Tag Archives: NRDC Action Fund

Oily Apologies vs. Clean Energy Momentum

It is yet another big week for clean energy. The President is having a group of bipartisan senators over to discuss how to get a clean energy bill moving that addresses the source of the gulf spill. One guy who won't be attending is Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX) after he apologized to BP CEO Tony Hayward for the “tragic” mistreatment his company has suffered. Here are Barton's now infamous words:

“I'm ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday. I think it is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown, in this case, a $20 billion shakedown.”

That's right, forcing BP to pay for the damages it has caused is not justice, it's a “shakedown.” Incredible.

In response, numerous lawmakers from both parties expressed strong disgust at his comments. Unfortunately, that irritation didn't extend to everyone as a few seemed to share Barton's perverse perspective, in which BP is the victim and the rest of us are the perpetrators. Or something.

For instance, Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN) called the $20 billion escrow account a “redistribution of wealth fund.” That's right, according to Bachmann, forcing BP to pay for the damages it caused is some sort of socialist scheme. As for the tens of thousands of Gulf Coast residents who depend on fisheries and tourism for their livelihoods? In Bachmann's world, apparently, they deserve nothing. “Let them eat cake,” perhaps?

Meanwhile, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) and his Big Oil buddies continued to block legislation aimed at eliminating the $75 million liability cap on BP for economic damages stemming from the oil disaster that it caused. Apparently, protecting the mega-profits of a giant oil company is priority #1 for Inhofe et al, even as tends of thousands of Gulf Coast residents see their lives and livelihoods crumbling around them. Priorities, priorities, I guess.

Look, I am all for open markets and free enterprise. But, in addition to the chance to make enormous profits, doesn't doing business in a responsible manner also entail owning up to your obligations, not to mention your egregious mistakes? I mean, if I run up a bill on my credit card, I have to pay it. If I walk into a store and start smashing up the merchandise, the “Pottery Barn rule” is highly likely to kick in – “you break it, you buy it.” In fact, I would go so far as to call this a basic principle of doing business. In Senator Barton's world, in contrast, the “Pottery Barn rule” only applies to the “small people,” not to multibillion-dollar corporations like BP.

In the face of this heart-breaking and rage-inducing catastrophe, we don't need business-as-usual from Big Oil Barton and Company. Instead, we need something bold and transformational. We need comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation that will break our addiction to oil, transform our economy, enhance our national security, and guarantee that oil disasters like this one never happen again.

Fortunately, even as a few lawmakers are busy apologizing to BP, others are hard at work trying to put America on a safer, cleaner path. Last week, Democratic senators held a caucus meeting on clean energy and climate legislation, and tomorrow they will hold another one. President Obama's get-together is Thursday. These gatherings are important, as they will help determine the Senate's path forward.

I am hoping that the meetings don't yield anymore ridiculous quotes a la Barton or Bachmann. My fingers will be crossed that after all the lawmakers have had a chance to be heard, they will move beyond rhetoric and lay out their plans for passing comprehensive, clean energy and climate legislation this summer. Because action is what we need now from our elected representatives. If they fail to take that action, they will owe us all an apology.

Our Senators, the Climate Bill, and Tying Your Shoes with One Hand

Last Thursday, the Senate voted 53 to 47 to defeat the Murkowski resolution that would have undermined the EPA's ability to reduce global warming pollution. The vote provides a useful guide to how senators might act on a climate vote.

Of course, it is not a clear-cut comparison because some people voted against the flawed resolution to make a point about process or simply to support the science. It is significant to note that we have 10 more votes in favor of reducing carbon emissions than we did the last time climate change was discussed on the Senate floor two years ago.

But here is what I find most interesting about last week's vote: the number of Senators who have all publicly exclaimed that global warming is a pressing problem but who voted to block the EPA from dealing with it. Are they sitting on an “election year fence” or are the deep pockets of Big Oil & Coal companies propping up their campaign contribution fences? The question must be asked – Why do these senators benefit from burning caveman fuels?

Senator Rockefeller, for instance, said: “I am not here to deny or bicker fruitlessly about the science… In fact, I would suggest that I think the science is correct. Greenhouse gas emissions are not healthy for the Earth or her people, and we must take significant action to reduce them. We must develop and deploy clean energy, period.”

And yet the man voted to hamstring the EPA. Indeed, Senator Rockefeller intends to push his own bill that would put the EPA's effort to confront global warming on hold–giving West Virginia's coal industry a free pass for two more years.

Senator Chambliss from Georgia, meanwhile, said, “I know the climate is changing.” And Senator Hutchison from Texas declared: “As a solution to climate change, we need to work together to promote the use of clean and renewable sources of energy….It is important that we work together. We are the elected representatives of the people.”

And yet both of them voted against one of our main tools for combating global warming pollution: the EPA.

I'm sorry, but if you really believe this is a crisis, why wouldn't you want to fight it with every weapon available? Why wouldn't you deploy the muscle of both Congress AND the federal government?

While I was listening to last week's debate, I couldn't help but be reminded of teaching my three-year-old how to tie her shoes. I showed her how to do it with two hands, of course. Why on earth would I suggest she do it with one?

Yet that is what these Senators seem to be proposing. Senator Collins from Maine said:
“I believe global climate change and the development of alternatives to fossil fuels are significant and urgent priorities for our country.”

Why would she want us to fight global warming with one hand tied behind our back?

On the one hand, these statements are good news – despite the yelping of Inhofe and Hatch, the Senate is not a bastion of climate deniers. There's even a consensus that something must be done. The bad news is they're still not doing it. What is it that these Senators actually would support that isn't just some vague theory?

Who is the Worst Offender: The Climate Denier or The Complacent Staller?

This is a pivotal week in the clean energy debate. The Senate will vote on Murkowski's short-sighted resolution to take away the EPA's authority to regulate pollution. As we head into this critical time, it's not the Inhofe-cloned climate deniers who trouble me – it's the knowing bystanders who are keeping me up at night.

Before I start this rant, let me just state for the record that I still think deniers are about as accurate as my three year old is when she is trying to describe quantum physics at her make-believe tea parties (although they are wholly less adorable). The vast majority of these deniers resist climate legislation because they really don't believe global warming is a problem – yes their heads are in the sand. But for the purposes of the Murkowski resolution, their vote is already lost.

Lately I am even more frustrated with Senators who recognize that climate change is an urgent challenge, but who sit idly by on the sidelines doing nothing. For me, they raise the fundamental question – Who is worse – those that deny the existence of climate change or those that believe in the upcoming catastrophe and continue to lack focus or alarm?

Take Senator Schumer for example. He has stated that he thinks the Senate should confront the impacts of climate change. Yet just this week, when leaders should be pushing hard for climate action, Schumer's support has been tepid at best. On Morning Joe, he showered Senator Bingaman's energy-only bill with praise, then said, “What do you do about climate change? Kerry has a proposal that has pretty broad support…He is going to get a chance to offer that opinion, and we will see if it has the votes.”

We are looking for more from our Leaders than a passive wait and see attitude. Senator Schumer is the third ranking Democrat, and that means he needs to do more than wait around to cast a vote. It's time for real leadership, which means rolling up his sleeves and making sure a bill passes. We need him in the trenches. In fairness, the Senator walked himself back a bit after people threw a fit over his Morning Joe ambivalence. He has pledged to meet with Senator Kerry on a path forward but until he demands action and puts him ample political muscle behind that call, I am skeptical.

Exhibit #2 is Senator Rockefeller. As a Senator from West Virginia, he wants the federal government to do a better job of regulating mine safety, especially after the horrifying disaster at the Massey coalmine. I applaud him for that stance, but here is where I get confused. When it comes to global warming–something Rockefeller says, “America must address”–he suddenly gets allergic to federal regulation. He wants the Senate to block the EPA from reducing global warming pollution until Congress gets it's act together. The federal government can and should be involved – today. Just as federal regulation needs to be strengthened to deal with mine safety, we need to let the regulators use the tools on the books begin addressing greenhouse gases.

And finally, the fence sitters continue to be the best example of willful negligence. The Senate is going to consider a resolution this week from Senator Murkowski to put the breaks on EPA's efforts to address greenhouse gases. There is a small group of Senators – like Collins, Snowe, Pryor, Webb, and Scott Brown – who say they want to reduce global warming pollution but may vote for Murkowski's resolution to overturn the EPA's authority to do so. If you think carbon emissions are dangerous, wouldn't you want to use every weapon at your disposal to fight it?

When I see Senators backpedalling, downplaying and side stepping climate action, I want to ask them: what are you waiting for? When is there going to be a better time to transition to clean energy? America is watching the cost of failed energy policies literally washing up on our shores. Our nation is desperately in need of the jobs and economic growth that a clean energy economy can provide. Congress has the most pro-clean energy members we are likely to get for several years.

I think I just answered my own question – which is worse, a climate-denier or a knowledgeable staller…. I vote that someone who fails to act when they know the stakes is much worse.

Obama or Bust: We Need Leadership from the Top

If you look at any of the 24X7 news shows or even the Today Show, you will see everyone proclaiming that there is an anti-incumbent mood spreading across America. There is good reason to say that as evidenced by the size of Tea Party rallies and even a few of the races last Tuesday. But, my personal opinion is that this is less about an anti-incumbent mood and more about a “pro-change” disposition. Voters are angry about the current state of blame and stall politics. They expect elected officials to keep their promises – and that extends to clean energy and climate legislation.

Even though clean energy and climate issues are rarely at the heart of the anti-incumbency rhetoric, the frustration with all things Beltway could block comprehensive energy legislation this year.

President Obama's leadership is the only force that can change that.

You see, when the electorate turns anti-Washington, Congressmen freeze up. They get scared of taking bold steps and they start saying “no” to everything.

Even on a good day, the odds of passing any bill in Congress–no matter the issue–starts at about 5 percent. Smart gamblers always bet the no vote in Congress.

But being a naysayer becomes even more attractive to politicians when they think their job is at risk. Voting “no” on a big, transformative bill allows them to give the illusion that they are “playing it safe” and to keep the bull's-eye off their back for potential mid-term popularity contests.

“No” may be an easy decision for politicians, but it is the wrong choice for the American people.

We need to say yes to a clean energy and climate bill that will generate nearly 2 million jobs, put our nation at the forefront of one of the biggest markets of the 21st century, end our reliance on oil, and reduce dangerous pollution. Yet so many lawmakers are in a panic over elections that they can't see these benefits.

They need to snap out of it. In a movie, this is the moment when someone would come along and slap the panicking person in the face. In politics, that slap is leadership.

President Obama must take charge of clean energy and climate legislation. The only major bills that pass through Congress are the ones with White House support. We are fortunate that President Obama backs climate action, but given this anti-incumbent mood, we need him not just to support it; we need him to lead it.

What would that look like? We saw it in the heath care debate. President Obama went into campaign mode and stumped on that bill every single day. He called in political chits. He got people in the same room to negotiate. He dragged it over the finish line because he went farther than asking for change. He demanded it.

That is what we need him to do for a clean energy and climate bill. Because let's be frank: either we see some leadership or we call it a day.

If we don't pass the bill this year, we won't get another chance for years. Dave Robert's painted the grim prospects for national climate action given the likely outcomes of future election cycles in his Grist blog this week. It doesn't look good for another eight years – at least.

We need to get America moving right now toward a clean energy future, and we need President Obama to lead the way.

This week, Robert Redford appeared in a television ad for the NRDC that has already been written about in the Washington Post and New York Times. Interestingly, he didn't call on Congress to take clean energy and climate action. He called on President Obama.

The president is the one with the bully pulpit. Tell him to use it on behalf of clean energy and climate solutions. Securing our future depends on it.

National Tragedy Demands Real Response

One of my first real memories of tragedy was when the space shuttle Challenger exploded. My entire school was cheering on teacher Christa McAuliffe, and when the shuttle blew up in midair, I remember standing with my sobbing classmates, trying to make sense of what we had witnessed.

As an adult, I felt a similar connection the day after September 11. In the midst of a national crisis, Congressmen from both parties and both chambers stood on the Capitol stairs and sang “God Bless America.” I will never forget that moment and the sense of common cause it inspired in all who heard it.

Shared national experiences are pretty powerful things.  Although one can’t really compare a terrorist attack on our nation to a mechanical failure that causes catastrophic loss, the experience of communal mourning is still similar…denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.  But what this list does not mention is “resolve”.  No one can deny that regardless the nature of the event, when this nation marches to the same drummer, it creates a powerful beat that can move mountains.

Yet I didn’t feel that sense of common cause last month when the Deepwater Horizon exploded and killed 11 people.  I didn’t feel it when the oil erupted like a volcano, gushing endlessly into the Gulf of Mexico. And I still don’t feel it even as the local tourism industry shuts down, fisheries are closed, water is endangered and the ecosystem is in peril.

Plenty of people are concerned about the Gulf, but it hasn’t permeated the national mood yet. In fact, instead of honoring the loss of life and examining the ongoing risk, some lawmakers seem to want us to forget all about this tragedy.

House Republicans have responded to the situation in the Gulf by talking about gas prices and calling for expanded offshore oil drilling.  The Energy Rapid Response team they have assembled doesn’t even include a member from the Gulf Coast–only landlocked lawmakers who aren’t affected by the pain of oil spills.

It must be easy to whine about paying more at the pump when your constituents aren’t dealing with cleaning up an oil slick that is spreading by the day.

In all fairness to the droning, disconnected Energy Rapid Response team, we do have some elected officials actually from the area who are choosing to side with the oil companies instead of their constituents.

Senator Mary Landrieu, also known as the oil industry’s PR director, is begging people not to rush to judgment even as her state’s wildlife refuges are coated with oil and Louisiana’s economy is threatened.  She claims to be on the side of the mom and pop drillers.  Wow.  If a big oil company like BP is having a tough time cleaning up their massive, historical mess, can you image what would happen if this kind of explosion happened to a small driller?

If there is one Member of Congress that gives me some hope it is West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, who has met tragedy with the courage to stand up to negligent, dirty energy companies.  West Virginia was the site of the April 5, 2010 collapse at the Upper Big Branch coal mine that killed 29 people and injured 2 others.

Senator Byrd took time to reflect on the tragedy.  Instead of being an apologist for Massey Coal Company, he is representing the best interests of his constituents by demanding that dirty energy is made to pay for their mess and that West Virginians reexamine the role of the coal industry in their state.

Dirty energy has consequences.  We see that very clearing in the Gulf and in West Virginia.  We see how we pay the price for dirty oil and coal in losses: the loss of life, the loss of fishing and tourism jobs, the loss of economic growth and the loss of ecosystems that sustain us.

Loss is what happens when you make a pact with dirty energy. And even though we may not necessarily have a national drum beat quite yet, Americans are beginning to recognize that we can break this dangerous pact. Seven in ten say that it’s time to break our dangerous addiction to oil by fast-tracking clean energy legislation and by increasing our use of sustainable and renewable power and fuels. We can shift to cleaner technologies–things like fuel-efficient cars and renewable power–that will slash our reliance on oil and coal.

I would much rather see Americans rally around the promise of clean energy than yet another fossil fuel disaster. Wouldn’t you?

Heather Taylor-Miesle is the director of the NRDC Action Fund. Become a fan on Facebook or Twitter.

CLIMATE CHANGE CANNOT WAIT

This country and the planet cannot afford to delay climate and clean energy legislation. It is that simple. Every day Washington politics puts our clean energy future on hold our economy gets weaker, our enemies get stronger, and the planet gets more polluted. It has been almost a year since the House approved comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation to create jobs, cut our oil imports in half and reduce the carbon pollution that threatens us all, and we are still waiting for the Senate to act. The time is now for comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation that jump-starts our economy, strengthens national security, and leads to a healthier planet.

The petitions, rallies, e-mails and letters from around the country are sending a loud and clear message of broad support. The NRDC Action Fund has worked tirelessly to urge the Senate to stand up for a strong clean energy and climate bill. And just last week Capitol Hill saw a display of this commitment as “tens of thousands…gathered on the National Mall for a concert and rally” not only to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Earth Day but to call “for real leadership in the Senate”.

The President has also been crystal clear in his call to take action for passing “comprehensive clean energy and climate bill ‘that will safeguard our planet, and spur innovation and help us to compete in the 21st Century.”

Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman have dedicated months to pulling together a Senate bill. As Representative Ed Markey asserts, “Right now we’ve got the best chance [to pass the legislation] in a generation…and it would just be a shame to lose it”. A delay in climate legislation would be more than just a shame, but, in the words of Thomas Freidman, “a disaster”.

Of course, Mr. Freidman is giving voice to the concerns of many. Not passing comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation now means we are not only racing toward a potential tipping point ecologically, but we are postponing economic growth and threatening national security.

It has been almost two decades since 1,600 senior scientists from 70 countries signed the statement warning “all humanity of what lies ahead. A great change in our stewardship of the earth and the life on it, is required, if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated.”

A comprehensive clean energy policy will “boost growth, create 2.8 million jobs, slash pollution” and drastically cut our dependence on foreign oil.

The U.S. Department of Defense declared “climate change a national security threat”, that will “contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration.”

Our inaction also raises doubt in the rest of the world that America is still able to provide leadership on issues of global concern. We are already getting left behind as we continue to sit on the sidelines while “China is…leading the world…in wind production and…solar production.” This country was not built on the principle of inaction. Our founders were leaders who risked everything to make this country great.

The Senate has the historic opportunity to flip the switch and get onto a path to a prosperous and sustainable future. The truth is, “This generation of politicians is the last generation who have it in their power to secure the future of our planet, to safeguard the health and livelihoods of millions of people and the habitats that sustain their lives. History will not forgive them if they fail to act.”

So we need members from all parties, the officials elected to lead this country, to sit down now and get this bill back on track – for us and the generations to come.

Heather Taylor-Miesle is the director of the NRDC Action Fund. Become a fan on Facebook or Twitter.

Sarah Palin’s Right: You Should Run on Energy

Over the past week, Sarah Palin encouraged Tea-Party candidates to make energy issues a central part of their campaigns. “There’s nothing stopping us from achieving energy independence that a good old national election can’t fix,” she said.  

Palin’s full of surprises, but this piece of campaign advice caught me off-guard. After all, a recent poll found that energy is the issue that inspires the most faith in Democratic lawmakers. Since President Obama made clean energy a central part of their campaign in 2008, this poll suggests that this is what the majority of people want.  Therefore, Democrats AND Republicans should all be running on clean energy.

Tea-partiers are always more than welcome to pontificate &peddle” more of the same”, blathering about dirty, old energy technologies that date back to the 19th century.

When in fact it will be bold Republicans and smart Democrats that support clean, innovative, job generating “energy ideas” that will truly get a lift by campaigning on energy.

Eight years of “Drill, baby, Drill,” during the Bush administration got us exactly where we are now – in trouble and dependent on foreign oil. But that isn’t what the American voters want now. American voters want progress and they want jobs.  The clean energy plan at the center of the economic package, which just approved a $100 million investment in smart grid technology, will lead to 30,000 Americans getting new job training.

These are the energy policies that Americans will have the most faith in. And that’s why I encourage the undecided Senators out there–those lawmakers and candidates from both parties who have been quiet about clean energy and climate legislation–to step forward and declare their support for a clean energy future for America and show some leadership.

Rather than being scared about what the Tea Party will say in response, lawmakers should be listening to American voters. People want to see progress right now, not more Congressional gridlock.

Comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation is primed for passing. It has already passed in the House. A new Senate bill is expected to become public in the coming days and will have tri-partisan support in the Senate thanks to Senators Kerry (D), Graham (R), and Lieberman (I). After the bill is unveiled, negotiating will begin in earnest.  Forward movement is further propelled by the White House backing, thanks to President Obama’s repeated requests for a bill to be delivered to his desk. And it has already gone through numerous hearings and been thoroughly debated on the Hill.

Senators should pass a clean energy and climate bill this summer and head into the final campaign push with a real success in hand–an action plan to deliver on the three of the most pressing issues for American voters right now:

• Jobs: The clean energy and climate bill that passed the House last just is projected to create nearly 2 million jobs. In fact, for every $1 million invested in clean energy, we can create 3 to 4 times as many jobs as if we spent the same amount on fossil fuels.

• The Economy: There is a consensus among economists that America can prevent the worst impacts of climate change without hurting the economy. As Paul Krugman explained recently, the House bill would leave the American economy between 1.1 percent and 3.4 percent smaller in 2050 than it would be otherwise.

• National Security: This week, the U.S. Military warned that oil would be in dangerously short supply in the next few years, exacerbating political tensions and around the world. In contrast, Think Progress found that clean energy and climate legislation would reduce Iran’s petrodollar receipts by $1.8 trillion through 2050. That’s an average of $100 million per day that doesn’t fall into the hands of a regime that sponsors extremist groups around the world!

These are the kind of real numbers that Americans are looking for. That’s why those up for reelection this fall should run on a positive, forward-looking energy policy instead of the 19th century leftover rhetoric that Palin is dishing out.

Heather Taylor-Miesle is the director of the NRDC Action Fund. Become a fan on Facebook or Twitter.

Why Young People Must Call Congress About Climate – Repeatedly

I grew up in the rural parts of Kentucky and Pennsylvania, two relatively conservative areas.  Most of my friends and family are tried-and-true Republicans so it was assumed that I would follow suit.  When I started working for a Democratic Congressman in college, one very prominent male figure in my family explained the oddity with a shrug (channeling Churchill) saying “If you are a Republican when you are in college, you have no heart. But if you are a Democrat when you are older, you have no mind.”

This weekend, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said that kind of thinking could get the G.O.P. in trouble with young people. Indeed, he said one of the central reasons he is reaching across the aisle on clean energy and climate legislation is that he thinks the G.O.P. needs to do a better job of connecting with young voters.

“I have been to enough college campuses to know if you are 30 or younger this climate issue is not a debate. It’s a value,” Graham said. “From a Republican point of view, we should buy into it and embrace it and not belittle them.”

Graham is right on the money: Young people know their future is at stake and this is NOT a partisan issue. On the contrary, if America continues to ignore global warming, this generation will pay the price in the form of a disrupted climate, drought, and increased national security threats not to mention all the refugees who will need help. But if we confront this crisis, young people and old will reap the benefits of more clean energy jobs and robust economic growth.  

Anyone who wants to see on-the-ground changes has to translate their climate values into climate action.

Politicians talk about values, but they respond to voters’ actions. Young voters, these are two ways you can take action. Here are three things to keep in mind about the way politics works:

1. Young Voters Need to Stay in the Game to Be Taken Seriously

There is often a sense among lawmakers that youthful causes don’t need to be taken seriously because youth voters don’t tend to vote with a lot of regularity. Many don’t think that a dedication to climate change issues translates into electoral activity.  

If you don’t want to get the brush-off from lawmakers, you need to make it clear that our pleas for clean energy and self-reliance are not a passing fad; it is what will shape your voting patterns for years to come. You have to call Senators to say that you support a clean energy and climate bill. You need to turn out for primary elections to show that climate change is a mobilizing issue. And come November in order to prove that you cannot be dismissed by leaders who ignore climate change and your generation’s future – you must vote for the candidates who support clean energy and climate legislation

2. Contacting Your Senator’s Office Really Does Work

I have done everything on Capitol Hill from opening mail to working on legislation, and I am here to tell you that yes, intense, coordinated outbursts of citizen action really do make a difference.

People who work on the Hill have to juggle a bazillion issues at once. It isn’t easy keeping up-to-date on every single topic, but when voters flood an office with their opinions, Members and their staff stand up and take notice. When I was on the hill it meant I had to do the research and really engage with an issue in order to respond.

3. Repetition is Key

Maybe you have already emailed your Senator in support of a clean energy and climate bill, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it again. Indeed, if you want your action to count, you have to amplify it – repeat it.

So much of politics is about repetition: lawmakers are dealing with so many high-priority issues at once. You have to keep the repetition going in order to break through the noise. I think of it as the slow clap in a stadium. It starts with one person, but slowly the loud, rhythmic pattern catches on and more people join in. After a while, the sound is impossible to ignore.

Now, you know why you should take action. Here are two ways that the NRDC Action Fund is helping you to make your voices heard on clean energy and climate solutions:

The NRDC Action Fund has partnered with Headcount to launch a new website targeting young music lovers. The Musicforaction.org site makes it easy for people to email President Obama, Members of Congress, and local newspaper editors in support of clean energy and climate legislation.  Visitors receive free “Best of Bonnaroo” downloads for visiting the site.

NRDC is also joining in a 72-hour call-in campaign with our partners over at Clean Energy Works, in which we are urging all people–but especially young people–to call their Senators’ offices in support of the bill. All they have to do is call 1-877-973-7693 to make their voices heard.  So, call now!

Maybe our voices won’t break through to a particular today because he or she is too caught up with health care or financial regulation or some other issue, but if we keep calling back and emailing over and over again, they will start to hear the chorus for climate action. Now is the moment to add your voice to the mix – be young and take action.  

AB 32 Opponents Vulnerable on Pollution’s Health Hazards

(AB 32 is important for a number of reasons… – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Imagine if Toyota made this statement:

“It has come to our attention that, due to faulty gas pedals, a small number of our cars have killed or injured a small percentage of our customers. However, to recall and repair our cars to address this problem would simply be too costly, especially in this difficult economy. So we are delaying a recall for one year, after which time we will re-evaluate the economic climate and decide whether conditions are favorable enough to initiate a recall. We ask for your patience and understanding during this time.”

Naturally, there would be a furious uproar. How dare a company attempt to put short-term economic interests ahead of people’s health and safety? Yet this is essentially what the opponents of AB 32, California’s nation-leading environmental legislation that seeks to reduce greenhouse gases in California to 1990 levels by 2020, are asking Californians to do. And since there is ample evidence that AB 32 would actually provide a needed boost to California’s economy without harming small businesses, what AB 32 opponents are attempting to do is arguably worse.

Not wanting to appear pro-pollution or tone deaf to Californians’ concerns about the environment, opponents of AB 32 — like Meg Whitman and dirty energy astroturf front the AB 32 Implementation Group (an especially Orwellian moniker for a group that doesn’t want AB 32 implemented) — claim they are deeply concerned about the state of the environment in California. And they should — Californians breathe some of the worst air in the nation, with 95% of Californians living in areas with unhealthy air. The top four most polluted cities in America when it comes to ozone (the primary ingredient in smog) are in California, with six California cities in the top ten. When it comes to the most polluted cities ranked by particulates in the air, the top three cities are in California, with six in the top ten.  

According to the American Lung Association, “numerous studies have linked air pollution to lung cancer, asthma attacks, heart attacks, strokes and early death as well as increased hospitalizations for breathing problems.” There is also growing evidence that air pollution actually causes asthma in otherwise healthy children, whose smaller lungs require kids to breath at a faster rate. In addition, a study by the University of Massachusetts and the University of Southern California found that the effects of air pollution fall disproportionately on poor and minority communities. A report by the NRDC determined that if emissions in California are not reduced to 1990 levels, over 700 Californians will die prematurely in 2020 alone, along with thousands of cases of asthma and other respiratory illnesses aggravated by pollution.

The response by AB 32 opponents? “Sucks to be them.”

Am I exaggerating? Not really. That’s because by acknowledging that air pollution is a serious problem, AB 32 opponents are also acknowledging that the health risks caused by pollution are real and serious. If they want to dispute that, they can take it up with the American Lung Association. That’s a fight I’d like to see, and one AB 32 supporters should make them have.

With the economy polling as the #1 concern of Californians, I understand why AB 32 is largely being looked at through the prism of job creation. And AB 32 supporters should be winning easily on this front — the non-profit Center for Resource Solutions (CRS) found that three reports undertaken by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), University of California researchers and Charles River Associates/Electric Power Research Institute using very conservative estimates were correct in their conclusion that implementing AB 32 would generate robust economic growth. By contrast, CRS found that the report by Varshney and Tootelian that AB 32 opponents use to justify their job-loss scaremongering relies on outdated models and takes the perplexing step of ignoring any possible savings or benefits from adopting AB 32.

However, I worry that the media, striving for “balance”, will conclude that one discredited report somehow cancels out three vetted ones, and Californians who will never read the CRS analysis will conclude the same. So Californians, influenced by gobs of advertising and lobbying money from the dirty energy industry, will probably go with their gut instinct, which will tell them that upgrading and changing things (like cars, computers or TVs) usually costs money, and when you’re in debt (like California is) or worried about losing your job, it makes sense to hold off on new purchases. Besides, it’s easier to be scared of making a bad thing worse (job loss) than of losing something you’ve never seen (the green tech economy). It’s unfair, but there’s a good chance it’ll happen.

That’s why supporters of AB 32 would be wise not to put all their strategic eggs in the job creation basket. Because by acknowledging the health risks caused by air pollution, opponents of AB 32 are essentially confirming one of the best reasons why waiting to implement AB 32, like Toyota delaying a recall, is simply unacceptable.

Bullies and Bystanders

The Climate Bullies

When I was in 6th grade, I fell victim to the school bully.  I was new to the school and became an easy target for an 8th grade girl with a bad attitude.  She picked on me endlessly while other kids stood by and watched.  I was humiliated, scared and completely at a loss about what I should do.  

Thankfully I had eventually made some decent friends and one day when the resident bully showed up one of them stepped in and told her to stop. Others quickly backed her up; the bully went away and never bothered me again.

My experience with bullying is far from unique. Bullies get away with their behavior over and over again….In our schools, in our offices and even in Congress.

What gives bullies their power? It certainly isn’t the victim. And it isn’t even the bully. Instead, those with the most power, the ones who can usually make the bullying stop, are the people on the sidelines.

I have been thinking about this phenomenon as I watch the climate debate in the Senate. I see the climate bill itself (and those of us who are pushing for it) in the role of victim; the fossil fuel industry and the Tea Party are the bullies. The bystanders in this situation are the Senators who aren’t doing much of anything on climate either way.  It isn’t hard to spot them, but it has been hard to get them to stand up.

In the face of a crisis like global warming, we don’t need quiet witnesses. We need bold heroes to step in, stop the fight, and solve the problem. We need lawmakers to say that now is the time to confront the crisis and jumpstart America’s economy.

It all starts with standing up to the bullies.

Consider the Tea Party. These are the bullies who spun health care reform – something that is still supported by the majority of Americans – into a sordid deal. Now they are going after climate legislation.

At the Tea Party Convention in Nashville last week, global warming skeptic Steve Milloy criticized Republican Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) for working with Democratic Senator John Kerry (D-MA) on a bipartisan climate bill. Then he went so far as to call supporters of strong climate legislation “bad people” with questionable sanity and morals.

And then there are the fossil fuel industries. They bully with money: oil and gas companies spent at least $154 million on lobbying in 2009.  That doesn’t even take into account their political donations.

Intimidation and deep pockets are powerful forces, but I do hope those senators who are standing by on climate — many of whom intend to ultimately support a bill — realize that this is an opportunity to take a bold stand, to support strong legislation that represents our best tool for generating 2 million new jobs and making America more secure.

Voters love problem solvers; passing clean energy and climate legislation would give senators a chance to fix our economy, clean up our environment, and strengthen our national security.

For instance, Americans spent a record $450 billion on imported oil in 2008. That’s $1,400 for every man, woman, and child in this country sent to places like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Nigeria. Passing a clean energy and climate bill would keep a good chunk of that money invested in America.

These are the kind of solutions Americans will vote for right now.

I hope the senators who have been on the sidelines will step in on behalf of all Americans so the bullies don’t have the power anymore. If they continue to sit and do nothing, they will in their own way be as much to blame as the deniers, because both of them are impeding progress. The deniers do it noisily with malice, the bystanders do it quietly and often with good intentions, but both are doing a disservice to our nation.

No one said solving the biggest crisis of our time would be easy, but someone needs to stand up to the bullies.