WASHINGTON, DC, October 29, 2008 (ENS) – In an open letter to the American people released Tuesday, 76 American Nobel Laureates in science endorsed Democratic Senator Barack Obama of Illinois for president of the United States. This is the largest number of Nobel prize winners ever to endorse a candidate for office.

Presidential candidate
Senator Barack Obama,
Harbor Park, Virginia,
October 28, 2008
(Photo by Jason
Pavear)

]

“This year’s presidential election is among the most significant in our nation’s history,” the Nobel Laureates wrote. “The country urgently needs a visionary leader who can ensure the future of our traditional strengths in science and technology and who can harness those strengths to address many of our greatest problems: energy, disease, climate change, security, and economic competitiveness.”

“We are convinced that Senator Barack Obama is such a leader, and we urge you to join us in supporting him.”

The scientists warned that an administration headed by Obama’s opponent Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona would not be good for future U.S. scientific endeavors that over the past eight years “have been damaged by stagnant or declining federal support.”

“John McCain’s promise to freeze funding increases for science next year threatens to continue this dangerous trend,” wrote the Nobel Laureates in chemistry, medicine and physics.

Presidential candidate
Senator John
McCain, October
28, 2008 (Photo
credit unknown)

“In addition, the reckless statements he and Governor [Sarah] Palin [of Alaska] have made on specific science programs including studies aimed at protecting the grizzly bear population, funding for a planetarium and research on fruit flies that have the potential to decimate crops brings to doubt their ability to manage the nation’s science programs,” the scientists wrote.

The Nobel Laureates were critical of President George W. Bush. Their letter warns, “The government’s scientific advisory process has been distorted by political considerations,” the scientists wrote. “As a result, our once dominant position in the scientific world has been shaken and our prosperity has been placed at risk.”

“We have lost time critical for the development of new ways to provide energy, treat disease, reverse climate change, strengthen our security, and improve our economy,” they wrote.

The Nobel Laureates praised Obama’s plan for managing and growing the nation’s scientific endeavor. “We especially applaud his emphasis during the campaign on the power of science and technology to enhance our nation’s competitiveness,” the scientists wrote.

Dr. Martin Calfie in his chemistry lab
at Columbia University (Photo by
Angela Radelescu)

“In particular, we support the measures he plans to take – through new initiatives in education and training, expanded research funding, an unbiased process for obtaining scientific advice, and an appropriate balance of basic and applied research – to meet the nation’s and the world’s most urgent needs.”

The list of 76 scientists includes three of the four American Nobel Laureates in science for 2008 – Martin Chalfie of Columbia University and Roger Tsien of the University of California at San Diego who shared the prize in Chemistry, and Yoichiro Nambu, of the University of Chicago who won the prize in Physics.

Chalfie was the first of the three to make his intentions known. One of the first actions he took after learning he won the prestigious prize was to contact a friend about signing on to the Obama endorsement letter.

“I understand there’s a list of Nobel Prize winners supporting Barack Obama, and I want to get my name on the list,” Chalfie said.

Chalfie also recorded a YouTube video explaining his endorsement to the public, saying, “The United States is the leader in scientific discovery and its application, but other countries are working hard to take away this lead. Barack Obama’s administration will continue to keep us the envy of the world.”

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

WASHINGTON, DC, October 15, 2008 (ENS) – A bill introduced by Senator Barack Obama that will help protect Americans and people around the world from mercury poisoning by banning the export of elemental mercury from the United States, was signed into law last night by President George W. Bush.

Senator Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, said, “The president’s approval of this bipartisan bill is an important victory for millions of the world’s most vulnerable citizens who are exposed to the harmful effects of mercury every day.”

“Exposure to mercury leads to serious developmental problems in children as well as problems affecting vision, motor skills, blood pressure, and fertility in adults,” said Obama. “Despite our country’s improved efforts to contain and collect mercury over the years, we remain one of the world’s leading exporters of this dangerous product, so I am proud this bill will finally ban mercury exports.”

S. 906, the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008, prohibits the transfer of elemental mercury by federal agencies, bans U.S. export of elemental mercury by 2013, and requires the Department of Energy to designate and manage an elemental mercury long-term disposal facility.

The Mercury Export Ban Act won support from a wide spectrum of interests, from environmentalists to the American Chemistry Council.

“Today we have won a momentous victory for public health that will save lives both here and abroad,” said Susan Keane, a scientist for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Banning the export of mercury will substantially reduce mercury contamination in fish, prevent the contamination of our water, and shield our children from a dangerous chemical.”

Don’t try this at home. Exposure to elemental
mercury is dangerous. (Photo credit unknown)

“Those involved overcame a difficult political climate to enact bipartisan legislation that will benefit millions of people around the globe,” said Keane. “This is no small feat, and I commend them for their hard work.”

American Chemistry Council President and CEO Cal Dooley said, “What makes this legislation unique is that it not only reflects support of both Democrats and Republicans, it also reflects what is possible when a broad-based coalition of stakeholder interests comes together. The American Chemistry Council, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Council of the States, the Chlorine Institute, Inc., and the National Mining Association successfully worked together for many months to help enact this legislation to ban exports of elemental mercury from the United States by January 1, 2013.”

The Mercury Export Ban Act puts an end to a vicious cycle of poison, Keane explained. While this dangerous neurotoxin is being phased out by industry and the government here in the United States, surplus mercury is shipped overseas to developing countries, where it is released from highly polluting industries, she said.

“Not only is the air and water in those importing countries contaminated with concentrations of mercury that would not be tolerated in the United States, the mercury can also travel for thousands of miles and can settle right back here in the United States, poisoning Americans mainly through consumption of contaminated fish,” Keane said.

The law, signed by President Bush and passed by the House and Senate with overwhelming majorities, now requires that all mercury in the United States remain here, where it can be managed according to U.S. laws.

It prohibits the departments of Defense and Energy from exporting their huge accumulated stockpiles of mercury.

The bill also directs the Department of Energy to begin operating a long-term storage and management facility for excess mercury.

“I am pleased that President Bush has signed this important legislation which will slow needless mercury emissions, especially in the developing world,” said Senator Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican. who joined Obama in introducing the bill.

“Given our expanding knowledge about the health impacts of elemental mercury when it enters the atmosphere, it only makes sense to take reasonable steps now to safeguard the environment from the release of mercury that can affect fish and potentially those who eat fish,” she said.

“Mercury is a potent neurotoxin hazardous to human health, especially for infants, children, and women who are pregnant or nursing,” said Congressman Tom Allen, a Maine Democrat, who introduced the bill in the House of Representatives.

“Maine people should be able to eat the fish they purchase in the supermarkets,” he said. “We still have much to do to end mercury pollution, and I will continue to fight for passage of my legislation to establish a nationwide mercury pollution monitoring system and the legislation I support requiring utilities to reduce their mercury emissions.”

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

NASHVILLE, Tennessee, October 8, 2008 (ENS) – Energy and environment issues formed a substantial part of last night’s presidential debate between Democratic hopeful Senator Barack Obama and Republican Senator John McCain. The second of three debates was an informal style Town Hall event held at Belmont University in Nashville, with veteran newscaster Tom Brokaw as moderator.

Obama said repeatedly that energy would be a top priority in his administration.

“We are going to have to deal with energy because we can’t keep on borrowing from the Chinese and sending money to Saudi Arabia. We are mortgaging our children’s future. We’ve got to have a different energy plan,” he said.

McCain also said repeatedly that the United States is too dependent on foreign sources of oil. “We’ve got to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don’t want us very – like us very much,” he said early in the debate.

“My friends,” he said once again, “some of this $700 billion ends up in the hands of terrorist organizations.”

McCain said “drilling offshore and nuclear power are two vital elements” of U.S. energy independence.

McCain’s energy policy depends heavily on nuclear power. “We can work on nuclear power plants. Build a whole bunch of them, create millions of new jobs,” he said when asked what would be his top priority as president.

Later in the debate McCain reduced his assessment of how many jobs the nuclear industry might created, saying, “Look, I was on Navy ships that had nuclear power plants. Nuclear power is safe, and it’s clean, and it creates hundreds of thousands of jobs.”

“We have to have all of the above, alternative fuels, wind, tide, solar, natural gas, clean coal technology,” the Republican said.

From left: Senator John McCain and Senator
Barack Obama after their debate in
Nashville, Tennessee (Photo by
Berna Rosario)

Democratic candidate Obama has called for an investment of $15 billion a year over 10 years toward energy independence. “Our goal should be, in 10 year’s time, we are free of dependence on Middle Eastern oil.”

“That would be priority number one,” he said, calling energy independence a national security issue “because countries like Russia and Venezuela and, you know, in some cases, countries like Iran, are benefiting from higher oil prices.”

In response to a question from a member of the public on what sacrifices Americans will have to make, Obama called on Americans to “save energy in our homes, in our buildings.”

Obama promised “incentives so that you can buy a fuel efficient car that’s made right here in the United States of America, not in Japan or South Korea.”

“I believe in the need for increased oil production,” Obama said. “We’re going to have to explore new ways to get more oil, and that includes offshore drilling. It includes telling the oil companies, that currently have 68 million acres that they’re not using, that either you use them or you lose them,”

“We’re going to have to develop clean coal technology and safe ways to store nuclear energy,” he said.

McCain dismissed Obama’s requirement that nuclear power be safe, saying, “Nuclear power. Senator Obama says that it has to be safe or disposable or something like that.”

“And I know that we can reprocess the spent nuclear fuel,” said McCain. “The Japanese, the British, the French do it. And we can do it, too. Senator Obama has opposed that.”

In fact, Japan transports the spent fuel from its nuclear reactors by ship to France and Britain for reprocessing.

Answering a question from the audience about how quickly the candidates would move to address environmental issues, like climate change and green jobs, McCain espoused environmental causes in a general way.

“We can move forward, and clean up our climate, and develop green technologies, and alternate – alternative energies for – for hybrid, for hydrogen, for battery-powered cars, so that we can clean up our environment and at the same time get our economy going by creating millions of jobs,” McCain said.

Obama said, “It is absolutely critical that we understand this is not just a challenge, it’s an opportunity, because if we create a new energy economy, we can create five million new jobs, easily, here in the United States.”

“It can be an engine that drives us into the future the same way the computer was the engine for economic growth over the last couple of decades,” said the Democrat.

Reminding the audience that his opponent voted against alternative energy 23 times, Obama said, “Sen. McCain talks a lot about drilling, and that’s important, but we have three percent of the world’s oil reserves and we use 25 percent of the world’s oil.”

“So what that means is that we can’t simply drill our way out of the problem. And we’re not going to be able to deal with the climate crisis if our only solution is to use more fossil fuels that create global warming,” Obama said.

Stung by the assertion that he has voted against the alternative energy solutions he now espouses, McCain countered, “It was an energy bill on the floor of the Senate loaded down with goodies, billions for the oil companies, and it was sponsored by Bush and Cheney.”

“You know who voted for it? You might never know. That one,” said McCain, referring to his opponent.

“You know who voted against it? Me.”

McCain grew more impatient and dismissive of Obama as the debate continued into areas of foreign policy, until by the end of the encounter, the Republican was ignoring his opponent.

After the debate had concluded and both candidates were free to walk around the hall talking to audience members, Senator Obama offered his hand to his opponent, but McCain looked away.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

ST. LOUIS, Missouri, October 3, 2008 (ENS) – The vice presidential candidates, Democratic Senator Joe Biden and Republican Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, held their only debate of the election campaign at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri on Thursday night. Gwen Ifill of PBS was the debate moderator.

Among many other topics, the candidates differed on how they would deal with energy and climate change if elected on November 4.

A poll taken continuously as the debate was taking place, shows that of 1,195 respondents to the climate change topic, Biden’s statements were approved by 83 percent of Democrats, 64 percent of Independents and 16 percent of Republicans; while Palin’s statements were approved by 84 percent of Republicans, 36 percent of Independents and 17 percent of Democrats.

Asked who won the debate overall, of 1,182 respondents, 80 percent of Republicans voted for Palin, 87 percent of Democrats voted for Biden, and 69 percent of Independents also voted for Biden.

The results were gathered simultaneously through text messaging and a web tool and displayed live on Mediacurves.com [www.mediacurves.com].

Vice presidential candidates Senator Joe
Biden and Governor Sarah Palin meet
for the first time onstage at the debate.

On the topic of energy independence and tax breaks for big oil corporations, Governor Palin accused Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama of voting in favor of a 2005 energy bill that gave tax breaks to oil companies.

Senator Biden countered by saying that Obama voted for that energy bill “because, for the first time, it had real support for alternative energy.”

“When there were separate votes on eliminating the tax breaks for the oil companies, Barack Obama voted to eliminate them,” Biden said.

Then Biden asked a question of his own about the position of Palin’s running mate, Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain, on tax breaks for big oil companies.

“If John really wanted to eliminate them, why is he adding to his budget an additional $4 billion in tax cuts for ExxonMobils of the world that, in fact, already have made $600 billion since 2001?” asked Biden.

Palin did not directly reply to that question, but she said, “I had to take on those oil companies and tell them, ‘No,’ you know, any of the greed there that has been kind of instrumental, I guess, in their mode of operation, that wasn’t going to happen in my state.”

“And that’s why Tillerson at Exxon and Mulva at ConocoPhillips, bless their hearts, they’re doing what they need to do, as corporate CEOs, but they’re not my biggest fans, because what I had to do up there in Alaska was to break up a monopoly up there and say, you know, the people are going to come first and we’re going to make sure that we have value given to the people of Alaska with those resources,” Palin said.

In August, Palin signed a bill authorizing the state of Alaska to award TransCanada Pipelines a license to build and operate a $26 billion pipeline to transport natural gas from the North Slope to the continental United States through Canada.

Five other proposals were submitted – by Sinopec, AEnergia, the Alaska Gasline Port Authority, the Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority, and another consortium that included BP and ConocoPhillips.

By setting criteria met by TransCanada but not the large oil companies, Palin claims to have broken their monopoly.

As governor, Palin helped pass a tax increase on oil company profits, although she opposes the windfall profits tax proposed by Senator Obama.

However, in Thursday’s debate, when Biden said, “Look, I agree with the governor. She imposed a windfall profits tax up there in Alaska. That’s what Barack Obama and I want to do,” Palin did not challenge or deny his statement.

Senator Joe Biden and Governor
Sarah Palin in debate

Obama’s proposal for a windfall profits tax on oil companies would target profit from the biggest oil companies by taxing each barrel of oil costing more than $80, according to a fact sheet on the proposal. The tax would help pay for a $1,000 tax cut for working families, an expansion of the earned- income tax credit and help for people who cannot afford to pay their energy bills.

“But John McCain will not support a windfall profits tax,” Biden repeated. “They’ve made $600 billion since 2001, and John McCain wants to give them, all by itself – separate, no additional bill, all by itself – another $4 billion tax cut.”

“So I hope the governor is able to convince John McCain to support our windfall profits tax, which she supported in Alaska, and I give her credit for it,” Biden said.

Palin said, “Energy independence is the key to this nation’s future, to our economic future, and to our national security. So when we talk about energy plans, it’s not just about who got a tax break and who didn’t. And we’re not giving oil companies tax breaks, but it’s about a heck of a lot more than that.”

She blamed the “East Coast politicians” who do not allow energy-producing states like Alaska to tap into domestic sources of oil and gas.

“We’re circulating about $700 billion a year into foreign countries, some who do not like America – they certainly don’t have our best interests at heart – instead of those dollars circulating here, creating tens of thousands of jobs and allowing domestic supplies of energy to be tapped into and start flowing into these very, very hungry markets.”

Sign at a rally for Republican presidential
candidate Senator John McCain in
Jacksonville, Florida. September 15,
2008 (Photo credit unknown)

“The chant is ‘drill, baby, drill,’” Palin said. “And that’s what we hear all across this country in our rallies because people are so hungry for those domestic sources of energy to be tapped into.”

She then blamed her Democratic opponents for what she called “the energy crisis that we’re in.”

“You even called drilling – safe, environmentally-friendly drilling offshore, as raping the outer continental shelf,” Palin accused. “There – with new technology, with tiny footprints even on land, it is safe to drill and we need to do more of that. But also in that ‘all of the above’ approach that Senator McCain supports, the alternative fuels will be tapped into: the nuclear, the clean coal.”

This week, Congress allowed the long-standing moratorium on drilling for oil and gas on the outer continental shelf to expire although it has been renewed annually by every Congress since 1981. Conservationists object to offshore drilling that might spill oil into sensitive coastal ecosystems and say it would divert resources from renewable energy development.

Moderator Ifill asked the candidates, “What is true and what is false about what we have heard, read, discussed, debated about the causes of climate change?”

Palin said, “Alaska feels and sees impacts of climate change more so than any other state. And we know that it’s real.”

But she equivocated on the issue of whether or not the Earth’s rising temperature is due to human activities.

“I’m not one to attribute every man – activity of man to the changes in the climate. There is something to be said also for man’s activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet,” she said.

Campaign rally for Senators Barack
Obama and Joe Biden in Dublin, Ohio.
August 30, 2008 (Photo credit unknown)

Biden laid the blame on human activities. “Well, I think it is manmade. I think it’s clearly manmade,” he declared. “And, look, this probably explains the biggest fundamental difference between John McCain and Barack Obama and Sarah Palin and Joe Biden.”

“If you don’t understand what the cause is, it’s virtually impossible to come up with a solution. We know what the cause is. The cause is manmade. That’s the cause,” Biden said. “That’s why the polar icecap is melting.”

“As governor, I was the first governor to form a climate change sub-cabinet to start dealing with the impacts,” Palin said.

Palin created the Climate Change Sub-Cabinet on September 14, 2007 by administrative order. Made up of the heads of six state government agencies, it serves an advisory function on an Alaska climate change strategy.

California and Florida, among other states, have had such advisory climate change bodies for longer, although they may not refer to them as sub-cabinets.

“We’ve got to reduce emissions,” Palin declared. “John McCain is right there with an ‘all of the above’ approach to deal with climate change impacts … tapping into alternative sources of energy and conserving fuel, conserving our petroleum products and our hydrocarbons so that we can clean up this planet and deal with climate change.”

Biden countered, “We have three percent of the world’s oil reserves. We consume 25 percent of the oil in the world. John McCain has voted 20 times in the last decade-and-a-half against funding alternative energy sources, clean energy sources, wind, solar, biofuels.”

To curb greenhouse gas emissions, Biden said he and Obama would rely on “clean coal and safe nuclear” as well as “wind and solar.”

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

WASHINGTON, DC, September 16, 2008 (ENS) – Both presidential candidates say that if they are elected in November, they will fight global warming by reducing carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, using methods that include a cap-and-trade system, but then their positions begin to diverge.

Democratic nominee Senator Barack Obama of Illinois says his administration would put the United States on track to cut carbon emissions 80 percent by the year 2050. “I will restore U.S. leadership in strategies for combating climate change and work closely with the international community,” Obama says.

On the other hand, Republican nominee Senator John McCain of Arizona says his administration would aim for a reduction of at least 60 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050. He does not mention international engagement but promises a $5,000 tax credit to every customer who buys an American zero-emissions car.

Democratic presidential nominee Senator Barack
Obama, left, and Republican presidential
nominee Senator John McCain.

The candidates gave these answers in response to 14 questions posed by a new organization ScienceDebate2008 that is attempting to raise the profile of science in this presidential election.

“We are grateful for both senators’ detailed responses,” said Matthew Chapman, president of the initiative. “Now we hope the candidates will want to discuss their differences. Science Debate 2008 and its partners once again extend an invitation to both candidates to attend a televised forum where these vital issues can be discussed in front of a broader audience.”

ScienceDebate2008 is a citizens initiative started by six people last December. Signers now include nearly every major American science organization, the presidents of most major American universities, and dozens of Nobel laureates and top American CEOs.

The 14 questions address energy policy, national security, economics in a science-driven global economy, climate change, education, health care, ocean health, biosecurity, clean water, space, stem cells, scientific integrity, genetics, and research.

“Most of America’s major unsolved challenges revolve around these 14 questions,” said Shawn Otto, CEO of the initiative. “To move America forward, the next president needs a substantive plan for tackling them going in, and voters deserve to know what that plan is.”

On the role of nuclear energy, the candidates differ widely in their views.

McCain supports a greater role for nuclear power, saying, “As president, I will put the country on track to building 45 new reactors by 2030 so that we can meet our growing energy demand and reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases. Nuclear power is a proven, domestic, zero-emission source of energy and it is time to recommit to advancing our use of nuclear energy.”

Obama does not rule out nuclear power but looks towards developing, “A new generation of nuclear electric technologies that address cost, safety, waste disposal, and proliferation risks.”

On the production tax credit for renewable energy facilities that is due to expire at the end of December, Obama offers to extend the credit for five years.

Stirling Energy Systems SunCatchers use mirrors
to concentrate the Sun’s energy and
convert it to electricity without harmful
emissions. (Photo courtesy SES)

McCain says he supports the idea of a production tax credit although he has voted against it. “I’ve voted against the current patchwork of tax credits for renewable power because they were temporary, and often the result of who had the best lobbyist instead of who had the best ideas. But the objective itself was right and urgent,” he said.

On the question of improving ocean health, McCain, a former U.S. Navy officer, says, “Ocean health and policy requires better management focus; however, we also need a better scientific understanding of the oceans,” but offers no specific actions.

Obama says he will “work actively to ensure that the U.S. ratifies the Law of the Sea Convention – an agreement supported by more than 150 countries that will protect our economic and security interests while providing an important international collaboration to protect the oceans and its resources.”

Obama links global climate change to “catastrophic effects on ocean ecologies” and says his plan to reduce U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases 80 percent below 1990 by 2050 can help.

He promises to expand the research budgets of federal scientific agencies such as NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation, and the U.S. Geological Survey.

Clean drinking water is something Americans can
no longer take for granted. (Photo by Jasen
Robillard)

On the essential question of coping with the water shortages expected in 39 states during the next decade, McCain offers nothing new, but the senator from the arid state of Arizona says, “I understand the importance of state law and local prerogatives in the allocation of water resources, and that all levels of government must work together with stakeholders to ensure that our lifeblood is protected, managed, and utilized in a wise, just, and sustainable manner.”

Obama says, “Solutions to this critical problem will require close collaboration between federal, state, and local governments and the people and businesses affected. First, prices and policies must be set in a ways that give everyone a clear incentive to use water efficiently and avoid waste.”

Obama says he will “establish a national plan to help high-growth regions with the challenges of managing their water supplies” and will provide “information, training, and, in some cases, economic assistance” to farms and businesses shifting to “more efficient water practices.”

The 14 questions were developed from over 3,400 questions submitted by more than 38,500 signers of the ScienceDebate2008 initiative.

The questionnaire is a joint effort led by ScienceDebate2008, with Scientists and Engineers for America, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, and the Council on Competitiveness, among others, together representing more than 125 million Americans.

To read the two candidates’ responses to the 14 questions, click here.

A national poll, commissioned by Research!America and ScienceDebate2008.com and conducted in May by Harris Interactive, shows that 56 percent of respondents strongly agree and 29 percent somewhat agree that the presidential candidates should participate in a debate to discuss how science can help tackle key problems facing the United States, such as health care, climate change and energy.

“This is not a niche debate,” said Craig Barrett, chairman of Intel and one of the supporters of the Science Debate initiative. “Without the best education system and aggressive investments in basic research and development we will become a second rate economic power. We expect the candidates for president to take this very seriously.”

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

DENVER, Colorado, August 29, 2008 (ENS) – Climate change has made Senator Barack Obama’s list of “threats of the 21st century” alongside terrorism and nuclear proliferation, poverty, genocide, and disease.

Accepting the Democratic nomination for president Thursday night before 75,000 supporters at Denver’s Invesco Field, Obama said he would “build new partnerships” to defeat these threats.

Senator Barack
Obama of Illinois
is the Democratic
nominee for pres-
ident of the
United States.
(Photo courtesy
DNCC)

“And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as president – in 10 years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East,” he declared.

“Washington’s been talking about our oil addiction for the last 30 years, and John McCain has been there for 26 of them,” said the senator from Illinois of his Republican opponent.

“In that time, he’s said no to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars, no to investments in renewable energy, no to renewable fuels. And today, we import triple the amount of oil as the day that Senator McCain took office.”

“Now is the time to end this addiction, and to understand that drilling is a stop-gap measure, not a long-term solution. Not even close,” said Obama.

“As president,” he promised, “I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power.

“I’ll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America,” he said. “I’ll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars.”

Obama accepts the nomination with a
smile. (Photo by Pat Kight)

“And I’ll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy – wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can’t ever be outsourced.”

Obama has won the support of many environmentalists for his climate and energy plans.

In a scorecard comparing Obama’s energy policies with those of his Republican opponent, Senator John McCain of Arizona, the Sierra Club last week came out clearly in favor of Obama.

“Both candidates are talking about energy, high prices and global warming, so it’s important to look past the rhetoric and see what is at the heart of their plans,” said Cathy Duvall, Sierra Club political director.

“As this scorecard illustrates, the contrast in this election could not be starker,” she said. “Barack Obama wants to give tax relief and $1,000 energy rebates to working families, while John McCain wants billions more in tax breaks for oil companies making more than $1,000 a second in profits.”

Some 75,000 Democrats packed Invesco
Field for the nomination ceremony.

The League of Conservation Voters said Wednesday that Obama has a “proven record as an environmental champion” and found 10 reasons to support his candidacy.

Speaking tonight in support of the newly selected Democratic presidential nominee, former Vice President Al Gore described the choice facing American voters as one that will determine the fate of the planet.

He spoke from experience, having run for the presidency in 2000 and won the popular vote only to watch as the U.S. Supreme Court stopped the vote counting in Florida, in effect handing the White House to his opponent, George W. Bush.

“That’s why I came here tonight: to tell you why I feel so strongly that we must seize this opportunity to elect Barack Obama president of the United States of America,” said Gore.

“Take it from me, if it had ended differently,” Gore told the crowd, “we would not be denying the climate crisis; we’d be solving it.”

But today, Gore said, “We are facing a planetary emergency, which, if not solved, would exceed anything we’ve ever experienced in the history of humankind.”

“We’re borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the future of human civilization,” said Gore. “Every bit of that has to change.”

Gore, who shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for doing his utmost to warn the world about global warming, delivered a searing picture of potential climate disaster tonight.

Former Vice Pres-
ident Al Gore
addresses fellow
Democrats in Den-
ver. August 28,
2008

“Many scientists predict – shockingly – that the entire North Polar ice cap may be completely gone during summer months during the first term of the next president,” he said.

“Sea levels are rising; fires are raging; storms are stronger. Military experts warn us our national security is threatened by massive waves of climate refugees destabilizing countries around the world, and scientists tell us the very web of life is endangered by unprecedented extinctions,” Gore warned.

The former vice president, who served in the Senate with McCain as president pro tem during the Clinton administration and before that as a senator from Tennessee, told the crowd tonight, “In spite of John McCain’s past record of open-mindedness and leadership on the climate crisis, he has now apparently allowed his party to browbeat him into abandoning his support of mandatory caps on global warming pollution.”

Gore said Obama will be a president who inspires America to believe we can use the sun, the wind, geothermal power, conservation and efficiency to solve the climate crisis.

By contrast, he said “the carbon fuels industry – big oil and coal – have a 50-year lease on the Republican Party, and they are drilling it for everything it’s worth.”

At the White House today, presidential spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters that President Bush believes the Obama nomination shows “that America is the best country on Earth and a place where everybody, if they work hard, can achieve great things.”

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

DENVER, Colorado, August 25, 2008 (ENS) – At the opening of the Democratic National Convention today, the Democratic Party adopted a new platform that incorporates the energy plan put forward by Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the presumptive presidential nominee.

The plan would implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.

It would ensure 10 percent of U.S. electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.

It would enact a windfall profits tax on oil companies to provide a $1,000 emergency energy rebate to American families, and would help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next 10 years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.

Co-chair of the Platform Committee, New Mexico Attorney General Patricia Madrid, told convention delegates, “We will jumpstart the economy, providing an energy rebate and keeping families in their homes. We will invest in America again, in clean energy technology, world-class education and infrastructure, so that our economy can generate the good, high-paying jobs of the future.”

“And,” she said, “we will harness American ingenuity to free this nation from the tyranny of oil.”

Delegates at the Democratic National
Convention August 25, 2008
(Photo courtesy DNCC)

“I am proud that this year the Democratic Party opened up the platform process and invited Americans in,” said Madrid. “There were over 1,600 platform hearings in every state of the union. Over 30,000 people attended. This platform reflects their concerns and their hopes.”

League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski commended the platform committee, calling the Obama energy plan, “the strongest, most comprehensive plan ever put forward by a presidential nominee.”

“Obama’s plan recognizes the enormous potential of renewable energy to end our addiction to oil, strengthen our national security, fight global warming, and create millions of jobs across America, Karpinski said. “On this platform, Barack Obama and Joe Biden will build the clean energy future that America deserves.”

Environmentalists are praising Obama’s choice of Senator Joe Biden as his vice presidential running mate, a choice Obama announced Saturday in Springfield, Illinois.

Introducing his running mate, Obama said, “Joe won’t just make a good vice president – he will make a great one.”

“Instead of secret task energy task forces stacked with Big Oil and a vice president that twists the facts and shuts the American people out, I know that Joe Biden will give us some real straight talk,” said Obama.

The comment slammed the current Vice President Dick Cheney, who held secret meetings with oil company executives in 2001 while drafting the Bush administration’s energy strategy, and also backhanded Republican candidate Senator John McCain, who repeatedly has promised “straight talk.”

Born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, Biden is a six term Senator from Delaware, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

From left, Senator Joseph Biden and
Senator Barack Obama in Springfield,
Illinois for the announcement that
Biden will be Obama’s vice presidential
running mate. August 23, 2008
(Photo by Daniel Schwen)

Obama described him as “that scrappy kid from Scranton who beat the odds; the dedicated family man and committed Catholic who knows every conductor on that Amtrak train to Wilmington.”

“That’s what it’s going to take to forge a new energy policy that frees us from our dependence on foreign oil and $4 gasoline at the pump, while creating new jobs and new industry,” Obama said.

League of Conservation Voters President Karpinski agrees. “With a lifetime LCV environmental score of 83 percent,” he said, “Joe Biden recognizes that ending our addiction to oil is vital to our national security. Senator Biden is a long-time leader on key energy and environmental issues, and the members of LCV enthusiastically support Senator Obama’s choice.”

In 2007, Karpinski pointed out, Biden voted to strengthen vehicle fuel economy standards and to repeal subsidies to oil companies. In 1986, he introduced the first bill designed to limit global warming pollution.

Biden has chaired Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on the national security implications of unchecked global warming.

He partnered with Republican Senator Dick Lugar to co-author and pass a resolution calling on the Bush administration to return to international negotiations to address climate change.

Biden voted yes on reducing oil usage by 40 percent by 2025, and he voted to reject drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

In Denver, the first space of its kind ever created at a national political convention is open to new media journalists, bloggers, reporters and nonprofit leaders covering the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

The Big Tent, an 8,000 square foot two story temporary structure, is a joint project of Alliance for Sustainable Colorado, DailyKos, and ProgressNow.

Set up next to a 100 year old warehouse building owned by Alliance for Sustainable Colorado in Denver’s Lower Downtown district, the tent features a Google Retreat with a YouTube kiosk and speakers appear on the Digg Stage.

On Sunday, in an event closed to the public, national radio commentator Jim Hightower, founder and president of Green for All Van Jones, and Maryland Congresswoman Donna Edwards took a look at what the Democratic campaign for change will mean over the next four years – the conflicts and theopportunities. They covered environmental justice; climate change, clean energy and global warming; technology and democracy.

Today, Lester Brown, founder of the Earth Policy Institute, and author of “Rescuing a Planet Under Stress – Plan 3.0″ was a featured speaker in the Big Tent.

“Plan B 3.0 is a comprehensive plan for reversing the trends that are fast undermining our future. Its four overriding goals are to stabilize climate, stabilize population, eradicate poverty, and restore the Earth’s damaged ecosystems,” said Brown. “Failure to reach any one of these goals will likely mean failure to reach the others as well.”

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

ST. PAUL, Minnesota, June 4, 2008 (ENS) – The Democratic primary season officially ended Tuesday night as Senator Barack Obama declared victory before a jubilant crowd of some 17,000 at a rally at the Xcel Energy Center in downtown St. Paul.

“This is America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past,” the Illinois senator told cheering supporters. “Our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love.”

Senator Barack Obama and his wife,
Michelle, applaud supporters in
St. Paul, Minnesota. June 3, 2008.
(Photo by Salvador García Bardon)

Obama acknowledged the accomplishments of his rival, Senator Hillary Clinton as he became the first black candidate in the nation’s history to be the presidential nominee of a major political party.

“You can rest assured that when we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country, she will be central to that victory,” he said. “When we transform our energy policy and lift our children out of poverty, it will be because she worked to help make it happen.”

Obama said, “Our party and our country are better off because of her, and I am a better candidate for having had the honor to compete with Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

Obama and Clinton have had their differences during this long primary campaign, but tonight they each said that the ways America uses energy will have to change in the near future.

“Change is building an economy that rewards not just wealth, but the work and workers who created it,” said Obama, as he advocated “investing in our crumbling infrastructure, and transforming how we use energy, and improving our schools, and renewing our commitment to science and innovation.”

Speaking in her home state of New York, Clinton acknowledged the strength of her opponent, and then she highlighted similar issues when explaining “what Hillary wants.”

“I want an economy that works for all families,” she said. “That’s why I have been fighting to create millions of new jobs in clean energy and rebuilding our infrastructure, jobs to come to all of our states and urban and rural areas and suburban communities and small towns.”

Turning his attention to his next opponent, Obama deflected the critique of Republican presumptive nominee Senator John McCain of Arizona that he has not been to Iraq recently enough.

Instead, Obama said, it is McCain who would better understand the kind of change Americans want if he visited more places at home in America.

“Maybe if he went to Pennsylvania and met the man who lost his job but can’t even afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one, he’d understand that we can’t afford four more years of our addiction to oil from dictators,” Obama said.

“That man needs us to pass an energy policy that works with automakers to raise fuel standards, and makes corporations pay for their pollution, and oil companies invest their record profits in a clean energy future – an energy policy that will create millions of new jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced,” he said. “That’s the change we need.”

In New York, Clinton had a parallel message – the Bush years have left Americans impoverished.

Senator Hillary Clinton makes her way through
a crowd of supporters. June 3, 2008
(Photo credit unknown)

“For the past seven years, so many people in this country have felt invisible, like your president didn’t even really see you,” she said.

Then Clinton too sketched a picture of an energy-smart future that she says could replace today’s tough economy.

“I have seen the shuttered factories, the jobs shipped overseas, the families struggling to afford gas and groceries,” she said, “but I’ve also seen unions retraining workers to build energy efficient buildings, innovators designing cars that run on fuel cells and bio-fuels and electricity, cars that get more miles per gallon than ever before, cars that will cut the cost of driving, reduce our reliance on foreign oil and fight global warming.”

Speaking in Minneapolis from the Xcel Energy Center, the same building where the Republican National Convention will happen in September, Obama said, “The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people.”

In concluding, Obama presented his vision of what the future might hold and expressed confidence that both the economy and the environment could be healed.

“Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it,” he said, “then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.

View This Story On Eco–mmunity Map.

WASHINGTON, DC, February 4, 2008 (ENS) – Millions of Americans will vote in the Super Tuesday primary elections on February 5th, and many will consider the candidates’ shade of green before casting their ballots. From addressing climate change to touting biofuels, the presidential hopefuls promise a wide range of sustainable actions if elected. But which candidate is more likely to act once he or she is sworn into office?

If you listen to them speak, the remaining presidential candidates can sometimes sound like jolly green political giants. They discuss carbon caps, pledge to mandate renewable energy, and promote clean technology including solar, wind and biofuels.

Senator Barack Obama of
Illinois, Democratic
candidate (Photo
courtesy Office of
Senator Obama)

Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have addressed green issues including carbon cap and trade systems, renewable energy, and biofuels much more frequently while campaigning than their Republican counterparts.

Republicans John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee have said comparatively little about climate change or clean energy during their debates or on the stump so far. Promoting clean energy for them is often in the context of energy independence and national security.

This is not a surprise since the environment is of greater importance to Democratic voters, according to author Terry Tamminen, who was the secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency under Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

“Sadly, Republican candidates believe that their ‘base’ voters don’t care about environmental issues in general and, in many cases, don’t believe in global warming,” Tamminen says.

Tamminen created a scorecard grading the candidates’ action plans for climate change and gave both Democrats a B and an F to all three Republicans.

Senator Hillary Clinton
of New York,
Democratic
candidate
(Photo courtesy
Clinton for
President)

Once the general election starts, he says the Republican nominee would likely become more vocal about climate change and related issues to appeal to a broader spectrum of voters.

Talk is cheap, however, especially when it comes to presidential campaigning.

“Part of the problem is that candidates say a lot of things that they don’t follow through on,” says George A. Gonzalez, an associate professor in the department of political science at the University of Miami. “Can we understand how they will govern based on how they campaign? Unfortunately not.”

More telling of what the candidates would do as president are their connections to lobbyists and the record of their energy and environmental policies, according to experts.

Rich Gold, a partner at the law firm of Holland and Knight who practices in the area of legislative and environmental law, says voters should, “Look more at their historical relationships and their life experiences.”

Gold, who worked in the Clinton administration, says if there is a gap between what the candidates are saying during the primary season and what their political philosophy has traditionally been, believe their historical views.

For example, when George Bush was campaigning for president in 2000, he claimed to support a cap and trade system on carbon emissions, which contradicted his 20 years of working in the oil business. Gold says, it “shouldn’t have surprised people that he flip-flopped.”

A president who acts to limit carbon emissions or mandate renewable energy production would not be popular with the oil and gas crowd, especially if they helped to get him or her into the White House.

Senator John McCain
of Arizona,
Republican candidate
(Photo courtesy
Office of Senator
McCain)

When criticized for accepting money from energy companies, Hillary Clinton has protested that she makes her legislative decisions independent of campaign contributions.

Experts differ on the influence of oil, nuclear and coal industries on presidents. Professor Gonzalez says that “any president will have to take their counsel to a certain extent.”

According to author Tamminen, the oil industry contributed $186 million to congressional and presidential candidates during the past decade and received generous tax breaks in return, adding that, “While it’s hard to prove any specific act of money-in-favors-out, those numbers speak for themselves.”

Attorney Gold, however, says presidents act largely above the lobbyist fray. “I don’t think people at that level are making decisions based on who gave them money.”

The three senators who are running for president have considerable differences in their environmental voting records, according to data from the League of Conservation Voters, LCV.

According to the LCV scorecard, Obama had a perfect score during the 2006 congressional session – the last year that data was compiled. Clinton scored 71 percent, and McCain scored just 29 percent.

Despite Obama’s stellar environmental voting record, he supports clean coal and nuclear technologies that are important to the economy of his home state of Illinois, but that some environmentalists find objectionable.

In January of 2007, Obama co-sponsored the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007, which would provide funding to companies that convert coal to liquid diesel fuel. After taking heat on the bill, several months later Obama backtracked, saying he would only support clean coal initiatives that would reduce carbon emissions by 20 percent as compared with conventional fuels.

Mike Huckabee,
former governor
of Arkansas
(Photo courtesy
Huckabee for
President)

He has also supported incentives for nuclear energy. He voted for the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which, along with some funding for renewables, gave tax breaks to companies for expanding nuclear power.

Clinton has not authored any significant legislation concerning climate change or renewable energy. She has voted against funding coal to liquids technologies as well as the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that provided incentives for the nuclear industry. In 2007, she voted to expand offshore oil drilling.

McCain began sponsoring legislation to address climate change in 2003, before it became a popular subject in the Senate. The McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act of 2003 was revised and presented to the Senate again in 2005, but failed to pass. It provides for a cap on U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases and a trading system for emissions permits.

Like Clinton, McCain voted to expand offshore drilling, but unlike his two peers, he was not present to vote for the landmark 2007 energy bill that raised vehicle fuel economy standards.

Mitt Romney,
former governor
of Massachusetts
(Photo courtesy
Romney for President)

Both governors took measures to address climate change during their administrations. As governor of Arkansas, Huckabee adopted the National Governors Association’s 2006 policy position on climate change, promoted energy efficiency by switching to compact fluorescent lighting, and signed into law the Arkansas Renewable Energy Development Act.

As governor of Massachusetts, Romney promoted a Climate Protection Plan, which encouraged required state agencies and large businesses to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. He supported an agreement of Northeastern states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Neither governor did much while in office to encourage the development of clean technology.

Whoever takes office in 2008 will have to prioritize energy and environmental concerns among many other issues and work closely with Congress to enact new laws.

Attorney Gold says that with a slipping economy, climate change legislation may have to take a back seat. Working with Congress during the “honeymoon days” that coincide with a new administration might be the best time to get green legislation passed, according to Gold.

Professor Gonzalez says the increased talk of clean energy and climate concerns on the campaign trail could result in new executive action. Once in the White House, Gonzalez says, a candidate who made promises to the electorate might do more than one who did not. He says, “I have more hope that someone who is talking about it more will take action.”

View This Story On Eco-mmunity Map.

PORTLAND, Oregon, January 29, 2008 (ENS) – Global warming is being explored at more than 1,500 universities, colleges and high schools across the country this week in what organizers are calling the largest teach-in in American history.

The problems posed by Earth’s warming climate and the best possible solutions are the subject of classes, seminars, panels, debates, teleconferences, workshops, roundtable discussions, expos, concerts and theatrical performances, banquets featuring local foods, pub crawls, film and video showings, poster contests, contests for the best artwork made from recycled materials with cash prizes for the winners.

Focus the Nation
organizer Professor
Eban Goodstein
participates in
discussion at
Clemson University.
(Photo courtesy
Focus the Nation)

At Missouri State University, 20 tons of coal are being piled up to represent the amount of coal the school uses in one hour.

Events on every campus are different, yet there is a common theme – tackling global warming before disasters such as rising sea levels, melting glaciers, extreme weather shifts, extinction of species and the northward migration of tropical diseases go even farther than they already have.

The nationwide initiative, called Focus the Nation, is a project of the Green House Network, an environmental advocacy group. The idea originated with Eben Goodstein, a professor of economics at Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon.

He kicked off Focus the Nation on Friday at Clemson University in South Carolina, the day before the state’s presidential primary race.

Democratic presidental hopeful
Senator Barack Obama
addresses a crowd at Clemson
University in South Carolina.
(Photos courtesy Focus the
Nation)

“I am thrilled to have our national kickoff at Clemson University,” said Goodstein, “Clemson is already a leader with their Restoration Institute in exactly the kind of thinking and innovation that this country needs to move beyond fatalism and launch a clean energy revolution. The research talent at the university, combined with the political will of South Carolina voters, makes Clemson a perfect fit to launch Focus the Nation.”

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama mentioned Focus the Nation as he campaigned at Clemson on Friday.

“There is an organization called Focus the Nation, which is going to have the largest campus teach in on global warming in United States history right here on the Clemson campus,” Obama said. “This is an important issue and I want everyone to be involved with it, everybody to be paying attention. I hope all of you choose to participate, because this is a terrific issue.”

Most Focus the Nation events are scheduled for Thursday, January 31, a date chosen because it falls during the presidential primary season. But so many events are planned, that they have spilled over to fill the calendar through mid-February.

At Goodstein’s home campus, Lewis and Clark College, more than 50 faculty members will participate in panel discussions on global warming.

Many campuses will feature an interactive webcast called “The 2% SOLUTION” that Focus the Nation will stream live Wednesday night.

The webcast will feature Stanford University climate scientist Stephen Schneider, actor Edward Norton, sustainability expert Hunter Lovins, and green jobs pioneer Van Jones with youth climate leaders in a discussion of global warming solutions. Audiences can weigh in with cell phone voting for the best solutions.

“Our goal is 10,000 screenings, and a change in the course of history,” said Goodstein.

The webcast is built around the idea that developed countries need to cut roughly 2% of current emission levels a year for the next 40 years to hold global warming to the low end of 3-4 degrees Fahrenheit that scientists say will help avert the worst effect of a warming climate.

This 2% goal will require cuts in global warming pollution in the developed countries by more than 80 percent below current levels by 2050. The webcast participants explore what it would take to move the United States onto that path.

Produced with the support of the National Wildlife federation, and hosted on Earth Day Network TV, the webcast will be broadcast live from the University of Central Florida in Orlando.

Focus the Nation is intended to motivate students across the country to understand the urgency of the situation.

“Climate change may not be a priority for students today, but if we wait until tomorrow to make it a priority, it might be too late,” said Kareem Salem, president of Associated Students of University of California-Davis.

“You’ve heard enough about the problem,” said Vince Pawlowski, a part-time University of Arizona student who worked to involve the university in the initiative.

Focus the Nation participants at
Clemson University (Photo
courtesy Focus the Nation)

“We’ve got global warming now. It’s here. It’s not just knocking on the door. It’s in the room,” Pawlowski said. “We’re not debating whether it’s a problem or not. We’re trying to move the discussion to the solution.”

Pawlowski acknowledged that not everyone believes global climate change is happening and affecting the world’s populations and natural resources.

“But it’s not the deniers who are the problem. They are few and far between and are easily outmatched by anyone who has read the literature,” he said. “It’s every one of us who knows there’s a problem and don’t do enough – that’s going to be the biggest problem.”

Dozens of politicians of both parties at all levels of government are lending their support to Focus the Nation.

Senate Majority Leader Senator Harry Reid of Nevada will speak at the University of Nevada-Reno, Senator Bill Nelson is taking part in the 2% Solution webcast. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts is speaking at North Shore Community College. Senator Max Baucus will be at the University of Montana – Missoula.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island will be at Brown University. “Global warming is among the most significant challenges we face. Congress is finally taking action – but we need public support to act boldly,” said Whitehouse. “I hope this event will give Rhode Islanders an opportunity to speak out.”

Congressman Edward Markey of Massachusetts, who chairs the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming will be speaking at Tufts University. Congressman Henry Waxman of California will be at Santa Monica College.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom will speak at San Francisco State University, Tallahassee Mayor John Marks will be at Florida A&M University, and Mayor Greg Nickels of Seattle, who started the University of Washington

Governor Arnold Schwarznegger wrote to the organization last week, “I was excited to learn that hundreds of California colleges, universities, K-12 schools and organizations are participating in Focus the Nation… I want to thank all of the participants, supporters and organizers of Focus the Nation for creating this wonderful opportunity. I also applaud all the young people for getting involved, and I encourage each of you to continue to share what you learn with your friends, families and communities.”

For more information, visit Focus the Nation at: http://www.focusthenation.org/ [www.focusthenation.org]

View This Story On Eco-mmunity Map.