Forgive me for being frank, but I rarely involve myself with activist groups. I actually was asked to sign this particular RAN petition by a friend, and my initial reaction was the same as it is for most petitions - skepticism. My concern is that petitions are easy for the petitioned to discount since they don't actually have to deal with the petitioners. You can fax as many signatures as you like to a CEO, but in the end it's still just a big pile of paper that is easy to throw away.

In the interest of politeness I decided to give the substance of the petition a read anyway, and I was surprised by what I saw: the petition was pointed, discussing the potential economic benefits of good environmental investments, and was directed not at some distant CEO but at the local bank branch manager. I expressed my surprise to my friend, who told me that all of the petitions were going to local branch managers because they were more invested in the views of their local customers. This, I thought, seems a productive way conduct activism. And so I signed it. Based on the outcome it looks like I was right.

On a larger scale, it's abundantly clear that in the current political atmosphere, no amount of increased "scientific certainty" is going to change the views of the majority of policymakers. Economics is the language in policy circles, but environmental costs are not yet part of that language, proving that even many economists are having trouble getting through. Pressure from profit-seeking organizations is the fastest way to change this.

Thanks also for the link to the Economist piece, Chris. For years I've had little interest in learning economic theory or even basic financial concepts. Bring up money and my mind wandered.

Now I find at least the broad economic philosophies fascinating and, most importantly, my mind seems willing to absorb new ideas, even after money is mentioned.