Environmental Action

You Say You Want a Revolution?

My friends at Progressive Future have asked me to guest blog over here to talk about the reality that as we celebrate our independence from Great Britain 232 years ago we find ourselves wholly dependent on another form of tyranny, namely, oil.

There is no doubt about it, our country is painfully addicted to the nasty black stuff, and it's going to bring us down as a nation unless we break free, not just from foreign oil, but from all oil.

Now some people are saying that the solution to our oil crisis is to drill for more oil off the US coast. As Jon Stewart pointed out on the Daily Show last week, that's like a coke addict saying, "I have a cocaine problem. I’m out of cocaine. What say we turn the kids’ rooms into cocaineries." God love Jon Stewart.

Here's the reality. We are terribly addicted to an energy source that is literally choking us. Drilling for oil is dirty, dangerous and unpredictable. Shipping oil is a catastrophe waiting to happen. Both lead to massive oil spills that choke the environment and poison our people. Processing and burning the stuff leads to global warming. There's not a single aspect to oil that is good, unless you're a shareholder with ExxonMobil.

There's a reason the movie was called, 'There Will Be Blood', and not 'There Will Be Happiness'.

And frankly, I've had it up to here with oil getting a free ride. 232 years ago, the founding leaders of our country declared their independence from an unfair and unjust ruler, and while the names have changed - from King George of England to CEO Rex Tillerson of ExxonMobil, the offensives conducted by each are shockingly similar, and I'd like to take a moment to make some comparisons:

He [King George] has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good
Big oil repeatedly flaunt the environmental laws of the United States of America - from oil spill clean up requirements to safety regulations on their pipelines.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance
Between 1990 and 2008, the oil and gas industry has contributed $219 million to federal political campaigns.
Recipients of these funds repeatedly hold up or squash legislation in the Congress that would be negative to big oil

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice
It's estimated the big oil receives $15-35 billion in subsidies every year from the government. The EPA's requested budget for 2008 was $7.2 billion. Where's the justice?

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power
Iraq? Anybody?

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone
A couple weeks ago the Supreme Court determined that the 33,000 Alaskans most affected by the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989 (largest in U.S. history) would receive $15,000 each in compensation for loss of health and work capabilities - that's about $750 for each year since the disaster

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people
When Katrina hit, over 8 million gallons of oil were spilled into gulf waterways, and onto the land - the second largest oil spill in U.S. history. Currently, millions of acres of coastline are open to oil drilling and they want more. Last year, a carrier in the San Francisco Bay spilled more than 50,000 gallons of oil, killing hundreds of birds and fish. The list, sadly, goes on and on.

The bottom line is that over the last century we have slowly but surely become intertwined with a new tyrant - big oil, and it's time for another revolution. It's time for a clean energy revolution. And, just like for our founders more than two hundred years ago, there are solutions to our problems. Clean cars, public transit, alternative fuels, and renewable energy sources to name a few. But before we can implement these solutions, we need to, metaphorically, stop quibbling about the price of tea, and declare our independence from oil.

I encourage you all to join in the fight, engage in the battle, and join the revolution by declaring your independence from big oil - declare it in the choices you make in every day life, declare it to your elected officials at July 4th events this weekend, and declare it at the ballot box in November. We've got a great system here in the U.S., and it's time we made it work. I'll end with some one of the most beautiful passages from the Declaration of Independence, and wish you all a happy Independence Day.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Let the Real Debate on Offshore Drilling Begin

I'm doing a little post-swap with my friends over at Progressive Future. This is from their recent blog entry - look for on of mine over there tomorrow.

I don't know about you, but I'm still waiting.

Nearly two weeks ago, President Bush echoed John McCain's call to end our nation's moratorium on offshore drilling as a solution to high gas prices.

With our country hurtling toward a crossroads on energy policy, President Bush and Senator McCain have made their choice clear: the cure to our nation's addiction to oil is . . . wait for it . . . more oil!

What an opportunity to jump-start the national discussion about energy policy! What an opportunity to present a clear and compelling case for a different path toward a different future!

Instead, Democratic Party leaders and other well-meaning progressive voices have pointed out that it takes a long time to develop new offshore drilling wells. They've explained that even if these wells are developed, the impact on prices is likely to be small. They've warned that there's no way to prevent the oil that's drilled from leaving the U.S. And they've noted that the oil companies are already sitting on 68 million acres of federal land and water where they could drill right now.

All of which is true as far as it goes. But is this really the best we can do? Is this the real debate our country should be having about energy right now, with the public's attention riveted on the problem in a way that it hasn't been since the days of the OPEC embargo?

Or are we letting the oil companies and their friends in Washington frame the debate in a manner that ignores the real problem?

I'm waiting to hear someone on our side explain that the high price of gas isn't the problem; it's a symptom, along with our increasingly fraught relationship with the rest of the world and the degradation of our land, air, water and climate, of our dependence on oil.

I'm longing to hear someone argue that increasing our dependence on oil – even if we get our fix via domestic supplies– is like Thelma and Louise hitting the accelerator with the cliff just a few hundred yards away.

I'm dying to hear someone point out that the moment of "peak oil" is getting closer every day, and exploiting every last drop of our nation's offshore reserves might forestall this day of reckoning by a few years, at best.

I'd love to hear someone remind people that burning all that offshore oil will hasten our approach to the tipping point when climate change accelerates and becomes irreversible.

And I wouldn't mind finding someone brave enough to ask how long the rest of the world will stand for an America that comprises 5 percent or so of the world's population and consumes about 25 percent of the world’s fossil fuels.

If even some of what the experts are predicting comes true, paying $4 for a gallon of gas will be the least of our problems.

On the flip side, solving these problems could be our nation's salvation. We can reinvigorate our economy through an Apollo-style program to promote conservation, energy efficiency, clean, renewable power, clean cars, modernized public transit systems, and smart growth. We can start leading the global effort to solve the global climate crisis. We can restore our standing in the world by offering the world a new model of sustainable development.

None of it will happen if progressives get stuck in a stale debate about whether offshore drilling will or will not lower gas prices. We have a chance to ignite this debate, to perform a real service to our kids and grandkids, to seize our moment in history to tackle what could be our generation’s most important challenge.

And if we do, one day, when a gallon of gas hits $10, most Americans will say, "Who cares? I drive an electric car when I don't take the train or walk, and my house generates more electricity than I use. Whatever happened to OPEC anyway?"

If you've seen a good blog or other piece that effectively reframes the debate around offshore drilling, send it our way. We'll do whatever we can to promote it, starting with posting it on our own Web site.

Supreme Court Puts Price on Suffering

And it's $15,000 per person. Way to go Supreme Court! Seriously, this is ridiculous. In 1989, the Exxon Valdez dumped 11 million gallons of oil throughout the Prince William Sound in Alaska, wrecking 1200 miles of coastline, and killing an insane amount of wildlife, not to mention the livelihoods of the people living on the sound.

In 1994, a federal court granted those people affected by the spill $2.5 billion in punitive damages, and today the Supreme Court cut those damages to $500 million. Adjusted for inflation, this means the plaintiffs will receive a paltry 13.7% of their original award, or about $15,000 for each of the 33,000 people in the class action suit. That works out to about $789 a year since the disaster.

Exxon's claimed they already spent $3.4 billion on cleanup efforts, and an additional $2.5 billion was exorbitant. While these may seem like gigantic numbers, remember :

- This was the largest oil spill in US history, and Exxon has spent $309 per gallon to clean up their mess. A mess that destroyed wildlife, wrecked havoc on the Prince William Sound ecosystem, and destroyed the financial lives of thousands of Alaskans.

- The 2.5 billion in the suit was for punitive damages - that is, damage caused to the inhabitants of Alaska by Exxon's negligence. Therefore, what they paid in cleanup costs should have nothing to do with making things right with the people of Alaska.

- And for the record, from 2001-07, ExxonMobil posted profits of close to $200 billion, making the 2.5 they were supposed to pay seem pretty paltry in comparison.

This is a total and complete slap in the face to the residents affected by Exxon's negligence.

What's in a spill?

A lot of folks are talking about offshore oil drilling and how OH MY GOD THE SKY WILL FALL IF WE DON'T DRILL EVERY THING.

Now, us pesky environmentalists are getting blamed for $4 a gallon at the pump. If only we'd let ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, and every one else with a rig get at all that oil. I've talked before about how ridiculous this notion is, but let's back up and talk about how bad this idea is, and why.

I came across this quote today posted on CNBC's site : "The overwhelming concern of environmentalists who fear a massive oil spill is all for naught. Drilling technology – built right here at home – has so advanced as to make the possibility of an eco-disaster virtually nil."

Really? Maybe that should be mentioned to folks in the gulf states. When Katrina hit in August of 2005, one of the stories that received less coverage than perhaps it should've was the fact that over 8 million gallons of oil spilled into the ground and water from Louisiana to Alabama, making it the second largest oil spill in U.S. history, after the the Exxon Valdez spill of 1989.

So the two largest oil spills in our nation's history happened within twenty years of each other, and yet we're being told, 'nah, don't worry, oil's cleaner now,' a ridiculous notion at best.

The reality is that oil kills wildlife. We know that. What we forget sometimes is that we humans are wildlife too. Imagine new rigs all up and down the coasts of Florida, California, and Virginia - states that make their money of us humans who like to play in the sun on the beach as much as seals do.

Now think through the water supplies for the close to 20 million Floridians, or 36 million Californians. What happens when natural disaster hits these coastal states, wiping out hundreds of rigs, as happened on the Gulf Coast?

There is a ban on new offshore drilling for a good reason. Oil drilling is dirty, it's dangerous, and needs to be phased out, not amped up.

More Drilling Isn't the Answer TAKE ACTION

I'm a bit nervous today. In a recent speech, President Bush blamed high prices at the pump on the current ban on offshore drilling. What Mr. Bush is suggesting is that if we allow further destruction of our public lands through offshore oil drilling, we'll get out of our energy crunch.

You and I, of course, know how wrong the president is. Sadly, many Americans are buying into the President's false argument because they're angry about paying $4 a gallon for gas.

Help set the record straight by writing a letter to your local paper. We need to expose the flaws in the President's arguments.

On our site, we have talking points for your letter, and you can pick which papers to send your letter to.

For the record :

The United States has less that 3% of the world's remaining supply of oil. We will never drill our way to energy independence

Even if we allowed this drilling, it will be years before the oil is available, doing nothing to solve our current price crunch

Each year we export close to 500 million barrels of oil, so there is no guarantee that oil drilled in the U.S. will stay here. Many of the largest oil companies are based abroad, and often sell their oil to other countries

Bush estimates there are 18 billion barrels of 'drillable' oil off our shores - that's only enough to replace our imports for 4 years. What then?

So please help get this message out there: Opening up sensitive ecosystems to more drilling will not bring gas prices down.

McCain Tells Oil Execs Oil Drilling Rules

According to Grist, Sen. McCain will address a group of oil executives today on the subject of energy policy.

From his statements, the Senator is going to suggest that, 'We have proven oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States, but a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. I believe it is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and to put our own reserves to use.'

I admit, 21 billion sounds like a lot. Whether it's dollars or jelly beans, 21 billion is just a whole lot. But here's the thing. In 2006, the United States imported 10.118 million barrels of oil a day.

So, Mr. McCain, welcome back to math class. Those 21 billion barrels would replace our foreign oil imports for 5.68 years. My question is, 'well, what then, Mr. Senator?'

Oh by the way, that's assuming our imports don't increase at all over time.

And this is the problem with calling for more drilling - we simply don't have the oil, domestically, to sustain our demand. The bottom line is we need to break free from oil.

Cheney Comes Out For Drilling

In a speech before the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Vice President Dick Cheney announced, much to everyone's surprise, that he supports more domestic drilling to solve our current oil crisis.

I know this isn't news in the sense that it's new information, but it is dangerous. As prices soar past $4 a gallon, the Bush/Cheney folks are going to do their best to paint the picture that us pesky environmentalists are to blame for for the sky falling. And, people are so irate, that it just might work.

So, the next time you're in an argument or debate where this comes up, I'd like to dole out a few factoids that might help.

- Cheney used to work for Halliburton, a massive oil company. I'm guessing he still has friends there

- The United States has less than 2% of the world's remaining oil. This means we can drill every last drop, and still be in deep trouble, because we're terribly addicted to the stuff.

And that's the bottom line. Cheney and his oil buddies are so motivated by self interest, they fail to admit to the realities of the situation.

Summer Newsletter Now Online

It's been a great couple of months for all of us, and I'm extremely proud to share our progress via our summer newsletter.

First of all, you can read about our work to reclaim the EPA, and get Administrator Johnson to resign.

We have also highlighted a couple of the environmental heroes and zeros of the federal government.

Then, we had great success in our effort targeting the 2008 presidential candidates to double the gas mileage standard if elected.

I'm also excited to share our work on behalf of clean energy, and in particular calling on the candidates to pledge that all new energy needs be met with clean energy sources like wind and solar power.

And lastly, to learn what else you can do on behalf of the environment, check out our activist training corner.

Tell Us Your Drive Nowhere Day Story

On Friday, thousands of us took part in Drive Nowhere Day - our way to bring light to public transit in America. I'm pleased to announce that in addition to our work, the state of South Caroline took up the drive-nowhere mantle, calling on state residents to do their part by leaving their cars at home. Together we kept tons of CO2 out of the air, and more importantly put our first foot forward in fighting for more and better public transit around the country.

Did you take part in Drive Nowhere Day? Were you unable to for some reason? Either way, I want to hear your story. To help increase the impact of Drive Nowhere Day, we need to tell our stories to our elected officials. As we've been saying, driving nowhere was just the first step. Now, we need to let everyone know if it was easy or hard, convenient or impossible, and why.

So please, take a minute and tell us YOUR drive nowhere story.

And thanks for being a part of Drive Nowhere Day

Happy Drive Nowhere Day!

Well, it's finally here - the day when thousands of us are leaving our cars at home in favor of bikes, feet, and that great love of mine, public transit.

As many of you know, Drive Nowhere Day was set up to recognize our over-dependence on oil. Today marks the day when we as a nation have consumed as much oil as we will produce domestically for all of 2008, and the simple truth of the matter is that the U.S. will not be able to drill its way to energy independence.

We've come up with three solutions for ending our dependence on oil.

- First, make sure the oil we do use is used as efficiently as possible. Since 2/3 of our oil consumption is used to move goods and people around the country, this means we need to go further on a gallon of gas. Our campaign over the last year to double the gas mileage standard has been very successful, with two current presidential candidates embracing the policy.

- Secondly, make sure our federal government is investing more in clean fuel technologies. On this front, we've been working to get Congress to invest more subsidies into renewable energies, and less into fossil fuel sources.

- Thirdly, we need to make public transit more available and more attractive to, the average person. Currently, public transit suffers from a pretty bad stigma. People don't believe it is convenient or reliable - so we need our state and federal governments to put more funding into expanding lines and increasing ridership.

We're excited that thousands of people are taking part in Drive Nowhere Day, and believe it's just the beginning. This will allow us to send a message to our elected officials, and hopefully will turn tons of folks onto the ease of public transit.

So, if you haven't pledged to drive nowhere today, it's not too late, add your name here, and please invite friends and family to get on the bus today.

South Carolina Gets on Board

Well I'm pretty excited. Myra Reece, the chief of the state Department of Health and Environmental Control's Bureau of Air Quality is calling on all South Carolinians to take part in Drive Nowhere Day.

Kudos, South Carolina!

You can read the article here, and I'm thankful that the state has picked up on the campaign's environmental side, and not just on the 'save some money by taking public transit' side.

Take Our Survey

Today we set up our member survey, and I'd invite you to take it. It shouldn't take more than a few minutes to complete, and will help give us a better sense of who our supporters are, and how we're doing in your eyes.

If you've got a couple minutes, and a couple things to say, click here to take the survey and let us know more about you, and our relationship.

CORE and ExxonMobil

There has already been a ton of coverage on McCain's global warming plan, so I'll just trust that you're reading the Grist coverage of it.

I'd like to chat about something completely different. Or maybe not so much. The Congress Of Racial Equality (CORE), founded in the 40's to combat racial injustice, was long considered a leader in the grassroots movement. Whether it's lunch counter sit-ins or the Freedom Rides, CORE was there.

But, this week, CORE chair Roy Innis said that if the polar bear is listed under the Endangered Species Act, CORE will sue the Bush Administration because, "such a listing will drive up energy prices and hurt America's working poor more than any other element of society."

I'll set aside the mounds of research that shows how terribly the working poor will be impacted by the effects of global warming - the food shortages, the increase in communicable disease, and the literally millions of global warming refugees we'll see - all of which will more negatively impact the poor than anyone else.

Let's for a second ask why CORE is making such a big deal out of the polar bear. Could it be the hundred of thousands of dollars ExxonMobil has contributed to CORE's work (and in particular their global warming work) over the years?

In fact, between 2003 and 2005, ExxonMobil donated $250,000 to CORE. Since CORE's operating budget is $2 million a year, this represents over 4% of their total operating costs - a pretty significant amount.

In his release, Innis states, ""Onshore and offshore public lands could hold enough oil to produce gasoline for 60 million cars and fuel oil for 25 million homes for 60 years, and enough natural gas to heat 60 million homes for 160 years."

And I'll accept those numbers as true, but I'd like to point out that there are currently 113,146,000 homes in the United States, and we have 247,421,120 cars on the road. This means Innis is suggesting we heat 22% of the homes for 60 years and let the rest lie cold - and oh yeah, any new homes built for 60 years also get no heat.

Similarly, his estimate means that we'll put gas in the tanks of 24% of our cars for six decades, and let the rest rust - and again, no new cars.

So really, what he's saying is we can power our cars and heat our homes for fifteen years using domestic fuel sources. My question is, what do we do in 2023 when we've tapped every last drop of fuel?

Also, he's not really offering any actual solutions to the spectre of global warming. So, yet again, we see ExxonMobil pushing money to an organization to act as their mouthpiece, who then acts as if nothing is wrong, and somehow a solution will magically appear in a decade in a half.

It saddens me that a group known for standing up for the rights of the poor and the downtrodden is so easily co opted by those who seek to benefit financially from trashing those they work to protect.

Americans Are Confusing

The Pew Research Center just released results of a new poll about global warming, and I have to confess, I'm thoroughly confused.

The chief finding is that, sadly, beliefs about and concern over global warming is becoming a deeply partisan issue. For instance, 27% of the Republicans polled believe GW is caused by human activity, as opposed to 58% of Democrats. Similarly, 22% of Republicans view GW as a 'serious problem' as opposed to 57% of Democrats.

I could understand the partisan divide, given that it's a presidential election year, and the chief spokesperson of the global warming issue is former Democratic candidate Al Gore - except that Mr. Gore has been doing no campaigning for either Democratic contender, and has largely opted to stay out of the race so as to focus on the issue at hand - namely, global warming, and has consistently spoken of global warming as a cross-party problem that we need to solve.

That being said, one of the truly shocking parts of the research comes at the end when you view where people rank global warming in terms of policy priorities :

For Democrats, it ranks 15th, for independents 18th, and for Republicans 21st. This despite that fact that of all people polled, 71% believe global warming exists, and 49% believe it is human-made.

The problem, of course, is that global warming is going to have negative impacts on the economy, energy policies, the environment, health care costs, and the problems of the poor, all issues people are even more concerned about.

It would appear that we really need to do a better job of explaining the problem, and it's many long term ramifications, to other people - including the media.

Shell Oil Supports Drilling, Kirk Still Hates Klingons

In Idaho John Hofmeister, the president of Shell Oil, called for more drilling wherever he can get it. "The U.S. prohibits access to its own natural resources..we need more oil and gas, whether it's onshore Alaska, or offshore Alaska."

He then went on to sing the praises of going after Alberta's oil sands and oil shale in Colorado, never mind the fact that oil recovery from shale is highly questionable.

How many times do I have to say this? With less than 2% of the world's remaining supply of oil, the United States will never be able to drill its way to energy independence. It simply cannot happen.

Hofmeister then went on to claim that Shell supports carbon caps federally, and not some 'patchwork' of regulations put into place by the states.

Hey John, here's an idea - why not impose carbon caps yourself? Why wait for some pesky federal legislation that isn't going to come for at least a year, and, I don't know, take the lead yourself?