This email is going out to all 350 supporters in Canada regarding a global action taking place this Saturday, June 18th being coordinated by several of our partner organizations.
Dear friends,
The Candian tar sands are the largest industrial project on the planet, and one of biggest threats to a safe climate future.
Right now, we're at about 392 "parts per million" CO2 -- way over 350, what scientists say is the safe level of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere for maintaining a safe climate. That's why we're already seeing record-breaking storms, floods, wildfires, and droughts. If we burned all the oil that's stored in the the Canadian tar sands, we'd add about 200 ppm CO2 -- thinking about a world near 600ppm is downright terrifying.
Our best hope of defusing this carbon bomb is a groundswell of people speaking out and taking action. That's why we're spreading the word about a big event happening this weekend: "The International Stop the Tar Sands Day." There are events happening all over the world, and in almost every major city throughout Canada.
Why now? Major efforts are underway to expand the amount of tar sands oil exported from Canada to refineries in the United States, so we’re teaming up with our allies to make sure this that carbon stays in the ground.
On June 18, take part in a tar sands action near you and show your support for a safe climate: www.350.org/june18
Extracting and burning tar sands oil is dirty and dangerous - a barrel of tar sands oil contributes 15% more CO2 per barrel to our atmosphere than average crude oil. The extraction process in Alberta is destroying Canada’s forests, trampling indigenous rights, poisoning our atmosphere and river systems, threatening community health, and contributing to global climate change.
To find an action in a city near you, or organize your simple event with a banner or sign, please click here: www.350.org/june18
We know to get to 350ppm, we need to move past fossil fuels -- and stopping the tar sands is a key step in moving to a clean energy future for Canada and the whole planet. We hope you´ll join in the action this week -- and use this weekend's energy to get fired up and inspired for Moving Planet international day of climate action coming up on September 24th.
Stay tuned for further ways to get involved!
Thanks for all you do,
Kelly Blynn for 350.org
350.org is building a global grassroots movement to solve the climate crisis. Our online campaigns, grassroots organizing, and mass public actions are led from the bottom up by thousands of volunteer organizers in over 188 countries. You can join 350.org on Facebook by becoming a fan of our page at facebook.com/350org and follow us on twitter by visiting twitter.com/350. To join our list (maybe a friend forwarded you this e-mail) visit www.350.org/signup. To support our work, donate securely online at 350.org/donate.
What is 350? 350 is the number that leading scientists say is the safe upper limit for carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. Scientists measure carbon dioxide in "parts per million" (ppm), so 350ppm is the number humanity needs to get below as soon as possible to avoid runaway climate change. To get there, we need a different kind of PPM—a "people powered movement" that is made of people like you in every corner of the planet.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Sunday, June 5, 2011
A Memo to David Akin
On the Hill: Memo to Brigette: There are no shortcuts in politics. It takes long, dull, dreary work http://bit.ly/mC2SsL
Everything you argue is based on the premise that political activity should take place within the system, with established institutions and its rules of law, and you're arguing that this is the only method of moving forward if one wants to enact change - with a little hard work, of course. But, as anyone who has ever been involved in wide grassroots political movements - protest or otherwise - knows, one is not obliged, on any grounds, to work within the system. In fact, it's very difficult to hollow things out from within because one is always bound by the structures of the system and its institutions. One can and might have to work against the system, and, as the 60's remind us, sometimes civil disobedience is necessary --even for its own sake without an immediately achievable goal. Sometimes disruption is a good thing.
Obviously DePape chose the latter on her recognition - shared by even those who do work within the system - that our system and its institutions aren't as democratic as they could be, especially in terms of the democratic principle of representation, a principle that some see as the very bedrock of democracy. We are, as many have noted, one of the four western countries which continue to believe in the illusion that a first-past-the-post electoral system is really democratic, whereas in fact the most one can say about such a electoral process is that it's somewhat but not competely democratic in the representational results it yields.
In the end, with your respect for the system and its institutions, you're not much different in your perspective than May or Rae, and I'm sure you work just as hard.
Everything you argue is based on the premise that political activity should take place within the system, with established institutions and its rules of law, and you're arguing that this is the only method of moving forward if one wants to enact change - with a little hard work, of course. But, as anyone who has ever been involved in wide grassroots political movements - protest or otherwise - knows, one is not obliged, on any grounds, to work within the system. In fact, it's very difficult to hollow things out from within because one is always bound by the structures of the system and its institutions. One can and might have to work against the system, and, as the 60's remind us, sometimes civil disobedience is necessary --even for its own sake without an immediately achievable goal. Sometimes disruption is a good thing.
Obviously DePape chose the latter on her recognition - shared by even those who do work within the system - that our system and its institutions aren't as democratic as they could be, especially in terms of the democratic principle of representation, a principle that some see as the very bedrock of democracy. We are, as many have noted, one of the four western countries which continue to believe in the illusion that a first-past-the-post electoral system is really democratic, whereas in fact the most one can say about such a electoral process is that it's somewhat but not competely democratic in the representational results it yields.
In the end, with your respect for the system and its institutions, you're not much different in your perspective than May or Rae, and I'm sure you work just as hard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)