Support Sister's Camelot!

I just read a post that Sister's Camelot is one of three finalists competing to receive a MySpace Impact Award. They give away free food in various locations all over Minneapolis - and it's all organic! Seriously a great organization, that I think we should all vote on to ensure they get more attention.


Please vote for Sister's Camelot at: http://www.myspace.com/impactawards

impact awards speech

Solar power at Little Earth

I attended this wonderful event at Little Earth yesterday, where solar panels were installed to offset energy expenses. The plan is for the entire community to have a panel on each home.

The keynote speakers were Van Jones and Winona LaDuke. What I found interesting to note here is that both were adamantly opposed to the Midtown Burner proposed by Kandiyohi Partners ( R.T. Rybak no doubt felt uncomfortable). Both also feel we can change course nationally on energy policy, putting forward initiatives like this one.

Van Jones observations that our younger generation need better alternatives than they currently are receiving. He stated that many are entrepreneurs and leaders already, but are doing the wrong things. Selling the wrong resources in a society that needs what it does not and that our society needs to move from a wasteful pollution-based economy to a zero-waste green one.

Winona discussed how White Earth would be setting up a 250 kilowatt wind-turbine with the help of SMSC. Hugo Chavez is supporting this project more than they are, but she isn't concerned with this. Winona is quick to point out that over half the potential wind-power in America is on Native American reservations. These tribes have more potential power than they can currently use, making them potential exporters of their local energy resource. I also appreciate that she used the word "relocalization" as this is what we need more than a corrupt top-down system that Americans consider as standard.

Jason Edens of RREAL spoke briefly. His organization brings solar-heating systems to families on energy assistance. His analysis is that we are subsidizing the oil and gas companies with these programs and not focused on long-term energy assistance. Local energy production would alleviate low-income families more than fossil fuel dependency does. Jason also believes we are going to face Peak Oil, and should have local solutions that do not leave the poor frozen in their homes.

I can't help but remember seeing SMSC Vice-Chair Glynn Crooks sitting next to Annie Young, Minneapolis Park Board - At Large - Green Party. I do not know where Glynn stands politically, he's more of an investor. I do know that SMSC donates large sums of money to the major two parties. They hedge their bets like any large business would. But if the new eco-jobs are to have any meaningful expansion in this century, they will need more individual investors. Government grants, be it from the US or Venezuela, should not be seen as the basis for a future society.

Glynn did not stay for the food, music, or visit the booth for supporting organizations. He's quite busy and I do not blame him. But for the sake of "green jobs" in the future, we will need investors like him engaged in the communities through projects similar to this. Peak Oil is a serious matter for those unable to hold jobs during the chaos that it will entail. Those with jobs will find they are "priced out" of a middle-class lifestyle. The American way of life will change or die, and conscious investment in our future will determine a more positive outcome.

Target's Lackluster Response

It seems that Target cares more about selling lead-coated toys from China than organic foods from the Midwest. Their response to my questions over their Archer Farms brand makes one cringe at their pathetic attempt. They don't even bother to check the context of their reply! ( what is that DVD about and why are they talking about Horizon Organics?)

The primary concern now is that Aurora has a giant farm in Gill,Colorado ( Weld County) that bothers its neighbors in many ways. The county commissioners want the farm to shrink down its number of cows from 3000 to a more manageable number. Aurora says it will bankrupt them and cost millions. But do factory farms really help the environment and local economies?

The bottom line: we need more corporate accountability. And those who support Organic should ensure that its standards match their values.

My original letter to them is here: http://textclips.blogspot.com/2007/09/target-sells-non-organic-at-organic.html

This is their response:

TARGET ( insert bullseye logo here )

October 26, 2007

Dear Kevin Chavis:

-Thank you for contacting Target® Corporation regarding your experience with returning your son's DVD. Robert Ulrich, Chairman and CEO, Gregg Steinhafel, President, and Troy Risch, Executive Vice President have received copies of your letter and have asked me to respond on their behalf. Please accept my apologies for any frustration and inconvenience you experienced.

Target works to provide guests with quality merchandise at affordable prices. By utilizing an extensive qualification and review process, Target ensures all required organic certifications are valid and up to date. Additionally, Target remains confident that the Archer Farms organic milk we provide guests adheres to the national organic program (NOP) regulations.

Based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) dismissal of complaints, Target will continue to utilize Aurora Organic Dairy as an organic dairy provider. For additional information regarding the USDA's dismissal, visit www.ams.usda.gov/NOP/TodaysNews.htm

Thank you again for bringing your concerns to our attention. I'll make sure to share your comments with our Buying, and Quality teams for review.

Sincerely,

Lindy

Target Executive Offices
PO Box 9350, MS 1A-X, Minneapolis, MN 55440-9350

Forced to go carfree?

A lot of people consider Greens to be a bit like members of the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) instead of typical people who don't mind chatting on their deck while drinking a cold one. Having spent a year now working with members of the local Green Party, I understand many are a bit quirky - but not loony. Their political ideas are also more extreme than members of the DFL - but the DFL can be more extreme than Greens.

I won't go into details at this moment about every issue. But one issue I feel strongly about is promoting a carfree lifestyle. We all know what Bush said during his 2005 State of the Union Address: "America is addicted to oil." CNN likes to repeat that quote quite often. But that is only the first step in dealing with an addiction - and few can quit addictions cold turkey. Therefore having Americans go carfree won't involve outlawing driving - but it may include things like a carbon impact fee and support for carfree infrastructure.

Mallard Fillmore may annoy me at times, I have mixed-feelings about this particular strip. I think it great that the creator is more green than your average Democrat. Conservatives typically portray themselves as actually living by what they believe in. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised he thinks that supporting a carfree society is wrong. Or does he just oppose government intervention, taxes, and partisan tactics with regards to this issue? Unfortunately the government already favors cars more heavily than the anti-car mantra now gaining momentum.

If you look at the Green Party of Minnesota platform you will see in line H that:

1) We support more efficient gasoline consuming vehicles
2) tax incentives for alternative energy vehicles
3) more bicycle lanes and racks
4) free transit in downtown areas of Minneapolis and Saint Paul
5) automobile free zones

in line C:

1) That we want our government to prepare for Peak Oil and focus on relocalization efforts

Nowhere in our platform does it say that we will force everyone to give up their cars. When a society is addicted to a substance, it is quite difficult to ban it. Though contrary to common thought, the prohibition of alcohol was a success ( it took 30 years for alcohol consumption per capita to reach its pre-prohibition levels). It would be better to support the post-carbon infrastructure.

Before any carbon tax is enacted, it is best to start with simple measures. Oil producers should lose lofty tax breaks. Car owners should pay the actual costs for using roads and other subsidies. Then it becomes easier for users to see their actual financial impact. CAFE standards should be increased at a certain rate for the rest of the century. Putting 10 times more money into energy research and development would yield amazing results as well. These are ways Congress can deal with our oil addiction right now, in a bipartisan manner.

Global Warming - more facts needed?

What more do the skeptics need to hear?

Why do some claim that we should use whatever resources we want abundantly? But we must borrow endlessly to do so, and ignore the consequences of such actions.

Global Warming is a direct consequence of such affluenza. The First chart was taken from An Inconvenient Truth, and depicts a much larger graph than the smaller one published prior. Notice how we are trending much higher in temperatures right now.

Now there are the Antartic ice cores to cover. The second graph quite clearly shows that temperatures there have a relationship to global CO2 levels. Since CO2 levels are exceeding 300ppm, we will experience warmer Earthly temperatures than the last 400,000+ years! That doesn't seem to bother the skeptics.

It's hard enough to get thousands of scientists to reach concensus on anything - and yet they have.

RELOCALIZATION - a wiser reaction

What should appear blatantly obvious to Global Warming adherents, is that humanity will not give up this collision course with reality. Perhaps it would be wiser to focus on relocalization and preparation for this time? Mitigating it appears a nonstarter with the 3 most populated nations on Earth not participating. These nations alone represent nearly half of humanity and half of its material wealth.

It isn't meaningless to work to curb your carbon footprint. Nor is it pointless to reduce our societal impact. But the fact is, even if we curb Co2 emmissions drastically, we still have a rising temperature to deal with. It is possible to do both, as the two can overlap in many areas. But as ecosystems change, preparation will take a more urgent precedent - especially by the most ardent conservative skeptics of today!