To: Governor Mike Beebe

We believe that the Arkansas Public Service Commission made a mistake when it approved SWEPCO's plans for a new coal-fired electric generating plant to be built near Texarkana. Far from being "clean," this plant will spew five million tons of global warming pollution into the atmosphere every year, increasing our states' global warming emissions by 8 percent. These emissions are equivalent to the annual emissions from half of the cars and light trucks in Arkansas. This is especially ironic when the Arkansas legislature earlier this year voted overwhelmingly to establish the Governor's Commission on Global Warming with the goal of establishing, by the time of the 2009 legislative session, a reduction goal and a plan for achieving it.

There are better solutions: energy efficiency, renewable energy resources such as wind, and, if necessary, natural gas (which is far cleaner than coal, and emits only half as much global warming pollution as coal). Furthermore, all of these solutions will provide more jobs for Arkansans than will be provided by the planned coal plant.

We call on you to issue a moratorium on all physical preparations for construction at the Texarkana plant until the Governor's Commission on Global Warming has reported to the
Arkansas legislature.

Sincerely,
The Undersigned

You can sign this petition to Governor Beebe and help turn this decision around by going to: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/nocoalpp/petition.html . You needn't be an adult, or an Arkansan, or a U.S. citizen to sign.  Global warming affects us all. Please forward this to friends and family members encouraging them to sign as well.

(Note: If you signed a petition against this plant a few months ago, this is a NEW petition. The previous petition went to the Arkansas Public Service Commission. Please sign this petition
also!)

Dear Activist,

Recently Congress reached a consensus that we must increase gas mileage standards for passenger vehicles to help consumers at the pump and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But other politics have interfered with passing a landmark Energy Bill that would include the first rise in fuel economy standards since the 1970s.

The House passed the Energy Bill last week but the Senate rejected the package and is working on changing aspects of the bill. However, Congress can still pass an updated bill through both houses and send it to the President’s desk to be signed into law before the end of the year.

We need your help! Please send the letter below and call Senator Lincoln and Pryor asking them to pass an Energy Bill now. With gas prices well over $3 a gallon and oil prices
reaching all-time highs, we can’t wait any longer to act. Your voice is important; please contact your Senators today!

Letter text:

Dear SENATOR:

As you know, the House just passed a comprehensive Energy Bill that would offer substantial consumer savings while taking measures to strengthen our national security. Included in the bill is a landmark increase in fuel economy standard with language similar to the Senate-passed energy bill back in June.

With record breaking gas and oil prices, the American people are looking to Congress for leadership to do something about our energy crisis and passing an energy bill is an essential first step. If passed, the increased fuel economy standards would save American consumers $23 million at the gas pump and 1.2 million barrels of oil in 2020.

Please pass an energy bill that we can send to the President to sign into law before the new year. Congress must act now to deliver much needed consumer savings and to break our dangerous dependence on foreign oil.

Thank you for your time and attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,
NAME
CITY, STATE

Call Instructions:

*Now please take this important next step and call your members of Congress. Direct contact is a very effective tool to influence your policy makers.

How it works:

- Call the Washington D.C. Capitol Switchboard at 800-828-0498, which will direct you to Senator Lincoln and Pryor’s office.

- Introduce yourself, and tell your Senator that its time pass an Energy Bill that saves consumers money at that pump and lessens our dependence on foreign oil. Ask them to stand up for America and reject efforts by special interests to block or delay passage of the energy bill.

The US Economic Impacts of Climate Change and the Costs of Inaction,
a recently released report published by the Center for Integrative
Environmental Research, University of Maryland, suggests that the
Southeast states – Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, North and South Carolina, Tennessee,
Virginia, and the Gulf Coast of Texas – may be some of the hardest
hit by climate change in the US.

You may download the report at:
http://arcap.c.topica.com/maaiLLwabCRdfaaaaaabafpLGq/

Global Warming Experts Discuss Final 2007 Report From IPCC
Report release sets stage for upcoming UN climate conference and
Congressional Action

LITTLE ROCK, AR – Local global warming experts and advocates reacted
to today’s release of the “Synthesis Report,” of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Valencia, Spain.

The report shows the need for global and local action to reduce
greenhouse gas pollution, while preparing to adapt to the effects of
climate change that are already occurring or are unavoidable. The
report summarizes the IPCC’s findings into 20 pages of
understandable, although alarming, language.

Under unchecked climate change, the IPCC predicts that one billion
people will face food and water shortages by the middle of this
century. In the U.S., Arkansas is at risk from increased water
temperatures, lower crop yields, increased ozone and air pollution
levels, and extreme heat waves. Across the country, IPCC expects
more intense storms and heat waves, increased likelihood of water
and insect borne diseases, and higher levels of pollution and
pollen.

“This year’s IPCC report has come to three conclusions: global
warming is caused by human activity, is already affecting our
environment and we have the resources we need to avoid global
warming’s worst consequences,” said Dr. Larry Coleman, retired
astronomy and physics professor from University of Arkansas in
Little Rock. “This is the first time there has been international
scientific consensus and this report should be the “how to” guide
for local, national and world leaders addressing climate.”

The current United Nations-led effort to cap greenhouse gas
emissions worldwide, the Kyoto Protocol, expires in 2012. Leaders
will discuss post-Kyoto options early next month at the annual UN
climate conference, in Bali, Indonesia. In Congress, the Senate
Enviroment committee is expected to vote on a measure limiting
greenhouse gases domestically for the first time in the upcoming
weeks.

“The IPCC Report tells leaders worldwide that the most important
thing is to act now, both to reduce emissions and to help vulnerable
societies adapt to the reality of a warmer world,” said Don
Richardson, Director of the Arkansas Climate Awareness Project.
“Just this year, science told us that emissions are rising faster
than expected, and the earth’s ability to absorb CO2 is decreasing.
We cannot afford to wait for more science or the next IPCC report to
start taking action”

IPCC reports, while comprehensive, are the result of a long and
conservative process; the next is likely four or five years away.

The IPCC, the world’s most authoritative scientific body on the
subject of global warming, was founded in 1988 at the request of the
United States and the international community to assess the risk of
human-induced climate change and to provide information needed by
policymakers to inform and shape solutions to global warming. Each
of the Panel’s 2,500 scientists was nominated by their home
government. The IPCC does not carry out new research, nor does it
monitor climate-related data. Its periodic Assessment Reports, based
on published and peer-reviewed scientific technical literature, are
written to achieve the broadest possible consensus among Panel
participants.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment
Report
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s
most authoritative scientific body on the subject of global warming,
was founded in 1988 at the request of the United States and the
international community to assess the risk of human-induced climate
change and to provide information needed by policymakers to inform
and shape solutions to global warming. Each of the Panel’s 500
scientists was nominated by their home government. The IPCC does not
carry out new research, nor does it monitor climate-related data.

Its periodic Assessment Reports, based on published and
peer-reviewed scientific technical literature, are written to
achieve the broadest possible consensus among Panel participants.

In 2007, the IPCC released its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) on
global climate change. The AR4 is organized into three Working Group
Reports covering the science, impacts & adaptation, and mitigation.
In November 2007, the IPCC released its synthesis report of the
three individual parts. Below are the highlights from each.

Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis
The scientific literature reviewed by Working Group 1 (WG1) for its
report “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis,”
significantly strengthened our understanding of two fundamentals.
The WG1 report states:
• “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now
evident from observations of increases in global average air and
ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and risking
global mean sea level.”
• With 91-95% certainty, the IPCC concluded that “Most of the
observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th
century is very likely due to the observed increase in
anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations [emphasis in original].”

With regard to observed and projected temperature rise, the WG1
report found:
• Anthropogenic (human produced) greenhouse gas emissions have
driven up global average temperatures by about 0.75°C during the
last century.
• Eleven of the last twelve years (1995–2006) rank among the
12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface
temperature (since 1850).
• Absent sharp near-term emissions reductions, global
temperatures are estimated to increase by about 4°C (7.2° F), with
the potential to go as high as 7°C (12.6° F) or higher.

The Working Group I report also reported on important ocean and
carbon-cycle issues:
• Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are
causing a chemical change in the world’s oceans, making the water
more acidic. Acidification harms marine life forms like coral reefs,
snails, and other organisms that are vital supports for the food
chain.
• Feedback mechanisms in the global carbon cycle will begin
adding previously stored carbon to the atmosphere as the climate
system warms. If emissions continue growing as they are now, CO2
feedback is projected to increase global average warming in 2100 by
more than 1°C (in addition to existing projections).

IPCC Working Group II: Impacts on North America and Summary for
Policy Makers
The Working Group II report “Climate Change 2007: Impacts,
Adaptation, and Vulnerability,” released in April 2007, identified
in far greater detail than earlier reports how global warming is
currently affecting life on earth and projected future impacts.
The report stated that the comparatively small amount of warming
that has already occurred is contributing “to the global burden of
disease and premature deaths” through temperature and precipitation
changes, sea-level rise and the increasing frequency of extreme
events. Regarding future impacts, the IPCC says “For increases in
global average temperature exceeding 1.5°C–2.5°C (2.7° F–4.5° F). .
.there are projected to be . . . predominantly negative consequences
for biodiversity, and ecosystem goods and services e.g., water and
food supply.” Higher levels of greenhouse gases will have a
devastating human impact.
• By mid-century, more than a billion people will face water
shortages and hunger, including 600 million in Africa alone.
• Weather extremes, food and water scarcity, and
climate-related public health threats are projected to displace
between 150 million and 1 billion people as climate change unfolds.

Damage to ecosystems and wildlife is projected to reach devastating
levels.
• A 1.0°C increase in local temperatures at lower latitudes
(especially seasonally dry and tropical regions) is projected to
reduce crop productivity, which would increase risk of hunger
[~~~5.4].
• Widespread coral mortality is expected with 2.0°C warming
and higher.
• With a warming of 3.0°C and more, agricultural systems will
begin to break down, causing a global decrease in food production
potential. [5.4, 5.ES].
• With about a 4°C increase in global temperatures, more than
40% of known plant and animal species are projected to go extinct.

Summary of Key North America Impacts:
• Tens of millions of Americans are likely to face greater
risks of injury and mortality due to higher pollution levels, more
frequent and more intense heat waves, more intense storms, elevated
pollen levels, and increased likelihood of water and insect-borne
diseases.
• Western and Southwestern states, already facing increased
water scarcity, are expected to experience inadequate and unreliable
water supplies as snowpack diminishes and evaporation increases in
both regions, with added stress in the Southwest caused by decreases
in precipitation.
• North American forests face more destruction from the
increasing incidence of wildfire, insect infestation, and disease.
These disturbances could cost wood and timber producers between $1
billion and $2 billion a year during the 21st century.
• Coastal states face rising sea-levels accompanied by greater
vulnerability to intense storms and storm surges, coastal erosion,
and gradual inundation- effects that will also contribute to wetland
losses. Storm impacts are likely to be more severe especially along
the Gulf and Atlantic coasts, where any increase in destructiveness
of coastal storms threatens significant loss of life and property
damage.

Summary of Key Impacts around the World:
• Africa: By 2020, between 75 million and 250 million people
are projected to be exposed to increased water stress due to climate
change. If coupled with increased demand, this will adversely affect
livelihoods and exacerbate water-related problems.

• Asia: Glacier melt in the Himalayas is projected to increase
flooding and rock avalanches from destabilized slopes, and to affect
water resources within the next two to three decades. This will be
followed by decreased river flows as the glaciers recede. Coastal
areas, especially heavily-populated megadelta regions in South, East
and South-East Asia, will be at greatest risk due to increased
flooding from the sea and, in some megadeltas, flooding from the
rivers.

• Australia and New Zealand: As a result of reduced
precipitation and increased evaporation, water security problems are
projected to intensify by 2030 in southern and eastern Australia
and, in New Zealand, in Northland and some eastern regions.

• Europe: Nearly all European regions are anticipated to be
negatively affected by some future impacts of climate change, and
these will pose challenges to many economic sectors. Climate change
is expected to magnify regional differences in Europe’s natural
resources and assets. Negative impacts will include increased risk
of inland flash floods, and more frequent coastal flooding and
increased erosion (due to storminess and sea-level rise). The great
majority of organisms and ecosystems will have difficulty adapting
to climate change. Mountainous areas will face glacier retreat,
reduced snow cover and winter tourism, and extensive species losses
(in some areas up to 60% under high emission scenarios by 2080).

• Latin America: By mid-century, increases in temperature and
associated decreases in soil water are projected to lead to gradual
replacement of tropical forest by savanna in eastern Amazonia. In
drier areas, climate change is expected to lead to salinisation and
desertification of agricultural land. Food security will be
threatened by declining productivity of some important crops and
livestock . Changes in precipitation patterns and the disappearance
of glaciers are projected to significantly affect the availability
of drinking water, as well as water for agriculture and energy
generation.

• Polar Regions: The main projected biophysical effects are
thinning and shrinking of glaciers and ice sheets and changes in
natural ecosystems with detrimental effects on many organisms
including migratory birds, mammals, and higher predators. In the
Arctic, additional impacts include reductions in the extent of sea
ice and permafrost, increased coastal erosion, and an increase in
the depth of permafrost seasonal thawing.

• Small Islands: Small islands, whether located in the tropics
or higher latitudes, have characteristics which make them especially
vulnerable to the effects of climate change, sea-level rise, and
extreme events. Deterioration in coastal conditions, for example
through erosion of beaches and coral bleaching, is expected to
affect local resources, e.g., fisheries, and reduce the value of
these destinations for tourism. Sea-level rise is expected to
exacerbate inundation, storm surge, erosion, and other coastal
hazards, thus threatening vital infrastructure, settlements, and
facilities that support the livelihood of island communities.

IPCC Working Group III: Mitigation
The Third Working Group Report, “Climate Change 2007: Mitigation,”
concluded that “there is substantial economic potential for the
mitigation of global GHG emissions over the coming decades, that
could offset the projected growth of global emissions or reduce
emissions below current levels.”

The WGIII report lays out several climate stabilization scenarios.
By stabilizing greenhouse gases at CO2 equivalent concentrations of
roughly 450-500 parts per million, global temperature rise could be
limited to 2–2.4°C and sea-level rise due to thermal expansion to
1.4 meters.

However, to limit the global temperature rise to these levels
requires that global emissions peak by 2015 and decline to as little
as 15% of 2000 levels by the year 2050.The IPCC estimates that doing
so will reduce average GDP growth rates by less than 0.12 percentage
points per year and notes that “Climate change policies related to
energy efficiency and renewable energy are often economically
beneficial, improve energy security and reduce local pollutant
emissions.” Other mitigation options can provide sustainable
development benefits such as avoided displacement of local
populations, jobs, and health improvement. The scientists found
that, “In all analyzed world regions near-term health co-benefits
from reduced air pollution as a result of actions to reduce GHG
emissions can be substantial and may offset a substantial fraction
of mitigation costs.”

Fortunately, the IPCC report makes clear that the tools needed to
start reducing the threat of global warming are available now. “The
stabilization levels assessed can be achieved by deployment of a
portfolio of technologies that are either currently available or
expected to be commercialized in coming decades.” The WGIII report
lists a wide range of technologies that are commercially available
and could be used to immediately begin reducing emissions.
Government and industry can collaborate on policies and practices
that reduce emissions. Below are some ways each economic sector can
contribute in to these stabilization goals.

• Energy Supply: Efficiency improvements, along with increased
dependence on renewable energy sources and early applications of
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) would considerably reduce emissions
• Transportation: Encouraging the production of more fuel
efficient and hybrid vehicles is an easy way to limit emissions from
the transportation sector.
• Buildings: Improved residential and commercial building
standards, along with widespread implementation of passive and
active solar design for heating and cooling would reduce the carbon
dependency of buildings.
• Industry: More efficient end-use electrical equipment and
heat and power recovery would improve industrial energy efficiency
and help firms reduce energy costs. Materials recycling and
substitution, and a wide array of process-specific technologies
would also help reduce energy usage from this sector.
• Agriculture: Improved crop and grazing land management and
restoration of cultivated peaty soils and degraded lands would
increase soil carbon storage, while improved rice cultivation
techniques and livestock and manure management would reduce methane
emissions. This sector can also contribute alternative fuels with
dedicated energy crops to replace fossil fuel use.
• Waste Management: Landfill methane recovery, waste
incineration with energy recovery, and composting of organic waste
are some of the options to reduce emissions and energy usage in this
sector.

Indications that Climate Is Changing Faster than Anticipated
A Sample of Peer-Reviewed Studies From 2007

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an
international body of 2,500 scientists, assesses and summarizes the
current state of knowledge on climate change, issues. Periodically,
the IPCC issues Assessment Reports, the most comprehensive and
reliable statements of their kind, following a rigorous multi-year
process involving hundreds of authors and editors and thousands of
reviewers and comments. In order to give contributors time to review
and assess relevant information, the IPCC limits the literature
reviewed to articles that were published or in press well in advance
of the report’s publication. While that cut-off ensures the IPCC
only reports on the science that has been broadly supported, it does
limit consideration of the most recent scientific findings.

In the case of the physical science describing the fundamentals of
climate change, articles can only be considered if they were
published or in press by December 2005. Publications after this date
reaffirm the IPCC’s central findings, but also show that a number of
the Earth’s natural and physical systems are changing far more
rapidly or intensely than previously thought. A number of these
recent studies are listed and summarized below.

CO2 Concentrations Rise as Emissions Increase, Sinks Decrease
Growth of Atmospheric CO2 Faster than Expected
Atmospheric carbon dioxide growth has increased 35% faster than
expected since 2000. Levels of greenhouse gases are rising about 2.5
times faster this decade than they did during the 1990s due to rapid
economic growth, increases in carbon intensity and a decline in the
efficiency of ocean and land CO2 sinks.
“Contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth from
economic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural
sinks”
Publication of the National Academy of Sciences, October 20071

CO2 Saturation of Southern Ocean Will Increase the Rate of Rising
Temperatures
Atmospheric CO2 levels may rise faster and bring about rising
temperatures more quickly than previously anticipated, according to
a new analysis that finds the Southern Ocean (ocean areas below the
60˚S latitude), the earth’s biggest carbon sink, has become
CO2-saturated. The ocean hasn’t absorbed any additional CO2 since
1981, but CO2 emissions have increased by 40% since that year.
“Saturation of the Southern Ocean CO2 Sink Due to Recent Climate
Change”
Science, June 22, 20072

North Atlantic Carbon Sink Has Reduced Uptake by Half
Oceans are leaving CO2 in the atmosphere. Anthropogenic climate
change has upset the ocean-processes that allow normal carbon
uptake. Reduced heat loss has slowed North-Atlantic ocean
circulation, which consequently inhibits absorption. Ocean sinks
have increased in the past as atmospheric CO2 increased. Study
scientists said they knew this would slow, but they are surprised at
the rate at which it has occurred.
"A variable and decreasing sink for atmospheric CO2 in the North
Atlantic”
Journal of Geophysical Research, Nov. 20073

Rising Ozone Stifles Plant Absorption of CO2
Rising levels of ozone pollution over the coming century will erode
the ability of plants to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Atmospheric CO2 at higher levels increases the likelihood of
expressed climate disruption.
“Carbon sinks threatened by increasing ozone”
Nature, July, 26, 20074

Federal Insurers Fail to Face Fiscal Threat from Global Warming
A recent study by the General Accountability Office found that the
Federal Crop Insurance Program and the National Flood insurance
Program have not begun updating their risk assessment practices to
account for changes in weather due to global warming. But private
insurers are adopting new practices including controlling exposure
by reducing policies in catastrophic areas, and re-pricing to
account for harsher impact per event. These actions will transfer
risk to the policyholder and the public sector, making federal
analysis all the more necessary.
“Federal Risks to Federal and Private Insurers in Coming Decades are
Potentially Significant”
United States Government Accountability Office, March 20075

More Rainfall Linked to Increasing Global Temperatures
The total amount of water in the atmosphere will increase in
correlation with global warming. Humidity and precipitation
observations, show increases during the past 20 years at the same
rate as global temperature increases, resulting in more rainfall
than predicted by models. Crop-rotting and river flooding are two
possible implications, while mid and low deserts will experience
more temperature warming than rainfall (UNEP).6
“How Much More Rain Will Global Warming Bring?”
Science, July 13, 20077

Impacts of Global Warming on North America and Arkansas
Findings from the IPCC Report on Impacts

The Working Group II report from the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fourth Assessment report contains a wealth
of information on the observed and projected impacts of global
warming. Several chapters discuss findings and research relevant to
particular U.S. states. This summary fact sheet draws on all the
2007 IPCC Working Group II report chapters to provide a
comprehensive overview about global warming’s effects in Arkansas. 1

[1 This summary relies primarily upon direct quotes from the WGII
report; some language has been edited to define scientific jargon
and provide more meaningful information to the lay reader. Some
information cited here is specific to the state in question; other
information is relevant to a larger geographic area of which the
state is a part. City-specific heat-related mortality projections
from an independent analysis based on IPCC data are included if that
city was studied.
About references and terminology appearing in this summary: Sources
appear in square brackets. For example, [3.3] refers to Chapter 3,
Section 3. In the sourcing, F = Figure, T = Table, B = Box and ES =
Executive Summary. ]

Impacts on North America

Temperature
• The average mean temperature over North America is projected
to increase by approximately 6.3°–11°F within this century. i

Public Health
• Warm temperatures and extreme weather already cause adverse
human health effects via heat related mortality, pollution,
storm-related fatalities and injuries, and infectious diseases, and
are likely, in the absence of effective countermeasures, to increase
with climate change.
• Climate change is likely to exacerbate other stresses on
infrastructure, and human health and safety in urban centers.

Water Scarcity
• Climate change is very likely to constrain North America’s
already intensively utilized water resources, interacting with other
stresses.

Coastal Impacts
• Coastal communities and habitats are very likely to be
increasingly stressed by climate change impacts interacting with
development and pollution.

Wildfires
• Disturbances like wildfire and insect outbreaks are
increasing and are likely to intensify in a warmer future with drier
soils and longer growing seasons and to interact with changing land
use and development affecting the future of wildland ecosystems.

Adaptation
• North America has considerable adaptive capacity, which has
been deployed effectively at times, but this capacity has not always
protected its population from adverse impacts of climate variability
and extreme weather events.
• Emphasis on effective adaptation is critical, because
economic damage from extreme weather is likely to continue
increasing, with direct and indirect consequences of climate change
playing a growing role.

Livestock
• Increased climate variability and droughts may lead to
livestock loss. The impact on animal productivity due to increased
variability in weather patterns will likely be far greater than
effects associated with the average change in climatic conditions.
Lack of prior conditioning to weather events most often results in
catastrophic losses in confined cattle feedlots, with economic
losses from reduced cattle performance exceeding those associated
with cattle death losses by several-fold [5.4.3].
• Thermal stress reduces productivity, conception rates and is
potentially life threatening to livestock. New models of animal
energetics and nutrition have shown that high temperatures put a
ceiling to dairy milk yield from feed intake [5.4.3].

Freshwater Resources
• Global temperature increases are expected to cause loss of
freshwater fish habitat in the United States [Table 4.1]. Levels of
loss cited in the IPCC report are:
A 2.3°F Global average temperature rise relative to pre-industrial
climate results in a 8% loss of freshwater fish habitat in the
United States, 15% loss of freshwater fish habitat in the Rocky
Mountains, and a 9% loss of habitat for various salmon species.
A 3.0°F global average temperature rise relative to pre-industrial
climate results in a 16% Loss of freshwater fish habitat in the
United States, 28% loss of freshwater fish habitat in the Rocky
Mountains, and a 18% loss of habitat for various salmon species.
A 4.1°F global average temperature rise relative to pre-industrial
climate results in a 24% loss of freshwater fish habitat in the
United States, 40% loss of freshwater fish habitat in the Rocky
Mountains, and 27% loss of habitat for various salmon species.

Impacts on Arkansas

Water Pollution
• Simulated future surface and bottom water temperatures of
lakes, reservoirs, rivers, and estuaries throughout North America
consistently increase from 3.6-12.6°F, with summer surface
temperatures exceeding 86°F in Midwestern and southern lakes and
reservoirs [14.4.1].

Agriculture
• Future climate change scenarios for the Mississippi Delta
estimate a 9% mean loss in cotton fiber yield [5.4.4].

More frequent dirty air days, with higher pollution levels:
• By mid-century, daily average ozone levels are projected to
increase by 3.7 ppb across the eastern U.S., with the most polluted
cities today experiencing the greatest increases [14.4.5].
• A 68% increase in the number of summer days exceeding the
8-hour ozone standard in the eastern U.S. by the 2050s [T8.4].
• The IPCC report cites a 2004 study that evaluated the
potential effects of warming temperatures on regional ozone levels
in 15 cities in the United States [7.4.2.4]. That study found that
by mid-century the number of summer days in Little Rock with "good"
air quality would drop by 15 percent, from an average of 60 days per
summer to 51 days per summer.

More intense and longer heatwaves
• Heatwaves are projected to continue to increase in magnitude
and duration in portions of the U.S. where they already occur. ii
o An independent analysis using IPCC data by climatologists
Drs. Laurence Kalkstein of the University of Miami and Dr. Scott
Greene of the University of Oklahoma based on IPCC data found that
global warming is projected to raise summertime heat-related deaths
in Little Rock from about 11 to nearly 20, resulting in 216
additional heat-related deaths by mid-century. iii

i IPCC, op. cit., Chapter 11: Regional Projections, pp. 855-58.
ii IPCC, op. cit., Chapter 14, Section 14.4.5 or Chapter 14 p. 16.
iii NOTE: this analysis was based on the IPCC data, but was not
part of the IPCC report. “An Analysis Of Potential Heat-Related
Mortality Increases In U.S. Cities Under A Business-As-Usual Climate
Change Scenario,” Laurence S. Kalkstein, Research Professor,
Department of Geography and Regional Studies University of Miami and
J. Scott Greene, Associate Professor, Department of Geography and
Director, International Society of Biometeorology, University of
Oklahoma. The report can be downloaded from http://www.net.org/documents/heat-mortality-report.pdf.

Call for stronger fuel economy standards to reduce reliance on foreign oil

November 8, 2007

LITTLE ROCK, AR– Today 18 Arkansas veterans released a letter to Members of Congress urging immediate action to enact stronger fuel economy standards and reduce our perilous reliance upon foreign sources of oil. The letter urges Congress to maintain the fuel economy provision of H.R. 6, the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act, as part of a final energy package due to be voted on before the end of the year. That provision, which passed the Senate in June and represents a broad bipartisan compromise, would increase average overall fuel economy to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, saving 1.2 million barrels of oil per day—twice the amount we currently import daily from Iraq.

“Americans understand that our dangerous dependence upon foreign oil impacts our national security, our pursuit of foreign policy and our military planning. Doing everything in our power to limit U.S. exposure to avoidable threats is just common sense. And making cars and trucks go farther on a gallon of gas is an achievable goal that can be employed with current technology and will benefit both consumers and our country,” said Matthew Singer US Navy, Veteran of OIF/JTF Cobra from Conway, Arkansas..

“Gas mileage standards have not increased in 20 years. The price of oil continues to rise at an alarming pace, this week topping $96 a barrel. Americans feel pick-pocketed at the pump,” said Don Richardson, Director of the Arkansas Climate Awareness Project and Vietnam Veteran.

“Technology already exists that can propel cars and trucks greater distances on the same amount of fuel but, once again the automakers are insisting it can’t be done. In times of crisis this country has risen to great heights to confront and solve our problems. Given the instability in the world today, we should be doing everything possible to limit our vulnerability. We can help protect American soldiers and reduce our nation’s oil addiction at the same time by cutting how much we use. America put a man on the moon in eight years. I think American ingenuity can propel cars and trucks to an average of 35 miles per gallon in the next 13 years. Frankly, it would be the patriotic thing to do” said Perry F. Ambrose, US Army Airborne, Vietnam Veteran from Searcy, Arkansas.

Excerpts from the letter to Congress:

“Our continued dependence on oil constitutes an immediate threat to our national security—economically, militarily, and diplomatically. Increasing fuel efficiency for cars and trucks is the most effective and efficient manner to decrease that dependence.”

“Since fuel efficiency standards were allowed to stall in 1985, our net oil imports have more than doubled from 27% to 60%. Today, the United States imports more than 10 million barrels of oil every day. And, the Department of Energy predicts that our dependence will reach 70% by 2025.”

“Reliance on unstable regions for a critical energy resource constrains U.S. foreign policy and can lead to political alignments that reduce U.S. leverage on other diplomatic issues. Additionally, the wealth we transfer to these regions in oil revenue has been used, and continues to be used, to fund terrorism and extremist, anti-American ideologies.”

“In addition, our reliance on foreign oil leaves us economically exposed to attacks upon on already vulnerable infrastructure. A number of militant groups have explicitly called for strikes upon refineries. Large-scale, successful attacks could send oil prices soaring exponentially.”

“We urge you to take bold and urgently needed steps to help protect America by maintaining a 35 mpg fuel economy standard and opposing half-measures in the upcoming energy conference.”

Arkansas Signers to this letter include:

GM2 (SW) Matthew D. Singer USN, Veteran of OIF/JTF Cobra, Conway, Arkansas
Perry F. Ambrose, US Army Airborne, Vietnam Veteran, Searcy, Arkansas
Don Richardson, US Army, Vietnam Veteran and Member--Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Clinton, Arkansas
Larry Owens, Air Force, Vietnam Veteran, Hughes and Little Rock, Arkansas
Earl Moore, Army, Vietnam Veteran, Hughes, Arkansas
Wally Brown, Army, Vietnam Veteran, West Memphis, Arkansas
Theodore Eldridge, Army, Vietnam Veteran, Lexa, Arkansas
Jessie White, Army, Vietnam Veteran, Hughes, Arkansas
Al Brooks, US Army- Honorably Discharged, Waldron, Arkansas
Bobby Burrows, USN Honorable Discharged, Conway, Arkansas
Kay Davis, n/a, Mount Vernon
Samuel Dudley, Fayetteville, Arkansas
Mark Fleeman, Army Honorably Discharged, Sheridan, Arkansas
Bradley A. Harris, Army vet, Fort Smith, Arkansas
Larry LeDuc, USMC Retired, Vilonia, Arkansas
George M. Kesselring, Major USAF Retired, Van Buren, Arkansas
Richard McFadden, USAF Viet Nam, Conway, Arkansas
Lyell Thompson, Retired, Fayetteville, Arkansas

Arkansas Toyota Owners Ask National Toyota to Tell Truth About Fuel Efficiency

Toyota’s Actions Don’t Match “Green” Image

Little Rock, AR – National Toyota, producer of the hybrid Prius and widely viewed as the carmaker of choice for eco-conscious consumers everywhere, got an earful from its target audience recently. Consumers gathered to voice questions about the company’s opposition to greater fuel efficiency standards for the auto sector in the United States. A new Web site TruthAboutToyota.com includes information about the real Corporate Toyota record, and gives Arkansas Toyota Prius owners – and potential owners – the chance to tell the company how they feel.

“In their advertisements, Toyota likes to say that global warming is the world’s most serious environmental issue,” said Don Richardson, Director of the Arkansas Climate Awareness Project. “But in the halls of Congress and in the nation’s courthouses, it sure doesn’t act that way. They’re working to overturn the first meaningful increase in U.S. fuel efficiency in 30 years, and they’re trying to defeat strong standards to limit global warming emissions. Toyota is saying one thing and doing another – and they should know better.”

However, distinct from national Toyota policies, local Toyota owners will also praise Caldwell Toyota-Scion in Conway who is showing leadership through the construction of their new “green” dealership. Last Friday they broke ground on the first public retail building in the state to be constructed using Leadership of Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification guidelines.

In June, the U.S. Senate passed a bipartisan compromise to increase fuel efficiency to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. The Senate bill would reduce U.S. oil consumption by 1.2 million barrels per day – more than twice as much as is imported from Iraq every day. It would also reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 206 million metric tons per year by 2020.

“Senator Pryor should stand up to Toyota’s lobbyists in Washington and support American consumers by passing an energy bill that increases fuel efficiency standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020,” said Richardson.

The National Academy of Sciences has found that a stronger fuel efficiency standard is achievable even with current technology. Increasing fuel efficiency standards would save consumers $25 billion per year at the pump.

“I like my Prius,” said Arkansas Prius owner Perry Ambrose, Nutritionist and owner of the Natural Food Store in Searcy. “But it’s upsetting to think that I bought my car because I care about the environment, and now my dollars are being used to lobby against higher fuel efficiency standards that would benefit the consumers and protect our planet. That makes me question Toyota’s self-professed commitment to the environment and to its U.S. customers.”

“The Senate reforms protect consumers’ vehicle choices while improving gas mileage for everyone from Corolla owners to Tundra pickup drivers,” said Glen Hooks, Director of the Sierra Club. The Senate bill sets different fuel mileage standards based on the attributes of the vehicles, including size, with an overall goal of a 35 mpg average. Large work vehicles are exempt from the Senate bill’s mileage standards.

For more information about Toyota’s record on the environment, see TruthAboutToyota.com. The site was launched today by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, the League of Conservation Voters, the National Environmental Trust, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

www.TruthAboutToyota.com

On global warming, the poll found that 29 percent of Arkansans are "completely convinced" that global warming is actually happening, 28 percent are "mostly convinced," 21 percent are "not so convinced" and 17 percent are "not at all convinced."

Forty-four percent said global warming was an urgent problem requiring immediate attention, 44 percent said it was a longer-term problem requiring more study and 5 percent said it was not a problem.

Twenty-seven percent said the state should be on the leading edge in creating policies on global warming, 47 percent said the state should adopt policies that have been shown to be effective and sensible in other states, and 16 percent said the state should resist the temptation to join the global warming bandwagon.

Click here to see the full story by the Arkansas News Bureau! 

Here is the latest data from UCS on the positive economic impacts of the 15% by 2020 RES standard we are working on in Congress. Arkansas consumers would
save a cumulative $140-160 my by 2020 from lower energy costs. Energy costs are lowered as renewables are substituted for fossil fuel supplies, reducing demand for fossil fuels, thus lowering the price for fossil fuels.

See the below link for more information!
Click here to see UCS' study! 

As Oil Prices and Oil Company Profits Soar, Consumers Demand Congress Raise Fuel Efficiency Standards

Advocates Call On Congress to Make Cars Go Further on Tank of Gas

LITTLE ROCK, AR – As the price of oil skyrockets over $90 per barrel and oil companies release this quarter’s earnings, Arkansas consumers are turning to Congress for help at the pump.

“Americans are already struggling to meet their bills and skyrocketing gas prices are not helping,” said Phyllis Cuttino of the Pew Campaign for Fuel Efficiency. “Sadly, it could get worse still. Oil analysts predict that the rising cost of crude oil means that the oil companies will soon pass that cost on to consumers at the pump. Congress needs to help families save money—and reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil—by raising fuel efficiency standards for new cars and light trucks.”

Crude oil prices have jumped 35% since August with oil prices reaching as high as $96 per barrel yesterday; this is now beginning to trickle down to consumers in the form of higher gas prices. The Energy Information Agency reports that in Arkansas and the rest of the Gulf Coast, customers spent an average of $2.78 per gallon over the past quarter.

At the same time that oil is reaching record prices on an almost daily basis, oil companies are reporting their third quarter profits which, while down compared to last quarter, are still extremely high. Earlier today, ExxonMobil reported a profit of over $9.4 billion, which is 2.35 times what the Arkansas state government generates in a year ($4 billion).

All of this is occurring as Congress works to pass an energy bill that includes a bipartisan compromise to raise fuel efficiency standards for the first time in thirty years, to 35 mpg by 2020. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, this would result in $25 billion in net consumer savings and reduce consumption by 1.2 million barrels per day—more than twice the amount imported daily from Iraq. The Consumer Federation of America reported that the average family would save nearly $700 a year with a 35 mpg car.

“Increasing fuel economy standards is the most effective and efficient way that we can reduce our dependence on oil and provide consumers with much needed relief at the pump,” said Don Richardson, Director of the Arkansas Climate Awareness Project. “When Americans see oil prices reach record highs it’s fair for them to ask Congress to step up and find ways to help consumers.”

The National Petroleum Council, headed by former Exxon CEO Lee Raymond, recommends that fuel economy standards be improved by the maximum rate possible. The National Academy of Sciences reported in 2002 that technology already exists to increase fleet wide fuel economy to 37 mpg without changing the size, weight, or power of vehicles on the road today.

“We have the innovation and technology to achieve a real fuel efficiency increase now,” said Richardson. “We only need the political will to make it happen.”