NC Conservation Network Blog

NCCN blog changes directions

Mindy Hiteshue — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 23:08:28 +0000

When the NC Conservation Network launched our blog in the summer of 2003, we were among the first NC nonprofits to utilize this emerging tool. One of the big things we've learned over the years is that technology (and blogs in particular) are constantly changing. We've decided, in keeping with the times, to move our blog-related content solely to our Facebook feed. This allows us to get more information to you in a timely matter, further encourages your discussion, and helps build community — all in one place.

We do hope you'll continue to follow us via Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/ncconservationnetwork. You do not have to have a Facebook account to view our page — but, you do need a Facebook account if you would like to interact with our page.

Please note that our Facebook posts will still be about the issues, events, people, and news that affect North Carolina’s environment and public health (with some occasional “fun” posts thrown in there too). And, all of our current blog posts will remain on our website (http://www.ncconservationnetwork.org/mainblog) for archiving purposes.

If you have any comments about this change — well, you know the drill — you can post them on our Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/ncconservationnetwork.

Thank you for your continued interest and engagement in protecting North Carolina’s air, water and quality of life.

Endangered Places in the Southeast

Mindy Hiteshue — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 22:03:14 +0000

The Southern Environmental Law Center recently released a report on the Top 10 Endangered Places for 2010 in the Southeast. On the list? 2 places in North Carolina: Cape Fear Wetlands and Catawba-Wateree Basin. Check out their website, complete with slideshow, details on each endangered place, and video on the subject.

Animals gone wild

Mindy Hiteshue — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:39:37 +0000

I was looking back over our last several blog posts and realized it's been awhile since we've posted something "for fun." And while I usually save the "fun" posts for Friday--I figured, what the heck. I'll live on the wild side.

Speaking of wild side, I thought it would be entertaining to post some remarkable videos of animals in the wild (I'm sure your cat and dog are cute, but I'm specifically thinking wild animals). I've embedded two videos below that I find really amazing. Feel free to add a link to your favorite animal video!

Bottlenose dolphins mud-ring feeding

The Orangutan and the Hound

Obama pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

Mindy Hiteshue — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 23:15:47 +0000

In an article released today directly from the White House website, President Obama pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions:

"President Barack Obama today announced that the Federal Government will reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution by 28 percent by 2020. Reducing and reporting GHG pollution, as called for in Executive Order 13514 on Federal Sustainability, will ensure that the Federal Government leads by example in building the clean energy economy. Actions taken under this Executive Order will spur clean energy investments that create new private-sector jobs, drive long-term savings, build local market capacity, and foster innovation and entrepreneurship in clean energy industries."

The Huffington Post also mentioned it today and provides a good overall snapshot of the pledge if you'd rather not read the entire White House article.

Second warmest year on record

Mindy Hiteshue — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 23:26:43 +0000

NASA recently released an article regarding temperature, weather, and global warming and cooling. The article, entitled, "2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade", provides a rather detailed look at global warming trends due to several causes. From the article:

"'There’s always an interest in the annual temperature numbers and on a given year’s ranking, but usually that misses the point,' said James Hansen, the director of Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). 'There's substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Niño-La Niña cycle. But when we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find that global warming is continuing unabated.'"

While pretty technical, I found the article interesting; particularly the segment on "Decoding the Temperature Record."

"Climate scientists agree that rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases trap incoming heat near the surface of the Earth and are the key factors causing the rise in temperatures since 1880, but these gases are not the only factors that can impact global temperatures."

Three others key factors -- including changes in the sun’s irradiance, oscillations of sea surface temperature in the tropics, and changes in aerosol levels -- can also cause slight increases or decreases in the planet's temperature. Overall, the evidence suggests that these effects are not enough to account for the global warming observed since 1880."

You can also check out their Surface Temperature Analysis page to find (and customize in some instances) graphs and maps on temperature trends.

Offshore energy panel meets

Mindy Hiteshue — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 02:07:37 +0000

In lieu of today's first meeting of Governor Perdue's offshore energy panel, News14 has posted a poll, asking folks whether or not they support offshore drilling off the coast of North Carolina. Check it out and take the poll (scroll down on the page and it will be on the right next to the Features section). Wanted to share this since I took the poll and was interested in the results!

Nascar, Politics, and Bowl Games

Dan Conrad — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:39:33 +0000

When President Obama gives his upcoming State of the Union address we will hear those famous words uttered: "Ladies and Gentlemen: the President of the United States." After the recent Supreme Court ruling regarding campaign contribution limits, one has to wonder if in 3 years we will hear something slightly different: "Ladies and Gentlemen: the President of the United States presented by AT&T." As the new president enters the magnificent chamber of the Cheetos House of Representatives, filled with both House members and members of the Flomax US Senate, it may be a good time to pause and wonder where it all went wrong.

On Thursday the Supreme Court made a sweeping ruling regarding the treatment of corporations and limitations in campaign spending placed on them by numerous laws. [Note that you can download the entire ruling (Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n) from the Supreme Court website.] The Roberts Court, which pledged to follow precedent and decide only narrow issues of law to avoid so-called "judicial activism", went far beyond the narrow issue of the case in its ruling to make drastic changes to the law. The actual issue of the case involved part of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act that prohibited "electioneering communications" paid for by corporations or unions from being broadcast or transmitted 30 days before a presidential primary and 60 days before the general election. The case was brought by a conservative non-profit group Citizen's United, that wished to air a scathing documentary about Hillary Clinton on the eve of presidential primary elections. Their argument was that this provision allowed the Federal Election Commission to limit free speech.

Instead, the Court went back and reevaluated the entire treatment of corporate contributions in campaign finance. For decades there have been laws limiting the ways that corporations may participate in political campaigns. Essentially, the law allowed limits to be placed on personal contributions directly to a candidate, however, there is no limit on contributions that an individual makes on their own. Individuals are free to spend as much as they want in support of a given candidate so long as they purchase the airtime, ads, etc. themselves. This policy, however, did not extend to corporations, and laws routinely placed limits on the amounts and times when a corporation could spend to support a specific candidate. Thursday's ruling essentially breaks down the distinction between corporations and people for free speech purposes in campaign finance and election spending.

It appears a corporation could now spend whatever they want, whenever they want, in support of a specific candidate, so long as they do not give directly to the candidate. Justice Stevens, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor, read his dissent from the bench (a rarely exercised act used to express extreme displeasure in the Court's ruling.) He stated that the ruling was "profoundly misguided" and that "[t]he court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation." According to the NY times article, President Obama concurs as he:

"...called [the ruling] “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans."

This ruling could have a chilling affect on the environmental community given the fact that many of the opponents of environmental regulations are large corporations. Politicians will now not only fear they will not get corporate donations by supporting a certain issue, but will also fear that supporting an issue may result in a corporation spending millions to campaign against them during the next election. For the sake of knowing where we stand, I propose that politicians should be required to wear NASCAR jumpsuits and adorn their desks with the logos of those who paid to get them there. At least then we will all know who they really represent. When a Senator votes to allow drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge we can simply look at the giant Exxon emblem on their jacket and know who placed the vote. While the ultimate ramifications of this ruling remain to be seen, don't be surprised if we look back at this day with nostalgia as we do on New Year's Day now, when you look at your buddy and say "I remember back when the Peach Bowl was actually called the Peach Bowl and not the Chick Fil-A Bowl."

Massachusetts, climate, and change

Mindy Hiteshue — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:16:33 +0000

[The following blog post was cross-posted from our friend's 1Sky's blog where it was originally posted by Gillian Caldwell.]

Exactly 365 days after the inauguration of President Barack Obama, we in the climate movement certainly don’t seem to have hit our stride. In fact, that’s a bit of an understatement: the compromises of ACES, the slow pace in the Senate, and the disappointment of Copenhagen have left many activists and volunteers disillusioned and unsure about the best path forward.

And now, in a year when we hoped to start anew, we suffer yet another blow: the election last night of Republican Scott Brown to the Senate seat that Ted Kennedy held for over 35 years.

Losing a vote in favor of bold, comprehensive climate legislation and replacing it with a politician who has specifically stated his opposition to a comprehensive cap and trade program is bad. Even worse is the "conventional wisdom" that cap and trade simply isn’t popular enough to pass or that the Democratic Congress will be too gun shy to move forward any legislation that would actually benefit real people with real problems.

But before we all start investing in houseboat stocks and declaring the planet permanently doomed, I think it’s important to remember a few key facts about where we are and that, as a movement, we still have immense power and certain very powerful themes on our side.

First, it’s important to note that Brown has not always been consistently opposed to comprehensive climate solutions. In fact, he voted in favor of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) as a Massachusetts state senator. He did attempt to disown that vote last fall when running in a Republican primary, but it shows that there is some possibility of dialogue.

More to the point, studies have shown a clean energy jobs bill could provide 38,000 new jobs in Massachusetts alone and 1.7 million nationwide. With America still mired in a recession and 10 percent unemployment, any senator should think twice about voting against a bill that creates jobs. That is especially true for a senator who will have an extremely tough reelection fight in 2012 and is representing a state overwhelmingly in favor of bold climate legislation.

Looking at the larger picture, we must remember that passing comprehensive climate legislation was always going to be a bipartisan endeavor. Unlike health care, the Administration’s top domestic issue, we were never going to impose complete party discipline on Senate Democrats. Republican votes are necessary to the passage of any climate bill. That means that the loss of one senator matters less for climate than it might for other issues -- even if that senator was the nominal 60th vote for the Democratic caucus.

Most important though, is not getting bogged down in the day-to-day vote-counting grind, but remembering some of the overarching themes that compelled voters towards certain politicians in the last few years of frustration and hope.

After all, Brown did not win yesterday’s election solely based on one small comment against climate legislation (or health care or any other number of specific issues). Rather, there are a number of intersecting reasons and themes that can account for his surprise victory. Among the biggest, I believe, is the fact that the Massachusetts electorate saw him as the candidate most likely to bring about change. For better or for worse, many voters in Massachusetts viewed him, like they viewed Barack Obama the previous year, as the politician most likely to shake up the status quo that they felt has done nothing to address their problems.

While it’s depressing on one level that a candidate who adopted a very anti-progressive platform could be temporarily seen as an agent of change, it’s also encouraging on another level for the environmental movement that this desperate need for change is still a dominant factor of American political life.

After all, the very heart of the clean energy reforms that 1Sky and other progressive groups are pushing are a change from the corrupting, failed status quo of Big Oil and Dirty Coal. Poll after poll shows that a majority of Americans want clean air and water, a clean energy economy, and an end to the threat of climate change -- and that is what our push is all about.

The most important thing we can all do right now is remind our politicians of this basic fact: we need to be as loud as possible, as active as possible, and organize as much as possible. We need to flood their offices with calls to remind them that -- contrary to some media conjecturing about the state of a Senate climate bill -- millions of Americans still firmly support a transition to the clean energy economy and warding off a climate disaster.

Great news for our friends on the Catawba!

Mindy Hiteshue — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 22:42:47 +0000

From Carolina Newswire:

"Establishing significant reductions in the amount of water transferred out of the Catawba River during drought conditions has enabled the Protect the Catawba Coalition and Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation, Inc. to reach an agreement with the cities of Concord and Kannapolis to resolve the appeal of the Interbasin Transfer (IBT) granted Concord and Kannapolis by the State of North Carolina.

[...]

Catawba Riverkeeper David Merryman approved of the settlement, stating “When coupled with the amendments that the North Carolina General Assembly made in the IBT law, this agreement will ensure the future protection of the Catawba River and its environment, while assuring adequate access to water by Catawba River basin residents and our neighbors."

Congrats to our friends at the Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation! For more information, check out this article.

A look into "green jobs"

Mindy Hiteshue — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 23:41:29 +0000

These days, the term "green jobs" has become common rhetoric in the environmental community. And while the concept of "green jobs" may be easy to explain, how do they work? Where do they come from? How can we make new ones? Here is an article from our friends at 1Sky who give us a clearer picture of the green jobs landscape:

http://www.1sky.org/about/1sky-solutions/green-jobs

NC conference on sea level rise

Mindy Hiteshue — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 23:38:30 +0000

Tomorrow, both scientists and state officials will gather for a two-day conference on the issue of sea level rise on North Carolina's coast. From the Wilmington Star:

"But how much will the water rise, and where and when? And which parts of the North Carolina coast are the most vulnerable?

More important, what can we do today to prepare for a problem that likely won’t become alarming to the public and elected officials for decades, if at all?

Those are a few of the questions scientists and state officials plan to tackle during a two-day conference, organized by the NC Coastal Resources Commission, that starts in Raleigh on Thursday."

With input from NC Sea Grant, NC Coastal Federation, and NC Department of Transportation, it will be interesting to see what the conference brings about since we are in a precarious position with the encroaching sea level--particularly with the Outer Banks. And of course, this is a complex issue that not only involves beach nourishment and planning efforts, but also humankind's climate change plight, which is contributing to the rise.

Hopefully, we can get our heads out of the sand and enact some measures to protect the places we love.

NC company promotes sustainability and community in their business model

Mindy Hiteshue — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:23:49 +0000

When I was young, I remember driving through Eastern North Carolina, watching the cotton fields wizz by outside of my window. One time, my parents stopped by the side of the road and they picked up a piece of the raw cotton to let me examine. I remember wondering how that small piece of discolored material which felt somewhat coarse and contained hard seeds, would eventually become soft t-shirts, sweat suits, and sheets. Today, a video came across my desk that reminded me of that moment of wonder so many years ago. The video is an educational and promotional tool for a fascinating North Carolina company called Cotton of the Carolinas. Through this enterprise:

Cotton is grown, ginned, and knitted into t-shirts which are finished and designed all here in North Carolina.
North Carolina farmers work directly with North Carolina businesspeople to create a seamless process, which leads to profits, and protects the planet by vastly reducing carbon footprint.
Over 700 North Carolinians are employed and are working directly to build community.
An excellent product is made, from ground up, without ever leaving North Carolina.

I've embedded the video below, it's definitely worth watching. I found it inspiring to watch how one company is redefining production, educating people, building a more prosperous North Carolina, and creating a profitable finished product of which everyone can be proud.

New pesticide task force needs farmworker perspective

Mindy Hiteshue — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 22:21:54 +0000

Today, January 6 2010, marks the initial day of a new pesticide task force for North Carolina--The Interagency Task Force on Agricultural Pesticide Exposure. Here's what our friends at Toxic Free NC have to say about the new group:

"[The task force's] charge is to make recommendations for improving pesticide safety rules and programs in North Carolina, so that everyone who works or lives on a farm will be better protected from toxic pesticides. [It] is made up of fourteen experts from various state agencies, including Pubic Health, Agriculture, Environment and Cooperative Extension. But when the task force meets this week, there’s one important perspective that will be missing: farm workers."

Since the farm workers are the ones in the fields every day, cultivating crops, harvesting goods, and maintaining fields; AND they are the population most directly affected by pesticide use, we need to make sure the new task force has a good understanding of their needs and their hopes for change.

Toxic Free NC is asking citizens to contact the members of the new task force with this powerful video, highlighting the lives of farm workers in North Carolina. You can also check out the video here:

So what Really Happened in Copenhagen?

Mindy Hiteshue — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 21:35:51 +0000

[The following blog post was cross-posted from our friend's Southern Alliance for Clean Energy's (SACE) blog and was co-authored by Stephen Smith and Jennifer Rennicks. SACE will be among the attendees in Copenhagen starting on December 12 and will follow the action in Copenhagen from a uniquely southeastern clean energy perspective. The NC Conservation Network will be posting many of the entries from their Copenhagen series.]

Well, it depends on who you ask? While the United Nations climate talks are officially over, the world does not have the fair, ambitious, and binding treaty that science demands of us to protect all global citizens, rich and poor, from the perils of accelerating climate change. This is a fact, and there is no way to spin or greenwash the fact that world leaders failed to deliver what we need. But if that is the only narrative to come out of Copenhagen, then I think it does not tell the whole story. Some very significant tectonic shifts happened leading up to and during the meetings.

First, world expectation and awareness of the need for action continues to expand. You could see this very clearly from the thousands of youth who observed the talks and from the high level of international participation both by nations and businesses. It would be wrong to underestimate the significance of having the world’s top emitters - China, the United States, India and Brazil - now engaged on this issue in new ways.

The failure of the U.S. to play a constructive role during the past decade will be an infamous page in our country’s historic record. It was obvious the U.S. negotiators came to the talks hamstrung by the partisan gridlock in our Congress that has thus far failed to pass comprehensive climate legislation. Fortunately, President Obama’s intense discussion with China in the 11th hour did play a key role in salvaging the talks and set the stage for what could lead to a comprehensive agreement in 2010. The very fact that the leaders of two superpowers engaged and have made commitments of their counties, albeit ones that need strengthening, represents significant movement.

The Obama Administration fell short of what was needed to move the climate talks forward to produce an ambitious and legally binding climate treaty, but when compared to past efforts, these actions were like night and day. See Obama’s closing statement here. If we want more ambitious actions, then we must turn the political heat up at home, so that our elected representatives will understand they must turn down the heat of our planet or risk being replaced by those who will.

In the end, after two weeks of intense - and at times contentious - climate negotiations, delegates from more than 185 nations ‘noted the existence’ of the Copenhagen Accord as the talks wrapped up on Saturday, December 19th. While the Accord includes a global agreement to keep global warming below two degrees Celsius, it does fail to include concrete measures to reach that target, leading scientists to say the world may be on a path to 3.5 degrees of warming by 2100. For the first time, the U.S., China and India each offered a national reduction target. While the targets are not ambitious enough, they are evidence of movement from where we were six months ago.

A critical piece of this Accord was the financial commitment from developed nations to provide at least $100 billion per year in assistance to developing nations by 2020. Had such an important component been on the table earlier so that the details could have been worked out ahead of time, more progress may have been made.

We're Not Done Yet

More ambitious reductions, greater financial assistance and legally binding agreements are needed to secure the collective future of the planet, so the Copenhagen Accord will be viewed as a step along the path but not the end of the journey.

Meanwhile, China and India are already moving ahead of the U.S. in the development and production of clean energy technology. Unless the U.S. can pass a comprehensive climate and clean energy bill that will significantly boost U.S. investment in clean energy technology, we risk losing our competitive edge worldwide in the newly emerging low-carbon marketplace. More importantly, we risk losing our standing in the world as a functioning society capable of responding to the challenges of our world. If we continue to allow the corrupting influence of fossil fuel dollars pouring into Washington from the carbon-intensive companies that desperately want to hold on to the status quo, our beacon of democracy will be dimmed at home and around the world.

President Obama Arrives, Bringing Nothing New

Mindy Hiteshue — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 18:35:11 +0000

[The following blog post was cross-posted from our friend's 1Sky's blog where it was originally posted by Gillian Caldwell. 1Sky will be among the attendees in Copenhagen starting on December 12 and will follow the action in Copenhagen.]

President Obama reportedly got off Air Force One and moved immediately into a Heads of State meeting. From there, he moved to address the plenary in what appeared to be a serious, determined and frustrated mood (read full text of his speech here or watch the video). He said he did not come to talk - that he came to act. And that we have to come together to address a common threat.

Obama identified three prerequisites to a successful global accord today:

"First, all major economies must put forward decisive national actions that will reduce their emissions, and begin to turn the corner on climate change. I'm pleased that many of us have already done so, and I'm confident that America will fulfill the commitments that we have made: cutting our emissions in the range of 17 percent by 2020, and by more than 80 percent by 2050 in line with final legislation.

Second, we must have a mechanism to review whether we are keeping our commitments, and to exchange this information in a transparent manner. These measures need not be intrusive, or infringe upon sovereignty. They must, however, ensure that an accord is credible, and that we are living up to our obligations. For without such accountability, any agreement would be empty words on a page.

Third, we must have financing that helps developing countries adapt, particularly the least-developed and most vulnerable to climate change. America will be a part of fast-start funding that will ramp up to $10 billion in 2012. And, yesterday, Secretary Clinton made it clear that we will engage in a global effort to mobilize $100 billion in financing by 2020, if - and only if - it is part of the broader accord that I have just described.

Mitigation. Transparency. And financing. It is a clear formula - one that embraces the principle of common but differentiated responses and respective capabilities. And it adds up to a significant accord - one that takes us farther than we have ever gone before as an international community."

The biggest disappointment was that he didn't bring anything new to the table - he reiterated the same position that has been outlined by U.S. negotiators all week, including continuing to propose a U.S. target "in the range of 17%" from 2005 levels by 2020. It is particularly maddening that President Obama and others in the administration continually refuse to specify their baseline -- which is to their strategic advantage since everyone else is using the 1990 baseline and the only industrialized country proposing a lower target than the United States is Canada, whose performance has earned them repeated Fossils of the Day throughout the negotiations. His speech was not well received in the plenary, or in the NGO forum where I am watching it. Indeed, he was booed by the global community.

Meanwhile, a draft of the text of the agreement was leaked and picked up by the press. More on that as soon as I have had a chance to analyze it. The New York Times reports the United Nations Secretariat has "reportedly advised negotiators to extend their stays through Sunday night." So we are unlikely to see a conclusion to this today as originally planned.

Here's the video: