climate change

Congress: Commit U.S. to be #ZeroBy2050

The COP21 international summit on the climate produced a landmark climate agreement with nearly 200 nations as cosignatories. [1] The agreement recognized "that climate change represents an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human societies and the planet" and "that deep reductions in global emissions will be required" to revert climate change and its effects.

It is time for the U.S. to take steps to reduce its carbon emissions. The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) has introduced a resolution that calls for the U.S. to be emission-free by 2050 and details ways for the U.S. to reach that goal. We are joining organizations like the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, CREDO and others in calling for Congress to support this resolution.

Urge members of Congress to cosponsor and support the CPC's bill for the U.S. to be emission-free by 2050 by signing our joint petition:

As we've seen in Syria, climate change is a security issue. [2] Outside experts and Pentagon officials agree that droughts and extreme weather caused by climate change can exacerbate existing tensions within a society and increase the risk for war. A more peaceful world will be facilitated by a greener world.

Climate change poses a very real danger to the lives and well-being of every person on the planet, but especially to those in developing countries. The U.S. has a special obligation to take action to eliminate its carbon emissions because it is the second biggest carbon emitter and, thus, bears a larger responsibility to vulnerable communities affected by climate change.

Urge Congress to commit the U.S. to being emission-free by 2050 by signing & sharing our joint petition:

Are Dumb Foreign Policies Holding Us Back On Addressing Climate Change?

During his second inaugural address, President Obama promised to move the US forward on addressing climate change. So you'd think that rejecting the TransCanada Corporation's proposal to build the Keystone XL pipeline, which would have a significant carbon impact if implemented, would be a no-brainer, right?

Not according to a recent New York Times report. After tens of thousands of activists descended on Washington this past Sunday to press the president to fulfill his promise on climate and reject the Keystone XL application, [1] the New York Times report claimed that the President faced a difficult decision: if Obama rejects the pipeline project as those concerned about climate change demand, he would provoke the Canadian conservative government to retaliate. [2] How? By not supporting bad US foreign policies!

Policies that are in the best interest of the American public ought not to be traded for policies that most Americans have no stake in. Tell President Obama to reject the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline.

So why does the New York Times think Obama should be afraid of the Conservative Canadian government? One claim was that a rejection of the Keystone XL project would end up

causing a deep and perhaps lasting rift with Canada… a close ally on Iran and Afghanistan… Its leaders have made it clear that an American rejection … could bring retaliation.

But Canada has already withdrawn the bulk of its troops from Afghanistan—a war most Americans want to end anyway. [3] There are only about 950 Canadian soldiers left in Afghanistan, almost all of whom are there solely to train the Afghan army and all of whom will be withdrawn at the end of 2014. [4] And retaliation concerning Iran would take the form of—what, exactly? Less support for further sanctions on Iran, which are already keeping Iranian civilians from getting lifesaving medicines? [5]