A New Day is Coming

Our group decided to move our presence into the Longworth House office building to find as many representatives as we could to show them we want green jobs and clean energy. Making our way through security and downstairs to the basement one of my fellow group members asked me what we should be doing. Beginning to answer her question I spotted my Representative, Dr. Steve Kagen, hurrying past me. I informed my group member to hold that thought and I went after my Representative.

On Friday June 26, 2009, I took part in a collaborative rally on Capitol Hill. The groups who sponsored the rally included the Energy Action Coalition, Avaaz Climate Action Factory, and the organization I intern for, the Chesapeake Climate Action Network. The rally was sparked by the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which the House of Representatives were planning to vote on that evening.

Arriving at the site where the rally was being held, an image of PowerShift flashed before my eyes. The presence of green shirts and hard hats, Capitol Hill in the background, and the energy of people coming together to affect change. The only thing missing was weather I could handle. Being from Wisconsin, I like summer weather that has just a touch of cold. Since I’m in Washington, DC, the weather is unbearable for me. I decided to take refuge under a tree and watch the rally unfold before my eyes.

During the rally, the speakers spoke of the American Clean Energy and Security Act as a start towards what we want, but we need more from our elected officials. And that is something I agree with. We need a stronger bill. The rally came to a close and the speakers asked the crowd to stick around to make our presence felt through the halls of Congress. And our presence was felt. Continue reading

'Hill Rapid Response Force' in Action

Last Friday CCAN rallied over 100 people outside the US Capitol Building as members of Congress were about to vote on the ACES bill. (A bill that sadly falls short of securing our future). CCAN joined hands with the Energy Action Coalition, the Avaaz Action Factory, and Campus Progress to boldly say: “WE NEED MORE: Pass a STRONG Clean Energy Bill.” After the rally we marched around the three House office buildings carrying signs and model wind turbines. Check out the video and the picture in the Wall Street Journal article. After our outside antics in the sweltering heat we went inside (to cool off) and really

ACES Ambivalence Disorder

ACES-Ambivalence

So the US House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act on Friday. Given that many of us in the climate community have been griping for months on end about what a compromised, watered down, insufficient, coal friendly, piece of corporate welfare that the bill is, many of you may be wondering how you’re supposed to feel about this. Should we jeer or cheer? Should we do like Al and celebrate the mere passage of a climate bill as an historic achievement, or make like Greenpeace and raise our fists in protest against this flawed product of a hobbled political system?

If you’re ambivalent, that’s okay. Torn is exactly how you should feel about this bill. You’re just experiencing a very common condition I like to call ACES Ambivalence Disorder (AAD). Symptoms include irritability, frustration, dissatisfaction, anger, resentment, and political disillusionment on the one hand, and on the other a vague sense of hope and relief that the government is finally, actually, incredibly doing something (and may do more if only we push them).

If you peruse the array of statements many environmental orgs and yea-voting reps released after the ACES vote, you’ll find that most of the authors have been stricken with AAD as well. Just consider this press release from 1Sky, entitled “1Sky is Relieved by House Victory on Energy Bill; Ready to Work for More.” We feel you 1Sky. Or, kind of. I think.

We at CCAN are not entirely immune either. On Friday after scrambling (successfully!) to get MD Congressmen like Frank Kratovil just to vote yes on ACES, I joined Mike Tidwell, Jesse Tolkan and over a hundred climate activists on the east lawn of the Capitol to demand that Congress give us more.

So, again, to all you suffering from AAD, fear not. It’s perfectly normal. You’re in perfectly good company.

And best of all, there’s a cure. And you can be part of it. Here’s how: finish reading this blog, go directly to your phone and call Senators Cardin and Mikulski to let them know how you feel. Tell them that for starters what we need to help us all feel better about the bill and alleviate our AAD is the restoration of the EPA’s authority to regulate emissions from coal-fired power plants, and a huge dose of their leadership. For the full prescription check out Mike Tidwell’s recent letter.

Here’s to our speedy convalescence. Continue reading

Navigating a Minefield Part 1

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. Continue reading

EPA Releases locations of 44 "high risk" coal ash impoundment sites.

EPA LogoYesterday 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.

Marsh Fork Elementary

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

We Need More


Video by Jay!

On Friday the American Clean Energy and Security Act passed 219-212 in an historic vote, but key features of the bill fall far short of what scientists say is urgently needed. The Senate, with President Obama’s leadership, must work to greatly improve the bill.

Waxman-Markey Passes House 219-212!

Cross-Posted from: HERE

Wow, one hell of a day! I was in DC for most of the hours of the day with many other youth(and a few older) climate activists rallying around climate legislation with the chant “we want more!”, to having a presence in the halls of Congress with the green shirts, to engaging Congressmen as they walked to the gallery, to attending the gallery to watch the vote. Time for an outburst…MAN AM I PUMPED. Here are the results of the vote.

I’m pretty exhausted, but I want to make a few comments and observations before passing out. I will add more depth to some of these later on. Continue reading

Flashmob in Capitol Hill cafeteria

Forty flashmobbers, including CCAN’s own Kat McEachern, froze for 2 minutes in frustration over the lack of progress on climate change legislation. The action took place in Longworth Congressional Office Building’s Cafeteria during lunch time.

This action was organized through Craigslist and Twitter and called for a stronger “American Clean Energy and Security Act.” The bill is expected to come to a vote on the House floor this Friday. The bill offers our country the most important opportunity in generations to create millions of new, well-paying jobs, boost renewable energy production and limit global warming pollution. However, many of the bill’s stronger initial provisions have been weakened. Stay tuned for more actions leading up to this historic vote.

What really happened in Bonn?

In our “Countdown to Copenhagen” weekly radio feature, Earthbeat Radio this week interviewed three leading U.S. policy advocates just back from the Bonn climate talks. What sort of leadership did the Obama team show in Bonn? How is the Waxman-Markey bill affecting the road to Copenhagen? Is the White House doing enough at home and aboard? Get answers from Angela Anderson of USCAN, Lou Leonard of WWF, and Karen Orenstein of Friends of the Earth.

Visit www.earthbeatradio.org and just click on “Listen Now.” You can also sign up for our weekly podcast to get the only weekly radio program in America dedicated exclusively to the climate crisis. This week we also look at “managed relocation” of plant and animal species due to climate change and we interview the world’s largest wind turbine company: Vestas of Denmark.

Australia: An Example one Way or the Other

Cross-Posted from: HERE

Here in the United States, environmental groups are all over the place regarding their stance on the Waxman-Markey bill in Congress. Some say thumbs up, others say it’s better to pass it than pass nothing, and others either cannot support the bill, or want a no vote from liberal Democrats. I explain my position and rationale here. I saw an article in the NY Times today which made me think a lot about the dilemma faced here. On one hand, the 17% target in the Waxman-Markey bill will most likely not lead to a desirable treaty in Copenhagen. On the other hand, what if we show up to Copenhagen with absolutely nothing? One thing I think people overlook is the fact that Henry Waxman and Ed Markey are two of the most progressive lawmakers in the US Congress. They know energy, and they aren’t a bunch of pansies when it comes to global warming. Their bill is as strong as the political system in the US will tolerate.

Australia faces a similar situation. The Prime Minister Kevin Rudd ran on a platform that included taking action on climate change, and he’s put forth a cap and trade plan, but it’s only 5% reduction below 2000 levels by 2020, but Australia is willing to go as far as 25% if other nations step up in Copenhagen. It’s passed out of Australia’s House, but is facing huge problems in the Senate. The labor party can’t pass the law on its own, and the conservatives are vowing to fight it and kill it. However, in Australia they have a 3 party system, and the 3rd party is the Greens party, which is strongly pro-environment. If the Greens party teams up with Labour, they can pass the bill. However, the Greens are saying that 5% is too weak, and they cannot support it. Right now, their position is 25% or bust. If this position holds, we’re going to see a very comparable result as we would see in the United States if the liberal members of the Democratic party listened to their base and voted no because the bill wasn’t strong enough. Would the result be a stronger bill, or an empty sheet of paper in Copenhagen? Of course, Australia has an advantage in that if their bill fails twice, they can call elections and have the people kick out the troublemakers. Let’s see what happens to the bill. In my opinion, it will give a good indication of what would happen here. I highly recommend reading the NY Times article.