Family

Papa, Hallita, Mama, and Cousin Alex

Papa has long arms and a narrow head.
All our our height proportions are accurate. 

Love

Hallita's postcard for Papa

Hallita's Postcard for Mama

AAEA Registered to Participate in RGGI Offset Program

AAEA has registered to participate in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) offset program. AAEA established a Carbon Mercantile Exchange (CMX) to provide an offset trading service. AAEA is also developing projects to produce greenhouse gas offsets. Our participation in the RGGI offset program will serve to enhance our efforts to mitigate global climate change and warming.

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, Inc. (RGGI, Inc.) has contracted with Perrin Quarles Associates to administer RGGI COATS. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is a cooperative effort by participating states to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas that causes global warming. More information RGGI, Inc. is a non-profit corporation created to provide technical and administrative services to the CO2 Budget Trading Programs of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont.

Nat'l Black Chamber of Commerce Looking For Green Jobs

The NBCC asks:

"What is a “Green Job”: There has been much talk about “Green Jobs”. It has reached the point of hysteria but now comes the serious part – JUST WHAT IS IT? We are having trouble determining any substance to this matter. If any of you can help identify a true, identifiable existing Green Job or evidence to the actual reality of a new and broad industry emerging, please submit your evidence. We want to believe in it but we cannot until the unmistakable evidence is before us. No hype – just facts. 3 million autoworkers and others want to know where they are. If they exist please show us. Send the evidence to Harry C. Alford No jive, just proof."

Gee Whiz: Minorities Disagree on Climate Change Approach

AAEA supports cap and trade and supports Waxman/Markey. The National Black Chamber of Commerce (our good friends) opposes cap and trade. Environmental justice groups largely oppose cap and trade. And although AAEA supports cap and trade, we oppose auctioning the allowances. Imagine that, blacks and other people of color disagree on the best climate change approach. And the sky is blue too.

A recent study by researchers at the University of California found the effects of climate change will hit the poor in the United States disproportionately harder than others. The study says "people of color and the poor will be hurt the most – unless elected officials and other policymakers intervene.” The report highlights how extreme weather events such as heat waves, droughts and floods already impact the poor disproportionately and are expected to increase in their frequency and intensity in coming decades. Minorities and the poor are less likely to have access to air conditioners and other means to prevent health effects of weather extremes. In addition, households in the lowest income bracket spend twice the proportion of their income on electricity as those in the highest income bracket.

Empower Consumers, a group headed by African-American former Arkansas PUC Commissioner Darryl Bassett, has used the very same data points to speak out strongly against the climate legislation and the economic impacts it will have on communities of color and the poor.

The National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC) released a new study recently that says the potential economic impacts of the federal cap-and-trade system will be devastating for minority communities and businesses. NBCC President and CEO Harry Alford said the findings add to a growing body of evidence that demonstrates cap-and-trade would make American consumers poorer and the products they buy more expensive.

We all have the best interests of our country in mind and are promoting what we believe to be the best strategies for protecting the planet and the American economy. AAEA seeks to harmonize these interests and we protect minority communities through our proposed Environmental Justice Allowance Reserve (EJAR) program. We support a robust economy, affordable energy prices combined with abundant supplies, a national and international cap on greenhouse gases with a market-based solution (trading) to climate change and protection of vulnerable communities. (Hat tip: Frank Maisano)

CO2 on the Other Side of the Railroad Tracks

According to researchers from the University of Southern California and the University of California Berkeley, African Americans living in Los Angeles have a projected heat-wave mortality rate that is nearly twice that of other Los Angeles residents. The report, "The Climate Gap, Inequalities in how Climate Change hurts Americans and How to Close the Gap" states that people of color will be hurt the most by climate change unless elected officials and other policymakers intervene. AAEA agrees and is promoting an Environmental Justice Allowance Reserve (EJAR) to address this issue.

The California Legislature is considering a bill, AB 1404, that would drastically limit the amount of greenhouse gases that polluters could offset by paying emitters in other regions to cut their gases. AAEA supports the bill and has signed on with other organizations, including the Union of Concerned Scientists. Under loose guidelines adopted by the California Air Resources Board under the state's landmark global warming law, up to 49% of greenhouse gas pollution could be reduced through offsets such as planting trees or capturing landfill gases. AB 1404, introduced by Assembly members Kevin De Leon (D-Los Angeles) and Manuel Perez (D-Coachella), would limit offsets to 10% and charge fees to fund careful verification of their integrity.

The big loophole in California’s otherwise exemplary global warming program would allow polluters to buy “offsets” — credits that polluters can buy for emission reductions elsewhere as a substitute for making reductions themselves. California’s big global warming polluters should invest in local solutions instead of buying offsets and continuing to emit as usual.

The U.S. Congress considering legislation to control greenhouse gases that trap heat in the atmosphere and how it is designed will have a major impact on low-income neighborhoods located near refineries, power plants and other industrial facilities that also emit unhealthful conventional pollutants. Many environmental justice groups oppose the cap and trade model because they feel that it will lead to racial 'hot spots' that will remain vulnerable, or even become more vulnerable, to the impacts of higher temperatures and more unpredictable weather. The principal legislation, sponsored by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Beverly HIlls) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.) ,would allow U.S. industries to offset up to 2 billion metric tons of gases per year, and a majority of the offsets could come from projects outside the U.S. Although we support the California legislation, we believe a very active global trading system needs to be established in order to address this global problem.

The Climate Gap report recommends that federal and state legislation force industries to purchase permits to emit greenhouse gases through an auction system, or a fee system. AAEA opposes the auctioning of allowances.

According to the researchers, offering fewer free pollution permits to oil facilities, which are mostly located in minority and low-income neighborhoods, would be particularly effective in cleaning up unhealthful air that is linked to heart disease and respiratory illness. AAEA is promoting an Environmental Justice Allowance Reserve (EJAR) to effectively address 'hot spot' concerns. (L.A.Times, 5/29/09)

President Obama, Mountaintop Removal and African American Ownership

Should blacks own coal mines in a global warming world? It is a question we are asking in many forums. We always get interesting answers. Mainstream environmentalists never address black ownership of traditional energy industries even though this sector powers America. They insist that we restrict ourselves to conservation, efficiency and renewables. To be accepted, one must conform without complaint. And then there's us.

President Obama has a conundrum when it comes to mountaintop removal. It is less expensive and safer than deep mining. Moveover, there are coal mining jobs at stake and windmill construction jobs have not yet provided an alternative source of employment. Neither has construction of photovoltaic panels. Plus, coal is used to provide 50% of America's electricity. President Obama cannot close these coal extraction operations without threatening thousands of jobs and possibly causing blackouts nationwide. There is also the safety issue.

Unscrupulous companies have given mountaintop removal a bad name and their failure at promised reclamations makes us want to oppose the practice in favor of deep mining. Unscrupulous companies have scarred these bucolic mountain ranges and allowed toxic waste to pollute streams and valleys. Yet the thought of sending miners into those caves gives us pause. We are sure President Obama and EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jacksonhave given serious consideration to all of these issues. Yet, the jobs, safety and electricity reliability issues are probably why EPA approved 42 out of the 48 mine projects it had announced reviews for back in March. About two dozen ot these permits were for mountaintop removals.

The EPA has the authority to block mountaintop removal under the Clean Water Act. But if the agency raises no objections, the final decision on projects is made by the Army Corps of Engineers, which historically has approved mountaintop mining. Of course, EPA is still reviewing six major pending mountaintop removal projects in West Virginia, Kentucky and Ohio. We hope some general thought will be given to the ownership issue. AAEA intends to continue to raise it.

Although it is being reported that the Obama White House has apparently disappointed mainstream environmentalists, those same environmentalists continually disappoint us by not promoting minority ownership of traditional energy infrastructure. President Obama has no more betrayed them than they betray minorities by ignoring their ownership needs. The minority employment practices of the mainstream environmental groups are also much worse than coal mining companies. So we are conflicted too, because we want to outright oppose all mountaintop removal, but the coal mining industry and the mainstream environmental movement evidently want to keep us on the sidelines cheering for their teams while we have no equity in their respective operations. (L.A.Times, 5/31/09)