Greenpeace

Everyone is talking about the urgent need for climate action and it seems like the Obama administration and Congress are moving towards a “cap and trade” system to limit US greenhouse gas emissions.  However, there is a big devil in the details that could make the whole system useless.

The basic idea behind a cap and trade system is to set a limit, or "cap," on overall greenhouse gas pollution, then sell “allowances” to polluting industries.  The allowances can be traded to provide flexibility, but they never add up to more pollution than the cap.  Over time, the cap is lowered to reduce greenhouse gas pollution – as the supply of allowances gets smaller, the price to pollute gets more expensive.  Basic supply and demand.  This sets up financial incentives to switch from polluting activities to clean and renewable technologies.

In theory, pretty simple, right?

Well, it gets more complicated when big polluters and special interests find ways to mess it all up…and when their friends in Congress start listening to them.

One of the biggest threats to the effectiveness of a cap and trade system is the inclusion of cheap carbon “credits” generated from, strangely enough, the protection of forests overseas.

Why?  Well, first of all, deforestation is responsible for more greenhouse gas pollution than all the cars, trucks, planes, trains and boats in the world -- combined!

Second, protecting forests is a much cheaper way to keep greenhouse gas pollution out of the atmosphere than, say, building fleets of electric cars.  After all, we don’t really have to build anything new to keep forests standing – we just need to refrain from burning them up or chopping them down!

The fact that forest protection is a relatively efficient way to take action for the climate is a good thing.  And Greenpeace thinks the US and other countries should make investments in tropical forest protection for our climate.  You can read more about our plan to do that here.

But if you mix low-cost forest credits into a trading system and make it cheaper to pollute…well, you make it cheaper to pollute!

And if it’s cheap to pollute, polluters – from coal companies to car companies – will continue to do so instead of investing in new ways of doing things and building the greener, healthier economy we so desperately need.

Plus, scientists are clearly telling us that to tackle global warming, we can’t pick and choose between saving forests and continuing polluting business as usual.  It’s not either / or.  The science shows it has to be BOTH to avoid catastrophic climate change.

A new economic report, commissioned by Greenpeace and released recently at the United Nations climate talks in Bonn, Germany, shows why.  Among other things, it documents that including “avoided deforestation” credits in international carbon markets could:

1. decrease the cost of carbon between 60%-75% under various scenarios
2. increase the overall cost of fighting global warming in the long term
3. reduce clean technologies investments in developed nations (like the US) & developing countries (like China)

I recommend reading the Greenpeace report summary here.  If you want to dive into the wonky details, download the full, technical report, here.

Stay tuned – as politicians continue to develop plans to fight global warming, we’ll need your help to make sure they protect tropical forests overseas AND invest in clean technologies here in the US.

For the forests (and the climate),

-Rolf

Greenpeace is not a partisan organization, and some of the best champions for the environment that we've ever had in Congress have been Republicans. Heck, some of my best friends are Republicans!

But a news release from the NRCC, sent out to the congressional districts of 54 Democrats whom they think they can knock off in the next election, demands a reply. The NRCC, prodded on by Big Oil and Big Coal, wants you to believe that President Obama's commitment to save the climate and the environment by building a cleaner, cheaper, renewable energy economy is just one big tax and that we're all better off staying hooked on oil and coal forever.

At the risk of giving their disinformation more air time, here's the gist of it:

Will Jim Himes Support Devastating Energy Tax?
Connecticut Families Would Suffer from Skyrocketing Home Heating Costs Under “Cap-and-Tax”
 
Washington- Despite Democrats’ promises to deliver tax relief to families who need it the most, the recent budget proposal from the White House includes a “cap-and-trade” provision that should more appropriately be named the “cap-and-tax” provision, because if it became law it would raise energy taxes on every single person who flips on a light switch.  As Congress takes the President’s federal budget under consideration, Connecticut families deserve to know if Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT) would support such a devastating energy tax proposal.

Where to start?

Look, the biggest energy tax Americans pay every day of our lives is the cost of oil and coal. Every time you flip on the light switch or fill up your gas tank, you're paying the equivalent of a huge tax--not to government, but to Big Oil and Big Coal. Your hard-earned dollars are going straight to Exxon-Mobil, Peabody Coal, and the Saudi royal family.

As global demand for energy continues to skyrocket in the coming years, and supply remains stable or shrinks, oil and coal costs will only go up, up, and up some more. The $4 a gallon gas we paid after Katrina was just a hint of what's coming.

Big Oil and Big Coal want you to believe that it's cheaper to stay totally dependent on them and their product. How convenient for them. Don't buy it. The sun and wind are free. Oil and coal are not. It's just common sense that free is cheaper than not free.

Greenpeace's recent report Energy Revolution: A Blueprint for Solving Global Warming shows that an aggressive transition to clean energy will pay for itself two times over within 20 years. Why does the NRCC want us to pay double when we could pay half?

Because the coal and oil industries are so heavily automated, clean energy creates two or even three times more jobs than fossil fuels. Why does the NRCC want us to have half as many jobs when we can have double, or even triple?

By investing in a clean energy economy, we can free ourselves from the hundreds of billions of dollars a year that Americans pay in gas bills and electric bills, and other fossil fuel costs.

If a homeowner installs solar panels and makes their home more energy efficient, that investment pays for itself in no time and saves money on electric bills forever. We can do the same thing economy-wide by investing in clean energy and energy efficiency and getting off oil. That's not a tax. That's a smart investment.

The oil and coal industries are in a panic right now because they have America by the you-know-whats, and that's how they like it. They'll do and say anything to keep America completely dependent on them and their product.

We can either start transitioning to a clean energy economy now, or Americans will get soaked with ever-rising energy costs for the rest of our lives, literally.

Of course, unchecked global warming will be the biggest destroyer of wealth of all. Increased drought, floods, more intense hurricanes and wildfires, worsened water shortages, and rising sea levels will destroy as much as 20% of worldwide GDP, according to former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern.

But even if you don't care a lick about global warming, you'd have to be crazy (or in the pocket of industry) to think that it's smarter to stay hooked on oil and coal when cheap, clean, homegrown energy is available right here, right now.

So my question for the NRCC is this: "Why do you want America to stay hooked on oil and coal forever?"

Right now the people of Vermont have the unique opportunity to close down Entergy’s aging nuclear reactor, Vermont Yankee, and choose safe, clean renewable energy for their community instead. The Vermont legislature has given itself the authority to reject the relicensing of the reactor in 2012.

So last Saturday, the 30th anniversary of the meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant, we launched our Nuclear-Free Vermont Tour. The Rolling Sunlight, our solar-equipped, biodiesel-fueled truck, will be visiting farmer’s markets, universities, film screenings, and galleries across the state. The crew will be talking to Vermonters about the energy sources they want to use in their home state, as well as demonstrating the practical uses of solar energy by powering the sound systems at events, making treats like hot chocolate for the crowds, and other fun ways to utilize the energy generated by the Rolling Sunlight's 256 square feet of solar panels.

Read more about the Nuclear-Free Vermont Tour, and view a slideshow of images from the kickoff of the tour here. The tour has been covered in the local press, here and here. You can also read our nuclear expert's blog on Huffington Post, "Remembering the Three Mile Island meltdown."

The House Energy and Commerce Committee released a discussion draft of comprehensive energy and climate legislation today. Below is a statement I just released to media:

After more than a decade of denial and delay by U.S. leaders, Chairmen Waxman and Markey have placed clean energy and global warming at the very top of Congress’s agenda as the world looks to the United States for leadership in the run-up to Copenhagen. The draft bill is a good first step in the right direction, but the bill must be strengthened to ensure that it will achieve the goals of transitioning to a clean energy economy and solving global warming.

America’s economy and climate are in crisis. From Gulf coast homeowners bracing for increasingly intense hurricanes to communities across the country facing water shortages and wildfires, Americans are seeing first hand what global warming looks like. The good news is that the solution to our economic crisis and the climate crisis go hand-in-hand. We must achieve energy independence with clean energy, which will create millions of new jobs, save trillions in fuel costs, and prevent the economic devastation we face if global warming goes unchecked.

Among the bill’s highlights:

• Science-based global warming pollution reduction targets. The Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change finds that, to limit warming to 2 degrees, developed nations must achieve emissions cuts of 25-40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80-95 percent by 2050. The bill represents the first legislative effort ever that embraces these science-based emissions reductions goals, thoughloopholes included in the bill raise doubts about its ability to achieve them.
• Renewable electricity standard requiring 25 percent of electricity be generated from clean sources by 2025. Such a ramp-up of renewable energy is a prerequisite to meeting science-based emissions reductions while reaping the full economic benefits of clean energy.
• A broad program of energy efficiency standards and investments. The bill recognizes that energy efficiency is the fastest, most effective way to spark economic growth and achieve pollution reductions. The bill would achieve efficiency improvements across the transportation sector while dramatically improving the efficiency of homes and businesses across the country.
• The bill sets aside robust funding to stop international deforestation, which is responsible for 20 percent of global carbon emissions.
• Cap on emissions of F-gases. These pollutants, with global warming potential hundreds to thousands of times greater than carbon dioxide, can be and must be replaced with safer alternatives. The bill would be an important step towards a phase-out of these dangerous global warming pollutants.

Key short-comings that must be addressed include:

• Two billion tons of pollution offsets, a virtually unlimited amount equal to a quarter of all U.S. emissions. If all the offsets in the bill were used, the bill’s emissions reductions could be met without any reduction in fossil fuel emissions for more than 20 years. We cannot solve global warming by simply planting trees and continuing to pollute forever.
• The coal industry receives untold billions dollar in handouts for the false promise of carbon capture and sequestration, with American ratepayers and taxpayers footing the bill.

Finally, the discussion draft is largely silent on how auction revenue from the cap will be used. We urge the committee to dedicate this revenue to the short-term up-front investments needed to transition to a clean energy economy, including investments in clean energy development domestically and in the developing world as well as adaptation efforts for countries and communities most directly affected by climate change.

Greenpeace just released version 11 of their Guide to Greener Electronics. The guide began in 2006 with the goal of cleaning up the electronics sector and getting manufacturers to take responsibility for the full life cycle of their products, including the electronic waste that their products generate.

Check out the latest issue of the Green Guide and see how your favorite electronics companies stacked up. 

--Michelle

 

Hey, remember when we announced that Ben & Jerry's was bringing climate-friendly refrigeration technology to the U.S.? Well, thanks to the tireless efforts of our Greenpeace Solutions crew, Pepsi is now bringing green soda machines stateside.

These refrigerators and vending machines utilize what we call the GreenFreeze technology — refrigeration and cooling technology that eliminates the use of highly potent greenhouse gases like HCFCs and HFCs. Greenpeace developed the technology in 1992 and then open-sourced it. We have made no money off of the sale of the technology, even though, since March 15, 1993, when the first GreenFreeze refrigerator rolled off the assembly line, over 300 million units have been sold in Europe, Asia and South America by leading brands including Whirlpool, Bosch, Panasonic, LG, Miele, Electrolux, and Siemens.

The Greenpeace Solutions team has been working with various businesses and industries to bring this technology to the U.S. because the group of chemicals commonly used as refrigerants — the aforementioned HCFCs and HFCs, which are more commonly called F-gases because they all contain Fluorine — were responsible for some 17% of the greenhouse gases collected in our atmosphere as of 2005.

So we now have green ice cream coolers and green soda vending machines here in the States... You thinking what I'm thinking? Green root beer floats!

Saturday, March 28th, is the 30th anniversary of the reactor meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant. The nuclear industry is currently trying to portray itself as making a comeback, and working hard to paint nuclear energy as an environmentally friendly solution to global warming. So it's that much more important to remember what really happened that day:

Radiation leaked from the damaged reactor for days as government regulators scrambled to get radiation monitoring equipment into surrounding communities. The Governor of Pennsylvania eventually ordered an evacuation of pregnant women and children. The accident at Three Mile Island sent the nuclear industry into a tailspin. Already staggering under the weight of over $100 billion dollars in cost overruns, the meltdown showed Americans that not only was nuclear power expensive — it was also dangerous. The nuclear industry turned a multi-million dollar asset into a multi-billion dollar liability overnight, and demonstrated that both the government and industry were thoroughly unprepared for the accident and its aftermath.

But now that memories of the meltdown and the ensuing panic have faded, the nuclear industry and those in their employ are claiming that Three Mile Island was really a success story and that the radiation was contained.

Of course, this episode in American history was anything but a success story for the nuclear industry, no matter how hard they try to rewrite history. Read our nuclear expert's takedown of the nuclear industry's PR spin in his HuffPo blog post.

Check out this headline from Scientific American. Sure sounds familiar...

Nice to have an administration that gets it:

Renewable Energy Could Solve Economic, Environmental and Social Problems
New EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, among others, touted renewable fuels as one solution to a variety of problems
By Douglas Fischer

ASPEN – Shifting the United States to clean-burning renewable fuels has the potential to cut through a thicket of thorny social ills and solve long-standing problems across the entire spectrum of American life, from manufacturing to national security to clean water, the country's top environmental cop said on Wednesday.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson spoke before 150 scientists, lawyers, industry executives, activists and others gathered at this alpine town for a three-day conference on the country's energy future.

She said weaning the country from fossil fuels remains a top priority of the Obama administration because it offers such a broad suite of solutions across all aspects of American life: rewarding innovation, discouraging pollution, investing in jobs and encouraging energy independence.

"It's extraordinary to be at a time where one answer answers so many extraordinary big issues," she said.

What a difference an election makes, eh?

All of our work to stop global warming comes down to what happens in the next week.

President Obama has sent his budget to Congress, and it proposes a cap and trade system to limit greenhouse gas emissions, while also allocating money to move America away from the dirty fossil fuels of the past and toward the clean, renewable energy sources of the future (what we like to call an Energy [R]evolution 'round these parts).

Time is of the essence here. Further delay could be disastrous, leading to catastrophic droughts, wildfires, floods, and sea-level rise. Obama’s budget is the best shot we have of passing strong global warming legislation in 2009. We must take action to make sure it passes.

Because of course the powerful fossil fuel industries will be fighting this tooth and nail. They know what the coming energy revolution will mean for their core businesses, and they aren’t going down without a fight. They want to see cap and trade and funds for building a clean energy economy stripped out of the budget. To ensure a green and peaceful future, we can not let them win this fight.

Congress is likely to vote on this in the next week. That’s why it’s so important that we take action right now and tell Congress to keep limits to global warming pollution and funding for a clean energy economy in the budget.

Greenpeace and  Kimberly-Clark have announced the successful resolution of the Kleercut campaign as the maker of Kleenex has established a new sustainability policy focused on protecting Endangered Forests. Go to www.greenpeace.org/kleercut to find out more!

Kleenex Free Earth School!

Earth School, located at the Hilltop Hanover Farm Children’s Environmental Education Center in upstate New York, offers a place for children to run, play, and learn lessons in sustainability. Barbara Sarbin founded the Earth School and the non-profit that operates the school, Something Good in the World, to give both public schooled and home schooled students a place to attend environmentally-themed educational programs.

In this video, the students at Earth School excitedly share their school adventures and commitment to protecting the environment. Because of this commitment, they have stopped using Kleenex tissues at their school, replacing them with recycled alternatives.

The students first learned about the Kleenex Free Schools campaign through their teacher, Barbara. The class did their own research on the destruction of old growth forests caused by tissue-giant Kimberly-Clark, maker of tissue products like Kleenex, and decided to rid their school of these destructive products.

Kimberly-Clark uses wood fiber from ancient forests, which are essential in fighting climate change and providing home to wildlife like caribou, wolves, eagles and bears, to make its disposable paper products. The Boreal forest is being flushed down the toilet because Kimberly-Clark refuses to improve its logging practices and incorporate recycled fiber into is products. If you want to get Kleenex out of your home, office, or school, check out the new Greenpeace Recycled Tissue and Toilet Paper guide—a listing of forest-friendly products that use recycled content and do not destroy ancient forests. (Major media recently picked up the guide and Kimberly-Clark's practices, including The New York Times, The Guardian, and Fast Company.)

After seeing this video, I was so inspired I called the students of the Earth School to thank them for their efforts to make the world a greener place. Their enthusiasm was inspiring. Robert (8) was “upset” when he learned trees were cut “down to put into Kleenex boxes.” Jared (9) echoed that sentiment, saying this practice is unfair and he would be “mad if [he] were an old growth tree going into a tissue box.” The students said they used alternative tissue brands because they contain recycled content.

Jared also told about the “Pedal-a-Watt,” an electricity-generating bike the students ride to charge a battery that operates a heater, which melts ice when it forms in the chicken coop’s watering trough. One minute of riding equals one minute of electricity. According to Maeve (10), the chicken coop has a green roof, “a bunch of plants that do not need water, keeps the coop cool in the summer, and warm in the winter.”

Nicholas (8) and Anya (9) explained that their “compost lasagna” is layers of waste from the kitchen, newspaper, leaves, and manure (also known as sheet mulch). Nicholas added that the compost pile is “a buffet for the worms,” which aid in speeding up the decaying process. The garden receives the benefits of the compost pile and is watered from the catchment of the rain barrel. The rain barrel, says Luke (8), is “attached to a drip irrigation hose.” The garden is also watered from a pond pump, which, Jared explains, is powered by the seesaw the students ride. A solar panel is also used to generate power to run a fountain, which helps keep the pond water moving and algae growth at bay.  

The plants in the garden are xeriscaped. That means, as Jeremy (9) describes it, that the garden consists of “local plants that do not need a lot of water, are not invasive, and the deer do not eat.” Also, Sophia (9) noted, their Three Sisters Garden, containing corn, squash, and green and purple beans, is similar to those of the Native Americans. The three plants work together, Nicholas added: the corn grows straight up, the beans grow up on the corn, and the squash grow along the ground under the other two.

Earth School shows us in their video and explains to us how to be sustainable, inventive, and Kleenex-free!

Until the Forests are protected,

Andrea

Greenpeace China launched a 10-month global warming campaign with a couple of really cool projections today (pics below, or view the slideshow). The campaign is meant to highlight the urgency of the global climate crisis and the impacts global warming will have on the world. In the next ten months GP China will hold a series of events to call attention to the massive impacts from global warming in China. You can expect many more Greenpeace events in other countries, as well, including right here in the U.S.A., as we lead up to the UN climate talks in Copenhagen in December.


Beijing, China, March 23, 2009. Greenpeace China projected a message onto Yong Ding Gate that read in English:“Time is Running Out to Stop Global Warming” and also projected Chinese versions. Greenpeace China is calling on the Chinese government for strong climate rescue actions. Greenpeace China also asked China President Hu Jintao to personally attend the Copenhagen Climate Summit and work with world’s leaders to come up with a binding treaty to stop global warming. © Su Li/ Greenpeace

Hong Kong, China, March 23, 2009. Greenpeace activists project a message on to the side of Government House in Hong Kong's financial district, urging the Hong Kong Chief Executive, Donald Tsang, to attend a key United Nations conference on climate change in Copenhagen this December, instead of just sending along a few junior officials, as has done in the past for previous international climate change conferences. Greenpeace is also calling for the Hong Kong Government to bring into legislation a comprehensive climate change policy with specific carbon dioxide emissions reduction targets for the city, in line with the requirements set under the Kyoto Protocol agreement. © Alex Hofford/ Greenpeace

The US and China are both critical to an agreement in Copenhagen, and criticial to addressing global warming on a global basis. China has, for the past several years, been the latest in a series of excuses used to delay action on global warming by many American politicians, but the reality is that China is already investing in renewable energy. It's also important to remember that while China recently surpassed the US in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, China has 1.3 billion people to our 300 million. Per capita, Americans emit four times as much greenhouse gas emissions. Unless we're able to reach a deal in Copenhagen in December, those 1.3 billion people will soon be burning fossil fuels at the rate we do, and that would be catastrophic.

There's also an important economic reason to work with China to address global warming. China is building wind energy at a stunning rate and making massive investments in other renewable energy sources. If the US doesn't stay competitive with China in innovation and implementation of solutions to global warming, then, in addition to facing the specter of unchecked climate change, we run the risk of letting China get ahead economically and technologically.

As we get close to December and the UN climate talks in Copenhagen, expect us to be sending the message loud and clear: Both China and the US have to do more and have to work together to stop global warming. Greenpeace is calling on President Obama and China's President Hu Jintao to not only lead their own countries but to work together to lead the world.

If you're on Twitter like me you'll know that there's a whole heap of s#!t out there. But despite all the noise it's a powerfully popular communications tool. I'm finding twitter more and more useful for engaging with people who can help make this world a better place.

Some folks like Jon Stewart might not be convinced (and we've got a few in our organization, too) but like it or not - twitter is here to stay. You might as well do something good with it.

Are you just twasting twime on twitter or are you using the twitterverse to make a difference in the real world?

Follow us on twitter! Hey -- hope you like the Greenpeace Twitter bird that I made. Isn't he cute?

-Michelle

 

Have you ever wondered what goes into your can of tuna fish? We've all heard about buying dolphin-safe tuna, but that isn't the only ocean creature that is affected by tuna fishermen. Turtles, smaller fish, marine mammals and even ocean habitats are endangered or destroyed by tuna fishermen who go to any length necessary to catch tuna. As more and more people get an appetite for tuna, less and less can be found in the seas.

When I was little, I thought tuna were small, like sardines. How else cuold they get them to fit into those tiny tin cans?

But, in reality tuna are quite magnificent. The Atlantic bluefin tuna, for example, are gigantic--growing to lengths of up to 10 feet and weights of up to 1,500 pounds. They are also really fast swimmers, swimming at speeds of up to 50 miles per hour.

Greenpeace has a new web page all about tuna. You can see what's really in each can of tuna with an interactive flash feature. You can also see what species of tuna are on the Greenpeace red list and why they are in trouble.

--Michelle

 

This week, Greenpeace Legislative Director Rick Hind and interim Executive Director Mike Clark delivered a letter to the Obama administration urging them to review the most recent climate science and bring his proposals in line with what the increasingly urgent findings show.

We thought you'd be interested in what the letter says. Here it is.

* * *

March 11, 2009

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Obama:

We are inspired and moved by your efforts as President to engage every American in the process of governing as well as your commitment, as stated in your inaugural address, to “roll back the specter of a warming planet.”

Indeed, throughout your campaign you identified solving global warming among the defining goals of your administration. In a taped message to the Global Climate Summit hosted by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on November 18, you stated that “Few challenges facing America—and the world—are more urgent than combating climate change.” You pledged specifically to “set us on a course to reduce emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them an additional 80% by 2050.”

Your commitment to action on global warming is truly wonderful. Also, your commitment to cutting emissions by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050 is closely in line with what the best global warming science says is needed to prevent catastrophic warming.

We believe your short-term goal of reducing U.S. domestic emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 should be strengthened to meet the goals that current science show are needed.

Numerous studies ,  have concluded that to prevent catastrophic global warming worldwide average temperatures cannot rise by more than 2 degrees C (3.6ºF) above pre-industrial levels.

Further research shows that to have an approximately 50% chance of keeping warming below 2 degrees Celsius, atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations must stabilize below 450 parts per million.

The Nobel Prize-winning U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)   projected that to keep greenhouse gas concentrations below 450 ppm developed countries as a whole would need to reduce emissions by 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020 and by 80-95% by 2050.

More recent findings since the publication of the IPCC Fourth Assessment suggest that even more urgent action may be needed.  In 2008, for example, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center announced that summer Arctic sea ice had reached the second-lowest level ever recorded.   This observed rapid arctic melting is already far outpacing IPCC worst-case scenario predictions.  Two years ago, IPCC projected Arctic sea ice could disappear almost entirely by the later part of this century.   Now, some scientists including NASA’s Jay Zwally predict Arctic summers could be nearly ice-free within the next five years.

Given this body of science, any course of action that permits emissions above a 25-40% cut from 1990 levels will fail to meet the needed goal.

The good news is that the U.S. can achieve needed pollution reductions by committing to sharp domestic pollution cuts combined with a robust program of international global warming assistance for developing nations. Furthermore these emissions reductions can be achieved by investing in existing energy technologies that will also enhance economic prosperity.

A new, soon-to-be-released energy blueprint commissioned from the Department of Systems Analysis and Technology Assessment at the German Aerospace Center (Germany’s NASA) by Greenpeace and the European Renewable Energy Council finds that the U.S. can achieve domestic cuts of 12% from 1990 levels by 2020 using off-the-shelf technology and simultaneously promote strong economic growth.   These domestic cuts are not only possible but absolutely necessary.

International climate assistance to developing nations is another critical part of the solution to global warming. For instance, tropical deforestation is responsible for 20% of worldwide global warming emissions.  Without financial assistance from wealthy nations like the U.S., the destruction of tropical forests that trap huge amounts of carbon will continue. We can achieve even greater emissions reductions by helping developing nations adopt clean technologies like renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Importantly, to ensure the integrity of the domestic cuts demanded by the science, international reductions must be funded through a separate fund, not via so-called “pollution off-sets” which would allow domestic emissions to continue to rise. We must help achieve emissions reductions in the developing world while also, not instead of, cutting domestic emissions.

To avoid catastrophic global warming impacts, Greenpeace urges you to commit to total emissions reductions of no less than 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020. These reductions can be achieved through a combination of domestic cuts of at least 8-12% from 1990 levels, with the remaining cuts achieved by measurable, reportable, and verifiable international reductions funded by international global warming assistance for developing nations.

Greenpeace operates offices in more than 30 countries around the world, with a global membership of over 2.5 million.  This international network keeps us in touch with communities already experiencing adverse affects of climate change, as well as numerous scientists, including Greenpeace International Science Advisor Dr. William Hare.  Dr. Hare was a Lead Author for the IPCC’s Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change component of its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) and in the Synthesis Report of the AR4.

To further discuss why these recommendations are critical, we respectfully request a meeting with Carol Browner, your chief advisor on energy and climate policy.  I can be reached at (202) 319-2456.

Sincerely,


Mike Clark
Executive Director

CC:
Carol Browner, Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change
Lisa Jackson, EPA Administrator
Representative Nancy Pelosi
Senator Harry Reid
Senator Barbara Boxer
Representative Henry Waxman
Representative Edward Markey

Greenpeace and  Kimberly-Clark have announced the successful resolution of the Kleercut campaign as the maker of Kleenex has established a new sustainability policy focused on protecting Endangered Forests. Go to www.greenpeace.org/kleercut to find out more!

Kimberly-Clark has invested mountains of money in a new advertising campaign to promote Kleenex tissues.  And, all that money got them a new slogan.  First they wanted you to “Let it Out” – which people from coast to coast did.  Now they are telling us, curiously, that “It Feels Good to Feel.”  As opposed to not feeling, I guess.  Ok, I'll agree with that self-evident statement.

The place I differ with the tissue giant is on ancient forest destruction.  The Kleenex they’re pushing with the new ad blitz has no recycled content in it.  And, as a company, Kimberly-Clark continues to eat up ancient forests for their products.  Sorry Kleenex, ancient forest destruction doesn’t “feel good.”

Kleenex marketeers are on yet another tour.  This time, they’re not sitting on a blue couch, riding a bizarre dog-bus, or setting up a pretend “diva café.”  This time, they’re going a bit abstract with a white, curvy walk-in display featuring “hanging displays of rug cutouts and other items that encourage people to feel.”  If you crossed a kid-oriented “please touch” exhibit with an IKEA living room set, you might get this thing.  They call it the “Feelspace.”

Ok, whatever.  When the Feelspace thingy showed up at a mall near Denver, Colorado, Kleercut campaign activists were there to meet them.  Activists started by intercepting shoppers and sharing the new Greenpeace green tissue guide with them.  When informed that Kimberly-Clarks’s leading brands don’t have any recycled content, shoppers pledged not to buy Kleenex.

Then, to make their point really clear, they unfurled a banner in front of the Feelspace thing.  Mocking the feely-hand logo used by Kleenex, they held out their hands with “S-T-O-P” written on their palms.  Shortly afterwards, one keen-eared activist overheard mall-goers in the bathroom saying: “OMG – you just missed the coolest thing!  These people came out with a banner that said something about Kleenex destroying ancient forests...it was so cool and crazy!”

By the time mall security (was that Paul Blart?) escorted them from premises, the activists had spoiled Kleenex’s day and changed a lot of minds.  In fact, activists even elicited sympathetic comments from surprised Kleenex marketers -- many did not know Kleenex is made without recycled content.  One Kleenex rep openly said that Kleenex should “stop clearcutting and start using recycled fiber.”  I’m glad we’re starting to get on the same (post-consumer, recycled content) page with Kimberly-Clark!

Let’s hope the same sort of agreement can trickle-up to Kimberly-Clark executives.  Until then, activists will continue to have fun punking Kleenex advertising efforts and standing tall for ancient forests.

-Rolf

Greenpeace and  Kimberly-Clark have announced the successful resolution of the Kleercut campaign as the maker of Kleenex has established a new sustainability policy focused on protecting Endangered Forests. Go to www.greenpeace.org/kleercut to find out more!

According Fast Company, Kimberly-Clark's recognition by the EPA for the company's energy use falls flat given Kimberly-Clark continues to wipe out massive expanses of ancient forests for products like Kleenex.  We fully agree and we couldn't have said it better ourselves so here are a few excepts of the blog available here.

"It seems strange that a company which cuts down 200-year old greenhouse gas-absorbing trees should be praised for its reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. And if Kimberly-Clark can take the time to use sustainable energy, why can't it use sustainable resources--i.e. recycled fiber? Because as we recently learned, soft, fluffy recycled tissues are possible."

"Sustainability shouldn't be looked at in a vacuum--every aspect of Kimberly-Clark's operations should be taken into account. We're all for companies being justly recognized for their environmental efforts, but in this case, the EPA's praise falls flat."

As Kimberly-Clark's greenwash train picks up speed you can look for more posts from us on the truth behind the green screen.  

- Lindsey 

 

 

 

It might be kind of strange to string these three topics together, but I did so because Greenpeace just launched new, interactive seafood pages. You can plunge into the deep blue sea and discover why pirate fishermen are nothing like Johnny Depp playing Jack Sparrow in the movies. These modern-day pirates aren't funny or charismatic, they are dangerous and ruthless. They catch unlimited amounts of fish and they don’t discriminate, pillaging endangered fish and bycatch like sea turtles. You can help out by taking action and making your voice heard--tell the U.S. government to throw pirate fishing practices overboard.

If that's not enough fun for ya, I bet you'd love to see what is really inside a can of tuna. You might be surprised at what else that tiny tin can has sealed in it. Check out the cool interactive tuna can on the Greenpeace site. You'll be amazed.

And, for the activist-at-heart, Greenpeace has an awesome new toolkit. They gave the toolkit a major tune-up! If you are the type of person who is willing to take their activism a step further, away from your computer and into your supermarket, then, this toolkit is for you.

Yo, ho, ho!
--Michelle

Senator Bernie Sanders: How to Solve Global Warming for Twice the Jobs and Half the Cost from Greenpeace USA on Vimeo.

As the Obama Administration continues to make great strides in reversing the trajectory of the Bush years with regard to global warming policy, we have released the new U.S. scenario of the Energy [R]evolution report. The Energy [R]evolution U.S. Scenario is a blueprint for how America can stop global warming and build a sustainable clean energy economy at the same time, while leaving behind dirty and dangerous energy sources like fossil fuels and nuclear.



Despite the ongoing financial crisis, Obama is making the global climate crisis a priority for his administration. That’s probably because, as the Energy [R]evolution states, “According to the University of Massachusetts’s Political Economy Research Institute, investments in wind and solar power create 2.8 times as many jobs as the same investment in coal; mass transit and conservation would create 3.8 times as many jobs as coal.” The Energy [R]evolution U.S. Scenario would create 14.5 million more new jobs by 2050 than would be created if we continued to rely on fossil fuels. So kickstarting an energy revolution would also help rebuild our economy.

Obama gets it. A couple of recent news items demonstrated yet again that the Obama team is serious about tackling global warming. The first was the leaked news that:

The Obama administration is fast-tracking its response to the Supreme Court's 2007 climate decision with plans to issue a mid-April finding that global warming threatens both public health and welfare, according to an internal U.S. EPA document (pdf) obtained by Greenwire.

This is important because an “endangerment finding,” as this is called, requires the EPA to establish regulations for limiting the danger of whatever it is they’ve determined poses a threat. In this case, that would mean the EPA would regulate greenhouse gas emissions. While EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson says she will not establish regulations right away, but instead “hold back on new emission rules to sync with a final endangerment finding and other fast-moving environmental policies,” this is still a very welcome development.

The other bit of good news was that:

The Obama administration is aggressively reworking U.S. trade policy to more strongly emphasize domestic and social issues, from the displacement of American workers to climate change. …

During the campaign, Obama said he generally supports free-trade policies but also signaled a tougher approach that is only now beginning to be outlined. Both in [President Obama's nominee as U.S. trade representative, Ron Kirk's] testimony yesterday and in a policy statement issued by new Obama appointees at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the administration vowed to make tougher labor and environmental standards prerequisites for trade deals. …

The trade representative's office also stated that trade policy must now contain a new element of "social accountability," including on issues such as climate change. "We should aim to make trade a part of the tool kit of solutions for addressing international environmental challenges," the statement said.

This is also really significant because it shows that Obama is not only going to tackle global warming here at home, but that he also recognizes the need for his administration to lead the way globally. (And the fact that his administration will strive for broader “social accountability” in global trade agreements – not just in regard to environmental issues but also the labor practices of those countries America does business with – is a pretty nice goal, too. We certainly haven’t heard anything like that for the better part of the last decade.)

As much as we welcome and applaud these moves by the Obama Administration, now is no time to get complacent. Obama is calling for us to return to 1990 emissions levels by 2020, whereas climate scientists have clearly indicated that that is too slow a pace to mitigate the worst types of havoc global warming will wreak on our planet. We need stronger mid-term targets of 25 to 40% below 1990 levels by 2020.

But without overwhelming support from Americans like you and me, it will be extremely difficult – even for Obama – to strengthen these targets. You can take action now to tell Congress we need an energy revolution in America. And don’t forget to check out the Energy [R]evolution report to find out how we can build a sustainable clean energy economy here at home.

We’re at a make or break point here, folks. Let’s stay active.

Our colleagues in Europoe carried out a terrific action today. To protest the European Union's failure to commit funds for climate mitigation in developing countries, 340 Greenpeace activists from across Europe converged on a meeting of EU Finance Ministers in Brussels this morning. They blockaded entrances, padlocked themselves to gates, and refused to leave until the ministers put real money on the table. This is a really great follow-on to the Capitol Climate Action last week, and really helps add to the sense of global urgency around the climate crisis.

Not surprisingly, the action produced some very powerful images:


Greenpeace blocks ‘easy way out’ for EU finance ministers. Hundreds of Greenpeace activists from across Europe blocked the exits of the Brussels building where EU finance ministers are discussing funding for developing nations to tackle climate change. Activists displayed banners in several languages asking EU politicians to “Sav€ the Climate” and “Bail out the Planet”. The Greenpeace activists ‘sealed’ the building and called on ministers not to come out without money on the table to tackle climate change, rather than to continue dishing out billions of taxpayers’ money for failed banks and carmakers. © Greenpeace / Philippe Reynaers


Police move in to make arrests. © Greenpeace / Philippe Reynaers

ExxonSecrets is hanging here in the Big Apple with DeSmogBlog, as the Heartland Institute, flush with cash from anonymous planet hating foundations and corporations, is putting on the second annual global warming Denial-Palooza.

The Guardian led with a description of the keynote address by Czech president, Václav Klaus, whose country holds the important rotating presidency of the EU.  Klaus' alarmist message to the cheering denier throng was that European nations plans for climate solutions hide a nefarious plot to ruin human society... "They probably do not want to reveal their true plans and ambitions to stop economic development and return mankind several centuries back" 

How's that for optimism and hope in troubled times?  Yo Vaccie, chillax and enjoy the Energy Revolution.

The New York Times panned the conference in Monday's paper, documenting several cases of peer to peer disagreement on how to best deny global warming - MIT's Richard Lindzen slamming the sun-spot people and Fred Singer correcting fellow skeptics understanding of physics.  ExxonSecrets loves it when the skeptics eat their young.

But the best salvo of the Times article was a recitation of last year's Exxon Corporate  Citizenship report blockbuster sentence by ExxonMobil spokes Alan T. Jeffers, who wrote the Times in an e-mail, saying that the company had ended support “to several public policy research groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion about how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner.”

Ending Exxon's diversion campaign being the primary goal of ExxonSecrets, seeing these immortal words from last May in the NY Times warmed our hearts....

Heartland, the free-marketeers, went on...attacking corporations who now express some consciousness of the threat of global warming: "Joseph L. Bast,  the president of the Heartland Institute, said Exxon and other companies were just shifting their stance to improve their image. The Heartland meeting, he said, was the last bastion of intellectual honesty on the climate issue." Last bastion of antireglatory extremists more like.

“Major corporations are painting themselves green around global warming,” Mr. Bast said, adding that the companies have shifted their lobbying and public relations efforts toward trying to shape climate legislation in their favor."

Well they have a point there, we have noticed a spike in climate greenwashing.  Maybe Heartland wants to join our StopGreenwash campaign?

Despite Exxon unceremoniously kicking them to the curb in 2007, Heartland seems to have raised a lot of money bashing Al Gore over the last few years.  In a promo brochure handed out at the conference, the Heartland Institute's funding looks like the much maligned Michael Mann hockey stick graph. Their funding more than doubled from 2005-2007 rising from $2.5 million to $5.2 million after hovering at less than $2 million from 1999-2003.

 

 

 

Greenpeace and  Kimberly-Clark have announced the successful resolution of the Kleercut campaign as the maker of Kleenex has established a new sustainability policy focused on protecting Endangered Forests. Go to www.greenpeace.org/kleercut to find out more!

Ok, let’s get it out there: Fox News is not known for going easy on environmental advocates.

True, green is the new black, and everyone from fashion designers to members of Congress are rushing to catch up with the green trend which finally feels like it’s here to stay.

That said, when I agreed to do a live spot on Fox News about our new green tissue guide, I didn’t expect them to go soft on me. Exaggerations, interruptions, and even name-calling are just par for the course if you’re a “treehugger” on Fox.

So, what happened when I showed up?

Sitting on the proverbial hot seat in a filming room by myself, staring at a blank screen, I listened closely to the chatter in the earbud in my left ear.  Then it began.  Though host Megyn Kelly playfully poked, prodded and gave me a hard time, by the end of the segment it was the Greenpeace tissue guide – and the call to buy quality recycled tissue products – that came out on top.

Click below to watch, rate and comment on the video on YouTube!

 

 

If you're having trouble viewing the video on YouTube, click here.

The outcome wasn't that much of a surprise.  After all, most people agree that making disposable products from ancient forests doesn’t make a lot of sense…especially when we can make the same products from quality recycled paper.  However, the most remarkable part came when co-host Bill Hemmer was challenged to feel the difference between recycled toilet paper and a non-recycled brand…and he picked wrong.  As the host said, they "proved my point."

Is there really a difference between recycled tissue and tissue made from virgin fiber?  Definitely.  Non-recycled tissue products come with a much heavier price tag for the Earth.  And, in many cases, it comes with a heftier price tag, period.  Many of the brands that failed our tissue guide ranking, including Kleenex, Cottonelle, and Viva – are so-called “premium” brands that companies like Kimberly-Clark want you to pay more for.

So much so, that in the face of the recession, Kimberly-Clark spent $25 million MORE on advertising those expensive, unsustainable brands in just the third quarter of 2008 alone.  They did so in a desparate attempt to keep Americans from switching to more affordable brands.

That begs the question: do Americans really prefer those expensive, ancient forest-destroying products?  Can people really tell the difference?  Or, are they being duped into buying pricey stuff with imaginary benefits and larger impact on the planet?

I hope you’ll use our new tissue guide, make up your own mind, and ultimately vote for ancient forest protection with your hard-earned dollars.

-Rolf

Apple moves closer to eliminating toxics and reducing their carbon footprint. This is fantastic news! Apple has long been an innovative company. They set the trends that other companies follow. That is why Greenpeace has been pushing for Apple to become the greenest technology company out there. We know they can do it! And, that once they do, others will follow. Looks like Apple is on the right track!

Just this week Apple announced new products and took a step closer to meeting their goal of removing toxic BFRs and PVC completely. New iMacs and Mac minis are BFR free and PVC free internally. Whoo Hoo!

That seems to just leave Apple to get rid of the PVC in external power cords, a move which industry insiders tell us is coming soon. Infinite loop has a good analysis of the latest moves from Apple here:

"We have spent a tremendous amount of time and engineering effort and money in coming up with these kinds of solutions ahead of the rest of the industry," (David Moody, Apple VP of marketing).

On toxic chemicals elimination they are leading the industry, now it's time for Dell, HP, Lenovo and co to match Apple's effort and money they have put it to this since May 2007.

And, Apple says they are committed to reducing their carbon footprint and will continue to be transparent by publishing a life-cycle analysis for each of their products and how it contributes to environmental issues.

Well, hats off to Apple for taking yet another step towards a greener future!

--Michelle

My Greenpeace colleagues in the United Kingdom posted an excellent blog about a new book about the oceans. I've reposted it here:

Behind many a Greenpeace action and every campaign lies a large amount of science related work. Much of the analysis and some of the research backing our campaigns comes from the scientists of the Greenpeace Research Laboratories,  based at Exeter University. Over the years they have accumulated a vast amount of expertise and thousands of scientific papers on a wide range of issues including many that are related to the health of the worlds oceans. From bycatch to ocean acidification, the team has been uncovering the facts behind the changes we are now witnessing happening at sea.

Having worked on a wide range of marine conservation issues all over the globe, the team have recently pulled together their vast knowledge and written a book - State of the World's Oceans – which both catalogues the threats to our oceans and sets out a blueprint for reversing current trends and laying the foundations for a return to clean, healthy and biodiverse seas. In particular the book sets out the science behind Greenpeace's call for a global network of marine reserves covering 40 per cent of the oceans.

Written in a way that makes it accessible to anybody with an interest in the fate of the seas around us, Paul Johnston, the head of the Greenpeace science unit, hopes that it will be widely read by the up and coming generation of marine scientists. "What we hope we've achieved is paint the big picture of what is happening to the oceans and made the scientific case for an holistic approach to marine management with the protection of whole ecosystems and their functions at its core."

This is what democracy looks like:

Over 2,500 clean energy activists came out today for the Capitol Climate Action and participated in the largest act of civil disobedience on global warming in American history. The crowd heard from James Hansen, Vandana Shiva, Wendell Berry, Gus Speth, Robert Kennedy, Jr., and many more committed environmental leaders. All five entrances to the Capitol Power Plant were shut down for over 4 hours. You can read all about it here, as well as view the unedited footage from our live streaming video coverage.

If you couldn't make it to DC today, you can still make sure Congress hears from you: Call your Rep. now! And you can check out some pics:

2500+ folks have turned out to protest the stranglehold dirty fossil fuels have on our Congress. You can watch it on live streaming video, as well as follow our live blog and real-time Twitter updates, here!