February | 2010 |

With radiating waves, a skull and crossbones and a running person, a new ionizing radiation warning symbol is being introduced to supplement the traditional international symbol for radiation, the three cornered trefoil.

The new symbol is being launched today by the IAEA and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) to help reduce needless deaths and serious injuries from accidental exposure to large radioactive sources. It will serve as a supplementary warning to the trefoil, which has no intuitive meaning and little recognition beyond those educated in its significance.

International Atomic Energy Agency press release

1 Comment »

Fairfax, Californiaís Town Council: The Green Party Majority

February 25, 2010 in 2010 Winter Elections

by Mimi Newton

On November 3, 2009, the Town of Fairfax, California became the fourth city in U.S. history to have a Green majority in local government. Not surprisingly to many, two of the three cities that had earlier garnered Green Party majorities were also California cities: Arcata (1996-1998) and Sebastaol (2000-2006). The other was New Paltz, New York (2003-2004).

In 2009, Pam Hartwell-Herrero became the third Green Party member on Fairfaxís five-person Town Council, joining fellow greens Lew Tremaine (now Mayor of Fairfax) and Larry Bragman, who had both been reelected for these positions in 2007. The other two Fairfax council members, David Weinsoff and John Reed, are registered Democrats.

A lifelong Green might naturally regard the election of a Green Party majority on the town council as quite an accomplishment. But that the voters of Fairfax would share the progressive values of the Party is not surprising.

The Town of Fairfax, California is a little less than ten square miles in size, with a population of approximately 7000. Located in idyllic Marin County, the town was initially settled by non-indigenous peoples in the mid-1800s. (Evidence of the indigenous peoplesí earlier habitation of the area may still be found throughout the town.) In the 1960s and í70s, so the legend goes, hippies from San Francisco ìdiscoveredî the little town, and many moved in permanently. Over the years, Fairfax has morphed into a quaint, friendly, progressive, yet down-to-earth little hamlet.

Fairfax is located at the headwaters of the Ross Valley Watershed in two valleys traversed by the San Anselmo and Fairfax Creeks, with the heart of town situated at the confluence of these two watercourses. The town presently conveys an image that is in marked contrast to that of most communities in the San Francisco Bay Area, where natural barriers between towns have repeatedly been violated by urban inroads. Indeed, the open spaces between many Marin communities have been developed to the point that natural boundaries no longer exist. The natural boundaries and spaces in Fairfax, however, which include redwood forests, sparkling creeks and waterfalls, wooded and grassy hills, and numerous trails for hikers, bikers and dog walkers, are enjoyed by many residents of the entire Bay Area.

In Fairfax, California, the community is nothing if not engaged in local politics, with the residents actively participating in town meetings. And the Fairfax Town Council is listening.

Despite the idyllic setting and the Mayberry-esque population of the town, Fairfax shares the problems endemic to the modern world. The Green Party members on the Town Council are well aware of these problems and the entire council appears to have the experience and commitment to progressive values that will help them assist the town ñ and potentially broader communities ñ in navigating through these challenging times.

Pam Hartwell-Herrero, the newest Green on the Council, acted as Executive Director of Sustainable Fairfax for five years before running for the Council. In that role, she organized and educated the people of Fairfax to help increase the resilience of our environment, our economy and the community. Pam also served as president of the Marin Master Gardeners, and worked for the Marin Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program. While her tenure on the Town Council is just beginning, Pam is very interested in integrating key principles of sustainability into all aspects of Town policies and practices. She says she is focused primarily on energy, waste and water. Pam is also interested in changing the perception that outsiders have of Fairfax, that it is full of crazy hippies. She would like folks outside the town to see it the way she does, as a progressive town, working hard to maintain its character, while moving into a sustainable future.

Lew Tremaine is currently Fairfaxís mayor. He has served on the Town Council since 1999 and is currently exploring the possibility of running for Governor of California on the Green Party ticket. Lew champions the successes that he and other Greens in Marin have achieved both within Fairfax and on a larger scale. For example, the Fairfax Town Council passed an anti-plastic bag ordinance in 2007. While the Fairfax Chamber of Commerce and most local merchants supported the measure, the ordinance was challenged in lawsuits filed against the town by plastic bag manufacturers. Despite these challenges, Measure C was put on the local ballot and, in November of 2008, Fairfax voters outlawed the use of plastic bags in stores and restaurants. Today, the County of Marin is considering a similar ban county-wide.

Lew also champions the Local Democracy Ordinance, which guarantees Fairfax residents the ability to put state and national issues on the Town Councilís agenda and gives the Council the power to speak out on such matters. In addition, Lewís involvement in a variety of progressive issues — from his opposition to the local water districtís use of toxic herbicides in the watershed, to his opposition to Californiaís aerial spray program to eradicate the light-brown apple moth, to his support for the Marin Clean Energy Authority — all demonstrate his consistent reliability in supporting progressive values both in Fairfax and beyond.

Larry Bragman is the third Green Party member on the Fairfax Town Council. Larry is a consumer attorney whose priorities include eliminating toxins from the community, protecting the natural environment, promoting the personal health and fitness of Fairfax residents, protecting the Townís unique small-town character, and making the Town government more user-friendly for its citizens. Larry readily acknowledges that the financial and environmental challenges facing Fairfax and small and large cities throughout the State of California are never-ending. Larryís goals, like Pamís, include reconfiguring the Townís practices in terms of water, transportation, education, and, well, everything, to conform to core values of sustainability and community.

John Reed and David Weinsoff are the other two members of the Fairfax Town Council. Both are registered Democrats, although John Reed was a registered Green for many years. David Weinsoff is an environmental attorney and is very sensitive to environmental matters that arise in the town. John Reed served as the Chair of the Fairfax Volunteer Board for the last seven years and initiated town-wide safety and community building programs including neighborhood brush clearing, pedestrian trail improvements, and the Town Picnic.

None of the Council Members anticipate divisions on the Council along party lines, and all of them agreed that the Councilís deliberations are not defined by party. Pam indicated that she believes the success of the Green Party in Fairfax was not because the Party is the majority or especially robust in Marin. Rather, she believes that the goals of the Green Party reflect the values of the citizens of Fairfax. John Reed also acknowledged that the values of the Green Party, especially the platform, are basically shared by all of Fairfaxís council members.

The incredible challenges the planet and the human race currently face can be overwhelming. But, clearly, protecting the environment is the key to our survival as a species and the survival of all living things on the earth. On a large scale, the challenges are so daunting and solutions seem far away, if not unattainable. But if we focus in on the local scene, we can see political changes taking root on a very real, practical level in little towns across the country. When committed people who are willing to sacrifice their time and effort to lead their communities can engage the citizenry, and when the citizens come together and rise above partisanism, all can act together for the benefit of each other and the greater good. And that effort, that sacrifice, and that community commitment can be shared on a broader basis with neighboring towns and wider communities on a county, state, national, and even international level.

In Fairfax, California, the community is nothing if not engaged in local politics, with the residents actively participating in town meetings. And the Fairfax Town Council is listening. Certainly, the Council strives to engage this community, where progressive values have had a stronghold for decades. But, more important perhaps, is the citizensí engagement of their local representatives in return. When the citizens do their homework and actively participate in meaningful, civil discourse in public forums, and those voices are actually heard, then that ìgenius,î democracy, as Larry Bragman put it, will not only be healthy, but will truly thrive — verdant, lush and Green.

Mimi Newton is an environmental attorney who lives in Fairfax and works in San Francisco, California. She is chair of the Fairfax Open Space Committee and has been a member of the Green Party for about 20 years.

3 Comments »

Larry Bragman speaks on local politics

February 25, 2010 in 2010 Winter Elections

“We need to rebuild our planet one community at a time and Fairfax is an excellent place to start.”
~Larry Bragman

Referring to the potential impact of the Green Party on local politics, Fairfax Councilman Larry Bragman says, “The private money election system is not responding to the economic or the environmental needs of the people and, as a result, the country is facing a crisis of confidence in its political system.”

Bragman looks to the Green Party as the party expressly committed to meeting the challenges of that crisis. Its efforts are “stymied by a closed media, and an electoral system which has a ‘no vacancy’ sign for third parties. . . .The recent Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. FEC underscores the unbounded ambition of corporate interests to hijack American democracy and stifle dissent. We need to institute a robust clean money election system through which candidates can opt out of the private donor monopoly.”

According to Bragman, “The Green Party needs to attract the disaffected and dispirited voters, who are searching for responsive representation.” The Green Party’s core beliefs to rebuild America and revive democracy need not be redefined, but its language and outreach does. “Folks need to understand that our democracy can provide health, jobs and a future, if we can restore the rights of the people to enjoy a political system which is competitive in ideas and not just ritual elections.”

Over the years, Bragman has supported successful measures to ban genetically modified organisms from Marin County, support a living wage for the Town of Fairfax, and protect ballot secrecy in local elections. “The challenges we face cut across traditional boundaries of partisan politics and our efforts to confront them require us to broaden our base of support.”

Bragman believes the Green Party has a unique opportunity to act as “honest brokers” if it can win the trust of voters by setting out a consistent program — including bringing jobs back home, instead of relying on low-wage, high-carbon imports; direct investment to repair crumbling infrastructure; medicare for all; local food production; local energy projects; and a redefinition of national security.

“We need to rebuild our planet one community at a time and Fairfax is an excellent place to start.”

No Comments »

Green Ideology and Its Relation to Modernity: Including a Case Study of the Green Party of Sweden.

February 25, 2010 in 2010 Winter World

Green Ideology and Its Relation to Modernity: Including a Case Study of the Green Party of Sweden.
by Michael Moon

Reviewed by Angela Aylward, Green Party of Sweden (Miljˆpartiet de grˆna)

Biologist and former education officer in the Swedish Green Party Michael Moon has recently presented his thesis at the Department of Human Ecology of Lund University, Sweden. His study is a much-needed investigation into the international debate on green ideology and how the Swedish Greens over a number of years have dealt with green ideas. Moon deals with mainly two groups of questions:

1. Is there a “Green Ideology,” bearing in mind the various criteria as to what constitutes an ideology per se and what a green one, specifically, might entail?

2. To what extent are Green values held among the Swedish Greens? Has the party adjusted to a common political practice?

Since one of the criteria of what makes an ideology is that it has a collective dimension, Moon’s response to the first question is: No, there is no Green ideology, at least not yet. Ecofeminists, social ecologists, deep ecologists etc., all offer their versions of green ideology, but the movement as a whole is still far from reaching anything like a consensus on this matter.

Regarding the second group of questions, Moon describes the Swedish Greens as a party in transition, which on one hand is seeking to develop a well-formulated ideology and on the other hand is trying to build an organisation open to anyone who wishes to join it. As a consequence, many radical system-critics have become marginalized or have left the party.

Green parties should be wary of dualism

One of Moon’s conclusions is that the green movement should acquire a deeper understanding of what constitutes social progress by claiming their inheritance from Marxism, namely in the form of the Gramscian concept of praxis. Praxis, commonly construed as reflected action, has hitherto meant that material conditions of life interact with, and influence, human agency, thereby restricting the potentialities for social progress. According to Moon, what is needed is a broader view of praxis — a green praxis that moreover unequivocally distances itself from analytic constraints of a dualistic philosophy that has held sway since the time of Descartes. In his view it ought not to be possible to uphold an absolute dichotomy between values and facts, and between ideology and science. Instead, the mutual interrelationship between these categories should be construed as a complementary one. In other words: no facts without values and no values without facts.

Unfortunately, says Moon, Swedish greens have tended to view their ethics as separated from knowledge and this might explain why Green politicians renounce their ideals and give in to established politics. Ethical values are important; but as traditionally understood, ethics does not challenge the old dualistic perceptions of reality. Concepts that unite values and facts already exist, and Moon refers to these as ìthickî concepts; for example, concepts of ìmeanî or ìtoxic.î

Inspiration for politicians with ideological concerns

Moon’s dissertation is a unique reflection upon green ideas. Any Green politician who wishes to get an overview of the Green ideological debate and perhaps even contribute to a green praxis and to strategies for profound social change will benefit from Moon’s research.

What one might to some degree miss, though, is a deepened discussion of identity philosophy and psychological theories. The perspective of a green praxis would gain from a discussion of the psychosexual and psychosocial dimensions of human life. This kind of debate among greens usually appears in the setting of a discourse analysis, but this is a blind spot in Moon’s work. To this criticism, Moon would probably respond that since this perspective is part of dualistic philosophy, it lacks relevance. But in order for the green movement to be inclusive, as Moon himself wishes, should it not build theoretical bridges? Deconstruction of identity could be seen as a tool for psychological emancipation, and analytical discourse might be useful when addressing a particular target audience. Does the estrangement from dualism always imply a closed door to these perspectives?

Bring ideological differences into the open!

Perhaps Moon’s most applicable conclusion for Greens all over the world is that there is a fundamental difference between two types of Greens: ecological modernists and ecological postmodernists. The ecological modernists think of the purpose of Green politics in instrumental and economic terms, and these Greens welcome the possibility for corporations to get rich using Green techniques; whereas the ecological postmodernists wish to put an end not only to dualism, but also to the capitalistic world order.

In the latter group, some are resigned and view adaptation to the system as a deplorable fact of life, while others become disillusioned and leave the party. Both the attitude of adaptation and that of disillusion lead to the preservation of the status quo. In addition, the ideas among the ecological postmodernists differ a great deal, and they are by consequence not successful messengers of Green system criticism. Therefore, Moon urges all Green thinkers to bring ideological differences into the light. Only ideological confrontation can transform the movement in a truly Green direction.

In the eighties, Michael Moon was actively involved in the formation of the Green Party of Sweden and worked as an organizer of their internal education programs. On taking early retirement, he registered as a doctoral student at the Department of Human Ecology at the University of Lund. He presented his thesis in 2008. Moon is now a free-lance researcher, writing on matters at the interface between Ecophilosophy and Green Politics. His book, in English, can be purchased via Cogito’s website, or by sending an email

Angela Aylward works for Cogito, a green Swedish think tank founded by the Green party, but independent from party poltics.

Swedish voices III – Cogito from Daniel Nylin Nilsson on Vimeo.

1 Comment »

A vision for the midterm

February 24, 2010 in 2010 Winter Op-Ed

A vision for the midterm

Stage is set for Green breakthrough
by Brent McMillan, Green Party of Washington State and Green Party Political Director

We are well positioned going into the 2010 mid-term, but without the accompanying work this is meaningless. Just having the right message is not enough. The 2006 mid-term was the second strongest for independents and third-party Candidates since 1934. This year could be even bigger, as there is great dissatisfaction with both Democrats and Republicans.

On the movement side the emphasis is more on building resilience in our communities as opposed to ìsustainable development,î which can be seen as an oxymoron. The Post Carbon Institute and the Transition Town Movement are both doing great work and have merged organizationally. The emerging localization efforts are a breath of sanity in an otherwise insane world. Food, Inc. and other documentaries are having an impact.

The recent Supreme Court decision on Citizenís United v FEC will most likely have a significant negative impact on our elections. It opens up the floodgate of corporate money and influence. I have been referring to Washington, DC as occupied territory; now it is even more so. Welcome to Occupied USA. How can we become a part of this? It seems that more and more our message needs to be one of resistance!

The Health Care Reform fiasco is an important focus in this election. At the Annual National Meeting in Durham, NC last summer the number one issue that greens attending supported was Universal Single-Payer Healthcare. We need to continue to educate the general public about this sane solution to our national healthcare mess.

With the announcement of the troop expansion in Afghanistan, many voters have finally had enough of the Democrats and are looking for a new home. The message of Hope turned out to be Hype (many of us were not surprised, but we had to wait for others to find out for themselves). The Nobel Peace Prize has become meaningless. I remember when it meant something. One of my mentors was Rocki Bauer, who was a human shield to Rigoberta Menchu. He helped keep her alive long enough to where she was able to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, back when it meant something.

We need to focus on services. People are hurting. The cynical bailout of Wall Street by the Democrats has left many people abandoned in their time of need. We need to build a presence at the grassroots level relevant to those who lack the political influence to get the attention of the largely white male millionaires in Congress.

We are in what I believe is a false bottom economically, for a year or two. I suspect that things are going to get worse. We are still creating money through debt. We are still trying to grow our economy to cover this debt. We were able to do this in the past with an economy based on cheap fossil fuels. Those days are gone. The USA is an experiment in how long you can remain a superpower while living on credit. How long do you think that this is going to last? Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman gives us less than five years. The national debt compared to the GNP is now the highest it has been since the end of World War II.

We have some great candidates leading our ticket. Rich Whitney is running for Governor in Illinois. Lynn Williams is running for Governor in Maine. Laura Wells is running for Governor in California. Jill Stein is running for Governor in Massachusetts.

The Green Senatorial Campaign Committee (GSCC) is working to coordinate our federal level races. There is also the Green House Campaign Committee (GHCC) and the Coordinated Campaign Committee (CCC). They need members. Please consider serving on these committees.

Finally, we need to fill out our ticket. We need more candidates running at the municipal level. Our tickets have been very top-heavy in recent years; I have been working on recruiting candidates to run for entry-level positions. In the District of Columbia this is Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner. In Virginia this is Soil and Water District Commissioner. What is the entry level in your area? What do you have a good chance of getting elected to? Last year we won 37 percent of our municipal-level elections! The general public is very accepting of Greens running for local office.

There are several Campaign Schools being planned ñ we held one in Baltimore at the end of January and one in Little Rock, Arkansas, the weekend of February 19-21. There was also one in Philadelphia the same weekend. There are others in the planning stages. We need to build our bench. We are still struggling to fill out our campaign teams, especially Campaign Managers.

Now is a great time to be reaching out. I put out personalized prospect letters, continually testing audiences and messages. I noticed a significant increase in the number of donations from these letters after President Obama announced the troop expansion in Afghanistan. My lead issue in these letters has become greens support for Universal Single Payer Healthcare. People are responding. We have work to do. Now is the time to make hay.

Nicholas Ruiz III for Congress 2010, FL-24

2 Comments »

A tale of party oppression at the local level

February 24, 2010 in 2010 Winter Op-Ed

A tale of party oppression at the local level

Breaking free of the two-party system
by Deyva Arthur, New York State Green Party

Despite enormous challenges for third parties in this country due to limited ballot access, petition challenges, and denied media coverage, Green Party candidates are starting to win local elections. Even with a confused conservatism among progressives these days, our party is growing. But there are times when one is tempted to leave the path less taken of third parties and go an easier way.

I helped on a fabulous campaign for Green member Russell Ziemba, running for a district seat on the Troy, New York, City Council. All indications showed he would win, but instead he came in third in a three-way race. My only conclusion was that he ran smack into the glass ceiling of the two-party system. It was political bigotry and ignorance at its most subtle. Having overcome the other obstacles: gaining enough petition signatures, getting ballot access, debating with the other candidates, and receiving endorsements by local media, he couldnít overcome voters not knowing how to vote for anybody other than a Republican or Democrat ñ yet.

Undaunted, Ziemba is planning to run for the same seat in two years. As with his last campaign he is faced with a difficult dilemma and this time his resolve is wavering. If you havenít already guessed, the question is: should Ziemba run as a Democrat?

To backtrack, Ziemba first ran for office a few years earlier as a citywide candidate for county legislature. Not getting the required signatures to run as a Green, he was put on the Democratic slate. He did not win a seat, but he garnered 3,500 votes as a newcomer.

Ziemba is a newcomer as a candidate, but he is not new to politics. As chair of the Rensselaer County Greens, Ziemba has gone to every city council, planning, and zoning board meeting for nearly 20 years. He is outspoken on many environmental issues and instrumental in rescuing several historical buildings in the area. As a result he has been in the news quite often.

For the 2009 city council campaign, Ziemba ran in a relatively small district where only some 3,000 voted previously. This time he ran on the Green Party and Working Families Party (WFP) lines. While Greens and WFP members slung jabs and innuendos at each other at the initial meeting, both were soon working well together, united by the candidate. The only difference between us was the WFP members thought Ziemba should seek out the Democratic line. The Democrats, however, werenít interested in Ziemba, preferring another candidate whom no one had really heard of before. When Ziemba asked if he could run in the Democratic primary, they agreed only if he dropped out of the race completely if he lost. From the Green corner, I was yelling, ìNo deal! Russell, you donít need them anyway, run on your own merits and that will prevail!î The WFP volunteers werenít so sure.

Despite being exiled from the Democrat line, Ziemba ran a strong campaign. The need for signatures to get ballot status got him and his team knocking on doors in the early summer. Being a retired postal carrier, Ziemba was walking the streets every night for months. And he was able to get the postal union to do massive literature drops with their endorsement. By the time of the election many of the voters had been visited two or three times already. The two other opponents had done almost nothing, with constituents knowing little of either of them. Ziemba held some protests and press conferences that got media attention on issues that struck a chord with local residents. As a result, the local paper The Record gave only one political endorsementóto Ziemba. They recognized his diligence and grasp of the issues while noting the other candidates hardly did anything at all. It was looking positive for the election, but by the end of an Election Day that had below-average voter turnout, Dean Bodner (Republican) received 513 votes at 42 percent, Rick Hoffmeister (Democrat) 392 votes at 32 percent and Russell Ziemba 326 votes at 26 percent (not including absentee ballots).

What happened? Ziemba should have won. I can only think voters voted for the party and not the person.

Now the campaign team is looking ahead. Ziemba wants to win in two years; he wants a seat on the city council and the ability to vote, effectuating his 30 years of hard work and knowledge. He wants to put Green Party values into practice. But can he do that if he runs as a Green, or will he be able to be a green officeholder only if he runs as a Democrat?

Putting aside the possibility the local Dems will want nothing to do with Ziemba considering him at fault for their candidate (lackluster though he was all on his own) losing the election, he would most likely garner more votes with the Democratic line. He would, in fact, have a better chance of winning on the Democratic line.

Ziemba has not made up his mind yet what he should doóbut I have. In my opinion, he must run as a Green and not as a Democrat. There is too high a price to pay for that party line. Once he gets in office he would not be beholden to the Democrats, but for the election he is theirs. He is not free to criticize the current Dems in office, and if he loses in the primary he doesnít get to run at all.

As an active member who is trying to build the Green Party and knows of the struggle for third parties across the country, to me there is a greater price. For Ziemba to run as a Dem is to add another reinforcement to the two-party system. The choices for candidates will always be slim unless candidates are willing to stand on their own. Voters have a bland political diet and are not used to multiple candidates. Green Party and other candidates can provide the desperately needed exercise, getting voters exposed to variety. Down the road, voters will break out of the two boxes they are stuck in. They will be comfortable in voting on the sixth, seventh or twelfth ballot line. It just takes practice.

I believe next election if Ziemba puts as much into his campaign as he did previously, he will win and on the Green Party line. People will know him and not need to rely on the party vote. Ralph Nader once said, ìyou have to lose, and lose, and lose, and then you win.î

With patience, bravery and diligence, eventually Ziemba will win on his own terms, just as the Green Party will win and is winning each election.

What do you think Russell Ziemba should do for the next campaign? Help him out and let him know what you think. Join in on the discussion on the Green Pages blog.

Loading ...

No Comments »

From Hopenhagen to Nopenhagen – Climate change negotiations fail ï Global Greens present alternative

February 24, 2010 in 2010 Winter World

The Global Greens are concerned that rich nations are building loopholes into the agreement to give the appearance of strong targets without the reality.

By Mike Feinstein, International Committee, Green Party of the United States

photos courtesy of Global Greens

In Copenhagen the over-riding impression was chaos — people standing in line for hours outside in the freezing cold, while talks were deadlocked inside.

At a historic moment when bold action was needed desperately, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change tragically failed on multiple fronts. The last-minute ëCopenhagen Accordí, negotiated mainly between the US and Chinese heads of states with involvement from India and Brazil,† had no serious commitment or plan for avoiding dangerous climate change, let alone any legally binding mechanisms.

But perhaps even worse was the undermining of what had been a relatively open and inclusive UN process. Overriding the painstaking negotiations that had taken place during the previous two weeks,† let alone the past two to four years, the Danish government convened a meeting of 26 leaders in the last two days of the conference, leading to a complete absence of even the modest Kyoto targets previously agreed, while at the same time excluding from the process most of the world’s nations that have contributed the least to the problem, but will bear the worse of its costs.

As U.S. Green Brian Tokar (Institute for Social Ecology, Vermont) observed, ìAfter the 2007 climate summit in Bali, Indonesia, the Bush administration tried to initiate an alternate track of negotiations on climate policy that involved only a select handful of the more compliant countries (the so-called Major Economies Meetings.) That strategy failed, partly because its figurehead was George Bush. Now that the Obama administration has adopted essentially the same approach, the utterly substanceless ìCopenhagen Accordî can be seen as this coercive strategyís first diplomatic successÖ. If the Copenhagen document means anything at all, it establishes that process as a new global norm for implementing climate policy. Nothing is binding, and everything is voluntary, only to be ìassessedî informally after another five years have passed.î

British journalist George Monbiot added, ìWe have now lost 17 precious years [of negotiations]; possibly the only years in which climate breakdown could have been prevented. This has not happened by accident: it is the result of a systematic campaign of sabotage by certain states, which has been driven and promoted by the energy industries. Corporate profits and political expediency have proved to be more urgent concerns than either the natural world or human civilization.

Looking ahead, climate change talks will continue through 2010, with the next Conference of Parties (COP16) scheduled for December 2010 in Mexico. Around the globe, Greens continue to seek ways to influence this process. Apart from the negotiations in Copenhagen, Greens globally were part of the massive December 12 Day of Action. Over 100,000 people gathered in Copenhagen alone while hundreds of thousands more marched in countries around the world.

The Global Greens also organized an information exchange forum for Greens in Copenhagen, and a public event on December 13 to present a Green alternative, featuring leading Green climate activists including Rebecca Harms, Marina Silva, Jose Bove, Christine Milne, Catherine GrÈze and Elizabeth May. The event was web streamed live and remains available here for viewing.

Global Greens Press Statement, December 13th, 2009

Global Greens call for honest, scientifically sound climate agreement

As the Copenhagen COP entered its second week, the Global Greens called for an honest climate agreement, based on science, not tricky accounting.

The Global Greens are concerned that rich nations are building loopholes into the agreement to give the appearance of strong targets without the reality.

Land-use and forestry in particular are being used as let-out clauses to avoid actual emission reductions, according to the Global Greens Coordination, which includes representatives from Asia Pacific, African, American and European Green parties.

Tackling climate change is crucial for a sustainable future for people and the environment. The Global Greens therefore call on the worldís leaders to agree on in the next five crucial days:

1. Targets to limit global warming to 2 degrees C or less.

2. Clear 2020 targets for developed countries of at least a 40 percent reduction in emissions below 1990 levels, with an interim assessment point in 2014.

3. Commitment of substantial new funding by developed countries for mitigation and adaptation by developing countries, including reducing deforestation and degradation. This is in part recognition of the historic responsibility of developed countries for past emissions.

4. Exclusion of carbon capture and storage from the Clean Development Mechanism, and rejection of nuclear power altogether.

5. Strong pro-active measures to protect biodiversity, water and nature, whilst respecting the rights of local communities.

The COP15 should commit to finalizing a legally binding agreement in 2010 covering these and other issues, building on the Kyoto Protocol.

***************************************************************************************************************************************

Frank Habineza, Rwandan Green and African Green member of the Global Green Coordination. The† Global Greens event was webstreamed live.

No Comments »

Florida faces nuclear threat

February 23, 2010 in 2010 Winter Features

Florida faces nuclear threat
Greens play key role in growing anti-nuke movement
by Michael Canney;†Green Party of Florida

Nuclear expansion threatens residents of the “Sunshine State,” but resistance is growing.

Two utility giants – Progress Energy Florida (PEF) and Florida Power and Light (FPL) – are moving ahead with ambitious plans for a nuclear expansion that would double the number of nuclear power plants in the state. Florida Greens have been active in efforts to stop this looming threat to public health and safety, and have played a leading role in a growing anti-nuclear movement in the state.

FPL plans to build two new nuclear reactors at its existing Turkey Point power generation facility, on Biscayne Bay near Miami, situated between two environmentally sensitive National parks , Biscayne National Park and Everglades National Park. FPL has operated two reactors at the Turkey Point site since the early seventies, which are now scheduled for an “uprate” that will cost hundreds of millions of dollars and give the aging reactors a 20-year license extension.

PEF has applied to build a dual reactor nuclear power station on an undeveloped site in rural Levy County that is currently made up of woodlands and wetlands. The Levy site – currently the only “greenfield” site application in the U.S. – is located just a few miles north of PEF’s Crystal River nuclear plant, which is currently shut down until a crack in the outer shell of the containment vessel that was discovered in October 2009 can be fixed. Crystal River is also scheduled for an “uprate” and a 20- year license extension, but that plan may run into trouble if the problems with the containment vessel cannot be resolved.

Citizens concerned about the risky and expensive expansion of nuclear power in Florida have received little consideration or support from state legislators or regulatory agencies, and most elected officials of both establishment parties have either been cheerleaders for nuclear power or have remained silent on the issue. State agencies have acted as rubberstamps for the nuclear utilities’ plans, and in August 2009, Governor Charlie Crist and his Cabinet, ruling as the stateís Power Plant Siting Board, gave the stateís official seal of approval to the Levy County nuclear plant, despite the protestations of numerous citizens.

Florida Greens engage in energy policy advocacy

In February 2009, the Green Party of Florida (GPF) joined with the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) and the Ecology Party (an offshoot of the 2008 Nader campaign) in filing a legal challenge to PEFís Combined Operating license application for the Levy County plant. Several contentions allowed by the NRCís Atomic Safety Licensing Board (ASLB). Meanwhile the construction has been delayed for 20 months. The petitioners won an important victory when the ASLB denied an appeal by Progress Energy that sought to toss out the contentions.

In 2007, the GPF delivered a letter to Governor Charlie Crist commending him for convening a climate change summit in Miami in July 2007 and for issuing Executive Orders on climate change. It was unprecedented for the state government to open the door to a public discussion of energy policy options that included advocates for clean, renewable energy solutions, but while Crist and other politicians were talking “green energy” and moving away from coal as the main fuel for Florida’s energy needs, the same politicians were cutting deals and approving laws and policies designed to pave the way for a fast tracking of new nuclear plants in Florida.

The Green Party let the governor know nuclear power does not belong in the Renewable Energy Portfolio being developed by the state. Partly in response to the governor’s climate change initiative, the GPF decided to draft a “green paper” on energy policy. In collaboration with Panagioti Tsolkas, co-chair of the Palm Beach County Environmental Coalition, a 14-page document was produced and shared with public officials in Tallahassee, including Gov. Crist and the public at large. Titled Climate Change and Energy Options for the State of Florida, the green paper includes a comprehensive overview of the issues and challenges that govern our energy policy options.

The “Nuclear Revival” section includes these five points:?1. Nuclear radiation is lethal to human beings and all life forms on earth. In the event of a nuclear accident or attack, there is no known way to prevent radiation exposure. There is no known way to prevent illness and death from exposure to nuclear radiation.?2. Nuclear radiation is a result of all nuclear energy produced by human technology. There is no known way to produce nuclear energy without also producing nuclear radiation.?3. Nuclear radiation results in radioactive waste. There is no known way to safely transport or store this waste.?4. No technology designed to protect humans or other life forms from the lethal effects of nuclear radiation has ever been shown to be successful.?5. Nuclear radiation can destroy life, as we know it. Perfect security does not exist.

The position paper goes on to say, “Nuclear energy must be a primary concern of the energy future. The expansion and perpetuation of the nuclear power industry can only be accomplished by means of massive government subsidies. The public interest is not served by such a policy, and subsidies for nuclear power should be firmly opposed by all citizens and public officials who are truly concerned about the health and safety of future generations, and the future of the planet itself.”

Early cost recovery = a license to steal

Florida Greens are also trying to inform about the high cost to consumers, and the unfair advantages utility companies have in regard to nuclear energy. “Early Cost Recovery” is a law written by utility company lobbyists and approved by the Florida legislature in 2006. It allows private utility companies to collect funds, in the form of rate increases to their customers, to finance the advance costs for nuclear power plant construction. These funds can be collected and spent by the utilities even if the nuclear projects have not yet been licensed and approved by state and federal regulatory agencies,. If the nuclear plants are canceled by the utilities for any reason, the corporations can pocket the hundreds of millions of dollars they have fleeced from their customers, all with permission from the state.

Last October, Florida Greens issued a press release calling this arrangement “a license to steal” and a “form of corporate welfare designed to fast track nuclear power development and guarantee industry profits at the expense of the public interest.”

In January of this year, a class action lawsuit was filed by Progress Energy customers, which challenged the constitutionality of the “nuclear cost recovery” law, under which Progress Energy has already collected over $200 million.

Steve Wilkie, Green Party candidate for Congress in District 2, said about the lawsuit, “Members of the environmental movement have long understood that the true costs of nuclear energy are not competitive unless supported by publicly funded subsidies. Itís high time that citizens are taking this opportunity to oppose these “cost-plus” rate scams.”

According to Nicholas Ruiz III, Green Party candidate for Congress in District 24, this class action is the only remedy available at this point: “Nuclear cost recovery is the kind of policy we get when we allow politicians who fail to represent the will of the citizens to legislate public policy,” said Dr. Ruiz. “When our lawmakers write laws that serve only narrow corporate interests, the only recourse for citizens is in the courts, and in the ballot box. ”

The Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) is the state regulatory agency charged with deciding how much money the utilities are allowed to collect from their customers, and the PSC has approved requests from Progress Energy and Florida Power and Light to raise rates in order to cover the costs of their planned expansion of nuclear power facilities in the state. The good news is that the PSC recently turned down requests for huge rate increases by FPL and PEF, without which the utilities will be less likely to push their expensive nuclear projects.

FPL has indicated it is reconsidering its proposed Turkey Point reactor project, but the utility is continuing with the plant approval process with the NRC, and may apply again in the fall for early cost recovery monies with the PSC. It is an election year, and once the election is over, it will likely be “business as usual” for the politicians who get elected with campaign contributions from the utility giants.

Nuclear expansion threatens investment in conservation, efficiency and renewables

Greens have emphasized that conservation, efficiency and renewable energy technologies, all essential to a secure energy future and a sound economic base, are in jeopardy if this planned nuclear expansion goes forward. Public investment that is needed for the development of safer and cleaner alternatives will be siphoned off to finance archaic and dangerous nuclear plants, which will take many years to build at a cost many times that of safer alternatives.

According to Steve Showen, a Miami-Dade Green who is active in the fight to stop the new reactors at Turkey Point, “The best way to stop the nuclear industryís expansion is to deny the industry the massive public subsidies that guarantee their profits, because private investors consider nuclear power to be too risky an investment.” Showen adds, “It is absurd for President Obama to be announcing federal loan guarantees for building new nuclear plants, at a time when the renewable energy industry could make much better use of this support.”

The winds of change

Greens are hopeful that the groundswell of public opinion opposing construction cost giveaways to the utilities (influential in affecting the PSC decision to deny the latest round of rate hikes) will translate into support for the movement to pull the plug on utilitiesí plans to build new nukes in Florida. It appears politicians beholden to the utility giants may be retaliating against J.R. Kelly, the Public Counsel credited with successfully leading the charge against the rate increase before the PSC. A Florida Senate subcommittee is preparing to review Kelly’s job performance and qualifications.

February brought a surprise in South Florida politics, when Florida International University Professor Philip Stoddard was elected Mayor of the city of South Miami over a longtime incumbent and FPL supporter. This political newcomer’s upset victory is an indication that the public has had enough of business as usual. Stoddard has been a leader in a local public interest group called Citizens Allied for Safe Energy (CASE), which has the support of local Green Party and community activists in opposition to FPL’s nuclear expansion at Turkey Point.

For more information:

Green Party of Florida
Green Party of the United States

Press Releases:

Florida Greens file petition against NRC licensing of Levy County nuclear plant

Florida Green Party opposes Public Service Commission approval of Nuclear Cost Recovery for utilities, calling it ‘a license to steal’

Green Party Welcomes Citizens’ Lawsuit Against Nuclear Cost Recovery Charges, Urges Floridians to Sign Petition Protesting Unconstitutional Rate Hikes

Site approval for Progress Energy nuclear plant in Levy County by DEP and Crist Cabinet is premature while problems identified in federal licensing process remain unaddressed, say Florida Greens

Green Party candidates in FL

Steve Wilkie for Congress, District 2
Dr. Nichola Ruiz III for Congress, District 24

Recommended sites on nuclear power and alternatives:

Nuclear Information and Resource Service
Beyond Nuclear
Carbon-Free, Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research
Rocky Mountain Institute
Union of Concerned Scientists – Nuclear Power

Documents

Documents and updates on the PETITION TO INTERVENE AND REQUEST FOR HEARING In the Matter of PROGRESS ENERGY FLORIDA, Levy County Nuclear Station Units 1 & 2, Docket Nos. 52-029 COL & 52-030 COL

Florida Department of Environmental Protection – Conditions for Certification (90-page PDF)

Climate Change and Energy Options for the State of Florida

News articles

March 11, 2008 — Price triples for Progress Energy’s proposed nuclear plant in Levy

July 16, 2008 — Progress Energy nuclear plant is okayed

January 5, 2009 – Westinghouse, Progress Energy Sign EPC Contract for Two AP1000 Nuclear Plants

May 1, 2009 — Progress Energy nuclear plant delayed by at least 20 months

May 2, 2009 — Progress Energy seeks rate hike despite nuclear plant delay

October 21, 2009 – Westinghouse AP1000 Reactor Design Issues Concern NRC

October 22, 2009 – Experts: Energy Department Should ‘Immediately Halt’ Plans to Issue Taxpayer-Backed Loan Guarantees in Wake of Major NRC Safety Objection to Westinghouse Reactor Design

Februray 13, 2010 – Group sues Progress Energy over nuclear plant fees

8 Comments »

Arizona Greens triumph in federal court

February 23, 2010 in 2010 Winter Features

Arizona Greens triumph in federal court
Win to have extra ballot access restrictions prohibited
by Claudia Ellquist, Arizona Green Party Co-chair

The Arizona Green Party (AzGP) prevailed this month in federal court in a lawsuit for a preliminary injunction against threatened barriers towards the Green campaign for ballot access in 2010. With focused determination for gaining ballot access, Arizona Greens were recently able to get added restrictions relinquished on petition deadlines and who could gather signatures. Though these restrictions were mere technicalities for the state, it made an already difficult ballot drive for the Green Party nearly impossible.

This past January, Federal Court Judge Susan Bolton ruled to prohibit the Arizona Secretary of State from refusing petitions circulated by nonresident supporters of the Arizona Green Party. At the same time, she also restored the March 11 deadline, voiding the published February 25 substitute. As Arizona changed the date for the primaries in the middle of the election cycle, Greens were able to prove this imposed undue hardship on independent parties who needed the extra time to get signatures.

In addition, ambiguous wording of Arizona petition rules and poorly written petitions supplied by the Board of Elections were getting petition pages thrown out, especially those from petitioners who resided out of the state. Greens were able to demonstrate the impact this had on gaining ballot status. Judge Bolton got the Secretary of State to agree to accept petitions under these conditions.

Even with the restored deadline and petitioning help from out of state, it will be difficult but not impossible for the Arizona Green Party to gain ballot access this year. The AzGP now has over 16,000 of the 20,449 valid signatures required, and expects an 80 percent validity rate. Also, there is currently a small fund to pay for the help of professional signature gatherers; however, it is not sufficient yet to cover all the anticipated expenses. AzGP is making a leap of faith that the needed money will come.

What is it like to gather signatures in Arizona? In addition to the weather being better than elsewhere, the response is fairly positive. Mostly petitioning at events where there are large groups, people are asked if they are a registered Arizona voter. There are a lot of “snowbirds,” so it is not an idle question, and it gets them thinking about the role of being a citizen and a voter. Petitioners follow up, along with the expectant smile, with “This petition is about giving permission for the Arizona Green Party to run candidates on the ballot for the 2010 elections, so YOU can have more choice.” About half those asked will sign. Recognizing the need for choice, signers often express surprise that the Green Party doesn’t have ballot status already, or have it automatically, “everyone should be allowed to run.î Many actually know about the Green Party, and support its goals. Or they don’t know about the party and ask for information, which means another person is set on the path to voting Green.

Despite the unfair difficulties in getting signatures, it is a way to start a conversation about the Green Party, and show its role in democracy. This is done by listening to what people think, showing how Green they already are, and getting them to vote – with their signature – for our existence and importance. Legislators doubtless saw signature gathering as a way to wear the party down, but it actually gets Greens out of the habit of talking among themselves and out talking to the public.

This May is the twentieth year Greens have been in Arizona. AzGP has been on the state ballot five previous times. This is the first attempt by the state party to have consecutive ballot status, and on a non-presidential year. With Clean Elections funding in Arizona, a Green Party candidate, once on the ballot, collects a set number of $5 contributions (207 for a state senator). This $1035 becomes over $25,000 to run their campaign. It is a tremendous pay-off in being able to get the message out.

And that message is desperately needed. Arizona Greens have incumbents at every level, who have run out of money. So schools and healthcare and parks and libraries all suffer. But Arizona, being mostly desert, also has a closer connection to Peak Water than many places. Sustainability is critical, and even those who see the disaster coming are not taking the steps needed to prevent it. A Green voice needs to be heard, and heard at the polls.

The Arizona ballot drive cannot succeed without help from outside the state. Like Greens everywhere, Arizona Greens need solidarity with the rest of the country to prevail. In addition to financial donations, there is a great need for petitioners, and with Arizona Greens working at capacity, more petitioners will have to come from out of state.

Come to Arizona. We’ll find you a bed and feed you, if you can get yourself here. Or donate your Frequent Flyer miles, or your money, or your local Green Party’s money. Times are hard, but that means our voice, and our solidarity, matter more than ever.

Please contact us immediately if you or someone you know can come, before the March 11 deadline. Please send the largest possible check that you, your state Green Party, or your local Green Party, can write.

Mail it to Arizona Green Party, PO Box 6014, Tucson AZ 85703, with a memo line “Ballot access.”
Contact the Arizona Green Party at ellquist.co.atty@juno.com

1 Comment »

Robert “Bob” Long, Green Pioneer (1917-2010)

February 23, 2010 in 2010 Winter Features, Obituaries

By Mike Feinstein, Green Party of California

Long-time Green organizer Bob Long passed away on January 27, 2010 at the age of 92. Especially active in the early years of the U.S. Green movement, Long played two particularly critical roles in its development. His calm manner, steady demeanor and personal stature provided a stable foundation and touchstone for formative Green organizing in the 1980s and early 1990s, especially in Southern California where he lived at the time. His commitment to spreading Green ideas through print and radio helped provide a theoretical and practical base to the growing Green movement, which was in the early stages of defining itself at that time.

But Longís political activism predated the Green movement by decades. He began in the 1940s battling for social justice. Always envisioning a better world, his desire that all workers be treated fairly led to his joining the Socialist Labor Party (SLP). Working as a research chemist during World War II at Union Oil, he refused to be a “scab” or cross the picket line when the refinery workers went on strike. He was fired for insubordination but took his case to the National Labor Relations Board and won with the help of the oil workers union, forcing the company to rehire him. Then in 1946 he ran for Governor of California on the SLP ticket against incumbent Earl Warren — another uphill fight, considering Warren ran on the Republican, Democratic and Progressive ballot lines and received 91.6% of the vote. 1946 was not a total loss however, as Long married Helen Pashcanoff on March 16.

Deciding that being an oil company researcher was not for him, Long applied for a job and was accepted as professor of chemistry at El Camino Junior College in 1950. Then in 1952 at the height of the McCarthy era — a dark time for liberal professors — he resigned his professorship and moved with Helen to a farm they bought in southern Indiana in partnership with his brother Gordon. They farmed there for four years, but the first winter they didnít have indoor plumbing (they installed it a year later) and had to watch the diapers of their newborn daughter Kathy freeze on the clothesline. Then Helen put her foot down and insisted that the family move back to Southern California. Long was immediately rehired at El Camino, where he remained a professor of chemistry until his retirement in 1982.

Bob and Helen stayed active in the SLP until 1969, when both resigned because “they did not want to knuckle under to the whims of the party leadership.” In a letter to brother Gordon in May 1969 Long wrote: There is a small but determined minority in the SLP that is breaking away and will seek to establish an organization that will be democratic and scientific and in tune with the times.” A small group formed and called themselves Socialist Reconstruction and held meetings in Ann Arbor, Michigan in 1970, which Bob and Helen attended. The group didnít hold together too long, but afterwards Bob helped co-found The League for Economic Democracy (LED) in Southern California.

In July 1975 the LED published SYNTHESIS, which it called “An anti-authoritarian newsletter for citizen-worker self-management ideas and activities.” In its first issue, Long demonstrated an early understanding of what would eventually become Green philosophy, before it was known as thus:

“SYNTHESIS hopes it will be able to add to the effectiveness of the rather diffuse worldwide movement to build non-authoritarian societiesÖWe address ourselves to those who agree that the bureaucratism and authoritarianism both of the capitalist societies and the so-called socialist or communist world must be replaced with a free association of producers and citizens. But the question must be asked whether the movement for a non-authoritarian society is at all capable of coping with either the organization and zeal of the Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist approach or the fascist reaction growing out of capitalist societyÖ. The LED feels that the anti-authoritarian movement can be more effective. We can learn from others. We can put our ideas to a test. We can lend each other aid. We can do all this and still maintain individual and group autonomy. But we need efficient communication. Thus we are launching SYNTHESIS as a newsletter to provide this communication among groups and individuals.

Early issues of SYNTHESIS contained names and addresses of various anarchist and libertarian socialist groups and individuals, with descriptions of their varying perspectives and activities. Many expressed a desire for greater organization and unity on the libertarian left, but the effort never developed beyond loose networking. Over time the LED increasingly moved in the direction of social ecology, eventually changing its name to League for Ecological Democracy. In 1981, SYNTHESIS became subtitled “A Newsletter for Social Ecology” and said in its foreword “We still most definitely consider ourselves anti-authoritarians and advocates of citizen-worker self-management. But we feel that social ecology gives a broader and at the same time more precise understanding of the problems that afflict the human species and therefore all other species on this planet. At the same time it is social ecology that enables us to begin formulating some ways of solving these problems.”

During this time Long began attending meetings of the North American Bioregional Congress (NABC) and by 1986 SYNTHESIS was subtitled “A Newsletter and Journal for Social Ecology, Deep Ecology and Bioregionalism,” reflecting the breadth of Green political thought developing at the time. In those years SYNTHESIS began covering the meetings of the NABC and the Green Committees of Correspondence (GCoC), a pre-party forerunner of todayís Green Party of the United States. In October 1988 SYNTHESIS changed its name to Green Synthesis and was established as the official GCoC debate/theoretical journal, to go along with the official GCoC newsletter, In Search of Greener Times out of San Francisco.

Green Synthesis published many views on the social ecology/deep ecology and party/movement debates of the time, and printed reviews of the important new Green books, all providing a pre-internet, commonly-shared place for U.S. Greens to conduct a national dialogue. When the Green Party of California was founded in 1990, it was in the pages of Green Synthesis that it was announced and debated. In 1992 Green Synthesis merged with the St. Louis-based Gateway Green Alliance’s journal Regeneration and became Synthesis/Regeneration, an independent journal purchased for its members by the then year-old Greens/Green Party USA, which had emerged from the GCoC.

Long also made an impact on the airwaves. Starting in 1985, He joined with Southern California Greens Mindy Lorenz (Ventura) and Vince Ivory (Los Angeles) to form the Green Radio Collective on Pacifica radio station KPFK in Los Angeles. They co-hosted “Green Perspectives,” a bi-monthly half hour program that featured state, national, and international Green thinkers and activists, providing one of the first widespread media vehicles for publicizing the Green movement in the country. In later years Bob was joined by Mike Feinstein, Nancy Pearlman and Triana Silton as co-hosts.

In 1988 Long founded the South Bay/Harbor Greens and together with other GCoC locals in Los Angeles, Orange and Ventura counties, formed the Southern California Green Assembly (SCGA). The SCGA was a region within the GCoC (this was before state Green parties existed) and provided a vehicle for Greens throughout Southern California to meet. Longís home in San Pedro was one such place that they would meet. Located on a steep hillside with a beautiful view of the bay, the small, two-level house was both a meeting place and Green literature archive inside, and an oasis of exotic gardening and greenery outside. Bob and Helen had orange, lemon, fig, persimmon, avocado, sapote, and cherimoya trees, and kiwi vines which produced about 2,000 kiwis each year. They also raised tomatoes, lima beans, cucumbers, and lettuce, and often greeted meeting guests with fresh fruits and vegetables to take home.

Long did a workshop at the October 1988 Greening of the West conference in Jones Gulch, CA that featured numerous Green movement figures and drew over 1,000 people. The following year he attended the June 1989 national Greens Gathering ’89 in Eugene, Oregon, where California Greens met in an organized meeting for the first time. That meeting chose Long and a few others to organize a follow-up in Fresno in November 1989 where coordination on statewide issues and possible formation of a state Green party would be discussed, which led to the partyís founding meeting a few months later in February 1990. Long was an advocate of this strategy, arguing that the global ecological crisis demanded bold action. During the early to mid 1990s Long also continued to attend annual national Green Gatherings, often with his tape recorder in hand, making the only audio recordings from some of them that exist today.

Born on March 14, 1917, Long lived his long life to the utmost. A scrappy individual who never let obstacles deter him from achieving his goals, he rode his bicycle when he was 17 about 200 miles from his home to attend Indiana State Teacher’s College in the middle of the Great Depression. Even though he was the first of his family to even attend a four-year college, he went on to get a Ph.D. in chemistry from the University of California, Berkeley, in the summer before World War II.

Bob and Helen lived in San Pedro for more than 42 years. Their last eight-and-a-half they spent in Santa Fe, NM, to be near their daughter Kathy and her husband Brad. Bob and Helen were very proud to attend the swearing-in ceremony for Kathy as a new Santa Fe County Commissioner a year ago.

In his youth and up to the last year of his life, Long was an avid observer of nature and photographer, with a love of hiking and animals. One of his greatest pleasures at the end of his life was to feed and watch the birds in his back yard, particularly the blue jays. Every morning, he would call out, “Jay, Jay!” and his feathered friends would come for their ration of peanuts.

1 Comment »

Monthly Archives: February 2010

2010 Winter Issue

Fairfax, Californiaís Town Council: The Green Party Majority

Larry Bragman speaks on local politics

Green Ideology and Its Relation to Modernity: Including a Case Study of the Green Party of Sweden.

A vision for the midterm

A tale of party oppression at the local level

From Hopenhagen to Nopenhagen – Climate change negotiations fail ï Global Greens present alternative

Florida faces nuclear threat

Arizona Greens triumph in federal court

Robert “Bob” Long, Green Pioneer (1917-2010)

Categories

Follow us at #GreenPages

Archives

Blogroll

Recent Posts

Follow Us!

Categories

Follow us at #GreenPages

Archives

Blogroll

Recent Posts