

Sustainable Shawnee is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization dedicated to sustainable living and educating the community on how to live more "gently" on our planet. Do your part.
NORMAN — Numerous oppositional arguments to the proposed pipeline have been presented, and I agree with all. It is said that many jobs will be created by pipeline construction and operation, but the numbers are exaggerated, and, more important, almost all of the jobs are temporary and the pipeline would increase local environmental problems.
Part of President Obama’s inaugural address, presented in January, 2009, was as follows: “That we are now in the midst of a crisis is well understood. ... Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. ...”
Now we have one of the so-called hard choices, but it is really simple! Construction of the proposed Keystone pipeline would facilitate continued dependence on petroleum in the U.S., and environmental destruction in Canada. It is clearly not in our national interest, nor is it in the global interest, and it should not be built.
There can be many more jobs here that would help solve long-range problems. For example, our oil usage is about twice the per capita usage in Europe, which has a far more extensive system for transportation by rail. This situation in our country would be relieved by construction jobs for development here of energy-efficient systems for transportation by rail.
Our society needs to make a large transition away from oil, but this has not occurred in spite of decades-long warnings. Such transition will be painful, but less painful than the transition that would be forced on us soon by natural processes. Such natural processes arise from increase of population and associated emissions of greenhouse gases, and from associated resource depletion and rising prices of food and other essentials.
The Keystone XL pipeline would exacerbate these problems. It would postpone the societal transition that we sorely need, and it would facilitate the environmentally destructive and grossly emissive mining of tar sands in Ontario.
Jared Diamond, in his book, Collapse, notes that societal demise is often a sudden consequence of environmental neglects and environmental destruction. We must not fall victim to attitudes of hubris and exceptionalism.
EDWIN KESSLER
Letter to the Editor
A forum was held in Edmond for city staff to learn what people think about sustainability. Many in attendance expressed disapproval of Edmond's membership in an international group with ties to the United Nations.
People upset with city leaders over Edmond's membership in an international organization with ties to the United Nations were given the opportunity this week to tell leaders what they thought.
Only one of the 31 people who spoke at a 2½-hour forum about Edmond's sustainability program talked about sustainable development as it related to environmental issues.
Everyone else accused city staff of following an alleged United Nation's plan to take away people's rights and property.
Edmond joined the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives in November 2009. The city has paid $2,400 in dues over two years. The dues were reimbursed with money from an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block grant, City Manager Larry Stevens said.
City officials said they joined the council to utilize computer software that calculates and converts data to determine the effectiveness of energy savings technology, Stevens said.
When the city joined the council, city staff said, they were not aware of the organization's ties to the United Nations and its program called Agenda 21.
Click here for the complete story plus maps and graphs.
Which has the most impact on your energy bill: the green things you do (like driving a hybrid and re-insulating your house), the type of house you live in or where you live?
It turns out, a family living near transit in a compact neighborhood saves more energy than an energy-efficient family living in the suburbs.
"Housing that is located in a walkable neighborhood near public transit, employment centers, schools, and other amenities allows residents to drive less and thereby reduces transportation costs,” says Daniel Hernandez of the Jonathan Rose Companies, a green real estate firm that just completed a study to figure out what impacts household energy use most.
Click here for the complete article.
December 17, 2010
Local group weighs in on sustainability
James Coburn
The Edmond Sun
EDMOND — Edmond Police on duty responded three times Thursday night at the Edmond Library to restrain loud, vocal arguments at the Sustainable Edmond meeting. Some people laughed after Officer Jeff Morefield said the meeting was disturbing members of the QRP Suicide Prevention and Intervention Course at the library, sponsored by Edmond Exchange Club.
“I’m serious,” Morefield said. “People are here trying to learn. And this is a library.”
More than once, some people were asked to leave the meeting by Sustainable Edmond member Benton Howell for what was cited as out-of-order disruption during personal introductions. Howell served as moderator for the evening.
Howell was asked to define sustainability. People may have different definitions, said Howell, an engineer with Boeing.
“Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable — to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs,” Howell said.
For the complete article, visit http://www.edmondsun.com/local/x1168756877/Local-group-weighs-in-on-sustainability
Editorial: A lost chance
By Journal Record Staff
Posted: 12:24 PM Thursday, December 9, 2010
Edmond city leaders gave in too easily Monday night to a few disruptive residents.
The city planned a sustainability conference well in advance and publicized the discussion topics. The Edmond Sun, on at least two occasions, ran a short item inviting public input. The city’s statement was clear: “The Edmond Sustainability Plan will include subjects such as water conservation, land use and transportation planning, green jobs, waste management, energy consumption, parks and green space, public and alternative transportation, green infrastructure, building retrofits, alternative fuels, education programs and more.”
The impetus for the Sustainability Plan was nearly $1 million available to the city as part of the Recovery Act. City staff members drafted a plan that would use the money to pay for CNG conversion kits for city vehicles, energy-saving devices for city facilities and water wells, and some energy-efficiency training and supplies for building inspectors. The rest was tagged for a Sustainability Plan the residents would help create.
All of that is noble. It’s federal money coming to the local economy in a recession to help the city become more environmentally friendly, and the public had a chance to provide ideas Monday night. At least they were supposed to.
The effort was thwarted by a couple of guests with half-baked conspiracy theories who were outspoken enough to derail a positive, orderly meeting. They were concerned that Edmond’s Sustainability Plan fell under the purview of the United Nations’ Agenda 21.
More here: