Home | About | Donate

Fossil Free Fast: A Climate Resistance Game Plan for 2018


#1

Fossil Free Fast: A Climate Resistance Game Plan for 2018

Published on
Thursday, January 25, 2018
by

Edit Views A Climate Resistance Game Plan for 2018

With the transition to 100% renewable energy, we have perhaps a once in a lifetime opportunity to rebuild our economy in a more just and equitable way.

"We need to make sure that this election day, every single person that cares about climate justice is registered to vote and knocking on doors to send a clear signal to the establishment that we need elected officials who don’t just believe in climate change, but are ready to do something about it." (Photo: Christine Irvine / courtesy of 350.org)

Let’s talk for a moment about how the climate movement is going to fight back in 2018.

But first, a public service announcement.

This January 31st, movement leaders like the one-and-only Bernie Sanders, 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben, Rev. Lennox Yearwood of the Hip Hop Caucus, Jacqueline Patterson of the NAACP, and more, are coming together for an event called “Fossil Free Fast: The Climate Resistance,” to lay out a movement game plan for 2018.

"Ok. Now let’s get down to the business of resistance."

If you’re in the D.C. area you should attend the event (tickets here). If not, you can host or join a house party to tune into the broadcast with fellow activists in your community. There are over 100 parties already registered nationwide. This isn’t an evening you want to miss.

Ok. Now let’s get down to the business of resistance.

After a year of watching the Trump Administration wreck havoc on our communities and the climate, we know that 2018 is going to bring an onslaught of new assaults. On the climate front, those attacks will take the form of cutting environmental protections and easing the way for more fossil fuel extraction.

We got a preview of horrors to come in January, when the Administration announced it would be opening up our coastlines for offshore drilling. That’s on top of plans to expand mining on public lands, allow for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and rubber stamp any and all new fossil fuel projects the industry can come up with.

Even more insidious is the way in which EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is attempting to dismantle decades of environmental regulations. If there’s a rule in place to protect public health or the environment, you can bet Pruitt is taking a hatchet to it. At the top of his kill list for 2018 is the Clean Power Plan, the Obama-era policy to limit pollution from coal fired power plants and one of our most important tools to combat rising emissions.

But there’s an Achilles heel to Trump and his cronies’ plan to smother the nation with pipelines and smog, because no matter the actions they take in Washington, D.C., these fossil fuel projects need to get built in towns, cities and counties across America. Trump can crow all he wants about coal, oil and gas, but ultimately, it’s not his little hands doing the construction. Even with the full backing of the White House, the only way a fossil fuel project moves forward is if it can secure all the necessary permits and local support. That can be tough for new mines and it’s especially difficult for major pipelines, which often run through multiple states and dozens of towns and counties along their proposed routes.

Which brings us to the first way that we’re going to fight back in 2018: organizing in our communities to stop all new fossil fuel projects.

Right now there isn’t a project in North America that doesn’t face some form of community resistance. From British Columbia to Pennsylvania, local groups are building alliances to resist any new project the industry throws our way. By working together, we can hold back fossil fuel projects long enough so that renewables take over and the economic case for building these pipelines and mines disappears. We’re not going to win every fight, but so far, the resistance is working and even the most inevitable seeming projects are now facing stiff opposition.

Take the case of Keystone XL. One of Trump’s first actions when he was elected was to approve the federal permit for the project. Since then, he’s been bragging that they “ built the Keystone XL pipeline.” Meanwhile, the actual pipeline is still rusting above ground somewhere in the Dakotas waiting to be assembled. In the real world, Keystone XL is still miles away from construction. TransCanada, the company building the project, may have a permit, but they’re still struggling to line up enough buyers for the tar sands oil they want to ship down to Texas (the company announced last week it had secured two-thirds of the commitments it needs, but even those pledges are shaky and had to be propped up by the government in Alberta). TransCanada also hasn’t secured construction rights from farmers and ranchers along a new route they’ve been forced to take through Nebraska.

There’s even a bolder roadblock facing Keystone: you. Over the past few months, nearly 15,000 people have signed the Promise to Protect, a pledge to travel to the route of the pipeline if TransCanada attempts to start building and peacefully resist construction in every way we can. The Promise should send a chill down the spine of TransCanada and any of their financial backers. Our organizing has held this pipeline back for over seven years and Trump can’t do anything about it. You could have the CEO of ExxonMobil in the White House (oh wait, he’s Secretary of State) and Keystone still wouldn’t get built. This resistance isn’t going anywhere.

Even if you don’t live near a pipeline or a fracking well there’s still a way to contribute to stopping projects. Just like in the fight against Big Tobacco or nuclear power, we’re going to be using the model of local resolutions to beat back the fossil fuel industry everywhere they rear their head. Our goal is to pass hundreds of “Fossil Free” resolutions in cities and towns across the country that ban the construction of new fossil fuel projects. In doing so, we’ll help tie up the industry in a web of resistance and helping protect our communities in perpetuity.

That’s job number one: stop all new fossil fuel projects. But playing defense isn’t enough, we also want to go on offense to build the world that works for all of us, not just a wealthy few. Which brings us to job number two.

"Job number one: stop all new fossil fuel projects. But playing defense isn’t enough, we also want to go on offense to build the world that works for all of us, not just a wealthy few."

The second way we’re going to fight back in 2018 is driving forward a fast and just transition to 100% renewable energy for all.

Together, we’re going to use 2018 to build a groundswell for 100% renewable energy in cities and towns across America. By the end of the year, our goal is to have won at least 100 commitments from communities to go to 100% renewable energy in a just and equitable way. More than that, we want to show the inevitability of the entire country moving in this direction. That means a lot of public education to show people this world is possible, and a lot of political pressure to make sure that every candidate for elected office has signed onto our goal of 100% for all.

For many climate advocates, the 100% piece will seem clear. Over the last decade, advances in renewable energy technology have made it possible to get all of our power from the sun, wind and water. New breakthroughs in battery storage mean that old concerns about the “reliability” of renewables are quickly fading away. The vision of a carbon-free world is quickly coming into focus.

But what about the justice and equity piece? We know that our current fossil fuel-based energy system, and all the pollution that comes with it, didn’t just get built on a whim. It was enabled by and has perpetuated deep social inequality. While predominantly white, affluent communities can flip on the light switch and still enjoy clean air and water, poorer communities of color are often stuck with a power plant or oil refinery polluting their neighborhoods and threatening their children’s health. Meanwhile, because of corporate monopolies and a lack of worker protections, the vast wealth being created by the fossil fuel economy has flowed in one direction: upwards. As fossil fuel billionaires have pocketed ever more profits, workers and entire communities have been left behind. Climate change just exacerbates these pre-existing inequalities. The same communities who have born the brunt of our pollution based economy are often on the front-lines of climate impacts.

With the transition to 100% renewable energy, we have perhaps a once in a lifetime opportunity to rebuild our economy in a more just and equitable way. Through public investments, we can guarantee that it’s not just the rich who can afford to put up solar panels, but those who live in public housing or rental units who are first in line for retrofits and upgrades. With worker training programs and the right incentives, we can make sure that there are enough jobs created so that both workers in the fossil fuel industry and those who never had a shot at a good paying, union job, can get employment in the renewables sector. By making sure that everyone has a seat at the table, we can design transition plans that make sure we truly have 100% “for all” rather than just the 1%.

That’s the work we need to continue in 2018. There are already great 100% efforts underway, from Sierra Club’s “Ready for 100” campaign to the NAACP’s “Solar For All” effort. Our job is to double, triple, and quadruple these efforts. Remember those “Fossil Free” resolutions I mentioned above? This is the second piece of that puzzle. As we call on our cities and towns to ban new fossil fuel infrastructure, we’ll also ask them to commit to “100% for all” and then work with them to make sure they’re implementing these plans.

These two pieces of local resistance, fighting projects and promoting renewables, can make up the bulk of our efforts in 2018, but there’s another key way we need to make progress. That’s because as beautiful and brilliant our distributed resistance is going to be, we still need a way to strike at the heart of the fossil fuel industry. As we work from the bottom up to flip our energy mix, we also need to hit the industry where it hurts: their pocketbooks.

The third way we’re going to fight back in 2018 is by continuing the fossil fuel divestment movement and ensuring that not a penny more goes to new fossil fuel projects.

Over the last five years, the fossil fuel divestment campaign has grown from a handful of college campuses to the largest divestment effort in history. By now, nearly 700 institutions representing $6 trillion in assets have made some form of divestment commitment. In December, the trillion dollar Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund, announced that it was expanding its coal divestment to include oil and gas. Soon after, the World Bank announced that it was no longer going to finance new oil and gas development.

Perhaps the most amazing series of announcements came just a couple weeks ago. Governor Andrew Cuomo kicked things off by announcing that New York State was going to pursue fossil fuel divestment. Not to be outdone by Albany, Mayor Bill de Blasio took an even bolder step forward, announcing that New York City would not only be divesting from fossil fuels, but also suing the five largest publicly held oil companies for damages caused by climate change. It’s hard to overstate the significance of this move. The world’s most iconic city and heart of the global financial industry has declared war on fossil fuels.

It feels like fossil fuel divestment may be reaching a tipping point. With New York city and state taking a steps forward, the excuses for others to hold back are looking increasingly lame, and risky. Oil, coal and gas are quickly becoming the guns and tobacco of the 21st century: investments-non-grata for institutions with a conscience. Even those without a conscience are dropping their stocks, however, since nobody wants to be the last one holding onto fossil fuels when the rest of the world realizes the industry is doomed.

Our job in 2018 is to push divestment over the top. Every new city, state, and institution that makes a divestment commitment helps hasten the day when the entire economy moves away from fossil fuels and into clean energy. Forget trying to engage with fossil fuel companies—we’ve had three decades of those sorts of efforts and little show for it—it’s divestment that will send a clear signal that business as usual is no longer possible. As fossil fuel stocks become increasingly tainted, it will becomes less and less acceptable for banks (who worry deeply about their brands) to finance new coal, oil and gas development, putting the industry in even more of a precarious situation.

Bring these three pieces together—stopping fossil fuels, building momentum towards 100%, and divestment—and we’ve got ourselves a game plan for 2018. Now here’s the timeline. This year, we’ve got two key dates to work towards.

"Bring these three pieces together—stopping fossil fuels, building momentum towards 100%, and divestment—and we’ve got ourselves a game plan for 2018."

The first is September 8, 2018. That’s the weekend before the Global Climate Action Summit, a major conference being held in San Francisco to drive forward local action on climate change. The Summit is connected with the United Nations climate talks, but instead of focusing on national governments, the meeting in September will focus on the commitments from “non-state actors,” i.e. cities, states, investors, businesses, and other institutions.

Our goal is to leverage this summit as a way to drive forward the three demands above: no new fossil fuel infrastructure, 100% renewable energy for all, and fossil fuel divestment. Since every one of our mayors and governors is being invited to make a commitment for the Summit, every one of them can be pressured to meet our demands before that September deadline. Just to make sure, we’re planning a mobilization the weekend before, on September 8th, at city halls and state houses across the country. Whether those rallies are a celebration of the commitments our elected officials have made or a protest demanding they do more will depend on them.

After we take to the streets in September, we’ll focus on the next key date on the calendar. You guessed it: November 8. If it isn’t abundantly clear by now, elections have consequences. We need to make sure that this election day, every single person that cares about climate justice is registered to vote and knocking on doors to send a clear signal to the establishment that we need elected officials who don’t just believe in climate change, but are ready to do something about it. Nonprofits that can’t engage in electoral activity will be investing in public education and voter registration, while political organizations will be promoting climate champions and taking down deniers and industry puppets. As activists, our job will be to figure out how we can make the biggest difference locally and support any and all national efforts that support our end goals.

"It’s a year to get out and organize. The resistance is everywhere and it’s brilliant and beautiful and brave."

So, let’s get to work. Fossil Free Fast, the event on January 31st, is when the action begins. It’s also the perfect opportunity for you to get a group together in your community, or meet up with an existing crew, and lay out your game plan for working on the goals above (and whatever other priorities you want to take on) over the coming year.

2018 isn’t a year to sit on the sidelines or behind the comfort of your screen. It’s a year to get out and organize. The resistance is everywhere and it’s brilliant and beautiful and brave. The deepest thanks to all of your who are already deeply involved in driving it forward. To the rest of you, join us.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Jamie Henn

Jamie Henn is the director of communications and strategy for the international climate campaign 350.org. Follow him on Twitter @Agent350


#2

Concrete, doable. I like action plans like that. I’m in full support.

On the other hand, I won’t kid myself about where we are in the fight to halt climate change. It’s too late to stop it, and efforts to maintain economic growth but somehow make it sustainable–like this one, frankly–miss the point about sustainability entirely. If anything, they serve as an endorsement of the capitalist need for growth that got us in this human population outbreak mess in the first place.

So add step 4 to your 2018 agenda: buy/consume less stuff.


#3

There is now enough experience with protests over pipelines for fossil fuels to realize that some can be stopped but all of them cannot be stopped. Protesters are giving it their best try and the victories should keep the movement going. But we should not be so naive to think that we can completely stop fossil fuel infrastructure from being built. That is not going to happen. The single most effective thing is to work for alternatives to fossil fuels because that works well and if we don’t need fossil fuels then there is no need to drill or mine for them. Without a market there will be no burning of fossil fuels. So we need to keep pushing for solar, wind, and geothermal, electric vehicles, energy efficiency for homes and businesses, and energy conservation by everyone. All of us can work at the local level and we can join many others to work at the state level. Donate money to organizations like the Sierra Club that are going to court to take on the Trump administration. The only hope is a comprehensive approach.


#4

In the 1980’s, President Carter’s energy conservation policy and “Home Weatherization Tax Credit” program created innumerable small companies and large businesses that carried the Reagan era economy out of recession and continue even today. Reagan cancelled the program in his 2nd year, but not before its stimulus effect got the ball rolling. Average homes today are cleaner, more comfortable and healthier as well as more energy efficient. Hundreds of thousands of architecturally valuable historic homes were saved from the wrecking ball. Enough energy was saved to cancel Washington State’s Wwpps (pronounced whoops) plan to build 4 nuclear power plants, and Oregon’s Trojan plant decommissioned for the same reason: not enough demand to justify expensive nuclear power.

The energy saving technology I believe has the most potential for similar or even greater change is the electric car (plug-in hybrids and all-battery EVs) matched to rooftop solar, tied into regional utility grids. Corporate directors know the technology has the potential to reduce energy consumption, therefore they keep it secret and lie that it’s too expensive, even though it would save lives and modernize utility grids. Automobile manufacturers and car-related business interests (finance, insurance, fuel suppliers, media advertisers, parking garage moguls, roadway and car-dependent housing construction companies) should be taken to court and charged with corporate malfeasance and obstructionism.

GM and Ford could be forced to produce world-class mass transit vehicles, particularly a replacement for the common paratransit van which should be easy-boarding low-floor and low-emission for seniors, disabled and all transit patrons. This type of (effective 30mpg) transit vehicle could replace half of the common 40’ standard bus that get 4mpg and are not designed for stop-n-go operation on circuitous routes. Do not buy into the stupendous hype about self-driving cars becoming a replacement for mass transit.


#5

I pretty much agree with what you said although I don’t believe anyone is keeping rooftop solar tied to the grid matched with EVs a secret. Some people are using it I believe. But there are obvious obstacles to making it happen on a large scale. One is solar rooftop installation. Here in the northeast most homes are not suitable for rooftop solar which is one major obstacle. Also, plug-in hybrids are quite expensive compared with regular cars. And all-battery EVs are are also quite expensive. And charging times are very long unless the more expensive systems are used. And many EVs have a short range until they need to be recharged. You can solve that with a $100,000 Tesla but that is much too expensive for the vast majority of people. But I do think EVs powered by solar and wind energy in large part will be the dominant type of road transportation eventually. But it will a long haul to get there.


#6

Many solar PV advocates say it’s either one way or the other, but not both; either off the grid PV-to-EV or PV-to-Grid. Ideally, the combination of both (PV-to-EV-to-Grid) produces a long list of benefits. The problem is corporate obstruction, not technological feasibility. The fast charge systems are 240V, standard household outlet. And benefits far outweigh the costs. Plug-in hybrids actually have more potential than all-battery EVs to reduce overall energy consumption. I’m no fan of longer range EVs like Tesla. We simply drive too much too far for too many purposes. The short EV range of plug-in hybrids offers more economic incentives to drive less, whereby more trips become possible without having to drive, whereby walking, mass transit and bicycling serve more travel needs, incidentally supporting local economic development. Don’t discount full EV implementation sooner rather than later. Corporate malfeasance is in full denial right now, especially the self-driving car fraud.


#7

“Just like in the fight against Big Tobacco or nuclear power, we’re going to be using the model of local resolutions to beat back the fossil fuel industry everywhere they rear their head.”

Fossil energy is not like tobacco. Tobacco doesn’t provide a commodity which is central to our way of life, and in some cases vital to life-support itself. And the main fight against tobacco did not take place at the level of local resolutions. Fossil energy is also not like the kind of nuclear power which was successfully hamstrung by opposition efforts. Those reactors could melt down, and there is a fear factor associated with that which was used to mobilize opposition and to drive the costs up to levels that were not viable without public support. There is nothing about fossil fuels which has a comparable exploitable fear factor. And if we had developed safe and competitive nuclear reactors instead of the ones we did, there likely would never have been an anti-nuclear movement in the first place (and we might now be much further along in displacing fossil fuels).

“By the end of the year, our goal is to have won at least 100 commitments from communities to go to 100% renewable energy in a just and equitable way.”

I’m guessing that means 100% renewable for the electricity sector only, which is a minority share of the overall carbon footprint. And getting a commitment to go 100% renewable is easy if the target is a small portion of a much larger grid. All they have to do is skim off the “green” electrons flowing through the grid, and leave the fossil-fuel electrons for everyone else. But the reality will remain a grid powered by a mix for everyone, no matter what the contracts and purchase agreements say. I don’t know of any grid that is going to go 100% renewable in the foreseeable future, and any such long term commitments, if any grid operator makes them, will just be aspirational at this point.

“we want to show the inevitability of the entire country moving in this direction. That means a lot of public education to show people this world is possible,”

The most convincing way to show that it is possible would be accomplishing it somewhere. But it has to be more than just possible. It has to be economically viable.

“and a lot of political pressure to make sure that every candidate for elected office has signed onto our goal of 100% for all.”

So basically, it’s whatever pressure the activist sliver of the population can muster to push against a tidal wave of money to convince bought politicians to agree to goals and pledges that will be about as bankable as any other campaign promise. I can almost feel the oceans receding already.

“Over the last decade, advances in renewable energy technology have made it possible to get all of our power from the sun, wind and water.”

In certain places, that’s been possible for a long time. What it mostly hasn’t been is economically viable.

“New breakthroughs in battery storage mean that old concerns about the “reliability” of renewables are quickly fading away.”

The concerns may be fading away, but we are still at the base of the mountainous challenge, and the proportion of wind/solar backup supplied by batteries is likely to be small for years to come.

“Through public investments, we can guarantee that it’s not just the rich who can afford to put up solar panels, but those who live in public housing or rental units who are first in line for retrofits and upgrades.”

Putting solar panels on top of public or rental housing does nothing more to benefit the occupants than putting up solar panels anywhere else on the grid. It may even do less in some cases.

“By making sure that everyone has a seat at the table, we can design transition plans that make sure we truly have 100% “for all” rather than just the 1%.”

The overwhelming majority of solar and wind farms, hydropower plants and all the infrastructure needed to support and integrate them will be funded by the investor class, and, as usual, they will reap most of the rewards.

“As we work from the bottom up to flip our energy mix, we also need to hit the industry where it hurts: their pocketbooks. The third way we’re going to fight back in 2018 is by continuing the fossil fuel divestment movement and ensuring that not a penny more goes to new fossil fuel projects.”

If you look at Exxon-Mobil’s stock at the end of the Bush years, it was trading at around $65 to $80 per share, with a volume of nearly a million trades. These days, after years of divestment efforts, the trading volume is down to around a fifth of that, but the share price is running around $75 to $90. If the divestment campaign had any effect, it was only to reduce the volume traded (though even that may have been caused by something else). It hasn’t hurt the stock price, it hasn’t hurt their ability to raise money, it hasn’t hurt their profitability, and it hasn’t diminished the mountain of cash they are already sitting on, so it is hard to see how it has hurt them in their pocketbooks to any degree. And that’s not even getting into the highly dubious theory that hitting them in pocketbooks is going to convince them they need to reduce their fossil fuel production and overall sales.

“After we take to the streets in September, we’ll focus on the next key date on the calendar. You guessed it: November 8.”

By Nov. 8, the candidates will already be committed to the people and funders who got them there. If you don’t jump in at the primary level and secure candidates of your own, the general election will just be Kabuki theater with the usual moneyed interests winding up the true victors no matter who wins.

“If it isn’t abundantly clear by now, elections have consequences.”

Under Obama, the U.S. went from being a net fossil fuel importer nation to a net exporter, gas production boomed, overall fossil energy consumption increased, and large areas were opened up for exploration. Would McCain or Romney really have been much different in that regard?


#8

Instead of making a plan to get more people to yell about climate change, why not make action plan on how to transition our energy portfolio? This movement has spent all of its time focused on getting people to talk about the problems, with nobody actually looking towards making practical solutions.


#9

Its also problematic for many of these climate movements to call for a moratorium on pipeline and fracturing development, when their 100% renewable plans call for compressed natural gas storage.


#10

“Oregon’s Trojan plant decommissioned for the same reason: not enough demand to justify expensive nuclear power.” Oregon’s Trojan Nuclear Power Plant operated for 16 years and generated 4,900 GWh annually. Consumption in Oregon did it drop 4,900 GWh, instead the government and several group continuously voted against the plant. Did they rally against the plant for economic concerns? No. They rallied against it for waste and proliferation concerns. Did Oregon replace this generation with wind and solar? No, it was replaced by large scale hydro.


#11

So when you don’t get your way, you just blame corporations? And not even like specific corporations, but the general corporate obstructionists? If you want to actually find solutions, you may have to think about the problems we face a little more.


#12

Lovely idea …now let’s talk reality…first of. If you want to talk about “goals”…the biggest and most important goal is ? …this is a test …you failed. The answer is …Lower CO 2Emissions. …and …by now …what is the "carbon budget requirements ?..6%? Per year? I think,…that is if we were able to begin that draw done. …this year…but who will take bets we will not make that cut this year…and who will take bets that co2 will RISE again this year and please do not bring up that deal about how emissions “plateaued”…for three years. I have already read the debunking atricles on that. So… If we are STIL raising Co2…mmmm sounds like we are really way off the target still at this late stage in the game… .The next question in this test is. So… how long before all these planned action …and strategies …"take effect. To lower emissions?..I mean it is not like we have a whole have century to make a diff. And. If any one thinks we do. You are not paying attention. We do not have 40 years . Or 30 years. Or…should I continue ? …Now. …next estimated question. What are renewables made of. I need a list of every metal …mineral …etc…and. How those will be MINED. and where they will be MINED. Displacing who and deatroying what. ??? …so…next question. .why aren’ t activists. DEMANDING. the shut down of all U.S. nuclear power plants …and. Pushing those in other countries to do so also. Or . More of them since some have already been smarter than us…because. .as the CONFLICTS GET WORSE…those nuke plants are not going to stay solid. Just cause we want them to…Ya’ know. I get that some …truly think they can change this world. But. The world doesn’t want to change…Why do I say that ? …well when it comes to the fact that our planet is dyi g. In front of our eyes…but people till fly…people still watch professional sports and enter their children in them in hopes of them maybe obtaining a career in them …or have people given up working for LOCKHEED MARTINN. . BOING. and many other military industrial companies …who inaking weapns…adds to the military being the largest co 2 emitter on the planet. ?? …okay…nuff said for now…if we haven’t changed our behavior from wanting our cake and eating it too…then …well …there will be no change …except no humans on a dying planet. And not life either. . BOOM go the nule plants.


#13

Sent from my phone. Damn phone. Forgive the typos. Please.


#14

How does that work?


#15

The places we exported fossil fuel to would have gotten it from another source if they hadn’t gotten it from the US so Obama didn’t increase emissions in that way. Under Obama emissions from energy declined. McCain also was big on fighting climate change and had he won it might have been similar to Obama, although it very likely he would not have done as much. Romney ran as a denier I believe and if he had won we would have been worse off under Obama. Also it was Obama who played a large role in getting Paris climate agreement and he gave an executive order for the Clean Power Plan. All in all when it comes to climate change Obama was a big plus, especially during his second term, when he made fighting climate change a top priority, although even in his first term he succeeded in getting increased fuel standards increased for vehicles. Nothing could be clearer than elections have consequences. There is no logical explanation that I can think of how anyone can deny that.


#16

Once again climate activists overlook the very real threat of large scale wood biomass and do it at their own risk and that of the planet and its’ inhabitants. Big Wood Biomass is being promoted as “renewable energy” when, in this age of climate crisis it assuredly is NOT. We do not have 50 to 100 years for destroyed forest and forest soils to regain all the CO2 lost in the logging and incineration process. The EU and some states in the U.S. are on the dirty biomass wagon while climate activists are totally focused on fossil fuels. All those trees and all that forest soil being trashed is a vital carbon capture element. Wake up!


#17

Not sure what you are referring to. Stopping deforestation is major goal in fighting climate change. That has been part of international climate meetings for years. Planting trees is seen as way that carbon dioxide can be removed from the atmosphere. The Paris climate goal of 2C involves removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in the second half of the century. Limiting soot (black carbon) production is also part of fighting climate change since soot plays a major role. I think fossil fuels account for something like 60% of global warming. The rest has to be dealt with as well.


#18

My way, Lrx, was to insulate homes to make them more comfortable, cleaner, more energy efficient (insulation and double-pane windows become the building code standard), and healthier (chemicals, principally formaldehyde in particle board and carpeting were legally banned). Nuclear power protesters rallied and marched to no avail. Just like YOU suggested, I participated in an “action plan on how to transition our energy platform, with practical solutions.” My conscientious effort produce results. I helped stop the construction of 4 nuclear power plants and the decommissioning of who knows how many others. Economic concerns fucking killed Wwpps, obviously, whether you care to admit it or not. In the 1990’s, I was a leader in mass transit modernization. But, you wouldn’t believe it because you like playing the devil’s advocate.


#19

Aren’t you responding to PaulSwanee1?


#20

Some may think that the fight against tobacco is not a good analogy for comparison to fight against fossil fuels, petochemicalagricultural, overconsumption of our capitalist society and our war economy but ever change requires a continuous fight. For example women fought100 years to be able to vote. So although criticism of the process is interesting and educational I would like to add some positive efforts being made in the fight for a balanced life on earth.
For a local example: Georgetown TX a town of aprox population 47K


For a Global Leader
Vandana Shiva fighting Monsanto/Bayer chemical agriculture and loss of biodiversity with GMO seeds
http://vandanashiva.com/?page_id=22