West Seattle brothers join in youth-led ‘State of the Planet’ event

| Environment | West Seattle news | West Seattle people

(Photos by Andy Clark, courtesy 350 Seattle)
Last year they sang downtown at a rally of concern about exploding oil trains; today, West Seattle brothers Aji and Adonis Piper were part of the “State of the Planet” event at City Hall. Though City Councilmember Mike O’Brien was on hand, this event was led by young sustainability ambassadors, campaigning for two initiatives – first, the Billion-Tree Challenge:

According to the young advocates supported by 350 Seattle, if each person in our state planted 150 trees, that would add up to a billion new ones, creating, advocates say, a “carbon bank” to get through the rest of this century. The other proposal discussed today: Climate-change-warning labels on gas-pump nozzles in Seattle, something like this:

The Northern California city of Berkeley passed an ordinance last November approving that type of label; San Francisco is reported to be considering it. Those who attended today’s event heard from Rob Shirkey, who has been campaigning for the pump labels in Canada. There is no formal proposal pending in Seattle yet.

HPLorax January 25, 2015 (7:46 am)

Thanks Piper brothers. These sound like timely initiatives. The earth/humanity might benefit from well placed reminders of the impacts of fossil fuel use. I think the warning label idea is a good one.

Seattle is doing a pretty good job of offering up trees to it’s residents.(see http://www.seattle.gov/trees/treesforneighborhoods.htm) but we can do more, especially with people like yourselves thinking outside the box.

joel January 25, 2015 (8:19 am)

warnings from CA can be extreme – I recently bought a screw from Home Depot and the bag had a warning for CA on it saying the screw may be hazardous to your health. maybe if you swallow it or they are thinking a different kind of screw?

pupsarebest January 25, 2015 (10:38 am)

Thanks to these young men and all who assist them in their endeavours to help our beleaguered planet—truly a glimmer of hope for the future.
Here’s a suggestion for every drive-thru establishment, here and nationwide:
Signs suggesting or requiring patrons to turn off their engines once they reach the point of service.
Idling cars needlessly burn fuel, starting/restarting is no detriment to modern engines, and if tens of millions would simply turn off their engines whilst at drive-thrus (also waiting for drawbridges and at RR crossings) the cumulative effect would be appreciable.

WSB January 25, 2015 (11:11 am)

Pups, REALLY important point. There’s a myth about idling, that it takes more fuel to restart the vehicle than to keep idling. WRONG, I learned a while back – if you are going to be in place for even just TEN SECONDS, turning off the engine saves fuel:
.
http://air.greenventure.ca/idling-facts-and-myths

pupsarebest January 25, 2015 (12:34 pm)

Thanks for corroborating my point, Tracy!
Such a simple “sacrifice” with a huge payoff if everyone would do it. :)

Mike January 25, 2015 (9:19 pm)

Actually, it depends on the vehicle. If you’re talking about direct fuel injected cars controlled by ECU’s (which is a lot of them) then yes, turning off the vehicle will save fuel. However, if it’s not warmed up you’re going to have a dump of raw fuel on start each time too which then the system will try to burn off prior to spewing out the exhaust pipe (it’s basically a recycle system to prevent unburnt fuel from going out the tailpipe, which is what a backfire is caused by). It’s not a myth, it’s just that people don’t know how old and new engines work and how they are different. Tesla’s put out the same toxic brake dust into our waterways as the gas and diesel vehicles, yay for asbestos (which causes cancer, don’t touch your wheels, they are covered in asbestos dust). http://www2.epa.gov/asbestos/us-federal-bans-asbestos

HMC Rich January 25, 2015 (9:59 pm)

I applaud these youngsters and others who are trying to help the environment. Last year they talked about exploding oil trains. Well, instead of transporting oil by train, the safest way is to transport it through pipelines. Since there is not a cheaper alternative yet, time to build the KEYSTONE PIPELINE.

Mike January 26, 2015 (5:35 am)

Well, at least our youth are being heard. http://www.komonews.com/news/local/28000-comments-submitted-on-Whatcom-oil-dock-marked-spam-289724701.html

G January 26, 2015 (8:35 am)

Depends on where trees are planted. Tree canopies tend to be heat “sinks” in the northern hemisphere, as opposed to the tropics. If one believes that warming is a threat caused by man, there are simply no magical solutions other than downsizing lifestyles. Can’t have your cake and eat it too.

JAT January 26, 2015 (9:17 am)

G, – heat sink perhaps but more importantly a Carbon sink. What I like about the comments (so far) is that nobody is calling these youths leftist enviro-simps. It’s possible to recognize that the fossil-fuel energy-intensive lifestyle of the west is bad for our long term viability and aspire to change that without self-loathing or being un-American. Go Kids!

G January 26, 2015 (10:34 am)

JAT,

Agreed. But both sides on this issue are peddling science that may be already outdated, or needs to be seriously qualified. More hard, tough science and fewer patronizing slogans from both sides on this issue. The public can take it, doesn’t need to be watered-down.

Sorry, comment time is over.