Policy & Legislation
To Scare or Not To Scare?
Published July 30, 2009 @ 01:59PM PT
America seems to have a split personality when it comes to global warming, according to a new international survey from the non-governmental group World Public Opinion.
On the sunny Dr. Jekyll side, 52 percent of Americans want the government to put a higher priority on climate change action than it does now. It's a bare majority, but a majority all the same. (The average for all 19 countries polled was 60 percent.)
But rephrase the question, and Mr. Hyde emerges from the shadows: When asked how high a priority the government should place on addressing global warming, on a scale of zero to ten, U.S. citizens rated it a 4.71. Even the citizens of Iraq and the Palestinian Territories rated it higher (5.14 and 4.91 respectively), and these are people with some really pressing immediate problems on their plates, like threadbare civil society and daily violence.
According to youth activist Rachel of the DC Action Factory, the problem is how the message is being framed. Emphasizing positive outcomes like a "clean energy future" and abundant green jobs are a fatal mistake, she says, because it disconnects activists, legislators and the public from "the heart of global warming:"
There is hardly ever a mention of the 300,000 people who are dying, the endless amounts of agriculture that are going to be lost, or that entire countries are going to be under water in less than 20 years. They never talk about the fact that global warming could lead to the end of human existence. That is why we have to change our behavior now.
...When we talk about our energy future, we have to say we need it to prevent additional carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere. When we tell people to paint their roofs white or change their light bulbs, we need to say that these small steps should be paired with larger steps by Congress to pass aggressive legislation.
Overall, we need to reconnect to the heart of global warming and remember why we need to innovate. We cannot forget the risk that is in place if we don’t do these things and we have to tell that story to the public.
So is the problem that advocates for strong federal legislation to cap and reduce greenhouse gas pollution are holding back on the grim details of global warming's impact on human life and livelihood? More destructive storms; new public health problems; potentially devastating sea level rise; record high temperatures; disruption of agriculture; devastating forest fires; melting of glaciers that provide drinking and irrigation water for millions around the world; and more?
Would siccing these scary truths on the American electorate make them demand effective action from Congress?
Or do people become more motivated when they learn how the slashing heat-trapping gas emissions will pay off in tangible benefits like a cleaner, more verdant environment, lots of new and well-paying green jobs, a more secure nation, and of course all the benefits of a stable climate?
One Video to Watch This Week: "Obama and Environmentalists"
Published July 29, 2009 @ 10:06PM PT
In this segment from the PBS show Bill Moyers Journal, veteran newsman Moyers speaks with two young environmentalists who are growing dismayed at President Obama's compromises on climate and environmental policies.
(Click through to watch it; PBS doesn't set up videos to be embeddable on other sites.)
Mary Sweeters, organizing manager of Greenpeace USA, was one of the activists who scaled Mount Rushmore earlier this month to urge Obama to lead more strongly on climate. Also at the table is Erich Pica, Director of Domestic Programs for Friends of the Earth. FoE was among the first to endorse Barack Obama in the Democratic primaries last year, and was one of the first to break from endorsing the Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill, saying it had become too weakened to support:
Pica: I think that there's a lot of moneyed interest in Washington DC that don't want to see a strong climate bill passed. I think, his administration's essentially been kind of convinced that they can't do anything aggressive. That will help solve the problem. Because of the moneyed interest, and I think some of the political appointees he has are not as strong as we'd like them to be. And I think he's been convinced that Congress just isn't willing to go as far as he wants to go.
Video: Navajo vote for green collar jobs
Published July 24, 2009 @ 09:20PM PT
For your Friday evening inspiration: One of the citizen activist groups that lobbied for the Navajo Nation green jobs measure, Black Mesa Alliance, has created this video update on the Navajo Council's Tuesday vote to pass the legislation..
Fatalistic Friday: 'Cash for Clunkers' could save 16 mpg Hummer
Published July 24, 2009 @ 11:02AM PT
Source: failblog
It's been an unusually fertile week for apocalypcious news, so let's dive right in:
'Cash For Clunkers' Program Could Boost Hummer: People who trade in their gas guzzlers for more fuel-efficient cars can get a government subsidy -- even if they trade in old pickups for ones that get just 2 miles per gallon more. Which means the program could provide an unexpected boost to the beleaguered Hummer brand. Its H3T pickup gets 16 mpg. (NPR)
Related:
Cash for Clunkers: Compare the fuel savings (Consumer Reports)
Cars.gov, the official cash for clunkers website
Energy companies opened wallets wide to sway house climate bill: Electric utilities boosted lobbying in the second quarter of 2009, narrowing the gap with oil and gas companies that had dominated spending on persuasion by a wide margin earlier this year. (Greenwire/The New York Times)
Grist grades senate websites on climate transparency; flunks some: Grist combed the Web sites of 99 senators and issued report cards grading them on how well they explained the senators' positions on climate change and energy. "The results aren't pretty. We found a distinct lack of information among Democrats and Republicans alike, senators with and without strong environmental voting records, and from all regions of the country." (Grist)
Meet Belcha - Europe's biggest carbon polluter (and it's about to get even bigger): The biggest single producer of carbon emissions in the European Union has been named - and it is about to get even bigger. The appropriately titled Elektrownia Belchatow - a massive coal-fired power station - belched out 30,862,792 tonnes of CO2 last year and by 2010 the whole generating facility will have grown by 20%. (The Guardian)
Sea Ice Melting Faster Than Expected: A NASA study finds that Arctic ice is melting at a rate that scientists didn't anticipate. (Environment Report)
Massive Glacier In Sub-Antarctic Island Shrinks By A Fifth: French scientists say satellites show a glacier on a southern Indian Ocean island shrunk dramatically in recent decades. They think global warming may be a factor. (AFP)
Warmest june on record for global ocean surface temperature: The world's ocean surface temperature in June rose to its warmest since 1880, breaking the previous high mark set in 2005, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville. (Environment News Service)
Arctic Mystery: Identifying The Great Blob Of Alaska: The mysterious, miles-long "blob" found floating in the Chukchi Sea is not an oil spill or alien life-form, according to early tests, but an unusual algal bloom. (TIME)
Caribou Populations Fall Sharply: Scientists are finding what seems to be a global decline in caribou populations, due to global warming (Christian Science Monitor)
Shrinking fish, dying sequoias, rampant tomato fungus, and more after the jump.
More Jon Stewart on #ACES: "Cap'n Trade" & compromise kryptonite
Published July 22, 2009 @ 11:50AM PT
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Jon Stewart Jizz-Ams in Front of Children - Cap'n Trade | ||||
|
||||
"Cap'n Trade starts off as a super-strong energy bill until he gets stripped of his powers and becomes a horribly compromised law."
Jon Stewart on #ACES Cap and Trade Bill: Damn, it's boring
Published July 22, 2009 @ 08:49AM PT
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Greener Postures | ||||
|
||||
Citizenship 101: How to contact Congress
Published July 20, 2009 @ 09:36AM PT
If you have an opinion about an issue, such as stopping global warming, aiding those in poverty, or reforming the criminal justice system (among the other beats covered here at Change.org), one of the most important things you can do to influence legislation about it is to contact your senator or representative in Washington D.C.
There are a few crucial info-bits to include in your communication -- be it a letter via postal mail or a phone call, the two most effective means of voicing your opinion -- to ensure that that it will have the most impact:
1. Make the message your own.
With all due respect to letter campaigns and the tools that Change.org and others provide to facilitate them, form letters are not always the most effective way to reach out to members of Congress. "Form letters are not an expression of values; they are a show of organizational strength," writes Carey at The Consumerist . "If the NRA convinces five million people to send letters opposing gun control, it shows that the NRA can muster five million people to action, not that five million people necessarily care about gun laws. Congressional offices know this and generally disregard form letters."
2. The basic structure of your letter or phone call message should be: introduce yourself, ask for a specific action, describe your issue.
- Introduce yourself: Do you live in this person's district? For how long? Do you vote? Do you work in a field that's relevant to your issue, or are you involved in the community? Be sure to include all this information at the beginning of your communication, so that you demonstrate why they ought to listen.
- Ask for action: Notice how often form letter campaigns include the number and name of a particular piece of legislation? This is because members of Congress get hammered with bills to review, often with very little time before a committee hearing or a vote. So don't just say, "I want you to do what it takes to stop global warming." Say something like, "I urge you to vote yes on S. One Two Three, the [Name of the Legislation Act of 2009.]"
- Support your argument with facts: Your goal here is to convince a legislator that your position has merit. So reference specific facts about why your issue needs action, such as, "Global warming is already causing droughts and sudden storms that threaten the security of our nation's food supply." Put them in your own words, and even reference credible sources for the information, if it won't drag out the length of your message too much. If you have a personal anecdote that's relevant, share it; that can make a big impression.
3. Be brief.
Imagine how many letters and phone calls the average Congressional staffer goes through every day. Length matters less here than clarity of message.
4. Be courteous. Really.
Much as I'm not particularly charitable to users who post rants, insults, and distortions of fact in the comments on this blog, the staffers of your senator or representative's office are unlikely to be moved by rudeness or misinformation. "Congress attracts haughty personalities. Staffers don't appreciate being spoken down to or insulted," writes The Consumerist. "You are trying to rally them to your cause, so be nice."
5. If writing, proofread your letter and correct grammar errors.
6. Include your own name and address, and a specific request for a response if you'd like one.
7. Communicate with the right people: Your own two senators and one representative.
- First, find your ZIP+4 code: your five-digit ZIP code plus 4-digit extension.
- Next, enter the number in this handy online House of Representatives form to find contact information for your representative.
- Then go to this handy online list to find the contact information for your two senators.
Carey at The Consumerist writes that "Some citizens try to get their voice heard by writing to all 435 members of the House. Congressional courtesy compels the 434 Members who do not represent the zealot to forward his letter to the one lucky Member who does. This angers the Member's staff greatly at the expense of any point you are trying to make."
I can't honestly say that I've heard about this particuar Congressional courtesy before, but it sounds realistic that your opinion will carry a lot more weight with the legislators who may soon need your vote, than with those who don't. I'm going to ask a few Hill staffers and report back on what they tell me.
8. When you send your letter, make a note on the envelope as to what issue you are writing about, so that it will be directed more quickly to the relevant staffer:
Member Of Congress
Office Building/Number
Washington, DC 20515
ATTN: Global Warming Staff
So go for it. As I sometimes note here, our legislators work for us, the taxpayers. Sending a personal message about an issue you care about is an important way to manage these employees.
(Big hat tip to The Consumerist, which inspired this post. Carey's post is also worth reading for slightly different pov and info.)
