Don't Miss the Motorcade

Have to admit, that last “on air” comment by President Obama after his Copenhagen press conference continues to nag at me, despite my contention that the Copenhagen Accord was a success, largely because of President Obama’s leadership (see previous post, Why Copenhagen was a Success).

To those who view the Accord as a failure, knowing that the President and his U.S. entourage was hustling out of Copenhagen to beat an epic snowstorm did little to change their minds about the U.S. reluctance to do the hard work necessary to combat global warming. How ironic, of course, that the U.S. Capitol would see a record snow storm – more snow in a 24-hour period than the region typically gets in an entire winter.

And of course, the usual “so much for global warming” comments from those who don’t understand that this kind of storm is what we’ll see more of in the future. A warming atmosphere brings more moisture which means more rain (aka Florida) and more epic snows. “Worse storm on record” will be words we should all get used to hearing. This snow storm is a harbinger of things to come and completely in line with the climate science that warns of more extreme and severe weather.

Who knows what more would have happened if President Obama and the traveling press corps had been “snowed in” in Copenhagen. Likely negotiators from low-lying island countries, and sub-Sahara Africa would have welcomed hearing of the inconvenience, noting how global warming is wrecking havoc in their homelands.

“Don’t miss the motorcade” isn’t what they were hoping to hear…

Why Copenhagen was a Success

Reading accounts from the European press, and from some U.S. ngos, multiple adjectives such as “abysmal” sit in front of the word, failure, when describing the Copenhagen Accord. And while we have no time to lose spinning our wheels in negotiations that don’t get us closer to binding commitments to reduce carbon pollution threatening lives and economies, we need to recognize the significance of what did happen. We also need to remember that a binding agreement was not the goal at Copenhagen. It was a step in a two-step process to get to a binding agreement.

Larry Schweiger, President of National Wildlife Federation got it right when he said, “We’re not done yet.” And yet, if we are truly realistic about the work ahead, we should recognize we’ll never be done. From now and for the foreseeable future, we will have a never ending list of “To Dos” to get us to the low carbon economy we need to survive. And every one of those to dos, will build a healthier, stronger economy, improve our national security and protect the planet for future generations.

So why was Copenhagen a success? First, all the emerging economies now have a “To Do” list of their own. Without China, India, Brazil and South Africa agreeing to emissions reductions and a system of verification, Copenhagen would have been a failure – with them, the world community has now moved to a new level of engagement and collective responsibility to address global warming.

Secondly, China shifted. Difficult for us to get our heads around the significance of this. China is a closed society -- a commitment to participate in a verification process is transformational. Without President Obama’s leadership in convincing China to step up and step into this new world of transparency, nearly half of the world’s carbon pollution would have been ignored. And that would have been a failure the planet could not have endured.

Third, developed countries for the first time agreed to take responsibility for the global warming impacts our standard of living will cause on poor countries. This is an admission that developing countries have long awaited. Because of Copenhagen, there is no turning back to the days of ignoring our own complicity. We are now addressing not only the causes of global warming, but also the effects, and the solutions.

The financing plan of $100 billion includes accelerating the availability of energy efficiency and clean energy technology. As President Obama pointed out, millions of people in the developing world are still living in abject poverty without electricity. Clean energy technology will give millions a better standard of living without contributing to a worsening of the climate crisis. Bringing these technologies to a mass market is where America can, and should lead. That choice is up to us.

Fourth, the world community has finally tackled deforestation. For the first time, there are substantive agreements to reduce deforestation – one of the most cost-effective and common sense solutions to reducing carbon emissions. Tropical deforestation accounts for nearly 20% of carbon emissions, and reducing deforestation will also provide multiple benefits for indigenous cultures, local economies, watersheds, and wildlife.

Fifth, thanks to President Obama, the United States was a leader in these negotiations, not an observer whining on the sidelines. President Obama spent hours in one-on-one negotiations with the Chinese and in meetings with other world leaders. This level of involvement was unprecedented and absolutely essential to the final outcome.

Last, and certainly not least, let it be clear that the science of global warming was never in doubt. In fact, the agreement to not let global temperatures rise more than 2◦ C wasn’t good enough for many developing countries that insisted it be 1.5 degrees (and for good reason). President Obama signaled to the world that while there is more work to be done, we all should understand that what we do will “ultimately be dictated by the science.”

Show Us the Money

As the last days of the Copenhagen climate change negotiations wind up (not winding down yet), we’ll be hearing a lot of chatter about protecting our own interests here in the U.S. Those bent on generating fear will try to convince Americans that the U.S. Constitution has been hijacked, we’re letting China and India off the hook, we’re willing to spend money “over there” while we continue to wreck havoc on our economy “over here" ....

Would be nice if those spewing out this rhetoric, and those listening to it, would go around their homes and offices and count the number of items that have a “Made in China” label on them – and don’t miss that third or fourth TV in the kids’ rooms, or the bathroom. Let’s face it, China’s carbon pollution is our carbon pollution.

And hey, let’s take another look at the numbers: the U.S. accounts for 5% of the world’s pollution and we’re responsible for 20% of the carbon pollution that is putting millions of people in harm’s way because of the impacts of global warming on their homelands, their food, and water supplies. Why should those least responsible for global warming be left to fend for themselves against the worst impacts of global warming?

A central issue now facing the delegates from 192 countries is “climate financing” – how much money developed countries will provide to boost development of energy efficiency and clean energy technology, reduce deforestation and provide humanitarian relief to those developing countries on the front lines. The Group of 77 (a coalition of developing nations established in 1964 and now numbering 130 countries) are standing firm that the U.S. and other industrialized countries should pony up. Today in Copenhagen, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced support for a $100 billion global fund.

The World Bank estimates the costs of unchecked climate change in developing countries at $75-100 billion per year.

There’s plenty of ways to generate the kind of financing needed – from public as well as private sources. Most immediately we can stop the wasteful habit of giving the fossil fuel industry government subsidies. In the U.S. we spend $ 10 billion a year on giveaways to this carbon polluting industry -- (worldwide its $300 billion.) The U.S. also spends $1 billion a day on foreign oil –$350 billion per year!

It’s time the U.S. and the world redirect this money toward a future we can all live with: a low-carbon economy future that invests in a healthier planet instead of more pollution.

Down to the Wire on Climate Talks

With three days left to the conclusion of the Copenhagen climate negotiations, we begin to see the inevitable challenges of setting the framework for an international agreement that the developing and developed world can accept.

We are now at a “very distinct and important moment in the process.”

And yet, it’s not that distinct. Doesn’t it always comes down to this: developing vs. developed; or industrialized vs. emerging; or large vs. small. Or perhaps most precisely, the haves and the have nots.

Once again, for those of us who live in a country where we have more than we could ever need, and the carbon emissions to show for it, we look to other countries who strive to catch up with our standard of living to make sacrifices that we’re just not willing to make ourselves.

The climate debate is more complex than denial versus skepticism, according to Stewart Brand. To the deniers, and skeptics, he adds the “warners” and the “calamatists.” What he missed was the “realists” – those among us who know that we can’t continue business as usual because our natural resources won’t keep pace with our greed. In fact, restoring America’s economic health is linked to restoring the health of our natural systems – and that means reducing global warming pollution.

It’s why decisions at Copenhagen to reduce global deforestation are so critical – clear cutting forests accounts for 15% of all carbon emissions globally. Doug Boucher, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Tropical Forests and Climate Initiative tells us that "Assuming we get a treaty or a treaty framework in Copenhagen, REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) will be part of it and will be one of the biggest successes of the climate summit.”

Jonathan Lash, President of World Resources Institute got it right when he wrote that, "No generation before ours had enough information to understand the urgent need for action to avert climate catastrophe. No generation after ours will have the opportunity – it will be too late to avert terrible harm. We have the evidence to prove that action is necessary. We have the technology to shift to a low carbon economy. We may still have the opportunity to avert catastrophic warming. It is an historic moment. The question is whether we have the wisdom and the will to act."

Three days and counting….

Thanks for the Reminder

What the criminals who illegally hacked into private emails at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit didn’t know is how much their calculated actions right before the start of the international climate change negotiations in Copenhagen would do for the cause. The cause of science that is.

If anything, the story has lit a fire under many of us in the community to get back to the basics of communicating the science about global warming. It’s always been a story in three parts. We’ve tended to focus on the benefits of strong climate and energy legislation to improving the economy (millions of new jobs) and our national security (let’s stop sending $1 billion overseas to buy oil), with the science of global warming -- sometimes taking a back seat. Thanks to the hackers, that’s all changed.

We’ve now had more than three weeks and counting of coverage on what’s really happening to the only planet we have. Scientists are now front and center telling us that the body of evidence that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming is overwhelming. And that global warming is not only real, but a growing threat to society. We’ve been reminded of all the places we can go to get more details on the science. You can start with the U.S. Global Change Research Program, on the impacts here in the U.S., or check out the Copenhagen Diagnosis. Or, let’s just stick to the basics:

• Temps this decade have been higher than any other decade on record
• Ocean temperatures this summer were hotter than ever previously recorded
• Stable sea ice in the Arctic melted to its lowest recorded levels this summer -- declining more than 60% since the 1980s and 1990s.
• Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere for 2009 (387 parts per million) are the highest they have been in about 15 million years.
• 8.7 billion tons of carbon were added to the atmosphere in 2008 from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas -- a 41% increase from 1990.

Ironic as it is, thanks to the criminals, science is back in the front seat where it belongs.

Timing is Everything

Oh, yes, timing is everything. And so here we are just a few short weeks away from the international climate change negotiations in Copenhagen and someone hacks into the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and steals 1,000 emails and 3,000 documents, generated by U.S. and British climate researchers.

In a statement, the University said the “selective publication of some stolen emails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way.”

This issue is climate change and it’s not going away. It’s getting worse and every moment of delay makes it costlier to deal with its impacts – with cost estimates at $500 billion per year, for every year we wait, according to the International Energy Agency.

Since the Kyoto Protocol, CO2 emissions have increased 6.5 % per year – and the worst case scenarios on global warming impacts are now being surpassed. Everything is happening faster than predicted and at a more serious scale. So if someone has doubted the predictions they were right. The predictions were much too optimistic.

President Obama needs to go to Copenhagen about something a heck of a lot more important than hosting the Olympics. The President needs to tell the world community the U.S. will get accountable for our own carbon footprint, and that we will step up to the plate and lead. Give the world community a target our country will meet, Mr. President. A minimum of 17%. Just do it.

What's the Value of Truth?

Jeff Zucker, CEO and President of NBC Universal, in a Media Post interview said that while the blogosphere gives everyone a chance to contribute, “it is dangerous because there is no context, and there is no value put on the truth. Someone recently said - and I agree with this - that it is easy to be first and expensive.”

When 80% of revenue for a print news operation comes from advertising, calling print journalism a broken business model is more than stating the obvious. What replaces this model is still anyone’s guess. People still care about the news. Online readership continues to increase. The problem is online readership doesn’t pay the bills for good journalism.

The Wall Street Journal decided to charge for online content and remains the only legacy publication doing it. Peter R. Kann, a Pultizer-prize winner report and former chairman of the Dow Jones &Co. which publishes the Journal, connected all the dots in his piece, Quality Reporting Doesn’t Come Cheap (you can link to it for free).

Kann’s worried about the future of news – “informative, relevant, reliable news of the wider world around us.”

Interesting that in the latest review of the blogosphere by Technorati, one-third of bloggers surveyed have a journalism background. Perhaps that’s why only 35% get their own information from blogs and only 31% believe newspapers won’t be around in the next ten years. A hopeful bunch.

In a new study by the Boston Consulting Group, seems like readers will pay for online content, but not much – just a few bucks. While certainly not what readers pay for print versions, and certainly not enough to replace the ad revenue of a bygone era, some of us took from this a glimmer of hope that citizens see the value of news as something worth paying for.

Lots of models are being tried - - spot.us for example has journalists pitching their stories to get the money needed to go get the story. Mother Jones magazine has its Investigative Fund.

InvestigateWest is an inspiring new nonprofit that is committed to conducting “our journalism for the public trust.” The Investigative News Network was hatched this past summer when a group of 27 nonprofit news organizations came together to develop new models for “watchdog journalism.” It’s a work-in-progress. Huffington Post launched an Investigative Fund with nearly $2 million from a private donor. AOL has PoliticsDaily.com. Talking Points Memo is the first blog to win a major journalism award (check that out Mr. Zucker). The Investigative Reporting Workshop, headed up by Charles Lewis (who also started the Center for Public Integrity), is a project of the School of Communication at American University. The Center for Independent Media is a nonpartisan, nonprofit “blending the blog technology with the standards of professional journalism.” Citizen journalism sites such a voicesofsandiego.com are sprouting up to cover local and regional news.

And then there’s the Rocky Mountain Independent, a gallant effort by journalists from the former Rocky Mountain News who attempted to provide online news coverage of Denver and the Rocky Mountains.

Anybody involved in nonprofit advocacy work these days worries about the impact of fewer journalists to cover the stories the public needs to hear. When I was at National Wildlife Federation we struggled with this question of how to get in-depth coverage of conservation news (certainly low on the priority list for investigative reporting when there’s less and less of it). While newspapers still get read and will for some time to come –posting and sharing via social media tools your own news that is “informative, relevant and reliable” has to be part of any media outreach plan. Good content is still king, and with more independent news sources available, nonprofits need to collaborate with them and other freelance reporters to get stories written and shared. Goodness knows there’s a lot of freelance reporters out there who could use the work. So in that next program grant proposal you write, add a budget line for a freelance reporter.

Note: after posting this I find an email about 90 people getting layed off at AP. What's the value of the truth?

What We Eat... and Don't Eat

Yikes, this one really got my attention.

Now, I’m not a big meat-eater. Can’t remember when I had a burger last, but I do like a steak (organic please) every once and a while. And chicken is never too far away from my plate. Check out James E. McWilliams' oped in the Washington Post. Here’s a guy who goes to Texas to talk about the environmental benefits of a vegetarian diet. A few points: 70% of the water usage in the arid West goes to the livestock industry. If irrigation supports were eliminated, ground beef would cost $35 a pound. The livestock industry contributes more than any other sector to marine dead zones because of fertilizer use. Here in the Potomac River watershed, waste from chicken farms is a growing menace to water quality. And of course, there’s the contribution to greenhouse gas emissions – at least 21% according to McWilliams.

Beyond the compelling statistics his piece is filled with, he suggests that “every successful environmental movement has always placed at its core genuine sacrifice.”

Huh? Unless you’re participating in the Climate Justice Fast, I don’t see much “genuine sacrifice” going on when it comes to climate change … In fact the “s” word is purposely omitted from any conversation that most of us have here in the U.S. when it comes to solutions. If putting on a sweater when you lower your thermostat in the winter is viewed as a “sacrifice” we are a long way away from being successful at arresting the climate crisis.

The brave activists that have joined in the Climate Justice Fast tell it to us straight:

…the truth is this struggle will not be easy. It will mean setting aside personal ambitions. It will mean taking time off work, deferring from study, and changing your lifestyle. And it will mean finding the courage to step outside your comfort zone, and doing things you never thought yourself capable of.

Right-Sized Expecations for Copenhagen?

What does it mean that world leaders have now come out publicly and right-sized the expectations for Copenhagen? Now the work this December in Copenhagen is being framed as a “stepping stone” to an international agreement to be worked out sometime in 2010 ... or down the road. According to the New York Times, world leaders agreed to make the mission of Copenhagen conference to reach a less specific “politically binding” agreement that would punt the most difficult issues into the future.

Of course one of the biggest obstacles to achieving success in Copenhagen was the inability of the U.S. Congress to get action done on climate and energy legislation. Senate action is likely in “early spring” 2010 after final action on health care and the financial industry overhaul.

Right-sizing expectations – or more precisely identifying achievable outcomes – is never an easy task – not for an individual, an organization, or an international conference of 192 nations trying to come to terms with the climate crisis. Joe Romm, of Climate Progress believes the new Copenhagen goals are "good news." He believes that getting a Senate deal in 2010 will help get a global deal in the same year. The right-sized expectations in Copenhagen now make both of these goals “more likely” according to Romm. Worth reading the reactions to his post …. Some, like Richard Miller, think this new time frame gives us “more time to educate people about the magnitude of the problem.” Others, like Strohi, don’t believe a 2010 agreement will be “progressive or brave.”

President Obama leaves China with a handful of “action plans” and “road maps” on clean energy, but the elephant in the room stays behind -- what China and the U.S. will do to reduce carbon pollution remains unanswered. Not very progressive, and definitely not very brave.

At this point, I’d suggest the swarms of U.S. ngo reps planning on that Copenhagen trip just stay put. Save the money, and goodness knows the carbon emissions. We don’t need to educate the international community. Our work is here, right here in the U.S.

We still have a lot of work to do to educate Americans about the positive impacts of action on climate change: millions of new jobs, a stronger economy and a healthier planet. And, we still need to help Americans understand the consequences of inaction.

"You Win Some, You Lose Some"

From the mouth of a local hero, Darvin Moon, who lost in the final round of the World Series of Poker, to a 21-year old, “wunderkid” -- the youngest champ in the history of the series.

Although Moon is a logger, I’ll forgive him for that. He’s the real deal. The kind of guy those of us who have to live more inside the beltway than the woods of Garrett County, Maryland, have come to love about Garrett County. With his five million dollar haul, he’s not looking to do too much for himself. He will upgrade his 14 x 70 trailer to a modular home, maybe get a custom Corvette. But he wants to spend the money “bettering other people’s lives… putting relatives through college … possibly getting a youth rec center up and running…”

He plays for the fun of it. Shouldn’t we all?

Believe it or not, I put my hands on a Southwest Airline article I ripped out of the magazine back in 2003 about the top female poker player, Annie Duck. Her Winning Tips apply more than just to poker (my ruminations in italics)...

1. Play tight. … be willing to fold bad or mediocre cards.

Relationship, job, whatever… if it’s just giving you mediocre returns for your investment, it’s time to fold.

2. Have fun… if you’re not, quit.

We spend far too much time at work to not have fun – if you haven’t laughed today at work, take a moment to wonder why.

3. Practice… nothing beats experience.

Practice does make perfect… or at least better. And yes, experience always comes in handy, but without #4, experience is just old.

4. Read as much as you possibly can.

If you’re not about life-time learning, your experience is like a pond without a source of fresh water. Stagnant. Experience only gets better with more learning.

5. Be focused… don’t just pay attention to your cards. Study your opponents, the faces, and body language, tendencies in the way they play…

It’s why I force myself to watch Fox News.

6. Learn from other players… regardless of whether a player is good or bad, they always have something to show you.

I’ve learned more from bad bosses (how not to do things), than from good ones.

7. Err on the side of aggression … it’s better to be a raiser than a caller because you pick up a lot of other ways to win besides having the best hand.

Take the risk. Never underestimate the power of being bold. Make the move even if you don’t know where you’ll end up – you’ll be surprised at the results.

Courage on Climate

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) courageously stepped forward to work on a bipartisan climate and energy bill with Senator John Kerry (D-MA) and Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT). Among many eloquent and important statements Senator Graham has made about why he wants to work collaboratively on solutions, he recently wrote, “As a conservative, I have always believed we can and should be better stewards of God's creation. I also know we can strengthen our economy and national security by becoming energy independent."

Senator Graham is not about “No.” He’s about, No, but …let’s keep working. He thinks the Kerry-Boxer and the Waxman-Markey bills aren’t the answer. Instead of joining with other Republicans in the party of “No,” he says, if “we work together …. we can balance environmental protection with the needs of business.”

“If we work together.” So he’s willing to work - isn’t that what he gets paid to do?

And for this, the Republican Party of Charleston County, South Carolina passed a resolution censuring Senator Graham because he has “weakened the Republican brand.” Uh?

And what brand would that be? A brand that doesn’t step up to the plate and work on the tough issues. A brand that is more about obstructionism than constructive dialogue. More about misinformation, dishonesty and fear-mongering. A brand that walks away and doesn’t deliver.

That Republican brand might want to revisit its roots and re-launch a new and improved brand based on the wisdom of one of its own, Abraham Lincoln who said: The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew.

Thank you Senator Graham for your commitment to do your job as an elected official and to step up and help find solutions to the climate crisis.

Leadership

Been thinking a lot about leadership these days …reminded me about The Question – posed a bit ago by Steven Pearlstein and Ben Bradlee in the Washington Post:

If there was a Nobel Prize for Leadership, what would the criteria be and whom would you nominate?

Alan Webber, founding editor of Fast Company, focused on “moral authority.” He noted, “It may be the quality least in supply these days.” Howard Gardner, Harvard professor emphasized “leaders who enable others to lead.” Daisy Wademan Dowling, executive director of leadership at a Fortune 500 company noted that “we do a lousy job of recognizing people engaged in the real work of leadership: building organizations, developing people, motivating teams, working in the “white space” between bureaucratic lines, laboring relentlessly – and often thanklessly – for a greater good.” She looked to a servant leader and nominated White House Chief Usher, Rear Admiral Stephen W. Rochon.

Who would you nominate for Nobel Peace Prize for Leadership?

The Other Side

Many of us when we hear “The Other Side” think of that place beyond the here and now… the place where those that have passed on from this realm live on eternally. ‘The other side” is a place of peace and enlightenment.

Unfortunately for those of us who have also been following the climate and energy legislation this phrase has meant anything but enlightenment. There was Senator Barbara Boxer and all her Democratic colleagues referencing “the other side” continually during the Senate Environmental and Public Works committee meetings this week to mark up the Kerry-Boxer climate and energy bill. “The other side” was a row of empty seats. The "other side" was absent – boycotting the committee meetings because they wanted more EPA analysis on the bill, despite 340,000 pages of analysis from 50 modeled scenarios. Didn’t seem sufficient to the Republicans despite the fact the committee reported out the previous climate bill (the Climate Security Act, or otherwise known as Lieberman-Warner) in November 2007 before any EPA analysis was done (in March 2008).

The “other side” refused to recognize that the EPA analysis on the Kerry-Boxer bill was actually unprecedented. You could note Senator Boxer’s frustration by the number of times she reminded her colleagues this analysis was “unprecedented.”

The “other side" didn’t think the EPA economic analysis was satisfactory, and yet didn’t bother to take their seats and ask any questions when an EPA staffer appeared before the committee specifically to answer questions on the economic analysis. No Republicans bothered to show up. Evidently they were getting more satisfaction by staying away and abdicating their responsibilities. They didn't show up despite the fact that Chairwoman Boxer noted that Majority Leader Harry Reid had committed to another EPA analysis once all the related bills from numerous other committees are melded together for a final bill to be considered by the full Senate. Still a no-show by the Republicans.

Senator Boxer wasn’t intimated and she didn’t back down. She carried out her responsibilities as Chairwoman of the Committee and moved the bill out of committee on Thursday. In a statement, Senator Boxer noted, a majority of the Committee believes that S. 1733, and the efforts that will be built upon it, will move us away from foreign oil imports that cost Americans one billion dollars a day, it will protect our children from pollution, create millions of clean energy jobs, and stimulate billions of dollars of private investment. We are pleased that despite the Republican boycott, we have been able to move the bill.”

Unfortunately, the “other side” still needs to be enlightened on the reasons why a climate and energy bill is so critical to our economic and environmental security.

TV Zombies at 2

Worried about the future? The new Nielsen ratings out today gives us plenty of reason to be concerned. TV use by 2-11 year olds is at an 8-year high. Kids 2-5 now spend 32 hours a week on average in front of a TV screen. Check it out at http://bit.ly/11ibO6.

Outdoor time is becoming an endangered species, followed closely behind by a declining appreciate for nature. No appreciation, no passion to protect it. That's a big problem for the future of conservation. Nature deficit isn't just a clever term -- it's an epidemic. Do something today to get a kid outside. It'll be good for you too.

from the bookshelf

As mentioned in previous post, Cowboy Up, I'll be pulling at random from the bookshelf -- tonight its Thomas Merton's Echoing Silence:

"I would say that there is one basic idea that should be kept in mind in all the changes we make in life, whether career or anything else. We should decide not in view of better pay, higher rank, "getting ahead." But in view of becoming more real, entering more authentically into direct contact with life, living more as a free and mature human person, able to give myself more to others, able to understand myself and the world better."

"... entering more authentically into direct contact with life... "

Today my direct contact with life was a talk across the fence with neighbor and son as the setting sun illuminated the golden glow of hickory tree leaves surrounding us.

What was yours?

Facebook Ignores The Golden Rule

At this point there’s likely 2 million facebook users joined in an uprising against the changes facebook made to the live feed. Posted my own comment there last night – “facebook ignored the golden rule: thou shalt always be user-friendly.” Every blink of my eyes saw a half a dozen more comments coming in rapid fire. Clearly there was mutiny in our midst.

I suddenly had a flashback of reading Jerry Mander’s In the Absence of the Sacred, The Failure of Technology and the Survival of the Indian Nations, in the early 90s.

Mander is an anti-technology activist (also wrote Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television), and while I certainly don’t agree with his premise that the technological evolution has little or no value, I do agree with his radical premise that not all new technology is necessarily “good” technology, or technology that will serve us. And yet, most of us assume that all new technology is needed and can’t come soon enough.

The overwhelming theme of all the “I hate the new live feed” postings is: “change it back.”

The opportunity available to all of us in the social media playing field is nothing less than staggering. Most importantly from my perspective, it has fundamentally changed the way we organize, agitate and participate in our political process. Among social media’s greatest promise is the notion of an equal playing field and community identity. Yet in the end, we see that even in the wide and egalitarian space of facebook, we are beholden to decisions made by a few that failed to adhere to basic communication principles around inclusion and information-sharing.

Change it back.

Feedback

Wondering how many leaders you've known take the approach to feedback like Carol Bartz, CEO of Yahoo who wants to hear the answers to "How am I doing?" "What should I be doing differently?" In an inspiring interview in the New York Times, Bartz admits that "At first, people are shocked when you ask them that..." She goes on to say, "you have to keep probing and make it safe." Check out the interview at http://bit.ly/3weEbu. How many leaders are really willing to ask the questions and really listen?

What's Your Footprint?

After my husband told me tonight that our average electricity bill is $52 a month, didn't know if that was good or not so good. So I went searching and tripped up on http://www.footprintnetwork.org/. A bit of a shock to find out that it takes 21.1 global acres of the Earth's productive areas to support my lifestyle (take the quiz and go for "more data" for more of the real deal). The site also calculates nature's budget -- as of Oct. 16 the world has used up 108% of nature's budget. Not so good. And about that average monthly? I found this question during my search -- "I'm going to be graduating from college ... and getting an apartment. What is the average monthly electric bill? And more importantly, how much would it be if I had 4 computers running 24/7? " Hmmm... more than 52 bucks I'd guess...
What's your average monthly bill?

Cowboy Up

In college I had my own radio show, WKNH, the Sound Alternative. Was the News Director too -- actually pulled stories off the AP wire machine we had in the office. Every show I had a Random Play section, albums (yes, before CDs!) pulled randomly from the music library. Resurrecting that... sort of... I'll be doing an occassional bookshelf pull and musing on what I find... today, it's from Cowboy Ethics, What Wall Street Can Learn from the Code of the West, by James P. Owen. Interesting he first wrote the book in 2004 - -it's now in its 8th edition. Outstanding photography by David. R. Stoeckline (http://www.drsphoto.net/). Here's a quote to give you a sense of the book: " Let's face it -- these last few years haven't the easiest of times. But on days when things seem especially rough, I think about what it must have been like on the open range in the middle of a blizzard, and I tell myself, "Cowboy up."

Here's the code:

1. Live each day with courage.

2. Take pride in your work.

3. Always finish what you start.
4. Do what has to be done.
5. Be tough, but fair.
6. When you make a promise, keep it.
7. Ride for the brand.
8. Talk less and say more.
9. Remember that some things aren't for sale.
10. Know where to draw the line.

A favorite? Probably #8. What's yours?

Musings in the Moment

"All life resides in the narrow margin and the broad expanse of the moment" -- Kobi Yamada

... indeed the moments ... they save me. Like moments shared with the family I met at the end of the trail. We shared stories (a dog story from them, and trail story from me). As I rode off, the young girl did a series of cartwheels. Back at the cabin, I start the first wood stove fire of the season and listen to the silence of the woods. Moments are in short supply in this bad rush of a world we live in...