In the effort to stop global warming, each of us has extraordinary power to make a difference—if we choose to use it.
We can use our voice to push for national change (please see below for details on my energy plan).
But we can—and we must—also make personal choices to reduce carbon emissions in our daily lives. It's amazing how much immediate impact we can each have just by making a few simple changes.
As part of our Global Warming Action Month, I'm launching a personal carbon reduction pledge and asking everyone who shares our goal of ending global warming to take part. You can find out how many pounds of carbon you can personally conserve through simple personal choices, and then take the pledge to make those choices in the coming year. It's also a perfect way to share this information and build commitment from family and friends who are looking to make a difference on this critical issue.
Will you do your part to help reduce carbon emissions? Just pick your actions, learn your total and add your name today:
As we take individual action to reduce carbon emissions today, we must also build support for a bold national vision for the future. That's why I've made sure my presidential campaign is "carbon neutral" and why I've put together an ambitious plan to stop global warming and build a new energy economy.
I'm proud to report that the League of Conservation Voters called my national energy plan the "most comprehensive global warming plan of any presidential candidate to date...[it] understands the magnitude of the challenge before us and the need for bold leadership to meet it."
My energy plan calls for an 80 percent reduction in American carbon emissions by 2050—the amount necessary to halt the worst effects of global warming according to the latest science—and to freeze the growth of our electricity usage for a decade through efficiency programs.
I'm calling for America to lead the world towards a new climate treaty that would sharply reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. And it would help spur a new energy economy to break our dependence on foreign oil and create 1 million new jobs.
In the face of big goals like these, some people will surely say this just can't be done—that Americans will never wean ourselves from our oil addiction or voluntarily conserve.
I say it can be done. Americans are ready to be patriotic about something other than war. Americans are ready to answer this call. Will you be the first?
Global warming poses a real and immediate threat to our nation. When faced with such grave threats in times past, generations of Americans have rallied together to make personal sacrifices big and small.
Now, the same is being asked of us. Today, the danger we face may be harder to find on a map, and our contributions may come in simpler forms. It may look like just installing energy efficient light bulbs, taking shorter trips in the car or turning down the thermostat, but make no mistake: These are acts of true patriotism.
I hope you'll join me in signing a pledge, right now, to take a few simple steps in the coming year to reduce your energy usage. You can see how much your choices will personally reduce carbon emissions, and how powerful we can be when we act together.
Please sign today (and ask any friends and family you think may want to join to sign up as well):
Thank you for taking action when your country needs you most.
Sincerely,--John Edwards
Thursday, April 12th 2007
P.S. April is Global Warming Action Month, and there are two important ways to get involved off-line as well. 1) Attend a 'Step it Up' rally near you this Saturday to join our allies and push Congress to reduce carbon emissions. 2) Host or join one of our local "Reduce Your Carbon events" on Earth Day, April 22nd to take our carbon reduction pledge off-line to people in your community. Find out more and sign up at:
http://blog.johnedwards.com/oc/globalwarmingP.P.S. We depend on your contributions to get help our campaign (which I make sure is "carbon neutral") get the word out about this and all the other big issues we care about. Please chip in what you can to keep us going strong:
https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/johnedwards
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 27
Keep up the good work brother.
Atticus, yes, this is a major part of his platform. Please see his energy and global warming plan here.
can guilt ridden rich liberals buy themselves indulgences?
Yes I can
I tried to influence a young liberal minded couple once about lifestile choices. It was in the form of an admonishment for dumping thier Carls Junior trash out the window of their car on to the parking lot when a trash can was less than 15 feet away. Thier paraphrased response was.. "they have people they pay to pick up the trash so why should I do it"... Sadly its hard to argue with a mind that uses that kind of logic.
Sounds like a winner to this America hating Liberal.;-)
I won't hold you to prove ownership by Bush of the oil companies to prove your rediculous statement. Just point me to the documentation that Bush is even a majority position stock holder in any of those companies and I will conceed the point. Otherwise pour yourself another glass of Kool Aide.
It might interest you to know that we get less than 5% of our oil from Iraq and that the country we import the most oil from is Canada. Are you calling our northern neighbors terrosit????
When you can answer this, then we can really have a good dialogue on global warming.
I don't know if I would agree with you on many other things, especially about the hypocrisy of Al Gore, but I would agree with you that Bill Richardson is the best candidate, democrat or republican, that is in the race. He is not divisive, he has extensive experience at all levels of government, he has dealt with our "enemies" successfully. He has just taken part in successful negotiations with N. Korea. He would restore the U.S. broken image throughout the rest of the world. The problem he has, unfortunately, is that he is not a "rock star," and in our celebrity, jackpot driven society, he probably will not get serious consideration. But your point here is exactly right.
Don't elected officials run on ... well ... the issues of the day?
But what issues are deemed valid issues? I guess that's where it gets on shakey ground... And how far can and should campaigning go in talking or Using those issues when a politician is trying to get elected?
Is immigration an election issue? Is Healthcare? Is War?
Is Gay Marriage reeeealy an election issue?
Is Climate Change an election issue? I think it has shown itself to be fairly robust as a valid issue... regadless of what you think of it...
So... How does one run without "Politicizing" the topics of the day
Personally, I think that "Politicizing" gay marriage is silly (not singling any candidate out here) in that regardless of looking at it as a potential societal concern (with or with out valid foundation) it seems to be an issue pressed through religious terms and that is an area that the Government is not intended to weigh in on one way or the other beside in protection of Individual Rights...
Does the dog wag the tail or the tail wag the dog... I guess it's something to think about...
John, Thank you for your Commitment...
But for your explanation... you are relying on your view or presumptions of what "global warming" is in determining whether it is a valid issue to discuss...
Can the issue be raised at all? and where is the line in how to present or how far to take the issue?
Should an issue not be discussed if one side or the other chooses to make a ruckus about it regardless of its validity? Is that where an issue or term gets labled as politically divisive? Doesn't that give the power to those who make the biggest ruckus to be able lable something as Divisive and therefore control it, regardless of the basis of its own validity...
So Bill Richardson has backed off of the issue (I don't know his platform personally) because he deems it to be "sticky" ... and it's stickyness was determined how?
Doesn't the power to control an issue by backing candidates off of it then fall to those who are able to make the biggest ruckus out of it, regardless of its validity?
It's silly to say that a contentious issue does not allow political opponents to counter them because of their view of that issue's validity... They, if they like can present their view of that issue and then describe and explain the reasons they have come to that view, what is their supporting material, as it were... their basis for it... the pubilc has a responsibility to determine which basis makes the most sense...
Take that first sentence... yes it seems to have been written as a "grabber" but that doesn't invalidate the position as a whole...
Some would read it and say... why do we need to stop global warming if it's not happening
Some would read it and say ... I(personally) and We (our neighbors) can/cannot "Stop" global warming..
Some would read it and say ... We Humans can/cannot "Stop" global Warming
Some would read it and say... Is "Stop" the right word? Can we "Slow" it
And some might think well does that mean today, this year, this decade? this century?
But it really depends on where you are coming from and how you read it...
But that is a failing of the Language and the way we interperate and process language as individuals...
The issue is still an issue... Isn't it?
Other wise it's just a big white elephant...
The other result of our oil and energy addiction – climate change – also has global, strategic implications.
Scientists use the term "disruptive impacts" to describe what climate change could mean to the nations and regions of the world.
I think it's time we stopped using this sterile euphemism and instead acknowledge what this really means – severe weather, flooding and drought and the alterations of agricultural production, rising sea levels, new disease patterns, widespread economic dislocations and destruction and a host of other problems that threaten the community of nations.
As the Governor of New Mexico—a growing and prosperous—desert state, I must pay attention to this threat and what it means for our scarce water resources.
In the West, it's not just the liberal college kids who ask what we are doing about global warming—it's the conservative farmers and ranchers whose way of living is at risk.
And like the rest of America, we can't afford to gamble that the vast majority of the scientific community is somehow wrong on global warming---especially as our country remains the largest producer of greenhouse gases and is on track to double its emissions in the next 50 years.
The surer bet—is to do what's right to slow, stop, and reverse global warming.
Believe it or not, there is common ground between Democrats and a number of Republicans on energy policy—like conservation, promoting renewable fuels, and addressing global warming.
http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/newsroom/
energy_speech_to_bear_sterns
I truly did not intendto pitch one candidate against the other here...
I do appreciate Mr. Edwards' commitment to the issue and, seeing your excerpt, I very much appreciate Bill Richardson's statment as well.
I was commenting on 'DeleteMyProfile' (who seems to have deleted his comments) who seemed to be saying that the issue of Global Warming/Climate Change itself was not a valid issue for the candidates. His statment regarding Bill Richardson's position made Mr. Richardson appear as if his approach was to discuss only in terms of Energy Independence and Oil's Effect on the Environment or something like that. He made it seem as if Mr. Richardson's position was to not take Climate Change seriously... Which your excerpt contradicts (thank you for clearing that up)...
That does leave the matter of style in discussing the issue of Climate Change, but the issue Is being discussed.
I wonder what happened to Mr. Delete?
Thanks again Steve...
Where all dying to hear how you scored?
Whats your Carbon Footprint?