Green Blog

The results are in and Barack Obama has won the US presidency for a second term, beating the Republicans candidate Mitt Romney. And in his victory speech last night, Barack Obama finally mentioned climate change: “We want our children to live in an America that isn't burdened by debt, that isn't weakened up by inequality, that isn't threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet.” Shortly after Obama’s victory was announced Bill McKibben, from 350.org, tweeted: “Obama has been re-elected president in the warmest year in American history. We'll see now what he thinks his legacy should be. Obama never has to run again. Now we'll find out what he really thinks about a lot of things.” Do you think Obama's victory will mean four more years of business as usual, or will we finally start to see real change and real progress on climate change?

The other day Jill Stein, who is the Presidential nominee of the Green Party in the 2012 US election, did an AMA (Ask me anything) on the popular social news site Reddit. The questions asked ranged from space exploration to energy policies and alternative medicine. Here are all the questions that received an answer from Jill Stein. But first, for those who are unfamiliar, Reddit is a social networking and link-sharing site where registered people can submit content, post comments, and vote stories and links up or down to rank the posts after popularity. Reddit consists of a few large “subreddits” such as the politics, aww, and the atheism “subreddit”. Users are also able create their own communities on the site and join other “subreddits” with content they prefer to see. One of the most popular “subreddits” is IAmA ("I am a") where users prompt others to AMA ("Ask me anything"). About two weeks ago, President Barack Obama was on Reddit to answer questions from the community. Many redditors asked about how viable third party candidates and parties actually are. A user with the name LadyLaFee asked Stein how we can move away from the current two party system: How do you think the Green party will fare this election when the nation has a mentality that they must “choose between the lesser of two evils” and don't seem to know about anything other than the democratic & republican party? What can we do as Americans to help move this country away from a two party system? Stein answered: For the last decade (and more) we've been told we don't dare stand up for ourselves and what we deserve... that we need to be quiet and vote our fears not our values. The experience of the past decade makes clear however that this silence is not an effective political strategy. In fact, what we've gotten is expanding war and empire, an unraveling economy, attacks on our civil liberties, offshoring of our jobs, declining wages, massive Wall Street bail outs, and the melt down of the climate. Obama has not only embraced the policies of Bush, he's gone way beyond. Bottom line is this. The politics of fear has brought us everything we were afraid of. We need to replace the politics of fear with the politics of courage. The establishment parties (Dems and Repubs) don't have a single exit strategy from the crises that afflict us. Yet good solutions are available. We - in this campaign - are standing up and pushing these solutions - that the American people are clamoring for - forward. Another similar question was asked by Reddit user figandfennel: I'm a voter in New York State, which according to Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight Blog has a 100% chance of going for Obama. Since my vote for Obama won't then have an effect, how would a vote for Jill Stein and the Green party help your various causes? Additionally, I noticed on the issues page of your site there's no mention of the farm bill(s) and its subsidies. Since the modern industrial farm industry is a huge burden on the environment, is that something on which you have a position? Stein replied in two posts: Every vote for the Wall Street sponsored candidates gives a mandate for 4 more years of Wall Street rule. It's a vote for the policies that are destroying our economy, our planet, shipping our jobs overseas, etc. Standing up and voting for the Green Party is a vote for yourself and the future you deserve. Go to occupytheCPD.org to help get our voices out there. Agree. Strengthening local sustainable farming, family and community farms is a major initiative within the Green New Deal. Modern industrial farming (including factory farming of animals) has been devastating for small farmers, for greenhouse gas emissions, for toxic pollution, for public health and nutrition. The farm bill needs to incorporate the needs of public health, small farmers, a sustainable economy, etc. Reddit user bigbobo33 asked if it could be possible for the Green Party to have a similar "renaissance" as the Libertarian party recently has had. Libertarian ideals and the Libertarian party are having a renaissance of sorts right now due to the efforts of Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. What do you think needs to be done in order for the Green Party to have a similar awakening? Stein answered by saying that the climate solutions offered by the libertarians won't work: To look at the polls, people are clamoring for what the Green Party is offering. Not only an alternative to establishment politics, but a way to get money out of politics (public funding of campaigns, open up public airwaves to public use by qualified candidates, etc.). A way to create jobs and revive the economy (through the Green New Deal). A way to bail out students and provide free public higher education. (It pays for itself as we saw during the GI Bill post WWII that returned $7 in economic benefits for every $1 invested in college tuition.) A way to stop climate change. (Sorry but the Libertarian "personal responsibility" solution for climate change won't cut it.) A way to reign in Wall Street, break up the big banks and create state banks, and an economy that works for everyday people. It's all about getting the word out. Go to jillstein.org to make it happen. There were indeed many questions asked about third party candidates during the IAmA. Reddit user thirdpartyroundtable received the final reply from Stein on this topic. In the event that you are not allowed into the presidential debates, would you please consider holding a roundtable discussion after each debate with Dennis Kucinich, Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, and Russ Feingold where you all discuss Romney and Obama’s answers? Put it on CurrentTV and/or stream it over the internet... Stein replied by mentioning how the presidential debates are "anti-democratic": We haven't thrown in the towel on this. In fact we haven't begun to fight. Fight we will because the American people deserve a real debate. The idea that a private corporation - the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) - controlled by the Democratic and Republican Parties is being allowed to silence opposition voices is anti-democratic and unacceptable. Please go to occupytheCPD.org and join the fight to open up our debates. This is just the beginning. There were also many questions from armchair experts about nuclear energy. A user named npage148 asked: What is the rationale for the party’s opposition to nuclear energy? All forms of energy production, even green energy, have the potential for environmental damage in the case of natural disaster and technology “mismanagement” such as improper mining procedures when obtaining the materials for photovoltaic cells. Nuclear energy, while producing hazardous waste products, has been demonstrated as a very safe method of energy production (Fukushima is really the only recent nuclear disaster) that has the ability to generate massive amounts of energy on demand. The efficiency of nuclear energy and the ability to mitigate its hazards due to waste products and disaster will only improve as more research is done in the field. It would make sense to use nuclear energy as a near immediate solution to the growing political and environmental disaster that is fossil fuels while allowing other green energy technologies time to mature. Ultimately, nuclear energy can be phased out when more globally friendly technologies comes to fruition. By opposing nuclear energy, the party is required to de facto endorse the use of fossil fuels because currently no other green technology has the ability to replace it as the principle energy source. Stein replied by highlighting how expensive nuclear power actually is and how the renewable energy sector is a much better investment: Nuclear energy currently depends on massive public subsidies. Private industry won't invest in it without public support because it's not a good investment. The risks are too great. Add to that, three times more jobs are created per dollar invested in conservation and renewables. Nuclear is currently the most expensive per unit of energy created. All this is why it is being phased out all over the world. Bottom line is no one source solution to our energy needs, but demand side reductions are clearly the most easily achieved and can accrue the most cost savings. Advanced nuclear technologies are not yet proven to scale and the generation and management of nuclear waste is the primary reason for the call for eventual phasing out of the technology. Advances in wind and other renewable technologies have proven globally to be the best investment in spurring manufacturing inovation, jobs and energy sources that are less damaging to our health and environment. A user named sirloinfurr asked Stein about the Green New Deal, a political program designed by the Green Party. Firstly, I love you, the “Green New Deal,” and the end of your “Enough” video, where you're gleefully standing within a garden of beautiful marijuana shrubs. I find your protest to save a woman's home that led to your arrest in Philadelphia courageous, noble, and heroic. You truly are fighting for the people of America. As much as I love the “Green New Deal,” I am not convinced that it will reduce deficit. In fact, I think that it may increase the deficit, because it is such a drastic (and highly desired) tranformation. And as much as I'd love to have my student debt forgiven, it is backed by the government, meaning that the government and tax payers would get the burden of paying off the student loans if they were forgiven. So please provide some numbers on how The Green New Deal will help reduce the debt of our nation. Stein answered and said that the US could afford to pay for the Green New Deal: Actually the estimated cost (Phillip Harvey, Rutgers University) to get the Green New Deal going are about the cost of the first stimulus package. We can pay for this - and much more - by cutting the bloated military budget in half, having the rich pay their fair share (Wall Street transaction tax, taxing capital gains as income), and by moving to a Medicare for All health care system, (which saves trillions over the coming decade by eliminating the massive wasteful insurance bureaucracy and stabilizing medical inflation). More on this at jillstein.org. There were also a few questions about the US space program. User lazerpuppynerdsammic asked: What are your opinions on the US space program and what do you want to see it accomplishing in the future? Will you ensure that space exploration continues in the US? If so, how? Stein, the science-nerd, answered: First let me say it's really important we keep war and militarism out of space, and that space research not be hijacked for the ever-expanding war machine. With that caveat, as a science-nerd, yes i'd love to see continued space exploration. No doubt spending on (peaceful) space exploration is far preferable to war spending. If we cut the bloated trillion-dollar military-industrial-security complex in half, we should have plenty of resources for research. Let's see how the budget looks once we have a Green New Deal up and running. User criticalnegation asked about the Green Party's stance on workers rights: Your platform states that "decentralized democratic cooperatives" should play a role in the economy and "that economic relations become more direct, more cooperative, and more egalitarian". How do you propose to achieve this goal? do you propose incentives for coops and other democratic workplaces? or perhaps public awareness campaigns? in italy, for example, marcora law allows people to be forwarded unemployment benefits in order to start a cooperative business. Stein gave a short answer: All of the above. We also propose a commission to support economic democracy, including education and financing to promote worker ownership. The final question which Stein replied to was about the teaching, funding and practice of holistic health approaches. Reddit user legweed asked: It has disappointed some of us that there is a paragraph in the green platform that says: "We support the teaching, funding and practice of holistic health approaches and as appropriate, the use of complementary and alternative therapies such as herbal medicines, homeopathy, naturopathy, traditional Chinese medicine and other healing approaches." Many secular voters support the Green Party, and we support a scientific approach. Would you be willing to remove this from the platform and not fund Homeopathic and *traditional medicine? And what are your thoughts on the socialist idea (many socialists support you) that workers should own the means of production? Would be willing to set us on a path to reach that goal? Stein agreed and said that: Agree. The Green Party platform here takes an admittedly simple position on a complex issue, and should be improved. I agree that just because something’s untested - as much of the world of alternative medicine is - doesn't mean it's safe. But by the same token, being "tested" and "reviewed" by agencies directly tied to big pharma and the chemical industry is problematic as well. There's no shortage of snake oil being sold there. Ultimately, we need research and licensing establishments that are protected from corrupting conflicts of interest. And their purview should not be limited by arbitrary definitions of what is "natural". (For a technical discussion about the challenges/limits of health research, see the chapter on research in a book i co-wrote, “Toxic Threats to Child Development: In Harm’s Way”.) On the second question - Yes. We need a diversified economy. The Green New Deal creates public and private sector jobs, including worker-owned cooperatives. Jill Stein's Reddit profile can be found here. You can learn more about the Green Party, Jill Stein and the Green New Deal on her official campaign website.

The following disturbing photos have been provided by the animal rights organization Farm Sanctuary. The organization, which is based in New York, was founded in 1986 and documents the abuses of factory farms, slaughterhouses, and stockyards. They rescue animals from these conditions, work with rehabilitating and caring for animals at shelters in both New York and California, as well as running advocacy and education campaigns on these issues. These photos were originally posted here. [gallery]

We have been used to see NASA's 64-megapixel "Blue Marble" photos of the Earth. But now a Russian weather satellite has taken a 121-megapixel image of our fragile Earth, making it the most detailed photo yet. The satellite is stationed on a fixed located over 35000 kilometers above the Indian Ocean and takes a full image of Earth every 30 minutes. The resolution is one kilometer per pixel. The photo portrays our Earth a bit differently from what we are used to. The rust color that dominates the photo is not desert; it's actually vegetation from forests. The vegetation has been turned into this orange colour because the camera on the weather satellite combines data from three visible and one infrared wavelengths of light. Check out a zoomable version of the image here. Google+: View post on Google+

Socialist Jean-Luc Mélenchon has emerged as the "third man" in the French presidential race, placing him ahead of right-wing extremist Marine Le Pen and just behind conservative president Nicolas Sarkozy and liberal/social democrat François Hollande. Mélenchon's wants to introduce a 100% fat-cat tax, where the french state will be able to confiscate any earnings over £300,000. He also wants a return to full pensions for everyone from the age of 60, a 20% increase in the minimum wage, a cap on maximum salaries and the nationalisation of big energy companies. Mélenchon claims that his political party, the Left Front, is built around the concept of ecological planning. Something which he says can't be found in any program of the traditional left. According to the Guardian, Mélenchon is seen as "the great hope for a banker-bashing revolution that will transform the face of Europe and reinvent leftwing politics." Why don’t you devote more time to ecology in your campaign? Jean-Luc Mélenchon: Ecology occupies a place for us that it has never found in any program of the traditional left. Check: the economic program of the Left Front is built around the concept of ecological planning. There is an intuition of communism which is verified by political ecology, namely that there is a common good of humanity. If we consider only what is good for us, we will include corporatisms, but if we think about what is good for everyone, we will have a chance to get hold of an effective solution. This is what lies at the foundation of the Republic: the common good, that which is good for all. So political ecology is the reforming paradigm of communism, of socialism, and of humanist universalism. We carry its ideas because we are the voice of the social class which, by its material conditions of existence, has no particular interest other than the public interest. You announce a referendum on nuclear power; what is the strategy of the Left Front? Jean-Luc Melenchon: First, get out of carbon energies, which are the source of the greenhouse effect and of the climate bifurcation which will soon run its disastrous course. I realize that this is a huge technical challenge but we are human: nothing is beyond our reach, nothing can stop us! The human mind is capable of solving all problems, so it is a source of optimism and enthusiasm. Then comes the question of nuclear energy, of great importance, which poses a security problem and is thought-provoking for everyone. The issue is that of hazard assessment. That is why we favor a referendum. Anyone who thinks we should discuss this can vote for the Left Front. Finally, we can develop abundant alternative energy sources, such as the movements of the sea and geothermal processes in the Earth. With geothermal power, we produce more heat than we know how to use. What do we do with the rest? We can organize district heating, greenhouses for growing vegetables and fruits that grow out of season, and so we will no longer need to bring these from the ends of the earth. It can help us grow strawberries in Moselle in winter ... It’s a double ecological gain. But to achieve this, we must create competence in many domains; we need engineers, architects, plants, etc. How do you count on renationalizing the privatized companies? Jean-Luc Mélenchon: Why should we do this? Because, since privatization, prices of electricity have soared (nearly 30% increase). However, we prefer to lower consumer prices by lowering energy prices rather than wages. We are therefore looking to establish a public economic pole[the word "pole" is commonly used to describe a government-established center of activity to produce certain goods or to control some activity in the pubic interest.] in order to remove from the market what can not reasonably be conceived of as a property dependent upon the law of supply and demand. In practice, we can propose a vote on nationalization. We can also convoke the representatives of the State on the boards of directors of privatized companies (EDF, GDF Suez ...) and give them instructions: this year you do not distribute dividends. Not the next year, nor the year after that, either. That is to say that during the five years of office there will be no dividends. What happens normally? Those who have private money in there are gone. Because they have invested money not by ideology or because they are interested in energy, but because it pays. So they go, and prices fall: this is a good time to nationalize. That’s how I take it. But I have other tricks up my sleeve ... Ecological planning? Why? Jean-Luc Melenchon defines environmental planning as a "shift in demand according to our needs." According to the program of the Front de gauche, this policy "will clarify the policies and public investment necessary to launch an ecological transition and promote sustainable human development. It will be creative of employment and a factor of social equality." It will be based on "an ecological plan debated and voted in Parliament, together with a financial planning law." "The purpose is ecological, the method is the planning: the organization and preparation, the introduction of long-term thinking, where finance favors the short term." Mélenchon was interviewed by student journalists who volunteered to produce a section of the daily french Humanite newspaper. The interview has been translated by Henry Crapo and reviewed by Bill Scoble. Only parts of the interview has been published here on Green Blog. You can read the full interview here.

Supercharge your Google+ stream with prominent environmental activists, thinkers, entrepreneurs, bloggers and people who are all fighting passionately for a better and greener world. This Google+ circle contains 500 people such as the British author and journalist +Mark Lynas, +Danielle Brigida from the National Wildlife Federation, and +Brad Johnson who is the editor over at ThinkProgress Green. Reshared post from +Alex Diaz Do you have a green circle So many of you have joined since the last time I shared this circle that I think it's about time to reshare it. If you don't have a green circle of your own, feel free to adopt this one and keep adding people of like mind to it. If you think you should be in it, please let us know so we can all add you. Unfortunately, G+ doesn't let us share more than 500 at a time, and this circle is considerably bigger, so many of you were left out, and there's no way to know who it was without going one by one, which I lack the time to do right now. Still, the share serves a high purpose, so here it is. Google+: View post on Google+

Earlier this week a group of Greenpeace activists, including the actress Lucy Lawless, scaled an oil drill ship that was due to travel to the Arctic. After spending over 76 hours onboard the ship, Lucy Lawless and the five other activists have now been arrested by the police. The ship was scheduled to travel to the Chukchi Sea off the coast of Alaska yesterday to drill three exploratory oil wells for the global oil and gas company Shell. But the activists successfully managed to stop and delay the ship from leaving the port of Taranaki in New Zealand. Greenpeace is critical of Shell’s planned exploration for oil in the Arctic which the environmental organization says “signals the beginning of an Arctic oil rush” that could potentially cause “irreparable harm” to the fragile nature and its inhabitants. If you remember the BP/Deepwater oil well explosion in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 you should have a fairly good idea what kind of “irreparable harm” they are talking about. “A major oil spill in the Arctic would be an environmental disaster”, said Nick Young from Greenpeace in New Zealand. “Experts say it would be virtually impossible to clean up, due to the harsh weather conditions and the sheer lack of vessels and infrastructure in the area. More than 6,000 vessels were pulled in to deal with the Deepwater Horizon disaster, and even so only a meagre 17% of the oil was recovered”, Young said. “The US Coast Guard has made clear there is no way they could deploy thousands of vessels to deal with a blow-out in the Arctic.” You can send a message to Shell's CEO Peter Vosser and demand that they stop with the risky oil drilling in the Arctic: http://www.greenpeace.org/savethearctic For the latest updates from the action in New Zealand follow the hashtag #SaveTheArctic or check out the live updates from Greenpeace here: http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/en/ Google+: View post on Google+

In a recent Feature, Al Jazeera English talked to five professional economists about their views on Ron Paul’s economic policies. One of the economic points discussed was Paul’s idea to lower the price of fuel. Ron Paul believes, just like the other Republican front-runners in the 2012 election, that the price on fuel could be lowered if the US just allowed companies to drill for oil (both offshore and on land) in sensitive areas such as the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Dean Baker, co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, explained that oil drilling in ANWR wouldn’t result in any noteworthy changes to fuel prices. This idea would mean “a lot of risk both to the environment and the economy for really very little gain,” Baker said. Here’s his full quote on drilling for oil in ANWR: "We have a world market, so how much are we talking about increasing supply? The analyses I've seen from ANWR is that peak production - and we're typically talking about ten years or so until we get there - would be about a million barrels per day (bpd), and this is in the context of a world market of around 90 million bpd. So you're talking about lowering the price of oil maybe one or two per cent if you're lucky. "And the amount that you can get from additional offshore drilling - because it's not as if we're drilling not at all now - that's typically put at around 200,000 - 300,000 bpd, so the impact is even less. To my mind, you're talking about risking a lot of environmental damage - these are also places where people fish, and it's also a big tourism destination - you don't want to go to a beach that's covered in oil. So you're talking about a lot of risk both to the environment and the economy for really very little gain." Google+: View post on Google+

Yesterday hundreds of demonstrators dressed in referee uniforms called the US Congress to end the huge tax breaks and other subsidies to Big Oil and the fossil fuel industry. Bill McKibben, founder of the +350.org movement and one of the key speakers at the event, said that this year the US Congress will give "billions of dollars in taxpayer money" to the fossil fuel industry: "The thing we really want to start talking about today is the fact that this year, as most years, Congress will vote to give subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. Billions and billions of dollars in taxpayer money. Not because they need a subsidy. We’ve known how to burn coal and gas and oil for 250 years. There’s no secret to it that we need to subsidize for them to figure out. And it’s not because they need the money. They’re the most profitable industry on earth. Exxon made more money last year than any company in the history of money. What’s going on instead is that they are giving small presents to our legislators, and in return our legislators are giving them big presents with our money." +Bernie Sanders, the only democratic socialist in the US Senate, who fought to block construction of the Keystone XL pipeline was also there to give his support. "We've got to end all of the tax breaks for the oil companies and coal companies and I'm going to introduce legislation to do just that," Sanders promised the demonstrators. "Ending tax breaks and subsidies for oil and gas companies would reduce the deficit by more than $40 billion over the next 10 years. Sanders' legislation will end those tax breaks and tens of billions of dollars in other special subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. The five largest oil companies in the United States have earned about $1 trillion in profits over the past decade. Meanwhile, in recent years, some of the very largest oil companies in America like Exxon Mobil and Chevron, paid absolutely nothing in federal income taxes. In fact, some of them have actually gotten rebates from the Internal Revenue Service." You can read more about the huge tax breaks and subsidies that the fossil-fuel industry receives every year on Green Blog: http://bit.ly/AxMZx8 See photos from the event here: http://bit.ly/w5rWGh. Google+: View post on Google+

This is the first advertisement from Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign. The ad targets “secretive oil billionaires”, which is a clear response to the Koch brothers recent $6 million attack ads (http://bit.ly/xrdzBH). The advertisement is also touting the rapidly growing clean-energy economy, saying that 2.7 million jobs have been created in the clean energy industry in the US, and that the dependence on foreign oil is the lowest it's been in 16 years. The advertisement is currently running in Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin. "Secretive oil billionaires attacking President Obama, with ads factcheckers say are “not tethered to the facts.” While independent watchdogs called this president’s record on ethics “unprecedented.” And America’s clean energy industry? 2.7 million jobs and “expanding rapidly.” For the first time in 13 years our dependence on foreign oil is below fifty percent. President Obama kept his promise to toughen ethics rules and strengthen America’s energy economy." It’s interesting to note that Obama and the advertisement completely ignore to mention climate change. Instead of saying that fuel economy standards help reduce greenhouse gas emissions they are only described as a way to reduce our oil consumption. And the renewable energy investments are only mentioned in terms of job created. The advertisement also fails to mention that the dependence on foreign oil is largely due to a surge in oil and natural gas drilling and not because of a noteworthy decreased consumption. #greenblog Google+: View post on Google+

Sally Kohn has a good opinion piece on Fox News, of all places, where she lists six important reasons why the Keystone XL pipeline was a bad deal all along: 1. The Keystone XL pipeline would not reduce foreign oil dependency. 2. Contrary to popular opinion, Keystone XL would have increased domestic oil prices. 3. Proponents of the pipeline overstated the number of jobs that would be created. 4. Current Keystone pipeline leaked 12 times in last year. 5. And the environmental concerns about oil leaks are justified. 6. Mining tar sands would worsen global warming. Or in the words of NASA climate scientist James Hansen, be "game over for the planet." Here is a little summary of the Keystone XL project so far: 1. Nebraska objects to the Keystone XL pipeline as they are concerned over potential oil spill accidents in the Ogallala Aquifer area, which supplies water to a large portion of US farm land. Climate activists around the US mobilized, and risked arrests in acts of civil disobedience, to raise the alarm about the environmental and climate risks of tar sands. 2. In response to Nebraska’s objections, TransCanada promises to find a better route for the pipeline and to revise the plans. But Republicans in the US congress decides to put an unreasonable deadline on the permit application to be able to gain political points in the upcoming general election. As a result of the deadline, TransCanada is not able to provide revised plan and the permit is incomplete. 3. Because TransCanada’s plans are incomplete the US government must reject the permit. If they were to approve the incomplete permit application they would set themselves up for easily winnable legal challenges by climate activists and pipeline opponents. 4. TransCanada will re-apply, and they will likely also win and get their pipeline permit a few months after the big presidential election. And considering Obama’s Keystone statement it probably won’t matter if there will be a Republican or a Democratic president in office by then. #greenblog Embedded Link Six reasons Keystone XL was a bad deal all along Here are six facts about the proposed Keystone XL deal that make clear why the pipeline was a bad deal for America and why it deserved to be rejected: Google+: View post on Google+

The Boston Globe has an interesting article about “the man who crushed the Keystone XL pipeline”. If you’ve been paying attention to energy and environmental issues lately you probably already know which person they are talking about. +Bill McKibben is a man whom many people consider to be a “superstar" of the global environmental movement - or at least one of the top environmental leaders in the US today. McKibben is the man behind the successful +350.org movement and global events such as the “Moving Planet Day of Action” last year. And more recently McKibben has played a key role in the Keystone XL pipeline protests. “Speaking at Occupy Boston in October, standing with one hand plunged into a pants pocket, he seemed like a man still getting used to his activist rhetoric. Attacking the usual environmental villains – the Koch brothers, The US Chamber of Commerce, ExxonMobil – he appeared somewhat surprised to hear such unkind words coming out of his mouth. It’s not that he doesn’t believe in his cause – he does, passionately – or feel compelled to pursue it with all the energy he can muster. It’s just that “he has no lust for battle,” says Small. McKibben sometimes seems as if he’d rather be home with his wife and dog than out rallying the troops. “He is the Jimmy Stewart type of American hero who only stirs when provoked,” the minister says. “And he has been provoked.”” #greenblog Embedded Link The man who crushed the Keystone XL pipeline - The Boston Globe Bill McKibben is a mild-mannered Vermont journalist who engineered history’s largest green protest and derailed a $7 billion oil pipeline. Google+: View post on Google+