350.org workgroup

Comment

Comment by Stephanie Davis on June 23, 2010 at 7:56pm

I plan to meet you as well. I've had issues with my sign on and was not able to respond to previous comments.

Comment by Heather K on June 23, 2010 at 12:00pm

I will also be away on journey and miss this Thurs, but will read whats posted.

Comment by Rob Olason on June 23, 2010 at 11:17am

I will be unable to attend this Thursday at 3:30. Could the folks who do meet post their significant ideas, plans, etc. to this page so the rest of us can "listen in?"

Comment by Wendy Courtemanche on June 23, 2010 at 10:02am

I can meet then. Anyone else?

Comment by Wendy Courtemanche on June 22, 2010 at 11:00am

Hi, I just read Mckibben's "eaarth" - pretty sobering, even for someone already convinced we were in trouble. I'm fairly new to B'ham but would like to be involved in planning for 10-10-10.

Comment by Rob Olason on June 8, 2010 at 10:41am

Tristan and Stephanie have put forward two very worthy 350.org projects. Do any others project possibilities come to mind?

If we looked toward having a meeting, where would it take place? In Bellingham, in the county?

When I first created this group, I saw it as a place to aggregate 350.org projects and in doing so, inspire other related projects. From reading Tristan's proposal, I'm hearing that he would like to see this group be more directive and actually organize projects on a larger scale than small group or individual activities.

Comment by Stephanie Davis on June 6, 2010 at 8:11pm

HI Tristan,
The group 10:10 is a different startup group from the 10-10-10, 350 . org work party group. Its group philosophy is 10% carbon reduction in 2010. From what I understand from the meeting on Wednesday, it is a personal goal as well as a community goal . I went to the meeting thinking is was a 10-10-10 event - but they are working together for pretty much the same result.
I am hoping we can get together soon as a 350.org group to organize several workparties withing TW. I belong to Goshen, and we are planning a "grain threshing party" with one of our members who belongs to the bean and grain group. Please share any other ideas you have.

Comment by Stephanie Davis on May 2, 2010 at 6:55pm

Below is an article by Bill Mckibben in the Orion Magazine March/April 2010 edition. Maybe we could consider a beef free day on 10/10/10 in recognition of the huge amounts of methane gas emitted by feedlot cows. Also, it would be interesting to know if our local beef industry uses the rotational farming method.

"MAY I SAY—somewhat defensively—that I haven’t cooked red meat in many years? That I haven’t visited a McDonald’s since college? That if you asked me how I like my steak, I’d say I don’t really remember? I’m not a moral abstainer—I’ll eat meat when poor people in distant places offer it to me, especially when they’re proud to do so and I’d be an ass to say no. But in everyday life, for a series of reasons that began with the dietary scruples of the woman I chose to marry, hamburgers just don’t come into play.

I begin this way because I plan to wade into one of the most impassioned fracases now underway on the planet—to meat or not to meat—and I want to establish that I Do Not Have A Cow In This Fight. In recent years vegetarians and vegans have upped their attack on the consumption of animal flesh, pointing out not only that it’s disgusting (read Jonathan Safran Foer’s new book) but also a major cause of climate change. The numbers range from 18 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions to—in one recent study that was quickly discredited—51 percent. Whatever the exact figure, suffice it to say it’s high: there’s the carbon that comes from cutting down the forest to start the farm, and from the fertilizer and diesel fuel it takes to grow the corn, there’s the truck exhaust from shipping cows hither and yon, and most of all the methane that emanates from the cows themselves (95 percent of it from the front end, not the hind, and these millions of feedlot cows would prefer if you used the word eructate in place of belch). This news has led to an almost endless series of statistical calculations: going vegan is 50 percent more effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions than switching to a hybrid car, according to a University of Chicago study; the UN Food and Agriculture Organization finds that a half pound of ground beef has the same effect on climate change as driving an SUV ten miles. It has led to a lot of political statements: the British health secretary last fall called on Englishmen to cut their beefeating by dropping at least a sausage a week from their diets, and Paul McCartney has declared that “the biggest change anyone could make in their own lifestyle to help the environment would be to become vegetarian.” It has even led to the marketing of a men’s flip-flop called the Stop Global Warming Toepeeka that’s made along entirely vegan lines.

Industrial livestock production is essentially indefensible—ethically, ecologically, and otherwise. We now use an enormous percentage of our arable land to grow corn that we feed to cows who stand in feedlots and eructate until they are slaughtered in a variety of gross ways and lodge in our ever-larger abdomens. And the fact that the product of this exercise “tastes good” sounds pretty lame as an excuse. There are technofixes—engineering the corn feed so it produces less methane, or giving the cows shots so they eructate less violently. But this type of tailpipe fix only works around the edges, and with the planet warming fast that’s not enough. We should simply stop eating factory-farmed meat, and the effects on climate change would be but one of the many benefits.

Still, even once you’ve made that commitment, there’s a nagging ecological question that’s just now being raised. It goes like this: long before humans had figured out the whole cow thing, nature had its own herds of hoofed ungulates. Big herds of big animals—perhaps 60 million bison ranging across North America, and maybe 100 million antelope. That’s considerably more than the number of cows now resident in these United States. These were noble creatures, but uncouth—eructate hadn’t been coined yet. They really did just belch. So why weren’t they filling the atmosphere with methane? Why wasn’t their manure giving off great quantities of atmosphere-altering gas?

The answer, so far as we can tell, is both interesting and potentially radical in its implications. These old-school ungulates weren’t all that different in their plumbing—they were methane factories with legs too. But they used those legs for something. They didn’t stand still in feedlots waiting for corn, and they didn’t stand still in big western federal allotments overgrazing the same tender grass. They didn’t stand still at all. Maybe they would have enjoyed stationary life, but like teenagers in a small town, they were continually moved along by their own version of the police: wolves. And big cats. And eventually Indians. By predators.

As they moved, they kept eating grass and dropping manure. Or, as soil scientists would put it, they grazed the same perennials once or twice a year to “convert aboveground biomass to dung and urine.” Then dung beetles buried the results in the soil, nurturing the grass to grow back. These grasslands covered places that don’t get much rain—the Southwest and the Plains, Australia, Africa, much of Asia. And all that grass-land sequestered stupendous amounts of carbon and methane from out of the atmosphere—recent preliminary research indicates that methane-loving bacteria in healthy soils will sequester more of the gas in a day than cows supported by the same area will emit in a year.

We’re flat out of predators in most parts of the world, and it’s hard to imagine, in the short time that we have to deal with climate change, ending the eating of meat and returning the herds of buffalo and packs of wolves to all the necessary spots. It’s marginally easier to imagine mimicking those systems with cows. The key technology here is the single-strand electric fence—you move your herd or your flock once or twice a day from one small pasture to the next, forcing them to eat everything that’s growing there but moving them along before they graze all the good stuff down to bare ground. Now their manure isn’t a problem that fills a cesspool, but a key part of making the system work. Done right, some studies suggest, this method of raising cattle could put much of the atmosphere’s oversupply of greenhouse gases back in the soil inside half a century. That means shifting from feedlot farming to rotational grazing is one of the few changes we could make that’s on the same scale as the problem of global warming. It won’t do away with the need for radically cutting emissions, but it could help get the car exhaust you emitted back in high school out of the atmosphere.

Oh, and grass-fed beef is apparently much better for you—full of Omega 3s, like sardines that moo. Better yet, it’s going to be more expensive, because you can’t automate the process the same way you can feedlot agriculture. You need the guy to move the fence every afternoon. (That’s why about a billion of our fellow humans currently make their livings as herders of one kind or another—some of them use slingshots, or dogs, or shepherd’s crooks, or horses instead of electric fence, but the principle is the same.) More expensive, in this case, as in many others, is good; we’d end up eating meat the way most of the world does— as a condiment, a flavor, an ingredient, not an entrée.

I doubt McDonald’s will be in favor. I doubt Paul McCartney will be in favor. It doesn’t get rid of the essential dilemma of killing something and then putting it in your mouth. But it’s possible that the atmosphere would be in favor, and that’s worth putting down your fork and thinking about."

Comment by Stephanie Davis on May 1, 2010 at 8:12am

Dear friends,

The oil spreading across the Gulf is a test, pure and simple.

Think of its twisted outline as a Rorschach ink blot for a society--maybe for a whole civilization. Will we respond in ways deep enough to matter? Or will we see nothing wrong in the devastating images of the oil slick, and continue on this path of destruction, danger, and dirty energy?

Forty one years ago, similar pictures of oil-soaked beaches and dying sea-birds off the coast of Santa Barbara, California galvanized the nation and set the stage for the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.

But over the years, that environmental fervor faded, and we returned to business as usual--mostly, the business of burning more fossil fuel. In late March, President Obama decided to "drill baby drill", lifting a moratorium on coastal drilling that had its roots in that first spill.

Just a few weeks ago, Obama said "It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don't cause spills."

How wrong he was.

So now we've got another chance--not just to come to terms with offshore drilling, but far more importantly, to come to terms with fossil fuel itself.

Please take a few seconds and send a message to President Obama and your Senators asking them to ban offshore drilling, and instead invest in safe, clean energy: www.350.org/drilling-ban

And there's no way to prevent global warming with better valves on oil rigs. The only way is by ending our addiction to fossil fuel with great speed. The scrawny climate bill that the Senate may take up later this summer barely nudges the oil industry-as Republican Senator Lindsay Graham explained earlier this week, the big companies helped write the bill themselves.

So now is the time to demand more--a new chance to ignite a broad movement to protect everything we hold dear. Can you add your voice today?

http://www.350.org/drilling-ban

Thanks,

Bill McKibben, for the whole 350.org team

P.S. We know that sending an email is only a first step. That's why we're planning a Global Work Party on October 10th of this year. Get involved by joining or hosting an event near you on 10/10.

Comment by Stephanie Davis on April 27, 2010 at 6:40pm

I received this in my inbox today - thought it worth sharing. It includes ideas for action leading up to 10-10-10.

Senators John Kerry (MA), Lindsey Graham (SC) and Joe Lieberman (CT) had committed to releasing the outline of their long-awaited climate bill yesterday. Instead, the release has been delayed due to ongoing partisan disputes in Congress.

Rumors of concessions to the fossil fuel industries in the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman bill -- especially the potential gutting of the Clean Air Act -- are deeply troubling. But we have remained engaged in working to improve it because the bill would put a cap on global warming pollution in this country for the first time. Every delay on this climate bill means less time to tackle the climate crisis and get our country on the road to recovery with an economy powered by clean, renewable energy.

May: Dirty Fuel Hunt: Find out who the biggest emitters of global warming pollution are in your area to highlight our current dependence on dirty energy;
June and July: Green Jobs Hunt: Help us map out the green economy in your community and collect success stories;
August: Congressional Recess Meetings: Visit your representatives' offices in your district and state to talk about clean energy;
September: Energy Efficiency Canvas: Talk to your neighbors about the millions of federal dollars available for greening projects and how they can benefit from them;
October: 10/10 Public Events: A day of work to build the green economy of the 21st century.
We'll keep you posted on the progress of the Senate climate bill. In the meantime, I hope you'll get involved in the many events and activities we have planned for the rest of the year.

Gillian Caldwell
Campaign Director, 1Sky

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 12
• 13
• 14
• 15
• Next ›
• Page