A Day of Action.

Today I received an urgent petition from enviro-law nonprofit EarthJustice. No, wait, today I found out I’d received it. It had been thrown underneath a pile for several days, deemed ‘spam’ by my mother.

That’s ok. I quickly explained to her why it wasn’t. There’s a little something called the Clean Air Act which found its way to the EPA in 2003, which apparently did NOT define carbon dioxide as a pollutant. The EPA did its best to assure the public that it therefore didn’t have authority to regulate greenhouse gases.

That went great.

Actually, it allowed 12 states and 13 enviro groups in 2007 to sue the agency and allow it to claim responsibility, with the Supreme Court voting 5-4. The Court encouraged the EPA to act in accordance with the act’s mandate to ‘protect the public from air pollution’ (“Supreme Court Ruling Adds Twist to Clean Air Debate”, 1).

Fun stuff. Great to know the EPA’s on our side, isn’t it? Public health? What’s that?

I don’t know, but that piece of paper asking me to petition them sure looks like spam.

Sources

• “Supreme Court Ruling Adds Twist to Clean Air Debate”. Earthworks: Making Progress and Facing Problems. May 2008: 4.

…Because not all environmentalists are with Greenpeace–you did know that, right? …Oh, dear.

Here’s a little test for you to try. It accomplishes two things:
1) pisses people off, and
2) measures your apparent ranking within the ideological scale
as proportional to the level of response you receive.

Here’s how it works: At an event at which you’ll be meeting new people,

skillfully work the subject of AR or environmentalism into the conversation
(most of the time, you won’t even have to–
it’ll just automatically come up in one form or another.
Typically this form is criticism..).
If someone rails against you, spouting the usual accompanied by a suspicious eyebrow raise,
“..but aren’t you with PETA/Greenpeace?” or “but global warming is a hoax! Just look at An Inconvenient Truth!“

Your response:First, recognize the antagonist’s mistakes (besides that of irking you):
assuming you’re an extremist, and that global warming is synonymous with ALL environmental topics and concerns.

Second, respond calmly; this will throw them off guard as they EXPECT you to prove yourself
vulnerable by wigging out on them.
DON’T get emotional–this is the first sign that they have you where
they want you.

Continue on pragmatically, presenting the issues in a common-sense and economical light.
That way, the antagonist will see that–GASP–not all environmentalists are crazies affiliated with Greenpeace!
IMAGINE!

Do this and you’ve done your job.;)