Be there or be square….



http://www.earthhour.org

Okay, so here I was cutting articles from the newspaper for Hais’ senior scrapbook and what did I find? A API story written by Jeff Karoub titled Discouraged words: One sees red over “green”! The title caught my attention, then I perused to find an inset titled ENOUGH ALREADY! with this:

Lake Superior State University’s 2009 list of bannished words: 

• green
• carbon footprint or carbon offsetting
• maverick
• first dude bailout
• Wall Street/Main Street
• monkey
• 3 (Emoticon for “heart” used in text messages and email.) 
• icon or iconic
• game changer
• staycation
• desperate search
• not so much
• winner of five nominations
• It’s that time of year again

    –The Associated Press

Looking for the actual story online (so I could link to it) only provided me with LSSU’s actual release on their website. LSSU issues 34th annual List of Words to be Bannished  was released online on December 31 under the university’s Campus News.  Though I consider this a parody of sorts, I am disappointed at some of the environment/ecological choices added.

{snip}

“Environmental buzzwords are getting the axe this year.
“Green” and “going green” received the most nominations.

GREEN – The ubiquitous ‘Green’ and all of its variables, such as ‘going green,’ ‘building green,’ ‘greening,’ ‘green technology,’ ‘green solutions’ and more, drew the most attention from those who sent in nominations this year.

“This phrase makes me go green every time I hear it.” Danielle Brunin, Lawrence, Kansas.

“I’m all for being environmentally responsible, but this ‘green’ needs to be nipped in the bud.” Valerie Gilson, Gales Ferry, Conn.

“Companies are less ‘green’ than ever, advertising the fact they are ‘green.’ Is anyone buying this nonsense?” Mark Etchason, Denver, Colo.

“If something is good for the environment, just say so. As Kermit would say, ‘It isn’t easy being green.’” Kevin Sherlock, Hiawatha, Iowa.

“If I see one more corporation declare itself ‘green,’ I’m going to start burning tires in my backyard.” Ed Hardiman, Bristow, Va.

“This spawned ‘green solutions,’ ‘green technology,’ and the horrible use of the word as a verb, as in, ‘We really need to think about greening our office.’” Mike McDermott, Philadelphia, Penn.

CARBON FOOTPRINT or CARBON OFFSETTING – “It is now considered fashionable for everyone, tree hugger or lumberjack alike, to pay money to questionable companies to ‘offset’ their own ‘carbon footprint.’ What a scam! Get rid of it immediately!” Ginger Hunt, London, England.

Mike of Chicago says that when he hears the phrase ‘carbon footprint,’ “I envision microscopic impressions on the surface of the earth where an atom of carbon forgot to wear its shoes.”

Christy Loop of Woodbridge, Va., says that ‘leaving a carbon footprint’ has become the new ‘politically incorrect.’ “How can we not, in one way or another, affect our natural environment?”

Presidential election years are always ripe for language abuse. This year, the electorate grew weary of ‘mavericks’ and ’super delegates.’ As Michael W. Casby of Haslett, Mich. said, when he suggested banning all of the candidates’ names, “Come on, it’s been another too-long campaign season.”"

{snip}

“STAYCATION – “Occurrences of this word are going up with gas prices.’Vacation’ does not mean ‘travel,’ nor does travel always involve vacation. Let’s send this word on a slow boat to nowhere.” Dan Muldoon, Omaha, Neb.

“The cost of petrol forces many families to curtail their summer voyages and a new word has sprung, idiotic and rootless…” Michele Mooney, Los Angeles, Calif.”

Can you say “Bozo”?

ENOUGH SAID!

GREEN!

I often visit No Impact Man’s Blog and found this was posted while I was away this weekend. I hope to assist in spreading the word even to my small readership. If you have not ever visited his site…you are in for a treat!

No Impact Man  

We can really make a difference. TODAY. But I need your help. Plus I have some free Reverend Billy DVDs to give away.

I really, really need support from all of you today (and I’m unashamedly bribing you with the offer of free Reverend Billy DVDs). But first I have to give you some background. Just read the bits in bold if you’re in hurry.

Next Friday, May 30, Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York’s Eight Congressional District has kindly agreed to meet with me in his New York office. As one of his constituents, I intend to ask Representative Nadler to support an effective global warming mitigation policy that is based not on what is politically possible but on what is scientifically necessary.

More specifically, I intend to ask him to:

• Introduce, as soon as possible, a non-binding resolution to the House of Representatives asserting that we need a climate change mitigation policy with a goal of no more than 350 ppm of atmospheric carbon dioxide (read why here). Furthermore, the resolution should say that the United States must collaborate with the international community to achieve an effective successor to the Kyoto Protocol that will achieve the 350 goal or better (depending on how the science progresses).
• Pledge to support the 1sky.org policy platform that also includes creating five million green jobs (through, for example, weatherizing our buildings and manufacturing solar panels and windmills), and placing a moratorium on the building of new coal power plants.
• Pass on to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a letter addressed jointly to her and Representative Nadler, in his position as Assistant Whip, asking them both to push for the introduction of new and the strengthening of currently pending climate change legislation to reflect the crucial 350 goal. This means, at the very least, aiming for an 80% reduction in climate emissions below 1990 levels by 2050 and a 25% reduction by 2020.

Now then, here’s how I was hoping you could help. My dream is to present Representative Nadler and Speaker Pelosi with between 350 and 3,500 (10 x 350) emails of support for these policy objectives.

Can you help? All it requires is a cut and paste job (see below).

Fellow bloggers: would you be willing to pass this request onto your readers?

Everyone: would you email this around and get your friends to pitch in?

Two bits of good news:

1. Representative Nadler has been an ardent supporter of environmental issues ranging from the thorough cleanup of the World Trade Center site to securing federal funding for state conservation and wildlife grants. He received a score of 95% for his voting record in the 1st session of the 110th Congress from the League of Conservation Voters.
2. Reverend Billy and the Church of Stop Shopping have provided me with five copies of their new DVD, What Would Jesus Buy (watch the trailer here). I’m going to give the DVDs to people who send in their emails of support (the 1st, the 35th, 100th, the 350th and the 1000th).

Here’s how to send in your email of support:

Simply cut and paste the below, making sure to substitute in your name, mailing address and email address, and send it to noimpactman+nadler+pelosi@gmail.com (it looks like a weird email address but, don’t worry, it will work).

Dear Representative Nadler and Speaker Pelosi–

Thank you for your hard work on behalf of the people of the United States. It is indisputable that the health, happiness and security of the American people depends upon the well-being of our planetary habitat. It is also indisputable that the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases is causing changes in our habitat that will adversely effect Americans on every level–from our health to our economy.

On May 30, Colin Beavan aka No Impact Man will visit Representative Nadler to express to him support for a number of climate change mitigation policies that are much stronger than those currently passing through Congress. Please consider this a letter of support for the measures Colin Beavan will be advocating.

Specifically, I support Colin Beavan in requesting that Representative Nadler and Speaker Pelosi both, together or separately:

• Introduce, as soon as possible, a non-binding resolution to the House of Representatives asserting that we need a climate change mitigation policy that accords not with what is politically possible but what is scientifically necessary–a goal of no more than 350 ppm of atmospheric carbon dioxide (read why here). Furthermore, this resolution should assert that the United States must collaborate with the international community to achieve an effective successor to the Kyoto Protocol that will achieve the 350 goal or better (depending on how the science progresses).
• Pledge to support the 1sky.org policy platform that also includes creating five million green jobs (through, for example, weatherizing our buildings and manufacturing solar panels and windmills) and placing a moratorium on the building of new coal power plants.
• Push for the introduction of new and the strengthening of currently pending climate change legislation to reflect the crucial 350 goal. This means, at the very least, aiming for an 80% reduction in climate emissions below 1990 levels by 2050 and a 25% reduction by 2020.

Yours sincerely,

<Your Name>
<Your Mailing Address>
<Your Email Address>