Today's parents are concerned about the safety of their children when they are playing outdoors.  There is more traffic on the streets and more worries about other harms befalling them such as "stranger danger."   While the neighborhood may be very safe -- conscientious parents still want some added assurance.  Here are some proven Be Out There ways that parents across America are providing safe outdoor play time for kids.  

The yard – is still a great place to catch a  few minutes outdoors.  Even better if a few steps are taking to make it more interesting.  Most kids are good about sticking to their own properties.  Make the rules clear, tell them not to wander off and let them play awhile.

 

Play Groups – kids playing outside together are quite safe.  In some neighborhoods parents have arranged regular outdoor play times where kids meet and have fun together for an hour or two.  The kids love it and so do the parents.

Day care – most child care facilities are required to provide outdoor play space for children but not all of them use it on a regular basis.  A reminder to the center from parents about the importance of outdoor time for growing minds and bodies goes a long way.

 

“Buddy” walks to school – only about one-in-nine kids walks to school these days even if they live within a few blocks.  That is down from about half of kids 25 years ago.  Parents living fairly close to school can arrange for two or three kids in the neighborhood to meet up and walk to school together.  It is good exercise and good companionship.

 

After school programs – whether that are educational classes or extended day programs, they are another important way for children to get outdoor play time.  Friendly parental reminders to teachers and after school staff can help here too.

 

School recess – kids need an outdoor break during their school day.  They need to breathe some fresh air, run around, blow off steam and have fun with one another.  In recent years schools have been so focused on statewide test performance that many have cut out recess breaks.  Parents can look into this and bring it up as an important opportunity for children to have more outdoor time.

 

Time for two (or three)– there are many moments each week when a the mom or dad is busy indoors and the kids are  planted in front of the television.  It doesn't take much to convert these moments into a walk around the block, a visit to a playground or a quick game in the backyard.  Parents who look for these opportunities whether a few minutes or an hour will have happier and healthier children.

 

For more information on ways to get children outdoors and places to enjoy outdoor time vists NWF's Be Out There site.  

Last week the House Natural Resources Committee voted 22 to 13 to send an important new piece of legislation to the House floor.  It received strong support from the National Wildlife Federation, The Campaign for Environmental Literacy, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and others.  The bill was introduced by Congresswoman Lois Capps from California and has several dozen co-sponsors. 

The bill, H.R. 3644, would authorize a five-year nationwiide education program designed to expose school children to the rivers, bays, estuaries and great lakes, near which they live.  The legislation is based on a the recognition, years ago, that a majority children grwoing up within the Chesapeake Bay watershed could easily make it to adulthood without ever having any meaningful educational connection to the Bay.  This spawned the Bay Watershed and Training Program or "BWET" -- and many of the school and educator programs it has supported are so hands-on that students actually have a good chance of getting wet during their lessons. 

By making this program nationwide in scope, school children in the San Francisco Bay region, the Puget Sound, The Great Lakes, the Gulf of Mexico and many other critical coastal and marine areas can be exposed to meaningful watereshed experiences.  It may seem unthinkable that a child could grow up in Baltimore, for example, without ever visiting the Chesapeake or in Milwaukee without seeing the Lake Michigan, but, think again,   With today's children spending six hours a day watching TV and playing video games and having less connection than ever to the outdoors, a educational program that connects them to the watersheds in which they live on is a critical need.   NWF testimony on the Bill.

NWF's Campus Ecology program has released its anticipated study of Generation E: Students Leading for a Sustainable, Clean Energy Future, which highlights the unique and critical role college students play in the climate flight.

Published just weeks before the international climate negotiations kick off in Copenhagen, Generation E is a story of student and youth leadership.The report highlights 165 college and university examples in 46 states, covering 35 categories of creative student effort. American students are stepping up and responding to the challenge of climate change.

Generation E illustrates the creative ways our campuses are responding to the shift toward a sustainable, clean energy future.

“‘Generation E’” stands for the three “E’s” of sustainability: ecology, sustainable economics, and social equity,” said Julian Keniry, Senior Director of Campus and Community Leadership. “It also stands for a tremendous amount of energy and excitement on college campuses today. The values of sustainability define and unite the current generation like no other issue of our time.”

An executive summary and the full Generation E report, including a list of 165 highlighted schools, are available online at www.nwf.org/GenE.

Campuses featured in Generation E and all other schools are encouraged to enter NWF's Chill Out competition this fall. Chill Out: Campus Solutions to Global Warming is a competition that rewards and recognizes all the cool things campuses are doing to reduce the impacts of global warming.

To enter, students, faculty and staff need to submit a two minute video that shows how their college or university is working to reduce global warming pollution. Entry forms are at CampusChillout.org.

We're learning some alarming new data about just how fast polar bear habitat is melting away in the Arctic Circle. According to National Snow and Ice Data Center data, Artic sea ice extent has slipped below 2007's historic lows for about a week now.

Take a look at the latest satellite imagery, noting the huge gap of open blue sea just off Alaska's coast where ice should be. The 1979-2000 median ice level is outlined in red (click to enlarge):

Keep in mind that the 1979-2000 median line already reflects a steady decline in Arctic sea ice. What's worse, reduced sea ice cover has an amplifying effect on global warming. While ice reflects most of the sun's rays, dark sea water absorbs the heat.

But even considering the long, steady decline, the recent drops are absolutely stunning. Take a look at the annual trendline, with sharp declines in 2007 & 2009:

“The loss of Arctic sea ice has huge implications for polar bears,” said Dr. Doug Inkley, our senior scientist here at the National Wildlife Federation. “U.S. Geological Survey studies and models indicate that two thirds of polar bears will disappear by 2050, due to ice loss.”

The alarming Arctic Sea ice loss comes at a crucial moment for America's polar bears. The federal government has just proposed designating more than 200,000 square miles of sea, ice and land as critical polar bear habitat. The designation won't save polar bears by itself, but it could give them a fighting chance. And with global warming slowly eating away at their hunting grounds, polar bears need all the help they can get.

But there's a catch -- the U.S. Interior Department may allow Big Oil to drill more in the same area. Drilling would not only disturb habitats polar bears need to raise their young, it would increase the risks of devastating oil spills.

Please take a moment to email the Interior Department right now. We need to keep our commitment to protecting polar bears.

Ocean freighters that discharge ballast water from ports around the globe into the Great Lakes have infected America’s freshwater seas with a plague of foreign species. Invasive species introduced into the Great Lakes have spread across the country and made it as far as California.

The invaders — such as zebra mussels, quagga mussels and round gobies — have disrupted fisheries, killed thousands of water birds and triggered toxic algae blooms that threaten public health and wildlife.

Now we have a chance to end the practice of ocean freighters using the Great Lakes as a dumping ground for filthy ballast water from around the world. The Coast Guard is taking comments on a proposed rule that would make ships sterilize their ballast water -- but not quickly enough to shut the door on new invasive species.

The Coast Guard needs to hear from you. Take action to keep invasive species out of America's waters.

-By Jeff Alexander, NWF Great Lakes Regional Center

Otters are so cute, you could take a video of one reading the classifieds and it would be entertaining. But a baby otter? Playing with toys?

Over the weekend, we learned world leaders are scaling back expectations for the upcoming Copenhagen climate summit. Here's what Jeremy Symons, National Wildlife Federation senior vice president, had to say about the decision at Politico's forum, The Arena:

If there were ever any doubts about the global significance of Congressional action to enact a clean energy and climate plan for America, the run-up to Copenhagen should erase them. The eyes of the world are on the United States, which has the greatest capacity to lead the green economy renaissance that will lower pollution levels and safeguard our children’s future. Copenhagen remains a critical moment to engage all nations in a more ambitious global effort that keeps pace with the latest climate science.

With Senate action on clean energy legislation now delayed, a successful outcome at Copenhagen would be akin to a successful visit to a tailor to buy a new suit. You pick the fabric and style, take measurements and agree on a date to make the final adjustments and close the deal. Similarly, the nations of the world should come out of Copenhagen with an agreement on the architecture and timeline that will shape the final deal. The extended timeline should be months, not years. It should give Congress the time needed to get a strong clean energy and climate bill to President Obama for his signature in early 2010, but also recognize that delay increases the cost of the climate response and the risk of climate disasters.

President Obama needs to provide the leadership to take full advantage of Copenhagen and ensure a successful outcome. And the Senate needs to recognize that prompt action on a U.S. climate bill will not only repower America’s economy with clean energy, but also galvanize global cooperation on climate change.

Learn more about NWF's international work in our Climate Change, Deforestation & Agriculture section.

Today we present part 2 of a 4 part series on the upcoming United Nations Climate Conference in Copenhagen, where leaders from around the globe will come together to negotiate a new global climate treaty.

The Boulder Bubble

Local governments vow to press ahead with emissions reductions regardless of the outcome at the upcoming Copenhagen talks. Can those efforts carry the day if international negotiations devolve to bickering and stalemate?

By Douglas Fischer, Daily Climate Editor

Here's what this affluent Rocky Mountain city of 100,000 does about a revenue shortfall in the darkest economic hour since the Great Depression:

It raises its carbon tax.

The city just west of Denver was the first in the nation to slap a levy on carbon emissions so it could meet Kyoto Protocol obligations. As it became apparent this summer the city was slipping and needed more cash to revitalize emissions-cutting programs, town leaders raised the modest tax – tacked to city utility bills – to its maximum.

With diplomatic efforts to seal a post-Kyoto accord approaching a decidedly uncertain fate this December in Copenhagen, state and local leaders pushing their own emissions reductions efforts see only one choice: Proceed.

The number of cities and regional governments undertaking this transition to a low-carbon economy is growing. These efforts, leaders vow, will continue whatever the outcome of political debates in Copenhagen, Brussels or Washington, D.C.

There are, in other words, two trains heading out of the station: Those driving local change are confident their programs will continue to accelerate even if global discussions get waylaid in Copenhagen next month.

"The community is on board with this," said Sarah Van Pelt, author of Boulder's climate action plan who is now a special projects coordinator for the city's environmental division. "Right now our biggest detractors are saying why aren't we doing enough."

San Diego is tying recycling, water use and energy efficiency to climate; Berkeley, Calif. has rewritten property rules to boost solar installations; New York and California are shifting state policy to encourage a new, low-carbon economy. Twenty-nine other states have some sort of a renewable fuel standard, requiring utilities to mix a certain percentage of those fuels into their power mix.

"If nothing happens on the federal level, it's unfortunate but it's not the end of the world," said Cara Martinson, legislative analyst for the California State Association of Counties. "We'll start to see a lot more of these regional activities. It'll start to be a bottom-up approach if the national framework breaks down."

Whether these local efforts can produce the reductions required to avert the worst climate disruption is much debated. Many climate experts are skeptical. The necessary cuts are substantial, they require economy-wide transformation and the initiatives need to be policed by a fixed, enforceable global treaty.

"It's hard to see how they could be sufficient," said Doug Boucher, director of tropical forests and climate initiative at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The Copenhagen talks are seen as crucial for several reasons. It's the date the international community – after years of negotiations – set as the time to draw up a comprehensive global solution to climate disruption.

Industry and governments need to know where emissions targets are headed post-Kyoto. December is the last chance to get a treaty ratified and in place before Kyoto expires in 2012, said Jennifer Morgan, director of the World Resources Institute's climate and energy team who has been involved in global climate talks for more than a decade.

Local efforts help, she agreed. But the global problem needs a global solution.

"It's a huge problem around the share of the commons in the atmosphere, and it's a very large economic issue," she said. "Countries need to have a sense that other main contributors to the problem – and their competitors – are moving together toward a solution.

"It's more than just the sum of the parts."

California, even more than Boulder, exemplifies local determination to curb emissions regardless of national or international stalemate. The state of 37 million people agreed in 2006 to tackle global warming. It has a mandatory greenhouse gas reporting system covering 90 percent of the state's industrial emissions. By law, the state has to ratchet those emissions down to 1990 levels by 2020 – a 24 percent cut from business-as-usual projections.

But scientists say the world needs to slash emissions 80 percent by 2050 to avoid catastrophic climate change. Boulder hasn't met Kyoto's modest target of a 7 percent cut over 1990 levels despite its tax and one of the nation's most eco-conscious populations, though city leaders say they expect to get close.

California faced a $26 billion spending hole earlier this summer that it filled in part by pulling money from local governments. While the state managed to protect many of its climate programs, local efforts aren't so lucky.

"A lot of this stuff might be put on the far back burner for a while," Martinson acknowledged.

California's municipalities, in fact, aren't seen as "agents of reduction" under the state's framework. There's no emissions bar under which cities must slip by a certain date.

"We are looking to forward-thinking municipalities to come up with innovative solutions," said Stanley Young, spokesman for the California Air Resources Board's climate programs.

"They're more nimble, certainly, than the state. In a sense they're able to be the test bed for these new approaches."

But at this point, he said, "it's all voluntary."

Still, cities are laying an important foundation that must be in place regardless of the target ultimately set by global leaders: They're figuring out the nuts and bolts of how to cut emissions.

"Demand-side reduction requires sophisticated implementation. It needs to show up at the local level and show up for the end-user," said Steve Pomerance, the former Boulder City Councilman who helped write Boulder's carbon tax earlier in the decade.

It's no surprise that Boulder would take the lead here.

The city is affluent – near the top 10 percent in the United States in per-capita income, according to the U.S. Census Bureau – and brainy. The University of Colorado, the National Center for Atmospheric Research and several other research institutions make the city a hub for science and innovation, repeatedly propelling the city to the top of Forbes' annual list of America's smartest cities. (link: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/250167)

It's also a green city, with a network of dedicated bike and hiking trails and the nation's oldest open-space program hemming development. Trails, sun, snow and mountains draw a young, outdoorsy demographic that boasts one of the most liberal voting records in the West.

In 1982 the city limited building heights that shaded lots to the north to preserve solar access on the neighboring lot. In 1987, long before most city councils had heard of global warming, the city reassessed its water plan to account for lower runoff expected in a warmer climate. It bought a crucial upstream reservoir to secure extra storage.

In 2002, with the Bush Administration stalling, Boulder decided it would meet the Kyoto protocol, and the council quickly concluded it needed a way to pay for the necessary climate change programs. Many argued for a fee, which didn't require voter approval.

Pomerance, a key player in both the solar shading law and the reservoir purchase, pushed for a tax. "Go to the voters. Say straight out here's what you want to do," Pomerance said in an interview. "That way you have a mandate. (Otherwise) you're always swimming upstream politically."

In 2006, 60 percent of Boulder's voters approved the tax.

And the city discovered the hard work had just begun.

The tax is modest – $11 a year tacked to a typical household's energy bill. This summer the council raised the levy to its maximum, $21 per year for the average household. It will bring in $1.8 million next year.

The city offered home energy audits. It pushed biofuels and rooftop solar. It discounted energy-efficient lighting, furnaces and insulation. And six years in, the city found emissions have grown instead of shrunk.

That's the true difficulty in solving climate change, Pomerance says: World leaders can agree on targets. They can agree on a cap. But then what?

"That's just the first eighth-inch on top of a 10-foot pile of work. There's all these other pieces that have to go along with it," Pomerance said. "I'm a local politico. All I'm looking at is the implementation – 'OK, that's fine, now what do we do?' "

San Diego has taken a whack at that question, too.

Almost two years ago a coalition of environmental groups, utilities, and government agencies decided to combine various conservation and efficiency campaigns into one umbrella marketing effort – Stand for Less.

Nowhere on the campaign's website or advertising materials are the words "global warming" or "greenhouse gas emissions." Instead, the focus is on using less, recycling more, saving water, consolidating errands.

The goal, said Mark Oldfield, a spokesman for the state's Department of Conservation, which is coordinating the effort, is to see whether by tackling these very concrete efforts, a more abstract goal – California's climate change objectives – can be achieved.

"It's a very simple metric," Oldfield said. "We didn't want to make it brain surgery. We wanted to look at it and see clear-cut numbers."

The program is in its infancy. It has set no targets, and its survival is questionable: After spending $1 million on start-up and an initial media campaign, the department saw its advertising budget slashed as California worked its way out of a budget hole.

"Our effort in San Diego is somewhat limited," Oldfield acknowledged. "We can't impact a lot of things directly."

"But we're hoping that by targeting recycling and other things, we can impact indirectly some bigger things."

And this is where an international agreement could truly help, said Morgan, WRI's climate director.

"Local initiatives working very specifically and practically on engaging unions and companies and policy makers in making those shifts are absolutely essential," she said during a telephone interview from the Bonn climate talks earlier this summer.

"You also need to have a national policy. It makes the local job easier – 'If you go for renewables, then you get these tax incentives.' "

"And on the international level, you get a level of ambition that the country is going to work on this with the rest of the world," she added.

"It's really about making people see the interdependencies that exist."

Local leaders certainly don't mean global efforts should be underestimated.

Back in Boulder, city leaders already are looking for goals beyond 2012, when Kyoto expires. Its ability to establish a post-Kyoto target, said Jonathan Koehn, the city's environmental affairs manager, will depend "most certainly" on the city's ability to decarbonize the energy supply.

And that will require an international push.

"We can meet our current target with energy efficiency (measures) and Boulder residents making differences in their everyday lives," he said. "But to move beyond that we have to have move on a different playing field.

"It doesn't mean we stop the local efforts," Koehn added. But no agreement in Copenhagen would prolong the onset of "meaningful and widespread" changes in the near future.

Of course, that near future holds plenty of work – and change – for local governments – with or without a framework.

"The best we can expect from Copenhagen is targets," Pomerance said. "It doesn't solve problems. It just forces you to start figuring out how to deal with them."

"The high-level targets need to be connected to plans on the ground," he added.

"What's going to happen is Congress puts in cap-and-trade, and they're going to crank (carbon limits) down by 2050 – or hopefully sooner – and issue zero permits to coal plants. And the utilities will say, 'Well, what's step two?' "

"That's where the issue is going to show up. What it's going to eventually come down is plan," Pomerance said. "And what it's ultimately going to come down to is what are cities going to do, what are counties going to do, what are states going to do."

A recent study by three universities provides an estimate of many new green jobs coming from alternative energy development in the U.S.

Smart Grid News.com reports:

"A collaborative study by three universities concludes that U.S. renewable ene rgy policies could create as many as 1.9 million new jobs around the country. In addition, the study shows that those policies would account for an increase in annual household income of more than $1,000 and that the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) could increase $111 billion by 2020.

While the study has a long-winded title, Clean Energy & Climate Policy for U.S. Growth and Job Creation: An Economic Assessment of the American Clean Energy & Security Act and the Clean Energy Jobs & American Power Act, the news it presents is encouraging."   See full article.

Last week the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services released their yearly assessment of plants and animals that are candidates for protection under the Endangered Species Act.

The good news is that this year, four species were removed from the candidate list as the USFWS decided they no longer require extensive protection!

One success story is that of the brown pelican that has recovered primarily due to the banning of the harmful pesticide DDT.

While this offers some hopeful news for a few select species like the brown pelican, with the looming effects of climate change, the opposite scenario also continues to unfold.

America's wildlife and wild places are already feeling the impacts of rising global temperatures:

• Rapidly melting ice habitats are crippling polar bear and seal populations
• Cold water fish like salmon and trout are at risk as stream temperatures rise
• Large mammals like moose face warm weather stress and increasing parasites such as ticks and brainworms
• Birds that now migrate further north for winter contend with new prey and feeding challenges

Furthermore, an ever increasing number of animal species face difficulty breeding, migrating and providing care for their young as their habitats shrink.

The facts are clear. We can't wait for more species to become endangered. If climate change worsens we will see less butterflies, coral reefs, Florida panthers and mallard ducks.

Labeling a species as endangered might bring awareness and temporary aid, but it will not curtail the greatest threat facing all wildlife today.

By Kolleen Kawa, National Wildlife Federation