Articles by Glenn Hurowitz

September 4th event marks new phase in struggle for the planet

I'm incredibly excited about the September 4th Climate Emergency Fast being organized by the U.S. Climate Emergency Council and others. I've signed up and hope you will too, by clicking here. In one week, the number of fasters has grown from 395 to 795 and continues to multiply. Everyone I've talked to about it is instantly drawn to it; people seem to instinctively understand that we need to move beyond the polite letter-writing, lobbying, and yes -- blogging -- that has characterized response to the climate crisis thus far.

In most true crises, people take to the streets if the government doesn't act. What's happening to the planet is a crisis of that scale, but thus far hasn't got the dramatic response it merits. Institutional advocacy just won't cut it; as a recent groundbreaking study by Jon Agnone of the University of Washington shows. As Ken Ward summarized in a recent post here:

1. Protest is significantly more important than public opinion or institutional advocacy in influencing federal environmental law. Agnone found that each protest event increases the likelihood of pro-environmental legislation being passed by 1.2 percent, and moderate protest increases the annual rate of adoption by an astonishing 9.5 percent.
2. Public opinion on its own influences federal action (though less than protest), but is vastly strengthened by protest, which "amplifies" public support and, in Agnone's words, "raises the salience of public opinion for legislators." Protest and public opinion are synergistic, with a joint impact on federal policy far more dramatic than either factor alone.
3. Institutional advocacy has limited impact on federal environmental policy.

Coming in the wake of Al Gore's call for civil disobedience against polluters, this fast could be the start of a vital shift in the strategy of the environmental movement -- getting out of the halls of power where it's easy to have demands mollified with half measures and into the streets: the point at which leaders start freaking out and wondering what you'll do next. Of course, it's always important to keep any protests accessible and sympathetic to the average person. It's necessary to do the organizing in advance to ensure that your action has widespread public support and won't provoke a crippling backlash, but I think we're getting to that point in the climate crisis.

Already some climate big shots have signed up: Rev. Jim Wallis, Vandana Shiva, Dennis Brutus, Sally Bingham, Bill McKibben, Rev. Bob Edgar, Van Jones, Mike Tidwell, Billy Parish, Brent Blackwelder, Ilyse Hogue and many more.

So join me and sign up now!

Interior Secretary Kempthorne gets award for record refusal to protect endangered species

The Center for Biological Diversity yesterday presented Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne with its first ever "Rubber Dodo" award, in honor of going a record one year and 90 days without listing a new species as endangered or threatened.

The previous record holder was Ronald Reagan's notorious Interior Secretary James Watt, who went a comparatively wimpy 376 days without listing a new species. Meanwhile, the Fish and Wildlife Service has classified 279 species as "candidates" for listing, because they're in danger of extinction, but haven't yet been given protection by Secretary Kempthorne.

"That waiting list could turn into a 'too-late' list without government action, as species in dire need of protection go extinct," the Center said in an email to its supporters.

According to the Center's Kieran Suckling, some of the endangered species waiting for Dirk to stay the hand of permanent annihilation are the elfin wood warbler of Puerto Rico, the Pacific fisher (a wolverine-like animal that prowls the sylvan coasts of the Northwest), and the red knot, an extraordinary bird whose tale of decline is one of the saddest and weirdest.

Starbucks vows to make 100 percent of its milk rBGH-free

If you haven't been ordering that double whipped Frappuccino at your local Starbucks with soy milk, you've likely been gulping down Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH). It makes cows produce more milk, but it's thought to increase the risk of breast, prostate, and colon cancer in humans (if only they could come up with something to make cows squirt machiatto directly from their udders).

But now, after two years of pressure from the organization Food and Water Watch, Starbucks has announced that it's going to go rBGH free by December 31, 2007.

Moo-chas gracias, Starbucks! (photo: Tami Witschger)

Whew! Now you can guzzle that cinnamon dulce de leche latte with abandon (so long as you don't mind that growing coffee generally requires cutting down the rainforest, or that Starbucks busts unions).

Starbucks spokesman Brandon Borrman says the campaign had nothing to do with the decision.

"This decision was purely driven by our customers," Borrman said. "Increasing numbers of our customers were calling and asking us to do it, and the number of customers ordering organic milk was increasing, and we wanted to meet that demand."

Food and Water Watch spokesperson Jennifer Mueller noted that much of that activity (including 33,000 emails) was generated from call-in days conducted by her organization.

If you want to thank Starbucks CEO Jim Donald for not poisoning you with milk (or ask what "doppio" really means), you can reach the company at 1-800-235-2883.

And the ‘Climate Balls of Steel’ award goes to …

A new report penned by the environmental movement's genius uber-strategist Daniel J. Weiss of The Center for American Progress and his alliterative sidekick Anne Wingate examines exactly how big Big Oil's influence on individual members of Congress is. Working with OpenSecrets.org, Weiss and Wingate found that the 189 members who opposed a Democratic measure to redirect $16 billion in oil and gas subsidies to clean energy like wind and solar received on average $109,277 in contributions from Big Oil between 1989 and 2006. The 221 representatives that voted successfully to shift the subsidies to clean energy had only received an average of $26,277 over the same period.

While I'm sure some of those representatives who voted against the measure may sincerely believe that Exxon Mobil needs an extra few billion so that its shareholders don't go hungry, I suspect that most were just doing it to keep the petrodollars flowing right into their campaign account, and were willing to ignore the climate crisis to do it. It's amazing how cheaply those representatives are willing to sell their votes: $109,277 over 17 years isn't that much money -- generally less than 5 percent of what those candidates spent on their campaigns during that time.

It shows how contributing to political candidates remains one of the most effective ways to spend money: had Big Oil won this round, they would have spent one dollar for every $774 dollars they got back in subsidies (and that's just this one vote; actually their $20-million-plus in contributions have got them more than $35 billion annually in subsidies and tax credits). Industry has long known this, but environmentalists can get the same bang for the buck by directing more of their resources towards campaign contributions.

I'd like to highlight a few of the biggest recipients of Big Oil's big money:

New Mexico's Heather Wilson (R): $492,120
New York's Thomas Reynolds (R): $155,661
Virginia's Tom Davis (R): $134,360

But I've got to give today's Climate Balls of Steel award to New Jersey's Mike Ferguson (R), who sucked in $95,500 in oil money, but voted against Big Oil anyway. There aren't many people who can suck on Big Oil's teat and then spit crude oil in the harlot's face, but apparently Ferguson (at least in this instance) is one.