Liz Barratt-Brown's Blog: Living Sustainably

Spirit Bear is next “trophy” sought in British Columbia

2010-02-23T16:55:33Z

As soon as the Olympics are over and the crowds that have come from all over the world for the array of winter sports have dispersed, a new visitor will come for a different “sport” – the bear hunter seeking to kill bears for trophies in British Columbia’s Great Bear Rainforest. How can British Columbia’s government put itself forward as a leader – as host of the Olympics – in Canada one week and the next week allow the backwards and heart wrenching killing of bears as they stumble out of their dens after a long winter’s hibernation?

The government must stop the hunt and stop it now. This is the message that 20 million people from around the world will send to the British Columbia government tomorrow in a full page ad that will run in the B.C. Vancouver Sun (see below). Ian McAllister, one of the most prominent bear advocates in North America and Executive Director of Pacific Wild, shares the sentiment behind the ad in his guest blog on NRDC's Greenlight page today.

NRDC has worked closely with first nations, environmentalists, industry and government to protect the temperate rainforest of British Columbia for nearly two decades. We were integrally involved in the creation of millions of acres of protected forests in Vancouver Island’s Clayoquot Sound and on B.C.’s western coast, the Great Bear Rainforest. NRDC’s very logo is of the spirit bear, one of the most beautiful bears on the planet that appears as a white, cinnamon colored, or black bear. Black bears can have white cubs and vice-versa. The forests have the richest variety of bears on the planet. The bear is the icon of the forest, a point not lost on B.C. when it paraded a giant spirit bear in the opening ceremonies of the Olympics.

The rapid logging and hunting on the coast spurred a massive campaign that started with the indigenous peoples that had lived there for millennia and spread to millions of people around the world, including NRDC’s 1.2 members and activists. Nearly 500 major corporations also joined the call to protect these forests. Since the British Columbia government moved to protect the Great Bear Rainforest in 2001, ending the trophy hunt has been one of the most deadly unfulfilled promises – over 2,000 bears have been killed. It is time to fulfill this promise and not let another year go by in which black bears, some carrying the recessive gene of the spirit bear, and grizzlies can be senselessly killed.

Anyone who knows these forests can’t help but be awed by them. They are replete with giant cedars and firs, stretching up into mist of the rainforest and over pristine salmon streams. The bear has a close relationship with these trees and salmon. It carries the salmon from the stream to eat the fish in the trees. The carcass of the fish are often seen strewn across branches, soon to fertilize the tree and the forest soils. The trees then provide dens for the bears and protection from the sun for the streams, making it possible for the salmon to survive. The bear, salmon and trees are intricately interwoven with one another in a perfect cycle of life.

The people who know this best are the first nations. They have revered the bear – many have bear clans. One of the first nation leaders we have worked closely with on the coast, Art Sterritt, had this to say of the hunt – “"This is not a sport, it is a senseless slaughter, the trophy hunt goes against every moral teaching that we carry and is disrespectful to our culture and values."

The first nations in the Great Bear Rainforest say that the white bear was put there – in their rainforest home – to remind them that their home was once all ice and snow. The bear is there to remind them to protect the magnificent forest that arose when the glaciers retreated. Now it’s the bear that needs our protection. The clock is ticking.

[Click the image below to see the full ad]

"Earth Hour" gains momentum

2009-03-29T02:23:40Z

On Saturday, March 28, millions of people and thousands of cities and municipalities participated in "Earth Hour" - a World Wildlife Fund organized event aimed at building awareness and action to stem climate change by turning lights off for the hour from 8:30-9:30 PM. First lights were dimmed in Australia and Asia. Then Europe and Africa followed. And finally North America and Latin America.

There's been lots of back and forth about Earth Hour - shouldn't we really just focus on changing our lightbulbs for greater impact than turning off our lights for an hour? I, for one, don't buy the sceptics' arguments and think it is a heartening thing to have millions of people participate in a worldwide event focused on global warming.

Sitting here in darkness, save my few candles, I observe two things - first that my computer is on and most of the lights in my neighborhood appear to be on. Too bad. That said, I have scrolled through the photos of lights going out at the pyramids in Cairo, at the Eiffel Tower in Paris, at Big Ben and the Parliament buildings in London and - maybe most remarkably - across many cities that I wouldn't have guessed would participate - Dubai, Jakarta, Bejing, Istanbul, Hong Kong, etc... According to WWF's web page on the event, in 2007, only Sydney, Australia - where the idea was hatched - participated. In 2008, 400 cities participated. This year, over 4,000 cities and municipalities are participating, including Las Vegas. That one I have to see.

I didn't join the others from my city who gathered in Freedom Plaza to watch Washington D.C.'s largest municipal building darken or before the National Cathedral. I have been spending the hour reading about the event and following some pretty interesting links. I clicked on a Yale link because I went to school there and I was interested to learn that Yale has a forum on climate change and the media. There was a news clips about Greg Craven, the Oregon High School teacher who posted a YouTube video on climate change to reach young people where they live - e.g. on the Internet. The video had a pretty eye-catching title - "The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See" and it had been viewed, according to the short clip, almost 2 million times. I had to check it out to see if it lived up to its name and what young folks had watched that many times. What I found was a video that in a few minutes lays out a rationale for why we have to pick column A to save the world.

I want you to go and watch the video so I am not going to tell you much more about Column A - but what struck me in watching this video is how the worst case for acting and being wrong about global warming (e.g. it doesn't happen) is that the world spirals into a global economic depression. Well, we've already got that (the video was apparently made before the events of the last half a year). The worst case for not acting and being right (e.g. global warming happens) is economic, social, political, health, and environmental collapse - or as Greg explains - the end of the world as we know it. He continues that under the worst case, it is all coming soon and won't be delegated to some distant grandchild. He does all this in a dispassionate way which is probably why this video is so terrifying. So please take a few minutes to watch it.

My hour would have gone by washing dinner dishes, putting laundry in the dryer, finishing cleaning up my desk and maybe picking up "The Omnivore's Dilemma" (a great read by the way). It would have been an hour that would have passed like any other, powered by coal from Appalachia (probably from the horrible practice of mountain top removal that NRDC is profiling right now on Switchboard).

Thankfully, there are millions who did much more than me to mark Earth Hour and who will get politically active as a result. That is a great and necessary thing. As for me, I am grateful for my hour steeped in candle light and spent scrolling through the photos from around the world. I enjoyed feeling the human collective, rather than fossil, energy in the moment. And I am grateful for learning about Greg Craven and his YouTube video that is reaching so many young people.

Let's hope that Earth Hour helps lead us closer towards making the momentous changes needed (e.g. to choose Column A). We must move from Earth Hour to Earth Year, Decade, Century - because we need to figure out - and fast - how to let the planet do what it has for the term of our time here - give us a liveable climate.

No substitute for optimism

2009-03-11T20:31:05Z

George Woodwell, a long-time scientist on NRDC’s board, has battled for action on global warming for years. Recently, I asked him how he stays so cheerful. Not missing a beat, he said “there is no substitute for optimism. If you can see a way forward, you can be optimistic”.

I’ve worked in the environmental field for almost thirty years and it is sometimes hard to feel optimistic. Changes to our planet have accelerated rapidly during this short period of time: global warming, fisheries collapse, water scarcity, the list goes on, but I have never failed to see a way forward. Sometimes it is a state or nation with an innovative policy. Sometimes it is incremental progress at the global level. Often times, it is inspired by the campaign of one or two intrepid souls. But now we are running out of time and we urgently need to see action at all levels, simultaneously working to better protect the planet.

This imperative doesn’t seem to be lost on our new president. In his acceptance speech and inaugural address, the President referred to our “planet in peril” as one of his top concerns and has consistently listed addressing global warming and energy reform at the top of his policy objectives. But he also clearly believes that doing right by the planet and generations to come will reap immediate benefits as well. The stimulus bill and his budget invest in a nascent energy “revolution” to get us out of the economic – as well as planetary - mess we are in. No longer are environmental and energy policies sidebar issues, but have moved into a center role where initiatives on clean energy, technological innovation, and job creation are meshed into one to meet multiple policy goals.

A good example is the stimulus bill, passed in mid-February. The bill has nearly $80 billion in renewable energy and efficiency spending, a full 10th of the overall package, which represents the biggest injection of federal support for transforming the production and use of energy in our history. It will help grow this sector, cut our reliance on foreign oil (which, by the way, costs us $700 billion in borrowed money every year) and cut the pollution that causes global warming. A huge chunk of this funding will go to weatherize millions of American homes and green Federal buildings, employing people in “green collar” jobs who have lost their job in the traditional construction industry. Another example is the President’s federal budget which contains, for the first time, estimates for proceeds from a “carbon cap” – a cap on absolute levels of pollution that puts a price on the remaining carbon dioxide emissions. The proceeds will fund renewable energy, health care, tax breaks, and other items (which we want more of) and help discourage pollution (which we want less of).

Next, the President and Congress will focus on legislation that will set up this “cap and invest” system. The U.S. faces twin imperatives – getting domestic legislation passed and moving a global agreement forward that bring about steep reductions. The good news is that already 1,000 U.S. mayors and half the states have put in place their own global warming plans. It will still be a huge fight but it feels like the ground is shifting in our favor – even in these difficult economic times. Globally it will also take unprecedented leadership. Over 15 years ago, the U.S. ratified the world’s first treaty on climate change after the Rio Earth Summit. Over ten years ago, a “protocol” was added to this treaty calling on developed countries to take the first steps in reducing greenhouse gas pollution. Sadly, there has been little real progress towards reducing pollution to below 1990 levels – the stated goal of the protocol – partly because the U.S., the emitter of 25% of the world’s global warming pollution, refused to act. Now the U.S. must show that we are prepared to do our part (and that we believe it is an economic plus to act) and bring along critical countries such as China and India.

What’s required is nothing short of changing the very way we have powered our society over the last couple of centuries. We don’t have much time to mull it all over either. Scientists are warning that we have less than a decade to start reducing the pollution that causes global warming if we are to stave off the worst impacts. Certainly a world perched on the edge of catastrophic melting of our poles makes the bank bailout look like small potatoes.

But then I think of George’s comment and reflect a little on where we have come from and what I have seen work. I started my career advocating for acid rain legislation. Acid rain is mainly a side effect of burning coal and it was poisoning the lakes and streams as well as causing other damage to huge portions of the eastern United States and Canada. In 1990, the U.S. adopted legislation that cut acid rain pollution in half by requiring that “scrubbers” be installed on coal burning furnaces and put in place the first “trading system” for pollution reductions.

On the global scale, chemicals used mainly in refrigeration were literally eating away at the world’s protective ozone layer, critical for shielding the planet from cancer causing UV radiation. In the late 1980s, the United Nations shepherded through a global agreement known as “The Montreal Protocol” that phased out the use of chemicals responsible for the damage. Less harmful chemicals were developed and the hole has been gradually closing ever since.

The backdrop to these two success stories was a period of intense national and global law making in the 1970s. After the first Earth Day, our major environmental statutes were passed in rapid succession – the Clean Air Act in 1970, the Clean Water Act in 1972, the Endangered Species Act in 1973, the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1974, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in 1976, and the Superfund in 1980. In 1972, the first Earth Summit was held in Stockholm, Sweden. Many of our environmental treaties were adopted shortly thereafter. NRDC and other national groups were formed during this period – NRDC in the dining hall of Yale Law School – and now employ thousands of advocates working on behalf of people and the environment. Thousands more form a vibrant “grassroots” movement that continually challenges the status quo.

It is hard to imagine what our country would be like if we had not passed these statutes or invested in building this cadre of environmental activists in their support. I’ve travelled to many developing countries where the air is unbreathable and the water undrinkable. I’ve ridden in “tuk tuks” - taxis in Bangkok – whose gas tanks could explode at any moment. And, tragically, many environmental activists have lost their lives for lack of the civil liberties and democratic protections. We can’t protect ourselves against these harms without the power of the law and rules.

That system of laws and rules, and fundamentally behavior at all levels, is broadening out dramatically and will be tested like never before. The statutes of the 1970s seem almost quaint in their focus on solving problems by using technology to reduce pollution at the end of a pipe. As Tom Friedman said in his New York Times column on March 7, we are facing the point of inflection where both the Wall Street economy and the earth's natural systems are hitting the wall at the same time. Given that stark reality, the spotlight must now be on changing the very way we produce energy and food, and how much we consume.

Instead of making a better Cadillac, we have to throw it out for the Prius – or better yet, for high-speed rail and walkable communities. We need to have more “smart growth” and greener buildings. Companies should add photovoltaic panels and earthen roofs to reduce stormwater runoff and better insulate their miles of flat roofs. We’ll need to enact new treaties to control mercury and to protect the arctic as the melting ice opens it up for shipping and resource extraction. There is much to be done but there is already a beehive of activity that the President, Congress, and other nations can magnify with leadership and the right policies.

And while there is a dire imperative to these issues, there is also a huge opportunity to do things better and more fairly. Perhaps we’ll even be inspired to think more deeply about what matters most to us and what we plan to leave for the next generation and for other co-inhabitants on this miraculous planet. As George said, there is no alternative to optimism. That is a refreshing idea here in Washington, D.C. at the start of 2009.

A Turning Point in the tar sands

2009-02-20T00:37:27Z

The tar sands issue will never be the same after the President's visit to Canada this week. It has been catapulted to the top tier issues between the U.S. and Canada. Now the spotlight will be on what can be done to clean up the massive environmental problems in the tar sands and whether they fit a "21st century" energy solution, as called for by President Obama. And that spotlight will not let up. This next month's National Geographic has a lengthy and graphic story on the destruction there.

While the President did not directly take on the tar sands (he was a polite guest), he talked about the development and use of clean energy as one of the most pressing challenges of our time. He went on to say that how we use and produce energy is "fundamental to our economic recovery but also to our security and our planet, and we know we can't afford to tackle these problems in isolation." He repeatedly stressed that global warming is the lens through which we must now look at energy issues.

In one fell swoop, the President obliterated the main argument that the Harper and Stelmach governments have put forward in support of expanding strip mining and drilling for tar sands oil. It was a policy of "oil-sands-at-any-cost-for-energy security purposes". They are going to have to do better now that the fate of the planet is now entwined. Energy security must morph to climate security. And as wealthy countries, we must lead on tackling global warming.

But the President also had wise words about how finding energy solutions for the 21st Century might enrich us. He talked about how addressing the climate change issue might help us make our economies more energy efficient, saving consumers and businesses money. And he talked about how he hoped that out of the collaboration with Canada we would emerge firmly committed to addressing an issue that ultimately "the Prime Minister's children and my children are going to have to live with for many years."

There will be a lot of back and forth in the next few days about what this new energy dialogue will mean and clarifications around whether the Harper Government's climate policy is the same as the one proposed by President Obama (it is not) and whether carbon capture and storage is a solution in the tar sands (it is not), but at the end of the day the key point is this - our leaders can no longer hide behind the coattails of the oil companies operating in the tar sands and call this a rational energy or climate or planetary policy.

Native Americans from north of the tar sands to refineries dotted across the West and Midwest and all along the proposed pipelines spoke out against the tar sands damage to their sacred lands, tar sands festivals were held and Greenpeace banners hung, and thousands of letters were sent by scientists, athletes, writers, artists, mayors, members of environmental groups...you get the picture. The message was "Tar sands no, green jobs and a green economy yes".

As if to drive the point home, today it was announced that Alberta - once rolling in oil money - is now in a deficit. And guess what? The oil companies are still making money. As the President said, there are no "silver bullets" in solving our energy problems but one thing is clear, we can do better and thanks to the leadership of our new President and the people of Canada and the United States, I am sure we will.

Al Gore on "Yes we can!"

2008-11-10T03:29:29Z

Read Nobel Laureate Al Gore's opinion piece today in the New York Times about what this means to him. He comments on how best to channel the energy and enthusiasm for change that is ushering in our 44th President of the United States. He says take that energy and enthusiasm and translate it into a climate policy that will create millions of jobs, put good old American ingenuity back in play, and - by the way - save the planet.

The dirty fuels - tar sands, oil shale, liquid coal and "clean coal" are out (see what he says).

What's in? Solar thermal plants in the Southwestern desert and geothermal plants where there are natural "hot spots" in the earth, wind farms from Texas to the Dakotas, and a "smart grid" to move renewable energy from rural to urban areas.

What's also in? Re-tooling the auto industry to provide fleets of plug-in hybrid cars and trucks that can both be used for transport and electric storage.

And finally, buildings can be retrofitted, and Government aid for failing mortgages can also help to make homes more energy efficient.

Think of the jobs making all this happen, think of the change this could bring to Main Street. As my colleague and Co-Chair of the Center for a New American Dream, Julie Schor, put it - it's time for Green Street. Yes we can!

NRDC asks airlines to oppose dirty fuels and cut global warming pollution

2008-01-10T21:37:07Z

Today we are sending letters to 15 U.S. and Canadian airlines asking that they participate in a new campaign we are launching called “Cool Fuels.” We’re asking participants in “Cool Fuels,” to adopt their own corporate “Low Carbon Fuel Standard” and to publicly oppose the expansion of what we are calling “dirty fuels.” Dirty fuels are fuels derived from the tar sands, liquid coal, and oil shale and they may well be our “fuels of the future” if we don’t get serious about developing greener, cleaner alternative fuels. Already over 1 million barrels of tar sands oil is shipped to the U.S. every day. To get this oil, all the big names in the oil industry are up digging the heart out of the Canadian boreal forest, our largest terrestrial storehouse of carbon and home to lynx, bear, caribou, nearly half of our nesting songbirds, and most importantly, aboriginal communities that have lived in peace with the land for millennia.

And getting this oil is dirty business. It has to be strip mined or boiled out of tons of gravel, dirt and peat that was once a beautiful, natural landscape of old growth trees, fens and wetlands. What was once miles upon miles of green and blue forest is now one of the world’s largest industrial landscapes. For every barrel of oil that is produced. 2-5 barrels of water must be used. And for every barrel, over two tons of dirt – or what is euphemistically called “overburden” – has to be disposed of. Massive amounts of natural gas is used, which means using clean fuel to create a dirty fuel, which is like throwing good money after bad. And now they are seriously debating building two dozen nuclear reactors to do the job. Is this what it takes to fuel our addiction to oil? How do we feel about that? As a biologist was quoted saying in a recent, excellent California SacBee piece, what disturbs her the most is that we are destroying their forest to produce this oil and not even trying to conserve. That’s where the airlines come in. Our research shows us that our biggest U.S. carriers, United Airlines, American Airlines, and Southwest, are already using tar sands oil in the Chicago and Denver airports. Northwest is also a big carrier and is likely fueling from tar sands oil at its largest hub, the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport. We traced this oil back from the airlines, to the airports, to their fuel distribution terminals, to the refineries and then back all the way to Alberta. It’s a spider web of addiction and it’s growing larger and larger. This doesn’t have to be the case. The airlines have lots of opportunities to substitute fuel efficency and alternative fuels for dirty fuels.

Airlines can reduce their fuel use – through improved air traffic control, routing, descent practices, and moving to electric towing at airports. They can modify their existing planes and, when they need to increase their fleet, to buy new, more efficient models, such as Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner. And they can get serious about developing the next generation of jet fuels – from biobutanol to algae derived fuel. Unfortunately, some of our major U.S. airlines are going backwards, not forwards. United Airlines and American Airlines are on record supporting the expansion of the pipelines bringing tar sands crude to the Chicago region and Jet Blue is on record supporting the development of liquid coal, albeit a “greener” variety. What is alarming is that this seems to be going on below the radar.

Most companies are busy signing on to statements and groups about reducing their global warming impact, but in practice the airlines and the major oil companies, like BP, Chevron, Conoco Philips, Exxon Mobil, Murphy Oil, Shell and Suncor, are all digging themselves deeper and deeper into the dirtiest of dirty carbon dependent future. BP, of the expensive branding campaign, “Beyond Petroleum,” just announced in December that it is investing in the tar sands. So now they must more rightly be called the “Bitumen Polluter,” for the gooey-tarlike substance they’ll soon be mining in what was the home of loons and caribou.

When I think about all this, I feel both despondent and hopeful. Despondent, because I wonder when some of our biggest U.S. companies are finally going to get it beyond ‘greenwashing’ about global warming. And hopeful, because we are all customers of these companies and can let them know loud and clear that we want them to clean up this part of our carbon footprint. A start is by urging them to participate in “Cool Fuels". So let’s get them aboard and get them moving forward, not backwards!