Just released: 'Disruption' -- a movie by & for the climate movement

"Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay."

Click here to watch Disruption now!

Disruption is a short film about how we can change the world -- before the fossil fuel industry irreversibly changes the climate. It looks at how social movements of the past mobilized at decisive moments to shift the course of history, and applies those lessons to the decisive fight of this generation.

It features author and filmmaker Naomi Klein, CNN host and movement leader Van Jones, MSNBC's Chris Hayes, plus many more, including some of the key scientific voices sounding the alarm.

The film just went live -- click here to watch it online now: watchdisruption.com

Here's the most exciting part of this story: it's not finished yet. The next act will be written in the streets on September 21st, when the People's Climate March takes over New York (and cities across the globe).

This is the history we'll tell the next generation -- about the end of fossil fuels, about how the world was in crisis, about how we started to turn it around together.

Click here to see the first act … and get ready to write the next.

Onward,

Jamie

---

350.org is building a global climate movement. Become a sustaining donor to keep this movement strong and growing.

Live webcast - Debate of the Century

Please join us for the big debate this Monday September 8 at 7:00 PM ET!

"Citizens Divided: Corporate Money, Speech, and Politics"

Featuring: James Bopp and David Cobb

Maurer School of Law
Bloomington, Indiana

Livestream Link: http://tinyurl.com/me36gyc

"Voters in the United States have always had a healthy skepticism about government and politicians, and I think it's a good thing," said James Bopp, the conservative lawyer who argued in favor of Citizens United. "But the problem we have is we don't have enough information available to voters to allow them to make informed choices, so we need more spending."

"Unlimited spending in campaigns undermines our democracy, and is a symptom of the larger problem of corporate Constitutional rights," said David Cobb, former Green Party presidential candidate and spokesperson for the Move to Amend Coalition. "And the people know it! In a June 2014 Gallup poll, 79% of respondents said they support a law limiting campaign spending and 50% said they support public financing of campaigns."  

Indiana University's Civic Leaders Center, the SPEA Law and Public Policy Program, the Maurer Law School American Constitution Society, and Move to Amend South Central Indiana sponsor this debate.

Find more information here.

Watch online at 7:00 PM ET here.

Don't miss this opportunity to witness what promises to be one of the most thought-provoking and stimulating debates of this century!

From the trenches,

Daniel Lee, David Cobb, Egberto Willies, George Friday, Jerome Scott, Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, Laura Bonham, Edgar Franks, Richard Monje, Virginia Rasmussen

Move to Amend Leadership Team

Friedman drinking the fracking fluids again

http://mgpaquin.wordpress.com/2014/09/07/the-pasty-little-putz-dowd-friedman-kristof-and-bruni-68/

This is really something special. He's got one good idea, a price on carbon to support tax shifting, taking taxes off of income and investment and labor and shifting them onto pollution. Great idea. 

But he is coupled that great idea with an absurd fantasy about how export economics works. How this guy has a New York Times column is a mystery of the highest order.

The total world demand for oil is one number, and the total world daily availability of oil is another number. Neither of these numbers are based in the economic fantasyland where Friedman lives.

If net supply -- The amount of oil available for export from each producing country after its uses are satisfied — doesn't move closer towards unmet demand -- then changing the allocation does nothing to the price. Only if the United States produced more oil than it consumed would we have any ability to affect the global price level. The price of a global commodity is set by the swing producer, the country or set of countries in a cartel who can take supply off the market to raise the price or increase the supply to reduce the price.

The harsh fact is that the available oil for export around the world decreases every day. The new finds -- potential supplies only -- are increasingly difficult to get and cost far more in the energy required to get them, and causing vastly more environmental damage along the way. 

Add to that the fact that the oil exporting countries, as they seek to mollify their people, consume increasingly more of their own production. That's another force pushing down on the amount of oil available for export in the world.

Prior to the global oil peak, such as in the 1980s, it was possible to bankrupt the Soviet Union with a flood of oil. But now, all the games we want to play will have exactly 0 difference on the global price of oil. Indeed, if we were somehow able to nudge down the price, we would merely be making that oil available to a flood of new consumers for oil in countries such as Brazil, Russia, India, and China, people formerly priced out by the high price of oil.

Thus, the net return of energy on the energy invested in the hunt for that oil goes down every day. That is the misery Index--The relentless, ceaseless, inexorable fact that net global oil flows are declining, not increasing, and this is despite historically high levels of price that supposedly will cause a flood of new oil onto the market. 

The bottom line is that the price of oil is still below level needed for profit at the cost of exploration and exploitation now. The future is grim, because we built a society entirely dependent on abundant cheap energy, which we took to be our eternal birthright rather than a one time windfall. 

Those aren't chickens coming home to roost – alas, they are vultures.

The most effective leadership abroad starts with respect earned from others seeing us commit to doing great and difficult things at home that summon the energy of the whole country — and not just from our military families. That is how America inspires others to action. And the necessary impactful thing that America should do at home now is for the president and Congress to lift our self-imposed ban on U.S. oil exports, which would significantly dent the global high price of crude oil. And combine that with long overdue comprehensive tax reform that finally values our environment and security. That would be a carbon tax that is completely offset by lowering personal income, payroll and corporate taxes. Nothing would make us stronger and Putin and ISIS weaker — all at the same time.

Action Alert: absurd rulemaking for renewable energy Co-Ops -- Hearing M 9/8/14

Renewable energy co-ops are a great idea, like credit unions, community food banks and fire departments, food co-ops, and a host of other alternatives to corporate control of all goods and services.

Passing a law to allow renewable energy co-ops but then not allowing them to advertise is like letting communities set up fire departments but only letting them use spritzer bottles to fight fires.  Submit your comments opposing this absurd rule!  See below for links and where to send.

OREP Action Alert Renewable Energy Coop Hearing

Your presence is needed - Monday, Sept 8, 9am, Salem!   Our renewable energy cooperatives law (SB1520), which passed overwhelmingly this spring with the goal to facilitate shared ownership of community projects by ordinary citizens, will have a Rulemaking Hearing this coming Monday, 9am at 350 Winter St. NE, Salem, OR 97301, conference room 260.  This is an opportunity for all to respond to the rules that have been proposed to govern RE coops.  The rules as proposed undermine the ability of the law to facilitate formation of RE coops by prohibiting advertising of projects. This is a big deal. If renewable energy cooperatives are not allowed to advertise their projects, how will they find investors to participate?  We need a show of support for a strong law.  If you are able, please come to the hearing and bring a friend. We hope to see you there. The proposed rules are posted here…    Written comments are due Friday, Sept 12 and should be sent to Richard Blackwell.   Please copy Kathleen Newman at OREP: Kathleen@OregonRenewables.com   Please contact Kathleen for more information about the parts of the proposed rules that OREP finds to be problematic and counter to flourishing, shared-ownership, community renewable energy.

Salem Citizen Climate Protection Petition

To the City Council of Salem:

All of us have children, grandchildren, or other loved ones who will suffer the consequences of uncontrolled pollution that is radically destabilizing the delicate heat balance that allowed human civilization to evolve and thrive across planet Earth. Humans need a stable, predictable climate, where agriculture can flourish and where catastrophic “100 year” severity floods, fires, famines, and droughts do not happen again and again, year after year, with increasing frequency and severity.

Salem is already experiencing negative consequences of climate destabilization. We cannot afford – in terms of economic health, human health, or environmental health – to continue business as usual.

Therefore, we call upon the City Council of Salem, the Capital City, to join with Albany, Ashland, Beaverton, Bend, Corvallis, Eugene, Forest Grove, Gladstone, Gresham, Hillsboro, Lake Oswego, Lincoln City, Milwaukie, Oregon City, Portland, and Vernonia in civic recognition of the severity of the challenge we face and the need for sustained local commitment to practices to address the climate crisis and that will reduce the harm to future generations.

Specifically, we call upon the City Council of Salem to

1.    ADOPT THE 350 ppm GOAL:  Adopt a science-based target for emissions reductions actions needed to reduce the concentration of CO2 and other heat-trapping gases 350 ppm CO2 equivalent.

2.    CHARGE FOR EMISSIONS & REBATE THE CHARGES 100%:  Implement programs to reduce private-sector emissions using charges for use of fossil-fueled energy and emissions of heat-trapping pollution, with 100% of the fees collected returned to the people of Salem through a monthly per capita rebate, thereby encouraging creative, market-based solutions to greenhouse gas emissions and making polluters pay, rather than making us all pay for polluters.  

3.    SLASH PUBLIC SECTOR EMISSIONS: Act now to reduce current emissions and cut future emissions through comprehensive policies such as anti-sprawl land-use policies, urban forest restoration projects, mass transit, shifts from fossil-fueled power sources to non-polluting power sources, and opposing any export or trans-shipment of coal and oil through Oregon.

Date	Printed Name	Signature	Age (if < 18)	Ward or Neighborhood

No, he would certainly never say oops, because, actually, Scalia cares not a bit whether innocent people get murdered by the state for crimes of others.

 After all, they're just poor people, not someone important like a wealthy corporation.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/02/1326644/-Does-a-Supreme-Court-Justice-just-say-oops?detail=email

Does a Supreme Court Justice just say, "oops"?

Today in NC two innocent men were freed 30 years after being wrongfully convicted of murder.  Which means for thirty years the innocent 11 year old girl left lying in a field after being raped and suffocated to death didn't get justice. Which means that for thirty years the real killer did not pay for his crime.  Which means that for thirty years, the real killer was able to destroy the lives of even more innocent people.

Both men, who have IQ's below 70 falsely confessed to crime.  As is usual in these situations, they confessed after hours and hours of pressure, locked in a room.  Contrary to what people believe, people do confess to crimes they didn't commit.

According to a University of Virginia report released Aug. 21, nearly 20 percent of defendants who have been exonerated by DNA evidence had falsely confessed to the crime.

DNA found at the scene and finally tested after all of these years, exonerated the two men.  The prosecutor did not even oppose the Motion to dismiss the charges against the two men.  In fact, the DNA implicates a man already convicted of similar crimes at a time very close to the time this crime was committed.  But really, at this point, the exoneration of innocent men is hardly big news.  At least 317 people have been exonerated by DNA evidence.

The real news is below the fold:

What is news in this NC case is that the arrogance and wrong-headedness of a member of the U.S. Supreme Court has been put on display for everyone to see.  In 1994 the Supreme Court turned down a request to hear the appeal in Mr. McCollum's case.  Justice Harry A. Blackmun, an eventual opponent of the death penalty had voted to hear the case.  Justice Blackmun noted that Mr. McCollum had the mental age of a 9-year-old and said "this factor alone persuades me that the death penalty in this case is unconstitutional."  In fact, Justice Blackmun had completely renounced the death penalty in general saying he would, "no longer tinker with the machinery of death".  He said that decisions involving the death penalty were too subjective and prone to human error for the death penalty ever to be administered constitutionally.

Unfazed by Justice Blackmun's concerns, Justice Antonin Scalia accused Justice Blackmun of attempting to "thrust a minority's views upon the people."  Scalia strongly maintained that society had a need for the death penalty as an appropriate punishment for the most heinous of crimes. In fact, as evidence for his opinion he wrote about two cases before the Supreme Court at the time, which he believed made death by lethal injection look "enviable." One of those cases concerned the brutal rape and murder of 11-year-old Sabrina Buie, committed in Red Springs, North Carolina.  That case, the one that Justice Scalia found to be most deserving of the death penalty, is the murder for which these two men were exonerated today.  

Henry McCollum was 20 when he was sentenced to death for committing the crime Scalia described. Today, he walked out of prison a free man.  Like most of those who are exonerated, Mr. McCollum is looking forward instead of backward.  But the ability of these two men to forgive and forget doesn't mean that the rest of us should ignore the fact that, contrary to the opinion of a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, neither of these men deserved a day in prison, much less execution.  The arrogance of a society that thinks taking another person's life is justified so long as they had "a fair trial" is on full display.  The belief that any system that relies on fallible humans can ever be reliable enough to kill in the name of the Government shows a complete lack of understanding basic human nature.  It isn't often that a Supreme Court Justice is shown just how utterly wrong his opinions are.  Luckily today,  at least two men have overcome a system designed to convict the accused and have proven just how fallible our highest court can be.  I wonder what Justice Scalia has to say now.

6:03 PM PT: Please see sydserious' diary that was posted just before mine for more about this.http://www.dailykos.com/...

"Let's live on the planet as if we intend to stay."