No Impact Man

An invitation from 350.org to help wake up our world leaders

Dear World,

This is an invitation to help build a movement--to take one day day and use it to stop the climate crisis.

On October 24, we will stand together as one planet and call for a fair global climate treaty. United by a common call to action, we'll make it clear: the world needs an international plan that meets the latest science and gets us back to safety.

This movement has just begun, and it needs your help.

Here's the plan: we're asking you, and people in every country on earth, to organize an action in their community on October 24. There are no limits here--imagine bike rides, rallies, concerts, hikes, festivals, tree-plantings, protests, and more. Imagine your action linking up with thousands of others around the globe. Imagine the world waking up.

If we can pull it off, we'll send a powerful message on October 24: the world needs the climate solutions that science and justice demand.

It's often said that the only thing preventing us from tackling the climate crisis quickly and equitably is a lack of political will. Well, the only thing that can create that political will is a unified global movement--and no one is going to build that movement for us. It's up to regular people all over the world.  That's you.

So register an event in your community for October 24, and then enlist the help of your friends. Get together with your co-workers or your local environmental group or human rights campaign, your church or synagogue or mosque or temple; enlist bike riders and local farmers and young people. All over the planet we'll start to organize ourselves.

With your help, there will be an event at every iconic place on the planet on October 24—from America's Great Lakes to Australia's Great Barrier Reef--and also in all the places that matter to you in your daily lives: a beach or park or village green or town hall.

If there was ever a time for you to get involved, it's right now. There are two reasons this year is so crucial.

The first reason is that the science of climate change is getting darker by the day. The Arctic is melting away with astonishing speed, decades ahead of schedule. Everything on the planet seems to be melting or burning, rising or parched.

And we now now have a number to express our peril: 350.  

NASA's James Hansen and a team of other scientists recently published a series of papers showing that we need to cut the amount of carbon in the atmosphere from its current 387 parts per million to 350 or less if we wish to "maintain a planet similar to that on which civilization developed."

No one knew that number a year ago—but now it's clear that 350 might well be the most important number for the future of the planet, a north star to guide our efforts as we remake the world. If we can swiftly get the planet on track to get to 350, we can still avert the worst effects of climate change.

The second reason 2009 is so important is that the political opportunity to influence our governments has never been greater. The world's leaders will meet in Copenhagen this December to craft a new global treaty on cutting carbon emissions.

If that meeting were held now, it would produce a treaty that would be woefully inadequate. In fact, it would lock us into a future where we'd never get back to 350 parts per million—where the rise of the sea would accelerate, where rainfall patterns would start to shift and deserts to grow. A future where first the poorest people, and then all of us, and then all the people that come after us, would find the only planet we have damaged and degraded.    

October 24 comes six weeks before those crucial UN meetings in Copenhagen.  If we all do our job, every nation will know the question they'll be asked when they put forth a plan: will this get the planet back on the path to 350?  

This will only work with the help of a global movement—and it's starting to bubble up everywhere. Farmers in Cameroon, students in China, even World Cup skiers have already helped spread the word about 350. Churches have rung their bells 350 times; Buddhist monks have formed a huge 350 with their bodies against the backdrop of Himalayas. 350 translates across every boundary of language and culture.  It's clear and direct, cutting through the static and it lays down a firm scientific line.

On October 24, we'll all stand behind 350--a universal symbol of climate safety and of the world we need to create.  And at the end of the day, we'll all upload photos from our events to the 350.org website and send these pictures around the world.  This cascade of images will drive climate change into the public debate--and hold our leaders accountable to a unified global citizenry.  

We need your help—the world is a big place and our team is small.  Our crew at 350.org will do everything we can to support you, providing templates for banners and press releases, resources to spread the word, and tools to help you build a strong local climate action group.  And our core team is always just a phone call or e-mail away if you need some support.

This is like a final exam for human beings. Can we muster the courage, the commitment, and the creativity to set this earth on a steady course before it's too late? October 24 will be the joyful, powerful day when we prove it's possible.

Please join us and register your local event today.

Onwards,

Bill McKibben - Author and Activist- USA
Vandana Shiva - Physicist, Activist, Author - India
David Suzuki - Scientist, Author, Activist - Canada
Bianca Jagger - Chair of the World Future Council - UK
Tim Flannery - Scientist, Author, Explorer -Australia
Bittu Sahgal - Co-convener, Climate Challenge India - India
Andrew Simmons - Environmental Advocate, St. Vincent & The Grenadines
Christine Loh - Environmental Advocate and Legislator - Hong Kong

A primer on what it would take to fix climate

We've all been seeing what Obama believes is necessary for the economic bailout, but what is needed for the climate bailout?

Here are the five policies that, according to New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, the new CEO of ClimateWorks, Hal Harvey, says we need:

1. First, building codes: "California’s energy-efficient building and appliance codes now save Californians $6 billion per year," Harvey told Friedman
2. Second, better vehicle fuel-efficiency standards: “The European Union’s fuel-efficiency fleet average for new cars now stands at 41 miles per gallon, and is rising steadily,” he added.
3. Third, we need a national renewable portfolio standard, mandating that power utilities produce 15 or 20 percent of their energy from renewables by 2020. Right now, only about half our states have these.
4. The fourth is decoupling — the program begun in California that turns the utility business on its head. Under decoupling, power utilities make money by helping homeowners save energy rather than by encouraging them to consume it.
5. “Finally,” said Harvey, “we need a price on carbon.” [Meaning some form of a carbon tax] Polluting the atmosphere can’t be free.

As Friedman writes: "All of [these measures] would pay long-term dividends, because they would foster massive U.S. innovation in new clean technologies that would stimulate the real Dow and much lower emissions that would stimulate the Climate Dow."

Joe Romm of ClimateProgress offers an in depth explanation of all these measures here.

An artistic rendition of the No Impact Project

By my favorite seven-year-old artist, Jane Avery, daughter of Laura Gabbert, one of the incredible director/producers of No Impact Man the documentary.

An explanation of the work by the artist herself:

"No to cars, no to trash [represented by the tall skinny trash can] and yes to worms [used in composting]!"

A few of my brothers and sisters

My little girl Isabella is four and she is an only child. But when she goes to the playground and a stranger asks her if she has any brothers and sisters she says yes. She says she has one brother and one sister. Her sister is called Frankie and her brother is called Billy.

"Are they older or younger?" the questioner might ask.

"Frankie is older and Billie is younger."

"Oh, that's nice."

"Yeth," Isabella might say (she has a lisp), "but Billy is scared of Frankie."

"Why?"

"Because Frankie wants to eat Billy."

That's when the questioner starts to laugh and act condescending and Isabella starts to get frustrated because she is entirely serious.

Frankie, you see, is our dog. Billy is Isabella's pet fish. And Isabella is quite correct that her sister Frankie does want to eat her brother Billy.

Isabella calls them her brother and sister with a complete lack of irony. She seems to attribute no less value to them because they are animals.

Admittedly, it is not Billy the fish or even Frankie the dog she cries out for when, on some days, she doesn't want us to leave her at school. But if you ask her the names of the people in her family, she rattles off: Mommy, Daddy, Frankie and Billy.

Anyway.

For today's blog post, Isabella has inspired me to post some pictures of my own brothers and sisters:

Companies who make durable products could cheat the recession while saving the planet

In an article in Metropolis Magazine, writer John Hockenberry suggests that, in the present economy, the only way to coax money out of consumers' wallets is to give us what we wanted all along: products that last and don't go obsolete or break down in a year.

In other words, the products should deliver real and lasting value in return for our money. They won't have to be thrown away. That means they will be better for the planet, too, because they also deliver real and lasting value in return for the resources and don't have to be bought over and over again.

My point here is that products with enduring value--the only kind that, according to Hockenberry, people will buy at the moment--make both people and the planet happier. Why weren't designers trying to do this all along? Doesn't delivering real value make for a more sustainable business model anyway?

So it's not just happier planet, happier people but happier business, too.

Here's a the nut of Hockenberry's essay [bullet points are mine]:

But what if the aspiration [of consumers] is purely not to buy? How might designers participate in an economy of no product?

• Could product design focus on concepts of “one for life” tools and objects, tech devices that can be infinitely upgraded with a minimum purchase, methodologies for assembling new products out of surplus leftovers from the binge years?
  
• Is there a product of no-product aesthetic that would let consumers tangibly track how one purchase actually eliminates the need for a range of other products, in the same way that the archaic 20th-century notion of the “labor-­saving” device motivated the purchase of appliances?
  
• Design might create the “purchase-saving” appliance and link objects into permanent one-for-life relationships, under which users could cheaply modify external colors and textures to personalize products over long arcs of time.

Via Wood Turner of Climate Counts.

PS If you're a fan of WorldChanging, you may want to help them win a $100,000 matching grant by making a contribution. Go here. They certainly deserve our support.

PPS My friends Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus will be in NYC giving a talk on Thursday night. "In 2004 Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus stirred a global debate on the future of green politics with their essay, “The Death of Environmentalism.” In 2008 Time Magazine named them “Heroes of the Environment” and declared their 2007 book, Break Through “prescient.” Winner of the Green Book Award, Break Through argues that we won’t solve global warming through pollution caps but rather through epic government investment in technology. Join Nordhaus and Shellenberger for a rare public event in New York City where they will argue for a paradigm shift in our thinking on global warming." For details click here.

A production process that improves its environment

On Saturday, I bought some cherry blossoms at the farmer's market and put them in a vase. Soon we will have pink and white flowers on our table.

Before I bought the blossoms, I asked the vendor if it hurt or damaged the trees to cut these branch tips from them. She said no. In fact, they have to prune the trees in order to keep them healthy and productive.

Harvesting cherry blossoms, in other words, actually improves the environment from which they are taken. That's a model worth remembering.

Why shouldn't all production processes be designed to improve the environment in which they operate?

Register for No Impact gifts with AlternativeGiftRegistry.org

Just thought you might think this was cool: a gift registry where you can ask for non-material things.

Administered by the Center for a New American Dream, AlternativeGiftRegistry.org functions like any other online gift registry except that you don't have to encourage people to buy new stuff. Entries on sample registries at the site look like this:

Pie Reception: John and I don't get too excited about cake, and since this is our wedding we thought we'd have a dessert we both absolutely love: pie.  We're looking for people to make and bring their favorite kind of pie, whatever that may be, to serve for dessert in place of a wedding cake at our reception.  Don't worry, we'll still make a big deal about cutting one up.

Or

Bring a Plant: Our office could use some brightening up! Those of you with extra plants at home can donate one to the office.

Kind of cool, right? I like it, too, because it is that kind of individual environmental action which is ostentatious and gets other people involved. Plus, when you ask people to bring, low or no impact gifts, they get stuck. This way you give them some help.

Try it out and let us now how it goes back here at the blog!

Avoiding pharmaceuticals as a way to keep our water safe

I happened to be in front of a TV the other day and just about every single ad was for some sort of drug. The ones that always get to me are the ones for hay fever, from which I suffer.

Some years ago, I discovered the "neti pot," a method of flushing out your sinuses with salt water and removing pollen and other irritants. I use the neti pot instead of drugs and am completely satisfied.

What bothers me about the hay fever drug ads is that they convince people to take chemicals--for an entire season--that stress the kidney and liver when the neti pot does the trick without any side effects.

And of course, when we use non-pharmaceutical solutions like the neti pot, we don't end up with pharmaceuticals tainting our water supply.

So what I wondered is: What other remedies do No Impact Man readers have up their sleeves for use instead of drugs? Please share.

Meanwhile, I've added a video of how to use the neti pot below.

LVGRN: 20 ways to keep the landfill empty

Organic material--food and paper, for example--rot and release methane, a potent greenhouse gas, when sent to the landfill. When the liners meant to seal landfills eventually crack, toxic substances can leach into the water table, causing hard to trace illnesses in faraway communities.

But perhaps the worse thing is, when we throw something in the landfill to be buried in the ground (or worse, in an incinerator to be burned into our air), it represents a waste of resources that we took from the earth in the first place.

Here's the good news: I think it actually feels good not to waste. That is to say, I've found that not making trash, actually makes me feel better about myself.

For these reasons, I've put together this list of 25 ways to avoid making trash suggest by readers of the No Impact Man blog:

1. Keep your own cutlery with you so you don't have to use the plastic versions
2. Cut up your old clothes for use as rags and avoid paper towels
3. Use mason jars to carry everything from drinking water to a packed lunch
4. Use a handkerchief instead of tissue
5. Make notepaper from the blank side of junk mail
6. Give your old eyeglasses to the local Lions Club for distribution to those in need
7. Make cardboard egg cartons into biodegradable seed starters
8. Cut yogurt containers into strips and use them to label garden plants
9. Use cloth bags for the bulk bins at the grocery store
10. Empty out vacuum cleaner bags and reuse
11. Use cloth napkins instead of paper towel
12. Cook from scratch to avoid food packaging
13. Use shaving soap bars to avoid throwaway bottles
14. Make your own yogurt so there are no plastic tubs
15. Wash and reuse ziplock bags
16. Use the waxy liners of cereal boxes to wrap sandwiches
17. Use scrap office paper for kids coloring books
18. Carry a cloth for drying your hands and wrapping things in
19. Pack a lunch in a reusable container instead of buying lunch in plastic packaging
20. Use rechargeable batteries

To save the planet, we'll have to bury the party political hatchet

I'm sick of inter-party animosity. I'm tired of progressives who won't listen to a person who identifies as conservative. I'm tired of conservatives who won't listen to a liberal.

How unlikely is it, anyway, that either the classical liberal or conservative ideologies provides the best policy solution for every situation? Doesn't it make sense that liberal ideology works best in some places and conservative works best in others?

Wouldn't it be best, therefore, if liberals and conservatives began to talk and to actually look for and encourage the best of each other's ideas? As long as the Republican and Democratic parties are so invested in winning for winning's sake, the people lose.

And this is never more true than in the case of the upcoming treaty on climate change. In December, representatives of the nations of the world will gather in Copenhagen to agree on a solution to global warming. As the first in a series of articles on COP 15--the 15th meeting of the parties of the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change--in the Independent says: 

Between 10,000 and 15,000 officials, advisers, diplomats, campaigners and media personnel from nearly 200 countries, almost certainly joined by limousine-loads of heads of state and government from America's President Barack Obama down are expected to meet in the Danish capital in one of the most significant gatherings in history.

It goes on:

All the world's major governments, including the once-sceptical administration of the US President George Bush, now formally accept that temperature rises have already begun, are likely if unchecked to prove disastrous for human civilization, and are being caused by emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide from our power plants, factories and motor vehicles.

But if all the major governments now accept it, getting them to agree on how to tackle it still seems a very long way off indeed. The essential problem, to use the jargon, is burden-sharing. We know the world has to cut its CO2 emissions drastically, and soon. But which countries are to cut them, by how much?

Now here's my point: Even if the administrations of all the countries of the world manage to come to an agreement, the resulting treaty will still have to be ratified. Here in the United States, that means that 66 Senators will have to vote for it.

And guess what? The Democrats only 59 votes--and that's only if you count the two independents who tend to ally with them. That means that, in order for the United States to ratify the next climate treaty, at least seven Republican Senators will have to be persuaded to vote for it.

The entire world depends on the United States' ability to bury its political hatchets. Unless the objections of those seven prospective Senators and their constituents are overcome, the worst effects of climate change will not be averted.

What does that mean? That we, as a nation, are urgently going to have to learn to talk. And, perhaps more importantly, to listen.