When Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) called for upgrading/retrofitting the U.S. Capitol’s power plant from coal to gas today at the Capitol Climate Action rally, she was jeered by protesters yelling out “no gas” and “solar.”
Rep. Norton apparently missed the march to the power plant rally which featured anti-gas chants such as “No coal, no gas, hey-hey, ho-ho.”
The Boston Globe reported this morning that,
In the same month that Logan International Airport hiked its parking rates by $1, Governor Deval Patrick is asking for another $2 parking “carbon fee” as part of his transportation overhaul filed this week.
The carbon fee, described on page 137 of Patrick’s 141-page bill, would that mean a 20- or 30-minute trip to pick up a relative at Logan could cost $6 in parking alone, not including tunnel tolls, which could rise to as much as $7 if legislators fail to pass Patrick’s other proposal to raise the gas tax. Three hours in a Logan garage would cost $18; all-day parking in a garage would run $26…
“It makes me never want to park here,” said Pam Nagy of Sutton, who was hauling luggage into Logan on Friday.
Patrick’s transportation secretary, James A. Aloisi Jr., said he will be glad if people stop parking at the airport and use public transportation to get there, a sentiment that has led several environmental groups to endorse the parking fee.
“It should not be inexpensive to park at convenient facilities in the middle of Logan Airport,” Aloisi said. “We need people to understand that there are better ways to get to Logan.”
He wants the parking fee – which requires approval from the Legislature – to be used for improvements to airport-related transit projects, including a proposal to build a new tunnel under South Boston to speed up the Logan-bound Silver Line bus service, and the initial phases of a long-term plan to build a transit loop around the city. Based on Logan’s most recent parking figures, the new fee would probably raise about $5.4 million per year.
But many who travel to the airport come with bulky luggage or young children, making public transit a harder sell, if not an impossibility.
Ben Kaplan pulling a cart piled high with luggage and accompanied by his wife and two young sons, said taking public transit would be tough for his family. “We’d be more likely to take a cab,” he said…
Will Gov. Patrick be taking public transit or will he continue to be driven in his $51,000 taxpayer-provided, CO2-spewing SUV?
The Washington Post reported this morning that the Girls Scouts are trying to revive flagging interest in the group by de-emphasizing merit badges and emphasizing green activities:
… What’s in: books and blogs written in girls’ voices on topics such as environmental awareness and engineering; troops led by college students; videoconferencing with scouts in other countries…
The biggest change is last year’s debut of Journeys, a pilot curriculum that will mostly replace the system of earning badges on specific topics. Girls still will be able to earn badges if they want, but Journeys rarely mentions them, focusing instead on broader themes, including teamwork and healthy living. Rather than scouts earning a badge for cooking a single nutritious meal, for example, the books emphasize fruits and vegetables whenever food is mentioned…
Many lessons focus on changing the world in measurable, modern ways. Recycling is still an important part of lessons on helping the environment, but some troops also install solar panels and test water quality in rivers.
This is not surprising given its source: the Girl Scouts hired the global PR firm Ogilvy & Mather, which went green last year according to this April 28, 2008 report in The Australian:
Last week, public relations firm Ogilvy launched its new brand OgilvyEarth to better position itself in the growing green communications and brand management markets. It released results of a survey of more than 50 companies about their attitudes to green branding and the risk of green wash. More than three-quarters think having a positive environmental brand will be essential to their business case within 10 years.
While 90 per cent said they had never been accused of green washing themselves, 98 per cent said it existed in corporate Australia, and 74 per cent said it was intentional.
It’s a shame that the Girl Scouts want to throw out their heritage and reputation in the greenwash.
Also, should we buy Girl Scout Cookies to support Ogilvy & Mather and its program to green our daughters?
Take Action:
Send your thoughts to Connie Lindsey (cl5@ntrs.com), the Chair of the Girls Scouts National Board of Directors. You may want to cc Davia Temin (dtemin@teminandco.com), the Board’s First Vice President.
The Washington Post again editorialized today in favor of taxing us by the mile driven instead of by the gallon of gas purchased.
Appearing near the Post editorial is a letter from Gerry Rosenthal of Great Falls, Virgina:
Perhaps there should be a tax on every editorial you write. Then you would feel the pain of being charged just for doing your job. I drive to visit my clients regularly, to generate income. The last thing I need is to be penalized for getting out there to support my family.
Your focus is misguided. The auto manufacturers’ lack of ingenuity should be the target, not me.
A further thought. Many people get their copies of the Washington Post by home delivery, which inevitably involves somene driving a car. Leave it to the liberal media to advocate a tax that would hurt its own employees and business. No wonder newspapers are dying.
Thanks to all who sent e-mails to the Washington Post defending George Will.
Post Ombudsman Andy Alexander wrote about the controversy today noting that the green attack e-mails against Will were “often identical in wording” but they “were soon countered by waves of e-mails defending Will and attacking what may labeled ‘global warming alarmism’.”
Green fanatics are apparently not smart enough to criticize Will on their own — all they can do is repeatedly click the ‘send’ button on comments that have been crafted for them.
The Washington Post reported today that
The U.S. House of Representatives has abandoned a plan to make its offices “carbon neutral,” a sign that Congress is wrestling with a pledge to become more green even as it crafts sweeping legislation on climate change.
The promise that the House would effectively reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to zero was a centerpiece of the Green the Capitol program in which the new Democratic leadership sought to use Capitol Hill as a kind of a national demonstration project.
But last week, a spokesman for the House’s chief administrative officer said the chamber’s leadership had dropped an essential part of the plan, the purchase of “carbon offsets” to cancel out emissions from its buildings. Offsets are a controversial commodity that promises that a certain amount of pollution was captured or avoided elsewhere.
“Right now, there is no plan to purchase more offsets,” spokesman Jeff Ventura said. The House paid $89,000 for offsets to cover the last session, in 2007 and 2008.
The decision comes as legislators also struggle with the future of the Capitol Power Plant: Hundreds of demonstrators with Greenpeace, the Rainforest Action Network and other groups will protest tomorrow against the plant’s continued use of coal.
Nancy Pelosi’s message seems to be, “green for thee but not for me.”