2020 Action

Highlight: Article on U.S. Diplomacy with Iran

By: Alexandra Reissig

Michael Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College recently wrote an article on TomDispatch.com that ties in well with last month's action on Iranian diplomacy. His article, entitled, “Michael Klare, No Exit in the Persian Gulf?” highlights the mistakes U.S. diplomatic policy has made with Iran in recent history. Klare's article provides a comprehensive argument outlining exactly why it is not in the United State's best interest to put economic sanctions on Iran or to push them toward a military conflict.

He argues that the economic sanctions that have recently been imposed on Iran by the U.S. and Europe already have and will continue to hinder the world economy. It has had a crippling affect on the population of Iran and does nothing to help the anti-western sentiment that is felt there. He offers insights into the nature of the United States’ relationship with Iran since the 1980’s and how it has affected Iran’s present foreign policy and negative stance toward diplomacy with the West. Klare also warns that the Strait of Hormuz has now become a boiling point for the tensions between Iran and the western powers. He explains that although it is closed off from the United States and Europe, it has continued to export to China and Russia, providing even cheaper oil to those countries willing to buy.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE ARTICLE

I encourage you to read the article and take in the compelling arguments that Klare makes about U.S. policy in Iran. This is a hot topic in the news today and it seems as if the tensions between Iran and the United States are only getting stronger. To take action on this issue, follow this link to our monthly action page. Last month we had an action tailored to the diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Iran. Today you can still take this action. Please write to president Obama, urging him to engage in peace talks with Iran's leaders before it's too late.

 

Photo material from Creative Commons.

Photo credit: U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Jorge A. Ortiz

The War isn't Over for Keystone XL

by: The EarthAction Team; Larry O'Connor, Christine Chung, and Alexandra Reissig

Environmental activists won a major victory as President Obama announced in November that construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline will be delayed until after the 2012 elections.  However, this decision only delays the threat - far from rejecting the proposal, the State Department released a statement saying that they will order a review of alternate routes for the pipeline that would avoid the Sands Hill region of Nebraska, home to the largest and most intricate wetland ecosystem in the United States. The debate over the XL pipeline is far from over.

Democracy Now! newscaster, Amy Goodman reported on Tuesday, January 31, that, “Senate Republicans have announced plans to introduce legislation allowing Congress to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline, despite President Obama’s rejection of the controversial project. An analysis by the Public Campaign Action Fund and 350.org found that the bill’s 44 co-sponsors have received a combined $22.3 million in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry since 1989. One Democrat has joined the Republican effort: Joe Manchin of West Virginia. TransCanada, the company behind the $7 billion pipeline, spent $1.33 million on lobbying last year.”

In an article posted Monday, January 30th, Brian Merchant, a reporter for TreeHugger.com identified four ways in which the Pipeline could be “lurched back to life”.  The two most dangerous scenarios involve first, that the next payroll tax cut bill could include language that would explicitly state that the pipeline would be approved and second, that Joh Boehner could include a provision for approval into an upcoming infrastructure bill. 

 

EPA: Yes to Fuel Efficient Cars & Trucks

America’s dependence on oil puts our environment, economy, and national security at risk. Whether it's the scars left by devastating oil spills, the $1 billion that American families and businesses send overseas every day for oil, or the nearly 2 billion metric tons of global warming pollution emitted annually which fuels extreme weather, these problems demand that we break our dependence on oil.

 

More than 19 million barrels of oil are consumed in the United States each day, the majority of this by transportation. Passenger cars and light-duty trucks consume the largest percentage within the transportation sector.

 

President Obama recently took an important step toward addressing this problem, outlining new fuel efficiency standards to ensure new cars and light trucks meet the equivalent of a 54.5 mpg fleetwide standard by 2025. The projected annual benefits of such a standard by 2030 are enormous:

• $45 billion in savings at the gas pump

• 23 billion gallons of gasoline saved

• 280 million metric tons of global warming pollution avoided

 

Opponents of this historic standard, including the National Auto Dealers Assoc. and some members of Congress, are fighting to delay or weaken it as much as possible.

 

The EPA is holding a public comment period in Dec. & Jan. to gauge American support for the new fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks. These historic standards are the biggest opportunity the U.S. has to cut our oil use and reduce global warming pollution. We must keep the standards as strong as possible in order to reap their full benefits.

 

Urge the EPA to keep the new fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks as strong as possible and to avoid loopholes that could undermine their environmental and economic benefits. Refer to docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0799

 

Environmental Protection Agency

EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),

Air and Radiation Docket,

Mailcode: 2822T

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.

Washington, DC 20460

Attention: Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0799

Email: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov

 

EPA Fax: 202-566-9744

---

Photo credit: Cedar, British Columbia, 1971, Lois Barber

Thanks to Environment America for its help in preparing this card.

 

Obama: Say No to the Keystone XL Pipeline

The tar sands in northern Alberta, Canada is the third-largest proven reserve of crude oil in the world—and one of the dirtiest and most CO2-intensive concentrations of fossil fuel on the planet. Any substantial tapping of the Alberta tar sands means it’s “essentially game over for the climate.” – NASA scientist James Hansen.

 

TransCanada Keystone Pipeline is proposing to build the 1,700 mile Keystone XL pipeline, and pump over one million barrels of "tar sands" oil from Alberta, Canada to the Gulf of Mexico every day.

 

President Obama alone—without input from Congress—has the power to approve or reject this pipeline. He has to sign—or not sign—a “certificate of national interest” before the pipeline can cross the Canadian/American border.

 

Tar sand is an asphalt-like mixture of sand, clay, minerals, water, and viscous oil that requires extraction, refining, and transport—all of which have tremendous environmental consequences. Once again tax payers are subsidizing the oil industry, while at the same time the oil industry is externalizing the true cost on to the environment.

 

Wetlands and forests are destroyed to expose the tar sands. Massive quantities of clean water are polluted and discarded. Huge amounts of CO2 are spewed into the atmosphere to heat and separate the oil. Pipelines carry a high risk of land and water contamination from spills and leaks.

 

Tar sands are the dirtiest and most globally damaging source of oil. If we agree to the construction of this pipeline, we will be locked into using this toxic mess for decades to come. This pipeline is NOT in our national interest.

Web: www.whitehouse.gov/contact

Tel: 202 456-1111 (9:00 am to 5:00 pm)

Fax: 202 456-2461

Mail:

President Barack Obama

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20500

 

Urge him to demonstrate real environmental and economic leadership by rejecting the application for a Presidential Permit for the Keystone XL pipeline to cross the border between Canada and the US. Tell him that the Keystone pipeline is not in our national interest as it represents a catastrophic threat to our environment, our climate, and our planet. Ask him to develop America’s own safe, clean, renewable energy.

See below for additional background.  The U.S. State Department will hold public meetings in September on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. Visit http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov for details.

 

Photo credit: Green Tomatoes, 2008, Lois Barber.

---

 

Background on the Keystone XL Pipeline

One year ago, 2020 Action focused on this same issue. Since then, opposition to Keystone has grown. Please take this action. We need to stop this pipeline!

 

In an editorial on July 20, 2011, the New York Times voiced its opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline for both environmental and economic reasons. Click here to read this very good piece. The editorial states, “The risks are real. An earlier pipeline — carrying tar sands oil to the Midwest and built by TransCanada, the company planning to build Keystone XL — has had several spills, including recent ones in North Dakota and Kansas.”

 

From the U.S. Department of State: "TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, L.P. (Keystone) proposes to construct and operate a crude oil pipeline and related facilities to transport Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin (WCSB) crude oil from an oil supply hub near Hardisty, Alberta, Canada to destinations in the south central United States, including a new tank farm in Cushing, Oklahoma and delivery points in Nederland (near Port Arthur) and Moore Junction (in Harris County), Texas. In total, the proposed Keystone XL Project would consist of approximately 1,711 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline, with approximately 327 miles of pipeline in Canada and approximately 1,384 miles in the United States. The proposed Project would cross the international border between Saskatchewan, Canada, and the United States near Morgan, Montana. The proposed Project initially would have a nominal transport capacity of 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil. Because this proposed Project will cross into the United States from Canada, a Presidential Permit issued by the U.S. Department of State is required for the project to proceed. This subjects the Keystone XL Project to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires disclosure of potential environmental impacts (beneficial and adverse) and the consideration of possible alternatives."

 

The State Department released a media note on July 22, 2011 announcing additional public meetings about the Keystone XL pipeline in September 2011. By late August, they will be posting details about the dates and locations of these meetings on their website. Click here for the media note and upcoming details.

Remove Taxpayer Subsidies For Nuclear Power

If corporations that own and run nuclear reactors in the U.S. were financially liable for the deaths and damages caused by a nuclear reactor catastrophe, it would be in their interest to minimize the immense risks that have become evident in Japan in recent weeks. But that is not the system in the United States.

Instead, we have the Price—Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, passed by Congress in 1957, which limits the liability of each reactor owner to $111.9 million per “nuclear incident.” The U.S. has 104 reactors. Their combined group liability for any one “incident” is approx. $12 billion, a minuscule fraction of what Chernobyl cost ($359 billion), and what Fukushima is projected to cost ($200 billion and counting). Who would pay for the rest of the damages? American taxpayers. 

And who oversees safety at U.S. nuclear power plants? The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but the corporations consistently fight them to minimize and delay safety requirements. The Price—Anderson Act creates a disincentive for corporations to spend money for our security.

To make matters worse, in its 2012 budget, the Obama administration is asking for $36 billion in loan guarantees to reimburse investors in nuclear power for any financial losses they might incur—again paid for by the American taxpayer. 

If these taxpayer subsidies were eliminated, wind and solar would be cheaper than nuclear. Moreover, they are quicker to get up and running than nuclear power, as seen in Germany, where renewables now deliver 17% of electric power.

Urge them to eliminate the proposed $36 billion in the 2012 budget for new loan guarantees to nuclear power investors. Tell them you don't want your tax money to subsidize nuclear power and pay for investment mistakes. And to revoke the Price—Anderson Act so that nuclear corporations will have the needed financial incentives to improve safety.

Via their websites: www.senate.gov

Telephone: 202 224-3121 (senate switchboard)

Write: Senator (first & last name)

US Senate, Washington, DC 20510

Photo credit:  Photo taken by Leigh Hilbert on Hawaii Island's Kalapana Gardens active lava flow February 15th, 2011 (His 60th birthday.) Lava has been flowing from the Kilauea Volcano eruption sites for twenty-eight years nearly non stop; the most active volcano in the world. Leigh has been documenting this lava for thirteen years and his dramatic images can be seen on his website www.Leigh-Hilbert-Photography.com Leigh also writes a world popular blog named Hawaiian Lava Daily: http://hawaiianlavadaily.blogspot.com/  On March 11th, 2011 surface lava stopped flowing so blog posting is less often.



Urge EPA to Clean Up Trucks & Buses

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Transportation (DOT) are now writing our first national standards to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and improve fuel efficiency of heavy-duty trucks and buses. These standards are projected to achieve 7—20% reductions in emissions and save 500 million barrels of oil over the lives of the vehicles produced in the first five years of the program.
 
Trucks account for only 4% of all the vehicles on our nation's roads, but they use 20% of our fuel. The technology already exists to make them more efficient and cleaner. The EPA standards are needed to get the technology into use.
 
The EPA reports that operators of the most frequently driven trucks would see a payback on their investment within one to two years. Overall, the EPA estimates that this program will provide $41 billion in net benefits over the lifetime of model year 2014 to 2018 trucks and buses. These savings can be invested in new jobs at home rather than increasing our dependence on foreign oil and sending jobs overseas.
 
From packages shipped to friends and family, to the abundance of goods that crisscross our country daily, we need a truck fleet and buses that minimize pollution and oil use. Everyone will benefit: we’ll get cleaner air, be less dependent on oil, and help combat climate chaos.
 
The EPA has asked for public comments on their proposed standards. They have assured us that comments received after January 31 (the published end-date for the comment period) will still be received and recorded. It is important that those who support these first-ever emission standards for heavy-duty trucks and buses submit their comments as soon as possible.

Send a message to the EPA supporting their proposed national standards to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and to improve fuel efficiency of heavy-duty trucks and buses. Include a reason why this is important to you. In your letter or email, specify the following docket number: EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162.
 
Contact info:
 
Write:
EPA, A&R Docket and Info Center
(6102T)
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460
 
Email:
A-and-R-Docket@epa.gov
(Put EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0162 in the subject line)

Photo: Untitled (Help) by Tim Barber.

US Needs a New Renewable Energy Standard

Congress has worked for over a year to pass an energy and climate bill. The House passed one earlier this year, but the Senate version never had the 60 supporters needed to overcome the opposition to taking a vote on it.
 
Now is our last chance to get a renewable energy bill passed by this Congress. A bipartisan bill, S 3813, is now before the Senate. It requires electric utilities to generate 15% of their power from renewables or efficiency improvements by 2021. The House has already approved a similar bill, HR 2454. The Senate bill is far from ideal as it has been sufficiently watered-down to garner bipartisan support, but it is "the only game in town," and is an important next step.
 
It is critical that the Senate pass this bill this year or the whole process will have to start over again in the new Congress which may be even less supportive of energy and climate legislation than the current one. As stated in the RES Action Statement released by a large coalition of business, labor and other groups, our key renewable energy industries are seeing significant drops in manufacturing while investment in these industries overseas, particularly in China, is skyrocketing. We cannot afford to lose thousands of clean energy jobs across the US and we must restore our leadership and competitive position in the global renewable energy industry.

Urge them to support S 3813, the Renewable Electricity Standard. Point out that it has wide support from business because it makes the market more predictable, and from labor because America needs the jobs. Mention that a recent poll by Yale and George Mason Universities shows that 61% of Americans support an even stronger standard of 20% renewables by 2020. Now is the time for our country to take its next step toward a renewable energy future.

Contact Information:

Telephone: Call the Senate switchboard (202) 224-3121, ask for your Senator's office.
Online: Click here: www.senate.gov, search for your senator, and leave a message.
Write: Senator (first & last name), U.S. Senate, Washington D.C. 20510

Photo Credit: Untitled (Wreck Beach), Tim Barber, 2004.

September 2010: Stop the "Tar Sands" Oil Pipeline

What are tar sands? They are a mixture quite similar to the asphalt that is used to fix our roads. This mixture occurs naturally underground in great quantities in Alberta, Canada, and can be processed into crude oil at horrific environmental expense. The environmental expense starts with the wholesale removal of the wetlands and forest surface to get at the tar sands, followed by using massive quantities of clean water, which is then discarded in an oil-contaminated state. Then, lots of CO2 is spewed into the atmosphere to carry out the job of heating and separating out the oil.

It is the dirtiest and most globally warming way to get oil. It is the epitome of what NOT to do if we're concerned about global warming. And the worst of it is that if we allow the construction of a planned pipeline, called the Keystone XL Pipeline, from Alberta to Texas, we will then be locked into using this toxic mess for decades to come.

This Month's Action:
Contact Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Contact Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who, because it would be an international pipeline, has to give her consent for the pipeline to move forward. Urge her not to allow the Keystone XL Pipeline from Alberta to Texas, because that oil is the WORST in causing global warming, and we don’t want to be stuck with having to use it for many decades to come.

Contact Information:

Telephone: 202 647-4000 (Tell receptionist you’d like to leave a message.)
Email: Click here: Contact U.S. Dept of State. Or, go to www.state.gov, click on Contact Us, then click on Email a Question/Comment
Address:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street
NW Washington, DC 20520

Photo: Nature's Little Surprises, Edie Mueller 2009. Each 2020 Action postcard features a photo that celebrates the beauty and wonder of the natural world we are working to preserve.

July 2010: End Energy Company Give-Aways

Last year it was the taxpayer-financed bank bailout. Now we’re on to the BP Gulf Oil Disaster bailout. While BP must pay for the cleanup itself, according to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, BP is liable for only the first $75 million in civil monetary damages, e.g. loss of income from fishing and tourism. BP may ‘choose’ to pay more, but they are not legally required to.

A similar situation exists for nuclear energy. In case of an accident, the Price-Anderson Act limits the liability of an individual company to $112 million, and of the industry as a whole to $11.6 billion, the rest again being left to victims and taxpayers. How big can the rest be? Well, the Chernobyl damages are estimated at $358 billion!

New legislation is needed to make the energy corporations liable for the entire cost of any civil damages that they cause. This will make the oil and nuclear companies more careful because their own money will be at stake, instead of cutting corners and bypassing regulations as we saw repeatedly in the Gulf disaster. It puts the incentive for responsible decision making in the right place. Ending this public subsidy of the oil and nuclear industries will also make wind, solar and other renewables more competitive.

This Month's Action: Contact President Obama

Urge him to take strong action on energy, as he did to push the health care bill over the line. Ask him to see that the civil liability limits of the oil and nuclear industries are abolished, so the companies themselves, not the taxpayers, pay for their disasters. Point out that this would be basic fairness, that it will increase safety, and that the resulting level playing field will give a huge boost to clean renewable energy.

Contact Information:

Telephone: 202 456-1111 (9:00 am-5:00 pm EDT)
Online: www.whitehouse.gov/contact
Write: The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20500