They couldn't get the "sun tax" through the Arizona state legislature, so they're trying to get it from the state Executive branch: Arizona's Department of Revenue has apparently decided that folks who lease solar panels on their home should pay more property taxes -- around $150 more annually, which just so happens to wipe out most folks' annual savings on their electric bills, thus conveniently making solar a far less attractive option in a state where the sun seems to shine 678 hours a day. All so coal energy corporations, which are already quite wealthy, can continue to be quite wealthy and continue to pump poisons into our air and water. Great job, Arizona government! But the Sierra Club helps you tell Gov. Brewer to stop the "sun tax" in Arizona. Gov. Brewer has a mixed record on matters she can directly affect -- she didn't stop the "show your papers" bill, but she did stop the "turn away the gay" bill -- but I think if you put the words "sun tax" in your letter enough times without being too obvious, she might be swayed.
Meanwhile, Frank Lautenberg's chemical regulation reform bill from 2012, which would have reformed the Toxic Substances Control Act, sadly seems to have died with him, and the House now pushes something called the Chemicals in Commerce Act, which actually hamstrings the EPA from regulating or requiring testing for new chemicals -- which are being developed all the time, you know, hence the need to update the Toxic Substances Control Act. The bill also limits the amount of information you can get about toxic chemicals, and (in a real "states' rights" move!) even overrides tougher state laws about toxic chemicals. Nice to see the "conservatives" in the House bend over backwards for corporate power, again. Don't conservatives hate concentrated power anywhere? Contemporary "conservatives" only seem to hate power not concentrated in the hands of their paymasters. But Breast Cancer Action helps you tell your Congressfolk to reject the Chemicals in Commerce Act, and demand something a lot stronger. Now that I think about it, calling this bill's supporters "objectively pro-breast cancer" might be a good tactic.
Finally, if you've missed previous opportunities to tell the USDA to reverse the National Organic Standards Board (or NOSB) rule that actually weakens organic standards in America, then the Organic Consumers Association still helps you do that. What does this rule do? Organic standards do include inorganic ingredients (necessary for storage, transport, and the like), but it used to be that the approval of those ingredients would only last five years and would have to be reinstated; now the approval of those ingredients lasts forever and we would have to challenge their continued inclusion -- which we'll do, but why make corporations happy at the expense of people? I must admit I am surprised to learn that 71% of Americans think organic food should have as few artificial ingredients as humanly possible. What are the other 29 percent thinking? Apparently, they're thinking that expanding folks' access to organic food requires sacrifices, like making it a lot less organic, which strikes me as an awful lot like not thinking. Still, we can turn them around, just as we can turn the NOSB around.