Oso, Washington mudslide, 2014. Climate change is already disrupting our lives with more frequent floods, mudslides, droughts, heat waves, forest fires, and crop damage.
Photo: US Army Staff Sgt. Rory Featherston, WA Air Nat Guard

Q3.1:  Why not?

A:  Global warming is a humanitarian crisis and a global security issue. Environmentalism is broadly defined as protection and restoration of the natural, non-human world. While climate change is a big threat to the non-human world, it is also the largest and most complex threat that humanity and civilization have ever faced.

As we begin to experience heat waves, prolonged drought, rising seas, and as natural systems begin to crash, we will see horrible effects ripple throughout our interconnected world. When understood this way, it is clear that climate change will directly impact public health, poverty, economics, national security, and food and water security. Environmentalism is seen as a small special interest, within a spectrum of special interests. Global warming transcends environmentalism.

Defined as a humanitarian crisis, we can connect its impacts with people’s lives here and now and more readily convey the needed urgency for immediate action.

Issue 4:  Thus far, organizations have failed to substantially shift public consciousness and reduce emissions.

Q4.1:  Why have others failed? 

A:  Many organizations have worked for years to raise public awareness of the dangers of global warming, frequently through focused protests on issues such as the Keystone pipeline, online petitions, letters to Congress, donations, or social media messages. These approaches have so far failed to move the dial in the direction of averting climate catastrophe while global emissions have continued to rise relentlessly. 

Specifically, others have not halted the rise in CO2 emissions because:

• They did not communicate that this is much more than an environmental issue (see 3.1).

• They failed to focus on what was really needed. Instead they focused on what was possible. However, a system-wide response—an all out mobilization—is what is most required now, with a carbon price as centerpiece policy enactment. We must begin to include the costs of carbon’s damage. 

• They did not focus on effective and far-reaching policy that the public could support, such as a price on carbon that is fair and rational and a return of that collected fee back to the people in a fair and equal share.

• They neglected to engage the public directly through a broad education effort that conveys the full truth of what is at stake, what little time remains, and what we must do to protect ourselves.

• They did not broadly align grassroots constituencies using outreach, recruitment, and organizing tactics as with the successful effort to defeat Proposition 23 in California in 2010[6] or with Obama's presidential campaigns.

• They neglected to directly call upon philanthropy to mobilize its resources to address the challenge in the necessary way, and at the scale and scope necessary to avoid catastrophe. The resources from philanthropy provided have been far short of the scope, scale and urgency of the crisis.

Q4.2:  How and why is ATL unique?

A: Specific breakthrough measures must be quickly taken for climate stabilization under the 1.5-2°C heat limit, including: (1) We must have peak carbon emissions now, with reductions beginning now in industrialized nations, and within a few years in developing nations; (2) we must reduce emissions ten percent a year and quickly transition to low carbon energy; and, (3) the US must lead. The longer we wait, the more the required cuts become steeper and more disruptive.

Teach-ins and workshops will educate citizens and call for action.
Photo: Argonne National Laboratory

The best way to achieve this is to engage an all-out mobilization and put a price on carbon. This is only possible with broad public education and support. Clear evidence of support must be seen in this next year, before the Presidential election—meaning, citizens must grasp the danger of our carbon path and begin to respond accordingly. To achieve this, ATL is the organization calling for and catalyzing large-scale media, education, outreach, and grassroots mobilization efforts. The following are key aspects of our unique, multi-pronged strategy:  

• Urgency: While many climate organizations explain that global warming is dangerous and requires action, we call for immediate and dramatic action, now. Misinformation is endemic; our culture is failing to grasp the gravity of the threat, and concern remains shallow. Without a grasp of the scope, scale, and urgency of the crisis—including the reductions actually required for climate stabilization—it is impossible to reach consensus for action. Strategies and measures are pursued that are fractured, local, and fall far short of what is necessary.

• Educate and galvanize the public: It is time to initiate an open, truthful discussion about our situation. If citizens do not know what is at stake, and there is no plan to engage them in dialogue about how to change, nothing will be done. The time has come to catalyze action and policy change by alerting and engaging society on a massive scale. Mobilization and a national carbon price will only happen when a significant portion of citizens demand action to address our climate crisis.

• Personal engagement: Face-to-face dialogue, support, and education will be necessary for engaging the public. It is through our associations with others that humans develop understanding and emotional response to a crisis. Therefore, the public must be informed about the climate crisis through engaging workshops with personal teaching and discussion. The curriculum will be riveting, inspiring, and catalyzing to action. Our plans for conversation are extensive—personal meetings with discussion will be available in every community across the US. 

• Massive media campaign: These efforts must be supported by a broad media campaign, the reach of which is ubiquitous, hard to ignore, and extends to all demographic groups. Every media outlet and means of communication, including news, internet, radio, social media, television, and movies will convey the information. It must become the dominant cultural conversation.

Young and old gather at a weekly “Communities in Climate Action” event at a restaurant in Minneapolis that donates ten percent of their Wednesday night proceeds to the climate movement. On this evening attendees participate in a facilitated “climate conversation” about the future they envision.
Photo: Julia Nerbonne, Minnesota Interfaith Power and Light

• Grassroots focus: As concern rises, a grassroots effort will work in concert with the educational and media components to organize and mobilize people. Personal outreach efforts such as canvassing, house parties, info tables, leafleting, and social media will reach a growing segment of citizens. Rallies and simultaneous direct actions will further emphasize the urgency.

• Address root causes: The central goal is to achieve a national carbon price and the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies, to reflect the true cost of carbon and to drive broad-based emissions reductions.

• Political engagement: These efforts must also be supported by an effective political strategy that leads to national policies that drastically reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. 

• Mobilize influencers: We engage key influencers in the realms of science, faith, business, education, media, philanthropy, health, labor, and activism to further leverage and advance our efforts. 

• Philanthropic leadership: Finally, we are uniquely clear that the deep involvement and partnership of philanthropy is required, with sufficient resources to create a massive-scale effort. Philanthropy, with its mission to care for humanity, is the cultural agent to actively fulfill a “Paul Revere” role in shifting the public dialogue through an extensive media warning.

Q4.3:  Isn’t there another organization that is doing pretty much the same thing?

A:  No. While many organizations engage in climate education, climate news, and grassroots organizing—few are calling for Emergency Climate Mobilization as a necessity, on a society-wide scale, aiming at Net Zero Carbon within a decade in the US. No other group proposes solutions so clear and straightforward. We must have an Emergency Climate Movement as part of a unified and coordinated effort that will be far more effective than the sum of disparate actions. Separate and siloed actions define the current Climate Movement.  Achieving what we propose will require a diverse alignment of grassroots constituencies, going beyond climate and environmental groups.

ATL is the umbrella group to organize  these elements and coordinate them into a larger effort with our partner organizations. We invite organizations to partner with us in ways that suit their missions.

Q4.4:  How is the effort you envision different from efforts led by existing organizations?

A:  Our civilization depends on our ability in the US to mobilize at the necessary scope, scale and urgency, and eliminate fossil fuel emissions while getting to Net Zero Carbon within a decade. Quite simply, we will mobilize the resources—both financial and grassroots—at the scale and scope required. Few national organizations are geared for such movement and coalition building, as is our role in this effort. 350.org has not used a massive outreach and education strategy at this scale, nor has it focused on a national carbon price. No other group is speaking as clearly and urgently about what we face, nor engaging philanthropy and citizens at the scale and speed required for a breakthrough. 

Q4.5:  How will ATL succeed when others haven’t?

A:  A national Climate Emergency Coalition Campaign leading to a declaration of Climate Emergency and an Emergency Climate Mobilization is the right idea at the right time. No other groups are proposing it. Our plan calls for a scaled effort far beyond previous efforts—an initiative comparable to a presidential campaign, in order to saturate the culture with the truth, to leave no doubt that we are in a crisis and that we must respond accordingly. It is time for Paul Revere to ride again. Our education, outreach, and advocacy will take place throughout the US. We have over 15,000 partner venues ready to host this essential climate conversation now. We have science communication partners ready to utilize the best available educational resources to relate the dangers of climate disruption.[7] 

Additionally, we have committed partners who conducted a successful nationwide grassroots movement which achieved breakthrough national environmental legislation at a massive scale. We have committed partners involved in the integration of climate ethics into faith denominations at the national level.

Finally, we are working with the most acclaimed scientists and energy experts to clearly explain what is at stake and what we must do to address the crisis.

Q4.6:  Why so much emphasis on philanthropy? Isn’t it then a top-down effort?

A:  There are several reasons for the deep support and engagement of philanthropy:

• A number of corporatist groups have poured massive funding into efforts to confuse the public and to fight change, tipping the balance in their favor. More than financial support, the active participation of philanthropy is needed. This is the “denier” movement and it has put tons of sand into the gears of the Climate Movement.

• Philanthropy is the crucial first responder here, given its cultural credibility, legitimacy, and its extensive financial resources. It must actively engage scientists, movement leaders, key societal leaders, and warn the public. Since our elected leaders have largely been silent on the looming climate crisis, philanthropy and influencers must step into this “Paul Revere” role.

The educational curriculum must be engaging, riveting, inspiring, and galvanizing to action.  Photo: TEDx, Brown University / flickr

• Philanthropy’s mission is to care for humanity, and at its best, it has helped lead in social innovation.

• Large-scale social change efforts need significant funding. In order to execute this effort, the support of substantial financial resources is required.

• This strategy was conceived and developed by the grassroots. Funding makes the education, organizing, and mobilizing possible.

▲ TOP OF PAGE

Issue 5: Your plan calls for a massive public awareness effort to basically alarm-educate-motivate. An Inconvenient Truth followed the same model, yet it failed to change the consciousness of working class voters, and its impact on college-educated voters faded after a few years.

Q5.1:  Since citing alarming scientific facts does NOT effectively stir the public, how will you elicit a significant response?

A:  There are several issues here. First, it’s time to speak the current truth. In the nine years since An Inconvenient Truth, with fossil fuel emissions increasing dramatically and warming accelerating, we need a climate mobilization in order to have the best chance to stabilize climate and provide a livable planet for our children. Second, the film  never called for a carbon price, nor did it organize citizens for a collective response once they understood the risks. Our approach is to explain in close personal settings the reality and moral dimensions of our current disaster pathway, and then to organize citizens for collective action. To “motivate” is not enough—more accurately, our model is to alarm-educate-motivate-mobilize.

A well organized “climate doubt and disinformation campaign” measurably eroded the public’s concern through TV and radio ads, faux-science conferences, think tanks, news outlets, interviews, books, articles, rallies and social media—creating the sense that the science is unsettled. Additionally, “elite cues” from leadership have been absent—to the extent that climate was not even discussed during the 2012 presidential election.
Photo: Allen Johnson

Third, it is important to use narrative, analogy, and moral conversations to connect the issue with people’s own experiences, values, and sense of moral agency. The right stories in the right contexts must be used so people see the crisis affects them directly.[8] Moral reasoning is a powerful force for collective change.[9]

Also remember that at crucial times, transformative leadership and organizations have shifted the culture’s view dramatically, by telling the truth with conviction and eloquence. Currently, with little accurate media coverage or mention by our leaders, the climate crisis is literally out of sight and out of mind. Therefore, philanthropy and influencers must now fill this role (see 4.7).

Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent to perpetuate climate confusion. Therefore, the presentation of the reality and its moral implications must be an order of magnitude larger, more comprehensive, and saturating. Any realization of a "Pearl Harbor moment" must be created through consistent and sustained effort.

Q5.2:  And, how can people be motivated to take action and to change in the time and at the scale required?

 A:  First, we must reach far beyond the current fractured and ineffective efforts to validate, motivate, and mobilize the tens of millions who are worried but don’t know what to do. Most people cannot now envision any meaningful response beyond recycling or other small scale, individual actions. Even the most alarmed[10] can see few effective options. They have never been properly organized to collectively demand Climate Mobilization and fundamental systemic changes. The power of effective social movements to catalyze large-scale change must be conveyed, and citizens must be provided with options for taking collective action.

President Franklin Delanor Roosevelt, December 8, 1941, the day after the Pearl Harbor attack.
“‘Happy talk’ was not the approach taken by Lincoln confronting slavery, or by Franklin Roosevelt facing the grim realities after Pearl Harbor. Nor was it Winston Churchill’s message to the British people at the height of the London blitz. Instead, in these and similar cases, transformative leaders told the truth honestly, with conviction and eloquence.”
—David Orr, “Down to the Wire: Confronting Climate Collapse”

Second, when American society has faced similar challenges requiring all-out effort and cooperation, we have responded rather than given up. Several crucial points provide the plausibility of rapid mobilization:

• The US mobilized nearly overnight for World War 2. Just weeks after the Pearl Harbor attack, the US stopped automobile production for almost three years and built planes and tanks instead. We could do the same with wind turbines and solar systems. We can mobilize and demonstrate this same kind of social alignment and mutual cooperation.

• Humans can rise above fear to respond. Many in the climate movement mistakenly believe that people would panic, become paralyzed, or fall into depressive resignation if they understood the looming threat of climate chaos. The widespread notion that people panic in disaster situations is not corroborated by experience. Studies of behavior in disaster situations reveal that humans behave cooperatively—even with extraordinary teamwork and collaboration—when given accurate information and constructive options.[11] So awakening citizens to the danger and providing an effective course of action will most likely result in constructive cooperation and mobilization to avert catastrophe.

• Citizens could be awakened to properly respond when philanthropy catalyzes the process. Philanthropy can explain why we must respond immediately and then call for a full societal mobilization to phase out fossil fuels. We must first engage philanthropy to act at scale and to fund the breakthrough media, education, and grassroots efforts, as outlined above.

• It only takes a tiny minority to catalyze dramatic cultural change. Research finds that transformation requires the active engagement of only 3.5% of citizens.[12] We only need to activate those most concerned about global warming—we do not need to persuade those in denial. Alone we cannot make a difference, but through an organized, committed, and strategic movement comprised of a small minority of the population, positive transformation and policy changes can quickly result.

▲ TOP OF PAGE

Earth Day march, 1970, Cleveland State University. The first Earth Day brought out one in ten Americans to call for reforms. Roughly 1500 colleges and 10,000 schools organized teach-ins. Tens of thousands organized local events such as parades, demonstrations and protests. As the result, Republicans and Democrats together passed a portfolio of landmark environmental policies during the Republican administrations of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.
Photo: Van Dillard

Issue 6: ATL calls for a price on carbon, which requires an act of Congress. The US Congress can’t get much of anything done—even the seemingly easy stuff.

Q6.1:  How will you get something past Congress when last year about 90% of the American public supported strengthening of gun control laws, yet nothing happened?

A:  The two issues are fundamentally different. The scale of the climate crisis is magnitudes greater. Everyone worldwide will be impacted directly by climate change. Major disruptions will cut across every country—impacting poverty, economics, public health, national security, and food and water security. Interest in an issue such as gun control is minor compared to this imminent crisis.

We will make the case in an unmistakably personal and visceral way. The US must mobilize with the same speed and immediacy as with the First Earth Day in 1970. It was launched not to “get something through Congress. It educated people “all at once” through teach-ins and then due to its influence, Congress passed a suite of major environmental legislation quickly. Politicians became “environmentalists” overnight out of political expediency.

As with the first Earth Day, we realize we can do nothing without the people. Before we engage with Congress, we must educate and mobilize the public.

Republican President Nixon at William Ruckelshaus’s swear-in as EPA chief, December 4, 1970. After the First Earth Day, in that November’s elections a “Dirty Dozen” in Congress with terrible environmental records was targeted. Seven of the twelve were voted out, including the powerful Chairman of the House Public Works Committee, George Fallon. Despite furious opposition from special interests, the Senate version of the 1970 Clean Air Act, authored by Senator Edmund Muskie, passed unanimously. The House later adopted it on a voice vote. Later that same year, the Environmental Protection Agency was created. What had been considered politically impossible was quickly achieved. Over the next ten years, 23 environmental laws were signed. 
Photo: NARA, US EPA

Q6.2:  What is the plan for mustering a Congressional majority for a carbon tax?

A:  The policy change can happen despite the political deadlock and the massive influence of the fossil fuel industry. Our political strategies for achieving a carbon price and other emissions-cutting policies:

• Galvanize and organize broad public support. Congress follows the public. Once the public understands what must be done, by when, and why—change can quickly happen. A price on carbon is a natural by-product of public understanding, motivation, and organizing.

• Activate and align the organizations, business, and civic groups to send a clear message about the need for the pricing of global warming pollution and other policy measures. Growing numbers of businesses, large and small, are increasingly concerned about climate change’s risk to their bottom line.[13]

• Activate and align faith communities for climate advocacy. Congregations can play pivotal roles in hosting moral conversations and public classes in their social halls, and activating their members. 

• Activate and align communities of color for climate advocacy. Latino, African American, and Asian American groups played a pivotal role in the 2010 California’s “No on Prop 23” success.[14]

• Connect with key leaders and influencers to reach out to key policy makers and to engage further political support by activating their networks.

▲ TOP OF PAGE

Issue 7:  There are already hundreds or thousands of climate change organizations.

Q7.1:  Is it necessary to establish yet another organization with all the associated overhead and infrastructure? Why not just create a new program under the umbrella of an existing organization, to put donors’ dollars to maximum effect?

A:  The Association for the Tree of Life is a lead organization calling for and catalyzing the broad-based media, educational, and grassroots campaigns resulting in Emergency Climate Mobilization. Few other groups are calling for what is needed: a complete, society-wide mobilization to attain US net zero emissions within a decade. We need other organizations to us in the call for mobilization (see 7.2).

We believe donor dollars are best used in addressing the underlying causes, and not just the symptoms, in order to make the needed change. We welcome the opportunity to partner with other organizations that focus on all-out mobilization to eliminate fossil fuels. Does it make sense to put more money into existing efforts that have yet to slow emissions because they are not focused on the central issue—the scope, scale, and urgency now required—and do not engage citizens and resources at the needed scale?

The Cowboy Indian Alliance at the Reject and Protect Rally, Washington, DC, April 2014.
Photo: Mary Anne Andrei, RejectAndProtect.org

Q7.2:  How can you unite all these different groups?

A:  A coalition will be tasked with the mission of creating a broad and powerful movement calling for an Emergency Climate Mobilization to restore a safe climate. Participating groups agree to work for an all-out mobilization to attain net zero carbon emissions within a decade in the US, and fifteen years globally. This coalition of grassroots and national organizations will be coordinated and supported by a coalition team that continually keeps the movement on message.

Without this sort of alignment and entrainment, the effort might disintegrate into a score of competing cacophonies whose efforts do not cohere in a larger whole, as is the current situation. Yet in the coalition, local groups do have autonomy in how they fulfill the effort's objectives. The effort is both top-down and bottom-up—operating fully at both the local and national levels. Neither level works without the other. 

A good analogy of structure and approach might be President Obama’s 2012 campaign. Its direction, coordination, and consistency were promulgated through the appropriate management, advisors, communications, field organizers, volunteer coordinators, and much more. The main point here is that the climate movement—like the Obama presidential campaigns—should have a well-coordinated leadership, disciplined messaging, quick and efficient information flow, relevant departments, closely cooperating local and regional groups, and similar elements of a successful national campaign. These examples and many more demonstrate that it can be done.

▲ TOP OF PAGE

Issue 8:  I’ve never heard of ATL. Tell me about yourselves.

Q8.1:  Who are you and how can you get this huge effort accomplished?

A:  An all-out climate mobilization is required. The Association for the Tree of Life has created a Strategic Plan for averting climate chaos, with a response that meets the scope, scale, and urgency of the climate crisis. To fulfill the objectives of this Plan, ATL is a fulcrum organization to call for and catalyze the broad-based media, educational, grassroots, and political efforts leading to Emergency Climate Mobilization that produces Net Zero Carbon US within a decade.

Our team has a track record of delivering results on a national grassroots movement and national environmental legislation, for the largest restoration in US history. The infrastructure for that particular movement still remains and can be activated.

We have committed partners involved in the integration of climate ethics into faith denominations at the national level.

We have over 15,000 partner venues throughout the US ready to host the essential climate education and conversation now. We have science communication partners ready to utilize the best available educational resources on climate change available.

We have grassroots partners ready to engage their grassroots networks to engage citizens through massive outreach.

Finally, we are working with the most acclaimed scientists and energy experts in the world to clearly explain what is at stake and what we must do to address the crisis.

The Association for the Tree of Life is an independent, nonpartisan 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. 

▲ TOP OF PAGE

Issue 9:  You seem to have a plan and know-how, yet I find this crisis so threatening and depressing.

Q9.1:  What can you tell me before I go stick my head in the sand?

A:  Many of those now frightened and lost in resignation will recover when they see the first or second wave of movement and mobilization. Those who are currently discouraged leave us undaunted. They have not been provided a vision, means, or way out of this life or death dilemma. Until they can see a plausible response to threats to their lives and families, then depression and fear are normal and reasonable responses.

We can win this one; it is a matter of will and mobilization. Affordable renewable energy technology is deployable at scale. The cost of wind energy has plummeted in the US by 43% since 2009. The cost of solar electricity has dropped an average of 20% per year since 2010. On a new-build basis, wind is now competitive with gas and cheaper than coal. Solar is now cheaper than conventional sources in about 15-18% of the electricity market. By no means are we saying this transition will be easy or smooth. However, the cost of inaction far outweighs the cost of action by orders of magnitude. This is a life and death matter, everything is at stake, and therefore we will respond.

The transformation from a fossil fuel-based economy to a clean renewables-based economy must be complete within a decade.
Photos: Left - Michael Light, ExxonMobile Refinery, Torrance, California. Right - Lee Devlin, Wind turbines, Colorado.

Q9.2:  Still, what if I cannot conceive of what the world will look like on the other side?

A:  This is a normal response, since our energy and economic transformation must be complete by mid-century. Moreover, our culture is not encouraged to envision a positive outcome—news outlets focus on negative developments and movies put forth dystopian and apocalyptic futures. This causes people to suffer from a dismal failure of imagination.

In the face of this, we encourage people to engage in a visioning process for a positive future. It can readily be applied to imagining climate breakthrough and to conceiving of a carbon-free nation within a decade and a carbon free world by 2030. Visioning is a powerful tool for generating possibility and action.[15]

Q9.3:  OK, OK, what can I do?

A: Sign our petition to declare a Formal Global Warming State of Emergency.

Opportunities to help build the climate breakthrough momentum:

• Help organize educational events. 
• Influencers and thought leaders can help advance our efforts by writing op-eds and spreading the word to colleagues.
• Faith organizations and congregations can host moral conversations and workshops for the public, and encourage the participation of their members in the movement. 
• Grassroots climate organizations can help plan outreach efforts and direct actions.

Inform people that the following actions must be taken to combat climate change:

• Starting now, reduce emissions several percent per year.
• Quickly transition from fossil fuels to low carbon energy.
• The US must lead the global low carbon mobilization.
• We need a society-wide climate mobilization on the scale of World War 2.

Call for an all-out climate mobilization and for real climate breakthrough policies:

• Price greenhouse gas pollution.
• Remove fossil fuel subsidies.
• Create strong incentives for renewables.
• Keep nearly all remaining fossil fuels buried in the ground. 

Use these talking points to write letters to the editor, write op-eds, tweet, and post on Facebook. Discuss these issues with friends, family, teachers, students, colleagues, and through your networks.

For more information, go to: www.tree-of-life.works/act.

 ▲ TOP OF PAGE

---

[1] Everything else – the financial crisis, inequality, building bridges between the West and Islam, China’s democratization – pales in significance beside the question of whether we managed to stop our climate from radically changing.

[2] We are currently at a global CO2 level of ~400 ppm (the highest in 3 million years): http://co2now.org/current-co2/co2-now/, rising 2-4% per year: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/mlo.html.  Note this does not account for additive CO2e concentrations: http://oceans.mit.edu/featured-stories/5-questions-mits-ron-prinn-400-ppm-threshold.

[3] As Kevin Anderson, professor of energy and climate change at the University of Manchester notes, this fundamentally rewrites the chronology of climate change from long-term gradual to urgent and radical: “Climate change going beyond dangerous – Brutal numbers and tenuous hope,” Development Dialogue, September 2012.  David Roberts notes the “brutal logic” of climate change. .   

[4] Daniel Cusick and ClimateWire, “Fossil Fuel Subsidies Cost $5 Trillion Annually and Worsen Pollution,” Scientific American, May 19, 2015.

[5] Emissions reductions must occur sooner in developed nations, given our historical contribution to the problem and our capacity to innovate and remediate.

[6] Wikipedia, “California Proposition 23 (2010).

[7] “Climate Change: Evidence and Causes,” National Academy of Sciences and Royal Society, February 27, 2014, , and “What We Know: The Reality, Risks and Response to Climate Change,” American Association for the Advancement of Science, March 2014.

[8] Local impacts of climate change must be included in the curriculum.

[9] Benjamin Franta, "To Stop Climate Change, We Must Grow Movements of Moral Force," Huffington Post, September 15, 2015..

[10] Anthony Leiserowitz, Edward Maibach, Connie Roser-Renouf and Jay Hmielowski, “Global Warming’s Six Americas In November 2011, March 2012 and September 2012” Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, March 2012.

[11] A leading text in the field is available to read on line by chapter: Committee on Disaster Research, “Facing Hazards and Disasters,” National Academies Press, .

[12] David Karrigon, “11 Million Americans Can Save the Climate,” TruthOut, January 30, 2014.

[13] Andrew Breiner, “Small Business Owners: Climate Action Will Protect Our Livelihoods,” ClimateProgress.com, June 25, 2014, . 87 percent of small business owners believe climate change could harm their businesses in the future. 65 percent support government regulation of carbon pollution. Josh Israel, “Major Companies Distance Themselves From US Chamber Campaign Against Obama’s Climate Plan,” June 3, 2014, .

[14] Mark Hertsgaard, “Latinos Are Ready to Fight Climate Change—Are Green Groups Ready for Them?” The Nation, December 24, 2012, . Nine-minute film on diversity in “No on 23”: Mark Decena, nine-minute film, “Where We Live: The Changing Face of Climate Activism,” EDGE Funders Alliance, Solidago Foundation and Kontent Films, 2011.

[15] See this 32-minute lecture on visioning by scientist Dana Meadows (in four parts): “Down to Earth,” International Society of Ecological Economics Conference, Costa Rica, 1994.

 

▲ TOP OF PAGE