If you care about the air you breathe, the water you drink, stopping climate change, and reducing your family’s exposure to toxic chemicals, it is absolutely essential that you vote in the 2020 election. But with Coronavirus raging, the U.S. Postal Service under assault, and record turnout expected, many of us wonder what is the best way to vote in 2020 so we also stay safe and make sure our vote counts.

The absolute best way to vote in 2020 is actually pretty simple for most of us:

BEST WAY TO VOTE IN 2020? VOTE EARLY

Here’s how:

REGISTER: Make sure you’re registered to vote. Use this site to check your registration status if you’re unsure or need to register. In most states, it is quick and easy to register.

PLAN: Vote early in person, or vote at home using an absentee ballot. Find out how to vote early in your state here.

IF VOTING EARLY IN PERSON: Find out when your state’s polls open and pick a day to vote. Several states have already begun in-person early voting. Others will open in October. Choose your day and time. Probably mid-day during the week when others are working or homeschooling would mean fewer crowds.

IF ABSENTEE VOTING AT HOME: Request an absentee ballot NOW. Each state decides for itself how it handles absentee ballots. You can find out how to do it in your state here. This map shows early voting options state-by-state.

DROP YOUR BALLOT IN AN OFFICIAL BALLOT BOX: If possible, vote early and put your ballot in an official ballot box. You can also mail in your ballot. If you choose to mail it, mail it as soon as possible.

Why is Voting Early the Best Way to Vote in 2020?

Beat the Crowds. Presidential elections are always big events. But this year, so much is at stake, voter turnout is expected to be particularly high. Voting early will help you beat the crowds but also help state elections boards handle the huge influx of votes they expect.

Avoid Coronavirus. Voting early also could help you avoid exposure to the Coronavirus. Especially if you vote at home and then drop your ballot off at an official drop box, you will minimize your contact with other voters and limit your chances of getting COVID-19.

Help the Post Office. If you decide to mail in your ballot, voting early gives the U.S. Postal Service more time to deliver your ballot (though the USPS says it is fully committed to delivering all ballots in a timely way).

Inspire Others. Once you vote early, you can turn your attention to helping others vote. Use your social media to share links to websites in your state that help you register, get your ballot, or vote early in person.

How to Stay Safe If You Vote in Person

If you decide to vote in person, wear a mask and use hand sanitizer.

Don’t Miss:

6 Best Non-Toxic Hand Sanitizers That Kill Coronavirus

5 Plastic-Free Reusable Cotton Face Masks To Outlast Coronavirus

Stand 6 feet away from the person in front of you and behind you.

Know if advance who you plan to vote for, so when you get to the ballot box, your can quickly make your selections and leave. You can find out what’s on your ballot here.

Do not linger at the polls and around crowds of other voters. Minimize contact with other voters.

Vote For Candidates Who Support Protecting the Environment and Our Health – But Not Third Party Candidates!

No matter when you vote, choose candidates for every office – president, governor, Senator, Representative, mayor, local statehouse office holders – who are committed to protecting the environment, stopping climate change, and safeguarding our health.

Don’t miss this “open letter” to voters who might be inclined to vote for the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, or other third party candidates. This is not the year to cast a “symbolic” vote. Too much is at stake!

How Do You Plan to Vote in 2020? Please go to the Big Green Purse Facebook page and share your plan!

The post Here Is The Absolute Best Way to Vote in 2020 appeared first on Big Green Purse.

Stupid. Short-sighted. Ignorant. And just plain wrong. Those were the words going through my head as I watched Pres. Trump announce he wanted to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Accord.

The Accord is a voluntary agreement by every country on earth but two – Syria, and Nicaragua – to commit to reducing the build-up of greenhouse gases that cause climate change.

Climate change, also known as global warming, is the most serious environmental threat the world has ever faced.

It took decades to get global agreement to address the problem, an agreement the United States helped broker under President Obama.

It would have helped create jobs, reduce air pollution, improve public health, and increase energy security by speeding up our use of solar and wind – domestic energy sources that we, and we alone control.

Instead, Trump brought down the wrath of many Americans, as well as the leaders and citizens of virtually every country around the world, by rejecting the Accord in favor of supporting burning more coal. To all the above words, add this one: DUMB!

Burning coal releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to build up and raise the earth’s global temperatures. Another side effect of burning coal? It releases deadly soot and toxic particles into the air, causing levels of pollution that contribute to asthma, heart disease, respiratory infections, and cancer.

Minutes after Trump’s announcement, I was on my way to a protest across the street from the White House. I joined at least a thousand other citizens in rejecting the decision and proclaiming that America’s sorry excuse for a president couldn’t rein in the global momentum that has built to save our planet and indeed, life as we know it.

Said one friend who saw this photo of me standing outside the White House, “You looked pissed.” Yes! To say the least!!

A week later, I’m still mad. But I’m also determined. Because as irresponsible as Trump’s actions are, they have also empowered millions of people to defiantly step forward and say:

“President Trump:
You do not speak for us.
You do not control us.
And we will do what you refuse to do:
Solve the biggest environmental problem the world has ever faced.”

That’s what I intend to do, and I’m going to help you do so, as well.

In the coming days, I’ll be offering you a series of helpful articles filled with action steps that show what we can do as individuals and communities to stop the build-up of carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere.

I’ll tackle everything from using energy more efficiently to wasting less food to plugging in our cars and riding our bikes to voting and helping to elect candidates to public office who will work to stop climate change locally and nationally.

If there’s anything in particular you want me to address, please let me know in the comments below.

Ask your friends and family what they want to know, too.

Trump may be the president, but as Malcolm in the Middle used to say, “You’re not the boss of me.”

Let’s show Trump who actually is boss – now, in the way we use energy ourselves, and ultimately, at the polls.

The post Trump Paris Climate Accord Withdrawal Robs America of Jobs, Health, Safety, Security appeared first on Big Green Purse.

On Friday, November 4, the Paris Agreement on climate change is set to formally go into effect. It aims to stop climate change in its tracks by significantly reducing the emissions that cause global warming while increasing the amount of energy we get from clean solar and wind power.

Whether those goals are achieved depends  on who the people of the United States elect to be their next president four days later.

Hillary Clinton favors the Paris Agreement and will help America lead the effort to replace climate changing coal and oil with clean, healthy, jobs-producing renewable fuels.

Donald Trump wants to reopen coal mines and actually increase America’s use of the fossil fuels that pollute our air, make us and our kids sick, and perpetuate the natural disasters climate change has been fueling since Hurricane Katrina.

There is no doubt in my mind that all the progress we’ve made on climate change over the last eight years will come to a screeching halt if Trump prevails.

But he won’t – not if we all get out and vote, and get our friends, family and neighbors to do the same.

Facts to Keep In Mind

√ We just wrapped up the hottest summer since global record-keeping began in 1880.

√ Arctic sea ice, a key indicator of long-term climate change, fell to 28 percent below the 40-year average in September, tying 2007 figures for the lowest levels in the 47-year satellite record, reports the Natural Resources Defense Council.

√ Last year was the hottest year ever recorded. The first nine months of this year have been even hotter, a record 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th Century average.

√ Nineteen of the hottest years on record have all occurred in the past 20 years.

How does that actually affect us?

⇒  Sea level is rising, swamping our homes and neighborhoods and threatening hundreds of billions of dollars worth of property, roads and favorite vacation spots, from New Orleans to Boston, from Florida to Texas, and even along the Great Lakes

⇒ Storms are drenching us. Flooded communities in North and South Carolina are still trying to recover from Hurricane Mathew, even while neighborhoods in Louisiana still struggle from the effects of Hurricane Katrina

⇒ Drought is stretching our drinking water supplies to the limit and creating so much parched land that some of our most beautiful heritage forests are catching fire and going up in smoke.

⇒ Poison ivy is getting worse as it thrives in the hothouse conditions that global warming is causing.

⇒ Mosquitoes are posting a bigger threat, too, as they spread farther north, live longer as the seasons extend, and spread diseases that used to be restricted to a narrow band in the tropics.

The threat is clear. So is our choice on Election Day.

Vote to Stop Climate Change

Hillary Clinton has been a strong proponent of stopping climate change since the first day of her campaign.

She has vowed to clean up dirty power plants and switch to solar and wind.

She supports building the next generation of energy-efficient cars, homes and workplaces.

And she knows that we can create millions of good-paying American jobs by becoming the clean energy superpower of the 21st Century.

Donald Trump is one of those people who has been discredited by over 99% of the scientific community: a climate “denier.”

He’s called climate change a “hoax” and is eager to roll back decades’ worth of climate progress.

He would squash President Obama’s signature climate change program, the 2015 Clean Power Plan. The Plan will reduce the carbon pollution from the dirty power plants that account for 40 percent of our nation’s carbon footprint.

He wants to “cancel” the Paris climate accord, which would not only be a set back for our own country, but would seriously tarnish our standing on the world stage, too.

He would actually try to accelerate how much coal and oil we burn. It would be HUUUUUGE.

You can stop climate change – by stopping Trump.

If you can still vote early, do it (here I am about 5 minutes after I voted!)

If you can volunteer, sign up here. You can help by canvassing, phone banking, and otherwise working to get people to the polls.

If you plan to vote on election day, know where your polling place is. You can plug in your zip code here to find the right location.

If you have friends, neighbors or family who need help getting to the polls, offer to drive them or get them a ride.

If you’re a lawyer, get trained in voter protection and staff a polling place to prevent voter intimidation.

If you’re active on Facebook and Twitter, encourage your communities to vote.

In other words, whatever you can do, do it.

But first and foremost, vote.

The post On Nov. 8, Vote to Stop Climate Change appeared first on Big Green Purse.

When it comes to protecting the environment and promoting a clean renewable energy future, where do Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump stand? Yale Environment 360* pulled together this very useful comparison, which shows a sharp divide between the two candidates, especially when it comes to climate change, renewable energy, and the value placed on scientific research.

Please share this post on your social media! As the comparison shows, the progress we’ve made in curtailing climate change, protecting the air we breathe, and increasing our access to solar and wind power is at stake in this election! Just use our social media share buttons above, or cut and paste this link to send out. Thank you.

* Reprinted with permission from Yale Environment 360.

The post Clinton, Trump, the Environment: Where Do They Stand? appeared first on Big Green Purse.

That may sound extreme – until you consider the
utter devastation Super Storm Sandy has caused in New
Jersey, New York, and in
many communities along America’s East Coast, including in my own backyard.
Storms like Sandy, hurricanes like Katrina in the Gulf Coast, the spread of
poison ivy and dengue fever in many parts of the U.S., are all part of the same
extreme weather conditions we’re experiencing nationwide – and will continue to
experience unless we make a national commitment to reduce
our use of the coal, oil, and other fossil fuels

On Tuesday, as I write here, we have a choice. We can either elect a President and legislators who support strategies that will reduce our dependence on coal, oil and other fossil fuels that, when burned, emit the carbon dioxide that is wreaking havoc on our climate. Or we can vote for candidates who refuse to acknowledge that climate change is real and requires immediate action.

In this first-ever Green Moms election carnival, many women
who regularly blog about environmental health and safety have come together to raise
awareness about why it’s so important that we all vote on Tuesday. In many states, President Barack Obama, who advocates strong policies to stop climate change, is running neck and neck with challenger Mitt Romney, who heretofore has rejected the need for national policies to stop climate disruption. Please read these important posts and share them as widely as you can.

VOTE TO STOP MORE SANDY’s

Many women in our group have been personally
impacted by Sandy’s fury.

Ronnie of Eco-Nesting titled her post, “Sandy’s Wake Leaves a Clear Choice,” as she reflected on the storm’s $10 billion to $30 billion impact on her native New York. “The east coast has a new reality…freaky Frankenstorms and Superstorms. Why? Because we have hotter than normal sea surface temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean. This means heavier rainfall and stronger winds. This means higher sea levels and increased coastal flooding. This means increased storm surges. This means the warning signs of global warming have breached the planet’s levee and they can’t be ignored any longer…a clear choice has blown through the broken windows, boardwalks, airports, subways, power lines and our presidential election.

“The energy commitments our next president makes will affect the Frankenstorms and Superstorms my children and their children will suffer. Our next president must take global warming seriously and do something about it. Politicians in climate denial are upending nothing less than our children’s future and they will not get my vote. How about yours?”

Harriet at Climate Mama has devoted her blog to raising national awareness of the way our changing climate can disrupt our world. But Sandy brought it all home to her. “This storm should serve as a “wake up call” and force each of us to “connect the dots” and consider how our individual and collective actions have been and will shape our world and that of our neighbors, country and future generations.” Harriet took this picture in her neighborhood. The tree didn’t crush her house…this time.

As for voting, Harriet wisely notes, “Climate change isn’t red, blue, white or fuchsia, and it shouldn’t be a partisan or political issue; however it has become one, particularly in the United States of America. A major party in this country has been “occupied” by climate deniers, forcing their way into and onto the party platform. This can no longer be condoned, ignored or denied. When the polls open on Tuesday, and in those areas where there is early voting, climate change and how we will confront its impacts on our economy, on job creation and on our future and our children’s future needs to be considered and should BE one of the most important deciding factors.”

VOTE TO PROTECT OUR KIDS

Don’t miss the moving reasons why Katy at Non-Toxic Kids says she’s voting. Among them: “I’m voting because I want a better world for my kids. I want them to breathe clean air, eat clean food, and live in healthy communities with strong schools.”

Lori at Groovy Green Livin’ is voting to give kids a voice, and she hopes you will, too. “There are so many issues at stake that are near and dear to my heart and I’m frightened,” she writes. “Please don’t take your right to vote for granted. Take the time on Tuesday to head to the polls and exercise your voice and your right to vote in favor of those issues that matter most.  Think of it as using your voice to speak for those who can’t-whether it’s a child or someone who is unable to catch a ride to the polls. I’m voting on Tuesday for my children and all of yours. Won’t you join me?”

VOTE TO PROTECT WOMEN

VOTE TO MAKE OUR COMMUNITIES MORE SUSTAINABLE

Susan of Practically Green stresses that it’s important to support candidates who commit to solving environmental problems, but we need to focus on individual and collective actions that will reduce climate change and make our communities healthier and greener for future generations, too. “We can always vote for people locally and nationally that understand this is really, really important. By focusing on what we can do, and moving forward one step at a time, our collective actions will add up and will make a difference.”

Paige at Spit That Out The Book says, “When voting for a candidate for national office, my top priority is generally environmental policy. I believe rising oceans are not something to joke about, and any candidate who mocks climate change or puts industry interests above safer chemicals is not going to win my favor. After all, when we are poisoning our children and destroying our planet, how can that not trump everything else?”

Leigh Ann at Green 4 U reminds us of questions we need to ask all candidates when we’re considering awarding something as precious as our vote. Among them: “Given that our climate is changing what do you propose to do if elected to help keep the greenhouse gases and other contributing factors from increasing? How do you propose to better prepare the federal government for disaster recovery for the extreme weather caused by climate change?”

VOTE TO GIVE US THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT WE’RE FACING

Though climate change has jumped front and center into the electoral debate, it is not the only important issue voters will decide this year.

Mary at In Women We Trust reminds voters how important it is to support Proposition 37, a California ballot initiative that would simply require food producers to label products that contain genetically modified organisms. Mary points out that it’s primarily giant conglomerates who oppose having to own up to how they’re producing the food we eat. “Please vote YES for the right to know what’s in your foodchain,” Mary implores.

In a second post, Mary compares two political strategies competing for voters’ attention in this election: a cynical plot to collect votes by generating false fears, versus an effort to remind people that we can still have a world of hope and change.” When she votes on Tuesday, says Mary, she’ll be voting for compassion and common sense, not hate.

Marcia Yerman at Moms Clean Air Force wants voters to know about the outsized influence companies and operatives like the infamous Koch brothers are having on this election and on America’s environmental policies. “The efforts to stymie the President in his agenda to improve our health standards throughEPA regulations have been spearheaded by monied influences–not only in the Presidential race—but down the ticket as well. Rep. Henry Waxman has stated that the 112^th Congress is “the most anti-environmental house in history.” A year ago, Waxman launched adatabase of anti-environmental votes. A June 1, 2012 report illustrated how House Republicans have voted to diminish environmental protections. There were 77 votes to attack the Clean Air Act, and 37 votes to obstruct any forward movement to tackle climate change.” Talk about hijacking democracy!

VOTE FOR CHANGE

Harriet at Climate Mama survived Sandy better than most. But seeing the destruction so close at hand has reminded her how important it is to speak out – and to vote. “While I try to refrain from bringing politics into our blog posts on ClimateMama,” she writes,  “I feel we have no choice but to discuss politics now. Mother Nature, through Sandy, says we must and we have to.

“From my vantage point, I see that the Republican party has been co-opted and taken hostage by many climate deniers who not only won’t put short and long term fixes for climate change on the agenda, but they vehemently deny the fact and reality of man made climate change. Too many in the party are demanding that we continue to invest in fossil fuels and the infrastructure that will keep us reliant and addicted to this form of energy that scientists tell us IS causing our climate to change. This is a path that is leading to “mutually assured destruction,” a concept from the cold war, video games, movies and now once again real life.

“There is too much at stake not to discuss this on the eve of what may be the most important presidential election of our time.”

Please. Vote.

The post Vote on Tuesday. Your Life Depends on It. appeared first on Big Green Purse.

Are we “greener” than we were four years ago?

Yes, we are, and Barack Obama deserves a lot of the credit.

Despite strident anti-environmental opponents on Capitol Hill, President Obama has managed to use the power of his office – deployed primarily through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the U.S. Department of the Interior – to make our air and water cleaner, to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, to protect our public lands, and to attack the climate change that causes extreme weather events like Hurricane Sandy.

Is his job done? Not by a long shot. But are we making progress? Definitely. I’m supporting the President for a second term because I think he offers our best hope in this election to continue to make progress
in the future. 

This all became extremely clear to me earlier this week, as Hurricane Sandy was ripping away part of my roof. While I huddled in my basement listening to the terrifying wind and the torrential rain, I found myself getting mad, not just about what it would cost me to repair the damage, but about the reasons behind this catastrophic storm. Meteorologists, scientists, environmentalists, public health professionals, concerned citizens, and yes, President Obama, have all made the link between burning fossil fuels like coal and oil and extreme weather events like Sandy, let alone Hurricane Katrina and many others. And they’ve tried to throw the weight of their various offices behind solutions that would help wean us from fossil fuels.

Meanwhile, conservative forces in Congress and many state houses around the country have blocked legislation that would reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and opposed efforts to increase energy efficiency and the development of renewable energy sources like solar and wind. Bolstered by their conservative colleagues on Capitol Hill and pressured by Tea Party activists, Republican challenger Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, his running mate, have dismissed climate change, have
literally said they “love” coal, and would strive to cripple the EPA if they were elected to office.

Maybe to some people, this is just “talk.” But as someone who has worked in Washington, D.C. to promote environmental protection during the Carter years, the Reagan years, the Bush 1 years, the Clinton years, the Bush 2 years, and now the last four years of the Obama Administration, I can say, and say unequivocally, that environmental policy consistently fares worse under Republican administrations than under Democratic ones. As Sandy has shown, the planet very much faces a climate change tipping point. Obama is on one side, Romney on the other. For me, siding with Obama is a no brainer.

Has Obama accomplished nearly enough? No.

Do I wish more change had happened? Of course.

 But we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Though President Obama did not mastermind enough legislative victories, he used the power of the Executive Office to achieve many significant environmental gains. It is reasonable to assume that Romney would use his office equally to undercut them.

 I support the re-election of President Obama.

 FOR THE RECORD…
Here is a run-down of some of the major environmental achievements of the Obama Administration, compared to the positions of challenger Mitt Romney.

Cleaner Air

Under directives from President Obama, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency managed to push through the first-ever national safeguards to reduce mercury and arsenic in our air and establish carbon dioxide limits for
power plants. (Romney hopes to eliminate EPA’s power to regulate carbon dioxide and remove rules that limit
emissions from coal plants.) 

Former EPA administrator Carol Browner said the safeguards “are preventative medicine—they will annually forestall thousands of premature deaths, hospitalizations, and respiratory ailments.”

The American Lung Association’s analysis of air pollution shows that all 25 of the cities with the worst ozone pollution in the last report have improved, and 23 of the 25 worst particulate-matter cities are getting cleaner.

All in all, the President used the Clean Air Act to issue six major environmental rules, including ones that limit toxic air pollutants, greenhouse gases, soot, and smog-forming pollutants.

By pretty much any measure, America’s air is cleaner today than it was four years ago.

Energy

President Obama has issued an Executive Order on Federal Sustainability requiring Federal agencies to set a 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction target; increase energy efficiency; reduce fleet petroleum consumption; conserve water; reduce waste; support sustainable communities; and leverage Federal purchasing power to promote environmentally responsible
products and technologies.

President Obama rejected the initial northern half of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would run from Canada to Texas, although he has deferred a final decision. Though the President proposed opening more offshore areas to oil and gas drilling, he has maintained a drilling moratorium off the Pacific and most of the Atlantic coasts. He is seeking federal safety standards for hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, a process by which natural gas is extracted, and opposes $4 billion in annual tax breaks for oil and gas companies. (Romney supports the Keystone XL pipeline, supports opening all our public lands to oil and gas development, including America’s Arctic Wildlife Refuge, and supports giving more tax breaks to oil and gas companies.)

President Obama is the first president to allow public lands to be opened to solar projects. He has also  approved
17 utility-scale projects with a capacity of 5,900 megawatts, enough to power about 1.8 million homes. The Department of the Interior has continued to support renewable energy initiatives, including six on-shore wind facilities with 800 megawatts of capacity and eight geothermal plants with 424 megawatts of capacity. In total, these projects will generate enough energy to power 2.3 million homes.

The President supports extending federal tax credits for utility-scale wind projects and favors loan guarantees and grant programs for green energy companies. (Romney opposes both.)

Overall, today we get twice as much energy from wind, solar and geothermal sources than we did four years ago.

How does that compare with the Republican approach to energy? The House Republican budget is aiming to cut the Department of Energy’s Office of Science and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, both of which have played an essential role in America’s quest to achieve energy independence. In fact, reports Juliet Eilperin in the Washington Post, cuts the Republicans recommend would trigger a 19 percent reduction in funding for clean energy – despite the irrefutable evidence that clean energy is the primary solution to climate change.

Further, reports Eilperin, last month, urged on by several business and energy groups, the GOP-controlled House passed the Stop the War on Coal Act, which would reverse several Obama regulations and proposals. It would bar the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases, jettison the stricter fuel standards and give states primary authority over the storage and disposal of coal-combustion waste. Fortunately, that bill has little chance in the Democratic-controlled Senate, and will have no chance at all if President Obama is re-elected.

Fuel Economy

The Obama Administration’s new fuel economy standards are projected to save consumers $1.7 trillion at the pump by 2025 while avoiding 6 billion metric tons of carbon pollution, an amount  equal to total U.S. carbon emissions in 2010. Obama’s standards for new vehicles, Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, was quoted
saying in the Washington Post, rank as “the biggest move to get us off our oil dependence by any president ever.” The rules, which took effect this year, will require the U.S. auto fleet to average 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.

Vehicles are more efficient today than they were four years ago, a trend that will continue for the next 13 years…unless Romney reverses the rule.

Wilderness – The Grand Canyon and Yellowstone National  Park

At the President’s direction, the federal Bureau of Land Management announced a ban on new hard rock mineral leasing and mining (primarily for uranium) in a million acres of wild lands adjacent to Grand Canyon National Park.  The mining ban will protect important wildlife habitat and water quality that complement the park’s natural systems.

Obama has also advised all federal agencies with a role in land stewardship to consider the potentially catastrophic effects of climate change when developing their management plans. Crown jewels like Yellowstone National Park may not be suitable for many of the animals living there in the next century. Federal agencies there have been asked to maintain corridors so threatened species can migrate — and survive — as conditions change.

Family Planning

President Obama supports a woman’s right to control her own body, including the right to reproductive choice. He is a strong proponent of Planned Parenthood and other social services that provide contraception and family planning, and believes access to family planning methods should be a basic health care. (Romney opposes reproductive choice and has said repeatedly during his campaign that Planned Parenthood should be shut down.)

Given the role that population growth plays in fueling climate change and pollution, it should be a top priority for any administration to support family planning.

Supreme Court

The most long-lasting impact of any presidency is tied to the justices a President appoints to the Supreme Court. The court is routinely called upon to decide whether environmental laws are legal and can be enforced. The decision of the current, extremely conservative court to allow corporations to be considered as citizens puts them on equal footing with you and me. Yet we know we are not equal, given the billions of dollars they have to spend lobbying elected officials and, as we have seen in this election cycle, swamping voters with misleading ads. The next President will in all likelihood have the opportunity to appoint at least two justices to the court as the oldest members retire. President Obama has a solid track record of appointing justices who value the rights of citizens and who would uphold laws like Roe v. Wade, which guarantee reproductive freedom and access to safe abortion. (Romney has said repeatedly he would work to overturn Roe v. Wade; given the chance, he would appoint justices who share that view.)

PLEASE: VOTE!

An election should never really be about the person running for office. It should be about the world we want to live in, the vision we have for our future and the future of those who come after us. 

We are on the right path. But we will not get much farther along if we don’t vote in this election. We will not get much farther along if we don’t vote to re-elect President Obama.

Please. Go to the polls. 

The post I am Voting for Barack Obama Because We are Greener than We Were Four Years Ago. appeared first on Big Green Purse.

* She favors oil drilling on the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the calving ground for thousands of migratory caribou. The Refuge is considered sacred wilderness by environmentalists, biologists and millions of Americans. Even McCain opposes drilling here. Her response? Bring on the derricks!

* She opposed a statewide ballot initiative to prohibit or restrict new mining operations that could affect salmon in the state’s streams and rivers.

* She sued the Interior Department over its decision to try to protect the polar bear by listing it as a threatned species.

* She opposes a windfall profits tax on oil companies, even though most of their profits come from drilling on public land that you and I and every American citizen own.

* She faces an immediate conflict of interest in developing national energy policy: her husband is an oil production operator for BP on Alaska’s North Slope.

* She believes intelligent design should be taught along with evolution in science classes.

Says Carl Pope of the Sierra Club, “Senator McCain has lost any chance of having a balanced or moderate ticket with this choice and has instead opted for the same, business-as-usual reliance on the outdated oil companies that has been the hallmark of the Bush-Cheney administration. On the third anniversary of the hurricane that knocked loose oil rigs and spilled millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf Coast that is bracing for another hit, McCain is sending a terribly indifferent message by selecting a candidate who only repeats Big Oil’s talking points.”

The only thing “green” about Palin is her level of national and foreign policy experience.

The post How “Green” is Sarah Palin? Not very (unless you count her experience). appeared first on Big Green Purse.

I admit this acknowledging that climate change is probably the pre-eminent environmental issue of our time. Melting ice caps, catastrophic hurricanes and droughts, rising sea level, and changing weather patterns are altering the very nature of Nature. By and large, scientists agree that the window of opportunity to reverse the atmospheric build-up of hothouse gases like carbon dioxide is rapidly closing. Predictions for an overheated future grow more dire every day.

Still, moment to moment, our lives are affected in a more immediate way by other environmental threats that have been completely ignored by the Bush Administration. Will the next president have the foresight to tackle them sooner rather than later?

Consider our exposure to toxic substances. From the water we drink to the soaps and lotions we slather on our skin to the toys that entertain our children, we face a daily assault from chemicals that wreak havoc on our reproductive system, cause cancer, and increase our likelihood of contracting diseases like asthma, blood poisoning and heart failure. Right now, the cosmetics industry regulates itself, which is why many manufacturers of lipstick, make-up, shampoo and perfume continue to include phthalates, parabens, synthetic fragrances, and unnecessary antibacterial agents in their formulations. What should the next presidential administration do? Making the “precautionary principle” a keystone of its approach to environmental health and safety would be a first important step in the right direction. At a minimum, the new president should require the Food and Drug Administration to restrict the use in personal care products of any ingredients that have not proven to be safe.

Protecting wilderness is another area of critical concern. Both candidates Barack Obama and John McCain would safeguard the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil drilling. But what about other sensitive ecosystems? Any serious presidential environmental agenda should embrace proposals like creation of the Yellowstone-to-Yukon wilderness corridor and the addition of several million acres to the national wilderness system.

Now take a minute to consider the migratory songbirds in your backyard, along with the tropical plants that provide the basis for 25% of all disease-fighting pharmaceuticals. I’ve just returned from a trip to the Amazon basin, and I can tell you, the rainforest is still being burned down to make way for cattle ranches that supply fast food restaurants and soybean plantations that power ethanol distilleries. It should be at the top of the next administration’s agenda to lead a global campaign to ramp up protection for rainforests and biological diversity worldwide.

As for what you eat, despite the demand for healthier food, only 3.5% of fruits, vegetables, meats and dairy products are organic. One way the next president can accelerate the transition to safer food production is by using the power of the government’s annual Farm Bill to switch federal subsidies away from conventional, pesticide-using growers and towards the thousands of farmers who want to raise livestock and produce without insecticides, herbicides, antibiotics and synthetic hormones but who can’t afford to do so on their own.

Finally, consider the confusion you face each time you want to use your purse to purchase the safest, most environmentally friendly product available. The challenge of distinguishing “green” from “greenwash” impedes environmental progress, as it discourages consumers  from deploying their shopping carts as green “carrots” to encourage industry to adopt more eco-friendly practices. The next administration could revolutionize green manufacturing – and make tremendous strides in energy conservation, pollution control, and environmental health and safety – by advocating for certified sustainable standards that make eco-friendly choices clear for shopper and manufacturer alike.

All these actions are within reach. The question is, will the next president aspire to such ambitious goals?

Clearly, it will depend on who is elected. If you examine the voting records of both Barack Obama and John McCain, Obama emerges as the most likely environmental champion hands down.

According to the watchdog League of Conservation Voters, McCain’s lifetime LCV record is 24% compared to Obama’s 86% and running mate Joe Biden’s 83%.  Says LCV of John McCain, “he repeatedly clings to outdated policies and flip-flops on core environmental issues.  In his 25 years in Congress, McCain has faced 294 crucial environmental votes and he voted in favor of the environment only 71 times.”

Still, it is unlikely that even the Obama administration will tackle many of these issues without active encouragement from concerned Americans. As the old saying goes, “the squeaky wheel gets the grease.” Right now, the only wheel squeaking is the one advocating to control climate change. Unless it’s a unicycle, most vehicles have more than one wheel. To keep moving forward, the other wheels need a little grease, too.

The post Will the next president do more for the environment than focus on energy? appeared first on Big Green Purse.

A glance at the records the three senators have racked up over the last three years makes it pretty clear that either of the Democrats would be a greater advocate for the planet than the Republican. The League of Conservation Voters releases a voting scorecard that rates all members of the House and Senate in every Congressional session. In the109th Congress (2005-2006), Barack Obama voted to protect the environment 96% of the time; Hillary Clinton did so 89% of the time. So far in the 110th Congress, Obama has supported the environment 67% of the time, while Hillary has a 73% favorable rating (both of the candidates missed several votes, presumably while they were out campaigning, which counts against them in the tally).

Meanwhile, Senator John McCain racked up a mere 41% positive approval rating in the 109th Congress; so far, in the 110th, he’s got zero. That’s right: in 2007 on no issue did he vote to protect the environment, according to the LCV scorecard. So the choice between the candidates — or at least between the parties the candidates represent — is very clear.

But what happens when you look specifically at the issues? Among all candidates, the entire debate right now essentially revolves around their positions on energy policy, and specifically on global warming. (You can read a quick summary of each candidate’s positions over at New American Village, along with links to each of the candidates’ web sites.)

While our energy future is clearly a priority, it’s startling that none of the candidates’ environmental proposals consider citizens’ exposure to toxic substances, water pollution, or air pollution – the issues that connect human health and the environment. Where do any of the candidates stand on reauthorizing Superfund legislation to clean up toxic waste sites? Closing loopholes in the Clean Air and Clean Water Act to decrease threats to our health as well as that of wildlife? Quelling the rise in asthma rates, especially among kids? Initiating research to understand what appear to be the increasing links between environmental health and breast cancer, autism, and learning disabilities?

These issues aren’t on any candidate’s agenda – but they should be, especially given the importance of the women’s vote in the 2008 election. Women and children are disproportionately impacted by environmental degradation (e.g., women suffer more heart attacks than men in cities with poor air quality). The candidate who breaks away from the party line on energy to address the links between pollution and human health could muster a real advantage as the race tightens and voters look for ways to distinguish among their choices.

The post None of the Candidates is Talking About Environmental Health appeared first on Big Green Purse.

  As news reports noted this morning, “The New York senator went from narrowly losing the women’s vote in Iowa to Barack Obama to swamping him in New Hampshire among females, 46 percent to 34 percent. Women had been the anchor of her support in national and regional polling for most of the past year, and she had seemed in danger of springing a leak in her major constituency. This was crucial, since females usually comprise more than half those who vote for Democrats across the country.”

I say, why stop at the voting booth? Harnessing their clout in the marketplace, women could become the most influential voice for environmental change in 2008 and beyond.

Women already spend $.85 of every dollar at the check-out counter. Just as they focused their votes in New Hampshire to send Hillary over the top, women who “vote with their dollars” to buy products and services that benefit the environment can create a groundswell of support for manufacturing that goes easy on the earth.

The New Hampshire primary has breathed new life not only into Hillary’s presidential bid. It has also cast a big bright spotlight on the power women have to create the world they want. From the ballot box to the cash register, from the presidency to the planet, women can be “the deciders” in more ways than one.

The post Women Are “The Deciders” appeared first on Big Green Purse.