Veterans, Labor, Environmentalists Urge President Obama to Strive for FREEDOM FROM OIL

www.beyondoil.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 30, 2010

Veterans, Labor, Environmentalists Urge President Obama to Strive for
FREEDOM FROM OIL
10,000 American Flags Planted in Front of Washington Monument

Washington, D.C. – Today, veterans, union leaders and environmentalists gathered in the shadow of the Washington Monument to call on President Obama to end America’s dependence on oil. Starting as an online campaign planting 50,000 virtual flags, volunteers began last night planting 10,000 actual American flags on the National Mall spelling out “FREEDOM FROM OIL” to represent those asking the President to respond to the BP disaster in the Gulf with a bold plan to move America off of oil and into a clean energy future.

Sierra Club’s Executive Director Michael Brune was joined by Truman National Security Project COO, former US Army Captain, and Iraq veteran Jonathan Powers and Communications Workers of America Senior Director George Kohl.

Images available here:

Remarks of Michael Brune, Executive Director, Sierra Club

"These flags represent tens of thousands of Americans who have watched the BP disaster in the Gulf and want to make sure it never happens again. In our nation’s 244-year history, we’ve faced many daunting challenges, and we have risen to meet them. We are confident that with President Obama’s bold leadership we can achieve Freedom From Oil and put American innovation to work to end our dependence on oil and create a clean energy future."

"There is no doubt that our nation's addiction to foreign energy sources represents a dire security issue, and our country must take some serious steps toward Freedom From Oil by developing solutions that can end our oil addiction and make our nation more secure."

"We haven't even stopped the massive flow of oil from BP’s gushing well yet, let alone begun to respond to the damage it has wrought – and yet the oil industry and many others want to keep drilling off our coasts. They claim it’s the only way to boost the local economy and keep people employed."

"It is unconscionable that Big Oil and its allies would like to declare the region a dead zone in which the only jobs to be had are from more oil drilling."

"This disaster should be a wake up call. We can't return to business as usual and face another disaster like this. It's time to stand up to the oil industry, increase our transportation choices, reduce the need to drive, and embrace the clean energy solutions that will create good, lasting jobs while keeping our fresh air, drinking water, and oceans intact."

"We need President Obama's leadership to deliver a plan to end our dependence on oil over the next twenty years. Every day that we fail to act is a day that we continue to place American security, economy, and climate in jeopardy. We can do better – we can end our oil addiction, and we need President Obama to lay the path to oil independence."

Remarks of Truman National Security Project COO Jonathan Powers:

Former Army Captain and Iraq veteran Jonathan Powers remarked, at the event, “It is a shame that we will let yet another July Fourth pass us by without ending our unnecessary dependence on oil – a dependence that is funding the bullets that our enemies fire at our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is for that reason, and many more, that the fight for energy independence in is being fought here at home, a struggle we hope more Americans will join in support of those who are fighting abroad.”

Remarks of George Kohl of Communication Workers of America:

Our members work in communications building high-speed broadband networks, which will play a critical role in reducing emissions and improving our environment.

Our ability to connect to the world-wide web at world-class speeds is an essential infrastructure for 21st century jobs and a green economy. These networks bring vital information and services to our hospitals, schools, libraries and homes. Yet with all our vast wealth, this critical infrastructure is still out of reach for 100 million Americans.

###

Republican alternative to climate legislation #fail

From Sierra Club:
For Immediate Release
June 9, 2010

Contact: David Willett, 202-675-6698

Lugar Bill Fails to Deliver Clean Energy Future
Sierra Club Urges Lugar to Join Bi-Partisan Energy Effort

WASHINGTON, DC- As the Senate considers several energy provisions this week, the Sierra Club issued the following statement.

Statement of Michael Brune, Sierra Club Executive Director:

We welcome Senator Lugar's efforts to join the discussion over U.S. energy policy in the Senate but unfortunately there are several elements of this bill that fall short of the mark, particularly when it comes to ending our dependence on dirty energy like oil and coal. We have serious concerns about the bill's failure to reduce our oil dependence, adequately address global warming, and its potential to weaken clean air standards. This bill is simply not the right path to a clean energy economy.

As President Obama has said, it's time to end the cozy relationship Big Oil has with government. The public is learning more about how the oil industry got around environmental and safety regulations in the Gulf. Congress must now set ambitious goals, hold polluters accountable, and craft comprehensive climate and energy legislation that works for America's middle class.

The West Virginia coal mine tragedy and the oil disaster currently unfolding highlight the desperate need for a new clean energy economy that ends our self-destructive addiction to dirty energy. We need to move away from dangerous and deadly energy sources towards greater efficiency and cleaner energy. Every day the Senate fails to pass clean energy and climate policy, we put our economy, our national security and our environment at risk. Now is the time to put America back in control of our energy future with comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation.

Given his dedication to energy issues, we hope that Senator Lugar will become actively involved in Majority Leader Reid's and President Obama’s effort to craft a bipartisan, comprehensive climate and energy bill that moves our country beyond our dependence on dirty energy sources such as oil and coal, and into a clean energy economy.

In addition, the Sierra Club urges the Senate to quickly reject Senator Murkowski's resolution to bail out Big Oil and Coal by blocking EPA's ability to enforce the Clean Air Act when it comes up for a vote tomorrow. The Senate should be spending time responding to the Gulf disaster and moving us towards a clean energy future rather than finding ways to let polluters like Big Oil off the hook.

###

Walking, chewing gum

From Grist.org:

As a new administration took over in Washington in the midst of a massive economic decline, the media kept asking members of the new energy and environment team if the U.S. could "afford" their agenda in light of the economic condition of the nation. (Witness the Washington Post interview with Carol Browner.) The New York Times reported on Jan. 18:

Given a choice between stimulating the economy and protecting the environment, 58 percent of Americans said it was more important to stimulate the economy, compared with 33 percent who chose protecting the environment. In April 2007, 36 percent said it was more important to stimulate the economy, compared with 52 percent who chose the environment.

No doubt the priority given the economy today would be greater, given Friday's numbers on job losses and unemployment.

But it's a silly question and a false, unnecessary choice. It hides the most rational course of action: doing both simultaneously.

A Revolutionary Proposal from Al Gore

by Norman Markowitz

Former Vice President Al Gore in a speech in Washington called for a policy that would lead to the elimination of all fossil fuel based electrical power production in the U.S. and its replacement by solar, wind, and other renewable energy source. Gore used the successful landing of men on the moon in 1969 fulfilling the pledge that John F. Kennedy made at the beginning of the decade as an example that an undertaking that many considered impossible at the time could be accomplished in a decade.

Although many will jump to the conclusion that such a profound reorganization of the forces that power production and transportation is socially impossible even if it were scientifically achievable (which many scientists, especially those employed by industry, will deny is true) Gore did come forward with a remarkably progressive pro working class policy suggestion as a way to foster a carbon dioxide free environment, a tax on on carbon dioxide production(which would be a tax on capital) to be accompanied by reductions on payroll taxes that currently are used to fund social security/Medicare-Medicaid, and are made by employers and employees.

"We should tax what we burn, not what we earn," Gore said, words that might be trite as poetry but sound brilliant as policy. Gore also pointed to the deepening crisis in economy, foreign policy and environment, pointing to Iraq and Afghanistan and said (quite rightly), "We are borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that has got to change."

Gore's suggestions are breath-taking and, in the context of contemporary global capitalism (but only in that context) in all likelihood Utopian. He is right about the disasters that are in the offing, but his belief that business, especially large corporate power, can be made to see that these policies are in their best interest, in creating over the long haul far greater efficiency and balance in production, are the sort of liberal hopes that have been dashed over and over again. Most European and Japanese large capitalists would say that the systems of socialized medicine in existence in their countries have helped them become more productive and have reduced labor costs, but this did not mean that they supported such programs which were implemented in European countries at least either directly or indirectly by powerful labor movements, labor and socialist led governments, and Communist parties.

In the U.S. large corporations have not shown any willingness to lead in the creation of a national health care system comparable to those that exist in Western Europe, even though it might benefit them by reducing their overall labor costs both for health insurance payments and in losses from worker illnesses. My analysis is that most capitalists do not and will not support pro working class reforms even if it benefits them, because those reforms represent a strengthening of the working class and the possibility that the working class will build on those gains to more effectively fight capital. This does not mean that far-reaching changes in political economy that benefit the environment and the people are not possible under capitalism. It does mean that those changes do not emanate in advanced countries from the capitalists and will only be accepted by them after intense political and social struggle.

Although Gore's idea about a pollution payroll tax for employers is the best idea I have heard from a major party politician about taxation in a long time, it will take more than a government funding scientific research and development for a fossil fuel free environment to really achieve that goal (also such policies in themselves are very positive). It will take the sort of national planning and investment that have been the hall mark of socialist societies on an international level. At the very least, it will take the kind of overall national policy commitment of the kind that has characterized advanced countries in warfare, particularly WWII and the subsequent cold war.

But the present military-industrial complex and its oil company allies stand as a and perhaps the major roadblock to the creation of a fossil fuel free "clean" industrial complex based society. Although Al Gore mentioned the possible "national security" implications of hundreds millions of people from the poor countries fleeing the climate disasters that global warming is bringing (which is a real danger) he didn't specifically address the military industrial complex for which "national security" has been a slogan used to bury serious criticism since the beginning of the cold war in 1947. The dismantling of the military industrial complex in the U.S., as I see it, is a precondition to the achievement of Gore's vision of a pollution free economy and environment. Gore's speech though deserves full fledged support from all progressive people and hopefully will become a part of the presidential campaign, especially Gore's innovative tax reform suggestions.

Al Gore is right on the problem confronting the U.S. and the world. And I believe that he is right on the solution, even if his time frame for achieving that solution is something of a "maximum demand." Where he is weak is how to implement that solution, beyond his tax reform suggestion. It is there that the progressive people in labor, the arts sciences and professions can and must come forward with practical plans to achieve these lofty but socially necessary goals.

John McCain Gives Working Families the Finger

By Joel Wendland

Yesterday John McCain held a town hall meeting at Worth & Co. in Bucks County, PA. The Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry has investigated that company for intentionally refusing to pay workers the minimum wage. Pennsylvania officials say the company underpaid workers by more than $140,000. There is no doubt that McCain's actions yesterday were a deliberate statement on how he feels about working people and their rights.

Here's a brief run-down on McCain's record on working-class issues – just in case you're still in the dark:

helped block minimum wage hike in 2005

voted to filibuster minimum wage hike in 2007

compared unions to monopolies

voted to block the Employee Free Choice Act in 2007, allowing workers to form unions

opposed the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2008, which would have made it easier for women workers to sue for equal pay

McCain also failed to show up to vote last week on a measure that would have extended unemployment benefits for workers.

But McCain did pander to Big Oil on offshore drilling, and promised the most profitable companies in the country billions in new tax cuts.

By contrast, Obama backs the Fair Pay Act, for equal pay for women, would sign the Employee Free Choice Act, has proposed indexing the minimum wage to inflation, and would appoint NLRB members who would protect workers rights, wages, health and safety and so on.

John McCain favors free trade at all costs, especially to the rights of working people and the environment. He told Midwest workers that he has given up on bringing back manufacturing jobs and that more jobs would be lost under his administration.

Obama believes environmental protections and workers rights (to join unions, health and safety protections, and basic wage rights) should be central features of any international trade agreement. He voted against CAFTA and opposed the Colombia Free Trade Agreement for those reasons.

Trade is a key workers' rights issue, because if agreements prioritize trade over workers and the environment, those agreements will make it cheaper for companies to super-exploit workers and the environment in other countries, causing job losses here and the drive to bottom everywhere.

If workers are protected in all countries, however, companies have no reason to go.

On creating new jobs, McCain has offered contradictory and incoherent plans on the most important new areas staked out for job growth: green energy and green jobs.

While he is offering prizes to the biggest polluters and proposes to tie the economy forever to oil with new plans to drill offshore and in protected Arctic regions, Obama plans real investments in research and development of renewable energy alternatives, green infrastructure growth, and alternative energies.

Though John McCain has tried to lie about and hide his support for privatizing Social Security and his plans to slash Social Security and Medicare benefits, Obama opposes privatization and has offered plans to improve the financial security of the program by raising the income cap on the Social Security payroll tax to ensure that the very wealthiest Americans pay their fair share into the system.

The list on the clear and meaningful differences on working-class issues between McCain and Obama is much longer, but you get the idea.

Working people simply can't afford the risk of John McCain in the White House. In fact, we can't afford not spending every effort to work for his defeat, on ensuring an Obama victory, and on strengthening pro-worker Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress.

Green Jobs, A way out of recession

The latest issue of Sierra magazine, the magazine of the Sierra Club, the economy is linked to the global climate crisis.

Writer Tom Valtin points out that as the recession deepens "labor and environmental leaders are uniting to find alternative energy solutions that will revitalize our economy and benefit people and the planet."

The Blue-Green Alliance, a partnership of the Sierra Club and the United Steelworkers, is a coalition of labor and environmental groups that is calling for investment in "green jobs."

The aim is to build up industry that is environmentally friendly such as "installing solar panels, building wind farms, and reusing construction materials."

CPUSA, Nat'l Cmte., March 30th – Report on the Environment

Marc Brodine, a member of the national board of the CPUSA and the chair of the Communist Party in Washington State, delivered a report on the impact of global warming, its causes and consequences.

"Global warming," he said, "is not just an inconvenient truth." Global warming has to be examined within a larger context of capitalism and other environmental problems.

"We can't have a healthy humanity without a healthy natural world," he said.

He tied environmental degradation to capitalism. Increased capitalist exploitation of nature will result in serious crisis, he said. "We can either work with nature or nature will work against us," he argued. "Capitalism is playing with the survival of humanity for short-term profit," he noted.

Climate crisis is not the only severe environmental problem facing us. Depletion of fishing, soil, and fresh water supplies, animal extinctions, the spread of disease-causing pollutants, desertification, and growing air and water pollution are among the most severe.

"Even in the best case scenario, global warming requires immediate and dramatic action," Brodine said.

Brodine insisted that political changes are required, including democratization of the political process, public policy, and economic decision-making. These changes need to happen in order to move in the right direction and to mitigate the destructive policies of the Bush administration and the worst actions off the big transnational polluters.

Immediate action is needed because global warming threatens to transform the earth's climate systems in a very short period of time and create environments that are hostile to human survival never before experienced by developed humanity.

The earth is getting hotter, but global climate change has other features: in some places more rain and more flooding; in others less rain and more drought; in some places more snowfall next to glacier melt; flooding; and so on.

It is caused by the accumulation of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere trapping the sun's heat, warming the air and the land.

This is primarily caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

"It is caused by human activity and can be slowed by human activity," Brodine said.

Social consequences include food and fresh water shortages leading to political competition for these dwindling resources.

"We can't profit our way to a solution," Brodine said. "But neither can we wait for socialism. Economic development that doesn't destroy the environment is required."

Some basic solutions are readily available but need political struggle to implement: green construction, production of hybrid vehicles, mass transit, alternative energy products like solar and wind, reduce mechanized industrial food production and increase labor-intense small agriculture, and major conservation efforts.

Brodine addressed current environmental action. "The biggest problem is not caused by individuals but by a system that privileges profit over people and nature," he said.

Capitalists are to blame for the crisis, but tend to try to shift the blame to ordinary folk, workers and the poor. They seek solutions that put the burden on us rather than on the policies and actions they take that cause the problem.

Some solutions that are being put forward by big industry are either partial solutions or untested or are very problematic steps. Biofuels, for example, drive up the cost of food or cause food shortages. "It means solving an energy problem by creating a food problem," Brodine stated.

Cap and trade schemes aren't enough.

Promotion of nuclear and "clean coal" are untested and present their own significant problems.

Brodine urged the formation of multi-issue broad-based coalitions that link environmental issues to public policy and other political struggles.

The working class, nationally and internationally, is the only force that can win and implement the changes needed.

Globally, people who contribute least global warming are paying the highest price as a result of climate change.

International reforms should include transforming international financial institutions and ending exploitative debt policies imposed on developing countries; transfer of green technology to developing countries; and implementing binding global agreements that enforce reduction of greenhouse emissions and fossil fuel usage.

Brodine pointed out that the Communist Party has a special role in winning the international communist movement to this agenda.

He urged that the environmental question be injected into all of the struggles people are involved in. The labor, youth, peace and equality movements have a significant contribution to make on the issue.

Individual actions are necessary but not sufficient to bring the change needed, he said.

Brodine proposed the expansion of the party's education on the question and the reconstitution of the party's environmental commission.

Good Jobs, Green Jobs, and the Emerging Labor-Green Alliance

We can promote economic growth and job creation even when we call for environmental sustainability. There is a growing alliance between labor and the environmental movement that is popularizing this idea.

One important development in this regard was the Blue-Green Alliance formed last year by the United Steelworkers and the Sierra Club.

According to an AFL-CIO Now post on this alliance, the goals of the coalition are to promote clean, alternative energy to help turn the tide against global warming, to promote fair trade policies that also include environmental protections, and to educate, expose, and reduce the use of toxins in our workplaces, consumer products, and homes.

This type of alliance between labor and the environmental movement is so important. It draws a lot of key issues together: creation of jobs and addressing issues of economic justice, globalization, corporate dominance of political processes, while educating on and advancing policies that promote sustainability.

Another such coalition is the Apollo Alliance, which is leading important efforts to transform our economy into a clean energy one, while creating new jobs and breaking the addiction to oil.

Apollo argues that a new clean economy itself will require the development of whole new industries and new job creation in manufacturing and other basic, union dense industries, or what it calls "green collar jobs." Check it out.

I love it.

--Joel Wendland