Such a Crazy Week!

I just participated in the largest climate march in history, 100,000 people from all over the world who gathered together in a shared desire for a fair, ambitious and binding climate deal here in Copenhagen, Denmark. We held torches for Climate Justice, acknowledging the fact that 75% of the ghg emissions in the atmosphere have come from the global north while 75% of the negative impacts of increased temperatures is predicted to occur in the global south.

The march was an incredible halfway mark to an amazing experience that is now halfway over! I’m still not sure how that happened, somewhere in between standing outside the conference center in a bathing suit chanting “out in the cold to stop the heat” and attending endless youth meetings inside the conference, my intention to blog everyday somehow evaporated in the frozen Danish air. I’ve written a few political posts, bashing Sarah Palin and lamenting the incredible power of Congress over these negotiations but I’ve been a bit negligent in describing what I am actually doing here in Copenhagen! Here’s a link to my full page of photos but I’ll highlight just a few standout moments.

Last weekend, I participated in the Conference of Youth, an experience that made me feel incredibly honored to be a part of such an intelligent and motivated youth movement.

The week itself passed even faster! On Monday we rattled up the conference with a fun flash dance in the main plenary hall.

Tuesday I got the policy wonk in me satisfied from a meeting with Jonathan Pershing, the lead climate negotiator from the United States. The meeting just emphasized my belief that the U.S. Congress has entirely too much control over these negotiations!

Wednesday we decided to crash an Americans for Prosperity (a oil industry front group and major climate deniers) who attacked us as “Nazis” and “crazed Hitler youth.” The infamous Lord Moncton then repeated to tell one of my Jewish friends that he is killing people in the third world (for which we got an article in the Times!)

Then, on Thursday, I got interviewed by the Wall Street Journal (article not release yet) for my role in an “Out in the Cold to Stop the Heat” action where I might have paraded around in a pink bathing suit.

Friday I helped start a group to deliver youth policy briefings to Congressional members when they arrive next week. I also participated in a Rapid Responder phone-a-thon to youth back home, sign up here if you want a personal update from Copenhagen or check out our facebook page.

Thanks for reading!

Oh Sarah Palin

This morning one of my friends from Algeria came up to me shaking his head, asking me how anyone in America could listen to Sarah Palin’s crazy ramblings about climate change. I wanted to tell him that no one did, that Palin is a crazy neoconservative desperate for media attention. Judging from the low percentage of Americans have a “unfavorable” view of Palin and the high volume of comments on her op-ed applauding her for “calling it like it is” and “bringing God back to government,” I guess there is something about Palin that many Americans find appealing.

And why wouldn’t they? It is so much easier to deny that climate change exists, to pretend that the past two hundred years of extracting and burning natural resources hasn’t had an impact on the world we live in.  It’s much simpler to believe that the stolen emails of a few climate scientists regarding replacing Siberian tree rings with more accurate local air temperatures could eliminate the consensus of thousands of scientists and institutions around the globe. Most Americans would rather forget what they learned in grade school, that the scientific method makes it very hard for scientists to
hide or manipulate data, because all of the methods are subject to the
scrutiny of knowledgeable peers.

When 97% of climatologists believe that human-produced greenhouse gases are causing global temperatures to rise, it’s hard to believe that the media hype over a  few emails conveniently released days before COP-15 is factually correct.

Palin also writes that “the agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won’t change the weather, but they would change our economy for the worse.”

As I’ve found from my time in Copenhagen, the main agenda being pushed in these international negotiations is actually far from international, its an agenda based on what the U.S. Congress (and the interests that fund it) will or will not accept.

In terms of hurting our economy, climate change adaptation and mitigation is less than 3% percent of gdp while the cost of inaction has been estimated at an upwards of 5% of gdp, largely from natural disasters and changes in weather patterns. With far less than we spent on bailing out the banks, we can create jobs, alleviate asthma rates and ensure that young people (like me!) have a livable place to retire in.

Sarah Palin is right about one thing; good environmental policy-making is about weighing real-world costs and benefits. The cost of doing nothing in Copenhagen, whether you measure it in terms of economic, environmental or moral reasoning far outweigh the cost.

Copenhagen vs. Congress

If attending the United Nations 15th climate conference in Copenhagen has taught me anything, it is the incredible power of the United States Congress.

I really want to like the U.S. delegation. I just got out of a briefing with Jonathan Pershing, the Special Envoy for Climate Change and Lisa Jackson, the new Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Both are very smart, charismatic people who want what is best for the planet but who also have to grapple with the disturbing reality of international climate negotiations.

The reality is that the U.S. delegation is terrified of another Kyoto. The U.S. Congress refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol in 1997 largely because it did not set binding emissions targets on developing countries. In the words of Jonathan Pershing, “We need symmetry in Copenhagen or Congress won’t accept it.”

In the eyes of the U.S. delegation, “symmetry” means that major emitters in the developing world—such as China, India, Indonesia, Brazil and South Africa—must commit to targets.

The BASIC group  (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) has protested that the developed world needs to lead the way and uphold the principal of “common but differentiated responsibilities” that 189 countries have ratified under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

The preamble of the UNFCCC acknowledges that ” the global nature of climate change calls for the widest possible cooperation by all countries and their participation in an effective and appropriate international response, in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities and their social and economic conditions.”

The U.S. delegation argues that developing countries are forgetting the last phrase of the “common but differentiated responsibilities” clause, the part that talks about “respective capabilities.”

According to Pershing, “respective capabilities” implies that the U.S. has great responsibility but this responsibility does not end at the U.S. border. He spoke of the assets of other countries, China’s trillions of U.S. debt, India’s  methane biodigester technology and Brazil’s biofuel technology.

The U.S. delegation firmly believes that America has already done much and that it is now time for other countries to put something on the table.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson spoke of the recent decision by the EPA to finalize its finding that greenhouse gases pose a threat to human health and therefore can be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

Laughing, Jackson said, “The U.S. government has decided that CO2 is a threat.” Then, explaining her laughter, she clarified “I laugh because we’re the U.S. government and we knew that.”

Unfortunately, I doubt that many of the delegations from other countries would find that statement so funny. For the U.S. to come to the table offering what amounts to less than a 4 percent emissions reduction, and a domestic strategy of only recognizing that greenhouse gases pose a threat, is absolutely absurd.

The amount of financing we have proposed, our “fair share” of $10 billion per year, is also vastly inadequate.

As the current, albeit struggling, world superpower, the U.S. cannot hide behind paltry emissions reductions and laughable domestic programs. The European Union has proposed to cut their emissions 20 percent by 2020 and France recently proposed a Climate Justice Fund of US $60 billion per year for ten years.

I truly believe that the U.S. delegation and the Obama administration would love to make those type of pledges. As a trained geophysicist and a chemical engineer respectively, both Pershing and Jackson recognize the urgent mandate climate change provides for drastic emissions cuts.

However, it’s impossible to explain to the U.S. Congress (and the powerful fossil fuel industry that controls it) that the U.S. has a responsibility to provide leadership on climate change.

The fact that developed countries are responsible for 75 percent of the ghg emissions in our atmosphere while developing countries will face 75 percent of the negative effects of climate change seems to imply a climate debt.

This climate debt has been widely discussed by almost every country, with the notable exception of the United States.

Our strong sense of individualism seems to have blinded us from the global problem of climate change. The U.S. delegation knows this, and they know that they cannot return to the U.S. Congress with a treaty that truly recognizes the United States’ responsibility.

I love my country but I’m having trouble justifying our inability to provide leadership in Copenhagen.

On the Eve of Hopenhagen

I really should be in bed in right now. It sort of feels like Christmas eve, the night before the day where you really, really hope that you will get everything you want, neatly packaged with a red satin ribbon. But the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP-15) is a little different. We already know that we won’t get everything we want, that the climate change santa won’t deliver a legally binding treaty that cuts global carbon emissions down to the level that scientists say our atmosphere can safely hold. We’re not likely to get large enough financial pledges from industrialized countries to have developing countries develop without destroying their natural environment. We’re not going to solve the climate crisis in Copenhagen, that much is clear.

So if we’re not solving the climate crisis, then why have 30,000 people descended upon this city for the next two weeks? I like to think that we’re a little like that kid, tossing and turning the night of Christmas eve, burning with hope of what might lie underneath that Christmas tree. We know that we won’t get that beautiful, green economy we want but I truly believe that we can make progress on a number of key issues. We are already seeing ghg emissions targets from countries who seemed as though they would never commit, countries like China, the U.S., Brazil and India. Granted, none of these targets are as deep as they should be, but they are a start. I want to see these cuts go deeper and I know this can happen.

We have started to see a global acknowledgement that “survival is not negotiable,” an acknowledgement that we are negotiating with our world’s survival and that for many small island countries, they are already facing extinction. I know that we can push the governments of industrialized countries to commit financially to helping developing countries adapt. How are we going to do this? Well, check out the launch of Project Survival in the last conference of the parties in Poznan, Poland.

Expect a lot more to come throughout the next two weeks. We’re may not be able to solve the climate crisis, but if we all work together, we can make sure that this is a very merry climate christmas.

Land of Ice

I left Thursday for Copenhagen at 6 am but didn’t actually arrive until Friday at 6 pm. But I loved it! Not only did I send next to some really fun people on the planes, I also had a six hour layover in Reykjavik, Iceland. There was no way I was going to miss what might be my only chance to see Iceland so I hopped on a bus to the 40 minute ride into the city.

On the way, I met a guy from San Francisco. We immediately bonded over the fact that we’re from the same hometown and in Iceland together (of all places!) so after he dropped his stuff off at the hostel we wandered around the city. The picture is of Lawrence, my new friend, in an Icelandic antiques store. Almost all the shops were closed until around 11 am and the streets were totally deserted, it was the weirdest thing ever! This shop was one of the only open ones we could find.

We wandered over to the Reykjavik City Hall, a place that was literally inside of a lake, it was really beautiful.

Finally we climbed up the stairs of this cathedral to see all of Iceland from above. I couldn’t believe all of the glaciers surrounding the whole city, it was incredible! It was also really interesting later, when I got to Copenhagen and spoke with a few of the Icelandic youth delegation. Apparently all of the glaciers are expected to be gone within the next 500 years, they’re melting really fast.

It’s so hard to explain to the youth from Iceland or some of the youth that I met from the Caribbean and Kenya that the majority of Americans don’t believe that global climate change is a problem when their entire countries are already feeling the effects of warming temperatures.

Learning about Power

Liberal arts professors like to teach about power. Sociology professors explain how power is constructed, politics professors emphasize how power is distributed and Spanish professors talk about, well, poder.

Despite the constant focus on theoretical conceptions of power, no one has ever taught me how to get it.

I am hoping that this will change with the coming symposium on community organizing held by the sociology department from Oct. 15-17 in honor of the centennial of Saul Alinsky’s birth.

As the father of modern community organizing, Alinsky spent his life methodically teaching the “have-nots” about the nature of power. As he said in a 1972 interview, “to accomplish anything you’ve got to have power, and you’ll only get it through organization. Now, power comes in two forms—money and people. You haven’t got any money, but you do have people, and here’s what you can do with them.”

Alinsky brought together labor unions, businesses, churches and housewives inunlikely coalitions that taught tens of thousands of ordinary Americans how to target power-brokers and politically out-maneuver them.

He developed specific methods to help citizens translate the democratic ideal of civic participation into a reality that gave people the power to shape decisions that affect their lives and communities.

His work was shaped by the rough world of the late 1930s depression in Chicago, but it has inspired several generations of organizers, including figures like Cesar Chavez, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Both Clinton and Obama were offered jobs as community organizers for Alinsky. Clinton, however, turned the job down in favor of law school.

There has been much speculation that the reason Obama won is due to his Alinsky-style method of street-level democracy that allowed Americans to feel as if they truly had the power to make change.

America’s current situation begs for change. An economic depression, two wars, nuclear proliferation and a rapidly changing climate are not going to be solved by any one person, even one as incredible as President Obama.

The question then becomes how? How do we—college students with little money or political power—ensure that the world we inherit is a world that we actually want to live in?

Many of us have already started doing it. A project that currently fascinates me is one proposed by the recently-formed Environmental Justice group to organize energy efficiency projects, such as installing energy-efficient light bulbs and security lighting, in the greater Walla Walla community.

They see it as an environmentally-friendly way to save lower income residents money on their energy bills. At the same time, they are looking into counting the emissions reductions as part of a carbon offset for the college. That idea isn’t theirs alone but rather one that has been done at schools ranging from Linfield to Brown toMoorehouse.

Increasingly, whether college students are interested in environmental problems or other social issues, we are looking for ways to take action on the issues that we care about by organizing at a local level. The fame brought to community organizing by President Obama might explain some of the interest in Alinsky, but I think that there’s a little more to it.

In an era where web 2.0 technologies allow us to instantly communicate with people around the world, face-to-face interactions around important issues bring us out of the cyber clouds and back to reality. How exactly we create real change once we’re in that reality—well that’s a question I’m hoping Alinsky will help me figure out.

A Ride through Walla Walla

The Valley Transit bus system is sort of like Walla Walla; it’s kind of quirky, a little on the slow side but definitely worth spending the time to get to know. As a Whittie who loves to bike, I’ve rarely found myself utilizing the little red, trolley-like buses that pass behind the science building every 45 minutes.

After participating in the campaign to help ensure that bus route 9 stays until at least November, I figured I’d better go for a celebratory spin.

The campaign for Valley Transit, a group of dedicated community members, collected more than 2,000 signatures in support of a ballot measure for a .03 percent sales tax increase. Sounds reasonable, right?

Think again; this is Walla Walla, not Seattle.

Despite the diminutive nature of the tax increase, a few members of the Valley Transit Board protested over raising taxes amid a recession and potentially hurting the Walla Walla economy even further.

The protests were quickly quieted by the remark of fellow board member Gregg Loney that “no one is going to drive to Pasco to save three dollars on a thousand dollar purchase.” As another board member, City Councilwoman Barbara Clarkpointed out, Walla Walla can’t afford not to have the Valley Transit taking kids to school, adults to their jobs and customers to stores.

Perhaps the best part of the meeting was when board member Greg Tompkins admitted that he hadn’t taken the bus until a couple of days before the meeting. He told the group of shocked community members that he and his wife both had cars, so why would they ever need to ride the bus? Evidently, being a board member wasn’t reason enough.

The hypocrisy of a Valley Transit board member having never taken the bus made me determined to ride that little red bus as far as it could go, which, I discovered, is actually pretty far.

Convincing a friend to come on a Valley Transit adventure, I eagerly combed the Valley Transit Web site for fun places to visit. The astoundingly bright green and redValleyTransit.com appeared just as excited to see me as I was to see it. Promises of cheap groceries, abundant liquor and Walla Walla’s only shopping mall made the 75 cent fare seem like the world’s best bargain. But first—I had to read Bus Basics.

After learning how to “flagstop” the bus, essentially making the bus stop for me (something I’d always dreamed of), I decided to get down to business and look at the routes. I soon found that “flagstopping” isn’t the only quirky part of Valley Transit: the whole bus system is based on circular routes.

Whereas on most bus systems you cross the street to catch the bus going the other way, on Valley Transit you catch it in the same place you started and go the whole route until you get where you want to go. Accustomed to public transit in Washington D.C. where riders would get on their Blackberries and call their senators if the bus was a couple of minutes late, the slow-pace of Valley Transit seemed refreshing.

After waiting a few minutes at the corner of Penrose and Isaacs, we saw the cheerful red bus approach.  Forking over a few quarters, we found ourselves in the company of elderly gentlemen, two punk teenagers and a pair of chubby red-headed grade-schoolers.

It soon became apparent that the red-headed kids were simply on the bus for the pure joy of riding. They pestered the driver, asking him how many times the bus was going to go around the loop.

Before we had truly been able to take in the Valley Transit experience, we found ourselves on Ninth Street. I pulled the handle, requesting a stop. Instead of pulling over at the next bus stop, the driver yelled back “where are you trying to go?”  Giddy with my newfound power to stop the bus wherever I wanted, I told him we were trying to go to Super 1 and Grocery Outlet, the two cheapest grocery stores in Walla Walla. I didn’t tell him we also wanted to hit up the liquor store—he looked a bit too much like my grandfather.

He pulled straight up to the curb, dropping us off directly in front and told us he’d be back to pick us up in 45 minutes. Feeling more like my mom had dropped me off at soccer practice than like I’d been dropped off by a bus driver, I headed off to do some shopping. Sure enough, he came back just as soon as we had finished, remembering our faces and asking us if our trip had been successful.

We smiled and sat back as he took us through the rest of the loop, driving past the Blue Mountain Mall, Home Depot and Wal-Mart—all the major Walla Walla landmarks.

Arriving back at Whitman, we waived goodbye to our new friends and set off to enjoy our produce.

Living in a Happy Green Bubble

At Whitman we enjoy talking about “breaking out the of the bubble.” As the semester wears on, many of us sign up for OP trips or go on road trips to Seattle, attempting to satisfy this nagging feeling that there is more to life than lies between Maxey Hall and Reid.

As a senior, it has suddenly dawned on me that soon I won’t just be taking a break from the duck-filled sidewalks of Whitman College, but this bubble we keep talking about will collapse around me. As its imminent demise becomes apparent, I’ve started to wonder if there isn’t something uniquely important about living in a bubble community.

There is something unique about being able to walk down the street and see three of your best friends in a span of three minutes. It is something beneficial, not only to your personal happiness, but, I would argue, also good for the world.

If you think about it, bubble life has a lot in common with an eco-friendly lifestyle. Living in a bubble implies life in a close-knit community, with an emphasis on theclose, in terms of both distance and friendliness.

Walking, biking, carpooling, eating local food, wearing local crafts: these are all characteristics of a bubble community, as well as activities that you’re likely to find on a flyer from Campus Climate Challenge.

Crazy to equate happiness and sustainability in one bubbly box? Maybe, but I’m surely not alone in my delusions.

Many people consider college to be “the best four years of their life.”  While this may not be true for everyone, environmental economist Bill McKibben has often written about college communities as a model for a sustainable and happy lifestyle.

In his essay “Global Warming Can’t Buy Happiness,” McKibben cites studies showing the steady decline in happiness during times of sterling economic growth as a sign that big houses in the suburbs, larger televisions and more technological gadgets have made us less happy. As McKibben puts it, “Would you rather have a new television or a new friend?” Evidently, valuing people over things could go a long way in cutting carbon emissions and making everyone a lot happier.

In the 1970s, the idea that neighborhoods should be connected and walkable spawned a whole new type of urban planning called smart growth. The focus on climate change over the past couple of years has given a lot of momentum to smart growth type development.

In 2005, Seattle mayor Greg Nickels launched the U.S. Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement to have cities commit to reducing carbon emissions. One of the ways that 973 mayors have pledged to do this is by adopting Smart growth principals.

These principals include many traits inherent to college lifestyles, especially small colleges in the middle of Walla Walla, Wash. Whitman is very walkable and bike-able, has a large amount of natural beauty and is a “distinctive, attractive community.”

That last trait immediately brings to mind the vast number of Whitties who can go multiple days without showering and still look damn sexy in their flannel.

I’ve come to the realization that not only will I miss watching those naturally beautiful bohemians roam Ankeny, but that I’m really going to miss this bubble!

The Right-Wing Take-Down of Van Jones

The forced resignation of Green Jobs czar Van Jones over Labor Day weekend was orchestrated by an angry talk show host who twisted half-truths to turn one of the environmental movement’s greatest heroes into a radical communist.

The smear campaign began on July 23 when Glenn Beck, conservative talk radio host and founder of one of the most successful programs on Fox News, called Jones a “self-avowed communist.”

Beck based his attack on a 2005 profile of Jones in the East Bay Express where Jones spoke of his feelings after being arrested while protesting the acquittal of police officers accused of beating Rodney King. Jones said his experience in jail turned him into a communist.

What Beck neglects to mention is that later on in the article, it is explained that Jones decided to abandon his anti-capitalist ways in favor of a “fundamental shift in tactics.” In fact, Jones’s entire book, The Green Collar Economy, stresses the importance of jobs, jobs that work within the system of our capitalistic society.

As Jones writes on page 86, “the reality is that we are entering an era during which our very survival will demand invention and innovation on a scale never before seen in the history of human civilization. Only the business community has the requisite skills, experience, and capital to meet that need.”

Beck also ignores the address Jones gave before the Center for American Progress on Nov. 19 when he said, “Everything that is good for the environment, everything that’s needed to beat global warming, is a job. And the challenge is, how do we get the government to be a smart, and limited, catalyst in getting the private sector to take on this challenge?”

Perhaps Beck fails to understand the meaning of the label communist, someone who espouses an egalitarian, stateless society based on common ownership. If “communist” means someone who envisions an inclusive green economy where jobs in the environmental sector serve as pathways out of poverty to Americans who need it the most, then well, Van Jones is a communist.

The type of environmentalism Jones espouses is far from radical. As a special adviser to the White House Council on Environmental Quality, Jones spent his time writing grants, appealing to city councils and working with legislators on green-jobs bills.

So why then did Beck pick on Jones, a mid-level adviser, when there are plenty of higher-level White House staffers he could target?

Perhaps the answer might lie in a comment Beck made on July 28 during a Fox and Friends program when he called President Obama a “racist” with a “deep-seated hatred for white people.”

Immediately after that comment, ColorOfChange.org, a group Jones helped launch in 2005, led a successful advertising boycott that led to Wal-Mart, Mercedes-Benz and HSBC leaving Beck’s show.

This led the group DefendGlenn.com to circulate a speech in which Jones calls Senate Republicans assholes for the way they had used their majority to push legislation. Rather than using “asshole” as a negative terminology, Jones said it in admiration, making the point that Democrats need to be tougher to get legislation passed.

Beck continued his revenge against Jones, mentioning him frequently as an anarchist, communist and “radical who wants to fundamentally change America.”

The final blow came on Sept. 3 when the conservative blog Gateway Pundit reported that Jones signed a 2004 petition that called for investigation into whether the Bush administration had purposefully allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur. Jones responded that he had not read the petition carefully before signing it and that it does not in any way reflect his views.

However, mainstream media began picking up the story and Republicans began calling for hearings to probe Jones. This prompted Jones to resign in order not to “distract from the administration’s agenda.”

The success of the attack prompted Beck to tweet his viewers to find dirt on other special advisers. It is clear that truth no longer plays a role in the vicious attacks employed by the conservative movement to derail this administration’s work towards change.

Reflections from South Korea

Sitting in a conference room in South Korea with eight hundred youth from 110 different countries drafting a statement to our leaders on climate change was both exhilarating and perhaps, entirely futile.

Exhilarating in the sense that we were a small part of something bigger, shaping a declaration that would be delivered to ministers and presidents before the upcoming conference on climate change in Copenhagen. We were part of a growing movement of youth people tired of our leaders playing fast and loose with our planet and our future.

And yet, my excitement was dampened by the nagging recollection that the United Nations Environment Programme’s Tunza International Youth Conference was not the first international environmental gathering and it is unlikely to be the last.

The Rio Summit of 1992 was the first prominent international environmental conference and is where many of the current annual high-level meetings, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, Commission on Sustainable Development and the Climate Change Convention, got their start.

Recently, a lot of these conferences have been encouraging youth participation, recognizing our generation as the “voice of the future.” I’ve personally attended a few of these meetings and although I’ve enjoyed all of them I often wonder if they are worth it. The cost—whether you measure it in terms of carbon, time or money—is always high and the results often intangible.

At the most recent UN Commission on Sustainable Development over a hundred youth attended to push our governments to put the sustainability back into “sustainable” development. The entire youth caucus spent long hours drafting statements and meeting with our respective country’s delegation leaders. The result: a non-binding treaty that looked eerily similar to previous treaties with the usual agriculture subsidies, tariffs and empty promises to help Africa.

But what of the low-carbon alternative? I could have spent my summer in Walla Walla living in a tent entirely off the grid, planting trees and praying that those darn politicians get something done in Copenhagen.

Yet a recent study by a Swedish economist showed that even if everyone in Sweden adopted the most extreme behavioral changes in favor of green consumption this would only bring a maximum of a 30 percent reduction in carbon emissions. If you apply this study to the Western world in its entirety, it highlights the need for policy change.

At the same time, these conferences will only be effective if there is grassroots momentum for them. As easy as it is to complain of the money, special interests and corruption that play a role in our political system, that is no excuse not to get involved.

During the recent vote in the House on the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), many Congressional members reported receiving hundreds of calls urging them to vote against the bill and only a handful of calls supporting ACES. For the first comprehensive piece of legislation on climate change to receive so little support in the age of eco-everything is absurd.

I’ve often heard people my age, especially at Whitman, complain that our leaders—especially Congress—need to “wake-up.” I don’t believe that they ever will. In a very real sense, the representative nature of much of the world’s governments means that most world leaders are reactionary, not revolutionary. Even President Obama, who I believe is one of the most activist politicians to have ever lived, ran a campaign that was very much a reaction against eight years of the Bush administration.

If we want our leaders to legislate a world where sustainability is put ahead of systematic extraction, we need to show them that it’s possible. It’s not so much that we need the world to “wake up”, it’s that we need to show them a new dream.

That dream starts with our own lives but doesn’t end there. We need to live green while making sure that we make our voices heard. This year is one of the most exciting times in history to be an environmentalist. The climate bill will soon be put to a vote in the Senate and then the entire world will gather in Copenhagen to come up with a post-Kyoto treaty. This is our moment—let’s seize it.

I wrote this column for the Whitman Pioneer so it can be seen there as well