The following YouTube presentation is taken from the soon to be release book ‘Letters from 2030’
Leon Tolstoy once wrote – People were not inclined to take their situation with any degree of seriousness: on the contrary they became even more frivolous, as is always the case with people who see a great catastrophe approaching … they argue that it is too depressing to think of the danger since it is not in man’s power to foresee everything and avert the general march of events, and it is better therefore to shut one’s eyes to the disagreeable until it actually comes, and to think instead of what is pleasant.

Read the following and join her and the Foundation to demand the Grand Canyon is not exploited for destructive Uranium mining. -

Save the Grand Canyon from Uranium Mining

To Whom It May Concern:

My name is Suzanne Sparling.  While I am a co-founder of SEN4Earth.org and the Greenhouse Neutral Foundation’s Executive Director of Operations, USA, I’m also a simple person, someone who cares and has a passion to make a difference.

After moving to Arizona almost 7 years ago, I immediately fell in love with the beauty of the area. Shortly afterward, I began searching for avenues to be able to make a difference with regard to environmental issues. While working with the Greenhouse Neutral Foundation, I became the U.S. Executive Director. My work with the Foundation led to a joint inspiration of SEN4Earth.org, co-Founded by Gregory Hilbert and myself.  We created it with the vision to help others to not only be further educated about issues but to also arm them with information, encouragement, and the ability to take action. Though I care deeply about many causes, my primarily concern is with environmental issues. My love of Arizona and passion for environmental activism sparked the Worldwide Campaign to Save the Grand Canyon.

Simply put, I want to make a difference in the world and help others see that they can make a difference too. Every change we make toward sustainability, conservation, and environmental awareness and implementation of changes to achieve those goals – no matter how large or small – matters.

I’m writing to you today to request your organization’s support and promotion of the Worldwide Campaign to Save the Grand Canyon. We are in a critical time crunch. The deadline for public comment is May 4, 2011. At that time, it will be decided whether a new 20 year ban will be enacted or if the mining companies will be permitted to move forward with the toxic contamination and destruction of one of the most incredible places in the world.

When Change.org contacted me directly about the petition I have on their site, I was overwhelmed with gratitude. With their assistance and emailing of their members, signatures skyrocketed from approximately 1100 as of April 4, to over 40,000 as of the writing of this message.

Change.org News Release:
http://news.change.org/stories/razing-arizona-citizens-fight-to-protect-the-grand-canyon-from-uranium-mining

SEN4Earth.org Blog Update:
http://sen4earth.org/articles/2011/04/06/will-the-grand-canyon-survive/

I implore you, please help us succeed with this campaign. I’ve been canvasing the petitions for signatures since August 2010. You may find the petitions here:

http://www.change.org/petitions/worldwide-campaign-to-save-the-grand-canyon
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/worldwide-campaign-to-save-the-grand-canyon-take-action/

If your organization is able to assist us with a news, blog or any other post, publication, or email campaign to your members, please don’t hesitate to send me a link and/or information so that I can show others your support and link back to your site.

Please help us save the Grand Canyon and all the millions of lives dependent upon it.

Thank you,
Suzanne Sparling

Should we try to change their minds? Send me your thoughts.

We need to accept this moral responsibility. The following article which appeared in the Guardian I believe comes straight from James’s heart. Do you care enough to take an activist stance while we have the time?

Thank you – Bob Williamson Founder & Chair Greenhouse Neutral Foundation.

“How did you become an activist?” I was surprised by the question. I never considered myself an activist. I am a slow-paced taciturn scientist from the Midwest US. Most of my relatives are pretty conservative. I can imagine attitudes at home toward “activists”.

I was about to protest the characterisation – but I had been arrested, more than once. And I had testified in defence of others who had broken the law. Sure, we only meant to draw attention to problems of continued fossil fuel addiction. But weren’t there other ways to do that in a democracy? How had I been sucked into being an “activist?”

My grandchildren had a lot to do with it. It happened step by step. First, in 2004, I broke a 15-year self-imposed effort to stay out of the media. I gave a public lecture, backed by scientific papers, showing the need to slow greenhouse gas emissions – and I criticised the Bush administration for its lack of appropriate policies. My grandchildren came into the talk only as props – holding 1-watt Christmas tree bulbs to help explain climate forcings.

Fourteen months later I gave another public talk – connecting the dots from global warming to policy implications to criticisms of the fossil fuel industry for promoting misinformation. This time my grandchildren provided rationalisation for a talk likely to draw ire from the administration. I explained that I did not want my children to look back and say: “Opa understood what was happening, but he never made it clear.”

What had become clear was that our planet is close to climate tipping points. Ice is melting in the Arctic, Greenland and Antarctica, and on mountain glaciers worldwide. Many species are stressed by environmental destruction and climate change. Continuing fossil fuel emissions, if unabated, will cause sea levels to rise and species to become extinct beyond our control. Increasing atmospheric water vapour is already magnifying climate extremes, increasing overall precipitation, causing greater floods and stronger storms.

Stabilising climate requires restoring our planet’s energy balance. The physics is straightforward. The effect of increasing carbon dioxide on Earth’s energy imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of ocean heat gain. The principal implication is defined by the geophysics, by the size of fossil fuel reservoirs. Simply put, there is a limit on how much carbon dioxide we can pour into the atmosphere. We cannot burn all fossil fuels. Specifically, we must (1) phase out coal use rapidly, (2) leave tar sands in the ground, and (3) not go after the last drops of oil.

Actions needed for the world to move on to clean energies of the future are feasible. The actions could restore clean air and water globally. But the actions are not happening.

At first I thought it was poor communication. Scientists must not have made the story clear enough to world leaders.

So I wrote letters to national leaders and visited more than half a dozen nations, as described in my book, Storms of My Grandchildren. What I found in each case was greenwash – a pretence of concern about climate but policies dictated by fossil fuel special interests.

The situation is epitomised by my recent trip to Norway. I hoped that Norway, because of its history of environmentalism, might be able to take real action to address climate change, drawing attention to the hypocrisy in the words and pseudo-actions of other nations.

So I wrote a letter to the prime minister suggesting that Norway, as majority owner of Statoil, should intervene in its plans to develop the tar sands of Canada. I received a polite response, by letter, from the deputy minister of petroleum and energy. The government position is that the tar sands investment is “a commercial decision”, that the government should not interfere, and that a “vast majority in the Norwegian parliament” agree that this constitutes “good corporate governance”. The deputy minister concluded his letter: “I can however assure you that we will continue our offensive stance on climate change issues both at home and abroad.”

A Norwegian grandfather, upon reading the deputy minister’s letter, quoted Saint Augustine: “Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.”

The Norwegian position is a staggering reaffirmation of the global situation: even the greenest governments find it too inconvenient to address the implication of scientific facts.

It becomes clear that concerted action will happen only if the public, somehow, becomes forcefully involved. One way citizens can help is by blocking coal plants, tar sands, and the mining of the last drops of fossil fuels.

However, fossil fuel addiction can be solved only when we recognise an economic law as certain as the law of gravity: as long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy they will be used. Solution therefore requires a rising fee on oil, gas and coal – a carbon fee collected from fossil fuel companies at the domestic mine or port of entry. All funds collected should be distributed to the public on a per capita basis to allow lifestyle adjustments and spur clean energy innovations. As the fee rises, fossil fuels will be phased out, replaced by carbon-free energy and efficiency.

A carbon fee is the only realistic path to global action. China and India will not accept caps, but they need a carbon fee to spur clean energy and avoid fossil fuel addiction.

Governments today, instead, talk of “cap-and-trade with offsets”, a system rigged by big banks and fossil fuel interests. Cap-and-trade invites corruption. Worse, it is ineffectual, assuring continued fossil fuel addiction to the last drop and environmental catastrophe.

Because the executive and legislative branches of our governments turn a deaf ear to the science, the judicial branch may provide the best opportunity to redress the situation. Our governments have a fiduciary responsibility to protect the rights of young people and future generations.

I look forward to standing with young people and their supporters, helping them develop their case, as they demand their proper due and fight for nature and their future. I guess that makes me an activist.

• The full version of this essay, entitled “Activist”, will appear in the book The Day After Tomorrow; Images of Our Earth in Crisis by J Henry Fair, to be published in November by PowerHouse Books. Dr James Hansen’s latest book is called Storms of my Grandchildren.

Let the ideas percolate up from a thousand localities!

On the Fourth of July, we celebrated Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Madison and all the other great men who created our democracy, right?

Not exactly. The Founders did create the framework for a democratic republic, but they didn’t create much democracy. Indeed, in America’s first presidential election, only 4 percent of the people were even eligible to vote.

The Founders created the possibility for democracy, but it took the struggle (often bloody and always hard) of ordinary people over the years to create the substance. In some decades, we’ve made advances; in others, we’ve fallen back – including in the past three decades, when the power of America’s workaday majority has steadily been usurped by corporate elites. So now, We the People must put America back on its historic path toward economic and political democracy.

“Fine,” you might say, “but how? I’m just one person. What can I do?”

1) Start by considering what’s reasonable for you. Few of us can be full-time activists, and the list of issues and problems is intimidating, long and complex. So just take one bite, choosing an issue that interests you most, then start contributing what you can (time, skills, contacts, money, enthusiasm, etc.) to making progress. No contribution is too small. If you can only devote half a day a week, or an hour a day or even minutes a day – it all adds up. As a young Oregon woman said of her half-day-a-week volunteer door-knocking in a legislative race: “I was only drop in the bucket, but I was one drop. And without all of us, the bucket would not have filled up.”

2) Inform yourself. A little effort can quickly connect you to accessible, usable information and insights on any given topic, allowing you to gain a “citizen’s level” of expertise so you can talk to others about it. Read progressive periodicals, tune in to progressive broadcasts, get information from public-interest groups, and plug into good websites and blogs.

Don’t know how to go online? Nearly all public libraries not only have computers, but also librarians and volunteers who’ll assist you in finding the info you want and teach you how to use the machines.

Or find a youngster (maybe your grandchildren or someone at church) who’ll help you. Yes, you can do this!

3) Democracy belongs to those who show up. Join with others. Everyone feels better when they’re part of a group, a movement, a community (whether real or virtual). In your own town or neighborhood, many others are either already working together or willing to help form a group – seek them out, maybe at bookstores, book clubs, coffee shops, events, churches, blogs, Websites and other meeting places.

4) A community is more than a collection of issues and endless meetings. Combine the serious with the social, and remember the Yugoslavian proverb, “You can fight the gods and still have fun!” So discuss your issues and strategies at potluck suppers (bring the kids, have some music, pour a little wine), throw an annual festival of politics, create weekly sessions of beer-mug democracy at local taverns, set aside one day a week for Big Talk (rather than small talk) at the coffeeshop, etc.

5) Become the media. Create a local newsletter, blog, bulletin board (on the wall or online), Internet radio broadcast, etc. Just as importantly, enlist high-school or community college speech and journalism teachers to help you learn how to do radio and TV interviews and how to get local media to cover your issues. Also, get them to train you and others in pubic speaking, so you can have your own speakers’ bureau to address clubs, churches, schools, etc.

6) Hold your own “what to do” sessions in your community. Don’t wait for national progressive groups, which haven’t figured out a cohesive strategy for focusing on people’s anger about the meekness of Washington’s Democratic leaders. Instead, have your own discussions about what should be done nationally – if anything – and start zapping those ideas to other communities, heads of national groups, progressive media outlets and so forth. Let the ideas percolate up from a thousand localities!

That’s what democracy is. Some assembly required.

Source Alternet

President Obama recorded a message for Organizing For America supporters to update us on the crisis in the Gulf and ask us to stand with him to build a new foundation for energy in the US.

It’s now time to change the charter of the Corporation. WHO should PAY?

The US House of Representatives has voted to more than quadruple a per-barrel oil tax that fills a special trust fund to pay for damages from major spills such as the Gulf of Mexico disaster.

The measure called for raising the eight-cent-per-barrel tax to 34 cents, raising nearly $US12 billion ($A14.13 billion) dollars over 10 years for the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which currently holds about $US1.5 billion ($A1.77 billion).

The legislation, which passed by a 215-204 margin, also aimed to raise the cap on per-incident trust fund expenditures from $US1 billion ($A1.18 billion) to $US5 billion ($A5.9 billion).

Some analysts have warned that the price tag for the catastrophic oil spill that resulted from the explosion aboard the Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling platform run by BP could top $US14 billion ($A16.5 billion).

BP is legally responsible for all cleanup costs, but is only liable for up to $US75 million ($A88.3 million) in economic damages – a cap that vanishes if the British energy giant is found to have been negligent or engaged in wilful misconduct.

To the extent that costs above that are not covered by BP – which has vowed to pay all legitimate claims – up to $US1 billion of the additional damages could come about of the trust fund.

The legislation approved on Friday would raise that ceiling to $US5 billion.

The Senate was expected to pass a different version of the bill when it returns from next week’s break, meaning the two chambers would have to agree on a compromise version to send to President Barack Obama.

The House-passed measure’s main goal was to extend a series of provisions aimed at battling stubbornly high US unemployment and extend jobless benefits to late November.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Led by Shell Oil, the project has not been formally halted and could still begin exploratory drilling as early as this summer in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas.

In a letter late Thursday, the director of the United States Minerals Management Service asked the president of Shell, Marvin E. Odum, to provide more information about safety precautions for the project while the agency, part of the Interior Department, conducts an “expanded review” of permit applications “based on the Deepwater Horizon disaster.”

“We request that Shell provide detailed information with respect to additional safety procedures that the company is proposing to undertake in light of the Deepwater Horizon disaster,” wrote S. Elizabeth Birnbaum, the director of the Minerals Management Service.

Ms. Birnbaum asked Shell to provide the information by May 18.

In a separate statement, the Interior Department said a decision on the Alaska project and others would not be made until after the White House reviews a report on offshore drilling safety that the department is to file by May 28. Projects in California and Virginia have already been delayed.

A spokesman for Shell said the company would comply with the administration’s request and try to “find new barriers and contingencies we can add to our existing plan.” The spokesman, Curtis Smith, said the company still hoped to be able to drill this summer. Sue Libenson, who was executive director of the Alaska Center for the Environment during the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, and has been part of a coordinated push to stop the Shell project, expressed concerned that Shell would still be able to drill this summer.

“Suspending Arctic offshore drilling is the first real test if this administration is going to be serious about taking a step back and learning something,” Ms. Libenson wrote in an e-mail message.

Since the gulf spill, dozens of environmental groups and several native Alaskan groups that have opposed the project for years have stepped up their efforts, writing to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and arguing against the project in federal appeals court this week in a long-scheduled hearing. The prospect of a disastrous spill in the forbidding Arctic has been at the core of their argument.

The sites in the Beaufort and Chukchi would be dozens of miles offshore in seas that experience some of roughest storms and waves in North America. Groups opposed to the project have cited the region’s constant winter darkness, ice and sheer remoteness. Native villages on the coast also worry about effects on the whale populations they hunt.

Shell fought back this week, saying that the opponents were deliberately misrepresenting the risks of the project to exploit public outrage over the gulf spill.

“Clearly no one wants to see oil in an ice environment,” Pete Slaiby, vice president for Shell Alaska, said in an interview before the government raised new questions about the project. “But to suggest that it’s an unworkable situation or game over is just not correct.”

Shell has planned to begin exploratory drilling this summer using a ship-based drill that could begin making its way from the Philippines this month. It would be the first exploratory drilling in the area in many years. Actual oil production might not begin for another decade.

Shell and supporters of the project say it will have strict safeguards and pose fewer challenges than deep-water drilling in the gulf. Mr. Slaiby said that the sea floor was less than 150 feet deep in most of the Alaska projects, compared with 5,000 for the Deepwater Horizon, and that the shallower wells would be under less pressure.

Mr. Slaiby said a 300-foot response ship outfitted with spill-fighting tools, including booms, skimmers and dispersants, would be stationed within a one-hour trip of the drill rig. Smaller boats would also be on constant call.

The Minerals Management Service has said that nearly 27 billion barrels of oil could be produced off the Alaska coast, potentially one of the largest remaining sources of oil in the nation. Mr. Slaiby said Shell would not rush to develop the site.

“We are patient capitalists,” he said. “This is a company that’s willing to take bets on energy. We like what we see out there.”

Source New York Times

The President’s Cancer Panel is the Mount Everest of the medical mainstream, so it is astonishing to learn that it is poised to join ranks with the organic food movement and declare: chemicals threaten our bodies.

The cancer panel is releasing a landmark 200-page report on Thursday, warning that our lackadaisical approach to regulation may have far-reaching consequences for our health.

I’ve read an advance copy of the report, and it’s an extraordinary document. It calls on America to rethink the way we confront cancer, including much more rigorous regulation of chemicals.

Traditionally, we reduce cancer risks through regular doctor visits, self-examinations and screenings such as mammograms. The President’s Cancer Panel suggests other eye-opening steps as well, such as giving preference to organic food, checking radon levels in the home and microwaving food in glass containers rather than plastic.

In particular, the report warns about exposures to chemicals during pregnancy, when risk of damage seems to be greatest. Noting that 300 contaminants have been detected in umbilical cord blood of newborn babies, the study warns that: “to a disturbing extent, babies are born ‘pre-polluted.’ ”

It’s striking that this report emerges not from the fringe but from the mission control of mainstream scientific and medical thinking, the President’s Cancer Panel. Established in 1971, this is a group of three distinguished experts who review America’s cancer program and report directly to the president.

One of the seats is now vacant, but the panel members who joined in this report are Dr. LaSalle Leffall Jr., an oncologist and professor of surgery at Howard University, and Dr. Margaret Kripke, an immunologist at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. Both were originally appointed to the panel by former President George W. Bush.

“We wanted to let people know that we’re concerned, and that they should be concerned,” Professor Leffall told me.

The report blames weak laws, lax enforcement and fragmented authority, as well as the existing regulatory presumption that chemicals are safe unless strong evidence emerges to the contrary.

“Only a few hundred of the more than 80,000 chemicals in use in the United States have been tested for safety,” the report says. It adds: “Many known or suspected carcinogens are completely unregulated.”

Industry may howl. The food industry has already been fighting legislation in the Senate backed by Dianne Feinstein of California that would ban bisphenol-A, commonly found in plastics and better known as BPA, from food and beverage containers.

Studies of BPA have raised alarm bells for decades, and the evidence is still complex and open to debate. That’s life: In the real world, regulatory decisions usually must be made with ambiguous and conflicting data. The panel’s point is that we should be prudent in such situations, rather than recklessly approving chemicals of uncertain effect.

The President’s Cancer Panel report will give a boost to Senator Feinstein’s efforts. It may also help the prospects of the Safe Chemicals Act, backed by Senator Frank Lautenberg and several colleagues, to improve the safety of chemicals on the market.

Some 41 percent of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives, and they include Democrats and Republicans alike. Protecting ourselves and our children from toxins should be an effort that both parties can get behind — if enough members of Congress are willing to put the public interest ahead of corporate interests.

One reason for concern is that some cancers are becoming more common, particularly in children. We don’t know why that is, but the proliferation of chemicals in water, foods, air and household products is widely suspected as a factor. I’m hoping the President’s Cancer Panel report will shine a stronger spotlight on environmental causes of health problems — not only cancer, but perhaps also diabetes, obesity and autism.

This is not to say that chemicals are evil, and in many cases the evidence against a particular substance is balanced by other studies that are exonerating. To help people manage the uncertainty prudently, the report has a section of recommendations for individuals:

¶Particularly when pregnant and when children are small, choose foods, toys and garden products with fewer endocrine disruptors or other toxins. (Information about products is at http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/ or http://www.healthystuff.org/.)

¶For those whose jobs may expose them to chemicals, remove shoes when entering the house and wash work clothes separately from the rest of the laundry.

¶Filter drinking water.

¶Store water in glass or stainless steel containers, or in plastics that don’t contain BPA or phthalates (chemicals used to soften plastics). Microwave food in ceramic or glass containers.

¶Give preference to food grown without pesticides, chemical fertilizers and growth hormones. Avoid meats that are cooked well-done.

¶Check radon levels in your home. Radon is a natural source of radiation linked to cancer.