Barbara Stowe is the daughter of Irving and Dorothy Stowe, two of Greenpeace's founders and most dedicated activists. When she heard the news that the Obama Administration was considering supporting a proposal to reintroduce commercial whaling, she took action here on the GPUSA site and wrote the following letter to the President. I found it inspiring, and thought you might, too.

Dear President Obama,

I listed my citizenship on this message as Canadian. However, I hold dual USA/Canadian citizenship. My family was born in Rhode Island, and my mother still avidly follows US politics. My brother and I still vote in US presidential elections, and we were thrilled at your candidacy. We were glued to the TV for months watching the build up to the election, even though we live in Canada.

My parents were among the main founders of Greenpeace. Our house was the organization's (only) office during the first five years of its existence. My mother, at 89, still serves at times as a kind of social ambassador for Greenpeace, and my brother and I serve with her. My late father, a fervent activist who also worked pro bono for the NAACP, among other causes, unfortunately did not live to see this new millenium, but I know he would have held the highest hopes for your administration. I hope you will see fit to do all in your power to save the whales.

I tell you quite frankly that in the early seventies, when Greenpeace was in its infancy, I did not "get" why some members were agitating to save the whales. I thought we should stick to our first goal: stopping nuclear testing worldwide. (I applaud your efforts to denuclearize). It took, for me, standing on the deck of a Greenpeace ship, staring into the eye of a humpback whale, which was equally staring at me, to change my opinion. It doesn't take personal contact for everyone. Austria, a landlocked country, has fought tirelessly within the IWC to increase the protection of whales.

For years, Greenpeace and the United States government have played instrumental roles in securing a moratorium on commercial whaling through the IWC. Despite refusal to honor the moratorium by Japan,  Iceland, and Norway, the moratorium has proven to be the most  important whale conservation agreement in history.  Several whale populations have slowly begun to recover, and some are no longer in the imminent danger of extinction they were just a few decades ago.

Mr. President, I am deeply concerned about reports that the USA is championing a deal that would undermine the moratorium and secure the future of commercial whaling. From the campaign platform you shared with Greenpeace, I know you share my view that commercial whaling has no place in the 21st century.  I was grateful for your pledge to help bring this outrageous and unnecessary practice to an end.

I urgently call on you to ensure that the US opposes any deal that would legitimize commercial whaling by granting quotas to Japan and its whaling allies. Instead, I urge you to support Australia's proposal, which would end whaling in the Southern Ocean once and for all. There is very widespread and bi-partisan American support for whale conservation, and millions of Americans are counting on you. I am counting on you.  Most of all, the whales are counting on you.

Sincerely,
Barbara Stowe
Vancouver, BC
Canada

Barbara is one of over 30,000 activists who have sent a message to the president. You can take action too and tell President Obama to say NO to commercial whaling.

We're very excited to bring you the new Greenpeace USA Grassroots Blog. You'll get to hear directly from Greenpeace staff organizers and their top activists and volunteers about the work the Student Network, Activist Network, and Field Team are doing to build a greener, more peaceful future. And most important of all, you can check this blog regularly to find out how you can get involved too!

Hope you find this blog useful. See you in cyberspace...

In a stunning instance of what can only be called collective cognitive dissonance, a small working group of the International Whaling Commission has just proposed we reinstate commercial whaling in order to save the whales.

UPDATE: Click this link to tell President Obama, Say no to commercial whaling!

Make no mistake: This proposal has nothing to do with saving whales, but is instead all about protecting the whaling industries of just a few obstinate countries who insist on destroying these amazing creatures. This proposal is the most serious threat to the moratorium on commercial whaling that we’ve seen since Greenpeace fought for and won the moratorium in the 80s.


Greenpeace activists witness the killing of whales in the Southern Ocean by the Yushin Maru and the Kyo Maru No.1 ships of the Japanese whaling fleet. © Greenpeace / Jeremy Sutton-Hibbert

While some US officials have been insisting that they are not supporting the proposal, we are very concerned about reports that the U.S. IWC Commissioner is not only supporting it but in fact pushing other countries to support it as well. The US position will be clarified at a meeting of the International Whaling Commission in St. Petersburg, FL next Tuesday and Wednesday.

Greenpeace vehemently opposes the proposal because:

1. It would allow whaling to take place in the Southern Ocean whale sanctuary. Not only would the killing of whales there continue, it would be legitimized.
2. By legitimizing all whaling, the proposal would secure the future of whaling instead of seeking to phase it out. With a single stroke, this proposal would reverse nearly three decades of progress in protecting endangered whale species.
3. It will set interim quotas – the number of whales each country is allowed to catch – based on political need, not scientific evidence. Nothing could be more disastrous to fragile whale populations than caving to political pressure rather than listening to scientists about the best way to protect healthy whale populations.
4. Adding insult to injury, the proposal would pass the costs of regulating whaling on to all members of the IWC, meaning that the taxpayers of even anti-whaling countries will be forced to support whaling operations.

You can read the full proposal for yourself online here.

We’re aiming to kill this atrocious, unscientific proposal before it even gets voted on, which will be at the IWC’s annual meeting in June. We’ll need your aid and support if we’re to achieve that goal, though.

The first step? Get the word out about this proposal to reinstate the slaughter of whales for commercial purposes. Post a link to this blog on your Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, or on your own blog.

We're working on an action alert that you can use to fax President Obama and tell him you expect him to reject this proposal and help save the whales instead of the whalers. The ironic thing about all this is that the United States has a long history of advocating for whale conservation. If you really want to send the president a message right away, you can sign our petition urging the Obama Administration to continue the U.S.'s legacy of protecting whales.

Rest assured that we'll have more for you to do very soon. This is an all-hands-on-deck moment, no doubt.

UPDATE: Click this link to tell President Obama, Say no to commercial whaling!

Vinuta Gopal, a climate campaigner at Greenpeace India, just sent the following out in an email. I think it lays out the issue quite well, and figured I'd share it here.

The media has been buzzing about the IPCC's Himalayan glacier controversy.

The international climate panel headed by Dr. Rajendra Pachauri won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for a ground-breaking report on climate change. Several small errors have now surfaced in the 3,000-page report.

If you're wondering what the news reports mean for climate change, here are some answers. Please spread the word to your family, friends, and co-workers.

1. Do the U.N. climate panel's errors mean there is no threat from climate change?

No, the dire threat from climate change is not in question. The panel's errors were only related to the intensity of climate change. There are in fact only two real mistakes that have been found so far and neither necessitate any change to the basic premise of human-induced climate change.

For over two decades, scientists have consistently found that climate change is happening, and it's caused by human activity.

2. Why is there so much furor about these errors?

Over the past 20 years, the U.N. climate panel has been attacked again and again by the fossil fuel industry and by politicians who are determined to discredit climate change science and continue on an unsustainable development pathway which would ensure dire consequences for this earth.

3. Are the Himalayan glaciers melting or not?

In 2007, the U.N. climate panel reported that Himalayan glaciers might vanish by 2035. The specific year turned out to be based on a flawed study, and the panel has corrected the error.

The Himalayan glaciers are retreating, but the exact rate of retreat is still uncertain. India's Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh was one of the first to argue that the 2035 forecast was "not based on an iota of scientific evidence," but he confirms the Himalayan glaciers "are indeed receding and the rate is cause for great concern."

4. Who will be impacted by climate change?

Everyone. Lesser developed countries and small island states will be hit hardest and fastest.

But rich nations are not immune to the violent weather, drought, disease, famine, mass migrations, and wars that will be caused if we don't stop climate change.

5. What is Greenpeace’s call on climate change?

The science is clear. Climate change is real, is happening now and is caused by people. The solution is clean energy, smart use of our power and forest protection.

Since lots of people are wondering about the media stories, please forward this mail to your family, friends and co-workers.

Thanks a billion!

Vinuta Gopal
Climate Campaigner
Greenpeace India

P.S. If you want more details, check out this thorough analysis at RealClimate.org.

Maybe you read the post the other day by anti-nuclear activist and Greenpeace senior advisor Harvey Wasserman entitled "Obama's atomic blunder." In case you missed it, or have always been more of an auditory/visual learner, you can watch this video of Harvey on Democracy Now! discussing President Obama's misguided plan to fund new nuclear reactors.