via Mother Gaia via 9Gag

I think about this all the time.  Save the world, World Day, and all of that has nothing to do with saving the earth, it is only about saving humanity.  No matter what we do — since we are natural, we are nature, we’re wildlife, and everything we build is as natural as anthills — we’re in sync with nature and earth and Gaea.  When we go on about saving the world, we’re actually saying we just want to save ourselves.  To quote George Carlin, the planet is fine:

“We’re so self-important. So self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these fucking people kidding me? Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven’t learned how to care for one another, we’re gonna save the fucking planet?

I’m getting tired of that shit. Tired of that shit. I’m tired of fucking Earth Day, I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world save for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don’t give a shit about the planet. They don’t care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don’t. Not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me.

Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are fucked. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We’ve been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we’ve only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we’re a threat? That somehow we’re gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that’s just a-floatin’ around the sun?

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles…hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages…And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet…the planet…the planet isn’t going anywhere. WE ARE!

We’re going away. Pack your shit, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a little styrofoam. Maybe. A little styrofoam. The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance.

You wanna know how the planet’s doing? Ask those people at Pompeii, who are frozen into position from volcanic ash, how the planet’s doing. You wanna know if the planet’s all right, ask those people in Mexico City or Armenia or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble, if they feel like a threat to the planet this week. Or how about those people in Kilowaia, Hawaii, who built their homes right next to an active volcano, and then wonder why they have lava in the living room.

The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new pardigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?” Plastic…asshole.

So, the plastic is here, our job is done, we can be phased out now. And I think that’s begun. Don’t you think that’s already started? I think, to be fair, the planet sees us as a mild threat. Something to be dealt with. And the planet can defend itself in an organized, collective way, the way a beehive or an ant colony can. A collective defense mechanism. The planet will think of something. What would you do if you were the planet? How would you defend yourself against this troublesome, pesky species? Let’s see… Viruses. Viruses might be good. They seem vulnerable to viruses. And, uh…viruses are tricky, always mutating and forming new strains whenever a vaccine is developed. Perhaps, this first virus could be one that compromises the immune system of these creatures. Perhaps a human immunodeficiency virus, making them vulnerable to all sorts of other diseases and infections that might come along. And maybe it could be spread sexually, making them a little reluctant to engage in the act of reproduction.

Well, that’s a poetic note. And it’s a start. And I can dream, can’t I? See I don’t worry about the little things: bees, trees, whales, snails. I think we’re part of a greater wisdom than we will ever understand. A higher order. Call it what you want. Know what I call it? The Big Electron. The Big Electron…whoooa. Whoooa. Whoooa. It doesn’t punish, it doesn’t reward, it doesn’t judge at all. It just is. And so are we. For a little while.”

Lisa Hayes popped me an article by Denis Hayes, a man who suspiciously seems related to Lisa, “Fantastic new article by Denis Hayes about energy policy — please feel free to share far and wide!” Well, I am the biggest fan of Lisa and so here we go — my attempt to share this article a wee little further and wider: Climate Solutions: Charting a Bold Course A cap-and-trade system is not the answer, according to a leading alternative-energy advocate. To really tackle climate change, the U.S. must revolutionize its entire energy strategy.

Opinion: Climate Solutions: Charting a Bold Course

A cap-and-trade system is not the answer, according to a leading alternative-energy advocate. To really tackle climate change, the U.S. must revolutionize its entire energy strategy.

by Denis Hayes

More than 30 years ago, President Jimmy Carter called for a daring transition to a new energy future, an effort he likened to “the moral equivalent of war.” But the hard truth is that the United States is in far worse shape in the energy realm today than it was when Carter left office.

Since 1981, annual greenhouse gas emissions have grown from 4.7 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide to 5.9 billion metric tons. America imported 1.6 billion barrels of oil in 1981; by 2007 imports had ballooned to 3.7 billion barrels. Today, oil prices have surged past $130 per barrel, and the best evidence suggests that total global oil production is at or nearing its peak. Under President Carter, America dominated the world in renewable energy research, development, and commercialization, but in the ensuing decades our federal government has thrown away that lead.

With the economy now staggering from its addiction to oil, and with evidence of global warming having persuaded all but the knuckle-draggers, is America at last getting serious about freeing itself from carbon fuels?

Actually, no. Most environmentally sensitive politicians and even many national green groups are remarkably blithe that the Lieberman-Warner bill — a 500-page cap-and-trade law filled with more holes than a Madonna dance outfit — will take us there.

The tragedy is that we still have a chance to solve the global warming crisis, but we are blowing it by chasing false hopes in the form of an inadequate cap-and-trade bill.

Acting fast enough and on a large enough scale to avoid unthinkable climate consequences will require a more ambitious effort than the New Deal, the Interstate Highway System, and the Manhattan Project, all rolled into one. Serious efforts to stabilize the world’s climate will have dramatic consequences for industry, transportation, architecture, agriculture, leisure, and consumerism, and so, many of these changes will be fought tooth and nail — as was evident last week when Republican Senators attacked and derailed the Lieberman-Warner bill, forcing Democratic leaders to place the initiative on hold until a new president takes office.

The truth is that all our largest current energy sources will need to be replaced by new sources — over the ferocious opposition of the powerful companies that market them.

The story of how we got into this crunch is a tale of political opportunism and shortsightedness. For had America continued on the course we’d embarked upon in the mid-1970s, the task ahead would now be much less expensive, much less painful, and much more certain of success.

In 1979, after the Arab oil embargo, Carter announced that by the year 2000 America was to get at least one-fifth of all its energy from renewable sources — mainly solar energy, wind, and biofuels. The Solar Energy Research Institute, which I then served as director, was at the heart of this effort. Leading a team of scientists and analysts drawn from national labs and major universities, SERI prepared the detailed technical and policy blueprint to meet or surpass the 20 percent goal.

In 1981, halfway through his first year in office, President Ronald Reagan abandoned the 20 percent goal, reduced SERI’s $125 million budget by $100 million, and installed a dentist named Jim Edwards as Secretary of Energy. To demonstrate his contempt for the notion of alternative energy, Reagan ordered the solar water heaters ripped off the White House roof. We’ve never recovered.

The successive administrations of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, bobbing along on a sea of cheap oil, did little to shift America’s economy to renewable energy sources. And for the past seven years, the United States has been led by a president who projects such a breathtaking marriage of arrogance and incompetence that his refusal to even acknowledge the reality of climate change has not generally been considered one of his more glaring flaws.

As climate science has grown increasingly clear, many corporate CEOs have become convinced that global warming has a human signature. The brightest CEOs of Fortune 100 companies realized that once the Democrats took back control of Congress, it would be only a matter of time before climate legislation was enacted. The next president, whoever it is, will demand action. These CEOs all wanted to be at the table — in Washington, if you aren’t at the table, you’re likely to wind up on the menu.

Environmental groups soon found themselves being courted by business leaders who recognized that the climate threat would require a serious national response. They formed the U.S. Climate Action Partnership and other alliances that offered benefits for environmentalists but also entailed subtle costs. The most obvious benefit was that environmental leaders are taken more seriously on Capitol Hill when they arrive linking arms with the CEOs of General Electric, Caterpillar, DuPont, and General Motors.

The cost was the natural downside of consensus building: Policies cannot significantly harm the core interests of any of the participants. When the participants include the world’s largest automobile company, the largest manufacturer of jet engines, the largest maker of mining equipment for coal and bituminous sands, etc., this is not an insignificant cost.

What emerged from this unexpected alliance was a consensus that the centerpiece of climate policy should be a cap on CO₂, generally applied as close to the point of emission as realistically possible. Additionally, there was widespread agreement that (a) between 25 percent and 80 percent of all emissions permits should be given away to major emitters for a transitional period; (b) the law should provide ample “offsets” available for purchase by companies failing to meet reduction targets; and (c) “safety valves” should permit relaxed enforcement in case greenhouse gas reductions cause temporary economic hardship.

Unfortunately, these are genuinely terrible ideas. They are not bad because they lack ambition; rather, they are bad because they move boldly in the wrong direction. They don’t merely ignore the way that the global economy responds to real-world policies; they ignore everything we have learned about human nature since Rousseau’s belief in humanity’s innate goodness crashed on the shoals of 18th-century reality.

So what should a serious energy and climate policy look like?

Carbon Must be Capped Where It Enters the Economy, Not Where It Leaves It

The backbone of any comprehensive policy to limit greenhouse gas emissions must cap carbon at the places — coal mines, oil fields, pipelines, ports — where it enters the economy. Instead, at the behest of corporate behemoths and their green enablers, our political leaders are focusing most of their attention on smokestacks, and when that is obviously impossible (e.g. with gasoline or propane) on refiners or distributors. They want to cap CO₂ where it enters the atmosphere — an approach that is guaranteed to fail because there are far too many point sources.

Europe has already attempted a cap-and-trade program, and it belly-flopped. Senators Warner and Lieberman, who should be applauded for at least acknowledging that global warming is a problem, failed to absorb some important lessons from Europe, including:

• The most important part of cap-and-trade is the “cap.” Any successful law must place an impermeable lid on the amount of carbon that enters the atmosphere. To whatever extent additional trees or windmills are used to “offset” additional carbon-based fuels, the exercise is self-defeating.
• In contrast to regulating a sea of smokestacks, the best course is to require carbon permits at the 2,000 sources where carbon enters the economy. It would be simple, straightforward, and impossible to “game.” It is vastly more effective than trying to police carbon dioxide wherever carbon is burned. In setting the number of carbon permits issued — and thus determining how much coal, oil, and gas can enter the economy — the government would be setting an absolute, easily-enforced cap on emissions.
• All carbon permits should be auctioned — not given away. In Europe, permits were given away to large carbon users to ease their transition to the new regime. Major polluters made cheap improvements, lowered their emissions, and sold their unneeded permits. This gave windfalls to the worst polluters, penalized companies that had already invested in efficient new factories and renewable energy, and helped guarantee that Europe would miss its Kyoto targets.Auctioning 100 percent of all carbon permits is fair and transparent; it eliminates backroom special-interest pleadings. By reducing the number of permits auctioned each year, the government can guarantee that its emissions targets are met.

Use Auction Revenues Intelligently

The most vital use for most of the revenues would be to serve such climate-related public purposes as building the infrastructure needed for a national “smart grid” for electricity and for high-speed electrified railroads, assuring large federal markets for the sunrise industries of the post-carbon economy, and finding ways to accelerate the solution of the climate problem through huge boosts in federal support for basic research. However, a portion of the revenues should compensate for the regressive nature of what is effectively a carbon tax, perhaps by using them to meet the shortfalls facing Medicare and Social Security and helping to underwrite training for green-collar jobs.

Promote Renewable Energy

Government has a long tradition of helping sunrise industries supplant their well-entrenched predecessors. Canals were encouraged as more efficient than horses. Railroads were viewed as a way to open the west. The interstate highway system replaced many of the functions performed by railroads.

Some renewable energy sources would benefit greatly from a focused, long-term federal commitment to R&D. Others are already poised to ride learning curves to lower prices through economies of mass production — but require guaranteed markets to elicit the necessary investment. (Computer chips went from being high-priced luxuries to cheap-as-dirt commodities only because the Air Force and NASA bought them in bulk until their prices fell to a level where the private market took over.)

The federal government should be buying photovoltaic devices in bulk and installing them on all federal buildings, military bases, and the backs of billboards, and pouring the power into the grid. The goal should be to grow the market in a rapid yet predictable way linked to constantly lower prices. The start-and-stop unpredictability of renewable energy tax credits over the last 30 years has severely undermined the wind and solar industries, and placed American companies at a huge disadvantage with foreign competitors. As recently as 1998, America was the world’s largest manufacturer of solar photovoltaics — a technology that was invented here. But Japan, with a long-term strategy, sped past the U.S. the following year. A few years later, led by Germany, much of Europe implemented tariffs that vaulted the solar field into hyperdrive. If current trends continue, annual global photovoltaic production by 2011 will be a stunning 30 gigawatts, of which the U.S. will contribute perhaps 4 percent.

Construct a Resilient Nationwide Smart Grid to Take Power from Anywhere to Anywhere

The arguments for a national smart grid are legion; the arguments against it don’t hold water. Many carbon-neutral renewable energy sources are intermittent or diurnal, and the best locations both for sources (sunlight, wind, geothermal) and for storage are widely dispersed. We need to be able to knit the nation together. Only the government can assemble the corridor rights to make such a development possible.

Get Serious about Automobile Mileage

In World War II — without Representative John Dingell Jr. to protect it from reality — Detroit was ordered to stop making cars and start making tanks. Today, Detroit needs to be ordered to stop making civilian tanks and start making cars. Manufacturers should be free to use any technology that can get 50 mpg by 2020 and 100 mpg by 2030. The world cannot afford yet another abysmal failure by the once-proud American automobile industry.

Build High-Speed Electrified Railways for Our Busiest Corridors

The answer to every intercity travel need is not an airplane or a car. America is the only industrial power on earth without high-speed electrified rail — a super-efficient mode of intercity travel that can be carbon-free. I don’t know a single American who has traveled on the bullet train from Tokyo to Osaka who hasn’t wondered, “Why can’t we do that from Boston to Washington? From San Francisco to LA?” It would require the same sort of government effort that built the interstate highway system — or, for that matter, the original railroads.

Set Strong Building Energy Performance Standards

We need to make all new buildings carbon-neutral by 2030, requiring vast increases in efficiency and walls and roofs that harvest energy directly from sunlight. The astonishing rate at which voluntary LEED standards have swept across the country suggests a deep hunger on the part of smart architects and builders for structures that will make sense throughout their 50-year lifetimes. We need to build on that momentum to create a new generation of energy efficient “living buildings.”

Train the Labor Force

Reversing climate change has an enormous potential to put America back to work. The greatest employment opportunities are for those who will transport and install solar modules, build and maintain wind farms, construct and operate the high-speed rail system and the “smart grid.” Programs, mostly at community colleges, to teach these new skills need to increase 100-fold, and a special emphasis should be placed on retraining the “losers” in the energy transitions — such as workers in coal mines and coal-fired power plants, etc. — and inner-city poor who have seen their job prospects disappear in the globalized economy.

The Time is Now

Following decades of political denial of climate science, America now lags far behind Europe and Japan in creating most of the basic building blocks for a carbon-neutral era. In several core renewable energy technologies, we have already been passed by China.

It’s not too late to get back in the game. But the global industry is rapidly expanding and maturing, and it has supportive government policies in Germany, Japan, the Nordic states, the Netherlands, South Korea, and China.

America has unparalleled scientific and engineering excellence, formidable financial muscle, bountiful natural resources, a democratic political system, and an entrepreneurial culture well-suited to helping to lead the world into a prosperous, carbon-neutral era. But we have been dragging our heels, as if this were a problem for our children to fix.

Global warming is our problem, and it’s time to get serious about solving it.

There is no cause so noble that you should sacrifice your children to its altar. Shame on you.

After 15-years in DC, I have noticed that those noble activists who are saving the world have yet to save themselves, their marriages, their families, and their children.

The children of many of the founders of these organizations are a mess, with boys and girls as scared and abandoned as the children of their more celebrated Hollywood celebrities and New York robber barons. They are cared for by nannies and oftentimes never see their parents for weeks at a time.

All because one or more of their parents are making sacrifices for a higher, nobler cause: saving the whales. Or some similar cause celebre.

The illusion of nobility associated with saving pagan babies, the rain forest, the whales, or the trees is pure distraction from the things that matter most in this life which is saving yourself, protecting and loving your children, your spouse, your parents, your family, and your community.

If you have all of your ducks in a row, if your children are happy and well-adjusted, if your health is good and you get enough sleep and exercise, if you still chase your spouse around the bed pretty regularly, and you call your mother, with energy to spare for yourself, then you have the right to save the whales.

Otherwise, you are chasing phantoms, you are wasting your time, and you had better still yourself enough to remember why you got married, why you had children, and whether the whales really matter to you any more or if you’re just used to saving the whales.

Otherwise, let the whales fend for themselves for a little while while you get yourself together.

If you disrespect your own family enough to abandon them for your noble cause then the whales are better off without you. Resign from your save the whales campaign immediately, move to New York, and settle in to a life on Wall Street.

If you’re going to be ignoble, you might as well do it for money. The entire order cetacea recognize hypocrisy when they see it and they don’t want any of your filthy lucre anyway.

Note: This article was previously named Don’t Save the Whales but the title was so polarizing that noone ever read the article so I am hoping and wondering if a new title will benefit the message of the article itself

It’s not that easy being green
Having to spend each day the color of the leaves
When I think it could be nicer being red, or yellow or gold
Or something much more colorful like that

It’s not easy being green
It seems you blend in with so many other ordinary things
And people tend to pass you over ’cause you’re
Not standing out like flashy sparkles in the water
Or stars in the sky

But green’s the color of Spring
And green can be cool and friendly-like
And green can be big like an ocean, or important
Like a mountain, or tall like a tree

When green is all there is to be
It could make you wonder why, but why wonder why
Wonder, I am green and it’ll do fine, it’s beautiful
And I think it’s what I want to be

I guess I wrote Don’t Save the Whales because I am “a bitter old man all alone trying to get attion because u are lonly and missible.” Thank you, Tyler Boller Whale for your comment and concern. I thought I would share this careful and considered response with my readers.

Tyler Boller Whale wrote:

U are so selfish yes whales are important at the moment cause Japan is kkilling the for supposably reacher but how do u reacher a dead whale or any other animal in their natural habitat i agree with the other viewers on this web cause u are a heartless besterd and diserv to die .Other indanger animals need help too yes and we should help them but right now the whales need more help we are starting a club to save the whale we are collecting 5000 pennies to see how many whales will die for japan cause they said that is how many they are going to kill and the money we make is going to LOta a whale in Florida with the worlds smallest tank so they can make her a bigger tank.So u need to shut up and i hope ur family lives and u die y faggot. SAVE THE WORLD AND ITS LIVING CREATURE cuase we need living creatures to serive so we can live on cause they help our plants when they die and when they use the bathroom and we need them to eat vbut only certain ones .SAVE A COW EAT MORE CHICKEN> and u need to help us save the whales and i bet u are a bitter old man all alone trying to get attion because u are lonly and missible but that doesn’t mean that u should try to stop us cause we the children of the world are ur future one day we may find away to save the world

I received this very unhappy comment on one of my infamous blog post, Kill the Humans Who Save the Whales, from Tyler:

“hey i love whales so shut up and u should die for sayin don’t save the whales so i’ll say it again and forever SAVE THE WHALES”

Where are all the well-spoken wildlife preservationists with their salient insights? Don’t Save the Whales doesn’t mean kill them

According to many many people, I am an awful awful man, given the comments I have received in response to Don’t Save the Whales. I can live with this sort of accusation given the context and the source. VivyRome wrote:

You Rude Obnoxious idiot! How dare you put your CRUDE opinoins out there like that? I’m from D.C too and you’re lying my mother worked on the whale project with Green Peace and I’m fine.As is my wonderful family.Prejudice is wrong, you are discriminating against people who are trying to keep our economy and WORLD alive and intact. If you want to see it go up in flames, be my FUGLY (Fucking ugly)guest It’s a flippin’ free country you moron. Let it live. We need to save the world, and not exclude any creature. Yes children and are important, but SO ARE ALL ANIMALS! And, also, I agree with Amy: YOU, you heartless prat, deserve to be hunted by whale hunters!

There have been a lot of history here and I have received a lot of comments very similar to this one. So, please do check out some of these articles if you want to either think or laugh — or both. Don’t Save the Whales but Don’t Kill the Whales Either, Kill the Humans Who Save the Whales, Don’t Save the Whales Two Years Later, Whale-Saving as Opiate, The Problem with Tree-Huggers and Pagan-Baby-Savers, One Man’s Rhetoric is Another Man’s Treasure, Don’t Save the Whales, Agrees Mum, “Don’t Save the Whales” Review: “you obviously is idiot”, The Hypocrisy in the Hardcore Activists, May God Have Mercey on your Souls, My Selfish Attitude to Life on Whales, Will Subliterate 17-Year-Olds Save the Whales?, Don’t Save the Planet, Kill the Humans Who Save the Whales, and If You Don’t Save the Whales then You Suck.

Lots of people have so many great questions about the 2007 Energy Bill coming up and what the NET coalition is doing to push through an aggressive energy bill that would push CAFE standards for cars to 35 mpg by 2020 and the percentage of electricity in the US provided by renewable sources of electricity to 15% by 2020. Please sign the petition. Learn more about CAFE standards from Click and Clack, the guys from Car Talk, Tom and Ray Magliozzi. Also, see how much this matters, especially to students who will be inheriting the future of the planet during their Lobby Day during which students took to the Hill and lobbied the House and the Senate. (Via Memes.org and Chris Abraham Online)

1. What exactly is this 2007 Energy Bill that I have been reading about lately?
The 2007 Energy Bill is an important piece of legislation awaiting ratification in Congress. It includes several elements that would crub the mount of energy used in the US and reduce dependence on foreign oil. Two main issues in this energy bill would be an increase in standards to 15% renewable electricity by 2020. This would entail more alternate energy source such as wind and solar power. One of the more debated elements of the bill is the 35 mpg by 2020 fuel efficiency standard. Which would mean that all cars and light trucks would need to reach this capacity by 2020.

2. What is the difference between a couple of mpg in cars over the next 15 years?
Although the drop in the standard that the auto alliance is demanding 32 mpg by 2022 does not seem like a lot but it adds up if you look at the numbers the Union of Concerned Scientists calculated (published in “Energy Bill Must Guarantee Real Oil Savings” ,Sept,.2007). The barrels of oil saved per day with the auto lobby proposal would be 500,000 versus 1.2 million which would be saved with the Senate’s 35 mpg by 2020 standard. What does this mean for the American consumer? The savings would be $11 billion with the lower standards and $25 Billion with the Senate’s.

3. Why should I find this important to my family?
This is important to every American family who wants to see the world we live in maintained a beautiful place. New alternative energy sources would mean less dependence on fossil fuels drastically lowering the amount of pollution emitted every day. This bill is aimed at helping the entire planet and if America finally steps up to the plate and passes this energy bill it could set the example for other rapidly industrializing countries. This would ensure a brighter future for families around the world.

4. What is the most effective way to communicate my opinion to congress?
The National Coalition for the Environment has set up a petition allowing every American citizen a quick and easy way to let their voice be heard by their representatives. It is conveniently available online at http://www.energybill2007.org/.

5. How does Power Shift 2007 relate to the energy bill? If it does.
Power Shift 2007 was a student lobbying initiative that reached out to Congress in person on Monday November 5th as well as organizing other events to raise environmental awareness. They were on the Hill on November 5th speaking to Congress about the importance of creating strong environmental policy and endorsed several environmentally friendly bills including the 2007 energy bill. Check out Lobby Day, http://www.smnr.us/lobbyday

Here’s some pretty cool advanced stuff that is happening on the Hill this weekend in support of Energy Bill 2007, http://www.energybill2007.org, My coalition is running a display ad at the Capitol South metro station in Washington, DC, (see photos below) as well as a huge student lobbying effort about global warming and the Energy Bill (http://powershift07.org/lobby) going on right now and through Monday (see talking points below). This big event is called Power Shift Day 07 and you’re welcome to explore the web site and also check out the talking points, either in HTML or as the original PDF (Via Memes.org, SMNR, Chris Abraham Online, and Power Shift 07)

Display Ads at the Capitol South Metro Station

Power Shift 2007 Lobby Day Talking Points (PDF)

Dear Lobby Day Participants:

Thank you for your very important decision to participate in the Power Shift 2007 Lobby Day, the single largest lobby day on climate change ever! As you head to Capitol Hill this Monday you will be making history, and sending a very strong message to Congress that it’s time they listen up and get to work!

The strongest thing we are brining to capitol hill on Monday is ourselves. We have compelling stories to tell, and the ability to passionately articulate the urgent action we need our federal government to take to address the issue of global warming.

In this packet you will find a number of materials that we hope you find helpful as you prepare for your lobby visits. We’ve included a listing of all scheduled meetings with Senators, Representatives, and their Staff, a list of voting records to help you see where your members stand, and a sample lobby ask.

A few very important notes about the lobby ask itself. We as the Energy Action Coalition do not currently feel that there is any legislation that goes far enough to solve the global warming crisis. We have attempted to illustrate which current bills help us go in the right direction and what measures should be taken to get them to a better place than they are right now. The 1Sky ask that appears in the beginning of the document has been voted and agreed upon by the Energy Action Coalition – it represents a bold policy platform that takes us where we absolutely need to go. Its important to note that the rest of the ask we’ve outlined has not been voted on or supported by the Energy Action Coalition, but instead represents the input and advice of many leaders who have experience working on global warming legislation.

Go in and speak from your heart. Tell the members of Congress what matters to you, use these documents as much as you feel comfortable and know that there is no wrong position to advocate for as long as it’s what you believe.

Ask questions of the staff we have available, ask your peers, do your own research, and enjoy the fact that you are making history. It’s our job to hold our members of Congress accountable – they work for the American people, and as the leaders of the youth climate movement, we have to make sure they hear us loud and clear.

Good luck!

The Power Shift 2007 Team

Power Shift 2007
Lobby Day Talking Points

Introduction:
My name is _________. I go to school or live in _________. I’ve been fighting global warming at my school or in my community by _________.

Problem:
We are here today as students and voters of your district. We represent thousands more, back on our campuses that are deeply concerned about global warming. We are here to talk to you about the extreme urgency we see around global warming, and most importantly we are here to discuss the bold solutions that you must support in order to halt global warming and work towards a clean, efficient and just energy future for our generation and generations to come. The stakes are incredibly high for us; we are already seeing the effects of global warming all around the world, particularly in the most vulnerable communities that have done the least to cause the problem. TALK ABOUT LOCAL IMPACT HERE.

Leading scientists say that we’re nearing a “tipping point” where if we don’t make immediate and significant reductions to our global warming emissions, we run the risk of causing catastrophic changes to our country and the world. Fortunately, we have the ability and technology available to make changes that will dramatically cut global warming pollution and make a just transition to a clean energy economy. We need your leadership to help move us as quickly as we possibly can to implement these changes.

Platform:
We’re part of the bold new 1 Sky Campaign, and we want to talk first with you about our policy platform and then about specific pieces of legislation. The 1 Sky platform presents three priorities for what it takes to address global warming.

1. Green Jobs Now
Create 5 million new jobs through a Clean Energy Corps to conserve 20% of our energy by 2015. A sweeping national mobilization for efficient buildings and transit systems, healthy communities, and energy independence would create pathways out of poverty and service opportunities for millions of Americans that want to join the fight against global warming.

2. Cut Carbon 80% by 2050: Start by reducing emissions at least 30% by 2020
This is consistent with what the European Union has committed to do. We need to lead, not follow, in addressing one of the most pressing issues of our generation. 100% of any pollution allowances generated from a cap on emissions must be auctioned from Day 1.

3. No New Coal
Reprogram fossil fuel and highway investments for clean energy and smart transportation choices. Start with a firm moratorium on new coal plants.

These principles are BOLD, but our future is on the line and we need a serious response.

SUPPLEMENT: SUGGESTIONS ON EXISTING LEGISLATION

Note: These are suggestions, but are not an officially passed position by the Energy Action Coalition. We recommend choosing only a few things to talk about, and you should interject any positions not listed that you feel are important for the members to hear.

HOUSE AND SENATE: The Energy Bill
The most immediate thing you can do to help curb global warming pollution is to pass a very strong Energy Bill. For us, the bill must include:

• A minimum 35 mpg by 2020 fuel efficiency standard similar to the legislation that passed the Senate. We have the technology to go much farther, and urge you to support a significantly higher MPG standard.
• A Renewable Electricity Standard (RPS) similar to the legislation that passed the House that will require utilities to get at least 15 percent of their energy from renewable sources like wind and solar power by 2020. The RPS eligible resources should not include nuclear, municipal solid waste, or other non-organic waste and resources. 24 states have passed similar standards, and it is time for Congress to act.
• The inclusion of the Green Jobs Act of 2007 H.R. 2847
• Absolutely NO subsidies for Liquid Coal or Nuclear Energy.

These items must be included for the Energy Bill to be a down payment on the emissions reductions we need and put us on the path toward a new energy future.

ASK: Will you support a final Energy Bill that includes these policies?

HOUSE: For members NOT on the Waxman Safe Climate Act
We are here today to ask you to cosponsor the Safe Climate Act (HR 1590), a bill introduced by Representative Waxman that provides a comprehensive, science-based solution to global warming. The Safe Climate Act is the strongest global warming legislation in the House, because it contains four elements that must be in any realistic attempt to stop global warming:

• A national cap on global warming pollution that produces real reductions from today’s
  levels within a decade and reaches 80% reductions by 2050.
• A strong national renewable electricity standard by 2020. 15% Minimum.
• Strong standards to reduce global warming emissions from cars and SUVs.
• A national energy efficiency standard to cut down on our wasteful use of energy.

The Safe Climate Act aims to keep emissions below the critical tipping point. It would put in place the emission limits that the science shows are needed to avoid dangerous global warming.

Here’s how the bill works: it would freeze U.S. emissions in 2010 and then gradually reduce them by roughly 2% per year through 2020. We can make these reductions by using cleaner energy technologies that we already have such as hybrid cars and solar and wind power. After 2020, the bill cuts emissions by roughly 5% per year, as more advanced technologies, such as zero-energy buildings and biofuels from waste materials, become widely available.

To help achieve the emission reductions, the bill calls for a greater reliance on clean, renewable energy sources, improved energy efficiency, and cleaner cars.

ASK: Will you co-sponsor the Safe Climate Act?

HOUSE: Co-Sponsor the Clean Water Protection Act (H.R. 2169)
We also ask you to reverse the rule change in the Clean Water Protection Act that altered the longstanding definition of "fill material" to include mining waste. This rule change was implemented in 2002 by the Army Corps of Engineers under the direction of the Bush administration and without congressional approval. This rule change accelerated the devastating practice of mountaintop removal coal mining and the destruction of more than 1,000 miles of Appalachian streams.

ASK: WILL YOU REVERSE THE RULE CHANGE TO THE CWPA?

SENATE: For members not on the Sanders-Boxer Global Warming Reduction Act
The recently released Warner-Lieberman Bill does not take us far enough in the essential areas necessary to solve global warming. We are here to ask you to cosponsor the Global Warming Reduction Act, a bill introduced by Senators Sanders and Boxer that provides a comprehensive, science-based solution to global warming. This is the strongest bill in the Senate because it contains four elements that must be in any realistic attempt to stop global warming:

• A national cap on global warming pollution that produces real reductions from today’s levels within a decade and reaches 80% reductions by 2050. We support at 30% reduction by 2020 to get on track with the EU commitments.
• A strong national renewable electricity standard. Minimum 15% by 2020.
• Strong standards to reduce global warming emissions from cars and SUVs.
• A national energy efficiency standard to cut down on our wasteful use of energy. The Global Warming Reduction Act aims to keep emissions below the critical tipping point. It would put in place the emission limits that the science shows are needed to avoid dangerous global warming.

Here’s how the bill works: it would freeze U.S. emissions in 2010 and then gradually reduce them by roughly 2% per year through 2020. We can make these reductions by using cleaner energy technologies that we already have such as hybrid cars and solar and wind power. After 2020, the bill cuts emissions by roughly 5% per year, as more advanced technologies, such as zero-energy buildings and biofuels from waste materials, become widely available. To help achieve the emission reductions, the bill calls for a greater reliance on clean, renewable energy sources, improved energy efficiency, and cleaner cars.

ASK: Will you co-sponsor the Global Warming Reduction Act?

HOUSE AND SENATE: For Supporters of Waxman and Sanders-Boxer
I want to thank you for co-sponsoring the Safe Climate Act (House) or the Global Warming Reduction Act (Senate). This bill does what the science says we need to do to stop the worst effects of global warming, and we appreciate your support for it.

Now I want to ask you to sign our statement calling for auctioning the pollution allowances in any cap-and-trade system. We are calling on federal lawmakers to limit global warming emissions to the levels demanded by the science and to auction all pollution allowances in any cap-and-trade program.

• The atmosphere as a common resource and no one has a “right” to pollute. Many of the most egregious polluters have spent years lobbying against any action on global warming – - they should not get additional consideration for transition beyond the phase-in of the cap. 100 percent of pollution allowances should be auctioned from Day 1.
• The distribution of free allowances to polluters has caused windfall profits under the European trading system. Worse, they have not resulted in desired carbon emissions reductions. By auctioning pollution allowances, we prevent the accumulation of billions of dollars in windfall profits by polluters, and instead put those revenues to work on behalf of the public.
• Polluters should pay from day 1, and the proceeds should be invested to develop clean technologies and green job training programs, ease the burden on low-income Americans for higher energy costs, help workers suffering economic displacement, and provide physical protection for those in harm’s way from global warming.

ASK: Will you sign the statement calling for auctioning the pollution allowances in any cap-and-trade system?

IN CLOSING: As our leader in Congress, we look to you to do everything you can to support strong, immediate global warming solutions. Please accept these adoption papers. We will follow up with you to see how you’re progressing on these asks. Thank you for meeting with us.

FOLLOW-UP PLAN: For students meeting with staff: Ask for an in-district meeting with the Representative. For students meeting with their Congressperson: invite then to speak on the issue of global warming at their University. Remember that Focus the Nation is coming up on January 31, 2008 – a perfect opportunity!

DON’T FORGET TO FILL OUT YOUR LOBBY EVALUATION FORM!

Effective Grassroots Lobbying Meetings

1. Know your goals and roles going in. What do you want to get out of the meeting? Who starts the meeting off? Who will speak and when?
2. Who you are matters. Tell your story. Why do you care and why are you moved to act?
3. Deliver a clear message. Your message on climate change shouldn’t just be a list of bulleted policy points, but should address why the member of Congress or staff should care and act.
4. Demonstrate your power. The Millennial Generation is 50 million strong. We’re 1/4 of the potential electorate right now and will be 1/3 by 2015. We’re more active and more aware than any generation since the baby boomers. We’re not going away. And we vote.
5. Politely control the conversation. Remember what you came for. Politicians/staff often control conversations with small talk, talking about things other than the issue at hand, or asking questions they know you can’t answer. Stay focused on your goal and diplomatically move the conversation where you want it to go.
   1. Make a hard ask. “Can we count on you to support the principles of the 1Sky platform?”
   2. Shut up and listen. If you don’t make them respond, you’ll never know where they stand.
   3. Be strategic in your response: Thank supporters and help turn them into champions. If you can, give undecideds the information they need to become supporters or commit to get them something if you don’t know it. Neutralize the opposition if possible, but don’t waste too much time trying to argue with them.
6. Thank them for taking the time to meet, regardless of their position.

General Grassroots Lobbying Tips

1. Do: stay positive, talk in the public interest, view this as an educational process, and take the long view (no permanent enemies, no permanent friends).
2. Don’t: whine, threaten, bluff, misrepresent the facts, malign the opposition, personalize differences of opinion, or burn bridges.
3. Saying “I don’t know” is not a crime. It’s always OK to say that you don’t know but will follow up with the answer they’re looking for. You don’t have to be a policy expert to be effective.
4. Remember: Rome wasn’t built in a day. You’re not going to get everything you want out of this meeting. It’s the beginning of a critical relationship that will ultimately move them over time.
5. Follow up with any information you promise or commitments you make.

More Tips for Making Your Lobby Meetings Memorable

1. Hats Off to Green Jobs
Be sure to get a green hard hat on Monday morning before your lobby day visit or at the rally at noon. Wear it into your lobby meetings to remind your Congressperson about all of the opportunities that real solutions to global warming will bring. Ask them if they’d like to keep the green hard hat to demonstrate their support for creating a new Clean Energy Corps.

2. Adopt Your Congressperson
What better way to let Congress know that you care about them than to adopt them? At the end of your lobby meeting, give your representative adoption papers and let them know that you’ll be in touch soon to help them grow and mature into a Congressperson that will vote yes to bold and comprehensive climate legislation. Make sure to invite them to a Focus the Nation event at your school or in your community on January 31st, 2008.

3. Capture the Moment
Bring a small video camera or borrow one of the Flip digital camcorders we’ll have on hand for the day. At the end of your meeting, turn on the camera and ask your representative to commit to the 1 Sky platform on camera. Capture their response on film. Make sure you follow the detailed instructions that come with the flip camera.

4. So, Can I Give You a Call Sometime?
Before you leave the lobby meeting, take out your cell phone and ask your representative or the staff member for their number. Then, when you get back to school, spend an afternoon tabling with your cell phone. When people stop by your table, ask them to call their representatives to tell them that students demand solutions to global warming.

LOBBY DAY FAQ

NOTE: If you have any lobby day questions at any time, call our staff line at 877-328-1633.

What is a “lobby day,” anyway?
The Power Shift 2007 Lobby Day is your chance to meet your elected officials face-to-face and give them a piece of your mind on climate change. You and hundreds of your peers, representing all 50 states and hundreds of congressional districts, will go to Capitol Hill to demand bold change directly from your leaders and their staff, so they are held accountable to the demands of our generation.

What’s the timeline?
The earliest lobby meetings are scheduled for 10:00am, and you’ll want to show up a half-hour in advance outside your lobby meeting locations whenever possible (refer to your Master Schedule for your meeting times and locations, and then the Capitol Complex map for office building locations).

Where should I be when I’m not going to a meeting?
The Power Shift Rally Point for Monday is on the West Lawn of the Capitol Building. If you find yourself between meetings or without any more to attend, come back to the West Lawn where everyone else will be, so we can maintain a show of numbers and have everyone together for our rally at noon.

How many meetings am I going to?
Your top priority is to attend meetings for your state’s 2 Senators and your district’s Representative; that means you all have 3 meetings to go to! Refer to the Master Schedule included in this packet for those times and locations.

Can I go to a meeting for a state or district I’m not from?
Yes. In order to have the largest possible impact on our elected officials, you are highly encouraged to attend as many meetings as you can. The first priority should be to focus on your own representatives, but if you have the free time, definitely tag along with other groups on their lobby visits.

What should I wear?
Whatever you want. Some of you will want to dress to impress, while some of you will want to walk into meetings in t-shirts and sandals. Don’t let a dress code get in the way of your making an impact with what you say to your representatives. We’re all one big team, and when we deliver our message, that’s what counts.

What should I do if I have questions or run into any problems?
Feeling lost? Just remember to get back to the Capitol West Lawn, where our lobby support team will be able to help put you back on track.

DIRECTIONS TO THE U.S. CAPITOL WEST LAWN

BY FOOT: the United States Capitol is bordered by Constitution Avenue to the North, Independence Avenue to the South, and First Streets East and West. The Capitol WEST LAWN where we will hold our

RALLY AT NOON on Monday is directly in front of (east) of First Street NW, at the end of Pennsylvania Avenue from the north or Maryland Avenue from the south.

BY METRO: Metro maps can be found at www.wmata.com or in any metro station. The closest metro stops to the Capitol by distance are Federal Center SW and Capitol South (ORANGE LINE) and Judiciary Square and Union Station (RED LINE). If you are coming from the Northwest or West, take the Red Line to Glenmont or the Orange Line to New Carollton, respectively. If you are coming from the Northeast or East, take the Red Line to Shady Grove or the Orange Line to Vienna, respectively. If you are coming from points South, take the Blue, Yellow, or Green Line to L’Enfant Plaza metro station and transfer as appropriate or walk from there.

BY CAR: Please keep in mind that there is very little public parking available near the Capitol. Metered street parking is found along the Mall to the West of the Capitol. The nearest public parking facility is in Union Station, to the North of the Capitol. For more parking info, see below.

UNION STATION BUS PARKING

Union Station, located just a five minute’s walk from the Capitol West Lawn, has parking available for buses. There are 50-60 bus parking spaces available at Union Station on a first-come, first-serve basis. The rates for this type of parking are $20 from 7AM-7PM and $10 from 7PM-7AM. Because of the limited parking space available, Union Station strongly recommends that you make a reservation for a bus parking space, which costs $50 for a 24-hour period (7AM-7AM).

UNION STATION GARAGE PARKING

In Station Parking: There is a parking garage with about 1500 spaces adjacent to Union Station. The garage is entered from the front of Union Station by going up a ramp near the right-front corner of the station just as you pull off Columbus circle and approach the drop-off area. This garage is at least $5.00 per hour and $22.00 a day, but is the most convenient and safest to the station. The garage does take several major credit cards if you are parking your car for an overnight trip, you should park on the top level of the parking garage. The top level is the long term parking section.

NOTE: Don’t leave your parking ticket in your car! Besides the fact that your car is safer if you don’t leave your ticket in it, most station merchants will validate your station garage parking ticket such that you can get the first two hours (two hours is the maximum total discount) of your stay in the station parking garage for just two dollars! Just ask the merchant when you make a purchase or visit the Information desk!

5 OTHER CLOSEST GARAGE

LOCATIONS:
122 C St NW
Washington, DC 20001

425 3rd St SW
Washington, DC 20024

409 3rd St SW
Washington, DC 20024

400 N Capitol St NW
Washington, DC 20001

500 New Jersey Ave NW
Washington, DC 20001

The truth is clear: people cause global warming and people must begin immediately to fix it.

The 1Sky Campaign is a newly-formed, science-based education and advocacy initiative uniting Americans in all 50 states behind a clear vision and simple platform for solutions to climate change that match the scale of the challenge. 1Sky is mobilizing Americans to create the political will needed to pass stronger policies that deliver real solutions to global warming and to strengthen those policies in the next decade and beyond.

The 1Sky Vision:

Green Jobs Now:
5 million green jobs reducing energy consumption 20% by 2015, including the creation of a Clean Energy Corps.

Cut Carbon 80% by 2050
Freeze climate pollution levels now and cut them at least 30% by 2020 and 80% by 2050.

No New Coal:
A moratorium on new coal-fired power plants.
Invest in clean energy technology.

Partners:

1Sky is mobilizing and partnering with Americans across the country and across sectors, bringing together hundreds of businesses, faith-based organizations, student coalitions, environmental advocates, and many others to build a sustained, proactive, nationwide movement dedicated to addressing climate change.

Endorsements for 1Sky have come from such disparate sources as: Reverend Sally Bingham, Director, Regeneration Project; Rocky Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City; James Hansen, NASA Scientist; Energy Action Coalition; Step It Up; National Wildlife Federation; Interfaith Power & Light; Natural Resources Defense Club; Sierra Club; US PIRG; Greenpeace; League of Conservation Voters; U.S. Climate Action Network, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, Green for All, and many additional local, state, and regional groups.

For more information, visit www.1SkyCampaign.org.

THE CALL FOR A NATIONAL CLEAN ENERGY CORPS

Millions of Americans wish to serve in the fight against global warming, but lack organized opportunities to do so. Millions of others seek pathways out of poverty or better employment in the clean energy economy, but lack the needed skills and connections to employers. We propose a national Clean Energy Corps (CEC) to meet both needs while significantly reducing national greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. CEC would be a combined service, training, and employment effort, concentrated in cities and neglected communities, to combat climate disruption and demonstrate the equity and employment promise of the clean energy economy. CEC would engage in diverse actions but prominently include efforts to improve the energy efficiency of buildings — the source of two-fifths of national energy consumption and GHG emissions. Such improvements can pay for themselves through their resulting energy savings, making this part of CEC’s program largely self-financing. It will generate enormous demand for new jobs in communities that need them.

CEC’s integrated approach to climate mitigation builds support for that effort by demonstrating its immediate benefit to our communities and offering all citizens opportunities for meaningful service to it. We call for a $200 billion federal investment in the effort over the next decade. This investment will pay for itself in direct energy savings, increased worker productivity, reduced social service and health costs, and reduced GHG emissions.

• $10 billion for enhanced national environmental service. Americans are convinced of the threat of global warming and overwhelmingly support national service. CEC would expand national service opportunities — within AmeriCorps, Senior Corps and Learn and Serve America — to combat climate change. The $10 billion new commitment, ramped up over the course of the decade, would effectively double federal support for national service.
• $50 billion for state and local green jobs development. Low-income and working-class Americans need training and other assistance to gain jobs in the clean energy economy. The Green Jobs Act of 2007 H.R. 2847 is a first step toward recognizing this. CEC would go further, with $5 billion available annually — on a match basis with states and block grants to our cash-strapped cities — for regional and community green jobs workforce development. At least half this new investment should go toward job preparation, matching, and retention efforts for the unemployed or poor.
• $140 billion for a revolving loan fund for building efficiency. Efficiency is the cleanest and cheapest way to meet our energy needs, and building energy efficiency offers enormous opportunities for energy savings and good green jobs. We propose a federal revolving loan fund to help capitalize this work. Supplemented with other public dollars from states and cities, and used throughout to leverage private capital investment, the fund would be paid for through realized energy savings.

CEC Working Group (institutional affiliations for identification purposes only)—Jeremy Hays (Apollo Alliance), Bracken Hendricks (Center for American Progress Action Fund), Van Jones (Ella Baker Center for Human Rights/Green for All), Ian Kim (Ella Baker Center), Billy Parish (Energy Action Coalition), Sally Prouty (The Corps Network), Joel Rogers (UW-Madison/COWS/Center for State Innovation), Gene Sofer (Susquehanna Group), Lisbeth Shepherd (Innovations in Civic Participation), Susan Stroud (Innovations in Civic Participation). For more information, contact Lisbeth Shepherd: 510.910.6900, lisbethshepherd@yahoo.com.

LOBBY DAY EVALUTATION

Thank you for participating in the largest youth lobby day on climate change ever! YOU have made history today. But this is only the beginning – we need to keep the momentum going and keep track of where our politicians stand on securing our future. Please fill out this form as best as you can FOR EACH OFFICE YOU VISITED, and return it to Power Shift Staff on the Capitol West Lawn OR email it to lobby@powershift07.org.

NAME OF PERSON(S) YOU MET WITH:

YOUR NAME & CONTACT INFORMATION:

How did the representative or staffer you met with react to the following parts of the 1Sky platform: 1) Green Jobs 2) Energy Conservation / Emissions Cuts 3) No New Coal?

How did they respond to your ask on the Energy Bill? Specifically, the 35mpg standard? The RES standard? The Green Jobs Act? The no subsidies for coal or nuclear?

If you visited a Senate office, did the Senator/staff agree to co-sponsor the Sanders-Boxer Global Warming Reduction Act? And if you visited a House office, did they agree to cosponsor the Waxman Safe Climate Act? What did they say they have done / would do?

Did the representative/staff support 100% auctioning of pollution permits under any capand- trade system? If not, what did they say they would do?

Please describe the rest of your discussion in as much detail as possible. Don’t leave anything out – the slightest point can be very important to holding members accountable!

Photos of the Display Ad at the Capitol South Metro Station

Other Image Sizes: 100 px, 200px. 300px, 400px, 500px, Full Resolution

Other Image Sizes: 100 px, 200px. 300px, 400px, 500px, Full Resolution

Below are 4 photos of the bags of candy and the fact sheet, The Spooky Truth, that members of the Pew Campaign for Fuel Efficiency are delivering to Members of Congress on Halloween. This isn’t going to happen until Wednesday, Halloween, October 31st! Here’s a heads up well before these will hit offices. This is part of the larger fight to keep the Energy Bill strong, www.energybill2007.org! Please check out The Spooky Truth Fact Sheet as well. Also, check out the letter that Tom and Ray from Car Talk wrote and signed to Members of Congress in support of aggressive CAFE Standards in the energy bill (also in PDF). If you want full-sized images of the below bags, please check out more photos here. Via SMPR and Memes.org

The Spooky Truth "trick or treat" bags — more photos here:

Here’s the transcript of The Spooky Truth informations — here are some more versions:

The Spooky Truth

In June, the Senate passed a strong, bipartisan compromise to raise mileage for cars and light trucks to an average of 35mpg by 2020. This is hte first Congressional increase in fuel efficiency in 30 years, and yet the auto industry is pushing a proposal which would weaken and delay the Senate compromise. Their "tricky" proposal would only require 32 mpg by 2022 and actually cap American innovation on mileage improvements at 35mpg. The spooky truth is that just a few years and a few miles do matter when it comes to making a difference for America. In 2020:

Barrels of Oil Saved Per Day:
– 500,000 Auto Lobby Proposal
– 1.2 Million Senate Fuel Economy Compromise
Consumer Savings at the Pump:
– $11 Billion Auto Lobby Proposal
– $25 Billion Senate Fuel Economy Compromise
Emissions Reductions
– 85mmt CO2 Auto Lobby Proposal
– 206 mmt CO2 Senate Fuel Economy Compromise

* Data from the Uniion of Converened Scientists, "Energy Bill Must Guarantee Real Oil Savings" Sept. 2007.

The Auto Lobby Proposal is a Trick, Not a Treat

Please sign the petition in support of an aggressive energy bill over at http://www.energybill2007.org

Thumbnails of the Tom and Ray "Car Talk" letter to Congress (larger size here) and PDF

Here’s the transcript of the Tom and Ray "Car Talk" letter — here are bigger pictures:

Tom and Ray Magliozzi
Box 3500 Harvard Square
Cambridge MA 02238

Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming
United States House of Representatives
Washington DC 20515

Oct. 25, 2007

To Members of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming

You are about to make a crucial decision that may be a turning point for our country. As you consider how high to raise our nation’s CAFÉ standards, you are undoubtedly coming under a barrage of lobbying from various parties. Including us! The obvious question is, who do you believe?

On the one hand, you have people like Ed Markey, who’s been trying to increase fuel economy for as long as we can remember. Admittedly, he’s from Massachusetts. And yes, we’ve seen his haircut.

On the other hand, you have the automotive industry (i.e. car salesmen), whose ratings for honesty are below even those of Congress in public opinion surveys. Let’s remember why:

In 1972, Ford President Lee Iacocca, told you that if the “EPA does not suspend the catalytic converter rule, it will cause Ford to shut down.” Hm. That wasn’t exactly right on the money, was it?

A couple of years later, car makers were back in front of you guys, squealing over proposed new fuel economy standards. Chrysler Vice President of Engineering, Alan Loofborrow, predicted that imposing fuel economy standards might “outlaw a number of engine lines and car models including most full-size sedans and station wagons. It would restrict the industry to producing subcompact size cars—or even smaller ones—within five years.” That thing got a Hemi, Alan?

As the industry triple-teamed Congress to keep America from improving fuel economy, a Ford Executive let fly this whooper: If CAFÉ became law, the move could result “in a Ford product line consisting either of all sub-Pinto sized vehicles…” Ask the man who drives an Expedition if that ever came to pass.

The onslaught of “we can’t…it’ll ruin us… you’re denying Americans a choice of vehicles” begins every time we the people—through our elected representatives—try to bring the auto industry, kicking and screaming into the modern era. And every time, their predictions of motorized-skateboard futures have failed to materialize. Let us repeat that, because the historical record bears it out to a tee. Every single time they’ve resisted safety, environmental, or fuel economy regulations, auto industry predictions have turned out, in retrospect, to be fear-mongering bull-feathers.

Isn’t it time we (you) stop falling for this 50 year-long line of baloney?
The truth is, significantly higher average fuel economy can be achieved. In fact it’s already being achieved. And if we don’t push our own auto industry to set world class standards, they’ll be beaten again by the Japanese, the Koreans, and maybe even the Chinese, who will do it with or without U.S. Congressional action.

There are technologies aplenty that already exist that could be used to meet much higher CAFE standards.

• Hybrid-electric vehicles. Hybrids offer, in many cases, a 50% increase in mileage over gasoline versions of the same vehicles. GM just introduced a hybrid Chevy Tahoe, that reportedly gets better city mileage than a Toyota Camry.
• Clean diesel engines. With new, clean diesel fuel now mandated in America, expect a surge of clean diesel engines in the next three to five years that get 25% better fuel economy than their gasoline counterparts.
• Diesel-electric hybrids. Combine the advantages of hybrids with more efficient diesel engines.
• Turbo chargers and super chargers. These force additional air into cylinders to wring more power out of available fuel.
• Cylinder deactivation. Cylinders that are not needed at any given moment, are deactivated, and instantaneously reactivated as soon as the driver demands additional power. Widely available now.
• Plug-in, series hybrids. Now on the drawing boards, plug-in hybrids allow drivers to charge up overnight, when the electric grid is underused, and they’ll handle most commutes without ever firing up their internal combustion engines.
• Automatic stop-start technology. At least one energy analyst we spoke to believes that this simple technology, in and of itself, could result in a 10% decrease in fuel use. It’s already used in hybrid vehicles, foreign and domestic, and is on its way in more vehicles in the next couple of years.
• Higher voltage electrical systems. These save fuel by allowing energy draining systems, such as power steering, and air conditioning, to be run electrically, instead of by draining power from the engine and using fuel.
• Regenerative braking. Captures energy otherwise lost when the car slows down to give further boost to onboard battery systems.
• Safe, lightweight materials. Lightweight steel, aluminum and carbon fiber panels reduce weight, allowing a smaller, more efficient engine to propel a car just as fast on less fuel.
• Better transmissions. Six speed automatic transmissions, widely available now from Ford and others, increase fuel economy by 5% and offer smoother acceleration. Mercedes has seven speeds. Lexus has eight. Nissan has CVTs—continuously variable transmissions. All of these improve mileage AND performance.
• Common rail fuel injection. Now standard on modern diesels, this same high pressure fuel delivery technology is beginning to be used to increase fuel economy in gasoline engines, too.
• All wheel drive systems that use electric motors at the non-driven wheels, like on the Lexus RX350 hybrid, eliminate heavy, gas-wasting differentials and drive train components on cars designed to go in the snow.
• More appropriately sized and weighted cars. When we’re facing a future of global oil wars and economy-killing gasoline prices, perhaps having single commuters drive 5,000 pound SUVs is something we’ll just have to learn to live without. And modern computer electronics, such as stability control, can now ameliorate any driving dynamic issues that result from lack of mass.
• More appropriately powered cars. In 1964, the most powerful, over-the-top Mustang muscle car you could buy came with an optional, four-barrel, 271 horsepower engine. Today, that’s what comes standard on the highest rated minivans. 275 horsepower. To take your kid to nursery school? What does this say about our national priorities? Do we really want to send our kids to fight and die in the desert so that can go 0-60 in eight seconds instead of ten seconds?

The truth is, we could achieve a CAFE standard of 35 miles per gallon in five years if we made it a priority. Every one of the above technologies is either available now or is well along in the pipeline. There’s nothing “pie in the sky” here that hasn’t been thought of or invented yet.

Look what American industry did in World War II. Look what we did with the space program. It’s time to make energy independence just as high a priority. And it starts with you guys (and gals), our representatives. Don’t buy the “can’t do” bull this time.

Not only can it be done, but by increasing CAFÉ standards dramatically, you’ll be helping the American automotive industry compete—by forcing them to synchronize their priorities with those of the American people, and the populations of other countries where they will be increasingly marketing their cars.

It’s the job of private enterprise to design and sell products. But it’s the job of Congress to set our national priorities. Trust us, the car companies won’t go out of business because America insists that they build the world’s best, most efficient cars. We urge you to set the bar high for American ingenuity. We have no doubt out car industry will make the grade—to the benefit of all Americans.

Sincerely,

Tom and Ray Magliozzi

This is a letter from the "Car Talk" guys, Tom and Ray Magliozzi, about CAFE standards, sent to the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, United States House of Representatives. Don’t forget to sign the Energy Bill 2007 petition online. Please enjoy the press release as well as scans of the letter to Congress and a transcription of the scans. Via SMNR and Memes.org

Thumbnails of the Scans of the Letter from Tom and Ray Magliozzi, about CAFE standards

Hi Res Scans of the Letter from Tom and Ray Magliozzi, about CAFE standards

Here’s the Transcript of the Letter From Tom and Ray Magliozzi, About CAFE Standards

Tom and Ray Magliozzi
Box 3500 Harvard Square
Cambridge MA 02238

Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming
United States House of Representatives
Washington DC 20515

Oct. 25, 2007

To Members of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming

You are about to make a crucial decision that may be a turning point for our country. As you consider how high to raise our nation’s CAFÉ standards, you are undoubtedly coming under a barrage of lobbying from various parties. Including us! The obvious question is, who do you believe?

On the one hand, you have people like Ed Markey, who’s been trying to increase fuel economy for as long as we can remember. Admittedly, he’s from Massachusetts. And yes, we’ve seen his haircut.

On the other hand, you have the automotive industry (i.e. car salesmen), whose ratings for honesty are below even those of Congress in public opinion surveys. Let’s remember why:

In 1972, Ford President Lee Iacocca, told you that if the “EPA does not suspend the catalytic converter rule, it will cause Ford to shut down.” Hm. That wasn’t exactly right on the money, was it?

A couple of years later, car makers were back in front of you guys, squealing over proposed new fuel economy standards. Chrysler Vice President of Engineering, Alan Loofborrow, predicted that imposing fuel economy standards might “outlaw a number of engine lines and car models including most full-size sedans and station wagons. It would restrict the industry to producing subcompact size cars—or even smaller ones—within five years.” That thing got a Hemi, Alan?

As the industry triple-teamed Congress to keep America from improving fuel economy, a Ford Executive let fly this whooper: If CAFÉ became law, the move could result “in a Ford product line consisting either of all sub-Pinto sized vehicles…” Ask the man who drives an Expedition if that ever came to pass.

The onslaught of “we can’t…it’ll ruin us… you’re denying Americans a choice of vehicles” begins every time we the people—through our elected representatives—try to bring the auto industry, kicking and screaming into the modern era. And every time, their predictions of motorized-skateboard futures have failed to materialize. Let us repeat that, because the historical record bears it out to a tee. Every single time they’ve resisted safety, environmental, or fuel economy regulations, auto industry predictions have turned out, in retrospect, to be fear-mongering bull-feathers.

Isn’t it time we (you) stop falling for this 50 year-long line of baloney?
The truth is, significantly higher average fuel economy can be achieved. In fact it’s already being achieved. And if we don’t push our own auto industry to set world class standards, they’ll be beaten again by the Japanese, the Koreans, and maybe even the Chinese, who will do it with or without U.S. Congressional action.

There are technologies aplenty that already exist that could be used to meet much higher CAFE standards.

• Hybrid-electric vehicles. Hybrids offer, in many cases, a 50% increase in mileage over gasoline versions of the same vehicles. GM just introduced a hybrid Chevy Tahoe, that reportedly gets better city mileage than a Toyota Camry.
• Clean diesel engines. With new, clean diesel fuel now mandated in America, expect a surge of clean diesel engines in the next three to five years that get 25% better fuel economy than their gasoline counterparts.
• Diesel-electric hybrids. Combine the advantages of hybrids with more efficient diesel engines.
• Turbo chargers and super chargers. These force additional air into cylinders to wring more power out of available fuel.
• Cylinder deactivation. Cylinders that are not needed at any given moment, are deactivated, and instantaneously reactivated as soon as the driver demands additional power. Widely available now.
• Plug-in, series hybrids. Now on the drawing boards, plug-in hybrids allow drivers to charge up overnight, when the electric grid is underused, and they’ll handle most commutes without ever firing up their internal combustion engines.
• Automatic stop-start technology. At least one energy analyst we spoke to believes that this simple technology, in and of itself, could result in a 10% decrease in fuel use. It’s already used in hybrid vehicles, foreign and domestic, and is on its way in more vehicles in the next couple of years.
• Higher voltage electrical systems. These save fuel by allowing energy draining systems, such as power steering, and air conditioning, to be run electrically, instead of by draining power from the engine and using fuel.
• Regenerative braking. Captures energy otherwise lost when the car slows down to give further boost to onboard battery systems.
• Safe, lightweight materials. Lightweight steel, aluminum and carbon fiber panels reduce weight, allowing a smaller, more efficient engine to propel a car just as fast on less fuel.
• Better transmissions. Six speed automatic transmissions, widely available now from Ford and others, increase fuel economy by 5% and offer smoother acceleration. Mercedes has seven speeds. Lexus has eight. Nissan has CVTs—continuously variable transmissions. All of these improve mileage AND performance.
• Common rail fuel injection. Now standard on modern diesels, this same high pressure fuel delivery technology is beginning to be used to increase fuel economy in gasoline engines, too.
• All wheel drive systems that use electric motors at the non-driven wheels, like on the Lexus RX350 hybrid, eliminate heavy, gas-wasting differentials and drive train components on cars designed to go in the snow.
• More appropriately sized and weighted cars. When we’re facing a future of global oil wars and economy-killing gasoline prices, perhaps having single commuters drive 5,000 pound SUVs is something we’ll just have to learn to live without. And modern computer electronics, such as stability control, can now ameliorate any driving dynamic issues that result from lack of mass.
• More appropriately powered cars. In 1964, the most powerful, over-the-top Mustang muscle car you could buy came with an optional, four-barrel, 271 horsepower engine. Today, that’s what comes standard on the highest rated minivans. 275 horsepower. To take your kid to nursery school? What does this say about our national priorities? Do we really want to send our kids to fight and die in the desert so that can go 0-60 in eight seconds instead of ten seconds?

The truth is, we could achieve a CAFE standard of 35 miles per gallon in five years if we made it a priority. Every one of the above technologies is either available now or is well along in the pipeline. There’s nothing “pie in the sky” here that hasn’t been thought of or invented yet.

Look what American industry did in World War II. Look what we did with the space program. It’s time to make energy independence just as high a priority. And it starts with you guys (and gals), our representatives. Don’t buy the “can’t do” bull this time.

Not only can it be done, but by increasing CAFÉ standards dramatically, you’ll be helping the American automotive industry compete—by forcing them to synchronize their priorities with those of the American people, and the populations of other countries where they will be increasingly marketing their cars.

It’s the job of private enterprise to design and sell products. But it’s the job of Congress to set our national priorities. Trust us, the car companies won’t go out of business because America insists that they build the world’s best, most efficient cars. We urge you to set the bar high for American ingenuity. We have no doubt out car industry will make the grade—to the benefit of all Americans.

Sincerely,

Tom and Ray Magliozzi

Thumbnails of the Scans of the Letter from Tom and Ray Magliozzi, about CAFE standards

Here’s the Press Release for Tom and Ray Magliozzi Letter to Congress

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Eben Burnham-Snyder, Select Committee, 202-225-4081

NPR’s “Car Talk” Hosts: No More “Fear-Mongering Bull-feathers” from Automakers

Click and Clack Say We’ve Let Fuel Economy Get Out of Whack

WASHINGTON (October 30, 2007) – The hosts of National Public Radio’s famed show “Car Talk” have sent a letter to Chairman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and the members of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming backing a 35 mile per gallon fuel economy standard for America’s vehicles that is currently being considered in Congress. In the letter, Tom and Ray Magliozzi, aka Click and Clack, the Tappet Brothers, use their renowned wit and vehicle knowledge to knock down the auto industry’s continued resistance to adopt stronger fuel economy standards.

“As any listener knows, Tom and Ray are where common sense begins when it comes to cars, and when they say reaching 35 miles per gallon is feasible and the smart play for the American auto industry, people should listen” said Chairman Markey. “Automakers should stop acting like they’re playing the Tappet Brothers’ game, ‘Stump the Chumps,’ and start supporting higher fuel economy standards in Congress’ energy bill.”

In the letter, Click and Clack argue that technology currently exists to reach a 35 mpg standard in 5 years, nearly a decade before the 2020 timeframe that is currently in the compromise Senate language being considered in Congress. From hybrid technology to rail fuel injection to cylinder deactivation, the brothers’ encyclopedic knowledge of solutions to America’s low fuel economy is on display in the missive, as is their rapier wit.

Here are selected excerpts from the letter, which is available on the Select Committee website :

–The onslaught of ‘we can’t. . .it’ll ruin us. . .you’re denying Americans a choice in vehicles’ begins every time we the people—through our elected representatives—try to bring the auto industry, kicking and screaming into the modern era.

–Every single time [the auto industry has] resisted safety, environmental, or fuel economy regulations, auto industry predictions have turned out, in retrospect, to be fear-mongering bull-feathers.

–The truth is, significantly higher average fuel economy can be achieved. In fact it’s already being achieved. And if we don’t push our own auto industry to set world class standards, they’ll be beaten again by the Japanese, the Koreans, and, maybe even the Chinese. . .

–Not only can it be done, but by increasing CAFE standards dramatically, you’ll be helping the American automotive industry compete—by forcing to synchronize their priorities with those of the American people. . .

Congress is currently considering two energy bills passed by the House and Senate that would reduce oil dependence and cut global warming pollution. The Senate-passed bill, which contains the 35 mpg fuel economy standard and other oil saving provisions, would save more than twice as much oil as we currently import from the Middle East by 2030. The House bill contains groundbreaking provisions to increase our use of renewable energy and make our appliances and buildings more efficient. It is estimated that, by 2030, energy legislation with the best provisions from both bills would reduce the total amount of U.S. heat-trapping emissions by roughly 40 percent of what’s needed to save the planet from dangerous global warming.

# # #

I love my big car but I also love American independence more and think that we rely way too much foreign oil and don’t spend nearly enough on energy innovation. Since coal and oil is still plentiful and cheap enough, there isn’t any reason, really, to dump R&D funds into alternative and renewable fuels, energy, and electricity. We need to in-source and work on ways to stop depending so heavily on foreign oil and the whims of kings and their kingdoms.

Congress is working on passing an energy bill that contains two major provisions, one that would up a fuel economy standard to 35 mpg — Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards — and another that would evolve our energy dependence more heavily on renewable electricity to 15% — Renewable Electricity Standards (RES). Together, these would end our Nation’s security-threatening dependence on Middle East oil, stop our money from flowing to terrorists, and keep our dollars at home growing the American economy.

Unfortunately, lobbyists and PACs are working hard to tear the bill apart, rendering it impotent and incremental instead of powerful and transformative.

I am working with a coalition to make sure the energy bill doesn’t get derailed. I need your help in making sure that the final bill makes it through before we get ourselves into even more of a mess. Check out Energy Bill 2007 and sign their petition.

Congress is working on passing an energy bill that contains two major provisions, one that would up a fuel economy standard to 35 mpg and another that would evolve our energy dependence more heavily on renewable electricity to 15%. Together, these would end our Nation’s security-threatening dependence on Middle East oil, stop our money from flowing to terrorists, and keep our dollars at home growing the American economy.

Unfortunately, lobbyists and PACs are working hard to tear the bill apart, rendering it impotent and incremental instead of powerful and transformative.

I received a very subliterate comment from Zayna in response to my blog entry, Don’t Save the Whales, which states, subliterately,

“your stupid!!! dont say dont save the whales because you need to save yourself first. i love whales and im trying t save whales and im only 17 i have loving parents who are also trying to save whales and were not disfunctional or falling apart or any thing you said were just fine and to generalize that all people who try and save our planet are neglecting their families is BULL. your just pissed that you cant save the world and you probably cant fix your own family.”

With writing and communication skills like these, the whales are doomed.

There is no cause so noble that you should sacrifice your children to its altar. Shame on you.

After 15-years in DC, I have noticed that those noble activists who are saving the world have yet to save themselves, their marriages, their families, and their children.

The children of many of the founders of these organizations are a mess, with boys and girls as scared and abandoned as the children of their more celebrated Hollywood celebrities and New York robber barons. They are cared for by nannies and oftentimes never see their parents for weeks at a time.

All because one or more of their parents are making sacrifices for a higher, nobler cause: saving the planet. Or some similar cause célèbre.

The illusion of nobility associated with saving pagan babies, the rain forest, the planet, or the trees is pure distraction from the things that matter most in this life which is saving yourself, protecting and loving your children, your spouse, your parents, your family, and your community.

If you have all of your ducks in a row, if your children are happy and well-adjusted, if your health is good and you get enough sleep and exercise, if you still chase your spouse around the bed pretty regularly, and you call your mother, with energy to spare for yourself, then you have the right to save the planet.

Otherwise, you are chasing phantoms, you are wasting your time, and you had better still yourself enough to remember why you got married, why you had children, and whether the planet really matters to you any more or if you’re just used to saving the planet.

Otherwise, let the planet fend for itself for a little while while you get yourself together.

If you disrespect your own family enough to abandon them for your noble cause then the planet is better off without you. Resign from your save the planet campaign immediately, move to New York, and settle in to a life on Wall Street.

If you’re going to be ignoble, you might as well do it for money. TMother earth recognizes hypocrisy when she sees it and she doesn’t want any of your filthy lucre anyway.

(via Don’t Save the Whales with a little search-and-replace for this new cause célèbre)

“There is a new breed of environmentally conscious homeowners who are willing to forgo traditional floorings like hardwood, carpeting and concrete for the supposed benefits of earthen floors: a reduction in heating costs and environmental impact and, at least in the eyes of some, an improvement in looks.” Via the New York Times

My buddy David Gelles wrote the New York Times article while still a first-year Journalism School student at Berkeley. His second published story in the Times. From the New York Times via digg.

I wrote Don’t Save the Whales almost two years ago and I am still getting the greatest comments from my loyal and vitriolic readers. Huzzah! Best line goes to Cayla, “Woould you like a harpoon explosive shot into your brain and blow up and kill you then hit you repeatedly with an axe?”

Cayla Rene wrote: “You are really twisted aren’t you. so you think we should focus on other things no we shouldn’t im 13 and i am trying to save the animals from people like you. Sick people who are self centered and don’t care for others. You need to get your head out of your *** and open your eyes. You wouldn’t like for someone to kill you without question and make lipstick or shampoo out of you would you??? Animals that live in the water are being killed for your convience so you can have shampoo. i don’t think so buddy. I bet you go out there and kill them so you can be satified. Well you know what we’ll stop people like you from hurting the animals we love. Without or with out your help. So when all the animals are gone we’ll start making shampoo and lipstick out of people like you so you know what it fells like to be them. So you know how much pain people put tem through. Woould you like a harpoon explosive shot into your brain and blow up and kill you then hit you repeatedly with an axe. So you need to get your head out of your***”

ALexa RAe wrote: “You are really crule huh? dude you have to save the whales. they are killing the whales just so they can make soap to rub all over your body .well i am 13 and i am trying to save the whales . so people like yuo dont get to kill them. you are really wrong and dont care one bit about the animals under the sea. well you should.whales , orcas , sharks and other mammals die just to make new and stupid improved products. you are a *** and you need to care about the animals they have dont nothing to you and you want to kill them well dont. cause me and my friends cayla will beat your ***
you need to care. well would you want to die just to make lipstick and shampoo.

write back and i will tell you more abourt the animals you need to car eabout what they do for you there are only a hundred remaining in the world .soon there will be no more and then it will make you happy huh well you need to get your head out of the gutter . when all the animals are gone what are u gonna do we are gonna blame you!!!!!!!!!”

I don’t believe in global warming. And neither does the United Nations.

I do believe in pollution. I believe we’re polluters. I believe that we effect localized climate disturbances. England and the United States proved that the industrial revolution resulted in black moths, the soot was so thick for so long. I believe we can make acid rain and kill rivers and bring flora and fauna to extinction. Globally, I believe that we Americans use an disproportionate amount of resources.

Still, I believe that the incessant focus on global warming is a red herring, distracting us away from much more pressing domestic and social issues.

Actually, it is much easier to carry a hemp bag in the hybrid car to the organic coop than it is to deal with the incessant erosion of our personal liberties, our personal privacy, our national health care, the safety of our citizenry, and the unacceptable quality of public education, social services, senior services, health services, day care, family care, and unemployment.

Fuck the environment!

At least until after we Americans sort this domestic shit out, Democrats. How dare you, Al Gore, you fucking shill! And don’t even mention the war. Democrats and Republicans alike voted for the war in Iraq.

We made our bed, now we have to lie in it. And there is a hell of a lot of lying going on, that’s for sure.

Learn more about the superfund site known as Bayview Hunter’s Point, the industrial area of San Francisco.