EDF’s Krupp: The new path forward on climate change

Few people have devoted more effort to passing a climate bill in this Congress than Fred Krupp, who has led the Environmental Defense Fund for a quarter-century.  His central role is spelled out in detail in Eric Pooley’s must-read book on the life and death of the climate bill, The Climate War.

Like the rest of us, he is is thinking hard about what the next steps should be.  He has a long piece on that subject at HuffPost on “The New Path Forward on Climate Change,” which I reprint below:

Every major reform in our nation’s history has suffered defeats on the path to victory. From free trade to civil rights, setbacks have been a part of progress. But ultimate victory comes to those who learn from their defeats and press forward with new determination and perseverance.

The failure of the United States Senate to pass comprehensive climate and energy legislation this year was a serious setback for America, and for the world. The continuing cascade of scientific evidence shows that we are dangerously changing our climate, and the urgent need to act remains. So what do we do?

Our view is that we must be much more aggressive in pursuing pollution reductions under existing law, through America’s never-ending ability to innovate, and through partnerships with companies that can transform the marketplace. There are many companies making real change, and we intend to work with them.

However, we have well-financed enemies in this fight, and it is time to sharpen the nation’s focus on the businesses that obstruct vital progress.

For EDF, that means our historic interest in cooperation over confrontation will be recalibrated. We will always negotiate where possible, and we will continue to look for collaborative opportunities and flexible solutions. That is who we are, and we will continue to pursue those goals.

But there are companies that continue to choose short-term profits over public health, and who feel they are better off opposing progress. These companies have friends in the Congress, and they believe they will have more political leverage against the Environmental Protection Agency as the balance of power shifts in Washington next year.

Meanwhile, they are already marching into the courts to challenge virtually every breath EPA takes in this area. Our view is that the public and the investor community need to have far greater awareness of the companies engaged in indiscriminate obstructionism. We will look for ways to hold them accountable through every reasonable lever at our disposal. We will learn to be as tough with them as they have been with us.

We are evaluating everything from engaging more actively in corporate governance — the annual meeting of shareholders and outreach to boards of directors — to more active involvement in state Public Utility Commissions where the rubber meets the road on the scope of pollution – or pollution reductions – associated with major capital investments. And we are looking at a variety of ways to involve the public more actively in a conversation about who the big emitters are, where they operate, and what steps they are taking to reduce their pollution.

It doesn’t have to be this way, and we would rather spend our time working on smart policy and win-win solutions. But we have no choice. We cannot allow the efforts of a few powerful companies to block necessary progress for the rest of us.

At the same time, we must accept the reality that climate change has a political problem. For too many people, opposing a solution to climate change has become political and ideological dogma. As long as many in Congress feel required to oppose any measure in this area, we will not succeed.

If we are going to de-carbonize our economy, we have to de-polarize the politics surrounding the conversation. It is worth remembering that no major environmental law has ever passed without substantial bipartisan support. This has always been the case – but the incoming Congress is a fresh reminder that bipartisanship must be the foundation of future progress.

In short, while being more aggressive and vigorously fighting to achieve critical emissions reductions, we – the environmental community – must be more open. Our response to this political problem must be to engage more widely and listen more carefully, not dismiss or belittle those with whom we disagree.

We will have to reach out to new partners, make new allies, and engage new constituencies. We have done so with a large part of the business community, and we will learn to do so with others.

We cannot expect that the public will support change without understanding the reasons for it. But we cannot browbeat our way to a broader understanding of the science behind climate change and the benefits of taking action. We need to start with the real problems people face in America today – from jobs and energy security to clean air and water — and work with them to find answers to those problems and the common challenge that faces all of us.

Fortunately, even in this difficult year, there is a path emerging that will allow us to begin to solve climate change, and there is a foundation upon which to build.

Within the last year, a controversial and overly complex but important climate bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives and received serious consideration among a number of Senate offices. Even where substantive disagreements remained, a new and significant understanding of policy issues and solutions was achieved — which is essential to move forward.

More broadly, public support for action on climate change, energy security, and clean energy remains strong. Just last month, in the largest public referendum on environmental policy, millions in California voted to keep the state’s landmark climate law on the books, saying that clean energy jobs are a path forward through a difficult economic climate. Californians rejected polluter-funded attempts to overturn the law by a 22 percent margin despite 12 percent unemployment in the state.

Meanwhile, the level of business support for meaningful climate and energy policy has reached new heights. A number of cities, states and regions across the country remain committed to moving forward. Plans for 130 new coal burning power plants have been cancelled. The Administration moved forward with national greenhouse gas standards for vehicles, and talks are beginning for the next phase in 2016.

In order to continue to make progress, a new openness to different solutions will be essential. For our part – long standing advocates of a cap and trade approach – we need to accept that whether policies are cap and trade or something else is less important than whether they collectively provide a clear guarantee that emissions go down. More broadly, every entity looking for solutions to climate change will need to embrace flexibility and creativity in their policy approaches.

We will be guided by three principles as we work toward our pollution reduction goal:

  • We will judge ideas and policies by their potential to produce results. Performance is what matters.
  • Our approaches should be cost effective. This will lead to maximum pollution reduction returns for our investments and broader and durable public support.
  • We will involve as many sources of pollution, and methods for reducing and absorbing pollution, as possible.

How do we actually achieve the goal? National pollution limits established by Congress are still necessary for long term success, but in the short term we can take steps that move us in the same direction.

Our first priority must be to defend the pollution limits already in law, at the federal and state level. EPA has the responsibility under existing law to protect us from pollution, including the carbon emissions that cause global warming. It has done so thoughtfully over the years when regulating other air pollutants, and it can do so here. In fact, there may be no greater governmental success story than the Clean Air Act. We must encourage our neighbors in cities and in the countryside, to understand and protect the benefits of that law to our economy and our health, which have outweighed costs by more than 30 to 1; and to tell the stories of avoided premature deaths and childhood asthma attacks, and the shroud of smog lifted from our cities.

As with every pollution limit ever proposed, there will be some who will work to block, weaken, or delay any rules EPA tries to put on paper. We will fight them at every turn, making their full agenda clear to the American public: they seek not only to allow unlimited carbon pollution, but to derail limits on toxic mercury, lethal particulates, and other harmful contaminants in our air. We must remind America that obstructionists are attacking the fundamental public health protections of a bipartisan law that has stood for 40 years.

At the same time, we will encourage forward-thinking utilities and other businesses to reduce their pollution, and work with them to do so. And we will work on policies and programs that will allow for improved efficiency in the ways that we use and distribute energy – work that will save money as well as energy, and making our overall economy more competitive. Many businesses have already seen the benefits – lower energy bills, reduced regulatory issues, greater competitive advantage – and are making real, measurable strides.

These stories of what the world can be, both profitable and sustainable, are essential to to return to a useful discussion about national limits for greenhouse gases. These examples will be more persuasive, because they are more concrete, than any other approach. There may be no more critical work that we will do over the next few years.

And we will continue to make the case that America will be stronger when we change the way we make and use energy. We cannot depend on hostile nations for so much of our energy, or slip further behind the Chinese and Europeans in creating new energy technology and jobs. Many of the issues about which we care the most – jobs, dependence, and competitiveness – are directly related to the issues of energy and pollution. But America will not support protective pollution limits or a transition to a cleaner energy economy if it does not believe that the solutions under consideration are solutions to these concerns.

In the long run we believe the path forward will be built from a continuing focus on solutions, and an aggressive approach combined with willingness find new answers to the challenges we face. We must listen as well as speak, though speak we must. When we take this approach, we can seek out and work with people across the political and cultural spectrums with different approaches to solving our energy or climate challenges, and we can travel the path forward, together.

— Fred Krupp, reprinted with EDF’s permission

32 Responses to EDF’s Krupp: The new path forward on climate change

  1. paulm says:

    I dont think we are going to do it with just a carrot.
    This is an emergency and our response should be accordingly. Even here we are not adequately realizing that this really is the only alternative now because of the narrow window available to humanity.
    Obama has to step up and lead in this respect.

  2. Steve Bloom says:

    I’m happy about the apparent willingness to be tougher, but the contradictory ritual nod to the bipartisanship pony is unfortunate. It’s a bit like those Hitler film parodies where it’s pointed out that he’ll notice the irony soon, but probably that will have to be left to Fred’s successors.

    And Earth to Fred: The public is ineducable as to the details of the science. That information needs to be available (and of course is), but the emphasis must be on a) trusting the scientists (which a substantial majority already does), b) the impacts of climate change, and c) the clear steps to get off carbon. The message needs to be kept as simple as possible, and hammered and hammered and hammered.

    More exposure of the Kochs of the world is good, but politicians who are in direct denial (e.g. Inhofe and Shimkus) are either nuts or entirely duplicitous, and need to be continually called out on that, even while the media is called out for providing a platform for their views. The scientific community needs to figure out how to remove people like John Christy from the public discourse. Why did some editor at the NYT think it was fine to quote a non-expert like him in the glacier melt story of a couple of days ago without even pointing out that he lacks expertise and that *not one* expert on glaciology or sea level rise could be found to take a suitably contrary view? With enough pressure, that sort of thing is fixable.

    For that matter, why are people like Lindzen and Christy still funded? Why are Judy Curry’s colleagues being so publically tolerant of her? The time for being polite to such people is over. In fact, I would say the politeness itself sends a message that the problem must not be really serious.

    It’s time to get real.

  3. David Smith says:

    I read the book. EDF is an impressive player but Their strategy of negotiating with big energy has not borne critical fruit. This recent election has highlighted the fact of big energy’s willingness to go to great lengths to subvert our political process in order to maintain the personal power of the men and women in control of these corporations. So, I have two comments and would advise two steps;

    1) Stop negotiating with these corporations. If there is any truth to what is published on this site (all the science) then the only way we survive is if these corporations just shut down. They poison the whole process. They are the enemy.

    2) The only defense against big energy’s money in our system of governence is active widespread public support for the great transition. Millions of concerned individuals must come forward; baby steps first followed by more aggressive actions.

  4. Wonhyo says:

    I expect Fred Krupp will win a few battles with his conciliatory approach, but he will lose the war. With each new compromise offered by progressives, the bullying Right will simply get bolder and stronger.

  5. John McCormick says:

    Fred, you said:

    “We cannot expect that the public will support change without understanding the reasons for it.”

    How about telling America that our grandchildren will likely face climate chaos and certainly water shortages in the Southwest and crop loss in the Midwest due to freakishly warm weather during the growing seasons and more intense storms during planting and harvesting seasons.

    Try that for starters.

    Turn up the volume even if it annoys your funders.

    John McCormick

  6. with the doves says:

    This part is iffy: “It is worth remembering that no major environmental law has ever passed without substantial bipartisan support. This has always been the case – but the incoming Congress is a fresh reminder that bipartisanship must be the foundation of future progress.”

    The author neglects that the GOP was a very different animal in 1970, when the big environmental legislation was passed. It was home to some real liberals and environmentalists.

    Those days are gone – today’s GOP is much more single minded and anti-regulation. And well-disciplined. Look at McCain. He used to make sense on global warming. Now he is in lockstep with the rest of them. Or witness Lindsay Graham’s performance on the cap-and-trade bill. He was one of the group of three developing it. But he abandoned it, for fear of being outflanked on the right.

    Looking for bi-partisan solutions with this bunch is foolish.

  7. Tony says:

    Hi Joe,

    Sorry for the non sequitur, but I’m trying to track down a reference. I read your site daily, and several months ago I remember reading a piece in which you mentioned and linked to a scientific article purporting to show that, if we literally stopped emitting CO2 right now — if carbon emissions dropped to zero immediately — then global atmospheric concentrations of carbon would begin to drop, also immediately. You then went on to say this was so unlikely as to be unimaginable, so it’s still useful to think in terms of a time lag between diminished emissions and slowing climate change.

    I’m interesting in finding that reference, though, that shows that, if emissions go to zero now, then concentrations begin to drop now. I’ve been looking through the site, but having no luck. Can anyone help?

  8. Avery says:

    I think there are real prospects for bipartisanship, and anyway, unless we are willing to give up on any progress for the next 2-to-infinity years, bipartisanship is the only option.

    For instance, the “FairTax” movement, with significant conservative and even tea party support, wants to transition to taxing consumption instead of income. Climate Hawks want to transition to taxing or pricing carbon. These goals are pretty easily combinable, and moreover, make a lot of sense economically. Taxing income made sense when we had full employment and most of the stuff we consumed was produced here. But when domestic consumption is fueling an unsustainable trade deficit despite 10% unemployment, it’s wise to incentivize employment and disincentivize consumption, particularly consumption of high-carbon products and services. The problem with a consumption tax is that it is regressive, but this could be resolved with a rebate for people with incomes under a certain amount, or with higher marginal tax rates for higher-end consumption.

    So a reasonable proposal would be: 1. cancel all or nearly all income- and payroll-based taxes. 2. replace that revenue by taxing a) carbon consumption; b) financial transactions including overseas currency transfers (a Tobin tax); c) wealth; d) wealthy estates; and e) luxury consumption. There’s no reason even a tea-partier couldn’t agree to at least 2a and 2b, and if 2c-2e would permit (1), a lot of them would presumably accept the trade-off.

  9. Jeff Huggins says:

    A Few Thoughts

    First, I applaud Fred and all his efforts.

    Second, call me.

    Third, I’m glad to hear that they’ll be going after the culprit companies. (A first step, of course, will be to actually identify them by name!) If ExxonMobil will be the first, or second, company on the list, it will be a justified and sensible list. If, on the other hand, anyone has any idea of identifying culprit companies and going after them, and does not conclude that ExxonMobil should be at or near the tip-top of the list, then call me (before the list goes final) and I’ll help set you straight. I’ll say it now: Any list without ExxonMobil at or near the tip-top is simply not a credible list. Period. Double period.

    Fourth, although I agree with a great deal of what Fred says in his piece, I’m doubtful (or at least far from sure) of the wisdom of his apparent stance of bipartisanship. Of course, it depends on what he means by his comments and how he intends to go about things. IF so-called bipartisanship — legislators from both parties voting for necessary climate and energy legislation — is accomplished because we have done such a great job of communication, public activism, beating up on culprit companies, and working successfully with good companies, that Republican legislators (for example) choose to vote for effective policies because they ultimately “get it”, their own constituents want them to, and/or they become afraid that they’ll lose their jobs if they don’t, then fine. That sort of intelligence is good. BUT, on the other hand, I am not in favor of “bipartisanship” that involves watered-down compromises that aim for bipartisanship as an end in itself. No way. The “let’s all be friends” strategy did not, does not, and will not work, unless the “friendship” itself RESULTS FROM, AIMS AT, and INVOLVES, both parties making entirely fact-based decisions with the public good in mind.

    As I said in the Weekend Open Thread, and as I’ll say here, and as I’ve said before, and to other organizations, get in touch if you like. I’m in California, in the Bay Area, and eager (restless is perhaps a better word).

    Cheers and Be Well,


  10. And we are looking at a variety of ways to involve the public more actively in a conversation about who the big emitters are, where they operate, and what steps they are taking to reduce their pollution.

    Um… “involve the public more actively”? I want to know what that’ll mean in concrete terms. (And I hope it’s not ‘hey, let’s set up an online forum and allow it to incessantly linkspammed by deniers day in day out’.)


  11. gulo says:

    Fred Krupp and EDF getting tougher – a genuinely welcome thought but there’s an awful lot of headroom there.

    Slow your rate of depradations or we will employ STRONG LANGUAGE, o reckless despoilers of the planet!

    Personally, as a lifelong activist, I think we’d have a much stronger environmental movement if the top five organizations (by fundraising) were all disbanded immediately. I completely agree that this is way too important a fight to leave to the environmental movement – but having the most important fight for the planet’s future led by the weakest elements of the environmental movement is extra-double dumb.

  12. Sasparilla says:

    1, 2 and 3 are excellent comments. I was hoping for some good fresh new ideas from Mr. Krupp – and its not his fault, these are the things his org can do now – but it doesn’t hold much hope in the meantime. Fight to keep the authority with the EPA is the main gist – I sure hope we can keep that.

    paulm – I think you are right, this is an emergency (based on where we are and how much time we probably have left before nature takes over) and it doesn’t seem like even Krupp gets that. With regard to the President, it’d be great if he came to a realization and led on this issue, but I’m afraid he decided, early on, to toss this issue into the bin along with public campaign financing which he campaigned on. My guess is he would sign a bill if it was somehow successfully passed but he sure isn’t going to get us there (he’s already indicated he’d be willing to work on the EPA authority with the Republicans…it boggles the mind). He isn’t the guy we thought he was.

  13. Avery:

    I think there are real prospects for bipartisanship, and anyway, unless we are willing to give up on any progress for the next 2-to-infinity years, bipartisanship is the only option.

    There’s the ‘let’s just cave in what the GOPers want’ type of bipartisanship.

    And then there’s the ‘let’s picket outside the homes of the GOPers with torches and pitchforks day in day out until they start doing the right thing’ type of bipartisanship.

    what Jeff Huggins said.


  14. Mike Roddy says:

    Glad to see the change in Krupp’s tone, but he will have to take it to the next level in pointing out lies and psychopathic behavior. This will piss off people like Boyce and Tillerman, and some EDF donors. EDF has historically been a restrained, blueblood organization. Almost all of the very wealthy have oil and coil in their portfolios.

    Practically all other environmental groups have abdicated. EDF is as good a candidate as any to step up and do what’s right.

    And good one, Steve Bloom.

  15. dp says:

    “America will not support protective pollution limits or a transition to a cleaner energy economy if it does not believe that the solutions under consideration are solutions to these concerns.”

    fred this isn’t oxford debating or an economics symposium. you’re going to have to pay people to go green, there’s no other proof, in this economy.

  16. Ken Johnson says:

    If we are going to de-carbonize our economy, we have to de-polarize the politics surrounding the conversation.

    Right. Let’s not over-dramatize or exaggerate the message of climate deniers.

    In order to continue to make progress, a new openness to different solutions will be essential.

    Yes. I think an openness to policy approaches that are being used in Europe (e.g., Germany and Portugal) would be productive.

    For our part — long standing advocates of a cap and trade approach — we need to accept that whether policies are cap and trade or something else is less important than whether they collectively provide a clear guarantee that emissions go down.

    Absolutely, if “go down” means “go down sufficiently to guarantee aversion of catastrophic climate change”. If it does not, then what price must be paid for the “clear guarantee”? If the deal is that we get the guarantee in exchange for weak, politically emasculated emission targets that aren’t even close to climate stabilization targets, then the guarantee doesn’t mean much. It’s more important to ensure that regulatory policy does not operate to cap emission reductions at an inadequate level.

    I think a more effective policy approach would recognize that there are no “guarantees” — there are only probabilities.

  17. another joe says:

    Steve Bloom: While I agree 100% with your comment that Christy was a very unfortunate choice to provide comment on the sea-level rise story, your comment that “…the scientific community needs to figure out how to remove people like John Christy from the public discourse” rang an alarm bell for me. Science doesn’t — and shouldn’t — “remove” dissenting opinions – it can only show them to be false.

    Science has done and is continuing to do its job, piece by methodical piece. Hopefully someday soon the media will realize that the physical realities of climate change (“what we know to be true”) are not really up for debate, and the general public can then vote for those who are willing to do what it takes to confront these realities.

  18. Steve Bloom says:

    Re #17: Of course scientists can’t *make* the NYT not call up Christy. All I’m saying is that the current approach of being polite to both Christy annd NYT editors about this sort of thing has failed, and something else needs to be done. FYI, it would be hard to name a working scientist who has been more falsified (in the literature) than Christy. You think the NYT editor and reporter didn’t know that?

    This reminds me that a couple of years ago I asked Andy Revkin about his continuing use of Christy, and he responded that he did so because other scientists continued to give Christy respect. It’s time for the gloves to come off.

    Re #7: Tony, that would be Solomon et al. There’s a new one you’ll want to read as well (which I expect Joe will blog on at some point). Both papers are public-access at

  19. David B. Benson says:

    Hate to keep beating the bully pulpit, but do you wnat to continue eating?

    If so, reducing the CO2 level is necessary.

  20. caerbannog says:

    This is an encouraging development — real money may be put into play:,0,6204171.story


    Reporting from Washington —
    A group of international investors responsible for more than $15 trillion in assets called Tuesday for the world’s nations, particularly the United States, to move decisively to combat climate change or face economic disruptions worse than the global recession of the last two years.

    The statement, signed by 259 asset managers and asset owners whose holdings account for one-quarter of global capitalization, was aimed at world leaders who will meet in two weeks in Cancun, Mexico, for a United Nations conference on climate change.

  21. David B. Benson says:

    A comment I thought I had successfully posted here was eaten by the spam filter monstr.

  22. Alec Johnson says:

    “Every major reform in our nation’s history has suffered defeats on the path to victory. From free trade to civil rights, setbacks have been a part of progress.”

    “Free Trade” is juxtaposed next to “civil rights”?!? Is Fred trying to reassure his donors? So-called “Free Trade” is a euphemism for transnational corporate rape and pillage masquerading as economic development. I applaud most of what Fred had to say, and rather admire him, particularly after reading Eric Pooley’s “Climate War,” but I doubt you’d find Martin Luther King Jr. celebrating “Free Trade” along with his Civil Rights victories. Nor would I.

  23. David B. Benson says:

    Many dislike the term carbon tax. Instead call it a FCOAD fee, Fossil Carbon Open Air disposal fee.

  24. Leif says:

    We must remember that the turn out was <40% nation wide. Poles show ~70% concerned about the environmental direction of the Nation. However obviously not enough to vote in mass. The GOBP got their base riled up enough to vote, we did not. We do not have to convert the Anti-Science folks of anything, we need to convince our base that the issues are pressing enough to get them to turn out at the ballot box! About 20% of the nation is again calling the agenda for the rest of us.

  25. Leif says:

    Green ideas save Xerox $10.2 million! Green Pays!

  26. max says:

    #25 very true-wouldn’t it be possible to make Nov 2 Vote Day a national holiday to encourage voting-there are all sorts of other things that could be done to encourage voting Why aren’t they done?

  27. Barry says:

    The GOP represent about half the voters in the nation. We will NEVER get the essential national climate laws both passed and maintained for the decades required unless the GOP voters see it in their best interest to do so.

    We need to find a national climate strategy that GOP voters see as a “win” for their high-CO2-economy states in which so many of them live. We are not going to cut fossil CO2 the required 80% to 90% without the willing participation of the biggest CO2-economy states.

    I think Mr Krupp is smart to back away from cap&trade no matter how preferable it may be. Time to explore less than perfect options that get the whole nation on board with a national climate pollution price in some form.

    We aren’t going to get agreement for years on cap & trade. GOP have dug that hole for themselves and won’t step out of it anytime soon. It will need to be something else.

    Maybe the GOP and GOP voters would agree to a national carbon pollution price as long as the revenue is collected by each state and kept in that state to use however the voters want there. Texans do with their Texan carbon payments however Texans want. Californians use their own carbon pollution revenue how they want. Same for West Virginians and Iowans and every other state.

    It would defuse many of the complaints GOP leveled against cap&trade. It isn’t an idea tagged “Democrat”. It would be easy to understand and trust. It plays to states rights and control. It keeps uppity blue-state elites out of the wallets of red-state Americans.

    At this point I think any national carbon price is better than nothing. We need to say this is something America cares about and is starting to work on.

  28. Tony says:

    Thanks Steve Bloom (#18) and Stephen (#19)! That post about the Nature Geoscience article was exactly what I was looking for.

  29. The atmosphere is a commons and not a free garbage dump.

    In the 80s people quit smoking in droves, not because of the warnings on the pack or the surgeon general’s admonishments (although they helped)… but because of changing public attitudes about the habit and about second hand smoke. As fewer people smoked the attitudes strengthened. Even getting a whiff of smoke put people off, because they perceived it to be polluting their air. Peer pressure worked where decades of government advice failed.

    A similar campaign might work for CO2, although because it is colorless and odorless, it’ll be more difficult. Let’s start by booing everytime we see a hummer.

    Waiting for the GOP is wasting precious time.

  30. Windsong says:

    I agree with most of the comments above, especially Paulm (#1). The other side has no interest in reaching across the table. They’re sneaky, no good and speak in double talk. Forget negotiations; Declare War!

  31. Richard Whiteford says:

    It’s good to see that Fred finally gets it. We have sat back and allowed the conservatives to demonize the word “liberal”, demonize climate scientists, demonize President Obama, and demonize the environmental movement. It’s time to turn the tables. What do the conservatives have against clean air, clean water, and an inhabitable planet? How stupid can someone be to take a position against supporting a healthy environment? It is time to expose them for what they are.
    It’s time to go after the lobbyist and the corporations that support the lobbyists, the disinformation campaigns, and pay off politicians. Yes, they can outspend us but their revenes come from us buying their products. Lets identify them and hit them in the pocketbooks by boycotting their products and demmonstrating in fron of their headquarters. Lets expose and demonize the lobbyists that sell future generations down the toilet for their personal fortunes.
    The environmental movement has focused too much on legislators and not enough on the maney trail that buys our democracy away from us. I hope Mr. Krupp and EDF will take this tact and follow through on it. Need help? I’m available.