This past Saturday I saw the remake of The Day The Earth Stood Still.  That same day, President-elect Obama formally announced that  Jane Lubchenoc will lead the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and that  John Holdren will serve as his science adviser while leading the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.  Both announcements were built around a theme of urgency with respect to addressing potential environmental catastrophes. In response, The New York Times editorial page said,

Ms. Lubchenco is an expert on two grave threats to the oceans, both linked to global warming. One is acidification, which is destroying coral reefs, the other hypoxia, a condition that robs fish of the oxygen they need to survive. She has also been a powerful advocate for stronger federal and international efforts to protect declining fish species.

We are also heartened by Mr. Obama’s choice of John Holdren, a Harvard physicist, as his science adviser. Mr. Holdren has served as chairman of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, as has Ms. Lubchenco. Both have argued strongly and repeatedly for a mandatory limit on greenhouse gases to avoid catastrophic climate change.

As I said before about Obama’s picks for his energy and environment team, these appear to be solid choices, and while people shouldn’t be fooled into believing there isn’t groupthink within academic science — especially on heavily politicized issues such as climate change — both have succeeded by successfully and repeatedly convincing their peers to allow publication of their work, which tends not to happen if you are a wacko or extremist.

But before people get too excited about the these two individuals ability to promote change, I would sound a note of caution. I am a working scientist who reads the newspaper every day, and I could not tell you who currently serves in these two positions.  I am pretty sure that I have known who the President’s S&T adviser was in the past, but I don’t know now, and I am darned sure I have never known who headed NOAA.

Does this matter?  Well, yes, because I doubt the current holders of these two positions have been impeding efforts by the government to address environmental issues such as climate change.  They hold those positions because they reflect the prevailing political views of the current administration, just as the future  holders of these offices reflect those of the Obama administration.

I would guess that there are relatively few scientists who don’t believe climatologists’ claims that, for example, the average global temperature is changing. I would guess there is a somewhat larger number who are not clear on the magnitude of humans’ impact on that rate of change, but probably a majority believes that as well.  I would guess the views of actual scientists in the Bush and Obama administrations are not that different, unlike those of their political masters.

Although these are very good appointments, they’re not game-changers.  The holders of these positions were almost certainly never the sticking points in addressing environmental issues.

The basic problem with addressing environmental issues such as climate change is the same one that we in the biomedical industry have with high blood pressure, high cholesterol, or diabetes.  Most people experience the problem as simply a number on a piece of paper, told to them by an expert who wants them to make a discomfiting  and unwanted change in their lives in order to deal with it.

There is likely a greater warming of the Earth right now because of human activity than there would otherwise be, but I don’t feel that at all in my daily life, and I won’t until it is probably too late to do anything about it, or at least until it is a lot more difficult or expensive to fix.

Thus when politicians and scientists say that “there is this problem and we have to do something about it,” the average person has no personal experience with the downside of the problem, but they do understand the personal impact of the downside of the solution, e.g., a carbon tax on gasoline.

Should Obama’s scientific team want to gain public support for addressing a problem such as human-induced climate change, they will need to highlight both the personal impact of not dealing with the problem, and convince people that the personal impact of the solution is worth the cost.

If you don’t think that will be difficult, think about this. I attended the American Heart Association’s annual meeting a couple years ago, and was blown away by something one speaker said. When people come into the emergency room in the middle of a heart attack, they are immediately put on several medications, one of which is a high dose of a cholesterol-lowering drug called a statin. One year after this life-threatening event, 50 percent of those who had suffered a life-threatening myocardial infarction have stopped taking their pills because it was too much hassle to keep doing it every day.  Once the immediacy of a threat has receded, people were unwilling to inconvenience themselves.

If you don’t think that’s relevant to climate questions, ask your local Toyota dealer how many Priuses she’s selling these days now that gas is down to $1.50 a gallon.  It’s going to take something — hopefully less than Klaatu threatening the destruction of the earth, but certainly more than the appointment of these two scientists — to change the way we think about — and respond to — these issues.

Related posts

• Rocking Climate Change
• Prove Me Wrong, Rocket Scientist!
• Obama’s First Semi-Official Foreign Policy Statement
• Not So Greenland
• Graph of the Day: Obama’s Energy Challenge

This week President-elect Obama named his energy and environment team, including Nobel laureate Steven Chu to head the Department of Energy. Of all the science and technology issues that could be discussed on a site like this, few are more global than planet-wide environmental issues, so I thought I’d take a look at the new team.

First, the lineup as it was predicted by the New York Times last Thursday:

The officials said Mr. Obama would name Steven Chu, the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, as his energy secretary, and Nancy Sutley, deputy mayor of Los Angeles for energy and environment, as head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Mr. Obama also appears ready to name Carol M. Browner, the E.P.A. administrator under President Bill Clinton, as the top White House official on climate and energy policy and Lisa P. Jackson, who until recently was New Jersey’s commissioner of environmental protection, as the head of the E.P.A.

The selection of Dr. Chu in particular has interested commentators, as his responsibilities are formidable:

Dr. Chu will be taking on one of the most challenging jobs in government at the Department of Energy. He will be responsible for the maintenance and development of the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile, as well as for modernizing the nation’s electrical power delivery system.

He will also play a central role in directing the research and development of alternative energy sources needed to replace fossil fuels in a era of constrained carbon emissions. Mr. Chu shared a Nobel Prize in physics in 1997 for work on supercooled atoms.

At the Lawrence Berkeley laboratory, he has sponsored research into biofuels and solar energy and has been a strong advocate of controlling greenhouse gas emissions.

Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, an industry group, said he was pleased that Dr. Chu had the technical expertise to realistically assess future energy technologies.

“His experience seems to dovetail perfectly with the president-elect’s commitment to bringing new energy technology to market in a timely fashion,” Mr. Segal said. “An understanding of the art of the possible in energy technology will be critical to the development of a cost-effective climate change policy.”

I like the Obama team for the professionalism it represents: people with experience getting things done in Washington as well as people with sufficient technical backgrounds to appreciate the practical difficulties involved in the various options with which they will be presented. The proposed team is good, competent, and since I don’t know enough about the economic, political, or technical issues involved in this area, I will simply wish them well and ask them to get on with it.

I am reasonably well-informed citizen of the United States, though millions of Americans are surely more current on a whole range of issues than am I. Also, I am a working scientist whose paycheck derives from the small contribution of my research to the economic value I help to create for my employer.  I think I have a useful perspective on a set of issues which I freely admit I don’t fully understand.

But I have to admit I am a little nervous about social engineering on this scale, and in realizing that, I have hit upon a tongue-in-cheek theme for this post: “prove me wrong, rocket scientist!”  Here’s my unsolicitied advice to Obama’s new team:

Although most people agree that global warming and other planet-wide changes are underway, and that human activity is at least partially a cause of some of these effects, most Americans aren’t engaged on the issue.  The Obama team needs to remind us of the evidence in a way that could also convince those who voted for John McCain and George Bush.

Scientists can identify technical trends and options, and predict their logical outcomes.  Economists can estimate the costs of doing this, that, or nothing at all.  But society in general has to decide what cost it is willing to bear to achieve a certain social or political goal.

The Obama team needs to tell us what we would be getting for your expenditure of my economic and social capital. If you don’t think this first step isn’t necessary, remember that millions of children in the world die every year from diseases that are technologically treatable, but are not deemed worthy of the financial output of either their own country, ours, or the world’s population in general.  Or, think about people starving to death in a world awash with food: the answer exists, but no one is willing to pay for it.

I am playing devil’s advocate here, but a different way to structure the question is this: humans are as much a part of the Earth’s ecosystem as any other species, so if the methane emissions of elephant and wild cattle gastrointestinal tracts can contribute to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and thus to global warming, why can’t humans?

There’s an easy answer to that, but the case for the costs and sacrifice have to be made clearly and successfully.

I am not an economist, but I remember reading somewhere that most countries’ carbon footprint can be pretty well related to their overall economic output. The Obama team needs to tell me whether this is true or not. If it is, tell me clearly why I should accept reduced economic output for the environmental goals you want to achieve (Americans, two-thirds of our economic output is consumer spending, so reducing economic output means reducing consumer spending, which means we all receive less services and goods).

If it is a moral argument, that is fine, but make it clearly, and make an argument to the undecided and unsure rather than just repeating to the choir why they already believe what they do on this issue.

Along the same lines as above, like most Americans I don’t believe the government should be picking winners and losers in the marketplace, but I would be interested in knowing if there are exceptions to the carbon footprint = economic output rule, and if there are, what lessons you think we should draw from that, and how our government can help incentivize economic actors to pursue these more promising approaches. Prove to me that there is a path forward that doesn’t mean I have to walk fifteen miles to work every day wearing a burlap sack and snacking on a turnip grown without irrigation.

Tell me why this whole thing can’t be simply reduced to the following strategy: a cap-and-trade scheme that sets an overall limit on carbon dioxide emissions for United States (you can avoid a carbon tax on individuals by letting oil and power companies build the cost of their credits into the price of energy and gasoline, or you can impose a carbon tax on gasoline, coal, natural gas, and heating oil, but one way or another individuals must also bear the cost of this choice), and substantially increased government funding for research and development on clean energy.

I may also buy increased government spending on public transport, an upgraded energy grid, and eventual worker retraining once it becomes clearer what kinds of skills might be competitive in the rejigged economy that would result from this, but it isn’t obvious to me why anything else that has been proposed could not and should not be done better in the private sector (where incidentally it might even create a few jobs). So, if you want to do things beyond these few steps, or do other things instead, tell me what they are and why they are better.

Tell me what compromise you can envision between the stated environmental desires of other countries (ignoring for now whether they truly intend to meet their obligations), and the political reality that any climate treaty must be ratified by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate. We are the world’s leader and so we should lead, but we should lead from a position of agreement within and outside of ourselves. So realistically what is that position, and how are you going to avoid passion-wasting political cul-de-sacs?

Finally, the kicker — the issue that I think people are avoiding right now. Before the recession was fully realized, the environment was the most typical common ground in a divided populace, and also the area in which candidates Obama and McCain were more similar to each other than either was to President Bush. But beginning to price the environmental impact of economic choices by both corporations, individuals, and other actors will surely exert a further drag on the economy in the short-term, and as the unemployment rate continues to climb in 2009, another area of potential spend is likely to shove this aside: health care and coverage of it for individuals.

To put it bluntly, I care much more about my ability to maintain my health and that of my family (and indeed of any other human being on the planet) than I do about my ability to zero out the impact of humans on the environment, and I suspect most people would agree with me if they thought about it in those terms. So prove to me that we can do both, because if we can’t, I know which one I prefer.

That’s it: my open letter to a rocket scientist. If you want my advice, forget about a carbon tax on individuals, poll a thousand climate scientists as to the minimum level of carbon emissions that would be 90 percent likely to have a minor impact on the global climate, price the total set of emission credits representing that at a tenth of what we spend on health care and defense, auction them off over a couple of years in a manner that allows for small players to borrow the money to play, and then sit back and see what happens.

It doesn’t have to be exactly right the first time, and it may turn out to be a lot harder or more expensive than anyone realizes. Don’t worry about penalizing or rewarding early buyers if you have to change the price of the credits later, as the price of lots of assets change constantly. Just ask the Treasury Secretary about how he’s suddenly making a profit selling three-month notes.

Related posts

• Obama’s First Semi-Official Foreign Policy Statement
• Graph of the Day: Obama’s Energy Challenge
• What Would Klaatu Do?
• Rocking Climate Change
• Obama: The Science President?

One of the best parts of being a scientist is getting enthused about the “what-if” possibilities of a new idea, which must be similar to the enthusiasm felt by political campaigners. In the November 11 print edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (h/t The Economist — original not yet online, unfortunately), two scientists from Columbia University, Peter Kelemen and Jurg Matter, demonstrated that a single rock (located in the desert in Oman), known as peridotite, is sequestering tens of thousands of tons of CO2 every year, in the process converting the gas to a mineral similar to limestone or marble.

Here’s how The Economist describes it:

Some people have looked at the idea of grinding up peridotite and using it to soak up emissions from power stations, but the process turns out to be expensive, partly because of the costs of transporting all the rock. The transportation would also create emissions.  Kelemen and Matter suggest an alternative: pumping the gas from places where it is produced and into underground strata of peridotite.

They then suggest a method of treatment in which the capacity of this CO2 sink could be significantly increased, to the point where it would consume a meaningful fraction of the CO2 produced by humans every year and dumped into the atmosphere.

The team has shown that the Omani peridotite absorbs tens of thousands of tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, far more than anyone had thought. By drilling and fracturing the rock they believe they can start a process to increase the absorption rate by 100,000 times or more. They estimate this would allow the Omani outcrop, which extends down some 5km, alone to absorb some 4 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, which is a substantial part of the annual 30 billion or so tonnes of the gas that humans send into the atmosphere, mostly by burning fossil fuels.

The science and international relations angle to all of this is that environmental issues such as climate change are global and thus international by definition. Although the impact of climate change may have slightly different manifestations locally, the underlying problem is global.  In addition, solutions don’t have to come from any one country, and technically effective solutions almost certainly can’t be implemented by just one country.

Although people generally don’t like to consider this aspect of the situation, minimizing the negative effects of global change, like many other social goods, will have an economic cost, and that cost should be borne globally , since the total may be too expensive for just one country, and the benefits will accrue to all.

Permit me to offer some thoughts on what could be done to follow up on Kelemen and Matter’s discovery:

1.  We should be surveying for other naturally occurring materials that could perform similar functions, especially within or near North America and Europe, and China. These could be on either public or private lands but, if the latter, they will instantly become a very lucrative holding when combined with a carbon emission cap-and-trade system, thus encouraging their proper development and use for sequestering CO2.

2.  We should explore the feasibility of synthesizing millions of synthetic versions of this type of rock to discover alternatives that could be made cheaply and used locally to scrub CO2 out of emissions from power plants, cars, etc.  They may either be more efficient than the naturally occurring material, or could be transformed into an economically attractive product that could then be sold on, thus generating further incentive to develop carbon-capture sinks.

The Obama camp has been notable for its willingness to listen to ideas from all quarters and adopt what might work, so in that spirit I offer these up as a couple of free green business ideas.  If anyone knows anyone on the environment/energy team, feel free to pass them on.

Related posts

• Obama’s First Semi-Official Foreign Policy Statement
• Graph of the Day: Obama’s Energy Challenge
• What Would Klaatu Do?
• The Odd Choice of Bill Richardson for Commerce
• Prove Me Wrong, Rocket Scientist!

Google Zeitgeist has put together some end of the year trends, including most searched items (”Sarah Palin” topped the charts).  They also put together some interesting charts.  One, in particular, caught my eye:

(note:  CFL is compact flourescent lightbulb)

The spike and subsequent crash in searches for hybrid cars demonstrates the challenge President-elect Obama faces when it comes to energy policy.  Folks want the world to be a greener place, but they care a lot more when it has an impact on their pocketbook.  The challenge for Obama will be to find ways to encourage folks to think more about hybrid cars even when gas prices are below two dollars a gallon.

Here’s hoping his new energy and environment team — including an honest to god Nobel prize-winning rocket scientist — can make it happen.

Related posts

• Obama’s First Semi-Official Foreign Policy Statement
• Rocking Climate Change
• Prove Me Wrong, Rocket Scientist!
• Not So Greenland
• Beyond November: Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Jr.

It’s on climate change, delivered electronically to the Bipartisan Governors’ Global Climate Summit, which was hosted by Arnold Schwarzenegger today.  Even though there’s not much new here in terms of policy, it’s still worth watching:

The tone and message are consistent both with his acceptance speech and with his recent appointment of foreign policy veterans to key White House posts.  In case you can’t watch the Intertubes, a couple of pull quotes:

Few challenges facing America – and the world – are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We’ve seen record drought, spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season. Climate change and our dependence on foreign oil, if left unaddressed, will continue to weaken our economy and threaten our national security.

Given everything else on the new Administration’s plate, it’s refreshing to see Obama take a stand on something that he easily could have pushed to the side in the name of expediency and/or putting out bigger fires.  I think it points to his vision of the interconnectedness of the various issues his Administration will have to confront.  For example, confronting climate change isn’t possible without  a greater commitment to green tech, which in turn will help reduce dependence on oil, which in turn will help address climate change.

The speech also reinforces what I’ve called his pragmatic internationalism:

And once I take office, you can be sure that the United States will once again engage vigorously in these negotiations, and help lead the world toward a new era of global cooperation on climate change.

Two phrases stand out:  “engage vigorously” and “new era of global cooperation.”  The former implies that under an Obama Administration, the United States will take the lead in addressing the fundamental challenges facing the world.  The latter makes it clear that when that happens, the Untied States no longer will go it alone.

All in all, not a bad first pronouncement on global issues.

Related posts

• Graph of the Day: Obama’s Energy Challenge
• Rocking Climate Change
• Prove Me Wrong, Rocket Scientist!
• Obama’s Next Commercial: Political Jujistsu
• Not So Greenland

The Connect U.S. Fund has launched a new two-year initiative to help shape debate during the upcoming Presidential transition.  As part of this effort, they’ve asked leading thinkers and advocates to talk about what should be the top two or three foreign policy priorities for the next President.  They’ve also kindly allowed us to cross-post the responses here.

The series took a brief hiatus during the conventions, but it’s back and will continue from now until the election.  Today, we’ll hear from David Sandalow.  You can find the previous posts here.  Thanks again to Heather Hamilton and Eric Schwartz for making the cross-postings happen.

The dependence of our cars and trucks on oil weakens the United States and constrains our foreign policy.  The buildup of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere threatens our national security and imperils the planet.  The next President has an unprecedented opportunity to tackle both problems.

Today, 96 percent of the energy in our cars and trucks comes from oil.  That dependence lies at the heart of many problems.  Oil dependence empowers our enemies, endangers our men and women in uniform and undermines democracy around the world.  It plays a central role in global warming. It strains family budgets when world oil prices rise.

(”Drill here, drill now” is not the answer.  The nonpartisan Energy Information Agency says drilling in new areas offshore would add roughly 0.3% to global oil supplies in 10 years, with little if any impact on price. Does anyone think Ahmadinejad and Chavez are quaking in their boots at the thought of the US drilling in additional areas offshore?  Offshore drilling is weak.  It’s like walking an extra 20 feet per day to lose weight.  Let’s hope our leaders have the courage to take more powerful steps to help keep the United States strong.)

And we face an even more epic problem.  Today, concentrations of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere are at their highest level in human history — and rising sharply.  Unless we change course, rising sea levels, more frequent storms, more severe droughts and floods, the spread of tropical disease and forest loss will threaten lives and livelihoods around the world.  In the words of a dozen retired US military commanders including General Anthony Zinni (USMC-Ret.), “Climate change can act as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world and presents significant national security challenges for the United States.”

Depressed?

There’s good news.  Solving these problems is the economic opportunity of the century.

From China to northern Europe to Silicon Valley, fortunes are already being made in renewable energy.  Thousands of companies are cutting emissions while increasing profits by improving energy efficiency and ending energy waste.  “Green collar jobs” are beginning to revitalize US cities.  Plug-in electric vehicles could revitalize the US car industry.

What should the next President do?  First, launch a crash program to end the utter dependence of our cars and trucks on oil.  Tax incentives, federal procurement and federal research and development funding should be marshaled to put millions of plug-in electric vehicles on the road soon.  The same tools should be used for advanced biofuels, dramatic improvements in fuel efficiency, natural gas vehicles and mass transit.

For decades, the U.S. government has heavily subsidized oil consumption.  (How does one value the subsidy to a commodity from having the US President fly to Saudi Arabia to try to talk the down its price?  Although the most recent effort by a US President to do this was unsuccessful, it has been a priority of Presidents and Cabinet secretaries of both parties for generations to promote the free flow of cheap oil around the world.)  The cost of programs to help break our oil addiction will be small in comparison.

In launching these programs, we should work closely with other oil-consuming nations.  Traditional oil diplomacy means securing adequate and reliable supplies.  21st century oil diplomacy should have an additional objective: reducing dependence in all nations.

At the same, the US must immediately take comprehensive steps to fight global warming.  In the past several years, dozens of States and hundreds of US cities have passed laws to control emissions of heat-trapping gases.  It is long past time for the federal government to do the same.  The next President should work with Congress to pass such legislation as a top priority, giving the US the strength to participate credibly in international global warming negotiations.

Neither oil dependence nor global warming can be solved overnight.  But dramatic progress is possible.  The unusually broad consensus concerning the national security threats from oil dependence, growing awareness of global warming, sharp rise in public attention as a result of high oil prices, and breakthroughs in clean energy technologies such as solar power and lithium ion batteries - in combination - create an unprecedented opportunity for change.

The transition to a clean energy economy will shape the first part of this century.  The next President can make history by setting the United States on the right course.

David Sandalow is Energy & Environment Scholar and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.  He is a former assistant secretary of state and senior director on the National Security Council staff.  He is the author of Freedom from Oil (McGraw-Hill 2007).

Related posts

• Beyond November: Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Jr.
• Obama’s Next Commercial: Political Jujistsu
• Obama’s First Semi-Official Foreign Policy Statement
• Not So Greenland
• Graph of the Day: Obama’s Energy Challenge

Two hurricanes hit in the past week — Ike in Texas and Lehman Brothers in New York.  Both are deeply serious situations affecting the lives of thousands of Americans.

And yet there are those who cannot help but see an opportunity for mischief.  First New York:

Now Galveston:

Just wait until AIG fails — I’m betting we’ll see gay bears.

Hat tips:  Andrew Sullivan (bear) and Slog (dudes)

Related posts

• Where’s Colin Powell When You Need Him?
• What Would Klaatu Do?
• Torture, Bailouts, and the Theory of a Unitary Executive
• Today’s Political Haikus
• Thought of the Evening

An excerpt from Charlie Gibson’s interview with Sarah Palin tonight:

GIBSON: But this is not just reforming a government. This is also running a government on the huge international stage in a very dangerous world. When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?

PALIN: But it is about reform of government and it’s about putting government back on the side of the people, and that has much to do with foreign policy and national security issues.

She then changed the subject to energy.

But hold on a second, Governor.  You said that “putting government back on the side of the people. . .has much to do with foreign policy and national security issues.”  I’m willing to take you on your word on that — at least for the moment.  But I have a few questions for you.

1. Given that a majority of the American people believe that we should not have gone to war in Iraq, does that mean that you favor us getting out?
2. Given that a majority of the American people want the United States to be an international leader on climate change, are you willing to support much more aggressive measures to combat global warming, even if it means cutting back on the use of internal combustion engines, thus hurting your state’s economy?
3. Given that a majority of the American people support the end of torture, the closing of Guantanamo, and as you so quaintly put it in your acceptance speech, “reading their rights” to terrorist suspects, are you and Senator McCain in favor of ending the Bush Administration’s assault on civil liberties and the rule of law?  Would you prosecute those in the Bush Administration suspected of committing war crimes?
4. Given that a majority of the American people want the United States to work within the United Nations system and with our allies, would you and Senator McCain support reengaging with the United Nations in a meaningful way, including an end to the rhetoric we saw at the Convention attacking the UN?  And if so, can you explain the presence of John Bolton as an informal foreign policy advisor to the McCain-Palin campaign?

Because, Governor, that’s putting foreign poicy back on the side of the people.  Because that’s what a majority of the American people want.

I didn’t think so.

By the way, on Pakistan, she agreed with Obama and contradicted McCain.

And she thinks we should go to war with Russia if it invades Georgia again (or Ukraine).

Last but not least, Governor Palin might want to check out this page before her next interview.

Related posts

• Wonk’d: Why the UN Human Rights Council Blows
• While You Were Away: Russia-Georgia
• While We Were Putting Lipstick on That Pig. . .
• What’s Missing at DNC: Torture, Guantanamo. . .and Cheney
• Twenty Questions for the Debate Tonight

The Connect U.S. Fund has launched a new two-year initiative to help shape debate during the upcoming Presidential transition.  As part of this effort, they’ve asked leading thinkers and advocates to talk about what should be the top two or three foreign policy priorities for the next President.  They’ve also kindly allowed us to cross-post the responses here.

Today, we’ll hear from Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Jr..  Posts in the series will appears every Thursday from now to the convention.  You can find the previous posts here.  Thanks again to Heather Hamilton and Eric Schwartz for making the cross-postings happen.

The Hip Hop Caucus has always seen the Hip Hop Generation, those born after 1964,  as representative of what we like to call the “Dream Generation,” or the generation Dr. King prophesized, in which all people regardless of race, economic level, religion, or sexual preference, stood together to stand for Justice and Peace.

Throughout the world we find young people from diverse backgrounds who identify with Hip Hop culture and have similar local-to-global issues yet feel alienated or disenfranchised by political systems who do not address their issues.

As we move forward a progressive agenda, it is paramount that we are able to recognize the potential for a global movement around similar issues people face using an inside out approach. We must 1) address local issues that fit into a larger global context and 2) educate (Hip) people on the similarities and affects between local and global issues, and 3) mobilize and move (Hop) people to action so they are active civic participants and hold their elected officials accountable. By working an inside-out approach we have the ability to engage new segments of our democracy, who have not traditionally been engaged in matters concerning US global engagement into this process.

This upcoming presidential election is a unique and timely opportunity to engage new segments of our population into the political process and educate them on foreign policy. We recently launched our voter registration, education and mobilization campaign, “Respect My Vote!” to capture the energy surrounding this election. We are engaging 18-29 year olds–targeting those that did not attend college– in the political process and ensuring we can maintain contact with them beyond the presidential elections, and mobilize them to the polls. Our campaign is unique because we place equal emphasis on election and post election work. We have chosen this group because only 67 percent of people in this age group feel they can make an impact on their communities and we want to show them they can have an impact on their communities as well as the world.

As part of our voter education campaign we have selected urgent foreign policy issues and will begin familiarizing with the issues for future campaigns.

Climate Change, Food Shortages, and a Green Economy

Our incoming President must address climate change in a very real and urgent manner. No longer can we ignore or thumb or noses at international policy, we must work with the international community to aggressively address climate change because if we do not act now in the 21st century, there might not be a 22nd century for Humanity on this planet.

Without drastic shifts in emissions of greenhouse gases, we will continue to see shifts in rain patterns and temperatures which will deepen the food shortages and drought which we are already beginning to see, especially in parts of Africa. We are also beginning to see a rise in food prices here in the US which have acute impacts on disadvantaged communities

To curb climate change and oil dependence we must find new and creative ways to embrace the green movement, and build a broader social base for our movement. There is also vast economic potential in a green economy which would make way for new technology and industry which can provide new “green collar” jobs. The Hip Hop Caucus is working with organizations such as Green for All to ensure that disadvantaged communities are at the forefront of the emerging green economy, allowing us to fight both poverty and pollution at the same time.

Proliferation of poverty, Iraq war, and the Iraqi refugee crisis

We must recognize the Iraqi refugee Crisis as both a humanitarian issue and a national security issue.  While we hemorrhage resources to the war in Iraq, a October 2007 CRS Report cited that  2.2 million people have been Internally Displaced in Iraq and there are now 2 million refugees in Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon. We spend upwards of $12 billion per month on this war which has caused a humanitarian crisis and proliferated poverty onto millions of people in Iraq, while our communities in the US continue to suffer from inadequate resources. Anti-US sentiment created by poverty, instability, and our treatment of people combine to provide a great environment for potential threats to US National Security.

Yes, there are policies which need to be addressed the incoming president and 111th Congress but without an engaged citizenry to hold the accountable for their words and rhetoric there will be little change. This is why it is so important to engage our citizenry in meaningful ways. This is why we must make the connections between spending in Iraq and spending in our communities, or the effects of climate change and soaring prices of food as well as the opportunity for our communities to be at the forefront of the Green Collar job movement.

Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Jr., is a minister, community activist, and one of the most influential people in Hip Hop political life. Firmly grounded in his Caribbean and Louisiana roots, Rev. Yearwood is a fierce advocate for the human and civil rights in the 21st century.  A powerful and fiery orator, Rev. Yearwood works diligently and tirelessly to encourage the Hip Hop generation to utilize its political and social voice.  He currently serves as President of the Hip Hop Caucus, a national, nonprofit, nonpartisan, organization that inspires and motivates those born after the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.

Rev. Yearwood is known for his activist work as the National Director of the Gulf Coast Renewal Campaign in which he organized a coalition of national organizations and grassroots organizations to advocate for the rights of Hurricane Katrina survivors.   Rev. Yearwood has become an important figure in the peace movement as an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq and the Bush Administration.  He was an Officer in the U.S. Air Force Reserve and led the “Make Hip Hop Not War” national tour to engage more young people in the movement for peace.  Rev. Yearwood was a co-creator of the 2004 campaign “Vote or Die” with Sean “Diddy” Combs.  He was also the Political and Grassroots Director for Russell Simmons’ Hip Hop Summit Action Network in 2003 and 2004, and a Senior Consultant to Jay Z’s Voice Your Choice.

Related posts

• Obama’s Next Commercial: Political Jujistsu
• Beyond November: Emira Woods
• Beyond November: David Sandalow
• Obama’s First Semi-Official Foreign Policy Statement
• Not So Greenland

So The New York Times Magazine had a piece this weekend about Greenland’s path to independence.  Apparently the key is global warming:

Read the rest of this entry »

Related posts

• Obama’s First Semi-Official Foreign Policy Statement
• Graph of the Day: Obama’s Energy Challenge
• Beyond November: Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Jr.
• Beyond November: David Sandalow
• What Would Klaatu Do?

Unhappy news out of Rio de Janeiro:

More than 400 penguins, most of them young, have been found dead on the beaches of Rio de Janeiro state over the past two months, according to Eduardo Pimenta, superintendent for the state coastal protection and environment agency in the resort city of Cabo Frio.  While it is common here to find some penguins — both dead and alive — swept by strong ocean currents from the Strait of Magellan, Pimenta said there have been more this year than at any time in recent memory.

Speculation about the cause ranges from overfishing to pollution.  What’s not clear is whether this is a genuine spike in deaths or merely the result of changes in ocean currents.  Either way, it certainly is something to be concerned about, as would any report of a sudden die-off.

Penguins have enjoyed a huge pop culture renaissance in recent years, thanks in large part to Hollywood (March of the Penguins, Madagascar, Happy Feet, etc.).  Along with polar bears, they have become poster children for the threats posed by a range of environmental concerns, including global warming and overfishing.

My favorite example of this is the product of the first Citizens for Global Solutions flash contest, held back in 2005:

If you enjoyed this, it’s worth your time to visit animator John Cooney’s site to see some of the other cool stuff he’s done.

Related posts

• What Would Klaatu Do?
• Rocking Climate Change
• Obama’s First Semi-Official Foreign Policy Statement
• Not So Greenland
• Graph of the Day: Obama’s Energy Challenge