What's the opposite of global progress? US Congress

I used to think that it would take a major environmental disaster to kick the country into gear and get serious about climate change, but after three months of the BP Gulf oil disaster and record breaking heat waves across the country the Senate has given up on passing a comprehensive climate bill. While official statements suggest that the bill will be up for debate again after the August recess, it is doubtful that the Democrats will try to push hard on a controversial bill with the midterm elections approaching.

This will ultimately be more devastating to the UN climate negotiations than the failure to produce anything meaningful from the Copenhagen talks last December. Prospects for a legally-binding climate treaty were already nonexistent for COP-16 this December in Cancun and slim for COP-17 next year, but if the US fails to act by then the negotiations could completely fall apart. China and India are dumbfounded by this latest US development as they make serious headway in their climate efforts, and if the US continues to show up to the table empty-handed they may just walk away, having no incentive to stay involved.

I see a great parallel here between the financial crisis and the climate crisis. During the financial crisis, the government didn't get involved until Lehman Brothers failed, bailing out the rest of the banks. Will the US stay uninvolved in the climate crisis until the oil runs out or islands start disappearing? I certainly hope not, but there's not much giving me hope otherwise.

On Juarez, Afghanistan, and Wal-Mart: The Overwhelming Case Against Prohibition

I found it extremely ironic to read about this weekend's Ciudad Juarez shootings ("Two Americans killed in Mexico shootings") and the Afghan poppy harvest ("Afghan poppy harvest is next US challenge") side by side in this Wednesday's edition of the Collegiate Times (available here, page 4). All around us are signs of the immense failure of the War on Drugs, and yet prohibitionists continue to vouch for the efficacy of their approach. Drug use is indeed a problem, but it is one that should be addressed without causing brutal violence and massive unemployment. Unfortunately, prohibition does exactly that.

Making drugs illegal does not cause demand to disappear, so users are forced to turn to the black market to obtain their drug of choice, regardless of whether it is Adderall, painkillers, marijuana, or heroin. In this black market, suppliers face more risk, resulting in higher drug prices, but these prices create the potential for huge profits. Profits so large that they become worth killing for, which is what happens not only in Mexican border towns but also in our own inner cities. And in order to keep these profits, no one is off limits from killing, not even diplomats or police officers.

Now contrast this system to one in which drugs are regulated in the same manner as alcohol or tobacco. The primary distribution method for these two substances is not the black market, but the legal, regulated market, and because of this no one kills anyone in the regular course of business. In addition, the sales of these products are taxed, generating additional revenue for the state, and the people in charge of distributing these products are gainfully employed and presumably paying income taxes. The prohibitionist alternatives are imprisoning drug offenders and paying farmers not to grow anything, which both come at great cost to the state.

Even in our own country, the prohibitionist mentality is putting hard-working, law-abiding citizens out of work. Take the case of Joseph Casias, a dedicated employee of the Wal-Mart in Battle Creek, Michigan, whose hard work won him the award of Associate of the Year in 2008. Joseph also suffers from sinus cancer and an inoperable brain tumor, and to treat the severe pain caused by the affliction he uses medical marijuana, which is legal in the state of Michigan. Yet when he tested positive for marijuana in a drug screening following a work-related accident, the company decide to fire him last November. Furthermore, earlier this week it was reported that Wal-Mart was challenging his eligibility for unemployment benefits, although they have since changed their position, most likely due to the high volume of negative publicity they received in the media. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that Joseph will be able to find another job to support his two children and pay for his medical bills in Michigan, which has the highest unemployment rate in the country.

All of this illustrates the high cost of prohibition, but it should also be noted that it is ineffective. In Portugal, the Netherlands, and other places that have decriminalized drugs, drug use has actually gone down in response to decriminalization, as more people are willing to seek treatment, among other reasons. And over the past 30 years in the US smoking rates, particularly among teenagers, have gone down, not because of making cigarettes illegal and using scare tactics, but because of honest education and open dialogue on the subject. In our great country that was founded, above all else, on the principle of liberty, it is time to end the fascist policy of prohibition.

For Science!

Due to the highly political nature of the subject of its research, the IPCC is constantly under attack from critics and those opposed to climate change action, who hope to use anything that can be regarded as a mistake on behalf of the panel to turn public opinion against taking action on climate change. The most recent “scandal” concerns the panel's assessment of economic losses from catastrophe and their relation to observed global temperature increase.

The story, published by the Times Online on January 24, accused the IPCC of cherry-picking data from a then-unpublished study on the increasing costs of hazard loss since 1950. The study, which has since been published, compared the costs incurred by natural disasters to growth in population and infrastructure and found no increase in the impact of disasters, after accounting for growth, between 1950 and 2005, and a slight 2% increase in the impact of disasters between 1970 and 2005, when strong rises in global average temperature began.

However, the published study also included caveats on technical factors, such as strong hurricane seasons in 2004 and 2005 and currency exchange rates, that could produce bias in the result, and so the author added a caution that there was “insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses”.

While revelations such as this reflect poorly on the IPCC (as they are designed to do), more scrutiny should also be given to the sources of these “scandals”, as it would appear that the Times Online is itself cherry-picking information to discredit the panel. The IPCC assessments are based on the entire body of climate change research, and one study that stands out would be insufficient to sway the conclusions reached by the entire panel.

The reality of the situation is exactly that. Although AR4 references the study that found the 2% increase in catastrophe losses since 1970, it also mentions that no other study has been able to detect a similar trend. The report offers a balanced view not only on this particular issue but on all of the research available at the time it was written. In fact, many have called the reports and processes of the IPCC conservative in that they require the agreement of hundreds of scientists before anything can be published.

In contrast, the Science and Environment Editor for the Times Online needs the approval of only a handful of managing editors (if that) for a story to be published, and while we hope that all journalists are proud enough of their profession to maintain their integrity, the truth is that the profit motive plays a much bigger role in the decision-making process of the editorial board for one newspaper than it does for a diverse group of hundreds of scientists – the amount of advertising on each group's respective website speaks clearly to this fact.

Virginia Powershift 2009 Recap

Virginia Powershift 09 wrapped up a couple of hours ago, and after some good food (Chipotle!) and digesting (no pun intended) everything that happened, I wanted to share some of my thoughts. I'll start with some of the activities of the conference, then move to general observations.

The Petrol-Free Gypsy Carnival Tour: this was incredible! Thanks so much to Nick and Rachel. Over 11 days this past summer, they biked from Harrisonburg to Virginia Beach while making stops along the way to play shows and spread the good word about touring with people power instead of oil power. Oil funds war and other social injustices, as well as contributes to climate change, and so by opting out of oil they chose to support a more noble cause. I have no clue how to pull it off, but don't be surprised to see Dubnium biking around Virginia next summer.

Probably the most surprising thing I learned this weekend was that campaign contributions in Virginia are unlimited. Of course, a quick trip over to the Virginia Public Access Project makes that quite apparent: the largest contribution by an individual to McDonnell's campaign was $125,000, while for Deeds it was $175,000, and both campaigns had multiple organizations which had contributed over $1 million.

But by far the best workshop I attended was the social media workshop hosted by Tom Dawkins, currently of Ashoka. Tom is their "social media guy" and had a lot to say about the strategies and pitfalls of using social media and how it is well suited to activism. One of the best lessons I took away from this workshop was only doing as much as you can be good at; focus on your strengths, yes, but also focus them in a way that's truly effective. Climate change is only one of many issues I care deeply about, so this made me evaluate how effective I was working on multiple issues and projects as opposed to focusing on one or two, but I think that sort of evaluation leaves out the value of community and coalition-building that results (partially) from what I do. And, ultimately, those are two things that can always be added to; after all, "the market for belief is infinite".

Saturday was October 24th, the 350.org international day of action. Ours was one of over 5,300 actions that took place that day, and with participation in over 180 countries, this can be considered the first ever global day of action for anything.

Then, of course, came the keynotes. Mike Tidwell was brilliant as always, vividly describing the shocking effects of climate change already happening while passionately telling us why he fights on every day, and why we should too. Rachel Butler of SustainUS added another number to the mix: 43, as in 43 days (42 now) till the Copenhagen climate conference, 43 days left to get our members of Congress to pass as strong a climate bill as possible, and 43 days left to ensure that Obama will be in Copenhagen, leading the way as the world prepares to deal with the greatest threat to mankind ever known. Jessy Tolkan was very much herself and brought the fire and passion to us straight from Times Square, which 350 had taken over as part of the day of action, and couldn't have done more to get everyone there excited. She brought up one really important point during her speech, one again of numbers, which I'll elaborate on with the rest of this post.

At one point Jessy made a reference to the "60 or 70" people in the room, but in reality at the time there were probably less than 50 people. And that's embarrassing. This event should have easily had a couple hundred people, if not a thousand, but for various reasons didn't. And while I can't speak specifically to the organizing effort by George Mason students or recruiting efforts by other schools, I do have a couple observations to make as to why Virginia Tech, one of the top schools in recruiting for both national Powershifts, showed up with only 6 students.

Quite simply, the problem was us, the experienced Hokie climate activists. We (and I use this term loosely, as I personally did not have much to do with planning) may have thrown a somewhat successful Virginia Powershift last year, but it was our collective attitude that helped kill Powershift this year. We didn't think it was worth our time, we lacked faith in the ability of those organizing, perhaps because of our inflated egos from the long summer months we spent planning as opposed to five short weeks, and overall we didn't care. We didn't care if Powershift succeeded, and maybe even wanted it to fail because we'd be proven right, better, superior to those organizing this one.

Well, sorry guys, but by every standard other than numbers I consider this Powershift a success. Every workshop I attended gave me quality information and networking contacts that I know will continue to help me from this point forward. The small numbers might even have turned out to be a plus for networking because of the informal environment created.

Another point brought up to me at the post-Powershift party last night was that some people felt that they didn't need to attend because they already knew everything. This is the pinnacle of folly, one because you can never know everything, and two because Powershift is about more than just learning. It's about putting that knowledge to work and creating change in our communities and around the world. I know most of us know this already, but it's easy to forget; Powershift is a good reminder of why we're doing what we're doing, how important this is, and how many others are there right alongside us.

So what to do now? I'll reiterate what Rachel Butler said: we have 42 days till Copenhagen to get our political leaders on board. Are you up to the challenge?

Digging Ourselves Out of a Hole?

Last Sunday, Daniel Goleman came to Blacksburg to talk about his new book, Ecological Intelligence. Not surprisingly, more than a few people were angry at the message he was sending. The notion that we can consume our way out of the environmental problems we now face is absurd. The impacts of continuing to consume at current rates and a steadily rising population that wants to mimic our patterns of consumption will not be offset by consuming stuff that is less bad.

But on the other hand, as consumers we should have the level of detailed information about products that Goleman suggests with his notion of "radical transparency". We should know the full impact of what we're getting before we get it. And in a sense, this same logic was behind the controversial First & Main development in Blacksburg.

In their proposal, Fairmount Properties used the terms "residential" and "mixed-use development" several times, but when it came time to build the only concepts on their mind was commercial and big-box retail. So of course members of Town Council were upset by the deception and fought the project that they didn't approve.

Last night, at the Town Council Candidate Forum hosted by the SGA, a couple candidates voiced their feelings that the Town Council erred on this issue, that they should have been fully supportive of any commercial development in Blacksburg as a boon to the tax base, whatever the cost. This kind of thinking is short-sighted, as it fails to consider even the current needs of the schoolchildren located right next to where the proposed big box would have been, much less the character and future of the town.

An onslaught of unbridled economic growth can hardly be called sustainable; while it may ensure that Blacksburg may still exist in 50 years, it would hardly be the Blacksburg that we know and love today. Although some of the candidates would have you believe this myth, one look at the way Christiansburg has developed and the impacts of sprawl on its smaller population should be all it takes to convince you that the need for economic development needs to be carefully balanced with concerns of social and environmental sustainability. Bryce Carter, Susan Anderson, and Cecile Newcomb were three candidates who showed that they understand this balancing act and that they desire more for Blacksburg than endless strip malls and box stores from South Main to Christiansburg and all the way out Prices Fork Road.

Sustainability can be tough, but by recognizing the importance of all three legs of the stool, social, economic, and environment, our town can grow to meet all the needs of its residents while remaining the Blacksburg we love. But focus too much on one aspect, and the stool begins to tilt while the hole next to it gets deeper.

The Other Side Of The Coin

Yesterday, John Podesta, CEO of the Center for American Progress, wrote about how we're arguing about the wrong things in the climate debate. It doesn't matter whether we go with a carbon tax or cap and trade, or how we allocate permits. These are merely tools. What we need to focus on is what the solution looks like: renewable energy.

By heavily investing in renewable energy and funding incentive programs (like net metering), we can reinvigorate our economy and breathe some life back into the crippled middle class. But what happens if we don't?

China has pledge $440 to $660 billion dollars over the next ten years to renewable energy. South Korea is ready to invest billions more to gain a competitive edge. Germany is already the biggest player on the market. If we don't make a seriously large investment in renewable energy soon, we could lose our chance to become a major contender in the industry. We'll continue to import our energy, from China instead of Saudi Arabia, and the economy will continue to suffer as more jobs are lost and tax revenue shrinks. Indeed, this could be the turning point for an American manufacturing industry already in decline: will we salvage it, and rebuild our country with a clean energy economy, or are we content to let the decline continue and let fossil fuel execs profit until there's nothing left?

I'll end with a quote from the only TV show I seriously consider worth watching, The Wire. "You know what the problem is? In this country, we used to make stuff. Now we all have our hands in the next guy's pocket."

A Hazardous Situation

Margaret Mead said it best: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” Certainly this is true of the various examples of popular epidemiology that we have seen: several concerned citizens, aware at some basic level of an ongoing problem, join together to find answers to their questions and seek justice for those wronged. Deborah Stone (The Policy Paradox, 2001) would call these groups concentrated interests, people closely connected to an issue and heavily invested in achieving their desired outcome, which in most cases consisted of restitution to those who suffered, reparation of damage done to the environment, and better preventive measures by corporations and regulatory agencies.

While the emotionally-charged stories they told were successful in obtaining compensation for victims and cleanup funds not only for their specific sites but for future incidents (i.e. the 1986 Superfund reauthorization), it is doubtful that citizen suits have done much to enhance preventative steps taken except those that stem from a corporation's self-interest in not facing lawsuits of potentially millions of dollars. Not much has changed with the EPA either: a lack of funding and time plus regulations that place the burden on the EPA to show the hazardous nature of new chemicals results in hundreds of untested, potentially unsafe chemicals in the marketplace.

Despite the interest of what could easily be millions of people, whether they be victims or past participants of popular epidemiological studies, environmentalists, or people concerned with their health and the health of their children, these rules are not likely to change anytime soon because of the billions of dollars it would mean for a handful of corporations. According to Stone's logic, the concentrated interest overpowers the dispersed one, and so this is the system our society has chosen: a system that completely disregards the precautionary principle and exposes each of us to thousands of potential risks each day (contrast that with Europe, where rigorous testing is required before a new chemical can be introduced). Yet no one complains forcefully; that is, until another new chemical wreaks havoc and the public cries in outrage against corporate greed and indifference and bureaucratic timidness. But who among us will really stand up for the precautionary principle?

The State of Our Democracy

One of the objectives of a democratic society is to ensure that the interests of all its citizens are represented not equally but fairly. This necessarily requires that all citizens be equally able to express their concerns and have them championed by their servants in government. However, in the United States today this is not the case due to several factors, the main ones being low voter turnout, capitalism, and the two-party system.

Low voter turnout, Rousseau would argue, is a sign of bad government because it reflects a general attitude among its citizens that “the general will will not prevail” and therefore instead of being a servant, elected officials become representatives of their entire constituencies while advancing the interests of only those who put them there, i.e. the majority that elected the official and the contributors who allowed the official to run his or her campaign. And who are the underrepresented parties? Primarily young people and minorities. Young people, before they reach adulthood, are accustomed to being subverted by authority regardless of their interests and have no expectation that this pattern will change; the same can generally be said of minorities.

Capitalism has caused democracy to count votes not by citizens but by dollars. And it is no secret that in elections, especially state and local elections, the candidate with more money wins the vast majority of the time. As such, it meant for the longest time that the chief interests advanced by servants in government were those of corporations. It has been only recently, within the past 30 years or so, that citizen groups have sunk to the level of corporations and begun expensive lobbying campaigns. And when citizens would rather pay another to advocate for them than take to the streets to demand their needs, “the State is not far from its fall”.

The two-party system only serves to entrench the tyranny of the majority within our government. For example, which party is the anti-empire peace advocate supposed to support? Under both Republican and Democratic administrations have we seen our military budget steadily increase, even as our nation falls deeper into debt and recession. The ones who profit are the military contractors who our nation becomes more enslaved by as their pockets swell. Indeed, moneyed interests have captured our public servants, and the media, for the most part slaves to those same interests, serve only to maintain the illusion of representative democracy and distract the public from critical issues at hand. What can we do to reinvigorate U.S. citizens' interest in government and public service?

Week In Review

For the week of June 20-26, 2009:

Monday/Tuesday: Invisible Children's How It Ends Lobby Days for northern Uganda. We heard from a lot of great people, including Luis Morena-Ocampo, several high-ranking officials from the Ugandan government, including their Minister of Defense, and Tom Shadyac. Of course, I also got the chance to catch up with my IC friends, including Justin and Dyanna.

But the best part came Tuesday. By far the best lobbying experience I've had (when a discussion of peak performances came up on Sunday, this was definitely it for me). I got to listen to Senator Mark Warner's head of homeland security and foreign affairs talk about what he knew, then tell him why I cared about Invisible Children, why he should support the bill and what it would do (the bill is the "LRA Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act").

But even more interesting then that is what he said the senator was up to. Apparently, on Tuesday Senator Warner was convening with other Democratic senators to discuss the merits of the various climate change bills that had been introduced in Congress. It could be a sign that he'll be an ally for strengthening the Waxman-Markey bill in the Senate, but more likely my guess is that he doesn't want to see businesses impacted too harshly.

Wednesday: Basshound @ the 8x10 in Baltimore. Great show; much love to these guys, as always.

Thursday: (my day off) Historic Senate hearing on mountaintop removal. More about that here.

Friday: Big day. First off, went down to the EPA building to protest mountaintop removal.

But the big part came after that. I headed over to the Capitol building for a rally to support strengthening for the ACES Act, from which we split up into three groups to hit the steps of all three House office buildings with banners and big green hard hats. Once we were moved from there, we proceeded to flood the hallways of all three House buildings, talking to every representative we could about strengthening ACES. Finally we took a break and regrouped in the cafeteria of the Longsworth building around 4, then moved out back to the Capitol building to make our way to the House floor in time for Minority Leader John Boehner's (R-OH) hour-long rant. As he finally yielded and the vote began, we were shepherded out of our seats and downstairs only for us to come right back up, just in time to catch the end of the vote. 219 for versus 212 against and ACES passes! Barely. Now onto the Senate battle.

Saturday/Sunday: 1Sky leadership training. And just in time; passing ACES through the Senate will be tough. I have to credit this blog, and my new Twitter account, to this training. And so it begins.