Using State Agencies & Non-Profit Organizations to Drive Environmental Initiatives

Using State Agencies and Commissions to drive governmental mandated obligations on the reduction of greenhouse gas emission seems not to be exactly a first choice for the State of Washington, considering the tight budgetary constraints that are out there. The State’s Department of Ecology and Energy can design and implement strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the environment. It is also possible for the Washington State Department of Transportation to work hand in hand with the Federal Department of Transportation to explore pathways for reducing oil consumption and adopting other alternative fuel as ethanol, synthetic diesel fuel and hydrogen, to reduce transportation greenhouse gas emissions levels. What may however undermine the state’s agencies and commissions’ efforts in effecting reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020, is not only the budget constraint, but the institutional factors that constraints state and federal agencies in achieving efficiency in executing tasks and providing practical solutions to many problems.

To overcome these constraints to government agencies efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, non-profit organizations offer a wealth of avenues and practical experience addressing institutional constraint synoptic of government agencies. How can Non-Profit organizations address institutional factors that can prevent government agencies and commissions meet their mandate to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Non-profit organizations can launch and maintain word of mouth momentum across the communities in the state regarding the education of citizens on their personal contribution to greenhouse gas emission levels. They can be the eye and ear of government agencies seeking to track total emissions of households who live in diverse communities, including the various communities’ contribution to home heating emissions, appliance emissions, water emissions and waste emissions. Non-profit organization can help move measures that create financial incentives for adopting the greening of neighborhoods and communities with trees that create canopy and absorb carbon dioxide from the environment. Non-Profit organizations are well situated to conduct and release research results of human activities that release greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor and methane). By investing, monitoring and researching into new technologies that tracts the concentration of greenhouse gases in the environment, Non-profit organization are able to provide practical cost-effective solutions that reverses average statewide temperature and associated issues in more details than a state agency. What the Non-profit organizations offer are the private sector 'can-do-attitude' to resolving the challenging problems of energy efficiency, clean air, water and environmental pollution monitoring that can save government agencies a ton of money and time.

Using our K-12 curriculum to drive global climatic and environmental stability

Progress toward global climatic stability requires reforms in public policy, classroom instruction and human endeavor. It requires management of environmental and industrial activities, holding down carbon emission levels in both the industrial and chemical complexes, making people accountable for their carbon footprint, helping people experience change in life activities that support growth of clean energy and teaching all these knowledge to our young ones. Achieving climatic stability requires solutions for greenhouse gas emissions and adoption of regional and national climatic initiative to help achieve substantial change in the current environmental status. To advance public support to help achieve collective habits in automobile driving, coal driven energy generation and other forms of pollution may require teaching, classroom teaching for all, especially the new generation of Americans who will take the mantle of leadership in the coming century.

To attain high-quality environment, critical aspects of human pollution activities must now be taught, new initiatives in developing and administering responsive program(s) affected through regulations and laws about the environment and pollution, and a system of instruction to accomplish an understanding of this urgent problem, provided. Teaching children positive habits for maintaining clean air and water can create the foundation for achieving environmental stability. Providing environmental conservation education for all children in our K-12 system would now be critical to America’s environmental future. Education has always been the foundation for achieving human behavioral modification, providing environmental education opportunity to millions of American children in the K-12 curriculum could help build a foundation for a much more stable climate and environment. Our nation’s economic competitiveness will depend on our ability to control the pace of environmental pollution by human and animal activities. Teaching our children about best practices in environmental management may turn out to be the best decision by our political leaders, schools and teachers in making America much more economically competitive in the coming decade. Introducing new K-12 curriculum with environmental education components and attracting best minds to impart environmental knowledge to the next generation of Americans will ensure success in our ability to achieve climatic stability in Washington State and America.

Healthy imagination on the politics of greenhouse gas reduction in Washington State.

I am in the mood for a healthy imagination on the politics of greenhouse gas reduction, not the exact imagination contained in our governor's executive order which directs Washington State agencies to: 1) continue to work with six other Western states and four Canadian provinces in the Western Climate Initiative to develop a regional emissions reduction program; 2) work with the Obama Administration to help design a national program that is strong, and reflects state priorities; 3) develop emission reduction strategies and industry emissions benchmarks to make sure 2020 reduction targets are met; 4) work with TransAlta to reduce emissions from the company’s coal-fired power plant near Centralia by more than half; 4) ensure Washington has trees to capture harmful carbon, while creating financial incentives for the forestry industry; 5) work on low-carbon fuel standards or alternative requirements to reduce carbon emissions from the transportation sector; 6) join with other West Coast states and the private sector to develop and implement a West Coast highway accessible to electric and alternative-fuel vehicles; 7) address rising sea levels and the risks to water supplies; and 8) Increase transit options, such as buses, light rail, and ride-share programs, and give Washington residents more choices for reducing the effect of transportation emissions. When exactly did we become the United States of America and four Canadian Provinces? The first mandate for the State agencies crosses the border and exactly impinges on Canada’s right to be a sovereign nation. Much as we may share some mutual intentions on greenhouse reduction, we cannot make or require a region of another country to work with us on issues that serves our state’s priority.

Can we make agencies in some provinces in Canada to maintain emission standard or uphold standards that may be at variance with other provinces in Canada? Can we make four provinces in Canada to buy strictly wine produced in the six western states in America or Washington State? The answer is probably No, except of course the remaining provinces in Canada are willing to defer their sovereignty on the issue of greenhouse gas reduction or wine drinking. If you ask an average Canadian on the first proposal of the governor’s executive order, they will probably say: “Hell No! We as Canadians can make our laws and abide by them; we do not need another state in America to dictate policy for us, even though it works towards our mutual interests”. The reality of world or regional politics is that, you cannot make citizens of other countries to bear the burden of a decision issued within our National boundaries not to mention the State of Washington.

What we should actually strive to do, is to work within our borders, set a uniform standard with other six western States in America, and under an advisory submit some recommendations to the four provinces in Canada, and hopefully if they still share the mutual understanding on the issue of greenhouse reduction, they will adopt our recommendations subject to deliberation from Ottawa, Canada. The reality of international politics is: we cannot make policies across sovereign borders. It has never worked and it would not work, pronto! I’m I sinister about this proposal? Just look at the United Nations, just look at North and South Korea; just fantasize that possibility between Israeli’s and Palestinians on the issue of Gaza strip. The bottom line of World’s politics is that, even though you share same region and probably same problems with your neighbors to the north, you cannot make them follow through on policy initiatives developed within your state or national boundaries.

Climatic Change Day for Washington State: Driving environmental policy with Executive Orders?

Washington State Governor has chosen to resuscitate the ideas behind some environmental bills that died in both houses of legislature through executive orders. By signing the executive order on May 21, 2009, the governor has lifted the bar of negotiation on regional energy program and initiatives to a higher level. Although the governor may have meant well in furthering the course of climate change and managing greenhouse gas emissions, the use of executive order is tantamount to scuttling the will of the people, which had been reposed in their legislators. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for environmental initiatives that manages environmental pollution, create clean energy jobs, reduce global climate change and break American’s dependence on foreign oil, however, using an executive order to achieve this cause is un-democratic and that is what makes me cringe. Washingtonians respect and support the collective will of our representative legislators, even if it is at variance with our immediate want. This is the snag in representative democratic voting.

For one, imagine the remaining five other governors in the Western State Climate Change Initiative group issuing similar executive orders to drive the initiative in their various states. Would that not be construed as a regional hammock, where clicks of governors chose to drive failed legislative bills or their personal preference(s) through executive orders? Second, can you contemplate Governor Schwanneger effecting through executive order recent initiative denying marital status to men and women with alternative lifestyle in the State of California? Would that not have resulted in pandemonium? Here was the case where a preposition was passed by the Californian electorate, affirmed by the State’s Supreme Court, and with a fiat of executive order the governor maneuvers the will of the public. I am not saying this actually happened it is just a hypothetical example to show the impact of using executive orders by a Governor or President. In this hypothetical example, the only difference between what our State Governor did and what the Governor of the State of California would have done was to usurp the will of the people by abridging their voting power as reposed in their legislators. While the governor of California would have directly abridged the will of the people as represented by their voting on proposition 8 and their affirmation by the California Supreme court, the executive order of the governor of the State of Washington indirectly achieves the same result. This type of administrative action could create a democratic debacle or crisis? This is why I do not subscribe to our governor using executive order(s) to drive any initiative.

With all my due respect for our governor and her office, the use of executive order to drive the Washington State Climatic Change initiative does not augur well for the initiative and the leadership role that the State governor is attempting to attain among the 30 state governors who signed the gas, energy and climate change initiative that was forwarded to the United States Congress this past week. Our governor must take a higher ground, work through consensus and develop confidence in initiatives that are progressive, for her to attain that leadership role among her peers.

I strongly believe that our cause is just and our case for managing green house emissions levels, controlling our carbon footprint, protecting Washington State freshwater supplies and establishing clean energy strategy that creates green jobs, is as good for probity as it can get. I also strongly believe that our opponents do not have more superior alternative proposal to deal with the issue of clean energy,climate change and environmental pollution as we have put forward. We however have to be cautious in the way we drive public policy initiatives or bills, call it what you may, before they become laws.

We can win this war of ideas and debate on clean energy, climate change and environmental pollution, even if it takes some time; even if it takes us drumming the beat of the outrageous impact of global climatic change on the lives, health and public safety of Washingtonians; even if it takes us once again through the arduous legislative process just as any well meaning legislative bill should. We can do this holding high our heads and standing tall. However, achieving our noble course through an undemocratic process is not a better option for us today, tomorrow or ever. Even, if we have to extend the target date for meeting our goals for climate change and managing greenhouse emission standard beyond the targeted date of 2020. Did I hear Excuse me? I beg your pardon, I was just joking about the latter statement.

Looking for Solutions to Global Warming

There is the assumption that global warming is a problem created by environmentalist and that data collected on atmospheric climatic conditions do not give any credence to the problem of global warming. This assumption would have been plausible except for the fact that: many of our large cities are experiencing prolong erratic weather conditions, excessive heat wave in the summer months, more than mild winters, rising sea level that makes coastal cities vulnerable to the problem of flooding, unstable seas and river levels which have caused frequent floods in areas once considered floodless or with low incidence of flood and global warming pollution.

Politicians, academics and researchers understand the need to get started in tackling a problem as huge as global warming however, because there is not yet a consensus as to the gravity or definition of the problem, everyone continues to drag their feet. Solutions to climate change are within us, only if we can get everyone to talk to each other, and find amicable solutions to a problem that will not go away. Burning more fossil fuel will not only make us demand more imported foreign oil it will also increase incidences of environmental pollution. Instituting and supporting a national fuel standard as proposed by the Obama Administration, would not only create better transmissions and engines, stronger and lighter cars which are cost effective on fuel economy, but also help reduce carbon emission that has been a problem for global warming. Better gas mileage from automobile would not only reduce global warming, it will also help Americans save millions of dollars at the pump over the life of most vehicles. Supporting coal burning power plants which continue to dump pollutants and heat-trapping gasses into the atmosphere will only deter investment in clean renewable energy, and thus, reduction in Carbon dioxide emissions. Avoiding dangerous climatic change will require efforts by all coal, petrochemical, industrial and similar electricity generation complexes to adopt new practices that will reduce carbon dioxide emissions. To avoid environmental and economic consequences of generating energy by biomass or biodegradable organic matter we must fashion out bio-energy policies that take into consideration the gravity of the problem of environmental pollution.

Opponents and supporters of the global warming thesis, argue that there is need for more research and that unless further researches are carried out on the thesis of global warming, we may be unable to provide answers to questions of the interactions of clouds, water vapor and sea ice on climatic systems; and, their consequences on heat-trapping gas emissions. Because we now understand that higher carbon emission levels and changed precipitation patterns exert interactive efforts on natural wetlands, we are now able to assess the problem of global warming and its impact on our ecosystem.

The underlying truth to this entire hullabaloo is the fact that the atmosphere cannot wait and the earth’s residents cannot be satisfied by a prolonged debate that is getting us no where and just compounding a problem that is not oblivious to anybody, researchers, politicians and academics alike.

Stemming Global Warming: the great modern debate

The concern over global warming has created opposing camps of debates regarding what is best to do for American Economy and people. The economist and climatologist have opposing view on one hand with respect to how best to curb carbon dioxide emission and hence global warming; on the other hand, chemists and environmentalist are having their opposing position on what the data is saying regarding global warming.

According to some economists, if the objective in resource use is to achieve economic efficiency, a carbon tax is probably the best solution to stemming global warming. It is essential to make industries and people take into account their behavior to pollute or not pollute, by evaluating the financial consequences of their behavior. The extent to which a carbon tax is able to impact behavior however, depends on the elasticity of demand and supply of a pollutant. If the demand elasticity to pollute reaches zero, a factor that is improbable, it may be possible to control carbon pollution, hence, global warming. Climatologist, in the caliber of William Vaughn and Diane Douglas, maintain that the cause of global warming is due to the sun’s effect on the earth as it moves about its orbit and not from carbon dioxide pollution. Thus, the argument to control global warming through policy instrument to control carbon dioxide emission from people’s or industries’ activities is not scientifically justifiable.

Atmospheric Chemist Steven Japar and Chemist Mark Campbell pointed out that the earth’s temperature is not as venerably hot as many critics would want us to believe. Japar who has done extensive research in the areas of air pollution, atmospheric chemistry and vehicle emissions, indicated that climatic model prediction shows a non-existent hot zone in the atmosphere. Campbell supported Japar argument by indicating that the sky is not burning and any claim by global warming proponents to this fact, ignores data that indicate otherwise. In fact, the truth of the matter is that oceanic temperatures are actually falling and sea ice recovery has been at a faster rate than anticipated. There is no observational evidence that increases in greenhouse gas emissions have caused extensive fluctuation in atmospheric temperature. Environmentalists maintain that the position that the earth’s temperature is not warmer, that carbon emission pollution is not driving global warming or that, there is more evidence to support solar cycle as the main driver of global warming is a fluke. Environmentalists further maintain that factories and human activities are loading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide waste and that unless we put in place corrective actions to reverse the trend, the earth and its inhabitants stand to loose from the repercussions of indecision or shortsightedness regarding global warming.

While the debates rage on, I will like to err on the side of economists who have proposed caps and tax program to control emission levels of any gas, carbon dioxide or greenhouse gases that impact the health status and/or the environment. Unless however, we can guarantee an elasticity of demand of zero for the culprit of global warming, it may be impossible to attain the utopia of a perfect environmental stability. While the Caps and Tax program may not be a panacea solution to all the problems of global warming, it is a worthy alternative or tentative option, to be able to preempt possible repercussion of erratic atmospheric temperature and probably global warming.

TRIBUTE TO THE BEST OF AMERICANS ON THIS MEMORIAL DAY

TO THOSE MILITARY HEROES WHO GAVE THEIR LIVES FOR US TO LIVE IN OUR CUL-DE-SAC, DRINK CHAMPAIGNE, DRIVE OUR CADILLACS, TALK BOASTFULLY AND BANKRUPT SOME OF THE GREATEST CORPORATIONS ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH, OUR HEARTFELT THANK YOU.

TO THOSE MEN AND WOMEN WHO BELIEVE THAT OUR TRADITION OF LIBERTY, FREEDOM AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS WAS AS IMPORTANT AS THE UNSPENT LIVES AND TIMES OF THE BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN WHO FOUGHT AND DIED FOR US OVER THE LAST TWO AND HALF CENTURIES, WE ARE ETERNALLY GRATEFUL. TO ALL AMERICANS DURING THESE TRYING ECONOMIC TIMES, LET US NOW TREAD CAUTIOUSLY, HUMBLED IN OUR THOUGHTS AND CREATIVE IN OUR EFFORTS TO MAKE THOSE STARS AND STRIPES SHINE ONCE AGAIN.

TO MY SONS AND DAUGHTERS, LET US KEEP WORKING HARD, EXPLORING OPPORTUNITIES, SHARING OUR THOUGHTS AND KEEPING FAITH WITH THE FLAG AND FELLOW AMERICANS TO LEAVE THIS PLACE BETTER THAN WE MET IT.

Are the watershed programs and ecosystem-level plans sufficient to clean the Puget Sound Basin?

People are waiting to see the nature of watershed programs and ecosystem level plans that could help us clean the Puget Sound Basin. A Washington State inaugural watchdog council set as its agenda the provision of a blue print on watershed programs and ecosystem-level plans that would speed up the processes to the year 2020. Some of their initiatives had been incorporated into several other environmental, energy and green house bills that had been funneled through both houses of legislature in the current open session in Washington State. Pollution clean up in the marine waters of the Hood Canal, Whidbey island, Strait of Juan de Fuca, San Juan Islands, South Puget Sound and, North and South Central Puget Sound, had formed the basis of many of the council deliberations. The council had been both visionary and circumspect as regards how law makers treat their ideas and had made effort to present some recommendations that is flexible for adoption into bills on the floor of both houses. How effectively the councils's recommendations had been integrated into some bills and to what extent they had impacted budget line item of government departments effecting the programs and plans are still up in the air.

Some of the programs and plans recommended deserve more scrutiny considering the fact that they are now part of State laws, while others are waiting to be passed and some will not see the light of the day. The question is: why were some recommendations able to make it to be law of the state, others petitioned and others tagged along to some other bills in queue. Many Washingtonians who are tired of the pollution in the basin, want to find out what exactly are these programs and plans going to accomplish. One famous proposal was the development of watershed and ecosystem-level plans that could help in the following: clean-up of contaminated aquatic lands and shoreline; management of all Puget Sound estuaries and habitat; and, recovery for salmon, orca and other specie in the Federal endangered specie list. Can these laws, bills or recommendations actually accomplish all these tasks, or are they just a wish list?

A good barometer of the prevailing relevance of some of the recommendations on the watershed programs and protection plan for marine environment is the portion of the state budget recommended to effect the programs and plans. We all understand that we are working under tight budget situation. We also understand that without money many of the great ideas may not get off the ground. We however believe that money set aside for some of the recommendations must be judicially spent under the guidelines of the office of management and budgets if we are to see some laudable change in the basin. Programs and plan managers must justify their actions in saving the estuaries and marine waters by applying themselves to result-oriented and useful investments in cleaning up the Puget sound. If they don't and the public don't encourage them to do so, the effort of the council and the opportunity which they have offered in recommendations and in support of some state laws, or future laws of the state, would have been in vain.

Investing in productive environmental legislation and the fear factor

In the Senate legislative debate on reducing green house gas emission, there were presumptions that companies will never consider moving into Washington State because of the potential of the bill restriction on greenhouse gas emission levels. Opponents did not envisage that other factors draw companies into a location, and that regulatory factors could actually be a plus, not a minus. The caps and tax program which allows companies to trade and sell credits for ability to pollute beyond the maximum allowable level could be positioned at a level that is considered a better opportunity cost than what obtains in other states. This therefore may actually help many companies move in and those already here, remain.

The current impact of a caps and tax program to limit greenhouse gas emission in some Northeastern states and in some European countries of the size of Washington State, have not driven many of the polluting firms away from their location. The fear tactic in the argument of the opponents of the greenhouse gas emission bill is not therefore tenable. The major problems related to the financial meltdown and the ongoing sleepy consumer demand may actually drive companies away rather than regulatory factors. When consumer confidence and opportunity for credits continue to decline for companies, they are more likely to close shop or refuse to expand rather than a regulatory factor as the caps and tax program. Many of us who support the bill are expecting that if it ever becomes a Washington State Law, it will not only control pollution but, bring alternative jobs and production processes that do not pollute or destroy the ozone layer.

Freeing us from that heavy Carbon-diet: energy generation without pollution

Opponents of the Clean Energy and Security Act have a lot on their mind today. Turning down Federal stimulus money designed to help reduce carbon emission level seems to be a ploy by some of them, to halt the engine of progress across the country. Their position is unenviable, considering the fact that they have to explain themselves out on what to do with millions of tons of pollutants pumped into the atmosphere everyday from the coal and petroleum industrial complexes in their various states.

The Legislation affectionately called the Waxman-Markey bill, making its way through the Federal House Energy and Commerce Committee, is obviously a nightmare for many opponents of the Clean Energy and Security Act. Many Coal producing States and heavy carbon emitting industrial complexes would love not to have this bill pass as it sets a new standard for them to comply with and creates a situation of accountability for the level of carbon emission in their various domains. What is probably obvious is that carbon-emitting industrial complexes around the nation have a lot to lose when the bill becomes law. Coal mining companies, power plants and utilities who have long depended on coal for generating electricity, would now have to contend with the possibility of losing money when the bill passes and is signed into law.

Who are the potential winners when Waxman-Markey Bill passes? Investors in clean energy technologies, companies using wind mills in generating electricity or energy, researchers, academics, environmentalists and politicians who have constantly drummed up the beat of lowering carbon emission standards. The groups of regional green gas initiative in the Northwest and Midwest are also potential winners not to mention many small-scale wind mills in Washington State who have been making effort to win our citizens off the carbon-diet for energy generation. Commercial-scale wind energy investors would reap from having the foresight to produce energy from less polluting alternatives.

The reality long known for three decades is that chlorofluorocarbon (CFC), a residue of carbon emission from coal and carbonated industrial processes, is gradually eating away on the ozone layer. Energy generation from coal has contributed to high levels of chlorofluorocarbon in the atmosphere, which have in turn diminished our ozone layer and contributed to the problem of global warming. What the Clean Energy and Security Act offer, is an opportunity to reduce chlorofluorocarbon in the atmosphere, create new technologies in energy generation and green jobs. The new law is expected to facilitate renewable energy systems, including energy generated from wind, solar, biomass, geothermal and hydrogen. It is also expected to usher in a regime of energy efficiency improvements thereby lowering the cost of generating a kilowatt of energy.

Making a good argument for Global Warming: What the marketers already know!

Although the US Environmental Protection Agency have taken the lead to open up debates on global warming at two big cities across the country, the challenge of selling this idea to skeptics is still an uphill battle. Across the country, many city councils have voted in support of policy changes to recognize the possible impact of global warming on the atmospheric conditions in their cities, and some of them have been able to convince their state legislatures to find answers to this problem at the State level. The bodies of research evidence at many Universities and private research institutes across the world have provided us with volume of knowledge showing that global warming is not only affecting the world’s weather condition and activities on all continents, but also the health of humans and animals. Skeptics however still maintain that the idea of global warming having impact on human activities and health is a fluke. They challenge protagonists of the idea of global warming, to provide concrete evidence that is not doubtful as to the direct impact of global warming on their own lives. Here comes the challenge, how do you market an idea to a group that remains skeptical of known facts buttressed by scientific knowledge and observation.

Many academics, just like marketers, often know that it is very difficult to sell a new idea, a new research finding, a new product, or a very controversial observation to varied audiences. And with this comes what the advertizing executives have completely pinned down: You need to market your idea or product with the fervor of total commitment and unwavering consistency. That is the only way to win a war of ideas. Anything less, is often short of success. Ask Procter and Gamble, search Microsoft, talk to Amazon.com, beat it out of Boeing, all these companies will tell you, you have to market your ideas, no matter how good your ideas are, if not well marketed, you will be disappointed and your stakeholders will remain unsatisfied. Instead of debates, town-hall type of smooching about global warming, the US Environmental Protection Agency must be getting the marketing of global warming impact on climate, human and animal life on a road show and media blitz and advertisements all over the nation. Yes, doing it in the first two cities is a good idea, but a better one, is to get the professionals to do the marketing with concrete knowledge and scientific findings packaged to address the concerns of the skeptics. We can do it, if we convinced the former Soviet Union with their oligarchy and tight fisted iron-strong men to break down their dilapidated political structure of communism, we sure can convince our friends and neighbors, to see what is rather obvious: Our weather is gone erratic and we need to know why!

US Environmental Protection Agency Global Warming Conference in Seattle: the journey toward a zero carbon-emission economy.

As human activities increases in a carbon-based economy, there is a general likelihood of higher emission levels of carbon waste. Chemical and Petroleum plants have been known to emit higher levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases while processing their products. Being a carbon-dependent economy, it has been difficult to fight off many of the carbon waste emitting firms through regulations and enforcement of standards, because of the wealth and political influence of these firms. Today, the greenhouse effect of the higher emission levels of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and other cell damaging gases have been well documented. Scientific studies have shown that when human and wildlife are exposed to high levels of carbon-based gases, there are the possibilities of damages to their physiology. Epidemiologic and comparative clinical studies conducted on impact of poisonous gas by many research labs, including the carbon-based gases, have provided clear evidence of detrimental health effect of excessive exposure. What we should do about these problems and how we must go about resolving them are probably two of the reasons why the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is having a conference in Seattle, Washington on tackling global warming pollution.

Additionally, what the EPA is doing in Seattle today, is exploring public opinion regarding the experiences of people, industries and community leaders regarding the effect of the greenhouse gases and global warming. I applaud the US Environmental Protection Agency for this initiative and foresight. I also want to bring to their attention the importance of working with many of the stakeholders, professionals, scientists, politicians and industrial executives, who have first hand knowledge of how the wastes are produced and what is the better strategy to follow in bringing about effective compliance with the zero-carbon emission strategy. The EPA’s drive to find solution to global warming issues and the relative impact of the global warming on human and plant lives will do all of us a lot of good if we work together as a community and nation with a purpose.

Green house gas standard, what a way to go!

With economic conditions in the nation unclear, the choice of a green house standard for automobile building is probably the boldest step taken by the Obama Administration. The Federal government is demonstrating that it can command respect from probably two unlikely friends: the environmentalist and automobile manufactures. Even with probably a declining industry, the automobile builders are supporting a new direction for their industry and American economy. Desired changes in how cars and trucks are built henceforth is coming from within the automobile industry, the State and Federal Governments. We now appreciate the effort of the State of California in striving to institute a higher standard for carbon emission reduction in trucks and cars built to run on their roads. Like in other progressive issues, the State of California, while not the most favorite state in the Union in terms of budget management, has made remarkable effort to lead the way in cutting down on carbon emission in their State.

When a survey was taken about four or five years ago in Washington State regarding regional mass transit, the automobile industry fired up a campaign to kill the initiative. Many supporters of the mass transit initiative were nearly cowed into submission. The automobile industry was more concerned about sale of cars and trucks than the issues of associated air pollution. In their usual fashion, the Automobile industry fought hard, invested heavily in financial lobbying to help set back progressive initiatives similar to what has now become a national standard for the nation : A National Policy to help increase gas mileage of all cars and trucks driven in the United States and cut down on green house gas emissions.

Today, for the first time, we now have folks and groups, who have once fought heavy battles to preserve their turfs and in some cases dragged each other to the courts for gigantic legal battles, submit to common sense in our nation’s effort to build a public policy that will help us build better and more efficient cars, reduce green house gas emission level, solve our pressing energy consumption problem and keep the public engaged in a green energy economy. Further, we are finding that we can work together to support a national standard that benefits our environment, provide a clear certainty that automobile builders can thrive when they build more fuel efficient car, invest to reduce gas emission level, and end our dependency on oil and carbon-based economy. With this policy in place, it will be possible not only for environmental and automobile engineers to work together in building better cars and future, but also politicians from both aisles of American Politics to support a greener economy, thriving green jobs and clean energy economy.