enough, enough !

time to go right to the top – for ma herself
if not recognizing what happened right here, this weekend

full ICN quote below
what only make’s sense this morning
after yet more trump-awful from last night

meantime, thanks pres obama for all you’re doing
along with everyone pulling the paris agreement into action



Following the devastation from Hurricane Matthew
and a campaign urging moderators to ask a climate question,
the issue was again ignored.

By Marianne Lavelle, InsideClimate News

Oct 10, 2016

Hillary Clinton affirmed her commitment to fighting climate change, while Donald Trump pledged to take advantage of what he called “clean coal” stores that will last a thousand years, in response to a question on energy policy in Sunday night’s presidential debate.

Climate change was treated as an afterthought, despite a campaign by environmental activists urging moderators to press the candidates on the issue—especially on a weekend that saw the southeast U.S. coast battered, and Haiti devastated, by the extreme weather conditions from Hurricane Matthew.

The debate focused on topics that drove much of the presidential campaign coverage over the weekend, in particular the revelation of a video in which Trump made lewd and aggressive comments about women.

The query on energy came near the end of the contentious evening, designed in a town-hall style with undecided voters reading many of the questions. The energy question didn’t mention climate change but was focused on the nation’s production of energy. “What steps will your energy policy take to meet our energy needs,” a member of the audience asked, “while at the same time remaining environmentally friendly, and minimizing job loss for fossil power plant workers?”

Republican Trump, answering first, launched into an attack on environmental regulators. “Energy is under siege by the Obama administration, under absolute siege,” he said. “The Environmental Protection Agency is killing these energy companies.

“Now, I’m all for alternative forms of energy, including wind, including solar, but we need much more than wind and solar,” he said.

“Hillary Clinton wants to put all the miners out of business,” Trump claimed. “There is a thing called clean coal. Coal will last for 1,000 years in this country.”

He also spoke of the fracking boom and pledged to continue to encourage it: “Now we have natural gas and so many other things because of technology. Over the last seven years, we have found tremendous wealth right under our feet. I will bring our energy companies back. They’ll be able to compete, they’ll make money, they’ll pay off our national debt,” Trump said.

In sum, it was a repetition of Trump’s all-of-the-above, drill-baby-drill “America first” energy policy. And it continued his denunciation of the “war on coal” that he and his running mate have articulated as they dismiss the climate crisis as a meaningful issue.

Democrat Clinton, as she did often during the evening, walked close to the questioner to answer and said to him that it sounds as though he works in the energy industry. She said it was good that the U.S. was energy independent “for the first time ever,” but said the Middle East still controls the price of oil.

Clinton then turned to alternatives, beginning with natural gas, a sign that she, too, favors the all-of-the-above approach to fossil fuels.

“We are…producing a lot of natural gas, which serves as a bridge to more renewable fuels, and I think that is an important transition,” Clinton said. “We have got to remain energy independent. That gives us a lot more freedom and power than to worry about what goes on in the Middle East.”

“I have a comprehensive energy policy,” Clinton told the questioner, “but it really does include fighting climate change, because I think that is a serious problem. And I support moving to more clean, renewable energy because I believe we can be the 21st century clean energy superpower.”

Clinton said that her policy included a plan to revitalize coal communities along the way: “I want to make sure we don’t leave people behind.”

Some climate activists put out statements immediately after the debate expressing disappointment that the global crisis had been given short shrift. “We finally got a question about energy policy in the 89th minute of the debate, although it left out any mention of climate change,” said 350 Action Executive Director May Boeve. Nevertheless, Boeve said the answers revealed the “fault lines” in the election. “Trump doubled down on fossil fuels, while Hillary talked about a clean energy future that doesn’t leave anyone behind.”

Boeve did take issue with Clinton’s reference to natural gas as a bridge fuel: “It’s just a fast lane to more climate destruction,” she said. But she added that the group would work for her election: “350 Action will do everything we can to defeat Trump and then get to work pushing Hillary Clinton to move our country off all fossil fuels, including natural gas.”

Greenpeace USA Executive Director Annie Leonard likewise lamented the debate’s handling of the subject. “The candidates spent very little time talking about climate change during tonight’s debate but it is on the minds of so many Americans, especially as Hurricane Matthew continues to take a heavy toll here and in Haiti,” she said in a statement. “Climate change demands the attention of both candidates and their parties, and it is shameful that it was given so little.”

Environmental and social activist groups, led by the League of Conservation Voters and Media Matters for America, a media watchdog grop, organized a social media drive that gathered 150,000 signatures urging moderators to bring up the topic.

“This summer, the climate crisis has fallen right into America’s front yards—from devastating floods in Louisiana to damaging droughts and sweltering heat, we are feeling the impacts of climate change every day,” said the environmentalists’ petition. “Yet according to a recent Media Matters study, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox collectively spent five percent less time covering climate change in 2015 despite landmark actions to address global warming.”

Four questions on climate and energy were voted into the top 30 questions in the online poll organized by the Open Debate Coalition [1]. The organization, started in 2008 by Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and progressive and conservative groups, has pushed for a debate format that allows for crowdsourced questions. The moderators of Sunday’s debate had agreed to “consider” the 30 most upvoted questions on the site. More than 3.8 million votes were recorded for some 15,900 questions.

“What are the steps you will take to address climate change? [2]” was the fourth most popular question on the site. It received 46,470 up votes, coming behind two queries on guns and one on Social Security.

The moderators asked one question from the online forum, about new Clinton emails posted on Wikileaks.

The high priority that poll participants gave to climate change contrasts with the topic’s near invisibility during the campaign. Trump’s only public statements on climate change were regarding a tweet he sent in 2012 claiming global warming was a hoax invented by the Chinese.

During the candidates’ first debate on Sept. 26, Clinton brought up Trump’s hoax statement as an example of the contrast between the two candidates. After Trump responded bluntly that it wasn’t true, his 2012 post became the most retweeted tweet during the debate.

CNN columnist John Sutter has called climate change “the most important issue [4] almost no one is talking about this campaign season.” And New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote on Friday that it would be “almost criminally irresponsible [5]” for the debate moderators to ignore it. “There is, quite simply, no other issue this important,” he wrote.

After last week’s vice presidential debate ended with only a brief mention of climate change, Heather Hargreaves, vice president of NextGen Climate, a political group run by Clinton supporter Tom Steyer, said in a statement: “Voters rely on debate moderators and the media to hold the candidates accountable for their views—a clear debate on the differences between the candidates’ climate policies is vital in helping inform citizens who will be making critical choices for their futures on November 8th.”

Although President Obama and his Republican opponent John McCain were asked about climate change [6] by an audience member in their 2008 town hall debate, global warming did not come up in the 2012 presidential debates. Clinton and her primary opponent Bernie Sanders faced off extensively [7] on climate and energy in an April debate. But Media Matters [8] noted that Trump did not have to field a single climate change question through 11 GOP primary debates. He has not had to address his climate denial in media interviews.

TV news coverage leading up to the debate focused on the revelations of recordings of Trump, which touched off a crisis in the Republican party. Some prominent Republicans withdrew their endorsements of him and the GOP suspended its Trump campaign activities.

Environmental scientist Peter Gleick, who has been calling for more attention to climate change in the campaign, tweeted before the debate that a climate question might come as a welcome relief for Trump.

Here are the other three climate and energy questions that made it into the top 30 on the Open Debate Coalition’s website:

Ranked 10th most upvoted: What is your plan to combat climate change & build a green economy? [11]

Ranked 14th: What will you do to protect the rights of Native Americans and their land? [12] ( related to the fight over the Dakota Access oil pipeline)

Ranked 29th: Is Climate Change a national security issue? Why or why not? [13]

Published Under:
Politics [14]
Election 2016 [15]
© InsideClimate Newsn

time to actually listen

to native americans, after 525 years

~ bill mckibben
grist online, 8/22/16

dakota access protest by joe catron, flickr

dakota access protest
photo by joe catron, flickr

The center of the fight for our planet’s future shifts. But this week it’s on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation straddling the border between North Dakota and South Dakota. There, tribal members have been, well, standing like a rock in the way of the planned Dakota Access Pipeline, a huge hose for collecting oil out of the Bakken shale and carrying it off to the Midwest and the Gulf where it can be made into gasoline.

The standoff has been picturesque and dramatic, featuring American Indians on horseback. But mostly it’s been brave and lonely, far from most journalists and up against the same forces that have made life hard for Indigenous Peoples for centuries.

The U.S. Army, for instance. It’s the Army Corps of Engineers that last month granted Energy Transfer Corporation the permit necessary to start construction near the reservation, despite a petition signed by 150,000 people, and carried—on foot—by young people from the reservation all the way to Washington. That would be the same U.S. Army that—well, google “Wounded Knee.” Or “Custer.” “Washita River.” “Pine Ridge.”

That’s not really ancient history, not any of it. It’s the reason that Native Americans live confined to bleak reservations in vast stretches of the country that no one thought were good for much of anything else. But those areas—ironically enough—now turn out to be essential for the production or transportation of the last great stocks of hydrocarbons, the ones whose combustion scientists tell us will take us over the edge of global warming.

And if former generations of the U.S. Army made it possible to grab land from Native people, then this largely civilian era of the Army Corps is making it easy to pollute and spoil what little we left them. As the corporation said over the weekend, it was “constructing this pipeline in accordance with applicable laws, and the local, state and federal permits and approvals we have received.”

But it’s not constructing it in accordance with the laws of physics. July was the hottest month ever recorded on our planet, and likely, say scientists, the hottest month since the beginning of human civilization. And in any event, those “applicable laws, permits, and approvals” are merely the cover for the latest plunder.

A spill from this pipeline would pollute the Missouri River, just as spills in recent years have done irreparable damage to the Kalamazoo and Yellowstone rivers. And that river is both the spiritual and economic lifeblood of the Standing Rock Reservation, one of the poorest census tracts in the entire country.

Forget, for a minute, the threat to the reservation, and forget, for a minute, the endless history of unfairness. Think instead of what it might mean if the Army Corps, or the Obama administration, simply said: “You know what, you’re right. We don’t need to build this pipeline.”

It would mean that after 525 years, someone had actually paid attention to the good sense that Native Americans have been offering almost from the start. It’s not that American Indians are ecological saints—no human beings are. But as the first people who saw what Europeans did to a continent when given essentially free rein, they were the appalled witnesses to everything from the slaughter of the buffalo to the destruction of the great Pacific salmon runs.

And in recent years they have been the vanguard of the movement to slow down climate change. Why did the Keystone XL pipeline not get built? Above all because Indigenous Peoples on both sides of the border took the lead in a battle that stretched over a decade. Why did Canadian leaders fail in their efforts to replace it with the Northern Gateway pipeline? Because tribes and bands across the west of that country made it clear they could not be bought off. Why will the easiest-to-access deep-water port on the Pacific coast not be turned into the country’s biggest new coal export terminal? Because the Lummi Nation at Cherry Point joined with protesters across the region to say no. This same dynamic is at play around the world, where Indigenous Peoples from the Amazon to the coral atolls of the Pacific are doing more than anyone else to slow down the grinding destruction of our earth.

One has the ominous sense of grim history about to be reenacted at Standing Rock. North Dakota authorities—who are in essence a subsidiary of the fossil fuel industry—have insisted that the Sioux are violent, that they have “pipe bombs.” There are rumors about calling in the National Guard. The possibility for renewed tragedy is very real.

But the possibility for a new outcome is there as well. The Army Corps of Engineers might back off. The president might decide, as he did with Keystone, that this pipeline would “exacerbate” climate change and hence should be reviewed more carefully. We might, after five centuries, actually listen to the only people who’ve ever successfully inhabited this continent for the long term.

If you’re interested in joining the fight but can’t get to North Dakota, there’s a rally on Aug. 24 from 1:00–5:00 p.m. in Washington, D.C., outside the federal court that’s considering challenges to the permits, at 333 Constitution Ave NW.

Bill McKibben is Schumann Distinguished Scholar in Environmental Studies at Middlebury College, and a founder of 350.org. He is a member of Grist’s board of directors.

fossil fuels – keep ’em down

. . . more 350.org happenings around the world


full of action happenings – stories – photos


beauty & disobedience

. . . much less than one month apart
for sure – ma does need us bigtime

one of the best action movies of our time
do take a look

about time !!

we load the streets of paris for ma

we load the streets of paris for ma


Today is a historic day: as tens of thousands of people filled the streets of Paris, politicians finalized a major new global climate agreement.

The deal in Paris includes an agreement to limit global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius, with an aim of 1.5 degrees, and achieve climate ‘neutrality’ that will require phasing out fossil fuels soon after mid-century. That’s not what we hoped for, but it’s still a deal that sends a signal that it’s time to keep fossil fuels in the ground, and for investors to cut their ties with coal, oil and gas by divesting.

This deal represents important progress — but progress alone is not our goal. Our goal is a just and livable planet.

If followed to the letter, the agreement leaves far too many people exposed to the violence of rising seas, stronger storms and deeper drought. It leaves too many loopholes to avoid serious action — despite the heroic efforts from leaders of vulnerable nations and communities who fought for a deal in line with science.

But the coal, oil and gas corporations of the world should take little comfort. That 2 degree pledge would require keeping 80% of the world’s remaining fossil fuels underground, a 1.5 degree target even more — and countries are required to come back to the table every 5 years to increase their ambition in reaching those goals.

Paris isn’t the end of the story, but a conclusion of a particular chapter. Now, it’s up to us to strengthen these promises, make sure they are kept, and then accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels and towards 100% renewable energy.


They were joined by hundreds of solidarity actions around the world, all echoing the same message: it’s up to us to keep fossil fuels in the ground.

Standing together, flowers in hand, we formed red lines in the street — because lines have to be drawn in this fight for justice, and it’s up to all of us to stand on the side of those on the front lines of this crisis.

More lines are being drawn everywhere against the true villain of the last two weeks: the fossil fuel industry, which has done everything possible to weaken even this late, late deal.

Without pressure from ordinary people, world leaders would have gladly ignored this problem entirely. It’s pressure from people that will close the gap between WHAT WAS SIGNED TODAY AND THE ACTION WE NEED.

This begins the next chapter. Please watch this space for the announcement of something big in the coming days!

If you are reading this, you’ve been part of the work that got us all to this point, and for that, we say thank you. 2015 was a historic year for us — because we worked together to build a more powerful and hopeful climate movement.

With gratitude, and as always, hope,

May and the whole 350.org team

together at last, host tells us what’s up

paris climate summit: huge stakes, deep divides


agence france-presse, 11/22/2015

Still reeling from the worst terrorist attacks in French history, Paris will host nearly 140 world leaders gathering next week to spearhead a climate pact tasked with keeping Earth liveable for humanity.

US President Barack Obama on Sunday urged others to follow his example and come to the French capital to show that “a handful of killers does not stop the world from doing vital business.”

No heads of state or government backed out of the November 30 opening after jihadist assaults killed 130 people just over a week ago, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said on Saturday.

“On the contrary, some who had not yet responded have said they will come exactly because we cannot give in to terrorism,” he said.

Preoccupied by a recent spate of extremist attacks around the globe, world leaders will have their work cut out for them at the 12-day climate huddle.

The highly-anticipated conference is tasked with fixing a problem that threatens the very well-being of our species: global warming.

After six years of preparatory negotiations, the 195 nations gathering under the UN flag remain sharply divided on a raft of intertwined issues.

There are at least three battlegrounds where the talks could stumble. As always, the first is money.

In Copenhagen in 2009 — the last time countries sought to craft a universal climate pact and failed — it was agreed that poorer nations vulnerable to global warming impacts would receive $100 billion (94 billion euros) per year from 2020.

The money is to help them give up fossil fuels, and to shore up defences against climate-driven food scarcity, heat waves and storm damage.

International climate finance has grown steadily, reaching $62 billion in 2014, according to an estimate commissioned by the UN.

But developing nations want assurances that the flow of money will be recession-proof, come from public sources, and be earmarked for boosting resilience.

India’s environment and climate minister Prakash Javadekar told the Business Standard last week that “predictable, scalable and new finance” is a redline issue.

Along with many other developing countries, New Delhi’s pledge to engineer a massive switch to renewable energy is conditional on such aid.

Some 50 nations — home to a billion people — federated in the Climate Vulnerable Forum, meanwhile, are also pushing for funds for “loss and damage” from climate change impacts that can no longer be avoided.

Rich nations are willing to discuss the issue, but have drawn a line in the sand.

“The notion of so-called compensation or liability… is not a legitimate concept in this context and we would certainly not accept it in the agreement,” a US official told journalists in Paris ahead of the summit.

A second thorny issue is defining a long-term goal.

All nations have embraced the target of capping global warming at two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-industrial levels. The world has already warmed 1 C.

Some 170 nations accounting for more than 90 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas output have filed carbon-cutting plans ahead of the Paris meeting.

But these voluntary commitments are not enough to get the job done, and place Earth on a dangerous 3 C trajectory.

There is no prospect of enhanced pledges right now.

“At this point, our goal will not change,” China’s climate negotiator, Xie Zhenhua, said last week. Other countries, including the United States, have said the same.

The challenge — and the yardstick for success in Paris — will be to agree on an action plan that eliminates the gap over time.

That could mean periodic reviews of national plans to ratchet up emissions reduction efforts.

But countries do not agree on how often reviews must be done, or an in-built obligation to ramp up carbon-cutting efforts.

A third sticking point is the agreement’s legal status.

The United States has consistently said it will not inscribe its emissions reduction targets — 26-28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025 — in a legally-binding international treaty.

At the same time, host country France has said the outcome must have legal force.

There has been some progress since Copenhagen, based on growing scientific evidence of the threat we face, and renewable energy becoming cheaper.

“We have stronger convergence on the broad contours of an agreement than we ever saw ahead of the Copenhagen conference,” said veteran climate analyst Elliot Diringer.

Still, finding middle ground will be tricky, and the planet will be watching.

Some 6,000 journalists have sought accreditation for the 12-day meeting, twice as many as can be accommodated.

Civil society groups, however, have been left out in the cold.

France, citing security fears, has cancelled mass rallies to press for urgent political action planned for November 29 and December 12 in Paris.

copyright 2015, agence france-presse

. . . so what can i do ?


UN’s IPCC sets it out yet again- got to change it all !

Bangkok's skyline blanketed in a haze

on the way to next global power gathering in paris -one year away
world scientists put it to them -and us- as clearly as possible

as UN leader ban ki-moon summarizes
leaders must act; time is not on our side