It is time, now, for climate activists to get vocal.

As it becomes more clear that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic Party’s nominee for President, there is increasing talk about the importance of unifying the party. Negotiations are on the horizon … for Vice President and for the Party’s policy platforms.

Now, we must be sure climate change and carbon cutting policy are part of those negotiations.

Consider, for a moment, as Bernie Sanders begins to make demands in exchange for his support, what he will insist upon. What are the key policies will he insist be incorporated into the Democratic Party platform?

His campaign’s latest email provides a likely answer to this question:

“What remains in front of us is a very narrow path to the nomination. In the weeks to come we will be competing in a series of states that are very favorable to us – including California. Just like after March 15 – when we won 8 of the next 9 contests – we are building tremendous momentum going into the convention. That is the reality of where we are right now, and why we are going to fight for every delegate and every vote. It is why I am going to continue to speak to voters in every state about the very important issues facing our country. Our country cannot afford to stop fighting for a $15 minimum wage, to overturn Citizens United, or to get universal health care for every man, woman, and child in America.” (Emphasis mine).

Notice what is missing?

The single most important issue of our day. The single biggest threat to national security.

Climate change.

Climate activists have been insisting that climate change be made the top level priority for all campaigns and all elected officials. It is possible that this activism has failed to varying degrees with respect to both the Sanders and Clinton campaigns. That means it comes down to us to insist that meaningful carbon cuts are at the top of the platform.

Hillary Clinton critics are right. Hillary has wrongly called gas a bridge fuel. She absolutely needs to be pushed to make it her goal, and that of the Democratic Party, to END the use of gas and all other fossil fuels. She has good solid plans to regulate fracking. Those policies will drive up the cost of gas and therefore send price signals that, in the absence of a price on carbon, will drive us toward other sources of energy. But it is essential that we have the stated goal of ending gas. That will set the stage for the essential conversations about how we will replace that gas without turning off the lights and heat. Efficiency, lifestyle changes, renewables, and, yes, nuclear.

Bernie Sanders’ stated policy is allow nuclear plant licenses to lapse. If nuclear plants close now, they are likely to be replaced with gas. He has said that he isn’t closing the plants now, just allowing for them to close by attrition. However, the reality is that nuclear plants are already closing now, before their licenses lapse, because electricity is so cheap that regular maintenance is economically unfeasible. Part of that calculation is lifetime return. If you know you won’t be relicensed in 2025, it is all the more reason not to do 2017’s maintenance and instead close down. And once a nuclear plant is mothballed, it’s done. You can’t just refurbish and turn it back on, like you can with gas and coal. Unfortunately, there is little political will to take on the nuclear issue within the party at this point. Maybe that means we can simply accept Hillary’s approach to leave nuclear alone. Perhaps her political calculation on nuclear was simply on target.

Perhaps the one thing all climate activists can agree to demand in these negotiations is a carbon tax. Hillary Clinton has had, for many months, a vague, buried reference to carbon markets in her policy platform.* People have made little mention of it, simply saying she doesn’t support carbon taxes. Why not highlight that she seems to support carbon pricing, insist that she become more vocal about it, and push her to explain why she is supporting cap and trade over taxes? As that conversation unfolds, she will be forced to address the distinctions, and, at the same time, the electorate will become more knowledgeable about carbon pricing. At the end of the day, the party platform may end up with a clear carbon price plan.

Whatever climate policies end up in the Democratic Party Platform, it is clear that climate activists must put aside the horse race between Clinton and Sanders and remember that neither of them go far enough. Neither is prepared to get to zero emissions by 2050. Neither sees climate as the single most important issue to address.

It is time for climate voters and climate activists to demand that the Democratic Party serve up more than fiery rhetoric from Sanders and more than visionless bridge fuels from Clinton.

It is time to demand the best from each of them and ensure they don’t simply offer up their worst on climate.

*Here is her vague buried reference to clean energy markets:

“Clean Power Markets: Build on the momentum created by the Clean Power Plan, which sets the first national limits on carbon pollution from the energy sector, and regional emissions trading schemes in Canada, Mexico, and the United States to drive low carbon power generation across the continent, modernize our interconnected electrical grid, and ensure that national carbon policies take advantage of integrated markets.” source

If you have had the news on the last day or two you may have seen stories and images about the Missouri floods. Many of those images are from Eureka (where we live), Pacific (where my wife Kellie works) and Valley Park (which is on my commute to work). That picture of the submerged McDonald’s you may have seen on the news is in Union, Missouri, about 20 miles to the southwest of Eureka

We are dry, mostly, and doing okay. The basement was flooded during the initial 3 day rain event due to a failed sump pump and a couple downspouts that came unattached from the drain pipes during the heavy downfall. The hydrostatic pressure of the ground water on the foundation was simply too much to hold back. We fixed the drain spouts and had a new sump pump installed on Sunday and that stopped any more water from coming in. We are fortunate that we returned home from visiting my family in Michigan on Saturday instead of Sunday or the water would have been much higher.

Unfortunately it doesn’t take much water to ruin carpet pads and drywall. My son and I were able to get the carpets up and the pads out the back of the house with a lot of labor but not too much trouble. There are now 14 high powered and very noisy blowers and a super-sized dehumidifier running non-stop in the basement at a cost of $30 per day per machine (disaster capitalism is quite profitable). We are told everything will be dried out in 2 to 3 days.

We have learned a painful and expensive lesson about not having a sump pump rider on our home insurance. The rider would have covered damages from the failed pump. We also would have been covered if our dishwasher had overflowed but not from ground water. Fortunately, because we acted quickly, we didn’t have any significant content damage so the only costs will be drying the place out and installing new pads under the salvaged carpets. Kellie thinks she is getting some new furniture out of the deal. I have no idea how less fortunate folks that have far more damage are going to get through this financially.

Flood lessons to pass along: check your sump pump, downspouts and your insurance policy. Keep important stuff up off the basement floor. Purchase a generator to keep the sump pump running when the power fails.

Downtown Eureka is a true disaster. The sand bagging effort was futile against the record water levels as most of the businesses downtown have water over their front doors. O’Dell’s, our favorite Irish pub, will be out of commission for a long time so now we have to go across the freeway to have good beer from the tap. The businesses Eureka residents depend on will be out of commission for many months.

Many homes along the river have been lost and are now downstream. These homes are built on stilts and have survived many flood events in the past but stilts can only go so high. We can no longer use the climate of the past to guide our decisions on the future. The rules for the game of life have changed and we must adapt to those rules.

Eureka has now had two 500 year floods in the last 22 years. The increasing frequency of these “500 year” (or more) type events really brings home what James Hansen wrote about in “Storms of my Grandchildren”. I’m pretty sure these frequency estimates will be a meaningless descriptor in the future. It will be interesting to see what the spring brings as the climate change fueled El Nino really kicks in.

All the roads out of Eureka were closed except for one and that one was a parking lot most of the time. Semi tractors on curvy and hilly two lane roads are not a good combination. Many subdivisions in the area have been isolated for a couple days now. The river crested around 6 last night so water levels, and media coverage, are quickly receding and moving downriver. We are looking forward to returning to some type of normalcy, and increased urgency for action on climate change, in the New Year.

If you want to help the best thing to do is to demand increased action on climate change from your political leaders.

We will need a price on carbon (see Citizen’s Climate Lobby), increased investment in energy efficiency, renewables and nuclear, and adaptation plans for the climate changes that are unavoidable. The American Red Cross is doing great work in helping people get through these disasters. I’m sure they could use your support.

The Mn Atheists Brief in Benson v. Alverson
by Mike Haubrich

The issue of allowing gay marriage is for me, a no-brainer. It is a civil right, a basic human right for anyone to choose the person with whom they want to share the most important aspects of their own life. It is a basic human right to form a partnership, a lasting and loving human partnership with a member of either one’s own or another gender. I am angry at the vehemence of conservative forces opposed to this right for gay, lesbian and transgender people, this right to go beyond the “separate, but equal” civil union partnerships allowed by law but inadequate for the level of romance that people should be allowed to share with each other no matter their gender preference.

I like the idea of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happineÆ’s,” which was an ideal spelled out in the Declaration of Independence of the United States back in 1776 and for too many people this pursuit is limited by outdated laws. There are some states in the United States that have grown beyond the “ick factor” of gay marriage and issue licenses to acknowledge same sex marriages. Minnesota is not one of those states. Yet.

In 2012 there will be a proposed amendment to our state constitution to prevent future legislatures and courts from allowing same-sex marriage. Perhaps this is intended as a “wedge issue” to drive voter turnout for conservative politicians, but the effect of the proposed amendment if adopted will be to not only violate the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, but the letter of the United States Constitution. There’s that whole 14th Amendment’s incorporation of the 5th Amendment, meaning that rights granted by the federal constitution can’t be circumvented by any individual state or local government.

Such an amendment, if passed would render the state constitution of Minnesota to be self-contradictory and quite confusing for any future courts to resolve the issue if a case were to come before the Minnesota Appellate Court. Just have a look at what the court would be instructed to follow from this clause;

“No member of this state shall be disfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof” from Article I, Section 2, while at the same time maintaining the proposed addition to Article XII;

“Sec. 13. Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota.”

I don’t think that there would be a way to split that baby in two and satisfy the Constition. I am not a Constitutional Law expert, of course. I just don’t understand how this could be done while remaining logically consistent.

In Minnesota there is a case coming before the State Appelate Court on October 26th, 2011 to test the laws against gay marriage. Benson v. Alverson involves the case of a gay couple who had applied for a marriage license in Hennepin County, where Minneapolis lay. They were denied in accordance with Minnesota’s version of the Defense of Marriage Act, and took the county to court for the right to get married.

David Schultz of the Hamline Law School wrote about the case in 2010 at Minnpost.com and had this to say:

In sum, the legal case to strike the ban on same-sex marriage is easy. The Minnesota Constitution offers more legal protection than does the U.S. Constitution, thereby demanding more justification under the equal-protection and freedom-of-conscience clauses to sustain the marriage ban. Based on Minnesota precedent and rulings from other states, and documented evidence of unequal treatment to same-sex couples, one can no longer conclude that limiting marriage to a man and woman furthers a rational basis or furthers any governmental interest. It is time to reject Baker and accept the idea that preventing same-sex couples from marrying is patent discrimination — no different from the anti-miscegenation laws prohibiting interracial marriages.

The case will be heard with an Amicus brief submitted by the Minnesota Atheists. Yes, we are putting words into action and supporting a clear case of injustice being propagated for religious reasons; reasons that have no justification in a secular society. Here are some of the key points of our brief:

• With no valid secular reason to deny same-sex couples equal civil marriage rights, the government is enshrining one particular religious belief (theocracy), when it should not be basing laws on any religious beliefs.

• In a Minnesota Senate Committee hearing on April 29, 2011, six religious leaders used religion as a reason to oppose same-sex marriage.

• “Ex-gay” ministries such as the Christian group Exodus and Jewish group JONAH believe homosexuality is “outside of God’s will” and attempt to change gay people’s sexual orientations.

• The American Psychiatric Association and the American Medial Association support legal recognition of same-sex unions.

 

August Berkshire, the president of the Minnesota Atheists, engaged the services of Marshall Tanick a partner in the legal firm Mansfield, Tanick and Cohen to write the brief. When August sought the approval of the board to file an amicus curae we were each enthusiastic for a few reasons.

• The Minnesota Atheists have long been committed to seeing that gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders are afforded all of the rights that come with being residents of Minnesota and citizens of the United States.
• We have participated by marching with GLBT’s in Minneapolis’ and other cities’ Pride Parades.
• We saw this as an opportunity to expand our mission to create change in our society through legal activism.

In the brief, Tanick makes several points on the religious and theocratic nature of the laws against same-sex marriage. The most poignant is this:

“but the law cannot, in a secular society, enact, endorse or enforce proscriptions that emanate solely from the wellspring of a religious dogma or a particular denomination or any sect that seeks to advance a sectarian viewpoint.”

<The brief, in pdf format, may be viewed here.

We are confident that the case will be sent to the Minnesota Supreme Court whether the Appellate Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs or the respondents. If so, we will file an amicus for that case as well. We hope that the matter is settled once and for all in favor of equal rights for same-sex couples to marry, but we also need a bit of help raising money for the additional filing. We have created a legal fund to support our efforts to bring the atheist viewpoint on this issue to the State Supreme Court and ask you to donate some much needed funds:

Minnesota Atheists has begun a new phase of activity, that of legal activism. We have filled an amicus brief in the Minnesota Appellate Court in the case of Benson v. Alverson, asking the court to recognize the equal marriage rights of same-sex couples. Whichever way the Minnesota Appellate Court rules, we expect the case will move to the Minnesota Supreme Court. At that point we will amend our brief and file with that court too. Minnesota Atheists is bringing a hard-hitting, separation of state and church argument to bear on the case. We are the only group to file such a brief on behalf of the appellants. We expect our final costs to be about $5,000. We thank you for your donation to help atheists have their unique say in this legal matter before our state courts. A donation of $50 entitles you to attend our special fundraiser on Oct. 9 (more information available soon).

I don’t know how the vote will go in 2012 on the “Marriage Amendment.” Even if the forces of sanity prevail and the Amendment is sent to the dustbin where it belongs, it changes nothing as long as the Minnesota Defense of Marriage Act remains on the books unchallenged. A victory in the Appellate Court and then the Supreme Court would truly effect change in favor of civil rights in Minnesota.

Please support us in our efforts here. Give a little, give a lot but give for real marriage.

Please send this post around, we need your support!