As we all know, the theme of President-Elect Barack Obama's campaign was "change we can
believe in" or sometimes, "change we need."  Since the election some have wondered how much real change Obama will succeed in implementing.

While it's much too early to answer that question, let's remember that Obama has also repeatedly reminded us that "change happens because the American people demand it - because they rise up and insist on new ideas..."  In other words, it will happen if we get involved.

Long before 9/11 or even Bhopal, Greenpeace has challenged the notion that U.S. chemical plants have no alternative to the storage or use of large quantities of poison gases like chlorine. In 2006, instead of enacting legislation that would require the use of safer alternatives to eliminate the catastrophic risks these plants pose, Congress enacted a temporary law.  The new law is so bad it actually prohibits the government from requiring safer alternatives to poison gases and exempts thousands of chemical facilities, including all publicly owned water treatment plants.

So where is President Obama on this issue? Fortunately, he's been a leader on it since he arrived in the U.S. Senate.  He wrote about it in Audacity of Hope and co-authored the strongest legislation in the Senate.

When Obama introduced his bill (S. 2486) on the Senate floor he said, "there are other ways to reduce risk that need to be part of the equation. Specifically, by employing safer technologies, we can reduce the attractiveness of chemical plants as a target…This concept, known as Inherently Safer Technology [IST]...reduces the danger that chemical plants pose to our communities and makes them less appealing targets for terrorists.

"Unfortunately, the chemical industry has been lobbying nonstop on this bill. They do not want IST, they do not want protection of state laws and they do not want strict regulations...This is wrong. We cannot allow chemical industry lobbyists to dictate the terms of this debate. We cannot allow our security to be hijacked by corporate interests."

Obama wasn't exaggerating. Greenpeace counted 238 registered industry lobbyists who work on chemical security legislation. We estimate they spent approximately $1 million monthly, hijacking strong legislation and regulations.

During the Presidential campaign, Obama gave strong answers to Greenpeace's questionnaire to Presidential candidates. He also raised the issue in a debate with Senator McCain and again on the Letterman Show.  In October, Obama told MSNBC, "I think that chemical plant security is another where the chemical industry has been resistant to mandates when it comes to hardening their sites. But, you know what? If you've got a chemical plant that threatens 100,000, or a million people in New Jersey, we better have some say in terms of how serious they are about guarding that facility."

Since the election, Obama has also listed chemical security on the Transition Team's web site at: http://change.gov/agenda/homeland_security_agenda, but as we look ahead to the new Congress, we will have less than nine months to enact permanent legislation because the interim law expires on October 4, 2009. Obama's leadership will be critical in keeping Congress on the right track.  If the new President calls for strong legislation and that is reinforced by the new Secretary of Homeland Security (Janet Napolitano) and the new EPA administrator (Lisa Jackson), the Congress will have an easier time resisting the chemical lobby and paying attention to the people.

While Congress is famous for making compromises, that works better when they’re spending money which is infinitely divisible, than it does on toy safety or protecting communities from another Bhopal disaster. The "change we need" is simply a requirement that high-risk chemical plants that CAN convert to safer technologies do so. The challenge for Congress is to summon the political will to put the risks now borne by more than 100 million Americans ahead of the lobbyists. For the publicly-owned water treatment plants Congress should make available grants, as part of the economic stimulus package, to local water authorities so the cost of their conversion doesn't compete with other local needs.

And let’s remember that any loopholes that are slipped into the new law will also be visible to al-Qaeda or anyone else who would do us harm.

Alternatively, once a plant converts to safer chemicals or processes, as hundreds have already, they might as well notify terrorists directly because attacking them will no longer achieve the disasters they are aiming for.

The good news is that it will happen if "the American people demand it." But we must "rise up and insist on" it. If we don't those 238 industry lobbyists and their PR firms and front groups will spend the year running out the clock and then try to pressure Congress to make the temporary law permanent.

Tell Congress to get tough on chemical security.

The coal ash spill in Harriman, TN is way worse than previously reported. It now appears that some 5.4 million cubic yards – over one billion gallons – of the toxic sludge was spilled, more than twice the amount quoted in initial reports.

MSNBC has a fantastic piece up about how the clean coal campaign has been given a “black eye” by the spill, and how many people are now questioning “coal’s supposed green credentials” as a result. It features our very own Rick Hind, toxics campaign director. Check it out:

Here’s hoping that this “black eye” is more of a body blow to the disingenuous “Clean Coal” marketing campaign. It will be if we keep the pressure on and continue to raise awareness about the benefits of renewables and the dangers of coal. Want to help? Post the above pic anywhere you can -- on your website, your blog, your Myspace or Facebook profile. Click the image for a larger version. Or you can grab the embed code to this video and put that on your site/profile. Let's make sure everyone knows just how dirty coal is.

There are lots more images of the coal ash spill, taken by a photographer we sent out to TN, on this slideshow.

The New York Times recently published an editorial, entitled "A New Respect for Science," lauding Pres-elect Obama’s choice of Jane Lubchenco and John Holdren for two sub-cabinet positions:

Like Mr. Obama’s earlier appointments — in particular Steven Chu, a Nobel laureate in physics, to run the Department of Energy — these choices [of Jane Lubchenco to run the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and John Holdren as his science advisor] affirm Mr. Obama’s commitment to aggressively address the challenges of energy independence and global warming.

I asked a couple of my colleagues if they agreed with the NYT’s assessment. Here’s what Kate Smolski, our legislative analyst on the global warming campaign team, had to say:

As the last line of the editorial says, knowing about the problem and solving it are two different things. I think these appointments show Obama's continued commitment to dealing with global warming, which is great. But we have to keep encouraging him to move forward with policies based on the latest climate science: emissions must be cut to at least 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020 (for developed nations) and at least 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

And here’s John Hocevar, our Oceans Campaign Director, on the appointment of Lubchenco in particular:

It's a fantastic adviser appointment and cause for celebration among oceans lovers.

This is a strong signal that Obama plans to stick to his commitment to ensuring that policy is guided by science, not politics or short-term commercial interests. Dr. Lubchenko is an exemplary scientist with strong conservation credentials and an ecosystem perspective.

She was one of the lead scientists on a climate initiative organized by [outgoing Greenpeace USA executive director] John Passacantando back when he was with Ozone Action, and she has continued to be a strong voice on climate issues ever since.

But NOAA's primary role is to provide the science – it will be up to Obama and Congress to act accordingly.

Like Kate said, it will be up to us to keep encouraging Obama and the new Congress to establish effective, science-based measures for dealing with the environmental problems the Bush Administration has been ignoring or even denying for eight years now. Electing Obama was only half the battle. We’ve definitely got a lot of work to do in 2009 – but thankfully we now have concerned, compassionate allies at the federal level!

This is just heartbreaking, outrageous, and downright scary: Early in the morning of Dec. 22nd, there was a massive spill of coal ash in Harriman, TN at the Kingston steam plant. Reportedly, as much as 2.6 million cubic yards, or nearly 500 million gallons, of ash and slurry spilled into a tributary of the Tennessee River when an earthen retaining wall was breached at the Tennesee Valley Authority’s coal-fired plant.

According to one local news account: “Officials say up to 400 acres of land adjacent to the plant are under 4 to 6 feet of material.” A local resident says of the land: "It's changed forever, I don't see how this can be brought back." Here's aerial footage of the affected areas:

 
Coal ash is highly toxic, containing mercury and other heavy metals like lead and arsenic. Needless to say, the ecosystem of the Tennessee River is in peril, and perhaps will never be the same again. And who knows what this will mean for the people who rely on the Tennessee River – the water supply for Chattanooga, TN and millions of people living downstream in Alabama, Tennessee, and Kentucky – in the long term. In the short term, this spill has caused 15 homes to be evacuated and another home to be pushed as much as 30 feet onto a roadway, wrecked a train, and sent at least one person to the hospital.

Yet this spill is only a tiny taste of the damage coal causes. Coal burning power plants are the number one emitters of global warming pollution in the country. Global warming threatens America and the world with more frequent and more severe storms, new outbreaks of diseases and crop pests, and massive coastal flooding. The good news is that these disasters are preventable, but only if we complete the switch to truly clean energy like wind and solar power as rapidly as possible. We can’t afford to wait.

Our hearts go out to everyone affected by this tragic – and avoidable – spill. Hopefully this shows that coal can never be clean, and exposes "Clean Coal" as the sham marketing ploy that it is.

Greenpeace is one of the organizations planning a massive act of civil disobedience at the Capitol Power Plant – a coal-fired power plant close to Capitol Hill – on March 2, 2009. The time has come for us to either put up or shut up. We don’t have a lot of time left if we are going to address the causes of global warming and avert its worst effects. We have to start taking action.

If you want to get involved, click that handy button to the right.

Wendell Berry and Bill McKibben sent the following letter out last week. It is an eloquent and impassioned appeal for civil disobedience in these crucial times we’re living in:

Dear Friends,

There are moments in a nation's—and a planet's—history when it may be necessary for some to break the law in order to bear witness to an evil, bring it to wider attention, and push for its correction. We think such a time has arrived, and we are writing to say that we hope some of you will join us in Washington D.C. on Monday March 2 in order to take part in a civil act of civil disobedience outside a coal-fired power plant near Capitol Hill.

We will be there to make several points:

• Coal-fired power is driving climate change. Our foremost climatologist, NASA's James Hansen, has demonstrated that our only hope of getting our atmosphere back to a safe level—below 350 parts per million co2—lies in stopping the use of coal to generate electricity.
• Even if climate change were not the urgent crisis that it is, we would still be burning our fossil fuels too fast, wasting too much energy and releasing too much poison into the air and water. We would still need to slow down, and to restore thrift to its old place as an economic virtue.
• Coal is filthy at its source. Much of the coal used in this country comes from West Virginia and Kentucky, where companies engage in "mountaintop removal" to get at the stuff; they leave behind a leveled wasteland, and impoverished human communities. No technology better exemplifies the out-of-control relationship between humans and the rest of creation.
• Coal smoke makes children sick. Asthma rates in urban areas near coal-fired power plants are high. Air pollution from burning coal is harmful to the health of grown-ups too, and to the health of everything that breathes, including forests.

The industry claim that there is something called "clean coal" is, put simply, a lie. But it's a lie told with tens of millions of dollars, which we do not have. We have our bodies, and we are willing to use them to make our point. We don't come to such a step lightly. We have written and testified and organized politically to make this point for many years, and while in recent months there has been real progress against new coal-fired power plants, the daily business of providing half our electricity from coal continues unabated. It's time to make clear that we can't safely run this planet on coal at all. So we feel the time has come to do more--we hear President Barack Obama's call for a movement for change that continues past election day, and we hear Nobel Laureate Al Gore's call for creative non-violence outside coal plants. As part of the international negotiations now underway on global warming, our nation will be asking China, India, and others to limit their use of coal in the future to help save the planet's atmosphere. This is a hard thing to ask, because it's their cheapest fuel. Part of our witness in March will be to say that we're willing to make some sacrifices ourselves, even if it's only a trip to the jail.

With any luck, this will be the largest such protest yet, large enough that it may provide a real spark. If you want to participate with us, you need to go through a short course of non-violence training. This will be, to the extent it depends on us, an entirely peaceful demonstration, carried out in a spirit of hope and not rancor. We will be there in our dress clothes, and ask the same of you. There will be young people, people from faith communities, people from the coal fields of Appalachia, and from the neighborhoods in Washington that get to breathe the smoke from the plant.

We will cross the legal boundary of the power plant, and we expect to be arrested. After that we have no certainty what will happen, but lawyers and such will be on hand. Our goal is not to shut the plant down for the day—it is but  one of many, and anyway its operation for a day is not the point. The worldwide daily reliance on coal is the danger; this is one small step to raise awareness of that ruinous habit and hence help to break it.

Needless to say, we're not handling the logistics of this day. All the credit goes to a variety of groups, especially the Energy Action Coalition (which is bringing thousands of young people to Washington that weekend), Greenpeace, the Ruckus Society, and the Rainforest Action Network.


Thank you,


Wendell Berry, Bill McKibben

P.S.—This is important: Please forward this letter to anyone and everyone you think might be interested.

You can read more about the action on March 2nd here, and RSVP for the action here.

As many of you know, in another life, I served as a Priest of the Holy Orthodox Church for about twenty years. I was happy. I knew my mission and I wallowed in it. As time went on, I stumbled and fell, behaving in ways unbecoming a person of my position, and so the Holy Synod of Bishops did me a blessing and releaved me of that awesome responsibility. For that love I am grateful. But, this is not what I wanted to talk about.

No matter whom and what we might believe in, either Jesus Christ as the Son of God, Mohammad as a Profit, Moses, or Budda, we all know there is right and wrong at play in this world. There is good and evil. In that line, and for those who will, it is our responsibility to root out evil, or bad, when we know of it. All of us know when that "something" is happening and present. We can sometimes feel it, taste it and know of its works. It is divisive, separating and not caring what it does. It rejoices in greed, division and suffering of others. Simply, evil or bad, celebrates our differences and uses those differences against us. This is common when we speak about resources and those who will take and take without any concern for those who do not have the ability to take advantage of its bounty. 

In our work, it seems, that division is particularly noticeable. We work day in and day out, trying to find a balance between the haves and the have nots. We struggle to make the playing field even for all. And sometimes we falter in our efforts, not because we no longer believe, but because as people we often come up against a brick wall. And we lose hope.  You see, if we do our work with good and pure intentions to right what is wrong, our work will be successful and we will not lose hope. But if we do our work with dark internal intentions of hurting another with a different opinion, we will lose hope and our work will not be good. Oh, we may have some victories, but they will be short lived. What we want to do is right wrongs, do good, and work for that end. Our mission as advocates is to walk a fine line, a sharp edged sword, to fulfill that goal. And it begins with purity of heart. I am doing this because it is right and for no other reason. If we save one species of plant or animal from extinction and have not a pure heart, our work is for naught. Examples abound. I with my work with the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, others with climate change and forests and whales. We can only succeed with purity of mind and heart. Our reasons and efforts must be to teach and help others understand what is right and good. As my friend reminded me not too long ago, this kind of work will take time. I cried at those words because I had forgotten my mission. 

I know there are many who will "spin" this with thoughts and better arguments. I am not trying to convince you of my beliefs. I am simply asking that we think about this. This is not to say that I think we are doing otherwise, nor focusing on something I see we are either doing or not. Just saying something. Something to think about, because I do know, if what we do is not without truth and honesty, no matter what we do it will not work. 

As the season of peace and love draws and the promises of a new year appear, the promise of a new administration offer us hope, let us renew our efforts to work with honesty and truthfulness. Only in this way will we have any real success.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most of us associate the holiday season with winter and all things white – but this year, we here at Greenpeace also want to make it green.

Over the years, other Greenpeace staff members and I have found ways to show our commitment to green principles during the holidays – a season known for contributing the most waste to landfills than any other time of the year.  The other day, I asked my colleagues to share their ideas on creating new holiday memories with loved ones while keeping the environment in mind.  From our family to yours, here is what we’ve come up with.

GIFTS

“Recycle your gift bags! You can always reuse them for something else... Or even when you give another gift.” – Kala Sharp, Human Resources Associate

“Give gifts of Greenpeace membership!” – Sebastian Jannelli, Direct Marketing Production Coordinator

“Last year, I told my family that instead of gifts, I would appreciate it if they just incorporated something “environmental” into their lives.  That Christmas, my aunt and uncle gifted me by deciding to cut down on paper-towel use, while my mother and stepfather said that they would save energy by plastic-sealing the windows of their house and turn off the hot tub for the winter.  Others did other things.” – Ben Bliumis, Toxics Campaign Fellow

“Most people don't need more stuff – so ask your family and friends to contribute to the cause of your choice or theirs – it’s a great feeling and you don't have to worry about what you are going to do with that weird gift from your Aunt Sally.” – Lisa Finaldi, Campaigns Director

“Support Greenpeace’s efforts to fight global warming so that Santa won't be homeless when the ice at the North Pole melts.  If we are successful, we can turn things around and eventually it will re-freeze!” – John Hocevar, Oceans campaigner

“I use the comics section of the newspaper to wrap my gifts!” – Sandeep Singh, IT Project Manager

“This year, my family has decided not to buy gifts for each other and instead, we are all using the money we would have spent on gifts and sponsoring a local family.  We are not doing this to be "green" per se—though it might help to offset my flight home to visit!” – Andrea Carlson, Forests Campaign Assistant

“Gift an experience, rather than a product.  A day at a spa or a climbing lesson is much better for the planet.” – Amanda Starbuck, Student Organizing Manager

“Never underestimate the power of a handmade present!” – Sarah Vito, Development Assistant

“You want a greener holiday?  Instead of lumps of coal for bad children, give them seven days of hard labor building the clean energy infrastructure of windmills and solar farms... A clean energy revolution built on the backs of bad little kids everywhere.  Santa is watching and he likes the environment.” – Nate Stellhorn, Frontline Senior City Coordinator

DÉCOR

“Use potted Christmas trees instead of chopping one down... You can even keep the tree year-round.” – John Baker, IT Solutions Specialist

“Holiday greeting cards can be recycled in grade school art projects, but one idea is to start mailing them back with new greetings inside.  It’s a fun way to rekindle old memories.” – Bob Meyers, Senior Photo Editor

“Solar-powered LED lights are a far better option than traditional holiday lights.” – Carroll Muffett, Deputy Campaigns Director

“Candles are a beautiful, inexpensive, and lower-carbon alternative to illuminating your home for the holidays.” – Marina Djernaes, Finance Director

“I buy my Christmas ornaments at thrift stores; it’s cheaper, and you get cool vintage decorations.” – Elise Nabors, Regional Canvass Campaign Coordinator

“Put your holiday lights INSIDE the house so they annoy you enough to turn them off and save energy!” – Candace Crespi, Frontline Senior City Coordinator

“A great and green way to engage children young and old – while creating holiday memories – is to have everyone get together to make homemade holiday decorations like popcorn strings, glittered pine cones, and gingerbread houses.” – Josef Palermo, Web Editor

“Instead of buying Christmas stockings, make them out of old, worn-out T-shirts.  I made one for each of my roommates, and they love them!  It's even easy for a novice to sew.” – Meg Imholt, Communications intern

FOOD

“Bake cookies or brownies out of organically grown ingredients and give them as gifts.” – Melanie Duchin, Oceans campaigner

“Why support the meat industry – which contributes more to global warming than the auto industry – this holiday season when you can eat endless organic vegetables and grains?” – Ashley Schaeffer, Greenpeace Organizing Term (GOT) Coordinator

“Source your Christmas dinner with local food and beverages. Not only does it taste better because it’s fresh, but it is packed with more nutrients which are otherwise lost in preservation techniques used to transport foods.  You’ll also be helping reduce the carbon emissions associated with trucking food across the country.” – Kate Rooth, Researcher

“Get a keg instead of beer cans for your drunken family Christmas bash.” – Ryan Patterson, Global Warming Campaign Assistant

“You know the food your mom makes that you don’t like?  Put it in compost.” – Phil Radford, Grassroots Director

So, you’ve heard from us, but what kinds of things do you do – or what tips/suggestions do you have – for people to observe a more environmentally friendly holiday season this year?  Create your own Greenpeace member blog, and share your ideas with us!

I'm really excited to hear what you come up with!  Enjoy your holidays this year, and let me be the first to wish you "Season's Greenings."

 

Your fellow activist,

Josef Palermo,
Web Editor

Last week, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi appointed eight new members to the Congressional Committee on Energy and Commerce and five new members to the Committee on Ways and Means. The new appointees have records that clearly demonstrate their understanding of the severity of global warming and the need for real solutions – and we’ve compiled some research to prove it.

Below you will find the LCV scores of the new members of the two committees, as well as whether or not they have signed on to the Waxman-Markey-Inslee Statement of Principles letter, which lays out the critical pieces of any effective plan to stop global warming. Of the 13 new appointments, 11 are on the Principles. The average LCV score is 89%. This shows that the House is serious about passing legislation in 2009 that will deal with the global warming crisis.

Lifetime LCV scores and Statement of Principles notation for new members of the Ways and Means Committee:

• Congressman Danny Davis (D-IL): 93%, On Principles
• Congressman Bob Etheridge (D-NC): 77%, Not on Principles
• Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ): 95%, On Principles
• Congressman Brian Higgins (D-NY): 92%, On Principles
• Congressman John Yarmuth (D-KY): 100%, On Principles

Lifetime LCV scores Statement of Principles notation for new members of the Energy and Commerce Committee:

• Congressman Bruce Braley (D-IA): 88%, On Principles
• Congresswoman Donna Christensen (D-Virgin Islands): N/A, On Principles
• Congresswoman Kathy Castor (D-FL): 91%, On Principles
• Congressman John Sarbanes (D-MD): 91%, On Principles
• Congressman Chris Murphy (D-CT): 100%, On Principles
• Congressman Zack Space (D-OH): 70%, Not on Principles
• Congressman Jerry McNerney (D-CA): 85%, On Principles
• Congresswoman Betty Sutton (D-OH): 88%, On Principles

Greenpeace is looking forward to working with the new and old members of these committees, as well as new Energy and Commerce chairman Henry Waxman, to stop global warming in 2009.

As the delegates at the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission meeting in Korea negotiate tuna into extinction, our oceans team over there has been asking them to fill out this survey:

 

WHAT SORT OF FISHERIES MANAGER ARE YOU?

 

Your scientists tell you to end overfishing by reducing effort by 30%. Do you:
a) thank your scientists and reduce fishing effort by 30%
b) say “nya-nya-nya, I can’t hear you” and continue fishing at current levels
c) pretend you’re being responsible while in fact negotiating another year of 20% overfishing

 

You watch another fisheries commission fail miserably to save their stock from collapse and instead head towards commercial extinction. Do you:
a) learn from their mistakes and end overfishing immediately
b) follow them blindly in ignoring their scientists
c) imagine that you are different, your oceans are different and somehow you can continue overfishing without the same thing happening here

 

You discover that part of your fishing area is riddled with pirates and they are stealing fish from your legal fishing fleets. Do you:
a) ban fishing in those areas to flush the pirates out of your ocean
b) put in place even more complicated measures to create loopholes for the pirates to exploit
c) negotiate on behalf of your pet pirates and stop any measures being adopted that might upset them

 

What proportion of your delegation has vested interests in the fishing industry?
a) 0-40%
b) 40-60%
c) more than 60%

 

Where would you advise your fishing industry to invest their profits?
a) sound science and a sustainable management plan
b) more boats and bigger boats
c) parrots, eye patches and wooden legs

While we were holding our Day of Action events here in America to tell the world leaders in Poland that we support global warming solutions, our campaigners on the ground at the UN Climate Conference were holding an event of their own. You can read about it in Eva's post below, and you can check out the video right here:


>
In other news, another homeless polar bear has been sighted on the streets of Poznan:



This polar bear had a sign that reads "Carbon addiction ruined my life.

Stay tuned right here for more updates, and check out the Greenpeace International Climate Rescue Blog for even more updates.