News and Updates

This post may be a bit about old news - since it has been going on since November - but a friend of mine from back home in Bellows Falls has been making waves about his effort to have actives in the military show support for a withdrawal. It is exciting and amazing to see that someone from Vermont is leading the way - Good job Liam - Keep up the Good Work!

Here is the article in the Burlington Seven Days: [link]
VT Marine Enlists Fellow Soldiers to Urge Prompt Iraq Pullout

	SGT. LIAM MADDEN

VERMONT — United States Marine Corps Sgt. Liam Madden was opposed to the Iraq war even before he was deployed in September 2004 to al-Anbar, the mostly Sunni province that’s seen some of the war’s fiercest fighting. He became even more opposed after returning to Quantico, Virginia, in February 2005.

As an active-duty service member, Madden was prevented by military regulations from organizing protests or speaking out publicly against the occupation, which he describes as “a pre-emptive and immoral war of aggression.” Nevertheless, the Bellows Falls native felt compelled to take a decisive step to help end the conflict, which he believes is needlessly costing thousands of American and Iraqi lives, depleting military and financial resources, and doing irreparable harm to U.S. prestige around the world.

With the help of a Navy seaman and several antiwar groups, including Iraq Veterans Against the War, Military Families Speak Out and Veterans for Peace, Madden discovered a legal avenue for voicing his antiwar sentiments. He launched an online appeal to Congress from military personnel. Known by its organizers as an “Appeal for Redress,” it calls for an immediate end to the nearly 4-year-old U.S. conflict.

“As a patriotic American proud to serve the nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq,” the appeal reads. “Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for U.S. troops to come home.”

Unlike a petition, an appeal for redress is a legally permissible form of dissent by service members. Although active-duty personnel are prohibited from some types of political activism, they are allowed to communicate with members of Congress, as long as they make it clear they’re speaking on behalf of themselves and not of their military unit.

On Monday, as the nation celebrated Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Madden, 22, and Navy Seaman Jonathan Hutto, 29, of Atlanta, were on Capitol Hill to present their appeal for redress formally to Congress. More than 990 other active-duty, Reserve and National Guard personnel have signed the appeal. It comes just as Congress debates the president’s request last week for an additional 21,500 troops to quell the rising sectarian violence in Iraq.

The idea of an appeal for redress originated last June, when Hutto, who was stationed in Norfolk, Virginia, organized a screening of the 2005 antiwar documentary Sir! No Sir!, which chronicles the efforts of American GIs to end the Vietnam War. Among those who attended the screening were Madden and David Cortright, a University of Notre Dame professor and author of Soldiers in Revolt and Left Face, two books that explore soldier-resistance movements in modern armies. After the screening, Madden says, he approached Hutto and Cortright, and the three got together to launch the online signature drive.

This appeal for redress isn’t unprecedented — many soldiers during the Vietnam War made similar appeals to their congressional representatives. However, this missive is the first of its kind to come from an all-volunteer military, according to Madden.

The Vermont native says he encountered very little resistance from his fellow Marines and no retaliation from his superiors. He didn’t expect such a benign reception, he says, since the Marine Corps is typically the most gung-ho and conservative branch of the armed forces.

“It’s really been hands-off, and that was surprising,” Madden continues. “I thought at the very least, they would scrutinize me completely and make sure that every nook and cranny of my performance and appearance were perfect.”

His fellow Marines’ acceptance of the appeal may reflect their own growing disillusionment with the war, even if many of them are reluctant to voice their opposition publicly. “Actually, I’ve had a lot of positive feedback,” Madden notes. “The biggest percentage of my peers [in the Marines] disagree with the war, but are not sure if getting out is the right answer, either.”

One notable exception was an email Madden received shortly after going public. It came from a Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, who accused Madden of cowardice and lending aid and comfort to the enemy.

Rather than ignoring the hostile missive, Madden wrote back and explained his rationale for opposing the war and launching the appeal. “It ended up being a back-and-forth correspondence for a couple of weeks,” Madden says. “I was definitely glad that I didn’t resort to slinging mud back.”

Madden, whose mother lives in Rockingham and whose father lives in Keane, New Hampshire, is due to be honorably discharged in the next few weeks and says he’ll attend college “somewhere in Boston” in the fall. Until then, he intends to travel around New England speaking on college campuses and in other venues. Adding his voice and those of other soldiers to the chorus may just bring the antiwar movement to its tipping point.

This message was delivered live to the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization on 17 January 2007 at the Contois Auditorium in Burlington, VT.

As we talk about consensus on growth and development in Burlington and Chittenden county – I feel that from a youth perspective - that there is a disconnect between the goals and vision of the future between the generations. I see too often that many do not want growth and development, especially here in Burlington. I think is short-sighted.

It is the youth that will be saddled more and more with the responsibility of the State economy as the aging population moves out of the workforce. Already, education and social services are chewing up 68% of our state and local revenues. As our population ages, the education costs may decrease slightly, but increasing costs of social services that we provide will require a greater share of the revenue. All this leaves less money to do other things with, especially fund transportation –

The most fundamental way I see to decrease transportation costs is to build denser.

The benefits of an urban environment are plentiful and go beyond simple definable costs – cities reduce emissions by reducing vehicle miles driven, reduced overall pavement miles, increased transit, increased walking and biking, and increased mobility for those without an automobile, an important consideration as the population ages.

If mixed-use urban centers become a goal rather than a byproduct – more trips can be made without the use of the private automobile. With fewer private autos – there should be less congestion leaving more room for transit and other modes of travel.

The MPO should lead the charge by encouraging the formation of innovative incentive mechanisms through transportation to develop dense, compact urban centers.

Sorry this won’t be a full submission based on time and energy on a Sunday evening and feeling a bit under the weather.

Item 1:

TerraBlog from Terrapass has some great news that is starting to be discussed in many political circles in D.C. - Is Bush changing his stance on Global Climate change? It looks as if during the Presidential Address Bush may announce some news that the US supports CO2 caps among other potential solutions to reduce our contributions to climate change. Check it out here: TerraBlog

Item 2:

Reading a recent article in the Rutland Herald (Vermont local news) demographers and economists are lamenting the aging of Vermont. The aging issue does present some very real and difficult issues for Vermont. Our age profile is becoming more lopsided with the majority the population in the retiring class rather than the working class.

“I don’t think you want your economy of the future to basically be a theme park for the rest of the nation, and a retirement home,” Francese said (demographics expert Peter Francese).

I want to look further into this article since it says, “By the year 2030, Woolf said education and human services spending will gobble up 95 percent of state and local revenue.” (Arthur Woolf is an economist in Vermont). I find it hard to believe that based on the facts in this article where our aging population and shrinking school age population will require that large of a percentage of our state and local revenue.

Item 3:

The United Nations Science and Technology caucus that I am working with is having some organizational issues. The organizations that have been running the show for the last few years have decided that they want to remain in control and not participate in the caucus process of involving worldwide science and technology organizations. These organizations, ICSU and WFEO, were supposedly selected by the UN to represent the science perspective during the WSSD.

This causes some problems because the Major Groups part of ECOSOC are meant to represent the entire Science & Technology community. The caucus as currently setup only represents some science - and precludes many other organizations from taking part. We are working with the UN to get a better explanation of this - Stay Tuned!

Just read this post from this freelancer in California - It is amazing that the mainstream is going on the climate change wagon. I just wonder if the guy is driving some SUV -

I know that we have change our way of life - but how? Lets have a big discussion on the ways in which we learn to live our life a bit different. - actually Seventh Generation in Burlington is already doing it. Check it out at http://www.inspiredprotagonist.com/ They are having a video contest where people are sharing how they are reducing their personal impact to Global Warming. It should be good since Burlington just had 50 to 60 degree weather on the 6th of January.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Opinion/551152.html

Environment: a resolution for the hottest year ever

RALPH SURETTETHE YEAR we’ve left behind was dominated by a couple large changes of mind: Global warming was finally accepted as real, leaving those in denial sputtering, and the war in Iraq was understood for the irretrievable catastrophe that it is.

That it took such titanic struggles, in both cases, to have the obvious accepted as obvious is hardly a good sign; but here we are, theoretically trying to move ahead.

And the question that will dominate from here on, in both cases, is: What’s the next step?

With regard to the environment, the next step is to get our stories together, the economic one and the environmental one, so that economic growth is not blindly pursued on the one hand while environmental measures are seen as something apart.

For example, the first test of whether the Harper government is serious, with its brand new environment minister, is whether it cuts the tax incentives to oil companies for oil sands development.

The relentless evidence may have made the obvious indeed obvious, but that’s still a long way from getting us to change our ways.

In fact, at the highest level – that of the American presidency – admission of global warming has been accompanied by more of the same: measures of obfuscation and delay, lest good friends of the administration in the dirty industries object.

In Canada, where the Harper government tries to imitate the Bush government in all things, its attempt to do the same has happily blown up in its face. Whether its credibility is permanently gone remains to be seen.

The scientific consensus is that we have some 10 years to turn climate change around before the consequences become truly catastrophic. That means getting very serious right now, in the middle of summer-in-winter.

Still, the old presumption – economic development no matter what – continues without question.

Here’s another example. There’s talk of a new refinery, by American interests, at the Strait of Canso (and yet another at Saint John by the Irvings).

Ironically, the American one is apparently partly motivated by the wish to get out of hurricane alley where Katrina hit, arguably a phenomenon of global warming.

The idea of economic development always creates excitement in these “underdeveloped” parts, but no thought is given anywhere in the system that the real need is to build no more refineries, and to drive less instead, which would constitute true progress.

Instead of starting the necessary work of organizing our ways of doing things to discourage, rather than to encourage, energy waste, the plans for new highways, far-flung suburbs, more oil sands, and so on, continue without respite, negating whatever progress is made towards conservation and energy alternatives.

We’re still wallowing in resistance, then, incapable of looking the issue in the eye – because, quite simply, it challenges too deeply our way of life.

How likely is it that we will, in the coming year, get motivated to in fact meet the challenge?

Hopefully, more likely than you and I think. Last year at this time, my column was a depressing lament about the environment being politically taboo.

I wrote: “As during the 2004 American election campaign, when the U.S. south was being hammered by hurricane after massive hurricane and nobody ever uttered the words ‘climate change,’ here we seem to have the same speech impediment.”

In the runup to the federal election, “we’ve had four national debates in which the words ‘environment’ and ‘Kyoto’ got tossed out once or twice at random, but that’s it. It’s not just the leaders and their parties – the journalistic machinery that prepared the questions didn’t see this as a politically worthy subject.”

In 2006, bingo! It’s off the taboo list. So now I’m genuinely surprised.

Can we resolve for 2007, slated to be the hottest year ever, to finally get the message once and for all?

As for the calamity in Iraq, with Afghanistan seemingly in its train, what constitutes the next step is beyond anyone’s comprehension.

Nevertheless, the whole calamitous mess belongs to the same large order of ideas as the environmental question: the mismanagement of the world.

One figure arrests my attention: It could cost the U.S. in the order of $1 trillion before it’s out of Iraq.

Just imagine what that kind of resource could have done if directed towards improving the world, rather than ruining it.

Ralph Surette is a veteran freelance journalist living in Yarmouth County. ( rsurette@herald.ca)

Hello Friends, Family -

As some of you may know, I have been significantly involved with a youth NGO (non-governmental organization) called SustainUS since my mid-college years. The organization has provided me the opportunity to be involved in a very special way with the United Nations Commission for Sustainable Development (CSD) for the last three years. The experience of being in such a dynamic, global, and intense place has forever changed my perspectives and outlook on life as well as my own personal commitment to sustainability.

Sustainable development is defined as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” (Brundtland Commission, 1987).

Now – almost 20 years later – we still have a long way to go meeting the needs of the present, let alone the need to preserve the ability to live in the future. We still have 1/3 of the world’s population living on less than $2.00 a day. Providing these people with the opportunity and a chance at living a long, fulfilling life - while not destroying our Planet - presents a significant challenge.

This challenge is why I became involved with the United Nations. It is THE place where the international dialogue on development needs to occur. Only when governments talk openly and honestly, can positive change occur.

During my time at the UN I have built a relationship with the Science & Technology caucus (a major group recognized by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs). This year, I have been selected to be the Science and Technology Caucus Coordinator for the North (the “developed” nations) for the upcoming UN Meeting on Sustainable Development from April 30 to May 11th in New York City. I will be working for the caucus from now until the April meeting to develop policy statements, organize caucus events, and assemble international case studies.

This is an incredible honor as well as an amazing opportunity for me personally.

The topics being discussed during this year include: Energy for Sustainable Development; Industrial Development; Air pollution/ Atmosphere; and Climate Change. No light load and all very dependent on science and technology.

I would like your support for my work with the UN – since it has been 100% volunteer up to this point. I have used personal funds for transportation, lodging, food, etc. during past last three years. Now, taking a larger role, I cannot spare the larger expense. Typically the coordinator position is filled with a representative from a large NGO, such as NAS, NSF, or other international science organization, where the organization would fund the position over the year long term.

This year, because of the substantial time involved in preparation, the need to take time off from my full time employment at RSG, and the significant expenses incurred in New York City during a potential three week stay – I would like to ask if you are able to provide any amount of financial support. If you are able to support some of my efforts - please email me at jon@vsdconsulting.com . Thank you -

I am completely understanding that you may not be able to provide me any financial support at this time – I appreciate that and ask then only for your support to work with me today and in the future to find a more sustainable way of living.

Thank you all for your friendship –

Be Well

Jon

Links to some of the important pages

SustainUS:

http://www.sustainus.org

CSD-15:

http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/policy.htm

S&T Caucus:

http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/mgroups/about_mgroups/amg_science_main.htm

Well - it may be no surprise when an organization defends their business model - however - to fund illegitimate arguments on global climate change and pass it off as science is completely a new low. Today the Union of Concerned Scientists released their report titled: Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to “Manufacture Uncertainty” on Climate Change –

WASHINGTON, DC, Jan. 3–A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry’s disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.

The link to the UCS website is here.

A recent article posted by the New York Times columnist Andy Revkin discusses a very disturbing issue that is developing within the climate change circles- Can the costs of climate change be quantified? And then can we do a cost-benefit analysis on the efforts needed to halt the process?

This neoclassical approach to the problem presents us with a very complex problem. We may be able to quantify some impacts of global warming, but many others may be simply (thought I find it hard to admit) outside the realm of economics. How for instance should be able to quantify the costs of moving all the residents affected by rising sea waters out of their homes into a new town, new state, or even a new country.

here in Vermont we have our own issues with Climate Change. Perhaps we can value the impacts that a reduced maple sugaring season, less annual snowfall, more rain, a longer growing season, and reduced fall foliage may have on our economy. Perhaps a C/B ratio could work out for Vermont - However. Would it capture the costs that we Vermonters would endure to have to move from our great state to another area in order to enjoy the ability to make a living because our old way is no longer available? I think not…

Lets all be proactive and work for an improved environment in order to keep our excellent Vermont way of life.
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/science/earth/energy.html