Kerrys mount campaign to help the environment

Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
10,089
Likes
851
Location
New Ipswich, Finn-Land
Feedback: 19 / 0 / 0
What a dork

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/03/12/kerrys_mount_campaign_to_help_the_environment/


Kerrys mount campaign to help the environment
New book aims to inspire others

By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | March 12, 2007

WASHINGTON -- In 2004, during his run for president, Senator John F. Kerry was touting wind power in Minnesota, endorsing clean-coal technology in West Virginia, and talking about preserving fisheries in Washington state. His wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, kept her own busy travel schedule, warning about carcinogenic toxins and the importance of cancer screening.

They had hoped such issues would help vault them to the White House. Now, they hope to show people that it doesn't take the power of a president -- or even a veteran United States senator -- to help save the environment.

Recent months have found the Kerrys tapping on laptops, reviewing page proofs, and killing extra adjectives from sentences, finishing "This Moment on Earth," a book dedicated to individuals who are taking action to stop global warming and other threats to the environment.

The couple hope the book can inspire others to do the same.

"We want to make a statement: We both believe this is a vital moment," Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, said in an interview last week in his Senate office. "This book is driven by a sense of urgency, to put on the table that this is a pretty critical moment. We're losing opportunities every single day."

The book tackles climate change and other environmental challenges from the bottom up, telling the stories of individuals who have taken smaller steps to help solve big environmental problems, ranging from polluted rivers to the link between environmental hazards and major health issues such as cancer.

It also marks a new phase in the political partnership that is the couple's marriage. The politician and his wealthy philanthropist wife want to use the book to take on a public role outside of politics.

A 10-city book tour is scheduled, as well as joint television and radio appearances.

Heinz Kerry, who has shied away from discussing the 2004 campaign in detail, said in an interview she resisted the idea of writing a book with her husband because she felt "lazy" and emotionally and physically drained after the grueling 2004 campaign.

A former Republican senator's wife who was born in Africa and educated overseas, Heinz Kerry said she felt wronged by GOP "wise guys" who lampooned her international background.

But with time and distance from the campaign, she said, she came to realize that her husband's unsuccessful presidential campaign created a powerful pulpit the couple can use to speak their minds on crucial issues.

For her husband, Heinz Kerry said, there was the added value of indulging in an important project that isn't centered on politics.

"It was a focus, even more than a distraction," she said. "It made him see what was important."

Since Kerry narrowly lost the presidency in 2004, he and his wife have rarely made major public appearances together. He was busy with Senate business and laying the groundwork for another presidential campaign; she had her own projects through the Heinz Endowments and the Heinz Family Philanthropies.

The book project was supposed to be his alone. After the 2004 run, where Kerry said he was frustrated that energy independence and climate change weren't catching on as major campaign issues, he put together a proposal for a book that would tell stories of individuals making strides on environmental issues.

But as he started discussing concepts with his wife, he said, he found she was practically overflowing with ideas -- about environmental toxins, women's health, and "greening" efforts in cities such as Pittsburgh, the hometown of her late husband, John Heinz, heir to his family's ketchup fortune.

So the couple decided to join forces, as they did in the 2004 campaign. They interviewed the book's subjects together and separately, and spent hours editing each other's copy.

Both wrote about their love of nature developed during their childhoods -- Heinz Kerry's years growing up in Mozambique, and Kerry about his summers on Cape Cod.

In retrospect, Kerry said, it's no accident that they would write about the environment.

They first met on Earth Day 1990 at a rally in Washington, when John Heinz was a Senate colleague of Kerry's, representing Pennsylvania.

Kerry and Heinz Kerry reconnected two years later at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro; Kerry was divorced and Heinz Kerry had lost her husband in an airplane crash a year earlier.

The book has strong political overtones. The Kerrys accuse President Bush and his administration of caving to energy industry lobbyists and ignoring mounting evidence of global climate change.

But unlike the science-heavy presentation that is the backbone of Al Gore's Oscar-winning film and book, "An Inconvenient Truth," the Kerrys' book tells of unsung individuals who are fighting for the environment.

There's a former Marine in North Carolina who transformed himself from a commercial fisherman to a "riverkeeper," taking polluters to court when he saw toxins killing fish in his local river.

The book also profiles Ellen Parker and Cheryl Osimo, two Cape Cod women who helped found the Silent Spring Institute, a Massachusetts Breast Cancer Coalition project that explores links between women's health and environmental circumstances.

The book is scheduled to go on sale March 26.

Kerry said he and his wife have incorporated environmental lessons in their lives. They own three hybrid cars, have replaced most of the lights in their homes with efficient fluorescent bulbs, and now buy carbon credits for the fuel they burn in their cars and private plane, he said.

Yet Kerry said one of the book's central lessons is that major sacrifices aren't necessary.

"I didn't want it to be an angry book. I wanted it to be positive," he said. "You can keep your quality of life. You can do the things you do. We can just do them in a way that's carbon-neutral, and benefits the people around you."

Looking back at 2004, Heinz Kerry said she knows they both "poured our hearts and our souls out in terms of ideas" as Kerry ran for the White House.

Though the campaign fell short, she said she takes solace in the fact that they can still bring passion to a cause together.

"He didn't do badly, let's put it that way, but it wasn't enough, and you learn your lessons," she said. "Wherever we are, we are at a place and time where we can do something."
 
This is my favorite part:

Kerry said he and his wife have incorporated environmental lessons in their lives. They own three hybrid cars, have replaced most of the lights in their homes with efficient fluorescent bulbs, and now buy carbon credits for the fuel they burn in their cars and private plane, he said.

Forest? Trees?
 
Video: The Great Global Warming Swindle

Note, in the Boston Globe story, the way Kerry is combining man-made global warming with known, visible environmental concerns caused by human activity, such as polluted rivers and carcinogenic soil contaminants.

Global Warming Religion = Anti-capitalist Marxist redistribution of wealth, disguised as environmentalism, and sold against the backdrop of apocalyptic doom.

Sorry, Al, not buying it.

From the video:

...carbon offset fund managers...

That sums it up nicely, and illustrates the dangers of this movement. Capitalists are cashing in on the work of the Marxists, creating a dangerous, and well-financed symbiotic relationship between the two.
 
What do you suppose they do in the Heinz factories?

Think every liberal feel-gooder will now write a book and buy carbon credits to ease their pain of being an energy using polluter?
 
Can someone please explain "carbon credits" to me so that it makes sense? Sounds to me like a fancy way of saying "I'm paying someone else to be ecologically sound so I don't have to".
 
Can someone please explain "carbon credits" to me so that it makes sense? Sounds to me like a fancy way of saying "I'm paying someone else to be ecologically sound so I don't have to".

It is an "invented" market for a useless product to solve a non existent problem.

It’s global socialism at its best. Carbon credits are designed as another process to redistribute wealth by extracting wealth from the producers and handing it over to the non producers.

China's making a killing off of all this. They've literally received billions of dollars from European countries for the carbon credits that they've generated from just a few million dollars worth of investment.
 
I like the way that Kerry touts his ownership of 3 hybrid vehicles, as if that actually does anything positive. It strikes me as parallel to the obese guy who goes into McDonald's and orders a couple of quarter pounders with cheese, a giant order of fries and a diet coke. I guess the diet coke has come chemical in it that destroys all the fat and calories in the rest of this little snack. In the same way, those 3 hybrids sitting in Kerry's garage somehow suck up all the CO2 and other pollutants from his SUVs, private jet, etc. [rolleyes]

Ken
 
John Kerry always came across to me as the johnny-come-lately to Al Gore:
Teresa: "John, that environmental stuff seems to be working for Al, you need to get on board"
John: "Would I have to do anything? I can throw away a few aerosol cans, would that work?"
Teresa: "No, no, nothing that drastic. We just need to pay a bit more on our electric bill and buy one or two of those hybrid chink cars. There's plenty of room in the garage for them."
John: "That sounds good honey. I'll write the press release"
Teresa: "Be sure to insult the troops and blame Jr. for it."
John: "Yes dear"​
 


That movie was great. Global Warming is just too convenient for the Democrats not to use as an intimidation tool. If you haven’t watched the film, do so and learn. A few things struck me as quite funny; the carbon footprint of fall leaves decaying is much greater than the carbon footprint produced by mankind. I’ll bet Senator Kerry is thinking how to write an assault leaf ban.
 
Kerry and Gore are jackass's and hypocrites . But , that being said , WHY are so many pro gun people so ANTI about anything pro environment ?
 
Kerry and Gore are jackass's and hypocrites . But , that being said , WHY are so many pro gun people so ANTI about anything pro environment ?

I'm not anti about the environment. I recycle. I shut off lights when I don't need them (and not just for the light bill), I'll walk to the market sometimes instead of driving as it's not far from me. I don't litter. I do, however, draw the line at replacing all my light bulbs with energy savers that contain mercury.

What I'm against is the BS that's put out like it's gospel by people who refuse to come up with plans since they keep complaining that the sky is going to fall and no matter what we do, we can't do anything about it. If the freaking sea level is going to rise and we're going to lose coast line, then start planning for it and quit crying about it.
 
That movie was great. Global Warming is just too convenient for the Democrats not to use as an intimidation tool. If you haven’t watched the film, do so and learn. A few things struck me as quite funny; the carbon footprint of fall leaves decaying is much greater than the carbon footprint produced by mankind. I’ll bet Senator Kerry is thinking how to write an assault leaf ban.

This was a great film. I don't know that we'll see this on US TV, but fortunately you can find it on You Tube. I think I posted a link in another thread. Well worth the hour and fifteen minutes.

Gary
 
Can someone please explain "carbon credits" to me so that it makes sense? Sounds to me like a fancy way of saying "I'm paying someone else to be ecologically sound so I don't have to".

It's a way of using money to assuage your "guilt" over being a bad environmentalist. It's a lot like during the Civil War when wealthy people paid for others to go to war in their place. Some of the older members, like say, LenS might remember the details. [wink]

Gary
 
I'm not anti about the environment. I recycle. I shut off lights when I don't need them (and not just for the light bill), I'll walk to the market sometimes instead of driving as it's not far from me. I don't litter. I do, however, draw the line at replacing all my light bulbs with energy savers that contain mercury.

What I'm against is the BS that's put out like it's gospel by people who refuse to come up with plans since they keep complaining that the sky is going to fall and no matter what we do, we can't do anything about it.
+1
If the freaking sea level is going to rise and we're going to lose coast line, then start planning for it and quit crying about it.
Hey, my retirement plan is to sell my property in Winchendon as beachfront and move to up to the White Islands in NH.
 
Can someone please explain "carbon credits" to me so that it makes sense? Sounds to me like a fancy way of saying "I'm paying someone else to be ecologically sound so I don't have to".

A free market is a beautiful thing because it is free. The more ridiculous the goods and services, the better as far as I'm concerned. The last thing you'll catch me doing is bashing a free market!
 
Can someone please explain "carbon credits" to me so that it makes sense? Sounds to me like a fancy way of saying "I'm paying someone else to be ecologically sound so I don't have to".

When I'm in one of my more cynical moods, that's how I'd describe it. When I take my meds and start thinking like the economist I am, it actually makes sense. The idea is that different industries face different costs in reducing the emissions of pollutants. Rather than the government's typical one-size-fits-all approach of imposing uniform limits on everybody, those polluters who can clean up their operations cheaply can go further than the government requires and offer the extra reductions for sale to those for whom reductions would be more expensive. Society ends up with more clean-up for less cost. For Kerry and the Hollywood types, it's just a way of throwing a few bucks away in order to portray themselves as "stewards of mother earth." [rolleyes]

Ken
 
Kerry and Gore are jackass's and hypocrites . But , that being said , WHY are so many pro gun people so ANTI about anything pro environment ?

Hammer - I think it's almost the opposite. I don't know many (if any) pro-gun people who are anti-environment. Going only by the groups I belong to and the people I know, most are all for preserving the land, using biofuels, using less energy in general, and many are I know tend to use less oil for home heating than say the Gore's or Kerry's might.

I think what people are railing against is that their can be no bigger set of tools than Al Gore or John Kerry. The jump on the band wagon environmentalists who talk about doing something, but do nothing but buy environmnetal credits and 3 hybrids that, let's face it, they probably NEVER use, are just annoying, useless people.

Like Lynne said, it's more of an anti-BS thing. In other words, the pro-gun, pro-environmentally friendly people I know actually do something to help, while criticizing Gore and Kerry for being buttholes.
 
A free market is a beautiful thing because it is free. The more ridiculous the goods and services, the better as far as I'm concerned. The last thing you'll catch me doing is bashing a free market!

And which free market exactly are you referring to?
 
I know it is impossible to get through to many people but regulatory environmentalism including the carbon credit scam has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with control.
 
Hammer - I think it's almost the opposite. I don't know many (if any) pro-gun people who are anti-environment.
One of the reasons I admire Ted Nugent so much is he's pro-environment AND a conservative. Unfortunately I have to agree with Hammer here because Nugent isn't the rule,he's the exception IMHO. I recently saw a thread on GlockTalk with a link to all the bills Bush signed regarding new environmental laws. To say the link with bill numbers and dates was damning would be an understatement. I couldn't believe all the posters calling the guy who posted the link a eco-nazi. He just posted the link,he wasn't trying to bash Bush or even add his own opinion.[rolleyes] He was very outnumbered by the posters who implied it was OK to pollute. Alot of times if a person says something pro-environment in certain circles it is perceived as being anti-business or coming from a tree hugger. Alot of people who think this way think that if businesses don't have to clean up their messes that is the end of it. As a truck driver I know this isn't the case. I've worked on a few Super Fund sites in my old over the road days and I saw first hand who pays for these clean-ups. We taxpayers do. When you can spare a few minutes go to GT and do a search on pro environment issues and I'm willing to bet you'll see first hand in the first few threads Hammer in many cases is dead right. I really do wish I was wrong on this.
 
The problem is that way too many people fail to grasp the simple fact that, just as with gun safety, having the government control the way we interact with the environment has nothing to do with protecting the environment and everything to do with controlling the way people live their lives. The fact that somebody is opposed to the Endangered Species Act or some other piece of environmental legislation or regulation no more means that they're in favor of pollution than my opposition to nanny-state gun laws means I favor violent crime and accidental shooting. If people here can't see the difference between being for environmental protection and for environmental laws and regulations, then why should they expect people on the other side to recognize the difference between gun safety and gun control?

Ken
 
Kerry and Gore are jackass's and hypocrites . But , that being said , WHY are so many pro gun people so ANTI about anything pro environment ?

I have two answers. The first is that what you (and others) may perceive as being "anti-environment" is actually "anti-jerk." The sad fact of the matter is the demogoguery of self-appointed "environmentalists" makes it all but impossible not to reject all that these people purport to stand for.

The second problem is defining "the environment" or "conservation." I believe, for instance, that a true conservationist would hold that one should never consume a resource for Task X unless it is the least otherwise useful resource that can perform Task X. On this basis, a true conservationist would embrace nuclear power, since rock-born uranium has few other uses, compared to complex hydrocarbons that, if we were burning them up to heat and light our houses, could produce all sorts of useful medicines and chemicals. But being rabidly anti-nuclear is today a rite of passage for a so-called "environmentalist."

I guess I'm saying: don't confuse being anti-tree-hugger with being anti-trees.
 
China's making a killing off of all this. They've literally received billions of dollars from European countries for the carbon credits that they've generated from just a few million dollars worth of investment.

And I bet they're laughing all the way to the bank...

I mean seriously... China? EMISSIONS CONTROL? hahahahha... [rofl]
thats very funny. Like anyone enforces it over there, and whoever does
can probably be bought off pretty easily. That is the problem I have
with Kyoto... it works if you're talking about nations with widely enforced
regs... but as far as India, China, and South America goes... forget it.


-Mike
 
Back
Top Bottom