posted by Mike Madison at 10:19 PM /
Posted by request:
The Mt. Lebanon ECAT (Environmental Community Action Team) will meet on Thursday, February 7, 2008, at 6:30-8:00 pm at St. Paul's Episcopal Church, 1066 Washington Road. The ECAT is planning an Open Forum for the community on local climate change issues on March 12, and is planning to petition the commissioners to adopt energy saving measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on a local level. All are welcome to attend and share their ideas!
The Mt. Lebanon ECAT (Environmental Community Action Team) will meet on Thursday, February 7, 2008, at 6:30-8:00 pm at St. Paul's Episcopal Church, 1066 Washington Road. The ECAT is planning an Open Forum for the community on local climate change issues on March 12, and is planning to petition the commissioners to adopt energy saving measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on a local level. All are welcome to attend and share their ideas!
Labels: carbon emissions, environment, Lebo ECAT
30 Comments:
Are we allowed to count the number of cars in the parking lot or is that rude?
Speaking of cars, I have a great idea - how about everyone walk to this meeting? Only 1.3 miles from my house. I'm sure it is further for some people who will attend but the Church seems to be centrally located.
One of the issues we need to stress is walkability. Mt Lebanon is very walkable - but we could do better. It would be nice if everyone could get everything they need right in Mt Lebanon - we have Rolliers, who seems be competitively priced with the big box retailers. We have good restaurants, great coffee shops, places to get your hair cut. But we are missing some things - a grocery store is a huge one. Also, I know the Public Library is great but what about a book store?
Who is the Mt. Lebanon ECAT? Do they have a website?
Thanks for the chuckle this morning. I'm sure the fact that China is in the midst of its coldest winter in 100 years is due to global warming as well. I for one will be happy to donate copies of Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" for anyone who wants to read it.
They can also download a dispassionate critique of Crichton.
Science gets reviewed by peer scientists. Crichton gets reviewed by Allan Walton.
Draw your own conclusions.
Hmmm. Smug derision from an academic. There's something surprising. This is the last response I'll make. I realize BlogLebo isn't a forum to debate global issues, (or, in the case of global warming, non-issues). But, since you brought up the science side of things, here's a link to a scientist's point of view. Or doesn't MIT count as an academic instituion?
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html
Call it smug derision if you like. I'll just point you to more resources. That Cato link points to a 15-year-old piece in Reason (a Cato publication, not a scientific journal) by Professor Richard S. Lindzen, who does indeed teach at MIT -- but whose views, of course, don't represent MIT's views, whatever they may be.
Professor Lindzen is a well-known global warming/climate change skeptic. (In the blogosphere, at least, Lindzen and the handful of scientists who reject evidence of climate change are known as "denialists." For a long list of links to Lindzen's work and links to commentaries on and reviews of his work, take a look at his Wikipedia entry.
My hand only has five digits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
I'm not sure what you're counting. From that piece:
"This article lists scientists and former scientists who have stated disagreement with one or more of the principal conclusions of the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. It should not be interpreted as a list of global warming skeptics. Inclusion is based on specific technical criteria that do not necessarily reflect a broader skepticism toward climate change caused by human activity, or that such change could be large enough to be harmful."
I don't have dog in this fight, because I'm not up on the various theories, etc to have established a strong opinion either way. However, I do think that if given the choice "going green" isn't a bad alternative for a lot of reasons.
That said, I do like to ask the folks who talk (preach) about stopping/reversing global warming the following questions:
1. How many cars do you own? How many of them are SUVs?
2. How much fancy coffee do you purchase that is shade-grown? When is the last time you asked?
3. How much air travel do you do for business? How much of it can be replaced by email, webcasting, videoconferencing?
4. How many re-usable bags do you take to the Giant eagle each week?
5. How often do you use the T to get downtown for work? For hockey games? The theatre?
I realize that each of these points has its own set of pros and cons, much like the two sides of the greater argument (whether global warming is real or a hoax). And as noted above, I have no idea if the world is changing solely because of human factors or not. I don't know if someone or something is to blame. However, these questions usually serve to demonstrate that if you're concerned (preaching) about global warming, you're probably not doing everything YOU could be doing to help the cause.
In my view this issue is institutional and global, not a question of personal ethics. (Personal ethics are relevant, but they shouldn't be the focus of the dialogue.) I heard a very thoughtful scientist at Yale last Fall make (approximately) the following statement:
If greenhouse gas emissions in China can be brought under control, then nothing else matters.
If greenhouse gas emissions in China cannot be brought under control, then nothing else matters.
So I'll assume then Mike that you're not the keynote speaker at tomorrow's meeting.
Correct. ;-) I'll be flying to a face-to-face meeting, and my pickup truck will have its usual place of honor in the driveway.
A timely piece from today's NY Times:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=139248&f=21&p=0
Might wanna re-think that shade grown bit.
http://www.intelligentsiacoffee.com/watts/07-05-2007
Like I said, there are two sides to ALL of these issues . . . we can all find 50 articles on the Internet supporting each side of every argument (or special interest) on the global warming issue.
http://www.audubon.org/bird/at_home/coffee/
Therefore, it makes it nearly impossible for me and you to make educated decisions on what's good, bad, right or wrong.
In response to Mr. Reich:
You can stick your head in the sand all you want, it doesn't mean that global climate change isn't happening.
Here's the question to ask yourself: If you're right and we spend money and effort trying to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions, what's the worst that will happen--we will spend a bunch of money and effort and still have a healthier more efficient atmosphere. But if you're wrong and we do nothing, millions of people will be harmed.
Secondly, the main effect of global climate change is that normal weather patterns get severely unstable. When was the last time you saw a tornado in Wisconsin in January? If you paid attention during geology or oceanography classes, you would recall that changing the salinity of the oceans severely screws up weather patterns. That is what is happening right now.
So while you are sticking your head in the sand, make sure that you are doing so about 50 miles inland from the nearest body of water.
Dave,
I think you are right to call all of us on our individual behavior and choices. I'm not 100% where I would like to be in terms of behaving in ways that lower my carbon footprint, but I'm getting there. The points you raised are great examples of choices we all should be considering.
For the record, here are my responses to your questions:
(1)I own two cars. I sold my Audi A6 (broke my heart) and got a Prius which I love. We never bought an SUV, but instead opted for a Subaru Outback which was better on MPG.
(2)I don't drink coffee anymore, but my wife buys the FairTrade stuff at Coffee Tree.
(3)I used to travel by air weekly and that was extremely bad. I don't so much now because my job doesn't require it, but you're right...this is one I could be better on.
(4) When I happen to remember (about 50% of the time) I bring canvas bags to the store. That's another I have to work on.
(5) My wife works in Oakland and takes the T or bus about 50% of the time. I work by the airport and the bus route takes 75 minutes, so I bite the bullet and drive. During baseball season we always take the T to the games.
So...I'm working on it.
Two ideas I would like to see us consider as a community:
(1) Give free parking stickers to people with cars that get 30+ mpg. The stickers allow them to park in the downtown area for either free or lower rates.
(2) Look at putting solar arrays atop several of our large public buildings and schools. Several big box stores (e.g. Walmart and Costco) are renting these systems from firms. The energy savings are between 10-20%.
To the global warming skeptics who point to those academic reports - be careful because some of these PHD's are in the pockets of big oil. Don't believe me? Years ago Exxon paid Stanford a huge sum of money in exchange for supporting anti-global warming research. Other big business interests have hired these same individuals as paid consultants, so when you read an anti global warming Op-Ed in the wall st journal take it with a grain of salt - chances are the author was paid to take that position.
In 2002, Stanford signed a 10-year, $225 million deal with Exxon and other energy companies to fund a Global Climate and Energy Project, or GCEP. At the time, Exxon Mobil was pushing the U.S. government to reject any mandatory curbs on greenhouse gases; it also continued to question whether human use of fossil fuels causes global warming, despite an overwhelming scientific consensus to the contrary. Instead, it called for more research.
Shortly after the deal was signed, Exxon ran advertisements on the Op-Ed page of the New York Times celebrating its research alliance with the ``best minds'' at Stanford. One ad suggested that the scientific debate about global warming is ongoing: ``Although climate has varied throughout Earth's history from natural causes, today there is a lively debate about . . . the climate's response to the presence of more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Change isn't going to happen by getting each one of us to drive a Prius. Bigger changes are needed - like giving us options for electric vehicles. I'm against preaching to people to stop driving SUVs because quite frankly, people have free choice to do whatever they want. Some people do need them for work, or for hauling around their 170lb english mastiffs (mine wouldn't fit in a Prius). Some people are not going to change their habits just for the sake of "going green" so the key is to create an incentive program to get more people to buy fuel efficient vehicles, and, more importantly more incentives and mandates for automobile manufactures to supply fuel efficient vehicles. GM is coming out with a Cadillac Escalade Hybrid this fall. Times may indeed be changing.
Also, the bulk of climate change causing C02 is comign from coal fired plants. Pennsylvania alone accounts for 1% of global CO2 emissions. As consumers of electricity we don't have many options. Solar is still too costly for homeowners, and the powerful lobbyists of the energy companies have been successful in thwarting any significant mandates for renewable electricity production. The best thing we can all do to change things at this level is to demand it from our legislators. Some are listening to us, others, like our current US House Rep, are listening to big business. As long as these guys are in office casting votes
1. We own two, but I drive mine very little and we are trying to live with only one car, an SUV, after my lease is up this year. I have confessed to this sin on my blog but I've also pledged to get a hybrid if we cannot get rid of our second car.
2. Is Aldo coffee shade grown? This question doesn't seem relevant to the topic of climate change.
3. This would be relevant if we owned private jets and took unnecessary trips to Philadelphia or DC when we could drive or take a train. For someone that is on a project in say, Chicago, sometimes you have to fly out there every week like I did for three months late last year.
4. We have them but we pretty much always forget them. I try to carry things or refuse a bag when I can. I've heard paper is not as good as plastic due to the resource intensive production of paper bags.
5. I use the T pretty much every day for work when I am working in our office on the North Shore. I will not use the North Shore Connector to get over there as I enjoy the half mile walk.
6. Bob Reich should read Robert Reich's excellent book Supercapitalism if he wants to learn more about how money is influencing our environmental policies.
Again, just because I believe global warming is an absolute crock doesn't mean I am "pro-pollution". But to think that those of you are so positive that global warming is a man-made occurrence I simply ask you to wonder how the earth has gone through so many warming and cooling periods over millions of years prior to the invention of the internal combustion engine? And, to the gentleman who said that most of the PhD's against global warming are in the pocket of the dreaded "big oil", just look into the pockets of all the academics whose paychecks are totally dependent on government grants. Money is money - doesn't really matter where it comes from. But for those of you that just want (need?) something to fear (overpopulation, food shortages, dirty water, another ice age) keep on 'fearin'. Me, I was a swimmer through college, so when the ocean is lapping at my door I'll start swimming for 7 Springs...
Mr. Reich,
Yes, you're right (sarcasm) because you can cite a handful of crackpots at a few universities and bunch of political hacks at that CATO Institute that, certainly invalidates the considered opinion of 99% of the world's climate experts; as well as researchers from such questionable as NOAA, NASA, National Climatic Data Center, National Hurricane Center, The United Nations Forum on Climate Change.
You're right...they are all in the pockets of such powerful lobbies as the solar power lobby, the wind lobby, and let's not forget that juggernaut the geo-thermal lobby. Yes, you've exposed the unholy alliance of these brigands.
For your information, the level of carbon in the atmosphere hasn't been this high in 650,000 years--that predates Homo Sapiens. The only reason we don't know if the number goes back farther, is because researchers haven't been able to get to the ice cores that are older. There is a point for point correlation between the amount of CO2 in the air and rises in temperature.
I work very closely with executives in two of the world's largest oil companies. Not only do they acknowledge that global climate change is man-made, they are working likely crazy to develop cleaner fuels.
Your comments about being able to swim are cute, but very smug. Will you be so glib when the effects of climate change are killing people? Does this at least make you ask yourself, "What if I'm wrong?"
The stakes couldn't be higher. The worst that will happen if you are right, is that we have a cleaner environment and more sustainable civilization. If you're wrong and we do nothing, millions could die and will certainly be displaced. Why is it okay for you to be so glib about the potential for human suffering?
while in Europe recently (yes, I flew), I had a conversation with a member of the German Green party, who was complaning about global warming and how the planet would be completely under water in just a few years. He went on to point out that due to the ice melting in Greenland, they recently discovered a number of farms that had been operating in the 16th century until they were covered with ice. When I asked if perhaps this demonstrated a pattern where the climate goes through cycles, he shut up.
The wonderful yellow and green Abitibi dumpsters are popping up behind Mt. Lebanon's schools, thanks to the PTA Council Environmental Chair's efforts to work with the district and to get our schools and children into the habit of recycling. Not every school has one yet, but they are on order, and coming soon to a neighborhood school near you! They take all of our newspapers, magazines, junk mail; no cardboard. If you do get the paper bags at the grocery store, just put your newspapers into them and then deposit entire contents into the dumpsters. We can make a difference when we work together. Hats off to my friend Rob and all of his work with Mr. Ingram and the building principals in making this a reality!
What exactly is the problem with flying? Flying in modern jetliners seems to be roughly comparable to driving in terms of person-miles traveled per gallon of fuel. Take the Boeing 737-700 as an example. It has a range of 3365 miles and holds 6875 gallons of fuel. Configured for 126 passengers, that comes to around 62 passenger-miles/per gallon. In an all-coach configuration of 149 passengers, it comes to 73 passenger-miles/gal.
Whether or not that's better or worse than driving depends on the number of people in the car. It's certainly better than any current passenger car carrying just one person. It is comparable to a big car or SUV carrying a family of 4.
A better comparison would also take into account the difference in carbon content between jet fuel (kerosene) and gasoline, per gallon. I don't know what that is, but I'm willing to guess it's less than 10%.
As Mr. Franklin pointed out, we can go back and forth on this and, since somewhat controversial issues seem to be the only one that garner attention on blog Lebo anymore I'll keep biting. This from another bought out weatherman, John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel.
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.
Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.
[...]
I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.
In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious.
And this, Mr. Nolan, on the benefits global warming, were it even happening, would have on the planet. But then again, you can't really trust a guy with the last name of "Reich" to actually want to help people, can you?
See you at church. 11 at St. Bernards.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1361276,00.html
I'm going to stop approving comments that focus on whether or not climate change/global warming/rising sea levels/etc. etc. is "real." If that topic interests you, there's plenty to read elsewhere.
I will approve comments that deal with whether it's a good idea for the Municipality of Mt. Lebanon and the Mt. Lebanon School District to adjust their practices to reduce their *local* environmental impact -- environmentally speaking, economically speaking, ethically speaking, or in any other way.
In that regard Mike, I'm somewhat surprised that despite that significant number of comments on this simple post (re: a meeting notice), we've not heard anything from the Lebo ECAT as to the outcome of their meeting on Thursday.
Hi! I'm a member of the Mt. Lebanon ECAT Group. We are hosting an Open Forum in the Municipal Building on Wednesday, March 12 at 7 pm. We are in the process of educating ourselves and hopefully the community about the advantages, both environmentally and economically, to reduce energy consumption in Mt. Lebanon. Our next goal is to petition the Mt. Lebanon Commissioners to join the Mayors Agreement on climate control, the so-called "COOL Communities" program; so far, over 940 communities, including Pittsburgh and Braddock, have joined. Thereafter, we hope to take on other programs to improve environmental quality in Mt. Lebanon.
Our next meeting is St. Paul's at 6:30 pm on Thursday March 6. We're a pretty loosely organized group. Your participation and input would be welcome.
Post a Comment
<< Home