The effectiveness of an online petition depends on what it’s for and to whom it is addressed.  For one thing, it is important to make the distinction between signing a petition online and using a web form to send an e-mail to your local or state representative.  Getting in touch with your representative is always a crucial way of showing support for an issue, and e-mailing is a completely valid form of communication.  Online petitions are different in the sense that they are often addressed to a person in a higher position of power (rather than being targeted to individual districts), and sometimes not to a person at all, so that they don’t limit who is able to sign them.

Image via Flickr user krossbow

Many online petitions are created by nonprofits that are looking to increase their following, and when you click “sign” you are often unwittingly signing up for their e-mail list.  Joining the e-mail list of a nonprofit is never a bad idea – in fact, it will most likely be able to direct you to other, more direct, ways to take action, and will keep you informed of the issue.  However, the petition itself is generally nothing more than a way for them to increase their e-mail lists.

Other popular forms of online petitions are those written by well-meaning individuals who really want to make a difference about a certain issue, but probably have no idea where to start. These are often addressed to a blanket “decision maker” and not to someone who’s in an actual position to make a difference (for example, I’ve seen an overwhelming number of petitions addressed to the government of a certain country and to no one in particular).  Many of the petitions I came across were riddled with spelling and grammar mistakes, which can seriously discount the message you’re trying to send by giving the impression that whoever wrote it doesn’t know what they’re talking about.  This is one downside to online petition sites that are open to the public – anyone can type up something and upload it, whether they’re educated on the issue or not.  For this reason, it’s extremely important to read the entire petition before signing it, to make sure the facts stated are true to the best of your knowledge.

I’m in no way trying to say that online petitions are never effective — in fact, they can be an irreplaceable tool for activists.  The petitions that address more specialized issues and people who are in positions to change them are usually the most effective. For example, following the delivery of a Change.org petition created by the feminist activist Shelby Knox, the New York Times was persuaded to issue a formal apology for its horrible coverage of a child rape victim.

So, if you’d like to show your support of or opposition to a certain issue, your best bet is almost always to get in touch with your representative directly (whether it be your local, state, or federal representative) or someone in a decision-making position.  However, if you do find yourself tempted to click the sign button on a petition, in order to make sure it will actually make a difference, make sure it you follow the following criteria:

1. Check to make sure the petition is addressed to someone who is in a position to create change.  Petitions addressed to editors of magazines or local leaders, for example, are generally more likely to reach their target than those written to the government of India.
2. Read the petition thoroughly before signing it.  Check for grammar and spelling issues.
3. If you’re signing a petition that’s written by a nonprofit, consider whether or not you’d like to sign up for their mailing list.
4. Consider leaving a note or a comment to personalize your signature.

Happy clicking!

But a bill moving through the House (it just passed out of committee) is set to change that. Sponsored by John Mica (R-FL), the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act would give states, rather than the EPA, the final authority in water quality standards and Clean Water Act permits.

The Spruce Mine project was vetoed by the EPA.

Here’s why that is important: There is a good chance that mountaintop removal mining is actually illegal because the process requires dumping mining waste in streams. The Bush Administration made having these valley fills easier by revising the Clean Water Act back in 2002, but as Legal Planet explains,

Even with that change, large-scale valley fills would seem to violate the Clean Water Act’s prohibition on the issuance of federal permits that would lead to a violation of state water quality standards, and the Guidelines for section 404 permits developed by the Corps and EPA, which require that impacts on aquatic ecosystems be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.

Whether or not the practice is technically legal, mountaintop mining cannot be done without a permit to literally bury streams, and the EPA has the authority to veto those permits. The agency used this power in January when it blocked the Spruce Mine project in West Virginia.

The Dirty Water Act of 2011, as we’re calling it, would transfer that authority to the states. This might seem like a good idea, since most Americans–including most West Virginians–oppose mountaintop removal. But the coal industry has essentially suspended democracy in Appalachia, flexing its monetary muscle to keep officials on its side. So turning clean water regulation over to states is almost the same as eliminating it altogether.

What you can do: Contact your Representative and ask him to vote no on HR 2018. iLoveMountains.org has a web form and sample letter to help you out.

The following post was written by Nell Gagnon and was originally published at this site. Cross-posting is encouraged.

Here’s something the history books left out: In 1921, more than 10,000 West Virginia coal miners rose up in resistance to coal companies who refused to allow miners to unionize. It was the largest armed insurrection in the United States since the Civil War. This uprising, which took place in Logan County, West Virginia, is known as the Battle of Blair Mountain. The miners were met with a private army of police funded by coal companies, who employed, among other things, World War One planes to drop bombs and gas.

The Battle of Blair Mountain was five days long and bloody, leaving dozens of miners dead and many more imprisoned. Despite an impressive resistance effort, in the end the battle was lost upon the intervention of the United States army, who supported the coal industry. Blair was just one of many struggles to resist the oppression and hegemony of coal companies throughout the long history of mining in Appalachia, but it was unsurpassed in size and significance.

Big coal did all it could to prevent miners from unionizing and to silence their demands for fair wages and decent working conditions. In the late 1800s, the coal industry set up company towns throughout Appalachia, a fundamentally feudal system where companies owned all town establishments and paid workers in company scrip. Tactics included intimidation, harassment, physical violence—even murder. Coal companies hired gun thugs and strikebreakers to threaten miners, ensuring that they wouldn’t organize.

Today, coal companies like Massey Energy, now Alpha Energy, continue to exploit workers and ravage the environment through newer mining practices including mountain top removal. This devastating form of “extreme strip mining” entails literally blowing up mountains in order to extract the seams of coal within. Mountains are stripped of trees and topsoil, and finally detonated. Not only does this process destroy the mountain itself, the “overburden”—toxic chemicals used as part of the extraction process— flow into nearby water sources, contaminating water in entire region. The result is deadly both to wildlife and to human inhabitants anywhere near a Mountain Top Removal site.

Studies and statistics have verified this, yet the coal companies continue, as they always have, to neglect the rights of miners and miners’ families, putting profit ahead of human lives. Indeed, big coal has proven to be, again and again, hostile to Appalachian communities, culture, and land. And as of right now, over five hundred mountains have been destroyed by this egregious process.

Appalachia is the second most bio-diverse region on the planet. West Virginia’s resplendent mountain crests and lush, forested ridges are breathtaking, and Blair Mountain is no exception. But Blair Mountain is exceptional in its history—the history of more than ten thousand miners coming together to combat the brutish ways of the coal companies. This is the history of a bonafide peoples’ resistance, defending their land and very lives from corporate exploitation. But the stories of the Battle of Blair are slowly fading into the past. The destruction of Blair Mountain is a death sentence for this rich history. When Blair Mountain is blown up, a chapter in American labor history is torn out and forever lost. The coal companies will have robbed the people of Appalachia of still one more thing: their history.

On June 4, hundreds of people from Appalachia and all over the country will come together to demand the rights of people and ecology.  We implore that Blair Mountain be saved from the coal companies who wish to destroy it, as they have done to so many mountains—and people—in the name of profit.

We will march for five days, starting in Marmet, WV, and arriving at last at Blair Mountain, where we will proclaim this mountain’s right to exist. Standing united against the exploitation and profiteering of big business will be miners and local citizens, activists, students, academics, and environmentalists.

Losing Blair to mountain top removal will allow the coal companies to once more devour and nullify the history of Appalachian peoples’ resistance, in an effort to eradicate it altogether. The March on Blair Mountain is a call for justice, when there has been so little of it over the past century and a half in Appalachia.

The March seeks to preserve the historical Blair Mountain, put an end to the disastrous practice of mountain top removal, and, like the Battle of Blair, to strengthen labor and community rights. All are welcome to come and join together in this fight for human rights and environmental justice.

Joe Romm, one of the Web’s most thorough climate bloggers, published a detailed post on the subject. He quoted two scientists “who have done more research and publication on extreme weather and climate change than most,” Kevin Trenberth and Tom Karl. Trenberth is head of the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and Karl is the director of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.

Karl explained that, while several studies show that conditions favorable for tornadoes are more common with more greenhouse gases, “the results are not conclusive.” However, “…what we can say with confidence is that heavy and extreme precipitation events often associated with thunderstorms and convection are increasing and have been linked to human induced changes in atmospheric composition.”

Trenberth, meanwhile told the New York Times that “it’s not the right question to ask if this storm or that storm is due to global warming, or is it natural variability. Nowadays, there’s always an element of both.”

April 2011 did set a new monthly record of 875 tornadoes in the U.S., which coincided with record high temperatures throughout the world. We know the climate is changing, so it seems logical that tornadoes, which are part of the climate, should be affected. But overall, it seems that the specific connection between greenhouse gases and tornadoes has not been explored deeply enough to produce a definite answer.

We must not lose sight of the big picture, though. We’re seeing not just tornadoes, but also record droughts and wildfires, unusually heavy rainfalls, historic floods, and deadly heat waves, in the U.S. and throughout the world. In addition, NOAA has reported that our current emissions path could lead to semi-permanent Dust Bowls in the Southwest and other regions. Experts have been warning for years that climate change would make events like these more common, and in this case, the connection with greenhouse gases is well understood.

Whether or not monster tornadoes add to the proof that our climate is disrupted, they show, painfully, how much our civilization relies on a stable environment, and how dramatic changes in weather patterns can cause damage that even the wealthiest nations struggle to shake off.

Bill McKibben showed us the big picture in his piece for the Washington Post:

Caution: It is vitally important not to make connections….It is far better to think of these as isolated, unpredictable, discrete events. It is not advised to try and connect them in your mind with, say, the fires now burning across Texas—fires that have burned more of America by this date than any year in our history. Texas, and adjoining parts of Oklahoma and New Mexico, are drier than they’ve ever been—the drought is worse than the Dust Bowl. But do not wonder if it’s somehow connected….

There have been tornadoes before, and floods—that’s the important thing. Just be careful to make sure you don’t let yourself wonder why all these records are happening at once: why we’ve had unprecedented megafloods from Australia to Pakistan in the last year. Why it’s just now that the Arctic has melted for the first time in thousands of years….

Because if you asked yourself what it meant that the Amazon has just come through its second hundred-year-drought in the last four years, or that the pine forests across the western part of this continent have been obliterated by a beetle in the last decade—well, you might have to ask other questions. Like, should President Obama really just have opened a huge swath of Wyoming to new coal-mining? Should Secretary of State this summer sign a permit allowing a huge new pipeline to carry oil from the tar sands of Alberta? You might have to ask yourself: do we have a bigger problem than four-dollar-a-gallon gasoline?

….Better to join with the US House of Representatives, which earlier this spring voted 240-184 to defeat a resolution saying simply “climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for public health and welfare.” Propose your own physics; ignore physics altogether. Just don’t start asking yourself if last year’s failed grain harvest from the Russian heatwave, and Queensland’s failed grain harvest from its record flood, and France and Germany’s current drought-related crop failures, and the death of the winter wheat crop in Texas, and the inability of Midwestern farmers to get corn planted in their sodden fields might somehow be related. Surely the record food prices are just freak outliers, not signs of anything systemic….

If you got upset about any of this, you might forget how important it is not to disrupt the record profits of our fossil fuel companies. If worst ever did come to worst, it’s reassuring to remember what the US Chamber of Commerce told the EPA in a recent filing: there’s no need to worry because “populations can acclimatize to warmer climates via a range of range of behavioral, physiological, and technological adaptations.” I’m pretty sure that’s what they’re telling themselves in Joplin today.

Enough said.

Started in 1970 as a national teach-in, Earth Day has become one of the green movement’s most obvious marks on mainstream society. Each year, more than 500 million people observe Earth Day; among them are hardline activists, greenwashed businesses, open-minded students, political campaigners, and SUV-driving soccer moms. The festivities draw large crowds, but has the message been watered down?

The concept of Earth Day brings up two points that modern greens should take notice of, if we want our core values to remain strong and understood by the public.

1. Engage the human element.

First is the idea of saving the earth. The tag line is classic and approachable, but is it still relevant? My answer is, yes, but with a caveat.

The environmental ethic of Muir and Thoreau, nature for nature’s sake, has yet to grow outdated. We still need “beauty as well as bread, places to play in and pray in, where nature may heal and give strength to body and soul.” And that thought process is an essential part of our platform. But today’s most pressing “environmental” issues aren’t just about the planet — they’re about people. If we fail to keep that fact central in our movement, we will miss out on a wide range of support.

Even Joe Romm, one of the Web’s most influential climate change bloggers, says he isn’t worried about the earth:

Personally, I am not an environmentalist. I don’t think I’m ever going to see the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I wouldn’t drill for oil there. But that’s not out of concern for the caribou but for my daughter and the planet’s next several billion people, who will need to see oil use cut sharply to avoid the worst of climate change.

Unlike Mr. Romm, I do think of myself as an environmentalist in the deep ecological sense. In addition, I try to emphasize that humanity is still tied to what we call “the natural world,” and that we need healthy ecosystems as much as any other species. The leaders of the new environmental movement (or climate movement, or people movement, whatever works) must not lose sight of the human element. Sure, we can celebrate Earth Day, but we have to also make it clear that we’re not just tree huggers.

2. Build a movement on big plans and ambitious action.

So we’ve covered one point. The other is what you might call the “lightbulb analogy.” Earlier in the decade — the Inconvenient Truth era, if you will — one of the weaknesses of the climate movement was the lack of powerful solutions that average people could use. Having presumably convinced an audience that global warming is a real and urgent threat to our species’ wellbeing, our call to action was along the lines of, “Change your lightbulbs!” Easy, light green efforts like this are championed by many Earth Day promoters.

There’s no doubt that using efficient lightbulbs is a great idea, and that small lifestyle changes can make a huge difference, if enough people participate. As I’ve written before, individual action lacks the constraints that limit top-down efforts. Politicians have to bargain and argue to get something done, but, as individuals, we don’t have to compromise with ourselves. We can live our lives as sustainably as we want to.

However, if we let ourselves think that the climate movement is about buying new lightbulbs, or shopping bags, or water bottles, we’re missing the bigger picture. If those lightbulbs are powered by coal, we’ve still got a problem. On the other hand, if we can shut down existing coal-fired power plants and prevent new ones from being built, that is meaningful change on a much bigger scale.

As we’ve seen with Congress in the last few years, top-down change isn’t working. But a nation of CFL-users won’t stop global warming and bring corporate polluters to justice, either. Instead, individuals must unite to demand and enact large-scale change. In other words, we need a collective movement.

I’m seeing that movement breathe and grow right now, and you probably are too. So far, 2011 has been the year of the protestor, and environmental justice has not been left out. Groups like RAN, Greenpeace, and 350.org are focusing their energies on specific obstacles, such as Koch Industries and the U.S. Chamber of  Commerce. The 350 campaign, already phenomenal, has begun to harness its potential for mobilizing activists.

We saw the future of this collective effort in this year’s Power Shift. Ten thousand young people standing up for a common cause, learning how to organize and initiate change — this is what the new climate movement looks like.

So here are the two strategies we can take from the successes and weaknesses of Earth Day: 1) reveal and engage the human element in our campaigns and 2) don’t be afraid of ambitious solutions. Let’s build on these philosophies and see how far we can go.

What’s your take?

In 2011, what does Earth Day mean for greens and enviros? How to do you envision the new environmental movement?

[Image Copyright David Rickless.]

Since an earthquake and tsunami devastated Japan and damaged two nuclear reactors, the world has been attempting to show support and

Image via Flickr user karin.noso.

condolences for a country that is very much in need.  It’s almost a month later, and the death tolls continue to rise while the full extent of the damage is just being realized.   Unfortunately, the news continues to get worse…. Recently, it was revealed that radiation from the nuclear plants had been leaking into the ocean (the leak has since been stopped), sparking fears of contaminated seafood and prompting the government of Japan to set limits, for the first time, on the amount of radiation permitted in fish.

While this is undeniably quite frightening, most people fail to realize that there is a similar threat located much closer to home — just 20 miles off the coast of San Francisco. The waters surrounding the Farallon Islands were used by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) as a nuclear waste dump for almost 30 years.  It is estimated that 47,500 55-gallon steel drums were dumped in the vicinity from 1946-1970, most of which have been sitting there for 50 years and are now corroding (and are therefore essentially a ticking radioactive time bomb).

If the idea of a huge nuclear waste dump just outside of one of the US’s major metropolises isn’t terrifying enough, consider this:  the exact location of the drums is unknown.  The environmental hazards associated with them are currently unknown.  It is thought that it would be riskier and potentially more hazardous to remove them than to leave them undisturbed.  According to an article in Mother Jones Magazine entitled You Are What You Eat: A Glowing Report on Radioactive Waste in the Sea, radiation was found in parts of edible fish from the Farallons at levels up to 5,000 times higher than background radiation (a level that includes natural radioactivity and the plutonium spewed into the environment from years of atmospheric testing of atomic weapons).

The Farallon Islands. Image via Flickr user Panegyrics of Granovetter.

To add to that, the Farallons aren’t the only place in the U.S. where our oceans were used as radioactive waste sites:  there are over 50 known ocean dumps, stretching down the east and west coasts of the United States, where radioactive trash was dumped from 1946-1970.  The largest dumps are in the waters surrounding New York, Newark, Boston, Los Angeles and San Francisco – all of which are prime fishing areas that serve the top 20 cities in the country.  Of course, dumping radioactive waste into the ocean wasn’t only a US pastime – European countries dumped just as much in the waters of the Atlantic.

It’s impossible to say which poses the more imminent threat to the ocean environment and the organisms that live in it — the nuclear disaster in Japan or the radioactive dumpsites in US waters — mostly because very few studies have ever been conducted to determine the extent of the danger of the radioactive dumpsites.  In fact, the Mother Jones article previously mentioned goes on to point out that the EPA and the AEC have tried to keep the dumpsites hush-hush, and have actively kept any such investigation from happening.  Only $250,000 has ever been spent studying the existing dumps since 1974, while $30 million has been given to scientists looking for a way to stash high-level waste beneath the ocean floor.

Clearly, the nuclear disaster in Japan is of the utmost importance at the moment, not only because of the radiation that’s been leaked into the surrounding environment, but for the millions of citizens of Japan who’s lives and health are currently being threatened.  However, it is also important for everyone to at least be aware that radioactive waste in the oceans is not a new threat, by any means – it’s something our government exposed us to in the past, and has dodged any responsibility for ever since – and there is no evidence whatsoever that the contamination of seafood out of Japan right now is any worse than what we’ve already been exposed to by our own government.

Nuclear power has long been a source of controversy within the environmental movement, but in my opinion, its risks far outweigh its benefits.  For more information on the dangers of nuclear power and radioactive waste, please check out the Nuclear Information and Research Service at their website: http://www.nirs.org.

If you were worried that the U.S. might cease to be a world leader in climate pollution, the Obama Administration has just put your fears to rest. Last week, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced a massive increase in Wyoming coal mining — 2.3 billion tons, to be exact. When this coal is burned, it could increase U.S. climate pollution by over 50 percent, according to Grist. In a joint statement, WildEarth Guardians, Sierra Club, and Defenders of Wildlife explained,

When burned, the coal threatens to release more than 3.9 billion tons of heat-trapping carbon dioxide, equal to the annual emissions from 300 coal-fired power plants…. Salazar’s announcement is a stark contrast to his call for clean energy… in today’s press conference, Secretary Salazar announced Interior’s intent to authorize more than 12,000 megawatts of renewable energy by the end of next year…. Yet in opening the door for 2.35 billion tons of coal mining, Salazar’s announcement effectively enables more than 300,000 megawatts of coal-fired energy — 30 times more dirty energy development than renewable energy.

It seems that the Administration’s strategy is to hang a bright green sign out front, while letting fossil companies in through the

Image: Joshua Lawton

back door. Obama didn’t come up with this idea on his own, though. Companies like BP and Chevron like to advertise their modest investments in clean energy, but their big money goes toward fossil fuels (and disinformation campaigns to promote fossil fuels). Well, Mr. President, here’s a tip: If you want climate hawks and enviros on your side, oil giants are the wrong crowd to hang with.

Indeed, it’s looking as if Obama is not actually that determined to build a more sustainable country. For many greens, that is hard to accept. Obama was supposed to be our president. He was backed by the biggest environmental groups and was swept into office largely by an unprecedented turnout of young voters. And, to be fair, he probably is one of our greenest presidents. His Recovery Act included $70 billion for renewables and efficiency, and he’s made some moving speeches in favor of clean energy. He also supported the late climate bill, although he chose to fight for healthcare reform instead. In addition, smaller changes throughout the government have generally reversed the anti-environmentalism of the Bush era.

But such progress could be easily outweighed by expanding fossil fuels. In his State of the Union address, Obama himself set a goal of 80 percent clean energy by 2035, comparing the green movement to the Space Race (“This is our generation’s Sputnik moment”). How does Salazar’s massive push for coal fit in with that plan?  Even Joe Romm says that question “may have no good answer.” Grist offers one explanation: The Administration can’t wait to sell China all the coal it can burn.

So do environmentalists need a new president? It’s looking that way, but the solution isn’t as simple as finding a greener Democratic challenger. If the GOP keeps moving to the right, there’s a very real possibility of a Tea Party favorite running on the Republican ticket in 2012. Someone like Newt Gingrich (who wants to chuck the EPA) or Michele Bachman (who thinks CO2 is “harmless” and global warming is “all voodoo”) would be infinitely worse than Obama. The point is that we have to be careful.

That doesn’t mean we should accept the Administration’s irresponsible decisions without complaint. As Glenn Hurowitz writes,

… if Obama’s coal and oil blitz doesn’t spur large protests at the White House, the environmental movement might as well pack its bags, rub on some patchouli, and head to the mountains (at least until the bulldozers come). At the end of the day, if we are to succeed, we will need to earn the respect of our friends and foes alike, and that starts with hitting the ballot box and the streets.

What’s your take? Has the man who promised “change we can believe in” stopped believing in change himself?

On February 12^th, members of RAN Twin Cities attended the annual Green Party MN winter meeting to share the work we’ve been engaged in over the past year and to raise awareness of the Minnesota corporations whose actions have contributed to rainforest destruction.

RAN Twin Cities members drop some knowledge on Palm Oil monocultures and Cargill's role in rainforest destruction

During the meeting green party members mingled at the RAN table, shared personal stories, and talked about the environmental issues in which they’re most deeply invested, all while signing petitions and learning more about the role Cargill plays in the international palm oil market.

At the breakout session, RAN TC members gave a comprehensive workshop on how the palm oil industry is destroying communities and rainforests and how several Minnesota-based corporations are intimately tied to the fate of this product and the ecosystems that it is produced in. Our presentation focused on the devastating impact of monoculture expansion in the islands of Indonesia and Malaysia, but it also showcased the activism and campaign successes that have taken place right here in Minnesota.

While international pressure in the form of growing consumer consciousness is still constricting around Cargill, the largest  private corporation in the United States, activists from across the U.S. and Minnesota have successfully leveraged General Mills’ coveted company image to coax a palm oil policy commitment from the company. While the participants of the workshop were optimistic to hear that some home-grown companies like General Mills are starting to get the picture, they recognized that big-agribusiness monoliths like Cargill are going to need a mobilization of grassroots pressure to put people before profits. Thanks to all the old-timers and youngster activists from the MN Green Party who proved that you can never be too old or young to be a totally rad eco-activist!

Amendments to the budget bill could block regulations for air pollution, mountaintop removal, and offshore drilling.

If you keep track of politics, you’re probably aware that the budget debate in the House of Representatives is in full swing. The reinvigorated Republican Party is eager to push its agenda, while the Administration, concerned about re-election, seems willing to make some serious concessions.

Curious what’s on the table? You might not want to know, unless you’re an oil executive. When it comes to program-axing, clean energy and environmental spending is at the top of the GOP’s list. Among the proposals are a $1.6 billion slash in the EPA’s budget, a cancellation of the high-speed rail project, and a massive cut in the Energy Department’s efficiency and renewable energy programs.

Notably absent is any mention of reducing subsidies for fossil fuels. Apparently, taxpayers will keep donating $4 billion a year to oil and gas companies, in the form of deductions and tax loopholes. Last year, the New York Times reported that tax breaks are available “at virtually every stage” of the exploration and extraction process. For example, BP wrote off 70 percent of the Deepwater Horizon’s rent– more than $225,000 a day.

According to the Tea Party congressmen, clean energy and EPA funding must be cut to preserve the free market (never mind protecting people). In the words of Fred Upton, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, “You don’t subsidize different forms of power — you let the market run on its own.” Okay, so let’s stop subsidizing oil and coal. But no, it seems that funding fossil fuels is actually good for the economy because it safeguards American jobs. Meanwhile, the EPA’s greenhouse gas registry, which collects data on industrial emissions, is part of a “radical anti-jobs agenda.”

This type of logic is hardly surpising. Government is limited by the very thing that makes it work: compromise. Even with a Democratic Congress, Barack Obama can’t bring about the clean energy revolution; we have to do a lot of the work ourselves. But energy projects aren’t the only programs slated for execution. Just as dangerous (or even more so) are hundreds of amendments aimed at gutting the EPA’s authority.

According to the Appalachian advocacy group iLoveMountains,

• Amendment 109 would remove the EPA’s ability to evaluate mountaintop removal permits and would reverse all of the actions taken by the administration over the past two years to safeguard Appalachian streams and communities.
• Amendment 216 would remove EPA’s ability to veto “dredge and fill” permits that do not meet Clean Water Act standards. The Spruce No. 1 Mine permit was the first time the EPA used this authority in relation to a mountaintop removal site.

Mother Jones reported on eight other measures that spearhead the assault on environmental regulations. For example, one would prevent the EPA from tightening rules against air pollutants, while another would keep the Environmental Appeals Board from reviewing or rejecting offshore drilling permits. Meanwhile, Amendment 574 would ban any U.S. contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

These amendments will pass with the budget bill, even though they have a relatively small effect on the federal budget. The bill has to be passed to literally keep the government running, so the only thing we can do is ask our Representatives to oppose these add-ons. March 4 is the expected deadline for negotiations, and some amendments, such as one defunding the GHG registry, have already been approved.

The EPA itself is threatened by polluter-friendly politicians. Many Republicans and some Democrats want to revoke the agency’s ability to regulate carbon emissions (a right it was granted by the Supreme Court in 2007), and Newt Gingrich, a favorite for the GOP presidential ticket, has plans to shut down the EPA altogether, replacing it with a business-friendly “environmental solutions agency.”

I’ll admit that the federal deficit is a problem Congress must address, and I know the task can’t be done without trimming some beneficial programs. But what’s happening this week is bigger than that. The entire Republican Party (and part of the Democratic) is poised to delete much of what the environmental movement has accomplished over four decades.

Trading away basic protections for clean air and clean water is not just an idiotic bargain. It’s irresponsible. We might not leave future generations with as heavy a debt. But if we leave them, instead, with poisoned water, polluted air, and an altered climate, will they thank us?

Image via flickr user Sarah Carr.

On what has become known as “The Day of Revolt” — January 25, 2011 — thousands of Egyptians took to the streets to protest the regime of authoritarian leader Hosni Mubarak, and so began one of the most successful and influential peaceful protests in history. Inspired by the effective Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia earlier in January, which succeeded in ousting Tunisian president Ben Ali from power, the Egyptian revolutionaries raised their voices in opposition to the extreme poverty, rampant unemployment, increased police brutality and government corruption that had enveloped their nation during the 30 years of Mubarak’s rule.

The Egyptian revolution has been hailed in the media as Egypt’s “Berlin Wall moment,” and deservedly so. Egypt has the strong financial and political backing of the US, and is a major power broker in the Middle East… not to mention, it has always served as a key mediator in negotiations between Israel and Palestine. The fate of Egypt will undoubtedly have an indelible affect on the entire Middle Eastern region and the world.

There is, however, another prominent reason why the Egyptian revolution stands out as different from anything that has ever occurred in history: it was organized, inspired by, and executed by an Egyptian youth movement that utilized social networking sites as tools to inspire and create real, tangible political change. Clearly, the demonstrations were too well organized to have been entirely spontaneous. A well-organized movement was behind them.

The Facebook group We are all Khaled Said, at over 800,000 members, is an important part of that movement. It was created by Wael Gonhim (age 30), who was then anonymous, along with other anonymous activists in 2010 shortly after 28 year old Egyptian Khaled Said died under suspicious circumstances, allegedly at the hands of the Egyptian police. The group was responsible for putting average Egyptians in touch with human rights organizers throughout the course of the protests, and Khaled Said has been hailed as the silent hero of the revolution. Reports claim that it was on this Facebook group that the idea of protesting on January 25, a national holiday honoring the police in Egypt, was first suggested.

The April 6 Youth Movement, another activist group, also played a pivotal role in the demonstrations. Originally created in 2008 in support of the workers of the Egyptian city El-Mahalla El-Kubra, who planned a strike on April 6, 2009, it has since grown to almost 70,000 members and has been actively organizing opposition to the government’s oppression ever since.

Additionally, there were a number of Twitter accounts that participated in the instantaneous spread of information.

Social networking was an invaluable tool for Egyptian activists during the revolution, making information quickly and easily accessible to millions of people. In fact, so much weight was put on the importance of social networking that on January 27th, the Egyptian government blocked access to the Internet for the entire country. Although they succeeded in cutting off communication for a few days of the protests, the government’s purpose — quelling the unrest — was unsuccessful. By that point, the Facebook groups had served their purpose, and the protests were already well underway.

It is of the utmost importance that we note who the real heroes of the revolution are: not Facebook and Twitter, but the people behind the groups and accounts that thought to utilize them as tools, and innocent people like Khaled Said who lost their lives. All of the activists who played critical roles in the demonstrations (except for those who are anonymous) were under the age of 35 years old (not yet old enough to run for president). They faced arrest, torture, and even death for their actions, and still they persevered.

These young leaders have singlehandedly managed to bring together the impoverished people of a country who have suffered under the hands of a cruel and selfish authoritarian ruler for over thirty years. Needless to say, their accomplishments are historic and inspiring. They have not only changed the history of their country for the better, but they have shown beyond a doubt what we as the youth of the world are able to accomplish.