This Is Our Last Chance
We at the National Wildlife Federation congratulate President-elect Obama on his victory and stand ready to assist him in every way possible at this critical moment in American history. In addition to two wars, an extraordinarily deep recession and staggering debt, the new administration faces a climate crisis that threatens to push the planet out of the so-called Holocene climate period and into temperature ranges that human civilizations and much of nature have never experienced.
After decades of procrastination, the climate crisis has reached the final moment of truth—we either act now or fail. At most, we have two years to sign into law a bold federal Climate Security Act, and a third year to gather 67 Senate votes to secure an international treaty to prevent a global-warming catastrophe.
As renowned climate scientist James Hansen recently told federal lawmakers on the 20-year anniversary of his first congressional testimony on climate change, this is our "last chance" to change course. The world around us has been in a period of profound ecological change, like an invisible cancer that has spread so far that the external signs of organ damage are now unmistakable. The Arctic is melting at a pace 50 years ahead of what scientists anticipated only a short while ago. Now radiating out over 900 miles, Arctic warming is defrosting tundra and overheating and killing boreal forests, releasing more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Unbridled carbon emissions are currently increasing at a speed that outpaces even the worst-case climate forecasts of the Fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in 2007.
With a president-elect who understands the enormous threat global warming poses and a new Congress coming in, we now have an unprecedented opportunity to put America on the path to a clean-energy future. The myth of "cheap fossil fuels forever" has finally burst and Americans have witnessed the enormous damage our dependency has done to our economy. Americans are once again looking to our government to solve key societal problems at a scale that could not have been imagined even a year ago. Public support for clean energy is at record high levels.
The American public is way ahead of the politicians. Last summer, former Vice President Al Gore issued a challenge to the American people to "Repower America" within ten years. More than two million people have already taken this challenge. In a recent poll conducted by National Wildlife Federation’s Action Fund, 81 percent of America’s sportsmen stated that the nation needs to set a bold new vision to have 100 percent clean energy sources for electricity in 10 years. And yet, the minimum that the science says we must do is well beyond what many politicians believe is politically feasible at this time.
When America had an energy crisis in the 1970s, U.S. lawmakers responded with the nation’s first fuel-efficiency standards and other sweeping changes. In contrast, last year, Congress responded to public outrage on energy by lifting bans on offshore oil drilling and authorizing the development of carbon polluting oil shale for transportation fuels—measures that will add two- or three-cars’ worth of carbon to the sky for every auto on the road that will be powered by carbon-belching oil shales. This is a shameful response to an urgent crisis that runs so much deeper than "drill, baby, drill."
Recent history suggests that, instead of responding with big changes, Congress may instead dress up small changes in big rhetoric—unless you and I hold each lawmaker accountable for responsible action. The United States still has the greatest intellectual and industrial resources in the world and we can—and must—solve the global warming crisis. As we approach the next climate treaty negotiations next year in Copenhagen, the eyes of the world will be upon us to show that we can still lead.
National Wildlife Federation is a part of the Repower America movement, and we are proposing our own set of grassroots actions to be carried out in concert with a number of other groups and institutions. We have nicknamed our efforts the "Clean in 10" climate campaign. Our goal: to inspire Americans to rapidly transform to a clean-energy economy that will be fully underway within the next decade.
With new leadership in the White House, we can spur a global revolution in zero-carbon energy that pulls us back from the brink of climate catastrophe and provides new economic opportunities in every town of America, and every nation of the world. Now that is something worth fighting for, and our children will be glad we did.
Larry Schweiger


What is the NWF stance on the lawful harvest of game animals? And what is NWF stance on the Second Amendment Rights of law abiding citizens, concerning firearms and accesories ownership? Please e-mail me a reply. Thank You!
Posted by: David Jackson | January 12, 2009 at 08:02 PM
In "A Question of Balance", William Nordhaus, Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale, argues strongly and eloquently that a carbon tax is the most effective and efficient way to reduce global warming. My guess is that at least 90% of economists in this country agree with him.
ExxonMobil has recently clearly announced its support of a carbon tax. BP and Chevron appear to do so as well, as do a number of coal companies.
Meanwhile NWF and other major environmental organizations, although arguing for others to take bold action, seem to avoid even discussing the idea themselves. I can only guess that this timidity arises from a fear of alienating their own members, of acknowledging that there are costs associated with combatting global warming and that everyone, not just the other guy, will need to bear some of those costs.
So I ask you now to be bold and to forcefully argue for a carbon tax. Without one, the environmental movement will turn out be the greatest losers.
Posted by: Nick Tingley | January 24, 2009 at 04:18 PM
You say that ‘Americans are once again looking to our government to solve key societal problems at a scale that could not have been imagined even a year ago.’. I’m sorry to sound like a Libertarian broken record (we have talked when you were at the Western PA Conservancy), but the irony is huge in this statement. Government caused the problem and, while I don’t doubt that Americans look to government to solve our problems, that is just myopic foolishness. The two biggest contributors to greenhouse gases are 1) a non-vegetarian diet, and 2) suburban development requiring cars. If government did not subsidize both, we would not be in this situation. Most people would eat a vegetarian diet and live, car-free, in cities, both from economic necessity. I leave the details for a future article to an investigative reporter to discover.
Here is one lead at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan:
The Livestock, Environment And Development Initiative, a joint effort of the World Bank, The European Union, The US Agency for International Development, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and others, released a report in November 2006 linking animal agriculture to environmental damage. The report, Livestock's Long Shadow [119] concludes that the livestock sector (primarily cows, chickens, and pigs) emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to our most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. It is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gases - responsible for 18% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalents. In comparison, the proportion of total CO2 emissions by passenger vehicles is 12% of the total CO2.[120] It produces 65% of human-related nitrous oxide (which has 296 times the global warming potential of CO2) and 37% of all human-induced methane (which is 23 times as warming as CO2). Those numbers are confirmed in a 2007 article in the British medical journal The Lancet, which concludes that reducing consumption of animal products should be a top priority, especially in developed countries where such a measure would also entail substantial health benefits.[121]
Posted by: Nicholas Kyriazi | March 18, 2009 at 11:48 AM