If you are interested in American politics you gotta know who Jill Stein is.
Both the United States Republican and
Democrat parties are firmly fixed on an agenda that can only lead to global
climate catastrophe.
That is no choice.
What about the US Green party?
You want a future?
Then you need to know who Jill Stein is.
Dr. Jill Stein is a mother, housewife, physician, longtime teacher of internal medicine, a pioneering environmental-health advocate, and the leader of the US Green Party.
The US Green Party policy platform is the only party that offers you any future.
So you say a vote for the Green Party is a wasted vote. No, a vote for either of the other parties is a wasted vote - if you understand anything about runaway global climate change.
Here is Jill Stein's climate change and energy policy platform, followed by her bio.
Climate Change
Our Position
Greens want to stop runaway climate change, by reducing greenhouse
gas emissions at least 40% by 2020 and 95% by 2050, over 1990 levels.
Climate change is the gravest environmental, social and economic
peril that humanity has ever met. Across the world, it is causing vanishing
polar ice, melting glaciers, growing deserts, stronger storms, rising oceans,
less biodiversity, deepening droughts, as well as more disease, hunger, strife
and human misery. It is a tragedy unfolding in slow motion.
Greenhouse gases warm the Earth by trapping heat in the
atmosphere. Much of that heat is initially absorbed by the ocean, creating
roughly a 30-year delay in the impact of that heat at the surface of the planet.
Practically speaking, that means that the melting glaciers and expanding
deserts of 2009 were the result of greenhouse gases dumped into the atmosphere
in the late 1970s, when the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was below
350 parts per million (ppm). To return to a safe level of greenhouse gases in
Earth's atmosphere, we must reduce atmospheric greenhouse gases as quickly as
possible to levels that existed before 1980, to 350ppm carbon dioxide.
Greens support science-based policies to curb climate change. We
have an ambitious plan to make drastic changes quickly to avert global
catastrophe. We will expend maximum effort to preserve a planet friendly to
life as we know it by curtailing greenhouse gas emissions and actively removing
greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
Green Solutions
Support a strong international climate treaty under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The United States must do far better than its offer in Copenhagen to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 4% below 1990 levels. We should support at least a 40% reduction by 2020 and 95% reduction by 2050, over 1990 levels.
a. Enact a Fee & Dividend system on fossil fuels to enable the
free market to include the environmental costs of their extraction and use.
These fees shall be applied as far upstream as possible, either when fuel
passes from extraction to refining, distribution or consumption; or when it
first enters the United States' jurisdiction. The carbon fee will initially be
small, a dime per kilogram of carbon, to avoid creating a shock to the economy.
The fee will be increased by 10% each year that global atmospheric carbon
dioxide content is greater than 350 ppm, decreased 10% each year it's less than
300 ppm, and repealed entirely when it falls below 250 ppm.
b. Although imported fossil fuel has no more impact on global
climate change than domestic, importing petroleum and natural gas has a
catastrophic impact on American foreign policy and the American economy. We
will enact this same fee on imported fossil fuels a second time to give the
free market an incentive to wean America off foreign oil and gas.
c. The Green Party calls for elimination of subsidies for fossil
fuels, nuclear power, biomass and waste incineration and biofuels. We must also
acknowledge that the bulk of our military budget is, in fact, an indirect
subsidy for oil & gas corporations.
d. To prevent perverse incentives arising from higher carbon
prices, the Green Party mandates clean fuels in addition to pricing carbon.
Otherwise dirty energy sources like nuclear power, biomass and biofuels that
are not subject to carbon pricing will become economically competitive.
a. Pay for adaptation to climate change in countries with less
responsibility for climate change.
b. Provide a carbon neutral development path for those countries
that can no longer be permitted to develop in the same way we did – by burning
cheap fossil fuels.
a. Adopt energy efficiency standards that reduce energy demand
economy-wide by 50% over the next 20-30 years. The U.S. can make massive
reductions in its energy use through a combination of conservation and efficiency
measures. We don't actually need any additional power. Instead, we can and
should reduce our consumption of power.
b. Build an efficient, low cost public transportation system. The
best incentive we can provide to live closer to work and reduce the use of
private vehicles is to make the alternative inexpensive and convenient to use.
c. Adopt a national zero waste policy. The less we consume and
throw away, the less we will need to produce and replace.
a. Create an inclusive program to train workers for the new, clean
energy economy. Focusing on both the environment and social justice, prioritize
the creation of green jobs in communities of color and low-income communities.
b. Adopt a clean energy portfolio standard that rapidly replaces
our combustion-based power sources with wind, solar, ocean, small-scale hydro,
and geothermal power.
c. End the use of nuclear power. Nuclear energy is massively
polluting, dangerous, financially risky, expensive and slow to implement. Our money
is better spent on wind, solar, geothermal, conservation and small-scale
hydroelectric.
d. Stop "dirty clean energy." Many of the
"solutions" offered in climate legislation aren't real solutions.
Biomass incineration (trees, crops, construction debris and certain types of
waste), landfill gas and many types of biofuels will dump massive quantities of
toxic pollutants into the air and water, and some of these energy sources
produce more greenhouse gas emissions than coal. Natural gas is primarily methane,
which is 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas.
Consequently, when pipeline leakage is considered, the clean-burning
characteristics of natural gas can be lost, resulting in a fuel with climate
impacts as bad as coal. Biomass and biofuels will also increase deforestation,
contributing to more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
a. Convert U.S farm and ranchland to organic practices. Chemical
and industrial agriculture produces 35-50% of climate destabilizing greenhouse
gases.
b. Switch to local food production and distribution. Localized,
organic food production and distribution reduce fossil fuel usage and enriches
soil that sequesters more carbon dioxide.
c. Reduce methane, nitrous oxide and other greenhouse gases by
rapidly phasing out confined animal feeding operations, and encouraging a
reduction in meat consumption.
The United States has a high-energy-consumption economy based
mainly on fossil energy. The extraction, refining, and combustion of fossil
fuels have proved extremely harmful to the environment, and supplies are
rapidly being depleted. Over the past century, the infrastructure of our
civilization has become utterly dependent on plentiful oil, coal, and natural
gas: vast land, air, and sea transportation networks; increasing dependence on
imported goods; industrialized food production dependent on fertilizer and
biocides; and sprawling, car-dependent neighborhoods and workplaces. Our
electric grid depends on fossil fuels for two-thirds of its energy.
Dirty and dangerous energy sources have generated an unparalleled
assault on the environment and human rights. In the U.S., low income
communities and communities of color bear the greatest burden of health impacts
due to exposure to emissions from coal and gas-fired power plants. Native
American communities have been devastated by uranium mining, and the people of
Appalachia watch helplessly as their ancient mountains are destroyed for
coal-fired electricity. Regional and global peaks in supply are driving up
costs and threatening wars and social chaos. (See separate section on
catastrophic Climate Change from excess release of carbon dioxide.)
Since 1859 when the first commercial oil well was drilled in
Pennsylvania, the global community has consumed about half what nature
generated over hundreds of millions of years. Although coal is more abundant
than oil, it is inherently dirtier than oil, is limited in terms of its use as
a vehicle fuel, and demand is skyrocketing globally for use in electricity
generation. Natural Gas is also in high demand for power production and is
ultimately finite. We must plan and prepare for the end of fossil fuels now,
while we still have energy available to build the cleaner, more sustainable
energy infrastructure that we will soon need.
To simply substitute better energy sources in place of fossil
fuels is not the answer for two main reasons. First, there are no energy
sources (renewable or otherwise) capable of supplying energy as cheaply and in
such abundance as fossil fuels currently yield in the time that we need them to
come online. Second, we have designed and built our infrastructure to suit the
unique characteristics of oil, natural gas, and coal.
The energy transition cannot be accomplished with a minor retrofit
of existing energy infrastructure.
Just as our fossil fuel economy differs from
the agrarian economy of 1800, the post-fossil fuel economy of 2050 will be
profoundly different from all that we are familiar with now. Changes would
occur if we wait for the price of fossil fuels to reflect scarcity, forcing
society to adapt; however, lack of government planning will result in a
transition that is chaotic, painful, destructive, and possibly not survivable.
The Green Party advocates a rapid reduction in energy consumption
through energy efficiency and a decisive transition away from fossil and
nuclear power toward cleaner, renewable, local energy sources. Toward these
goals, we advocate:
Encourage conservation and a significant decrease in our energy
consumption, institute national energy efficiency standards.
With five percent of the world's population, U.S residents consume
twenty-six percent of the world's energy. U.S. consumption of electricity is
almost nine times greater than the average for the rest of the world. These are
not sustainable levels.
a. The U.S. must retrofit its building stock for energy
efficiency. Most U.S. residents live in homes that require heat during the
winter, and most are inadequately insulated. Buildings in the South require air
conditioning during the summer. Fuel shortages, power outages, and energy price
hikes could bring not just discomfort, but a massive increase in mortality from
cold and heat. Millions of buildings can and must be super-insulated and, as
much as possible, provided with alternative heat sources (passive solar,
geothermal, or district heating).
b. Energy efficiency standards similar to those in California must
be adopted nationally. The energy efficiency standards adopted there in the
late 1970s have resulted in overall electricity-use remaining flat over the
past three decades while the population has steadily increased. During the same
time period electricity use in the rest of the U.S. has climbed along with
population growth.
c. There are many different ways to increase energy efficiency and
the best path for one region of the country might differ from that of another.
We will need concerted effort to increase efficiency in every sector of our
economy. Technologies exist that, if widely implemented, can result in huge
energy savings.
d. Cogeneration and use of waste heat to generate electricity
should be encouraged.
e. A carbon tax, which the Green Party supports, would serve as an
important market incentive to increase efficiency.
Move decisively to an energy system based on solar, wind,
geo-thermal, marine, and other cleaner renewable energy sources.
The development of Earth-gentle, sustainable energy sources must
be a cornerstone of any plan to reduce reliance on conventional fossil fuels.
The Green Party advocates clean renewable energy sources such as solar, wind,
geothermal, marine-based, and other cleaner renewable sources as the long-term
solution.
a. Many other solutions being pushed, including nuclear power,
coal, industrial-scale biofuels, and low-grade fossil fuels such as oil shale
and tar sands, create more problems than they solve.
b. Further research with increased government support is needed
into new energy storage technologies, as well as new cheaper and non-toxic
photovoltaic materials and processes, and new geothermal and ocean power
technologies.
c. Policy tools to directly support the development of renewable
energy sources, such as Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) and Feed-in
Tariffs, should also be reviewed for effectiveness. In general, a feed-in
tariff is legislation enacted by the government that requires the large
electric utilities to guarantee a price for the renewably generated electricity
fed into the grid. When done right, such as in Germany, this policy appears to
succeed in harnessing entrepreneurial zeal.
d. State-level financing policies like California's AB 811 can
help homeowners install expensive renewable energy where the county pays the
up-front cost and the system is paid for via the homeowner's property taxes.
e. Greens support voluntary purchase of tradable renewable energy
certificates; however, voluntary approaches are not sufficient.
f. Greens support research into advanced fuels when the purpose of
the research is to develop a fuel that in its full cycle does not create more
problems than it solves. We support the use of hydrogen as an energy storage
medium; however we oppose the use of nuclear technologies or carbon-based
feedstocks for hydrogen production.
g. We call for a ban on the construction of large-scale and
inappropriately-located, hydroelectric dams.
The Green Party advocates the phase-out of nuclear and coal power
plants. All processes associated with nuclear power are dangerous, from the
mining of uranium to the transportation and disposal of the radioactive waste.
Coal is the largest contributor to climate change with estimates as high as
80%.
a. The generation of nuclear waste must be halted. It is hazardous
for thousands of years and there is no way to isolate it from the biosphere for
the duration of its toxic life. We oppose public subsidies for nuclear power.
Cost is another huge factor making it unfeasible, with each new nuclear power
plant costing billions of dollars.
b. The Green Party calls for a formal moratorium on the
construction of new nuclear power plants, the early retirement of existing
nuclear power reactors, and the phase-out of technologies that use or produce
nuclear waste, such as nuclear waste incinerators, food irradiators, and all
uses of depleted uranium.
c. We call for a ban on mountaintop removal coal mining. With
limited supplies and in the absence of commercially viable "clean
coal" carbon sequestration, which may never be feasible, coal is neither
an economically nor an environmentally sustainable solution.
d. We call for the cessation of development of fuels produced with
polluting, energy-intensive processes or from unsustainable or toxic feed
stocks, such as genetically-engineered crops, coal and waste streams
contaminated with persistent toxics.
e. We oppose further oil and gas drilling or exploration on our
nation's outer continental shelf, on our public lands, in the Rocky Mountains,
and under the Great Lakes.
f. Due to serious negative impacts on food, soil, and water, we
oppose industrial-scale biofuels production and biomass burning for electric
power generation. We approve small scale distributed production under local
control, such as production of biodiesel from waste oils, production of
charcoal and byproducts from wood wastes or sustainably harvested wood, small
scale production of ethanol from crop wastes or maize stalk sugar, or
production of fuel gas for localized electricity generation from anaerobic
methane digesters or charcoal gasifiers. We do not object to the utilization of
fuel gases seeping from landfills, as that is one way to reduce air pollution.
We support as a minimum standard the Principles for Sustainable Biomass
statement signed by Clean Water Action, Environmental Defense Fund,
Environmental Working Group, Friends of the Earth, Geos Institute, Greenpeace
USA, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Southern
Alliance for Clean Energy, Southern Environmental Law Center, Union of
Concerned Scientists, The Wilderness Society, and World Wildlife Fund.
g. Enact a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing
("fracking") until its damaging effects on water and air quality are
fully studied and understood. Permanently ban high-volume hydraulic fracturing
in sensitive watersheds. Regulate hydraulic fracturing under the Safe Drinking
Water Act, Clean Water Act and National Environmental Policy Act, and require
public disclosure of the chemicals used in fracturing fluids.
Plan for decentralized, bioregional electricity generation and
distribution.
Decentralized power systems are likely to be more resilient in the
face of power disruptions and will cut transmission losses, assure citizens
greater control of their power grids, and prevent the massive ecological and
social destruction that accompanies production of electricity in mega-scale
projects.
a. We support "smart grid" upgrades. The federal
government must step in to set goals and standards and to provide capital. This
effort must not favor commercial utilities over municipal power districts.
b. The Green Party supports net metering to make decentralized
energy production economically viable.
c. Greens support tax-exempt bonds to finance public ownership of
utilities and to allow publicly owned utilities to finance conservation and
renewable energy projects.
d. We oppose deregulation of the energy industry.
De-carbonize and re-localize the food system.
Our national industrial food system is overwhelmingly dependent
upon oil and natural gas for farm-equipment fuel, fertilizer, pesticides,
herbicides, and the transport. It is responsible for over 12% of all greenhouse
gases from human activities in the U.S. New farming methods, new farmers, and a
re-localization of production and distribution are needed. These will require
land reform, an investment in revitalizing rural areas and the creation of
local food processing plants and storage centers. Laws and incentives affecting
the food system (including food safety laws and farm subsidies) will need to be
rewritten to provide preferential support for small-scale, local, low-input
producers.
Our enormous investment in highways, airports, cars, buses,
trucks, and aircraft is almost completely dependent on oil, and it will be
significantly handicapped by higher fuel prices, and devastated by actual fuel
shortages. The electrification of road-based vehicles is a must and will
require at least two decades to fully deploy and we must move to Earth-gentle
electricity generation to charge the vehicles. Meanwhile, existing private
automobiles must be put to use more efficiently through carpooling,
car-sharing, and ride-sharing networks. (See Transportation section for more,
including need for dramatic increase in CAFE or gasoline efficiency standards.)
a. Investment: Enormous amounts of investment capital will be
needed to accomplish the energy transition, much more than the promise of $150
billion for renewable energy over ten years, and must now come from government.
b. Coordination: The energy transition will be complex and
comprehensive, and its various strategies will be mutually impacting. For
example, efforts to redirect transport away from highways and toward rail
service will need to be coordinated with manufacturers, farmers, retailers, and
employers. An independent federal Energy Transition Office should track and
manage the transition.
c. Education: Community colleges should prepare workers for new
job opportunities, e.g., sustainable food production, renewable energy
installation, grid rebuilding, rail expansion, public transport construction,
and home energy retrofitting. Grade school curriculum should include gardening
programs in all schools and increased emphasis on energy conservation.
d. Public Messaging & Goal Setting: Our leaders must instill
in the nation a sense of collective struggle and of a long journey toward a
clear goal. The success of a project of this scope will require public buy-in
at every stage and level, including the use of language and images to
continually underscore what is at stake, to foster a spirit of cooperation and
willing sacrifice.
Business leaders, advertising agencies and even Hollywood must be
enlisted, a quid pro quo for government bail out of banks and corporations.
Grassroots initiatives, such as the Transition Towns movement, could lead the
way toward voluntary community efforts. A sophisticated, interactive, web-based
program would inspire action and provide resources. Ratepayers should get full
disclosure of the specific electric generating facilities used to produce their
electricity.
A series of challenging yet
feasible targets should be set, with the ultimate goal – complete freedom from
fossil fuel dependency – to be achieved by 2050. The federal government should
take the lead by setting targets for federal facilities. Achievement of annual
targets should be cause for public celebration.
Dr. Jill Stein is a
mother, housewife, physician, longtime teacher of internal medicine, and
pioneering environmental-health advocate.
She is the co-author of
two widely-praised reports, In Harm's Way: Toxic Threats to Child
Development, published in 2000, and Environmental Threats to Healthy
Aging, published in 2009. The first of these has been
translated into four languages and is used worldwide. The reports promote green
local economies, sustainable agriculture, clean power, and freedom from toxic
threats.
Her "Healthy
People, Healthy Planet" teaching program reveals the links between human
health, climate security, and green economic revitalization. This body of work
has been presented at government, public health and medical conferences, and has
been used to improve public policy.
Jill began to advocate
for the environment as a human health issue in 1998 when she realized that
politicians were simply not acting to protect children from the toxic threats
emerging from current science. She offered her services to parents, teachers,
community groups and a native Americans group seeking to protect their
communities from toxic exposure.
Jill has testified
before numerous legislative panels as well as local and state governmental
bodies. She played a key role in the effort to get the Massachusetts fish
advisories updated to better protect women and children from mercury
contamination, which can contribute to learning disabilities and attention
deficits in children. She also helped lead the successful campaign to clean up
the "Filthy Five" coal plants in Massachusetts, an effort that
resulted in getting coal plant regulations signed into law that were the most
protective around at that time. Her testimony on the effects of mercury and
dioxin contamination from the burning of waste helped preserve the
Massachusetts moratorium on new trash incinerator construction in the
state.
Jill has appeared as an
environmental health expert on the Today Show, 20/20, Fox
News, and other programs. She was also a member of the national and
Massachusetts boards of directors of the Physicians for Social Responsibility.
Her efforts to protect public health has won her several awards including:
Clean Water Action's "Not in Anyone's Backyard" Award, the Children's
Health Hero" Award, and the Toxic Action Center's Citizen Award.
Having witnessed the
ability of big money to stop health protective policies on Beacon Hill, Jill
became an advocate for campaign finance reform, and worked to help pass the
Clean Election Law. This law was approved by the voters by a 2-1 margin, but
was later repealed by the Massachusetts Legislature on an unrecorded voice
vote.
In 2002 ADD activists in
the Massachusetts Green-Rainbow Party approached Dr. Stein and asked her to run
for Governor of Massachusetts. Dr. Stein accepted, and began her first foray
into electoral politics. She was widely credited with being the best informed
and most credible candidate in the race.
She has twice been
elected to town meeting in Lexington, Massachusetts. She is the founder and
past co-chair of a local recycling committee appointed by the Lexington Board
of Selectmen.
In 2003, Jill co-founded
the Massachusetts Coalition for Healthy Communities, a non-profit organization
that addresses a variety of issues that are important to the health and
well-being of Massachusetts communities, including health care, local green
economies, and grassroots democracy.
Jill represented the
Green-Rainbow Party in two additional races – one for State Representative in
2004 and one for Secretary of State in 2006. In 2006 she won the votes of over
350,000 Massachusetts citizens – which represented the greatest vote total ever
for a Green-Rainbow candidate.
In 2008, Jill helped
formulate a "Secure Green Future" ballot initiative that called upon
legislators to accelerate efforts to move the Massachusetts economy to
renewable energy and make development of green jobs a priority. The measure won
over 81 per cent of the vote in the 11 districts in which it was on the ballot.
Jill was born in Chicago
and raised in suburban Highland Park, Illinois. She graduated magna cum laude
from Harvard College in 1973, and from Harvard Medical School in 1979. Jill
enjoys writing and performing music, and enjoys long walks with her Great Dane,
Bandita. Dr. Stein lives in Lexington with her husband, Richard Rohrer, also a
physician. She has two sons, Ben and Noah, who have graduated from college in
the past few years.
No comments:
Post a Comment