SPECIAL FEATURES:
Alec Baldwin, Morgan Freeman ask Obama to act on climate change
Actors join over 20 entertainers and celebrities in signing a letter sent by the Sierra Club to the president demanding he lead a new push for climate change action.
Mon, Feb 11 2013 at 12:55 PM
Related Topics:
Sierra Club
The Sierra Club today sent a letter to President Barack Obama urging his administration to lead new efforts to combat the growing climate crisis. Naturally, the environmental organization enlisted the help of over 20 Hollywood heavyweights and entertainers to back the appeal — including Alec Baldwin, Adam Levine, Morgan Freeman, Edward Norton, Woody Harrelson, Yoko Ono, Ian Somerhalder and Jason Mraz.
“Your legacy as 44th president of the United States rests firmly on your leadership on climate disruption," the group wrote. "Only the president has the power to lead an effort on the scale and with the urgency we need to phase out fossil fuels and lead America, and the world, in a clean energy revolution.”
The letter also appears as a full page ad in the political newspaper The Hill and comes ahead of a Feb. 17 rally called ForwardOnClimate. Organizers hope to make the event the largest climate rally in history — with thousands in D.C. demanding a first step be the rejection by the Obama administration of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. For the first time in its 120-year history, the Sierra Club board has approved the "one-time" use of civil disobedience to further elevate its protest.
“For civil disobedience to be justified, something must be so wrong that it compels the strongest defensible protest,” Michael Brune, Sierra Club executive director, said in a statement. “We are watching a global crisis unfold before our eyes, and to stand aside and let it happen — even though we know how to stop it — would be unconscionable. As the president said in his inaugural address, ‘to do so would betray our children and future generations.'
“The Sierra Club has refused to stand by," he added. "We've worked hard and we have had great success — helping establish historic fuel economy standards for cars and trucks, stopping more than 170 coal plants from being built, securing the retirement of another 129 existing plants, and helping grow a clean energy economy. But time is running out, and the stakes are enormous. We can't afford to lose a single major battle. The burning of dirty tar sands crude is one of those major battles. That's why the Sierra Club's Board of Directors has for the first time endorsed an act of peaceful civil disobedience.”
The opinions expressed by MNN Bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of MNN.com. While we have reviewed their content to make sure it complies with our Terms and Conditions, MNN is not responsible for the accuracy of any of their information.
You might also like:
Sign in with one of these accounts to add your comment.

Dave
Feb 13 2013 at 2:22 AM
Climate change has been happening on Earth for approximately 4.5 BILLION years, i.e. as long as the planet has been in existence. It will stop when the planet ceases to exist, as in being burned to ash when the sun goes supernova, or freezing into a solid ball of ice a few degrees above absolute zero if the sun simply dies out without going supernova.
We live in a time of nearly unprecedented low global temperatures and low atmospheric CO2 concentration.
"Normal" atmospheric CO2 levels
.... More
for about 85% of the last HALF BILLION years have been around 1,500 PPM, roughly 4 times current levels, with temperatures up to 10 Centigrade degrees higher than at present. If atmospheric CO2 were to increase about 10%, from the current 392 PPM to around 430 PPM, which seems to be the "critical mass" point at which some folks fear the planet would suffer a catastrophic runaway greenhouse effect, it would merely be a small step away from our current historically (in the context of geologic time scales) low global temperatures and CO2 concentrations back toward a "Normal" situation. It never destroyed the planet before, and it won't this time.
A return to the historically normal situation would certainly wreak havoc on human populations with rising sea levels and unimaginable devastation of costal cities. It's a risk we take in developing trillions of dollars worth of real estate right down to current sea level. Climate change is not to blame for this; we are, for failing to learn from the examples set by previous civilizations whose sunken cities we can find in numerous places around the continents.
There are three primary things we need to control in order to effectively control the climate of Planet Earth:
1) Control the energy output of the sun
2) Control the orbital path of the Earth around the sun
3) Control geologic activity on Earth, i.e. volcanism and plate tectonics
There is virtually nothing we can presently do about any of these things so we focus vast resources on reducing anthropogenic CO2 from burning fossil fuels, a factor that does contribute to climate change but to such a small degree in comparison to the really big influences mentioned above as to be insignificant.
By all means, we should strive to develop clean and renewable energy solutions because there is only a finite amount of fossil fuel for us to burn, and combustion of most materials releases a great deal more than CO2 to the atmosphere. We should do what we can to eliminate waste and pollution, but defining CO2, an essential atmospheric gas to life, as a "pollutant" borders on insanity. By that sort of reasoning, we probably have way too much water on Earth, too.
Looking at recent climatic history – again, on the geologic time scale of the last few million years – a much more realistic fear is return of the glaciers to large areas of present human habitation. Our present misguided initiatives might simply hasten the end of the current Holocene Interglacial Period and subsequent re-glaciation of much of the northern hemisphere.
- Log in or register to post comments
- Report This Post

Email








Join the conversation