SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To Obama and the EPA: The Threat Is Real, It's Time to Act
May 22, 2009
Over the next month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is asking you and me, we the public, whether or not it should do something about the biggest threat to the global economy, world security, and human health. Not bank failures. Not terrorism. This is climate change.
For those of us who have been heeding years of warnings from experts about the likely effects of climate change--more Katrina-like hurricanes to come, ever fiercer wildfires in the West, more droughts like the ones we've seen recently in the Southeast, more outbreaks of diseases like malaria, and world food shortages and crop failures--and wondering when our leaders will finally, take a lead on reducing carbon emissions, it feels like it's about time. Maybe it's even the right time. If we consider the warnings of scientists, like NASA's James Hansen, who say we have just four years to take action before the problem becomes unsolvable and irrevocable, maybe it's the only time.
On Thursday in Seattle, the EPA holds one of only two public hearings in the country on greenhouse gas regulation. (The first was on Monday in Arlington, Virginia.) The hearings have gotten little press, and word has spread primarily through the internet. Still, 1,500 to 2,000 people or more are likely to hit the streets for a midday rally outside the Seattle hearing. People are coming from as far away as Nevada and California to attend, and climate organizers tell me that the EPA is overwhelmed by the number of people signed up to comment. It's unprecedented. The hearing starts at 9 a.m., and was scheduled to end at 8 p.m. But there were so many responses that the agency had to extend the evening. It may run as late as midnight.
The hearings are the end of a process that began in 2006 with Massachusetts v. EPA, a case in which 12 states, from New Mexico to Massachusetts, joined New York City, American Samoa, Baltimore, the District of Columbia, and a long list of health and environmental groups and sued to require the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that "the EPA's steadfast refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions presents a risk of harm ... that is both 'actual' and 'imminent.'" When I read the ruling, I am struck by how decisively the court lays out the risks of climate change, calling the dangers "well recognized" and pointing to a "strong consensus among qualified experts" and "severe and irreversible changes to natural ecosystems." Even in the right-leaning court, the majority says climate change means monumental danger.
The court ruling forces the EPA's hand--it has to act, unless Congress does first. New legislation to regulate greenhouse gases, introduced by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), is moving rapidly through the House Energy and Commerce Committee. But already, Democrats from coal states are trying to weaken the bill and the timeline for emissions reductions.
Whether the regulation comes from Congress or the EPA, action needs to happen. It needs to be bold. It needs to hit scientific targets. It needs to happen now. That's what the ralliers will be saying this Thursday. They'll gather next to Elliot Bay, along a multibillion-dollar waterfront that may, according to scientists, be flooded by rising sea levels in years to come if our responses to climate change fall short.
Inside the hearing, the EPA will get an earful about why regulation is necessary--not only from environmentalists, but from Starbucks and Nike, local solar power and green building businesses, health advocates like Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Statewide Poverty Action Network, and churches, like the Evangelical Lutherans.
Interested?
The EPA will also take written comments through June 23, 2009. If you want to make your voice heard, the instructions are here: https://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/Instructions-comments.pdf
If you live in the Northwest, attend the rally. Find information here: https://cascade.sierraclub.org/node/2113
For more about the public hearing, which will be webcast on Thursday, visit this link: https://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
This article was written for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas and practical actions. Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
Madeline Ostrander
Madeline Ostrander is a freelance writer based in Seattle and a contributing editor of YES! Magazine. Her website is: https://madelineostrander.net. Follow her on Twitter: @madelinevo
Over the next month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is asking you and me, we the public, whether or not it should do something about the biggest threat to the global economy, world security, and human health. Not bank failures. Not terrorism. This is climate change.
For those of us who have been heeding years of warnings from experts about the likely effects of climate change--more Katrina-like hurricanes to come, ever fiercer wildfires in the West, more droughts like the ones we've seen recently in the Southeast, more outbreaks of diseases like malaria, and world food shortages and crop failures--and wondering when our leaders will finally, take a lead on reducing carbon emissions, it feels like it's about time. Maybe it's even the right time. If we consider the warnings of scientists, like NASA's James Hansen, who say we have just four years to take action before the problem becomes unsolvable and irrevocable, maybe it's the only time.
On Thursday in Seattle, the EPA holds one of only two public hearings in the country on greenhouse gas regulation. (The first was on Monday in Arlington, Virginia.) The hearings have gotten little press, and word has spread primarily through the internet. Still, 1,500 to 2,000 people or more are likely to hit the streets for a midday rally outside the Seattle hearing. People are coming from as far away as Nevada and California to attend, and climate organizers tell me that the EPA is overwhelmed by the number of people signed up to comment. It's unprecedented. The hearing starts at 9 a.m., and was scheduled to end at 8 p.m. But there were so many responses that the agency had to extend the evening. It may run as late as midnight.
The hearings are the end of a process that began in 2006 with Massachusetts v. EPA, a case in which 12 states, from New Mexico to Massachusetts, joined New York City, American Samoa, Baltimore, the District of Columbia, and a long list of health and environmental groups and sued to require the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that "the EPA's steadfast refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions presents a risk of harm ... that is both 'actual' and 'imminent.'" When I read the ruling, I am struck by how decisively the court lays out the risks of climate change, calling the dangers "well recognized" and pointing to a "strong consensus among qualified experts" and "severe and irreversible changes to natural ecosystems." Even in the right-leaning court, the majority says climate change means monumental danger.
The court ruling forces the EPA's hand--it has to act, unless Congress does first. New legislation to regulate greenhouse gases, introduced by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), is moving rapidly through the House Energy and Commerce Committee. But already, Democrats from coal states are trying to weaken the bill and the timeline for emissions reductions.
Whether the regulation comes from Congress or the EPA, action needs to happen. It needs to be bold. It needs to hit scientific targets. It needs to happen now. That's what the ralliers will be saying this Thursday. They'll gather next to Elliot Bay, along a multibillion-dollar waterfront that may, according to scientists, be flooded by rising sea levels in years to come if our responses to climate change fall short.
Inside the hearing, the EPA will get an earful about why regulation is necessary--not only from environmentalists, but from Starbucks and Nike, local solar power and green building businesses, health advocates like Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Statewide Poverty Action Network, and churches, like the Evangelical Lutherans.
Interested?
The EPA will also take written comments through June 23, 2009. If you want to make your voice heard, the instructions are here: https://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/Instructions-comments.pdf
If you live in the Northwest, attend the rally. Find information here: https://cascade.sierraclub.org/node/2113
For more about the public hearing, which will be webcast on Thursday, visit this link: https://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html
Madeline Ostrander
Madeline Ostrander is a freelance writer based in Seattle and a contributing editor of YES! Magazine. Her website is: https://madelineostrander.net. Follow her on Twitter: @madelinevo
Over the next month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is asking you and me, we the public, whether or not it should do something about the biggest threat to the global economy, world security, and human health. Not bank failures. Not terrorism. This is climate change.
For those of us who have been heeding years of warnings from experts about the likely effects of climate change--more Katrina-like hurricanes to come, ever fiercer wildfires in the West, more droughts like the ones we've seen recently in the Southeast, more outbreaks of diseases like malaria, and world food shortages and crop failures--and wondering when our leaders will finally, take a lead on reducing carbon emissions, it feels like it's about time. Maybe it's even the right time. If we consider the warnings of scientists, like NASA's James Hansen, who say we have just four years to take action before the problem becomes unsolvable and irrevocable, maybe it's the only time.
On Thursday in Seattle, the EPA holds one of only two public hearings in the country on greenhouse gas regulation. (The first was on Monday in Arlington, Virginia.) The hearings have gotten little press, and word has spread primarily through the internet. Still, 1,500 to 2,000 people or more are likely to hit the streets for a midday rally outside the Seattle hearing. People are coming from as far away as Nevada and California to attend, and climate organizers tell me that the EPA is overwhelmed by the number of people signed up to comment. It's unprecedented. The hearing starts at 9 a.m., and was scheduled to end at 8 p.m. But there were so many responses that the agency had to extend the evening. It may run as late as midnight.
The hearings are the end of a process that began in 2006 with Massachusetts v. EPA, a case in which 12 states, from New Mexico to Massachusetts, joined New York City, American Samoa, Baltimore, the District of Columbia, and a long list of health and environmental groups and sued to require the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that "the EPA's steadfast refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions presents a risk of harm ... that is both 'actual' and 'imminent.'" When I read the ruling, I am struck by how decisively the court lays out the risks of climate change, calling the dangers "well recognized" and pointing to a "strong consensus among qualified experts" and "severe and irreversible changes to natural ecosystems." Even in the right-leaning court, the majority says climate change means monumental danger.
The court ruling forces the EPA's hand--it has to act, unless Congress does first. New legislation to regulate greenhouse gases, introduced by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), is moving rapidly through the House Energy and Commerce Committee. But already, Democrats from coal states are trying to weaken the bill and the timeline for emissions reductions.
Whether the regulation comes from Congress or the EPA, action needs to happen. It needs to be bold. It needs to hit scientific targets. It needs to happen now. That's what the ralliers will be saying this Thursday. They'll gather next to Elliot Bay, along a multibillion-dollar waterfront that may, according to scientists, be flooded by rising sea levels in years to come if our responses to climate change fall short.
Inside the hearing, the EPA will get an earful about why regulation is necessary--not only from environmentalists, but from Starbucks and Nike, local solar power and green building businesses, health advocates like Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Statewide Poverty Action Network, and churches, like the Evangelical Lutherans.
Interested?
The EPA will also take written comments through June 23, 2009. If you want to make your voice heard, the instructions are here: https://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/downloads/Instructions-comments.pdf
If you live in the Northwest, attend the rally. Find information here: https://cascade.sierraclub.org/node/2113
For more about the public hearing, which will be webcast on Thursday, visit this link: https://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.