Sparked by the White House's thoughtful (and wonderfully hilarious and must-read) rejection of the petition to build a Death Star, actor Mark Ruffalo has posted a White House petition calling for a declaration of war on climate change.
I just started a petition. Let's declare War On Climate Change. Figured if the Death star can get 35,000 sigs we could. wh.gov/EawO-- Mark Ruffalo (@Mruff221) January 13, 2013
And, rather than specious calls for Death Stars and secession, We the People should be calling on the White House to address the most critical issue that humanity faces ...
Here is Mark Ruffalo's petition:
WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:Declare War On Climate Change. We demand President Obama and Congress accept Climate Change as an enemy of the people.
We, the people, demand the President of the United States and it's legislative body recognize Climate Change as great and Grave a threat to this nation as they would any other aggressive enemy. We demand that the President and Congress act against Climate Change as they have acted against Saddam Husein, Bin Laden, and Hitler for that matter. We demand a National Energy Policy that quickly begins to ween us off of Carbon Based fuels and expedites the inevitable and necessary transition to Clean Energy. We demand that our leaders act on the recommendations coming from an overwhelming majority of the scientific community to halt Climate Change and save the lives of untold millions.
While Ruffalo's petition might not be what "should" be the petition (Is "War on Climate Change" to be a term to join "War on Poverty," "The Drug War," "War on Illiteracy" as a semi-meaningless term?), Ruffalo's 358,437 followers and prominent place provide a tool to rocket this climate change / clean energy petition above the required 25,000 signatures and into the zone of promised White House response.
It is (well past) time for the White House, Congress, 'the Village,' the nation to move past the Fiscal Cliff molehill and work on the Climate Cliff fissure.
Thus, perhaps you can join me (and Mark R) in calling for a Declaration of War on Climate Change.
Of course, there is an essay to be written here about the power of 'fame' and how 'famous' can trump 'expert.' However, fame can be used to promote (piss weak) beer on TV ... and it can be leveraged in support of social good.
Mark Ruffalo isn't exactly a one-off, let's send one joking tweet, actor engaged on environmental, energy, and climate issues. Here is an excellent discussion of Ruffalo's fight against fracking and another here (for which he won a Global Green award). This is Mark Ruffalo speaking on Climate Change at Occupy Wall Street in 2011.
And, for a taste from Down Under, here is a summary of the Australian situation in one infographic (note: a few days old) ...
And, again, add your voice calling for a declaration of war....
Follow A. Siegel on Twitter: www.twitter.com/A_Siegel
If the idea is to save it by wrecking it, they are already doing that, so Mark Ruffalo dressed up in green latex is the perfect poster-boy for the deal.
What am I supposed to think the "environmental movement" is up to, when it so persistently arms itself with junk science, slick marketing and clamors for the most incompetent people on the planet to solve the problem for us!"
1/ Fracking will not be clean/effective in -all- ground conditions, as evidenced by natural gas coming out of -previously clean- water wells in Fracked areas.
2/ There is a -great- amount of waste from the well process, from trucks hauling materials, to cement, to chemicals that are 'vaporized' in set ponds, not to mention the compressor pollution.
3/ The land lease 'agreements' are a one time offer, whose money runs out, -regardless- of what the operation does to the land.
4/ WE DON'T NEED IT!
5/ The same amount of wind energy construction on those lands, would result in -much- greater return for the land owner, on steady monthly income they can barrow on (sold @ -retail- prices, see below)
6/ The 'jobs' created by the well drilling operations are -a drop in the bucket- of how many could be created by manufacturing clean energy teck (wind/solar) for residential -retail- sale.
7/ The damage is irreparable.
8/ The money you spend on this should be spent on a true -new- industrial energy source (low erosion fusion), as this will NOT meet the needs required, SOON!
9/ Your policies parallel the coal company town agenda / China politics, where you screw kids, to death, with slander and misrepresentation.
10/ Here is something that might help the small farm though..
leverage: retail sale of -clean- home generated energy is like cigs in prison; always a market... (@ $1,200+ each month!)
see also:
https://www.facebook.com/FreeTradeForCleanEnergy
I really appreciate you putting this up. I think it's about time we address this issue in a way that is tantamount to the destruction it promises. I use "War On Climate Change" because nothing seems to get this nation moving in a singular direction like a war. Nothing makes legislative change happen faster then a war. We have done impossible things under the threat of a common enemy. Some of these things were disastrous like the Iraq War but look how much was done to change the nation and our laws based on some very flimsy evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Do you remember how quickly we acted on that flimsy evidence? Do you remember how little public debate there was on that action?
Today on Climate Change we have a mountain of evidence that it is destructive and a threat to our nation. Why not mobilize for the well being of our people in a positive way? The difference between this War and Iraq and Afghanistan is that this War will save people's lives instead of destroying them. This War will save our nation money by stopping sea level rise and the rise of extreme weather disasters.
I lament that I have to use War as a motivating factor but I think it's important for people to understand what we are capable of as a nation when we perceive a common threat.
As for the 'war' analogy, let us postulate something: George Bush had taken the 9/11 attacks to declare that 'we were hurt but we will beat those who attacked us by emerging stronger'. And, with that in hand, he (a) used targeted warfare to undermine Al Qaeda and (b) took up former CIA Director Jim Woolsey (who served, for example, as a McCain advisor) up on the 'we can't afford to fund both sides of a war' and declared 'getting off oil' as a key play in undermining funding for terrorism. Hmmm ... rather than spend (directly and indirectly), 1000s of American lives and 10,000s (or 100,000s) of other lives and $trillions on a war in Iraq, we might have invested $100s of billions to put America on a serious oil diet, driving down our carbon emissions, driving down the costs of imported oil, improving the economy, strengthening our international position, etc ... What if there had been a 'war on imported oil' to rally behind?
Mr Ruffalo is also unaware that the rapid replacement of coal fired generators with natural gas turbines is the primary reason for this drop in CO2 emissions.
Mr. Ruffalo wants to wage war while banning guns, he is also against fracking.
I know this has been all over the media (which questions the capacity of modern media to even look beyond the headline) but it is at best misleading, especially so if we consider (as we should) total GHG emissions..
The CO2 figure quoted is more correctly 'carbon dioxide emissions from energy derived from fossil fuel consumption'
The figure therefore fails to include;
1. CO2 emissions from all other energy use
2. CO2 emissions from energy production & distribution
3. Non-CO2 energy-related emissions
and
4.All non-energy-related greenhouse gas emissions)
Of the last two non CO2 GHG items, 3 being especially relevant as we switch to 'cheap' natural gas for energy, with alarming methane leakage figures coming from recent studies.
Sadly we won't see accurate figures for 2012 ... until 2014 (and you think the EPA needs less funding?) but if the most recent EPA report is a guide it will not make for happy reading; First it says that effectively, the much trumpeted EIA number represented about 79% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2010 - and you would expect a lower percentage still in 2012
. But total GHG emissions?
" In 2010, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions totaled 6,821.8 million metric tons CO2 Eq.
U.S. emissions rose by 3.2% from 2009 to 2010.
Since 1990, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 10.5%."
CO2 emissions from energy derived from fossil fuel consumption is at 1992 level.
Instead of Dom Perignon, lets pop open some Cristal Brut in celebration. Let try another...
CO2 emissions from electric generation sector is at 1992 levels.
Let pop open some Moët & Chandon to celebrate!
Installing factory built combine cycle turbines into existing structures (coal plants) which already has the distribution infrastructure in place is the most effective way we currently have to dramatically reduce CO2 emissions.
And beside, we will still need these turbine in the future to backup wind&solar. Build them now or later.
Pesky word limit cut off the EPA report link;
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html
1. I don't necessarily love the phrasing but Ruffalo might spark a climate related petition to get the necessary petitions for discussion.
2. While the "war" analogy is 'lousy' and far from something to be enthused about, American poverty is far different today than 50 years ago even if far from / not 'solved. War on Drugs is utterly disastrous, agreed.
Just remember that in any war, there are casualties. In this "War on Climate Change" you will have unemployed coal miners in WV, unemployed power plant workers, and all jobs that support both industries.