In a newly released Greenpeace analysis, pending climate legislation is analyzed and President Obama is urged to address global warming with the same urgency that the issue itself has on the future of our planet.

On October 14th, the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment chaired by Representative Edward Markey (D-MA) approved comprehensive chemical plant security legislation (H.R. 2868 & H.R. 3258) in an 18 to10 party-line vote. The Subcommittee rejected 13 Republicans amendments aimed at crippling the legislation that will be taken up by the full Energy and Commerce Committee this week. This is the first time this legislation has moved through the Homeland Security Committee. “Given a choice between protecting millions of Americans at risk and doing nothing, Subcommittee Republicans not only chose nothing, they proposed doing nothing for three more years,” said Rick Hind, Legislative Director of Greenpeace. “The compromises contained in each bill weren't enough for subcommittee Republicans. They also tried to gut provisions in both bills that would eliminate catastrophic risks in densely populated areas,” said Hind. The compromise legislation narrows the number of high-risk chemical facilities to approximately 107 that are required to eliminate catastrophic risks with safer chemical processes. It also allows chemical plants a second appeals process to challenge agency decisions and exempts them from direct citizen enforcement. Instead, the bill contains a petition process affording citizens the ability to initiate a government investigation into potential violations by a chemical facility. The compromise legislation also does not ensure that residents living downwind of high-risk chemical plants will be informed if nearby facilities are subject to or in compliance with security regulations. “This bill clearly represents a compromise on some major issues. We look forward to working with the Energy and Commerce Committee this week to improve the bill further,” said Hind. More than 200 chemical facilities have converted to safer chemical processes since 9/11 eliminating poison gas risks to 38 million Americans. Hundreds of other chemical plants together put more than 100 million Americans at risk. A blue-green coalition of more than 50 organizations have been urging Congress to enact legislation to eliminate these risks. They include: the United Auto Workers, Steelworkers, Teamsters, Fire Fighters, Sierra Club, Physicians for Social Responsibility, U.S. Public Interest Research Group and Greenpeace. The Department of Homeland Security and the EPA testified in favor of this legislation at an October 1st hearing held by the Subcommittee.In June, the House Homeland Security Committee approved a different version of H.R. 2868, which included four major loopholes not contained in the Energy & Commerce bills.The Energy & Environment Subcommittee version of H.R. 2868 and H.R. 3258 would also:- Eliminate the current law's exemption of thousands of chemical plants, such as waste water and drinking water facilities;- Involve plant employees in the development of security plans and provides protections for whistleblowers;- Preserve state's authority to establish stronger security standards, and- provide up to $225 (H.R. 2868) and $375 (H.R. 3258) million respectively toward the implementation of safer chemical processes over a three-year period.

Earlier this week, Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere as well as NOAA Admisistrator - not to mention a member of President Obama's Ocean Taskforce - finally broke the silence by officially weighing in on bluefin tuna. Lubchenco announced that the United States is “sending a clear and definitive statement to the international community that the status quo is not acceptable.” She formally acknowledged the peril facing the Northern bluefin tuna, citing stock declines of 72% and 82% in the eastern and western populations, respectively. The good Doctor levels blame for these declines directly at the ineffectual International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), as well as the irresponsible activities of certain countries that target bluefin in the Eastern Mediterranean. Lubchenco calls for ICCAT to address overfishing by setting responsible quotas, increasing enforcement, and instituting fishing closures during spawning periods. She then goes on to declare the United States' “strong support” for Monaco's proposal to prohibit the international trade of the species by way of a CITES Appendix I listing. Sounds great, right? And it is, in a way. It's a strong proclamation that lets the world know the United States is seriously concerned about this issue. So why aren't I out in the street right now, lighting fireworks and drinking to excess? What's more important than what Dr. Lubchenco said is what she didn't say. Specifically, one particular word, the absence of which leaves me worried and somewhat dismayed. That word is “sponsor.” Lubchenco's statement, while full of authority and righteous indignation, undercuts itself by failing to take up Monaco's proposal whole-heartedly and champion it at the upcoming CITES meeting in March. Here's what I mean: Sponsoring the proposal would have meant that the United States would have submitted Monaco's resolution to the CITES parties itself. Strongly supporting the proposal means that the United States is behind the idea in theory, but won't stand alone to bring it to the table for due consideration and a vote.The United States' government has cast its weight behind a plan that would theoretically repair ICCAT rather than seek endangered species status for the bluefin. And yes, there is some merit to this. If ICCAT had the capacity to set quotas based on ecologically sustainable yield (ESY) as well as the teeth to enforce them in the face of pirates and greedy European bureaucrats - then it just might work. In fact, by demonstrating its capacity to rebuild the tuna stock in the face of unrelenting market pressure, it could even prove a model for other fishery management tools. But based on ICCAT's shameful history, not to mention the infuriating myopia and relentless rapacity demonstrated by some of the countries participating in ICCAT, I am forced to remain skeptical. While Lubchenco's statement rings loudly, its effectiveness is yet to be determined. The gap between sponsorship and strong support is wide indeed - potentially wide enough to swallow up all that's left of the once-mighty bluefin tuna.

Being that I'm in the middle of the Pacific on an Oceans campaign, I thought it would be appropriate if I celebrated Blog Action Day '09 with a post about the effects global warming is having on the world's oceans.I wrote yesterday about the obligation of the developed world to help developing nations deal with the impacts of climate change on the oceans, but I didn't really specify what those impacts might be. Here are a few of the major impacts we can expect if global warming is not put in check:• Coral bleachingThe world's coral reefs are some of the most amazing and diverse ecosystems on the planet, but they're in grave danger from global warming. Corals contain microscopic algae that provide the coral with food and give them their vibrant colors. Rising ocean temperatures cause corals to expel these algae, thus turning them white or "bleaching" them. Worse, the corals die if the algae don't return.Australia's Great Barrier Reef, the world's largest coral reef, experienced its worst ever case of coral bleaching in 2002, when over 60 percent of the reef was affected. Unless projected levels of climate change are slowed, much of the reef will be dead in decades. Worse, hundreds of species relying on the reef will also die out along with their living home.Corals the world over are facing the threat of bleaching, from the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean to the Galapagos Islands and the Philipines.•Global meltingAs global temperatures rise, the world's ice melts. It's as simple as that. And we're already witnessing this happening. Our recent Arctic Impacts expedition was all about documenting the meltdown of Greenland's glaciers and trying to understand the mechanisms behind it.The melting of the world's sea ice and glaciers will have a number of implications, perhaps the most discussed being that as Arctic sea ice melts there will be less habitat for polar bears, further imperiling this already endangered species. But global melting will also contribute to sea level rise and change the salinity of the oceans, hurting fish stocks and disrupting ocean circulation patterns.Most worrisome is the fact that as the ice melts, more land and ocean water is exposed. The white ice reflects the sun's light, but the darker water and land absorbs it, thereby potentially creating a negative feedback loop in which the melting of the world's ice and the heating of our planet is accelerated. Already the Arctic is melting much faster than anyone predicted.•Sea level riseMelting sea ice does not contribute to sea level rise because that ice is already floating, but melting glaciers most certainly will cause the world's seas to rise. A very sobering report was released earlier this month by the United Nations Environmental Program that forecasted a 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit rise in global temperatures by the end of the century. This would mean as much as a six-foot rise in sea levels.Even a sea level rise of just around three feet, meanwhile, is projected to displace millions of people who live in low-lying parts of the world. In fact, the president of the Maldives, a Pacific island nation that is only 4.9 feet above sea level on average, recently held a cabinet meeting underwater to highlight the threat that the looming climate crisis and sea level rise pose to his country.You can check out this Google Map to see what various degrees of sea level rise might look like.•Threats to marine lifeCoral and Polar bears aren't the only species threatened by global warming. Rises in ocean temperatures will impact the entire web of marine life. For example, phytoplankton, which is the main food source of small crustaceans like krill, grow under sea ice. A reduction in sea ice implies a reduction in krill - and krill feeds many whale species, including the great whales.Whole species of marine animals and fish are directly at risk. A recent study found that warmer waters, for instance, can lead to some species becoming more aggressive and more vulnerable to prey.Ocean acidification is another problem threatening marine life. As more CO2 is pumped into our atmosphere, more CO2 is absorbed by the oceans, which decreases the pH level of the oceans. Unfortunately, ocean acidification is happening much faster than anyone predicted, making life harder and harder on organisms like molluscs that depend on calcium carbonate shells, which can be weakened or even dissolved by acid.These are just some of the main impacts I wanted to talk about, but by no means all of them. I barely touched on what a change in ocean currents due to decreased salinity might mean to weather patterns, for instance. And speaking of weather patterns, you're probably already aware that warmer ocean temperatures are widely considered to make tropical storms bigger and more frequent. There's even some compelling evidence that climate change is causing the El Niño phenomenon to be more frequent and more persistent.All of this, I think, makes it abundantly clear that we need to put pressure on President Obama and other world leaders to sign an ambitious climate treaty in Copenhagen this December.

For more than two decades, Daniel Beltrá has been saving the world, one photo at a time. Now, the world is recognizing him for the astonishing work he has produced for Greenpeace and for the work he has produced as the winner of a 2008 World Photography Award special category sponsored by Sony for the Prince's Rainforest Project. On Friday, Oct. 16, 2009, Beltrá will be named "Person of the Week" on ABC's " World News with Charles Gibson, at 6.30 Eastern Time, and 5.30 Pacific. The scheduled program will showcase his year-long tropical rainforest project, broadcast an interview with Beltrá, and display images from an exhibition at the Mercy Corps Action Center which runs through Nov. 15th at 6 River Terrace, Battery Park City, New York, NY. The segment will also feature footage of Beltrá at work in Sumatra where he was shocked to find that more than 80 percent of the original forests have been destroyed and replaced by monocultures of palm oil, acacia, and eucalyptus. I'll be watching the footage of this master environmental photographer at work hoping to pick up any clues to his technique and to try and figure out how he is able to keep looking through the lens and making equally incredible images of the beauty of the natural world and the full horror of its ongoing destruction. I hope you will tune in whether you have appreciated his past work or are just discovering something new. Through Beltrá's lens we see the majestic grandeur of polar ice formations and the plight of polar bears leaping between melting ice pods in their disappearing habitat. Through him, we look down into depths of the Amazon forest and see the variety of plant and animal life and we see it disappear in a plume of dark smoke blotting out the wide horizon as it billows from the blackened earth under broken trees. Through his images, Beltrá takes us to the far reaches of the world bearing witness to what is happening to Mother Earth. He wields his camera to pierce the smoke and shatter the mirrors with which governments and corporations attempt to hide the awful truth of their plunder.

Is the Climate Bill morphing into an excuse to promote fossil fuels and new nuclear power plants? Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) recent promotion of a pro-nuke/pro-drilling/pro-coal agenda in the name of Climate Protection has been highlighted in a New York Times op-ed co-authored with Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC). The piece brands nuke power "our single largest contributor of emissions-free power." It advocates abolishing "cumbersome regulations" so utilities can "secure financing for more plants." And it wants "serious investment" to "find solutions to our nuclear waste problem." The Senate Bill as now drafted also includes a "Clean Energy Development Administration" that could deliver virtually unlimited federal cash to build new reactors and fund other mega-polluters. Also on the table are vastly expanded permits for off-shore drilling. And Kerry/Graham have talked of making the US "the Saudi Arabia of clean coal" while bringing "new financial incentives for companies that develop carbon capture and sequestration technology." If you think pushing nukes, oil wells and coal mines to "prevent global warming" is counter-intuitive, you ain't seen nothin' yet. The give-aways are allegedly meant to attract GOP votes. The joint Kerry/Graham op-ed is being billed as a "game changer." But even with provisions pushing a hundred new reactors in the US alone, some GOP stalwarts hint they would NEVER vote for a bill that includes cap-and-trade clauses. So is the GOP set to play the same game with Climate legislation as it has with health care: prolong negotiations, gut the substance of reform, demand---and GET---untold corporate give-aways, and then oppose the bill anyway? What thin green substance survives could be limited to a few showpiece handouts for renewables and efficiency, with cap-and-trade as the centerpiece. But many environmentalists argue that cap-and-trade could create yet another costly bureaucracy with little real impact on the climate crisis. To get real about solving this crisis, Congress should demand---and fund---a definitive national transition to energy efficiency and modernized mass transit. We still waste half the energy we consume. There's no source of usable juice cheaper and quicker to install than increased efficiency. Taxes on carbon and other forms of "ancillary" pollution would help if they assess radioactive emissions (from coal as well as nukes), destruction of our oceans, lakes and rivers, removal of mountain tops, creation of nuclear waste, and so on. Merely axing the subsidies to King CONG (Coal, Oil, Nukes & Gas) and rendering a level playing field for true green energy sources to fairly compete with the old fossil/nukes would take us a long way up the road to Solartopia. A feed-in tariff that rewards renewables for the pollution they avoid would also help. Without all that, the Climate Bill's outright negatives could be huge. Atomic reactors can do little or nothing to bring down carbon emissions. Projected construction costs for new nukes have jumped from $2 billion to $13 billion and counting. Body-blows to the all-but-dead Yucca Mountain nuke waste dump have left the industry, after 50 years, with nothing tangible to do with some 50,000 tons of spent lethal radioactive fuel rods. And after a half-century, the industry cannot command private construction financing or private liability insurance to cover a catastrophic melt-down or terror attack. Even if reactors could help with greenhouse gas emissions, it would take a trillion dollars or more to make a noticeable dent, and a decade or more for such reactors to begin to come on line. But the reactor lifeline does not flow through licensing or waste. Because it has failed as a commercial technology, the industry must have massive infusions of cash and loan guarantees. The Climate Bill's real damage will be measured by the size and scope of reactor subsidies, if any. Kerry's willingness to entertain "clean coal" and new offshore oil drilling as "solutions" for climate chaos staggers the imagination. It seems to signal that King CONG still owns Washington, and that any meaningful Congressional push for green power will demand serious re-direction from the grassroots. DC insiders generally doubt that any Climate Bill can pass this year. Afghanistan and health care still dominate the national agenda. But Democrats are desperate for SOMETHING to show at December's Copenhagen Climate Conference. The question is: how much will they give fossil/nuke Republicans to get a bill---ANY bill---with the world "Climate" attached? The anti-nuclear movement has three times defeated proposed $50 billion loan guarantees for new nuclear plants. The environmental community still understands that solving the climate crisis requires the ultimate phase-out of fossil fuels. “A carbon-free, nuclear-free energy future is within the Senate's reach," says Michael Mariotte of the Nuclear Information & Resource Service. "The approach laid out by Kerry and Graham would lead to a climate bill in name only." NIRS is organizing a national call-in this week. A nationwide series of demonstrations for the environment will take place October 24. Preserving our ability to survive on this planet demands we phase out fossil fuels and nuclear power, and win a green-powered Earth based solely on renewables and efficiency. Ultimately, we cannot live with less.--Harvey Wasserman's SOLARTOPIA! OUR GREEN-POWERED EARTH is at www.solartopia.org. He is senior advisor to the Nuclear Information & Resource Service, and senior editor of www.freepress.org, where this article first appeared.

Thursday, dozens of activists gathered outside the Democratic fundraiser in San Francisco. Activists hoped to get a glimpse of President Obama as he approached the fundraiser to speak to his party. San Francisco has long been a city that's given President Obama strong support-- in part, this support hinged on his promise to lead on global warming. Unfortunately, Obama has so far allowed industry lobbyists to drive US climate policy, in spite of the billions of people whose lives are touched by climate change. Like many regions of the world experiencing the early effects of global warming, California has suffered from record wildfires and water shortages. To make sure he'd get the message that more is required, activists stood on the street corner and used music players to broadcast samples of Obama's statements committing to leadership in addressing climate change. The audio also included a challenge from activists to live up to his promises to lead the world toward a solution to the crisis. Activists had a very simple message of the President, “please be the leader you vowed to be.” President Obama needs to go to Copenhagen and push for a strong world treaty that does what science says will protect future generations. So far, he's let Congress take the lead, but they have fallen dramatically short of what science says is necessary. The world desperately needs the president to be the leader he promised he would be. Take action

It's finally here, a day when over 7,400 blogs with over 11,000,000 million readers will all be blogging about one thing on one day: climate. It couldn't come at a better moment, it is only 9 day before Greenpeace, 350.org and a host of coaltion partners and grassroots activists are calling for a Global Day of Action for the Climate! What is today? It's Blog Action Day 2009, "an annual event that unites the world's bloggers in posting about the same issue on the same day on their own blogs with the aim of sparking discussion around an issue of global importance. Blog Action Day 2009 will be the largest-ever social change event on the web." This year, the organizers of blog action day chose climate as their issue and I couldn't explain why this is such an important move better myself: Climate change affects us all and it threatens more than the environment. It threatens to cause famine, flooding, war, and millions of refugees. Given the urgency of the issue of climate change and the upcoming international climate negotiations in Copenhagen this December, we think the blogosphere has the unique opportunity to mobilize millions of people around expressing support for finding a sustainable solution to the climate crisis. Blog Action Day is perfectly timed to mobilize folks all over the world to participate in the October 24th International Day of Climate Action, when thousands of people just like you will Gather in more than 150 countries worldwide with the same message to world leaders: stop playing politics and save the planet. And while we write about climate almost everyday, if you're a blogger, here are two things you can do to pitch in on Blog Action Day: 1. Write about the one of more than 2,400 events around the world happening closest to you. 2. Call your readers to action by posting this video: Then, from the internet and in the streets, we can take this planet back!

Coal and oil companies are trying to cheat their way out of reducing their carbon footprints through sub-national forest offset schemes, so we've exposed it. Our new report Carbon Scam investigates how American Electric Power, BP and Pacificorp all investors in the Noel Kempff Climate Action Project in Bolivia, are using the forest protection project to try and sidestep their way out of reducing the greenhouse gas emissions from their operations.

When we caught the Japanese ship Koyu Maru 3 illegally fishing in Cook Islands waters, I made the point that their actions were not just illegal but immoral. I thought I'd write a little bit more on that, as well as the moral obligations of the developed world to deal with issues like overfishing and climate change - issues that developed nations are overwhelmingly responsible for creating.September 02, 2009 - Activists from the Esperanza display banners alongside a Taiwanese fishing vessel that was illegally transferring fish to another vessel in the Western Pacific Ocean. The transfer of fish at sea is one of the methods used around the world to cover up illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU or pirate) fishing activities. © Greenpeace/Paul Hilton Last week, The Commonwealth released a report written by 26 scientists and academics that underscores the drastic need for government action on overfishing and climate change in order to stave off a collapse of global fisheries. The report warns that the oceans could soon become as barren as deserts and goes on to say:The study reveals that those least responsible for the state of the oceans are most likely to suffer the consequences of poor management and climate change. Small island states in particular are vulnerable to illegal and unfair fishing by foreign fleets and to migration of fish away from warming seas.The Esperanza has been in the Pacific region since May to support Pacific Island countries on issues ranging from climate change to fisheries collapse and marine conservation (read more here and here).But of course Greenpeace's history in the Pacific Ocean goes back much further than that - all the way back to the early 1970s when we were protesting the French nuclear blasts at Moruroa. The fallout from these blasts also disproportionately affected those Pacific islanders living downwind from the blast sites - another instance of those not responsible for a problem suffering the most. While there was nothing technically illegal about these blasts, the total disregard for human health and welfare only highlights how egregiously immoral they were.The industrialized commercial fishing vessels that are literally stealing fish from Pacific island nations' waters is just another example of the developed world doing as they please and disregarding the well-being of the people affected by their actions. That's why it's very encouraging that eight Pacific island nations have come together and are standing up for their rights against the invading international commercial fishing fleets. Pacific island states are not the only developing nations that are banding together to force the developed world to live up to their moral obligations: “Africa will demand billions of dollars in compensation from rich polluting nations at a UN climate summit for the harm caused by global warming on the continent, African officials said Sunday.”Lest we doubt that there is any need for this stand by African nations, even the World Bank, which has not historically been known as a good friend to the developing world (Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine documents ample evidence of this assertion), is warning of the threats those nations are facing as the climate crisis looms: “The World Bank estimates that the developing world will suffer about 80 percent of the damage of climate change despite accounting for only around one third of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”So the real question we must be asking ourselves is: Will the developed world stand up and do the right thing in regard to these moral obligations?Greenpeace released the “America's Share of the Climate Crisis: A State-By-State Carbon Footprint” report back in May to highlight the United States' responsibility for leading the world's efforts to stop global warming given our outsized role in creating the problem.Sign our petition to President Obama letting him know that Americans expect world leaders to agree to a climate deal that is ambitious, fair and binding this December in Copenhagen.

We are thrilled to announce that one of our staff members, René Ngongo, has today been named a recipient of the 2009 Right Livelihood award.

Apple has stormed out of the biggest lobby group in the United States. At issue is the US Chamber of Commerce's use of funds to oppose climate change legislation. Apple has done the right thing, and IBM and Microsoft should think different too.

A major victory has been won for climate and forest protection. Four of the largest players in the global cattle industry joined forces to ban the purchase of cattle from newly deforested areas of the Brazilian Amazon from their supply chains. This fabulous news follows Greenpeace's call for zero deforestation in the rainforest.

700 volunteers posed nude in a French vineyard to send a message about climate change. This human art installation in the South of Burgundy was created by artist Spencer Tunick - to warn about the dangers of global warming.

Google's Climate Change tools launched last week with a set of tours, narrated by Al Gore, about what the world might look like in 2050 if we do nothing to stop global warming. This week, Google launches a tour telling a success story about what can happen when we take action for solutions today: the moratorium on new soy plantations in the Amazon.

A new report, released last week by the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) forecasts that the planet will warm by 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. This new revelation is much faster than forecast just two years ago.

Please join us in pushing for safer alternatives at U.S. chemical plants. Tell your Representative to vote for the Waxman-Markey chemical security legislation without weakening amendments.

Our jaws hit the deck and we all fell out of our inflatables when we got word that Presidents Obama, Lula, Zapatero and Prime Minister Hatoyama were going show up in Copenhagen. And then we found out that instead of showing up in Copenhagen for the UN Climate Summit in December, world leaders were actually going to be there today, 2 months ahead of schedule to lobby the Olympic Congress for their cites to host the 2016 Games

Decades of mismanagement, overfishing and refusing to create marine reserves have unfortunately caught up with the Alaska pollock fishery. The billion dollar fishery is the largest in the United States, producing a large number of breaded products like fish sticks, fish fingers, and fish fillet sandwiches, as well as surimi, the processed seafood often sold as fake crab or used in sushi rolls.

President Obama will be in Japan in mid-November. Take action and urge him to talk about whale conservation with the new Japanese Prime Minister when they meet. It's a tiny issue for two heads of government, but it is a very big issue for the whales.