350 Austin Open Meeting – 3/20/2018

350 Austin Open Meeting – 3/20/2018

March 20, 2018 6:30 – 8:30 PM at Scholz Garten, 1607 San Jacinto Blvd, Austin, Texas 78701

Come hear about all the exciting changes happening with 350 Austin! We are moving from a team-based to a campaign-based organization with our primary campaign focus being to move Austin Energy to being carbon-free ASAP.

We will be sharing how we intend to utilize a variety of strategies and tactics, including traditional as well as non-violent direct actions. There will be something to do for everyone in this campaign.

We will start with a short presentation on our laser-focused, multi-faceted campaign by our own Ellie Fogleman. Then we will settle into getting work done.

Come by 6 pm to order food and drinks. The program will begin at 6:30.

Lots of free parking on the street and in the garages across the street. Better yet, pedal over or ride the bus. Several have stops right in front of Scholz Garten.

Please go to our Facebook Event to RSVP and to invite friends.

Congressional Primary Climate Questionnaire

Texas primaries for 2018 are coming up fast! Early voting takes place Tuesday February 20 through Friday March 2, with Election Day on Tuesday March 6.

The races for US House of Representatives are among the most important for Austinites who are concerned about the climate. With five different congressional districts in Travis County, there’s a lot to learn about a broad field of candidates and the policies they plan to advocate should they win federal office.

As a 501(c)(3), we cannot endorse candidates, but we hope our questionnaire can help inform your decision at the polls. If you’d like to learn more, please join us at our Candidates’ Forum on Tuesday February 20, 6:30pm, at Scholz Garten.

To find your Congressional district, polling places, and personalized voter information, visit www.votetravis.com.

Click on a candidate’s name to read their answers to the questionnaire.


Texas Congressional District 10
Madeline Eden (D)
1. What is your overall position on new fossil fuel projects (e.g., extraction, pipelines, processing). Are there any particular types of projects that you would oppose outright (e.g., offshore drilling, fracking)?
I’m opposed to any/all new fracking operations and/or pipelines in our country. I’m also in favor of additional regulations/restrictions for all existing pipelines, fracking, mining, and drilling operations. Additionally. I’m in favor of (re)imposing limitations on the areas available for offshore drilling operations along our coastlines. I believe that our nation needs to begin moving away from the extraction, refinement, and production of fossil fuels (as opposed to increasing our current capabilities).

2. What policy approaches would you focus on to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
Research and fact based science, balanced with the fundamental concept of not destroying the planet we live on. What’s good for the planet is good for business, and we can still enact legislation that actually aligns our national interests with the guidelines of the Paris Accord. We need new laws that incentivize our country to move quickly and efficiently towards a more self sustaining ecosystem that increases global decarbonization. Continuing to deny the effects of mass produced carbon emissions is worse than ignorant; it’s shortsighted, negligent, and dangerous to all of us. I’m currently authoring legislation to support the creation of a Blockchain Carbon Credit System that focuses on the genesis of a new distributed blockchain; capable of providing: inventory, compliance and reporting capabilities for emissions registries and carbon producers. This type of open-source system could be deployed nationally to facilitate a secure, and transparent interface for the fulfillment of regulatory emissions reporting (and also globally to meet the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol). This implementation will also provide a standard blockchain ledger system where carbon credits can be: transferred, traded, and tracked on a distributed/public global network. In order to quickly reduce GHG emissions, we need a system that can seamlessly manage adherence to global policies and provide optimal scalability/redundancy/security.

3. Eight in ten Texans support funding for renewable energy research*. What else would you do to promote the adoption and expansion of renewable alternatives?
I will sponsor any and all legislation pertaining to tax credits, funding, or subsidies for the: purchase, development, research, or deployment of green/renewable energy technologies. I also intend to prioritize the repeal of recent tariffs that were implemented on clean energy technology imports. There are innovative new technologies currently in development all over the world. We need to be active leaders in this developing renewable energy industry, as the adoption of these technologies will stimulate our economy and increase job growth.

4. Why are you the most qualified candidate to act on climate change?
I’m a computer scientist who completely agrees with the scientific consensus regarding climate change and our environmental crisis. My family resides in a part of Texas that has been routinely impacted by massive climate events over the past decade, and I have a personal stake in addressing our environmental issues. I’ve also worked in the field of blockchain technology for the last seven years; and the cryptocurrency services currently operating on this technology are responsible for approximately 5-10% of current global carbon emissions. This is an energy utilization issue that’s growing at an exponential rate, and I understand the regulatory steps that must be taken to stem the tide of this consumption without negatively influencing global markets. We have no congressional representatives with fundamental knowledge of this threat or the technology behind it; and there are presently less than 15 representatives who possess a S.T.E.M. related background in our House and Senate combined.

Matt Harris (D)
1. What is your overall position on new fossil fuel projects (e.g., extraction, pipelines, processing). Are there any particular types of projects that you would oppose outright (e.g., offshore drilling, fracking)?
We need incentives to reduce carbon extraction in all of forms (See question 2). This will not be accomplished overnight. Some forms of carbon extraction bring additional environmental risks and should be prioritized for earlier elimination. In general, natural gas is less bad than oil, which is less bad than coal. In general, off-shore drilling brings more associated environmental risks. Fracking through the water table also brings additional environmental hazards. As initial measures I oppose any expansion of areas open to off-shore drilling. I believe that localities should be free to ban fracking, which will likely result in considerable reduction in areas open to fracking.

2. What policy approaches would you focus on to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
Incentives matter. If elected, I would file a bill on the first eligible day to tax all carbon extraction and rebate the funds to the public on a per capita basis on a monthly (or quarterly) interval. This will quickly align incentives around reduced carbon extraction. People who choose a light carbon footprint will find extra dollars in their pocket; people who choose a heavy carbon footprint will pay for the choice. The tax will also create some price space for renewable fuels. The tax would be put on an escalating schedule for 10 years with a price increment every quarter. The incentives will be clear and predictable.
I also support an expanded role for government research into carbon fuels from algae and other biomass to provide carbon-neutral alternative fuels. Participants in these grant programs should be required sign patent sharing agreements to head off anti-competitive practices. We need to foster this industry’s rapid growth as a replacement for carbon extraction.
We must also support all practical forms of renewable energy, including wind, geothermal, and solar. It will take some combination of the available technologies to replace carbon extraction.

3. Eight in ten Texans support funding for renewable energy research*. What else would you do to promote the adoption and expansion of renewable alternatives?
First, we need to remove the tax and environmental subsidies to the oil and gas industry such that they pay the full cost of their operations, including environmental damage. Second, we must charge the full market rate for oil taken from public lands. These two measures alone will bring renewables into a more competitive position. My answer to question 2) above will have many ramifications.

4. Why are you the most qualified candidate to act on climate change?
The tax structures that will save us from climate change are also the very same structures that will lead us to broad based prosperity. We need to shift taxes from work and productive activities and onto the consumption of natural resources and other forms of monopoly privilege. I have been engaged on this issue for decades and fully understand the arguments. Climate change is a special case of natural resource mis-allocation. From my broad contacts in this field I will enter office with a brain trust of economists and specialists who will help in crafting well-targeted legislation. My academic background is in chemical engineering, and although I no longer work in that field, I do fully understand the several technical challenges we must overcome.

Kevin Nelson (D)
1. What is your overall position on new fossil fuel projects (e.g., extraction, pipelines, processing). Are there any particular types of projects that you would oppose outright (e.g., offshore drilling, fracking)?
Fossil fuels will be part of the energy picture for many years to come, but our long-term policy should be to move towards other energy sources such as wind and solar. Though I’m not prepared to support broad bans, I will oppose any projects that have an especially serious environmental impact. For example, I strongly oppose the recent decision to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. If at all possible, I would like to see that decision reversed.

2. What policy approaches would you focus on to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
We need to keep encouraging the adoption of renewable energy resources. Wind and solar power have already made substantial strides, and looking forward they can take over the role of fossil fuels to a substantial extent. Texas has already made a lot of progress with wind power in particular, which has created thousands of jobs and provided a major economic stimulus especially in rural areas. I believe we can be a twenty-first century leader in renewable energy. If only we are prepared to change and adapt, Texas can continue to be an energy center for generations to come.

3. Eight in ten Texans support funding for renewable energy research*. What else would you do to promote the adoption and expansion of renewable alternatives?
I strongly support more research in this area. The biggest single challenge is energy storage, since wind and solar power are often generated at different times than when peak demand exists. Many different ideas have been proposed to meet that challenge, and we need to keep testing them to see what will work best. The key role for the federal government is to support research that may only pay off in the long term. Ultimately, we may be able to phase out the use of fossil fuels for electricity generation almost entirely.

4. Why are you the most qualified candidate to act on climate change?
First of all, my degree in physics gives me a little more background to understand the scientific issues involved. Maybe more importantly, I am determined to make the case that this is not an issue of “the economy versus the environment.” Climate change, along with other kinds of environmental damage, will harm our economy in a very serious way. Our goal should be environmentally sound, sustainable economic development. That offers our best chance of achieving a high standard of living for everyone—across Texas, across the country, and across the world.

Mike Siegel (D)
1. What is your overall position on new fossil fuel projects (e.g., extraction, pipelines, processing). Are there any particular types of projects that you would oppose outright (e.g., offshore drilling, fracking)?
Every new project is another assault on life on this planet. As much as our reliance on fossil fuels has become a “necessary evil,” driving our food production, transportation networks, and so many other aspect of modern society, we now have a real opportunity to utilize fuel sources that do not contribute to global warming. That should be our absolute priority.
Any new fossil fuel project should only be approved if we are simultaneously committed to abiding by the Paris Agreement and even more aggressive approaches to minimize warming to less than 1.5 degrees.
I oppose any movement to increase our reliance on fossil fuels, and I will oppose hazardous and land-grabbing pipelines that would cross indigenous or public lands. My wife and I supported the Standing Rock protest by bringing supplies and money from Texas, and I continue to believe that the Dakota Access Pipeline was a mistake on many levels, from the approval of the nationwide permit to the failure to obtain tribal consent.
I oppose additional offshore drilling, which is destroying our precious oceans and ecosystems. Finally, we must end the treacherous, poisonous, and earthquake-producing practice of fracking.

2. What policy approaches would you focus on to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
The fight to mitigate climate change is, of course, one of the most important struggles in front of us. The Paris Agreement is a great starting point as it set a global goal of limiting global warming. It is important that every nation, every city, every NGO, work together towards a common goal of addressing this looming global crisis. We need to go further than Paris, however, because the allowable temperature increases will still have devastating consequences for many island nations and coastal communities. We must push for more aggressive goals and work with urgency to prevent impending ecological disasters.
On the regulatory side, I will support efforts to strengthen and expand the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and similar, core environmental laws. In particular, the Environmental Protection Agency needs to be fully funded and given a stronger mandate to enforce the CWA and CAA. It is deplorable that scientists at the EPA have been fired, had projects de-funded, or have been otherwise silenced for sharing facts and research about climate change, pollution, and other important environmental issues. We should also work legislatively to undo Trump’s damaging executive orders regarding Obama-era clean water and air protections, including the Clean Power Plan, coal-mining regulations, and the Clean Water Rule.

3. Eight in ten Texans support funding for renewable energy research*. What else would you do to promote the adoption and expansion of renewable alternatives?
I believe in the New Deal approach of FDR, and will support immediate, massive investments in infrastructure as a way to stimulate economic growth and put Americans back to work. An immediate need in Central and Gulf Coast Texas is investment in roads, bridges, and flood infrastructure, but the federal government should also use its spending and financial powers to support and expand renewable alternatives that are appropriate to each region – this would include job training, new construction, and ongoing renewable operations.
In addition to the spending power, the regulatory power of the government should be utilized to show the true cost of fossil fuel production. For example, companies pursuing hydraulic fracturing techniques are allowed to dump waste fluids deep into the earth, polluting ground water and aquifers and disrupting tectonic plates. This cost should be imposed on the companies involved; otherwise, they are extracting profits at the expense of our future generations who need that fresh water and stable earth.
Finally, we must develop and invest in a fair transition for workers in fossil fuel industries, to ensure that our families do not suffer due to a changing economy. By considering the workers’ perspective, we also build support for the broader environmental movement.

4. Why are you the most qualified candidate to act on climate change?
I have been fighting for justice throughout my professional career, first in public education and more recently as a civil rights attorney. As a teacher, I fought school closures and the privatiztation of public education; as a lawyer, I have opposed racist and discriminatory policies. In different struggles, I have taken on city attorneys, sheriffs, state superintendents of education, and most recently the Texas Governor – suing him on behalf of the City of Austin and a broad coalition of cities, counties, and organizations as part of the struggle over Senate Bill No. 4. My experience in these struggles informs my work to engage with community coalitions and use my voice to speak on behalf of the disadvantaged.
Ultimately, I see climate change as a social and economic justice issue. The privilege and greed of a few ultra-wealthy plutocrats, like our current TX10 Representative, has led to the unceasing destruction of our environment – with the heaviest toll on those who have little power or representation.
I have a history of engaging in high profile fights with powerful forces, and of course the fossil fuel industry is one of the biggest bullies on the planet. I am wiling to take this fight on as a steward of the planet, a husband and father of two young children, someone who is committed to leaving the world better for future generations.

Tami Walker (D)
1. What is your overall position on new fossil fuel projects (e.g., extraction, pipelines, processing). Are there any particular types of projects that you would oppose outright (e.g., offshore drilling, fracking)?
We need to transition away from fossil fuel to clean energy. Any fossil fuel projects should also be undertaken so that public health, safety and the environment are protected and so that water is preserved.
There are certain projects that I would oppose outright. We should not be drilling in environmentally sensitive areas, such as the Arctic or the U.S. outer continental shelf in the Atlantic, Pacific and the Eastern Gulf of Mexico.
In some situations pipelines can be a safer transport method than rail or truck traffic, but they should not be built through environmentally sensitive areas and the pipelines must be regulated and very carefully monitored and maintained. Much of the pipeline infrastructure in the United States is very old. About 45% of U.S. crude pipeline is more than 50 years old and some pipeline laid in the 1920’s is still operating. Age isn’t the only factor, though–even some new pipeline is built shoddily. In 2016, President Obama signed a bipartisan law (Protecting Our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety (PIPES) Act) to strengthen the rules around pipeline safety and maintenance through the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. Those rules have been frozen under the Trump administration and have an uncertain future. Those rules need to be implemented and there needs to be real financial consequences for failing to comply with the rules.
As for fracking, again I think we should transition to renewable energy, but low cost natural gas has helped us to transition away from coal in the production of electricity and it has made it easier for power plants to comply with stricter carbon emission standards. This has resulted in reduced carbon emissions. Still, there are many problems with fracking, including the use of water, methane leaks, air pollution, pollution of groundwater, seismic activity from reinjection of the frack water, to name a few. I believe that increased regulation of fracking, including minimum standards for leaky equipment, construction standards for bore casings, monitoring and immediate shutdown when seismic activity occurs, more strict permitting standards to avoid contamination of ground water and aquifers, disclosure of the chemicals used, and requiring careful storage and treatment or recycling of the water would all help until we can move toward cleaner and safer energy solutions. Currently fines are often less expensive than compliance, so we need fines and enforcement that will drive good behavior. We also need federal standards.

2. What policy approaches would you focus on to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
We should re-join the Paris Climate Accord. The Clean Power Plan should be implemented. The plan is focused on reducing emissions from coal burning power plants, and increasing the use of renewable energy and conservation. Congress should provide tax incentives for carbon capture, use, and storage. Infrastructure investments can reduce emissions and improve resilience to climate impacts. Congress should fund international programs to help other countries reduce carbon emissions. The U.S. should also implement a carbon fee and dividend program, with an international trade component to incentivize climate friendly consumer choices. We should also be promoting plant based eating and the reduction of methane through improved grazing practices.
Connected to the shale gas fracking answer above, low cost shale gas drives down power prices for renewable energy and makes it difficult for those companies to make a profit or engage in further development. We should couple the regulation of fracking with subsidies or tax credits for wind and solar projects.

3. Eight in ten Texans support funding for renewable energy research*. What else would you do to promote the adoption and expansion of renewable alternatives?
The carbon fee and dividend program would also promote the expansion of renewable alternatives. We should continue to build new and upgraded transmission lines. This could be part of a federal Infrastructure Plan. We should link regional transmission systems to improve efficiency. We should provide incentives for smarter grids with smart meters to make the electricity delivery more efficient. We should invest in the study of better ways to store electricity so that it can be used during peak times. For solar, people should be allowed to utilize solar panels on their homes and businesses, without running afoul of HOA violations or city ordinances. We should provide grants or tax incentives to local landfills capturing landfill gases. We should also fund studies or provide R&D credits for wave Power, tidal power and osmotic power, which have shown potential.

4. Why are you the most qualified candidate to act on climate change?
I have 28 years of experience working as an attorney with companies in energy and infrastructure. I’ve worked in different regulatory frameworks and understand how power grids and pipeline systems work. I understand environmental permitting and compliance. I might not have the most idealistic vision for solving these problems, but I likely have the most practical vision.

Texas Congressional District 21
Derrick Crowe (D)
1. What is your overall position on new fossil fuel projects (e.g., extraction, pipelines, processing). Are there any particular types of projects that you would oppose outright (e.g., offshore drilling, fracking)?
I agree with the assessment of Oil Change International in their Sept. 2016 report, “The Sky’s Limit: Why the Paris Climate Goals Require a Managed Decline of Fossil Fuel Production.” In that report, released in partnership with 350.org, the authors show that “the potential carbon emissions from the oil, gas, and coal in the world’s currently operating fields and mines would take us beyond 2°C of warming” and that “the reserves in currently operating oil and gas fields alone, even with no coal, would take the world beyond 1.5°C.” As a result, as part of their key recommendations, they offer: “No new fossil fuel extraction or transportation infrastructure should be built, and governments should grant no new permits for them.” Given the amount of carbon in currently developed reserves, we do not have the carbon budget left to meet the Paris goals if we build new fossil fuel infrastructure. Therefore, I oppose all new fossil fuel projects outright, including fracking and offshore drilling.

2. What policy approaches would you focus on to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
In the Paris climate agreement, the United States joined with other countries to agree to hold “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels…” We said we would “undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best available science…on the basis of equity,” meaning the developed world should go fossil free faster than the developing world so that the poorest people in the world don’t pay the price for our fossil fuel sins.
Here’s the catch: In order to do these things, experts like Kevin Anderson tell us the U.S. and other developed countries have to transition to net-zero carbon emission by 2035.
That means we have to act urgently, as if we are in a crisis–because we are. Below is my plan to lay the foundation for the climate justice transition.
(This plan is complemented by my support for a national jobs guarantee and College for All, both of which would ensure displaced workers have the right to a job if they lose it during the clean energy revolution while making retraining opportunities available through a tuition-free college system.)

  • REQUIRE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO GET OFF FOSSIL FUELS
    Our government is a huge source of carbon emissions, and that means Congress can have a huge impact by requiring the government to get its act together. My plan would require federal agencies, Congress, and the courts to produce plans to replace internal combustion engines with electric vehicles by 2030 and to go net-carbon-zero in their operations by 2035.
  • A PROGRESSIVE CARBON FEE TO GO FOSSIL FREE
    Carbon fee proposals have picked up momentum among climate change activists because they prevent fossil fuel companies from socializing the costs of burning fossil fuels while privatizing the gains. I believe it’s critical that we not only impose a carbon fee on fossil fuels, but prevent the revenue generated by the fee from being diverted from its true purpose: promoting climate-friendly behavior and powering a fast transition to a zero-carbon economy.
    My proposal would:
    ● Implement a carbon fee and dividend system based on a carbon fee that begins at $15/metric ton in 2019 and escalates to $68/metric ton by 2035. Thereafter, the fee would grow at 5%, plus the rate of inflation. This would be paid as a direct dividend to households earning under $100,000.
    ● A Green Transition carbon fee would levy an additional fee per ton of carbon, starting at $10/metric ton in 2019 and increasing 2% per year. Funds collected under this fee would be used to increase the Department of Energy’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) R&D budgets specifically in the areas of electric vehicle (EV) battery
    production costs, performance, charging speed, and engine efficiency. (Past rates of return in EERE’s investments have yielded an overall annual ROI of more than 20 percent in terms of net economic benefits.)
  • HELP STATES AND LOCALITIES GET OFF FOSSIL FUELS AND PREPARE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS
    In the absence of strong federal action on climate change under Trump, many activists are turning their attention to states and municipalities to make progress on carbon emissions. When we do, we often find our states’ infrastructures aren’t ready for the storms and floods to come, and our municipalities are often locked into long-term contracts with fossil fueled power companies.
    My proposal would assist states in preparing for the onset of climate change effects while helping them get off fossil fuels. He would:
    ● Impose a carbon equivalency fee on imports of carbon pollution-intensive goods. The funds from this fee would be divided annually in the following ways:

    • 50 percent to EPA administrator to:
      ■ Fund state and local programs to adapt to climate change, improve the resilience of critical infrastructure, and transition public utilities to renewable power
      ■ Assist localities with buyouts or early termination fees from contracts with fossil-fuel-based energy producers
    • 50 percent to the Secretary of Transportation to:
      ■ Fund state and local programs that assist communities in improving the resilience of critical infrastructure
      ■ Fund projects that assist in the rapid adoption of light duty EVs
  • IMPLEMENT A CARBON FREEZE
    Bill McKibben shook up the progressive community with his landmark article, “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math,” back in 2012. Bill showed that the science indicated that from 2012 onward, humankind could only emit 565 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere by mid-century before we blow the “carbon budget,” or the amount of carbon we can emit before we push the climate into a global warming catastrophe. Here’s the problem and the crisis in a nutshell: though we can only emit 565 gigatons, the proven fossil fuel reserves in 2012 contained 2,795 gigatons of carbon. We cannot even burn what we have in our reserves, much less add to our plans to emit more carbon. We have to stop adding to our climate disaster stockpile.
    My plan would reckon with this reality by legislating into law the recommendations made by Oil Change International in their Sept. 2016 report, “The Sky’s Limit”: “No new fossil fuel extraction or transportation infrastructure should be built, and governments should grant no new permits for them.”
  • END THE ERA OF THE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE
    In 2014, there were more than 250 million passenger vehicles in the United States, most of which were powered by gasoline-driven internal combustion engines. Those vehicles represent a built-in set of emissions that must be retired as fast as possible and replaced with electric vehicles and mass transit powered by clean energy. At the same time, we have to stop fooling ourselves about ethanol, and start incentivizing electric vehicles instead.
    Here’s my proposal to drive us there:
    ● Increase CAFE standards every year to reach 101 miles/gallon of gasoline equivalent by 2035.
    ● Replace the Renewable Fuel Standard with an Alternative Fuel Standard that requires 95% of miles driven be attributed to electricity by 2035.
    ● End fossil fuel and ethanol subsidies and convert them to electric vehicle (EV) conversion incentives. This would provide $21.3 billion/year to provide investment tax credits and federal loan guarantees for EV manufacturing, charging station construction, and EV battery recycling.
    ● Task the Department of Energy with coordinating the onlining of EV charging infrastructure with availability of EV vehicles.
  • MAKE IMMEDIATE GAINS BY INCREASING ENERGY EFFICIENCY
    While we work on R&D for new climate-friendly technologies, we can start making immediate, real gains simply by investing in energy efficiency and weatherization. And, if we target our investments, we can make sure that low-income communities see the gains and cost-savings first.
    My plan would implement deep building- and appliance-efficiency efforts:
    ● Scale-up home energy efficiency upgrade programs at the Weatherization Assistance Program to a total of $12.5 billion/year. This would provide energy efficiency upgrades to 2.75 million low-income homes/year.
    ● Launch $12.5 billion/year program for fuel switching in home appliances and energy use from natural gas and other fossil fuels to electricity for low-income households.
  • PERMANENTLY EXTEND TAX CREDITS FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY
    Prior to major push-back from the clean energy industry, the GOP tax scam bill threatened to end tax credits for electric vehicles, solar, and wind energy. Along the lines proposed in the OFF Act, I would permanently extend the tax credits for solar and wind facilities, make them refundable, and ensure they cover both on- and off-shore wind facilities.

3. Eight in ten Texans support funding for renewable energy research*. What else would you do to promote the adoption and expansion of renewable alternatives?
See previous answer for a more complete rundown, but the highlights include implementing a Green Transition carbon fee that would levy a $10/metric ton fee on carbon in 2019 and increasing 2% per year. Funds collected under this fee would be used to increase the Department of Energy’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) R&D budgets specifically in the areas of electric vehicle (EV) battery production costs, performance, charging speed, and engine efficiency. (Past rates of return in EERE’s investments have yielded an overall annual ROI of more than 20 percent in terms of net economic benefits.) Other measures are detailed in full in answer #2.

4. Why are you the most qualified candidate to act on climate change?
The most important qualifications for a candidate on climate change are a proper recognition of the urgency of the crisis and the right policies for dealing with that crisis. On both counts, as detailed in my answers above, I am the most qualified candidate in this race–a point driven home by the fact that 350.org cofounder Bill McKibben has endorsed my candidacy in this primary and the fact that I quickly became known as the “science nerd” challenging Lamar Smith when we first started this campaign.
Furthermore, I have an established, well-known dedication to dealing with this crisis, as shown not only by my participation in the founding of the 350 Austin group, but also in my work organizing on behalf of the climate justice movement in this district and in this city. It was that activism and dedication that led me to run for Congress, not vice versa.
Finally, as the only candidate in this race with Capitol Hill experience as a senior staffer, I will be ready on day one to fight for climate change legislation with real teeth.

Mauro Garza (R)
1. What is your overall position on new fossil fuel projects (e.g., extraction, pipelines, processing). Are there any particular types of projects that you would oppose outright (e.g., offshore drilling, fracking)?
My approach and my position has to begin with pushing toward TX-21, Texas and the United States into becoming, once again, the leader in Science and Technology. I want to lead America as the world heads into an innovative era of Technology whether it be renewable energy sources, or more laser tuned less impactful means of harnessing such energy. These investments can make a big difference to the archaic means that we currently use to harness the great demand for “energy”. I think we can harness what we need from that Nuclear Reactor at the center of our solar system. I don’t want fracking in my neighborhood, I am wanting to pursue TX-21 to lead the way into innovation. If there is a discovery or a method to place 3 layers of protection for offshore drilling, fracking , we need the energy for now. What we are doing now can not sustain the environment. I was an adjunct professor and Environmental Science was one of the classes I taught. What we need, and people seem to take this very lightly. The needle has moved into the reactionary stage on climate change and for good reason. But, when we react, we have a more difficult job solving the problem. I prefer a response and actually, a REAL SOLUTION, versus how do I feel about climate change. I approach it through an innovative lens not as someone who has had a career in politics. I strongly feel that the only way that I will be able to accomplish this is by building support to have a balanced budget. Now, I will explain how this can be done. We must place the Federal Government on a Balanced Budget. We have to push for a Balanced Budget Amendment. But, actually, this time I WILL GET IT. Its time for action. What use is it for us to discuss the wonderful benefits of such technology if we cannot afford a solar panel. We cannot invest. If I am worried about my next meal, I may not have time to invest in innovation. We can talk science all day, but at the end of the day it is just smoke. No pun intended. This is the most simple question one could ask. For me it is like my home and business. If I do not have a balanced budget I would lose my business, and I would not have the solar panels that I was able to put money aside for. I want everyone in that position. Everyone to do what we can do at this moment and time. I would begin with Fiscal Responsibility of the Taxpayers money. As a scientist, with a degree in Neurophysiology, I am passionate about solving problems such as the environmental impact that our miraculous lives have on this beautiful area of Texas, the Hill Country. I am passionate on the environment. However, as a Businessman for 16 plus years, I am more passionate about procuring the funds and the resources to do it. It will not be done, regardless of my position or opinion without the respect, support and cohesiveness that I would go to the limit with the understanding that this is for our Texas and our United States of America and our Mother Earth. In that order. It starts at home. I want my son to experience the wonder of our Nation and so I am stepping up. All I need is to respectfully earn the trust of my district to get me to the start line.

2. What policy approaches would you focus on to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
I would focus on the current available research and how to make it work for us in tandem as we seek to balance our budget and begin making a list of all the areas we wish to invest our surplus even if we don’t have it yet. At that point, I will ask Congress to prioritize this list. The problems are simple to solve. But, it takes everyone. More importantly, it takes excellent communication skills which is another reason I feel that I am needed to serve at this point in my life.

3. Eight in ten Texans support funding for renewable energy research*. What else would you do to promote the adoption and expansion of renewable alternatives?
I will always support research and funding for it based on a priority list. It has to be that way because climate change is a very important issue, but not the only one. But, I must have something that tells me, and those who believe in what I stand for, that we are headed towards a balanced budget. I am a Master Budgeteer (if this is not a word, well we have just created it). I would encourage small business with tax cuts if they are pursuing a renewable alternatives business. I would not support importing renewable energy products or merchandise from abroad since my goal is to make us the number one nation in Science and Technology along with providing a clear path to achieve it. We can do it.

4. Why are you the most qualified candidate to act on climate change?
Because I am not a career politician nor have I ever held office. I believe the old style of politics has changed. Because I can actually solve the problems. In business, we have many that depend on us. If we do not solve problems, we lose it all. I also believe that I have the excellent communication skills with the full understanding that I can not and will not (no one can) solve them alone. I am certain that I can begin the conversation. Because I am a scientist and a very very good businessman. I am the person that is needed. I feel I have been called to serve.

Joseph Kopser (D)
1. What is your overall position on new fossil fuel projects (e.g., extraction, pipelines, processing). Are
there any particular types of projects that you would oppose outright (e.g., offshore drilling, fracking)?

Everytime we drill a hole we create challenges for future generations of Texans. We need an absolute
commitment and roadmap for transition to sustainable energy solutions. Current plans to open new offshore or
protected lands need to be rescinded and repudiated.

2. What policy approaches would you focus on to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
I created a successful business based on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and getting cars and
commuters off the road. I have successfully focused my influence on government – specifically the Departments
of Defense, Transportation, and Energy – to create a new dialogue with the largest users of fossil fuels to
commit to roadmaps to a sustainable future.

3. Eight in ten Texans support funding for renewable energy research*. What else would you do to
promote the adoption and expansion of renewable alternatives?

We need to expand green power right here in Central Texas, which must include a 21st century grid for wind
and solar. I would also focus on energy efficiency, because we need to look at the energy we don’t use the
same way we look at production, as the best way to mitigate the cost of fighting climate change.

4. Why are you the most qualified candidate to act on climate change?
I have spent my career building towards clean energy solutions. RideScout, which I co-founded, reduced both
commute times and carbon emissions. Since then, I have been recognized for my green energy work by the
Department of Transportation and been named a Champion of Change by President Obama. I also co-founded
and chaired the Defense Energy Summit, which created new connectivity between innovators and government
resources.

Elliott McFadden (D)
1. What is your overall position on new fossil fuel projects (e.g., extraction, pipelines, processing). Are there any particular types of projects that you would oppose outright (e.g., offshore drilling, fracking)?
I see any new fossil fuel projects as a move in the wrong direction—increasing the effects of climate change, heightening pollution risks, and making us less competitive globally. I oppose any new fossil fuel projects including fracking and offshore drilling as well as new pipelines. I would work to prohibit any new use of federal lands or resources for fossil fuel extraction and seek to end existing licenses.

2. What policy approaches would you focus on to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
As a member of Congress, I would work to change the economics of energy alternatives both through protections against polluting energy sources and federal investement in green energy and transit. I want to see us come back to the Paris Accord and would fight any attempts by the adminstration to undo those commitments. I would fight for a carbon cap-and-trade system that takes into account the indirect costs of fossil fuels. Finally, one of my signature issues is the passing of a comprehensive infrastructure bill that focuses resourses on imporvements to our energy grid and investment in green energy to increase our wind and solar capacity. It would also provide funding for a substaintial increase in transit services and eletric vehicle charging networks to reduce dependence on fossil fuel-based and single ocupancy vehicles.

3. Eight in ten Texans support funding for renewable energy research*. What else would you do to promote the adoption and expansion of renewable alternatives?
I believe my proposed intrastructure bill focusing on renewable energy would provide the large scale federal investment we need to jump start broader adoption. The increased renewable capacity this creates would go a long way towards scaling these energy sources for our country as a legitimate alternative to fossil fuels. I also see my free college tuition program as key to ensure we are getting engineers and planners from 4-year schools and technicians from community colleges and trade schools with the training to jump into the green energy jobs we will need to support this expansion.

4. Why are you the most qualified candidate to act on climate change?
I am the candidate in this race with experience leading to implement a progressive agenda in our community. I founded Austin CarShare, the first carsharing service in Texas, and am currently the non-profit CEO of Austin B-cycle, one of the most successful bike share services in the U.S. I also worked with Solar Austin to create an advocacy and community engagement program to put pressure on Austin Energy to invest more in renewable energy. My experience in these projects showed me how private and public resources can be used in combination to provide a compelling alternative to the public. I saw that we cannot rely on the private sector alone to scale innovation, nor can we take a soley top down approach from government. Instead, they must work together. This is important as we need to focus all of our resources on combating climate change as an existential threat to our way of life.

Samuel Temple (R)
1. What is your overall position on new fossil fuel projects (e.g., extraction, pipelines, processing). Are there any particular types of projects that you would oppose outright (e.g., offshore drilling, fracking)?
Generally speaking, there are few things that I outright oppose, however my current understanding of the available supply of oil with respect to the current demand indicates that we can lean heavily against sourcing from environmentally risky prospects. With regards to infrastructure, I would generally evaluate each project on a case by case basis, being mindful that we do need redundancy in certain respects, but that I also have no problem insisting on increasing the budget of a project to hypothetically divert a pipeline to a less environmentally risky path.

2. What policy approaches would you focus on to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
When I first started my campaign, I was very interested in carbon trapping and burying. Recently, I’ve been talking at length with the CCL about CF&D which has captured my interest. The reality of the situation is that there is a serious problem with carbon emissions. Deciding what to do is extremely difficult in my opinion, as it requires a great deal of research. I am a statistician with several peer-reviewed publications, and it is very challenging to me to find a policy solution that can strongly withstand scrutiny. Climate science crosses numerous scientific disciplines, making it challenging for a single person to understand all of the components. This is why I’ve greatly benefited from speaking with the CCL, and I encourage other similar groups to contact me to assist in my understanding of other policy solutions.

3. Eight in ten Texans support funding for renewable energy research*. What else would you do to promote the adoption and expansion of renewable alternatives?
The CCL and other conservative organizations are strong proponents of using the market to expand the use of renewable energy. The theory is that forcing fuel sources that create CO2 emissions to reflect the true market cost, renewable sources will be adopted in greater percentages. This is an idea that I am currently researching further for validity, and would support should I find it has merit.

4. Why are you the most qualified candidate to act on climate change?
As a statistician on an enormously complicated topic, I bring a strong understanding of quantitative science to the discussion, which greatly aids in the learning process. Furthermore, I have already begun to establish relationships with groups that I feel are necessary to keep me responsibly educated on this complex topic. In order to draft and pass effective legislation, there must be a strong commitment to learning how the complex science translates into policy.

Texas Congressional District 25
West Hansen (D)
1. What is your overall position on new fossil fuel projects (e.g., extraction, pipelines, processing). Are there any particular types of projects that you would oppose outright (e.g., offshore drilling, fracking)?
The quicker we can transition from fossil fuels to clean energy and other sustainable/renewable energy production processes, the better. It’s very simple: oil and natural gas will run out and they contribute greatly towards the degradation of our environment. I outright oppose fracking and offshore drilling. Currently, petroleum and other volatile substances do need to be transported. I support the most evidenced-based safest methods for doing so, which includes a combination of pipelines and rail around (not through) culturally and environmentally sensitive areas and areas of dense populations. Self-regulation of extraction, processing and transport needs to end and stricter enforcement of safety and environmental concerns should be reinstated. Furthermore, tax dollars and tax incentives for the incredibly profitable fossil fuel industry should end immediately.

2. What policy approaches would you focus on to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
Climate change is the greatest threat to human life and our planet. I will work tirelessly to for the United States to rejoin the Paris Climate Accords. I will work to build the clean energy economy in the United States, and move away from old dirty fossil fuels. I will vote to extend the renewable energy residential tax credit and the corporate tax credits beyond 2022, and support legislation creating a carbon fee and dividend, to reward individuals and companies for lowering their carbon footprint – while using a portion of the fees to combat the effects fossil fuels have had upon our environment. In short, money talks and individuals and corporations will only feel the effect of their actions if they can see the real costs in their wallets.

3. Eight in ten Texans support funding for renewable energy research*. What else would you do to promote the adoption and expansion of renewable alternatives?
Texas leads the world in wind generated power. Not just our country, but all countries. It’s a proven success that has attracted T. Boone Pickens and other converts. Investors in fossil fuels do not care a bit about fossil fuels. They are in the business of making money. While I strongly believe that basic human needs, such as health care, safety and security should be supplied by a central or regional government, I’m very open to the concept of a well-regulated industry for privatized clean energy, so long as the corporation is working hand-in-hand with the well-being of the customers/citizens it serves. I’m also a strong proponent of citizen owned and managed energy resources. These paradigms do not need to be mutually exclusive. In short, if a community or company has a viable and affordable concept that moves us, as a country, towards renewable energy resources, then our government should ease the way as economically and feasibly as possible.
With initiatives on the scale of the space program in the 1960’s, we can accomplish a majority renewable energy state in a very short time. I’ll promote and support funding towards that end from the federal government.

4. Why are you the most qualified candidate to act on climate change?
I am, quite literally, the only candidate in either Party for the 25th Congressional District with a history of actually working on environmental concerns. I did not have to research any policies or positions in order to answer a questionnaire or form a formal opinion.
I’m a National Geographic explorer and led the first expedition to paddle the entire 4200 miles of the Amazon River from its newly discovered source at 18,400’ elevation in the central Peruvian Andes to the Atlantic Ocean in Brazil. Not only was the expedition part of the effort to identify the new source, which verified the Amazon as the longest river on the planet, but also part of a decades long study on the environmental impact human industry was having on the vast waterway. Working as a member of Adventurers and Scientists for Conservation, I teamed with researchers at the Pacific Biodiversity Project to conduct a mile-by-mile survey of the entire Amazon River, which took 111 days. The survey my team completed went into a database for the project, which uses the information to substantiate efforts to block further degradation of the massive watershed and report on improvements, changes and areas of immediate and long-term concern. The results of our efforts help litigation against the mining industries on the upper Mantaro River (headwaters of the Amazon), noted in Che Guevara’s “The Motorcycle Diaries”, that were illegally dumping tailings and chemicals in the river.
As the River Conservation Chair on the board of the Texas Canoe Racing Association, I worked with the Texas River Protection Association for five years from 1995 – 2000 to organize two clean ups per year for the entire 90 miles of the San Marcos River. I was the liaison between the organizations and the (then) TNRCC and Tx Parks and Wildlife to secure trucks for hauling off the garbage collected on the river and to pursue fines for landowners illegally dumping in the river.
Finally, I run a 501(c)(3) called Worldwide Waterways, Inc. that helps develop programs in Peru for local residents to profit financially from cleaning up their rivers and finding alternative, safer methods for disposing of waste, instead of dumping household trash into the rivers.
My ties in the environmental community run deep. I, and my campaign, are endorsed by Andy Sansom (Director of the Meadows Center), Bob Spain and other leaders in the central Texas environmental community. I’ve worked closely with Austin Youth Riverwatch, the LCRA, TPWD, TCEQ the Austin Water Department for years and long before my decision to run for office.

Julie Oliver (D)
1. What is your overall position on new fossil fuel projects (e.g., extraction, pipelines, processing). Are there any particular types of projects that you would oppose outright (e.g., offshore drilling, fracking)?
Here are my commitments:
Vehemently oppose the sale of public lands for any type of extraction (fossil, uranium, or otherwise);
Keeping fossil fuels in the ground wherever possible so we can transition to 100% renewable energy;
Ensuring that Congress funds the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) so that they can provide necessary climate science research, and ensuring that these institutions remain independent; Rejoining the Paris Climate Accord;
Imposing a carbon-fee-and-dividend–with an initial fee of $15/ton on the CO2 equivalent emissions of fossil fuels, escalating $10/ton/year, imposed upstream at the mine, well or port of entry;
Investing in clean energy infrastructure, innovation, manufacturing and workforce development to make the U.S. economy more competitive and create good-paying jobs and careers; Amending the tax code to encourage renewable energy investment.

2. What policy approaches would you focus on to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
My commitments include:
Keeping fossil fuels in the ground wherever possible so we can transition to 100% renewable energy;
Imposing a carbon-fee-and-dividend–with an initial fee of $15/ton on the CO2 equivalent emissions of fossil fuels, escalating $10/ton/year, imposed upstream at the mine, well or port of entry;
Investing in clean energy infrastructure, innovation, manufacturing and workforce development to make the U.S. economy more competitive and create good-paying jobs and careers;
Amending the tax code to encourage renewable energy investment.

3. Eight in ten Texans support funding for renewable energy research*. What else would you do to promote the adoption and expansion of renewable alternatives?
My commitments include:
Ensuring that Congress funds the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) so that they can provide necessary climate science research, and ensuring that these institutions remain independent;
Investing in clean energy infrastructure, innovation, manufacturing and workforce development to make the U.S. economy more competitive and create good-paying jobs and careers;
And amending the tax code to encourage renewable energy investment.

4. Why are you the most qualified candidate to act on climate change?
I live my progressive values. My husband and I walk the walk – we downsized to a 700-square foot home with no wasteful yard and no wasteful irrigation, we share a single clean diesel car, we live 1 mile from my office, we follow as closely as possible a sustainable diet, we try to maintain as small a carbon footprint as possible, and we’ve been composting for years.
Furthermore, the damage that this administration is doing, by far the most damaging to the environment in US history, will not be undone if we can’t able to unseat the representative who currently occupies this seat – and I am the candidate to do it.
I’m a lawyer, accountant, and healthcare advocate with 20 years of experience in healthcare finance and taxation. Every day I manage multi-billion dollar budgets and oversee a massive bureaucracy that successfully and efficiently delivers healthcare to hundreds of thousands of people. And the Austin City Council appointed me to the board of Central Health because they knew I’d be a champion for transparency and that I’d fight for the under-served communities that need it most.
And I’m the only candidate with real legislative experience – in 2003 I co-wrote the Texas Motor Fuels tax legislation that brings millions of dollars into our state, much of which is used for roads but a portion of which is set aside for public education.
Not only am I the only candidate that can credibly challenge Roger Williams on policy, I’m an expert in areas that this district very badly needs our help: rural healthcare and hospitals, Medicaid waiver program, reforming the tax code so it serves everyone and not just those at the top, investing in infrastructure,
And unlike other candidates, the money we raise goes into investing in our field program, not into consultants who keep losing winnable elections.
I will not compromise on our progressive values – the only way we’re going to see those progressive values represented in Congress is if we nominate a candidate who can win in November. I am that candidate.

Chetan Panda (D)
1. What is your overall position on new fossil fuel projects (e.g., extraction, pipelines, processing). Are there any particular types of projects that you would oppose outright (e.g., offshore drilling, fracking)?
We should work to end the construction of new fossil fuels projects.

2. What policy approaches would you focus on to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
To protect the environment and combat climate change, we must address both energy supply (how we produce our energy) and demand (how we use our energy). On the energy supply side, I want to:
—Build solar and wind farms in the district and offer training for locals to operate;
—Increase tax incentives for businesses/individuals to install solar panels;
—Invest in clean energy research and technology; and
—Pay for these investments with a tax on harmful greenhouse gasses.
On the energy demand side, I want to:
—Provide funding to weatherize buildings and improve electricity efficiency;
—Invest in expanding our electric grid; and
—Increase fuel efficiency standards.
Furthermore, I support fully funding the EPA and allowing it to enforce existing environmental regulation and monitor quality of air, water, and land. I also support re-entering the Paris Climate Accords.

3. Eight in ten Texans support funding for renewable energy research*. What else would you do to promote the adoption and expansion of renewable alternatives?
To increase the expansion of renewable energy, I want to:
—End fossil fuel subsidies and tax emissions from fossil fuels
—Implement subsidies to construct wind and solar farms
—Enact Renewable Energy Standards (require utilities to obtain a certain percentage of electricity from renewables)
—Fund battery storage research and development
—Expand transmission lines so that wind and solar power can be transported across the country
—Fund education measures so that people are aware of the benefits of renewable energy and are thus more likely to advocate for them.

4. Why are you the most qualified candidate to act on climate change?
Addressing climate change has an economics dimension. We must address energy supply and demand in order to have a workable solution. To do so involves imposing taxes on fossil fuels, incentivizing new energy sources, and investing in clean energy research and development. I graduated from Georgetown University with a degree in International economics. I understand the impacts of different policies on the economy and how to effectively transition our economy to a 100% clean energy economy.

Chris Perri (D)
1. What is your overall position on new fossil fuel projects (e.g., extraction, pipelines, processing). Are there any particular types of projects that you would oppose outright (e.g., offshore drilling, fracking)?
I’m committed to keeping fossil fuels in the ground. If we burn all of the available fossil fuels (without even drilling for new fossil fuels), our planet will suffer from catastrophic climate change. As a result, I oppose both offshore drilling and fracking.

2. What policy approaches would you focus on to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
To reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we must invest in expanding our renewable energy infrastructure (solar and wind) so that the United States moves to 100% renewable energy as soon as possible. I propose a revival of the Public Works Administration to invest in a nationwide renewable energy infrastructure project that will lay the necessary foundations for renewable energy while providing millions of new jobs at a universal living wage ($15/hr) with full benefits, including paid family and sick leave. Such a program will not only lead us toward 100% renewables, but it will also uplift the entire labor market. We also need to discourage fossil fuel corporations from polluting, and we can do this by instituting a Carbon Fee and Dividend. Corporations will not take the necessary measures to institute cleaner production processes unless they have to pay the cost of their pollution.

3. Eight in ten Texans support funding for renewable energy research*. What else would you do to promote the adoption and expansion of renewable alternatives?
To promote the adoption and expansion of renewable energy alternatives, I propose tax credits for research and development in this area. Also, subsidies for the installation of solar panels would encourage builders and homeowners to transition to renewable energy. I’m also in favor of tax credits for the purchase of electric vehicles in order to expedite the process of moving away from gas-guzzling vehicles on the road. Of course, transitioning to electric vehicles will be even more beneficial to the environment once the electrical grid is 100% renewable energy.

4. Why are you the most qualified candidate to act on climate change?
I’m the most qualified candidate to act on climate change for several reasons. First, I have experience fighting for my clients and successfully reaching the desired outcomes. There’s a radical right faction of politicians who reject scientific evidence in order to maximize the profits of the fossil-fuel corporations that donate to their campaigns. I know what it takes to stand up for truth and justice, and that’s what we need in order to fight the corporate machine that opposes sensible environmental policies. Second, I have a master’s degree in economics, which provides me with an understanding of how to craft policies that incentivize the outcomes we need to address climate change. Finally, my wife and I strive to minimize our environmental footprints in our daily lives in terms of diet, transportation, and waste.

350 Austin Open Meeting – 2/20/2018

350 Austin Open Meeting – 2/20/2018

Tuesday, February 20 6:30 – 8:30 PM at Scholz Garten, 1607 San Jacinto Blvd, Austin, Texas 78701

Although 350 Austin cannot endorse candidates, we can provide an opportunity for people to learn about the candidates’ positions – in their own words.

On the first night of early voting in the primaries, 350 Austin is holding a forum for candidates running in the US congressional districts of Travis County (#10, 17, 21, 25, 35).

Invitations have been extended to ALL candidates along with a questionnaire specifically targeting the candidate’s position on issues related to climate change. To participate in the forum, the candidate must respond to the questionnaire in writing two weeks prior to the event.

You will have an opportunity to ask the candidates your own questions. If you are unsure which district is yours, check your Voter registration card or check this link: https://www.house.gov/representatives

Please go to our Facebook Event to RSVP or to invite friends.
350 Austin General Meeting – 11/21/2017

350 Austin General Meeting – 11/21/2017

November 21, 2017 6:30 PM to 8:30 PM at Scholz Garten, 1607 San Jacinto Blvd, Austin, Texas 78701

We know this is just before Thanksgiving, but you will definitely want to join us for the November meeting! Officially launched on 11/1/16, we are marking 350 Austin’s one-year anniversary in two important ways. First, former Steering Committee member Derrick Crowe will be sharing current scientific data as a way to remind us of why 350 Austin was founded.

Derrick Crowe is known in the local and national press as the “science nerd” running for the congressional seat soon to be vacated by climate-denier Lamar Smith. Derrick is a long-time student of climate change science and will be speaking to us in that capacity. Although not legally permitted to endorse Derrick Crowe, we at 350 Austin can proudly share the news that Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org, has personally endorsed him. (https://medium.com/@electcrowe/bill-mckibben-endorses-derrick-crowe-for-congress-d4f48e13f913)

After being sobered by Derrick’s presentation on the status of climate change, we will shake off the blues by celebrating 350 Austin’s anniversary with live music, drink, and good food from Scholz Garten – our ever-supportive hosts! Music will be provided by Roger Flores’ band Midnight Archives (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVHUUq2mx7MHDSrCg8HduKg).

Our monthly meetings are held the third Tuesday of each month, usually at Scholz Garten, from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm. Children are welcome.

Please visit our Facebook Event to RSVP or invite friends.

October General Meeting Tues 10/17 at 6:30 pm

October General Meeting Tues 10/17 at 6:30 pm

PLEASE NOTE THE VENUE CHANGE!! Due to construction, we had to move the meeting this month. 

Austin’s Pizza 4, 1817 S Lamar Blvd, Austin, Texas 78704

In the first part of our meeting, 350 Austin’s own Rocky Boschert will be sharing his wisdom on divesting from fossil fuels and how to think about reinvesting in a clean energy future. Rocky has devoted his career as a financial advisor to helping clients “go fossil free” with their investments. Come ready to take notes and ask questions. http://www.texasorp.com/

The second half of the meeting will kick off with the premiere of Josh Allen’s song – composed just for us – “Not With My Money You Ain’t”!

There will be a variety of breakout sessions, including art and sign-making for the upcoming day of action against banks that fund fossil fuel projects.

Our monthly meetings are held the third Tuesday of each month, usually at Scholz Garten (although not this month), from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm. Children are welcome.

Please visit our Facebook Event to RSVP or invite friends.

September Monthly Meeting Tues 9/19 at 6:30 pm

September Monthly Meeting Tues 9/19 at 6:30 pm

Although we did not meet in August, we were working hard to move several projects forward, including our goal for Austin Energy to be 100% renewable. And, of course, we continue to help the victims of Harvey.

It’s now time to re-group and plan actions to fight the climate change that is super-charging the hurricanes and wildfires now devastating many parts of the planet.

It will be a jam-packed agenda with updates and actions as well as opportunities for you to share your ideas. Looking forward to seeing you there!

Our monthly meetings are held the third Tuesday of each month at Scholz Garten from 6:30 pm to 8:30 pm. Children are welcome.

Visit our Facebook Event page to invite your friends.