GreenYes Archives

[GreenYes Home] - [Thread Index] - [Date Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]

[GreenYes] Re: WE movement

Title: [GreenYes] Re: WE movement

About a year ago I noticed that the Environmental Defense Fund didn't
include recycling on their list of actions to help combat global warming
(and they still don't)
. I sent them an email asking about this and received a reply that they
could only focus on a few areas and that recycling was not one of their
target areas. I told them that by not mentioning recycling they implied that
recycling was not an important environmental action.

Many people seem to think the recycling problem has either been solved or
has gone as far as it is likely to go, so there's no need to focus on it.
The new environmental issues are sexier and some people don't seem to see
the connection.

Ann Dorfman
Recycling & Resource Management Consulting
O: 617-244-9321
F: 617-446-1431


-----Original Message-----
From: GreenYes@no.address [mailto:GreenYes@no.address] On Behalf
Of Peter Spendelow
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 2:45 PM
To: GreenYes
Subject: [GreenYes] Re: WE movement

The "We Can Solve It" campaign seems to concentrate mainly on power
generation, transportation, and energy conservation actions such as
insulation and reduced energy appliances.  It seems to ignore other
important greenhouse gas issues such as food, land use, and as Rebecca
points out, recycling - all major sources or solutions regarding human-
made greenhouse gases.  For example, a recent United Nations report by
the Food and Agriculture Organization shows that food production, and
in particular the livestock sector, accounts for nearly one-fifth of
all human-generated greenhouse gases produced on this planet, as
measured in carbon dioxide equivalents.  Another study out of the
University of Chicago shows that the savings in greenhouse gas
production that each of us can make simply by eating lower on the food
chain (i.e. a plant-based diet) rivals the savings we would create by
giving up the use of our personal cars.

This might be because of the way that greenhouse gas inventories have
been constructed, where people have been categorizing energy based on
the quantity and form in which it is generated rather than how it is
used.  For example, the accountings often give the greenhouse gasses
associated with the production of electricity, but of course much of
that electricity is used in manufacturing processes to make the goods
that we buy.  The accountings look at petroleum used, without noting
things such as the amount of energy and petroleum that goes into
making items such as fertilizers.  Finally, the "We Can Solve It"
campaign seems to concentrate mainly on fossil fuels that produce
carbon dioxide when burned, and pays little attention to other sources
of greenhouse gases such as methane or nitrous oxide.

I don't mean to downgrade the importance of the messages that the "We
Can Solve It" campaign is promoting, but I do think they should look
more broadly into potential solutions, including especially their
personal solutions suggestions, and not concentrate solely on those
related to fossil fuels.

On Jul 22, 9:39 am, "Jewell, Rebecca" <RJew...@no.address> wrote:
> I just clicked on a banner ad for the We Can Solve It
> The We Campaign is a project of The Alliance for Climate Protection -- a
nonprofit, nonpartisan effort founded by Nobel laureate and former Vice
President Al Gore. Our ultimate aim is to halt global warming. Specifically
we are educating people in the US and around the world that the climate
crisis is both urgent and solvable.
> I couldn't find even one mention of recycling as an action to take,
individually, to counteract global warming.. I'm surprised by this.
> Rebecca Jewell
> Recycling Programs Manager
> Davis Street Station for Material Recycling & Transfer
> A Waste Management company
> 510-563-4214

[GreenYes Home] - [Date Index] - [Thread Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]