A watershed moment for Obama on climate change

by Bill McKibben from the Washington Post:

Ain’t eBay grand? For $10 you can buy a sack of 50 assorted Obama ’08 buttons, and that’s what I’ve been doing. If you look closely, you might see them this weekend on the lapels of some of the global warming protesters holding a sit-in outside the White House.

Already, more than a thousand people have signed up to be arrested over two weeks beginning Aug. 20 — the biggest display of civil disobedience in the environmental movement in decades and one of the largest nonviolent direct actions since the World Trade Organization demonstrations in Seattle back before Sept. 11. (Among the first 500 to sign up, the biggest cohort was born in the Truman administration, followed closely by FDR babies and Eisenhower kids. These seniors contradict the stereotype of greedy geezers who care only about their own future.)

The issue is simple: We want the president to block construction of Keystone XL, a pipeline that would carry oil from the tar sands of northern Alberta down to the Gulf of Mexico. We have, not surprisingly, concerns about potential spills and environmental degradation from construction of the pipeline. But those tar sands are also the second-largest pool of carbon in the atmosphere, behind only the oil fields of Saudi Arabia.(CCCC Edit: The previous is incorrect, but tar sands are still a potentially very large source of atmospheric carbon) If we tap into them in a big way, NASA climatologist James Hansen explained in a paper issued this summer, the emissions would mean it’s “essentially game over” for the climate. That’s why the executive directors of many environmental groups and 20 of the country’s leading climate scientists wrote letters asking people to head to Washington for the demonstrations. In scientific terms, it’s as close to a no-brainer as you can get.

But in political terms it may turn out to be a defining moment of the Obama years.

More At:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-watershed-moment-for-obama-on-climate-change/2011/08/16/gIQAGX3zJJ_story.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

ANNOUNCING LOCAL VICTORY!

Thanks to you, your calls, emails, letters all helped get a significant improvement to our city building codes! We did have to compromise a bit, not badly, in adopting the full International Residential Building Codes; however, the Building Commission said they would agree to full adoption of the codes in the next review cycle!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Health and the Health Costs of Dirty Energy (updated)

Find information on Public Health and the Health Costs of Dirty Energy at this link.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Small Businesses Urge US Senate To Let Clean Energy Create Jobs:

CLIMATE COSTS “BY THE NUMBERS”

The following data is from the time the Senate failed to pass comprehensive clean energy legislation, July 22, 2010, until it resumed from summer recess, September 13, 2010: (For those 54 days only).

1) For the first time, China surpassed the U.S. as one of the most attractive countries for renewable energy projects. ----Ernst & Young

2) The U.S. fell $11,269,800,000 ($208 million a day) behind other G20 nations in private investment in clean energy and $21,215,342,466 behind the rest of the world! ----Pew Charitable Trust

3) A U-Cal Berkley analysis showed the American Power Act would have created 1.9 million jobs! Nearly 600,000 of these jobs were lost where they are needed the most, in the 10 states with over 10% unemployment! Other states lost hundreds of thousands of urgently needed jobs that could have been filled immediately with little or no training! Senate inaction will cause American families to miss out on an increase of family income of up to $1,175 per year and a boost to America’s gross domestic product (GDP) of $111 billion with huge economic benefits flowing across 50 states!

FOR MORE COSTS:

:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please contact your State and Federal Legislators asking them to support clean, renewable energy and appropriate climate and energy legislation!

Contact information is underneath talking points below

Jump to talking points below

Read Monta's letter here

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

What About the Science?

The Tea Party group, Americans for Prosperity (AFP), founded by David and Charles Koch, of Koch Industries, a major oil and gas conglomerate is the most influential so-called super PAC, whose president, Tim Phillips has said “there’s no question…[AFP] has been instrumental in the rise of Republican candidates who question or deny climate science. We’ve made great headway. What it means for candidates on the Republican side is, if you buy into green energy or play footsie on this issue, you do so at your political peril. The vast majority of people who are involved in the [Republican] nominating process-the conventions and the primaries- are suspect of the science. And that’s our influence. Groups like Americans for Prosperity have done it.” As Koch Industries has lobbied aggressively against climate-change policy, AFP has spearheaded an all-fronts campaign using advertising, social media, and cross-country events aimed at electing lawmakers who will ensure the profits of the oil industry. Read more: http://www.truth-out.org/koch-political-group-brags-about-bullying-gop-lawmakers-denying-climate-science/1323283179

Allegations of scientific fraud regarding climate change research have been widely reported in the news. This so-called "Climategate" has led many otherwise intelligent people to discount the theory of human-caused climate change. While it might be appealing to believe it is all a fraud, the vast body of science still points toward a large human contribution to climate change, and critical examination of the fraud claims reveal that most of them were taken out of context, or misinterpreted. Further, the media responsibility to report just as widely that the ‘Climategate’ science and scientists have been vindicated and cleared by 3 separate scientific investigative bodies was shirked, with barely a mention of these results! More below:

The Berkley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) Project, conducted by American physicist, Richard Muller, stated that “Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that.” The BEST study, ironically, was funded by the Koch brothers, who likely would have preferred a different outcome. Read more: http://www.nationofchange.org/wall-street-journal-downplays-study-confirming-global-warming-1320856426

Debunking Climategate

(Recently Updated)

There is yet some question among climate scientists over the percentage of human contribution to climate change, although the vast majority agree our contribution is very large. Even if you feel climate change is mostly natural, fossil fuels represent a non-renewable, depleting, and polluting source of energy. For the future, we must move away from extremely polluting and slowly vanishing fuels toward renewable sources of energy.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Climate Change is a Great and Growing Problem!! Let your Legislators and Civic Leaders Know this is an Overwhelmingly Important Issue!!

Plan a discussion with your elected leaders, friends, and family. Here are some talking points to get the discussion started

1) The consequences of not taking strong enough action are far worse than the financial hit many perceive from climate legislation.

2) Supporting appropriate climate legislation will encourage a new, green -energy economy, keep US energy dollars and millions of new, cleaner, safer jobs at home, reduce dependence on foreign oil, increase homeland security, and help America lead the world in renewable, clean, energy technology and manufacturing.

3) Any legislation must have provisions for those who would be adversely hit financially. These safety-net provisions should be sufficient to protect lower-middle income and poorer people. Individuals earning more than these levels should be able to absorb associated costs and will ultimately enjoy the rewards of the redirected economic focus on a cleaner economy.

4) Legislation must produce significant improvements in the environment that will ultimately benefit human and other life on the planet. A cleaner environment will ultimately save healthcare dollars for individuals, as well as state and federal government.

5) Global supply and demand will ultimately lead to war if we do not start to build a renewable energy economy. We will be competing with countries such as China and India as they develop their economies. There is a century or less of economically recoverable, yet polluting, fossil fuel sources---including less than 75 years of uranium, according to Big Energy's Conoco-Phillips. These sources and companies have been subsidized while making record profits, sidetracking investment in renewables. Prices from these limited, finite sources will reflect supply and demand and continue to rise. It's time to change to renewables---change that we, the taxpayers, pay for---carbon credits can be a tool to use for this change and will help build a clean, responsible energy future.

6) Whether one agrees that humans are causing the climate crisis, we have a moral obligation to lead the world and our country to a more sustainable future, one that is healthier, and a future with energy prices eventually stabilizing and dropping like other consumer goods, as all countries become more energy independent with renewables. As we do this, we must keep the reduction of greenhouse gases as our foremost goal---for example, certain biofuels can be too water intensive in a drying climate, and cause deforestation by increased need for land. Poorly thought out, or hasty solutions, or ones that only benefit a particular industry, can contribute to the climate crisis more than they reduce it.

7) In order to stabilize the climate, scientists agree that we must keep the CO₂ concentration at around 350 parts per million. We are currently at 389 PPM and rising. The American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) sets a goal of 450 PPM. We can see what is happening now at 389 PPM. It's clear we need to hold or reduce emissions below what we have now. Effective legislation must set a limit of 400 PPM, or less. The number and severity of weather related disasters in Missouri has increased over the last several years. These disasters hit hard, causing loss of livelihood, industry and taxpayer dollars. For this and other reasons, Missouri SEMA officials were prompted to state, in late January of 2008, that weather may now be the greatest threat to homeland security.

8) Finally, any legislation must not undo progress made before, such as language that would weaken our long-standing Clean Air Act, or weaken EPA authority.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are a couple of sample letters for inspiration!! Both were published as op-editorials in area papers.

COMPREHENSIVE CLIMATE/ENERGY and ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION

We put our economy, our security, and our environment in great peril when we don’t move quickly to super efficiency and safer, cleaner, renewable sources of energy. Passing a comprehensive climate and energy bill this year is urgent and the American Power Act is a good starting place.

The following need to be included in any Climate/Energy legislation passed by the Senate and House:

While the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act has good elements it needs to be more comprehensive, strengthened by the following:

1) The Gulf Coast drilling disaster has become the worst environmental disaster in American history. Further, we are seeing more coal mining disasters and natural gas pipelines exploding. There must be an immediate moratorium on any additional offshore drilling. Safeguards, with adequate oversight, must be developed and in place for all underground energy sources/fuel supplies.

2) There must be strong investment in and subsidies for conservation, efficiency, and renewable sources of energy, including wind, solar, tidal, small-hydro, along with certain biofuels that will not effect world food costs and supplies, or water and land availability, of which algae is a good example. There must also be decreasing investment in fossil fuel and nuclear energy programs, which have received long-term financial taxpayer support. These sources are dirty, dangerous and damaging, while diverting financial investment in renewable energy.

3) 17% Greenhouse Gases (GHG) reductions from 2005 levels are way below what climate experts feel we should be at, which is a minimum of 25%-40% lower than 1990 levels before 2020. If scientific projections of human contribution to global climate change have even a chance of being right, we have a strong moral obligation to quickly reduce C02/GHG emissions. In the process, we will become the world’s leaders in a new clean energy economy, instead of falling behind other countries already building this new global economy.

Further, the authority of the Clean Air Act and the ability of the EPA to enforce it must be kept strong, individual state’s efforts to reduce carbon emissions must be allowed, there must be appropriate investment in international efforts to find solutions on climate change in both mitigation and adaptation, and timetables must reflect the urgency of the need to move quickly to safer, cleaner, renewable energy.

Legislation opposing the Supreme Court’s Endangerment Finding, which states the EPA, through the Clean Air Act, can regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions, as these emissions are an endangerment to public health, must be opposed and understood as having greater financial concern for the health of “Big Energy” than for the physical health and well-being of the American public. These attempts, including the Murkowski Resolution, are essentially “giveaways” to Big Energy at the expense of the American taxpayer and public health and welfare.

Monta Welch

Columbia Climate Change Coalition

Interfaith Care for Creation

Founder and President

(573) 443-4717 (573) 777-2216

--------------------

Here's another one by Bekki Cook in STLtoday (Microsoft Word format).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Express yourself!! Write to top Missouri and national papers and tell their readers how important this is. Cut and paste some of our talking points above, or modify them in your own words (better).

Remember to be brief, and to give your name and address at the end (papers don't publish anonymous letters). Thank you for adding your voice!!

When you're done, why not send your letter to your Missouri senators? Contact information is just below the newspaper links for your convenience

Missouri Papers

· Columbia Tribune

· Columbia Missourian

· Jefferson City News-Tribune

· Fulton Sun (Web based - opens in new window)

· St. Louis Post-Dispatch

· Kansas City Star (150 word maximum)

· Springfield, MO, News-Leader (Web based - opens in new window)

· Joplin Globe

· Hannibal Courier Post

National Papers

· New York Times (does not publish letters sent to multiple papers)

· New York Post

· Washington Post

· LA Times (needs name. address, daytime phone and email address)

· Chicago Tribune (Web based - opens in new window)

· Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Other Newspapers (comprehensive list by state or name)

Your Missouri Senators

· Senator Claire McCaskill (Web based - opens in new window)

· Senator Kit Bond (Web based - opens in new window)

For more information and suggestions on how you can make a personal difference,

please take some of our other flyers, or download them at

"DOWNLOADABLE MATERIALS"

Monta Welch, Executive Director (573) 443-4717