Co-op America's 12 Steps for Reducing Carbon Emissions

The following is courtesy of Co-op America:

Each of these steps would reduce carbon emissions by at least 1 billion tons per year by 2054. Implementing at least seven of them brings us to the scale necessary to meet the climate challenge, but we have to start now, and move quickly. We have a ten-year window in which we need to be well on the way to achieving these steps.

The good news is that we have the technology and know-how to accomplish all of these steps right now. The best news is that we don't just save the climate with these steps. They bring us real energy security, more jobs, a cleaner environment, real progress on the war against poverty, and a safer world. Let's get started today.

1. Increase fuel economy for the world's 2 billion cars from an average of 30 mpg to 60 mpg. (Current US averages are a woeful 22 mpg.)

2. Cut back on driving. Decrease car travel for 2 billion 30-mpg cars from 10,000 to 5,000 miles per year, through increased use of mass transit, telecommuting, and walking and biking.

3. Increase energy efficiency by one-quarter in existing buildings and appliances. Move to zero-emissions plans for new buildings.

4. Decrease tropical deforestation to zero, and double the rate of new tree plantings.

5. Stop soil erosion. Apply "conservation tillage" techniques to cropland at 10 times the current usage. Encourage local, organic agriculture.

6. Increase wind power. Add 3 million 1-megawatt windmills, 75 times the current capacity.

7. Push hard for solar power. Add 3,000 gigawatt-peak solar photovoltaic units, 1,000 times current capacity.

8. Increase efficiency of coal plants from an average of 32 percent efficiency to 60 percent, and shut down plants that don't meet the standard. No net new coal plants; for new plants built, an equal number should close.

9. Replace 1,400 gigawatts of coal with natural gas, a four-fold increase in natural gas usage over current levels — a short-term step until zero-emissions renewable technologies can replace natural gas.

10. Sequester carbon dioxide at existing coal plants. Sequestration involves storing carbon dioxide underground, an unproven technology that may, nonetheless, be better than nothing.

11. Develop zero-emissions vehicles, including plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles powered by renewable energy.

12. Develop biomass as a short-term replacement for fossil fuel until better carbon-free technologies are developed — but only biofuels made from waste, and made without displacing farmland and rainforests.

Hey Mikey!

In my numerous recent failures to avoid eggs, dairy, and crappily-sourced chocolate, I have become increasinlgy frustrated. Not only with myself, but with everyone I know. Because I have realized that going vegetarian is so ridiculously easy compared to trying to go organic, sustainable, or sweat-shop free. Most foods are pretty obvious about being meat-based. And even when they aren't, they're all required to have ingredients listed on the side. Same with clothes. Labels say what they're made of: leather, fur, silk, wool. And most malls and grocery stores carry some form of vegetarian merchandise; not always so for organic, fair trade, etc. And electronic books are becoming more readily available (the glue used for binding books isn't animal friendly). Vegetarianism is practically a cake walk.

So, here's my challenge: go one week, no meat. It's good for the animals, good for the planet, good for humanity, and good for you. C'mon, just try it. You may even like it.

Fair warning: hostess uses animal fat in their products.

Also, here's a small thing we can all do to help the planet. When you leave a room, shut off the lights. It's that simple. ;-)

Buy Buy Baby

This Washington Post article relates a new development in the baby business. Now prospective parents can order pre-made embryos after carefully reviewing the contracted egg and sperm donors. All egg donors must be in their twenties and have at least some college education. Sperm donors must have an advanced degree. Both are vetted for their medical histories, for example making sure there's no familial history of mental illness.

And it is so very, very scary.

Of course, this business is only marginally scarier than what has preceded it. In a modern world where socio-economic class is becoming continually more of an issue, paying for embryos is a bad idea.

Though I have never been in a situation where I wanted children and could not have them, and therefore cannot possibly understand and thereby reject the feelings and efforts of infertile couples seeking to have children, my first response to all of these infertility clinics is that they are churning out babies that the world doesn't need. As a firm believer that the world needs to achieve zero population growth, I cannot be fully comfortable with the amount of effort that goes into producing pregnancies. This is hardly going to be a popular stance. I don't even like it much myself. Except that here I am not talking about people who are trying very hard to have their own biological children. These people are already outsourcing, they're just choosing parents to create a designer baby, rather than adopt one of the desperate infants (or older foster children) populating the world.

Of course, these potential children are being chosen over existing children because with the embryos-r-us retailer, they can get a designer baby. With adopting a child from a third-world country, who can say what you're getting? You might have to love a child inspite of it being flawed. A fate to be avoided, most definitely.

Well, what's wrong with wanting to choose who parents your child? Isn't that what we're essentially doing when we have children the natural way? No, not really. When you choose a mate, you look for mutual attraction, shared values, a sense of security with each other. Generally speaking, we don't check their medical histories or go back through their family tree. We want to have children with our partners because we love them, not because we weighed and measured them and decided they scored high enough. And in our society, it is inconceivable that if we all chose exactly what we wanted in our children that we wouldn't vere towards the same sorts of traits: athletic, smart (probably of a scientific bent), attractive, with the standard rule of beauty at the moment being tall and thin.

And if everyone were like that, would that necessarily be terrible? Well, not everyone would be like that. You see, mail-order embryos are something that can only be afforded by the rich (or at least, relatively rich on the global scale). So the rich would have these children, carefully selected to have been born from healthy, attractive, well-educated (and therefore assumed to be intelligent) parents, and the poor would just have regular kids. And who is going to move up in the world? Joe Schmo, born of his parents love (or drunken one-night stand and broken condom) or Joseph Schmoington III, born of strangers carefully screened for genetic fitness? This is why it is eugenics. Because not only does this process entail cold-bloodedly deciding which genes are worthy and which are unworthy, but it also involves exclusion. And this is only with pre-screened parents. This particular issue of the Abraham Institute, or whatever it's being called, doesn't even touch on the fact that embryos are being screened for genetic fitness. I can understand why one wants to rule out some damaging and painful congenital disorders, but people can choose the sex of the baby, and it's not stopping there. I don't believe for a minute that it's stopping there.

I'm exhausted and terrified just thinking about the implications of where our society is taking reproduction. And that's without going into issues of the objectification of women and the consequences of sex determination in misogynistic cultures.

Resolutions

I did my grocery shopping at Marks and Spencer today. It's not exactly MOM (My Organic Market, a mini-chain in Maryland), but they do seem to try hard to be responsible. For starters, they only use cage-free eggs, for sale or for producing their packaged goods. There's a lot of excess packaging issues over here though.

I've also been good about line drying all of my clothes, rather than using a dryer. And I'm pretty sure I'm washing all of my stuff in cold water. The washing machine here is a little tricky though. :-) I'm used to home where you just press the cold button.

So, it is that time for (cue big TV announcer voice) New Year's Resolutions. So here are some of mine, perhaps to inspire some of yours:

1. Continue to try and reduce environmental footprint
2. Buy only fair trade, organic chocolate
3. Switch investments to all socially responsible funds

Anybody out there have any good resolutions born of their dedication to environmentalism and/or social responsibility? Feel free to share.