Climate SOS steps up with a response to the excellent points made by Washington Post columnist David Farhrenhold in his August 31, 2009 column. Mr. Farenhold’s column “Environmentalists Slow to Adjust in Climate Debate” asserts that the mainstream environmental movement is confused about how to respond to the much anticipated Senate climate change bill. We at Climate SOS points out the reasons the bill should get a luke warm reception by anyone concerned about doing something real about climate change and climate justice: the bill does more harm than good – to the planet and our most vulnerable communities. Members of Climate SOS submitted this Letter to the Editor of the Washington Post. Read on.

Letter to the Editor, Washington Post, September 1, 2009

Columnist David Fahrenthold’s article (Environmentalists Slow to Adjust in Climate Debate, 08-31-09) on the swing-state climate bill “activism wars” misses an important point. Not all “environmentalists” support the bill—in fact, a growing network of social justice and environmental groups, whose message has been endorsed by climate scientist Dr. James Hansen, are working for its defeat.

The fake, industry-sponsored grassroots organizations cropping up in Elkhart, Indiana and other locations have nothing in common with groups such as Concerned Citizens of Crawford County, who are fighting large-scale regional biomass burners with their own pocket change. This group and many others nationwide oppose the climate bill because they believe that it will do more harm than good.

On August 25, 2009, over 300 local and regional organizations led by the Center for Biological Diversity wrote to Senator Boxer, Chair of the Energy and Public Works committee, to express opposition to any climate bill modeled on the Waxman-Markey ACES bill. These groups and others have since organized under the banner of Climate SOS. [www.climatesos.org].

Supported by real climate science and authentic grassroots involvement, the Climate SOS message is clear: Kill the Senate climate change bill. Say no to a carbon-trading Ponzi scheme that will make Wall Street rich; say no to the substitution of dubious offsets for direct emissions reductions, say no to carbon-accounting loopholes specific to the biomass-burning industry, no the continued proliferation of polluting coal plants, and no to energy policies that will site more incinerators in our nation’s poorest communities.

The Climate SOS National Tour launching on September 8, 2009 will feature meetings with US Senate staffers in North Dakota, Indiana, Ohio, and Arkansas. Climate SOS is asking Senators to either radically change the legislation or to actively block its passage.

Look for more news from Climate SOS as the tour hits the road. No astroturf here—we are the real deal.

Margaret E. Sheehan, Esq. and Bill Sammons, M.D. EcoLaw/Massachusetts, members of Climate SOS

This radio interview debate between Dan Lashoff from NRDC and Cecil Corbin Marks is interesting. Cecil provides some interesting comments on the (dis)function of market approaches.

Download this audio file

Obama’s landmark federal climate bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), passed the House at the end of June. As the bill has progressed, the debate among environmentalists over whether or not to support the bill has deepened, with the bill’s market-based “cap and trade” mechanism at the heart of the controvesy. Those in favor say the bill contains far more good than bad and is a major step in the right direction, while those opposed say the bill is little more than a bait and switch scheme that risks great harm in the face of an urgent climate crisis. We bring back Cecil Corbin-Mark from Harlem environmental justice organization WE-ACT to discuss the issue with Dan Lashof from the Natural Resources Defense Council.

letter from Bill McKibben, 350.org

Dear friends,

For once, this email isn’t asking you to do anything at all. It’s merely sharing the news–the amazing news–that arrived about 45 minutes ago at 350 headquarters .

Rajendra Pachauri is the U.N.’s top climate scientist. He leads the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which every five years produces the authoritative assessment of climate science. Their last report, in 2007, helped set the target of 450 ppm (parts per million of CO2) that many environmental groups and national governments have adopted as their goal for Copenhagen.

As you all know, that number is out of date. When Jim Hansen and other scientists looked at phenomenon like the Arctic ice melt of the last two summers, they produced new data demonstrating that 350 is the bottom line for the planet.

But it’s been hard to get that news out to the powers that be.

So today it comes as enormous and welcome news that Dr. Pachauri, from his New Delhi office, said that 350 was the number.

“As chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) I cannot take a position because we do not make recommendations,” said Rajendra Pachauri when asked if he supported calls to keep atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations below 350 parts per million (ppm).

“But as a human being I am fully supportive of that goal. What is happening, and what is likely to happen, convinces me that the world must be really ambitious and very determined at moving toward a 350 target,” he told Agence France Presse in an interview.

It’s your work that has made this breakthrough possible. In fact, Pachauri specifically cited the last big piece of news for 350: the decision of 80+ small island nations and less developed countries to endorse the 350 target.

“I think this is a good development,” said Pachauri. “Now people — including some scientists — see the seriousness of the impacts of climate change, and the fact that things are going to get substantially worse than what we had anticipated.”

This news makes it much easier for all of us to push hard leading up to the International Day of Climate Action on the 24th of October (signup to start or attend an event at www.350.org) , and the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen this December.

It’s clear now that science is powerfully on the side of the 350 target. Now we need the political world to follow suit. You will make that happen in the next two months. Oct. 24 is officially 60 days away, and we’re building just the momentum we need to make it count.

Thanks for all you do,

Bill McKibben

P.S. Once you’ve spread this news around your networks (click here to share it on twitter or here to share it on facebook), please go celebrate. And speaking of celebrations, our friends at The Age of Stupid report that the Global Premier of their new epic climate change film takes place on September 21–you can find details on local screenings here: www.ageofstupid.net

More and more organizations and individuals are joining ClimateSOS to oppose the ACESA climate bill’s false solutions.  We encourage you to do the same- click HERE to sign on!

CLIMATE SOS NETWORK MEMBERS

• Beehive Design Collective
• Biofuelwatch
• Climate Change Action Group of CNY
• Coalition For A Safe Environment
• Eco-Justice Collaborative
• Ecolaw Massachusetts
• Enviro Show
• Energy Justice Network
• Global Justice Ecology Project
• Green Delaware
• Indigenous Environmental Network
• Institute for Local Self-Reliance
• Institute for Social Ecology
• Jamaica Plain Greenhouse
• Little Village Environmental Justice Organization
• Massachusetts Forest Watch
• Massachussetts Coalition for HealthyCommunities/ SecureGreenFuture
• Mobilization for Climate Justice
• New York Climate Action Group
• One Earth Climate Action Group
• Progressive Democrats of America
• Rising Tide North America
• Ruckus Society
• UIC Ecocampus

…and growing each moment!

CLIMATE SOS

TELL YOUR SENATORS A CLIMATE BILL THAT IS “WORSE THAN NOTHING” IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH!

This past June, the House passed the American Clean Energy & Security Act (ACESA). Soon, this bill will be voted on by the Senate. If passed, this climate bill would:

a. Prevent the U.S. from making anything remotely close to its fair share of greenhouse gas emissions reductions – necessary for averting catastrophic consequences and forging an effective global strategy on climate stabilization.

b. Lock us into an extremely complex cap-and-trade scheme that benefits fossil fuel, utilities, the Wall Street, and big agribusinesses, prone to Enron style market manipulations, while doing nothing to save the climate.

c. Use public money to subsidize the most polluting industries like coal and nuclear, drawing much needed financing away from real climate solutions like renewable energy production;

d. Add more toxic and climate polluting smokestacks, especially in backyards of the poor, people of color, and indigenous communities across the U.S., by grandfathering dirty old coal plants, permitting numerous new ones, and subsidizing incinerators as a form of renewable energy.

In the words of leading climate scientist James Hansen:

[ACESA would] “do more harm to the environment than doing nothing at all.”

Please contact your Senators and let them know that as a person deeply concerned about climate change, you want to see climate legislation passed, but ONLY IF IT IS REAL AND EFFECTIVE legislation, not like ACESA.

Click to join ClimateSOS

Visit or call your Senators’ home offices before Sep7.

After that, Capitol Switchboard is: (202) 224-3121.

Email US senators from HERE

If a Senate bill modeled upon the House version (ACESA) is passed, it will commit us to a pathway that ensures catastrophic climate change – endangering the lives of hundred of millions of people worldwide, especially communities that already suffer the bulk of the impacts and play little or no role in its cause. If the Senate cannot dramatically improve on ACESA, rather than lock bad law into place, our leaders should go back to the drawing board and get serious on producing meaningful legislation. This could mean supporting a filibuster, or a “no” vote on the basis that the bill does not do enough to avert catastrophic warming. Then we must take up the fight for our lives – a real bill that does nothing less than ensure a safe and just future.

Climate change deniers, fossil fuel-based industries, and other special interests will also be seeking to keep climate legislation from passing, but we have entirely different motives. We must make it clear to our leaders that there are other, more honorable reasons to oppose this legislation, and emphasize that many of the provisions of ACESA, likely to also be in the Senate version, are highly likely to worsen rather than remedy the problem of climate change.

Tell your senators that “Worse than Nothing” is Not Good Enough!

Climate SOS is launching a national “Green Bill or No Bill” tour during August and September, seeking to empower people to meet with their Senators, take action, and demand real climate legislation. We especially need local help in these states: ND, IN, AR, LA, NE, OH, WV, PA. Our tour will also touch down in NY, MA, VT, CA, OR, WA.

HELP US HELP OUR PLANET NOW!

Click to join ClimateSOS

Please pass on this alert, join our growing coalition, and/or help out with the tour.

Please contact us at: contact@climatesos.org

Visit or call your Senators’ home offices before Sep7.

After that, Capitol Switchboard is: (202) 224-3121.

Email US senators from HERE

KEY TALKING POINTS TO BRING UP WITH YOUR SENATOR:

We need not just any climate bill, but one that will actually rise to the challenge

Tell your senator: “A vote against a climate bill that not only fails to go far enough, but would actually make things worse, is a green vote. You know that we can and must do better if we want to forestall climate change. Please scrap this bill and start over if need be. In its current form, it will do more harm than good….Here’s why:”

1. The bill does not even aim for keeping atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration below 450 parts-per-million (ppm). Current science tells us that we must return to below 350 ppm. We are currently at 387 ppm and already experiencing serious consequences while the worst is still coming down the pipeline, due to delays in climate system amplifications of man-made warming. Let’s take serious action before it’s too late!

2. It relies upon a cap and trade scheme to reduce emissions. Cap and trade has been tried before—for example, in the European Union and elsewhere—and proven ineffective(1,2). Dr. James Hansen calls it “a subterfuge designed to allow business-as-usual to continue”. Effective options (revenue-neutral tax and dividend, for example) for regulating carbon emissions should be implemented.

3. It allows carbon polluters to keep polluting if they buy offsets. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has faulted the credibility of the lucrative* CO2 offsets market, yet the bill continues to rely upon this dubious scheme(3,4). Offsets are not an effective substitute for straightforward pollution reduction at the smokestack. Over half of the approved offset credits under the Kyoto Protocol have turned out not to meet the required criteria of “verifiable, additional or permanent”

4. It preempts the EPA authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. This important public agency, which exists to protect Americans from environmental harm, should be allowed to do its job.

5. It categorizes a host of destructive technologies, such as the burning of biomass and garbage, as “renewable,” which makes them eligible for taxpayer- and ratepayer-funded green energy incentives. We should not be giving toxic smokestack and carbon-intensive incinerator technologies the same privileged status as wind, geothermal, and solar.

6. Industry-specific carbon accounting loopholes are written into the bill. For example, the CO2 from wood biomass burning, in a seemingly arbitrary move, does not get counted or capped at the smokestack, and when trees are harvested to feed biomass plants, the carbon emissions are not counted in the forestry sector either. Biomass burning should not get a free ride. Biomass burning results in carbon emissions that will take decades, potentially hundreds of years to resequester, if ever. We desperately need to be protecting, not burning, our forest and grassland ecosystems.

7. It grandfathers existing coal plants and will allow many new coal plants to come on line. Even though Carbon Capture and Sequestration technology is supposedly required years later, its existence can not be counted on, is much more expensive compared to solar and wind, and potential leakage makes underground storage of sequestered CO2 a serious threat to the integrity of climate mitigation and even public safety. We should be quickly phasing out coal plants starting now. We also need to invest in just transition pathways for utilities workers, coal miners and their families, so that the new energy economy is one that is rooted in community justice.

8. A letter to Congress, signed by over 200 organizations nationwide (initiated by the Center for Biological Diversity) points to many of the same concerns we identify, claiming …”we recognize the massive political effort that is necessary to pass climate legislation, but a bill with inadequate targets, loophole ridden mechanisms, rollbacks of our flagship environmental laws, and inadequate financing to help developing countries address climate change will move us in the wrong direction.”

In sum, this bill will entrench us in pathways into deeper pollution and poverty, and our last chance of averting the worst of climate catastrophe will be lost forever. Our most vulnerable communities both in the U.S. and around the world – predominantly working poor, people of color and Indigenous communities that have the lightest carbon footprints will be the first to suffer from the impacts of these failures.

Additional Resources/Links

(1) http://www.grist.org/article/emissions-trading-a-mixed-record-with-plenty-of-failures/

(2) http://www.ejmatters.org/docs/Cap_Trade_Trail_of_Failures_1pg.pdf

(3) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122244615963779185.html

(4) http://www.co2offsetresearch.org/policy/Market.html

*(Global CO2 offset transactions have been estimated at $7.2 billion in 2008, with transactions in the secondary market topping $25 billion. Under an ACESA type of bill this market will be greatly expanded

Climate SOS - www.climatesos.org - contact@climatesos.org

The House cap-and-trade bill allows rampant rainforest destruction to continue – and the Senate cap-and-trade bill will likely be modeled after the House version.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACESA) recently passed by the House seeks to roll back major biofuels studies of the last several years. ACESA would block the EPA from using “indirect land use change” as a factor in developing the Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS) for biofuels.

But indirect land use change caused by biofuels is forcing rainforest destruction in the Amazon, Southeast Asia and Africa. And it is triggering global hunger and starvation.

If you use farmland in North America to grow biofuels, you’re forcing a farmer somewhere else to clear-cut forest to grow food crops. You’ve effectively cut down a rain forest.

— David Tilman, lead author of the “Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt” study published in SCIENCE, February, 2008. Quote is from the March 14, 2008 issue of Newsweek.

We looked at all of the current biofuels that are being made around the world and asked if they were causing native ecosystems to be turned into land that would be used to grow the crop. Essentially, all of them are doing that.

—Tilman, ibid. http://www.newsweek.com/id/110636

Converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas, or grasslands to produce food crop–based biofuels in Brazil, Southeast Asia, and the United States creates a “biofuel carbon debt” by releasing 17 to 420 times more CO2 than the annual greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions that these biofuels would provide by displacing fossil fuels.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1152747

The second major biofuels study published in February, 2008 came from Princeton and is titled “Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land Use Change”.

To produce biofuels, farmers can directly plow up more forests or grassland which releases to the atmosphere much of the carbon previously stored in plants and soil through decomposition or fire… Alternatively, farmers can divert existing crops or croplands into biofuels, which causes similar emissions indirectly. The diversion triggers higher crop prices, and farmers around the world respond by clearing more forest and grassland to replace crops for feed or food.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/1152747v1.pdf

Young Indonesian Orangutan orphaned by biofuel related habitat destruction

The February 8, 2008 New York Times awarded these studies this headline: “BIOFUELS DEEMED A GREENHOUSE THREAT”.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofuels.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

Let’s not forget the devastating health and social impacts caused by biofuels forcing indirect land use change. In 2007, U.N. Rapporteur for Food, Jean Ziegler, called these biofuels a “crime against humanity” because they rob land from food production and force millions of humans to confront food shortages, hunger and starvation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7065061.stm

This widespread reduction in acreage dedicated to human food production has created global food shortages, raising the prices of food staples beyond the reach of huge numbers of people in poor countries.

Largely because of indirect land use change forced by biofuels, food riots in 2008 broke out in Egypt, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Senegal, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Madagascar, the Philippines and Haiti. In Pakistan and Thailand, army troops were deployed to avoid seizing of food from the fields and from warehouses. In China, exports of rice were frozen because of runs on domestic supplies sparked by soaring prices.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=26289&Cr=food&Cr1=prices

The World Bank study of April, 2008 confirmed that 75% of spiraling global food costs can be attributed to indirect land use change forced by biofuels. This report was so damning and therefore controversial, it was suppressed for several months before being leaked to the press in July, 2008. This controversy and suppression shows how Industrial World governments want to quash accurate information about the devastation being wreaked by biofuels-forced indirect land use change.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/NEWS/Resources/risingfoodprices_backgroundnote_apr08.pdf

http://bl134w.blu134.mail.live.com/mail/InboxLight.aspx?FolderID=46836c97-957f-40b9-b44f-eefdf2ac1a1f&InboxSortAscending=False&InboxSortBy=Date&n=417479225

The EPA must have unfettered authority to regulate biofuels using best-available science including the effects of indirect land use change.

Prominent climate scientist James Hansen, who has called cap-and-trade schemes a “Temple of Doom”, has personally endorsed our Climate SOS campaign to kill a cap-and-trade bill in the United States Senate.

Occupying offices of key senators and Nonviolent Civil Disobedience will be among peaceful tactics used by our group.

Climate SOS will kick off our national “Green Bill or No Bill” tour on September 8 in Bismarck, North Dakota. “Days of Occupation” on the West Coast and the East Coast will be triggered by other Midwest tour stops in Indianapolis (September 11), Little Rock, Arkansas (September 15 and Lincoln, Nebraska (September 18).

“People of conscience simply can no longer stand by and allow U.S. policy makers to engage in endless delay and compromise”, said Rachel Smolker of Biofuelwatch and a Climate SOS leader. “If we do not do what is needed to drastically slow the global warming process, we will be faced with millions of deaths (and) mass extinctions.”

Hansen has said cap-and-trade would “do more harm to the environment than doing nothing at all.”

The U.S. House of Representatives passed a cap-and-trade bill in June. President Obama has pledged to sign into law cap-and-trade legislation approved by the Senate and the House.

The Climate SOS tour will target states where US Senators are “on the fence,” in North Dakota, Indiana, Arkansas, Nebraska, Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania. The Climate SOS tour will also touch down in New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, California, Oregon, and Washington.

Climate SOS supports the filibuster strategy adopted by Democratic opponents of the cap-and-trade bill. The filibuster seeks to prevent the cap-and-trade bill from coming to a vote on the floor of the Senate. Killing the bill in committee or stopping it before a full Senate vote are tactics endorsed by Climate SOS. Occupying offices of fence-sitting senators and Nonviolent Civil Disobedience support these strategies.

Climate SOS aggressively opposes any of these provisions in the Senate bill that were included in the recently passed House cap-and-trade bill:

• The bill’s atmospheric carbon target of 450 ppm is too high. Hansen’s 2008 study established 300-350ppm as necessary targets to avoid climate “cataclysm”.

• Cap and trade, as a scheme for reducing emissions, will be ineffective and rife with problems.

• Carbon offsets are not an acceptable substitute for the direct reduction of pollution.

• The EPA must be authorized to regulate carbon dioxide emissions under the bill.

• Incineration technologies should not be categorized as “renewable”.

• Carbon-accounting loopholes specific to wood and trash biomass burning must be closed.

• Forest protection provisions must include protection of water, resource and human rights for forest-dwellers and local populations plus habitat preservation for all species.

• Power from coal-burning plants must be quickly phased out instead of expanded.

• All biofuels regulation must remain with the EPA.
• Indirect land use change must be restored as a determinant in Renewable Fuel Standard calculations.

NOT JUST ANY OLD CLIMATE BILL WILL DO!

GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING FASTER THAN ANYONE PREDICTED.

In December 2008, a major Climate Science Congress, attended by over 2,000 scientists, concluded: “the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realized.” We are receiving daily reports on the alarming rate of Arctic ice melting. Climate change is now recognized as likely the most serious threat to national security, because it threatens to inundate low lying areas, sending waves of refugees scattering, disrupt agriculture leading to widespread famines, spreading disease, extinctions and massive civil conflict. As the nation with leading per capita emission now, and with by far the greatest historical contribution to greenhouse gases, it is absolutely essential that we take responsibility for this mess, and fast!  A federal climate bill that seriously limits emissions, in line with what climate scientists advise, is key.

But the current bill, the “American Clean Energy and Security Act” (ACESA) that passed the house last month is entirely inadequate, having been twisted, warped and compromised by special interests who literally “held the bill hostage” with their demands.

Now we must demand not just a climate bill, but a truly historic and groundbreaking and effective bill from the Senate; one that will lead us back towards a safe future for our children and future generations.

ACESA’s target setting would not even aim to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at the dangerously high level of 450 ppm CO2 eq. Scientists have long argued we need to stabilize at 350 or lower!  Right now we are at 387 and already losing the Arctic ice VERY rapidly, along with numerous other deeply troubling signs that warming is ALREADY in a “runaway” feedback. Even if ACESA DID point us towards 450 ppm, that would be WAY TOO HIGH!  Last time the earth had such high levels it was entirely ice free, sea levels were around 200 m higher. Also, the rate of CO2 increase is proceeding much more  rapidly now, meaning that species will not have time to adapt. We need to listen to what scientists are telling us if we want to stand a chance at preserving life! The earth is not concerned with “political feasibility” or economics!

ACESA sets reduction targets that are ludicrously small! The emissions cap sets targets relative to a baseline of 2005 rather than the standard 1990 baseline used in most other contexts. Since emissions were higher in 2005, reduction targets look bigger that they would relative to 1990. Sweeping away this veil of deception: ACES aims to reduce US emissions by a mere 1% by the year 2020[13] If we are to get real about addressing global warming, we need far more ambition! Measures like halting deforestation and letting our natural ecosystems regenerate would help a lot, but that can’t happen if we look at trees and grasses as “renewable energy” to be burned for heat and electricity.

OFFSETS: Even that very meager reduction that ACESA seeks will be severely compromised because the bill provides for the use of massive quantities of “offsets” which enable polluters to buy “credits” rather than reduce pollution. The credits are supposedly used to purchase emissions reductions “somewhere else”. But these are very difficult to verify, and where they have been used in the past, often are paying for things that are …happening any way. We need really, truly honestly to reduce emissions. No more game playing!

CAP AND TRADE: ACESA adopts a “Cap and Trade” system that sets an overall limit on greenhouse gas emissions (a good idea), but then it hands out permits to major polluters and allows those industries to buy and sell permits as needed. Those who reduce emissions below the cap can sell their permits to those who do not. Cap and Trade will create a risky market in pollution credits that is vulnerable to cheating and manipulation. Where cap and trade has already been tried, it has proven either disastrous – with companies passing along the costs to ratepayers and making windfall profits without reducing emissions….and/or less effective than straightforward regulation. Many, many experts, agree that better alternatives exist, such as revenue-neutral carbon tax-dividend, or carbon tax swap. These approaches would return revenue to consumers as equal dividends, or as reduced income/payroll tax in an equitable manner rather than reaping further profits for corporations and passing along the costs to ratepayers.  Most economists, the Congressional Budget Office, and some outspoken scientists believe this is a simple, robust, cost effective, transparent, equitable and just mechanism for achieving greenhouse gas reductions, and could be implemented quickly. Some have argued to “keep the cap and ditch the trade”…

REPEALING EPA AUTHORITY:  ACES would seek to repeal the EPA’s authority, under the Clean Air Act, to regulate greenhouse gases. That authority was only recently granted by the supreme court, following a battle that Vermont worked hard to win, Bush tried to stifle, and Obama reinforced. The Clean Air Act is one of our best tools for regulating emissions, and adding greenhouse gas emissions would be relatively straightforward. The coal industry does not want this to happen because they see the writing on the wall!

NOT ALL RENEWABLE ENERGY IS RENEWABLE:

ACESA provides various supports for “Renewable Energy”, but this includes “burn technologies” such as incineration of wastes and burning of plant biomass for heat and electricity. Many in the environmental community are recognizing that burning anything at all is not clean, green or sustainable. Toxic air emissions and ash are created, even with “clean plant biomass” such as woodchips, but especially where materials like municipal solid waste are burned, releasing dioxins, furans, PCBs etc. New incinerator technologies, contrary to claims, do NOT avert these emissions. What goes in must come out! Additionally burning biomass is very inefficient! Estimates are that every megawatt of electricity from wood burning facilities requires about 13,000 tons of wood per year. Our forest, ecosystems, soils and waterways cannot sustain such enormous demands!  Especially since, at the same time, we need to be restoring and regenerating forests, grasslands and soils as one of the only significant means we have of sequestering CO2 out of the atmosphere! Burning wood, contrary to the oft heard mantra, is NOT “carbon neutral”. In fact it releases more CO2 than burning coal! The regrowth of trees to resequeter that carbon can take decades, a time frame we certainly cannot afford!)

There simply is no alternative energy source(s) that can sustain current levels of consumption. We must face up to the reality that a dramatic reduction in consumption is essential, and invest only in truly clean energy. 

PLEASE JOIN US IN DEMANDING “NOT JUST ANY OLD CLIMATE BILL”.  The mainstream environmental organizations are shouting from the hilltops that we need a bill. period. They are providing no analysis, and blindly advocating as if being concerned about climate change is enough. But as it stands now, ACESA could lock in place many measures that would hamper meaningful action for years to come. James Hansen has even declared “it would be better for the climate if this bill fails to become law”. We MUST RESIST, tell our representatives to go back to the drawing room, close the doors to lobbyists and special interests, and put together a climate bill that will truly  PROTECT LIFE ON EARTH AND OUR CHILDREN”S FUTURE!  NOW!

“First we were told not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Then we were told not to let the good be the enemy of the mediocre;  then we weren’t to make the mediocre the enemy of the awful. And now we must not be purists who turn the awful into  the enemy of the completely disgusting.”

Instead of settling for the “completely disgusting, what if we DEMAND the truly good? Here are just a few ideas!

>set goals with the intent of achieving a stabilization at 300-350 ppm, and make targets relevant to the standard 1990 emissions levels. This will mean very deep cuts!  But we MUST do it.

>Adopt a stringent cap and tax emissions using a revenue neutral tax and dividend or tax-swap that will be effective and will not punish low income members of communities.

>No offsets! We must reduce, not offset emissions.

>Phase out all coal burning rapidly, in concert with adopting strict efficiency and conservation standards that will reduce demand for electricity and heat dramatically!

>Invest in truly clean and renewable energy technologies – wind and solar and geothermal where appropriate. No burning! And invest in ways to use less.

>Reduce waste, for example in packaging: adopt “zero waste” strategies.

>Invest in public transportation and limit private car ownership and use! Adopt much higher fuel efficiency standards for private automobiles where deemed absolutely essential.

>Reduce meat consumption, (methane a potent greenhouse gas, and feed production involves industrial agriculture practices that are energy intensive and damage soils).

>Invest in local, diverse farming practices that will reduce demand for artificial fertilizer (Nitrogen oxides largely from fertilizer are a major very potent greenhouse gas!), reduce use of  agrichemicals, and reduce the transport, packaging and processing of food.

>Divert military spending to address the challenge of climate change, including fulfilling our obligations to help developing countries meet the challenge. The military is also the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions! What are our priorities??

>Support decentralized, publicly owned power generation and distribution.

>Protect, restore and regrow forests, grasslands, and other ecosystems and soils.

>Tell people the truth!  Massive education about the causes and consequences of climate change is desperately needed, and would help to garner support for tough measures!

AND MUCH MUCH MORE!