Greenpeace

With the start of the Copenhagen Summit set to start in early December, Greenpeace and the rest of the world watches and waits to see if this really “is a new day... a new era" on climate change and if Obama is the leader he has promised he would be.

Released today, a Greenpeace briefing highlights some of the key areas where the climate legislation in Congress falls short and outlines how Obama and the US can do more to deliver deeper emission cuts by harnessing the potential of renewable energy and energy efficiency. 

Read more...

 

 

News of the historic chemical security bill, just approved by the House of Representatives, has been heating up and spreading far and wide. Check out this editorial in the New York Times.

More than eight years after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the House of Representatives has passed a bill to shore up security at this country’s chemical plants. The requirements are reasonable, vital and long overdue. If terrorists were to attack a chemical plant near an American city or large town, they could unleash a toxic cloud that could endanger the lives of hundreds of thousands.

Environmental groups, most notably Greenpeace, and organized labor have been pushing Congress to enact tough chemical plant security legislation, but the chemical industry — concerned about the cost — has long resisted.

The House bill is a carefully written compromise that is more than accommodating to the concerns of industry. It focuses only on the highest-risk plants, and it would make them use safer chemicals or processes only when the Department of Homeland Security determines that they are feasible and cost-effective.

Read more...

While we're excited the bill was approved by the House, now we have to stay focused on the Senate. Soon, they will take up chemical security legislation. We want the Senate legislation to be strong, too.

 

 

Take action! Tell your Senator it's time to introduce strong chemical security legislation in the Senate.

--Michelle

We've been pressuring Trader Joe's to adopt sustainable seafood purchasing policies throughout all of their stores—for months. But, they still haven't changed their ways.

Store managers and corporate big-wigs have felt the heat from Greenpeace's mock website, relentless phone calls from supporters, poignant karaoke songs from shoppers and in-store demonstrations across the country.

Have they been ignoring the public's cries for ocean protection? Or are they simply unwilling to tell the truth about their actions to their consumers?

Whatever the reason for their complete lack of responsibility, it's high-time to turn up the heat, once again. Ocean conservation is too important to ignore!

Please, take action today! Tell Merchandising V.P., Matt Sloan, to clear up the story for Trader Joe's with this simple message: "We're still waiting for Trader Joe's sustainable seafood policy!"

We will continue to demand sustainable seafood until Trader Joe's makes that a reality. 

 

 

I don't have to tell you that the threats that face the planet are absolutely dire. People are doing things they never imagined in hopes of ensuring that our children's children have a planet that is livable.

What keeps me inspired through all of this? Working with youth that are willing to put their lives on hold, to join the Greenpeace Organizing Term. Every semester, 25-30 students are taking time off of school, fundraising to cover tuition, convincing parents to let them join, and moving their lives sometimes across the country to learn how to become leaders in the environmental movement.

The Greenpeace Organizing Term is a semester long program where students learn basic to advanced campaign and grassroots organizing skills. Students spend 12 weeks learning how to build the movement back home, pressure big corporations and elected officials, and how to inspire coming generations of environmental activists.

During the program students' travel to work on campaigns in the field, where they get to use their new skills on Greenpeace campaigns. On their expedition trip, they get a chance to see how environmental issues effect global communities, and have a chance to support those communities through organizing. .

Check out this awesome slideshow that we put together of a few of our over 200 alumni sharing why they decided to take a stand:

Do you want to be apart of this growing movement of youth who are willing to take a stand for the environment? Check out the G.O.T.’s website for more info and to apply!

The Organizing Term is an amazing experience for current undergraduate students who are 18-24. If you are, or know someone whois currently a student who is passionate about environmental change, check out our site at http://www.greenpeace.org/got and apply today for our Spring 2010 semester!

I gave my Macbook a hug last night after reading on Apple's website that it has cleared the last hurdle in eliminating toxic PVC plastic. Apple is now the first PC maker to completely eliminate hazardous brominated flame retardants and polyvinyl chloride plastic in its new iMac and Macbook.

Removing PVC from PC power cords was the last step in Apple’s industry leading position on toxics elimination. Apple was first with PCs virtually free of BFRs and PVC (except for the power cord) in March this year. While HP recently produced their first BFR/PVC free (except power cord) model, Apple has again moved further ahead of the competition.

While removing the last use of PVC might not sound like a big deal, it means Apple’s new products will be safer and easier to recycle and cause less pollution at the end of life. There were significant technical and safety certification barriers to finding PVC alternatives, but Apple has now proved it's now possible and has completed the phase out, while reducing product price and boosting profits.

Apple’s PVC free power cords are only available in certain markets currently but should be available more widely when safety certification is obtained.

This lays down the gauntlet to other major PC makers such as Dell, HP, Lenovo and Acer to catch up with Apple again, and we’ll be keeping up our pressure on them to match Apple’s lead.

A bit of history

Back in 2006 we launched our Green my Apple campaign because we knew Apple had the potential to lead the industry towards greener, less toxic products. Huge numbers of Apple fans also called for a Greener Apple and the new iMac and MacBook are the final steps on the road Apple started down with Steve Jobs May 2007. This news marks an active few weeks for Apple’s environment team. Apple deserves credit for these positive moves but also big credit to all those Apple fans who helped make environment a top priority for Apple.

Greenpeace activists are hanging off a Pittsburgh bridge with a massive banner displaying our message to G20 leaders gathering for tomorrow's summit. The banner takes the form of stylized "road sign" that warns of the political maneuvering and delay that have put a international climate treaty in jeopardy as the world enters the final stretch on the road to Copenhagen.

An update I just read on the Pittsburgh Business Times said, "Security personnel surrounded the area, with a bomb squad car directing traffic, and Army Corp., state police and city of Pittsburgh boats located in the water near the bridge."

We are all gathered here at the office watching a live video feed of activists repelling from the Pittsburgh bridge. We are all biting our fingernails, waiting to see what happens next.

Watch with us!

And, when the video gets taken down – you can follow live updates on the Greenpeace website.

The reason Greenpeace hung this massive banner is because world leaders need to work towards global warming solutions NOW!

World financial representatives and leaders of the G20 (19 of the world's largest national economies, plus the European Union) are meeting in Pittsburgh to discuss both the global financial crisis and the global climate crisis.

It is important for G20 leaders to kick-start economic recovery through clean energy investment. These elements are vital to achieve a good deal in Copenhagen and avert catastrophic global warming.

Are you ready to step up to the plate? Join us in pressuring world leaders to act now before it’s too late. We can show world leaders the impact that civil society can have on solving the world’s challenges when we are unified.

Now more than ever, we need President Obama's leadership to stop global warming, and he needs to hear from YOU! 

Mary Ann is the webbie onboard the Esperanza right now. The Espy is on a two-month tour in the Pacific to help enforce a ban on destructive fishing practices.

A black dot.

Peering through the binoculars, thats how the Taiwanese fishing vessel appeared, silhouetted against the horizon.

The past few days' activities have been like tricks from a magician’s hat – you never know what your hand will pull out. Just yesterday, we fished out a banned fish aggregating device (FAD). Yesterday, during a routine reconnaissance, we chanced upon two fishing boats transferring tuna from one to the other!

The ships, Her Hae and Jia Yu Fa (pictured above), two Taiwanese longliners, were caught RED-HANDED by the Esperanza trans-shipping in the high seas between Papua New Guinea (PNG) and the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM)! They were photographed transferring tuna from one to the other as well as having shark fins on-board.

However, as soon as they saw us, they both stopped operations, hurriedly disengaged from each other and the larger of the two, Her Hae, sped off.

Jia Yu Fa was left alone bobbing in its wake. The order of the day was to catch up with the ship and relay our appeal to stop trans-shipment at sea and check if they were illegal or legal. Steaming at 13.5 knots, the powerful engines of the Esperanza were making the bridge door rattle beside me at the campaign office. The whole ship was humming as we pursued the fishing boat.

We came alongside the Jia Yu Fa, delivered information about our campaign, and questioned the crew about their fishing activities. The captain said they were transferring fish to the other ship because… they had a broken freezer. They also claimed to have a permit to trans-ship at sea from the FSM authorities.


Note the sharkfins on deck, bottom left corner of the green cover.

Upon checking, we discovered that both fishing boats did indeed have licences to fish. Her Hae (the larger of the two) has a licence under the WCPFC list and Jia Yu Fa, under FSM. However, under FSM’s fishing license conditions, as we discovered, trans-shipment at sea is NOT ALLOWED. Since this was the case, their activities were deemed illegal: Jia Yu Fa for transferring fish at sea against the rules of their fishing license, and Her Hae for receiving fish from a vessel that was not allowed to do so.

Having confirmed the illegality of this monkey business at sea, the Esperanza peacefully escorted the Jia Yu Fa out of the high seas and into the waters of FSM, where they hold a license to fish and their activities can be better monitored.

Trans-shipment at sea is but one fish hook on a long line of fishing woes for Pacific islanders. Until such time as the Tuna Commission starts listening to the Pacific nations’ request to close the high seas to all forms of fishing, this dubious practice will never stop. Trans-shipment at sea is stealing a precious resource, what little is now left of the tuna stocks, from Pacific nations. Their lifeblood is sucked away with every illegal, unregulated and unreported tuna catch, not to mention the by-catch of sharks, sea turtles and other fish species that needlessly die in longline and purse seine fishing.

This was just our third day in the high seas, and we’ve already found fish aggregating devices that are supposed to be banned at this time. We’ve also witnessed one of the most elusive fishing activities, illegal trans-shipment in international waters. Imagine the other 362 days of the year that go unchecked for this type of theft and plunder? Finding these two fishing boats represents just the tip of the iceberg of pirate fishing in the Pacific.

How many Her Haes and Jia Yu Fas do we need to catch before the Tuna Commission, and the world, wakes up and acts?



When will it stop?

It’s not just a matter of strong political will on the part of the Pacific nations and the Tuna Commission to protect and replenish the tuna. This is a matter of urgency that everyone — every government, every fishing company, retailer, dealer, and last but not least, every consumer — needs to act upon now. The Pacific tuna catch must be reduced by half, the high seas must be closed to all fishing and declared marine reserves, and FADs and trans-shipment at sea must be banned.

There is no time to waste, the time to end the plunder of Pacific tuna is now.

Images © Greenpeace/Paul Hilton

More than two months before 9/11, President Bush was warned that al Qaeda was plotting an attack within the United States. He failed to act. President Obama knows all too well that chemical plants represent one of the country's biggest security vulnerabilities. But the question remains: will he learn from his predecessor's mistake?

In a July 29th speech at the Council on Foreign Relations, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, described the risk. "We may be better prepared as a nation than we were on 9/11," she said. "But we are nowhere near as prepared as we need to be...a key piece of this is securing our nation's critical infrastructure...These are commercial facilities, chemical plants, emergency services..."

Three years ago, as a member of the Senate, Barack Obama understood these vulnerabilities and the risks that communities near chemical plants face. Ignoring intense pressure from the chemical industry, he led efforts in Congress to protect people working and living near these facilities. "We cannot allow chemical industry lobbyists to dictate the terms of this debate," he urged his colleagues.

Here's a video of President Barack Obama arguing passionately for stronger chemical security legislation as a Senator:

Unfortunately, the chemical industry prevailed and Congress rejected comprehensive legislation that would eliminate these risks and instead passed a temporary but fatally flawed law. That law actually prohibits the government from requiring the use of safer alternatives to dangerous chemicals. Although this law expires in October, it will be extended for one year to give Congress and the President time to make things right. The next step for Congress is in September when the House Energy and Commerce Committee expects to vote on a bill that is nearly identical to those authored by President Obama in the Senate.

The real test for President Obama is now. Unlike his leadership on health care, the president has been deafeningly silent on an issue that he and Vice President Biden championed in the Senate. This same "I'll sit it out during the season and maybe break a sweat in the last minutes of the finals" approach to legislation is dangerously similar to his approach to global warming legislation. That strategy resulted in coal and oil lobbyists hijacking the process and undermining the president's promises for clean energy jobs, world leadership, and meaningfully reducing global warming pollution. Will President Obama replay his global warming misstep with chemical security legislation?

No one doubts the magnitude of the risks. As President Obama once said, "these plants are stationary weapons of mass destruction spread all across the country." Chemical plants that store and use large quantities of poison gases in populated areas are especially big risks. According to industry's own reports to the Environmental Protection Agency, more than 100 million Americans live in "vulnerability" zones surrounding just 300 chemical plants. A catastrophic release of a gas like chlorine would form a toxic cloud or plume that would be hazardous for up to 20 miles downwind. According to a U.S. Naval Research Lab report, an attack at just one of these plants could put 100,000 people at risk of death or injury within the first 30 minutes of the incident.

Since Sept. 11th, scores of organizations representing a broad range of interests, including the Steelworkers, United Auto Workers, Teamsters, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Sierra Club, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, and Greenpeace have been pushed for stronger security standards at the country's chemical facilities.

While in the Senate, both President Obama and Vice President Biden authored, spoke out for and voted for several bills that would have ensured the use of safer chemical processes. In a 2006 floor statement introducing one of his bills Senator Obama said, "by employing safer technologies, we can reduce the attractiveness of chemical plants as a target... Each one of these methods reduces the danger that chemical plants pose to our communities and makes them less appealing targets for terrorists."

A growing number within the industry agree. Last year, the Association of American Railroads, which is the largest shipper of poison gases and is very concerned about its liability, issued a statement saying, "It's time for the big chemical companies to do their part to help protect America. They should stop manufacturing dangerous chemicals when safer substitutes are available. And if they won't do it, Congress should do it for them."

But, time and again since the 9/11 attacks, the chemical industry -- led by giants Dow and DuPont -- has shamelessly killed attempts to improve chemical security. In 2008 alone, the industry dispatched at least 169 lobbyists to kill comprehensive legislation.

The industry finds any requirement to use safer alternatives objectionable. They insist on the right to use any chemical or poison gas they deem best -- despite the risk to people working, living and going to school in the vicinity of their plants. The cost of converting these plants is relatively small. A survey of the 287 chemical plants that voluntarily converted to safer alternatives since 1999 found that 87 percent did it for less than a million dollars and one-third a reported a savings. As a result, more than 38 million Americans are no longer at risk from those plants.

In June, Democratic leaders in the House introduced legislation to require high risk chemical plants to assess safer alternatives. It would also conditionally require the highest risk plants to implement the safest and most cost-effective processes where feasible. When the bill was voted on in the House Homeland Security Committee, Republicans offered and won four amendments on behalf of the chemical industry to limit or prevent the use of safer chemical processes. As the Energy and Commerce Committee prepares to take up the bill in September, similar attacks on the bill are expected. The ranking Republican on Energy and Commerce, Representative Joe Barton (R-TX), has long opposed this legislation. In 2003 he told National Journal, "I don't see a burning need to legislate."

Eight years after the worst terrorist attack on American soil in history, our most vulnerable targets remain at risk. Simple, inexpensive, and common sense changes, like substituting or reducing the amount of lethal gases stored on-site, would protect millions of people from harm. As Senator, Barack Obama took on the chemical industry to protect our health and security. We need him to take the same stand as President and tell Congress to pass the strongest chemical security legislation possible this year. As he said in the Senate, "We cannot allow our security to be hijacked by corporate interests."

For more key information on this issue, go here.

This post originally appeared on Huffington Post.

 

Grocery shopping. It's a weekly chore that I dread. I have to try and remember my list, coupons, the weekly store flyer and my canvas bags.

Greenpeace is pressuring supermarkets so we can have one less thing to worry about when we go to the grocery store–whether or not the seafood is sustainable. We all have enough to remember, so it’s time for supermarkets to ensure that all their seafood has been caught in a sustainable way and the fish have descriptive labels so we can make informed decisions when we are at the seafood counter.

Greenpeace wants the entire seafood industry to change. Seafood businesses have a responsibility to make sure that the seafood they are selling is sustainable, so that we will be able to enjoy seafood without wondering if our purchases are contributing to the collapse of our ocean ecosystems.



Greenpeace released an updated scorecard. In their third release some supermarkets did better and I’m excited that the stores are listening to their customers and making positive changes. But, other supermarkets continue to do poorly.

In the third scorecard release, Wegmans received top ranking followed by Ahold USA, while Whole Foods dropped to third place from its December 2008 first place ranking. Trader Joe’s remains ranked at # 17, the worst ranking of the national supermarket chains surveyed. Three regional chains ranked at the bottom.

Wonder how your favorite supermarket ranked? Find out now. Greenpeace put together an interactive map. All you have to do is pick your state and a list of grocery stores will be displayed. You can see if your grocery store passed, failed or fell somewhere in the middle.

That's why we're here—to get the companies to make the right decisions.

This past Tuesday, May 5th, the Washington Times published an editorial about Greenpeace in their print edition as well as online. The editorial referenced arson and Nazi brownshirts, then tried to assert connections to Greenpeace. It went on to suggest that we had somehow capitalized on the tragic death of one of our photographers — Fernando Pereira, who was murdered when French operatives sunk our ship, the Rainbow Warrior, by bombing it in a New Zealand harbor in 1985.

These are completely baseless and offensive accusations. So I wrote my own editorial, which the Washington Times has published, to set the record straight.

When 17 heads of government descend on Washington Monday for President Obama’s Major Emitters Forum, he will hear the same demand from each of them: that the United States take big action, immediately, to slash climate pollution – or risking putting a real global solution to the climate crisis at risk.

Even though President Obama was elected on a platform of delivering action on global warming, and has passionately reiterated those pledges since becoming president, he will have to overcome enormous skepticism from his international negotiating partners. At this summit, it is they who will be repeating Ronald Reagan’s maxim about Soviet overtures at the beginning of the glasnost era: Trust, but verify.

The presidents and prime ministers have good reason to doubt: for all Obama’s talk (and President Clinton’s before him) about the urgency of the climate crisis, the United States has done little to nothing to address global warming pollution, even as almost every other developed country has at least started down the road to a climate-friendly economy.

Of course, there are some sprigs of hope: the House Energy and Commerce committee is currently debating a bill that constitutes a good first step in the transition to a prosperous clean energy economy. But even that bill currently falls short of the 25-40 percent short-term cuts in U.S. pollution that scientists say is necessary to avoid the worst impacts of global warming: massive droughts, floods, extreme weather, and extinction of endangered species like the polar bear, not to mention a $3.8 trillion drag on the economy.

That bill, however, faces huge challenges: Republicans and even some Democrats with close ties to the coal industry are likely to try to water it down even further. And even if it makes it out of the House intact, it will be a big political challenge to pull together the 60 votes necessary to pass major legislation in the Senate.

If the United States doesn’t take action that matches its responsibility, it’s unlikely other countries will meet theirs: China will continue to build new, very dirty coal fired power plants, and tropical countries like Indonesia, Brazil, and the Congo will continue to allow giant agricultural interests to burn down their forests. And the climate will rapidly careen out of control.

But President Obama can single-handedly avert that fate with a little political hardball. His Environmental Protection Agency recently declared the climate change does indeed represent a threat to human health and welfare – giving the Obama administration the authority to unilaterally limit climate pollution through the Clean Air Act.

No negotiation with ornery senators necessary. No bargaining with committee chairmen seeking to protect some home-state polluter that makes big campaign contributions. Just an honest look at the science – and what it’s going to take to deliver future generations a living planet.  But so far, the Obama administration has danced around this authority and implied they’re only using it as a back-up in case Congress doesn’t act.

If Obama is serious about getting other countries to act in concert with the United States to meet this global challenge, that’s got to change. A firm declaration that he will regulate carbon dioxide to the maximum extent possible will bring developing countries to the table in a serious way.

It will also ensure that Congress passes a reasonably strong bill: if they don’t pass something commensurate with what Obama does through the Clean Air Act, he can just veto it. It’s hardball, sure, but it’s what it will take to solve this great crisis.

--Phil