Mike G.

Recent Activity

• 

  Mike commented on the article | over 1 year ago

  Hitting A Cyclist Might Not Matter Much If You Drive a Mercedes

  can't believe the guy stopped and called in the damage to his Mercedes, yet never called 911 or otherwise sought help for the cyclist he'd just grievously injured. unbelievable.

• 

  Mike signed the petition | over 1 year ago

  DA Mark Hurlbert: Don't Drop Felony Charges Against Hit-and-Run Wealth Manager
• 

  Mike signed the petition | over 1 year ago

  Cargill: Stop Destroying Rainforests, Communities, and Our Global Climate!
• 

  Mike signed the petition | over 1 year ago

  Chevron: Clean Up Your Toxic Mess in Ecuador
• 

  Mike commented on the article | over 1 year ago

  The Car Of The Future: Here Today?

  Not sure this qualifies as "glorifying car culture," but if it came off that way, that was not my intention. Hell, I haven't owned a car myself in 10 years. If anything, I was attemptign to glorify flying car culture. And Greenpeace had nothing to do with it (even though I'm pretty sure many of my fellow Greenpeacers would dig a flying car as well).
  
  My point was that technologies exist to move us way beyond the limited pace that we're actually seeing innovations in fuel efficiency technology make it to the marketplace, whether it's in high-mpg vehicles or electric vehicles. Hence it's important that we pressure our elected leaders into keeping up with the pace of innovation as much as possible.

  
  

  Believe me, if there were solar cars being created today, I would have written about them. I would prefer we get off of fossil fueled cars altogether, myself. But the Obama Administration is currently considering raising fuel standards to less than half what we already know is possible. Hence I reported on some of those high-mpg technologies to encourage folks to write in to the Obama Admin and encourage them to go as far as possible in setting the new standards. That does not equate to an endorsement of car culture. It is a tactic for pushing us ever closer -- even if incrementally, in this case -- to removing fossil fuels from our society.

• 

  Mike signed the petition | over 1 year ago

  Demand Congress Pass A Strong Renewable Electricity Standard ASAP
• 

  Mike signed the petition | almost 2 years ago

  Stop Unsafe E-Waste Recycling in Federal Prisons
• 

  Mike commented on the article | almost 2 years ago

  Feds Choose Trees Over Jobs in Mining Towns

  Hey Ashley,
  
  Just wanted to say thanks for responding to my post, and to let you know that I have posted in response: http://environment.change.org/blog/view/a_rebuttal_to_coal_apologists
  
  Also, want to say that despite Ted Clayton's attempts to sew discord, in no way was I "shredding a voodoo doll of your post." If it came off as overly combative, I sincerely apologize. I tried to show how many of the arguments you were making in support of coal and MTR are arguments that the industry itself have used for a long time, so as not to seem as if I was attacking you or your post personally.
  
  Also, @Ted Clayton, I would be interested to have you explain how acid rain, global warming, increased incidence of asthma in our children, mercury pollution in our watercourses and fish, interference with watertables, and build-up of waste products containing seriously toxic substances (uranium, thorium, other radioactive heavy metals) that contaminate our water supplies AREN'T "humanistic" issues.

• 

  Mike commented on the article | almost 2 years ago

  A Rebuttal To Coal Apologists

  
  The great hope of the coal industry, "clean coal," is a myth predicated on the eventual development of large-scale carbon capture and sequestration (or CCS) technology -- a technology that does not exist. There is no large scale coal-fired plant using CCS right now, and none expected to come online for years. Meanwhile, the IPCC tells us that global emissions must peak by 2015 and begin to fall afterwards if we're to avoid the worst effects of global warming. We simply don't have time to wait for CCS and "clean coal" to become a reality.
  
  Not to mentiont that, while the greenhouse gas emissions from burning coal are certainly one of the chief concerns, given the inherently dirty nature of coal mining and the problem of toxic coal ash storage and the other pollutants released by burning coal, to me it makes no sense to sink any money into CCS technology. Coal can never be clean, period. If some private coal company wants to invest in R&D for CCS technology to try and save their business, let them. But the government should not be wasting any taxpayer money on this unproven technology -- renewables technologies are proven and ready to go, and every dollar we spend chasing a CCS technology that may or may not ever work at a large enough scale to save us from runaway global warming is a dollar we haven't spent on efficiency and renewable energy projects and a new smart grid to get that renewable energy from the point of production to the consumer.
  
  I generally think your multi-phase plan for transitioning off of coal makes sense, though I suspect I would expect it to be done much quicker than you're suggesting, and I would, as stated before, see no cause for letting the myth that is CCS and "clean coal" prolong our dependence on coal as a fuel source for even one day longer than need be.

• 

  Mike commented on the article | almost 2 years ago

  A Rebuttal To Coal Apologists

  Thanks Ashley for your response. I agree wholeheartedly that now is the time for us to find common ground and come together to build a better tomorrow. I also couldn't agree more that there should be programs to help communities dominated by coal make the transition to the green economy.
  
  That being said, I would respond to your rhetorical question, "Why make the choice?" Like it or not, I think a choice has to be made, and it needs to be made NOW. Fossil fuels industries -- coal especially, but also chiefly the oil industry -- are waging an all-out battle to stop any kind of climate bill or carbon regulation from passing in this country. The reason they are doing this is simple: money. It's not that they think their product is actually good for us -- all that flag-waving, patriotic talk about real Americans and jobs is just propaganda to distract from the fact that what they're peddling is literally killing us (or at least making us sick) and cooking our planet. And so-called "clean coal" is a myth -- it does not exist. Coal is not now nor will it ever be clean.
  
  Given that the fossil fuels industries would rather chase their profits than the health and wellbeing of their fellow human beings, we need to choose clean energy, and we need to start working towards affecting that change immediately.
  
  I'm not saying that to try and blame coal proponents for the ills of using coal. They're just trying to protect their way of life and continue earning a living. It's human nature to protect what you care about. But to me, when a small group of people is aggrssively pursuing policies that would protect their way of life at the expense of -- literally -- the entire rest of the world, it's incumbent upon the rest of us to speak up. Let's create programs to help folks who will lose their jobs, by all means. But let's not contribute any more to global warming, or asthma rates in our children, or mercury pollution in our streams and rivers, just because people are afraid of moving to a new job.
  
  I believe strongly that we must move away from coal as rapidly as possible. I'm not saying we need to abandon it immediately -- obviously that would not work. But coal is a dirty business from cradle to grave: the mining of coal, the burning of coal, and the coal ash and air pollution leftover afterwards are all responsible for major impacts to human health and welfare.