What Our Members Are Saying
What our supporters wanted to say at ExxonMobil and Chevron's shareholder meetings
Ned Flaherty: How much of today's environmental and climate damage would have been avoided if Exxon and Chevron, instead of concealing the harms of fossil fuels, had ceased polluting the planet when those harms were first discovered?
Lyn Gardner: Is money more important than saving our Earth and the citizens who live here, both now and into the future? We have a huge responsibility to do the right thing, don’t you agree? The right thing should be total transparency!
Ron Masters: The world already has 50-year supplies of oil and natural gas as proven reserves. Burning all of either resource will exhaust the global carbon budget, making it impossible to achieve the world’s goal of limiting warming to 2°C. Why are you still exploring for more oil and gas?
@GheorghiuAndy: Well, first of all #ExxonKnew, and the first thing @exxonmobil needs to do is to pay for the pollution of the planet and their major contribution to #globalwarming and #climatechange!
On UCS publishing internal revealing the EPA's effort to disclose sensitive public health data
Patricia Borchmann: Impressive work by Union of Concerned Scientists. Thank you for posting online for easy public access to see what EPA works hard to conceal.
@Slopiegal: The words “secret” and “science” do not belong in the same sentence. The Environmental Protection Agency must have a mission statement that demands the best, most-recent, peer-reviewed, published science.
On the EPA's plan to roll back fuel economy standards
Barbara Bird: Automobile makers have a choice in this also, and I will buy accordingly.
Ronnie Swett: If US automakers don’t keep on track with fuel economy, the sale of foreign cars will go up, because they’ll be way ahead of us.
CORRECTION: The cover story in the last issue incorrectly listed the EPA’s Region 5 as covering 338 square miles. The region covers 338,000 square miles. We apologize for the error.