People Before Profit blog

Climate rally last weekend the biggest ever

Thu, 21 Feb 2013 10:51:00 +0000

WASHINGTON - Sunday, Feb. 17, 2013 was, like many other days in the second month of the year, a cold and blustery one. What was different about it, however, is the fact that on that day the nation's capital hosted what was billed as the largest climate rally in U.S. history.

Thousands of environmentalists, farmers and workers of all kinds gathered in the shadow of the Washington Monument for a "Forward on Climate" demonstration to shout their opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline, fracking, Big Oil, and nuclear power.

The Rev. Lennox Yearwood of the Hip Hop Caucus, who emceed the event. introduced an impressive list of speakers which included: Bill McKibben, president of 350.org; Van Jones, president of Rebuild the Dream President; Maria Cordones, founder of Latinovations; Indigenous Peoples representatives including Chief Jacqueline Thomas from the Saik'uz First Nation and Crystal Lameman from the Beaver Lake Cree First Nations; Michael Brune, the Sierra Club's executive director and Democratic U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse from Rhode Island. Present, too, were celebrities like Evangeline Lilly and Rosario Dawson.

Bold.org, one of the event organizers, predicted that 20,000 people would participate, but Rev. Yearwood announced that the actual number there, 40,000, doubled expectations. Supplementing the massive action in D.C. were some 20 solidarity rallies in 16 states, from the four corners of the country-- Los Angeles, Palm City, Seattle, Portland, Maine-- and points in between. They included rallies in Arkansas, Kansas, Nebraska, and five in Montana alone.

"Bold Nebraska" and the Nebraska Farmers Union sent some hundred people to the demonstration from rural towns and farms and from the University of Nebraska. It was the largest national mobilization in the years the two organizations have been fighting TransCanada and their Keystone XL pipeline.

A young woman carried a sign that said "UNL (University of Nebraska-Lincoln) Says Protect Our Future."

A family of four from North Platte, near the center of Nebraska, said their concern is for the Ogallala Aquifer, which would be damaged by any oil spill from the tar sands pipeline. In addition to the aquifer, the very process of preparing tar sands oil for pumping through the Keystone XL, or through any other pipeline for that matter, and then refining this low-grade crude oil resource will have a greater impact on atmospheric carbon pollution than other existing oil resources.

There were large numbers of people from New York City and state, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland, and Virginia. One woman waved an orange "IOWA" sign. Two women in a group carried a banner that said "Texas Baptists for Clean Energy." A 50-foot long banner in the shape of a pipeline declared "SEPARATE OIL & STATE". Other signs read: "Give Us Keystone & Give Us Death", "Reject KXL", "Virginians for Action on Climate Change." Behind a long Veterans For Peace banner were VFP members from Maine, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Maryland and Washington, DC.

The sense of the rally and march was that we are all in this together and that our government must take immediate action to protect not only the future of our children and grandchildren, but the well-being of our current population, before the next hurricane season.

In a report on the rally, a representative from the Climate Change Action Network stated: "With President Obama's explicit call for climate action during his inaugural speech, we can see a possibility -- a realistic possibility -- that over the next four years we can make major strides forward. As he said on that day, 'We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.' "

The day's events concluded with a lively march, a "pipeline around the White House" from the Washington Monument to the White House - a welcomed chance for people to warm up.

Photo: Nebraska family at the Washington Monument said that the Ogallala Aquifer would be damaged by any oil spill from the tar sands pipeline. James Baldridge/PW

Anxiety drugs in the water are affecting fish

Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:25:00 +0000

Drug-tainted U.S. waters are slowly but surely affecting fish in the most negative of ways. Traces of anti-anxiety drugs in the water make fish anti-social and aggressive. Other pharmaceuticals give them voracious appetites. It may all sound humorous, but these are actually the effects of a larger water-pollution problem that is disturbing and endangering fish and the dynamics of their environment, according to a study by Swedish researchers at Umea University and an analysis by the U.S. Geological Survey.

"I think people are starting to understand that pharmaceuticals are environmental contaminants," said U.S. Geological Survey researcher Dana Kolpin, noting that medicines that seep into water can alter both fish biology and behavior.

Drugged fish, said experts, were less likely to be sociable, and that solitary trait would lead to them becoming easier targets for larger fish. Those larger fish, in turn, could then become overpopulated.

"We know that in a predator-prey situation, increased boldness and activity combined with decreased sociality means you're going to be somebody's lunch quite soon," Gregory Moller, a toxicologist at the University of Idaho and Washington State University, told the Associated Press. "It removes the natural balance."

In addition to deliberate dumping of drugs into water, including when people flush medicines down the toilet, pharmaceuticals enter rivers and streams after passing through people's bodies in an un-metabolized form. Those traces then pass through water treatment plants, which are not equipped to specifically remove them from the water; thus, the water - still drug-tainted - flows into rivers and streams.

Another major problem is the un-metabolized drug traces that pass through the bodies of factory farm animals, which are purposely pumped with steroids and chemicals. That, too, goes into the water.

It's a toxic cycle, experts say, and it needs to be broken.

According to a 2008 report by the Associated Press, the drinking water of at least 51 million Americans carries low concentrations of common drugs, including antibiotics, sex hormones, and sedatives. Though the findings prompted activists and health advocates to call for more water testing and public disclosure, there has since been no legislation passed to rectify the issue.

The Swedish research team tested their findings by exposing an aquarium of fish to trace amounts of the anti-anxiety drug oxazepam (in a concentration similar to that typically found in U.S. waters). The exposed fish moved more swiftly, became extremely aggressive, fed more frequently, hid less, and tended to stray off on their own. Some of the fish behaved "like a person diagnosed with ADHD," said researcher Micael Jonsson. "They become asocial and more active than they should be."

Biological changes, moreover, included male fish taking on female characteristics.

Researcher Tomas Brodin believes this is turning into a major problem that is affecting not only U.S. waters, but those around the world as well. "We're finding these [drug] concentrations all over the world, and it's quite possible or probable that these behavioral effects [in fish] are taking place as we speak," he said.

Though people might be slightly affected if they consumed enough of these fish, the research team maintained that it was highly unlikely that people would come to any harm or feel any significant effects. More worrying is what the pollution is doing to the fish themselves.

"These exposures may alter things like mating behavior or [the fish's] ability to catch food - or its ability to avoid being eaten," said Anne McElroy, a water toxins specialist at Stony Brook University in New York. "Over time, that could really affect a population."

The experts saw two methods of responding to this problem. The first would be to push treatment facilities to come up with better ways to purge drugs from the water. The second would be to urge pharmaceutical companies to "greenify" their drugs by making them more degradable.

"We recognize this as a growing concern and we're taking it very seriously," said EPA assistant administrator for water Benjamin Grumbles.

EPA scientist Christian Daughton added, "People think that if they take a medication, their body absorbs it and it disappears, but of course that's not the case."

And of course, said the agency, even if eating fish with drug traces isn't going to hurt people, the water itself still might - especially when those pharmaceutical levels increase further in a few years' time. "It brings a question to people's minds," remarked EPA research biologist Vickie Wilson. "If the fish were affected, might there be a potential problem for humans?"

Photo: Flickr

Leaders arrested on eve of anti-Keystone XL pipeline rally

Fri, 15 Feb 2013 13:56:00 +0000

Prominent environmental and human rights leaders were arrested Wednesday outside the White House while protesting the proposed construction of the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline, as plans were being finalized for what is being slated as the nation's "largest climate rally in U.S. history" on Sunday.

Those arrested included nationally renowned figures, including climate scientist James Hansen, civil rights activist Julian Bond, actress Daryl Hannah, Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune, and Bill McKibben, co-founder of the grassroots climate group 350.org.

They were demanding the President Obama deny construction of the 1,179-mile pipeline that would carry crude oil from Alberta, Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast.

Credo Action, a publication of Working Assets, described the Alberta tar sands as a potential "carbon bomb" and the Keystone XL pipeline as the "fuse to this bomb."

The third largest oil field in the world, the difficult extraction and transportation of the tar sands oil would ultimately produce up to three times the carbon emissions of traditional oil, according to Credo Action.

In addition, the project poses a massive spill risk in the six states along the pipeline route, including over the Ogallala Aquifer, which provides up to 30 percent of the nation's agricultural water, and would disrupt various ecosystems as it cuts through critical habitats.

"We have reached a fork in the road," warned Hansen, director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, according to the Washington Post.

Hansen argues that promoting renewable energy as well as oil and gas production, with projects like the Keystone XL Pipeline, isn't feasible, Jeanna Bryner, LiveScience Managing Editor, noted.

Hansen warned that continuing to "go down this road of exploiting every fossil fuel we have - tar sands, tar shale, off-shore drilling in the Arctic" is creating an irreparable crisis "where our children and grandchildren will have no control over the climate system."

"The threat to our planet's climate is both grave and urgent," Bond, former NAACP chairman and 1960s civil rights veteran, said in a statement, according to LiveScience. "I am proud today to stand before my fellow citizens and declare, 'I am willing to go to jail to stop this wrong.' The environmental crisis we face today demands nothing less."

Estimates by the Environmental Protection Agency suggest the pipeline would increase the annual production of carbon emissions by up to 27.6 million metric tons, or the equivalent of nearly 6 million cars on the road, according to 350.org.

Opponents of the pipeline project are encouraged by President Obama's commitments in his January inaugural address and again his State of the Union speech Tuesday to seriously tackle the climate change crisis.

"If Congress won't act soon to protect future generations, I will," the President declared Tuesday. "I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy."

Obama has twice thwarted the Keystone XL pipeline because of concerns over its route through sensitive land in Nebraska, but has not indicated how he will decide on the pipeline now that Nebraska's governor has approved a new route, according to a personal post in an Associated Press article.

But, pipeline opponents are also aware of the pressures from pipeline proponents that the President is coming under.

The American Petroleum Institute (API), the largest lobbying group for the oil industry, said it will financially back ads supporting the pipeline and will mobilize grassroots events across the country urging President Obama's approval.

The promise of jobs, which are expected to result in far less than being touted by API, has also confused some in labor.

This mitigates in favor of broadening and expanding the climate change progressive coalition.

It argues for environmental groups, and its allies in labor and other social movements, to drive the point home that transition to a sustainable economy would be a far greater boost to job creation than the pipeline or other fossil fuel generated employment.

The Blue-Green Alliance, a labor and environmental coalition, has also called for guaranteeing workers being transitioned from fossil fuel industries - like coal -meaningful job training and placement into the jobs being generated by conversion to a sustainable economy.

Sponsors of the rally, called Forward on Climate, include 350.org, the Sierra Club, and Hip Hop Caucus, and is expected to draw tens of thousands of participants, many who will be bused from 28 states, as well as celebrity climate activists and representatives from hundreds of grassroots organizations.

The Forward on Climate rally is just one of many campaigns and projects being organized by 350.org and slated for 2013 to encourage the President to go through with his commitments.

Photo: The protest against the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline continued in Washington, D.C. Elvert Barnes/Flickr

Obama signals strong action on climate change

Wed, 13 Feb 2013 15:36:00 +0000

President Obama put it very well in his State of the Union speech Tuesday night:

"...the fact is, the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15. Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and floods - all are now more frequent and intense. We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science - and act before it's too late."

The clear statements on the reality of climate change, on the need for action, and on the president's determination to act if Congress doesn't are encouraging. The know-nothingism of congressional Republicans, and their efforts to block any and all legislation on climate change, received a well-deserved slap in last night's speech.

Polls indicate a large and growing majority of people want the president to take action, and think Congress should also take action. And the number of people who understand this is a very important issue is increasing. Republicans, on this as on many issues, take every opportunity to obstruct action, against the wishes of that majority. The droughts, wildfires, and superstorms cited by Obama are playing a role in the shift of public opinion, as does the president's advocacy.

Environmentalists have been waiting for a forthright and prominent signal from Obama that his administration will take decisive action on climate change. The State of the Union speech offered that, mixed with less-than-positive mentions of increased oil and natural gas production.

Obama's promise to take executive action to drive down the costs of solar and wind power and to lessen delays in energy development due to unnecessary red tape (though he was mostly referring to red tape about oil and gas development) are positive, as is his call to increase funding for research and development. The role the federal government can play using its purchasing power to increase the market for solar panels, wind generators, and higher mileage vehicles is under-appreciated. Increasing government acquisition can help create a market large enough to create large economies of scale. This is a powerful force that the entire society would benefit from. As well, greater utilization of renewable energy will, in the long run, save the taxpayers money.

Also important was Obama's call for greater energy efficiency in our buildings. Retrofitting existing buildings can create millions of jobs and save money for home and building owners. Holding new buildings to higher standards can put us on a path to seriously decrease greenhouse gas emissions in the future. Energy wasted due to inadequate design and insulation in buildings accounts for a huge proportion of our energy use, so steps toward conservation can help considerably in our efforts to protect against the worst ravages of climate change.

Obama overstated several accomplishments on the environment, saying that the U.S. had doubled the gas mileage of automobiles and the amount of energy generated by renewable solar and wind power. The doubling of renewable energy is true, but it is still a fraction of what is needed. The automobile mileage changes are for cars produced from here on out, not for actual cars burning actual gas on actual highways. Also, he claimed that we have decreased our greenhouse gas emissions. This is true only to the extent that economic activity has decreased due to the Great Recession and the slow pickup in economic activity since.

No one knows yet what action his administration will take on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline project. A large demonstration will take place on Feb. 17 in Washington D.C., initiated by 350.org, calling for cancellation of the project.

Obama also argued that the increased production of natural gas in the U.S. is replacing some of the higher-emission fossil fuels, decreasing costs to consumers, and lessening our reliance on foreign oil. This is all true, but seriously reducing our greenhouse gas emissions requires a much quicker, more fundamental shift away from fossil fuels as the source of our energy.

But many environmentalists are encouraged by the fact that Obama is now starting to discuss climate change more, is advocating real steps to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, and is promising executive action in the face of Republican congressional denial (and opposition from coal-producing state Democrats).

Photo: Obama comforts the victims of Superstorm Sandy in Brigantine, New Jersey. The storm was just one more product of climate change, which was a significant focus of the president's State of the Union address. Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP

“Darwin Day” pushed in House

Wed, 13 Feb 2013 11:45:00 +0000

Yesterday was 204th birthday of the man who gave us the modern theory of evolution. This year, like each year like the past couple, Charles Darwin's contributions to how we understand our world were marked not only by lovers of science, but with the introduction of a resolution into the House.

Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., will introduce H.R. 41, which would "express support for the designation of February 12, 2013 as Darwin Day."

Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association, an atheist group that pushes for ethics and being "good without God," said in a press release, "The passage of Rep. Rush Holt's proposed resolution in Congress would send a strong message to the world that the United States supports science education."

"Charles Darwin's significant contributions to the advancement of science and our understanding of the world deserve recognition," Speckhardt added.

Rep. Holt, who holds a PhD in physics, explained his proposed resolution in an article published on the Huffington Post website, saying he hoped the day would serve as a "reminder of the need to promote scientific thinking throughout our society."

He compared the world of politics with that of science, giving science the advantage. Politics, he said, "is a fairly constrained, unscientific world." He added, "The inhabitants of that world do not often break new ground. There are not many new ideas ... Science is not like that; it is progressive. Scientists operate on the assumption that through better and better theories drawn from evidence one can have clearer and clearer understanding of how the world works."

As could be guessed by the work of the AHA and its support for Darwin Day, atheists have embraced the scientist. However, Stark argued, Darwin is not the property only of atheists, given that he "was especially motivated to understand and appreciate the almost incredible diversity in the family of man. Throughout his life he sought to relate this appreciation and understanding of human diversity to God's plan for the world."

Indeed, Darwin recognized that his work would cause controversy and even social upheaval. Darwin was therefore cautious in suggesting that humans themselves were the products of evolution from lower to higher forms of life. Nonetheless, he did hint at the concept.

Darwin did not originate the theory of evolution, but discovered the mechanism by which it takes place. Basically, genetic mutations and variations occur in the population of a species. These differences between creatures tend to be a help or a hindrance to survival in nature. If a help, the creatures who possess these differences tend to survive better in nature, while those who do not possess the differences perish. Over time, these differences become more and more prominent in the species. As changes take place over millions of years new species develop.

While Darwin made several mistaken assumptions in his work, the general theory he put forward has been supported by more research.

Since Darwin's time, much has been done with his work. "Social Darwinism," a theory that suggests modern human society is and should be based on competition, and that the losers should be allowed to simply die out, became popular in Darwin's later years. This theory both justified poverty of the lower classes in England and much of the world, as well as justified British and other imperialism as well as lent itself to numerous racial projects.

Darwin, however, kept his hands clean, rejecting social Darwinism as unscientific.

More salient in today's world are the debates around evolution and creationism. In the United States, religious groups have been pushing for the teaching of creationism - or "intelligent design" - in science classes. Proponents of science, however, have been generally victorious in keeping these unscientific ideas out.

Proponents of evolution, such as the atheist writer Richard Dawkins, have pointed out that many religious groups and people could be natural allies with the atheists in fighting for a more scientific worldview. The Catholic Church, the leader of which announced his retirement yesterday, he noted, accept evolution as fact, though they differ with atheists in that they see evolution by natural selection as guided by God. Many other religious groups also embrace evolution as part of God's plan.

The bill has support from Reps. Michael Capuano and Ed Markey, both of Massachusetts, Mike Honda, Calif., Eleanor Norton, D.C., Jared Polis, Colo., and Charles Rangel, N.Y. All are Democrats. The bill was sent to the House science and technology committee.

According to the International Darwin Day Foundation, a federally registered charity, supporters have been pushing for an official Darwin Day since the 1990s. In 2011, Rep. Pete Stark, Calif., became the first elected federal representative to push for federal recognition.

Five million farmers sue Monsanto for "taxing production"

Wed, 06 Feb 2013 16:31:00 +0000

Five million farmers are suing U.S.-based biotech corporation Monsanto for its mistreatment of Brazilian crop growers. Farmworkers there say that Monsanto makes an exorbitant profit each year on royalties from "renewal" seed harvests. Renewal crops are those that were planted with seed from the previous year's harvest.

The company demands royalties from any crop generation produced from its genetically modified seeds, which is patented. It then charges a two percent royalty on each subsequent crop produced.

Jane Berwanger, lawyer for the farmers, clarified, "Monsanto gets paid when it sells the seed. The law gives producers the right to multiply the seeds they buy, and nowhere in the world is there a requirement to pay again." But in this situation, "producers are in effect paying a private tax on production."

This is considered by farmers to be outrageous; many of them cannot afford to do this. But Monsanto is essentially arguing that once a farmworker buys their seed, they have to pay a perpetual yearly fee to the corporation, with no way out.

A Brazilian judge ruled in favor of the farmers, but Monsanto has appealed the decision, arguing that the farmers agreed to pay the royalties by proxy when they first purchased the seed.

Many environmentalists and health advocates strongly detest Monsanto's genetically "enhanced" seed in the first place. The corporation has a long, manipulative criminal history, and is rapidly gaining free reign over agriculture, to the detriment of workers' rights and livelihoods.

Dan Ravicher, executive director of patent watchdog group PUBPAT, remarked, "It's in Monsanto's financial interests to eliminate organic seed so that they can have a total monopoly over our food supply. This is the same chemical company that previously brought us Agent Orange and other toxins, which they said were safe, but [which we] know are not."

Photo: Demonstrators in Montpelier, Vermont protest chemical corporation Monsanto's use of genetically modified seeds. In Brazil, the company is demanding that farmers pay them royalties for any crop generation produced from such seeds. Toby Talbot/AP

Europe may ban bee-killing pesticides

Wed, 06 Feb 2013 16:17:00 +0000

Under proposals now before the European Union, three pesticides that harm bees and have contributed to their overall decline may be banned soon on that continent.

The European initiative to abolish bee-killing insecticides has been hailed by environmental activists as "hugely significant." It will also come as a major blow to chemical companies, as the three poisons being banned are some of the most heavily used worldwide.

Studies have shown that the chemicals seriously threaten bees, which pollinate a third of all food, and as Tonio Borg, the EU's commissioner for health and consumer policy remarked, it was "time for swift and decisive action."

If a majority of the European Union's member states vote in favor of the proposal to ban the three pesticides, it will become law on February 25 and go into effect on July 1.

As of now, France and the Netherlands are in support of the ban, while Germany and the U.K. are reportedly hesitant.

Luis Morago, a campaigner with the Avaaz group, which collected 2.2 million signatures on an anti-pesticide petition, remarked on the issue: "This is the first time that the European Union has recognized that the demise of bees has a perpetrator: pesticides. The suspension of [those pesticides] could mark a tipping point in the battle to stop the chemical armageddon for bees, but it does not go far enough. Over 2.2 million people want the European commission to face down spurious German and British opposition and push for a comprehensive ban" on all such pesticides.

Andrew Pendleton, Friends of the Earth's head of campaigns, added, "This hugely significant proposal promises a first, important step on the road to turning around the decline of bees. The U.K. government," however, "must throw its weight behind it. The evidence linking [the pesticides] to declining bee populations is growing. It is time to put farmers and nature before company profits."

Professors at exhibition talk implications of climate change

Fri, 01 Feb 2013 18:25:00 +0000

CHICAGO - During an environmental event held on January 30 at the DePaul Art Museum, professors discussed the impacts of climate change. They focused on its implications, how the public perceives it, and the attempt by conservatives to deny its very existence.

"Increasing CO2 levels are just the first part of the problem," said Mark Potosnak, assistant professor of environmental science and studies at DePaul University. "The loss of Arctic sea ice is the scariest, because it's opening up the Northwest Passage for shipping and for oil exploration," which will further contribute to the problem. "It's also causing the collapse of the Amazonian rainforest." And that, he suggested, is just the beginning.

The event was organized by Laura Fatemi, assistant director at the museum, and was part of a larger exhibition called "Climate of Uncertainty," which seeks to shed light on the threat of global warming and educate the public through science, art, and active discussion. The atmosphere at this event was animated and full of people ranging from students to journalists to concerned activists.

Potosnak's research deals largely with how plants' impacts on the environment will change in the future, according to Fatemi. He gave a broad presentation on climate issues, however, and started by backtracking to 1989, when "scientists were fairly convinced that the world was heating up. They made very solid predictions from that point forward.

"But how do scientists tell you what the climate is going to be like in 2100?" It's not as simple, he explained, as merely making predictions, because various social and economic positions factor into it. It becomes "a question of policy," he said, "because it's about the choices that political leaders are making. How much CO2 will we release in that time frame? What will federal regulations on it be, if any?" If this weren't complex enough, he added that, although we are suffering the effects of drought in the U.S., including lost crops, "we do have an agricultural surplus right now. We have a cushion. But many other developing nations do not. That makes climate change a social issue."

Global warming is also having a very negative impact on the rainforests. "Rainforests recycle a lot of rain," he explained. "It gets evaporated and comes back down again, and it's a very important system. But that cycle is [being] broken by reductions in rain. There were record droughts in these regions in 2005 and 2010."

"Arctic sea ice," he continued, "is way below the median average." This also makes climate change an issue of animal welfare: "Polar bears feed with the benefit of that sea ice. With that there, they can get their meal of seal meat. But when the ice gets farther away, it becomes a real problem for them. And what is shocking is just how quickly the melting occurred."

Barbara Willard, associate professor in the College of Communication, talked more about climate change's relationship with today's society, revealing some worrying facts. When it comes to this issue, she said, there is a "severe disconnect with the U.S. public. Even the majority that believes it's human-caused still sees it as a distant threat. The American population doesn't feel a sense of urgency. Other countries, however, don't have that perception."

Based on a March 2012 study by Yale/George Mason University, she demonstrated, "29 percent of Americans are cautious in regard to climate change, 26 percent are concerned, 15 percent are doubtful it's happening, 13 percent are outright alarmed, 10 percent are utterly dismissive of it, and six percent are disengaged from the issue altogether."

The citizens who are doubtful or confused unknowingly create a window for right-wing climate change deniers to have their say. "FOX News," she said, touts the idea of "fair and balanced journalism." And they go so far as to stretch that theory to the point where climate change itself ought to be regarded as subject to opinion.

"With the help of political strategists, Republicans play on scientific debate still being open, stressing that this equates to uncertainty on the issue." But with science, there is constant debate, "and if you wait until you have all the facts, it's too late" for our planet.

This is all made harder when the Republican Party tries to execute their agenda under the guise of concern for American values. "Many environmental messages," Willard admitted, "do fail to connect with American values, because they criticize our very lifestyle. And that's not going to get people on board. Calling for altruism is the wrong direction." The answer is getting people to compromise, and to simply do their part. That, she concluded, might be "the best kind of language to use in climate change discourse."

Photo: An ice fjord that leads to the mouth of the Jakobshaven Glacier, which is rapidly retreating into the Arctic Ocean due to global warming. June 27, 2008. Photo by Chicago photographer Terry Evans.