A New Green Youth Movement
I know the difference a generation of young Americans in motion can make.
I was in college at a time of great political ferment and fundamental changes to our social fabric: the Civil Rights Act, the beginning of the counterculture and the passage of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that set us on a disastrous path of deepening involvement in Vietnam.
When I came home from war disillusioned, I joined with millions of young people who marched against Richard Nixon's Vietnam policy, against racial bigotry, against gender bias, and we changed our country for the better. We read Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" and our generation formed the bedrock of the activism that gave America its first Earth Day and the modern environmental movement.
Now, it's time for a new generation of Americans to get in motion -- because the very survival of our planet depends on them.
Now is the time for young people who learned to flex their political muscle last November to shift into high-gear and get Washington to take on our historic legislation to combat global climate change.
Starting today I am challenging young Americans throughout the country to make their voices heard on this urgent matter. I am doing this through the Organize to be Heard Challenge.
Please visit http://consequence09.org/challenge for more information on the campaign.
I need you to help America seize control of our energy, economic and security future, and the future of generations to come.
Don't think you can't make a difference? You already have. In the last election, more than 24 million 18-to-29 year-olds went to the polls because it was time for a change. This critical mass of young people -- the Millennial generation -- changed the direction of our country in a profound way on education, the economy, foreign policy and, of course, global warming.
But you can't stop now. We face a threat to the very existence of our planet. Rising sea levels, drought and famine will not stop without action -- action now.
We can put America back in charge of its energy future. We can invest in our economy and create clean energy jobs. We can strengthen our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil. And we can secure our future by eliminating harmful pollution that threatens us all.
We can do all of this. We can do it together. And that, I can assure you, is what we've always done in America and what we can do again.
Follow John Kerry on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JohnKerry
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I have over 30 years of environmental management experience at the state, interstate, federal and international levels. I do not share your optimism, Mr. Kerry...barring a series of cataclysmic events. The green movement is too fragmented to be effective and its adherents are too competitive with each other to have the impact their numbers might suggest. In that it mirrors the lack of programmatic integration seen in environmental programs at both the state and federal levels.
This lack of integration, in turn, reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the interrelatedness of natural and man-made systems. Ignorance of basic ecological, not environmental, principles results in ineffective or, worse, outright detrimental, policy and programmatic initiatives with unforeseen consequences outside the targeted problem. Until we begin to think and act ecologically rather than environmentally, the fragmentation within the green community, both NGO's and government, will persist.
In response to the hyperbole I would ask Senator Kerry how he would expect that taxing Americans trillions of dolars to reduce the level of man made carbon dioxide by 4/10 of a million part can help? Even if this bill worked perfectly, every climate scientist in the world says it cannot change the level of carbon dioxide or effect the temperature by any measurable amount. James Hansen head of NASA GISS and the Father of Global Warming calls this a "Temple of Doom" that cannot work.
What exactly is the purpose of this tax bill?
The purpose of the bill is to make the greenies feel good. Dont try to use logic in this debate. These are the same people proposing that something that makes up 1/25th of 1% of our air is going to cost us the Earth. The guy who wrote this article married a billionaire and probably has a higher carbon footprint in one month than you do in 3 years.
But this bill makes him feel good. I guess I would need to feel good to if I went to france and sold out my country too.
it makes him feel good. he believed 1/25th of 1% of the air is going to ruin the planet. dont try logic to win this argument. it wont work.
This is not a tax bill - though the Republicans choose to call it that. The fact is that while it alone is not adequate, it is a first step and by putting a cost on carbon, it will cause companies to constrain the amount of carbon they produce because it costs them to produce it.
The fact is that this is very likely the most that the Congress can get passed - evne doing this is very very tough. The alternative is not the perfect bill, but doing nothing. Doing nothing versus these changes is far worse because we will increase the amount we need to decrease over a shorter time interval.
The fact is that if steps are taken and there is improvement, it will be easier to push to do more. What is the alternative?
See Nelson Montana's Profile
Even Al Gore admitted that the auto industry isn't going to change until they sell off every bit of crap they already have and all the oil is sucked out of the earth. So what's the next step? MARCHING? For what? To feel imperious?
Government can't even manage to make sure people get flu shots. Oh wait, they did make sure Wall Street got theirs. But the rest of the lemmings can wait.
They can't even get that straight, you think they're going to take on GM (who they just gave billions of dollars ) because some people MARCHED?
Another reason why the voting age in America should be raised to at least 21, but preferably 25.
In that case I hope you don't expect anyone under 25 to continue serving in the military or paying taxes.
Dont worry Mr. Kerry, the way the jobless rate is growing, especially amomg young people, they don't have the money to buy cars or afford gas and insurance. This has got to take millions of cars off the road or atleast limit their driving considerably.
Second, as long as Al Gore and Emult are making millions off this scam most folks won't buy into this tax laiden ripoff.
GE is poised to make billions off this and already has a carbon credit "bank" set up and ready to go.
One in which Gore is invested in already.
Please folks, don't fall for this bs. Spain tried it for 18 months and they dropped the program as it was unsubstainable and crushing business and taxpayers.
I suspect that you invest in oil, coal, nuclear and natural gas at the pump and via your utility bills. In essence you are putting your money where your mouth is and Al is putting his money where is mouth is. This is America - which is a capitalist country. I would be concerned if he wasn't investing in clean green energy. In order to make the transition away from carbon fuels, it will require the financial efforts of individuals, businesses and government. The Al Gore profiting from climate change is a smeer campaign from the climate change deniers.
The rest of the world is racing toward clean energy and energy efficiency. In fact, it is likely that China will become the leader in total solar and wind power installations in the next year or so. They are already growing at a faster rate than any other country in the world. They are in the process of leaving us in their technological dust in solar and wind manufacturing as well as LED lighting and you are worried about Al Gore making a profit or putting his money where his mouth is without examining the consequences of relying on finite resources to power our country let alone the environmental legacy we are leaving future generations.
It is time for you to stop whinning about the petty issues surrounding Al Gore's investments and get on board the train or be left at the station - which will really give you something to
whine about!!!!
With regard to Spain, how do you explain an increase of 1,600 megawatts in wind capacity for 2009? I don't have the number for solar yet, but I will find it and post it below as a reply. All of this stuff is easy to find on the internets, so you might want to do some fact checking before you post mis-information. Spain has a total installed wind capacity of 16,000 megawatts through 2008. They started their wind program in the late 90's which would give them an average annual installation rate in excess of 1,400 megawatts per year. They now produce 30% of their energy needs through alternative energy. America had 25,000 megawatts of wind at the end of 2008 and it accounted for a paltry 1% of electricity in the U.S..
The livestock issue is a big concern according to Worldwatch Institute. Please address the main cause which is animal agriculture.
Senator Kerry: You seem to be taking the support of young people for granted. I'm not so sure they will follow your agenda, especially when they realize how the gains from various government "green investments" will accrue to Al Gore and his fellow private investors.
i take it you didn't get the memo....the "invincibles" have 50% unemployment....they are living in their parents basement...and the only thing they have money for are wii games....
John if Only we can have do a 20 hour meeting with the climate deniers they way to you did with Karzai about the elections we'd have no opposition.
Nah...we'd have to have a 20 hour meeting AND chuck all logic and reason out the window...and do away with the scientific method as well. Then there might not be any opposition.
As someone who is so, so, so liberal on so many other issues, I continue to be astounded at the nonsense that the environmentalist lobby and their scientific backers spew in the name of global warming. Every conclusion is based on models that were never accurate and are growing less so by the day--and not in the direction the environmental lobby wants. I am calling it--thirty years from now, when scientific advances have eviscerated all but the most innocuous climate change predictions, the scientific community and the enviro-religious lunatics that paid it so much mind these past two decades will lose all credibility--and rightly so.
I agree with you - but this discrediting process will take less than 5 years.
Well Kerry demolished one adversary, who told the Finance committee that we can simply make people more resilient and could tolerate up to 3 degrees temperature increase. That was in less than than 15 minutes.
Here is a summary and a youtube - http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/10/kenneth-green-american-enterprise-institute-aei
Involving youth is great...it teaches respect on all levels and encourages teamwork. But to put our mess on their backs is not fair. As long as the adults do not set an exemplary example, youth remain the brunt of poor role-modeling. Double messages "do as I say and not as I do" is passe and not effectual.
Here, though Senator Kerry and his wife have worked on this issue for decades - and they are stopping. I don't think this is putting the issue on the backs of youth. It is inviting them into the effort rather than ignoring them.
The fact is that if my three college age and slightly beyond kids and their friends are typical, they are more informed and more committed to this issue than any other generation. Good for Kerry reaching out to them.
As long as we are not socializing investment and privatizing the profits, I am cool with it.
But the way it looks now, society will foot the bill, and our government is going to hand over the infrastructure to private companies, adding a hefty margin and charging is right back to us, the people that made it all possible.
If we are going to finance it, we should get not only the immeasurable rewards of a cleaner planet, but an actual dollar return on our investment.
Nuclear has been lapped by solar, which now competes with natural gas and gets better all the time.
Not so sure about that. Especially if you subscribe to the notion that there are cascading qualities of energy. Nuclear energy is at the top of that spectrum, and depending on which form of solar energy is being discussed, it would be much lower down the spectrum. Don't get me wrong, solar is great, and should continue to be developed, improved and expanded, but the high quality sources of energy that come from natural gas, and nuclear need to be included in our national energy portfolio, as well. This either/or scenario is what is screwing up the debate.
(continued)
5. Less bloated bills - a clearer focus for political discussion and agreement
In 2020 (and again 2030), from then available evidence, either
1. There is increasing consensus that reduction attempts have no value: In that case little has been lost, since the described changes in electricity and transport industry carry their own benefit, or
2. Consensus remains that CO2 emission reduction should continue, in which case America is on track, and may continue with more specific emission reduction efforts towards 2050 that extend electricity and transport measures and can involve other industries, if necessary.
Funding and Impact
Equity and long term loan finance can be used: Long term industrial loans from financial institutions, particularly if federal/state guaranteed, give low yearly interest repayments and lessen the effect on electricity bills or transport cost.
The impact on the businesses is further lessened by the stability and predictability surrounding the funding.
Since only electricity and transport are involved, other business continues as usual and consumers and society in general are spared expense and disruption.
No energy efficiency regulations
Your bill has extensive energy efficiency suggestions on buildings etc
Energy efficiency is only one advantage.
Energy requiring products can have appearance/construction/performance advantages, as well as lower cost and, under some conditions, greater overall money savings.
http://www.ceolas/net/#cc2x
Even if felt necessary to target buildings, cars, light bulbs,
then energy efficiency taxation makes more sense,
giving tax income for home insulation schemes, renewable projects etc
I am not sure it matters anymore. Given current projections we will be at 9 billion people by 2050. Current projections are that the earth cannot support the current 6 billion already here for more than a hundred years or so - natural resources are simply being used at a faster rate than they can be replaced (we are currently at 150% utilization of existing earth resources), even given the most optimistic advances in technology to improve their uses. We are already seeing the results of depletion of resources - mass migrations from Africa to Europe and from South America to North America, genocide on an epic scale (people think the genocide in Rawanda is over, but it has just slowed down - the real problem was and still is a lack of food for the overpopulated region).
We cannot even get people to give up their basic desire to rape the planet for their own benefit, even when faced with concrete scientific evidence that the earth is warming and that catastrophes are imminent. Do you really believe they are willing to face the much more difficult issue of over population and propose solutions instead of just grabbing what they can for as long as they can? "Its my money and I's gonna keep it!" Welcome to the global market and all the reality you can stand!
We consume a goodly chunk although we are one of the least dense countries on the planet. Before getting on the population wagon, I'd like it if we could just for once talk about justice.
And I too am "disillusioned" when I see John Carry supporting a path similar to the one he opposed in Vietnam. Is he now asking someone to be the last to die in Afghanistan?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/26/politics/main5422346.shtml
Actually, Senator Kerry's speech (and his hearings) are an effort to try to push for a policy that has a chance to achieve the minimal goal of preventing Al Qaeda from having a sanctuary and to not destabalize Pakistan. He also rejected the full blown counterinsurgency that McChrystal has proposed because there are not Afghan officials who can move in behind us and provide good enough governance to retain the areas.
The fact is that Kerry's motives in 1971 are the same as they are here. In 1971, what he objected to was soldiers being asked to fight when leaders knew that the policy they were fighting under was flawed and could not work. (He was validated in the 1990s MacNamara, one of the architechs of the Vietnam War spoke of knowing in 1968 that the war could not be won. If you listen to all of his testimony, he is not a pacifist, but he argued there were no US interests in Vietnam and the policy was flawed.
Here, if you read his speech, he speaks of what is needed and offers a plan. He states what is needed - and he speaks of his concern that the Afghan government might not be the credible partner we need. He also speaks of the US interest in AQ not having a safe haven and Pakistan, with its nuclear weapons, not becoming more unstable.
Misspelling his name on purpose is childish.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
