Obama urges Congress to pass gun-control legislation 100 days after Newtown | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

Obama urges Congress to pass gun-control legislation 100 days after Newtown | The Ticket - Yahoo! News 

"If we are serious, we will do it," Obama said, Vice President Joe Biden at his side. "We have cried enough. We have known enough heartbreak. Now, it’s time to turn that heartbreak into something real."

As the mothers of the children killed by gun violence wiped away tears, the president went on to urge the passage of background checks for gun buyers, and for loopholes to be closed for buyers who turn around and sell guns to criminals. He said 90 percent of Americans support background checks, as well as 80 percent of gun owners and 80 percent of Republicans."

Do it, Congress. You have our approval. Special interests must not stand in the way of Democracy.

Video: Mayor Villaraigisa: "The Era of Coal is Over!!!" Los Angeles Halts Using Electricity From Coal Plants - Bloomberg

Los Angeles Halts Using Electricity From Coal Plants - Bloomberg 

Outstanding great news!! Mayor Villaraigosa, Al Gore, Michael Brune (Sierra Club): Video Here: http://content.sierraclub.org/coal/los-angeles 

From Bil Corcoran, Sierra Club Beyond Coal: According to a recent report by Physicians for Social Responsibility, "Coal pollutants affect all major body organ systems and contribute to four of the five leading causes of (death) in the U.S." A new report by the National Academy of Science found the national cost of treating the health effects from coal pollution to be $62 billion each year.

By tossing out coal, the LA Department of Water and Power will slash its climate-disrupting carbon emissions 60 percent below 1990 levels by 2025, while L.A.'s carbon emissions will drop by 40 percent, leading the nation.
 
http://www.scpr.org/news/2013/03/22/36504/al-gore-joins-villaraigosa-praises-los-angeles-for/
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/03/la-dwp-to-be-coal-free-in-12-years-under-new-plan.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-19/los-angeles-halts-using-electricity-from-coal-plants.html  
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/LADWP-Power-Bill-Coal-Fuel-199097201.html  

Mary Anne Hitt, Sierra Club: "The Era of Coal is Over": Los Angeles Will Move Beyond Coal by 2025

Mary Anne Hitt: "The Era of Coal is Over": Los Angeles Will Move Beyond Coal by 2025 

"We applaud Mayor Villaraigosa and the city of Los Angeles for providing visionary leadership, for taking the lead in moving beyond coal, and for bringing clean air and clean energy jobs to one of America's most celebrated cities.
    L.A. is home to a new rooftop solar program--the largest in the nation--and the city has an energy-efficiency program that's been creating jobs while saving residents money and energy. By moving L.A. beyond coal, the city will reduce its dependence on fossil fuels, grow its local economy with new clean-energy jobs, and reduce its carbon footprint."

Extremely meaningful progress, here in LA.

Biden to Congress: 'Show courage' on gun control

Biden to Congress: 'Show courage' on gun control 

Sensible gun controls measures are very broadly supported. Biden is right. Move us forward please.

Although Bloomberg’s group has concentrated on pushing background checks, Biden said the White House was committed to all elements of its gun control plan: the assault weapons ban, limits on high-capacity magazines, universal background checks and tougher laws against gun trafficking.      
“I’m not going to rest, nor is the president, until we do all of these things,” Biden said. “All of these things.”

Yes.

GOP strategist: Republicans should not create debt ceiling “crisis”

GOP strategist: Republicans should not create debt ceiling “crisis” 

There are lots of real critical issues in the US. Let's not create extras.

LA Beyond Coal Campaign: Facebook: Attend the Mayor and Al Gore's Announcement Party in LA Friday

LA Beyond Coal Campaign
RSVP at the invite link on site!

LADWP Seeks to Wean Its Dependence on Coal | NBC Southern California

LADWP Seeks to Wean Its Dependence on Coal | NBC Southern California 

HUGE news. Props to Mayor Villaraigosa, LADWP, and Sierra Club Beyond Coal for leading the way.

Thomas L. Friedman: Carbon Tax Fixes Much; Resistance Recent, Dubious

Here

"I raise this now because it strikes me as crazy that one of the obvious solutions to our budget, energy and environmental problems — the one that would be the least painful and have the best long-term impact (a carbon tax) — is off the table. Meanwhile, the solution that is as dumb as the day is long — a budget sequester that slashes spending indiscriminately — is on the table."

Crowdfunding Clean Energy - NYTimes.com

Crowdfunding Clean Energy - NYTimes.com

BBC News - Barack Obama pitches $2bn clean energy research fund

BBC News - Barack Obama pitches $2bn clean energy research fund 

Definitely need all the help we can get here to accelerate clean energy development and implementation and use.

Can The Empire State Go Green? New Study Says New York State Can Be 100% Renewable By 2050 | ThinkProgress

Can The Empire State Go Green? New Study Says New York State Can Be 100% Renewable By 2050 | ThinkProgress

Obama Says Iran More Than a Year Away From Nuclear Weapon - Bloomberg

Obama Says Iran More Than a Year Away From Nuclear Weapon - Bloomberg

And so this continues, on, and on. But we--and Iran's 'allies' Russia and China, really--must find the balls for tough enough sanctions.

We must steadfastly urge negotiations, with Russia and all our UN allies, and impose sanctions such that the eventual tradeless, isolated island of Iran is forced to cooperate. The sanctions must be like a noose, equally devastating as bombs but with not a drop of blood shed."

We must DO THIS NOW. If some of the citizens of Iran have to suffer, stop voting for Ahmedinejad and sidestepping the UN.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/35613144@N00/5438000390/in/photostream 

Senate Panel Passes Ban on Some Semiautomatic Firearms

Here

Sierra Club Names Five Top California Dirty n' Expensive Energy Blunders

http://www.kcet.org/news/rewire/coal/sierra-club-slams-five-utility-money-wasters.html 
Here

6 reasons why President Obama will defeat the NRA and win universal background checks

6 reasons why President Obama will defeat the NRA and win universal background checks

U.S. held $1.63-billion trade surplus with China in clean energy - latimes.com

U.S. held $1.63-billion trade surplus with China in clean energy - latimes.com 

How Conservatives Manipulate Renewable Energy Standards

How Conservatives Manipulate Renewable Energy Standards 

This, particularly shady. Groups in these states must be vigilant, and ensure their elected reps are taking the fair road, not caving to lobbyists for dirty energy.

Obama's Cabinet Picks Could Take On Climate Change - New York Times

Here

Petition: Help LADWP Go BIG GREEN - CLEAN LA Solar program

CLEAN LA Solar program 

This needs lots of support, as coal plants are weaned off the LA grid (rightly so).
We'll need lots of green energy, solar energy, and more local citizen opportunity to power our communities.
Sign petition and start helping now!!!

My Inverview with Joe Romm (Keywords: Climate Change, Keystone XL, GOP, Treason)

Conversation with Joe Romm 2/21/2013 (After 2/17/2013 Keystone XL Pipeline Protests in D.C. and Cities Across the U.S.)

How did you think the rally went?

I thought that the rally was great. It seemed larger than people expected, particularly because it wasn't a great day [temperatures were not much above freezing in Washington D.C.]. And I think that there was a lot of enthusiasm, and the passion of the speakers was great.

What was your sense of the general reaction of the media and the public?

Well we did get some media coverage. I spoke to a New York Times reporter who said the Times doesn't usually cover rallies. It did get written up in a number of useful places. To be honest with you I think this was more for the community and the people who came then for anyone else. I think it's important that people understand that they're not alone. That there are a lot of other people out there that understand this issue.

I get that on my blog all the time. People wonder, well if the science is really true, why is no one talking about this issue? So they appreciate that, and on my blog at least we're talking about this issue and they appreciate seeing so many other people understand what a dire situation we are in.

Absolutely. Do you think average Americans understand the gravity of the situation, yes or no?

That is a very good question. I don't think that very many people on the face of this Earth understand the gravity of the situation. So I think most Americans understand this is a serious problem. And I think that although it isn't often asked correctly in the polls, I think that people understand that if we do nothing that this is going to be a very big problem in the not-too-distant future. The problem for climate is it's not an immediately pressing issue, like let's say a recession, or you know 9-11. It's a problem that if you don't address now it is going to have dire irreversible consequences. But that's sort of the uniquely different problem in that respect.

Yes, it's not like the Cuyahoga River catching on fire and people can see it. I think that that's one of the problems. And as you said, most Americans understand if we do nothing we're going to be in serious trouble. Knowing that, is it cognitive dissonance where people have to submerge the realization that it is trouble and they don't want to act? And what percentage is apathy and what percentage is denial in the average American not joining us to rally or not supporting our senators to immediately act? Do you have a sense?

Well, yeah, I don't think most people look at the world that way. I mean, I think because, I don't think, it's sort of a tricky business. You can't expect people to spend all their time thinking about the world's problems.

Considering the importance of this one?

Right, first of all, it's a tricky problem. Again I think most Americans support action. You know? Why more people aren't marching in the streets is a little bit of a mystery to me. But I think it's partly because I don't think the messaging communications on this has been particularly good. I think a lot of people have been left with the impression that's it's mostly going to affect polar bears or poor people in other countries.

And not every coastal city in the world?

I think it's only been in the last two or three years that it's dawned on people that this is really going to affect, it's affecting us now and you know it's going to get much worse. I also think people think there's a Democratic President and there was a Democratic congress for awhile and you know, aren't they going to solve this problem?

I do think that given the media silence on this issue and the silence by the political leaders and the establishment as a whole, it's an not unreasonable view of most Americans to think that this can't be such a pressing problem if all the people who are supposed to know better don't seem worried about it.

Well we know that there is also a mechanism in congress that is blocking this, which we'll get to. So you're thinking it's less denial in the American public and a little bit more apathy that we think our elected representatives should be acting on it. And you said we could increase our messaging to break through their apathy a bit?

Well I don't think, again other people can certainly disagree with me, I just don't think the reason we didn't get a climate bill is because of the apathy of the public. I mean I think it's certainly true if the public had been really wound up on this issue something different might have happened. But the Senate is not generally responsive to public opinion. And there are plenty of other issues that the American people support, perhaps even more urgently than action on climate. At least for them it's more urgent, and nothing happens. I think the super majority required in the Senate, the media's failure to treat this story as the story of the century, I think bad messaging by the White House and others, and a well-funded disinformation campaign, don't get me wrong. I think it's always worth saying that most of the fault for inaction rests with the people who are opposing action. I would never want to blame the American people, based on all the polling I reported on clearly would support pretty strong actions. But American people don't run the government.

So we can count on a number of Republican congress members to continually block carbon pollution regulation. And of this core group holding the line that have oil and coal in their state, what percentage in those members do you think it's greed, and what percentage do you think is actually avarice or disinterest for the consequences for the rest of us? Those particular congress members who are blocking it?

I don't think actually many congress members actually act out of greed. It isn't really the right occupation to go into if, it's not like you can't become financially well off certainly after you've been a member of congress. But I honestly don't think most of the people who go into congress are motivated primarily by money. Now they obviously need money to maintain their power, they need political support.

Special interests, and lobbyists, and oil and coal in their state, I guess they are protecting the interests of those that are keeping them in power?

Members of Congress are certainly supposed to represent their state or their district. Umm. I think that, hmm.

So why would they block climate change if it's not personal greed, and it's not just avarice?

Well, there was always a question about the people who disagree with us are uninformed, not smart, or evil. And I don't think those are the three only choices. I really don't. I think there's a fourth choice, which explains most people. Which is that they have a certain world view developed over time. And the world view you know leads to confirmation bias. It leads them to selectively believe certain things and discount other pieces of information. And now in the day of Fox News and conservative media they don't even have to have the same set of facts.

So there's a disillusionment.

It's not that they can't reason or that they don't have facts. And it's certainly not like they are bad human beings. I'm not saying that there are not bad human beings out there I'm just saying the vast majority of let's say politicians really fall into the category of, let's say they have a conservative bent, they get their news from conservative sources, and they trust conservatives who have studied this issue. And that's fairly typical.

I think most people are not experts in most areas. And they find someone whose judgment they trust, people who share their viewpoints, and then they rely on that person. Much as you if you like Paul Krugman's column you always read Paul Krugman's column. And if you like George Will's column you will always read George Will's column. And probably if you like George Will's column you don't like Paul Krugman's column, and vice versa.

So I think, I do think that they have allowed themselves – that does not mean that they don't have a moral responsibility by the way, to become, to figure out if other points of view are more based in the facts. Don't get me wrong, I think this is a moral issue and I think political leaders in particular have a moral responsibility on this issue, and the ones who are spreading disinformation in particular are you know, as Obama has said, betraying our children and our future generations.

Well I agree with you there. There are states now that are passing education legislation that climate change is 'controversial,' so in schools they have to teach it as a rumor or something similar, and that's borderline like the tobacco industry codifying into law that smoking cigarettes doesn't hurt you. And how could they perpetuate that legally? Isn't that even perhaps an act of treason knowing that the Pentagon thinks that climate change is one of the biggest destabilizing factors and national security threats that we'll face in the future? And yet on one hand we're having some people codifying into law that this scientific fact can be treated as a rumor. Isn't that fairly reckless or perhaps even illegal?

Well, there's no question it's reckless. I don't know, umm, I wouldn't use the word treason myself.

Some would.

Some do. And by the way I don't know that it's productive to. I think, I mean it's a tough issue. It's not like there are many other countries that clearly get this more than we do. Although it's not like they have infinitely superior policies compared to us. Some of them do, I think Britain does, and some other countries, don't get me wrong.

Most major countries, except us, China and India. Look at Germany's clean energy portfolio, and strong economy. For example what if we'd signed on to the Kyoto Protocol too?

Well, we didn't ratify it. Which is a long story. Look, what we have done is immoral, particularly given the wealth of our nation, irresponsible and will be badly remembered by future generations.

So to us move into the future, speaking of the GOP, could there be a transformational member, like New York Mayor Bloomberg, or Charlie Crist, or New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who could help shift the moderate GOP towards helping?

That is a good question. You know, I think, the value of the march and the movement in general is that one does need intensity in politics, and a core group who are basically single-issue voters. And will open their wallet the way they vote. And the power of groups like the NRA or (ANRP?) AARP has been in this for good. I think the environmental movement has been large but it's not really been, it's not played any hardball. Having a large amount of broad but shallow support is generally not what causes difficult political change to occur. What's much more likely is a dedicated significant group of people who will penalize those who do not support them and are viewed as making a difference in a number of key states.

Penalize people, or perhaps carbon pollution traveling across state lines being considered a federal offense, and prosecuting there? Perhaps those members of the GOP congress, of the coal and oil states who blocked the last carbon / climate act in 2009 who are still on the senate committees and still make everyone fall in line behind them. And I'm thinking of the movie Lincoln, where you had the deadbeat, pro-slavery converts who one by one had to get moved onto the right side of history. You know, do we want to name names now? And start doing a sustained PR campaign on that core group of oil and coal people who are tethering us to the past? Do we want to push on or with the Bloombergs and then the Cristies to create a new GOP reality where they can adopt this as part of their worldview because we're all in this together? In terms of those two efforts, should we being doing a little bit of both, or?

I think we need to do everything. I think that we need a larger faction of the American people to get, to have a better understanding of how dire the situation is. We need the people who care about this issue to become a political force. And we could certainly use some courageous people in the other party. I think given the money that's at stake, that's a challenge. I think that unless conservatives feel like it will cost them elections though they're not going to change positions. It's as straightforward as that. That's why for instance there is this movement on immigration. The only one reason there's movement on immigration. It's not because the GOP base has moved, but because the intelligentsia of the GOP has come to the view that they're on a path of permanent minorityship.

And I agree. So them coming to the center on that issue, perhaps coming more to the center on guns, and climate is as big an issue at least. And since there are certain senators from the committees, let's say Louisiana's David Vitter, Wyoming's John Barrasso, and Oklahoma's James Inhofe, that are not going to change, because their states are currently too beholden to coal and oil to make them pollute less. But then you have some perhaps potentially more moderate committee members, let's say Alabama's Jeff Sessions or Idaho's Mike Crapo. They also seem to have a diversity other power sources, and all these states have sun and wind, and quite a bit of hydro in Idaho. Isn't it important to try an information campaign where the constituencies in those states can become increasingly aware of the options and the irreversible damage that the fossil fuels industry is doing to everyone else?

There's no question the money from the fossil fuels industry plays an important role. I certainly agree with that. I just think that for the hard core red states, they're representing the way their constituents look at the world. And there aren't enough passions from the other side of their constituents to matter to them. Could that be changed? It possibly could be. You know getting to 60 votes, should have been done with reconciliation. Getting 60 votes you know, I don't think Obama pressed it hard enough. Again I don't think he takes all the blame from any stretch of the imagination.

So we can try to inform and change the passions of certain constituencies. Maybe a transformational figure for the GOP will need to arrive, or the younger GOP can help start to lead. There will need to be some movement in some of the intelligentsia of the GOP to keep them nationally in the mainstream, where they seem to be falling behind. Because it seems history will look back at a number of these people really as the bad guys. Science and what's happening in the world right now is making that irrefutable. Do you have any last thoughts about where some of us that care the most, about where time is best spent?

I think building up a grass roots movement, and becoming informed, and getting other people informed, I think that's a very valuable thing. One can spend an awful lot of time with the people who just don't believe this at all and not move them very much. I think one should focus on motivating and energizing the people that get the issue. I think that's the most value, and everyone needs to figure out what's the best use of their time. I think getting people that are somewhat concerned into being very concerned is valuable, and getting people who are very concerned into being politically active is also extremely valuable.

My Open Letter on Keystone XL Pipeline and State Department Draft Report

<sent to State Department, as well as numerous national newspapers>

I was completely shocked and disturbed that an initial State Department report so underestimated the effects of the Keystone XL pipeline on climate. The impacts of the project to climate alone are significantly adverse and unmitigatable.
The Pentagon has said concretely that climate change is one of the largest threats to our national security and well being in the future.1 This would accelerate that irreversibly.

The environmental impacts are significantly adverse to the Canadian Boreal forests, Athabasca watershed, water quality, wildlife, humans and potentially the safety of communities in the US under which the pipeline would travel.2

The statement that Canada will extract for eventual burning all that Tar Sands oil without the pipeline anyway is unproven.3 Canadians themselves are resisting a pipeline be built of this dirty, difficult and expensive to extract and environmentally devastating oil in their own country.4
Why should we allow it? For several thousand jobs for a couple months? The U.S. is unlikely to even use most of that oil, which is slated for foreign export.5 So that can't be it. The ONLY people to benefit in the long-term are the owners of the oil company and the refinery on the Gulf. That's it.

LET'S PLEASE think of the long-term for the rest of us. The damage this pipeline will help wreak far outweighs any other benefits, for the few and fleeting, it could provide.
We must work with Canada on renewable, affordable, non-destructive energy, and to leave this obsolete, climate changing dirty oil in the ground, forever. If the State Department is truly looking after our best interests and enforcing its Environmental Impact Statement duties, denying this permit is the only choice to make.

1 Such climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions, say the analysts, experts at the Pentagon and intelligence agencies http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

2 Pipeline leak brings crude reality to Arkansas http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/01/us/arkansas-pipeline-spill/ There are currently over 720 billion litres of toxic tailings on the landscape in the Athabasca oil sands area. There is currently a lack of publicly available information on the rate and volume of seepage from oil sands tailings ponds, despite known incidents involving tailings seepage. http://www.resilience.org/stories/2009-09-22/environmental-impacts-oil-sands-development-alberta
What does environmental devastation look like? http://www.ted.com/talks/garth_lenz_images_of_beauty_and_devastation.html http://www.nrdc.org/wildlife/borealbirds.pdf Wildlife/birds http://www.nrdc.org/wildlife/borealbirds.pdf Impacts http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5287

3 Estimates by the Environmental Protection Agency found that Keystone would increase annual carbon emissions by “up to 27.6 metric tons, or the equivalent of nearly 6 million cars on the road.” Without the pipeline, tar sands production is estimated to fall flat by 2020.  http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/03/1663291/states-keystone-report-is-the-tar-sands-pits/

4 While it is entirely possible that Canada could and will choose to ship its oil sands crude to Asia, that would require a another pipeline that some native groups in Canada have opposed in the past.  http://science.time.com/2013/03/01/state-dept-build-the-keystone-pipeline-or-not-the-oil-sands-crude-will-flow/#ixzz2MVuHbF48

5 By skipping over refineries and U.S. consumers in the Midwest, tar sands producers will be able to send Canadian crude to the Gulf Coast refineries in tax-free Foreign Trade Zones, where it can be refined and then sold to international buyer--at a higher profit to big oil.
http://priceofoil.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/KXL_undermine_energy_security_2page_Web.pdf