2020 Action

Don't Let War Hysteria Scuttle Iran Diplomacy

The International Atomic Energy Agency recently released a report on Iran’s nuclear materials. Some US media are misusing the report to exaggerate the threat of Iran's nuclear strength. There is also increasing talk in the US Congress, among Republican presidential candidates, and in Israel, of military action to "take out" Iran's nuclear facilities. In Nov. 2011, Israeli President Peres said that an attack on Iran is "increasingly likely," and that he hopes Israel "will not be alone" in attacking Iran's nuclear sites.

 

But the Israeli Army chief of staff, the retired heads of Israel’s foreign, domestic, and military intelligence agencies, and the retired Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen, and US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, have all strongly argued against an attack on Iran. Gates warned that Iran’s sites are widely distributed—some in mountains, some in unknown locations—and that attacking Iran would merely delay, not stop, its nuclear program. Both Gates and Meir Dagan, former head of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, have asserted that an attack on Iran, "would lead to regional war."

 

U.S. sanctions on Iran, to the extent they impact the general public, will likely weaken internal opposition to their government, and destroy existing pro-American sentiment.

 

A more productive U.S. approach would be to talk directly to Iran—we haven't done that in years—and to build on the considerable good feeling that many Iranians have toward America.

 

 

Urge the President to keep in mind, and to remind Israeli leaders about, the strong military and intelligence warnings against war with Iran. Instead of military force, urge him to use diplomacy, dialogue, negotiations, cultural exchanges, etc., and to build upon the advantage of the pro-American feelings of most Iranians while advancing the goal of creating a more peaceful and sustainable world.

 

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

---

 

Photo credit: Lazuli Bunting. Cupertino, Calif. 2010 © Ron Wolf

 

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.

 

Support Full U.S. Funding of the U.N.

Given the serious challenges currently facing our nation and the world, a strong U.S. engagement with the United Nations is more important than ever. The U.S. and the UN work together on many of the world’s most pressing issues—from the humanitarian needs of famine victims in the Horn of Africa and earthquake survivors in Haiti; to political crises in Libya and South Sudan; to ongoing violence in Iraq and Afghanistan; and reducing nuclear proliferation. It is difficult to find a moment in history when the UN has played a greater role in promoting American interests and keeping the world safe.

 

Unfortunately, this important partnership is in danger. In July, a House subcommittee slashed over $700 million in funding for the UN and its Peacekeeping missions. 

 

The House also passed H.R. 2829, a bill that calls for a moratorium on new or expanded UN peacekeeping operations, despite the fact that the Government Accountability Office reports that UN peacekeeping, in which other countries carry the burden of providing troops, is eight times less expensive than fielding a comparable U.S. force. HR 2829 will cut 50% of U.S. funding to the UN, and all funding to UN agencies that perform life-saving work including UNICEF and the World Food Program.

 

Members of Congress are currently negotiating on UN funding in our 2012 budget. Now, when the U.S.—UN relationship is so critical to global peace and security, is not the time to turn our backs on the world.

Ask them to support full U.S. funding for the UN as called for in the Obama Administration’s 2012 Budget. By failing to take account of the real world consequences of forfeiting our standing at the UN, cutting our support for the UN will undermine America’s national security, foreign policy, and economic interests, and likely lead to even greater costs to American taxpayers.

Via their websites: www.house.gov & www.senate.gov
Telephone: 202 224-3121 (Capitol switchboard)
Write: Representative or Senator (first name & last name)
US House of Representatives        or       US Senate
Washington, DC 20515                            Washington, DC 20515 

 

Photo credit: Blue Hill Harbor, Maine 2010, Lois Barber. 
Thanks to the Better World Campaign for its help in preparing this card.

Make America Stronger: Cut the Pentagon Budget

The deal in Congress to raise the debt ceiling set up The Joint Committee on Deficit Reduction, a “super committee” comprised of six Representatives and six Senators, tasked with finding $1.2 to $1.5 trillion in additional budget savings over the next 10 years. Everything from raising taxes to cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will be on the table. The Pentagon budget--now more than 58% of all discretionary spending--must take a significant share of these cuts.

Cries of poverty from the Pentagon ring false—its total budget is now higher than at any time since the end of World War II. Cost over-runs for questionable weapons systems annually equal the entire budget of the State Department. Accountability, such a popular idea now, needs to be applied to the Pentagon. Far from protecting our safety, the government spends 12 times as much on offensive capacity to pursue wars as it spends on true defensive measures, nuclear arms control, diplomatic initiatives to prevent war, and homeland security*.

Domestic programs must not be sacrificed in these hard times while Pentagon extravagances and skewed priorities are preserved. Members of the “super committee” must protect the health and safety of children, families and communities with programs such as Medicaid, school lunches, food safety, environmental protections and the State Department.

Urge them to pressure their colleagues on the ‘super committee’ to protect domestic programs, end tax cuts for the wealthy, close loop-holes to produce revenue, and ensure that the majority of cuts come from excesses in the Pentagon budget. You can also directly contact the 12 members of the ‘super committee.’ See below for their names and contact information. They may not allow on-line messages from non-constituents, but letters and phone calls will get through.

Via their websites:: www.house.gov & www.senate.gov
Telephone: 202 224-3121 (Capitol switchboard)
Write: Representative or Senator (first name & last name)
US House of Representatives        or       US Senate
Washington, DC 20515                            Washington, DC 20515 

*Unified Security Budget 2012, Institute for Policy Studies, 
http://www.fpif.org/reports/unified_security_budget_fy2012

Photo Credit: Pumpkin and Full Moon, 1971, Lois Barber 

Congressional Debt Supercommittee

	Democrats	Republicans
Senate members	Patty Murray, Washington, Co-Chair Max Baucus, Montana John Kerry, Massachusetts	Jon Kyl, Arizona Rob Portman, Ohio Pat Toomey, Pennsylvania
House members	Xavier Becerra, California Jim Clyburn, South Carolina Chris Van Hollen, Maryland	Jeb Hensarling, Texas, Co-Chair Fred Upton, Michigan Dave Camp, Michigan

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.

Senate Support for the FRAC Act

 

Across America oil and gas companies are pumping enormous quantities of secret toxic chemicals deep underground, and the EPA is powerless to do anything about it.

The process of fracking means pumping millions of gallons of water, chemicals, and sand into shale rock formations at high pressures to shatter the rock and release the gas. Fracking a single gas well can use millions of gallons of water and hundreds of tons of chemicals. Companies don't have to disclose the chemicals in their pumping fluids to the EPA, and the process is exempt from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

 

Senate Bill S.587, the FRAC (Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals) Act, would correct both these problems. It has been in the Senate since 2009 and needs more Senators to support it.

 

The oil and gas industry is the only industry in America that is allowed by the EPA to inject known hazardous materials—unchecked—underground adjacent to drinking water supplies.

 

Fracking is underway in 36 states. Some have regulations but they vary widely—and water doesn’t follow state boundaries. Drillers are rushing to use the technique in new areas without adequate government oversight that fully evaluates the effects on human health and the environment. Fracking depletes local water sources, and can poison drinking water, rivers, and lakes from toxic underground leaks and above ground spills. There have been over 1,000 documented cases of water contamination near drilling sites around the country.

Web: www.senate.gov 

Tel: 202 224-3121 (Capitol switchboard)

Mail:

Senator (first name & last name)

US Senate

Washington, DC 20510

 

Urge them to co-sponsor the FRAC Act, S. 587, that would allow the EPA to regulate fracking and force companies to disclose the chemicals they use. Tell them we need a national standard, and a way to monitor and enforce compliance to make sure fracking chemicals are publicly disclosed, and to prevent contamination of our nation’s drinking water and environment.

   

---

 

2020 is joining with Greenpeace, CREDO Action, Food & Water Watch and many other groups in calling for this action. Add your voice! For additional information about fracking and the FRAC Act:

 

1. CREDO Action: http://www.credoaction.com/campaign/frac_act/?rc=homepage

2."Fracking," Food and Water Watch.

3. "Hydraulic Fracturing 101," EARTHWORKS.

4. "Burning Tap Water and More: GASLAND Exposes the Natural Gas Industry," Treehugger, June 25, 2010.

5. "Regulation Lax as Gas Wells' Tainted Water Hits Rivers," New York Times, February 26, 2011</font>

6. S. 587: The Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act

 

Photo credit: Peaches, 2008, Lois Barber.

 

Cut Military Spending to Reduce U.S. Debt

A pitched battle over spending is brewing between now and August 2, when, if Congress fails to act, the U.S. government may default on its debts for the first time in history. Despite conservative demands to “get the deficit under control” their leading proposal, from House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, would at best cut the ten-year deficit by $1.6 trillion from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline projection. Alternately, the leading progressive proposal, the “People’s Budget” of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, would reduce the deficit by nearly three times as much, $4.7 trillion, including nearly $2.3 trillion of cuts in military spending.

Ryan’s proposal, and Republican demands, keep most of the military budget untouched, while providing huge tax giveaways for the wealthy and enacting draconian cuts in Medicare and basic services for all Americans. Their proposed defense spending actually increases beyond the CBO projection, except for declines in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Military spending should be the main target for reductions in the debt debate. The military represents more than half of all discretionary spending—nearly $8 trillion over ten years. The People’s Budget with its reasonable proposals for military cuts should guide our way, and Congress should enact the recommendations from Barney Frank’s Sustainable Defense Task Force. This report calls for over $1 trillion in defense cuts over ten years, including $200 billion from nuclear weapons programs: reducing the U.S. nuclear arsenal to 1,000 warheads, canceling the Trident II missile, foregoing nuclear weapons “modernization,” and limiting expenditures on so-called missile defense and space-based weapons systems.

Urge them to enact the People’s Budget, follow the recommendations of the Sustainable Defense Task Force, and reduce our future spending by substantially cutting the Pentagon budget, particularly for unnecessary and dangerous nuclear weapons development. To leave this budget off the table, while cutting back on vital human needs, would be wildly irresponsible.

Via their websites:: www.house.gov & www.senate.gov

Telephone: 202 224-3121 (Capitol switchboard)

Write: Representative or Senator (first name & last name)

US House of Representatives        or       US Senate

Washington, DC 20515                            Washington, DC 20515

Photo credit:  Kristin Nicholas is a sheep farmer who with her husband Mark Duprey runs Leyden Glen Farm in the beautiful hills of Leyden, MA. They currently raise over 500 sheep and lambs for their grass-fed lamb meat business. You can visit their website at www.leydenglenlamb.com  (email: kristinnicholas@gmail.com, phone: 413 774 6514).

Special Announcement: If you are in the Boston area on July 16^th (exactly 66 years from the beginning of the nuclear age with the Trinity atom bomb test), join the Festival for a Nulcear Free Future, 2-5 pm at Copley Square, Boston, for an afternoon of music, games, green energy demonstrations, supersized puppets, and timely presentations.

Stop Making More Nuclear Bombs

Republican Senators, led by Arizona’s Jon Kyl, are demanding a dramatic expansion of US nuclear bomb production capabilities in current budget negotiations. They want to ensure $12 billion in 2012 funding for new or greatly enlarged facilities in Kansas City, MO; Los Alamos, NM; and Oak Ridge, TN that would quadruple current nuclear warhead production from 20 to 80 per year. This is part of the $85 billion they seek to lock in over the next ten years for the weapons programs of the National Nuclear Security Administration.

President Obama acquiesced to the 2011 funding of these programs to secure last year’s Senate ratification of the New START treaty with Russia. But that is where it should stop. Building new warhead production facilities wastes money and decreases our national security. The New START treaty mandates dismantling warheads and reducing fissile materials worldwide.

The U.S. has a backlog of over 4,200 nuclear warheads currently slated for dismantlement. This could take up to 15 years at current rates. The speed of dismantling existing weapons has greatly decreased in recent years. The same facilities are being used instead to “modernize” our active nuclear arsenal of 5,113 warheads, and we are waiting for another new plant to be built at Savannah River, SC to reprocess the plutonium from weapons into expensive and dangerous “MOX” as fuel for nuclear reactors.

We need to stop these four new facilities immediately, and redouble efforts to dismantle our warheads and rid the world of tons of excess plutonium through relatively safe nuclear waste disposal methods such as “vitrification” and burial.

Ask them, in the 2012 budget, not to fund any expansion of our nuclear weapons making or plutonium processing facilities, and to spend a fraction of the funds saved to quickly process the backlog of weapons waiting to be dismantled, and to safely neutralize the plutonium they contain.

Via their websites: www.senate.gov

Telephone: 202 224-3121 (senate switchboard)

Write: Senator (first & last name)

US Senate, Washington, DC 20510

Photo credit: Mushrooms, Nass River, BC, 1971, by Charles Sprague. 

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.



Protect the EPA’s Ability to Protect Us

The attacks that are building in Congress against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its power to regulate under the Clean Air Act must be stopped. A new EPA report (see link below*), and an analysis of it by NRDC, show huge economic, public health, and environmental benefits of the Clean Air Act; from 1990 to 2020 it will save 4.2 million lives, prevent millions of illnesses, and provide economic benefits in the trillions. The reality of climate disruption makes the Clean Air Act even more critical. EPA regulation of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is opposed by the industries that are the biggest polluters and their supporters in Congress. Two bills have been introduced: in the House, HR 910, and in the Senate, S 482. If passed, they will permanently block the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases. They also stymie American job growth, innovation, and competitiveness.

Beyond these bills blocking regulation of CO2, the EPA opponents are attempting to eliminate funding for climate science and monitoring, clean energy research, and high-speed rail. They also aim to block EPA regulation of a wide range of other serious sources of air and water pollution through any legislative means possible.

The Senate and President Obama must stand up for the Clean Air Act, existing climate policies, and clean energy goals. The White House needs to push hard to protect the EPA and the green agenda. A recent national poll shows that Americans support EPA’s Clean Air Act authority by a two to one majority, including the vast majority of independents.





Or Contact President Obama

Contact your Senators and President Obama. Urge them to oppose all efforts to cripple the EPA and undermine the Clean Air and Water Acts. Our health, energy efficiency, and environmental safety are at stake. These programs are not only critical to our future but also highly popular with the American public.


Senators' Contact information:
 
Telephone: Call the Senate switchboard (202) 224-3121, ask for your Senator's office. Once there, ask for her/his legislative aide on defense issues and leave your message with that aide.
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

President Obama's Contact information:

Telephone: (202) 456-1111
Online: Click here: www.whitehouse.gov
Write: President Obama, The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Drive NW, Washington D.C. 20500

*EPA Report: http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/prospective2.html