Three Greenpeace climbers have hung a banner on the face of Mount Rushmore to issue a challenge to President Obama: "America honors leaders, not politicians: Stop Global Warming.”
Watch it live in our streaming video: www.greenpeace.org/rushmore
This is just one of several actions Greenpeace has staged today as world leaders gather in L'Aquila, Italy for the G8 meeting.
Global warming is an environmental crisis the likes of which we’ve never faced before, but so far, our leaders seem content to play politics with the issue. Yet, given the powerful forces who are actively working to delay action, addressing it adequately will require bold leadership, not political dealing. The banner hang on Mount Rushmore is intended to press President Obama to be a leader in establishing science-based global warming policy not just here in the U.S., but also internationally at the UN climate change discussions to be held in Copenhagen this December.
The science is clear on the fact that we need to reduce our emissions by 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020, and 80-95% by 2050. If we do less than that, we risk crossing a tipping point that will bring about the worst impacts of global warming – devastating floods, droughts, wildfires, and storms.
Unfortunately, the House of Representatives recently passed a climate bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), that sets targets far below those mandated by science — largely because the fossil fuels industries were allowed a huge amount of influence in revising the legislation. The bill is so weak that it may actually spur a new generation of dirty coal and dangerous nuclear plants.
The excuse we’re given is that this legislation is all that is politically feasible. But the climate doesn't care about what's politically feasible. If we don't take action in line with the science, we face catastrophic climate change.
In President Obama's inaugural address, he vowed to "restore science to its rightful place." ACES, which will soon be voted on in the Senate, falls woefully short of that mark. Sign our petition now to call on President Obama to honor his commitment to restoring science by being a true leader, not a politician.
You must have an account and be logged in to post comments.
Please log in or create an account to share your comments.
The planet needs you, and so do we. Join our mailing list to get the latest Greenpeace news, online action alerts, and more delivered to your inbox. It's one more way you can help create a more green and peaceful future.
Join the conversation on the Greenpeace Activist blog! Start your own blog and connect with other bloggers. Network with fellow activists, share your stories, discuss latest news and trends and trade tips on organizing and living green. The Greenpeace Activist blog is your place to help build and engage with the environmental movement.
February 2010 (5)
January 2010 (18)
December 2009 (45)
November 2009 (40)
October 2009 (40)
September 2009 (37)
August 2009 (26)
July 2009 (34)
June 2009 (40)
May 2009 (25)
April 2009 (42)
March 2009 (28)
350
Alternet
Bright Green Blog
Celsias
Climate Progress
DeSmogBlog
Dateline Earth
Dot Earth
EcoGeek
Environmental Capital
Green For All Blog
Green Inc.
Greenspace
Grist Magazine
The Huffington Post
It's getting hot in here
Mother Jones
NRDC blogs
Outside Blog
Skeptical Science
The Skywriter
Sustainablog
The Thin Green Line
Treehugger
Understory
Unsilent Generation
Utne Reader
Warming Law
Wonk Room
Yahoo! Green
1Sky
350
Apollo Alliance
Boreal Songbird Initiative
Environmental Investigation Agency
ForestEthics
Green for All
Markets Initiative
Natural Resources Defense Council
NukeFree.org
Rainforest Action Network
Sierra Club
Sustainable South Bronx
True Majority
We Can Solve It
Kim
"childish," you say. and yet you took the time to come here and call us names for it. way to prove your point.
for the record, i see nothing childish about taking action to hold our elected representatives responsible. Obama promised to restore science to its "rightful place," and has ignored the science in favor of political dealing. that's unacceptable, and we're doing what we have to do to convey that message to the president, the American public, and the world.
I know that I would be pretty ticked off if I was there, on a hard-earned vacation that I get once a year, and could not take the picture that I wanted. There are other ways of communicating the message without using national treasures for your own means.
Again, I agree on banding together to make the politicians accountable. It doens't mean I am going to convey the message by obscuring the few things we have left in this country to pass on.
The virtue and good of your philosphy does not make all of your actions right.
They base their arguments on computer models composed of equations representing known scientific laws, theories, and hypotheses. Each equation has one or more constants. The constants associated with known laws are very well defined. The constants associated with known theories are generally accepted but probably some of them may be off by a factor of 2 or more, maybe even an order of magnitude. The equations representing hypotheses, well, sometimes the hypotheses are just plain wrong. Then all these equations have to be weighted against each other for use in the computer models, so that adds an additional constant for each law, theory, and hypothesis.
The SCIENTIFIC METHOD is: (1) Based on known laws, accepted theories, and data, come up with a hypothesis. (2) Develop a plan to obtain new data. (3) Collect and analyze the data, this may even require new technology not previously available. (4) Determine if the hypothesis is correct, needs refinement, or is wrong. Either way, new data is available for other researchers. (5) Submit results, including data, for peer review and publication.
With the general circulation models (also known as general climate models or GCMs) the output of the computer models is considered to be data, but it is not. Also, there is no way to analyze this so called data to determine if any or which of the hypotheses in the model are correct, need refinement, or are wrong. Also, this method cannot indicate if other new hypotheses need to be generated. IT JUST IS NOT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
The worst flaw in the AGW argument is the treatment of GCM computer generated outputs as data. They then use it in follow on hypotheses. For example, if temperature rises by X degrees in 50 years, then Y will be effected in such-and-such a way resulting in Z. Then the next person comes along and says, well, if Z happens, the effect on W will be a catastrophe. I need (and deserve) more money to study the effects on W. Hypotheses, stacked on hypotheses, stacked on more hypotheses, all based on computer outputs that are not data, using a process that does not lend to proof using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
Look at their results, IF, MIGHT, and COULD are used throughout their news making results. And when one of the underlying hypotheses is proven incorrect, well, the public only remembers the doomsday results 2 or three iterations down the hypotheses train. The hypotheses downstream are not automatically thrown out and can even be used for more follow on hypotheses.
Global Warming fanatics like these Greenpeace members do a disservice to the legitimate concern about Global Climate Change. Your schoolyard stunt, just set back the environmental movement 10 years.
Imagine how Americans felt, after travelling hundreds of miles to see the awesome spectacle of Mount Rushmore, being forced to look at a high-school stunt like that? One day, the kids who pulled this nonsense, will look back at the fools they were, and realize national treasures shouldn't be used as NY Times full page adds.
Put down the bong and think people!
Noah Mace, 21, Chapel Hill, NC
Mary Sweeters, 27, Chicago
Basil Tsimoyianis, 22, Westport, CT
Madeline Gardner, 27, Minneapolis
Matthew Leonard, 30, San Francisco
Brian Jenkins, 25, Helena, MT
Simran McKenna, 25, San Francisco
Jessica Miller, 31, Flushing, NY
Cy Wagoner, 32, San Francisco
Joseph Smyth, 27, Albuquerque, NM
Hope Kaye, 23, San Francisco
Sometimes I think people may take out their guns since social chaos may be coming due to environmental dirty capitalism. We need in Congress green smart clean business capitalist to create a new exciting ecology commerce that is possible with courage.