Keystone XL report makes Obama Administration look Gutless on Climate

Don't worry. The U.S. State Department is okay with encouraging tar sands mining like this.

The U.S. State Department released its draft environmental assessment of the Keystone XL  tar sands pipeline last Friday afternoon as we entered our weekends. Some of us were stunned as we watched Congress do nothing to tame the indiscriminate cuts in public jobs from the “sequester,” including hundreds of millions of dollars cut from environmental programs and protections. The announcement was further buried by today’s highly-anticipated appointments of EPA administrator Gina McCarty and Dept. of Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, whom some beltway insiders speculated would be appointed last week.

While the State Department’s draft environmental impact statement acknowledges that tar sands oil production is more carbon intensive than conventional oil, the 2,000 page document seems like an easy excuse for President Obama to approve the pipeline without seeming hypocritical for breaking his State of the Unions promises on climate change.

The climate doesn’t care how any message is framed if we’re still dumping millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere like a global industrial sewer. Greenpeace’s Point of No Return report includes Alberta’s tar sands among the largest carbon fuel reserves on the planet, with potential for 420 million metric tons in annual CO2 emissions by 2020.

State Dept. says Keystone XL won’t increase tar sands production…Oil Industry Says the Opposite Continue reading

An Open Letter to Barack Obama: We Are Running Out of Time

Dear Mr. President,

My Name is Kumi Naidoo, I am the Executive Director of Greenpeace International, I also serve as President of the Global Campaign for Climate Action (www.tcktcktck.org) and serve as Global Ambassador of the Global Call to Action Against Poverty (www.whiteband.org). But, today I write to you as an African, as a person from the developing world and as a parent. Continue reading

Global warming = Sandy. Which politicians get it, which don’t

Meet Hurricane Sandy, brought to you by global warming.

Aerial views of damage caused by Hurricane Sandy along the New Jersey coast on October 30, 2012.

 

That’s a tough message to swallow right now. It means that the devastating scenes we are seeing from the Northeast are not a freak coincidence, but a reflection of our new reality on a hotter, less stable planet, and a reality that will get much worse if we don’t do something about it.

Fortunately there are things we can do, both to better prepare ourselves for more extreme weather events like Sandy, and to slow down the global warming at their root.

But whatever we do won’t matter until our politicians start getting honest about the problem.

Some are doing so. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo connected the dots in his briefing this morning:

“There has been a series of extreme weather incidents. That is not a political statement. That is a factual statement. Anyone who says there’s not a dramatic change in weather patterns, I think is denying reality … I said to the president kiddingly the other day we have a 100-year flood every two years now.”

Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm sees the obvious too:

“There’s a clear link to climate change. And, yet, for the first time in over a quarter century, climate change was not brought up even once at the presidential debates.”

President Clinton may have drawn the sharpest, clearest connection so far, in a critique of Gov. Romney earlier today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Wlq6NWHnBTo

Clinton gets the facts slightly wrong in his scathing take-down of Gov. Romney (he made his “rising seas” joke at the RNC, not in a debate) but his point stands that Romney’s campaign has completely ignored the looming thread of climate change, and even flirted with denying it. Perhaps even worse than Romney’s joke that Clinton mentioned – one that is likely to become infamous in the post-Sandy world – is the fact that Romney’s budget proposal would cut FEMA funding by 40 %. That’s not exactly a smart resilience policy for a hotter planet with more extreme weather events.

Despite President Clinton’s praise, President Obama has also been mostly silent on the climate discussion for some time. While Obama has made strides on clean energy in his presidency, he has run a campaign almost entirely devoid of any mentions of climate change, instead trying to out-embrace Gov. Romney for who could better endear himself to the fossil fuel industry responsible for the problem in the first place.

It may feel funny to talk about politicians right now, but if we are serious about steeling ourselves for the next disaster and slowing down the global warming that’s putting these hurricanes on steroids, then part of picking up the pieces means finding out which politicians we can trust to be honest about what’s exacerbating these disasters.

That starts with the next president. Pres. Obama and Gov. Romney will likely both be talking about Sandy this week: it’s a good chance for them to show they’ll be one of the politicians who gets it.

Dear Mr. President: Shell stepped down, will you step up?

Hello, my name is Anna and I’m an intern with the Greenpeace Activist Network.

Receiving thousands of Save The Arctic petitions

My fellow interns and I are having a fantastic time working here, it’s such a great opportunity. One of the things that we are all very passionate about is saving the Arctic. It’s been so cool to witness how much people care, and their willingness to take action to protect this fragile region. We’ve had over 4500 petitions (4771, to be precise) sent into our San Francisco office alone!

Continue reading

Record amounts of ad spending by dirty energy industries, same old deceptions

This year, the oil, gas and coal industries combined have spent more than $153 million on ads promoting fossil fuels and attacking renewables, according to the New York Times. That’s almost four times the amount spent on clean energy advertising in the same time frame.

It’s also a third more than was spent by the fossil fuels industries in 2008.

So what message is worth the record amounts of advertising dollars?

Well, as it turns out, the fossil fuel industries really don’t like regulation, the EPA, or president Obama, and they want the voting public behind them.

Though the dirty energy industries’ dislike of Obama seems a bit misplaced, (between allowing widespread fracking and his support of drilling offshore and in the arctic, Obama has given the fossil fuel lobby plenty) it does make sense that they would support Mitt Romney.  After all, Romney is not concerned with “healing the planet,” and neither are the oil and coal corporations of America. It’s a natural fit.

However, the majority of the fossil fuel funded commercials are actually repeats of the same messages that the Big Coal and Big Oil have been trumpeting for years

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Zjt03uHaxMY#!

A recent Greenpeace investigation in to coal advertising over the last 40 years has found that the fear mongering and hysterical accusations made today by coal companies – that regulations kill jobs or coal can be “clean” for instance – are literally decades old.

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), a coal front group, has spent $12 million dollars so far this year on ads that, except for being in color and on youtube, could have been straight from 1970.

“The stakes are high,” said Steve Miller, the recently retired president of ACCCE. Well, hopefully Mr. Miller is high if he thinks people will buy the same tired deceptions that the coal industry has been threatening us with for years.

Something That CAN Get Done in an Election Year

Have you heard that there is an election coming up? I guess people think it’s pretty important since it’s ALL anyone talks about, right?

Well, except for Hurricane Isaac, the start of the NFL preseason, Red Sox dumping four players (ok, I’m from New England, so that may just be my radar), hundreds being killed in Syria, and the Obama administration raising fuel economy standards. Wait, what was that last one? The Obama administration did something in August of an election year? I thought that wasn’t possible, I thought NOTHING got done in an election year? Hm, I feel a bit like the GPS in my friend’s car the other day: “recalculating…”

The fact is, new policies DO happen in an election year, and I was incredibly heartened to see that I’m not the only one who thinks so. Today, in the New York Times, Governor Christine Todd Whitman penned an articulate call to the Environmental Protection Agency to use its existing authority to prevent chemical disasters. The quote that grabbed me:

Continue reading

Over 60,000 Tell Obama to Prevent Chemical Disasters

What would you do if 60,000 people asked you to do something?

I bet you would sit up and take notice.

Yesterday, in a meeting with White House staff, Greenpeace joined representatives from a coalition of over 100 organizations to deliver 60,833 signatures to the White House calling on President Obama to use his authority to prevent chemical disasters. Labor union representatives talked about the workers who would be the first to die in a poison gas release at a chemical facility. Environmental Justice leaders described the communities surrounding dangerous facilities who are next in line to suffer the results of a disaster, and who are most often communities of color and low-income communities. Health experts explained that hospitals would be overrun and incapable of responding the casualties of a poison gas catastrophe.
Continue reading

Something That Can Bring Us All Together

It is certainly not every day a republican former Governor of New Jersey and Administrator of the EPA, labor unions, environmental justice advocates, environmentalists, and first responders stand together with the same solution to a national problem. In a national press conference today Greenpeace joined other representatives of this coalition and Governor Christine Todd Whitman to call on the Obama Administration to use existing Clean Air Act authority to protect communities from chemical disasters.

Continue reading

Obama goes back to the future with Shell in the Arctic

By Dan Howells, Greenpeace USA Deputy Campaign Director

Sea otter at rehabilitation centre in Valdez after the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska.

Today, the US Government approved Shell’s oil spill response plan for the Beaufort Sea, a remote expanse of ocean that must count as one of the most wild and untouched places on earth. This is the second response plan to get the official thumbs up, another clear sign that the Administration has forgotten history in its determination to approve Shell’s 2012 Arctic drilling program.

As Shell’s executives beamed at the cameras and politicians shook hands with vigorous enthusiasm, I couldn’t help thinking about the ruptured Exxon Valdez tanker, churning its dark payload of toxic pollution into the pristine Arctic water all those years ago. The shadow of that disaster looms large over Shell’s plans and the government’s enthusiastic support for new drilling, while Alaska still deals with the consequences of that terrible day in 1989. Oil that was pumped from the ground in the same year that Marty McFly was introduced to America is still washing up on our shores today. Talk about back to the future. Continue reading

“If You See Something, Say Something”

Who has been waiting for a train, plane, or a bus and heard that? Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano hopes that you all have.

Tuesday morning aboard the new Rainbow Warrior, Greenpeace launched a new online map that allows communities to see for the first time whether they live in the vulnerability zone of one of 483 high risk chemical plants, and then it allows them to say something to President Obama. Each of the plants puts 100,000 or more people at risk of a poison gas disaster by accident or terrorist attack.  All together that’s more than 110 million people, or 1 in 3 Americans. Continue reading