While there is lots of focus on the Oct. 24th campaign to raise global awareness, members of the Network of Spiritual Progressives and the Tikkun Community are urged to be involved beyond that--seeking to mobilize our government with rational plans that would accomplish a reduction of carbon to less than 350 parts per million, and to support a powerful global agreement at the Copenhagen negotiations in December that will seek to replace the Kyoto Accord which the US failed to ratify. Tikkun and the Network of Spiritual Progressives is part of the international campaign to lower carbon emissions, coordinated by 350.org. We also urge support of the Sierra Club and Greenpeace. 350.org is an international campaign dedicated to building a movement to unite the world around solutions to the climate crisis--the solutions that justice demand. Our mission is to inspire the world to rise to the challenge of the climate crisis—to create a new sense of urgency and of possibility for our planet. In order to unite the public, media, and our political leaders behind the 350 goal, we're harnessing the power of the internet to coordinate a planetary day of action on October 24, 2009. We hope to have actions at hundreds of iconic places around the world - from the Taj Mahal to the Great Barrier Reef to your community - and clear message to world leaders: the solutions to climate change must be equitable, they must be grounded in science, and they must meet the scale of the crisis. If an international grassroots movement holds our leaders accountable to the latest climate science, we can start the global transformation we so desperately need. This December, diplomats from across the world will meet in Copenhagen, Denmark to craft an international treaty on reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. It is crucial that the U.S. and our allies lead the way to a strong global deal that mitigates climate change and helps the most vulnerable adapt to its effects. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 350 parts per million is what many scientists, climate experts, and progressive national governments are now saying is the safe upper limit for CO2 in our atmosphere. Accelerating arctic warming and other early climate impacts have led scientists to conclude that we are already above the safe zone at our current 390ppm, and that unless we are able to rapidly return to 350 ppm this century, we risk reaching tipping points and irreversible impacts such as the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and major methane releases from increased permafrost melt. There are three numbers you need to really understand global warming, 275, 390, and 350.  For all of human history until about 200 years ago, our atmosphere contained 275 parts per million of carbon dioxide. Parts per million is simply a way of measuring the concentration of different gases, and means the ratio of the number of carbon dioxide molecules to all of the molecules in the atmosphere. 275 ppm CO2 is a useful amount—without some CO2 and other greenhouse gases that trap heat in our atmosphere, our planet would be too cold for humans to inhabit.
So we need some carbon in the atmosphere, but the question is how much? Beginning in the 18th century, humans began to burn coal and gas and oil to produce energy and goods. The amount of carbon in the atmosphere began to rise, at first slowly and now more quickly. Many of the activities we do every day like turning the lights on, cooking food, or heating or cooling our homes rely on energy sources like coal and oil that emit carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere. We're taking millions of years worth of carbon, stored beneath the earth as fossil fuels, and releasing it into the atmosphere. By now—and this is the second number—the planet has 390 parts per million CO2 – and this number is rising by about 2 parts per million every year.  Scientists are now saying that's too much – that number is higher than any time seen in the recorded history of our planet – and we're already beginning to see disastrous impacts on people and places all over the world. Glaciers everywhere are melting and disappearing fast—and they are a source of drinking water for hundreds of millions of people. Mosquitoes, who like a warmer world, are spreading into lots of new places, and bringing malaria and dengue fever with them. Drought is becoming much more common, making food harder to grow in many places. Sea levels have begun to rise, and scientists warn that they could go up as much as several meters this century. If that happens, many of the world's cities, island nations, and farmland will be underwater. The oceans are growing more acidic because of the CO2 they are absorbing, which makes it harder for animals like corals and clams to build and maintain their shells and skeletons. Coral reefs could start dissolving at an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 450-500 ppm. These impacts are combining to exacerbate conflicts and security issues in already resource-strapped regions.
The Arctic is sending us perhaps the clearest message that climate change is occurring much more rapidly than scientists previously thought. In the summer of 2007, sea ice was roughly 39% below the summer average for 1979-2000, a loss of area equal to nearly five United Kingdoms. Many scientists now believe the Arctic will be completely ice free in the summertime between 2011 and 2015, some 80 years ahead of what scientists had predicted just a few years ago. 
Propelled by the news of these accelerating impacts, some of the world's leading climate scientists have now revised the highest safe level of CO2 to 350 parts per million. That's the last number you need to know, and the most important. It's the safety zone for planet earth. As James Hansen of America's National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the first scientist to warn about global warming more than two decades ago, wrote recently, "If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm." That will be a hard task, but not impossible. We need to stop taking carbon out of the ground and putting it into the air. Above all, that means we need to stop burning so much coal—and start using solar and wind energy and other such sources of renewable energy –while ensuring the Global South a fair chance to develop. If we do, then the earth’s soils and forests will slowly cycle some of that extra carbon out of the atmosphere, and eventually CO2 concentrations will return to a safe level. By decreasing use of other fossil fuels, and improving agricultural and forestry practices around the world, scientists believe we could get back to 350 by mid-century. But the longer we remain in the danger zone—above 350—the more likely that we will see disastrous and irreversible climate impacts. [solutions images] Every year since 1992, the United Nations hosts a two-week long conference for world leaders to meet and discuss what to do to about the global threat of climate change. In December of 2009, this meeting will be in Copenhagen, Denmark. There, delegates, non-governmental organizations, and businesses from every nation will meet to finalize a new global climate change agreement.  It is crucial that decision-makers at this meeting understand and are held accountable to crafting policy that is informed by the most recent science.
Just over a year old, 350 is a relatively new target being discussed in the scientific community, compared to 450ppm or 2 degrees Celsius that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change supports. Currently many policy-makers, institutions, and NGOs are still supporting targets that are out of date and greatly increase the risk of catastrophic climatic changes. Yet at the last UN climate negotiations in Poland at the end of 2008, the 350 target began to attract more endorsers as new scientific reports and evidence of early impacts made it clear that we are already above the safe level for CO2. In his annual speech, Nobel laureate Al Gore told delegates to the most recent climate negotiating session that we must now ‘toughen our goal’ to 350ppm. At the same meetings, 40 of the most vulnerable nations who will feel the impacts of climate change first and worst, the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and the Least Developed Countries (LDC’s), included in their policy statements the need to adopt a much stronger target than those currently being debated, and to support a 350ppm target. Said Leon Charles, chair AOSIS, “Two degrees C is really not a safe level for small island states. For many of them it would be like a death sentence in the long run.” It's no small task, but for people and nations everywhere, we need to make sure all of the world’s decision makers pay attention to the most recent science that is telling us 350 is the right target to aim for that can ensure an equitable future safe from climate catastrophe. With your help, we can spread this important piece of information to our fellow citizens, communities, countries, and the world. For more in-depth information on climate science, policy, and solutions, please see our list of recommended resources below. Sources: - The IPCC 4th Assessment Report – link to the latest report by the Nobel-prize winning United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, supported by the world's leading climatologists.
- NASA - scientific reports, interactive maps, resources for kids, and more
- Climate Safety - a very useful new report about current climate science, policy, and solutions
What We Can Do: 1. There are numerous events all around the country on April 24. Check the one nearest you by going to www.350.org. 2. Before or after that day: deluge Congress with calls to strengthen the weak and ultimately destructive cap-and-trade bill passed by the House (and opposed by Greenpeace ) with a far better plan that should be adopted by the Senate. Call your Senators. In the Bay Area of California, for example At 3 p.m. Saturday: Mass Convergence
Meet in San Francisco to converge with other groups supporting 350.org and The International Day of Climate Action.
Location: Justin Herman Plaza, San Francisco (Embarcadero BART) foot of Market Street What to Bring
Signs (about climate change, alternatives to driving etc., if you feel like making one or use one of our signs), bring a smile and lots of friends and family! Contact
Linda, 510-851-2552, lindamurphydog@aol.com At Beyt Tikkun, we will use our normal weekly Torah study Saturday morning (10 a.m. at 951 Cragmont Ave in Berkeley) to focus on the stories of the Tower of Babel and Noah, both of which raise issues of human arrogance and its connection to global destruction. We will then make individual and group commitments to work on changing the approach of the US government and strengthening those forces that want to make sure that the Copenhagen global conference in December does not simply abrogate the Kyoto Accord (which is now certain to happen) but replaces it with something stronger and global. That will be followed by a vegetarian pot-luck from 12:15-1:45 for those who have come to the earlier event. Bring a main course veggie dish to share (not bread, pita, crackers, cookies or cakes). Afterwards, some of us will take the BART to the eent in Justin Herman Plaza at 3 p.m. 3. Here’s what Arthur Waskow has proposed for congregations (though written for synagogues, it is easy to figure out how to apply this to churches, mosques, ashrams, etc.). http://www.theshalomcenter.org/node Green Menorah Covenant Coalition: Personal, Congregational, & Public-Policy Changes to Avert Global Scorching By Rabbi Arthur Waskow | 6/22/2007 To save our planet, crops, water supply, & coastlines from the ravages of climate crisis & global scorching, The Shalom Center urges these seven directions of PERSONAL & POLICY change at all governmental levels, corporate and labor-union decisions, and household / congregational action. To work for these policy changes, write GreenMenorah@shalomctr.org or Shalom Center, 6711 Lincoln Drive, Philadelphia PA 19119. 1. Making carbon pay the real costs of its effect on climate: Personal change: households set 5% of our annual coal, oil, & gasoline costs as tzedakah (“charitable” contributions) to support sustainable-energy activism.
Public policy: requiring energy producers to pay for the carbon emissions their products will cause, through a carbon tax, carbon caps, or a combination. 2. Paying for low-carbon energy sources: For households, buying energy-conserving appliances, joining wind-energy plans, etc.
Public policy: ending subsidies to such carbon-producing sources of energy as coal, oil, and corn-based ethanol; constantly increasing subsidies for such non-carbon-emitting sources of energy as wind, solar, switch-grass. 3. Buildings: Greening our own new homes and congregations, and retrogreening our present buildings. Public policy: enacting strong building-code regulations for new buildings and for retrogreening old ones. 4. Transportation: As households and congregations, car-pooling, walking, or biking to congregations, jobs, etc. Public policy: ending subsidies to conventional autos, highways, and airplanes; strictly limiting emissions from autos and airplanes; raising subsidies to bikes, rail, walking, and to holding long-distance meetings by teleconference. 5. Land use: Personal choices of urban-style high-density living (whether in actual cities or in suburbs)
Policy: subsidize and invest in urban recreation, workplaces, etc. vs. sprawl and low-density housing. 6. Wisdom-creation: In Jewish life, infusing festivals, life-cycle markers (especially intergenerational markers like bar/bat mitzvah & confirmation), prayer, and Torah-study with concern for the earth and climate.
In public policy, subsidizing scientific climate-crisis analysis; climate-centered educational projects throughout school years from pre-K through grad school; support for art, literature, music, dance, film, games, etc. that address climate crisis. 7. Shabbat and restful time: In our individual and congregational practice, strongly encouraging — even more than before — setting aside restful time and making minimal use of carbon-emitting energy for the time of Shabbat itself, as a wise and sacred Jewish practice.
In public policy, requiring paid leave and holiday time for parental care and neighborhood-centered celebration. MORE BACKGROUND INFORMATION—this time from the Blog of Carl Pope, chair of the Sierra Club and from GreenPeace Old or New Dominion? October 20, 2009 Richmond, VA -- Term limits -- particularly single terms -- make for very bad government. The Commonwealth of Virginia is unique -- it's the only state that has never allowed a governor to be elected for a second consecutive term, a tradition that reflects Thomas Jefferson's supposed aversion to executive power. Of course, Jefferson, who theoretically preferred strong states and a weak federal government, himself ran for the presidency twice, and Virginia's single-term rule has essentially made the state less effective in negotiations with Washington, DC.
But while single-term limits make for weak government (a situation that Virginia governors both Republican and Democratic have lamented), they do make for interesting journalism because, every four years, just after the presidential election, Virginia has an off-year gubernatorial election with no incumbent. It becomes the perfect Rorschach test for the national political press, facilitated by the fact that the National Press Building in Washington, DC, sits just across the Potomac from the "Old Dominion."
This year the story being written is that the current polling, which shows the Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell leading Democratic candidate Creigh Deeds, signals trouble for President Obama (who carried Virginia) and for the Democrats. Well, maybe. First of all, Deeds is historically a strong closer who always polls badly. In this year's Democratic primary, Deeds was neither the favorite nor the poll leader. Second, the current national mood is anti-incumbent. In Richmond, the Democrats are the incumbents, having held the governor's mansion for eight years -- so the "new broom" syndrome is helping McDonnell.
But for political insiders, the real importance of these off-year elections is not to test the candidates or parties but to test the electorate and the issues. Off-year election results send a clear signal about the issues that matter, the constituencies in play, and the technologies that will be emphasized.
So what's happening in Virginia?
Well, the climate issue was first injected by the Republicans. When former Vice-President Al Gore came to Virginia to stump for Deeds, the Republicans billed it as "the Goracle" meets "Cap and Trade Creigh."
But Deeds immediately fired back, when McDonnell appeared in Virginia Beach with John McCain, by demanding that McDonnell answer the simple question: Does he or does he not believe in a problem that McCain says is a major world threat? McDonnell didn't seem to know how to answer the question, muddying the waters with statements like:
"I think it's a real concern, and we need to find ways to be able to reduce (carbon dioxide) emissions." But pushed to say if it was real, he backed down.
"Well, there's some debate that various scientists are going on in that," he said. "I think the temperature of the earth, from the science I've seen, is going up."
Is human activity to blame, "Look, it's not going to affect my policy decisions. What the policy decision needs to be is to find ways that are creative to be able to reduce CO2."
OK, then, it's a real concern. But maybe it's not. But, yes it appears to be and, whatever the cause turns out to be, we need to be creative. But "it's not going to influence my policy decisions."
So what, Virginians are forced to ask, will influence his policy decisions, since he has just said the science won't?
One reason the climate issue has surfaced from the Democratic side in Virginia is that Millennial voters are widely seen as critical if Deeds is to carry the state -- and young voters care more about climate than any other demographic. E.J. Dionne put it this way in the Washington Post Will the young and hopeful abandon the political playing field to older voters who are angry? That is the quiet crisis confronting President Obama and the Democrats. Left unattended, it could become a formidable obstacle for them in next year's midterm elections. In response, the Sierra Club in Virginia has launched a nifty "Keep Change Alive"
So yes, watch for the off-year election results in both Virginia and New Jersey -- but also keep an eye on the rest of the story. website, designed to draw youthful voters back to the Virginia ballot box with a message of hope.
Read more: http://sierraclub.typepad.com/carlpope/#ixzz0UcDoKFCJ
Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire! October 15, 2009 San Francisco -- At some point we should stop letting blatantly absurd claims and lies pass unnoticed just because "everyone knows that big oil and coal don't tell the truth." So I'm periodically going to blow the whistle.
Here are two recent examples of whoppers that should have generated massive anger and outrage by editorial writers and the media -- but somehow didn't.
Lie: Saudi Arabia Is the Big Victim of Climate Change This may surprise you, but the Saudi government continues to insist that if oil-consuming countries kick their addiction to petroleum, then they will require global climate aid. The chief Saudi negotiator, Mohammad Al-Sabban, says that providing financial aid if the world stops consuming so much oil is a "make-or-break" provision: "Assisting us as oil-exporting countries in achieving economic diversification is very crucial for us through foreign direct investments, technology transfer, insurance and funding." Excuse me, funding? So if poor villagers in India opt to install rooftop solar panels to save money on the kerosene they currently use for light, then they should pay the Saudis? Last year, when soaring oil prices nearly bankrupted those same villagers, did anyone see the Saudis or the rest of the oil cartel offering to pay for their kerosene or to compensate the government of India for the bill it paid to keep the fuel costs reasonable? Lie: Coal Is Already Clean This whopper shows up in an ad from Peabody coal. The ad says it several ways, but begins with "The technologies that surround your life are fueled by clean coal." Utter hogwash. First, the industry's definition of "clean coal" is absurd -- any technology that's even a little better than what the industry used in 1990 counts. In the ad, Peabody boasts that emissions from coal plants have been reduced by one-third. If I spilled three gallons of garbage on your kitchen floor and then cleaned up one gallon, would you be satisfied that you now had a "clean kitchen"? Then there's the matter of whether when coal-fired utilities clean up their emissions by this "one third" they really clean anything up at all. It turns out that when power companies use scrubbers to take coal pollution out of the air, many of them just dump that pollution into the drinking water. So far the states have refused, for the most part, to set limits on this water pollution. Even when they do, an analysis by the New York Times showed that these limits are often violated, with only meaningless fines or no enforcement action at all: "Ninety percent of 313 coal-fired power plants that have violated the Clean Water Act since 2004 were not fined or otherwise sanctioned by federal or state regulators." The Times went on to report that a power plant near Hatfield Ferry, Pennsylvania, which dumps tens of thousands of gallons of wastewater into the Monongahela River, a drinking water source for 35,000 people, has violated the Clean Water Act 33 times since 2006: "For those violations, the company paid less than $26,000. During that same period, the plant's parent company earned $1.1 billion." (If you want to see just how legal the coal plants near you are, the New York Times has prepared a nifty interactive database that shows you how many times your power plant violated the Clean Water Act.) And then of course there are America's coal-fired clunkers, power plants built before the Clean Air and Water Acts were passed, some during the First World War. They have been largely exempted from having to clean up their pollution -- so even if they may show on the Times map as legal, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are safe or clean.) And don't even get me started on the issue of the pollution those results from mining coal, or the problems that stem from its mercury and carbon dioxide pollution. (Somehow, I think I'll have a chance to catch the coal industry in some serious fabrication around those issues in a future posting.) It might be interesting to see if you can get your local newspaper's editorial board to start calling foul on this massive propaganda campaign by dirty-energy monopolies -- and if they don't do it this week, keep up your requests. There will, sadly, be lots of fresh material.
Read more: http://sierraclub.typepad.com/carlpope/#ixzz0UcDDssDS
Who's Got a Scorecard? October 13, 2009 Washington, DC -- If you're worried about global warming, it's been a confusing week. Midweek, 150 major business executives blitzed Capitol Hill, arguing that the Congress needs to pass effective climate and energy legislation. But, in private lobbying meetings, more problems cropped up with senators who are not happy with the distribution of the financial benefits of cap-and trade-legislation. Every senator believes, as Garrison Keillor might put it, that "my state is above average in needing consideration."
And all week the news from the United Nations climate meeting in Bangkok, the last such meeting before Copenhagen, was mostly dark. The U.S. position was heavily criticized by most of the world -- including for the first time our neighbor Mexico -- for walking away from the fundamental principles of the Kyoto Protocol and for failing to bring to the table a credible pledge to catch up with the commitments that the rest of the industrial nations made when they ratified Kyoto (although almost none of them have honored those commitments).
But then, on Friday, President Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize for turning the U.S. from a flagrant rejecter of collaborative international action on climate to a reluctant (if thus far unsatisfactory) partner. On Sunday morning, the New York Times carried an op-ed by Senators John Kerry and Lindsey Graham calling for a bipartisan effort to pass energy and climate legislation -- the first public break on the Republican side with the "just say no" strategy that's been pounded home by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell as a way to weaken President Obama and the Democrats. Graham's price was high -- Kerry not only had to pledge that more nuclear energy would be a part of this climate package but also had to promise to make the U.S. "the Saudi Arabia" of clean coal, and to lay on the table the idea of more drilling off America's coasts for oil and gas.
What's it all add up to? It's hard to know because, with the exception of the Nobel Prize, most of this week's events consisted of a public face that was significant, and a private conversation that was even more significant. Will the Senate really kill climate legislation if, at the end of the day, the typical state is treated as "average"? How much of the anger expressed in the Bangkok talks is real, and how much is for the home crowd? What is Lindsey Graham's real price for supporting climate legislation? Will other Republicans join Graham, and will there be enough of them to compensate for the Democrats who can't vote for cap and trade? The next month will probably bring the answers to these questions -- but my gut tells me that the odds of getting something good done just got better. The bad news was mostly slightly older -- reflecting negotiating positions that have emerged over the past months. The better news was mostly newer. No major new "anti-" block appeared. Graham's going public was a significant "tell," and the fear that the Obama administration might simply ignore energy and climate got smaller with the Nobel. So I think you can look at last week as a good one – just not a decisively good one. As the momentum for a deal builds, it's time to bargain harder -- because that's what everyone else will be doing.
Read more: http://sierraclub.typepad.com/carlpope/#ixzz0UcCyxoDo
And this is from Greenpeace: Is the Climate Bill Being Fossil/Nuked? Posted by: getting_to_solartopia | 15 Oct 09 | Leave a comment | Permalink http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?pub=4greenpeace&v=250&source=tbx-250&s=facebook&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmembers.greenpeace.org%2Fblog%2Fgreenpeaceusa_blog%2F2009%2F10%2F15%2Fis_the_climate_bill_being_fossil_nuked&title=Is the Climate Bill Being Fossil%2FNuked%3F - Greenpeace USA Blog&content=| More  Is the Climate Bill morphing into an excuse to promote fossil fuels and new nuclear power plants?
Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) recent promotion of a pro-nuke/pro-drilling/pro-coal agenda in the name of Climate Protection has been highlighted in a New York Times op-ed
The Senate Bill as now drafted also includes a "Clean Energy Development Administration" that could deliver virtually unlimited federal cash to build new reactors and fund other mega-polluters.
Also on the table are vastly expanded permits for off-shore drilling. And Kerry/Graham have talked of making the US "the Saudi Arabia of clean coal" while bringing "new financial incentives for companies that develop carbon capture and sequestration technology."
If you think pushing nukes, oil wells and coal mines to "prevent global warming" is counter-intuitive, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
The give-aways are allegedly meant to attract GOP votes. The joint Kerry/Graham op-ed is being billed as a "game changer."
But even with provisions pushing a hundred new reactors in the US alone, some GOP stalwarts hint they would NEVER vote for a bill that includes cap-and-trade clauses. So is the GOP set to play the same game with Climate legislation as it has with health care: prolong negotiations, gut the substance of reform, demand---and GET---untold corporate give-aways, and then oppose the bill anyway?
What thin green substance survives could be limited to a few showpiece handouts for renewables and efficiency, with cap-and-trade as the centerpiece. But many environmentalists argue that cap-and-trade could create yet another costly bureaucracy with little real impact on the climate crisis.
To get real about solving this crisis, Congress should demand---and fund---a definitive national transition to energy efficiency and modernized mass transit. We still waste half the energy we consume. There's no source of usable juice cheaper and quicker to install than increased efficiency.
Taxes on carbon and other forms of "ancillary" pollution would help if they assess radioactive emissions (from coal as well as nukes), destruction of our oceans, lakes and rivers, removal of mountain tops, creation of nuclear waste, and so on. Merely axing the subsidies to King CONG (Coal, Oil, Nukes & Gas) and rendering a level playing field for true green energy sources to fairly compete with the old fossil/nukes would take us a long way up the road to Solartopia. A feed-in tariff that rewards renewables for the pollution they avoid would also help.
Without all that, the Climate Bill's outright negatives could be huge. Atomic reactors can do little or nothing to bring down carbon emissions. Projected construction costs for new nukes have jumped from $2 billion to $13 billion and counting. Body-blows to the all-but-dead Yucca Mountain nuke waste dump have left the industry, after 50 years, with nothing tangible to do with some 50,000 tons of spent lethal radioactive fuel rods. And after a half-century, the industry cannot command private construction financing or private liability insurance to cover a catastrophic melt-down or terror attack. Even if reactors could help with greenhouse gas emissions, it would take a trillion dollars or more to make a noticeable dent, and a decade or more for such reactors to begin to come on line.
But the reactor lifeline does not flow through licensing or waste. Because it has failed as a commercial technology, the industry must have massive infusions of cash and loan guarantees. The Climate Bill's real damage will be measured by the size and scope of reactor subsidies, if any.
Kerry's willingness to entertain "clean coal" and new offshore oil drilling as "solutions" for climate chaos staggers the imagination. It seems to signal that King CONG still owns Washington, and that any meaningful Congressional push for green power will demand serious re-direction from the grassroots.
DC insiders generally doubt that any Climate Bill can pass this year. Afghanistan and health care still dominate the national agenda.
But Democrats are desperate for SOMETHING to show at December's Copenhagen Climate Conference. The question is: how much will they give fossil/nuke Republicans to get a bill---ANY bill---with the world "Climate" attached?
The anti-nuclear movement has three times defeated proposed $50 billion loan guarantees for new nuclear plants. The environmental community still understands that solving the climate crisis requires the ultimate phase-out of fossil fuels. “A carbon-free, nuclear-free energy future is within the Senate’s reach," says Michael Mariotte of the Nuclear Information & Resource Service. "The approach laid out by Kerry and Graham would lead to a climate bill in name only." NIRS is organizing a national call-in this week. A nationwide series of demonstrations for the environment will take place October 24.
Preserving our ability to survive on this planet demands we phase out fossil fuels and nuclear power, and win a green-powered Earth based solely on renewables and efficiency. Ultimately, we cannot live with less.
--
Harvey Wasserman's SOLARTOPIA! OUR GREEN-POWERED EARTH is at www.solartopia.org. He is senior advisor to the Nuclear Information & Resource Service, and senior editor of www.freepress.org, where this article first appeared. co-authored with Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC). The piece brands nuke power "our single largest contributor of emissions-free power." It advocates abolishing "cumbersome regulations" so utilities can "secure financing for more plants." And it wants "serious investment" to "find solutions to our nuclear waste problem."
|
