” about how Swain supporters are bathing in sewage…moisturizing with crude oil…and drinking curdled milk (not makin’ it up) to support this eco-activist’s latest aquatic statement, which is taking him from Marblehead, Mass., to Washington D.C.

It might seem like a lot of toxic exposure just to make a point…except that Swain is leading a new wave of interest in cleaner water. With the oceans acidifying under global warming and fisheries collapsing due to excessive commercial fishing, there’s no time to waste, excuse the pun.

Swain’s bio page explains that he swims for “fishable, swimmable, drinkable waterways for future generations,” because — well, that is what he does. Over the last several years, this self-described “not a rich man and not a scientist” with degrees in French Lit, film and a master’s in Acupuncture, has braved all types of pollution, trash and mysterious toxic goo to swim the Charles, Hudson and Columbia rivers and Lake Champlain. These were long, dedicated, arduous swims — the length of the rivers — which have raised awareness about our polluted waterways and won Swain many accolades.

“Some of my motivation is selfish. I want my daughters to be able to swim in these waters themselves someday–without having to wade through a broth of heavy metals and sewage to do it. And I want them to know that I tried,” Swain writes on his bio page, which also tells about his childhood spent sailing.

“But some other part of me feels that these swims are my patriotic duty. Pleading the case for waterways has come to feel like my own twisted form of national service.”

Like the climber who confronted the mountain because it was there, Swain explains that he makes these swims because he has the will and wherewithal to “dive in when others might not.”

And so Swain is mid-swim on his latest adventure. And you can check up on him at ToxTour.org, which opens with the title: “An ordinary guy seeks healthy world.”

Ordinary, naw. Inspiring, yes! So if you want, you can get “Dirty for Swain.”

Or you can stay clean, wish him the best, perhaps donate to help classrooms launch projects to protect the oceans, or adopt-a-mile of Swain’s swim. The options are listed at ToxTour.org, and there’s more on the journey at Changents.com, which is carrying his blog and a chronicle of each swim day (he’s dipping in and out after a few miles each day, and the water temps are warming).

(Photo of Swain by Carrie Branovan.)

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Related video:

America’s urban centers are becoming ever greener, with the National League of Cities holding its first ever Green Cities Conference last month. While many cities have recently taken up environmental causes, some have been carrying the banner for years.

Seattle, home to such earlier innovations as the ’60s Space Needle, Microsoft, and grunge rock, is one such green leader.

In 2008, Seattle was anointed the nation’s leader in LEED-certified buildings by the US Green Building Council (USGBC), culminating an eight-year-old sustainable building policy calling for city-funded projects to be LEED-qualified at the silver level.

Seattle also can boast about its:

• Impressive bike trails system with about 30 trails and 20 bike lanes, making bike commuting commonplace in Seattle, home to the Cascade Bicycle Club, which claims to be the nation’s largest bicycle club

• Community-based home energy efficiency program, called SWITCH, that started last year and has sent neighbors door-to-door with thousands of CFL light bulbs.

• Climate initiative, begun in 2005, which sets city targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, who was elected in 2002, is a strong advocate for environmental stewardship. He introduced the city’s Climate Protection Initiative after the federal government chose to not participate in the Kyoto Protocol target for reducing climate pollution. That target is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

“I felt there was an opportunity for us to take action at a local level,” said Nickels in a recent interview.

The mayor says his “aha” moment came in 2004-05. “We had a very warm winter that year, and there wasn’t much snow in the mountains. That impacted our water supply and our power, since we rely mostly on hydroelectric power. It occurred to me that global warming affects every corner of the globe, including ours.

“This is something we urgently need to address for our future, and our children’s,” he says.

In 2006, Mayor Nickels asked other mayors to join him in the US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. Beginning with nine mayors, the group now numbers 910. These mayors represent more than 82 million people from all 50 states and are a “real political force that will continue to impact national policy,” he says.

Seattle CAN

Seattle Climate Action Now, or Seattle CAN, also began about this time. The city-led program partners with local businesses and organizations to provide residents with the tools needed at home and work to put an end to global warming. The Seattle CAN website helps citizens calculate their carbon footprint with a link to ZeroFootprint Seattle. Here residents can sign in and learn steps to reduce their family’s carbon footprint.

The site provides commonsense advice, such as driving less; replacing incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent ones; turning off and unplugging computers and cellphone chargers; changing furnace and air-conditioning filters regularly; installing weather stripping anywhere there is a draft; turning down the thermostat at night and when away from home; insulating the attic; running the dishwasher only when full; installing water-saving devices such as low-flow shower heads; and reducing the size of trash by recycling and buying less stuff.

There’s also an events calendar for climate-related events like Seattle’s Celebrate Summer Streets festivals.

A recent poll shows that three out of every four Seattle residents are taking actions to lessen their carbon footprint, says the mayor (center of photo at green event this year).

“With our ‘Climate Action Now’ campaign, Seattle is making great progress engaging and motivating our residents and business to fight global warming,” Nickels says. “Last year, we distributed more than 10,000 home energy kits to our residents. Our electric utility was successful in distributing more than 1.4 million compact fluorescent bulbs to Seattle homes and businesses.”

Americans are ready for action on clean energy jobs, energy independence and reducing carbon pollution, according to two Pew Environment Group-commissioned polls, one by the Mellman Group and another by Public Opinion Strategies.

The national survey of Americans contacted in late March by the Mellman Group, found that:

• 77% of voters favor action to reduce global warming emissions

• 50% of voters say they would view their Member of Congress more favorably if they support a comprehensive plan to create clean energy jobs and fight global warming, only 22% say they would view their Member of Congress less favorably.

• 44% of voters prefer proceeds from a polluters fund be divided equally between funding research and development and being returned to taxpayers in a tax cut or energy tax credit, 26% want to fund R & D only, 19% want to fund tax cut/energy tax credit only. (The fund would be created under the bill as industrial polluters are compelled to pay for their emissions.)

“Public support for action on global warming is overwhelming. Voters clearly understand that reducing the carbon pollution that causes global warming will improve our economy by creating clean energy jobs and enhance our security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil,” concluded Mark Mellman, President of The Mellman Group, a Democratic polling firm, in a news release.

Research and surveying in early April by Public Opinion Strategies, a leading Republican polling group, also found support for global warming legislation among all Americans.

• 74% of Republicans, 70% Independents and 74% Democrats believe jobs that reduce our dependence on foreign oil are “very important” for helping the economy over the next five to ten years.

• 63% of Republicans, 70% of Independents and 73% of Democrats believe jobs that are improving energy efficiency are “very important” to helping the economy over the next five to ten years.

• 59% of voters believe efforts to tackle global warming will create new American jobs.

The polls were designed to tap public opinion across the political spectrum as Congress prepares to debate and vote on the American Clean Energy and Security Act next week. The Act would set a variety of goals and incentives for the development of renewable energy and conservation measures.

Mellman based its findings on phone interviews with likely voters in late March; Public Strategies polled 800 registered voters by phone and contacted 1,200 adults online in early April. The Pew Environment Group is a conservation arm of The Pew Charitable Trusts, a non-government organization oriented to improving public policy.

Prince Charles launched a new Internet initiative The Prince’s Rainforest Project Campaign at the National Geographic’s store in London on Tuesday. The Prince also released a new webcast (see below) drawing attention to deforestation.

The Prince attended a showing of a 90 second public awareness film. Celebrities such as Harrison Ford, Daniel Craig, and the Dalai Lama joined Prince Charles and his sons Princes William and Harry to raise awareness of the organization and the loss of tropical rainforests.

Prince Charles started the Prince’s Rainforests Project (PRP) in 2007 to try to find a consensus approach to slow the rate of rainforest destruction, a major cause of greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. Rainforests store high amounts of carbon and preserve biodiversity. Some believe that with out stopping deforestation it would be impossible to avoid catastrophic climate change.

At the PRP website, visitors will soon be able to insert themselves into their personalized campaign video. The National Geographic store is 19,375 square feet of interactive visual displays and design dedicated to celebrating global cultures.

Learn more at the PRP website where individuals, non-profits and schools can sign up and get ideas for activities that can help. There’s also a photography competition, ending soon, June 2, for kids.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

The first full day of hearings on that proposed law known as Waxman-Markey, which would promote clean energy, foster green jobs and set up a system to curb greenhouse gas emissions, began — fittingly — on Earth Day.

But how do we make sense of this sweeping piece of legislation that affects everything from the air you breathe to the refrigerator you use? You could watch the hearings on C-Span over the next few weeks. (If you are unemployed, have all day long to plop in front of the tube and can remain alert for extended periods while people discuss abstractions like “carbon allowances” and “international offsets” this might be for you!)

Or you could read the bill. It is 648 pages. But as we learned from the recent stimulus escapades, even people in Congress don’t read these things.

So let’s stick to the executive summary of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. It is five pages long. For serious climate watchers, politicos, green collar workers and would-be Earth advocates, scanning this document is not a bad idea.

Fortunately we’re not the only ones trying to find ways to make this incredibly complex matter digestible. The EPA is on the job. The agency that would regulate and guide many of the directives in Waxman-Markey, should it pass, has put out an analysis of how it would help grow the economy and boost personal income while transforming the U.S. energy landscape and curtailing carbon emissions. (Though we’re back up to nine pages on this one.)

The EPA review — done at the request of House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.) — looked mainly at how emissions reductions and cap-and-trade guidelines would affect the economy (Title III in the Act.). It found that the W-M bill would:

• Make it more economical to invest in energy efficient manufacturing, housing and transportation, which would reduce energy consumption, delaying until mid-century the consumption levels we’d otherwise reach by 2015.

• Grow renewable energy; push forward new technology for coal production, bringing coal carbon capture and storage online in 2015.

• Its cap-and-trade provisions would result in carbon costs of about $13-$17 per metric ton in 2015, rising to $17-$22 by 2020 – propelling the development of cleaner alternatives.

• More clean energy would offset the need for increased petroleum use (a major security issue), keeping it nearly static through 2050. (Which tells you a bit about where the opposition to W-M will come from.)

The EPA report says a lot more. But it’s as thick as Ulysses. It needs deciphering. The Natural Resources Defense Council is trying, having asked its chief economist to analyze the EPA’s analysis (only in Washington).

Laurie Johnson, chief economist for the NRDC, looked at what the EPA was (trying) to say about household income under Waxman-Markey and found that:

• Households will become 18-19 percent richer between 2010 and 2020, and 36-40 percent by 2030. By contrast, the investment of the average household in the bill would only be $98 to $140 a year.

Takeaway: The Congressional prescription for global warming and our ailing economy won’t cost us too much net-net, and could even make us better off. If all goes well.

Take it with a grain of salt. And stay tuned.

(The NRDC has other decipherers. See David Doniger’s blog “First Read” of the Waxman-Markey Energy and Climate Discussion Draft. This excellent piece breaks the Act down into its significant parts.)

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media