I Just Called Sen.Inhofe's Office Regarding Stopping Al Gore's/Live Earth's Concert in DC

[RestoreGore]

Previously I had posted that I believed Mr. Gore and Live Earth should have it's U.S. concert in venues like Glacier National Park by remote feed and other areas showing the effect global climate change is having on our country. I had stated that the usuals would try to play this as a partisan political concert and try to stop it, and Senator Inhofe has once again not disappointed on that score. However, that also does not mean that I am against it in Washington DC because of the importance of getting this message out.

That is why when I read that he is now trying to kill the resolution to keep it out of Washington DC I called his office to tell them that this is not a Democratic or Republican issue but a HUMAN issue and that Al Gore is not making this up, but only relaying what scientists have been stating for years. I also stated that I could not believe he was trying to stop citizens from actually displaying love for their planet, and that we all better join together soon because we are running out of time at our present rate of using GHGS that will make this planet unsustainable for human life. I asked him to reconsider using his political partisanship as a revenge tactic simply because he does not like Al Gore and see the bigger picture.

And yes, I know my words are probably wasted but if enough people called his office and flooded it with phone calls and faxes perhaps he would see that this is indeed not a political issue. And I also told him I have Republican relatives who also believe we are contributing to this crisis and that we have to do something about it. The Alliance for Climate Protection's board also has Republicans on it, including Theodore Roosevelt's great grandson.

So please, call his office and tell them that HIS political partisanship and personal vendetta should not stand in the way of citizens exercising their first amendment rights and that it is imperative that we join as citizens to work to preserve our planet!

This is the contact information:

http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?...OfficeLoca...

Washington, DC Office:
453 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510 -3603
Main: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Map this | Directions To


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tulsa, OK Office:
1924 S. Utica Avenue
Suite 530
Tulsa, OK 74104 -6511
Main: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Map this | Directions To

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oklahoma City, OK Office:
1900 NW Expressway St
Suite 1210
Oklahoma City, OK 73118
Main: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Map this | Directions To

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

McAlester, OK Office:
215 E Choctaw Ave
Suite 106
McAlester, OK 74501
Main: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Map this | Directions To

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Enid, OK Office:
302 N Independence
Suite 104
Enid, OK 73701
Main: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Map this | Directions To

[truedelphi]

1. It felt SO-o-o Good to call the Washington DC office & to suggest that

It is not Senator Inhofe's Capital Building - it is the People's Capital Building

I think if the young staffer gets a dozen more calls she might actually start to get the message hereself - and who knows -maybe she already feels that way!

[RestoreGore]

2. Yes, and thank you

They also need to be reminded that they are only temporary employees "hired" by us. It is so obvious this is a personal vendetta on his part. I wonder how much oil companies have contributed to his campaigns,

[RestoreGore]

4. Well, I found this

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp?CID=N00005582&cycle=2006

[RestoreGore]

6. And this: most of his contributions have been from oil and gas

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/indus.asp?CID=N00005582&cycle=2004

You know the saying: Money talks ....

[RestoreGore]

7. And this from Theocracy Watch

http://www.theocracywatch.org/environment.htm

[NNadir]

3. You thought it should be in Glacier National Park?

What would be the climate change implication of flying Sting, his entourage and his 89 children to Glacier National Park?

[RestoreGore]

5. Much less than a nuclear power plant meltdown n/t

[Dead_Parrot]

9. What the fuck?

You seriously want to shift multiple concert stages, crews and musicians in to the middle of nowhere for the sole purpose of beaming pictures back out? And your defense is that's it's better than a nuclear meltdown?

Well, damn. Guess I can buy a hummer and leave the engine running overnight, in case I want the heater in the morning. After all, it's better than a nuclear meltdown. Maybe I'll set fire to a forest because the flames are pretty. Or head out to the Great barrier reef and go fishing with dynamite.

Or maybe, just maybe, the trick to reducing our impact on the environment is not to do things just because we can, or we think they'll look good.

I've rec'd the thread because Inhofe is being a dick, as usual. But the idea of trucking several hundred tons of lighting and sound gear (and probably several dozen KW-worth of diesel generators) into Glacier National Park to protest how much we piss away hydrocarbons is, if you don't mind me saying so, breathtakingly dumb.

Edit: If you're not swayed by the carbon cost, consider the political cost for 5 minutes. Al can't even use carbon-neutral electricity without getting slammed for it. Try to imagine what Fox would make of it.

[RestoreGore]

11. Where did you read I wanted to do that?

If you feel that way then, you better take it to those planning this because I would assume that is exactly what they will also have to do in Antarctica where there is also going to be a concert. I also did mention in the op REMOTE FEED. Perhaps before jumping you should read. The POINT of what I'm saying is that the concert should show what climate change is doing to our world one way or another. And the response I gave was meant to be cheeky. So sorry I don't own a sarcasm icon to display here.

[Dead_Parrot]

14. I'm guessing the Antartica leg...

...would be restricted by the elements, and would probably consist of a few guys in the Scott Base mess hall. The other legs are a little larger: Wembley Stadium, the Sydney Opera house, Shanghai Stadium... It sounds like you're suggesting putting on a similar size event in the park(s), a la Woodstock or Glastonbury, and yes, putting the event out via feeds like Live Aid. Apologies if I was over snarky, It's been a long day: but it still sounds like a really bad idea, unless I've completely got the wrong end of the stick... Shallah's version is more palatable, though. :)

[RestoreGore]

15. yes, you had the wrong end of the stick

And it was a long day for me as well.

[Shallah Kali]

10. What of sending 1 video person to beam back live shots displayed on a screen behind the performers

?

[RestoreGore]

12. That would work n/t

[NNadir]

13. Actually big rock festivals are far more frequent than nucler meltdowns.

There have been two nuclear plant meltdowns in history.

One of these has been in the United States.

The number of deaths associated with nuclear meltdowns in the United States is zero.

The number of deaths caused by say, 100,000 cars driving 1000 miles in cars to Glacier National Park would hardly be zero, especially if you factor in the consumptive luxuries rock stars carry, the big lights, the generators, the trucking for the stage. Then add the cost of trucking out the garbage from a park after transforming it into a city. If we say that 100,000 cars drive 500 miles and get 20 miles per gallon, we are talking 2.5 million gallons of gasoline belching all of the normal fossil fuel carcinogens, asphyxiants, etc.

I really think that Glacier National Park would be a horrible place to bring a lot of people for a purpose like this.

It sort of reminds me of Bush trucking generators into New Orleans for his blue lit television speech, while there was no electricity for pumps.

[RestoreGore]

16. And you are also misinterpreting my comment

But no surprise since you now seem to want to find any chance to deride me for being like Al Gore regarding nuclear power, which of course, I take as a compliment. NO ONE including me is suggesting schlepping thousands of people to remote places such as Glacier National Park. Actually though, one lone singer with a guitar without anything else would make a very subtle and powerful point about the devastation of climate change with certain views in the background remotely fed to stadiums all over the country. THAT is actually what I proposed, so perhaps you as well need to read more before jumping. Remote feed means just that. And actually, your stand on nuclear power is more like Bush than I could ever be and you are alsdo right up there with Senator Inhofe regarding destroying our planet by supporting it.

[RestoreGore]

17. Getting back to the topic of the OP

I will be calling his office again today. I hope some will join me.

[NNadir]

18. Um, Senator Inhofe is basically for doing nothing about climate change.

So are you.

Here' the bug lady: There are 45 exajoules of energy on this planet that are GHG free. 30 are nuclear. 10 are hydro. 5 are your fantasies.

You want to eliminated the largest constituent.

You seem to think you speak for Al Gore. You aren't even remotely associated with his positions and for that matter, neither am I.

Al Gore's father introduced the "Atoms for Peace Bill," Al Gore Jr. contracted with the Soviets to use weapons grade plutonium in commercial reactors and HEU in those reactors. Al Gore stood in front of the Chernobyl reactor and declared it wasn't an indictment of nuclear power.

You're speaking for yourself.

[RestoreGore]

19. NUCLEAR POWER KILLS

And you're damn right I speak for myself.

[NNadir]

21. COAL DOESN"T KILL!!!!????

You can't name ONE person killed by nuclear power in this country. NOT ONE. NOT ONE.

So you're making stuff up.

Like all of your ilk, you care not a whit for millions of deaths from coal.

I'm sure you speak for yourself.

You DON"T speak for AL GORE, so stop pretending you do.

Al Gore knows coal kills and he explicitly said, in case you don't bother to listen to what he says, that he is not reflexively anti-nuclear.

By the way, any concert in Washington DC will be powered by nuclear energy, unless, of course, the amplifiers are being run at night by solar cells.

[RestoreGore]

22. Of COURSE it does. DID I SAY IT DIDN'T?

NUCLEAR and COAL kills, and I could name more than one person killed by nuclear here, but I don't know the names of all those who have contracted cancer from living near a nuclear power plant. And of course, the bombs we have dropped on others have killed plenty, but then I guess they don't count to you.

[NNadir]

27. You cannot name a person, not one, killed by nuclear.

You simply don't give a shit about the 100,000's of thousands who die from coal, and the 8 million each year who die from air pollution.

Neither do you give a rat's ass about the billions who live in poverty because they have no energy.

It follows that since life is short and brutal without energy, the lowest risk energy MUST be used. The lowest risk energy is that which produces the most energy for the lowest loss of life. That would be nuclear energy.

IGNORNANCE KILLS TOO, kid.

[RestoreGore]

29. Nuclear is not the lowest risk energy

And you are beginning to sound like Dick Cheney with your rhetoric. Actually, renewable energy like solar is the way to go. It is clean, SAFE, has no NUCLEAR WASTE that needs to be buried to pollute our land and water, and it is becoming much more affordable. We are seeing a solar boom and I think in time it will overtake nuclear and for good reasons. And I am far from ignorant and definitely not a kid, but you sure sound like a lobbyist. And if you gave a "shit" for people you wouldn't be pushing something that is absolutely outdated and too expensive and not free of Co2 emissions. Tell us how safe uranium mining is and that no one ever died doing it. What bs.

[razzleberry]

28. that would appear to be what his constituents want

if the people of Oklahoma were demanding...
carbon taxes, carbon rationing, rolling blackouts, gas lines...
they would have them, but they're not.
.
.
on the other hand, the people of Europe seem to favor
some type of carbon limit, yet the EU, and its member states,
only offer... business as usual, with carbon offsets.

[RestoreGore]

8. Gore Searching For New Venue For Climate Concert

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070328/us_nm/gore_concert_dc

[Shoelace]

20. K&R good on you - off to call Inhofe's office in DC!

I'll try to be polite but I'd just love to slap him silly! Ummmm, he's already stupid so that wouldn't work either.

[RestoreGore]

23. Thanks. n/t

[RestoreGore]

24. Nuclear Power Is Not The Answer

How Green Is Nuclear Power?

By Mark Clayton,
The Christian Science Monitor,
March 7, 2007.

"As part of a 'carbon-free' solution to climate change... at least 11 new nuclear plants are in the design stage in nine states, including Virginia, Texas, Kansas and Florida, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute website.... But that carbon-free pitch has researchers asking anew: How carbon-free is nuclear power? And how cost-effective is it in the fight to slow global warming? 'Saying nuclear is carbon-free is not true,' says Uwe Fritsche, a researcher at the Öko Institut in Darmstadt, Germany, who has conducted a life-cycle analysis of the plants. 'It's less carbon-intensive than fossil fuel. But if you are honest, scientifically speaking, the truth is: There is no carbon-free energy. There's no free lunch'... Nuclear power has more than just a little greenhouse gas attached to it, when mining uranium ore, refining and enriching fuel, building the plant, and operating it are included. A big 1,250 megawatt plant produces the equivalent of 250,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year during its life, Dr. Fritsche says... Nuclear power may not fare as well when its life-cycle cost of reducing CO2 emissions is compared with other energy alternatives. An Öko Institut study last year found that countries would get more bang for their buck by moving to other forms of energy - such as biomass and even some natural-gas power plants - rather than nuclear power. Wind surprisingly has about the same carbon footprint as nuclear when manufacturing and load factors are included. But wind power also doesn't produce long-lived nuclear waste - storage of which includes an energy cost that's unknown and is not factored into the Öko or most other analyses - yet... For those energy experts who have done life-cycle analysis of nuclear power, the big concern is that policymakers may be misled into believing that just because nuclear CO2 emissions are low, the cost of nuclear as an option to address climate change would be a bargain.

Better, they say, to take the huge amounts of money needed for nuclear plants and use it to build lower-cost solutions that will displace more coal. 'It's easy to show that building more reactors makes climate change worse than it should have been,' says Amory Lovins, chairman of the Rocky Mountain Institute, an energy think tank in Snowmass, Colo. 'That's because a dollar put into new reactors gives two to 10 times less climate solution for the amount of coal-power displaced than if you had bought cheaper solutions with the same dollars.' Environmental groups, too, are well aware of the conundrum surrounding the claim of carbon-free energy. Most of them maintain that nuclear is not the answer to climate change. But their antinuclear arguments have centered on environmental damage from nuclear waste, potential accidents, and terror threats. 'First, nuclear was supposed to be too cheap to meter; now, they're framing it as a solution to climate change,' says Erich Pica, director of economic policy for Friends of the Earth.... 'We hope this Democratic Congress will be skeptical of that claim.'"

end of excerpts

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0307/p01s04-sten.html
~~~~~~
I believe the nuclear industry is now clamping onto the "green" movement trying to give nuclear power credibility as an alternate energy when it is not just for profit, and I have yet to be convinced it is. If we really want to save this planet-NO NUKES. And I will tell Inhofe that the next time I call him.

[RestoreGore]

25. And Nuclear Plants WASTE Water

http://www.powerscorecard.org/issue_detail.cfm?issue_id=5

Renewable energies such as solar do not.

[JohnWxy]

26. Imhofe should be offered the opportunity to come on stage and sing the praises of Exxon-Mobil

he can tell the audience how much he likes bending over for big oil's money. James IMhoffe, porno star.