Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

Women Lead the Climate Change Fight

By Laura Orlando and Linda Carty, Ms. Magazine. Posted May 1, 2007.


Will a change in U.S. leadership -- led by powerful women -- begin to reverse the dire direction in which we're headed?
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

This is an excerpt from two longer reports in Ms. magazine. To get the whole story, visit www.msmagazine.com for subscription information.

Just shy of the anniversary of Rachel Carson's 100th birthday, and almost 50 years after she wrote the book that helped launch the environmental movement -- Silent Spring -- U.S. Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne announced that polar bears might become extinct. But he didn't say why.

Film producer and climate-change leader Laurie David knows why the bears are endangered. So does the first woman to chair the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee, Sen. Barbara Boxer, and so does the first woman Speaker of the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi: It's global warming. These women also know that our fate is linked to the polar bear's. And the polar bear is in serious trouble.

The U.S. government under President George W. Bush has refused to acknowledge that human activities are causing global warming. The administration has bullied government scientists, limiting their ability to speak freely about climate change. That censorship policy came to the nation's attention when James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and one of the country's top experts on climate change, fought back when the administration tried to muzzle him. Yet the administration's gag rule remains in effect.

Will a change in U.S. leadership -- led by powerful women -- begin to reverse the dire direction in which we're headed?

When Barbara Boxer took over as chair of the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee in January 2007, she replaced Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who still calls the threat of catastrophic global warming "a hoax." Boxer, though, has made stopping global warming her top legislative priority. Among other efforts, she has cosponsored legislation with Sen. Bernie Sanders (Ind.-Vt.) to cut emissions back to 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. This would be an important step toward averting climate change's most severe impacts. (The House has a similar bill, sponsored by California Rep. Henry Waxman.)

In the House, Boxer's efforts are mirrored by those of Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). One of the first things she did after becoming Speaker was to create the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, which is holding hearings and jump-starting legislation on greenhouse gas emissions. The Energy and Commerce committee will then be asked to draft bills based on its recommendations.

"I am really glad Nancy is working to get a special committee to focus on this," said Boxer. "My plate is very full trying to get something done on the Senate side, where we have had a tremendous amount of hostility both from Senate colleagues and the Bush administration. ... But now we have a little wind at our back."

As the Senate and House work on global-warming legislation, climate-change activism has been growing. But will it ever be a mass movement? If it's up to Laurie David, it will. "This has to become the biggest movement this country has ever seen," says the coproducer of An Inconvenient Truth As part of her own movement-building efforts, she's taken a "Stop Global Warming College Tour" to campuses in 12 cities along with singer-activist Sheryl Crow.

"The critical thing is how long it is going to take," David continues. "There's a window closing on really doing meaningful things to slow down global warming. You don't have to do everything, but you do have to do something. Everyone has to do something."


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: global warming, climate change, environmental racism

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Tell me again how women are leading the way...
Posted by: jasonk on May 1, 2007 4:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A Washington Post-ABC News poll last week indicated that while women are more likely than men to say they are "very willing" to change behavior to help the environment, they are less likely to have CFL (compact fluorescent light ) bulbs at home.

"My gut feeling is that the last remaining factor that we have not cracked in selling these bulbs is the 'wife test,' " said My Ton, a senior manager at Ecos Consulting, a company in Portland, Ore., that does market research on energy efficiency.


Article Link

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You should get with these women and help them lead.
Posted by: greentime on May 1, 2007 5:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If women had not been locked out of men's power structures for so long we would never be in this mess to begin with. Go ahead, take all the shots you want at this statement because that's what you do - but it is true.

While there have always been a minority of men who get this, not recognizing or respecting or sharing power and responsibility with the female 52% has hurt this species and this planet. We are out of balance and so many women have been trying to express this for millenia! To closed minds.

We sang, we prayed, we begged, we chanted, we marched, we spoke, we stood, we cared, we worked, and we continued to try and get this across but those who needed most to hear us haven't listened.

We made so many changes and wanted you to consider our ideas. Thankfully there are more men who are beginning to realize this and make serious changes... that's right, I said SERIOUS CHANGES to their own behaviors. We just hope you are not too late.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why Whitman wants nuclear power By BEN LANDO
Posted by: rwa on May 1, 2007 6:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Former New Jersey governor and federal environmental chief Christine Todd Whitman is heading one of a growing number of coalitions urging the United States to keep -- and increase -- nuclear energy as part of its energy mix. She's touring the country with the new mantra that nuclear power is safer and more efficient than ever before -- and, thanks to federal subsidies and potential climate-change legislation, economically competitive.

"It's 20 percent of our energy now and I think we ought to make sure it stays at least at 20 percent if not 25," Whitman said during an interview with UPI. "It's not going to be the answer for everything and the be-all-end-all only form of power," she said. "But if you care about climate change and you care about air quality, nuclear power is really the only form of base power that doesn't produce some of the regulated emissions and doesn't contribute to global climate change." Fossil fuels are burned to mine, process and transport uranium to the plants. But they are also burned to build and dismantle plants, thus sending such emissions into the atmosphere...

Whitman, U.S. EPA administrator from 2001 to 2003 after serving as New Jersey governor, is now co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, CASEnergy. The organization, also co-chaired by activist-turned-capitalist Patrick Moore -- co-founder and ex-member of Greenpeace -- has launched a public relations and education blitz to convince the nation "how nuclear power can contribute to America's energy security and economic growth," according to its Web site. The goal, Whitman said, is "getting people to start to talk about this and think about this ... try to build the public support for this kind of power."

There are 103 operating nuclear reactors in the United States now -- more than any other country. Accidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, cost overruns during the last buildup, and the once low and stable price of natural gas led to the three-decade freeze of the U.S. nuclear industry.

But energy legislation in the 1990s and two years ago streamlined the licensing process and gave the industry subsidies to grow.

The U.S. hasn't licensed a new nuclear plant since 1978, so coal and natural gas combined have a majority stake in electricity production. The growing clamor to address climate change has led some states, and possibly in the future the federal government, to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. That wouldn't affect nuclear's pricing but could make it more competitive with coal, a main target of such measures.

As the global industry prepares to increase the number of nuclear plants, supporters in this country have become more visible, and CASE is only one of the players.

"It seems like new groups are coming out in support of nuclear energy just about every week," said Scott Peterson, vice president of communications for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry ' s trade arm in some form or name since 1953 and sole funder of the CASE Coalition. The latest, Third Way, a center-left think tank, endorsed nuclear power last week... [though] the United States is far from an answer for storing or disposing nuclear waste.

"None of the questions have been answered," Gunter said of the nuclear opposition ' s concerns. "It's fair to say: 'Let's take another look.' But when you look, nothing has really changed." Whitman says she thinks other energy sources are important -- though she doubts the role renewables can play and says coal needs to be cleaned up but is too big a player now to go away -- in weaning the country from the foreign oil that makes up 60 percent of U.S. consumption.

earthtimes.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Smoke and mirrors . . .
Posted by: redstarwraith on May 1, 2007 6:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is all just smoke and mirrors b.s. The capitalist system (specifically, the capitalist mode of production) that these "women leaders" operate in is the same system largely (though not soley) responsible for environmental damage in the first place. All politicians in Washington are bought and paid for. They are all beholden to corporations in one way or another. These corporations allow these politicians (male and female) to sit out on their lofty branches for a while. They allow them to "pick leaves". . .the politicians do not (in Looney Toons fashion) saw the damned branch they are sitting upon. Politics has long been a male dominated affair. Bring all the women you'd like into politics, it will not fundamentally change the structure (of the capitalist system) which is at the root of the problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

all I can say is...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on May 1, 2007 6:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fuck this sexist garbage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alpha complex is poor form for todays problems
Posted by: tlCampbell on May 1, 2007 7:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I agree that it's taken the effort of women to make change, let us not fall into the habit of sexist extremes from the opposite side of the coin as men have been working for change as well.

We need to get away from a dominant society and think altruistically about the welfare of the entire planet. This cannot be done if we're still pitting women against men on whose done more of what for change. Competing for top-dog status is ridiculous in the current state of things.

Headlining that 'powerful women' are now in charge and making all the necessary change to save the world is just asking for divisor lines between the genders to be strengthened which will hold us all back in our progression. It's also the exact same scenario that we've already been living through for thousands of years, which hasn't done much for humanity or the planet. Stop the domineering, capitalist mindset and focus on making sound change and conservation.

There are plenty of men out there who've been helping to swing the pendulum of change, it's just their voices have been squelched along with everyone else's.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Big deal.
Posted by: bradford on May 1, 2007 9:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How come women didn't lead the fight to keep Bush out of the Whitehouse in 2000 and 2004? Instead, all they did was bash Hillary and support Bush because all the soccer moms wanted a "strong" leader.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who are the Republican tools of the fossil fuel lobby?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 1, 2007 12:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's nice to see some acknowledgement for people who are trying to make positive changes, but what about mentioning the ones who are opposing them? Here are a few names:

1)Dana Rohrbacher, R-CA

There are many others - see RFK - Republican fossil fuel lobby players

Of course, Bush and Cheney are at the top of the list.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's Too Late, Baby
Posted by: bandido on May 1, 2007 1:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's Too Late
Though You Really Tried To Make It
75% frogs
75% monkeys
75% turtles
all gone in Costa Rica

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THAT'S Why Men Are Better Leaders ...
Posted by: mythman on May 1, 2007 3:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... because they don't believe in fairy tales until they have to.

Women, on the other hand ... if you took a picture of me vomiting and one of a house burning down, and showed a woman both pictures at the same time; she would know that I breathe fire.

Same thing with carbon emissions and global warming ... NEWS FLASH: the carbon-emissions are built of the same stuff as clean air, and thus dissipate back into clean air if left alone.

Now, I'm not gonna buy a smoke-machine just to dare it to clog out the sun; and folks are naturally gonna want to buy cleaner cars and motors and things ... so government ought to provide more initiatives for people to stop being stupid and go cleaner. But not if you're still feeding them the infantile global-warming story!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Climate Hysteria -- a very shaky "science"
Posted by: johndoraemi on May 1, 2007 4:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do you know that CO2 changes lag behind temperature changes by centuries?

That the graph used by Gore in An Inconvenient Truth ignores that CO2 changes come after the temperature has already changed direction?

This is absolutely true.

They don't talk about that. And they don't talk about the natural variability of the earth's temperature, and OTHER causes of climate heating and cooling.

Did you know that the planet was more than 21deg. F hotter during the dinosaur period?

You can't pin that on man.

The earth heats and cools quite a bit without man's contribution. This is not well understood (or possibly understood at all by modern science), and long term predictions are impossible.

What they haven't done is proven their case that man is heating the planet. Until they do, I feel no obligation to cede national sovereignty to a draconian carbon rationing and worldwide taxation system. These people are very ambitious. I certainly don't accept more nuclear plants either.

The article talks about "pollution," but fails to mention that compact florescents contain toxic MERCURY in every bulb.

While taxing everyone to death for their fuel usage is "on the table", they never mention tide generation, and other alternatives that could change the world's energy usage. They fixate on using valuable farmland for ethanol, because this is already subsidized and will lead to fortunes for certain interests. Nuclear is back in vogue (Gore, Pelosi, Clinton, etc.), but if a hijacked airliner crashes into one, the problem becomes yours.

Take a look at this graph:

http://tinyurl.com/3bekvt

And think about it, hard, before you give me some ignorant knee-jerk talking point from a recent vapid news story.

http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Go for it
Posted by: Logic's Edge on May 1, 2007 6:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If this is a big item on the female or even feminist agenda, then I'm behind it 100%. The more voices that speak up, the sooner we can begin effective change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Will a change in U.S. leadership -- led by powerful women -- begin to reverse the dire direction in
Posted by: pfm on May 2, 2007 1:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One can only hope it will. Every effort will be expended by "man" to maintain the artifiical control "he" currently feels he exercises over mankind. In reality "power" on a universal level flows from woman.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

CO2 still hurts
Posted by: anh06005 on May 7, 2007 9:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I will agree with some people that global warming may NOT be occurring merely because of human kind--it could easily be a natural fluctuation in Earth's environment. These fluctuations have been evident in past "ages" and our rising temperatures and melting glaciers could be just a result of this.

I will NOT agree with these people, however, that the extra carbon dioxide we are emitting merely "dissipates" into our natural atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is affecting many organisms in their natural environment. Paricularly in the ocean because huge amount of CO2 can change the chemistry of the ocean itself. This has been proven to affect some marine organisms in a very NEGATIVE fashion. I do not want to go into a long drawn out speech, but if you want more information find and read "The Darkening Sea" by Elizabeth Kolbert. She does a great job in explaining the situation and findings.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]