Category Archives: Blog

Our Climate is Shutting Down – Does Anyone Care About That?

As I write this, wall-to-wall coverage continues on the financial emergency brought on by our nation’s so-called Republican leaders. However, as damaging as the “fiscal cliff” is for hundreds of thousands of Americans, it pales in comparison to the human crisis we’ll all face if we go lemming-like over the climate cliff. We are heading there fast and furious, seemingly with blindfolds and earplugs on, as the nation is slow to come to grips with the full intensity of what we have brought to bear on ourselves, our children, their offspring and beyond.

I am a broadcast journalist who left mainstream media in part because of-pardon the expression- the gang-bang mentality of breaking news, regardless of the event’s actual real-world importance. After two decades of covering daily news, I grew weary of the “if it bleeds it leads” editorial approach to story selection. Granted, covering a changing climate, our energy challenges and the growing strain on natural resources from overpopulation and over consumption is less juicy than political scandals, Donald Trump‘s latest tirade or the omnipresent celebrity news. Yet stories about what we’re doing to our only home and its inhabitants seldom, if ever, get above-the-fold headline treatment, despite the irreversible impact of our actions.

There should have been headlines this week with release of the long-awaited Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. While the 2007 version included enough warnings to get us mobilized (or should have), the latest climate conclusions—based on consensus and conservative estimates—should be enough to awaken the slumbering masses. However, they likely won’t, in no small part due to the government shutdown occurring the same time those results were released to the public and a myopic media.

I’m not saying the US government hanging a “Gone Fishing” sign out at national parks, monuments and federal offices is not news—but if we can’t get wider, deeper and louder mainstream media coverage on the unfolding climate emergency when there IS news, we should know all too well what that means. Yesterday’s stories, even if they were inadvertently pushed aside, get discarded as proverbial fish-wrap…and that stinks because there truly is no time to spare. The IPCC report concludes, with 95% certainty, that humans are causing greenhouse gases to heat the planet’s atmosphere and oceans, and fuel more extreme weather events of the deadly kind.

Despite the rising heat, once again news of a warming climate gets put on the back burner, right next to the proverbial frog that is boiling so slowly it doesn’t know its fate. Unlike that frog, we don’t have any place to jump to for our safety—and while the government being closed for business has both direct and ripple effects on thousands of Americans, the long-lasting impacts of poisoned weather is already costing lives and causing hardship for victims of destructive tornadoes, drought, wildfire and floods. If scientists can now connect the green dots, wouldn’t the patriotic and prudent thing to do be to treat the threat as the crisis it truly is?

Imagine if the networks and newspapers did cover what’s happening to our life-supporting climate as if it really mattered. As if it mattered as much as a government shutdown. Day-in, day-out analysis, commentary and continued coverage—like what we’re witnessing now—would surely go a long way towards shattering what I call “the green ceiling”, that firewall which heretofore no programmer or syndicator has dared to cross. The resistance and downright refusal on the part of news media gatekeepers is something I know all too well, after fifteen years of trying to break through the barrier and get a dedicated program on national airwaves addressing our many eco-challenges and what we must do to avoid catastrophe.

When drought and heat waves are claiming livestock, livelihoods and human lives; tornadoes, floods and wildfires are leaving entire towns wrecked beyond recognition; and Americans are NOT feeling a sense of urgency and outrage at procrastinating representatives with their heads in the sand (and hands in the deep pockets of Koch Industries, ExxonMobil, and right-wing “think tanks”), something is really wrong with this picture. Even more so than the United States of America shutting itself down.

The common denominator and culprit in both of these man-made disasters is the influence of those who fear big government, higher taxes and lord knows what imagined wrath from Democrats, especially President Obama. What I don’t understand is why those fears—however misplaced—are so strong that they blind ideologues to the scariest prospect of all, going forward into an increasingly hostile climate that at some point will wreak havoc across the globe, perhaps even coming soon to a city near you.

Scientists say our climate is near the breaking point, or at least the point of no return. With greenhouse gases last measuring at 400 parts per million in the atmosphere and experts saying we have maybe two to five years—max—to slow the rate of emissions, why are we not getting into high gear and instead continuing to act as if its business as usual? Its politics as usual that is strangling us and when it comes to our climate, we don’t have very long to release the choke hold.

A fueled up Mother Nature is certainly not waiting for us to grow up and get our act together. So are we writing off our future—telling our kids we were too busy quibbling while home was burning? Why not take a vote on stopping that actual crisis before it really is too late? The political pendulum swings back and forth; the planetary pendulum, not so much.

The Green Elephant in the Room

As the New Jersey Shore’s “surreality” show continues to unfold on TV, one cannot help but note all the ads on CNN and Fox News from those that likely helped make such epic storms possible, or — at the very least — helped to make them worse. Commercials from the oil and coal industry pepper the coverage like so many reminders of what is not being discussed by the mainstream news media: the role our dependence on fossil fuels is playing in this unfolding mega disaster.

The numbers are staggering enough: some 60 million Americans directly impacted by Superstorm Sandy, at least 74 Americans dead, and, at last count up to 10 million people who lost power. When the electricity comes back on and the damage toll is tallied, the bill is likely to reach $20 billion or higher. And that does not include all the travel upheaval or the hit to the economy in general.

It seems the summer that brought us the worst drought in modern history, fires in dozens of states, and some 40,000 temperature records broken this year alone, is now being followed by an autumn that spawned Sandy, what some are already calling the Storm of the Century. Or, at least the latest one. With sand turning Atlantic City into a beach, the boardwalk into the broad wreck, homes broken in Hoboken, and more than 11 feet of floodwater on Wall Street with gale-force winds tossing cars around like matchsticks in Manhattan, you’d have to work for the coal and oil industry to miss the irony — as well as the tragedy — encompassed in the continued political silence on climate change…

While we know we can’t pin any one (mega) storm on climate disruption, there is no question but that warmer coastal waters are adding more precipitation and energy to these systems. And while the Arctic storm which is dumping snow on several eastern states cannot be blamed on Sandy, the collision of both at the same time makes for one hell of a hybrid weather event. And it’s not even winter yet.

Not all politicians are remaining silent on climate change. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo made my day when he declared, “Anyone who says there hasn’t been a dramatic change in weather patterns is in denial. We have a new reality and old infrastructures and old systems.” Well put.

And Rep. Ed Markey, longtime climate change champion and top Democrat on the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee, noted:

“For this superstorm to occur so late in the storm season, reach such fury, and have the kinds of flooding impacts that we are seeing, is fully consistent with what scientists have told us we should expect due to global warming. It’s time to admit the obvious fact that climate change is here. Warmer water in the Atlantic is fueling stronger storms, the seas are higher, and the dramatic changes in the Arctic are potentially altering the path of storms hundreds of miles away. Climate change is no longer some far off issue; it’s at our doorstep. We must consider how to address the underlying factors that are fueling these extreme weather events.”

Other than Green Party candidate Jill Stein, the presidential candidates are still mum and MIA on the connection between extreme weather and climate change. While Sandy has knocked both President Obama and Mitt Romney off the campaign trail, they are not getting on topic with the green elephant in the room: the likely arrival of climate change. While Sandy has impacted campaign schedules, she has not yet altered the agenda, let alone the day’s talking points.

Granted, last week the president briefly commented on a question about climate from a MTV interviewer. In the clip, Obama commented that he was surprised climate had not come up as a topic in the presidential debates. Of course, he could have brought the subject up himself in all the back and forth about coal and oil exploration.

But most Americans never heard that clip. Instead, CNN’s Anderson Cooper chose to play a softball question and answer excerpt about Malia and Sasha indicating the president’s views on climate just don’t seem to rank up there in importance with Obama’s privacy concerns about his daughters’ future use of Facebook.

Amidst all this comes ad after ad brought to you by your friends at, a coal industry association, and the American Petroleum Institute (API). One of AmericanPower’s ads attacking EPA regulations is particularly poignant in light of the stormy backdrop. It says “enough is enough” in reference to the agency fighting to protect our environment — and failing, in no small part, due to the fossil fuel industries spending more than $150 million to influence the outcome of this election alone. Enough is enough, indeed!

Here’s what the API has on their website about those pesky hurricanes that rudely interrupt the drilling:

Hurricane and tropical storm activity can put a strain on U.S. oil and natural gas operations, particularly if the storm tracks through the production-heavy Gulf of Mexico or makes landfall along the Gulf Coast region, which houses many of the nation’s refinery and natural gas processing centers. API has assembled this fact sheet to help consumers better understand the interconnected U.S. fuel supply system and what happens when a supply shock, such as a major hurricane, occurs.

I honestly don’t know what’s spookier — our changing climate or the success of the disinformation campaign, but I do know that on this Halloween, once again, there were tricks being played on the American people.

As Columbia professor and economist Jeffrey Sachs recently noted, “If you’re not scared you’re not properly informed on this suicidal and reckless trajectory of our energy policy.”

But here’s one way to get out of fear and into anger — and then action.

All you have to do is tune into Rush Limbaugh to hear him declare for the umpteenth time that “climate change is a hoax.” But he didn’t stop there, he went on to mention the long dead East Anglia “controversy,” dubbed “ClimateGate” by the fossil-fuel funded denialist industry, and had the nerve to mock 200 climate change activists who have been camped out in Massachusetts to bring attention to “climate silence” on the part of politicians, media and even the American citizenry. He thought it was hilarious that the rain from Superstorm Sandy ended the vigil a day early this week. Ironic indeed.

The other person mocking climate change, of course, is candidate Romney, or at least he did at the Republican National Convention. Given his smug remark on President Obama’s 2008 concerns about “the rising of the seas,” Romney now has wet mud splattered all over his face, as those rising seas overtook huge portions of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut this week. If the Democrats were smart in this too-close race, they’d be running ads with Romney’s snarky comment amidst the spectacle that is Sandy, devastation so surreal it reminds one of a couple of movies dismissed by many as hype: An Inconvenient Truth and The Day After Tomorrow.

With the election just a few days away — and with scientists giving us less than five years to turn the tide on fossil fuel dependence to avoid climactic catastrophe — one can only suspect that Mother Nature may be a Democrat. Regardless, the specter of climate change looms over us, as dangerous as the broken crane hanging over the Manhattan skyline — a fitting symbol perhaps for our broken climate… hanging in the balance.

The Reagan Fetish II: Greed Versus Green

Arguably the most pernicious aspect of President Reagan’s environmental legacy was the 1987 decision by his Federal Communications Commission to repeal the Fairness Doctrine, a nearly 40-year-old effort to ensure that broadcasters were legitimately fair and balanced in their presentation of controversial issues. The Fairness Doctrine worked quite well for the mainstream media, allowing the Fourth Estate to honor its charge to keep the public fully informed about the day’s issues.

For reasons that can only be construed as ideological, Reagan’s FCC decided to tamper with something that was working just fine, throwing out the Fairness Doctrine and setting the stage for the right-wing domination of talk radio. Just a year after the Fairness Doctrine was abolished, Rush Limbaugh’s Sacramento, Calif.-based brand of far-right talk was syndicated nationally, allowing his demonization of Democrats and denial of scientific facts to shape public discourse for the next two decades. A series of denialist demagogues soon emerged in his wake, convincing millions of Americans that the Democratic Party was a clear and present danger — and that the greatest threat to civilization in our time, climate change, was nothing more than a left-wing anti-capitalist plot.

Five years ago, James Wolcott noted the severity of the damage Limbaugh inflicted upon America’s understanding of climate science:

On his TV show in 1994, he mocked, “Environmentalist wackos of the past three years have been talking about global warming, and they’ve been suggesting that the Earth is warming to the point that [mock crying] ‘we’re all going to die. We’re all going to melt. We’re going to burn,’ and we just got perhaps the coldest winter on record going on in many parts of the United States.” Flash forward to February 2007 and Limbaugh is still seizing upon every frigid snap as proof that global warming is liberal propaganda. “There is one [article] in the L.A. Times today: ‘Game Over on Global Warming?’ with a question mark after it. It has some interesting statistics in it, but not one story — not one story — will we see about global warming maybe not being real, in the middle of record cold.” He appears to think that if there were true global warming the earth would crisp evenly like a baked apple.

Hence he is unperturbed by the plight of polar bears, because he is as certain as any self-intoxicated know-it-all can be that there is no plight, only contrived melodrama. Most of you innocents in the noncombatant world may not be aware that right-wing ideologues have drafted polar bears as political pawns; they — the ideologues, that is, not the polar bears — understand that these creatures, like penguins, have an adorable, vulnerable appeal to average people, and can arouse more sympathy and calls to action than any sheaf of scientific studies.

“That’s how they intend to infuse you with guilt, and to make you feel sympathetic and sorry,” Limbaugh explained on his February 5, 2007, polar-bear broadcast, “so that you will sit around and the next time Hillary Clinton wants to take $40 billion of Exxon profits for global warming you’ll let her do it because you’ll feel guilty over having caused all this!” Therefore Rush and his confederates have been making a full-court effort to debunk photos of polar bears stranded on ice — as if the one photo they debunk invalidates all the other ones out there — and to contend that their number is thriving.

Limbaugh’s mockery of the threat climate change poses to us all has been drilled, baby, drilled into so many heads — hour after hour, day after day, amplified by his AM and FM acolytes, now repeated by an entire television network created in his ignorant image. A full 95 percent of all talk radio shows are hosted by “conservatives.” Is it really any wonder we’ve been losing the public opinion battle on action needed to combat climate change? By repealing the Fairness Doctrine, Reagan effectively censored the truth about climate change on the radio dial, allowing disinformation and denialism to deceive those who needed to hear reality most of all. (Not for nothing does young ex-conservative Jonathan Krohn note the role right-wing talk radio played in leading him down the crazed corridor of conservatism.)

I look back upon my 15-year-long fight to bring eco-awareness to the radio airwaves and realize that the folks who told me that a green radio show would not be successful were in fact telling me that Reagan would not approve of such a show, or any show that did not parrot the right-wing narrative du jour. I realize that the firewall that prevented me from telling talk radio fans about the walls of fire that could consume us (and nearly did in Texas last summer and most recently in New Mexico and Colorado, etc.) if we did not take action was constructed by the politician Don Henley so accurately described as the “tired old man we elected king.” Because of Reagan’s destructive decision of a quarter-century ago, lies became profitable and truth became objectionable.

I can’t relate to the adoration and allegiance the right feels for Reagan. If only they felt as strongly about Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican who understood that true conservatism meant conserving our most precious natural resources that make all life possible! Notice how the Right’s Reagan reverence coincides with its incessant invective about his predecessor, President Carter, who tried to do something about our overdependence on foreign oil, who tried to move our country in a clean-energy direction.

Most strikingly, I admire Carter for moving solar panels onto the White House roof. And if there is anything I hold in lower regard than taking them off — which Reagan infamously did — I cannot imagine what it would be. What could be more stupid and short-sighted, even if only from a symbolic perspective, than removing objects which sole purpose is to save money and generate clean energy? The sad thing is that with the current crop of Republican leaders in Washington, and in this “climate,” such short-sightedness will happen again.

Sorry, my conservative friends, but Ronald Reagan is not my hero. I know you say he won the Cold War, but his actions caused our country — and our world — to lose ground in the war against warming. By abandoning President Carter’s commitment to clean energy, and by allowing the denialist right to dominate the airwaves millions of Americans trust, Reagan set us on the course to have a rendezvous with destiny, all right — a destiny that will mean undue suffering for my child, and the children of so many in this warming and worried world. This pain is avoidable, or might have been, if we had seen leadership grow, instead of retract, on our now mounting environmental challenges.

Ironic, isn’t it, that in his famous 1964 speech endorsing Barry Goldwater, he declared:

We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

Think about his actions as president, and try not to choke on your anger.

The Reagan Fetish

In his 2009 documentary Capitalism: A Love Story, Michael Moore noted that while the content of President Jimmy Carter’s July 1979 speech about our need to abandon fossil fuels for cleaner forms of energy was accurate, it was something that most Americans didn’t want to hear at the time. Most Americans preferred to hear the convenient lie that we would always have plentiful oil at low prices, and voted for the candidate who embraced that vapid vision—Ronald Reagan.

Moore argued in Capitalism: A Love Story that Reagan was, in essence, our first corporate president, hiding his devotion to the one percent behind his Hollywood smile. Certainly, his anti-environmental actions as president (remember Anne Gorsuch and James Watt, and his proclamation that trees were greater pollutants than cars?) revealed Reagan to be a man who chose to treat Mother Earth the same way he treated Angie Dickinson in his final film.

I’ve learned from fifteen years in the eco-trenches that the fight to protect our planet from pollution is more than just a fight against ExxonMobil or Charles and David Koch; it’s ultimately a fight against the Reagan legacy. In order to have any real chance of holding off the havoc that our best climate scientists have predicted, those on the green side of the aisle must tear down the walls of red-state Reagan glorification.

In 1975, Reagan told Reason magazine, “…I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.” He certainly must have believed that, for “Reagan conservatism” was little more than a euphemism for corporate libertarianism—an ideology that sees the EPA as the ultimate enemy, and Big Oil as the ultimate friend.

Reagan sold millions of Americans on the fiction that we could all be masters of the universe—that we could have unlimited growth powered by cheap energy. This was the core of his November 1979 speech announcing his challenge to President Carter. Reagan rejected Carter’s assertion that American conspicuous consumption had to end for the sake of our economy and our environment. Though the term did not exist at the time, he suggested that Carter’s warning was just so much political correctness. Is it any wonder then that author and Stanford professor Paul Ehrlich recently noted that “…[S]tarting with Ronald Reagan, almost all the advances that have been made in environmental protection in the United States and the world have been reversed…”

However, Carter’s warning was correct. Our dependence on foreign oil continues to imperil our national security. Our military has embraced clean energy (much to the consternation of fossil-fueled Republicans in Congress) not only to combat the climate crisis, but also to avoid the expense in money and manpower caused by a over-reliance on oil. That the Republicans who have attacked, and voted against, the military’s clean-energy efforts purport to be patriots is an absurd and unfunny joke.

If you asked these Republicans which politician they admire the post, all of them would likely say Reagan. That’s the problem. There is a direct link between Reagan idolatry and hostility to the idea that we need to do anything about climate change. To take the climate crisis seriously is to seriously reconsider the way we use energy and the way we consume resources. If your political hero is someone who convinced Americans that consumption and unlimited growth were by definition good, you’ll never accept the need for climate action.

How does one conquer the cult of Reagan? This is arguably the eco-challenge of our time. How do we convince our fellow conservative citizens that Reagan sold them a bill of goods? Is it even possible? Rather than reason with people who see Reagan as a quasi-deity, doesn’t it make more sense to simply defeat the Republicans these people support at the ballot box?

I can certainly understand being pessimistic about convincing Reagan admirers that their guy was wrong on energy and the environment. Perhaps the best way to reach out to them is to encourage them to follow Reagan’s famous advice: “Trust, but verify.”

The next time they tell you about a senior fellow at a conservative think tank who denies manmade climate change, ask them if they know the oil-based sources of that think tank’s funding. (Remind them of the controversy surrounding ExxonMobil’s donations to the denialist Competitive Enterprise Institute.)

The next time they tell you that Rush Limbaugh (or Sean Hannity, or Glenn Beck, or Mark Levin, or Laura Ingraham, or any other nationally syndicated talk-radio multi-millionaire) has insisted that it’s all a hoax, ask them if that host has ever acknowledged Margaret Thatcher’s warnings about global warming.

The next time they tell you that Reagan would have never embraced “cap and tax,” ask them why it has never been mentioned in conservative media that “Ronaldus Magnus” actually did.

And the next time a Reagan acolyte reels off another tired climate crock—“it stopped in 1998,” “Climate-gate was real,” “all the scientists predicted global cooling in the ‘70s”—just give them a big smile, and in your best faux-Ronnie voice say, “There you go again…”

A Challenge on Mother’s Day

There were several developments last week on the climate front that left me deeply disheartened and angry. As a broadcast news journalist turned green radio activist, I am dismayed by these ominous tidings. As a mother, I am outraged, and you should be too.

Whether or not you have a child, grandchild, nieces or nephews in this world, you should know there is an all-out war underway to harm their future and the future of all life on the planet. If that sounds apocalyptic, well, it is, according to James Hansen, NASA’s top climate scientist. Dr. Hansen recently wrote a gripping op-ed piece about the Keystone pipeline signaling “game over” for our climate. If presidential approval is given to allow oil to be extracted from Canadian tar sands and piped down to Texas oil refineries, the energy intensive extraction process will release enough greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to help move us into the danger zone. As you might guess, Hansen means “game over” not in any sports context but in terms of the ultimate American challenge: Will we do what is necessary to avert climactic disaster for generations to come? This reality is unfolding now but the drama will not be broadcast on any station near you: Our planet’s fate is a little TOO real for prime time.

Those of us watching the planet’s ecological emergencies grow exponentially more serious — and working to help change our course — are accustomed to this type of daily doomsday commentary from the experts. We only wish it were not true, but we know better. If you’ve been living under a rock, somehow missing reports of all the record weather events — and ensuing death, damage and destruction — you should start subscribing to Climate Progress or The Daily Climate and you too, will soon wake up and smell the carbon.

The events that sparked the ire of many are so disgusting and discouraging as to give me pause in committing to this work of eco-consciousness raising. It is now painfully clear that our biggest obstacle is not just a matter of informing a distracted multitasking public about our environmental urgencies — a daunting enough challenge since the clock is ticking. A far darker monster has raised its ugly head and it’s growing more legs everyday. First the ultraconservative Heartland Institute posted a Chicago billboard equating climate change believers with extremists like Unabomber Ted Kaczynski. It was taken down after an outpouring of outrage, but that trial balloon was enough to burst my bubble in not believing fossil fuel funded deniers were that evil — misguided, yes, but evil no. Actually, unequivocally, yes, given what happened later in the week.

As seeming proof of the effectiveness of the lobbyist’s disinformation campaigns, on Tuesday came word from Stanford researcher, Jon Krosnick, Ph.D., that public support for curbing climate change has slipped significantly in the past two years, particularly among Republicans. Support for various steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions has dropped an average of ten percentage points since 2010 from 72 percent to 62 percent, according to Krosnick, who notes that most of the 62 percent “hate the idea of consumer taxes to do it.” If that sounds like public opinion influenced by radically “conservative” politicians, libertarians and right wing media, you guessed… right. While nobody loves to pay taxes, given the scope of the planetary emergency posed by climate extremes, it will take attacking the problem on all fronts. It must include voting for eco-savvy leadership to help Americans understand the need for all of us to contribute to the solution, and not just monetarily. Why not start diverting a fraction of the millions going to military purposes to address the war on warming? Simply put, not doing so will doom us, and mostly our offspring.

But back to the research and on to the real outrage. As if it’s not disturbing enough that during a period of unprecedented changes in the atmosphere, oceans and the world’s disappearing rainforests, public opinion has gone in exactly the wrong direction (and for that you can thank the DIC, or “Denial Industrial Complex,” according to Joe Romm of Climate Progress). While the right wing controls 95 percent of talk radio and shows on the Fox network continue to dismiss climate change as a hoax, too many busy Americans are not tuning in to their environment, our life support system. That trend – just as Mother Nature appears to be trying to tell us something — is reason enough to despair, for those of us who know what it portends. However, the other development is the one that put this mother over the top.

On Tuesday the Guardian reported that “a network of ultra-conservative groups is ramping up an offensive on multiple fronts to turn the American public against wind farms and Barack Obama’s energy agenda.” The article goes on to report that “a number of right wing organizations, including Americans for Prosperity, which is funded by the billionaire Koch brothers, are attacking Obama for his support of solar and wind power. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which also has financial links to the Kochs, has drafted bills to overturn state laws promoting wind energy.” There is more, including mention of a new loose coalition of fossil fuel industry interests linked to — you guessed it — the Koch brothers.

There are no words for just how outrageous, sinister, greedy and evil these efforts and people are — proof positive they will stop at nothing to destroy the future to protect their own short term interests (to hear what happened when we found words to describe this atrocity, and hear from Peter Kelley of the American Wind Energy Association, check out this week’s show at

And as if the cognitive dissonance was not making my head scream enough, to put a point on all this madness, Friday came word that Saudi Arabia is unveiling a $100 billion plan to make solar “a driver for domestic energy for years to come.” So even the world’s largest producer of oil understands the value of developing renewable energy (while America’s fossil fools declare war on it). This coming a few months after Saudi Arabia’s oil minister called global warming “among humanity’s most pressing concerns.” It looks as though we’ll continue to be energy dependent on Saudi Arabia in the future. While they bask in the sunshine they’ll be happy to sell us their oil, thereby increasing our debt and further decreasing our chances of a stable ecology and robust economy.

On the positive side, Thursday brought good news from Progressive Democrats Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Keith Ellison (D-MN). They unveiled a bill to end subsidies to the oil, coal and natural gas industries. The bad news is that the bill reportedly doesn’t stand a chance in hell of passing.

So, on this Mother’s Day, falling as always just weeks after Earth Day, I ask all of you mothers (and others) out there, just how much do you love your kids? What about your country and planet? Enough to stand up and let your voices be heard, to take a break from the daily activities to take some action? I, for one, am “steamed” enough to consider launching a Green Tea Party to raise the volume on the outrage more Americans would feel if they truly understood what was at stake. While Tea Partiers — all of whom have proudly declared that climate change is not a problem — were angry about high taxes, we should be angry about high (greenhouse) gases! Why?

Because — like it or not, America — we are in hot water and before we reach the boiling point, we should ‘steep’ ourselves in science, infuse ourselves with information, and together come up with a solution that will ensure we do not damn our children, and theirs, to a future too hot to handle.

Happy Mothers Day and if you want to make my day, email me at
and tell me “you are in” on a Green Tea Party. And while you’re at your computer, please write your representative and tell them to start showing some love for Mother Nature, or leave it.


Broadcast Archives