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.