The Wonk Room

Obama’s OMB Continues Bush-Era Interference With Public Health Standards

The Obama White House interfered with smog standards at the last minute, preventing the Environmental Protection Agency from properly protecting the health of millions of Americans. The White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and its subsidiary Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), led by Obama pick Cass Sunstein, oversees regulatory decisions by federal agencies. “The EPA issued a new rule recently on nitrogen dioxide (NO2),” Center for Progressive Reform president Rena Steinzor writes, “but not before it was weakened by OMB. The consequences for the public health are real.” On December 18, the EPA had proposed installing new monitoring stations at all cities with a population of 350,000 or more, but by “the time OIRA completed its review on January 22, the minimum threshold for monitoring stations had been increased to one per 500,000 people.” The Center for Progressive Reform discovered an email from a top EPA official that reveals the agency opposed the White House interference:

The EPA had made its position clear, it turns out. In a January 20th email about the “500,000″ proposal, Lisa Heinzerling, the EPA’s Associate Administrator for policy, wrote, “EPA does not support the alternative threshold described in the email below.”

The new standards “will improve air quality, particularly in communities disproportionately impacted by environmental problems.” However, the last-minute interference unnecessarily leaves millions without the same protection. As Matthew Madia relates at OMB Watch, there was no justification offered for the loosening of the standards:

The final rule claims the threshold was raised “after consideration of public comments,” but EPA provides no evidence that the public opposed the lower threshold. The Clean Air Council asked for an even lower threshold, possibly down to 100,000 people, according to a recap of comments in the final rule. Even Dow Chemical Company, which was pushing for a weaker one-hour standard, called the 350,000 person threshold “reasonable.”

When Cass Sunstein was nominated by Obama to run OIRA, environmental watchdogs raised significant concerns that he may share his predecessors’ antiregulatory zeal.

Ironically, Lisa Heinzerling, a law professor, was one of the sharpest critics of Bush White House interference with environmental rules. When the Bush administration wrote a rule to block the Endangered Species Act from addressing the threat of climate change, she said “rule turns the pit bull into a poodle.” Under Ken Salazar, the Obama Department of the Interior has continued to embrace Bush’s “poodle” rule.

At Behest Of King Coal And Big Ag, Ike Skelton And Collin Peterson Try To Outlaw Global Warming

Speaking before a gathering of coal-powered executives, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO) announced Tuesday that he, Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN), and Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) were introducing yet another piece of legislation to roll back Clean Air Act action on global warming pollution. Skelton’s Dirty Air Act comes on the heels of similar legislation by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Rep. Jerry Moran (R-KS), and Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND). At the Missouri Rural Electric Cooperative State Legislative Conference, Skelton argued that because Congressional action on climate has “stalled” in the Senate, he “cannot tolerate turning over the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to unelected bureaucrats” at the Environmental Protection Agency:

Simply put, we cannot tolerate turning over the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions to unelected bureaucrats at EPA. America’s energy and environmental policies should be set by Congress. It appears the clean energy bill moving through Congress is stalled. Let us set that bill aside and pass this scaled-back energy legislation. This bill, which represents a responsible way to move forward on energy legislation, gets the EPA under control, provides good things for American farmers, and builds upon bipartisan objectives that will help curb climate change and make our nation more energy independent.

The attacks on “unelected bureaucrats” are nonsense — the mandate to declare global warming emissions air pollutants came from the U.S. Supreme Court, the finding that global warming threatens the health and welfare of Americans came from independent scientists, and the plans for action have been approved by the Senate-confirmed EPA administrator Lisa Jackson and the duly-elected President of the United States, Barack Obama.

Critically, Skelton’s legislation would forbid defining any greenhouse gas as an “air pollutant” on the “basis of its effect on global climate change,” and prevent the consideration of the effect of ethanol production on land use.

Just as the coal industry has been warring against the science of global warming, the corn ethanol industry has been attacking the science of indirect land use change, which finds that a massive increase in biofuel production can cause farmers around the world to change how they plant crops and encourages the destruction of forests — leading to increased global warming pollution. These secondary effects can lessen or swamp out the global warming benefits of switching from fossil fuels to biofuels. Climate denier Peterson, who inserted pro-ethanol language in the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act for the agriculture industry last year in exchange for his vote, has announced he won’t support climate legislation again if it came up for a new vote. Amidst this political morass, the EPA this week incorporated land use effects into its biofuels mandate.

Skelton’s crusade against reality is putting his constituents at deadly risk. Skelton is ignoring the recent series of deadly floods, catastrophic ice storms, killer tornadoes, dangerous heat waves, and drought that have harmed the fourth congressional district of Missouri — all of which will worsen if global warming isn’t held back.

The rural electric cooperatives, though nominally publicly owned, are part of a nationwide network of climate-denying coal-powered companies, who are fighting climate legislation, even though it would lower their customers’ bills and stabilize energy prices. The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association is a top donor to Skelton, giving him $57,100. Peterson’s top donors include coal-powered American Crystal Sugar, at $84,585 among the $1,745,973 Peterson has received from agribusiness.

Ken Salazar, The ‘New Sheriff’ At Interior: Oil And Gas Interests ‘Do Not Own The Nation’s Public Lands’

Our guest blogger is Tom Kenworthy, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress.

When president-elect Barack Obama nominated Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar to head the Department of Interior at the end of 2008, some voices in the conservation community wondered whether the moderate Democrat with ties to ranching and other traditional western industries was the best choice to chart a new direction in managing one-fifth of the nation’s land. But immediately after taking office, Salazar quickly moved to dispel many of those worries with a series of directives that forcefully demonstrated that the Bush era had ended, particularly on policies related to energy development on federal lands:

— He suspended 77 controversial oil and gas leases in Utah, some of them near national parks and national monuments.

– Understanding that renewable energy projects create more jobs than fossil fuels development, he directed his agencies to make the development of renewable energy a priority.

– He withdrew the Bush administration’s industry-friendly research and development leases for oil shale development in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.

– He launched a department-wide effort to ensure that federal land management decisions respond effectively to climate change.

And, saying “There’s a new sheriff in town,” he began to clean up the scandal-plagued Minerals Management Service, the Interior agency that oversees royalty collections from oil and gas companies operating on federal land and offshore.

A year later, Salazar is still riding herd on an industry that had grown accustomed to getting nearly everything it wanted from Washington. Early last month Salazar announced that his department’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) would conduct more thorough environmental reviews of potential oil and gas leases – including site specific inspections — and that a new departmental team would oversee energy reforms, so Interior would no longer be a “candy store” for the fossil fuels industry:

The previous administration’s ‘anywhere, anyhow’ policy on oil and gas development ran afoul of communities, carved up the landscape and fueled costly conflicts that created uncertainty for investors and industry. We need a fresh look – from inside the federal government and from outside – at how we can better manage Americans’ energy resources.

The Bush administration did industry’s bidding for eight years: from fiscal 2001 to fiscal 2009, more than 41,700 drilling permits were approved on federal lands, almost two-and-a-half times as many as during the previous eight years. In 2005, the Government Accountability Office found that the “dramatic increase” in oil and gas development on federal lands had undercut the BLM’s ability to meet its environmental obligations. The pace of development was such that rural Sublette County, Wyoming – which doesn’t even have a traffic light – recorded ozone levels in February 2008 that were nearly 50 percent higher than federal health standards. But it wasn’t just the numbers, it was also the cherished places the Bush administration wanted to drill: Colorado’s Roan Plateau, New Mexico’s Otero Mesa, Montana’s Rocky Mountain Front, the Wyoming Range, and the list goes on.

Last November, American Petroleum Institute (API) president Jack Gerard accused the administration of taking “a series of actions…to delay or thwart oil and natural gas exploration.” The Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States (IPAMS) that same month accused Interior of “irregularities” in cutting lease sales and failing to issue $100 million in leases already sold, even though federal records show that more than 45,000,000 federal acres were under lease as recently as last fall, and that more than 32 million of those acres had yet to be into production.

Salazar, to his credit, has not backed away under industry criticisms, calling them “poison and deceptive.” Oil and gas interests, he said, “do not own the nation’s public lands; taxpayers do.”

Iraq Veterans Hit GOP For Aiding Terrorists With Oil Money »

In a series of hard-hitting television ads, a liberal veterans advocacy organization challenges Republican lawmakers for blocking clean energy legislation that would cut oil funds to terrorists. As part of a $2 million television ad campaign, VoteVets has released a national spot as well as ones targeting Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO), and Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) for their opposition to climate and clean energy legislation. Other ads challenge representatives in Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, and South Dakota. As the spots point out, each member has taken thousands of dollars from oil companies that have operations in nations like Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Nigeria, and Algeria. The national ad explains the connection between our dependence on oil and terrorists like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab:

Terrorists. They’re trying to kill Americans at home and our troops abroad. And who’s footing the bill for the attacks against us? Oil money. Filtered through secret organizations in the Middle East and countries like Iran. When oil money hands up in the hands of our enemies, Americans pay the ultimate price. We’ve got to protect ourselves and end our dependence on foreign oil. Tell Congress: Pass the Clean Energy and American Power Act now.

Watch it:

The local spots are unflinching, featuring local veterans of the Iraq War. Veteran Benjamin Cossel, of Pine Bluffs, WY tells Sen. Barrasso to “decide whose side he’s on” — the terrorist-enabling oil companies that have given him $50,500, or the American people:

For thirty years, we’ve been warned about the danger of spending billions of dollars oil. The United States military calls it a major threat to our security. And on Christmas Day over Detroit, we were reminded again how oil money can support terrorism against us. But even today, Sen. John Barrasso won’t break our addiction. And he won’t break his own. Call Sen. Barrasso. It’s time for him to decide whose side he’s on.

Graham: ConservaDems’ Dirty Energy Bill Is ‘Half-Assed’ »

A day after President Barack Obama recognized that Senate Democrats wish to abandon global warming pollution limits in an energy bill, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) mocked the approach as “half-assed.” Obama’s remarks yesterday that “it’s conceivable” the Senate will attempt to pass an energy-incentives bill without a plan for reducing carbon pollution opened the floodgates for hyperbolic speculation in the Washington D.C. press that “cap-and-trade is dead.” Several conservative Democrats have advocated that climate legislation be postponed or abandoned in favor of the Bush-lite energy bill approved by Sen. Jeff Bingaman’s (D-NM) energy committee last year. However, speaking at the Business Advocacy Day for Jobs, Climate & New Energy this morning, Graham attacked this approach in no uncertain terms:

There was this idea floating around yesterday – don’t know how serious it is – that somehow it would be wise for Congress to do energy bill only. I don’t think that’s wise. The reason I don’t think that’s wise is that it is a kick-the-can-down-the-road approach. It’s putting off to another Congress what really needs to be done comprehensively.

I don’t think you’ll ever have energy independence the way I want it until you start dealing with carbon pollution and pricing carbon. The two are connected in my view – very much connected. The money to be made in solving the carbon pollution problem can only happen when you price carbon in my view. So if the approach is to try to pass some half-assed energy bill and say that is moving the ball down the road, forget it with me.

Democrats who are denying the critical urgency of reducing carbon emissions — or worse, claiming falsely that an incentive-only package would deliver a low-carbon economy — include Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), and Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA). Others, like Bingaman, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) have indicated their willingness to claim victory with just the passage of the Senate energy package, described by Center for American Progress president John Podesta as “weak, toothless, and unacceptable.”

“If you break this apart you’ll have a watered-down solution on both fronts,” Graham — who last year similarly rebuked Republicans — concluded. “The world is moving, pollution is growing, we’ve got a chance to get ahead and lead. If we wait too long and if we try to take half measures as the preferred route on all these hard problems, they just get worse.”

Obama delivered a less compelling defense of the necessity of a comprehensive bill today, saying that “I don’t want us to just say the easy way out is for us to just give a bunch of tax credits to clean energy companies.”

A cap-and-trade system or the like is the only way America can break the grip of coal and oil companies on the future of our economy, our health, our environment, and our national security. Dependent on the millions of dollars of campaign funds that flow from these polluters, too many senators on both sides of the aisle are willing to put fossil fuel profiteers above the fate of their nation.

Below are recent quotes from senators attempting to justify failing to prevent a climate catastrophe: More »« Less

Dr. Seuss Enterprises Sends Cease-And-Desist To Dirty Coal Company LoraxAg

“I am the Lorax: Cease and desist.”

That is the message coming from Dr. Seuss Enterprises to LoraxAg, a coal gasification startup that named itself without permission after Dr. Seuss’s beloved environmental hero. Last week, the Wonk Room notified the defenders of Dr. Seuss’s intellectual property that a coal company was draping its coal-to-chemicals technology in truffula trees. Now, the New York Times reports that Dr. Seuss Enterprises’ Karl ZoBell has sent a cease-and-desist letter to the company, as “we do not license the use of Dr. Seuss’s works for other companies to make a profit”:

They should be creative enough to come up with their own name for their company. Dr. Seuss coined this phrase. The term did not exist until he invented it.

LoraxAg claims not to have received the cease-and-desist notice. If necessary, Zobell said, Dr. Seuss Enterprises would “seek relief — and possibly damages — from the courts.”

“I am amazed that nobody suggested to them that this is a bad idea,” ZoBell told the New York Times. However, this is typical behavior for dirty coal operatives. The coal industry has gone to absurd heights to greenwash its toxic and dirty reality, from Frosty the Coalman carols to coal ringtones.

Earl Pomeroy, D-Global Warming Denial

A 1995 document the North Dakota coal industry used before the legislature to show how carbon taxes would help wind and hinder lignite development.

In a bald attempt to defend coal industry profits, Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) has joined a predominantly Republican push to overrule the Environmental Protection Agency’s scientific finding that greenhouse gases are dangerous pollutants. Earlier this month, Pomeroy introduced the Save Our Energy Jobs Act (H.R. 4396), which would rewrite the Clean Air Act so that “[t]he term ‘air pollutant’ shall not include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, or sulfur hexafluoride.” Pomeroy’s justification for flouting the reality of the global warming threat is the need to defend the coal, oil, and gas industries:

This action could result in significantly raising local energy prices and endanger the 28,000 direct and indirect jobs that are connected to North Dakota’s coal industry, not to mention thousands of jobs connected to our manufacturing and expanding oil and gas industries.

Pomeroy’s claim that “regulations to address global climate change must only be enacted at the direction of Congress” is specious, considering that he voted against the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act, which did exactly that.

This is nothing new. North Dakota’s coal industry successfully blocked the state legislature from taking action on global warming pollution in 1995, by noting that it would make wind power more cost-effective than coal. Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), while extolling North Dakota’s wind power potential, has decided to side with coal when it comes to actual climate policy decisions, though he has not taken the extreme step of embracing Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-AK) resolution to overturn the greenhouse gas endangerment finding, as Democrats Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Ben Nelson (D-NE), and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) have.

North Dakota’s allegiance to coal has delivered low-price electricity, but at great cost. North Dakota’s largest coal-fired power plant, the Great River Energy Coal Creek Station, is one of the nation’s most polluting plants, spewing over 800 pounds of mercury, 24,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, four million pounds of coal waste, and a staggering 10 million tons of carbon dioxide every year.

North Dakota’s climate is beginning to spiral out of control. In the last twenty years, Red River floods expected to occur at Fargo only once every ten years have happened every two to three years. 2009’s unprecedented flooding made it the third year in a row with at least a “ten-year flood.” Pomeroy has two children — whose future he is putting at grave risk, all for the sake of donors like American Crystal Sugar ($99,025), whose facilities rely on coal plants, and the electric utilities who have given him $210,860.

Kentucky Lawmakers Demonstrate How To Defend Dirty Coal Subsidies

President Barack Obama’s 2011 budget would cut $2.28 billion in coal subsidies over the next decade. These $228 million-a-year cuts are dwarfed by the $545 million-a-year subsidies for carbon capture and sequestration technology, which Obama insists on calling “clean coal technology.” How are Kentucky lawmakers responding to this effective doubling of subsidies for the coal industry? By using Orwellian language — “coal” becomes “domestic energy production” — to defend the existing subsidies and attack Obama for destroying jobs.

Rep. Ben Chandler (D-KY), who has received $91,042 from oil and coal interests.

We’ll have to examine the new budget proposal we received this morning, but we are very concerned about any possible impact this repeal could have on Kentucky jobs.

Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY), who has received $691,565 from oil and coal interests:

The president can’t have it both ways. You can’t seek to end our dependence on foreign oil and get America working, while at the same time imposing policies that harm domestic energy production and kill jobs. This is just another politically motivated assault that takes dead aim at coal, severely limiting coal companies in their ability to create jobs and keep production lines open. Worst of all, it hurts Appalachia’s hardworking coal mining families at a time when the commonwealth faces over 10.7 percent unemployment.

Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY), who has received $782,449 from oil and coal interests.

These new taxes will mean less domestic energy production, a substantial increase in the price of power for American homes and businesses, less revenue, as well as jeopardizing thousands of jobs. I would encourage the administration to refocus their attention on funding clean coal technologies, along with the commercial deployment of advanced technologies that are necessary to ensure the United States has clean, reliable, and affordable energy.

Pentagon: ‘Climate Change, Energy Security, And Economic Stability Are Inextricably Linked’

For the first time, the Pentagon’s primary planning document addresses the threat of global warming, noting that it will accelerate instability and conflict around the globe. Former Senators John Warner (R-VA) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) added language requiring the department to consider the effects of climate change on its facilities, capabilities, and missions to the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. The Department of Defense’s Quadrennial Defense Review, officially released today, discusses the department’s “strategic approach to climate and energy”:

Climate change and energy are two key issues that will play a significant role in shaping the future security environment. Although they produce distinct types of challenges, climate change, energy security, and economic stability are inextricably linked. The actions that the Department takes now can prepare us to respond effectively to these challenges in the near term and in the future.

The QDR notes that climate change affects the Department of Defense “in two broad ways”: first, global warming impacts and disasters will “act as an accelerant of instability or conflict,” and second, military installations and forces around the globe will have to adapt to rising seas, increased extreme weather, and other effects of global warming:

Assessments conducted by the intelligence community indicate that climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments. Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration. While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world.

The military is working on not just responding to the impacts of global warming, but also mitigating the threat by reducing global warming emissions. Increased use of renewable energy and energy efficiency not only lessens the military’s enormous carbon footprint, but also delivers immediate security benefits:

Energy efficiency can serve as a force multiplier, because it increases the range and endurance of forces in the field and can reduce the number of combat forces diverted to protect energy supply lines, which are vulnerable to both asymmetric and conventional attacks and disruptions.

The military’s overall agenda is backed up by specific action. In line with President Obama’s executive order to devise a greenhouse pollution reduction plan, the Department of Defense has committed to cutting emissions from its non-combat facilities by 34 percent by 2020. The Air Force, long dependent on billions of gallons of imported oil, is investing deeply in all forms of renewable energy. The Army is making major investments in battery technology, renewable energy, and electric drive vehicles.

As Vice President Gore has noted repeatedly, the “climate crisis, the security crisis and the economic crisis have a common thread” — our dependence on fossil fuels. If we continue the status quo, threats will continue to multiply on every front — a fact our military, if not our politicians now in the Senate, now recognizes.

Obama Commits Government To Major Cuts In Global Warming Pollution

Today, President Barack Obama announced that “the federal government will reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution by 28 percent by 2020.” These cuts are long overdue, and promise a sea change in government procurement and practices, with the promise of major savings from energy efficiency. In a statement, Obama emphasized the goal of shifting “federal energy expenses away from oil and towards local, clean energy”:

As the largest energy consumer in the United States, we have a responsibility to American citizens to reduce our energy use and become more efficient. Our goal is to lower costs, reduce pollution, and shift federal energy expenses away from oil and towards local, clean energy.

Putting Obama’s State of the Union “dirty fuels are clean” gaffe behind them, the White House made it clear that “clean energy” means renewable sources like “solar, wind, and geothermal,” not oil, coal and nuclear.

The 28 percent target is a compilation of commitments from 35 departments and agencies, submitted to the White House by January 4, in accordance with Obama’s October 5 executive order 13514. The Treasury Department “is hoping to cut its emissions by a third,” Daniel Tangherlini, assistant secretary for management and chief financial officer, told reporters.

The scale of this commitment is immense. The federal government “runs 600,000 vehicles and 500,000 buildings” — 160,000 vehicles and 300,000 buildings in the Defense Department alone. Defense is committing to cutting emissions in non-combat areas by 34%. These non-combat installations and fleet “account for around a quarter of Defense’s energy consumption and roughly 40% of its emissions,” according to Dorothy Robyn, deputy undersecretary for installations and the environment:

In 2008, the department spent $20 billion on its energy bill, and another $14 billion in 2009 after oil prices slipped. While the department will report energy use from its combat, or operational activities, Robyn said the sector would not be subject to a reduction target.

Today’s announcement is a key first step for the government, especially in the realm of national security — so we won’t be sending money to terrorist havens even as our military are fighting there.

Clean Energy Forum: Standing Up For The Future

Our guest blogger is Jon Gensler, a former U.S. Army captain, LEED accredited professional, and a dual MBA/MPA Candidate at MIT Sloan and the Harvard Kennedy School.

Yesterday, January 27th, 2010, was an inspiring day for me: as a veteran and member of Operation Free, as an aspiring clean energy entrepreneur and businessman, as an environmental advocate, and as a proud American. On the morning before President Obama’s first State of the Union address, national leaders in the business community, the labor community, veterans and national security experts, faith leaders, farming leaders, and more came together at the Clean Energy, Jobs, and Security Forum in the Capitol building to discuss the importance of comprehensive climate and energy legislation, how quickly we as a nation need to respond to truly act in time, and showing a first step in the bipartisan direction that the President called us to take.

There are so many highlights of the day, it would be impossible for me to recount them all, but imagine a conference with opening remarks by Senators John Warner (R-VA, retired) and John Kerry (D-MA), two retired general officers discussing the national security threat posed by climate change, and a keynote lunch address by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy. We discussed the destabilizing force that climate change has in already weak states, how to engage and benefit from the work of the large US agricultural sector (and not merely with promises of corn ethanol!), and how by addressing the risks that a changing climate brings to all facets of our lives, we can seize the reins of the global clean energy economy — one in which China is already outspending us by laying out $9 billion a month to develop their own clean energy sector. Sen. Graham described the costs of doing nothing very well:

A word of caution and warning: Doing nothing, in my view, does put the planet at risk. Doing nothing continues an irresponsible practice of sending $440 billion year overseas to buy oil from people who don’t like us very much. Doing nothing allows China to own what I think will be the most exciting economic opportunity of the 21st century: the green economy. As we talk, as we argue, as we try to find 60 votes in America, China is doing.

Certainly, the President’s first State of the Union address was a worthy cherry on top, eloquent as always, and full of what I thought to be a heartfelt and serious message. He doesn’t claim to have all of the answers, but claims we need to come together as a nation and try to find them. That seems to me to be the right approach, especially for such difficult problems as the financial, economic, and climate crises that we are facing. We are all going to need to make changes, to adapt the way we have lived and worked in the past to the new realities of the future, and thus it is us as a people who need to shoulder much of the burden of that work.

At the end of the day, feeling good after the President spoke — though waiting for my friends in the environmental community to be up in arms about the calls for offshore oil drilling, nuclear power plants and clean coal — I am perhaps still most inspired by the words of Senator Graham presaging the call the President would make later that evening: “We are trying to find a way forward… but there is no substitute for citizen involvement.” And Secretary Chu: “Policy changes happen when the American people give courage to their representatives.”

Wayne Gretzky, perhaps the greatest hockey player of all time, once said about his abilities in the rink, “I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it’s been.” We know where the puck is going to be. Stand up, America, and get there.

Climate Ground Zero: Activists In West Virginia Halt Mountaintop Removal For Eighth Day

Coal River Mountain, WV

Yesterday in Washington, DC, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) exhorted citizens to “get angry about the fact that they’re being killed and our planet is being injured by what’s happening on a daily basis by the way we provide our power and our fuel.” In West Virginia, climate activists are not just getting angry, they’re taking action — blocking the demolition of Coal River Mountain by coal company Massey Energy. The activists, members of the aptly named organization Climate Ground Zero, have been living in trees for over a week to prevent bulldozers from reaching the summit:

High up in the trees near the summit of Coal River Mountain, two activists dangle in the air near a mountaintop removal mine site. Eric Blevins and Amber Nitchman are still preventing the expansion of mining on the summit of Coal River Mountain, a mountain that has the best wind energy (and therefore economic) potential in the area.

In 2007, local residents commissioned an economic study of wind power potential for the mountain, which found it could “power 70,000 West Virginia Homes and provide permanent jobs and $1.7 million in taxes to the county every year.” Instead, coal baron Don Blankenship, the “scariest polluter in the United States,” intends to blow up the mountain for its coal. His employees have been blasting the tree-sit activists with air horns and flood lights.

Following hundreds of phone calls from supporters of the non-violent civil disobedience action, Gov. Joe Manchin (D-WV) met today with Climate Ground Zero representatives and “asked the activists to scale down their campaign.” His request comes just two days after state lawmakers “introduced — at Manchin’s request — a resolution attacking efforts in Congress and by the Obama administration to tackle the global warming problem.”

To Glowing GOP Praise, Obama Calls Nukes, Coal, And Oil Drilling ‘Clean Energy Jobs’

President Barack Obama’s discussion of energy policy in his first State of the Union address pandered to corporate interests while demoralizing his progressive supporters. Though Obama made a strong case that real investments in clean energy such as solar technology, advanced batteries, high-speed rail and efficiency are critical to job creation and international competitiveness, he also offered sops to established corporate polluters. Republicans, who spent much of the address refusing to applaud Obama’s call for economic reforms, ecstatically applauded his praise of polluting industry. Embracing the language of the John McCain campaign, Obama described nuclear power, offshore oil and gas drilling, and coal as “clean energy jobs”:

But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. And, yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.

Watch a compilation of Obama’s address and the Republican reaction:

Although Republicans lauded Obama’s praise of heavily subsidized, polluting industries, they scoffed at energy legislation that would address climate change. Unlike Rudy Giuliani, Rep. David Dreier (R-CA), Mitt Romney, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Obama’s actual supporters were dismayed.

About 12,000 MoveOn members participated in a “live online dial-test of President Obama’s State of the Union speech.” While Obama’s mentions of clean energy innovation were some of his most popular moments, his paean to polluters was by far his worst moment with progressive activists:

Nukes, oil, and coal just aren’t clean. If Obama really is committed to “tough decisions,” he’ll take on the coal companies who are tearing up the Appalachian mountains, the nuclear companies who want taxpayers to take all the risk for accidents and waste, and the oil companies who are burning up the planet for their own profit. And that’s something the people who put him into office could support.

Ben Nelson’s Logically Incoherent Stance On Cap And Trade

There seems to be something about climate policy that encourages senators to take positions that are logically impossible. In the latest instance, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) has now managed to simultaneously oppose and support a carbon command-and-control regime. Nelson is one of three Democrats to co-sponsor Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-AK) resolution overturning the EPA’s greenhouse gas endangerment finding, supposedly because “EPA regulations would be a government-directed command-and-control regime”:

I am very concerned about the impact on Nebraska if EPA moves to regulate carbon emissions. Many Nebraska agricultural, industrial and energy-related businesses and organizations have warned about the costs they would have to shoulder from EPA regulations. Because EPA regulations would be a government-directed command-and-control regime, they would raise the price of energy in Nebraska, add greatly to administrative costs, and create new layers of bureaucracy. The burden would fall squarely on Nebraska families, farmers and businesses.

The EPA’s rules will function as a soft cap on large emitters of global warming pollution, most of whom are already covered by Clean Air Act permits for traditional pollution. No new layers of bureaucracy will be created. However, the cost of fossil-based energy would slowly rise. Because it would be legally difficult for the EPA to establish an emissions trading system, companies could not use market means to mitigate those costs.

The ability of trading markets to reduce compliance costs for pollution reduction is the key selling point of a Congressionally established cap-and-trade market as opposed to a command-and-control regime. However, Nelson has also indicated he opposes a cap-and-trade system:

Nelson said he has not had detailed conversations yet with Kerry, Graham and Lieberman. But he said he is open to negotiations on setting a limit on greenhouse gas emissions. “I want to see what the legislation does,” he said. “I said I can support cap. I have trouble with cap and trade, the trade part of it. So if it’s cap and trade, watered down, and it’s only the trade watered down, that won’t satisfy me.”

A cap without “trade” is by definition a command-and-control regime — which Nelson has said he opposes on economic grounds. But he claims to oppose a cap with “trade” on populist grounds. In short, he’s using logically inconsistent excuses to block both executive branch and legislative branch action on global warming.

Nelson may be trying to pander to polls, which show that the phrase “cap and trade” is unpopular by comparison to Americans’ desire for the government to regulate polluters and support clean energy investment. Or maybe he’s pandering to his corporate polluter donors, who need senators like Nelson to maintain the Bush-Cheney status quo.

In 3-2 Vote, SEC Requires Companies To Disclose Climate Risks To Investors

In a 3-to-2 vote, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission determined today that companies “must consider the effects of global warming and efforts to curb climate change when disclosing business risks to investors.”

Guidelines approved today require companies to weigh the impact of climate-change laws and regulations when assessing what information to disclose, the commission said. The SEC is responding to investors who said companies aren’t providing enough data on the potential risks to their profits and operations from environmental- protection laws. In the 3-to-2 vote, the commission said companies in the U.S. should also consider international accords, indirect effects such as lower demand for goods that produce greenhouse gases, and physical impacts such as the potential for increased insurance claims in coastal regions as a result of rising sea levels.

Ceres, a network of investors and climate activists, hailed the action as “the first economy-wide climate risk disclosure requirement in the world.” More than a dozen investors managing over $1 trillion in assets, plus Ceres and the Environmental Defense Fund, requested formal guidance in a petition filed with the Commission in 2007, and supported by supplemental petitions filed in 2008 and 2009.

For too long, the reality of climate change has been ignored by American business, exemplified by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s denial of global warming. This willful ignorance has left American business — from agriculture to the financial sector — unprepared for the increasing damages of climate change, such as sea level rise, drought and wildfires. Furthermore, these blinders have kept American business behind international competitors, who have leapt ahead by investing in the coming low-carbon economy.

‘Green Coal’ Company LoraxAg Dirties Dr. Seuss Legacy

In a shameless act of greenwashing, a coal-gasification startup has named itself without permission after Dr. Seuss’s beloved Lorax. LoraxAg, LLC, is a western Massachusetts company that is seeking investors for its “Green Coal Technology” of a coal gasification and chemical production facility. The company, whose principals include Michael Sununu, the son of former New Hampshire governor John Sununu, has raised over $1 million in seed capital to build a high-sulfur coal factory. The name choice was a deliberate attempt to cloak their coal-and-chemical company as an eco-friendly venture:

And, yes, the name is inspired by the Dr. Seuss story, Farina said. “The Lorax is the protector of the truffula trees,” he said. “We think this is the greenest use of coal.”

The “greenest use of coal” is keeping it in the ground — not blowing the tops off of mountains to burn it. While advanced technology to find less toxic use for high-sulfur coal is admirable, comparing it to the Lorax’s call to protect natural resources instead of plundering it is ludicrous. Furthermore, the comparison is an unauthorized copyright violation, the Wonk Room has learned.

“We had never heard of it until we heard from you,” Dr. Seuss Enterprises lawyer Karl Zobell told the Wonk Room in a phone interview. “We did not give permission for them to use the Lorax, which Dr. Seuss created. Typically we don’t like people to use Dr. Seuss terms without permission.”

In 1999, the hardwood flooring industry published “Truax,” a rewrite of the Lorax in which a logger convinces “Guardbark” that cutting down trees is really great and who really cares about endangered species anyway. The “green coal” of “LoraxAg” is similarly absurd.

(H/T Get Energy Smart Now)

The Spending Freeze And Clean Energy Reform

Deficit peacocks like Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Sen. John McCain are behind President Barack Obama’s call for a multi-year spending freeze on “non-security discretionary spending.” But these same politicians who want to impose austerity measures on a struggling economy have opposed plans which would cut the deficit while strengthening the economy. My colleague Igor Volsky has explained how stalled health care reform — while dramatically expanding coverage and saving people’s lives — would also cut the deficit. As it turns out, President Obama’s signature push to limit global warming pollution is also a deficit-slashing measure:

The Congressional Budget Office – the arbiter of the federal budget impact of all legislation – just released an analysis that the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, S. 1733, “would reduce budget deficits (or increase future surpluses) by about $21 billion over the 2010-2019 period… In years after 2019, direct spending would be less than the net revenues attributable to the legislation in each of the 10-year periods following 2019. Therefore, CBO estimates that enacting S. 1733 would not increase the deficit in any of the four 10-year periods following 2019.”

The Kerry-Boxer Clean Energy Jobs Act itself is limited in its deficit and jobs impact, because it gives 70 percent of pollution credits — worth $625 billion — away for free in the first decade. We can get faster clean energy reform and a bigger deficit impact by restoring Obama’s original budget plan for a full auction of pollution credits, so that industries pay the American taxpayer for the privilege of polluting our air. These increased revenues would hasten job creation, clean energy investment, and the clean up of the deficits created by George W. Bush.

Congress is blocking not only health care reform but also clean energy legislation that would clean the air, create millions of green jobs, and eliminate our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

Instead, we get a spending freeze as the planet burns.

Countering Sarah Palin’s Oil-Soaked Spin »

Our guest bloggers are Daniel J. Weiss, a Senior Fellow and the Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, and Rebecca Lefton, a Researcher for Progressive Media at American Progress.

Continuing her drum beat of pro-oil spin, Sarah Palin recently asks on Facebook “Where’s the Oil in Our National Energy Policy?” calling on the U.S. to expand domestic oil and gas developments while ignoring efforts to reduce dependence on foreign oil – one fifth of which comes from countries that are dangerous or unstable. As usual, her post is full of errors, half truths, and lies. Palin’s post cites and links to an article by Michael J. Economides, a conservative oil-industry scientist, at Investors Business Daily. Let’s set the record straight on Sarah Palin’s energy policy:

SARAH’S SPIN: “The U.S. government under Barack Obama has yet to acknowledge once, in spite of widely held estimates, that oil will continue to account for 40% of world energy demand 25 years from now — this while total world energy demand will increase by 50%, at least.” [Facebook, 1/24/10]

FACT: The Department of Energy (DOE) determined that even under existing policies (no significant increase in fuel economy or greenhouse gas pollution cuts) “liquids share of world marketed energy consumption declines from 36 percent in 2006 to 32 percent in 2030.” DOE predicts that “total world consumption of marketed energy is projected to increase by 44 percent from 2006 to 2030.” That’s without limits on global warming pollution that many countries plan to adopt, which should lower world energy demand. The Energy Information Administration estimates that U.S. oil demand will rise only one half of one percent between 2008 and 2035.

SARAH’S SPIN: “Nor has the administration, mired in Kyoto and Copenhagen global climate rhetoric, acknowledged that fossil fuels, oil, gas and coal will still account by then for over 85% of world energy demand, a largely unchanged contribution from what it is today.” [IBD, 1/21/10]

FACT: The Department of Energy predicts that fossil fuels – oil, gas, and coal – will account for 83 percent of world energy consumption in 2030. Of course, that assumes that there are no changes in energy policy or reductions in global warming pollution, which would reduce the use of fossil fuels.

More »« Less

Global Boiling: Preparing For Frankenstorms

The most powerful storm in recorded history for the region swept through the Southwestern United States last week, “bringing deadly flooding, tornadoes, hail, hurricane force winds, and blizzard conditions.” Rain dumped on Los Angeles, San Diego, and Phoenix, as mountains received up to four feet of snow. Wind gusts exceeding 90 miles per hour, tornadoes, and water spouts spun off the monster storm. Over 159,000 people lost power in the storm’s wake. Meteorologist Jeff Masters wrote on Friday that the storm was “truly epic”:

We expect to get powerful winter storms affecting the Southwest U.S. during strong El Niño events, but yesterday’s storm was truly epic in its size and intensity. The storm set all-time low pressure records over roughly 10 – 15% of the U.S.–over southern Oregon, and most of California, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah.

“California has been pounded by a series of winter storms and rains,” said Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger during a news conference in Los Angeles. “The storms brought wind gusts of up to 80 miles [an hour] across the mountains and the canyons, major highways and roads were closed, flights have been grounded, thousands of homes and businesses lost power, more than 2,100 homes were evacuated. Sadly and unfortunately, some people lost their lives.”

However, this record storm is only a preview of what is to come in a warmer world. The USGS Multi Hazards Demonstration Project at the California Institute of Technology is developing the ARkStorm scenario to “tackle what would happen if a series of powerful storms lashed at the state for 23 days“:

In the scenario, the storm system forms in the Pacific and slams into the West Coast with hurricane-force winds, hitting Southern California the hardest. After more than a week of ferocious weather, the system stalls for a few days. Another storm brews offshore and this time pummels Northern California. Such a monster storm could unleash as much as 8 feet of rain over three weeks in some areas, said research meteorologist Martin Ralph with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, who is part of the project. It makes the latest Pacific storm system look like a drop in the bucket.

“Ironically, the team had scheduled meetings at Caltech to learn about the fictional storm’s impact to dams, sewage treatment plants, transportation and the electrical grid,” the Associated Press’s Alicia Chang writes. “About a dozen canceled due to the storms.”

Travels In Ecuador: Choosing The Riches Of Life Or Of Oil

I just returned from a two-week vacation in Ecuador. The nation, slightly smaller than the state of Nevada, is fascinating for its diversity. From the isolated Galapagos archipelago to the fecund jungles of the Amazon headwaters, from coastal forests to the volcanic highlands of Quito, one finds an explosion of life, culture, and language straddling the equator.

Part of my trip was spent in the rainforests of the Napo River, at an eco-lodge on the border of Yasuní National Park, at the intersection of the Andean foothills, the Amazon basin, and the equator. Each day offered the chance to see dozens of species of birds, insects, and reptiles, as well as a practically uncountable array of plantlife. The Kichwa people own and maintain the land, farming on the river banks, hunting in the forests, and selling crafts in the city upstream. The apparent diversity is no mistake:

A team of scientists has documented that Yasuní National Park, in the core of the Ecuadorian Amazon, shatters world records for a wide array of plant and animal groups, from amphibians to trees to insects.

The newly-published study by a group of international scientists found that Yasuní contains more species of frogs and toads than are native to the United States and Canada combined. The plant and insect diversity is even more striking — each hectare of the park contains more tree and shrub species than all of the United States and Canada combined, with 100,000 species of insect estimated in each hectare. The entire park covers about 9,820 square kilometers, less than Los Angeles County, a little larger than Yellowstone National Park.

However, this vast store of biodiversity and culture is under unprecedented threat:

However, numerous major threats confront the ecosystems of this region—including hydrocarbon and mining projects, illegal logging, oil palm plantations, and large- scale transportation projects under the umbrella of IIRSA (Initiative for the Integration of Regional Infrastructure in South America). For example, oil and gas concessions now cover vast areas, even overlapping protected areas and titled indigenous lands.

In particular, Ecuador’s second largest untapped oil fields lie beneath the largely intact, northeastern section of the park, known as the “ITT” block for the Ishpingo, Tambococha, and Tiputini oil fields, representing 20 percent of Ecuador’s crude oil reserves. In 2007, Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa proposed the Yasuní-ITT Initiative, which would prevent exploitation of its $6 billion worth of oil in exchange for some percentage of international aid or carbon market proceeds. In the run up to the Copenhagen conference, it appeared that Yasuní-ITT would coalesce into a deal, with Germany taking the lead with seed financing. However, Correa joined the Hugo Chavez bloc of South American countries that condemned the limited accord struck by leading nations, leaving the fate of Yasuní in doubt. After Correa announced on January 9 his intentions to drill in the park, several members of his government resigned in protest, including Fander Falconi, Minister of Foreign Affairs.

This battle over conserving untold riches of life and our fragile atmosphere versus a decade or two of polluting but valuable energy is repeated throughout the globe, including the United States. The Appalachian hardwood forest is a center of biodiversity in the United States, but mountaintop removal coal mining is literally stripping away the mountains and filling the streams, as people choose profit over their children’s future.