|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
 |
|||
|
DEAR EARTHTALK: Where do the leading
presidential candidates stand on the issue of climate change and other
environmental issues?
All of the Democratic candidates - Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich - support reducing carbon dioxide emissions nationally upwards of 80 percent by 2050 in order to stave off global warming. Likewise, each would like to see fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks raised to at least 40 miles per gallon within the next few decades. Meanwhile, only one of the major Republican contenders, John McCain, has even articulated a position on the issue of global warming, with most favoring expanding our base of greenhouse gas-spewing coal-fired power plants. As for specific track records, Clinton has an impressive record of introducing pro-environment legislation into Congress, and for her time in the Senate scores a 90 (out of 100) on green voting from the nonprofit, non-partisan League of Conservation Voters (LCV). Obama is newer to the politics of the environment, but scored a 96 for his two years in the Senate from LCV, and has garnered kudos from environmental leaders for the aggressive climate and energy plan he unveiled in October 2007.
On the Republican side, the environmental bright spots are few and far between. McCain is really the only choice with any declared concern for the environment. In 2003 he co-sponsored the first Senate bill aimed at mandatory economy-wide reductions. While the bill didn't garner enough votes to pass, it set the stage for future iterations that could put the U.S. on par with European nations as leaders in the fight to cut carbon emissions. McCain is also the only Republican candidate specifically opposed to drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Mike Huckabee scores some points with greens for his willingness to consider a specific increase in automotive fuel efficiency standards and for his (limited) embrace of alternative energy. Mitt Romney is willing to consider a cap on emissions, but only if enacted on a global basis (including China and India, that is). The remaining Republicans (Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and Ron Paul) have best been non-committal on climate change and environmental issues in general. CONTACTS: For more detailed information on specific candidates' positions and track records on environmental issues, check out the League of Conservation Voters' Voter Guide.
DEAR
EARTHTALK: My global warming guilt is starting to catch up with
me, and I've heard that I can buy "carbon offsets"
to help make things right. How do they work? Carbon offsets are monies that consumers and businesses pay voluntarily to compensate for the greenhouse gas emissions they generate directly by driving, flying, running the air conditioning and otherwise using non-renewable energy. Companies and nonprofit groups that sell offsets use the dollars generated to fund alternative energy and other projects that will ultimately eliminate greenhouse gas emissions (such as wind farms that can replace coal-fired power plants in generating electricity). "Carbon offsetting is one of many economic actions you can take to address climate change, and it is a powerful one," says the nonprofit Co-op America, "Many promising projects that would help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions lack the capital they need to get built; by directing your offset dollars to these projects, you can help finance new wind farms, solar arrays, and more."
Dozens of carbon-offset vendors have sprung up in recent years. Consumers
interested in buying offsets should do their homework, Co-op America lauds the Climate Trust (non-profit, funds wind farms in Oregon), TerraPass (for-profit, funds methane gas capture from landfills and farms), Native Energy (for-profit, funds new wind farms and solar arrays) and Sustainable Travel International's MyClimate (non-profit, funds clean energy in developing countries) as some of the leading offset providers with reputable business models. Those looking to dig deeper into the ways different offset providers operate should check out Clean Air-Cool Planet's Consumer's Guide to Carbon Offsets. The free 44-page PDF download assesses the strengths and weaknesses of some two-dozen carbon offset programs. The guide gives highest marks to Climate Trust, Native Energy and MyClimate, although other providers are also praised for specific programs. Another good free online resource comparing various offset programs on one page/chart is on the Carbon Offsets Survey page on the EcoBusinessLinks Environmental Directory. Consumers should understand that offsets may be convenient, but are essentially only icing on the cake of an otherwise diligent effort to reduce emissions by using energy less and more efficiently. "All the offsets in the world won't help us," warns Clean Air-Cool Planet, "if we in the U.S. don't make big reductions in our overall greenhouse gas emissions and effect a transition away from wasteful use of fossil fuels." CONTACTS: Co-op America; Climate Trust; TerraPass; NativeEnergy; Sustainable Travel International; Clean Air-Cool Planet; EcoBusinessLinks.
DEAR
EARTHTALK: My uncle worked for over a decade on the top floor
of an office building with cell phone towers directly above him. He
was recently diagnosed with cancer. Is there any scientific evidence
of links between exposure to cell phone tower radiation and cancer?
No one doubts that cell phone towers give off low-level radio-frequency radiation (similar to the microwave oven in your home), but scientists are still debating the health effects of long-term exposure. Some people are genetically predisposed to certain types of cancers, while others are not (for example, some lifelong smokers get lung cancer while others don't). And with so many different chemicals, pollutants and other substances around us in our air, food and water, it is very difficult to determine with certainty if a particular environmental influence (such as a cell phone tower) is the culprit when health problems, such as cancer, arise in a particular locale or among certain populations. But that hasn't stopped many communities from worrying about this issue and taking cautionary measures. In San Francisco, for instance, concerned individuals and neighborhood groups have formed the San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna-Free Union (SNAFU) for the purpose of preventing "the placement of wireless antennas on or near residences, schools, health care centers, day care centers, senior centers, playgrounds, places of worship, and other inappropriate locations..." SNAFU
is worried that San Francisco is "already immersed in a sea of electromagnetic
radiation" from, among other sources, some 2,500 licensed cell phone
antennas at 530 locations around the city.
The group is distributing petitions calling on local public officials
to increase "restrictions on the number and location of cellular phone
antennas and other wireless transmitters." Still, the American Cancer Society (ACS) does not seem concerned, stating that limited epidemiological evidence suggests no link between cancers and living or working near a cell phone tower. ACS says that the energy level of radio waves coming off cell towers is too low to cause any noticeable human health impacts, and that a person would have to stand right in front of an antenna to pick up even trace amounts of radiation. And unlike X-rays or gamma rays, radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation is "non-ionizing," meaning it lacks the gusto to break the bonds that hold molecules (like DNA) in cells together. Still, cell phones and their towers are a fairly new technology, and very few studies of their health effects have yet been conducted. And the bulk of the research cited by the American Cancer Society has focused on direct and prolonged exposure to radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation in general, not on cell towers and their effects specifically. SNAFU reports that "no systematic attempt has been made to determine what current cumulative exposures to this radiation are..." Lingering public concerns about the issue surely means that more research on the topic is to come CONTACTS: American Cancer Society; San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna-Free Union (SNAFU).
© the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine, 2008
GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
|
|||
The outcome of the 2008
presidential election could very well have a big impact on a wide range
of environmental issues, especially climate change.
Ohio
Congressman Dennis Kucinich wants to launch a Works Green Administration
similar to the Works Progress Administration of the Great Depression,
only this time to benefit the environment through the development of
alternative energy technologies and infrastructures. Bill Richardson,
who served as Secretary of Energy under Bill Clinton and more recently
as governor of New Mexico, wants to be the "energy president,"
and has an 82 lifetime rating from LCV to back it up. He has proposed
the most ambitious carbon reduction plan of any of the candidates (90
percent by 2050). John Edwards was the first candidate to make his campaign
carbon neutral in March 2007, and greens consider him perhaps the most
progressive of all the Democrats on the climate issue.
as some firms have better reputations than others. Co-op America recommends
offsets that support specific projects that wouldn't have happened otherwise
and that have measurable near-term goals. Legitimate offset providers
should also be able to back up all claims and show a clear money trail
to the projects being funded. Co-op America urges consumers to avoid
tree-planting programs, which are hard to quantify, and "climate
exchange allowances" (also known as "pollution trading"
or "emissions trading"), which many consider to be veiled
ways of letting companies buy the right to pollute.
