The U.S. citizenry is again gaining interest in what they are eating and for various reasons.  Some are interested in the financial benefits of starting your own garden, others are concerned about their health, and many are concerned about the negative impact most of our agricultural and grocery industries are having on our environment.  

So, although I have not yet seen the film, Food, Inc., which features the likes of Michael Pollan (who, by the way, I get to hear speak at the Harold Washington Library in Chicago next Monday), it seems to focus on many of the problems with our food industry, most specifically, its production.

Check out the trailer below and let me know what you think!

We’ve discussed the giant flood of coal ash and sludge that flooded towns and rivers when their containment pond burst forth last December.  

I was recently browsing the National Resource Defense Council’s OnEarth website and came across video coverage of activists/researchers visiting the area in the aftermath to collect samples.

It’s a sad video and (spoiler!) near the end, the researchers/activists are escorted off of public waters by Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) authorities, on land, by boat, and perhaps even the helicopter overhead belonged to the TVA.

Did you ever hear one word about it from a mainstream media outlet?  The coverage was a far cry from proportionate to the magnitude of the disaster.  Very little has been said and continuing coverage has been scant at best.  That’s right: what continuing coverage?

One of the worst environmental disasters since the Exxon-Valdez Oil Spill and we aren’t hearing about it one bit.  I had to hear about it from The Nation, but most of us aren’t reading that.  The Exxon-Valdez spilled it’s load in 1989, when I was in Kindergarten, but I still remember wall-to-wall coverage in our media and can still hear Dan Rather covering the story.  

I have mentioned The Huffington Post’s Green News and Opinion Page when I recommended you begin following a green blog or two in the Green Life Project.

I follow this page pretty much everyday. Rarely do I not visit to hear what their broad array of writers has to say. At the very least, I usually leave having read or learned something new.

So as we finished up, “Earth Month,” (yes, whatever that means), I actually started feeling a little down on the Huffington Post’s Green Page. Why?

I don’t know. It could have been one too many posts about Michele Obama’s Garden (not that I don’t love that the Obamas are gardening outside of the White House). It only lasted a day, but the page seemed stale at about the middle of this past week. Admittedly, I visit back too often and really, they do a great job all the time.

Regardless, their page actually seemed to follow this “down period” with some grade A awesome content. Because I can’t write a full response to each of these but wanted our readers to see these gems, I’ll link to some of their articles here:

Joseph Romm: The Green FDR: Obama’s First 100 Days Make — And May Remake — History

Adjust your environ|mentality to banish your eco-doubt!

Am I green enough?  Do my greener purchases really make a difference?  Are we collectively saving the earth or just making ourselves feel better about our consumption?

Okay, so you may be going through some eco-doubt.  Everyone does and I’ll help you get over it.  I’ll show you the environ|mentality to see your more sustainable living choices really make a difference and that you can get over your eco-doubt.

Sources of Eco-Doubt

Sure, you see it everyday on the news: the latest oil spill, mountaintop mining, chemical dump leaching into drinking water, or a coal’s toxic sludge flooding a town.  We see pollution in so many forms everyday.

And you likely have thought to yourself something along the lines of, “I’m using a somewhat greener laundry detergent (and paying a little more money for it) and the world around me is being polluted millions of times more than I ever have.  What’s the difference?”

Making A Difference

I was discussing just this issue today during a phone call with my older brother.  He’s relatively eco-conscious, using a reusable water bottle, recycled paper toilet paper, and generally trying to do some of the little greener, more sustainable things you or I may be employing in our daily lives.  So, he’s not your typical eco-doubter.

“Excuse me.  You’re kind of interrupting.”

Ever felt like you were interrupting a conversation?  Feel like you’re butting in?  Maybe you were standing a bit too close to people talking in hushed tones?

Sound familiar?  Yeah, it happens.  And chances are, if you felt that way, you were indeed interrupting!

But that’s not the way it is here! This is a blog!  Jump (or Butt) right in!

You may feel that talking about issues pertaining to sustainability on green blogs is not worth your while, after all, you recycle, use a reusable water bottle, and do a lot of the, “little things,” to be greener. You generally, “care about the environment.” What more

I want to call readers’ attention to this story published a few days ago in the New York Times regarding a method of enticing homeowners to install solar panels.

From Europe’s Way of Encouraging Solar Arrives in the U.S.:

Put simply, the idea is to pay homeowners and businesses top dollar for producing green energy. In Germany, for example, a homeowner with a rooftop solar system may be paid four times more to produce electricity than the rate paid to a coal-fired power plant.

This month Gainesville, Fla., became the first city in the United States to introduce higher payments for solar power, which is otherwise too expensive for many families or businesses to install. City leaders, who control their electric utility, unanimously approved the policy after studying Germany’s solar-power expansion.

Now, let’s get political

I’m sure many will rail against this type of, “socialism,” because they feel (I no longer consider it to be rational thinking, but rather a “feeling”) that the, “free market,” if allowed to work, will provide us with such necessities.

The, “free market,” hasn’t brought us widespread green energy use.

Likewise, the, “free market,” didn’t bring us:

• The current, now-antiquated, once state-of-the-art energy grid
• The current, now-antiquated, once state-of-the-art railway system
• The U.S. Interstate Highway system

How will regulating carbon dioxide affect the cost of burning fossil fuels?

The New York Times reports that the Obama Administration’s EPA is expected to begin regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

The story begins:

WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to act for the first time to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that scientists blame for the warming of the planet, according to top Obama administration officials.

The story also stated that the change could have far-reaching implications

Chalk one up for the environment!

From the New York Times’ Jim Robbins:

HELENA, Mont. — A federal judge ruled Monday that the Bush administration’s plan to allow more than 500 snowmobiles a day into Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks was not in keeping with the National Park Service’s responsibility to protect the parks.

The judge, Emmet G. Sullivan of Federal District Court in Washington, said park planners had failed to reconcile their mission to protect the parks’ environment with the increase in air pollution, the disturbance to wildlife and the impact on visitors that the snowmobiles would bring.

“The plan clearly elevates use over conservation of park resources and values,” Judge Sullivan wrote in his 63-page ruling.

Read more!

Commentary:

Here, the commonsense approach a judge took comparing the stated mission of the national parks to the purpose officials in the Bush Administration were wanting to do

For this week’s news segment, I’m going to concentrate my efforts to report two major stories, both of great importance to you.  The stories are of such signficance that they will each be followed by a special commentary from yours truly, helping to put them into context.

The first story I would like to bring to your attention is regarding one of California’s latest law proposals, which regards factory farms.  Known as, “Proposition 2,” the law would put severe restrictions on factory farms, which are of both growing ecological and ethical concerns for our population.

The story I read gives great insight into Proposition 2, but goes a step further to outline who has been funding a campaign against the measure to the tune of $4.5 million.  You guessed it!  Factory farmers.  But not only those from California, but from across the United States.  Read more about the story here.  Also, visit the Yes On Prop 2 Website to get involved or informed about the myriad issues at stake.

Special Commentary:

It’s about two months until the presidential election, and there is a lot of wasted breath from pundits and politicians alike regarding offenses from the other side, really bad campaign ads that outright lie (I won’t go into specifically which ones, but let’s just say they’re perverted ads saying that the other candidate, whose legislation tried to help protect youngsters from pedofiles is being accused , if not insinuated of being perverted).

Enough is enough!  If they are not discussing pork barrel spending, then they’re discussing how if you put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig — an old adage.  But John McCain’s own campaign manager has said, this campaign is not about the issues.  But we all know it should be.  

This, “lipstick on a pig,” phrase offers rhetorical message, just to say that people will try to dress up to distort who they really are, but that the identity still shows through and the true identity persists.  John McCain said it months ago about Hillary Clinton.  This week, Barack Obama said it about McCain and has since been pounced on by McCain and others that he was saying it about McCain’s running mate, Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin.  Oh the irony of McCain calling Obama sexist; but they know it’s not true, it’s feigned outrage just to distract from the issues.

Sorry, my slant is coming out and you did not come here to see me grind a political axe (though I must say, these apologies that Obama could offer McCain are pretty funny!).   But I have a tie-in to all of the pork being talked about.  Though they’ve had no trouble being in favor of pork in the past (Palin was for  the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” before she was against it), McCain-Palin now say they’re against porkbarrel spending.  McCain will refer to the his plan of cutting approximately $50 billion in pork barrel spending as a way to balance the budget.  Yeah, because the other hundreds of billions will materialize when he further cuts taxes for the rich?  Whatever you feel about the Iraq War, Bush and the Iraqi government (and the people of Iraq) have all said it’s time to set and follow a timetable for withdrawal (read: an end to the war).  That’s $10 billion per month right there — or $120 billion per year — saved.  So how about ending that before we cut the pork?

That’s right, I’m in favor of pork barrel spending.  We ought to be spending five to ten times as much as we are now on pork barrel spending.  And we’ll generate the tax revenue by having a truly progressive tax system, where those who make the most money pay the highest percentage of their income compared to other taxpayers.  After all, they’re the group that benefits the most from the systems, the security, government provides (their right to make so much money is protected because of such government functions as the military and transportation, which are subsidized by the government).  They should therefore pay for it.

We’re in both an energy crisis and climate crisis.  Our energy crisis is exacerbated by our main sources of energy being controlled in large part by rogue states, forcing our military to cowtow (let’s bring another farm animal reference into the mix!) to regimes that treat their citizens horribly (think how our government treats Guantanamo Bay prisoners — on a larger scale).  We need pork barrel projects not only to keep levees and bridges functioning well (as well as all of our other essential infrastructure) but also for green projects.

Green Eggs and Ham

Need a catchy title?  Since, “green pork barrel spending” lacks pizazz, let’s go with, “green eggs and ham” for all of the increased spending in a smart grid that will allow transmission of green energy, followed by actually implenting green energy projects (the government does not have to wait for private companies here — green energy is about as important as the highways we subsidize) as well as recycling and composting programs nationwide (but let’s check with the owners of Dr. Seuss’s Green Eggs and Ham for permission).  Start in urban areas to achieve scale and then move outward to cover every town in America.  

Failing to care for the environment is a moral issue. Failing to tend to the climate and energy crises is irresponsible.  I admit it, the “green eggs and ham” moniker needs some work; it’s obviously cheesy, but the point is that we need a heaping pile of green eggs and ham spending to get this jump-started before it’s too late.  Obama’s $150 billion over ten years in federal dollars is a good start, but The United States needs to lead on these issues and the world will take our cue.  We need a President who understands that and is willing to put the U.S. tax dollars money where his mouth is.