Supreme Court Decision Could Affect Climate Debate

On Jan. 21, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 5-4 margin, voted to grant corporations First Amendment rights to free speech. The majority argued that the government should not be able to regulate political speech, even if it is by corporations. This decision overruled legal precedence, something the high court usually tries not to do. Even President Obama expressed his dismay over this ruling during his State of the Union address last week.

The dissenting justices expressed concerns for the very nature of democracy if corporations were allowed to use their money to shape the public debate at any time in the campaign cycle. The New York Times reported that the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law banned the broadcast of "electioneering communication" from the general funds of corporations or labor unions within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election. These broadcasts are not paid for by the political parties, but they definitely affect the campaign messages.

This decision is bad news for those of us who believe that recent climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity. According to ExxonSecrets.com, Exxon spent more than $20 million in the 10 years after the Kyoto Protocol was established to support efforts that questioned whether climate change was real. If the Exxons of the world are allowed to spend as much money as they want to make people believe climate change is not an important problem and is not caused by humans, then the scales of public debate surely will be tipped toward the side of the deniers. That, in turn, will affect public policy as politicians seek to address "more pressing" needs facing their constituents. We, the people, need to step up and make sure our message on the need to tackle climate change, now, is heard.

Hats Off to Walmart

First, dear readers (assuming there are any of you out there), I apologize for not having written anything for awhile. I was busy getting ready for my classes to begin at FAMU, so I didn't have the energy to blog.

But now that we're a week into classes, I'm feeling the urge to write again. Thus my "Hat's Off to Walmart." I know that many of my greenie friends hate Walmart for being the behemoth that destroys local economies and treats its employees poorly. I must confess, I've been a Walmart naysayer myself at times (especially when Walmart tried to open its first store in Vermont, where I lived for 16 1/2 years, and when it approved the Edelman-created fake blog).

But I've been impressed by some of Walmart's recent sustainability initiatives (e.g., committing to selling 1 million CFLs in a year; introducing a scorecard to pressure suppliers to decrease their packaging; and opening a green supercenter in McKinney, Texas -- why aren't all of its new stores green?).

I just read on promomagazine.com that Walmart is asking its suppliers to analyze and cut their own carbon footprints. The next step? Walmart supposedly will ask its customers to analyze the sustainability of Walmart products. Interesting. I wonder if this means Walmart will choose to stop selling cheap items that may not cost much to us in the U.S. but that "someone" assuredly has "paid for" in other ways. Maybe Walmart execs should simply watch "The Story of Stuff" and stop selling unsustainable products. Hmmm.... This online video clearly explains the connection between production and consumption (as if Walmart didn't already know). Watch it, if you haven't already seen it.

Speaking of "The Story of Stuff," check out "The Story of Cap and Trade" if you want to understand what that proposal is all about. Annie Leonard and gang are soon launching two other educational videos: "The Story of Electronics" and "The Story of Bottled Water."

Back to Walmart. If the largest retailer in the world is willing to make changes in the way it does business, demand sustainability changes from its suppliers and support sustainability initiatives by its workers, then there may be hope for us all.