Monday, May 16, 2011
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
END THE SUBSIDIES NOW!
Oil Companies Don't Need Our Tax Dollars
May 09, 2011 9:23 am ET
Senate Democrats say they will move forward this week with a plan to eliminate tax giveaways for the top oil companies, which would save taxpayers billions. Republicans have voted in lockstep to protect these giveaways - but lately, their rhetoric has shifted. Will they change course and put the American people before their oil company donors?
Define: Oil company profits are at record highs, but Washington Republicans are using high gas prices as an excuse to keep handing them billions.
Discredit: Taxpayer-funded handouts for oil companies won't do anything to relieve the pain Americans feel at the pump -- and only drive our deficit higher.
Expose: Giving tax breaks to oil companies to drill is like paying the sun to rise every morning, but politicians are protecting them for their oil company CEO donors.
Offer solutions: We can start reducing our deficit right now by getting rid of wasteful tax giveaways for oil companies and reducing our dependence on oil by developing clean, safe sources of energy that will create American jobs and never run out.
"Obama's energy policies are driving up gas prices."
"We need to continue subsidies for oil companies to encourage domestic drilling."
"Subsidies for wind and solar energy have resulted in virtually nothing."
CORE MESSAGE
Connect: American families are struggling -- oil companies aren't.Oil companies raking in record profits get enough of our money at the pump -- they don't need billions of our tax dollars, too.
Define: Oil company profits are at record highs, but Washington Republicans are using high gas prices as an excuse to keep handing them billions.
Discredit: Taxpayer-funded handouts for oil companies won't do anything to relieve the pain Americans feel at the pump -- and only drive our deficit higher.
Expose: Giving tax breaks to oil companies to drill is like paying the sun to rise every morning, but politicians are protecting them for their oil company CEO donors.
Offer solutions: We can start reducing our deficit right now by getting rid of wasteful tax giveaways for oil companies and reducing our dependence on oil by developing clean, safe sources of energy that will create American jobs and never run out.
ATTACKS& RESPONSES
"Obama's energy policies are driving up gas prices."
- Republicans are using rising gas prices as an excuse to protect their oil company donors and to launch false political attacks.
- U.S. oil production rose in 2010 to the highest it's been in years -- higher than during most of the Bush years, and increased domestic drilling would do nothing to reduce the pain Americans are feeling at the pump.
- Instead of protecting oil companies at the expense of taxpayers, we should get to work to reduce our oil dependence by developing clean, safe sources of energy that will create millions of new jobs and never run out.
"We need to continue subsidies for oil companies to encourage domestic drilling."
- Washington Republicans have made their priorities clear - they want to give away billions of our hard-earned tax dollars to oil companies, even though their profits are at record highs.
- Expanding domestic drilling would do nothing to reduce the pain Americans are feeling at the pump.
"Subsidies for wind and solar energy have resulted in virtually nothing."
- Wind power has been the fastest-growing source of new electric power for years, and the solar industry grew by almost 70% last year alone and put the U.S. back in the forefront of the global energy industry.
- The best way to bring jobs and prosperity back to this country is also the best way to end our dependence on foreign oil - by harnessing our limitless supply of clean energy and building wind turbines, solar panels, and energy-efficient products that say "Made in America."
- We have led every technological revolution of the last two centuries, from electricity to telephone to automobiles, and we can lead this one too.
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW
- More than 70% of Americans want to get rid of subsidies for Big Oil, and nearly 75% support increased federal fundingfor clean energy innovation.
- More than 70% of Americans say they feeling financial strain from high gas prices.
- High gas prices mean massive profits for oil companies- Exxon's profits jumped nearly 70%as they raked in over $10 billion since January alone.
- In the past decade, the top five oil companies made nearly a trillion dollars in profits. In 2009 alone, the CEOs of five major oil companies took home almost $70 millioncombined.
- Oil and gas companies spent $16 million last year to elect Republicans, and $146 million on lobbyingin 2010 alone. Conglomerate billionaires the Koch Brothers have pledged to spend nearly $100 million to beat President Obama and Democrats in 2012.
- Republicanshave voted in lockstepagainst ending oil subsidies and recouping billions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars from them.
- The 2012 Republican budget would slash funding for energy research and development, eliminate incentives for developing wind, solar power and other alternative energy technologies, and protect subsidies for oilcompanies.
- Republicans have long opposed setting fuel economy standards or developing sources of clean energy, which would help reduce our dependence on oil.
- The GOP budget slashes more than $50 million from oversight of oil markets -- even though Wall Street speculation in oil markets has been a contributor to oil price surges.
We develop messaging by aggregating, analyzing and distilling polling, tested messaging, and expert recommendations, and monitoring the media to identify what is and isn't working. See here for some of the experts and organizations we draw on.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Greenhouse Effect
- How does the greenhouse effect work?
Visible light from the sun passes through the atmosphere and is absorbed by the Earth's surface - some of that energy is then emitted back to the atmosphere as heat. Greenhouse gases trap that heat, which would otherwise be released into space, raising the temperature of the atmosphere and, subsequently, the Earth's surface. Increases in greenhouse gases from human activities increase the amount of heat trapped by the atmposhere causing global warming and climate change.
- What are the most important greenhouse gases and their sources?
Water vapor - Water vapor contributes the most to the greenhouse effect and occurs in the atmosphere as a result of the natural cycle of water.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) - Carbon dioxide also cycles naturally between the atmosphere and living organisms. Plants and algae remove CO2 from the atmosphere via photosynthesis, while all living things release CO2 via respiration (i.e., breathing). Carbon dioxide also cycles back and forth between water on the Earth's surface (freshwater and the oceans) and the atmosphere. In addition to these natural processes, humans release large quantities of CO2 to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and other industrial processes.
Methane (CH4) - Methane is a natural byproduct of decomposition, but significant quantities are also produced via agriculture and animal husbandry as well as by fossil fuel production.
Nitrous oxide (N2O) - Nitrous oxide is released naturally from terrestrial soils and oceans, but substantial quantities are also generated from the use of nitrogen fertilizers in agriculture and through some industrial processes.
Other gases - A number of other natural and man-made gases also contribute to the greenhouse effect, including tropospheric ozone, and industrial gases such as halocarbons.
Aerosols - Aerosols are airborne particles within the atmosphere. Some aerosols, such as sulfate aerosols and black carbon aerosols are also produced by fossil fuel combustion. Sulfate aerosols tend to reflect incoming solar radiation, cooling the Earth's surface. Black carbon aerosols absorb, rather than reflect, solar radiation, which shades the Earth's surface, but warms the atmosphere.
- Is Climate Change a Natural or Human-Caused Phenomenon?
Scientists have conducted a number of attribution studies that compare observed changes in the global climate with those factors that are known to influence climate. These studies indicate that the climate change observed over the 20th century is due to a combination of changes in solar radiation, volcanic activity, land-use change, and increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases. Of these, greenhouse gases appear to be the dominant driver of climate change over the past few decades.
- How Do We Know that Atmosphere Increases in Greenhouse Gases are Due to Human Activity?
Naturally occurring gases such as CO2 and CH4 are generated by natural processes such as plant and animal respiration and decomposition. However, scientists can quantify the various sources (both natural and human) of such gases and measure their contribution to atmospheric concentrations. Current concentrations of the primary greenhouse gases (see above) cannot be accounted for without considering human activities, particularly the combustion of fossil fuels. Furthermore, global warming may increase the release of greenhouse gases from natural resources.
- Is There Any Connection Between Global Warming and the Ozone Layer?
Ozone in the lower atmosphere is an air pollutant and a health risk, and ozone in the lower atmosphere has increased over the past century contributing to global warming.
Therefore, though there is a relationship between ozone and climate change, ozone depletion is a concern largely due to its effects on UV-radiation rather than on climate.
- How Much Climate Change Has Been Observed to Date?
The observed warming over the 20th century was accompanied by a 10% increase in precipitation in the Northern Hemisphere and an increase in global sea-level of 4-8 inches.
- What Accounts for the Differences in Temperatures From Measurements at the Earth's surface and satellite measurements of the atmosphere?
Surface temperature records show roughly twice as much warming since 1979 than satellite records (although surface temperature records date back to the mid 19th century, satellite measurements began only in 1979).
A report by the National Academy of Sciences in 2000 stated that both the surface temperature records and the satellite temperature records possessed systematic errors that may bias the data, which account for some of the differences between the two data records. Nevertheless, "the warming of surface temperature that has taken place during the past 20 years is undoubtedly real.
However, the National Academy of Sciences also concluded that there are real discrepancies between the surface and satellite records, which have yet to be sufficiently explained. It is often argued that urbanization has increased surface temperatures at the Earth's surface causing the surface to warm faster than the atmosphere, but surface and satellite trends for the world's most urbanized regions (e.g., North America and Europe) are nearly identical, indicating urbanization cannot account for the disparity. In addition, a recent analysis suggests that the difference between surface and satellite trends may not be as large as previously thought, but these results remain controversial.
- How Do Scientists Estimate the Climate of the Future and How Reliable are Their Projections?
Projections of future changes in climate are typically based on three sources of information:
- Knowledge of historical climate variability and change
- Scientific understanding of the climate system
- Computer models of the climate system that generate projections of future climate based upon a number of variables.
Of these three, climate models have received considerable attention. A number of different models exist and each represents the climate in a different way, resulting in large differences among models in projections of future climate change.
A number of current models do a reasonable job of simulating past climate variability (decades to centuries), but all such models perform poorly at modeling short-term climate variability (days-years) and regional climate variability.
The projections of climate models are also highly dependent upon the assumptions used regarding future trends in greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric concentrations.
- What are the current estimates for 21st century climate change?
The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projections for 21st century average global temperature increase is 2.5-10.4oF, based upon multiple climate models and multiple assumptions regarding future greenhouse gas emissions.
Regional warming may be greater or less than the global average. For example, temperature increases in the United States are projected to be approximately 30% higher than the global average. The Arctic is likely to experience the greatest warming.
Associated with this warming will be an increase in global average sea level of 4-35 inches, depending on the magnitude of warming.
Global precipitation patterns will also be altered by temperature increases. Generally, the hydrological cycle is expected to accelerate leading to increases in precipitation at the global level. However, these global increases may not necessarily balance the increased evaporation under warmer conditions, and some regions may experience a decrease in precipitation.
- What are the Projected Impacts of Climate Change?
Species in natural ecosystems will attempt to migrate with the changing climate, but will differ in their degree of success. Ecosystem productivity may decrease or increase, at least over the short-term.
Increases in temperature and changes in precipitation will have significant impacts on water resources, either reducing or increasing water availability along with increasing the risk of floods or droughts.
Coastal developments will experience additional sea-level rise that will interact with coastal storms to erode beaches, inundate land, and damage structures.
U.S. agriculture and forestry will likely experience mixed results with moderate warming, with increases in productivity likely in northern states and possible declines in southern states. However, at higher magnitudes of warming, the risk of more uniform adverse effects across the nation increases.
Human health may be affected by climate change through a number of mechanisms including extreme temperatures (i.e., heat waves), exacerbation of air pollution, severe weather, and increased spread of infectious diseases.
- Will There Be Any Benefits Associated with Climate Change?
Current assessments indicate that agriculture and forestry in the United States are likely to benefit from low to moderate climate change, although these benefits will not be evenly distributed geographically, and some regions will experience damages.
With continued warming, however, benefits will likely peak and subsequently decline, and the effects of climate change for the nation as a whole in these sectors will turn negative.
Other benefits such as increased water availability, reduced energy demands, and greater ecosystem productivity may also occur in specific regions over the short or long-term. However, such benefits will likely be balanced by opposite effects in other regions.
- To What Extent Can Humans Adapt To Climate Change?
Some degree of adaptation will undoubtedly be necessary to respond to the coming climate change that is unavoidable.
Depending on the rate and magnitude of climate change, humans can invest in infrastructure and other societal systems to ameliorate its consequences.
However, different regions and sectors will differ in their ability to adapt. Natural ecosystems have inherent, but limited capability to adapt to climate change, which is further impeded by other human impacts to the environment such as development and habitat fragmentation. Even human societies, particularly developing countries, have limited resources to respond to the challenge of climate change.
Some climate related impacts are difficult to adapt to. For example, extreme weather events, such as storms and floods, are not easily ameliorated by adaptation measures.
Thus, investing in the reduction of greenhouse gases will offset necessary investments in adaptation in addition to protecting against those adverse effects of climate change for which adaptation is particularly difficult.
- How Much Do Greenhouse Gas Emissions Have to Be Reduced to Stop Climate Change?
In order to stop temperature increases, greenhouse gases in the atmosphere must be stabilized, meaning emissions of these gases must be reduced to such a level that they do not cause any additional increase in atmospheric concentrations.
The magnitude of emissions reductions necessary to achieve such stabilization depends on a number of factors including the level at which greenhouse gases should be stabilized and future patterns of fossil fuel use and emissions.
In its latest assessment report the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated the magnitude of emissions reductions necessary to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of CO2 at a doubling of the preindustrial by the end of the century level for a broad range of scenarios for future greenhouse gas emissions. Given mid-range baseline projections for CO2 emissions, IPCC estimated that global CO2 emissions would have to be reduced by the end of the 21st century to 40-75% below baselines.
- What are carbon "sinks?"
- Is Planting More Trees a Way of Solving Global Warming?
Increasing the world's forest cover is uniformly considered to be a useful mechanism for mitigating atmospheric CO2 concentrations, because of the ability for plants to remove CO2 from the atmosphere through photosynthesis.
However, even a vigorous global reforestation program would not be sufficient to offset anthropogenic CO2 emissions from human sources.
Thus, reforestation may assist in reducing the rate at which atmospheric CO2 increases (and provide additional ecological benefits as well), but the stabilization of CO2 will still require direct reductions in CO2 emissions.
- What role do black carbon aerosols (also known as soot) play in global climate change?
Black carbon aerosols or soot are small, carbon-based particles that are emitted to that atmosphere as a by-product of incomplete/inefficient fossil fuel combustion (see glossary). Although not gases per se, these aerosols have similar warming effects on the global climate as traditional greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, etc. Black carbon contributes directly to warming of the Earth’s atmosphere due to the ability of the particles to absorb incoming solar radiation, which is then reemitted to the atmosphere. Interestingly this also contributes to cooling at the Earth’s surface, because the absorption of solar radiation in the atmosphere contributes to a shading effect on the surface. However, the warming effect is estimated to be considerably larger than the cooling effect, and some estimates indicate that compared to the various greenhouse gases, the direct warming caused by black carbon is second only to carbon dioxide. Black carbon aerosols also influence the climate indirectly, by changing the reflectivity of ice and snow. Black carbon aerosols in the atmosphere eventually return to Earth, and when they occur on the surface of ice and snow, their dark color causes ice to absorb more solar energy than it otherwise would (i.e., black carbon reduces the Earth’s “albedo” - see glossary). This causes the Earth as a whole to reflect less solar energy in addition to promoting the melting of glaciers and other ice formations, particularly in the Arctic. Both of these effects contribute to global warming. Collectively, these direct and indirect effects make black carbon a major contributor to global climate change, yet carbon dioxide remains the dominant historical and future human influence on the global climate.
- Who is responsible for greenhouse gas emissions and climate change?
Once emitted, GHGs can remain in the atmosphere for many years, from approximately 10 years to thousands of years, depending on the gas. This means that emissions from a long time ago are still in the atmosphere and still affecting the Earth's climate system. Countries in the developed world have been emitting substantial quantities of GHGs since the start of the industrial revolution in the mid-18th Century. The United States, for example, is responsible for approximately 25 percent of the world's emissions of GHGs to date. However, although industrialization in other parts of the world has been delayed, emissions of GHGs from developing countries are rapidly catching up with those of the developed world, and some estimates indicate that emissions from developing countries, particularly those from China and India, will exceed those of the United States and Europe in coming decades. Determining responsibility for climate change necessitates consideration of these complex patterns of development, past, present, and future.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Thursday, April 21, 2011
This Model Is Not Quite As Pretty As Those Victoria's Secret Models.
The good news: The earth’s carbon cycle has natural negative feedbacks that reverse natural surges in carbon dioxide.
The bad news: We are spewing CO2 into the atmosphere 14,000 times faster than nature has over the past 600,000 years, far too quickly for those feedbacks to respond.
Current CO2 levels - 392.40ppm
How Reliable Are the Models Used to Make Projections of Future Climate Change?
"...models are unanimous in their prediction of substantial climate warming under greenhouse gas increases, and this warming is of a magnitude consistent with independent estimates derived from other sources, such as from observed climate changes and past climate reconstructions."
There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. This confidence comes from the foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes. Confidence in model estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation). Over several decades of development, models have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases.
Climate models are mathematical representations of the climate system, expressed as computer codes and run on powerful computers. One source of confidence in models comes from the fact that model fundamentals are based on established physical laws, such as conservation of mass, energy and momentum, along with a wealth of observations.
A second source of confidence comes from the ability of models to simulate important aspects of the current climate. Models are routinely and extensively assessed by comparing their simulations with observations of the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and land surface. Unprecedented levels of evaluation have taken place over the last decade in the form of organised multi-model ‘intercomparisons’. Models show significant and increasing skill in representing many important mean climate features, such as the large-scale distributions of atmospheric temperature, precipitation, radiation and wind, and of oceanic temperatures, currents and sea ice cover. Models can also simulate essential aspects of many of the patterns of climate variability observed across a range of time scales. Examples include the advance and retreat of the major monsoon systems, the seasonal shifts of temperatures, storm tracks and rain belts, and the hemispheric-scale seesawing of extratropical surface pressures (the Northern and Southern ‘annular modes’). Some climate models, or closely related variants, have also been tested by using them to predict weather and make seasonal forecasts. These models demonstrate skill in such forecasts, showing they can represent important features of the general circulation across shorter time scales, as well as aspects of seasonal and interannual variability. Models’ ability to represent these and other important climate features increases our confidence that they represent the essential physical processes important for the simulation of future climate change. (Note that the limitations in climate models’ ability to forecast weather beyond a few days do not limit their ability to predict long-term climate changes, as these are very different types of prediction.
There are still some unknowns that could send the projections off the charts.....like what will happen if we "uncork" all the methane that is currently stored under the permafrost!
The bad news: We are spewing CO2 into the atmosphere 14,000 times faster than nature has over the past 600,000 years, far too quickly for those feedbacks to respond.
Current CO2 levels - 392.40ppm
How Reliable Are the Models Used to Make Projections of Future Climate Change?
"...models are unanimous in their prediction of substantial climate warming under greenhouse gas increases, and this warming is of a magnitude consistent with independent estimates derived from other sources, such as from observed climate changes and past climate reconstructions."
There is considerable confidence that climate models provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. This confidence comes from the foundation of the models in accepted physical principles and from their ability to reproduce observed features of current climate and past climate changes. Confidence in model estimates is higher for some climate variables (e.g., temperature) than for others (e.g., precipitation). Over several decades of development, models have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases.
Climate models are mathematical representations of the climate system, expressed as computer codes and run on powerful computers. One source of confidence in models comes from the fact that model fundamentals are based on established physical laws, such as conservation of mass, energy and momentum, along with a wealth of observations.
A second source of confidence comes from the ability of models to simulate important aspects of the current climate. Models are routinely and extensively assessed by comparing their simulations with observations of the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and land surface. Unprecedented levels of evaluation have taken place over the last decade in the form of organised multi-model ‘intercomparisons’. Models show significant and increasing skill in representing many important mean climate features, such as the large-scale distributions of atmospheric temperature, precipitation, radiation and wind, and of oceanic temperatures, currents and sea ice cover. Models can also simulate essential aspects of many of the patterns of climate variability observed across a range of time scales. Examples include the advance and retreat of the major monsoon systems, the seasonal shifts of temperatures, storm tracks and rain belts, and the hemispheric-scale seesawing of extratropical surface pressures (the Northern and Southern ‘annular modes’). Some climate models, or closely related variants, have also been tested by using them to predict weather and make seasonal forecasts. These models demonstrate skill in such forecasts, showing they can represent important features of the general circulation across shorter time scales, as well as aspects of seasonal and interannual variability. Models’ ability to represent these and other important climate features increases our confidence that they represent the essential physical processes important for the simulation of future climate change. (Note that the limitations in climate models’ ability to forecast weather beyond a few days do not limit their ability to predict long-term climate changes, as these are very different types of prediction.
There are still some unknowns that could send the projections off the charts.....like what will happen if we "uncork" all the methane that is currently stored under the permafrost!
Monday, April 18, 2011
Power Shift 2011
Thousands of young activists gathered at a rally in front of the White House on Monday to demand that the president protect the Clean Air Act, stop taking money from corporate polluters, and invest in a clean energy economy. The rally was the culmination of a three-day climate summit, called Power Shift, that drew 10,000 participants from across the country.
Speakers included : Former vice president Al Gore, 350.org founder Bill McKibben, environmental activist Van Jones, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, AFL-CIO president Richaed Trumka to name just a few.
Noticeably absent.... the media!
Here is the transcript of Bill McKibben’s (350.org) fiery speech.
All right, listen up. Very few people can ever say that they are in the single most important place they could possibly be doing the single most important thing they could possibly be doing. That’s you, here, now.
You are the movement that we need if we are going to win in the few years that we have. You have the skills now. You are making the connections. And there is no one else. It is you.
That is a great honor and that is a terrible burden. There is no one else.
The science is the easy part in this, grim, but easy. 2010 was the warmest year on record. And it was warm. We were on the phone one day with our 350 crew in Pakistan and one of them said, “It’s hot out here today,” and I was surprised to hear him say it because it’s usually hot in Pakistan during the summer. He said, no it’s really hot . We just set the new, all time Asia temperature record, 129 degrees. That kind of heat melts the arctic. That kind of heat causes drought so deep across Russia that the Kremlin stops all grain exports. That kind of heat causes the flooding that still has 4 million people across Pakistan homeless tonight.
It’s tough, it’s grim, but the good news at least is that it’s clear, the science. We have a number: 350 parts per million. 350, the most important number on earth. As the NASA team put it in January 2008, “any value in the atmosphere greater than 350 parts per million is not compatible with the planet on which civilization developed and which life on earth is adapted.” Getting back to 350 pars per million will be very very tough, the toughest thing human beings have ever done, but there is no use complaining about it, it’s just physics and chemistry. That’s what we have to do.
But if the scientific method has worked splendidly to outline our dilemma, that’s how badly the political method has worked to solve it. Think about our own country, historically the biggest source of carbon emissions. Last summer, the Senate refused to even take a vote on the tepid, moderate, tame climate bill that was before it. Last week, the House voted 248 to 174 to pass a resolution saying global warming wasn’t real. It was one of the most embarrassing votes that Congress has ever taken. They believe that because they can amend the tax laws they can amend the laws of nature too, but they can’t. I’m awful glad a few of you went up to the visitors gallery to talk some sense to them last week.
Even the White House. Two weeks ago, the interior secretary, who spoke here two years ago, Ken Salazar, signed a piece of paper opening up 250 million tonnes of coal under federal land in Wyoming to mining. That’s like opening 300 new coal fired power plants and running them for a year. That’s a disgrace.
But you know what. We understand the physics and chemistry of political power. In this case, it’s not carbon dioxide that rules the day: it’s money.
Many of you are in the District of Columbia for the first time and it looks clean and it looks sparkling. No, this city is as polluted as Beijing. But instead of coal smoke it’s polluted by money. Money warps our political life, it obscures our vision, but just like with physics in chemistry there is no use whining. We know now what we need to do and the first thing we need to do is build a movement.
We will never have as much money as the oil companies so we need a different currency to work in, we need bodies, we need creativity, we need spirit.
350.org has been like a beta-test for that movement. It began with youth here at Power Shift four years ago. It’s now spread around the planet. In the last two years, there have been 15,000 demonstrations in 189 nations. CNN called it the most widespread political activity in the planet’s history. But it needs to get bigger still. On the first Earth Day in 1970 there 20 million Americans in the street, one in ten Americans. That’s the kind of size we need.
And so, on September 24 we need your help. September 24 is the next big day of action. We’re calling it Moving Planet and in those 189 nations, people will be in motion. Much of it will be on bicycles, because the bicycles is one of the few tools that rich and poor both use. Who here knows how to ride a bike? All right, September 24, I cannot wait to see the pictures. We are not going to wait for the politicians to move, we’re going to create the future that we need ourselves.
But that movement doesn’t just need to be bigger, it needs to sharper too, more aggressive.
You know what, at Copenhagen we got 117 nations to sign on to that 350 target. That was good, but they were the wrong 117 nations. They were the poorest and most vulnerable nations. The most addicted nations, led by our own, weren’t yet willing to bit the bullet, so that’s where we’ve got to go to work.
That work, to deal with that money pollution, that work starts Monday at ten o’clock in Lafayette Square, across from the White House and next to a place called the US Chamber of Commerce.
The Koch Brothers are high peaks of corruption, but the US Chamber of Commerce is the Everest of dirty money. It boasts on its web page that it is the biggest lobby in Washington. In fact, it spends more money lobbying than the next five lobbies combined. It spent more money on politics last year than the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee combined and 94% of that went to climate deniers.
We cannot stop their money, but we can strip them of their credibility. They claim to represent all American business, but they don’t. 55% of their funding came from 16 companies. They don’t have to say who those companies are, but it’s easy to tell when you watch what they do. They spend their time lobbying to make sure the planet heats up as fast it possibly can.
They sent a legal brief to the EPA last year, saying that they should take no action on climate change, because if the planet warmed, humans could alter their behavior and their physiology to deal with the problem. I don’t even really know what that means, alter your physiology. Grow gills? I don’t know. But I can tell you this. I am too old to change my physiology and you all are too good looking. But I will adapt my behavior. Every day now I will roll out of bed and go to work fighting them. Hell, I will go to bed at night and try to dream up new ways to fight.
We’re going to adapt our behavior all right. We’re going to adapt our behavior now to fight on every front. I’m sorry if that sounds aggressive, but there we are.
Twenty-two years ago, I wrote the first book about climate change and I’ve gotten to watch it all, and I know that simply persuasion will not do. We need to fight. Now, we need to fight non-violently and with civil disobedience. You will hear from my friend Tim DeChristopher in a moment and more to come, but if you’re going to go that route, one thing you need to make sure that you manage to get across in your witness is that you are not the radicals in this fight.
The radicals are the people are the people who are fundamentally altering the composition of the atmosphere. That is the most radical thing people have ever done.
We need to fight with art and with music, too. Not just the side with our brain that likes bar graphs and pie graphs, but with all our heart and all our soul. Tomorrow or tonight, you need to go down behind Hall B downstairs and help them build the art work for Monday morning.
We need to fight with unity. We need to have a coherent voice. That’s why, last week we joined with our friends at 1Sky to build this bigger, stronger 350.org. We need to speak with one loud voice, because we are fighting for your future.
So far, we’ve raised the temperature of the planet one degree and that’s done all that I’ve described, it’s melted the arctic, it’s changed the oceans. The climatologists tell us that unless we act with great speed and courage that one degree will be five degrees before this century is out. And if we do that, then the world that we leave behind will be a ruined world.
We fight not just for ourselves, we fight for the beauty of this place. For cool trout streams and deep spruce woods. For chilly fog rising off the Pacific and deep snow blanketing the mountains. We fight for all the creation that shares this planet with us. We don’t know half the species on Earth we’re wiping out.
And of course, we fight alongside our brothers and sisters around the world. You’ve seen the pictures as I talk: these are our comrades. Most of these people, as you see, come from places that have not caused this problem, and yet they’re willing to be in deep solidarity with us. That’s truly admirable and it puts a real moral burden on us. Never let anyone tell you, that environmentalism is something that rich, white people do. Most of the people that we work with around the world are poor and black and brown and Asian and young, because that’s what most of the world is made up of, and they care about the future as anyone else.
We have to fight, finally, without any guarantee that we are going to win. We have waited late to get started and our adversaries are strong and we do not know how this is going to come out. If you were a betting person, you might bet we were going to lose because so far that’s what happened, but that’s not a bet you’re allowed to make. The only thing that a morally awake person to do when the worst thing that’s ever happened is happening is try to change those odds.
I have spent most of my last few years in rooms around the world with great people, many of whom will be refugees before this century is out, some of whom may be dead from climate change before this century is out. No guarantee that we will win, but from them a complete guarantee that we will fight with everything we have. It is always an honor for me to be in those rooms. It is the greatest honor for me to be with you tonight.
No guarantee that we will win, but we will fight side by side, as long as we’ve got. Thank you all so much.
– Bill McKibben
http://www.350.org/
Speakers included : Former vice president Al Gore, 350.org founder Bill McKibben, environmental activist Van Jones, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, AFL-CIO president Richaed Trumka to name just a few.
Noticeably absent.... the media!
Here is the transcript of Bill McKibben’s (350.org) fiery speech.
All right, listen up. Very few people can ever say that they are in the single most important place they could possibly be doing the single most important thing they could possibly be doing. That’s you, here, now.
You are the movement that we need if we are going to win in the few years that we have. You have the skills now. You are making the connections. And there is no one else. It is you.
That is a great honor and that is a terrible burden. There is no one else.
The science is the easy part in this, grim, but easy. 2010 was the warmest year on record. And it was warm. We were on the phone one day with our 350 crew in Pakistan and one of them said, “It’s hot out here today,” and I was surprised to hear him say it because it’s usually hot in Pakistan during the summer. He said, no it’s really hot . We just set the new, all time Asia temperature record, 129 degrees. That kind of heat melts the arctic. That kind of heat causes drought so deep across Russia that the Kremlin stops all grain exports. That kind of heat causes the flooding that still has 4 million people across Pakistan homeless tonight.
It’s tough, it’s grim, but the good news at least is that it’s clear, the science. We have a number: 350 parts per million. 350, the most important number on earth. As the NASA team put it in January 2008, “any value in the atmosphere greater than 350 parts per million is not compatible with the planet on which civilization developed and which life on earth is adapted.” Getting back to 350 pars per million will be very very tough, the toughest thing human beings have ever done, but there is no use complaining about it, it’s just physics and chemistry. That’s what we have to do.
But if the scientific method has worked splendidly to outline our dilemma, that’s how badly the political method has worked to solve it. Think about our own country, historically the biggest source of carbon emissions. Last summer, the Senate refused to even take a vote on the tepid, moderate, tame climate bill that was before it. Last week, the House voted 248 to 174 to pass a resolution saying global warming wasn’t real. It was one of the most embarrassing votes that Congress has ever taken. They believe that because they can amend the tax laws they can amend the laws of nature too, but they can’t. I’m awful glad a few of you went up to the visitors gallery to talk some sense to them last week.
Even the White House. Two weeks ago, the interior secretary, who spoke here two years ago, Ken Salazar, signed a piece of paper opening up 250 million tonnes of coal under federal land in Wyoming to mining. That’s like opening 300 new coal fired power plants and running them for a year. That’s a disgrace.
But you know what. We understand the physics and chemistry of political power. In this case, it’s not carbon dioxide that rules the day: it’s money.
Many of you are in the District of Columbia for the first time and it looks clean and it looks sparkling. No, this city is as polluted as Beijing. But instead of coal smoke it’s polluted by money. Money warps our political life, it obscures our vision, but just like with physics in chemistry there is no use whining. We know now what we need to do and the first thing we need to do is build a movement.
We will never have as much money as the oil companies so we need a different currency to work in, we need bodies, we need creativity, we need spirit.
350.org has been like a beta-test for that movement. It began with youth here at Power Shift four years ago. It’s now spread around the planet. In the last two years, there have been 15,000 demonstrations in 189 nations. CNN called it the most widespread political activity in the planet’s history. But it needs to get bigger still. On the first Earth Day in 1970 there 20 million Americans in the street, one in ten Americans. That’s the kind of size we need.
And so, on September 24 we need your help. September 24 is the next big day of action. We’re calling it Moving Planet and in those 189 nations, people will be in motion. Much of it will be on bicycles, because the bicycles is one of the few tools that rich and poor both use. Who here knows how to ride a bike? All right, September 24, I cannot wait to see the pictures. We are not going to wait for the politicians to move, we’re going to create the future that we need ourselves.
But that movement doesn’t just need to be bigger, it needs to sharper too, more aggressive.
You know what, at Copenhagen we got 117 nations to sign on to that 350 target. That was good, but they were the wrong 117 nations. They were the poorest and most vulnerable nations. The most addicted nations, led by our own, weren’t yet willing to bit the bullet, so that’s where we’ve got to go to work.
That work, to deal with that money pollution, that work starts Monday at ten o’clock in Lafayette Square, across from the White House and next to a place called the US Chamber of Commerce.
The Koch Brothers are high peaks of corruption, but the US Chamber of Commerce is the Everest of dirty money. It boasts on its web page that it is the biggest lobby in Washington. In fact, it spends more money lobbying than the next five lobbies combined. It spent more money on politics last year than the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee combined and 94% of that went to climate deniers.
We cannot stop their money, but we can strip them of their credibility. They claim to represent all American business, but they don’t. 55% of their funding came from 16 companies. They don’t have to say who those companies are, but it’s easy to tell when you watch what they do. They spend their time lobbying to make sure the planet heats up as fast it possibly can.
They sent a legal brief to the EPA last year, saying that they should take no action on climate change, because if the planet warmed, humans could alter their behavior and their physiology to deal with the problem. I don’t even really know what that means, alter your physiology. Grow gills? I don’t know. But I can tell you this. I am too old to change my physiology and you all are too good looking. But I will adapt my behavior. Every day now I will roll out of bed and go to work fighting them. Hell, I will go to bed at night and try to dream up new ways to fight.
We’re going to adapt our behavior all right. We’re going to adapt our behavior now to fight on every front. I’m sorry if that sounds aggressive, but there we are.
Twenty-two years ago, I wrote the first book about climate change and I’ve gotten to watch it all, and I know that simply persuasion will not do. We need to fight. Now, we need to fight non-violently and with civil disobedience. You will hear from my friend Tim DeChristopher in a moment and more to come, but if you’re going to go that route, one thing you need to make sure that you manage to get across in your witness is that you are not the radicals in this fight.
The radicals are the people are the people who are fundamentally altering the composition of the atmosphere. That is the most radical thing people have ever done.
We need to fight with art and with music, too. Not just the side with our brain that likes bar graphs and pie graphs, but with all our heart and all our soul. Tomorrow or tonight, you need to go down behind Hall B downstairs and help them build the art work for Monday morning.
We need to fight with unity. We need to have a coherent voice. That’s why, last week we joined with our friends at 1Sky to build this bigger, stronger 350.org. We need to speak with one loud voice, because we are fighting for your future.
So far, we’ve raised the temperature of the planet one degree and that’s done all that I’ve described, it’s melted the arctic, it’s changed the oceans. The climatologists tell us that unless we act with great speed and courage that one degree will be five degrees before this century is out. And if we do that, then the world that we leave behind will be a ruined world.
We fight not just for ourselves, we fight for the beauty of this place. For cool trout streams and deep spruce woods. For chilly fog rising off the Pacific and deep snow blanketing the mountains. We fight for all the creation that shares this planet with us. We don’t know half the species on Earth we’re wiping out.
And of course, we fight alongside our brothers and sisters around the world. You’ve seen the pictures as I talk: these are our comrades. Most of these people, as you see, come from places that have not caused this problem, and yet they’re willing to be in deep solidarity with us. That’s truly admirable and it puts a real moral burden on us. Never let anyone tell you, that environmentalism is something that rich, white people do. Most of the people that we work with around the world are poor and black and brown and Asian and young, because that’s what most of the world is made up of, and they care about the future as anyone else.
We have to fight, finally, without any guarantee that we are going to win. We have waited late to get started and our adversaries are strong and we do not know how this is going to come out. If you were a betting person, you might bet we were going to lose because so far that’s what happened, but that’s not a bet you’re allowed to make. The only thing that a morally awake person to do when the worst thing that’s ever happened is happening is try to change those odds.
I have spent most of my last few years in rooms around the world with great people, many of whom will be refugees before this century is out, some of whom may be dead from climate change before this century is out. No guarantee that we will win, but from them a complete guarantee that we will fight with everything we have. It is always an honor for me to be in those rooms. It is the greatest honor for me to be with you tonight.
No guarantee that we will win, but we will fight side by side, as long as we’ve got. Thank you all so much.
– Bill McKibben
http://www.350.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)