How the Enviroment Could Make or Break the Presidential Race

How the Enviroment Could Make or Break the Presidential Race

A survey that was conducted for Yale and the George Mason University has shown that the public would be more likely to vote for a presidential candidate that had Global Warming along with environment and climate change issues as one of their top priorities. They want a politician that is willing to make an effort to safeguard our environment.

At the heart of the survey was 61% being in favor of a tax swap where taxes on fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas were raised while income taxes are lowered. Revenue to the federal government would stay the same, but come from different sources. And such a tax swap has some bipartisan support, as it is backed by former Vice President Al Gore (Democrat) and former congressman Bob Inglis (Republican).

This stands in contrast with the position taken by congressional Democrat in 2010, where they looked to lower carbon emissions by increasing the costs of fossil fuels. Despite the Democrats portraying themselves as being the greener party, their legislation died in the Senate, as runs opposite to the popular support that the tax swaps enjoy. According to Anthony Leiserowitz with the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, the tax swap has majority support among both parties as well as independents.

The survey also showed the chasm between the public at large and members of Congress. Typically, environmental legislation is opposed by Republicans, even though two thirds of the identified Republican voters in the survey were in favor of the tax swap, and over half feel that global warming warrants at least a medium priority among congressional members. And of course the Democrats haven’t even approached the tax swap even though their voters overwhelmingly support it.

Even Barrack Obama chimed into the debate, first by running as an environmental candidate in 2008 and by further showing his support by stating his opinion in an interview for Rolling Stone that mirrors the popular opinion of the survey. He showed his concern that the issues of climate change would need to become an important part of a campaign that would stand a chance of getting the attention of the public and coming out victorious. He intended to make his standing on the environment well known in future debates.

Mitt Romney, while attempting to gather the Republican presidential nomination, has also recently realized the importance of the views on whether human activities are causing climate changes and if the answer can be found through dna diagnostics.

Through this survey the public has made it clear that the concern for the environment is an issue that they want to see the candidates make a priority. This is a subject that could bring a runner to the forefront and give the distinct advantage if the other side isn’t willing to take their concerns to heart.

Tom is a writer for GTLDNA, writing on a variety of health and enviornment topics. 

Global Warming's “Worst Case Scenario”

Global Warming Gases Exceeds “Worst Case Scenario”

Heat-trapping carbon dioxide jumped by the largest amount on record according to the U.S. Department of Energy. These numbers that the Department came up with are much higher than climate experts predicted they’d be at 4 years ago. According to these studies the world created 564 million more tons of carbon into the air then we did in 2009. China and the United States are responsible for more than half of this extra pollution amongst all the countries of the world.

So what is the reason for such a drastic increase in pollution? Well, according to scientists and economists, 2010 was a bit of a recovery year. People started traveling again, factories started producing again, and industries started increasing work productivity as the economy slowly but surely recovered.

Such a constant increase and release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere has scientists to believe that by the end of the decade the world’s average temperature will increase by approximately 7.5 degrees Fahrenheit. Many scientists also believe the answer to solving many of these problems rely not in first world or developed countries such as China and the United States but in developing countries.

If we’re able to get to and change the way developing countries produce and manufacture goods, using cleaner energy such as solar or wind energy, these countries can develop and adapt easily with the technology. Developed countries like the US or India will need a massive amount of time to fully switch from fossil fuels to an alternative fuel – if this ever happens.

What is certain, however, is that greenhouse gases are slowly but surely warming the Earth up. Now is the time to act. It would be foolish and inevitably risks the entire human population if we continue to use fossil fuels at the rate that we are. We can’t continue to hide in the dark behind our garage doors and hope the world changes on its own. Every single person can act. Do what you can to reduce your carbon foot print. The only way we can change this problem in the world is to have every single one rely less and less on fossil fuels. This way we can all look forward to a brighter future.

Chris Keenan is a green and general blog writer. He writes for many sites including Precision Garage Door. Chris also maintains a personal house and garden blog.

Green Business

Carbon Footprint Decisions Become Part of Risk Management

Green Dollars Make for Less Long Term RiskI ran across an interesting greenbiz press release yesterday that gave me a slightly different point of view on business and carbon footprints and going greener. Yesterday, a company called Planet Metrics announced that Method has chosen their Rapid Carbon Modeling software to help them reduce their carbon footprint. That Method - the pricey consumer-aware eco-friendly cleaning products company - is looking for ways to reduce its carbon footprint is no real news. What caught my attention was the fact that Method considers carbon footprint reduction to be part of their financial risk management strategy.

Now, I usually like to write about personal choices and how we, in our own little way, can make a small difference in the world and small differences add up to big changes when enough people make them. Planet Metrics is business software aimed at helping businesses figure out the carbon footprint chain of their products - in other words, not really for personal home use. But there are a couple of things about it that put the whole carbon footprint argument and the financial arguments against global warming and the concept of cap-and-trade into a different light.

Rapid Carbon Modeling helps businesses make green decisions

First - here's what "Rapid Carbon Modeling" is about. According to Planet Metrics, most companies only consider about 10% of their actual carbon footprint when making business decisions. The other 90%, they say, is built up of factors outside their control - decisions made by their suppliers, for instance. The Rapid Carbon Modeling software is designed to help business assess that other 90% and make decisions based on it.

The Method company, for instance, was trying to decide which of two materials to use in their packaging - a biopolymer and a PET. The logical choice seemed to be the biopolymer, but when they plugged the two different packaging methods into the modeling software, they found that the PET packaging actually reduced the long-tail carbon footprint of their product astronomically. Pretty neat, huh? With just a couple of mouse-clicks, they were able to project costs - both monetary and ecologically - of all of their choices, and make a decision based on the projection.

Well, I thought it was pretty neat anyway, but like Rachel Maddow likes to say - I'm a wonk. Business scenarios and analysis fascinate me. I like looking at various businesses and business models and following how and why they make the decisions that they do. And financial risk management in particular really fascinates me. I also like stepping back from looking at the little things to see how they fit into the big picture - and this bit of software makes it easy to do just that. You can plug in a tiny little factor - like which plastic you choose to pour your soap into - and see how using each of your choices will open your company to financial risk.

Green Business and Risk Management

So what does financial risk management have to do with carbon footprints? The big one right now is how the projected rise in energy costs due to cap and trade will affect the bottom line of many companies - and in the long run, the cost of the goods and services that you pay for at home. With a modeling program like Planet Metrics' Rapid Carbon Modeling software, companies can plug in projected costs of energy - not only for their own product lines, but for the entire chain of their supply line - and choose methods and supplies that will cost less, which will translate to lower costs of the finished products.

And that's pretty cool, I think, because it sorta gives the lie to the stated "fact" that measures like cap-and-trade will necessarily increase the cost of everything we buy. What it WILL do is force companies to make smarter decisions and evolve to use products and methods that will cost less than the methods they are currently using. In other words - innovate.

Green risk management fosters innovation

It will also force companies to take a longer range view of things than they typically do - to assess the real cost of their bottom line. For too long, we've been running an economy where the profit increase in today's bottom line has been the absolute test of a business decision. That business model led companies like Owens-Corning to ignore the safety and health of their workers in order to save money - only to be forced into bankruptcy when those workers ended up with mesothelioma and lung cancer because the company was too short-sighted to recognize that spending an extra few cents per day per worker to protect them from asbestos made more financial sense.

That's the place we're at now - a moment when we - or our elected representatives, at least - have to decide between immediate savings and sustainabilty. We'd realize immediate savings by passing on energy legislation like cap-and-trade - or at least we wouldn't be raising the cost of our current methods of doing business. But we would be shooting ourself in the foot as far as sustainability goes. We would be stifling innovation by enabling companies to continue using our current environmentally harmful energy sources rather than pushing them to develop and embrace newer and cleaner ways of powering their plants and transporting their goods.

The report released June 16 by the U.S. government underlines the risk that we're facing in the near future if we do nothing to counteract the strain we place on the environment. If you haven't read it, you should. You'll find the global climate change report here. It's easy to understand. And it's very very clear about the risks that we're facing.