Photo credit: Zureks, Wikimedia Commons via Creative Commons

Friends of the Earth Action is excited to announce our new campaign to prevent genetically engineered fish from hitting our dinner plates: the Campaign for Genetically Engineered (GE)-Free Seafood.

As we recently reported, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration is in the final stages of approving genetically engineered salmon for human consumption. If approved, it would be the first-ever genetically engineered animal allowed to enter the U.S. food supply. To make matters worse, the FDA has stated that it will likely not require genetically engineered fish to be labeled, providing consumers no way of avoiding it at the market. Without a label, consumers wouldn’t even be able to “vote with their wallets” for natural fish over the genetically engineered option.

Now for the good news: through the Campaign for GE-Free Seafood, we’re identifying companies that have policies to not sell genetically engineered seafood, providing a way for consumers to safely buy seafood without unknowingly purchasing genetically engineered fish.

As part of our campaign, we’ve asked the nation’s top grocery stores to commit to not selling genetically engineered seafood and we are already seeing amazing results. Some of the biggest grocery stores in the U.S. have stated that they will not sell genetically engineered seafood, including Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s, Aldi, Marsh Supermarkets and PCC Natural Markets.

This is huge news! These stores represent a significant portion of the U.S. market and, by agreeing to not sell genetically engineered seafood, they are showing their staunch support for consumers’ rights. But our work is not done yet.

There are still many grocery stores — including Walmart, Costco and Safeway — that may soon be selling unlabeled genetically engineered fish to their customers. It’s essential that, as consumers, we speak up for our right to know what foods we feed our families by encouraging these stores to not carry genetically engineered seafood.

Don’t see your favorite grocery store on the list of signers? Click here to sign a petition to other grocery stores and make it clear that consumers do not want genetically engineered salmon or other genetically engineered seafood in their neighborhood markets.

Our campaign is just ramping up, so be sure to check out our website at www.gefreeseafood.org for updates as we continue to add more stores, restaurants and chefs to the list.

Thanks to our partners: Alaska Marine Conservation Council, Alliance for Natural Health USA, American Anti-Vivisection Society, Animal Welfare Institute, Cascadia Wildlands, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Environmental Health, Center for Food Safety, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Food Democracy Now!, Food & Water Watch, Global Alliance Against Industrial Aquaculture, Gloucester fishermen’s Wives Association, Go Wild Campaign, Healthy Child Healthy World, Humane Society of the United States, Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Institute for Responsible Technology, Mangrove Action Project, Massachusetts Fishermen’s Partnership, National Family Farm Coalition, National Organic Coalition, Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance, Organic Consumers Association, Sierra Club, Waikiki Hawaiian Civic  Club, Wild Salmon First

Here’s to a future with real seafood and a safe, sustainable food system.

In the last two years 67 percent of U.S. counties were affected by at least one billion-dollar extreme weather event. At a time when many people in the U.S. are deeply concerned about our economy, the deficit and the tax burden, it seems that the planet has stepped up and started levying its own ‘climate tax’ in the form of severe weather.

Perhaps the fact that we are already being taxed meteorologically explains why most Americans say they would support a carbon tax in the fiscal sense.

A recent poll (see a short summary) commissioned by Friends of the Earth and conducted by the leading polling firm Mellman Group found that about 70 percent of Americans had a favorable response to a carbon tax. Support remained high regardless of whether the revenue raised would go to fixing our budget programs or towards dual purposes of helping “solve our budget problems and fund programs that help deal with the effects of climate change and create clean energy jobs.”

Friends of the Earth Action president Erich Pica said of the results: “This data shows that we can help solve our fiscal problems in a new way that not only helps our environment, but also has strong public support. The president and members of Congress don’t need to contemplate another harsh round of austerity, and instead should consider carbon taxes as a popular and promising budget solution.”

In recent months, the Washington Post ran an editorial in favor of a carbon tax, and the New York Times published an op-ed supporting the move. Reuters, Bloomberg and the Associated Press have also weighed in on the potential for a carbon tax.

Other polls, too, show a public swing toward a carbon tax, including this one conducted for Slate magazine, which showed a carbon tax with a 56% approval rating. Clearly, momentum is moving in our favor.

But despite the common-sense advantages that a carbon tax brings, conventional wisdom has long been that it is a “non-starter.” In fact, just last week White House Press Secretary Jay Carney declared that the administration has “no intention of proposing a carbon tax.”

We’d hoped that things would be different after President Obama used his second inaugural address to pledge to do more on climate change, citing “the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms” as a motivator for pushing harder for environmental reforms to fight climate change.

And while we’re gratified that the Obama administration has now lifted its silence on climate change, we need our leaders to do more than just talk.

We’ve got a stark choice in front of us:

We can refuse to act and let the planet itself continue to levy its own version of the carbon tax – one that costs taxpayers more and more each year and devastates lives and livelihoods in the process.

Or, we can start making major carbon-producing industries pay for the damage they inflict on our public health and the environment by putting a price on carbon. In the process, we can help solve our budget problems and discourage greenhouse gas emissions to boot.

It may be a stark choice, but a clear one.

Photo credit: B. Monginoux/Landscape-photo.net via Creative Commons

Senator Kerry has spent many years calling for more ambitious and decisive action to combat climate change, and as secretary of state he will have the chance to turn those words into reality.

His first test will be assuring that the new, supplemental environmental impact statement conducted by the State Department will fully assess the climate impact of allowing construction of the Keystone XL pipeline — an assessment that would clearly show that permitting the pipeline would be an environmental time bomb.

On Tuesday, the State Department announced that it was again delaying a decision on granting a permit for the pipeline, which would carry carbon-intensive tar sands oil from Canada to Texas refineries. During Clinton’s tenure, the pipeline debate was tainted by Secretary Clinton’s ties to a lobbyist for TransCanada Pipelines and her own premature statements backing the pipeline.

As chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Kerry signaled his commitment to assuring such a climate assessment of the pipeline. In October 2011, in response to questions about his position on the pipeline, Kerry said, “There’s a lot at stake here and I’ll do my best to leave no question unanswered including every possible economic and environmental consideration before a final decision is made.”

At State, Kerry can also revitalize the agency’s lackluster performance at United Nations climate negotiations. Since President Obama’s direct involvement in Copenhagen in 2009, the administration has been cited by numerous other countries as being disruptive and resistant to establishing meaningful limits on carbon emissions and to providing funds to help developing countries adapt to and mitigate climate change.

Senator Kerry should make clear that as Secretary of State, he would hit the reset button on the U.S. approach to international climate policy. The world simply cannot afford four more years of U.S. obstructionism at United Nations climate talks, leading the world in a race to the bottom.

For more on Kerry’s nomination and what it means for environmental policy, here’s a Washington Post article that quotes Friends of the Earth Action president Erich Pica.

“Congratulations to President Obama on his re-election and thanks for his acknowledgement in his acceptance speech of the ‘destructive power of a warming planet.’ It is ironic that the outcome of a campaign so marked by the climate silence of both candidates would be definitively influenced by Superstorm Sandy, but history will show that the winds of Hurricane Sandy blew President Obama back into office.

“The devastation caused by this superstorm paints a stark picture of the type of destruction we can now expect unless the president enacts an ambitious and visionary policy to reduce climate pollution. The public was largely impressed by the president’s response to the storm and in re-electing him to office, they have given him the great responsibility to implement a climate policy that will seek to stop future Sandy’s.

“President Obama has won his new term while the recovery of Sandy is still in process. For the families who have seen their homes washed away and the businesses that must rebuild from scratch, President Obama must make climate change the top priority for his new administration.

“Swift and strong climate action is necessary to mitigate the worst impacts of climate change and adapt to the new reality of rising seas and melting ice, superstorms and crippling drought. President Obama should use his mandate to:

1. Repudiate the “all of the above” energy strategy and host a high-level climate change summit of national leaders including business leaders, cabinet officials, and local politicians. The goal of the summit is to agree on a national plan for short-term and long-term courses of action to deal with greenhouse gas emissions from every sector of the economy and to deal with the impacts of climate change.
2. Reduce emissions from the electricity sector by implementing robust regulations on existing power plants using current Environmental Projection Agency authority under the Clean Air Act, by making sure that new regulations preclude the construction of any new coal plants in this country, and by putting a price on carbon.
3. Reject the Keystone XL pipeline and other infrastructure projects that would bring tar sands oil and other dirty fuels such as liquid fuel to market through the United States and to move us away from our dependence on dirty oil.

“If President Obama seizes this moment and leads the way, Friends of the Earth Action’s members and activists will be there to support and amplify his actions.”

Photo by Scout Tufankjian, flicker.com, Creative Commons

ClimateSilence.org campaign releases political ad reminding voters that Mitt Romney made climate change a punchline during his convention speech

In the wake of devastating Hurricane Sandy, which scientists say was exacerbated by climate change, Governor Romney’s belittling attempt at humor during the Republican National Convention seems anything but funny

EXTENDED WEB VERSION: http://climatesilence.org

WASHINGTON, D.C. —  The ClimateSilence.org campaign, led by Forecast the Facts and Friends of the Earth Action, is releasing a new political advertisement today, “Romney vs. Sandy.” The ad, available in a 30-second television-ready version and extended web version, contrasts Mitt Romney’s mockery of the threat of climate change at the Republican National Convention with the destructive power of Superstorm Sandy.

“Romney vs. Sandy” shows scenes of Sandy’s unprecedented devastation, over the raucous cheers and applause of the GOP delegates for Romney’s sick joke about the threat of “rising seas” from carbon pollution. The ad will run in selected markets in Virginia and Ohio — just two of the 22 states struck by Sandy’s fossil-fueled fury.

“Sandy is without question the October Surprise of 2012, and it has pushed climate change to the forefront of a campaign where it was previously almost entirely absent,” said Brad Johnson, campaign manager of Forecast the Facts. “As families recover and voters head to the polls, we want the American public to remember this cold fact: less than two months before sea level rise devastated New York City with more powerful storm surges, Governor Romney laughed at the very notion of rising seas.”

”Governor Romney’s mockery of climate change wasn’t funny during his Convention speech, and now rings deathly hollow as we watch the human pain and suffering caused by Superstorm Sandy,” said Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth Action.  “Superstorm Sandy is the wake-up call for all politicians: We are entering into a ‘new normal’ that requires leadership and forethought, not ignorant mockery.”Climate scientists agree that global warming pollution was a key factor in fueling the storm, which is still causing misery for millions of Americans. The death toll from this historic disaster exceeds 100 lives in the Caribbean and the United States.

Thousands of participants in the ClimateSilence.org campaign have been leading the charge against the presidential candidate’s climate silence for months. But in the final week of this election, the most powerful climate messenger turned out to be the harrowing reality of a freakish Frankenstorm. Because of sea level rise and superheated oceans from global warming, the storm surge swept over the Atlantic coast, including New York City, with unprecedented intensity, causing an estimated $50 billion in damage and lost economic activity. The tragedy of Hurricane Sandy has made it crystal clear: it’s time to end the climate silence.

Contact:
Erich Pica, (240) 432-3470

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Yesterday afternoon, President Obama talked about how he would address climate change if re-elected during an interview with Sway Calloway on MTV. Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth Action, released the following statement in response:

“Thank you Mr. President for breaking the climate silence that has enveloped the 2012 presidential campaign.  Climate change is having a dramatic impact on the United States and the world. Your descriptions of both the threat and the action your administration is taking to address it are an important addition to the campaign.  You are right that we are not acting ‘as fast as we need’ to solve the climate crisis. Without strong, constant and vocal leadership from the next president, we will not be able to protect current and future generations from the destructive impacts of climate change. Don’t let your voice go silent.”

Transcript from MTV interview:

Q: Until this year global climate change has been discussed in every presidential debate since 1988. It was a big part of your previous campaign but pushed back on the back burner. Given the urgency of the threat, do you feel that we’re moving quickly enough on this issue, number one, and Samantha from New Jersey wants to know what will you do to make it a priority?

OBAMA: The answer is number one, we’re not moving as fast as we need to. And this is an issue that future generations, MTV viewers, are going to have to be dealing with even more than the older generation. So this is a critical issue. And there is a huge contrast in this campaign between myself and Governor Romney. I am surprised it didn’t come up in one of the debates. Gov. Romney says he believes in climate change. That’s different than a lot of members of his own party that deny it completely. But he’s not sure that man-made causes are the reason. I believe scientists who say we are putting too much carbon emissions into the atmosphere and it’s heating the planet and it’s going to have a severe effect.
There are a lot of things we have done a lot of things in the last four years. We have already doubled the fuel efficiency standards on cars and trucks. That’s the first increase in 30 years in the fuel mileage standards. As a consequence we will be taking huge amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere, even as we’re also saving folks money at the pump and reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

We have doubled clean energy production — wind, solar, biofuels — and that means that increasingly people are getting electricity, companies are generating power, without the use of carbon-producing fuels. And that’s helping as well.

The next step is to deal with buildings and really ramp up our efficiency in buildings. If we had the same energy efficiency as Japan, we would cut our energy use by about 20 percent, and that means we’d be taking a whole lot of carbon out of our atmosphere.

And if we do those things, we can meet the targets that I negotiated with other countries in Copenhagen, to bring our carbon emissions down by about 17 percent, even as we’re creating good jobs in these industries.
In order for us to solve the whole problem though, we’re gonna have to have some technological breakthroughs. Because countries like China and India, they’re building coal-power plants and they feel that they have to prioritize getting people out of poverty ahead of climate change. So what we have to do is help them and help ourselves by continuing to put money into research and technology about how do we really get the new sources of power that are going to make a difference.

Video of the interview: http://powerof12.org/news/president-obama-sits-down-to-answer-your-questions

Contact:
Erich Pica, (240) 432-3470

###

“President Obama and Governor Romney have once again failed the American people by not using the debate to talk about the most serious threat to our economy, our security and way of life: climate change.

“Climate change is a global threat that requires a global response. Yet neither candidate saw fit to address climate change’s implications for foreign policy. By ignoring climate change, both President Obama and Governor Romney are telling that rest of the world that they do not take it seriously, and that America cannot be expected to act with the intensity and urgency needed to avert catastrophe. Their silence prepares  a future for our children and grandchildren in which we will face deeper droughts, fiercer forest fires and killer storms, messier spills and dirtier air. America deserves better.”

# # #

Last week’s town hall debate had a callous race to the bottom with each candidate pledging to frack here, drill there and burn more coal.  I expected Governor Romney to pledge to carve up more of our natural resources to feed our hunger for fossil fuels – but when a self-described clean energy advocate berates his opponent for not supporting coal plants enough, something is wrong. That something is a colossal disconnect between the realities of climate change and current election rhetoric, and it has been felt all throughout both campaigns for months.

So it is not with any optimism that I approach tonight’s debate in Boca Raton. The debate’s focus on foreign policy should lead to a natural discussion on climate change, yet as it has happened in the past, the candidates are quick to talk about energy, while remaining mum on climate. Still, the stage has been set for a potential discussion. Secretary Clinton previewed the link between climate change and foreign policy in a recent speech at Georgetown University, saying that “reducing the world’s carbon emissions … is the core of a strong 21^st century global economy.” Additionally, the Defense Department has identified climate change as having a “dramatic impact on national security.”  Foreign policy experts are saying there are many reasons to talk about climate change at the debate. Many environmental and public advocacy groups are asking moderator Bob Schieffer to include a question about climate change in the debate.

And then comes the tough part: If the question is asked, what can we take away from the answers? How President Obama and Governor Romney respond to these questions will speak volumes to their understanding of the greatest challenges to U.S. domestic and foreign policy– climate change.

I hope that the president avoids the traps of championing an “all of the above” policy. I’ve written in the past about the hollowness and lack of moral leadership that comes with that irresponsible energy stance, but now the president takes it even further. It is hard to measure the seriousness of President Obama’s commitment to lead the fight against climate change if he is championing the same fossil fuels that got us into this mess in the first place. Unless Romney creates a “Nixon goes to China” moment, he is a lost cause on climate change and this could give Obama an edge with the coveted undecideds, who do value action on climate change.  But we really do not know because the candidates are failing to give us specifics or even discuss this at a national stage.

If President Obama wins re-election, and I certainly hope he does, what will his mandate be to address climate change? What will be his mandate to:

• Further ratchet down greenhouse gas emissions from coal fired power plants;
• Increase spending and implement policies that increase renewable energy investment;
• Finally become global leaders in the global fight to reduce emission;
• Ensure that the United States is leading wealthy countries in helping countries less fortunate to adapt to the climate disruption that is already occurring;
• Fight the oil and gas industry in opposing the Keystone XL pipeline, fracking or more coal mining and exports?

If he were to lead with a robust debate on how we are going to address global warming in front of the American people, President Obama, if re-elected, would have a mandate to lead on these things. As it stands, his reckless adoption of an “all the above energy strategy” has put this and many other things in jeopardy.

As it gets closer and closer to Election Day, it has become increasingly clear that talking about climate change is politically safe.  Numerous polls from this year suggest that climate change should be a uniting issue for voters and candidates. A majority of Americans belief in climate change’s influence on extreme weather, and a majority believe it is caused by humans. Another majority polled say they’ll factor it into their voting decision. In April, President Obama took an explicit stance on climate change in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine predicting that climate change will become “part of the campaign” in the immediate future. For that moment, the president displayed the potential leadership that could reach out to these voters that could bring people together under his climate advocacy.

What I’m waiting to see in this campaign is that kind of leadership. There is so much yet to be done, and neither President Obama nor Mitt Romney has been willing to capitalize on this clear connection with voters. The election is a huge opportunity to bring the country together under the issue of climate change, as it will affect every single one of us — and likely sooner than we think. And while the call for action grows with each day of climate silence, there is still hope that our candidates will use this last remaining debate as a national platform for stressing action on climate change.

It’s time to break their climate silence.

OAKLAND, Calif. — Thousands of climate activists will participate in an online protest against climate silence today, the date of the final presidential debate between President Obama and Governor Mitt Romney.

The online protest, organized by the climate accountability watchdog Forecast the Facts and environmental group Friends of the Earth Action, has prompted hundreds to change their social media profile pictures on Facebook and Twitter to images calling out the “climate silence” in the presidential election, reaching tens of thousands of people with the message: “End climate silence now.” The online action center also features shareable graphics about the lack of climate discussion in the debate thus far, and encourages activists to sign and share a petition to the candidates.

The online action center notes that the 2012 series of debates stand to be the first since 1984 to exclude climate change entirely as a topic. “2012 will go down as one of the hottest years in recorded history,” said Brad Johnson, campaign manager for Forecast the Facts, “and yet the candidates may ignore climate change in the debates for the first time in nearly thirty years.”

Media outlets have taken an interest in the climate silence, particularly after last week’s debate, during which Obama and Romney discussed energy for several minutes, dancing around the topic climate change, while promising to burn more coal, oil, and natural gas.

Now, in the hours before the final debate, activists are using their online presence to demand an end to the climate silence.

“It’s the last time the presidential candidates will stand face to face and explain what they’d each do as president,” said Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth Action. “During the foreign policy debate tonight, we should hear how each candidate would address a serious national security issue: the global climate crisis. This day of action is to drive home the point that our members want to hear climate change discussed.”

Forecast the Facts’ and Friends of the Earth Action’s online action center can be found here:  http://climatesilence.org/debate

###

Climate change, the debate’s great unmentionable by Elizabeth Kolbert, The New Yorker

“But aside from the potential for job creation, the President could never quite bring himself to discuss why it might not be a good idea to burn every gallon—or cubic foot—of fossil fuels we could conceivably bring to the earth’s surface. In the midst of what will almost certainly be the warmest year on record, climate change has become to the Obama Administration the Great Unmentionable, or, as the blogger Joe Romm has put it, The-Threat-That-Must-Not-Be Named.”

Three debate questions to break the climate silence by Mike Sandler, The Huffington Post

“National Security: The Pentagon has stated that climate change and its related increase in extreme weather events, water shortages, and more ‘will pose a threat to U.S. security interests.’ Do you agree with this statement? If not, please explain why Americans should be subjected to increased risks to national security if you are elected president? If so, would you declare a ‘War on Climate Change’ to protect our national security by mobilizing government, the private sector, and communities around the country to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?”

Is David Axelrod to blame for climate change’s absence from the election? by Chris Mooney, The Atlantic

“Taylor said that following the economic collapse of 2008, this was a more or less a conscious strategy. ‘By the spring of 2009, with the fiscal crisis, there was a decision made, and adopted, not to talk about climate change,’ she related. ‘That was adopted by the majority of the environmental groups, and by the White House. I was at that meeting. Bill McKibben stood up and said, “This is a mistake — it’s going to come back and haunt us.”‘ Talking about clean-energy jobs was fine, she continued. But the ‘C-word’ was a no-go.”

Why the chill on climate change? by Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post

“Why does it matter that nobody is talking about climate change? Because if you accept that climate scientists are right about the warming of the atmosphere — as Obama does, and Romney basically seems to as well — then you understand that some big decisions will have to be made. You also understand that while there are some measures the United States could take unilaterally, carbon dioxide can never be controlled without the cooperation of other big emitters such as China, India and Brazil. You understand that this is an issue with complicated implications for global prosperity and security. “

Enviros say debate a “missed opportunity” for Obama to discuss climate change by Zack Colman, E2 Wire of The Hill

“Environmental groups have pushed the presidential campaigns to address climate change all summer. Many thought the issue would be more salient after record-breaking temperatures, wildfires, storms and a record drought.

“But Obama and Romney have yet to seriously engage in a discussion on climate change, save for exchanging one-liners a week apart during their respective convention speeches. Some environmentalists believe Democrats are trying to stay away from the issue after failing to pass a cap-and-trade bill in 2009.”

What about climate change? by Editorial board, The Baltimore Sun

“The only real possibility for Mr. Obama’s reluctance to attack his opponent is that he worries that the issue might be used against him. Concern for the environment might translate into a lack of interest in people and jobs. That’s clearly how the GOP is playing it. Republicans have tried to make the case that the U.S. has gone too far in environmental protection and hurt the private sector’s ability to expand and create new employment opportunities. ‘By the way, I like coal,’ as Mr. Romney likes to say.”

Candy Crowley almost got around to a question for “all you climate change people” by Will Oremus, Slate Magazine

“Except that climate change and the economy are not two separate issues. The problem with climate change isn’t that we’re going to sweat a little more on sultry August afternoons. It’s that species are going extinct, cyclones and tsunamis are wiping out cities, entire island nations are sinking, and Kansas can no longer grow corn. How’s that for an ‘all of the above’ energy policy?”

The sound of climate silence: Romney and Obama spar over who wants to drill for more fossil fuels during debate by Stephen Lacey, ThinkProgress.com

“Obama started off the debate with a strong nod to renewable energy, explaining that we need to invest in ‘solar and wind and biofuels, energy efficient cars.’ But after a voter asked about gas prices, both Obama and Romney proceeded to battle over who could drill more fossil fuels. … Obama separated himself by focusing on the need to develop more renewables and lower consumption of petroleum through better efficiency measures. But when talking about why he believes those investments are important, he never mentioned the reasons that alternatives to fossil fuels are so important.”

Why aren’t candidates debating climate change? by Editorial board, Minnesota Star Tribune

“But if the nation, and the world, doesn’t get serious about climate change – like, right now – the jobs of the future are at serious risk. Unfortunately, as MSNBC’s Chris Hayes pointed out, future farmers of America whose crops will be destroyed by climate change are too young to vote in this election. Then again, if climate change isn’t halted, jobs won’t be the worst worry for future farmers – or nurses, or teachers, or factory workers. Survival will.”