A guest blog post from Juliana Kaplan:

As an avid reader of Scholastic’s series The Princess Diaries, let me just tell you one thing about Scholastic’s recent coal product placement: Princess Mia would not like it.

While such products as the Spongebob Squarepants digital monopoly game and Cheerios counting books lining their shelves, Scholastic is no stranger to product placement. But as Scholastic’s recent product placement decisions come to light, many are questioning whether such an educational company should be using these products in their material.

Scholastic’s recent deal with the American Coal Foundation which agreed to sponsor an educational poster called “The United States Of Energy”, which if you asked them, is a purely educational map featuring several sources of energy around the U.S. Of course, one of the extremely highlighted and detailed sections features coal production, and the accompanying teacher’s guide suggests a full class period to learn about the steps of coal production and how it makes electricity. So let’s get this straight: Coal companies are paying Scholastic, which in turn makes coal map and coal lesson. Do you see a common theme here, too?

So here’s where it gets difficult: how much is too much? This is a wide debate, and while many might say “Well, of course, there is a limit.” But when their companies are booming because of product placement, it turns into the sky is the limit. But if we keep pushing the boundaries, keep throwing money at each other, keep turning a blind eye, how far can we push the envelope? Am I supposed to start my college year with English: Brought to you by Microsoft Word ? I was recently watching an episode of iCarly with my little sister, about how the girls are paid to have a subtle product placement in their show, and soon regret it. But I have seen many a Nickelodeon show subtly advertise other shows of Nickelodeon origin. So, while there may be many shocked and dismayed by Scholastic’s map and curriculum, let me just tell you right now: this may just be the beginning.

Rural states like Maine struggle with mass transit issues.  With limited federal funds and even more limited state and local funds, getting the requisite amount of money to fund transit infrastructure can be a herculean task.  Maine has 23,142 miles of roads, compare that to New Hampshire – it has less than half the state roads as Maine yet a slightly smaller population (1,318,301 versus NH’s 1,324,575) and the same transportation funding.  The result is that Maine must squeeze every bit of value it can out of each transportation dollar it receives.  So when it comes time to funding expensive, long term transit projects, it can be a tough sell.  Witness the recent reaction of the transportation committee to the ZOOM bus bill.

So how do Mainers cope with rising gas prices and the need to traverse long distances, often around rural or semi-rural areas, just to get to work?  Well, thousands of available seats already exist in vehicles traveling down the very same roads you commute on, every day, going the same way you are going, at the same time you are traveling.  Yep, it’s all those empty car seats right next to you.  Ok, groan if you must about pre-conceived notions about carpooling, but you might be surprised at how easy it is, thanks to GoMaine’s  interactive commuter ride-matching website.

Not ready for a long term commitment?  No problem, GoMaine just launched a single trip carpool finder so you can catch a ride to Camden for a festival, or save on parking by taking one car downtown for a show.  Not sure about the exact address of where you are heading?  The site uses Google maps so you can at least get close.  The ride-matching system on the GoMaine site has a trip planner, a commuter log that tracks your commuting choices and calculates the pollution and financial savings that go with it.  So, let’s talk about those pollution and money saving benefits.

Take a very typical commute – Lewiston to Portland.  Because housing costs are relatively cheaper in Lewiston but more job opportunities  are in Portland, many Mainers find themselves making the 49 mile haul each way, every day.  First, let’s address the environmental impact of that commute.  If you are going solo five days a week, that commute is releasing 20,012 lbs of carbon into the atmosphere every year.  (By comparison, the average CO2 emissions for a single occupancy vehicle in America is 11,634 lbs per year).   If you had just one person sharing that ride with you, you at least bring your commuter carbon emissions down to the national average.

Next, let’s talk about your wallet.  Assuming you never drove anywhere else but to work and back in your 25mpg car, at today’s gas price of $3.97, you are paying $3,890 a year, in gas alone.  Add to that tolls, wear and tear on your car, and you are paying a lot of money just to get to your job.  But say you have 3 people in your car so you all split that cost.  Each of you pays $972.50 a year instead.  What could you do with an extra $2,000 in your wallet?

Two of the best sources of information and dialogue about climate and related issues are the Climate Progress blog edited by Dr. Joseph Romm a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, author, former Clinaton Administration official and general smart guy (pretty much known to everyone as Joe) who is now assisted by longtime renewable energy writer/editor/video producer Stephen Lacey and the Dot Earth blog maintained on the New York Times website by Andrew Revkin, who started the blog while working as a staff reporter at the Times and has continued with it while moving to a new day job at Pace University (and yes, he is known to one and all, including people who just know him as the guitar player in Uncle Wade, as Andy).

Andy Revkin and Joe Romm often disagree in ways that can be grating and sometimes, less often, entertaining.   So it is striking when they converge on the same topics.

In a Dot Earth post on May 25 Revkin calls out with approval for Romm’s blog post about tornadoes and global warming quoting Joe’s conclusion that:

When discussing extreme weather and climate, tornadoes should not be conflated with the other extreme weather events for which the connection is considerably more straightforward and better documented, including deluges, droughts, and heat waves.

Just because the tornado-warming link is more tenuous doesn’t mean that the subject of global warming should be avoided entirely when talking about tornadoes.

In the same blog post Andy complements another Climate Progress blog post about the full greenhouse gas emissions associated with natural gas use, specifically discussing a new analysis from the National Energy Technology Laboratory (that is not yet peer reviewed) that, “appears to strongly undercut the widely cited conclusion by Robert Howarth of Cornell that leakage and other issues make natural gas a greater greenhouse threat than coal.”

These are two very important topics: the causal relationships that can be seen between global warming and our immediate environment, teasing apart the very real effects of climate change from other phenomena, and understanding the true environment effects of choices we make like increased extraction and use of natural gas.

If you eat, particularly if you eat fruit or nuts, you might be interested in seeing this scientific paper on how global warming and related climate change will have on the trees that are the sources of the fruits and nuts we eat.  Spoiler alert – it isn’t good for them.  Specifically, the paper (to quote the summary) says:

Temperate fruit and nut trees require adequate winter chill to produce economically viable yields. Global warming has the potential to reduce available winter chill and greatly impact crop yields.

One of the co-authors of the paper is on the staff of The Nature Conservancy and they explain the paper in a press release and a detailed blog post.

The story is clear: fighting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is not nuts (or a fruitless activity) – it is a deadly serious business that must be undertaken if we are going to save the world as we know it from vanishing.  The many people who depend on these most basic of foods, not to mention the animals and other plant species who depend on them, deserve protection and moving rapidly away from fossil fuels as the foundation of our energy and transportation systems is the only path open before us.

A very smart man once told me to never spread criticism and attacks accidentally in the name of rebutting them.  But sometimes you just have to do it.

An odd item popped up in the tubes of the interwebs recently - an anonymous essay attributed only to the financial website called “TheStreet.com” that (apparently) was never actually distributed on TheStreet.com but rather was posted and distributed through the MSN Money personal finance and investing website.

(more…)

Photo: Matthew Trump

CLF spoke out today regarding Green Mountain Power of Vermont’s newly-inked deal to purchase power from Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant, even as the state faces ongoing battles over Vermont Yankee. In a statement, Christopher Kilian, vice president and director of CLF Vermont, questioned the wisdom of betting on nuclear power as a long-term energy source for Vermont. The statement is below:

“Vermonters are rightly concerned about their energy sources,” said Christopher Kilian, vice president and director of CLF Vermont. “Striking the appropriate balance between cost, safety and environmental concerns associated with energy generation is an ongoing challenge, and we appreciate the state’s efforts to make energy-related decisions that are in the best interest of its citizens. However, we remain concerned about the state’s bet on nuclear energy over such a long time horizon. While Seabrook is a newer facility than Vermont Yankee, it shares the ongoing problems that all nuclear facilities have in common, like the absence of any proven solution for long-term waste storage and disposal. Adding to that the issues of Seabrook’s location right on the coast, which is especially troubling given the rising sea levels caused by global warming and recent sobering events in Japan, and continued lax federal oversight regarding relicensing of these older plants, CLF continues to believe that nuclear power is a poor choice for Vermont and New England and doesn’t belong in our energy future.”

Kilian continued, “Experience in Vermont shows the legal risks of betting on nuclear power. The state is now facing massive legal battles because the owners of Vermont Yankee are going back on their promises.”

Vermont’s Governor Shumlin announced today a new direction for the Circ Highway.  This is good news.  CLF has long supported re-thinking the Circ Highway, and focusing instead on transportation solutions that work.  As planned, the Circ is getting in the way of progress and causing too many people to be snarled in traffic and pollution.  The EPA has noted the severe damage the Circ would cause to waterways and wetlands.

CLF welcomes and encourages the Governor’s efforts.  We look forward to working with local communities and businesses to find effective, safe and lower cost solutions.  We don’t need to bust the bank, add more sprawl and dirty our streams to get around.

Unfortunately, our state and federal highway agencies also announced the completion of the final environmental review for the outdated Circ project.  We are disappointed with all the wasted money and effort spent on this outdated project.  Officials should have stopped the review before it was completed.  CLF will evaluate the final review and consider whether an appeal should be taken to Federal Court.

Thanks to all of the CLF members and allies who called and e-mailed their US Senators about the oil drilling vote today. The nasty McConnell bill needed 60 votes to pass and was defeated by a final tally of 42 ayes to 57 nays. Most of New England’s delegation voted the right way but Sen. Scott Brown and Sen. Kelly Ayotte voted in favor of the drilling bill today and last night in favor of retaining taxpayer subsidies for the five biggest oil companies. Clearly some education is needed. Maine’s senators both voted correctly yesterday on oil subsidies but today Sen. Snowe kept her record clean on oil drilling with a no vote while Sen. Susan Collins unfortunately decided to support oil drilling.

Besides the attempts to increase oil drilling, the McConnell bill included a section that would have greatly limited the ability of citizens to access the courts and get a fair hearing in front of a judge. It would have denied the award of legal fees to organizations bringing successful lawsuits against oil companies. With tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies aiding oil companies to spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year on lobbying, do oil companies really need to skew citizen access to the courts and put their greasy paws on the scales of justice? Are there limits to their greed and attempts to manipulate the law?

Legislated requirements to drill off the coast of Virginia or mandate certain oil sales in Alaska creates a slippery slope to drilling in New England. We don’t need oil rigs on Georges Bank or massive petro-chemical infrastructure in our coastal communities. That’s why this vote was important for New England. Thanks for taking action today and thanks for your continued support for CLF.

Another important Senate vote comes today around 2:30ish when the pro-drilling bill S.953, introduced by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, is scheduled to be voted on. This bill hides behind a fig leaf of a drilling ”safety improvement” by requiring a spill response plan, but it really seeks to increase drilling by requiring leasing off the coast of Virginia and in the Arctic and setting a deadline that all proposed leases have to be decided in 60 days. McConnell’s bill also restricts court access for an legal action against a drilling operation. Is the oil industry really in need of legislation that limits court access away from the public’s interest? Isn’t the playing field already more than a bit skewed in favor of the industry that seems to create a new lobbying PAC each year?

TAKE ACTION NOW!

- SEND AN E-MAIL to your senators via CLF’s action alert and tell them to vote to protect our oceans and coasts, not open them up to oil drilling.

- CALL your senators through the US Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 and urge them to oppose the McConnell dirty drilling bill.