I can’t remember the last time I wasn’t constantly on the move — around the world, across India, through Delhi, or pacing across my bedroom. It’s probably true for most of the youth movement. But, maybe that’s what works – messages that move. That move us, and that move themselves.

It’s been six months today since we launched the Climate Solutions Road Tour and began our journey across India, 3500 kilometers in solar electric Indian-made cars, which took us farther than we’d ever imagined — from the NY Times to skype calls with groups of young people in the Philippines, Israel, Sweden, Brazil, Mexico, US, and the UK who are hitting the ground on their bicycles, their electric cars, their trains and their own feet to see what solutions they find — to create, communicate and celebrate change, as we had tried to here.

There have been so many journeys that inspired us – the Road to Detroit and the BioBus, the Australian youth Overland journey to Poznan, Rolling Sunlight and even Guster’s eco band tour – to set off across India in solar supported electric cars, with a solar band and a vision to showcase the solutions we knew were around us. We wanted to build trust and confidence between nations, and never realized the most important was building this in ourselves.

I’m getting restless, again, so its time for another move. But now, where I go, the message moves, too — Yes we can! So we will.

We’re glad to see that the Indian government got the message — people like messages that move!

Here are two more mobile environmental campaigns around India – the one on the right is the Tamil Nadu Energy Development Authority’s big truck. It helped us launch our road tour, but it has now set off on its own, to travel Tamil Nadu and teach students about solar and plastic! “A novel aspect of the campaign would be distribution of postcards carrying messages on source segregation and avoiding plastics to students, who could send them to their relatives and friends, Mr. Amuthasekaran said.” Neat! Now how about social media — Twitters?

On World Environment Day, Shiela Dixit (Chief Minister of Delhi) and the Arch Diocese of Delhi launched a joint campaign against plastic, in a converted Maruti van to spread the message about alternatives to plastic bags. ”The Chief Minister’s voice to be broadcast through a loudspeaker attached to the vehicles will urge customers to give up the use of plastics and buy jute bags.” How about broadcasting music, folks? They are hoping that by the end of 2009, they’ll have 15 vehicles in their jute fleet, selling these bags for 15 to 30 Rupees each.

This project is being supported by the Archdiosese in Delhi, who said at the launch that this campaign would keep our streets safe… from plastic. Next step, from Maruti vans themselves…

We’re off to tell Shiela Dixit about some more bags we’ve got up our sleeves, and to see if her Maruti’s would do a face-off with our Revas.

Posted in global warming

Cross-posted from the Understory by Adrian.

The Yes Men – the same folks who have posed as corporate and government hacks to announce Dow’s apology for the Bhopal chemical spill and to admit the failure of HUD’s reconstruction efforts in New Orleans – have just launched a new website as part of a national climate justice nonviolent civil disobedience pledge campaign.

The goal of the website is to create an international network of people willing to commit civil disobedience to prevent climate change. And given that the Mobilization for Climate Justice – which will coincide with the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen – is happening five months from today, now is the time to get involved in taking direct action to stop climate change.

Sign up today! (And if civil disobedience isn’t really your thing, you can always help out by buying an action offset to help other people get trained, or pay bail.)

Posted in global warming

Written by Peebles Squire, cross-posted from the CCAN blog.
Yesterday, the EPA performed a turn-around on its protection of the locations of 44 “high risk” coal ash impoundment sites, signaling a desire to make the regulatory body more transparent. Formerly protected under the auspices of national security, the ash impoundments, located in Ohio, Arizona, and throughout the southeast, have been determined to be particularly vulnerable to failure. In a time where the future of American energy remains stuck between antiquated fossil fuels and cleaner, renewable technology, concerns over proper disposal of coal ash has risen to the top of the debate, particularly after last December’s TVA sludge disaster in Roane County, Tennessee.

The reason behind this concern is, of course, fairly easy to identify. Coal slurry ponds, which may hold several billion gallons of the toxic sludge, are typically held in place by earthen dams made of rock and other fill material. While typically sturdy, history has shown us that these dams are definitely prone to failure, especially when not regulated properly. In fact, the dangers surrounding slurry dams have been well known and well documented for decades. West Virginia’s Buffalo Creek Flood of 1972 destroyed over 500 homes with a 30-foot high, 132 million gallon wave of the toxic stuff. When blasting occurs near these ponds (as it does near Marsh Fork Elmentary in Sunrise, WV), the risk becomes intensified as nearby shockwaves may threaten the structural integrity of the dam.

Fly ash, though dry and therefore less at risk to flooding, presents just as serious a hazard to the local ecosystem, including surrounding communities, wildlife, and groundwater reserves. Fly ash is stored in landfills, most of which are lined, but all of which are failure-prone. Particles in the air, blown from these ash impoundments, can cause serious health problems such as asthma and other respiratory diseases. Like wet slurry, fly ash contains a cocktail of harmful heavy metals and other contaminants that present a serious threat to the local and regional ecosystem… and to human health.

“CCRs [coal combustion residues] contain a broad range of metals, for example, arsenic, selenium, cadmium, lead, and mercury, but the concentrations of these are generally low. However, if not properly managed, (for example, in lined units), CCRs may cause a risk to human health and the environment and, in fact, EPA has documented cases of environmental damage“ (courtesy EPA.gov).

The collection and storage of coal ash is but one piece in a larger fossil fuel regime that thrives on the continued exploitation of the United States’ natural, non-renewable resources, known to cause significant air pollution and contribute to global climate change. The coal extraction, combustion, and disposal process is among the most destructive practices in human history, and with the continued popularity of mountaintop removal mining, the coal industry goes so far as to threaten the geography of Appalachia itself.

The EPA has made positive steps in naming these so-called high-risk sites, but seems to be avoiding tackling the bigger picture; coal is an unsustainable resource that is dirty, harmful, and dangerous. While 44 of these impoundment sites may be deemed more at-risk than others, the fact remains that anywhere coal is extracted, burned, or stored, safety is a non-issue, because coal is not, and never will be, “safe.”

President Obama, who has so far struggled with fulfilling his promise of increased transparency and accountability within government, has made significant forward progress by allowing the release of these 44 sites. However, the larger issue of formulating an American energy future – one without coal – rests untackled. As long as coal is allowed to thrive in Appalachia, the Midwest, and elsewhere, American citizens will remain at risk. The fossil fuel industry represents an old and outdated way of thinking: the idea that our actions now will bear no consequence on the future. We have now stepped healthily into the 21st century, largely thankful to the energy that fossil fuels of yore have given us, and as we continue to evolve as a species and a society, we are charged with abandoning a tradition that will serve no other end but to continue to harm Americans.

President Obama, Congress, and the EPA, if we are to bring the United States into a clean energy future, one that emphasizes the importance of renewable technologies, green jobs, and energy that is free of filthy, harmful substances, then we must see a real effort to focus on goals that do not give coal a future in the grid. The EPA seems to think that the term, “high risk,” should be reserved for a mere 44 out of the hundreds of slurry ponds and fly ash fills that sprinkle the American landscape. A more appropriate move would be to extend the “high risk” moniker to its proper breadth, across the entire industry.

Posted in global warming

Cross-Posted from: HERE

I’m pretty sure that from now until the Senate votes on a climate bill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will look at what he’s going to have to do to get 60 votes for a measure, and add 30 seconds to his schedule every day where he takes a pillow and cries into it. The Senate is where legislation goes to die. As elated as I was at passing the Waxman-Markey bill out of the House, it hit me pretty fast that this was going to get ugly.

Environmental groups have been talking about the idea of strengthening, but in the Senate what kind of grassroots pressure and mobilization would that really take? What kind of bill would we end up seeing if we had “business as usual” activism on this bill? The first thing I want to do is talk what is necessary for a much stronger bill, and I must admit that this has long odds considering we came up short in the easier of the two chambers. Next, I’m going to show you what compromises would have to be included in the bill in order to reach 60 votes assuming the level of support by the American public is as dull as it was in the House.

Getting a Better Bill

Although getting to 60 votes is much more of a challenge there are some potential advantages that we didn’t have in the House for this particular bill in my opinion that shed some light on how you strengthen.

1. The Obama Factor: Barack Obama didn’t make his energy legislation a very public issue at all until the day before the vote in the House. Although his administration did some furious work behind the scenes leading up to the vote, there was no full court press in the media. No town hall events like there are with healthcare. The media was busy covering healthcare while the climate bill snuck through like a trojan horse. Although this certainly frustrated environmental groups, Obama has saved up political capital to use on the Senate side if he intends to use it(and if he has any left after healthcare). There are some signs already that Obama is looking to take a much more aggressive approach on the Senate. When the House bill passed Obama changed his Saturday radio address from the subject of healthcare to the energy bill. This past Monday, he sought to keep the focus on energy by announcing new lightbulb standards, while recounting what his administration has done so far on energy, and about how important it is the Senate acts on the climate/energy bill. One big disadvantage we face with the public is they’ve had to withstand 8 years worth of climate denial and delay by the Bush Administration. If Obama used his oratory skills and popularity to highlight the issue of global warming, and more importantly the economic benefits of a strong energy/climate bill, he could shift some public opinion. For the bill to have any chance of strengthening, Obama needs to go on the offensive publicly, and trade political favors with swing vote Senators privately.

2. More Media As I said above, the media hardly covered the bill at all. Everyone was so distracted by healthcare, Mark Sanford dropping his pants and running off to Argentina, and celebrity deaths. Then, boom all of the sudden a historic climate change bill passes out of nowhere. Monday felt quite different, as stories on the House bill were in plenty of papers, and all over the news shows. Now the media could be a good thing or a bad thing. Typically they screw it up and exaggerate the costs of action versus the need to act. However, good smart media work by advocacy organizations and pro-action businesses, as well as politicians at the local, state, and Federal level supportive of climate legislation getting on the airwaves and talking up the bill could make a positive difference. This would also give Obama more pressure to draw the spotlight to himself and articulate what he wants to see in the bill.

3. Have a unified mass message: It would be important for all trying to strengthen to recognize that most Americans don’t know intricacies of climate legislation, and could care less whether you cut emissions 17% below 2005 levels or 25% below 1990 levels. They don’t know whether a 100% auction is better than 15% auction. They can’t describe offsets. I saw a poll once that only a quarter of Americans know what cap and trade means. The message to the public in the media and from the grassroots shoudn’t be policy-wonk specific, the objective just needs to be to get the American people behind acting now. I like to use the simple line “more clean energy and less pollution”. That’s got to be the kind of mass messaging used. The opposition is very good at sticking to simple(and untrue) mass-messaging. We’re pretty terrible at it so far, and our positions are all over the place. Another benefit of a simple unified mass message that everyone can agree on is it would be much easier for the media to report our point of view. If behind the scenes and in the lobby meetings there are 10 different positions on whether we need… 40% of 25% reduction or whether a carbon tax would be grand or if we need a 100% auction or this is the best bill ever and will solve global warming…fine. Keep it to yourself when you’re talking in public. Keep it simple and you can keep the bill simple. Make it complicated, and the American public will tune out, and you’ll get a giant Harry Potter book written by Big Coal and Big Ag.

4. Fewer Targets: Although it normally takes more pressure to influence a Senator than a Congressman, Senators are also more vulnerable to not getting re-elected than Congressman. This can once again work in the grassroots favor if they are out in force. If we aren’t we’re doomed regarding strengthening. From my view the fact is(as we’ll see later), about two-thirds of the Senators are firmly in the “yes” or “no” column when it comes to climate legislation. This means there are around 30 targets that environmental groups would focus on if we were smart. The bill is only as strong as the 60th Senator who votes for it. I’m not suggesting we completely ignore those who are definitely voting yes or are completely unreachable, but lets face it we have limited resources, money, volunteers, and time. If you live in a place like California or most of the Northeast, using all these resources to pressure your Senators isn’t very worthwhile. National environmental groups would in my opinion be smart to dramatically(and temporarily) shift most of their resources to swing states. If you’re part of a college group or local chapter in a non-swing state, you need to find ways to outreach to swing states via phone and e-mail to anyone who has so much as signed a postcard (not fun work I know).

5. 350: As many know, 350.org is holding a global event on October 24 where groups of people all over the US and the world will be taking actions to symbolize the need for strong bold action on climate change. If the bill hasn’t been voted on by this day, it could lead to a lot of grassroots pressure to push for a stronger bill. I see this day as a rallying point to get the bill over the hump. Activists should seize it as such, and leadership in the Senate would be wise to hold off on putting the bill to a vote until after this day.

6. A US-China Deal: I know that the US and China are having bilateral talks to try and work out a deal between each other for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. From what I’ve read, those talks haven’t been going so great, but it would be great if some kind of commitment could be struck in the fall. Even if it’s lousy, this would signal to Senators concerned about the “will China act?” argument against domestic legislation that China will act. Even if the simple message that got out to the public was “China agrees to global warming deal with US”, this will cause a surge of support for domestic action.

7. Grassroots Pressure: This was lacking too much on the House bill, which caused Waxman and Markey to make concessions. Despite accusations that national green groups gave in, if you don’t have strong grassroots support behind you and you’re lobbying in Washington, there isn’t much power to wield. The need for more pressure is obvious, but I couldn’t exactly ignore it. There isn’t much of an answer to this problem beyond what I said above. Groups have been trying to figure it out for decades. They’d better get it right in a couple months.

That’s all I’ve got for how you get a stronger bill. If all these incredients came together, I think it could happen. The second part will examine what kind of concessions we would see in a Senate bill without a lot of things changing, or as I like to call it, “business as usual activism”.

Posted in global warming

Activists with Rising Tide draped a 25-foot banner reading, “Mountain Top Removal Kills Communities: EPA No New Permits. MountainJustice.org” on 1 North Congress St., at the intersection of New Chardon Street and Congress Street, at the downtown offices of the Environmental Protection Agency this morning. The group is urging the agency to block over 150 pending permits for mountaintop removal coal mining in West Virginia, Kentucky, and Virginia.

“Mountaintop removal is destroying our nation’s most diverse forests and historic communities,” said Alex Johnston, a Rising Tide activist.  “President Obama and the EPA need to take immediate action to stop the bulldozers from destroying America’s oldest mountains and Appalachians homes.”

This act of peaceful protest comes just days after top NASA climate scientist, James Hansen, actress Darryl Hannah, and 29 others were arrested as they protested mountaintop removal mining in southern West Virginia.   On June 18, 14 concerned citizens entered onto Massey Energy’s mountaintop removal mine site near Twilight, WV. Four of them scaled a 150-foot dragline and unfurled a 15×150 foot banner that said, “Stop Mountaintop Removal Mining”, while nine others deployed a 20×40 foot banner on the ground at the site which read,”Stop Mountaintop Removal: Clean Energy Now.”

On the campaign trail, Obama spoke out against mountain top removal, saying “We’re tearing up the Appalachian Mountains because of our dependence on fossil fuels,” and “We have to find more environmentally sound ways of mining coal, than simply blowing the tops off mountains.”  Despite these campaign statements, the Obama administration and the EPA have continued to allow mining corporations to continue dumping mining waste into streams and encroach on stream buffers, while offering only weak promises of protection from the “worst impacts” of mountaintop removal operations.

“It’s way past time for civil disobedience to stop mountaintop removal and move quickly toward clean, renewable energy sources,” said Judy Bonds, Goldman Environmental Prize winner and co-director of Coal River Mountain Watch of West Virginia. “For over a century, Appalachian communities have been crushed, flooded, and poisoned as a result of the country’s dangerous and outdated reliance on coal. How could the country care so little about our American mountains, our culture and our lives?”

Every day, mountaintop removal mines use more explosive power than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Mining companies are clear-cutting thousands of acres of some of the world’s most biologically diverse forests. They’re burying biologically crucial headwaters streams with blasting debris, releasing toxic levels of heavy metals into the remaining streams and groundwater and poisoning essential drinking water. According to the EPA, this destructive practice has damaged or destroyed nearly 2,000 miles of streams and threatens to destroy 1.4 million acres of forest by 2020.

Posted in global warming