greengopost.com » politics

Labor Day Message from GreenGoPost.com

Leon Kaye — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 15:30:22 +0000

Today many of us have the day off and get to enjoy it with family and friends. It’s easy to forget how much things have changed from a century ago, when there were few labor safety standards and no minimum wage laws on the books.

Now many of the goods, and even services, we use are made overseas. While conditions are improving in these overseas factories and call centers, it is easy to forget the “S” in corporate social responsibility, or as they say across the pond, environmental, social, and labor.

Much of our way of life today is because of Frances Perkins, the first woman ever to have a cabinet post here in the US. Perkins was a hell-raiser for her time: she refused to take her husband’s last name, and was an advocate at a time when women were supposed to keep quite and work in the background. She led government commissions in New York until FDR, who was her boss in New York, asked her to head the Department of Labor in 1933. Scarred by witnessing the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire in 1911, which killed 146 garment workers (mostly women), Perkins championed the 48 hour workweek for women along with other laws to improve factory conditions.

Perkins’ legacy includes Social Security, child labor laws, unemployment insurance, and minimum wage laws. She was the only cabinet secretary to serve FDR during his entire term, leaving the cabinet only after his death in 1945.

Her work was not always easy in a man’s world. In fact, her detractors, who also often hated FDR, loved to say that FDR “kept her in labor for many years.”

It’s in part because of Frances Perkins that we enjoy the lifestyle in which we thrive today.

The National Rifle Association: A Model for Climate Change Activists

Leon Kaye — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 23:41:20 +0000

Case studies were the bane of business school for me, but they did serve a purpose. We learned about how Zara and Wal-Mart mastered information technology; how Arm and Hammer (the baking powder, not the oil magnate) expanded by changing its message and finding adjacencies for a simple, SIMPLE product; and that Ocean Spray grew through tactics what today we call guerilla marketing: they got that astringent juice on breakfast tables by pushing their product in everyone’s favorite neighborhood hangout, the bar.

The National Rifle Association is a case study for political success. According to Robert Walker, the former President of Handgun Control, Inc., climate change advocates could learn from the NRA’s tactics. Walker explains that the NRA’s 3 million members hardly share monolithic thinking. But instead of collecting data and preaching what he describes as “scrupulously reasoned arguments” to broadcast its message, the NRA built and motivated its membership, worked hard to influence elections, and carried a scorched earth campaign on its way to victories.

Many activists wring their hands over the political climate in Washington, and the so called “Climate-gate” fiasco. Al Gore sure has been useless, having disappeared from the conversation(where is he, anyway?). But maybe Gore’s silence, and the bumbling at East Anglia University and other research institutions, are not a bad thing. In the early 1990s, the NRA lost some legislative battles, most notably the passing of the Brady Bill. Nevertheless, the NRA just dusted itself off and got to work. They lost the battle, but in November 1994, they won the war: a 50-plus swing to the right in Congress, and they defeated the sitting Speaker of the House, too.

Walker discusses tactics that he thinks climate change activists, green tech advocates, and really, anyone with a cause could employ. Some of my thoughts are thrown in as well:

Bare-knuckle politics. Speech and debate ends in high school. Forget meticulously pointed arguments backed with facts. In the end, elected officials, from county board of supervisors to federally-elected representatives, want to be re-elected. Got a voice? Shout at a town hall if you want to be heard. Get an image makeover, too. Dress well for crying out loud!
Make alliances. Walker and his team won in the early 1990s because they partnered with law enforcement officials. Who wants to vote against cops? Plenty of businesses believe in your cause, and have the smarts to help you get the word out. Pragmatism rules: now that the Securities and Exchange Commission is advising companies on disclosure related to risks associated with climate change, more large organizations with resources can help assist with the debate.
Move the lines of battle. Stop talking about future generations. People are only worried about the here and now. Discuss extreme temperatures, spiking food prices, drought flooding—you name it, there are plenty of nasty side affects now!
Sound bites rule. Many liberals—who have been cowed by conservatives to know call themselves “progressive” (sounds so corporate!), believe it’s beneath them to talk in sound bites. Well, no one wants to be lectured to—or lectured down to. Get the message, 25 words or less, out like you’re shooting them from an Uzi.
Get even. The political process is slow. The Senate is turning into a House of Lords. Angry and frustrated because climate change legislation has not passed? Channel that anger into action. Whining about the system will not get you anywhere.
Amp it up. The Economist was more vocal about the Climate-gate issue, rebutting assumptions, than many in the climate change crowd. That was no time to get silent. Got pushed? Push back, but harder!

Some may argue that we are talking apples and oranges here. Of course climate change and Second Amendment rights involve very different issues and circumstances—but in order to succeed, you have to learn from the best.

Eric Cantor and Republican “Crowdsourcing”

Leon Kaye — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 18:05:20 +0000

Republican Congressional Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia has decided to get into the texting act that CNN’s Anderson Cooper and MSNBC’s Ed Shultz use to “poll” their viewers. Cantor has decided to try crowdsourcing, which has accomplished everything from improving Netflix’s movie-rating algorithms to creating custom songs to music compositions.

Here’s the process: you visit Cantor’s “You Cut” web site, vote on a list of federal government programs that you believe should be cut by texting or clicking a button, and then you have the option of suggesting another program you believe should be ditched. Here’s the reality: just about all the suggested programs are those that (surprise!) would be in Republicans’ crosshairs. Granted, we can debate the need to pay for reforming Kenya’s constitution (additional evidence that our President really is not a US citizen, eh?), subsidizing Amtrak sleeper cars, duplicative physical education programs (just buy every teacher a whistle and a pamphlet full of Jane Lynch lines), and selling federal government property. And to be fair, had this been a Democratic idea, we would probably see votes to end some military spending programs, business tax subsidies, and earmarks for John Wayne, George H.W. Bush, and Bob Hope airports.

My reaction is that this is a stunt to raise awareness of “big government,” which of course most politicians of both parties define as federal dollars landing outside their district. I am also curious why it is the public’s job to vote on these projects, when we pay 535 elected officials to do this job for us (I know, lobbyists, but I will not open that can today). Plus, when push comes to shove, Americans will finally use the ballot box as a slap in the face at the ruling party, as the elections of 1946, 1966, 1974, 1986, 1994, 2006, and most likely, 2010, demonstrate.

With all that said, I would like to propose some subsides on which the public should vote:

Fossil fuel subsidies. Fossil fuel producers received over $72 billion dollars from 2002 to 2008. Over 20% of this subsidy was from the Foreign Tax Credit, applicable to the overseas production of oil through an obscure provision of the US Tax Code, which allows energy companies to claim a tax credit for payments that would normally receive less-beneficial tax treatment. Tax credits and subsidies for cleaner fuels are miniscule by comparison
Farm subsidies. Farmers have received over $242 billion in subsidies since 1995. Actually, 10% of all farmers collected 74% of all subsidies, while 62% of farmers during this period never collected payments from the US Department of Agriculture. Corn, wheat, and cotton combined accounted for over half all subsidies during this period. Republican Jerry Moran’s congressional district was number 2 in total farm subsidies received—eked out by the at large district of North Dakota. In case you were wondering, apple producers have collected about a quarter of a billion dollars—tobacco growers, close to a billion. I have a feeling that organic kale grower at your local farmers’ market is not a beneficiary of such largesse.
John Murtha Johnstown-Cambria County Airport: Oh, we may be too late, as the airport, named after the Pennsylvania Democratic congressman who passed away earlier this year, has received over $200 million in stimulus funding the past decade—for an airport served by one passenger airline that flies to two cities. Granted, much of the money has gone to support the infrastructure of local national guard units. But $8 million of that went to a radar system that the airport has never used.
Phone subsidies. Verizon and AT&T are among other telecommunications that received over $8 billion in subsidies for projects ranging from broadband to rural areas to installing wireless networks. That’s enough to buy two-thirds of all Americans a free Magic Jack. Okay, that may be a ridiculous analogy, but you get the point. How about subsidies, for say, recycling all these electronic devices that are an environmental nightmare?

The economic arguments against subsidies include the one that government should not pick “losers” over “winners.” Fair argument. But the above subsidies I have suggested add up to a fairly healthy drop in the bucket. And the amount of subsidies going towards programs attempting to wean us away from foreign oil and genetically modified food are fairly small in comparison.

The article was also posted on TriplePundit.com.

Need a Job? Replace a Migrant Worker!

Leon Kaye — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 18:05:29 +0000

Last night, in a fit of insomnia, I decided to go to the Los Angeles Wholesale Produce Market, just outside of downtown. We are hosting a World Cup party on Sunday, and having been told about the good prices and unique experience, I thought I’d give it a shot.

The place is not your ordinary Costco or Farmer’s market. In fact, by 3:00 a.m., when I arrived, it had started winding down. Most of the produce is what you would expect to find at a store like Safeway or Albertson’s, but you can find some good, fresh fruits and vegetables there.

But the visit got me thinking—with the increasingly vicious and polarizing debate over immigration, would folks have second thoughts about their assumptions if they tried giving it a shot as a migrant farm worker?

I thought about this, too, as I drove through Santa Cruz County last weekend, through the strawberry and artichoke farms. The United Farm Workers has thought about this issue, too. The UFW launched a “Take Our Jobs” web site, offering those who want a crack at working on a farm give their contact information.

Whatever side you take on the immigration issue, the fact is that migrant farm workers—50% of which are undocumented—work at about $12,000 a year to provide the food that ends up on our tables and in our restaurants. I know many people who are vegetarian because they are appalled by the way animals are treated. Fair enough—does anyone think about what workers who work in the farms and orchards endure? Just food for thought . . .

I signed up out of curiosity—within 24 hours I got this email, which gave me the steps involved for taking a job—and then the following note:

Please review and if interested in any job position, select the position. You will be directed to the job listing and how to apply.
We really want to make sure that this program works. We would like to hear from you if you were able to get a job.
Once you apply to the job listing, we will follow up with you within five days to further assist with the process.
If you submitted your application electronically please save the date and time of your application. The Employment Development Department or Employment Agency website in your state often provides a confirmation number. Please save it and have it with you when you communicate with the UFW office.

Who knows if this will make a difference. But seeing those warehouses in downtown LA, and realizing how all those leeks, peaches, and cucumbers get from the farm to my kitchen makes me a little more appreciative of what I’ve got—and that there are no easy answers to solving the immigration issue.

Sustainability = Amalgamation and Secession?

Leon Kaye — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:06:13 +0000

There’s an argument one can make involving “sustainable” solutions, from renewable energy to improved land use: they will depend on market forces. Government should also have a role in this debate. Unfortunately, government is often part of the problem. It’s not that government is “big”—though “big government” does in part evolve from policy makers who make too many decisions based on the needs of a few noisy constituencies and big business (which is always against “big government” unless the rules favor them). A larger issue in California, however, is that the state has an outdated and inefficient form of government: the County of Los Angeles is a textbook case.
The County of Los Angeles would be a G20 country if it were independent. One quarter of the state’s population lives here, and it is more populous than 42 US states. And it is ungovernable because you have 88 cities, many unincorporated areas, and is run by a petty 5-person Board of Supervisors who each represents more people than the average-sized US congressional district. Each board member has a huge discretionary budget and is in a district that has been gerrymandered to the point that voting someone out of office is near-impossible. Oddly enough, there is no county-wide executive—that role is appointed. Why would we only vote for the supporting cast but not for the person who in the end makes the hard choices? It makes dodging accountability even more easier for those we elect—often because quite frankly, many of us just do not care.

Imagine trying to get anything done in this county. You have different cities with their own needs and agendas, a county government, and then amorphous government boards like the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the county’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority—sometimes these agencies lie within a county’s boundaries; often they do not, as in the case of school districts. Add to the mix a meddling federal office holder like Henry Waxman, who for years resisted the expansion of public transport in LA, and you have a toxic, inefficient, sclerotic mess.

At a time when budgets are shrinking while huge, difficult decisions need to be made quickly, this outrageous web of government needs untangling. Perhaps it is time for amalgamation. First, expand the number of supervisors on the county board so that constituencies are smaller and have a more responsive representative. To that end, eliminate city governments, merging the duties that are generally split between city and county functions. Follow the example of Maryland county governments such as Baltimore County: you have an elected Chief Executive and a council of seven members. The system in Texas also merits review: the state is divided up into 249 counties (more than any other state) and has elected commissioners—those county governments have less legal power than that of cities and towns—perhaps that is not such a bad idea. Nashville, TN, and surrounding Davidson County merged their governments in 1963; perhaps it is no accident that the area enjoys a high level of entrepreneurship. Three layers of government: federal, state, and local (county) are sufficient.

I realize that this could open the door to replacing one unwieldy government with another. If each city in Los Angeles had its own council representative, you are moving from what was once a council to a legislature. Perhaps, then, the leaders in the County of Los Angeles should consider breaking up the county. The desert area surrounding Lancaster and Palmdale have their needs; the San Fernando Valley could be a separate county; the port and beach towns could be separate entities; the San Gabriel Valley would be a large county by itself; and then of course central Los Angeles could have its own government. Some would cry foul, but folks in Brentwood are not obligated to pay for kids’ education in East LA—nor are they entitled to sending their garbage and any toxic waste, either.

We have a system that in my view does little but drag out the decision-making process and creates too many layers of government. Representing the largest county government and the second-largest city in the country may create bragging rights, but does not allow for reaching difficult policy decisions that citizens need. I often criticize LA’s current mayor for being more of a showman than thoughtful executive. In fairness, he is governing an ungovernable city. My experience in creating a small 2000 square foot park and dealing with far too many bureaucrats in different agencies is partly behind my conclusion. Add the fact that we wait forever to get a sidewalk repaired, tree trimmed, or traffic light also has me convinced that the city and county of LA are not working—and never mind what is happening to the schools and our infrastructure.

An improved, streamlined process is a must; not a system of government that just grooms politicians for higher office while giving them a bureaucratic fiefdom and lofty title. I do believe government has the power to do society good; but not with the system we have now. During tough times, businesses must slim down and merge departments—government has to do the same thing, and like business, can often emerge better from what is admittedly a painful process.

I realize this will affect a lot of government employees; I welcome anyone’s thoughts on this issue!

Special thanks to Preston Low for the great shot of the Washington Monument.

Obama: A Missed Opportunity

Leon Kaye — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 01:36:46 +0000

I was disheartened by the President’s speech tonight. In the wake of all the details that leaked out today: BP’s dismissals of any and all safety standards; the boilerplate plans for dealing with oil spills that the energy companies all shared (they were all photocopying the same report, sporting walruses, which do not exist in the Gulf); and hearing about BP refusing to allow workers to wear the proper hazmat clothing because “it wouldn’t look right” for BP’s image; all these facts were a gift to President Obama to rile the public and to take action.

But the President punted. Tonight could have been a clarion call to push for a clean energy policy that would have been painful, but necessary. He could have given a “teachable moment” about the costs involved with our addiction to oil. But instead he gave us platitudes, boasted about his energy secretary’s Nobel Prize (why do we keep hearing that?), asked that we pray, and made no attempt to push Congress to pass any energy-related legislation.

Of course this is a tough sell. Telling Americans to consume less and be conscious of our energy consumption means we have to make a huge change in our lifestyle. No more cheap energy, no more large cars, and a shared sacrifice that no one wants to hear when we are in the midst of a horrid recession. I’m sure Obama’s advisors ran the poll numbers by him and told him to play it safe. But that fifteen minute speech ended up being a waste of my time. At this point, the President just needs to forget about the polls and just push ahead and make the opposition look like the party of no and of obstruction. I do not know about you, but I am disappointed by the pallid, empty speech.

Editor’s Note: Isn’t it interesting that no one hears from Al Gore? Did he disappear? With all the nonsense over “Climategate,” which was not a scandal, he should have been out there dismantling the ridiculous charges that climate change is a scam because of the shenanigans of a few marginal researchers. But Gore has retreated, and meanwhile, we have not heard at all from him on the Gulf of Mexico fiasco. Well, I wonder if it is because the Gore family has much of its money from the petroleum industry. After Gore’s father (Al Gore, Sr.), lost his reelection bid to the Senate in 1970, he became an attorney, and then a board member, of Occidental Petroleum. Armand Hammer, who ran the company for decades, essentially became the Gore family’s sugar daddy. I know it has been decades since the Gore’s family involvement with Occidental, and Hammer died in 1990. I find the silence deafening. Can someone explain what is going on with our former VP?

No on Proposition 16

Leon Kaye — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 01:12:54 +0000

Once upon a time, California was infested with corruption at all levels of government. Big businesses ran the show, and the state was more of a banana republic than the present giant that would qualify as a G-7 nation. One hundred years ago, this state had a governor, a Republican, who was a visionary. That man was Hiram Johnson. He pushed for direct election of Senators (eventually passed nationwide in a constitutional amendment), women’s suffrage, and the initiative process, which gave Californians a level of direct democracy unheard of at that time. Johnson ended up running for vice president with Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, and served as a senator for 30 years.

Johnson’s legacy of direct democracy has been perverted over the last 30 years. Now anyone with money can hire a gaggle of lackeys who get paid to troll out signatures, with the end result placing initiatives on the ballot that often confuse and confound voters. Sometimes the initiatives (mostly called proposition, or “props”) are absurd, such as the one a few years backed that banned the sales of horse meat. Others become controversial, such as Prop 187, Pete Wilson’s lame attempt to turn immigration, a federal responsibility, into a state one—whatever you thought of that issue (which passed but the courts overturned), it definitely changed the political culture of California, turning a state that was reliably Republican into one that for the most part is one of the bluest of the blue states, thanks to enraged Latinos who finally realized there were reasons to register to vote. And I’m just scratching the surface here.

Now let’s talk about Proposition 16, an egregious example demonstrating why the initiative process needs to be reconsidered.

Have you ever been confused upon receiving your voting ballot and all the nonsense that floods your mailbox during voting season? I certainly have. The text of these initiatives and referenda are so confusing, making you wonder if completing a college degree was really worth the effort. I learned years ago that instead of trying to decipher the legalese, the best way to sort out voting for these confusing measures was to see who was for—and against—the passage. Voting then got easier. Proposition 16 is a great case in point.

“The Taxpayers Right to Vote Act” purports to express concern of citizens’ pocketbooks and issues concerning local control. If passed, it would require that a local government garner two-thirds voter approval for spending any public money or incurring debt to enter the electricity business. Who’s the sugar daddy behind this scheme? PG&E, who has spent at least $35 million dollars backing up this campaign—very cleverly, too, I must say. The “Yes on 16” commercials do not even include “PG&E” in the small print—its initials are spelled out. I’m sure most people know who PG&E is, but not Pacific Gas and Electric. The commercials are well produced. They are also full of hideous lies.

Clearly there is a concern over any government wanting to enter the utility business. Government is at its best when it ventures into businesses that require high capital investment and little profit: roads, police, parks, libraries, and wildlife protection, just to name a few. Utilities are a grey area—anyone who is a LADWP (LA Department of Water & Power) customer probably cringes when they get their bill and wonders where that money is going.

But some areas, like San Francisco and Marin County, are experimenting with giving customers the option of purchasing their utilities from PG&E or programs that provide government-procured power. That gives customers a choice; and it also forces PG&E to compete.

Proposition 16 is a crass measure that would not level the playing field—it would devastate it. By requiring a two-thirds vote, the utility would almost guarantee that any municipality fed up with high utility rates—or the sources generating that power—would have no chance at starting its own electricity program.

Of course citizens should be wary of local politicians who can offer clean, cheap power: especially when marginal politicos like Antonio Villaraigosa spout off words like “sustainability” when they don’t really know what it means (or live by the rules they preach).

But Proposition 16 denies citizens that choice. This measure is an obnoxious example of how an organization with deep pockets can manipulate the system in order to get the results that it wants. You should be nervous about the money PG&E is throwing at their ad campaigns. This is about PG&E’s bottom line, not false concerns about citizen democracy. Don’t fall for it. Vote No on Tuesday!

A Million Promises, but Not Many Trees

Leon Kaye — Mon, 24 May 2010 12:30:28 +0000

I actually wrote this two months ago, but waited to post this because I did not want to jeapordize Parkman Triangle, the project on which I have worked for several months.
March 25, 2010

One thing I have noticed about Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and his deputies is that they are really good at telling Angelinos what they are going to do, but never discuss what they have accomplished. I've witnessed this trend of empty platitudes at several events I have attended over the past year, where the deputy-to-the-deputy-to-the-deputy assistant will crow about the Mayor's plans--especially on anything smacking of sustainability. Unfortunately, they have nothing to brag about because 5 years later, the mayor really hasn't done anything. He's a great salesman, very personable, but I have to say he's an empty suit.

One of Villaraigosa's first initiatives was his 1,000,000 Tree Campaign for a greener Los Angeles. The project was ambitious. By having residents take online tests and then getting trees for their yards, homeowners would plant these trees, which would provide shade and help heal LA's dirty air. Other trees were given away at city events and street fairs. But even a few years ago, it was clear that the million tree initiative had problems: the city had no way of monitoring how the trees were taken care of, while other trees sufferred from lack of water. Furthermore, while the city gave young saplings away, other trees were chopped down because of sidewalks buckling or street widening.

Well, never mind those facts: today I went to the city nursery to pick up some trees for Parkman Triangle. The task seemed simple enough: pick up three trees between 7:30 and 4:00. Well, long story short, neither of the employees were there. The miscommunication was annoying, but even more upsetting was that the problems with the million tree initiative lie at the source.

Never mind the fact that the two city employees at the Los Angeles Conservation Corps, which maintains the trees, were not at their Griffith Park office, despite the fact that this location was supposedly open all day, four days a week. Walking around the yard revealed some disturbing facts: employees were trying to water nursery plants, though they were more successful at watering the asphalt; another employee used so much water washing his forklift (while another employee sat their and watched) that the asphalt road going down the hill was slathered in water; most of the trees, in 5-gallon buckets, looked as if they lacked any watering; and a peek through the chain link fences revealed many trees and plants that were dead or dying--some were just strewn around the yard. I guess they don't think, or care, that some local residents may drop by the facility.

Word is out that the program is being dismantled. And we ended up buying trees from a nursery. Regardless, dealing with this one city program was a heinous experience. My peek around the Griffith Park nursery was one example why so many Angelinos are just tired of him . . . and tired of disengaged city employees.

Is this million tree initiative really that ambitious, or has it been ambushed by mismanagement? I'm curious what other Angelinos think.

Don’t Burn For Me, Patagonia

Leon Kaye — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 07:17:34 +0000

In one of its clumsier PR campaigns, Greenpeace Argentina decided to place an ad in the Washington Post while Argentinean President Cristina Kirchner was in town. The advocacy group is livid over the plans to build a coal power plant in Patagonia.

True, coal is not the cleanest-burning source of energy. And building these near glaciers perhaps defies common sense. But for a country still suffering a hangover from its economic meltdown in 2001, Greenpeace does not give any viable alternatives. Greenpeace simply says, “invest in green jobs” and build out wind power, and problems solved.

So where will Argentina get this money? Maybe there was a backhanded deal with the Spanish firm building the coal power plant. True, the Kirchners are suspected of lining their pockets while husband and wife have been President, but despite issues involving corruption and mismanagement, Argentina just does not have the money.

But perhaps the most ridiculous episode is the ad itself. I thought it was Cher posing as Evita Perón, but apparently that is President Kirchner’s face superimposed on Evita’s head. The problem with that imagery is that to this day, Evita Perón is still a very polarizing political figure, and a brief perusal of any Perón biographies reveal that she was hardly a “Santa Evita.”

If companies could make money developing solar and wind, they would be there by now, just as they are in Germany and even African nations. But as far as transparency goes, Argentina ranks with countries like Niger, Kazakhstan, and Belarus. If a company wants to invest in South America, chances are they will find friendlier places to do businesses in Uruguay or Chile, and of course, Brazil or even, Peru.

I am not thrilled with the idea of coal plants firing up in Patagonia. But perhaps Greenpeace needs to change its tone and work within, rather than stalking Argentina’s President when she goes abroad and pesters her with low-budget, even childish, advertisements.

The Hypocrisy Over Coal

Leon Kaye — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:06:20 +0000

Last week the World Bank voted to loan Eskom, a South African energy producer, US$3.75 billion to build a new coal power plant. Politicians in the UK and my beloved USA went ballistic. They howled that it was a tragedy for the World Bank to sabotage the work that has been done at ameliorating climate change.

I would tell these politicians to back off. Approving a coal plant does not necessarily mean we are contributing to pollution. Oddly enough, more coal plants in developing nations could actually help reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions in the short term.

Take the case of India. Gaurav Gupta, an Associate Partner of the Climate Project in India, made some compelling points at a UCLA symposium I attended last Friday.

Currently, many Indians use kerosene and even wood for cooking and heating. Wood is a horrible source of fuel because you are destroying forests. Kerosene, ubiquitous in India, is a dirty fuel, and the hauling of kerosene in trucks, which use diesel, adds more soot and pollutants to the air.

According to Gupta, if Indians could build and operate efficient coal plants, you would have villages full of people that would avoid kerosene and its toxic byproduct, black carbon, have steady electricity, and as net result, you would have cleaner energy that what is now produced from current inefficient and dirty technologies.

Of course the trick is to build these plants so that they operate as cleanly and efficiently as possible. Carbon capture and sequestration technologies are a long ways off. But Gupta has a point: if people have a reliable source of electricity, they will be more productive. And by the way, overpopulation scaremongers: Gupta made a great point that the best birth control is . . . light.

At a fundamental level, it is ridiculous for developed nations like the USA and those in the European Union to harangue developing countries that they need to follow our lead. Well, they are: they want to pursue economic development and a way of life to which we in the West (and East Asia) are accustomed and feel entitled.

And if we want cleaner energy used abroad, why don’t we just make it easier to share renewable technologies such as solar and wind? If we want to engage and encourage developing nations, we really should share . . . not scare.

The Case Against a Carbon Tariff

Leon Kaye — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 08:00:04 +0000

Much of the conflict over climate change between developed and developing countries focuses on who should pay for the transition away from fossil-based fuels. Some in the West say that countries with less stringent environmental laws, such as India and China, should be subject to a carbon tariff, often referred to as a border adjustment tax. France's President, Nicolas Sarkozy, has taken up the cause, and is hoping to find an ally in the Obama Administration. The logic behind this move is that if polluting nations like China and India don't clean up their act, we can impose tariffs on their products, which would in turn encourage them to find ways to reduce their energy consumption, a threat to the globe if their people start consuming at the rate of North Americans and Europeans.

It's a punitive measure. And it would be a huge mistake.

First of all, imposing a border adjustment tax to single out "polluting" countries would probably be overturned by the World Trade Organization (WTO). The legality of imposing such a tariff is in question--it plays well domestically, but would only anger countries that are critical partners in solving this issue.

Furthermore, it would discourage countries singled out by this tax from working on mitigating their own carbon footprint. According to Arvind Panagariya, a professor at Columbia University, countries like India just would just not focus on climate change. At a UCLA symposium on Friday, Panagariya noted that if India had to reduce its annual growth rate 1% to combat climate change between 2020 and 2030, that would be at a US$2.1 trillion cost to their economy. Paying the collective cost of a tariff would be cheaper. So the only thing such a carbon tariff would fuel would be . . . resentment.

The US and EU are also in no position to lecture nations in the developing world about their carbon footprint. It is true that if the Chinese and Indians started consuming at the rate of their American and European cousins, the world would tip towards environmental catastrophe. Of course, that's assuming people abroad want a "Western" lifestyle. But a question of fairness keeps festering: the US and EU built their economies on cheap (and free, or slave) labor. Who are we to tell others that they cannot work to pull their people out of poverty?

Finally, while history does not repeat itself, we should learn that slapping tariffs on countries only complicates international trade, making it more difficult for American companies to sell their products and services abroad. Considering that India and China's carbon footprint is in part from manufacturing products and developing services for the US market, should we turn that logic on its head . . . and tax ourselves?

What I find interesting is that generally, the less affluent a country is, the higher percentage of the population is concerned with global warming. Polls indicate that 80% to 90% of Indians worry about the effect of climate change; in the US, 40% to 50%.

Realistically, if we are so worried about other nations' contribution to greenhouse gases and carbon emissions, than we should pay for the shift. Clearly that will not happen in this political climate. If anything, a transfer of technology would probably be the best way to engage countries. Jonathan Zasloff, a UCLA law professor, suggested a system incorporating compulsory licensing, in which a government requires the owner of a patent to grant its use to the state or others. The patent owner would receive some royalties, either set by law or determined through some form of arbitration. Such a licensing scheme is not a perfect system, but absent massive investment, countries that have "clean" or "green" technology could at least make it easier for others to benefit from it.

What is lost in this climate change debate is the understanding that many in the developing world are deeply affected by the earth's changing climate and want to see something done.

The trick is to engage, not enrage. Threats of a tariff sound good to local labor unions and environmentalists. But for a global problem that requires cooperation on a massive scale, imposing a carbon tariff is myopic and destructive.

It’s True: I am a Closet Composter – Rush Limbaugh

Leon Kaye — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 08:45:00 +0000

April Fool! Chances are that if you are reading this article, you have sympathies that draw the ire of Rush Limbaugh. We all know what he thinks of climate change, women with strong personalities (unless she’s a Palin), ObamaCare, and Haiti. But do not dismiss Mr. Limbaugh’s business acumen: he is the man who reinvented and even saved talk radio, is a sharp businessman, and excels as a master salesman. Now you should know something else: he has revealed to Vegan Magazine that he is a closet composter.

Written by Sally Turnup, exclusively for GreenGoPost.com

Our correspondent (not Cameron Diaz, the model on VegNews) toured his Florida estate, gleaned all of this out of Limbaugh during a recent visit. “It’s true,” Limbaugh said, “I don’t know why people think I am so anti-environment. After all, I tell my listeners to invest in Rinnai tankless water heaters, and I smoke organic cigars. Plus, why spend money needlessly? Look at all these great subtropical plants! Let’s just say I may as well repurpose my half-chomped cigars and Big Macs for something that’ll do the earth good.”

We toured the main attraction of Limbaugh’s estate, the 25,000 square foot crib that is one of 5 homes on this patch of land in Palm Beach. Once we got past the fact that the décor were quite similar to that of Saddam Hussein’s, Mr. Limbaugh was reminded to show our correspondent the composter. But first, he showed me a picture of him and Nicolas Sarkozy—another random fact, Limbaugh is a Francophile, also a reason explaining the interior design of his mansion—though he seemed annoyed at my next question.

“Is that a toothpick stuck on your shirt?” I asked.

“No,” he growled, “that’s Sarkozy’s wife.” Well, it wasn’t my fault he can fill an 8 x 10 photo frame.

And there it was: a closet retrofitted into a giant composter. So the closet composter uses a closet to compost! “Well,” said Limbaugh sheepishly, “it just got to the point where I couldn’t walk into the closet anymore, so I decided to reuse this part of the house. Everything can turn into compost here: my cigars, Whopper wrappers, leftover Slim Fast powder, etc.”

“The truth is,” Limbaugh continued, unaware of my next question (he is deaf, after all), “with my dietary habits, I no longer could fit into the closet, and I have so many rooms I just decided to use this spare space for composting.”

“Does Obama compost? Does Barbara Boxer? What about Keith Olbermann? Liberals got it all wrong—those losers order take-out from Whole Foods and eat artisan breads, but do they compost? No! By throwing out food, they only allow people to scavenge for it, forcing people to stay on welfare and not work!”

For a tour of Limbaugh’s home and compost bin, you can visit the tour here.

Michelle Obama’s Gardening Snafu – Wrong Gloves

Leon Kaye — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 08:00:27 +0000

April Fool! The White House Scrambles to Explain how M.O. Used Jacqueline Kennedy’s Gloves Word at JFK’s Inauguration

The White House was caught reeling over the revelation that Michelle Obama, who expanded the White House vegetable garden this year, did so at the expense of wearing Jacqueline Kennedy’s gloves, worn at her husband’s 1961 inaugural ceremony.

The gloves were apparently on display in a case in the Lincoln Bedroom. When White House interns recruited for the gardening effort were diverted to the Rose Garden to lay mulch there instead, the First Lady apparently scrambled through the Executive Mansion, grabbing the first pair of gloves she could find. “This is an outrage and an insult to the previous First Ladies who have graced 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with class and dignity, said White House Curator William G. Allman.” Never in my eight years in the White House have I seen something that left me so incredulous, and that includes when Laura Bush put a clothesline on the South Portico. Where does it end?”

Congressional Republicans demanded an investigation. “It’s not enough to take over banks, health care, and the auto industry,” growled House Minority Leader John Boehner. “We have a White House out of touch with the American people, and the First Lady should apologize for her egregious action.”

The First Lady was already under fire for stepping off of Air Force One in denim shorts last summer, which she claimed was the result of pulling weeds in the White House vegetable garden earlier in the day before Marine One rushed the First Family off to a weekend vacation.

Even the First Grandmother, Marian Robinson, commented on her daughter’s faux pas.

That’s why we lived in Chicago, “a White House reporter overheard her commenting, “so we didn’t have to bother with gardening."

But some are defending Michelle Obama.

“Many garden vegetables are delicate, like Swiss chard and arugula,” said a local DC nursery owner when asked for comment. “So they should be treated with kid gloves. I think Mrs. Obama did the right thing and everyone should back off!”

The Insanity Over Obama: Reality, Please

Leon Kaye — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 20:30:51 +0000

The rally cries are at full blast and the pitchforks are aimed, with many Americans are denouncing Barack Obama as a socialist. A reality check is needed, and the ridiculous name calling has got to stop. Plus a careful examination of Obama & Co. finds that he is anything BUT a Marxist.

I really try to stay away from politics on this site. I must say that I share the sentiment of a beloved professor who said, "you gotta love politics, but just hate politicians." That pretty sums up my attitude. I tend to vote Democrat, but save most of my criticism for the Democratic Party, as I find its minions often hypocritical and lacking a spine. Perhaps I read The Economist too much, but I often find myself agreeing with the tone of that magazine while rolling my eyes at what some Democrats say they can do to "fix" the economy. Government cannot create jobs, but it can foster an environment for job creation, either through establishing favorable regulations or tax codes; and presidents and congressional leaders of both parties, therefore, have done so for better or worse.

I am really not a big Obama fan. I won't get into the details: I was leaning toward Bill Richardson in early 2008, but like other politicos who I favored, he went the way of Paul Tsongas, Bill Bradley, and Wesley Clark--my track record says it all. But after 16 years of overgrown adolescents (yes, Clinton and Bush II) in the White House, I have to say that I am happy with someone as thoughtful and poised as Obama. He has some impressive cabinet members in Clinton, Gates, Duncan, Chu, Shinseki, and LaHood. And he is confronting huge problems that will not be easy to solve.

Had I been born the same year as my father, I'm sure I would have been a Republican, as the Democrats had been dominated by Dixiecrats, while many Republicans had been remarkably progressive. But liberal Republicans in the mold of Nelson Rockefeller and John Gilbert Winant (my personal hero for his leadership as our ambassador to the UK during WWII) are extinct, and that party has been taken over by folks who make Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan look like radical leftists.

Which is why I am tired of the banter suggesting Obama is a "socialist," without people really understanding what that means. The tea party protesters, the modern day "nattering nabobs of negativism" (gotta love that Spiro Agnew quote!), are great at shouting vitriol but not much else resembling intelligence.

The health care plan recently passed is hardly socialist. Punitive to insurance companies, maybe, but it is not a government takeover of health care. Giving insurance companies up to 30 million more customers is not some nefarious socialist plan--after all, haven't health care stocks have largely gone up in the markets the past couple days?

And Obama's energy plan is also not a leftist policy. Focusing on corn ethanol will not do much more than making Archer Daniels Midland a compelling stock buy. Pursuing "clean coal" technology is a nod towards coal producing states and the companies mining this fuel. Oil fields on US lands are told to boost their production, the construction of a natural gas pipeline in Alaska has been accelerated, and "safe" nuclear energy is encouraged. Whatever your stance is on fossil fuels, we will hardly be a land of subsistence-farming hippies anytime soon. Some industries have been given favors, such as construction companies involved in "home weatherization," while Detroit's auto industry has been tossed a lifeline. People out there are making money--not everyone, but with any tweaks in regulation, some industries thrive, others falter.

It's been years since I actively studied history (despite my M.A. in it), but to me, one fact is clear: images of our leaders often do not match the reality. Truman is now almost universally admired but was despised and belittled during most of his administration. Eisenhower pursued domestic policies that would have made Obama blush and leave tea baggers fuming--plus the "industrial-military complex" quote was his. Kennedy got us on the fast track to the Vietnam War. Nixon expanded affirmative action plans, pursued mandated health care, and funded the EPA. Carter increased defense spending while staging a strong foreign policy--had it not been for the Iran hostage crisis, he would have defeated Reagan in 1980. Reagan signed liberal abortion laws while governor of California, and hiked taxes and overall spending as President. Bush I increased federal spending in education, technology research, and childcare; his son increased funding of AIDS around the world. Clinton? He was lucky: the Internet saved his Presidency.

I am not writing this to defend or praise Obama. But whatever you think of his policies, examine the facts before indulging in childish name calling. Some say that defying public opinion, as Truman, Reagan, Bush II, and Obama have done, is arrogance. I call it leadership.

Make the Winter Olympics Urban

Leon Kaye — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 02:00:21 +0000

We did not see much of the Vancouver Winter Olympics as we were in Brazil . . . though it was a delight to watch some events on Brazilian TV, which was uninterrupted by commercials! Whatever you may think of the Olympics, the athletic feats are impressive, the stories behind some of the Olympians are compelling, and it looks like Vancouver put on a great show. I'm not surprised--it's a beautiful city and the perfect place to showcase such an event.

Despite the angst over the money spent on the Olympic village and other facilities, overall, Vancouver had many of the venues already set up, such as GM Place and Pacific Coliseum. True, the controversy over expanding the road to Whistler riled some locals, but overall, the city could withstand the onslaught of visitors and building of venues that are necessary for a momentous two week extravaganza.

Summer Olympiads generally are held in national capitals or large cities of global importance (with the exception of Atlanta in 1996, a decision that still is odd to me!). Winter Olympics, however, generally have been held in small venues, in romantic places like Chamonix, Albertville, and Grenoble, France; St. Moritz, Switzerland; and Squaw Valley, California, which before 1960 had one ski lift. The past twenty years, larger cities such as Calgary, Salt Lake City, and Torino, Italy, have hosted the Winter Games, and that's a welcome trend.

Why? Awarding the Olympics to small cities means construction projects that are often overwhelmed by cost overruns, facilities that will hardly be used (or taken down after the games), and environmental damage that cannot be repaired for decades. True, past Olympiads in Lillehammer, Norway, and Nagano, Japan, have had a relatively modest environmental impact. And while emotionally, I think South Korea deserves the 2018 games, the thought of all the construction in PyeongChang worries me. The Korean organizers may say these will be a "Green" Olympics, but bulldozing forests and building huge hotels, roads, and athletic facilities is hardly "environmental," no matter how many solar panels or "sustainably harvested" building materials are used for these projects. Perhaps some facilities and hotels could be in Sokcho, a charming city on Korea's eastern coast that is a pleasant town full of friendly locals?

Let's take a look at Sochi, Russia, the host of the 2014 Winter Olympic Games. This subtropical town is already established as a resort (thanks to Stalin), but the preparations for the games already look disastrous. Roads and rail lines are going through national parks and other areas hosting wildlife. Environmentalists, activists, journalists, and anyone opening their mouths are being harassed by Vladimir Putin's cronies. Thousands have been forced out of their homes, allegedly forced to sell for less than market value. Then you have all the corruption allegations that are plaguing the construction around Sochi . . . one highway being built is costing about US$130 million a kilometer! Never mind the fact that Sochi is one of the few places in Russia that does not see snow--most events will be held in the nearby mountains, while ice skating and hockey will be held among the town's palm trees. You would think that there are other cities in Russia that have the population and infrastructure in place to hold the games, but my guess is that Putin saw the potential in skimming off millions from construction projects . . . and in fairness, Russia did get the short end of the baton when Jimmy Carter (foolishly) boycotted the 1980 Summer Games in Moscow because of the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, the International Olympic Committee's decisions are fueled by politics, a trend accelerated by Juan Antonio Samaranch, a social-climbing Francisco Franco insider who insisted on being called "His Excellency" and who transformed the Olympics from an amateur competition to one that has become a mega-corporate indulgent lovefest. Sadly, cities and countries will drive themselves into debt to host these games . . . and are often left with a long post-Olympic hangover, as in the case of Montreal and Athens. But at least these are cities where you already have development. There are already plenty of cities around the world that have the stadia, hotels, and roads that can support the Olympics. So instead of turning a small resort into a destructive construction zone, let's be "green" by hosting such events in places such as Vienna, Helskini, Santiago, or Quebec City than can sustain them.