By Ronnie Citron-Fink

Santa is hot and worried this holiday season. He is hot because our weather is changing because our climate is changing. And he’s worried unregulated carbon pollution from power plants is making our weather warmer, and causing…

Christmas tree shortages!

Our partners over at Climate Progress are reporting Christmas tree shortages:

“…tree crops in both Vermont and New Hampshire have been seriously compromised this year following an unexpected early heat wave in March and a summer of flash floods. This is the first year that localized extreme flooding has been said to cause a decrease in Christmas tree crop, and scientists have repeatedly linked increased unexpected flooding events caused by a warmer, moister climate to man-made global warming.“

Oh no! Should you buy an artificial tree?

“…according to Saint Joseph’s University plant biologist Clint Springer, buying a real Christmas tree is highly preferable to buying an artificial tree in terms of contributions to climate change. “Choosing a real Christmas tree is one way that an average person can make a difference in terms of climate change,” Springer said. “A 7-foot cut tree’s impact on climate is 60 percent less than a 7-foot artificial tree used for six years. So while cut trees are not carbon-neutral, in terms of carbon-use, they are better than artificial trees.”

Want to learn more?

Please read, and share, our eBook on GLOBAL WARMING AND EXTREME WEATHER. The more informed we are, the more effective we can be in making sure our children grow up in a clean, safe world…and Santa will stay cool.

Cartoon: Danny Shanahan

TELL EPA YOU SUPPORT LIMITS ON CARBON POLLUTION FROM POWER PLANTS

By Marcia G. Yerman

There are days when I get seriously concerned about whether or not we will move substantially forward in the fight against climate change. Despite all the dire news that comes into my mailbox, I have also been encouraged to read about research that continues the efforts to understand and document scientific findings.

I recently received information from Dartmouth University about the work coming out of its Environmental Studies department. I read three of their abstracts. One looked at how climate change is leading to the rise of ocean surface temperatures, thereby increasing the possibility of fish accumulating more mercury. Another looked to land issues, and how climate change is impacting the forests of North America.

I spoke with two experts from Dartmouth to discuss what the findings mean:

Aaron S. Weed, a Postdoctoral Research Associate and a lead author on the study about forests, gave me a primer on the importance of trees in the environmental equation. In addition to being a source of timber, recreation, and water storage, they play a major role in renewing the air supply by removing the carbon dioxide and creating oxygen. Warmer temperatures change the balance of nature, altering the “bio-diversity” of forests. “

Assistant professor of geography (under which climatology falls) Jonathan M. Winter spoke to me about the National Climate Assessment, recently released in draft form. Since 1895, there has been a 1.5 degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature. The most recent decade has been the hottest on record. Over the next several decades (by 2040), we will see a 2 to 4 degree Fahrenheit warming in most areas. By 2100, the low-end projection will be 3 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit, with the high projection at 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit of increased warmth. Each region of the country will be impacted differently. Winter will be warmer with more rain, and summers will be warmer as well. Climate change will worsen asthma by 2020, with an increase in ground level ozone due to warming.

Beyond the science, I was intrigued by a series of papers examining the impact of climate change on Indigenous peoples in the United States, from “socioeconomic vulnerability to human rights.” I was struck by the thought provoking premise presented by Nicholas James Reo and Angela K. Parker in their essay entitled, “Re-Thinking Colonialism to Prepare for the Impacts of Rapid Environmental Change.”

Four hundred years ago, European settlers came to North America, where Native tribes had developed a way of living that was integrated and respectful of their environment. They employed sustainable practices in hunting, farming, and in their use of land and water resources. Reo and Parker maintain that the practices of the colonists set in motion a wide spectrum of changes in the environment and health that led to disease, overharvesting, deforestation, and invasive species.

… when indigenous communities were decimated by disease and eventually alienated from their known environments, land tenure innovations based on deep, local ecological knowledge, disappeared. Colonists, and their extractive systems aimed at key animal and plant species, became the new shapers of cultural landscapes. Rapid ecological degradation subsequently ensued, and New Englanders created a difficult project of stewarding a far less resilient landscape without help from indigenous land managers who would have known best how to enact ecological restoration measures.”

Polluting the air with unregulated carbon pollution from power plants, fracking, toxic dumping, mountain top coal removal, the XL Pipeline, to name a few, are some of the shortsighted actions that affect our climate. Who will pay the price? It will be our children — and the currency will not be monetary.

TELL EPA YOU SUPPORT LIMITS ON CARBON POLLUTION FROM POWER PLANTS

By Molly Rauch

On the Tuesday before Thanksgiving, the DC City Council met to hear testimony about the Fossil Fuel Divestment Act of 2013. I spoke at the hearing, explaining why moms do not want DC bankrolling air pollution and climate change.

More than twenty American cities have made commitments to divest from fossil fuels, moving capital away from companies that profit from fossil fuel exploration, extraction, and production. More cities are bound to follow. DCDivest is one of dozens of grassroots campaigns working to shift municipal investments in cities across the country away from climate-wrecking fossil fuels.

Here is what I told the DC City Council last week:

Why am I here? I am not an expert in pension management, but I know a lot about climate change, and about the moms who are going to make sure that we deal with this problem. That has important implications for fossil fuel investments.

Moms know that climate change poses a grave threat to our children. It increases floods, drought, extreme heat, and agricultural disruption. In a warming world, our children will face more heat-related illnesses; increased transmission of infectious diseases; a lifetime of more heart attacks, asthma, and cancer from the air pollution that will be exacerbated by climate change; massive migration and threats to global security; and more malnutrition from an unstable global food system and crop failures. This is not the world we want to leave our children. We have to do better. And we will do better.

You see, moms are going to solve this problem. We have to. Our children’s future depends on it. We are going to figure out how to turn this ship around. And when we do, do you know what’s going to happen? The companies that are now profiting off wrecking our climate will be at a serious financial disadvantage.

Investing in fossil fuel companies is not only morally questionable, it’s financially risky. As former SEC Commissioner Bevis Longstreth wrote recently in Huffington Post:

“The future prospects for fossil fuel companies are suffering, and in coming years, increasingly, will suffer from at least four rapidly evolving developments triggered by growing global awareness of the existential threat that climate change poses for the planet.”

Longstreth explains that those rapidly evolving developments are government policies that will restrict carbon emissions; advances in alternative energy sources; a rising tide of public action at the grass-roots level against fossil fuel companies; and deteriorating reputations of these companies that will turn them into pariahs in the public mind. And because of all this, their value will decline. Capital sitting on fossil fuel reserves to be burned in some far-off future will become stranded, worthless, empty.

As more and more parents understand that we are on course to leave our children a planet far less hospitable than the one we have enjoyed, the more forcefully we demand action. And don’t underestimate the power of thousands upon thousands of angry moms.

Precisely because these fossil fuel companies threaten our children’s health and future, they are risky investments. DC therefore has not only a moral but also a financial obligation to divest from these climate-wrecking companies.

TELL THE SENATE TO END TAX BREAKS FOR OIL, GAS AND COAL

By Moms Clean Air Force

This was written by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy for the Huffington Post: 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency owes its existence to people like you. More than four decades ago, the pollution concerns of individuals grew out of local communities and into a nationwide grassroots movement that culminated in the first Earth Day in 1970. Public outcry for a cleaner, healthier environment didn’t belong to a political party; it didn’t belong to any single social demographic. It belonged to all of us; it was overwhelmingly the voice of the American people. The resonance of that voice led to the establishment of the EPA and the passage of America’s landmark environmental laws.

To overcome environmental challenges, we must confront them at their local roots. That’s why at EPA, our work has always come back to local communities. Progress in communities is more than an aspiration, it’s a practice. From dealing with conventional environmental harms to our contemporary fight against climate change — at EPA, the focus of our work has always been local community driven.

Prudent action to protect public health and the environment must be sensitive to individuals and to differences among people and places. EPA’s actions are guided by public openness and partnerships with rural towns, cities, and suburbs alike; with, environmentalists, local officials, and tribes. And we measure our success by progress we make in those communities.

This is especially true in a changing climate. If we are serious about public health and environmental protection for all, we have to be serious about reducing the harmful carbon pollution that fuels climate change and we must work to prepare cities to be more resilient in the face of climate risks. President Obama’s Climate Action Plan recognizes this, and has deployed federal agencies to act. Different cities face varying climate threats dependent on a variety of factors — but they all demand local attention and local action, and EPA is committed to continuing to provide its support.

Although our new challenges demand we evolve, the centerpiece of our success remains our commitment to listen to and work with local communities and folks on the ground.

It’s with that focus we’ve been able to achieve public health and environmental protections over the last decade that have been nothing short of astounding. And our successes aren’t limited to our flagship EPA programs. Sure, cleaning up Superfund and Brownfields sites, or investing in green infrastructure and sustainable technology, is making a real difference — but it’s the sum total of each and every action we take that adds up in big ways.

Today, there’s less pollution in your air from cars, thanks to fuel economy standards — and your wallet is a little fuller because you’re paying less at the pump. Your rivers and streams are less at risk for mercury or arsenic poisoning, making your fishing experience more enjoyable and more care free. Harmful levels of lead in and around your town has been drastically reduced, and the toxic waste that once threatened your drinking water has been cleaned up, keeping your families out of harm’s way. And through restoring America’s iconic ecosystems, your kids can enjoy the great American outdoors you have.

We’ve taken tremendous steps forward since EPA got its start. However, from air and water quality to chemical safety and climate change, plenty of challenges still remain. With continued local focus and partnership, we can meet them head on and continue to achieve environmental and public health progress in communities across the country.

TELL EPA YOU SUPPORT NEW LIMITS ON CARBON POLLUTION

By Dr. Karen Lee

Dear Senator Gillibrand,

My dear childhood friend Carol* is dying. Carol has stage 4 cancer and now it has metastasized to her brain.

I don’t know if you are religious, Senator Gillibrand, but I have to think that the “other side” has no toxic chemicals to avoid, and no cancer. And for that, I’m comforted.

Carol is like you and me – she is a devoted wife, a loving daughter, a fun sister, a doting aunt, and a great friend. She lives a relatively quiet life by the beach on Long Island with her husband and a couple of cats. Carol is an animal lover. She rescues stray cats and provides loving homes for them. Carol is a published author, medical journalist, and an avid cyclist. She loves making beaded jewelry. Carol plays flute. She is funny, optimistic, intelligent, creative, and beautiful inside and out.

Just like you and me, she was exposed to all kinds of chemicals. No one really knows if toxic chemicals played a role in her cancer. But as you know, there are over 80,000 types of chemicals, and over 200 chemicals that we are exposed to daily. So I cannot help but think that they had something to do with the rising incidence of cancer in our lives.

In light of Carol’s illness, I want to thank you for co-sponsoring the Safe Chemicals Act with the late Senator Lautenberg. I was heartened when you said you were, “shocked to learn that in most instances, the federal government is unable to require safety testing of the chemicals used in the products my kids use every day…It’s outrageous that everything from car seats to my son’s dishware could be leaching hormone disrupting or cancer causing chemicals, but the EPA is virtually powerless to regulate them. We need to do better. This legislation will give the EPA the authority to collect the data and study the chemicals in our everyday products and empower consumers with the knowledge they need to keep our families safe.”

I know you have been a passionate advocate, and a true leader in making New Yorkers safer and healthier –working to compensate the 9/11 first responders, addressing the country’s nursing shortage, making quality autism treatment more affordable, improving asthma treatment for children, and ensuring our drinking water and baby products are safer. You’ve co-sponsored legislation to increase awareness of breast cancer in young women and high-risk groups. And you continue to find ways to fund “national research on environmental factors…including exposures to pesticides and hormones in food, ingredients in personal care products, and airborne pollutants.“

Mostly, I applaud you for standing up for consumers when you acknowledged and co-sponsored the Safe Chemical Act, because research shows that children and pregnant women are particularly vulnerable to toxic chemical exposures.

Being poisoned by chemicals in our day-to-day products is unacceptable. It might be too late for my friend Carol, but not for your children – our children. They should NOT be exposed to these aggregated chemicals daily.

Let’s give the “Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the tools to collect health and safety information, screen chemicals for safety, and require risk management when chemicals cannot be proven safe.”

It boggles my mind that under the current law, the EPA has only been able to “require testing for roughly 200 of the more than 84,000 chemicals currently registered in the United States, and has been able to ban only five dangerous substances since TSCA was first enacted in 1976.”

Senator Gillibrand, I know you love your children as much as I love mine. Which is why I am asking for your leadership to help fight for the bill you introduced because it needs to be significantly strengthened in order to protect people from environmentally-induced cancers.

We need your ongoing strong leadership and conviction, because no mother should have to bury her daughter, and no husband should lose his wife because our government didn’t protect them.

Sincerely,

Karen Lee DC.

Sadly, Carol (*whose name has been changed to protect her privacy) peacefully passed away at home shortly after I wrote this. She was surrounded by her loving family and her two cats. 

TELL CONGRESS TO PROTECT US FROM TOXIC CHEMICALS

By Dominique Browning

I want to share with you this letter we’re sending to one of your Senators and give you the chance to send it to them as well:

Dear Senator,

It is very easy to be negative about what’s going on in Washington, D.C. these days. But sometimes we have to stop and give thanks, too. This is one of those times.

We at Moms Clean Air Force know that the work you are doing to improve the Chemical Safety Improvement Act is essential in the fight to protect children from toxic chemical exposures. So we want to cheer you on–and encourage you to strengthen one of the most important pieces of legislation of our generation.

What you are doing has the potential to create a landmark law, one that will go down in the history books.

What do moms hope this bill will do?

Protect vulnerable populations–including pregnant women, infants and children.

Establish solid deadlines for determining the safety of all chemicals in use today.

Cut red tape so EPA can do its job, and we can start getting hormone disruptors, neurotoxins, and carcinogens out of our bodies, fast.

The CSIA, as drafted, just doesn’t pass the Mom test. It’s time for everyone to roll up their sleeves and craft a bill that truly protects public health.

We need champions like you to stand up for the health of our children. We need your hard work to make sure this bill lives up to its potential to protect generations of Americans from toxic chemical exposures.

For that, we thank you wholeheartedly.

Happy Thanksgiving!

URGE YOUR SENATOR TO STRENGTHEN THE CHEMICAL SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT

By Moms Clean Air Force

This was written by Brandon Baker for EcoWatch: 

The timing of Environment Ohio’s latest report is certainly no coincidence.

The advocacy group issued Ohio’s Clean Energy Success Story, Year 4 a day after the debate over the state’s 2008 renewable energy law nearly came to a head. The Ohio Senate’s Public Utilities Committee planned to meet this week and possibly vote on Senate Bill (SB) 58, which contains drastic changes to the Clean Energy Law proposed by committee chairman Sen. Bill Seitz (R-Cincinnati). According to The Plain Dealer, Seitz abruptly cancelled the meeting without explanation.

Environment Ohio’s report highlights several clean energy wins made possible by the original law. The organization hopes the break in legislative action gives committee members a chance to examine the savings and deployment of renewable technologies that took place during the first few years of Ohio’s Clean Energy Law.

“The Clean Energy Law’s proven track record in delivering energy savings and spurring renewable energy development in Ohio show that the law is working as intended,” Christian Adams, an Environment Ohio state associate, said. “Senate Bill 58 would take Ohio back to the ‘bad old days’ of wasteful energy use and over-reliance on dirty energy sources.”

The report largely takes a why-stop-now approach. One of its chief points is that 2012 marked the first time the state’s largest utilities—FirstEnergy, Duke Energy, Dayton Power & Light (DP&L) and American Electric Power (AEP) all met the law’s efficiency requirements. Environment Ohio applauds those companies for their advances, including:

• Appliance recycling programs operated by the four companies, which offer financial incentives to recycle inefficient appliances. Collectively, they recycled 21,899 inefficient refrigerators, 5,698 freezers and 823 room air conditioners last year.

• DP&L’s distribution of more than 1.7 million high-efficiency lighting fixtures to customers. The lighting program saved enough energy to power more than nearly 7,000 Ohio homes for a year at a cost of 3.8 cents per kilowatt-hour, or one-third of the retail cost of electricity in Ohio.

• FirstEnergy agreed last year to buy renewable energy credits from Iberdrola’s 304 megawatt (MW) Blue Creek Wind Farm project, which helped the company meet a buy-in requirement.

Solar and wind capacity in Ohio have also skyrocketed since 2008.

Instead of ridding Ohio of renewable energy requirements as Seitz suggested, Environment Ohio calls for more support from public officials in making Ohio an even greener state. Suggestions in the report include more facilitation utilities in securing long-term contracts for renewable energy and the development of a robust plan from the state Environmental Protection Agency to keep Ohio in line with federal regulations.

“The PUCO should support long-term projects that offer significant environmental and economic benefits to Ohio, such as AEP’s 49 MW Turning Point Solar Project (which was denied approval by the PUCO in January 2013),” the report reads.

Meanwhile, the meeting regarding SB 58 has yet to be rescheduled. An anonymous environmental lobbyist indicated that not all Ohio republicans are behind Seitz, telling The Plain Dealer that “it’s chaos” in the statehouse.

“The Clean Energy Law is getting results for the Buckeye State,” Adams said. “Four years in, Ohio’s Clean Energy Law is reducing pollution, cutting our dependence on coal and gas, creating jobs and saving Ohioans money.”

END FOSSIL FUEL SUBSIDIES

By Moms Clean Air Force

This originally appeared on EcoWatch:

Five prominent environmental groups have joined together with Canadian musician Gaiaisi to release a music video to raise awareness of the most critical issues facing the human race — climate change.

With extreme weather events becoming the new normal, global temperatures reaching record highs, and a continued streak of climate science denial, the music video is an effort to break through public apathy and pessimism to galvanize action on climate change.

The video is a dramatic global tour showing everything from the devastation caused by wildfires and deforestation, to the huge footprint of industrial agriculture and impacts of our fossil-fueled economy. The video captures the struggles of activists from all continents fighting for action on the climate crisis. It highlights solutions, including sustainable transportation, permaculture and renewable energy.

The song, Change the Earth, is the result of a collaboration between Gaiaisi, 350.org, Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project, Greenpeace, Rainforest Action Network and World Wildlife Fund.

TELL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES TO STOP DIRTY COAL

By Danny Shanahan

As a working cartoonist, a dad, a concerned food eater, and a (hopefully) informed voter, Marion Nestle’s new book, Eat Drink Vote: An Illustrated Guide To Food Politics tackles complex food issues in an informative, yet wildly entertaining fashion. Thanks to her clear and concise writing, and the able help of 50 or so of the best cartoonists around, including Jeff Danziger and Dan Piraro, my buddy Rick Kirkman of “Baby Blues” fame, and the estimable New Yorker contributors Bob Staake and Mike Twohy, not to mention Moms Clean Air Force’s very own Liza Donnelly, Nestle confronts the question:

How are food and politics related?

Okay, okay, some of you may want to simply insert your favorite politician joke here, but if the politics of food seems like a weighty issue, then Eat Drink Vote is the book for you (see sample pages here).

Nestle takes on everything from the U.S. Agricultural System to World Hunger, from Microbes in the Food Supply to Irradiation. To help the reader swallow some of the unpalatable news, she enlists the sugarcoated help of the Cartoonist Group. This makes the medicine go down with a smile.

What’s eating our kids?

Of particular interest are the chapters on food safety, contamination and the politics of feeding our kids. The widespread use of herbicides and pesticides, particularly glyphosate weed killers, as is the presence of bisphenol A in baby bottles and food cans, and methylmercury in fish, all highlight the importance of keeping dangerous neurotoxins (mercury) and cancer-causing toxics (BPA) out of the brains, blood and bodies of our kids.

And it wouldn’t be a book about food politics without the mention of two of the more dramatic results of combining questionable business practices with lackluster governmental oversight — causing environmental devastation: oil and radioactivity contaminating seafood in the waters of the Gulf and in the Sea of Japan.

So vote, as I hope we all did just a few weeks ago, with your mind and heart — just don’t forget that you can also, “Vote With Your Fork!”

TELL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES TO STOP DIRTY COAL

By Dominique Browning

Tired of negativity?

I am. I fall into it myself — and it feels awful. Or there’s the “Oh Dear, there’s nothing I can do” feeling. Depressing. So many things are working against solving huge and urgent problems.

But then I meet people who give me hope. I’m attracted to a quality they share: Informed Optimism.

Last week, I spoke on a panel at the BSR Conference — Business for Social Responsibility. I listened to inspiring people: the Patagonia executive who has launched a campaign telling customers why they should not buy more clothes, the solar energy executive deploying panels across the country.

Everyone was focused on solutions.

Large-scale solutions to large-scale problems: the key to optimism, hope and resilience. That’s what I’m going to carry in my heart over the next year as I write to you about air pollution and our changing climate.

Optimism comes from health leaders, creative thinkers and innovative leaders in the business, technology and engineering community. And from political leaders willing to speak the truth in dark times.

Optimism comes from our own thoughtful friends and neighbors who are mindful of resources, living by some pretty old-fashioned values: stewardship; respect.

Optimism comes from those whose moral compass is pointing true north — where a love of the world resides.

TELL EPA YOU SUPPORT NEW LIMITS ON CARBON POLLUTION

By Danny Shanahan

No need for activism burnout if you are a member of Moms Clean Air Force. Our moms and dads do Naptime Activism!

What is Naptime Activism? This means you can do things to make the world better, safer, and cleaner – while your child naps, or does homework, or is off at college doing…whatever. Naptime Activism is what moms and dads can do to make their voices heard.

5 Naptime Activism actions you can take right now!

1. SIGN a to tell the EPA you support limits on carbon pollution from power plants.
2. GET  toxic chemicals out of the bodies of our children.
3. END tax breaks for oil, gas and coal.
4. JOIN Moms Clean Air Force.
5. SHARE the love.

Now, that was easy, wasn’t it?

Thank you.

By Moms Clean Air Force

Wind energy is on the rise in America and is providing huge environmental benefits for the country, according to a new report released today by Environment America.

The group says if we continue adding onshore wind capacity at the rate we did from 2007 to 2012, and take the first steps toward development of massive potential for offshore wind, by 2018 wind energy will be averting carbon dioxide equivalent to taking 32 million passenger vehicles off the road each year. We would also be saving enough water to supply the annual domestic water needs of 2.1 million people—roughly as many people as live in the city of Houston.

“Wind energy has given us a lot to be grateful for this Thanksgiving,” said Julian Boggs, global warming program director for Environment America. “Congress shouldn’t close the door on a cleaner America by letting critical incentives for wind energy expire.”

Thanks to its current and future benefits, wind power is a key component of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan to reduce the carbon pollution fueling global warming 17 percent by 2020. The plan calls for an expansion of renewable energy, investment in energy efficiency, and the first-ever federal limits on carbon pollution from power plants.

The report, Wind Energy for a Cleaner America, also shows that by 2018, U.S. wind energy could also be avoiding 121,000 tons of smog-causing nitrogen oxides and 194,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, which cause acid rain and soot.

Electricity generated with wind power quadrupled in the last five years, from about 34,500 gigawatt hours (GWh) in 2007 to more than 140,000 GWh at the end of 2012—or as much electricity as is used each year in Georgia. Iowa, South Dakota and Kansas now have enough wind turbines to supply more than 20 percent of their annual electricity needs.

Our recent progress on wind energy is the direct result of federal incentives for wind power and state renewable energy policies. Despite the clear benefits of wind and widespread bipartisan support for federal policies to promote renewable energy, fossil fuel interests and their political allies have vigorously opposed these federal initiatives. The investment tax credit (ITC) and the production tax credit (PTC), are set to expire at the end of 2013.

“Wind energy is improving our quality of life in America,” said Boggs. “We cannot let polluters and their allies stand in the way of additional reductions in carbon, soot and smog pollution and water use. Congress needs to do whatever it takes to extend federal wind incentives as soon as possible.”

LEARN MORE:
Wind Map
Wind Energy: Homegrown Power
Wind Energy For Clean Air And American Jobs

END FOSSIL FUEL SUBSIDIES

By Moms Clean Air Force

This was written by Ryan Cooper for Washington Monthly:

Ever since Bill McKibben (founder of 350.org) and his allies first coalesced around a strategy of trying to block the Keystone XL pipeline, they’ve been repeatedly criticized by pundits for focusing on the wrong thing. The oil will get developed anyway, the messaging is wrong, we need to curb demand instead, and on and on. Last week Jonathan Chait submitted the latest entry:

“To an increasingly disillusioned environmental movement,” environmental activist Bill McKibben writes in the Huffington Post, “Keystone looks like a last chance.” It may be a last chance for the movement McKibben has helped lead — he has spent several years organizing activists to single-mindedly fight against approval of the Keystone pipeline — but Keystone is at best marginally relevant to the cause of stopping global warming. The whole crusade increasingly looks like a bizarre misallocation of political attention.

This is a rare whiff from Chait. First of all, as Joe Romm points out, this whole frame is an egregious misreading of McKibben’s piece, which argued for Keystone’s symbolic value as a measure of whether Obama was willing tostand up to oil companies. McKibben knows Keystone is not a magic bullet, and said so in the piece: “Stopping the northern half of that pipeline from being built certainly won’t halt global warming by itself.”

Second, Chait is indeed correct that new EPA regulations which phase out coal-fired power plants would have a much larger impact on carbon dioxide emissions than stopping Keystone XL. (McKibben, incidentally, knows all about this.) But even that would make barely a dent in climate change by itself. It might be enough to get the US under our 2020 emissions target, but much further and more expensive cuts will be needed in the future. What’s more, it does nothing about China, India, or deforestation in Indonesia, which already dwarf any potential US action. He complains that Keystone represents a much smaller piece of climate policy than EPA regulations, but by his own standards anything short of an internationally binding treaty on all the major emitters is not worth of attention.

Third, Chait seems to view mass protests like some kind of committee meeting, where you push for a particular proposal, and if you don’t win the argument then you get nothing. But that’s not how it works at all. The point of mass politics is to put the issue on the elites’ radar. Little captures the attention of the press and the political class like hundreds of thousands of people demonstrating. It’s a strange, unpredictable effect, but it does work. The civil rights movement did not have an agreed-upon, five-point plan for ending Jim Crow, they had marches and sit-ins and mass rallies, and were beaten and fire-hosed and murdered for it. Sympathetic legislators, buttressed by the social power of the movement, eventually turned that into a workable policy.

Therefore, the most important thing when it comes to climate change and mass protests is to have some mass protests. Chait seems to think that McKibben could have gotten his huge demonstrations to come out on EPA regulations, but that is dubious in the extreme. Keystone XL has compelling local sovereignty and oil spill worries to energize people, and most importantly, it’s easy to understand and Obama alone can make the decision. To phrase it in a Chait-esque picture caption:

What do we want? “More stringent carbon dioxide emission regulations on extant coal-fired power plants!” When do we want it? “After the extraordinarily complicated rule-writing process over which the president has no direct control! But do it right, which will take years, or oil companies will take down the rule in court on a technicality! Also we should reform the filibuster, so we can get Democrats on the DC Circuit Court, because they handle the relevant federal agency lawsuits!”

I’d like to see Chait leading that march.

Of course, mass climate protests on something that was completely wrong wouldn’t be worth it. “We must reduce Snickers consumption, because climate change!” But blocking Keystone XL, while not precisely calibrated policy-wise, is easily good enough. It’s on the right issue and well worth stopping on the merits.

There’s also the flank effect to consider, where “fringe” proposals enable more moderate ones by seeming more reasonable. I would not be surprised if President Obama enables the pipeline, while eventually getting tougher rules through the EPA. We’d have McKibben to thank for that.

Finally, I think a bit of humility is in order. Organizing a mass movement is hard. I’ve done a bit of organizing myself—I started a chapter of Students for Sensible Drug Policy in college, and I was extraordinarily terrible at it. Like many pundits (not necessarily Chait), I’m cynical, easily discouraged, lazy, and most importantly, an absolutely atrocious leader. By contrast, sitting in my chair writing blog posts, while not exactly easy, is compelling and interesting and satisfying in a way that makes it no problem to sit and work for hours.

Mass organizing is hundreds or thousands of times more difficult than that. You’ve got to inspire and manage thousands of volunteers, whose attachment to or knowledge of the issues varies wildly, and whose theoretical belief in your cause is probably far stronger than their actual determination to help you in tangible ways. You’ve got to keep these unpaid volunteers from getting discouraged and quitting. You’ve probably got little pay for yourself and less (if any) for your key assistants. Most difficult of all, you’ve got to keep yourself motivated and grinding away, when the vast weight of evidence suggests your cause is probably doomed.

And then you’ve got the pundit class, driven in part by the need to write something (preferably counter intuitive) to feed the voracious internet, questioning your every move.

So I’m willing to cut McKibben, James Hansen, and the other major climate organizers quite a lot of slack. Climate change is an incredibly difficult issue to organize large movements around. The benefits of carbon mining are enormous and highly concentrated, the costs are dispersed around the entire globe, and the chains of causality are found through highly technical scientific studies. Any mass climate protest is a hugely positive development, and I hope McKibben and company keep it up.

Photo: Ted Fink Photography

TELL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES TO STOP DIRTY COAL

By Moms Clean Air Force

This was written by Kaye Spector. It originally appeared on EcoWatch:

Sure, dust in your house is annoying. But did you know it could be toxic?

One study by the Silent Spring Institute identified 67 hormone-disrupting compounds in household dust tests, including flame retardants, home-use pesticides and phthalates.

Industrial chemicals like flame retardants, pesticides and heavy metals lurk in dust bunnies.

The chemicals in your dust originate from inside and outside your house. Products inside your house — such as furniture, electronics, shoes, plastics, fabrics and food—shed chemicals over time. Outdoor pollutants enter on shoes and through open and cracked windows and doors

Once inside, the contaminants in indoor dust degrade more slowly — if at all — than they would outside where moisture and sunlight typically break them down.

One type of toxic chemical commonly found in household dust is chemical flame retardants, also known as PBDEs. As highly flammable synthetic materials have replaced less-combustible natural materials, PBDEs have been added to thousands of everyday products, including computers, TVs and furniture, among many others. Environmental Working Group conducted tests that revealed the surprising degree to which flame-retardant chemicals escape from consumer products and settle in household dust.

Now, a new study shows that vinyl flooring could be joining the list of household products contributing to chemical-laced household dust. Large areas of vinyl flooring in day care centers and schools appear to expose children to a group of compounds called phthalates, which have been linked to reproductive and developmental problems, according to a study published recently in the American Chemical Society journal Environmental Science & Technology.

Phthalates, which increase the flexibility and durability of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), are key ingredients in PVC materials used in vinyl flooring and a wide range of other household products, including toys, food packaging and medical devices.

Like other chemicals found indoors, these additives leach out of products into the air and dust. This study is among the first to show what products were contributing to indoor phthalate levels.

Silent Spring Institute has some advice on how you can reduce your exposure:

• Go natural. Select carpets, carpet pads, bedding, cushions and upholstered furniture made from naturally flame-resistant materials such as wool, polyester and hemp.
• Repair ripped furniture. Flame retardants are added to polyurethane foam filling.
• Keep down dust. Vacuum regularly with a vacuum cleaner fitted with a HEPA filter. Wipe surfaces with a wet cloth or mop.
• Wash hands frequently. Hand washing does more than prevent the spread of germs; it also reduces the amount of flame retardants entering our bodies. Remember to use regular soap and water instead of antibacterial soaps, which may contain endocrine disrupting chemicals.
• Look for snug-fitting cotton sleepwear labeled as not flame-resistant. Sleepwear for children nine months and older is subject to flammability tests.
• Get involved. At the national level, Congress is considering the Safe Chemicals Act to make sure chemicals are tested for safety before going into use.

TELL CONGRESS TO PROTECT US FROM TOXIC CHEMICALS

By Dominique Browning

Carbon pollution has penetrated the highest levels of our justice system: the Supreme Court has ruled that carbon is a greenhouse gas pollutant that must be regulated by the EPA. Common sense.
That isn’t stopping Dirty Coal interests from fighting EPA every step of the way. Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Rep Ed Whitfield of Kentucky have proposed legislation to block EPA from regulating carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants and hearings start today.

It is a mistake to see this as a coal plant versus EPA fight. This is now Coal versus Humankind: cynical, irresponsible, short-sighted. Immoral, at heart.

Our climate is changing, rapidly. Climate scientists worldwide are ringing alarm bells. People are suffering from floods, droughts, winds, and storms of record-breaking proportions. And the use of coal — down in the US for now, while natural gas prices are still low — is sky-rocketing around the world. That’s why regulations on carbon pollution here — and the development of technologies to clean up coal — are so important.

I’ve been thinking about how climate change may be too big a problem for democracy to tackle. When a doctor tells you cancer is invading your body, you don’t take votes about whether it is real or not. We have a global mess that is spinning out of control. We are in a race against time. But our politicians are dithering — and that is harming our reputation as leaders. We will regret this, profoundly, in years to come. Our children will never understand why we didn’t act when we had the time to contain the problem.

Right now we have to do the only thing we can: chip away at this disaster with all the tools we have — regulatory, economic, technological and spiritual! It is time to scrub coal — and get the country using clean renewable energy as fast as possible. Dirty Coal is making a big mistake in refusing to clean up.

TELL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES TO STOP DIRTY COAL

By Marcia G. Yerman

As an online writer focusing on environmental issues, remarks posted on my pieces tend to skew toward, “Give it a rest” or “What hysterical nonsense!”  This usually leads to mudslinging by skeptics, deniers — who believe the moon landings were faked, but expect climate change advocates to get with reality. My MCAF article on the IPCC report generated almost 200 back and forth accusations. Of course, this is the blogosphere, where there is an abundance of give and take, much of it anonymous.

Newspapers

Now, a new precedent has been set by the Los Angeles Times. Paul Thornton, the Times’ Letter editor has stated,

“I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published. Saying ‘there’s no sign humans have caused climate change’ is not stating an opinion, it’s asserting a factual inaccuracy.” ~ On Letters from Climate-Change Deniers.

Plenty of folks sat up and noticed. A petition was started on the Credo website, asking people to lobby the Washington Post and the New York Times not to promote climate change denial. There was reaction as to whether newspapers should ban letters from climate deniers. Immediately, Fox News weighed in with, “Los Angeles Times endorses censorship with ban on letters from climate skeptics.” It should be pointed out that the web version of the article in question had plenty of comments.

Of equal or perhaps greater import was the report by Media Matters which found that the Media Sowed Doubt In Coverage Of UN Climate Report. It stated that “media used false balance in IPCC coverage.” It pointed to the fact that despite the IPCC report finding that human activity is considered a 95 percent certainty, “half of print outlets used false balance on the existence of man-made warming.”

Margaret Sullivan, the Public Editor for the New York Times defines the term as, “False balance is the journalistic practice of giving equal weight to both sides of a story, regardless of an established truth on one side.”

Through the use of pie charts, Media Matters demonstrated that among climate scientists, only 3 percent doubted that humans play a major role in causing global warming. However, in the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal, 18 percent of quotes were attributed to doubters, 10 percent to those with neutral opinions, and 72 percent to those who accepted the science. In the Wall Street Journal, 50 percent of those quoted about the report were doubters.

Broadcast Media

On the broadcast front, CBS was found to have given doubters 20 percent of the attributed quotes. Unsurprisingly, Fox News had a whopping 69 percent of their guests promoting climate denial, with 73 percent of those talking heads having “no background in climate science.” Rather, Media Matters noted that they were pundits—many who had financial connections to the fossil fuel industry.

Media Matters also underscored the distortion that resulted when 41 percent of total coverage, and over 49 percent of print media coverage, pointed to the statistic reporting that the rate of warming has been slightly lower over the last 15 to 17 years. What the media neglected to thoroughly explain was what this occurrence, often called the “speed bump,” actually means. As clarified by Brenda Ekwurzel, a climate researcher, “The global average surface temperature trend of late is like a speed bump, and we would expect the rate of temperature increase to speed up again just as most drivers do after clearing the speed bump.”

What’s an average news consumer to do?

Perhaps Letters to the Editors should be vetted by credentialing the writer. Then, even being a Senator may not be enough…as in the example of Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), author of The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future.

Disinformation has been part of the political landscape for quite some time. It has trickled down to the media and been exacerbated by the 24/7 news cycle and the Internet.

Personally, I go with Schopenhauer. He wrote: “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”

Let’s hope we get there with climate change.

TELL EPA YOU SUPPORT NEW LIMITS ON CARBON POLLUTION

By Ronnie Citron-Fink

Parents know carbon pollution fuels climate change. Parents know carbon pollution leads to more asthma attacks and increases the frequency and intensity of extreme weather. Parents know their families need protection from dangerous carbon pollution.

Now there is a bill that would allow power plants to continue dumping unlimited amounts of carbon pollution into the air, contributing to climate change and putting our children’s health at risk – the Whitfield-Manchin bill.

3 Things you need to know about the Whitfield-Manchin bill:

1. While we have limits on arsenic, lead, and mercury, there are NO federal limits on dangerous carbon pollution from dirty energy power plants.
2. EPA is putting in place a reasonable, cost-effective plan to reduce the pollution driving climate change. But Congressman Whitfield and Senator Manchin are raising a series of impossible barriers for the EPA.
3. This bill would strip the EPA of its authority to protect public health, and to support the agency’s common sense plan to cut carbon pollution from the nation’s power plants.

3 Ways the Whitfield-Manchin bill could harm your children:

1. The bill overturns existing authority for EPA to establish carbon pollution limits for new power plants.
2. The bill allows utilities to decide what the regulation will be for new plants – delaying the use of the best emissions reductions technology for years or even decades.
3. The bill ensures that carbon pollution limits for exiting power plants will never be implemented.

Parents know preventing the EPA from reducing carbon pollution from power plants, which are the nation’s largest source of carbon pollution does not protect their families.

And parents know when polluters would win, the rest of us lose.

TELL EPA YOU SUPPORT NEW LIMITS ON CARBON POLLUTION

By Moms Clean Air Force

This was written by: Brittney Gordon-Williams, a member of the ENERGY STAR communications team at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:

I always get a special feeling when I walk into a Boys & Girls Club. Whether the club is in Albany, GA or Washington, D.C., the atmosphere is one that that is hard to explain, unless you have been there. From the minute you walk in, you can literally feel the positive vibes, and it instantly shows you that the kids inside of those walls are getting the kind of care and support that one needs to grow into a positive and successful adult. I felt those positive vibes on a whole new level as EPA visited the Boys & Girls Club of Atlantic City, NJ for their ENERGY STAR Day celebration.

In honor of ENERGY STAR Day on November 5th, The Boys & Girls Clubs of America (BGCA), along with Samsung Electronics, planned a celebration of the great work they did to save energy over the past year. Thousands of club kids from across the country joined Team ENERGY STAR in 2013, learning about saving energy and protecting the climate.  From turning off lights when not needed, to power managing their computers and shutting down unused electronics, BGCA kids learned that anyone—no matter their age—can make a difference and protect the environment from climate change.

The Boys & Girls Clubs of America could have picked any of their clubs to hold their ENERGY STAR Day celebration, but the Atlantic City club has a special story. Last year the club was badly damaged by Hurricane Sandy, and a year later still needed significant work done to get it back up and running at full force.  Many of these kids already had to deal with the destruction of their homes and neighborhoods, making the club even more important to their sense of normalcy. Samsung Electronics heard about the needs of the club and stepped in to offer over $14,000 in ENERGY STAR certified new products to the club. Energy efficient items like the brand new refrigerator, dishwasher and TV will help the club to save energy and money for years to come, allowing extra money to be funneled back into programs for the club kids.

The BGCA held a big ENERGY STAR Day Family Night to unveil the refurbished club, and families from across Atlantic City came out to see the improvements and to learn about energy efficiency. BGCA even unveiled a new book called “Tales From Team ENERGY STAR,” showcasing energy-saving stories written by club kids across the country.

EPA was proud to participate in this event, and invited attendees to take their ENERGY STAR Day celebration one step further. Participants were asked to “Do 1 Thing ENERGY STAR” by trying out an ENERGY STAR certified LED bulb. The ENERGY STAR certified LED giveaway was a huge success and helped people across Atlantic City get their first experience with the latest in energy efficient lighting technology.

Are you ready to take the plunge and try something new to save energy? You can join EPA and “Do 1 Thing ENERGY STAR.” Just check us out on Facebook and Twitter for a new action every week. Let EPA show you how saving energy, saving money and protecting the climate can be a simple and rewarding way to change the world by protecting the climate.

TELL EPA YOU SUPPORT NEW LIMITS ON CARBON POLLUTION

By Molly Rauch

These comments were delivered to the EPA at their November 7, 2013, listening session in Washington, D.C., on regulating carbon emissions from existing power plants.

I am a representative of Moms Clean Air Force, an advocacy group of more than 180,000 moms, dads, and grandparents fighting for clean air. We want to tell you that it’s time to act to curb the carbon emissions that drive climate change. We say this because of our children. I am also a mom, and I brought a picture of my children, so you can see why I am here today. I am sure you also have children in your life who you love, too. If we continue to allow carbon to be spewed into the air unchecked we will be leaving our children with an uncertain, unhealthy, and unsafe future.

I live with my family in Washington DC, a beautiful city with poor air quality. In fact, Washington gets a failing grade from the American Lung Association for its ozone levels. Ozone triggers asthma attacks, causes stroke and heart attacks, and even causes lung cancer, as the World Health Organization concluded just last month. Because heat increases the formation of ozone, ozone levels are likely to increase in a warming world, according to the most recent IPCC report.

But ozone pollution is only a small part of the health problems our children will face in a changing climate. Already, children and other vulnerable populations worldwide are suffering from climate change. If carbon pollution continues unabated, they will experience increased transmission of infectious diseases; increased impacts from extreme weather such as floods, storm surges, and wildfires; increased heat-related illnesses; global food insecurity. This isn’t the world we want to leave our children. We have to do better.

I am here today to ask you to propose a strong carbon pollution standard for existing power plants, so they are no longer allowed to dump unlimited amounts of dangerous carbon pollution into the air. Addressing climate change is our obligation to our children and future generations, and the EPA can take the largest step our country has ever taken in that effort by limiting carbon pollution from power plants.

U.S. power plants emit approximately 2.3 billion tons of heat-trapping carbon dioxide pollution each year, 40% of the carbon pollution emitted in the United States. This is the single largest source of climate pollution in our nation and one of the largest in the world.

I know that crafting a workable standard for carbon emissions from power plants is complex. I am here today to ask that during this process you keep one simple thing forefront in your minds: Our children. They don’t have a voice in this rulemaking, but it will determine their future. Please, protect them. Keep them safe. Do everything you can to keep them healthy, and leave for them a viable future. We are counting on you.

TELL EPA YOU SUPPORT NEW LIMITS ON CARBON POLLUTION

By Diane MacEachern

Artist/Author Franke James

When it comes to tackling climate change and the controversial Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, Canadian Franke James doesn’t mince words — or pictures. As both an artist and author, she has combined her right-brain talents with her left-brain determination to raise awareness about the impact that burning fossil fuels has on our planet. I was first captivated by her work when I read her book, Bothered By My Green Conscience, in which she graphically recounts her adventures selling her SUV and fighting City Hall bureaucracy for the right to build a green driveway. Lately, I’ve been inspired by the posters Franke designed and put up around Washington, D.C., where I live. The posters highlight why the Keystone XL pipeline is such a bad idea. I caught up with Franke following an appearance she made at the National Press Club in D.C. to talk about her current effort to pressure Canadian leaders as well as those in America to stop the pipeline in its tracks.

Franke, you have undergraduate and graduate degrees in Fine Arts, how did you go from studying painting and drawing to becoming an activist?

Studying Fine Arts taught me how to express ideas. For me, being a creative artist and activist just go hand in hand.

It’s all about communicating ideas. I do that by taking actions in my own life and then writing them up as true-life visual stories. Like selling our only car (a gas-guzzling SUV), and the shocked and funny reactions of friends and family to that outrageous decision. Or building a green driveway – but first having to battle City Hall bureaucracy. I think many people can relate to me as just an ordinary person who is putting her green ideas into action, challenging the way society does things in the process.

The other really exciting aspect to being an artist today is that it’s no longer confined to a gallery space. Of course, I can paint a picture and hang it on the wall – or I can take that same artwork and push it out there into the noisy world of everyday life. By putting my art on billboards and bus shelters, mobile phones and t-shirts, Twitter and websites, many more people will encounter it in their daily lives than if it hung in a gallery. As an activist that’s hugely exciting because it amplifies the message and helps it spread — right around the world.

What is it about climate change generally, and the Keystone pipeline in particular, that has motivated you to become so active?

The thing that motivates me to take action is that I can see the writing on the wall. I think our children and grandchildren will be furious and think we were crazy not to have taken action when we had the opportunity. They will judge us very harshly and ask how we could have been so stupid, so selfish and so mean. We are really failing the next generation so badly.

Climate change is the big elephant in the room but most countries (including my country, Canada) are pretending it’s not there. There is a glimmer of hope in the USA… I was very pleased to see that on November 1st, President Obama issued an Executive Order to prepare for the Impacts of Climate Change. Wow!

You won’t see that kind of leadership from Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He has firmly stated his goal of developing the Alberta tar sands so that Canada becomes “an energy superpower.” Damn the impact on the planet from using the sky as a sewer! But think back a generation. Companies are no longer allowed to pollute our lakes and rivers – why are companies allowed to pollute our air today? And for free, too! We need to put a price on carbon to bring some sanity to fighting climate change and reversing carbon pollution.

Carbon pollution is being dumped into the sky. Consequently, the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is just a hairbreadth away from 400ppm (parts per million). Scientists are warning that catastrophic climate change will be triggered if we hit 450ppm. But there is no sign of our emissions stopping. Our world leaders are loafing. Will they take action before we’re all toast?

International scientists at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have come out clearly and stated that the human activity of burning fossil fuels is to blame for our warming planet. In their latest report, they’ve actually set a carbon budget and said that governments will have to leave valuable fossil fuels in the ground in order to prevent catastrophic climate change.

That is really bad news for my country, Canada, because we’ve put all our eggs in one basket. We are officially a petro-state, with oil reserves that could make us the Saudi Arabia of North America. Canada is developing the dirtiest fuel on earth, the Alberta Tar Sands, despite the scientific evidence that fossil fuels are frying the planet.

What do you say to the many people who worry about canceling the Keystone project because they believe it will cost the economy jobs and we’ll lose a lot of energy?

Yes, I’ve heard people argue that the Keystone is a jobs creator – but that is a pipe dream fueled by Big Oil misinformation. President Obama clearly stated that the Keystone would only result in 2,000 jobs –- while the pipeline is being built. (NRDC confirmed the same jobs number.)

But after it’s built, there could be many, many more jobs — cleaning up the oil spills. The spill in Kalamazoo, Michigan has already cost $1 billion and they are not finished yet! And the real truth is you can’t bring the fish and the birds back to life.

Plus, you cannot escape the fact that the Alberta Tar Sands amount to environmental racism. Two articles highlight the tragedy of oils sands mining:

Mother who left her Peace River region home behind could ‘smell the bitumen.’

A new federally funded study on the tar sands has confirmed that pollution has now contaminated lakes as far as 90 km away from the massive mining project.

On my “Canada is the Dirty Old Man” poster, I have three easy-to-remember statistics about the tar sands and Canada’s promise to match the U.S. emission’s target:

1. Producing tar sands oil is up to 350% dirtier than conventional oil.
2. Canada has a record of broken climate promises (Kyoto and Copenhagen). Will Washington be next?
3. Pipeline spills are 100% guaranteed.

We’ve seen the devastating consequences of tar sands spills in Kalamazoo and Arkansas. If the Keystone pipeline gets built we will only see more of that type of calamity.

It is so obvious what we should be doing to transition to a clean energy economy but we’re being held back by Big Oil – they don’t want us to get energy from the sun and the wind because they know that would make us largely energy independent. The Keystone pipeline is taking us in the absolutely wrong direction. It will ensure that we will need to feed that pipeline for 50 years. And it will trigger massive expansion of the Alberta Tar Sands, which will only bring us closer to climate catastrophe and doom our planet.

Moms Clean Air Force rallies mothers to get behind public policies that among other things, would reduce carbon pollution at power plants. Do you have any suggestions or words of support for moms who sometimes feel this is a losing battle?

Don’t stop! Realize that your actions are making the fossil fuel industry nervous. They would love for you to shut up. But don’t do it.

• Keep speaking up – you will inspire others to do the same.
• Keep writing letters to the editor.
• Keep phoning and meeting with your elected representatives.
• Keep challenging your reps to be accountable by posting what they say online.
• Keep creating, signing and circulating petitions.
• Keep organizing boycotts – we exercise power through our purchases.
• Keep voting for clean energy leaders – and corralling others to vote for them too.
• Keep sharing news on social media sites to raise awareness and inspire others to take action, too.

All of these actions amplify our voices.

Believe in yourself — You are putting pressure on lawmakers to change.

Remember the old expression that we need to lead our leaders in the right direction!

That is what we are doing by speaking up and telling them loudly and clearly what we want.

TELL EPA YOU SUPPORT NEW LIMITS ON CARBON POLLUTION