By way of honest disclosure. Politically and socially I am conservative. I voted for George Bush. To some here, this may disqualify my comments at the outset. I hope not.

Much of my life has been devoted to wild birds in the state of Michigan. I am not an environmental activist. I do spend a significant amount of my life in the field and spend a great deal of time promoting (in a benign manner) the love of wild birds through my website and work on other wild bird organization websites in Michigan with no financial gain. I say these things to demonstrate that wildlife and the habitat they live in are important to me.

My personal struggle is striving to find a point wherein I can embrace mainstream "environmentalism" ... there is a disconnect that troubles me; and this disconnect is not just with me and some other wild bird lovers. There are hundreds of thousands of hunters who have a built in sympathy for environmental issues yet "environmentalism" is an anathema to many hunters.

I'm encouraged by those who suggest environmentalists would do well to focus at the grassroots level. Environmentalism is too connected with the Democratic Party and by extension Liberalism.

The extent to which environmentalists support, promote, and encourage grand regulatory structures on a federal level is the extent to which they lose sympathy among Conservative leaning naturalists, hunters, and others who otherwise share their concern with wildlife and the habitat they live in.

Most Americans, conservatives included, share a concern for the environment. Mainstream Environmentalism is crippled by its marriage with the Democratic Party and its policies. On one level, this is maddening to me. This just does not have to be the case. A concern for the environment we live in should and, in fact, does transcend political parties and political ideological structures.

The problem is that environmentalists have allowed "environmentalism" to solidify within an, at best, left of center ideological structure.

I hope for the day that, instead of running from mainstream "environmentalism" I can proudly embrace it.

Perhaps the best place to accomplish this is to go to the grassroots and listen to and take seriously those who share concerns over the environment but who do not connect with "environmentalism."

I hope this contributes positively to the discussion.

Keith F. Saylor
Alpena, Michigan
www.northbirding.com

1.  A clear, united vision of our shared desired future.

2.  A simple message that is clear and easily understandable.

3.  Simple stories and visions that pull emotional strings, ignite passions, and incite dedication.

4.  A greater focus on changing minds and helping people along a path to change and less of a focus on winning individual battles.

5.  Environmentalists are great at seeing the connections present in the world and thinking long-term.  This is why we worry so much.  It is time to use this to our advantage and start working toward long-term goals now.

1.  A culture that identifies enjoyment of personal connections and creativity/innovation as a better measure of a person's wealth.  Not money.

2.  A culture that incorporates into its worldview the idea that morality is rooted in an understanding of connections and the hurt that we may cause others if not empathetic (e.g. love thy neighbor).  Sin (if we believe in this) is failing to make an effort to prevent oneself from causing harm to others.

3.  A culture that believes in the importance of critical thinking within a framework of a connected world.  This ideal is important partly to prevent "sin" and partly to increase number 1 (true riches).

One last thing, if we think long-term, maybe we can view this as the beginnings of a campaign for the next president (someone like Obama).  There is still hope for the future.

But the reality is that there are a lot of people in those Red States who really do believe that George W is a moral man.

We can't just keep talking to each other, we have to convert some of them. We need to make them see, over and over, the information that we have that shows just how immoral Bush and his gang are.

Like that children exposed to pesticides and mercury get cancer and learning disabilities. That lack of conservation makes us brutal bullies that take over oil fields in foreign countries.  Like those strikes against Fallujah that kill more children than terrorists.  

We need to do this on a grass roots level, we need to be creative, and we need to be smart. Look at how the Right Wing has manipulated thought in those states so successfully.

We need to get beyond just the arguments, we need to figure out and execute the MECHANISMS. I'm no pro, but I have some ideas just to get the juices flowing:

We need to support our friends in those states, so they have the information and equipment and money and moral support and a game plan so they can talk effectively with their neighbors, colleagues and classmates. Just like they stated all the Bush lies over and over and over, and now people believe them as truth. We need to do the same thing. Give them our info over and over.

Get them to see the light! Know the truth! We must infect them with knowledge and the new true morality.  Well you get the point. (yikes, that was scary!)

We should revamp our info so it appeals to their "culture". Like make it all churchy and Pat Boonish. Maybe country music songs. Whatever works.

Identify ways to reach and support clergy who have a shred of intellectual honesty, and will take the time to examine their beliefs when confronted with some ugly truth. And keep that ball rolling.

We need to take over an effective vocabulary, so they don't keep hitting us over the head with "Clean Skies" and "Healthy Forests". There's a good discussion of that in a recent Sierra magazine.

We need to support school board members and teachers who want to teach science or get pesticides out of schools.

Hey, I even tried to talk one of my young enviro colleagues to move back to the South (she shuddered). Anybody wanna move to Tennessee?

This sort of thing is long term. It took the Right many years to implement their plan, but they planned it deliberately, and they made it happen. It seems they were very methodical about how they went about it. We need to do the same thing. Person by person, church by church.

Dave Tamayo
Sacramento

We need to reframe the argument in terms of human life.  How many children will not come to full term due to poisons in their environment?  How many people will die prematurely due to cancer caused by toxins not being cleaned up becase the Superfund has been allowed to go bankrupt?  How many people will die because we are addicted to oil and we need to go to war with countries that may disrupt the oil supply? (100,000 Iraqis, 1100 Americans, and counting)

The science is out there!  We need to put this together and get the message out to the media.  Then we need a nice, little catchy sound bite that sticks like "George Bush poisons children" or "Bush prefers war for oil over American ingenuity".

The environmentalists are leaning on the democrats to help, but the democrats keep playing on the republican's turf.  We need to frame our own arguments and solutions to help protect America and Mother Earth!  The American people will respond if they understand.

And yet, experts estimate that less than 10 percent of the U.S. population understands or cares about natural resource management. If great numbers of people do not take seriously the worst wave of extinction since the dinosaurs died, how are we going to teach people to be concerned about the health of their urban forests?

Sustainable urban forests are necessary to provide the inhabitants who live there, which now totals nine out of 10 Americans, with a continuing level of economic, social, environmental and ecological benefits today and into the future. To achieve the maximum level of these benefits over an extended period of time, sustainable urban forests must have three basic components:

1. Healthy tree resource
   
2. Comprehensive management
   
3. Communitywide support

People take themselves seriously, but concern for self does not seem to expand sufficiently to embrace concern for the species -- and definitely not for all species and ecosystems. This is why the urban ecosystem holds the key to global sustainability. The urban ecosystem is where the vast majority of people live. If we can't sell the idea of sustainable urban forests to the people who inhabit them, what chance does the South American rainforest have? And why should the Brazilians preserve their old-growth forests when we fail to acknowledge the mistake of already cutting down our own without having a comprehensive ecosystem restoration plan in place?

Many natural resource specialists think that we should not be involved in public relations, marketing or media relations. They say we should stick with science. This attitude is largely responsible for the fact that the vast majority of the public does not know, understand or care about natural resource management.

As a critical element of sustainability, what we really need from the public is greater awareness, understanding and support for urban forests and comprehensive ecosystem management. We need a proactive approach that employs full-time media, marketing and public relations specialists to package and present our product so that people will buy it. In addition to creativity, studies show that frequency is critical to the public's perception of a message's importance. And let's not forget that we must also utilize innovative educational methods to reach our youth if we hope to increase the public's understanding of natural resources to the extent necessary for true sustainability.

The Ecological Footprints of Nations 2002 issue brief, reporting on the biological capacity of 146 nations representing nearly 100 percent of the world's population, concludes, "WE HAVE ONLY ONE EARTH...We will achieve sustainability only when every person can lead a satisfying life within the Earth's biological capacity. Failing to keep a reliable and comprehensive accounting of our ecological expenditures will lead to an inevitable result -- ecological bankruptcy."

Terry Mock Tree of Life Sustainable Development Consulting, Inc.

My own two cents is that environmental groups need to A) stop acting like they're running for anything. As others have said, it's time to divorce the issue from the Democratic Party. To hell with both parties. B) start engaging corporations in the struggle to do something about environmental problems. Put pressure on them, make it in their own best interest to do the right thing, but don't wait for government to do the work or you'll be waiting a long time. C) Stop testing out messaging in focus groups and actually go out and lead based on what you actually believe. In fact, get rid of the word, 'messaging' which is just the invention of know-nothing, high-priced consultants anyway. Did Ghandi worry about honing his 'message'? Did Martin Luther King rely on focus groups to tweak his 'message.' Was Jesus concerned with 'message' in his Sermon on the Mount? D) Stop blaming 'the media.' It's not perfect, but the information IS out there for anyone who cares to look. E) Start putting more responsibility on the public. Stop pretending, for example, that it's the automakers' fault that people want SUVs (despite the fact that, as the media has repeatedly reported, they are prone to rolling over and killing them). After every election, the politicians come out and tell us that Americans aren't dumb, apathetic or mean-spirited. Well, I got news for you: We are too. Somehow, I don't see Eminem leading the way toward our enlightenment.

The environmental community could do more to reach out and make common cause with these folks who believe that we ought to be caretakers of the planet.  That's a view that we may be able to encourage.

Not every Christian thinks, as someone described James Watt's attitude, that "Jesus Christ is coming soon-- cut down all the trees!"

Some of the key sources of greenhouse gases are from the burning fuels for travel in cars, diesel fuel in trucks, locomotives, ships and airplanes, and from burning coal and natural gas in electric power generation plants and residential and industrial furnaces.  These sources of greenhouse gas emissions (predominantly carbon dioxide) add to the already present "natural" background levels of carbon dioxide, which is released in photosynthesis from plants. The additional emissions from fossil fuel burning have lead to higher than natural volume of carbon dioxide gas being present in the atmosphere, thus increasing the ability of the atmosphere to "trap" more heat close to the Earth's surface.

The warming "trend" is now well documented (see Sept. 2004 issue of National Geographic magazine).  The polar ice caps are melting;  mountain glaciers are receding in Alaska, South America, Asia, Europe and Africa; Europe recorded an unprecedented heat wave in August 2003 which killed upwards of 20,000 people;  springtime temperatures occur 3 weeks earlier on average in the Midwest and fall-time temperatures last longer into winter; extreme storms including more tornados and hurricanes have occurred while prolonged drought continues in the west; sea levels are rising as the permafrost region is thawing and ocean water temperatures increase - all of these physical observations are consistent with the scientific models that predicted global warming and its impacts.  

Scientists predict global warming will pick up speed as this century progresses. It can be slow but not stopped entirely.  The way to slow the warming is to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases we are pumping annually into it.

The scientifically measured concentration level of carbon dioxide gas (CO2) in the atmosphere today registers close to 380 parts per million (PPM).  Scientists assert that CO2 is at its highest concentration level in at least 400,000 years, and probably more like several million years.

Other greenhouse gases like nitrous oxide and methane have also increased dramatically in the atmosphere as well.  None of these gases wash out or disintegrate in time.  They have to be "sequestered" by plants or "assimilated" by rocks and the oceans, both of which take many years for the amount of CO2 which has already built up in our atmosphere. Some of these gases will remain in the atmosphere indefinitely, building up to higher levels as more are added each year.  As they continue to build, they collectively hold more of the heat energy that radiates off the earth's surface after sunlight strikes the surface, thereby not allowing that heat to escape from the earth's surface, which causes the surface and ocean temperature levels to rise (and ocean waters to expand).

In order to arrest this, we need to reduce frivolous and inefficient burning of fossil fuels and secure more energy from clean energy sources, such as wind power and solar power.

To make that happen, the U.S. Congress and President need to recognize the urgency of slowing global warming down now, before too much time is lost.  They need to declare war on global warming, and target all unnecessary and inefficient combustion of fossil fuels as the primary enemy.  A massive and informed public needs to demand that they do that as soon as possible; they are not likely to take much actions without it.  It must be a groundswell of public support for the major kinds of changes that will be needed to bring about those reductions.

As environmentalists, we are obligated to demand major actions to this effect, despite the inevitable consequences in terms of convenience.  They are tremendous benefits to reducing dirty fossil fuel burning, many of which relate to public health, wildlife protection, cleaning up the air and saving agricultural lands.  We can begin with writing individual letters, making phone calls, sending emails and paying visits to our federal government representatives.  Then we should tell our state and local governmental representatives to do the same, and begin to enact the kind of programs and funding policies that will bring about major local and state reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from all public and private sources, especially in the transportation sector, which is the largest CO2 emitting sector of the U.S. economy.

At the international level, we need to join with the European and other nations in implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, accept the target greenhouse gas emission levels identified for the U.S.,  and begin to immediately working toward them in the Congress and elsewhere.

The U.S. emits the largest annual amount of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere so it ought be making the largest cut in its annual greenhouse gas emissions.  It can do this by raising the fuel efficiency standards for motor vehicles manufactured in the U.S.; by adopting programs that will bring about annual reductions in motor vehicle miles driven and flown in the U.S. and by U.S. citizens, by reducing the percentages of electricity produced by coal fired and natural gas fired power plants relative to wind and solar power.  The current administration should cooperate with the United Nations in achieving the goals of the Kyoto Protocol and the U.N. Framework Conventions on Climate Change.

Julia Hill says the election was rigged without offering a shred of evidence. Maybe it was, but you'll have to do better than that. She says she hopes this election is a wake-up call. Well, what was the last one? A snooze button?  

Speaking of snoozers, Dick Nelson's chant isn't rousing, it's soporific. Makes me want to take back what I said about Eminem.

Rick Bass speaks hopefully of the student vote, but the stats I've seen show the kids are split pretty much down the middle. Just as many fundamentalist Christians there in the 18-24 category.

When Laurie David says, "We will not tolerate phony science dictating America's policies," she surely isn't talking about we Americans. We Americans have been tolerating it just fine, seems to me. In fact, isn't one of the most salient messages YOU can take away from the election is that YOU don't speak for THEM. You can't speak for a country as polarized as this one. So stop. Please.

Without a doubt, all these folks are well-meaning and deserve respect, but the tired bromides and slender consolations offered up here just have a pathetically hollow ring to them. McKibben's right: There's nothing but discouragement here. Maybe it's too early for this. The struggle continues, yes, but maybe we need to take a little longer to shut up and think about it.

When will we learn to stop droning on about policy, and start speaking about values and vision in down-to-earth language that people understand?

And kudos to Chouinard for this:  "I wouldn't bother waiting for the Democratic Party to get its shit together for the next go-round because I think this week's election results are just going to drive the party even further to the right."

Here is the formula for cracking the political majority we need and gaining access to the political power we need to advance a liberal agenda.

We need to adopt a pro-life agenda.

Hold on there.

Problem - everytime we try to tell them that environmental protection is "moral," they point to our pro-choice politics and fairly call us hypocrites.

Context -

1. All the easy anti-abortion positions have been taken - parental notification, 3d trimester, etc.

2. They risk losing Joe Sixpack (their core) if they push for more. Joe puts his daughter on birth control just like the rest of us did.

3. Morality is the key to the public conscience - every thing can be too easily corrupted by money (see, e.g. economy, war on terror, Fox, etc.).

The Dems give a little on choice - agree that abortion IS WRONG (I am not one of them, don't overreact). We should do everything in our power to prevent it. We should educate, contracept (a word?), cajol, adopt, support - everything.

We should stand firm on some things - some thoughts for a longer discussion.

WE SHOULD TAKE THE MORAL LEADERSHIP ON THE SANCTITY OF LIFE.

We should rank our issues for their impact on life. Abortion ranks high cuz the fetus is powerless, but so does genocide (can we stand idly by on Darhfor (sp?)), and destruction of community values by rapacious corporations.

Rationale - Worst case is we expose the hypocrisy of the "religious right." Best case, we reclaim the moral high ground.

Response?

-------- Karl R. Rabago

1. I am thinking about the emerging science on the impact of chemicals on pre-natal development, on the children my wife and I have lost through spontaneous miscarriages. If stopping that was a priority, what would we do?

2. I am thinking about what I cherish - the emergence of life in fern uncoiling from the still near-frozen soil, the color of new buds on trees, the quickening of my children in their mother, the potential of every person.

On another topic, I think that more people could volunteer more. If everyone who voted for Kerry wrote a letter to the editor of their local paper, or called a local TV station, once a month for the next month, that would be 4-5 million letters per month-- enough to swing the media to the left. My friends who work at newspapers tell me they get irate calls from right-wing viewers all the time-- maybe we need to get our act together. Even 25% participation would be huge.

If you're more pissed off, how about volunteering some time to a Sierra Club committee or NRDC... There's going to be a lot of court battles for the environment in teh next four years and even non-lawyers can help the organizations that take a lead in the fights. Adopt a court case and stay with it?

Raphael Sperry

I'd rather back down some on guns.  Gun control doesn't get us much, and it loses us -- environmentalists in particular -- lots of folks that might otherwise be allies.

By the way, I've started a discussion of all this kind of stuff here.

grist.org

Again - I haven't accepted these ideas - just searching for an approach.

-------- Karl R. Rabago

Aligning environmentalism with the pro-life movement is to take the focus back to the individual and away from ecosystemic protection.  We will leave ourselves wide open to attacks from those who say that we want to protect every last individual possible and that we're extremist nuts.  Doing this wouldn't broaden the environmental movement, it would narrow it.

Here is another thing.  The pro-choice movement is the one that is responsible for education in family planning, which means it is in part responsible for moving the human race towards zero population growth and more sustainable choices.  The behavior of the pro-choice movement has been far more responsible then the pro-life movement.  Personally, I prefer to pick the folks who focus as much on prevention of the issue.  After all, isn't part of being a good environmentalist good planning?

We cannot ignore the fact that there is not room for all of us on this planet and by us I mean the birds and bunnies and people.  

   Patience

       Faith

I don't have the answers. I have some thoughts and opinions - make what you will.

What I think we need to do as environmentalists over the next 4 years and throughout the remainder of our days is to reaffirm our commitment, recognize that change takes time and that people (all people) are fallible but have worth, and have faith that things will work out for the best if we each do what is right in our own particular circumstance.

First, we must let go of our egos and recognize it is not "Us v. Them." We must separate ourselves from the anger, frustration, and fear that drives us to act out of ego -- if we're right they must be wrong. We need to understand better what it is that neo-conservatives want from the environment, find common ground, and recognize that we truly need each other, even if we do not agree. Be prepared to be more forgiving; firm but fair (really fair - not fair in which you win more than they do). If you cannot win someone (or group) over then you will have to try harder - again, and again, and again. Change your approach, listen harder and longer than you have before without interrupting, and try to find ways to convince others of the value in respecting the environment. Then, try some more.

We need to be patient with change. Natural change takes considerable time. When you try to change things quickly, . . . well, you know what happens. We cannot be ruled by our own impatience, by quick, knee-jerk, emotion-driven reactions, whereby we try to force the square pegs of positive change into the round holes of our current reality. We need to distance ourselves from environmental extremists, who are anything but patient, and demonstrate that we respect others as much as we respect the natural world, that we want those who currently disagree with us to come along on the journey too - not because they've been forced to by court order but because they've been won over and now want to.

We need to have faith, not in the typical evangelical respect, but faith that we will change things for the better. Thoreau said it best:
   "Though I do not believe a plant will
    spring up where no seed has been, I have
    great faith in a seed. Convince me that
    you have a seed there, and I am prepared
    to expect wonders."

Humankind's future is determined by today's energy choices.

learn everything - teach more!

Like many others here, I'm not espousing a position, just wondering out loud. As I said above though, it's an academic question and ignores all the other culturally conservative baggage that comes with anti-abortion positions. I'm afraid that, whether we like it or not, there's an ideological divide that's not easily bridged. And that's a shame.

I was watching an episode of Smallville, where Superman was playing football as Clark Kent.  Every time he was tackled, he had to make the conscious decision to fall, so that he wouldn't hurt his opponent.  This is the mark of a true hero.  In a game that promotes violence, Clark had to fight that tendency and consciously fall, over and over again.  I think that we must all try for this kind of vigilance, to prevent us from causing harm to others.  All religions that I have studied have some element that expresses that one of the most important morals is to treat others kindly.  If we make our best effort to stop ourselves whenever we make a decision and quest deep inside asking "How does this decision truly make me feel?"  "Who or what is affected by my attitude?" And "How would I feel if someone else took this attitude towards me?" then we can make moral choices that will be respected by our faiths and by others around us.

I think we must continue to strive for this and to communicate these ideals to others.  If we follow these guidelines, how can we make a mistake?  After all, I believe one of our highest goals is to achieve a good quality of life for all (the world will do just fine without us).  If most of the people on the planet were to adopt this ethic, I don't think that any kind of extremism would be common, and definitely would not greatly influence the course of hummanity.

Truly moral choices are environmental choices.

Kevin McCluney
Tempe, AZ

First, don't put your sweat equity in a person or party that saids it will fight for every vote at 2:00 am and in less than 12 hours throws in the towel.  Perhaps, this was not the right person to lead this nation at this time. Why did they let the other party hijack the Ohio debate all that morning?  

Next, start a third party. Stop being taken for granted and lead by coporate environmental interest.  What used to be lean and mean green groups are now defactor big not laways so green corporate interests.  They have their heads either in the clouds or buried in the sand.  You and your friends and others like you need to start sitting around  the kitchen table and decide for yourself what important. Then form a front and do something - you'll know what to do because you will have defined what is important to you. Stop trying to accommodate every point of view and think of the environment and being an environmentalist in broader terms than just where you spend your weekends or your vacations - remember everytime you fly or drive there, you are a contributor to the problem. Find some way to ooff set your impact and don't leave that up to someone else. Stop driving that SUV in town and calling yourself an environmentalist - you know who you are - don't believe the hype. So don't be critical unless you are willing to walk the talk.

Stop writng checks to groups that are spread too thin to do any good - look for focus and action - and who spend more time chasing after foundations and coporate dollars and sending you mail than actually doing something.  

What ever you do don't let the other folk around you down, even when you think you may lose, don't think that way - fight to the end. And, don't let them let you down and take your efforts for granted. You, your neighbors, and the Earth deserve much better.  

At the same time Env. Protections for wild life and untouched Gems need to be enforced
no matter who the perpetrator is. I think we need to privatize responsibility for keeping the public informed of the final risks we face with fragile ecosystems.  The Tongass needs protection from loggers even if the govt. isn't responsible as a landlord.  This means deploying stewards to speak up against pushy industries and document full footage for exposure. There is already enough reason to make people care.  And then when the effort to make Utah look like Texas is supported by people who say we need the energy tell them a transparent solution is ready.

To General Americans I'd say to make the Utah Canyonlands look like the Texas oilfields.
Being from Connecticut most people think of the environment in crude terms.  But the environment is a broad term.  The health of the planet seems curtained here since living near the City becomes an excuse to say the natural environment must be away from here.  Nurseries are selling more and more fake plants: Since when did Blue junipers grow up like trees?; how many Japanese Maples can you fit in your yard. (I don't even know sometimes.) Dealing with a near urban environment means the latest luxury housing projects come with an adjacent parcel of open space.  The businessman who sells outdoor dinette sets made of teak says "as long as people buy them."  The people who drive alone to work need more open lanes and for those who take the train bless you for giving up your seat to stand.  Remember though most people only take the train when it's faster or they don't drive.  I take the train when I can foot the bill and devote the time.

Bringing people into concern for the environment has a lot of potential.  The movie Fern Gully is where we're still at.  OH Hell.  If the Book of Revelation says yada yada then the Biblicans will believe it.  WE can only control the future through the present. Currently the American Dream has outgrown its sustainability. There's plenty of room for the ideal town for our children to grow up in. Updating zoning laws for smart growth is inevitably a govt. issue. Modeling smart is in our hands.
Once the public has an example to advertise on then they will become a status symbol for region with tight housing. Can a reader in Atlanta or N. Charleston agree and confirm the regional interest in these pending or complete projects? America is about making products for what people want, except whose to tell consumers what they shall be offered!
I heard Santa Fe needs a new road across town and slated in the path is a sacred sit the city surrounds. Maybe Santa Fe needs to address their need for automobile capacity and add lanes to an exiting road or even update their mass transit system with promotions. Car dealerships may have their say. Santa Fe seems like the ideal urban paradise where adobe structures reach the streets shared with people and vehicles. Picture It!
If the government acts against our wishes remember who the government represents, for we the people created it. For those who are idealist we need to hear each others perspective & solutions. The Cities are our design to meet community needs. While the realists build and act on design; every new highway is a result of an earlier goal: to connect our nation to & fro. Yes we happened to choose the automobile. We shall not be limited to the expansive pavement we inherited: show each fellow American that their dream can be green.

Task1: seek groundswell of public support for programs that reward individuals and families who consume significantly less fossil fuel energy in motorized travel and in the their homes, per capita, throughout the year.  

Task2: demand State legislatures and the U.S. Congress create and fund programs that reward conserving on energy using transportation fuel taxes and increased taxed on energy utilities.

For more information, please see the following study:

CONSERVE, NOW! - A Proposal for Governmental Action to Combat Global Warming
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleontology_and_Climate_Articles/message/486

As a historian, my perspective is simple: the presidency matters symbolically, but controlling Congress and state politics matters more in the long run.  This is especially true with the current political landscape.  

Instead of thinking ahead to the 2008 elections, concerned citizens should think ahead to the 2006 midterm elections.  Complaining that the system is "rigged" is not only naive, it is dangerous; it distracts from the real game at hand.  

Moreover, the big money organizations, such as the Sierra Club and Greenpeace--as well as those activists and organizations that are still, all too often, outside of the "mainstream"--such as environmental justice advocates--need to focus on building connections with politicans on both sides of the asile.  (And for their part, if the big name organizations want to remain relevant in a nation that is becoming ever more diverse, they need to embrace, honestly and not cynically, principles long held by the environmental justice movement.  If progressives and centrist Democrats are serious about putting first principles first, such as economic justice, then they need to imagine an environmentalism that can fit that vision.  The same holds true for Republicans who espouse "conpassionate conservatism."  Much of what passes for environmentalism today doesn't always fit that bill, sadly.)

Insuring public health, establishing fair and equitable trade relations, fighting to clean our water and air, working to manage (or even reverse) climate change--these issues no environmentalist, left, right, or center, should cede to any political party if they want to see some meaningful changes in the years to come.

Matthew Klingle

People need to be educated in a very user-friendly way about real everyday things they can do to help to save the environment.  It does need to come from grass roots, and it really has to do with familiarizing folk with the interdependence of the earth, air and ocean and what behaviors people can incorporate into their everyday lives to help improve things.  

If environmental issues can't be in the curriculum at a grade school level, there need to be organizations for kids and families.  And the organizations that do exist need to start doing more outreach in communities.

VAAM

I called it Mother Nature, really it is the planets environment and it will protect itself.  The planet will seek to survive.

So where do we start to provide help for the environment?  We literally start in our own backyards. From there we progress to our neighbors and then to the cities.  From the cities to the states.  It is one step at a time and each step increasing the chance of success.

The bottom line is that each of us is responsible for the condition that the environment is in.  Do we drive our cars unnecessarily, do we buy disposable, unrecyclable  products, do we purchase from companies that have a proven record of environmental abuse?  These are just a few of the examples. If any of these answers is yes then we are contributing to the pollution of the environment.  

If we aren't willing to have less of goodies that the corporations provide, then we are supporting the corporation and their environmental policies.  In this country we consume to much and give back to little. If we don't think about every aspect of our daily lives, whether it is work, home or play and how it impacts our environment then we aren't doing our jobs.

I care that the corporations and the government aren't taking the lead and cleaning up the air, water and land, but I will not be part of the uncaring and so every little contribution that I make is better than no contribution at all.  The sacrafices aren't always easy and some people think that I am a nut, but I don't care about their opinions.  I know that I am doing what I can to create a better planet for all life on this planet.  If others do the same it will have an impact not only on the planet but also on the corporations and the government.

We have to crawl before we can walk, we have to start somewhere.

Yeah, well, perhaps not.

I don't know about anyone else, but I just don't find this kind of cheap, pseudo spiritual fantasy very inspiring. Can we come up with just some of the grit of our forbears and drop all this misty-poo nonsense. Between that and the wonkishness on display from the politicians and the environmental organizations, no wonder we're not getting anywhere.

Wallace Stegner once said that the environmetal movement in America was a curious mixture of bleeding hearts and gunners. I think we need more gunners. That's not precisely a call to arms. I just think we need to be a little more hardnosed in our thinking and ease up on all the squishy stuff about Mother Earth.

I want to win some f***ing elections.

grist.org

Etc. etc. The program is not the hard part: it's seizing the White House. The Butcher of Bagdad figured out how with an IQ of 25. Ideas, anyone?

Anyway, this is just as airy-fairy a fantasy as the aforementioned group hug under the stars. Pure crazy talk.

What you are talking about instead is a kind of ecocide: slow suicide by pollution.  This is certainly no less serious, and more widespread, but we are doing it to ourselves, not having it foisted upon us by some hostile outsiders.  Yes we have an administration that is hostile to environmental protection, but the responsibility to arrest these creeping environmental problems rests with each one of us.

Education is the only way around this.  This may mean something as complicated as getting a master's degree, or it may mean something as simple as downloading a Seafood Watch card from the Monterey Bay Aquarium and using it to choose your fish in Safeway.  Either way, learning more about environmental matters will be the only way the electorate in red or blue states can avoid being swayed by shiny campaign promises that tell them to buy a Hummer and support the American way of life.

I ask you this: have you done everything that you can for yourself, for your family, for your community, and for your culture? Or, has this appalling election become one more cause for senseless rage, misguided schemes, and bizarre cries for power - instead of personal efforts to un-power the powerful.

Refuse participation in unjust institutions, deny partnership (even unintended) in immoral causes, and stop needing so much.  Give love and act justly no matter what those around you do.  One man and one administration are not responsible for the troubles we face; they are deeper and more complex, having grown out of the worse tendencies of human nature cultivated for several centuries.  But one person, enacting the noble cause with every ounce of their being, through every moment of their day, in every thing that they do, CAN help to bear moral witness and begin to lead us from this darkness.

I challenge all of you to be that light, to point no fingers, to simply DO what is right and moral and ethical and just at all times, in all circumstances, without fail.

"I learned this, at least, by my experiment; that if one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours.  He will put some things behind, will pass an invisible boundary; new, universal, more liberal laws will begin to establish themselves around and within him; or the old laws be expanded and interpreted in his favor in a more liberal sense, and he will live with the license of a higher order of beings.  In proportion as he simplifies his life, the laws of the universe will appear less complex, and solitude will not be solitude, nor poverty poverty, nor weakness weakness.  If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be.  Now put the foundation under them." HD Thoreau, Walden, 1854

Peace to all.

Jim Massa

Do not go where the path may lead; go instead where there is no path and leave a trail. - Ralph Waldo Emerson

"The American people will respond if they understand." I have spent over 6 years discussing environmental issues with friends who I've known for some time, who are republicans, and the above responses are what I've received, even up to the eve of election day. I've even sent them between 30 and 40 action hotline issues that were on the chopping block for 2004 alone. The response was an overwhelming: "I don't think this is true, those environmentalists are lying, our president wouldn't do these things, I put my trust and faith in him, he will do the right thing, bush is god's messenger and he will take care of us."

Although I would like to believe the populous cares, I just am not so sure. Even a friend of mine who is democrat and an activist told me yesterday to "trust." Trust what?

The EU is overwhelmingly shocked and saddened by this. America has lost it's standing in the world as a leader and more importantly as an environmental leader. We're on the road to being considered a third world country now. I don't know what to think.

Ciao, Keep on Climbing!!

When I read environmental hotline action issues, I don't see abortion rights along side. Who said abortion rights and environmental issues share the same page?


Ciao, Keep on Climbing!!

If this was to be a turning point, it would have happened, so it's not, it's business as usual. The egos are so big, bush, et al. can't admit error, defeat and they lied knowingly to the populous so they could go into Iraq for oil and personal economic profits. They will "be right" if they have to destroy an entire country and kill all of its people to somehow "prove" they are "right." Rome is burning and Nero is fiddling on the roof, literally. Having read the very same things in Europe's papers, it can't just be me "worrying too much" as I've been told. I think the worst is that I feel so terribly betrayed by this country, and that they think killing is ok to seize power over oil. The "world evil" bush so likes to cite is here in the US not "over there." And America can't see it and they don't want to, so they deny it and will "force" it to go away. I hoped I would not live to see this happen, but when bush became president in 2000, I knew we were in for a rough ride, I had no idea it would be this bad so quickly. He sent us to hell. And the rest of the world knows it. We are SO NOT trusted anymore, at all. All the good will we've done.......It's over........


Ciao, Keep on Climbing!!

What I propose does have minor environmental impacts.  But how can you make a souffle without whipping some eggwhites.

Our economy and this administration is powered by one thing: Oil.  As all of you probably know we consume 25% of the entire worlds daily consumption.  Of this we import over 58%.  

Our refining capacity for that oil is pretty much maxed out.  These refineries have trucks rolling in and out filled with highly explosive petrolium products.  

If refineries are "offline" we will no longer import as much oil because there is nowhere in this country for it to go, depressing the global price per barrel, thus reducing the money going to the Oil producing countries.  Also, fuel prices will go up in this country because of reduced supply.  It will effect all of us. But, at what price point does it become illogical to drive an hummer for an hour in traffic to go to work?  This may shock people enough to say "jesus mary mother of joseph" and realize that spending more on war supplies than every other nation on earth combined doesn't make you safe.  Note the progress of all the countries that have put that money into other endevors...Imagine how many windfarms or geothermal plants or solar arrays could be bought for 355.1 billion dollars.

p.s. I've heard rumor that almost every other nation that weve employed nation building in has turned into a military dictatorship (haiti for example)