Confessions of a Climate Hawk

I am a climate hawk yet I:

~drive a gasoline powered vehicle

~Still burn heating oil despite my best efforts to cut down my use through insulation, solar panels, and a pellet stove.

~ flew on a jet-fuel powered plane to go to a climate conference 

~ do not live in a walkable/bikable community

I can't judge myself, or you, for these types of activities really. Our system of mildly incentivizing the "good" carbon neutral behaviors has proved itself to be not enough. We need to penalize the "bad" (fossil fuel burning) activities so that we will do less of them.

What is the easiest way to do this? A carbon tax, of course. Similarly to how we started taxing cigarettes once we were sure that cigarettes caused cancer, we need to put a tax on fossil fuels because we are sure they are killing our civilization.

Citizens Climate Lobby, which I am starting a Vermont Chapter of, has a good proposal to do just that: A Carbon Fee and Dividend. 

Fossil fuels would be taxed at the source of production. Fossil fuel companies would predictably pass on that cost to consumers. Over several years the tax rate would increase at predictable levels to send a clear price signal to the market of the need to change our energy markets and meet greenhouse gas emission reduction targets set forth by the International Panel on Climate Change.

The tax is revenue neutral so all the proceeds from it would be returned to households at tax return time. Households would use this money to offset their increased energy costs if they are still using fossil fuels, and incentivize them to switch from things such as heating oil furnaces to perhaps geothermal or other clean, renewable sources. "Under this plan 66% percent of all households would break even or receive more in their dividend check than they would pay for the increased cost of energy, thereby protecting the poor and middle class."

Just today news broke from oil giant BP's Sustainability Report 2013 that a carbon tax is indeed needed if we are to reduce carbon emissions substantially, (http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/climatesnapshot/bp-calls-global-carbon-price-avoid-worst-impacts-climate-change).

if fossil fuel companies know this reality, what is holding us up? I'm looking at you, Congress.

Up All Night

Did you hear about the 30 Democratic Senators who stayed up on the Senate floor from 7pm on Monday, March 10 until 9am on Tuesday, March 11 talking about climate change and the huge failure of Congress to address it? (Though they aren't addressing anything really these days are they?)

Senators made speeches on the science of climate change, the fact that there is scientific consensus on the science, how climate change is affecting specific states, the effects in general (storms, ocean acidification, loss of jobs), the Keystone XL pipeline was brought up and criticized for being a step backward to a dirty energy future. They noted how dire climate change is for our children and future generations, how the time to act is now. Calls were made for policies supporting renewable energy and a tax on carbon pollution. Both Vermont Senators (Leahy and Sanders) participated. Go Vermont!

The Democratic Senators who participated were, predictably, those who have accepted far fewer political contributions from the fossil fuel industry than Democrats who skipped the event. Those Dems who skipped were, also unsurprisingly, from fossil fuel producing states, including states that take offense to the "War on coal" because their economies are woefully dependent on it.

If you followed the Twitter coverage there were the normal detractors to the conversation: climate change deniers who still argue that there are equal numbers of scientists on both sides of the "debate" on climate science (there aren't, not even remotely close). They deny that US citizens are concerned about climate change (they are) and disparaged the event as a "partisan stunt." They posted links to the Heritage Foundation, a notorious right-wing think tank. Lead Senate climate denier James Inhofe made an appearance at the Senate All Nighter to deny that climate change is real.

Americans are concerned about climate change. This graphic from a Gallup poll shows that most recently 58% of Americans are concerned about it, though it has fluctuated over the years with a high of 72% of Americans being concerned about it in 2000. 

I strongly support the Senators who stayed up to make a statement about the urgency of climate change. I hope their action will be successful in getting the conversation moving again, despite a decades long history of inaction and failed attempts at a solution for the crisis. 

Citizens need to put the pressure on our elected officials now. Mainstream media needs to stop with the "debate" when 97% of scientists agree that humans are causing global warming. In the words of Neil DeGrasse Tyson, 

"...science is not there for you to cherry pick.... the good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." 

We have already begun to see the effects of climate change, it's time to wake up.

A Dumbledore's Army, of sorts

My passion about climate change comes from a desire to protect my children's future. I have always been a green-minded person, but after my babies were born I would lay awake at night worrying about climate change and how it would negatively affect their future. Will their world as adults resemble the world I have known? What can I do now to help them have a safer future?

My first answer was to become a Climate Leader.  I attended The Climate Reality Project's Leadership Training in Chicago and it was empowering. Suddenly I felt like I had permission to go out and do what I already wanted to do: be a leader in the fight against climate change. By giving me access to Al Gore's slideshow and asking me to do a minimum of 10 community presentations over the course of a year I felt powerful, like suddenly I was a member of Dumbledore's Army, except it was a Climate Army. 

The Climate Reality Project aims to restart the grassroots conversation about the threat of climate change so we can win the conversation and get moving in the right direction despite the recalcitrance of our world leaders and the fossil fuel industry. The Climate Reality Project is strong on climate change science, challenging climate change deniers, and offers broad solutions (wind and solar).

Then I saw a quote from Jim Hansen, a top climatologist and former head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies who has now devoted his time to being an activist for the cause of global climate change. His recommendation is for concerned citizens to join the Citizens Climate Lobby.

Citizens Climate Lobby strives to help people to feel powerful on the issue of climate change, instead of fearful. Turns out, Marshall Saunders, the Founder of Citizens Climate Lobby, was also trained as a Climate Leader by the Climate Reality Project. He came to the same conclusion I did, and started a non-profit organization that is growing in size and influence to speak with community, state, national, and even international leaders about climate change and its solutions. Current Citizens Climate Lobby members have talked to leaders at the World Bank convincing them to stop funding new coal projects; talked to Mayor Bloomberg in NYC about climate legislation, and is even in contact with the Pope.

The Climate Reality Project gave me the power to start the conversation with the community, Citizens Climate Lobby will give me, and You, the power to talk with our leaders, at all levels, and win them over on this paramount issue.

So my next project, dear readers, is that while I am going out in the community to give my Climate Reality Project inspired climate talks, I am also going to recruit concerned citizens like me and you to start a Burlington VT Citizens Climate Lobby (VT doesn't yet have one). But I can't do it alone. Will you please join me? Please 'Like' this post, comment, or message me if you are interested in joining the Burlington VT Citizens Climate Lobby! 

Geeking Out & Saving the World

As a capstone to 24 Hours of Reality I finally dove in and and did my first climate presentation this past Wednesday night. I invited 40 of my closest friends, family, and neighbors to come to my house and hear my version of Al Gore's slideshow. 5 showed up, but at least they came, especially since it was the first night of the World Series. It also forced me to stop stalling and edit Al's 360+ slides into something a bit more manageable. Deadlines are great friends sometimes.

I edited the slideshow to make it less overwhelming/depressing because climate change research is sobering to say the least. I focused on general worldwide data and trends and included examples primarily from the US. I added my own anecdotes about what I have personally experienced in this changing climate which is definitely different than when I was a child in the 1980s and 1990s.  Audience members related their personal experiences as well. It was wonderful to hear people relate this big, abstract issue to their own personal lives.

Though the turnout was small, it was a great event. My audience liked the presentation, understood the content, and it held their interest for the 22 or so minutes that I talked pretty much nonstop--so they reported back to me afterwards. It didn't end there. We chatted more about energy and politics and I certainly got my geek on about things like nuclear power, geothermal heating/cooling and natural gas/fracking. My husband had to remind me that it was getting late and I had better let my poor friends eat, drink and be merry while thinking about other, lighter topics before bed. I could go on and on.

So now I feel ready to go out and do more presentations around my community. I have agreed to do at least ten as part of my attendance at the Climate Reality Project's Climate Leadership Training back in July. So, if you know of a potential audience send me a message. Mama of Ma'at's climate change presentation coming soon to a public venue near you!

Yup, I wore my pin

24 Hours of Reality

Travel virtually around the world to learn about how carbon pollution is affecting peoples' lives around the globe. Learn about how peoples' lives are already being affected, how cities are trying to adapt, and challenges climate change brings to food security and human health.

This year, 24 Hours of Reality begins on October 22nd at 8am. Visit here for a schedule of online events for various topics. The overarching theme this year is Putting a Price On Carbon. Even though world leaders are so far still refusing to act boldly to reduce carbon dioxide emissions we are already paying for the effects of climate change in disaster relief, food prices and insurance premiums: billions of dollars a year! Putting a price on carbon will make polluters pay for their carbon dioxide emissions and provide a great incentive to reduce them. Take a moment to watch this video for more explanation:



It's time for citizens to unite and demand action. Being involved in 24 Hours of Reality is one way to do that. If you are local, I am hosting a Climate Change presentation at my house the evening of Wednesday the 23. Message me (mamaofmaat@gmail.com) if you are interested in attending.

Australia has already implemented a tax on carbon, and so far it is definitely working:

Car Envy

I currently drive a 2008 Honda Odyssey--yup, a minivan. Two kids and a dog couldn't fit in our Honda Civic all at once so we wanted a family car. We went with the minivan (reluctantly at first due to the soccer mom stereotype that comes with them) because it has more potential to carry both people and cargo than an SUV.

As you likely know, I actively try to reduce my own family's carbon footprint. Since we do live in a rural part of Vermont and rely on trips "to town" for goods and some entertainment, reducing my family's driving emissions is definitely on my radar. The Honda Odyssey doesn't get amazing miles per gallon (mpg) compared to smaller vehicles, but it does very well in mpg for its class.

There have been three electric cars on our radar:

1) Chevrolet Volt - a 4 seater, 4 door sedan that is both an electric vehicle and gas powered hybrid. It's all electric range is only 38 miles. My husband's work commute is 20 miles one way. He would not be able to get to work and back, nor could I get to town and back without switching to the gas motor, which gives the car a total of 379 miles. It costs $39,000. But the whole point is to get away from gasoline. Also, as a sedan, it would not leave any room for our dog to come on a family outing with us.

Chevy Volt

2) Nissan Leaf - a 5 seater, 4 door hatchback that can get about 75 miles per battery charge, significantly farther than the Volt's electric range. The mpg equivalent is 99 (our Civic gets 40 maybe). The battery charges in 4 hours, and with a DC quick charger it can charge in 30 minutes. It costs about $29,000. Our dog could ride in the hatch as long as we don't need other gear.

Nissan Leaf

3) Tesla Motors Model S - Tesla is the cream of the crop for electric vehicles. The Model S is a 4 door "fastback" sedan that can seat up to 7 people (5 adults, 2 children in " jump seats"). Depending on which battery you buy it can travel 208-265 miles per charge. The biggest problem is that is costs a whopping $71,000! Our dog can ride in the trunk, once again, provided we don't need much gear wherever we are going.

Tesla Model S

Turns out in 2014 Tesla is coming out with their Model X, which they say combines the best features of both an SUV and a minivan. I imagine it will get a comparable driving range to the Model S. It has a third 3 row of seats so my poor dog wouldn't have to sit in the trunk/hatch, and we could bring luggage or other gear. Problem is who knows how much it will cost. I'm sure it will be significantly more than $71,000! But hey, a girl can dream.

Tesla Model X

According to DailyFinance.com, "At a national level, gas-powered cars cost around three times as much per mile as electric vehicles." However, electric vehicles often cost more to purchase initially than gas powered cars, which puts them at a disadvantage when calculating the lifetime cost of a car, except in the luxury model categories. Better data is needed. (http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/06/24/gas-vs-electric-cars-cost-comparison/)

And of course , if you live in an area where your electricity is generated by coal, driving an EV is no better than a gas vehicle. Luckily, my utility is largely powered by hydropower, and we have solar panels. Now if I just had an extra $100,000 to buy a Tesla...

Like what you read?  Visit and 'Like' Mama of Ma'at on Facebook

What the Frack?

Did you know that Oil and Gas Companies can inject any chemical they want into the ground during fracking, including chemicals that are known hazards to human health? Did you know that the process of fracking is severely contaminating ground water in some places and the Environmental Protection Authority has zero authority to do anything about it? Vermont is leading the way in the fight against fracking by banning the practice, but we need to go further and phase out our use of natural gas. Fracking is destroying communities around the country, and does nothing to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions or the threat of climate change. That is not something Vermonters should support with our energy dollars.

The Global Frackdown
I am participating in the October 19 (2013) Global Frackdown and Climate Mama's Blog Carnival. This is the 2nd annual event and it is to:

"unite concerned citizens everywhere for a day of action to send a message to elected officials in our communities and across the globe that we want a future powered by clean, renewable energy, not dirty, polluting fossil fuels. The journey to a renewable energy future will not be fueled by shale gas. Climate scientists warn that continued extraction and burning of fossil fuels will lead to catastrophic climate change."

Renewable energy smackdown! Image Photoshopped by Mama of Ma'at

What the Frack?
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a risky method of drilling to extract natural gas and oil from shale rock. Gas companies drill a hole several hundred feet into the ground, then drill horizontally through the rock. Then a slurry of water, sand and hundreds of "proprietary" chemicals are injected into the wells to fracture the rock and allow the natural gas to seep out. Gas companies are not required to disclose what chemicals they use thanks to the "Halliburton loophole" created in the 2005 Energy Policy Act. Here is a link to a video that explains fracking in better detail.

The problems with fracking are many and include:

Health & Environmental issues,

• Permanently contaminated drinking water wells (eg: flammable tap water, radioactive water, water filled with known carcinogens)
• Illnesses in people living near wells (headaches, loss of taste/smell, unexplained pain)
• Sick and/or dead animals near fracking wells
• Earthquakes caused by fracking
• Leaking natural gas (a potent greenhouse gas) at drill sites which negate any emissions reductions that burning natural gas provides over burning coal from a climate perspective
• Water shortages due to competition over water for domestic uses vs. fracking

Democratic Process & Environmental Justice issues,

• The Environmental Protection Agency has been crippled (through law) and is not authorized to monitor fracking wells. Therefore, residents living around wells who have their groundwater contaminated due to fracking have no recourse against gas companies other than hiring a lawyer and hoping for the best.

Vermont as a Model
Thankfully, Vermont is a beacon of light in the fracking controversy. In May 2012 Governor Shumlin banned fracking in the State. However, it is considered to be a somewhat symbolic law since Vermont has little to no natural gas. We are not seeing agressive ads on tv that greenwash the natural gas industry. We are not being sent lease offers from gas companies offering us thousands of dollars per acre of land we own that is on top large shale deposits such as the Marcellus in New York/Pennsylvania, the Bakken in North Dakota/Montana, or others in Wyoming, Colorado, Texas and many other states. Nonetheless, our ban on fracking makes Vermont an ally for anti-fracking groups in other states that are fighting for the health of their communities.

What Vermont Should Still Do

Even though Vermont is not directly affected by fracking, we must still do everything we can to transition our state to renewable energy without relying on natural gas as a "bridge fuel." Even now, Vermont Gas Systems is trying to expand their network of natural gas pipelines (which currently serve Chittenden and Franklin counties) to include gas service for Middlebury and Vergennes. It is known as the Addison Natural Gas Project, and it is very controversial because it is seen as contrary to Vermont's renewable energy goals.

Fracking is a big piece in the climate change/fossil fuel puzzle. Transitioning to solar and wind power for electricity seems clear, but natural gas (and other fossil fuels) plays a large role in heating homes during long Vermont winters, and I think that is something we need to work more on. I have completed an energy audit on my home and insulated it to make it as efficient as possible. I have added a pellet stove to reduce my heating oil use, but due to the design of my house it is not possible to heat the whole house with wood pellets. I still rely on heating oil, and if I lived in Chittenden or Franklin counties I would likely rely on natural gas instead of heating oil. I looked into getting geothermal heat, but once again due to the design of my house, it is cost prohibitive. We need more people looking into developing biomass and other sources for thermal heating to help Vermont homeowners get off fossil fuels, including natural gas. We shouldn't import the product of fracking, which is destroying communities around the country, and contributing to climate change.

Happy Birthday to Me!

The day that I share this on Facebook is my real birthday. Happy Birthday to me! 

Here is My Birthday Wish:

I want a world full of solar and other renewable energy because:

and I think that windmills are beautiful:

 

Especially when considering the alternative:

Canadian Tar Sands: boreal forests stripped then mined, no life remains, water is irreparably fouled

And lastly, because:

Like what you read?  Visit and 'Like' Mama of Ma'at on Facebook

A Conversation with the Speech Therapist

My daughter was born with a submucous cleft palate, which meant that she needed surgery when she was 14 months old to correct it. Then about a month after surgery a speech therapist started doing home visits to help her learn how to make more consonant sounds. All she said prior to surgery and speech therapy was 'Mama.' No other sounds or babbles.

She has made amazing strides in just two short months. The sophistication of her babble has skyrocketed. She says Ds, Fs, Bs, Ps, and her Zs sound more like actual Zs rather than just spit flying out of her mouth. She says a ton of words now, even giraffe of all things!

So last week the speech therapist and the program director came to check in about how we felt speech therapy was going.We talked about my daughter's progress and then the program director suddenly asked:

"How did weaning go?" (perhaps I had mentioned it at a previous visit? I forget).

"Very well," I said, "but it helped that she was fully weaned for 3 days when I went away in July, but we started again when I came back. We officially weaned a week ago and it was surprisingly easy."

"Where did you go again?" she asked.

"To the Climate Reality Climate Leadership Training in Chicago."

"How was it?"

"Great." Then I explained a bit about it, and how I am now a climate leader, and still need to do some public presentations in my community about climate change.

"So, give me your presentation." said the program director.

I was surprised and a bit incredulous. Someone who wants to talk climate change? Amazing.

I didn't quite know where to begin. Both the program director and the speech therapist indicated that they understood at least some of the basic science of climate change (the greenhouse gas effect, why it is enhanced by human activity), so I mentioned the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's latest report, we talked about renewable energy strategies, and about the big financial interests that are responsible for the climate policy standstill despite the fact that we know better.

"So was the conference inspiring or just depressing?" asked the program director. "Because the topic is very scary."

"Inspiring." I said, and I meant it. To be in a room full of people who acknowledge and understand climate science, and the state of our warming world enough to actively seek out some way to help even when politicians won't--that is inspiring. To hear about successful renewable energy stories, and projections for solar parity with fossil fuel sources of electricity in the near future, stories about tipping points and change being adopted sooner and faster than expected (eg: cell phones), inspires hope that we will solve this crisis in time.

The science is established, but now we need to win the grassroots conversation on the climate crisis. We need everyone to realize that climate change is something we all need to care about because it will affect everything we know and rely on. We need to demand change from our leaders, and the companies we do business with. People from all walks of life need to be actively opposed to fossil fuels, and actively asking for alternatives. To remain silent on the matter is no longer an option if we want a better future. In the words of Martin Luther King Jr:

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/martinluth103526.html#17Oe72b8sOBLr6WJ.99

Ok, enough grandstanding for now. But that impromptu conversation with the program director and the speech therapist...that was fantastic.

Like what you read?  Visit and 'Like' Mama of Ma'at on Facebook

What EVERYONE should know: Climate Change, the IPCC, & The Price ofCarbon Pollution

Since climate change was my main reason for starting this blog, let's talk about the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC operates under the umbrella of the United Nations and its purpose is "to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts."

Last week the IPCC released their 5th report on climate change. Here are the biggest conclusions:

•  Scientists say global warming is "unequivocal." They report with 95% certainty that human activities are responsible for the increase in global average temperatures since 1950. This is up from 90% certainty in the last IPCC report.
• Humanity can emit 1 trillion tons of CO2 in order to keep warming below 2 degrees celsius (3.6 degrees Farhenheit), which is what they say is needed to avoid the most catastophic effects of climate change. We have already emitted more than half of that through burning fossil fuels and destroying forests and other ecosystems.
• At this rate, we will reach 1 trillion tons of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by 2040.

But don't just take my word for it. You can read the IPCC report summary yourself to get more facts, figures, statistics and trends, or consider reading this Grist article. Also read this amusing, yet factual BuzzFeed post which responds to many of the lies that "deniers" cling to in order to confuse people into thinking that climate change is not real or dangerous. If you are totally new to climate science read my laymans summary.

Why should we worry about climate change? Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, from Imperial College London summed it up nicely for BBC News when he said, "We are performing a very dangerous experiment with our planet, and I don't want my grandchildren to suffer the consequences of that experiment." Well, I certainly don't want my children to suffer the consequences either, and I know this is a common sentiment among parents and grandparents around the country and the world. Let's not beat around the bush: runaway climate change threatens most life on earth. Maybe the cockroaches will be fine.

Americans are not worried enough about climate change. That needs to change. We should have more people marching in the streets demanding action from our politicians. We need more individuals to divest from fossil fuels, invest in renewables, and reduce their own carbon footprint. I have shared with you what my family has done so far, but we all need to become fossil fuel free, ASAP. 100%.

We can't do it alone as concerned individuals though. The most effective way to drastically reduce CO2 emissions at this time is to put a price on carbon. Make polliters pay. I will explore this more in future posts, but to get you started, watch this:




Like what you read?  Visit and 'Like' Mama of Ma'at on Facebook

What I Love

A lot of people still think of climate change as something that will happen in the distant future. Many projections talk about dire consequences by 2100, which can still seem very far away to some. By 2100 my own little children will be ages 88 and 90.

But really, climate change is happening already. Think of Superstorm Sandy in 2012. There was Hurricane Irene in 2011 which devastated much of my home state of Vermont. The Midwest, our nation's breadbasket, has been hit hard by severe drought for several years in a row now. Right now there is the Biblical flooding in Colorado and major storms on both coasts of Mexico. Hong Kong was just narrowly missed by a huge typhoon (Usagi) this week, and in Japan last week 500,000 people were rendered homeless by flooding from typhoon Man-yi. This is just a small sampling of recent extreme weather events. These types of events are growing more frequent and more devastating, thanks to climate change.  

Many of us in the US, are still largely insulated from the impacts of superstorms, floods, droughts, rising sea-level, and ocean acidification. It is easy to be lulled into a reassuring state of thinking yes, climate change is bad, but it's still far away and doesn't personally affect me. 

So, I would like to share a poignant tool (below) that aims to help people understand that the things they love today are already under threat by climate change.

"The real threat of climate change isn’t what it means for polar bears. 

It’s what the crisis means for the things that make us who we are."

Visit WhatILove.org and choose the people, places, and things that define your life … then discover how climate change will directly impact each one.

I chose 8 things that matter to me: kids, cookies, water, wildlife, swimming, gardening, peace and humanity. Then you can click to get a brief summary of how climate change threatens each of those things.

It's a tool designed to inspire you to protect the things you love, and add your voice in the fight against climate change. It affects every aspect of our lives, and if you don't fight for what you love, what will be left?


Like what you read?  Visit and 'Like' Mama of Ma'at on Facebook

Why I Don't Cloth Diaper

I am a perfect candidate to cloth diaper my kids:

1. I care about the environment. I know that disposable diapers are made out of plastic, which is derived from petroleum. Petroleum = fossil fuel= climate change. 
2. I know these diapers end up in landfills where they contribute to the generation and release of methane (a greenhouse gas). 
3. I know we use up at least one big box of diapers every month, and that's a lot of trash. Especially during the one year that I had two kids in diapers.

Yet, I still don't use cloth diapers. Why?

Cloth diapers are cute, but sorry, they are not a good fit for this Mama.

By the time my son was a little over one year old, I knew a lot of moms who cloth diapered and loved it. They assured me it's not so bad. I could like it too. Ok, I thought. I felt like it was kind of late to start with my son, but I was pregnant with my daughter and thought maybe with her I would give it a try. I did a little research that suggested maybe waiting until my daughter went through the first few months of her life made sense, because by then she wouldn't soil diapers at such a rapid rate. Around the same time I found an awesome diaper service in Burlington. Maybe I could cloth diaper both kids afterall. I did a little research and got totally overwhelmed by the thought of having to order inserts, and then I would still have to get diaper covers. Then of course the diaper covers have to be replaced as the child grows. The diaper service would deliver clean inserts, pick up the dirty ones, and do all the washing for me. But the service was even more expensive than my monthly boxes of diapers. And then there was the fact that this business would be driving all over the county delivering diapers, generating extra CO2 emissions to come to me every week.

What if I bought some cloth diapers and did the washing myself? Well, cloth diapers are expensive. I don't know how the cost compares to disposable diaper use exactly, though I have heard that it doesn't offer much savings unless you use those same cloth diapers on more than one of your children. Regardless, the upfront cost of cloth diapers is daunting. For me, it's less painful to buy a month's supply of disposables than it is to spend hundreds of dollars all at once. Then, changing disposable diapers is bad enough, I didn't really want to get even closer in handling my child's feces. Then the thought of putting soiled diapers in my own washing machine wasn't very appealing either despite the special soaps. Plus, I would be doing a lot more loads of laundry in hot water, (we are a mostly cold water household), which would drive up our fuel oil bill.

Then, I saw some diapers for sale, second hand from some mom friends. Maybe this is what could finally get me to go cloth! But then the whole topic started again with type of insert, type of covers, sizes, how absorbent the diapers still were despite being used, etc. I ran for the hills. I'm sorry, but I like to spend 10 seconds picking a box of diapers off a grocery store shelf once a month and be done.

When it comes to having a lighter impact on the earth we all have different passions and priorities. Clearly, cloth diapering is a passion for lots of moms out there, but, despite being educated on the subject, it is not my passion and never will be. Maybe if I had met the right pro-cloth diapering people before my son was born I would have felt different and cloth diapering could have made more sense. At this point, I see the light at the end of the diaper tunnel. I just hope my daughter will potty train by age 2 like my niece and lots of other girls we know, and not hold out until age 3 like my son, nephew, and lots of little boys we know. Here's hoping!

Bad truck!

Even without climate deniers standing in the way of concrete, sweeping actions to mitigate the worst effects of climate change, switching away from a carbon-based (ie: gas, oil, coal based) economy will take major dedication, creativity, and mass mobilization.

It is doable, don't get me wrong. We already have the tools we need. But have you ever noticed just how tied we are to fossil fuels even on a cultural level?

Even toddler/preschooler culture is rife with fossil fuels. My son loves trucks, what little kid doesn't? They are fascinating. But they also represent fossil fuels. In one episode of Dora, Dora takes her friend Firetruck to the gas station. I have watched "Mighty Machines" with my son where we saw trucks building a new gas pipeline. We have seen episodes where they blast away mountain tops to cart away rock for gravel. We have a book where trucks carry coal from a coal mine. 

Bad coal truck!

We always add "Bad truck!" when we read that page. My son does too. 

To counterbalance, my son also has this awesome windmill t-shirt that his Grandma found. He knows all about solar panels too. Well, as much as a 3 year old can know about them.

Whimsical windmill tee

And how awesome would it be if Dora's Firetruck friend was a rapid charge, plug-in electric truck? Don't tell me that's too unrealistic, have you ever seen that show?

Be the change you want to see in the world.


Like what you read?  Visit and 'Like' Mama of Ma'at on Facebook

Can going green pay off (in board games)?

My husband and I enjoy playing board games. We don't play that often now with kids around, but one of our newest favorites is "Power Grid." It's a game where you buy power plants and expand your grid network around the country to power more cities than your opponent(s). The power plants are run with a variety of fuel sources including: coal, oil, combination coal/oil, trash, nuclear, wind, and fusion. The power plants also vary in 1) cost to buy them, and 2) the number of cities they can power. Each player can have a maximum of 3 (or 4 in 2 player) power plants in their portfolio. Once you have your maximum, you upgrade old plants as better plants become available. You also have to buy the appropriate fuel for each of your plants every turn to power your cities. The prices of fuel go up and down during the game. If lots of people are all relying on one fuel source the price goes up, just as it does in real life. High demand = high prices.

When I first started playing power grid, I thought it was a really clever game because it seemed to mirror the energy markets of the world. This game was not only a fun strategy game, but informative as well. However, being the eco-minded person that I am, I was always drawn to the wind plants because they were clean, renewable energy and I didn't have to buy any fuel for them. The future! But I quickly noticed that when I picked the wind plants I started losing. I mentioned this to my husband and he replied that he thought he had read "ignore green plants" if you want to win Power Grid on the message boards.

I set out to test my suspicion by playing a game with my husband. I bought fossil fuel plants to start because those are the only plants available in the beginning. As soon as the first wind plant turned up I bought it and vowed to only buy wind plants. It didn't last long. After a few turns I had adjust my rule and buy a trash powered plant. My justification was that even though trash is dirty and produces a lot of toxic byproducts when burned, at least it is not a fossil fuel. Eliminating fossil fuels is, of course, key to fighting climate change. I bought the trash plant because it could power 6 cities and I needed to up the number of cities that I could power FAST if I wanted to stay competitive. The wind plants weren't showing up often enough, and they didn't power nearly as many cities as many of the trash, nuclear, or fossil fuel plants. On one turn in the first half of the game I had to pass on buying a new power plant altogether because there were no wind (or trash) options.

For much of the game, despite my limitations in only buying wind (with the exception of my one trash plant), I stayed somewhat competitive. My husband was always a bit ahead of me in terms of the number of cities he could power. This gave him more money, and more power to buy more cities, which kept him closer to winning the entire game. Unlike me, he relied heavily on fossil fuel plants (the prices of the fossil fuels were unusually cheap due to no competition from me too) and nuclear plants.

Towards the end of the game I was once again running out of options, until, due to a lucky draw, I was able to buy a fusion plant, the most expensive power plant in the game. Fusion plants do not exist, but if they did they would be clean and incredibly powerful. Yet, in this same turn I could have bought a coal plant for a significantly cheaper price that would power more cities than a fusion plant. Really? Going fossil fuel in this instance would have allowed me to surpass my husband in the number of cities powered, and freed up cash to buy enough cities to surpass my husband and very possibly win the whole game.

My husbands winning energy portfolio (oil, coal and nukes)

My losing portfolio of wind, trash and fusion

Bottom line is, the game "Power Grid" is stacked against wind (renewable) energy and heavily favors the old ways of thinking on energy: fossil fuels and nuclear. It is  impossible to win the game by relying on renewables. The renewable wind energy plants it does offer are expensive, often weak, and few and far between. The nuclear plants are powerful, but artificially cheap compared to today's real energy market realities where nuclear plants are shutting down because the economics simply don't work. The coal and oil plants in the game are abundant, powerful, and cheap. The game does not reflect today's rapid growth in the renewable energy sector, or current projections of renewable energy sources reaching grid parity with fossil fuel sources in the near future.

Like what you read?  Visit and 'Like' Mama of Ma'at on Facebook

Similarities in Parenting & Env. Policy Making

Parenting and environmental policy making have some striking similarities. Trying to mold and guide your children can be much like trying to mold and guide a state, country, or even the international community to protect the environment. Here's why:


COMMAND & CONTROL

Policy making: Command and Control is when the government tells an industry what objective they must meet, and can penalize an industry for its failure to comply. For example, the 1989 Montreal Protocol established specific targets to reduce the use gases that depleted the ozone layer. This forced the refrigerant industry to come up with new, safer gases for refrigeration. It is considered by many to be the most successful international treaty because it was ratified by 197 countries and has been continually revised and made more stringent. 


Parenting: I use command and control with my kids when I tell my son that his post-bath bedtime routine starts at 7:00 pm. The objective is to get him in his bed, tucked in with lights out by 7:30. If he is stalling too much I can penalize him by threatening to reduce the number of books we read before lights out. He only rarely has ever lost a storybook.

Ronald Reagan & Margaret Thatcher - 2 champions of the Montreal Protocol

CAP & TRADE
 
Policy making: Cap and Trade is a policy tool that sets an upper limit on a type of pollutant but gives sources of that pollutant some flexibility on how they comply. One of the most successful examples is the Acid Rain Program which set a time-decreasing cap on how much sulfur dioxide coal powered plants could emit. Plants could buy and sell available permits based on their needs. This created an incentive to find ways to reduce their emissions, and allows plants that could easily reduce their emissions to sell excess permits to plants that were slower to innovate.

Parenting: I cooked some noodles for dinner because it seems that is all my kids ever want to eat. Well, that and fruit. But one night my daughter was so hungry that she ate all her noodles and asked for more. Sadly, the pot was empty and the only noodles left were in her brother's bowl. She asked him for some of his noodles, and thankfully, he was happy to share, at least that night. I had a finite number of noodles and they had to work it out between themselves how to divvy them up. But unlike sulfur dioxide emission permits, I won't be decreasing the noodle supply at dinner.


VOLUNTARY PROGRAMS

Policy making: Governments institute voluntary programs when their regulatory capacity is weak Governments therefore make it optional for affected parties to comply and provide incentives for them to do so. One example here in Vermont is the Home Performance with Energy Star program. It's a voluntary program for homeowners to better insulate their homes, thus improving their efficiency and reducing CO2 emissions. The program offers grants to homeowners to reduce the overall cost of insulating their homes. My family participated in this program and it significantly reduced the cost of the project.

Parenting:  Voluntary programs, when it comes to parenting, are helpful when you enthusiastically suggest to your 3 year old, "Let's pick up the playroom!" then he screams "No!"  You spend a moment asking with him  again as he repeatedly says, "No! I wouldn't!" So you wrack your brain on how to get him to listen to you, then with a bit of desperation say, "If you help me clean up I will give you some chocolate chips!" Suddenly he is willing to pick up at least a little.

 

My son trying to recreate his standard retort "No, I wouldn't!"

He's smiling too much though.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS (EIS)

Policy making: An EIS is a document required by the National Environmental Policy Act for development projects that "significantly affect the quality of the human environment." EIS reports are supposed to identify plausible alternatives for proposed projects and determine which alternative would have the least negative impact. A rather notorious EIS in today's media is for the Keystone XL pipeline, which is supposed to carry tar sands from Alberta, Canada to the Gulf of Mexico where it will then be shipped to Asian markets. The pipeline is controversial for many reasons, but two reasons are 1) because of how dirty and destructive tar sands are, and 2) the impact it will have on climate change. The latest investigation of the Keystone XL pipeline EIS is whether the consultant who performed the study had a conflict of interest because they have consulted for oil companies in the past. Ideally, the EIS should be objective, and truly informative about whether a project should be pursued or not, and how. It also provides a sounding board for the public and other interest groups to weigh in.

Parenting: In this case, your child is the equivalent of "the environment" and we as parents are constantly taking stock of our choices and alternatives and considering whether we are creating the best possible outcomes for our child. Am I too strict? Too lenient? Should I sign her up for x,y,z? How can I get him to eat more vegetables? What do I do about tantrums? When should she start potty training? We contemplate the various strategies we have seen in practice or read about and pick the best option for us. All the while we get advice and input from friends, our own parents, and even strangers when we are in public--whether welcome or not.

So there you have it. Policy is not that unlike parenting.

Like what you read? Visit and 'Like' Mama of Ma'at on Facebook

What's All the Fuss About Solar Net-Metering?

In Vermont, and nationwide, a controversy is stirring over rooftop solar net-metering. Net-metering is a program offered by utilities that allows homeowners with solar panel systems to sell excess power they generate back to the utility ($0.20/kwh). Net-metered customers who use the same amount of electricity that they generate can zero out their bill, or even carry credits (to be used within 1 year).

The problem with net-metering, according to utilities, is that traditional customers end up subsidizing net-metered customers. Net-metered customers can zero out their annual bills by generating the same amount the power they use, and therefore don't end up paying fees to support line maintenance and efficiency programs by Efficiency Vermont--a nonprofit that helps increase energy efficiency in homes and businesses. Just recently Vermont Electric Co-op's CEO said that traditional customers are cross-subsidizing net-metered customers by paying 40% of the costs incurred by net-metered customers to the transmission system (source).

Both Vermont Electric Co-op and Hardwick Electric Department have halted new solar net-meter installations. Both utilities are already getting 4% of their capacity from net-metered customers, as is the benchmark determined in 30 V.S.A. § 219a. Green Mountain Power and Burlington Electric Department are two larger utilities in the state that have not yet reached the 4% target and are not yet feeling the pinch. Washington Electric Co-op based in East Montpelier reached 6% in July, and though they have not halted new net-metering, they are slowing the impact of solar by limiting new solar PV systems to 5 kilowatt hours (source).

The real "problem" is that solar initiatives have worked and made it a real player in the energy market, so the entire utility industry is experiencing growing pains. So how about solutions? As much as I think there should be solar panels on every rooftop, it is true that someone still has to pay for the lines the electricity travels on. Even solar customers rely on the transmission lines to make their service work. The issue is that regardless of where the power is generated it still has to travel the grid so it can flow to wherever the need is. Maybe it would be reasonable to impose a "transmission lines maintenance fee" as a line item on everyone's power bills that can not be zeroed out through net-metering. Net-metered solar customers still rely on the transmission lines as much as other customers. I am a net-metered customer at VEC and don't think this would be an unreasonable proposal if done wisely.

The basic business model on which utility companies thrived for decades is being threatened by renewable energy and that's why distributors such as Vermont Electric Co-op are getting nervous. Consider Germany as the standard for localized renewable energy (solar and other sources). Individuals there own half of the country's 53,000 megawatts of renewable energy (source). They have made it work, but it has forced the downsizing of traditional utilities and the closure of fossil fuel plants (source and source). This is scary for utilities I'm sure, but business is business, they either have to embrace renewables, or die off.

In the age of man-made climate change from CO2 emissions, localized renewable energy sources are the future. If Germany can do it, Vermont and the rest of the United States can make it work too. Vermont is known for having progressive energy policies which have allowed us to be 9th in the nation for solar power per capita, (source). Truly, 4% net-metered solar power is not a huge amount of total capacity. The Vermont utilities that have forced this issue at least seem like they are willing to come to the table and work for a positive solution--they are not "anti-solar" per se. I hope Vermont Legislators will tackle this problem honestly during their next session and expand the role of solar energy in this Green Mountain State.

******        ******      ******      ******      ******      ******      ******

Are you passionate about solar power? Ask Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin to push for an expansion of the popular "net metering" law that's driving Vermont's solar revolution: http://www.vpirg.org/news/fight-for-your-right-to-go-renewable/

Call to Action: Love Letters 4 Our Planet

One of the most common questions people ask when I talk to them about climate change is: but what can I do about it? Here is a great way to get involved in a simple, painless, yet profound way. It will only take a few minutes of you and your child's time, a piece of paper, an envelope, and a postage stamp. All the details are below, and there is also a video to watch at the bottom.

WHO: Love Letters 4 Our Planet

WHAT: Kids age 10-17 are sought to write letters to the incoming Western Washington University freshmen class urging them to be their voice in an upcoming local election for the Whatcom County Council. The Council has the power to issue or deny permits for a new coal export facility. This is a decision that will have national and international implications and determine the future of American coal (and CO2 emissions exported to other countries due to the coal). WWU has 15,000 incoming freshman that are eligible to register to vote in that election.

WHEN: The deadline for writing letters is September 20th, this will allow Love Letters 4 Our Planet time to hand deliver them to WWU freshmen before the voter registration deadline.

WHY: Just north of the city of Bellingham in Whatcom County, Washington there is a site for a proposed $600 million port, the Gateway Pacific Terminal, which, if constructed, would ship 48 million tons of coal annually from Wyoming and Montana to Asia—enough to power 15 to 20 new coal-fired power plants a year. Coal use is in steep decline in the United States as power plants switch over to natural gas. The coal industry is looking to export American coal to Asia as a way to keep the industry alive. This is bad news for carbon emissions and the climate.

The proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal must secure some permits from the Whatcom County Council, which is why the upcoming election is so important. For more on the subject click here and here.

HOW: Kids ages 10-17 can write a letter to a WWU freshman urging them to register to vote in the Whatcom County Council election. Please include these three points:

1. I care about stopping global warming because...
2. Whatcom County Council gets to decide on the coal export project, which is one of the most important ways we can stop global warming.
3. I'm not old enough to vote, but this matters to my future, so please be my voice and register to vote at www.sos.wa.gov by October 7 so you can help stop the Coal Terminal.

Mail your child's letter by September 20th to:

Love Letters 4 Our Planet

PO Box 1091

Bellingham, WA 98227

Like what you read? Visit and 'Like' Mama of Ma'at on Facebook

If you are a registered Whatcom County voter and wondering about the candidates running for Whatcom County Council read the paragraphs below:

Although the candidates are constrained from saying how they would vote on the coal port, they can telegraph their views in many ways, and I think our voting choices are pretty clear, at least in terms of more or less likely to vote down the coal port. Let's do what we can as individuals in our community to make sure the names in bold below are elected.

Kathy Kershner vs. Barry Buchanan for Position 1A
Kershner is the conservative currently chairing the County Council Buchanan is the Democrat challenger, formerly having served on the Bellingham City Council. At the recent Whatcom Democrats Endorsement meeting, Barry said, "Climate change is killing people in Oklahoma and the Jersey Shore. I definitely oppose the export of coal.” (hopefully making this clear statement won't be trouble for him later on).

Ben Elenbaas vs. Ken Mann for Position 2A
"Farmer Ben" Elenbaas provides great grassfed organic meat - we buy from him. However, he's also a Tea Party member and is currently serving on the County Planning Commission where he's pushing a controversial zoning change regarding slaughterhouses. The more moderate, left leaning Ken Mann is the clear choice here. This could be a tight race.

Michelle Luke vs. Carl Weimer for Position 3A
Michelle Luke is an extreme Tea Party candidate, and Carl Weimer has been the best county councilman in decades, and a very clear choice. Weimer said "You want to make sure that the people sitting in those seats believe in global warming" as a way to signal his position.

Bill Knutzen vs. Rud Browne for the At-Large Position
Rud Browne, founder of the progressively run business Ryzex: "I’m an environmentalist because I’ve seen the impact of poor environmental behavior as I saw the damage that was done on the community I grew up in. I’m running for County Council because we don’t have a choice between jobs and the environment, we need to have both or we will have neither.

Learn more at Whatcom Wins! 2013