Best Sources of Alternative Energy
- Image via Wikipedia
Alternative sources of energy are gaining more popularity. Many more of us are conscious about the importance of these renewable sources. Let’s take a look at some sources of renewable energy.
No matter if you are donating to your favorite charity, purchasing an elegant Scott Kay piece as a gift, or holding the elevator for a stranger, you are passionate about who you are. Making greener choices for a better planet starts with you.
Cleaner sources of renewable energy not only help improve the environment and reduce our dependence on foreign oil sources, they make good sense. Solar energy is a wonderful source of renewable heat. Our Sun puts out a massive amount of energy. Even the largest power plant on Earth cannot come close to it. The most common use of solar energy is to heat water for homes. Large solar panels affixed to a homeowner’s roof is not only a smart source of alternative energy, many times it offers a tax savings as well. Some homes utilize solar energy for much more than water heating. An Off-the-Grid dwelling is powered completely by alternative energy sources.
Wind turbines tend to be used more in a commercial setting. Many people feel that wind energy is a source with the brightest future. The power that wind energy would provide is estimated to exceed forty times the energy need. Another promising fact about using wind energy is that no dangerous greenhouse gases are emitted through their use. A typical greenhouse gas like methane depletes our ozone layer, affects global warming, and is highly combustible.
The natural power of water is undeniable. Given time, water can cut mountains into canyons. Hydro power uses the force of water to generate energy. Conventional hydroelectricity is the process of using a hydroelectric dam to harness the energy. Other methods, such as Run-of-the-river hydroelectricity gathers energy from running rivers or streams.
No Green Pawns
- Image by Cornell University Library via Flickr
The Green Party is growing in size. If it wants to beat the two major parties in their game of Monkey in the Middle, it still has a bit of growing to do. One of the biggest challenges facing the Green Party is its own level of success. As it becomes larger, the major parties attempt to manipulate the Green Party’s mass to affect election outcomes in their own favor.
Take the Texas tussle to get the Green Party on the ballot. To break into the two party system, a party must pass a petition with over four thousand signatures. The Green Party mobilized a drive garnered twice the necessary forty thousand signatures necessary to allow their candidates to appear on the 2010 November ballot. This was a significant victory for the party—this year, there would be a viable third contender in the usual two-party race.
Yet in June 2010, the party found itself suddenly banned from the ballot it had worked so hard to attain. The state served the Green Party a restraining order as if it was a stalker ex-boyfriend. The reason? Republicans contributed funds to the petition drive.
The Democratic Party uncovered that one of the petition drive’s biggest contributors was an out-of-state corporation with ties to the current Republican administration. This was considered an ethical violation because the Republican Party was hardly contributing altruistically—- they intended to use the Green candidates to siphon votes from the Democratic challengers.
The state supreme court overturned the restraining order. This decision was based partly on the grounds that once access to the ballot had been granted it should not be unduly rescinded. Henceforth the Green Party campaign bore a slightly darker cast for their involvement in the whole affair.
This debacle made one thing clear—now that the Green Party carries more weight, the two major parties are both looking to brandish it like a mace. Until the Green Party reaches the critical mass it needs to throw the two-party system out of balance, it must be vigilant to avoid being the pawn of other parties.
3 Prevailing Myths About the Green Party
Existing outside of the two major parties means combating a lot of bias in the media and educating the public on what one’s positions truly are. The Green Party, like the Libertarians, the Socialists, and others, find themselves in this position often. Here are some of the most common myths about the Green Party and its members.
Myth: They’re all hippie tree huggers without jobs.
Truth: Okay, they’re mostly tree huggers. Green Party activists do love the environment, and they want the government to take steps to protect it. Green Party members often are non-conventional and work in creative jobs, but there are plenty of members who work good, old-fashioned 9-5 jobs, too.
Myth: They want the government to run our lives.
Truth: The Green Party’s platform calls for gender equality, civil rights, compassionate economics, and environmental sustainability. When these issues are in jeopardy, then the Green Party supports legislation that will propel the issue forward. Examples include the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made many forms of race-based discrimination illegal, and healthcare reform (in the form of a single payer system), which would give everyone access to quality healthcare.
Myth: Their ideas would make people lazy.
Truth: There’s nothing to support this claim, but it gets bandied about often. The idea behind is that public assistance encourages people not to work. The truth is that public assistance is a lifeline for people who cannot support themselves.
Providing financial assistance as well as life skills training, which would require a greater investment in social services, could be a long-term benefit to struggling families.
These myths are simply three of the most pervasive about the Green Party and its
members. The policies that the Green Party promotes aren’t intended to harm citizens. Instead they’re intended to help provide everyone with the best possible chance to succeed.
Encouraging Local Politicians to Go Green
Being “green” is trendy right now, which means that many politicians are open to ideas promoted as green. While that is great news for the environmental movement, that doesn’t mean that local politicians always get what it really means to make green decisions. There are a few substantial ways that you can push local politics a little closer to your tree-hugging ideal.
Hiring a sustainability coordinator is a must-do for any mid- to large city. In Kentucky, that would include Louisville, Lexington, Frankfort, Paducah, Covington, Newport, Richmond, Bowling Green, and Berea, at a minimum. Other, smaller areas can hire someone on a short contract or part-time, but sustainability coordinators are important there, too.
These coordinators often work for a percentage of what they save the city in energy usage. They work to decrease energy use by putting better workflow habits into place, improving water and sewer lines, suggesting better vehicles, and making other changes.
In addition, a solid recycling program also is a necessity for all towns and cities. Good recycling programs can make money for cash-strapped local governments. It isn’t enough just to have recycling but push local politicians to work on a public education campaign about what can be recycled and how valuable it is to the Earth and the city’s bank account.
Green spaces hold a growing importance in our concrete world. New developments should have a minimum percentage of the land dedicated to green spaces, and the city should have spaces with trees and grasses as well. Being out in nature is excellent for our physical and mental health, and it encourages people to care for the environment.
These three ideas are just the tip of what local activists can help bring about in their cities. Working to create a greener tomorrow in Kentucky is a lengthy, but rewarding, process.
Helping Green Party Candidates Succeed
Helping a Green Party candidate get elected in a local or state election requires a savvy understanding of the Green Party’s principles and political campaigning. Because Green Party candidates are painted as the “other” in elections, campaigners must determine the best ways to make the Green Party candidates looks like qualified, respectable candidates to avoid the stigma that accompanies third-party candidates in much of the United States.
Stick with the standards that candidates from other parties use in campaign information. Provide a basic background, including education and work experience as well as one sentence about the candidate’s personal life. Use both printed literature and social networking to reach people. Though Green Party candidates believe in environmental sustainability, having a limited amount of literature available will help attract some more mainstream voters. Just be conscientious about what you print.
Harness the power of the internet! One of the disadvantages of being a third-party candidate is lack of funding compared to Democrats and Republicans. Politics is, at its core, about being able to reach voters. Facebook, Twitter, and candidate websites are easy, free (or inexpensive) ways to reach thousands of voters. Find a young, enthusiastic campaign volunteer who understands how to leverage these networking tools and make the most of them.
Push for inclusion in debates. If you think the local chamber of commerce, a frequent host in local elections, won’t include you, then begin to approach nonprofits or business owners who you think may be sympathetic to the idea of including all candidates. Ask these people to sponsor alternative debates or to push for the main debates to include all candidates.
Being confident about your right to participate in local election discussions and knowing how to use the benefits you have will help improve your chances of getting elected as a third-party candidate.
Green Party Visibility Used to Manipulate Votes
The Green Party has never been known as the most visible of political groups, but they’re becoming more and more present as years go on. This is especially true as other groups become more extreme in their rhetoric and positions, opening territory for the moderate and environmentally friendly Green Party to show its color proudly. Unfortunately, some groups are more than willing to use this struggle for visibility to manipulate the polling process.
It’s certainly true that Green Party representatives are more akin to Democrats than Republicans, and it’s for this very reason that Republicans are helping Green Party representatives get their names onto the ballots. Conservative groups have donated heavily, helped campaign, signed petitions, and sidestepped pushing their own representatives into too powerful of positions. And why?
The theory is that having Green Party representatives on the ballots will successfully tip the scales toward Republican nominees due to the fact that more liberal votes will be more split between the Green Party and the Democrats. The tactic may go back to historic evidence from the Bull Moose party in the early 1900s, when a "similar to Republican" nominee who formed his own party got enough of the votes siphoned off of the Republican nominee that the Democrat went into office.
The case and point for this tactic is Texas, where even Republican officeholders have been giving handouts to Green Party nominees in order to make them more visible.
This creates a large amount of controversy, and a more difficult ethical decision. Is it right to me more visible—and struggle for that visibility in whatever way possible—even when it might tip the scales toward a counterproductive political agenda? Should Green Party nominees continue to accept these gifts and petition signatures, knowing that it will hurt the Democrats and help the visibility of the semi-transparent Green Party?
Investing Your Green in Gold ETFs
- Image via Wikipedia
Unless you are looking at a Chapter 13 filing and www.totalbankruptcy.com is your regular Internet stop, you should consider investing your money.
Regardless of your politics, consider what money managers advise people to do. Imagine all of your money sitting in a pile in front of them. Take out money for bills, money to pay debts, discretionary expenses, and the like. Whatever remains is for investment. Take out a tenth of this for riskier investments like the stock market, another tenth for no-risk investments like government bonds, and of what remains, a sizable portion can be used to hedge against inflation with gold purchases.
You can purchase gold in three distinct ways. First, buy gold bullion, as in bank-issued coins and bricks. Second, go for gold jewelry, and third, invest in gold ETFs. The first two gold purchases add an extra assurance to your investment, but at some costs. Among the costs are the fact that you can’t liquidate your gold easily, and you get a much lower price than spot gold prices, to say nothing of security and storage costs.
Buying gold ETFs takes away all of these costs, although, for the novice investor, it seems less secure. Gold ETFs are like stocks in that they’re bought and sold on the stock market. But they’re like mutual funds in that the company offering the ETF takes your money and invests it in gold. You do not have to worry about storage, security, or liquidating your physical gold. You usually get rates almost on par with the market, and unlike mutual funds that invest in risky stocks, investing in gold is usually held to be a very safe investment.
There are about 10 different gold ETFs in the U.S. market. Make sure to differentiate between a gold ETF and a gold mining company ETF. The latter are usually funds invested in a gold mining consortium.
Important Moments in Green Party History: The ’96 Election
The Green Party has a long history and has been involved in a lot of important political actions. During this series, we will discuss important steps forward in the political arena, various actions, and other historic moments of note. In this article, we will discuss the actions taking place in 1995 and 96 as they relate to the 1996 Presidential Election.
Each year, there is a national Green Gathering, and in 1995 this took place in New Mexico. There were three members of the party (Jan, Feinstein, and Schmidt) who put forward a measure that would launch the Green Party far more into the public spotlight. The idea was relatively straightforward: The Green party would try to get a candidate for president on the ballot in forty different states.
A small portion of the group felt ill at ease about moving into the national arena in such a momentous way, but the strong majority favored the idea. Various members of the Green Party who were interested in running or wanted to sponsor another candidate put forward various petitions and requested the support of other party members. It was in 1996 that Ralph Nader accepted the position on the ballot.
Running off of a $5,000 campaign budget (something that Nader himself decided on), the Green candidate selected a vice-president (Winona LaDuke) and was officially selected as the representative at a Green Party convention. Upon acceptance, Nader gave a speech that extended past the two hour mark, and which was broadcast on both Pacifica Radio and C-SPAN.
In addition to appearing on the ballot, Nader’s speech helped to increase nationwide exposure for the Green Party on the whole. While the Nader name was only on the ballot in twenty-two states, they received nearly a full percent of the votes, with the total received sitting at nearly 700,000.
Important Moments in Green Party History: Nader’s Second Campaign
The 1996 election showed that the Green Party had the power to be recognized, with Nader receiving nearly a full percent of the votes. However, there was still plenty of room for improvement, and the Presidential campaign was a great way to publicize that.
The time between the ’96 and ’00 elections was one of growth but also divergence within the Green Party. The ASGP was a division of active Greens who were intent on getting more Green Party representatives present and elected in political scenes across the country. Other divisions of Green groups formed for activism, voice, and other pruposes.
When the 2000 elections arrived, Nader and LaDuke were the candidates for the Greens once again. The two exceeded their goals for ’96 by making it onto all but six of the state ballots. Further, and perhaps more importantly, the two more than tripled their total number of votes, reaching nearly three million in total. Certain specific states had a particularly strong voice for the Nader/LaDuke ticket.
The major reason this meant change for the party is that it was no longer simply a group trying to get the "ruling" parties to listen on important issues. It was a party that could actually make a showing at the polls, receive broad public support, and make an electoral dent—small as it might have been at that time.
Nader received some criticism for the large number of votes that he received, especially since almost all of the support was from the more liberal end of the spectrum. With such a narrow vote between Gore and Bush, it’s possible that the Green Party presence led to Bush’s election. This unforeseen circumstance may not have been ideal for the political scene, but it was highly positive for the party itself.
After the campaign, the number of recruits into the Green Party saw a huge climb, with unforeseen growth and the highest party numbers ever.
Important Moments in Green Party History: Green and Growing
The Nader ticket had come under fire in 2000 because many believed it (accidentally) killed Gore’s presidential candidacy by siphoning off votes. As the 2004 election approached, the Green Party prepared for another presidential campaign. However, this was all in the midst of pressure from various liberal groups who wanted to see no Green ticket in ’04. The fear was that this would again create an unfair slant against Democratic nominees and the fact that this would impinge on liberal agendas that the Green Party supported made for a difficult decision in the ’04 race.
The decision was made in Summer of 2003, when 158 different representatives of the Green Party put together a statement titled "Green and Growing: ’04 in Perspective." The statement made the following major points.
1) The presidential campaign was an important opportunity to gain momentum as a group.
2) The campaign would allow for greater visibility.
3) The differences in stance would highlight the places where Democrats failed to meet the needs of certain liberal individuals or groups (and most specifically foreign policy and domestic issues).
There was controversy both inside and outside the Green Party because of this decision, and numerous solutions appeared. For example, Ted Glick made statements that the Greens should certainly campaign, but ought to avoid the swing states so that electoral ballots weren’t impacted. Others felt that an aggressive campaign to try to get as much support as possible in whatever locations it was present.
The end party decision was to use a "state by state" policy, where the Green Party would decide what they wanted their approach to the campaign to be in each individual region. Based on how much support they needed, how much they previously had, whether or not the state was a swing state, and a number of other issues, Greens would adapt their strategy.