Finding Common Ground Outdoors

March 24, 2014

Someone once said, "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture." Blogging about getting outdoors feels a bit like that. Part of me thinks that rather than writing 850 words about getting outdoors, I'd much rather be outdoors. And then part of me thinks that, rather than reading those 850 words, you might feel the same way!

But since we're here, together, united by this glowing screen, let me share a few thoughts about Sierra Club Outdoors -- which, every year, helps more than 250,000 people get their nature fix.

Getting outside has always been a big part of the Sierra Club, of course. The Club was started, after all, by a group of mostly city dwellers who wanted to explore and enjoy the great outdoors. Back in the 1890s, mind you, this was still a somewhat novel idea. Not so long before, most people still saw the great outdoors as something to escape from or stoically endure.

What those first Sierra Club members instinctively realized (with a little help from nature's greatest evangelist, John Muir) was that in "escaping" the outdoors, people were also cutting themselves off from a key nutrient -- like being deprived of an essential vitamin.

Today, of course, "nature deficit syndrome" is widely recognized for how it affects kids who grow up without access to outdoor experiences. We know that direct nature experiences shape the lives of young people, improve their self-esteem, raise their test scores, and help them lead healthier lives. That's why one volunteer-run SC Outdoors program is specifically aimed at helping thousands of urban youth -- kids who may have grown up 10 miles from the ocean without ever walking on a beach, for instance -- experience the outdoors.

The lack of nature doesn't affect only kids, though, and its benefits can help others, too.

Our Military Outdoors program, for instance, ensures that those who served our country, as well as their families, can enjoy the splendor of the land for which they've sacrificed. What Thoreau once called "the tonic of wildness" can do powerful things. At a minimum, outdoor experiences can provide military service members and their families with adventure, camaraderie, as sense of mission, or just a chance to relax and reconnect with one another.

Although we're proud of our programs that serve some of the people who stand to benefit the most from getting outdoors, the Sierra Club was founded on the premise that everyone deserves the opportunity to experience wildness, regardless of where they live or what their economic circumstances might be. We make that happen in two ways. One is by working to ensure that we don't focus only on iconic national parks or remote wilderness areas. Wonderful as those are, there's also a need for local places that individuals or families can easily visit for a picnic or an hour-long stroll. We call such places "nearby nature," and they are where many of our local outings happen.

The other way we make that happen is by having lots of outings in lots of places. Our volunteers lead more than 13,000 outings a year -- and they happen in every state and U.S. territory. Every one of these events -- whether it's a short day hike or a backpacking trip through the High Sierra -- happens because of a volunteer leader who loves the outdoors and wants to share that with other people.

As a result, no matter where you live, there's probably a Sierra Club outing happening near you soon. Find out right now by visiting the SC Outdoors page on our website.

OK, now that you've found your next outing, I want to leave you with just a couple of more thoughts before you lace up your boots and hit the trail: I'm convinced that the programs that make up SC Outdoors are more than just an important part of the Sierra Club's work -- they are an essential part. How many great conservation victories have been achieved without the hard work of ordinary folks who didn't want to see a place they loved destroyed? I can't think of a single one. The strongest passion for protection springs from love. No wonder throughout our history so many of our greatest leaders, from John Muir onward, have found their way to the Club through their love of the natural world.

It goes even deeper than that, though. Spending time outdoors can be personally healing, but it's also something that can bring people together, regardless of differing backgrounds, political beliefs, or experience. In nature, we have an opportunity to connect with people on a different level -- and to find common ground at a time when so many other forces are working to push us apart. Nature helps us restore our funds of hope, cooperation, and optimism -- and we can't have too much of any of those, whether we're fighting to save an Arctic wilderness or working to replace a dirty power plant with clean, renewable energy.

So come outdoors with us. You won't be sorry you did.

It's Not About the Pipe

March 11, 2014

Soon, President Obama will announce his decision on the permit for TransCanada's Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. Since being proposed five years ago, this one pipeline has galvanized protests across the U.S. and gained a notoriety that no one could have predicted a couple of years ago. It's also brought renewed national attention to the urgency of reducing carbon pollution, as evidenced by the all-night session that the Senate Climate Action Task Force organized yesterday (the Sierra Club brought coffee for more than two-dozen senators who stayed up to talk about climate disruption).

I'll also be testifying before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations  on whether the pipline is in the national interest this Thursday, March 13, at 11:15 A.M. ET. The hearing is scheduled to be webcast live -- look for details here.

Without a doubt, in this first-ever national debate over a pipeline, the arguments are getting heated. So maybe it's a good time to take a couple of steps back to remind ourselves why we care. Just why is this pipeline such a big deal?

That question has several answers, but they start with this: It's not about the pipe. It's about what the pipe would carry.

The Keystone XL's purpose would be to move Canadian tar sands oil through more than a thousand miles of American farms and ranches all the way to the Gulf, where much of it would be shipped to China and other countries. Tar sands oil is not normal crude oil. It's heavier and more toxic, with on average 11 times more sulfur, 11 times more nickel, and 5 times more lead, as well as plenty of other carcinogens. When it spills in a waterway, it sinks. Just one tar sands oil spill in Michigan fouled more than 35 miles of river. After three and a half years and more than a billion dollars, that spill still has not been cleaned up.

Because tar sands oil is thicker and, indeed, more tar-like, it can't be transported like conventional oil. Pipelines pumping tar sands crude can run at over 1,000 pounds per square inch (compared with about 30 psi for your average car tire) and reach temperatures of over 100 degrees. This high pressure and the corrosive nature of tar sands oil combine to increase the likelihood of spills.

Keystone XL would also produce a significant increase in the production of petcoke, a filthy byproduct of tar sands production that is hazardous to communities and has its own major climate implications.

It's true that all fossil fuels come with risks, of course. But extreme fossil fuel sources, such as oil from the Arctic Sea or tar sands from Canada, come with extreme risks. Risks that are too often brushed aside -- right up until the inevitable.

But even if Canada's vast tar sands reserves could be extracted and transported without a single spill, generations to come would still pay a terrible price in climate disruption. If we want to avoid catastrophic climate change, the world's leading scientists have made it clear that we must leave at least two-thirds of known fossil fuel reserves in the ground. Isn't it reasonable to assume that tar sands, some of the riskiest, most toxic and most carbon-intensive sources of oil in the world, should be among the first reserves that we leave alone?

The State Department's Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Keystone XL, which came out earlier this year, has several problems, which isn't too surprising when you consider that a member of the American Petroleum Institute helped draft it. The report's most wrong-headed assertion, though, was that the tar sands will be fully developed regardless of whether Keystone is built. Frankly, if that were true, the oil industry would not be so anxious to see the pipeline approved. Just last month,TransCanada CEO Russ Girling told an audience that a pipeline cancellation would mean a lost opportunity for "decades and decades to come."

If the Keystone XL is canceled, does that mean Canada will immediately renounce all tar sands development? Of course not. But losing the Keystone battle would be an enormous setback for tar sands development, and the oil industry and its allies in government know it. Canada's natural resources minister put it bluntly: "In order for crude oil production to grow, the North American pipeline network must be expanded through initiatives such as the Keystone XL pipeline project."  

And yet Canada cannot even get its own people to accept new tar sands pipelines within their borders. Two pipelines proposed to the west through British Columbia are stalled due to popular opposition. Two more pipelines going to the east are also heavily criticized. Thus, this proposal to use the United States as a shipping route -- which means that U.S. farmers and ranchers get all the risk, while oil companies will reap all the rewards.

The argument that Keystone XL is a pipeline that would benefit oil consumers in the U.S. ignores mountains of evidence that the product is intended for export. Keystone XL would deliver tar sands to refineries in the Gulf, which already export most of their refined product. In fact, 76 percent of Keystone XL's capacity is already committed to six oil-shipping companies that hope to access international markets.

Here in the U.S., President Obama has said he cannot consider the pipeline to be in our national interest if it would "significantly increase" emissions of greenhouse gases. Clearly, the Keystone XL fails this "climate test" because the tar sands fail it. The State Department's own report makes it clear that, compared with other crude oil sources, the tar sands oil from the Keystone pipeline would create up to an additional 27.4 million metric tons of carbon pollution annually. That's equivalent (says the report) to the yearly carbon pollution from 5,708,333 passenger vehicles or 1,368,631 homes. This extra pollution would happen because tar sands are not only dirtier and riskier than other types of crude oil, they also are significantly more carbon-intensive to extract. At a time when we should be doing everything possible to cut carbon emissions, why would we choose to rely on the one kind of oil that results in higher emissions than all others?

Really, it's not just Keystone XL that faces a climate test, but the president himself. With a single decision, he could undermine much of the substantial progress his administration has already made on curbing climate-disrupting carbon pollution and advancing clean energy solutions. Trying to fight carbon pollution while expanding development of the tar sands is like deciding to eat more healthfully and then signing up for a weekly shipment of Krispy Kremes.

Fortunately, we are hardly desperate for oil. Oil demand in the U.S. actually peaked in 2007 and has declined since then from about 22 million barrels per day (mpd) to less than 19. With the fuel-economy policies that are already in place (or coming very soon), we'll reduce our oil use to as low as 14 mbd. Perhaps the most important thing to remember about the many risks of tar sands is that they're unnecessary.

One of the best ways to predict the future is to look at the infrastructure investments we're making today. If we want a future that commits us to 830,000 barrels of dirty oil every day for decades and decades, then we should let TransCanada build this pipeline. Or, we could invest in a future where clean energy creates more jobs, makes our country more competitive, and protects our air, water, and climate. Unless you're the one selling the tar sands, the choice should be obvious.

Bad Reputation

March 07, 2014

The toxic industrial spills in West Virginia and North Carolina over the past weeks have delivered the first hard lesson of 2014: Never take safe drinking water for granted. And yet the natural gas industry has been asking us to do exactly that for years now.

No more. This year, the myth that natural gas is a "cleaner" fossil fuel will be dispelled for good. Natural gas drilling not only can contaminate water supplies -- it's clear that it already has. What's not so clear is why state and federal agencies that are responsible for protecting our water supply have been so slow to acknowledge and respond to that reality to the extent that fracking for gas remains exempt from parts of the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act. It's a problem that goes all the way to the top, as President Obama's insistence that natural gas should be viewed as a "bridge fuel" to a clean-energy future shows.

Late in December, the inspector general of the EPA released a report (at noon on Christmas Eve) that found the agency had been correct to issue an emergency order in 2010 after getting reports that natural gas fracking operations had caused methane contamination of water wells in Parker County, Texas. Texas fossil-fuel regulators and Range Resources (the company doing the fracking) pushed back, though, and the EPA ultimately backed down.

That was a mistake on the EPA's part, as has shown by multiple further tests that showed contamination. Results from the most recent tests, conducted last year by Robert Jackson, a professor at Duke University, are currently under peer review and will be released later this year. The professor did share the results with homeowners whose water was affected, though, who then shared them with the Associated Press (AP), which reported:

Jackson found higher levels of methane in some water wells -- sometimes five to 10 times higher -- than what Range Resources' tests showed. In some cases, the levels are five times higher than the 10 parts per million per liter set as a threshold limit by the U.S. Geological Survey.

Jackson himself told the AP: "We're seeing high methane concentrations and that result alone indicates to me that EPA closing the case was premature."

What happened to homeowners in Texas would be disturbing even if it were an isolated case, but it's not. In January, the AP reported that contamination from oil and gas wells has been reported in at least four states where fracking is booming, and that contamination has been "confirmed in a number of them, according to a review that casts doubt on industry suggestions that such problems rarely happen." In Pennsylvania alone, "more than 100 cases of pollution were confirmed over the past five years."

Across the U.S., utilities are preparing to replace old, polluting power plants that run on dirty fuels. The temptation, unfortunately, is to replace one dirty fuel (coal or oil) with another -- natural gas. We cannot afford to let that happen. Besides the obvious threat that fracking poses to our water, choosing to burn more natural gas inevitably means choosing to add more climate-polluting carbon to our atmosphere.

That's an especially poor choice because, thanks to lower costs, clean-energy alternatives have never been more competitive. When the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission recently asked a judge to evaluate competing energy proposals, he ruled that a plan based on solar arrays would be better for Minnesota's ratepayers than one based on natural gas. By "better," he didn't mean "cleaner" (although that would certainly be a bonus). He meant it would be a better deal for them financially.

If Minnesotans are better off with solar power, then why would sunny Southern California opt to replace the defunct San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station with dirty natural gas plants? Why would sunny Southwestern states or windy Midwestern states choose to shackle themselves to another fossil fuel for decades to come?

A growing movement is working to make sure that everyone knows exactly what a dirty and dangerous choice natural gas really is. But the other side of that coin is an even more important message. We have better choices -- choices that will deliver truly clean energy, that put more Americans to work, and that often will save money. Let's move beyond dirty fuels and build an economy powered by clean energy.

Let President Obama know he's got it wrong this time -- natural gas is dirty, dangerous, and anything but a clean energy solution.

Moving Cars in the Right Direction

March 03, 2014

Everybody knows that standing in front of a moving car is dangerous, but what about standing behind one? Currently, four out of ten Americans live in a place where the air is sometimes dangerous to breathe, thanks in part to smog from cars and trucks. Today, the Obama administration finalized cleaner tailpipe standards that will help us all breathe easier.

Beginning in 2017, these cleaner tailpipe standards will require that refiners produce cleaner-burning, lower-sulfur gasoline, and that automakers use advanced pollution control technology on new cars. Although the impact of cleaner new cars will be felt over time, the cleaner gasoline will be used by all cars, old and new, and reduce pollution almost immediately. In the first year alone, smog-forming NOx emissions will be reduced by 260,000 tons. That's like taking 33 million cars off the road -- nearly two out of every ten cars in the U.S.

Cleaner tailpipe standards mean cleaner air, and cleaner air has real health benefits. Smog pollution, or ground-level ozone, can cause asthma attacks, respiratory disease, and even premature death. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that by 2030 these cleaner tailpipe standards will prevent roughly 2,000 premature deaths a year, along with reducing hospital admissions and asthma attacks.

That's good news for everyone, but it's especially important for families who live near a major road. According to the American Lung Association, living or working near a major roadway results in a greater risk of health problems, especially for children and teenagers.

Disappointingly, the oil industry did everything it could to derail or delay these health-protecting standards. They failed in part because the standards will dramatically clean our air for less than a penny a gallon, all while creating jobs. A study by Navigant Economics found that these standards would create almost 5,400 permanent jobs in the operation and maintenance of new refinery equipment, as well as more than 24,000 new jobs during the three years it takes to install that equipment.

The economic and employment benefits of the standards explain the strong support for them from automakers, auto parts manufacturers, and the United Auto Workers.

These cleaner tailpipe standards mark the third time that President Obama has acted to make our cars and trucks cleaner and more efficient. In 2012, finalizing historic vehicle standards of 54.5 miles per gallon was the biggest single step any country had ever taken to reduce climate-disrupting pollution. Then, just two weeks ago, the president directed his administration to move forward with the next round of fuel-economy standards for tractor-trailers and delivery trucks.

Eventually, cars and trucks that run on gas will be found in museums instead of garages, and the smog and health problems they caused will only be bad memories. Until that day, though, we can be thankful for these standards, which will eliminate so much pollution for so little cost. 

Protecting Those Who Protected Us

February 05, 2014

It's not hard to understand why the Sierra Club has had a long and proud relationship with the men and women who serve our country in the armed services. As our history shows, a passion for exploring and enjoying the outdoors is a natural complement of both the skills and the spirit of the military.

After all, it was our first executive director, David Brower, who used his mountaineering and outdoors skills to help found the U.S. Army's 10th Mountain Division during World War II, a unit that has since distinguished itself from the Dolomites of Italy to the Hindu Kush of Afghanistan. Brower isn't an isolated example -- thousands of veterans are Sierra Club members and supporters. That's because their commitment to protect our country doesn't stop when they take off their uniforms. And their sense of duty extends from protecting our freedoms overseas to protecting our air, water, and natural legacy here at home.

So it's more important than ever that those who have sacrificed for our nation be given every opportunity to succeed here at home and receive every benefit they have earned. Incredibly, though, not everyone in Congress or in Washington, D.C., seems to agree. In fact, the recent omnibus budget bill would deliver harsh cuts to veteran's benefits.

That would be a slap in the face to all of the men and women who have put their lives on the line for our country. No veteran should receive anything less than every benefit to which he or she is entitled. That is the least we can do for those who fought to preserve our democracy.

That's why the Sierra Club is standing shoulder to shoulder with our partners, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and Blue Star Families, as well as with veterans, active duty service members, and their families nationwide, in opposing any cuts to veterans' pensions or benefits.

Our nation's budget should not be balanced on the backs of those who have fought to protect it. If we care about raising our voices to protect our nation's clean air, clean water, and wild places, we must stand with those who have sacrificed to ensure we have a strong nation. This is not an ideological issue or a partisan issue. It's common sense.

You can help fight for a full repeal of the cuts to military retirees' benefits here.

Keystone XL: Set to Reject

February 04, 2014

All across America, people are gathering to draw attention to the threat that the Keystone XL pipeline poses to clean air, clean water, public health, and the stability of our climate. Last night alone, thousands attended nearly 300 vigils in 49 states. This outpouring of hope and frustration came together in just a few days, in response to the release of a deeply flawed report by the State Department that underestimates the consequences of building this pipeline across the heart of the United States.

People are hopeful because the decision to reject the Keystone pipeline is in the hands of President Obama, who has stated his firm commitment to fight climate disruption. He will be advised by Secretary of State John Kerry, a long-standing champion in the effort to solve the climate crisis that is already upon us, already stirring extreme weather like Superstorm Sandy, the polar vortex, droughts, and wildfires. These leaders know that Americans have embraced clean energy and have no interest in retreating to dependence on the dirty fossil fuels of centuries past. So I'm cautiously confident that the president and secretary of state will do the right thing and stop this pipeline in its tracks.

People are frustrated, however, because the report released last Friday was largely written by a contractor that stands to profit if the pipeline is built. Not surprisingly, it gives the pipeline a passing grade, while virtually every credible expert has already given the project a big fat "Fail."

Biased as it is, though, the report sets the stage for President Obama to reject this dirty, dangerous manifestation of Big Oil's greed, by abandoning the contention in earlier drafts that KXL would have no significant impact on climate. Instead, it concludes that the pipeline would contribute the equivalent of an additional 6 million cars on the road to annual greenhouse gas emissions.

The president is on record that he will not allow Keystone XL to be built if it would "significantly exacerbate" carbon pollution. The pollution from six million cars is anything but insignificant. And a more credible independent analysis estimates that carbon pollution from the pipeline would be equivalent to more than 37 million gas-guzzling cars -- or 51 coal-fired power plants. How does that make sense at a moment when we are making progress against climate disruption by retiring dirty coal plants and building more and more wind turbines and solar panels to create the energy that is already powering Teslas, Leafs, and Smart cars?

There are plenty of reasons to reject Keystone. Here are a few reasons to reject last week's report:

  1. The report was too narrow in scope.  Federal law requires government agencies to consider the cumulative impact of proposed federal actions such as permits for pipelines that cross international boundaries. Last week, the Sierra Club and its coalition partners alerted the State Department that it had failed to consider the climate impacts of Keystone XL combined with other tar sands pipeline decisions, including the proposed Alberta Clipper pipeline expansion.

  2. The report has a serious conflict of interest. ERM -- a member organization of the American Petroleum Institute, the oil and gas industry's lobbying group -- was handpicked for the job by TransCanada, the company seeking to build the KXL pipeline. The State Department's Inspector General is currently investigating this contract for mismanagement and bias.

  3. The contention that the pollution is inevitable is false: The review assumes that tar sands expansion will happen with or without Keystone XL. But that's not what industry experts, financial analysts, and Canadian government officials are saying. And if you follow the money, it's clear that the delay already caused by the campaign opposing Keystone XL has led to both reduced foreign investment in the tar sands and reduced projections of tar sands crude production. In short, this pipeline is the linchpin for tar sands development.

  4. The tar sands cannot economically or safely be carried by rail: The review also assumes that, without a pipeline, tar sands crude would be shipped by rail. But moving tar sands by rail is both difficult and expensive, and will become even more so once new federal safety requirements come into effect. Since last July, when an oil train disaster killed 47 in Quebec, we've seen oil train accidents in Edmonton (Oct.), Alabama (Nov.), North Dakota (Dec), and New Brunswick and Pennsylvania (Jan). Just last Friday, while all eyes were on the rollout of the State Department's report, yet another crude-oil rail train derailed and spilled in Mississippi.

The next step in the Keystone XL decision is for Secretary Kerry to make a recommendation to the president about whether the pipeline is in our "national interest." We welcome Secretary Kerry to the fray. Kerry said in October that "energy policy is the solution to global climate change." He realizes that  climate-driven extreme weather is making life perilous in all 50 states, weakening our economy, and threatening our national security. If we invest in tar sands pipelines, we can expect only poisoned air and water in return. Investing in clean energy, on the other hand, creates jobs, lowers energy costs, builds energy security, and reduces carbon pollution. It's time to go "all in" on clean energy.

Ultimately, though, this is President Obama's decision. Although he has struggled with the paradox of reducing carbon pollution while promoting a dirty "all of the above" energy policy, the president already has more than enough evidence to reject this pipeline based solely on its effect on climate disruption. But even though this debate has centered on climate, that is only part of what's at stake. When considering the "national interest," the president will also need to consider how this pipeline would affect the health and safety of American families, farmers and ranchers along the pipeline route, and fence-line refinery communities.

Finally, after weighing all the facts, the president must reject Keystone XL and send the world a clear message: Our nation is committed to clean energy and climate solutions.

Green Bang for Your Bucks

January 24, 2014

Last week, I did a Reddit AMA (Ask Me Anything) about the draft environment chapter of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that appeared on WikiLeaks (spoiler: It's a terrible draft). People asked many good questions, but my favorite from the session was one I never get tired of hearing: "What can we do?"

In the case of the TPP, we can write to Congress. But every single day, there are things we can do, choices we can make, that help protect the planet. Small or large, they make a difference.

Many of those choices center on how we spend our money. You might favor environmentally responsible products or companies, for instance. But if you're gauging effort versus impact, it's tough to make a more effective choice than replacing your big bank credit card with one from a bank that shares your values: Allow me to introduce the new Sierra Club credit card from One PacificCoast Bank.

Not so long ago, switching credit cards -- not to mention banks -- was a serious hassle. Thanks to the digital age, that's no longer true. So why give your business to a giant corporation that may be financing the same kinds of projects that you're writing to Congress to stop -- especially if you don't have to sacrifice any convenience or features like reward points?

The Sierra Club chose to partner with One PacificCoast Bank for a reason. Their mission is "to build prosperity in our communities through beneficial banking services delivered in an economically and environmentally sustainable manner." The only part of that you'll find in the mission statement of most banks is "banking services."

Of course, by using a Sierra Club credit card, you are not only doing business with an environmentally responsible bank, you're also helping support the mission of the Sierra Club. By making one easy choice, you're doing something good for the planet all year long.

After all, no one ever said that everything that makes a difference has to be hard.

A Compromise We Can't Afford

January 17, 2014

Yesterday, the Sierra Club and 17 other environmental, environmental justice, and public health advocacy groups sent a letter to President Obama in which we asked him to stop basing national energy policy on an "all of the above" strategy. If we want to reach the goal of 100 percent clean energy before our climate is catastrophically disrupted, then common sense demands that we prioritize clean energy -- and make it official -- right now. Here's what we told the president, followed by a link to the letter itself:

Dear Mr. President,

We applaud the actions you have taken to reduce economy-wide carbon pollution and your commitment last June "to take bold action to reduce carbon pollution" and "lead the world in a coordinated assault on climate change." We look forward to continuing to work with you to achieve these goals.

In that speech, you referenced that in the past you had put forward an "all of the above" energy strategy, yet noted that we cannot just drill our way out of our energy and climate challenge. We believe that continued reliance on an "all of the above" energy strategy would be fundamentally at odds with your goal of cutting carbon pollution and would undermine our nation's capacity to respond to the threat of climate disruption. With record-high atmospheric carbon concentrations and the rising threat of extreme heat, drought, wildfires and super storms, America's energy policies must reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, not simply reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

We understand that the U.S. cannot immediately end its use of fossil fuels and we also appreciate the advantages of being more energy independent. But an "all of the above" approach that places virtually no limits on whether, when, where or how fossil fuels are extracted ignores the impacts of carbon-intense fuels and is wrong for America's future. America requires an ambitious energy vision that reduces consumption of these fuels in order to meet the scale of the climate crisis.

An "all of the above" strategy is a compromise that future generations can't afford. It fails to prioritize clean energy and solutions that have already begun to replace fossil fuels, revitalize American industry, and save Americans money. It increases environmental injustice while it locks in the extraction of fossil fuels that will inevitably lead to a catastrophic climate future. It threatens our health, our homes, our most sensitive public lands, our oceans and our most precious wild places. Such a policy accelerates development of fuel sources that can negate the important progress you've already made on lowering U.S. carbon pollution, and it undermines U.S. credibility in the international community.

Mr. President, we were very heartened by your commitment that the climate impacts of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline would be "absolutely critical" to the decision and that it would be contrary to the "national interest" to approve a project that would "significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution." We believe that a climate impact lens should be applied to all decisions regarding new fossil fuel development, and urge that a "carbon-reducing clean energy" strategy rather than an "all of the above" strategy become the operative paradigm for your administration's energy decisions.

In the coming months your administration will be making key decisions regarding fossil fuel development -- including the Keystone XL pipeline, fracking on public lands, and drilling in the Arctic ocean -- that will either set us on a path to achieve the clean energy future we all envision or will significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution. We urge you to make climate impacts and emission increases critical considerations in each of these decisions.

Mr. President, we applaud you for your commitment to tackle the climate crisis and to build an economy powered by energy that is clean, safe, secure, and sustainable.

Letter to President Barack Obama, January 16, 2014

Send your own message to the president encouraging him to take action on climate disruption. 

Eyes on the Prize

January 16, 2014

I've written a lot about the consequences of relying on fossil fuels for energy, but the chemical spill into West Virginia's Elk River still comes as a shock. Almost a week later, thousands are still without drinking water, and many of those who've been given the "all clear" have been hospitalized shortly after drinking or bathing in water they were told is clean. And yet this disaster is just a single, impossible-to-ignore, example of the constant toll that fossil fuels exact upon us every day.

If you're like me, each new disaster leaves you angry and frustrated. That's normal. But here's the one thing we can't afford to forget:

It doesn't have to be this way.

Humanity has been given a wonderful gift: We know how to get all of the energy we need without using dirty or dangerous fuel sources. It's no longer a question of whether we can -- but of whether we will.

The amount of accessible energy from the sun and wind is far greater than what the entire world is projected to need in coming decades. The key word there is accessible. We already know how to reap that energy bounty -- worldwide -- with technology that already exists (and will only get even better).

This isn't speculation. Scientists and engineers have crunched the numbers and shown that it's doable: a 100 percent clean-energy economy.

Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi, professors at Stanford and U.C. Davis, respectively, published an article in Scientific American five years ago that showed how the world could be powered by clean energy within decades. Last year, they published an even more detailed plan, in Energy Journal, for how the state of New York could switch to 100 percent clean energy by 2050. They've since produced draft plans for California and Washington, as well.

Read these plans, and you'll know right away that they aren't fanciful. Resources, technology, and economics are all taken into account: We can do this. Exactly how hard -- or easy -- will it be? My hunch is that it will be challenging but perhaps easier than most people think -- but the important point is that this should be our goal. If we know we can achieve 100 percent clean energy, why would we settle for less? Even if we set aside their many drawbacks, is there a single good reason to rely on coal, oil, or natural gas if we don't have to?

Every week, I read about new clean energy successes, whether it's yet another utility deciding to add more renewable generation (because it's the cheapest option), an innovative plan for financing community solar, or the news that the new Popemobile is an electric bicycle. Yesterday it was the news that both Spain and Denmark got more power from wind than any other source last year. I can't get enough of these stories. But I also know that each of them is only one more step toward the ultimate goal: 100 percent clean energy.

That's why every time I hear President Obama or someone in his administration talk about an "all of the above" energy policy, it's like fingernails on a solar panel. If someone asked you which way leads to the top of a mountain, would you tell them "all of the above"? Of course not. The route to the summit might not be direct or easy. But if you ever want to get there, you need to know which way is up and which way is down.

We all know the adage about the forest and the trees. People in general aren't always good at seeing the big picture or taking the long view. Politicians are usually worse than most. Leaders, though -- true leaders -- have the ability to show us the mountaintop and inspire us upward.

That's the kind of leadership we need to see from President Obama, and he can start by making it official that 100 percent clean energy is our goal.


2013: A Year to Remember

December 20, 2013

Although 2013 had its share of tragedies (Typhoon Haiyan), portents (reaching the 400 ppm mark for atmospheric CO2), and absurdities (the shutdown of the federal government), it also was in many ways a landmark year for the Sierra Club and the issues we work on. So in this last post of the year, I want to highlight some of the very good things that happened:

In February, the largest climate march and rally in American history filled the National Mall. More than 50,000 people braved one of the coldest days of the year to let President Obama know that we expect him to lead on climate -- starting with a rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline. Not so long ago, the conventional wisdom was that the pipeline was a foregone conclusion. Thousands of grassroots activists have both turned that around and raised national awareness of the dangers of extreme fuels like tar sands.

Earlier that week at the White House, I joined with Sierra Club Board members Allison Chin and Jim Dougherty and several dozen other grassroots environmental leaders in the Sierra Club’s first-ever civil disobedience.

In March, President Obama designated five new national monuments, including Rio Grande del Norte in New Mexico and the San Juan Islands in Washington State. Less than a month later, the Senate confirmed his nominee for Secretary of the Interior, Sally Jewell -- a dedicated outdoor enthusiast who understands the economic, recreational, and conservation benefits of protecting public lands. Here's hoping that 2014 sees even more ambitious monument designations and protections for public lands.

In June, President Obama delivered a groundbreaking speech that laid out his Climate Plan: "As a president, as a father, and as an American, I'm here to say we need to act." The Obama administration has already followed through on elements of the plan, including ending financing of overseas coal plants, but has much to do in 2014 to meet the obligation and clean energy opportunities identified by the president, particularly by curbing carbon pollution from power plants and by rejecting projects that would expand dirty fuel production, such as the Keystone XL pipeline, drilling in the Arctic, and new LNG export terminals.

About those carbon standards: They mean that 2013 is the year that coal-fired power, which was already in decline, lost all hope of a comeback. The EPA not only released draft carbon-pollution standards for new power plants but also held listening sessions on standards for existing power plants -- which were filled with passionate proponents of clean energy. In October, the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign celebrated its 150th coal plant retirement. Eight more retirements have been announced since then. Strong carbon-pollution standards will only accelerate the move away from dirty coal.  

Progress in fighting dirty fuels is great, but it's even better when accompanied by a surge in clean energy. Because Congress waited too long to renew the Production Tax Credit, the wind industry got off to a slow start this year, but it's sure booming now, as evidenced by the $1 billion order for turbines placed just this week by Warren Buffett's MidAmerican Energy. Wind is increasingly competitive with both coal and natural gas and, in places like Iowa, is already the least expensive source of new power. In 2014, expect to see more utilities choosing to invest in renewables for mainly economic reasons, as Xcel Power in Colorado did this year.

By the way, falling costs also helped made this a record-breaking year for solar power, with enough new solar electric capacity added to power more than 850,000 average American homes. The Sierra Club's own Solar Home Program has now helped more than 1,000 homes go solar.

There's no way to know exactly what challenges next year will bring, but one thing I am confident about is that we're going to build on all the progress we made this year in replacing dirty fuels with clean energy sources. Here's to a happy renewable year in 2014.

User comments or postings reflect the opinions of the responsible contributor only, and do not reflect the viewpoint of the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club does not endorse or guarantee the accuracy of any posting. The Sierra Club accepts no obligation to review every posting, but reserves the right (but not the obligation) to delete postings that may be considered offensive, illegal or inappropriate.

Up to Top

Michael Brune

Join Michael Brune's email list:

   Please leave this field empty

Find us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Rss Feed

Sierra Club Main | Contact Us | Terms and Conditions of Use | Privacy Policy/Your California Privacy Rights | Website Help

Sierra Club® and "Explore, enjoy and protect the planet"® are registered trademarks of the Sierra Club. © 2013 Sierra Club.
The Sierra Club Seal is a registered copyright, service mark, and trademark of the Sierra Club.