However, on a positive note, the Safe Climate Caucus, chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), has been actively engaged in raising the consciousness of the American electorate about the threat of global warming.

I reached out to several of the female members of the caucus, on the occasion of Mother’s Day, to get their feedback on the importance of amplifying the dangers of climate change, and the role of mothers, grandmothers, and aunts in being vigilant about protecting the planet.

Below are their responses via e-mail:

Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA): “Climate change is real and has been ignored for far too long.  Our rapidly changing climate is having visibly profound impacts and will continue to do so unless we act now.  As a member of Congress, a mother and a grandmother, I am extremely concerned about the negative health and environmental consequences our inaction will have on current and future generations.

Mothers have a unique perspective and strength that can be channeled to be a voice for these generations, as they witness first-hand the effects these consequences have on their children, and their friends’ children.  I am working with my colleagues in Congress to raise awareness and implement responsible policies to address climate change, and I believe that working together it’s not too late to ensure a sustainable future for generations to come.”

Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD): “I joined the Safe Climate Caucus because climate change is a threat and we must engage Republicans on the science of this issue. As a mother, I am even more concerned with the environment we leave our children. We know children are particularly vulnerable to diseases such as asthma, water born bacteria, and other respiratory illnesses. We are doing them a disservice now and in the future by not addressing climate change. I will continue working with my colleagues in the Caucus to find solutions that reduce our consumption of fossil fuels and [that] invest in green technologies.”

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA): “Mother’s Day is a perfect reminder about the power of mothers and women in the fight for climate change. Fighting to keep our environment clean and cared for is everyone’s job, but it’s so often mothers who care for their children with asthma and feel the effects so closely. In my district, Oakland has some of the highest rates of asthma in the country. Those mothers know that for communities of color and for the next generation, we’ve got to solve the climate crisis now. There’s no time to waste.”

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY): “All parents care about the world left to our children. Over and over again we see the terrible impact climate change has on our world. We are at the brink—and some say past the brink—of being unable to take action to reverse the effects of climate change, which is why action now is crucial.

Around the world women have a disproportionate role in providing food, water, and energy to their families. These needs are inextricably tied to our climate and environment. That means the recurrence and rapidity of natural disasters can severely disadvantage women and have a terrible impact on women’s day-to-day lives.

I joined the Safe Climate Caucus and signed on to my colleague’s [Rep. Barbara Lee] resolution about Women and Climate Change because this is a critical issue for our country to tackle.

Mother’s Day is a wonderful time to mobilize and raise awareness on the issue.”

Photo: Courtesy of the Safe Climate Caucus

This article originally appeared on the website Moms Clean Air Force.

Tell First Lady Michelle Obama to Speak Up About Climate Change!

Married for twenty-three years and the mother of three children, Zimmermann has told her story in A Woman of Interest. In a phone interview, Zimmermann gave me the background on her life and a marriage gone stale. It would take ten years before she acted on getting a divorce. At that point, a lovely home with seven bedrooms and baths in Scottsdale, Arizona, and life as part of a prominent couple in community affairs, were no longer sufficient reasons to hold on to the façade.

Between 2005-2010, numerous people in Arizona were impacted by the economic downturn. It extended to people even like the Zimmermanns, who were on the affluent end of the scale. Financial issues added to marital discord. By the time Zimmermann moved out and got her own apartment, Paul’s work situation had begun to deteriorate. He had also developed a definitive drinking habit.

Zimmermann anticipated remaining friends with her spouse, and breezing through a simple divorce settlement in a state with fifty-fifty asset distribution laws. Instead, contentious litigation dragged on for eighteen months. Out of the workplace for two decades, Zimmermann realized she had to reconnect with the skill set and moxie that had brought her success in her younger years as a medical sales person. To her surprise, she learned that child support and alimony would not be forthcoming.

On the day that Zimmermann’s divorce was finalized, her husband—who had been missing for five days—was murdered. Overwhelmed by having her family impacted by a violent crime, Zimmermann’s focus was to protect her children. The last thing that occurred to her was that she would become a prime suspect, and later, undergo scrutiny as a potential accessory.

A business associate of Zimmermann’s husband, when questioned by the police, shot himself with what proved to be the same handgun used in the homicide. Yet, Zimmermann remained under a cloud of suspicion from law enforcement, extended family, and the court of public opinion.

It wasn’t an easy recovery process. Zimmermann qualified losing someone from a violent death as “a life long wound.” She explained, “It’s a very different kind of death that comes with its own set of issues.”

Part of her strategy for picking up the pieces of her life was to “give back” by working at the Hospice of the Valley facility in Phoenix. Assigned to work with physician teams as a conduit to patients in the final days of life, she found it very healing.

Zimmermann developed a plan to get her life back on track. At the center of her initiatives was “gratitude,” and recognizing what was positive in her life. She stayed connected to the priorities of friendship and family—while “negating chaos” at all turns. She related, “Some days all you can do is put one foot in front of the other.” Avoiding bitterness, even while others were trying to drive a wedge between her and her children, Zimmermann sought to surround herself with positive energy. Number one on her list was not to “wallow” in the circumstances that had befallen her.

In conjunction with her inside story of the murder-suicide that landed her in a harsh public spotlight, Zimmermann delivers a narrative of how she transcended major trauma. The tone of the book owes a debt to both the mindsets of Oprah and Suze Orman.

In speaking with Zimmermann, it is clear that one of her major take always is that women should never relinquish control of their emotional lives or personal finances—whether in a partnership or a marriage.

Zimmermann has since coached women on financial matters. She often includes in her talks the apocryphal tale of how her husband wanted to take out a second mortgage on their home—to finance a new business. She refused to give her consent, thereby avoiding what could have been a path to bankruptcy. To mothers, Zimmermann dispenses the advice of fulfilling parental obligations, such as preparing wills and medical directives.

On an emotional level, Zimmermann stresses the importance of maintaining personal friendships. She points repeatedly to the support she received from her connections throughout her ordeal, particularly from women. As part of a daily spiritual diet, she names three things that she is grateful for. When Zimmermann compares it to the worst moment of the day, she is able to connect with the triviality of the “negative versus the positive.”

Zimmermann revealed to me that there was a period when she was fixated on ruminating about how her husband had died, and if he had suffered. She finally gathered the strength to question the authorities about the details, and learned that after being shot in the abdomen—a slow bleeding wound—that he had been strangled. Contemplating violence in our popular culture, Zimmermann remarked on the superficial and misleading concept, “People get shot, they die, and it’s done.”

Closing insights from Zimmermann packed a punch. She stated, “We all have three choices in life when we see someone in difficulty. We can look the other way; Kick them when they are down; Extend a helping hand.”

Currently, Zimmermann characterizes her life as “wonderful.” She said, “I’m no longer trying to be the perfect wife and mother.” She added with irony, “Losing the white picket fence was liberating.”

Air Quality Awareness Week is on the calendar for April 29 through May 3, with the goal of bringing recognition to this vital concern. The Environmental Protection Agency has devoted a page on its website to resources and information about the topic, breaking different areas down into digestible headings.

Recently, a study in the journal PLOS Medicine featured research that presents findings linking air pollution to hardening of the arteries. It has long been known that ozone (popularly referred to as smog) and particle pollution present major health hazards. Young children, who have developing respiratory systems, are particularly vulnerable—particularly if they have asthma. Middle age adults, as well as the elderly, are already at increased risk for stroke and heart disease. Combined with exposure to ozone and particle pollution, the risk increases. Additionally impacted are people having cardiovascular disease, high cholesterol, diabetes, and weight problems.

When air quality is poor, it is essential that these populations be aware of the levels of ozone and fine particulate matter. AIRNow, which has state and local partners, makes it easy to check out the air quality via a national map. Simple graphics describe the AQI with color codes that represent levels from “Hazardous” to “Good.” It’s easy to get hyperlocal with a zip code tool. My favorite feature was the photographic “visibility camera” webcams shots.

Areas of the country that the public believes are pristine are also being affected. It has been reported that the urban industrial pollution in parts of California has been blowing over to national parks territories near Yosemite, as well as the eastern Sierra Nevada locale.

There are numerous examples and lessons to be learned from other countries. In China, the ability to attract and retain foreign talent and international commerce has been challenged by their extremely poor air quality. In South Africa, the eMalahleni region was cited for the elevated levels of air pollution from the area’s coal mining, metal production, and coal-fired power plants. In Cairo, Egypt, the World Health Organization has affirmed that the city’s residents are breathing the equivalent of a daily pack of cigarettes. Even the United Nations has underscored the importance of the dilemma. When it put together its 2030 development goals at the Oslo conference, the Director General of the U.N. Industrial Development Organization, Kandeh Yumkella, addressed the fact that air pollution kills more people than both the diseases of AIDS and malaria. He suggested a shift towards cleaner energy sources could decrease these numbers by 50 percent—by the target date of 2030. He referenced a 2012 World Health Organization (WHO) study, which identified that 3.3 million died from outdoor air pollution (3.5 million people die each year from indoor air pollution).

It must be repeated, and has been noted, that the sequester has cut into EPA funding to the tune of millions of dollars. And yes, the effect is being felt.

As individuals, here in America and around the globe, the need to protect the air must be taken seriously.

This article originally appeared on the website Moms Clean Air Force

Tell the EPA to Support New Fuel and Emissions Standards!

Questioned were the efficacy of the department, it’s standards, the alleged conflict between public health and the economy, and whether there is any relevance to the concerns about global warming.

Unsurprisingly, comments and inquiries reflected partisan viewpoints. For Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) and Sen. John Barrasso (R-WYO), the matter of surreptitious e-mail accounts being used within the EPA was tantamount, along with a lack of transparency in the EPA’s dealings. Chairwoman of the Environmental and Public Works Committee, Sen. Barbara Boxer, (D-CA), was quick to fire back with a rejoinder about the e-mail track record of administrators during the Bush terms, including Christie Whitman.

Barrasso also promoted the “loss of jobs” claim, citing coal-fired plants that have been closed. He posited, “Does the EPA bear responsibility for people out of work?”  Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) wanted to know if “clean coal” technology could be developed. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-ALA) expressed apprehension that carbon dioxide was being defined as a pollutant. He qualified that as “massive government reach,” asserting, “So I worry about it.”

Democratic Senators interpreted their uneasiness through a very different prism. Regarding the economic fallout, Boxer repeated her frequently used phrase, “If you can’t breathe, you can’t work.” Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) spoke specifically to the jobs crisis in his state, and why he believes that climate change alarms are crucial. He outlined the adversities his constituents were facing in the farming and lumber sectors. He noted that their livelihoods had been impacted due to climate change. He referenced “beetle infestations” and a fire that had covered an area the “size of Rhode Island.” He pointed out how fisherman in the oyster industry had been affected by the ocean’s acidification. He stated plainly, “I’m concerned about my communities.”

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) emphasized the fact that the 1970 Clean Air and Clean Water Acts were bipartisan, while underscoring that the cost/benefit ratio of a clean environment was “well-documented.”

Offering into the record a statement designed to take the conversation into a different direction, Sen. Bernie Sanders, (I-VT), insisted that the hearing was not really a referendum on Gina McCarthy, but rather—“a debate about global warming” and whether the country was prepared to “face that crisis in a serious manner.” Sanders declared, “I want the EPA to be vigorous.”  Remarking that in 2012, scientists had said that their earlier projections about “extreme weather disturbances” were underestimated, Sanders took the opportunity to remark on Sen. James Inhofe’s (R-OK) claim that global warming was a “hoax.” Sanders intoned, “We must act boldly,” and suggested an infrastructure plan that would transform challenges into “economic opportunity.”

According to The Hill, “Boxer told reporters in the Capitol Tuesday [4/16] that [the] McCarthy [vote] would come up either next week or the first week back after the April 29-May 3 recess.”

With stats showing that 69 percent of Americans support cleaner air, it will be interesting to follow the vote on McCarthy, who Sen. Elizabeth Warren described as “tough but fair”—having served across party lines.

When it finally came time for McCarthy to speak and respond to questions, she had one top take away and an addendum. She said, “Environmental Protection is not a partisan issue. My door is always open.”

Photo: Courtesy of US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

This article originally appeared on the website Moms Clean Air Force

Tell President Obama: Break the Climate Paralysis

Climate Caucus
Photo: Courtesy Rep. Henry Waxman’s Office

It’s only March, and already the push back against environmental concerns is evident. Superstorm Sandy is old news, except for those still picking up the pieces of disaster.

At the forefront of bringing awareness to all things green is Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), who serves as a ranking Democratic member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. In 2011, I wrote about the online database he developed, which tracked the extent of anti-environmentalist votes passed by the 112^th Congress.

In January 2013, Waxman released a statement on the National Climate Assessment draft report. He noted, “The findings in the report are a three-alarm fire.”

It’s not just an opinion. On January 13, 2013, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that temperatures were above normal in every month between June 2011 and September 2012.

Spearheading an effort to get the 113^th Congress off on the right foot, Waxman, in conjunction with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), announced the formation of a bicameral (House and Senate) Task Force on Climate Change. The stated goal was to educate colleagues and Americans about the “magnitude of the problem and the urgency of the threat.”

The first week in February, the House Democrats (who comprise the minority on the House and Energy Committee), presented three amendments to the Committee. They proposed hearing testimony from renowned experts in the scientific community on up-to-date information about climate change. All Republican members of the Committee voted it down.

Encouraged by President Obama’s strong comments about the importance of climate change in his State of the Union address, Democratic members of the House (now numbering 25) formed the Safe Climate Caucus in February. The initiative was a stalwart commitment to the amplification of climate change.

Waxman and Whitehouse began their outreach by contacting more than 300 businesses and organizations to get feedback on what approaches could be implemented by the federal government to address the issue. In addition, they wrote to 70 Inspectors General within Federal Government, requesting input on what each agency, government corporation, or independent establishment could tackle to confront the growing threat of climate change. Letters went out across the board, from the CIA to the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Members of the caucus have been speaking daily to address the importance of climate change. Below are some highlights:

Rep. Blumenauer (D-OR) read into the record a bipartisan letter from the Partnership for a Secure America, which urged immediate international action on preventing and mitigating climate change. Among those who signed were Olympia J. Snowe, Former Secretary of State George Schultz, and Gen. Wesley Clarke. (Video)

Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) articulated Congress’ obligation to act on clean energy policies. (Video)

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) stated, “Republican skepticism of science has delayed action for far too long, but it is not too late to stop the worst effects.” (Video)

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) reported on an Oregon State University study published which found that global temperatures would rise. (Video)

Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) called on Congress to develop a long-term strategy to take on the challenge of climate change. (Video)

On March 15, Waxman and Ranking Member Rep. Bobby L. Rush (D-IL) sent a letter to Chairmen Fred Upton (R-MI) and Ed Whitfield (R-KY), requesting a specific hearing with scientists and top experts on the need for action to address climate change. They believed that the scope of previous testimony had been limited. Waxman and Rush wrote, “While the Committee has provided a venue for regulated entities to complain about regulations to curb greenhouse gases, we have not held any hearings on recent scientific reports and technical analyses that explain why it is so important that we reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.”

It’s a difficult path, especially when top Republicans continue to deny climate change. Some comments have included the following:

From Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), “The science is not settled and the science is actually going the other way.”

From Rep. Bill Cassidy  M.D. (R-LA) on the cause of climate change, “It could just be a shift on the axis.”

From Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy, “The Earth will end only when God declares it is time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood.”

I contacted Rep. Waxman for a comment on the whole situation. He responded by e-mail with the following:

“The President has called on Congress, both in his Inaugural Address and the State of the Union, to pursue a solution on climate change.  Republicans in Congress refuse to acknowledge that climate change is occurring, repeatedly voting to block legislation or any action on climate change and denying dozens of requests to hear from scientists on the facts.  Every time we miss an opportunity to reduce our carbon pollution, it becomes less likely that we will be able to prevent the worst impacts of climate change.  We’ve seen many examples of extreme weather: searing droughts, raging wildfires, floods, and superstorms.  And this may be mild compared to what our children and grandchildren may face in the future.  We face a historic challenge, and we cannot afford to wait to take action.”

The American public needs to proactively support the efforts of Waxman and Whitehouse, and the Task Force on Climate Change, by demanding that their elected representatives generate ideas, share proposals, and coordinate efforts on climate change.

Options are quickly running out.

This article originally appeared on the website Moms Clean Air Force

Help Fight Climate Change by Telling the President The Country Needs a Plan!

I reached out to Sen. Tom Carper, who serves on the Environment and Public Works Committee, for a comment on the current situation. He responded by e-mail stating:

“Programs in every corner of the federal government are taking a hit because of sequestration. Because the President and those of us in Congress failed to compromise in addressing our deep fiscal challenges, we’ve enacted indiscriminate cuts without asking whether they’ll hurt our economy or undermine the basic responsibilities of government, including preserving our environment and protecting public health. Unfortunately, these cuts weren’t conceived thoughtfully and weren’t targeted toward inefficient or wasteful programs. Thus, they could slow our momentum in valuable programs aimed at cleaning up our dirty air, which contributes to pulmonary disease in countless Americans, young and old, each year. Going forward, I’ll continue to call for a comprehensive deficit reduction plan that is balanced, fair and thoughtful.”

The average American may not be aware of how these cuts will impact the air that they breathe. Perhaps, most surprising to them, would be how the affected programs that reduce air pollution will shape the state of national health for everyone. Those at greatest harm are the vulnerable elderly, young children, and those with cardiac and respiratory diseases.

Here are some of the top concerns that were laid out by the Environment Protection Agency in a February letter from Lisa Jackson to Sen. Barbara Mikulski, the Chairwoman for the Committee on Appropriations.

State Air Monitors:

Sequestration cuts reduce EPA funding allocated to individual states to monitor air quality. Critical air monitoring sites may be shuttered. As a result, there will be no monitoring of certain pollutants such as fine particle (soot) and ozone. Without this data, it is impossible to ascertain whether a specific locale is in compliance with Clean Air Act (CAA) standards.

An example of a system in danger of losing funding is AIRNow, an index for reporting daily air quality. These advisories are essential for those who need to judge the advisability of going outdoors.

Vehicle Certification:

Cuts will impact the EPA’s ability to evaluate and certify that new cars are in compliance with emission standards. The trickle down effect is that it stalls automobile purchases, and therefore, the economy.

Energy Star Program:

Most Americans are familiar with the Energy Star tag on new appliances. The facts listed give companies tools to set goals, and consumers disclosure and details on energy usage and emissions. In 2011, because of these insights, American utility bills were lowered by $23 billion. The reduced emissions in 2011 were equivalent to that of 41 million vehicles.

Superfund Enforcement:

This is a system for monitoring accountability of those responsible for the costly “cleanups” at pollution sites. It ensures that those at fault are footing the bill. An EPA failure to follow through on keeping offenders accountable is estimated to amount to a loss of $100 million in fee revenues to the government. For example, announced in December 2012, was the Owens-Brockway Glass Container settlement. The largest glass container manufacturer in the country agreed to “install pollution control equipment to reduce harmful emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter by nearly 2,500 tons per year.” Their fine will be a $1.45 million penalty to resolve alleged Clean Air Act violations at five of the company’s manufacturing plants.

In addition, 1,000 EPA inspectors could be cut from the rolls in 2013. The EPA’s ability to be aware of toxic air emissions putting Americans at risk would be diminished. There will be fewer environmental reviews, accompanied by a slowdown of the approval of energy and transportation projects. There will be less fracking oversight. Major polluters will benefit from a reduction in scrutiny, which will lead to oil refineries and power plants going unchecked. Meanwhile, Big Oil will retain their firm grasp on taxpayer subsidies.

We can only hope other representatives in the House and Senate will come to the aid of this country’s children and step up the importance of the air we breathe before it’s too late.
This article originally appeared on the website Moms Clean Air Force.

Learn more about how to stand up to air pollution!

So it was with interest that I looked into the story about three organizations that took a page from the PR books of the oil companies. They created a tongue-in-cheek ad of their own. It’s called “Exxon Hates Your Children.” It features a man in a suit facetiously explaining the ExxonMobil business philosophy, the $10 billion in federal subsidies the oil companies receive annually, all while exuding an air of indifference about the climate crisis. A mixture of sardonic humor and razor-sharp political theater, the content is poised to become the focal point of a conversation that is much larger than solely environmental issues. It’s about who gets to put their message out to the public.

The groups behind the ad are OilChange International, The Other 98%, and Environmental Action. I was able to speak to the leaders of each to discuss the genesis of the ad, and the successful efforts made by ExxonMobil to have it pulled from what would have been a coveted time slot.

David Turnbull, Campaigns Director at OilChange International, walked me through the original goals for the Public Service Announcement. Launched at the end of 2012, the ad was designed to “target the subsidies for fossil fuels [oil, coal, and natural gas], which all emit carbon dioxide when they are burned—thereby adding to global warming.” Turnbull told me, “We wanted to raise the noise about what these companies are doing.” The ad was previewed by their lawyers, who “vetted it for all legalities,” confirming that it was acceptable to air. It was rolled out in the New York City, Washington, D.C., and Denver markets on MSNBC, to what they gauged as a “target sympathetic audience.” Turnbull also mentioned that it was a direct pushback to the sponsored placements of the American Petroleum Institute.

The next step was to go for a venue that Turnbull called “the belly of the beast.” That was FoxNews in Houston, Texas. It was a time slot where there would be plenty of eyeballs—the two hour lead in and two hour follow up to the State of the Union address on February 12.

Turnbull related, “It was all set to air.” Then during the late afternoon hours, Comcast, the cable provider, got an e-mail from ExxonMobil. It was a cease and desist letter from their legal team claiming that the ad was “defamatory.”  They were up against what Turnbull called the use of ExxonMobil’s money and political clout to “throw its weight around.” Turnbull said categorically, “It’s about the future of our children. Our government is giving money to companies that are harming the environment.”

I mentioned the constant drum beat for the argument that potential jobs were at stake, especially with the Keystone XL Pipeline debate heating up. Turnbull replied, “Renewable energy equals jobs. The idea that we have to ruin our children’s future to create jobs is ludicrous.”

Drew Hudson, the Executive Director of Environmental Action, founded in 1970, saw the ad and “jumped on the bandwagon” to help crowdsource the advertising fees. He said, “We wanted to put out the premise that “there is no way to be an ethical oil company.” He continued, “The company can only make a profit by destroying the planet.” Hudson acknowledged that the ad was ”intended to be disarming.” The reasoning is that it’s “trying to get people to rethink their assumptions.” He also agreed that a false dichotomy had been set up pitting the environment against jobs. “We have to stop where we are and acknowledge the problem.”

Co-founder and Executive Director of The Other 98%, John Sellers, was direct about his thoughts on ExxonMobil. He said dryly, “They have, more or less, run of the planet. Exxon has the mindset that they run the show. We struck a nerve.” Sellers noted, “ExxonMobil is full of good people, but the company—who we have given personhood to—hates children and the future of the planet.”

Sellers wants to see the ad back on the air, and talked about the options for pressuring the oil company to stop censoring the PSA. Taking legal action is on the table. “Freedom of speech cannot be curtailed,” he said.

Although Sellers regrets the “lost opportunity” of an airing the night of the State of the Union—where climate change was addressed—he is hardly deterred.

“We’re going to make another ‘ExxonMobil Hates Your Children’ commercial,” he told me. “We’re in it for the long haul.”

Photo Courtesy of Exxon Hates Your Children

This article originally appeared on the website Moms Clean Air Force

Tell Obama to Keep His Promise to Act on Climate Change

In addition to receiving funding, they are also the beneficiaries of exemptions from enacted environmental standards. This means they are not bearing the responsibility for the consequences of health burdens resulting from their actions.

Jessica Ennis, a Legislative Representative at EarthJustice explained to me, “In order to transition to renewable energies, it is essential to level the playing field.” While oil and gas companies are receiving subsidies and are not being held to the same standards of accountability, that won’t happen.

The Federal Policy Director of Oceana, Corry Westbrook, ran some numbers by me. She said, “The oil and tax subsidies that go to the top oil producers such as ExxonMobil, Shell, and Chevron are $4 billion plus per year—roughly $43.6 billion over ten years.” In a observation of understatement, Westbrook added, “That’s a lot of money.”

Many of these tax breaks have been in the tax code for one hundred years. As time passed, they became more elaborate and entrenched. The government does provide subsidies for alternative energies, but because they are relatively new—the protocol demands that requests be submitted annually.

Westbrook indicated that beginning in 1980, during Ronald Reagan’s administration, alternative energy began receiving federal subsidies. However, since they are not an “integrated” or “embedded” part of the tax code, alternatives must continually request extensions.

ExxonMobil ranked globally as the number one money-making company in 2012. Their revenue was $486.4 billion. Shell comes in at number two ($470 billion), BP is number four ($386.4 billion), and Chevron squeezes into the top ten at number seven (($253.7 billion).

Do taxpayers realize that their dollars are going into the pockets of these companies?

Discussing the connection between powerful and monied donors and politicians, Westbrook illustrated the premise with the example of Presidential candidate Mitt Romney—who received $5.3 million from the gas and oil industries.

The Executive Director of Oil Change International, Steve Kretzman, referenced the beginning of the 20^th Century as both the birth of the car and the oil industry. When it was a young business, oil needed help getting off the ground. However, the subsidies that were easy to enact have since become hard to take away. Echoing Westbrook, Kretzman pointed to the symbiotic relationship between elected officials, lobbies, and donors. At the Dirty Energy Money website, citizens can check which companies are pumping funds to elected representatives.

“We know that we have to stop using fossil fuels, “Kretzmann told me. “We have to leave two-thirds of all existing fossil fuels in the ground.” He continued, “The first thing we have to do is to stop subsidies, stop wasting taxpayers’ money, and put it toward alternatives. The latest climate science shows that this is the way to avoid the worst impact of climate change.”

The question remains as to why our dollars are going to companies that are reaping billions in profits, contributing to health issues, as well as adding to what Kretzmann qualifies as “climate chaos.”

Efforts to address this issue have been undertaken, but with no results. S.2204 – Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act was introduced on

March 19, 2012 by Sen. Robert Menéndez (D-NJ). Despite nineteen co-sponsors, it didn’t get very far. OpenCongress.org has a robust detailing of organizations that supported or opposed the bill, along with a money trail. ExxonMobil is listed there as one of the “specific organizations” opposed to the initiative. The New York Times called out the oil and gas companies for fighting the bill in their editorial “Big Oil’s Bogus Campaign.”

Approximately two months later, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) held a press conference to announce their legislation to end “billions of dollars in oil, coal and gas subsidies.” My favorite point was:

“Deny deduction for oil spill costs: BP was able to deduct from its tax liability billions of dollars for certain costs related to remediation from the Gulf oil spill. This provision would ensure that corporations responsible for oil spill clean-up and damages do not get a tax break for paying to clean-up their mess.”

So where do things stand now?

There is hope that Menéndez will reintroduce his bill. Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid recently put forth—as a way of dealing with sequestration in “small steps”—generating revenues by repealing oil and gas subsidies.

Really. Come on Washington. Enough is enough.

Join in protecting our children’s future. Ask President Obama for a clean plan to fight Climate Change.

This article originally appeared on the website Moms Clean Air Force

Hopefully, before they prepare their queries, they will have read the results from a study published on February 6, 2013 in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. It posits, “Maternal exposure to outdoor air pollution is associated with low birth weight.” To date, it stands as the most comprehensive examination on the matter that has been undertaken. Data was gathered and analyzed from over three million births at fourteen sites in Europe, Asia, Australia, South America and North America.

To learn more, I interviewed the co-principal investigator on the study, Tracey J. Woodruff, PhD, by telephone. She explained how the International Collaboration on Air Pollution and Pregnancy Outcomes (ICAPPO) was founded in 2007 to study both the interrelationship between air pollution and pregnancy outcomes, and to “work with researchers around the world to establish a common format for aggregating data.”

The findings are compelling. The higher the pollution level, the greater the rate of low birth babies.

What is low birth weight and why is it important? A full term infant delivered at below 5.5 pounds is considered to be low birth weight, and therefore at risk for potentially critical health consequences during the first twelve months of life. During childhood, there is a greater possibility for developmental delays. In adult life, cardiovascular concerns as well as metabolic disorders, such as diabetes, may occur.

How is a pregnant woman exposed to particulate air pollution at risk? It can be directly through her health, as in how the heart, lungs, and respiratory system are impacted by the pollution. Adverse effects can also travel via her blood stream to the developing fetus, making it susceptible to “congenital anomalies.”

Describing what constitutes particulate matter in the air, Woodruff described “microscopic particles” that are more minuscule than the “width of a human hair.” These particles are in the air we breathe. They are by-products of what Woodruff termed “combustion sources.” This includes fossil fuel exhaust from cars and buses, emissions from coal-fired power plants, the burning of oil for home heating and factories, and trash incinerators.

I asked Woodruff about the common argument put forth by those opposing clean air laws—the concern for jobs and the economy. Woodruff was unequivocal in her response. “The health benefits outweigh the costs,” she told me, underscoring the dollars that are lost to hospital expenditures and medical bills. (It has been pointed out in conversations on the budget quandary, that exploding health care fees account for a large percentage of the deficit.)

The data used was collected during the mid-1990s through the late-2000s. Woodruff pointed to the fact that “nations with tighter regulations on particulate air pollution have lower levels of these air pollutants.” As a matter of comparison, a look at particulate air pollution (which is measured in size and weight) shows that in America, the annual average concentration in the air is required by federal standards to be no greater than 12 micrograms per cubic meter. However, the European Union is sustaining 25 micrograms per cubic meter. Now, the European Union is deliberating upon whether to make the guidelines more stringent.

The extreme is the particulate air pollution in Beijing, China, which was recently found to be at 700 micrograms per cubic meter.

A co-author of the paper, Mark Nieuwenhuijsen, PhD, who is affiliated with the Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology, commented on the situation in China. He said, “From the perspective of world health, levels like this are obviously completely unsustainable.”

Perhaps even more importantly, Nieuwenhuijsen emphasized the idea, “This study comes at the right time to bring the issue to the attention of policy makers.”

It is the job of the public to make certain that this suggestion doesn’t fall upon deaf ears.

This article originally appeared on the website Moms Clean Air Force

ASK PRESIDENT OBAMA FOR A CLEAN PLAN FOR CLIMATE CHANGE

Guyana is a country that is approximately the same size as the state of Idaho. Although it is situated on the northern coast of South America, it is considered part of the “Anglo-Caribbean.” The Dutch, French, and English all planted their imperial flags on the terrain. With the abolishment of slavery in 1834, an influx of workers from East India came to the country. Today, 50 percent of the population is descended from East Indians and 36 percent is of African descendent.

At the opening, I was able to speak with several of the artists as well as the show’s curator, Carl E. Hazlewood. His stated goal was to inform a larger audience about the achievements of artists of Guyanese ancestry.

Almost forty works of photography, painting, welded steel, works on paper, and sculpture provided the foundation for expression that covered a continuum from abstraction to political subtext.

“Interlude for Ginny: Timehri Bottle”
Donald Locke
Photo: Mark Lee Blackshear

The ceramic and mixed-media sculptures of internationally recognized Donald Locke established an anchor and point of reference. Three of his sculptures from 2008-2009 are showcased on a wall shelf. They bear the titles: “Shaman’s Rock,” “The Legacy of Hernando Cortez,” and “Interlude for Ginny: Timehri Bottle.” Employing disparate elements including hair, fur, metal, and coral, they are combined with painted ceramic bases that feature recognizable figurative imagery in a black and white pictographic style.

Situated in the same room is an overview of pieces dating from 1987 to 2008 by Gregory A. Henry. They demonstrate his facility as a painter, printmaker, and sculptor. In our conversation Henry told me, “I try to create forms that have many layers, using symbols and objects from the cultural landscape of Guyana, incorporating all the things that make the universe work and that we need in our lives.” Henry reflected upon the push/pull, positive/negative, and ebb/flow—as well as the humor—that are consistently present in his ouevre. Looking at his “Untitled” sculpture of wood, steel, and coconuts from 1987 and his oil stick on panel, “Stuff” from 2005, it is evident that the shapes, construction, and elements are clearly linked.

Left: “Stuff” Right: “Untitled”
Gregory A. Henry
Photo: Jamaal M. Levine

Victor Davson is also represented by disparate time frames. His two pigment on paper drawings from 1996, “Limbo Anansi XX” and “XXVII” emerged from a suite that he completed in three weeks. Davson spoke about the “formal values of line, movement, and color” present in the drawings. He pointed out that his installation, “Dub Factor” (2008), shared the same formal values through “placement and paint.” The “appropriated imagery” such as soul musicians and a reproduction of a portion of the United States dollar bill, tap into disparate topics, from American pop culture to the capitalistic structure of the national economy.

“Dub Factor”
Victor Davson
Photo: Mark Lee Blackshear

The oil diptych, “The Wounded Canvas: Lotus in Spring Time,” by Bernadette Persaud, at first glance seems to be primarily about color and the floral lushness of a garden’s beauty. A further examination reveals a bleeding bullet hole in the lower right hand corner. Of Indo-Guyanese heritage, Persaud acknowledges the unresolved societal tensions within Guyana.

“Black Basketball” and “White Nights II”
Marlon Forrester
Photo: Jamaal M. Levine

Marlon Forrester blends a muscular intellectuality with his creativity. He spoke about his insights into the “Black male body    in sports,” and how a specific “manhood formula” is targeted to young African-American males in the 12 to 18 year old bracket. Using the digit 23, the iconic number that is associated Michael Jordan, in both “White Nights I” and “White Nights II”—Forrester delves into the ramifications of how the sport is sold and how it “commodifies” individuals, while creating an ethos of distorted values and misogyny. At the center of “White Nights I” is an inserted image of the artist holding a basketball in a Christ-like position. It is covered with a blood red wash. In “White Knights II,” the center photo imagery has player Kobe Bryant—who was embroiled in a sexual assault case—collaged with a woman’s torso. Placed directly to the left of this work is the assemblage, “Black Basketball.” On a sculpture pedestal, a black-coated basketball sits with a heavily paint-encrusted pair of sneakers connected by their tied laces. Ominous in tone, it can be interpreted as a contemporary form of shackles and chain.

Keisha Scarville also explores identity. Her “Passport Series” is comprised of twelve individually framed pieces that use her father’s first passport photo as the focal point. She interacts with the snapshot to “meditate on” her relationship with her father, and to “overcome an emotional distance” that has existed. Analyzing the effects of immigration, shifting the balance of power in the parent/child relationship, redefining gender roles, Scarville reconstructs her personal history while assuaging her specific emotional needs.

Additionally, there are three archival black and white digital prints by Scarville from her “Ghana, West Africa” series. They capture what she terms, “closed landscapes.” Scarville’s depiction of a young boy, partially obscured behind a rusting pole in a field of grass, brilliantly compliments Dudley Charles’ drawing and collage, “Jacob’s Ladder.” The two monochromatic works riff off of each other’s similar structures. The various lights and darks, textures, markings, and lines in Charles’ engaging 83” x 80” work on paper contrasts the handmade mark with the observations of the photographic eye.

“Ghana, West Africa Series”
Keisha Scarville
Photo: Courtesy of the Artist

“Jacob’s Ladder”
Dudley Charles
Photo: Mark Lee Blackshear

This strong exhibition stands not only as an examination of what these artists bring to the visual dialogue. Rather, it places them squarely as individuals whose imagery speaks both to their roots—as well as to the broader global conversation.

Timehri Transitions: Expanding Concepts in Guyana Art
Exhibiting Artists: damali abrams, Carl Anderson, Dudley Charles, Victor Davson, Marlon Forrester, Gregory A. Henry, Siddiq Khan, Donald Locke, Andrew Lyght, Bernadette Persaud, Keisha Scarville, Arlington Weithers

Wilmer Jennings Gallery at Kenkeleba
219 East 2^nd Street (Avenue B)
212-674-3939
Through March 9, 2013
Wednesday-Saturday  11am-6pm