Marcal recycles because it is cheaper to do so. So the way to sell an inferior product, but still make money, is to convince the consumer they are helping the environment by using their product. Even though that is a bold faced lie.

Marcal has contributed to massive air and water pollution, and continues to do so. But they are eco- friendly? That is tough for me to believe.

This is a plain and simple marketing ploy. They could care less about the environment, and all their actions show it. Anyone who buys into that message is a fool, and doing a disservice to those who really care about the environment, and our children. Take the time and look it up. The answer is to use less paper. Paper towels, napkins and facial tissues are all easily replaced. For toilet paper, buy a bidet. But don’t buy into Marcals false claim about them being “green”. That is an out and out lie.

Something I found really encouraging was that there were few real “Shockers”, but your comments did move things out of the clouds and into conscious discussion. Regardless of the varied backgrounds of you whom I asked for comment and those at the meeting, the observations were largely met as something familiar, perhaps not really considered, but something we had each seen in one form or another personally. More of an “Oh yea, I know what you mean, that’s so true.” as opposed to “Really?!?” . That tells me we are on the right track and pluged into the current realities.

One thing I find to be great about the organization is that we have a broad base of career expertise reflected in our members, so whether the concern is on industrial practices or education, parenting, mobilizing opposition, communicating, or political lobbying, there are presenters with professional experience in those areas. Much of the discussion centered on how to more effectively get that human expertise to where it would do the most good, most quickly. How do we let people do-what-they-do-well for the cause of preserving life on this planet in a unified, efficient way? The systems of the organization are now under scrutiny for how to best accomplish this.

As an aside, something else that I will mention because I find it really amazing. This is a volunteer organization where people are expected to give some of their personal time to the cause of promoting sustainability. Of the hundreds of presenters I have met personally over the last 3 years, in addition to their personal time, regardless of what they did before, virtually every individual has either left their professions, or modified their professional pursuits to dedicate themselves more fully to this issue. I mention it because it is something I also notice in all of you. I just want to draw attention to this fact for a second because I think that is truly remarkable and reflective of the changes taking place all around us that we do not often take time to appreciate.

In the next month or so we expect to hear how things might start to coalesce between TCP and our sister organizations Repower America, The Alliance for Climate Protection, and We Can Solve It and how we might more accurately define the roles that we can play in implementing sustainable practices.

Thank you sincerely for your comments, and for paying attention to this issue and how people around you are responding to it. If you think of anything else please feel free to contact me any time I welcome your valuable input.

Be well

It is with renewed optimism that I write to you today. The simple fact that an individual like Mr. Stuart Scott can attain an audience with you on the crucial matter of addressing Climate Change tells me that the Church has its eyes and ears open to the crisis we are now confronted with.

Please attend the Copenhagen Summit, and let the world hear a loud and clear message from the Catholic Church that it is the moral responsibility of this generation to solve man made global warming. Unless we adopt carbon neutral policies immediately we will destroy civilization as we know it.

The World now finds itself in the gravest of circumstances. We are currently confronted with the consequences of a failing of our moral resolve. It is a new era when the selfishness, greed, and narrow mindedness of our fathers steal from not only from one’s own son, but all the sons and daughters of the Earth. Our future has no foundation to build upon so long as we allow tricks of accounting to replace real reform. The fact that our shared dilemma finds its roots in the poisoned soil of misguided principal is why we need the leadership of the World’s faiths to come together in a unified moral outcry.

The facts are not in dispute. The Earth is warming. Man is at fault. It is morally irreprehensible for us to continue to get our power from sources that pollute the environment. Our patterns of consumption must change. It is no coincidence that a system that rewards exploitation and holds limited accountability has lead to a crisis that threatens our survival.

I would respectfully ask that you take time to reflect on the demands our population places upon our environment. It is now clear that we cannot continue our current patterns of consumption while also increasing our population at the rate we have been. The Lord’s wisdom is infinite but the resources of this planet we call home are not.

Finally a word about Stuart Scott; I am familiar with Mr. Scott’s work through our mutual involvement in Vice President Al Gore’s The Climate Project for which we are both presenters. Mr. Scott is a sincere and passionate advocate for the environment and a tremendously spiritual individual, and I can think of no one else I would rather see deliver these messages to you. It is a testimony to the Catholic Church that a well-intentioned man, with no formal invitation, following divine inspiration, should be granted an audience with Your Holiness to converse on this issue of paramount performance.

Yours Gratefully,

On October 24th 350 has orchestrated one of the largest days of climate action. Over 2000 actions are taking place in 140 countries. My group The Green Hearts Movement is holding an event at Bloomfield College, 465 Franklin st.,Bloomfield, NJ, 465 Franklin st. If any interest please email me : mitchbzaz@gmail.com

I would have to go through this article carefully, but I can say that The Wall Street Journal has a history of citing “Scientific Studies” or publishing “published” statements from “Scientific panels” or “Committees” that have been shown to come from fossil fuel funded think tanks and unsubstantiated conclusions. The Wall Street Journal publishes far more articles placing the science in doubt than those backing it up with evidence. Saying something has been “published” is not the same as saying it has been “published in a peer reviewed scientific journal” although it certainly sounds that way. I find it to be terribly misleading.
From a journalistic point of view it seems like the right thing to do for the narrative of a Story, providing counterpoint and discussion, but this is not what the data shows. Listen, if you put 40 people in the room you will get 40 opinions. If you put 40 scientists in a room you will get 40 opinions thanks to all those wonderful things that make us all human. The point is, the peer review process is in place to maintain objectivity in research, demonstrating that the data alone supports logical conclusions. Sound scientific conclusion may be born of opinion, but in the end it is not supported by opiniion unlike much of what we see in the popular press.

Here’s what I think is happening. It’s crunch time. We are finally seeing a hard push for legislation demanding carbon reductions and this is prompting the business as usual crowd to up it’s game and pull out all the stops. I think that is what we are seeing as the misrepresentation in the popular press and what the blogosphere is spinning as growing doubt.

Fact is, if we had taken some steps on our own earlier we would not need laws forcing us to reduce emissions, but we did not do enough voluntarily so here we are.

Climate models gave us several scenarios complete with time tables for altering behavior. We are rapidly approaching the end of our window to hold warming to the low end of projections. We have an administration that respects scientific conclusions and is trying to enact legislation in accordance with suggested targets. I think it is really unfortunate that this is being cast as a partisan issue. Politics in this country has really devolved to a point of utter disfunction devoid of reasoned logic. The relentless attempts of politicians to retain positions of power by catering to public opinion instead of fact are going to get us into deeper shit than the selfish pursuit of money (and I don’t think we’ve seen just how deep that hole is yet).
I’ve listened to several lectures contrasting the cost of adaptation (adjusting to the effects) vs. mitigation (changing behavior to prevent the worst changes). There is no contest. The world lacks the resources to maintain our standard of living and adapt. Mitigation is the only choice if we wish to preserve our way of life and develop a more just global society. Unfortunately I think it is very much like knowing you should eat right and exercise to live longer and happier. We all know we should but the message has not been conveyed in such a way as to effect our behavior. It does not take much to get me to the point of seeing this as a futile effort, but I have also met an awful lot of really motivated people that do restore my faith that we can change and prosper.

I have emailed with Stephanie about animals issues (she is a great animal lover I am told). This is the address she responded from Stephanie.krenrich@mail.house.gov

and Assad Akhter is the legislative director, also very helpful.

Assad.Akhter@Mail.House.Gov

hope this helps. -jen

Paul