The television ad informs Californians that they have some “tough decisions to make” about immigration and global warming:

“Concerned about Americans’ huge carbon foot print? Then you should be concerned about immigration… Reducing immigration won’t solve global warming, but it is part of the solution. We’ve got some tough choices to make.”

Watch it:

The corresponding radio ad tells Californians that they have to face an “inconvenient truth” about immigration and climate change:

“The inconvenient truth is that population growth and environmental degradation go hand in hand…by 2050 our population will reach 60 million — driven almost entirely by immigration and immigrant births. And when immigrants come to California, their carbon footprint quadruples what it was…So if we’re going to do our share to save the earth, our immigration levels must be reduced. That’s a tough pill for compassionate Californians to swallow, but swallow it we must.“

Listen:

A CAPS press release indicates that the ads are based on the shoddy research presented by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), a group which has been described as having “never found any aspect of immigration it likes.” According to the Southern Poverty Law Center and Center for New Community, both groups were founded and funded by John Tanton — a man with “troubling associations with racists, white supremacists, and political extremists.” Other “Tanton network” organizations have parroted similar claims, including NumbersUSA, Progressives for Immigration Reform, and the hate group Federation for American Immigration Reform which recently launched a new social networking website, fairdebate.org, aimed at “furthering the debate” on “US overpopulation and the role that immigration plays.”

All of Tanton’s organizations are fixated on scapegoating immigrants and sidestep the fact that the central problem has more to do with US consumption patterns. Rather than asking Americans to get rid of their gas guzzling automobiles, CAPS suggests getting rid of immigrants. However, energy consumption is driven by a host of factors totally unrelated to population size, such as societal dependence on polluting and non-renewable fossil fuels; utilization of energy-efficient technologies; and the development of mass transit systems that minimize individual automobile use. That explains why the World Resources Institute found that though the US is home to 23% fewer people than the European nations of the EU-15, it still produces 70% more greenhouse gases.

Ultimately, CAPS is essentially suggesting that the world would be better off if immigrants stayed poor in their less consuming, less industrialized countries. Based on this logic, illegal immigration isn’t the problem, increased wealth and international development are. However, quite the contrary, “immigrants, in essence, are doing precisely what planners want the rest of us to do,” says to UCLA professor Ali Modarres who recently found that, compared to Americans, more immigrants walk, bike, bus, or metro to work and fewer drive cars in the state of California. While CAPS and others blame immigrants for everything from traffic jams to depleting aquifers, Mordares suggests that, “immigrants are greening our cities, how about giving them a break?”

Doug Elmendorf, CBO

Yesterday, Doug Elmendorf, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, testified before the Senate energy committee about the “comparatively modest” cost of a cap-and-trade system to limit carbon pollution. The Washington Post and Wall Street Journal blared “Congressional Budget Chief Says Climate Bill Would Cost Jobs” and “Cap-and-Trade Would Slow Economy, CBO Chief Says.” Conservatives leapt on the reports to cheer the “end” of “cap-and-tax.”

Of course, Elmendorf’s testimony is nothing new. Elmendorf warned that jobs in the fossil fuel industry would be lost, and that overall GDP growth would be slowed by less than one percent by 2020. No one is arguing that there won’t be a shift from pollution-based industries to clean-energy industries. But doing so will create millions more jobs than are lost, as energy companies invest in American workers instead of foreign oil and mountaintop removal. The effect on GDP is within the margin of error of future estimates of growth. Even pessimistic studies by the National Association of Manufacturers find that U.S. GDP will increase by $9 trillion with limits on carbon pollution.

What upset me, however, was the portion of Elmendorf’s testimony that was not reported. Although he recognized that his estimates do not take into account the economic impacts of climate change, he testified that the changes that scientists call “catastrophic” would be barely noticeable in the U.S. economy:

Most of the economy involves activities that are not likely to be directly affected by changes in climate. Moreover, researchers generally expect the growth in the U.S. economy over the coming century to be concentrated in sectors — such as information technology and medical care — that are relatively insulated from climate effects. Damages are therefore likely to be a smaller share of the future economy than they would be if they occurred today. As a consequence, a relatively pessimistic estimate for the loss in projected real gross domestic product is about 3 percent for warming of about 7° Fahrenheit (F) by 2100. [Dale W. Jorgenson et al., 2004]

Elmendorf goes on to cite Nordhaus & Boyer (2000) to claim “the risk of catastrophic outcomes associated with about 11°F of warming by 2100″ gives a projected “loss equivalent to about 5 percent of U.S. output and, because of substantially larger losses in a number of other countries, a loss of about 10 percent of global output.” (By way of comparison, US GDP collapsed by nearly 50 percent during the Great Depression.)

This is frighteningly nonsensical. The CBO is arguing that the collapse of the national electricity grid, water supply, food system, and physical infrastructure from heat waves, desertification, disease outbreaks, wildfires, floods, and catastrophic storms would barely affect the national economy. In fact, seven to 11° F (4 to 6°C) warming would lead to unimaginable changes in our planet by 2100:

– One to three billion people around the world exposed to “increased water stress” (aka drought)

– More than 40 percent of the world’s species go extinct

– Widespread coral reef mortality

– Terrestrial biosphere becomes a net carbon source

– Productivity of cereal grains decreases in low, mid, and high latitudes

– Sea level rise of 0.6 – 1.3 meters (2 to 4 feet)

– About 35 percent of global coastal wetlands are lost

– Twenty percent of world’s population exposed to increased floods

– About 20 percent of arable land disappears (same amount becomes arable in previously frozen north)

– Arctic warms by 27°F

The effects in the United States would be similarly disastrous:

— heat waves of greater than 90° six months of the year in Texas, Florida, Arizona, southern California

– 5-month heat waves in California interior, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina

– 4-month heat waves in Kansas, Missouri, Tennessee, North Carolina

– 4-month heat waves greater than 100° in Texas, Arizona, southern California

– 3-month heat waves greater than 100° in Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, California interior

– 2 to 3-month heat waves everywhere in US except New England, northern Great Lakes, and the mountains, Pacific NW coast

– 1 to 2 months of greater than 100° everywhere except New York-New England, northern Great Lakes, mountains, Pacific NW coast

– 40 percent less precipitation in the Southwest

– Dust Bowl returns to Midwest

– Smog levels throughout summer above 10 ppb all across country

– Pollen count doubles again to four times pre-industrial levels

– Doubling of large wildfires in the West, as aspen and lodgepole pine disappear completely

– Tripling of coastal damage from storms

– Inundation of 10,000 square miles of U.S. land, including 25 to 80 percent of coastal wetlands

Texas and California, our top agricultural states, are already suffering from unprecedented heat and drought. Under 7 to 11°F warming, they would no longer be able to support agriculture. Corn crops start failing at above 90 degree weather, and soybean fails above 100 degrees. There would be no snow, maple, or cranberry industries in New England. The economists’ argument is that since the U.S. agriculture industry only represents about three percent of GDP, its total devastation would be hardly noticeable.

The above figures are actually misleading, because these are just the effects estimated under 4°C warming, not the even more unimaginable 6°C. Scientists are now warning that our current emissions levels may lead to 4°C warming by the 2070s.

It should also be noted that this kind of catastrophic warming would guarantee the long-term collapse of the Greenland and west Antarctica ice sheets, leading to sea level rise of over 12 meters (39 feet) in about 300 to 1000 years. But hey, I guess economists would argue that would spur growth in the floating-city industries.

On Tuesday, after weeks of buzz from a viral media blitz, GM finally answered its own marketing spin, “What is 230?” Apparently, the new Chevrolet Volt – set to hit show room floors in 2010 – will achieve an astounding city fuel economy of 230 miles per gallon.

GM Chief Executive Officer Fritz Henderson exclaimed in a press release on Tuesday that the Volt is sure to be a “game changer.” He went on to note that “based on the results of unofficial development testing of pre-production prototypes, the Volt has achieved 40 miles of electric-only, petroleum-free driving.” This, taken in conjunction with the Department of Transportation’s findings that nearly 8 in 10 Americans drive less than 40 miles per day, means that “many Chevy Volt drivers may be able to be in pure electric mode on a daily basis without having to use any gas” – unlike other hybrids such as the Toyota Prius.

The Volt, however, could cost about $40,000, putting it out of reach of many middle income consumers. GM believes that government incentives and battery warranties can make this new PHEV model an appealing option to climate- and cost-conscious consumers, despite the Volt’s high production costs. Prime among these government measures is a $7,500 consumer rebate in the 2009 stimulus package for purchasing qualifying electric plug-in vehicles such as the Volt. The Volt will become more economically attractive when oil and gasoline prices rise during the worldwide economic recovery. In contrast to their conservative predictions in 2008, the Energy Information Agency now expects oil prices to increase to $110 a barrel by 2015.

Critics say the 230 mpg claim for GM’s new plug-in is misleading – and even if it does live up to the hype, the Volt’s fuel range will pale in comparison to Nissan’s new plug-in model, the Leaf, due out in 2012. In a show of industry competition for most fuel economy supremacy, Nissan’s EV Twitter feed posted this yesterday: “Nissan Leaf = 367 mpg, no tailpipe, and no gas required. Oh yeah, and it’ll be affordable too.”

Japanese auto makers aren’t the only competition GM will have in the PHEV market. China announced last December it’s new plug-in, the F3DM, which will only cost an estimated $21,000 and has a battery range of an estimated 63 miles. Though it is unlikely that this model meets other U.S. safety standards, it is yet another sign that China wants to dominate the development and sale of clean energy technologies.

General Motors hopes the release of the Volt will signal to consumers the company is heeding the call for a new generation of super fuel efficient vehicles. The Center for American Progress hosted auto industry executives and independent engineers back in 2008 at an event to discuss the future of plug-in electric technology where GM Vice President Jonathan J. Lauckner acknowledged that “the automobile industry can no longer exclusively rely on oil as fuel for our vehicles.”

GM and the Volt may notably affect the electric car battery industry as well. Bob Kruse, GM’s executive director of global vehicle engineering, said on Friday that lithium-ion batteries – the kind that powers the Volt – are expected to come down in price and weight as the Volt is brought into mass production: “Getting the energy density up, getting the weight out, getting the cost out, that’s all part of what we are going to be challenged to do,” said Kruse.

Efforts to design the long range batteries of the future got a boost on August 5th when President Obama announced at a speech in Elkhart County, Indiana that the Department of Energy would invest $2.4 billion in advanced battery research. The funding is from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and is expected to save or create tens of thousands of jobs in Indiana.

In addition, investments in a new smart grid will also be pivotal to the full scale deployment of PHEV’s. Britta Gross, General Motors’ manager of Hydrogen and Electrical Infrastructure Development spoke at length in an interview last November about the partnerships GM has built with utility companies such as Duke and Edison and her confidence that these companies are more than prepared for the wide-scale deployment of the Volt.

This announcement by GM is sure to please the White House, considering then-candidate Obama’s pledge last August to put 1,000,000 plug-in hybrid vehicles on the road by 2015. The Volt and other super efficient cars are an essential element to meet President Obama’s new fuel efficiency standards that the White House believes will “result in savings of 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of vehicles sold in the next five years alone.” Plug-in vehicles like the Volt are essential to cutting our nation’s addiction to foreign oil and reducing global warming pollution. It may just be the “game changer” GM – and America — needs.

I can take you to places in eastern Kentucky where community services were hampered because of a lack of flat space — to build factories, to build hospitals, even to build schools. In many places, mountain-top mining, if done responsibly, allows for land to be developed for community space.

The concept of “responsible” mountain-top mining is laughable, as Mountain Justice explains:

Traditional mining communities disappear as jobs diminish and residents are driven away by dust, blasting and increased flooding and dangers from overloaded coal trucks careening down small, windy mountain roads. Mining companies buy many of the homes and tear them down. Dynamite is cheaper than people, so mountaintop removal mining does not create many new jobs.

Mountaintop removal generates huge amounts of waste. While the solid waste becomes valley fills, liquid waste is stored in massive, dangerous coal slurry impoundments, often built in the headwaters of a watershed. The slurry is a witch’s brew of water used to wash the coal for market, carcinogenic chemicals used in the washing process and coal fines (small particles) laden with all the compounds found in coal, including toxic heavy metals such as arsenic and mercury. Frequent blackwater spills from these impoundments choke the life out of streams.

ACCCE’s Joe Lucas — who can’t even admit that coal pollution contributes to global warming — is giving new meaning to the idea of the Flat Earth Society.

No one fared worse before the Supreme Court this Term than the Earth.  The justices heard five environmental cases, and they sided against defenders of the environment in every single one.  Among these cases, the Court upheld a Bush-era regulation that placed costs to power plants above destruction of aquatic life; it absolved from liability a chemical company that allowed pesticides to spill into the environment for years; it erected new obstacles to environmental organizations challenging federal environmental policy; and it upheld a mining company’s plans to dump literally millions of tons of mining waste into a pristine lake.

Two of these cases in particular highlight the Court’s disregard for laws intended to protect the environment:

• A New Loophole For Polluters (Coeur Alaska v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council)

Using a technique known as “froth-floatation,” a mining company in Alaska plans to extract new gold from a mine that has been closed for decades, but this technique would produce approximately 4.5 million tons of “slurry,” thick waste-product laced with toxic elements such as lead and mercury. Even worse, the mining company’s intends to dispose of this waste by dumping it into a nearby lake, a plan which would eventually kill all the lake’s fish and nearly all of its other aquatic life, decrease the depth of the lake by fifty feet, and flood the surrounding 40 acres of land with contaminated water.

Although federal law forbids “[t]he use of any river, lake, stream or ocean as a waste treatment system,” the Supreme Court created a massive new exception to this law. Under Justice Kennedy’s decision in Coeur Alaska, pollutants are exempt from this law so long as they have “the effect of . . . changing the bottom elevation of water.” In other words, polluters now have a free hand to dump whatever they want into pristine waters, so long as their waste products are solid and significant enough to reduce the depth of the lake, river or stream. As Justice Ginsburg wrote in dissent, such a reading of federal law “strains credulity” because it allows “[w]hole categories of regulated industries” to “gain immunity from a variety of pollution-control standards.”

• Placing Profits Before The Law (Entergy v. Riverkeeper)
  

Power plants’ cooling systems collectively remove more than 214 billion gallons of water from the nation’s waterways every day, in the process killing over 3.4 billion aquatic organisms per year. The Clean Water Act requires that EPA regulate these cooling systems based on “the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact.” During the Bush administration, however, EPA ignored this direction and instead employed a skewed cost-benefit analysis in deciding how to regulate. As a result, power plants were allowed to forgo the advanced technology required by the plain language of the law in favor of cheaper but far less protective measures.

Ignoring the law’s plain language, Justice Scalia’s decision in Riverkeeper upheld the Bush administration’s action.  As Justice Stevens explained in dissent, Congress determined that the costs of requiring power plants to pay for environmentally friendly technology “are outweighed by the benefits of minimizing adverse environmental impact” when it enacted the Clean Water Act, but the Court substituted the Bush Administration’s judgment for that of the law.

Notably, Riverkeeper reversed a Second Circuit decision by Judge Sonia Sotomayor, a hopeful sign that President Obama’s nominee for the high Court does not share her future colleagues’ willingness to rewrite environmental legislation to benefit big industry.

1. H. Res. 587: Adoption of the rule to set the terms of debate, officially three hours in total.

2. H.R. 2998: Adoption of the Waxman amendment in the nature of the substitute.

3. H.R. 513: Adoption of J. Randy Forbes (R-VA) substitute, the New Manhattan Project for Energy Independence.

4. Motion to recommit.

5. Final passage.

The final version of the Waxman-Markey act includes a mixed bag of changes. Weakening amendments include Rep. Collin Peterson’s (D-MN) concessions on behalf of Big Ag. In exchange for a restriction of the Building Energy Performance Labeling Program on behalf of the National Association of Realtors, Rep. Ed Perlmutter’s (D-CO) beneficial GREEN Act to spur energy-efficient homes will be adopted. Waxman included several other beneficial changes, including the Inslee (WA)-Markey (CO) clean-grid legislation, several critical green jobs amendments, and the Titus (NV)-Giffords (AZ)-Heinrich (NM) renewable energy standard for Federal agencies.

Below is a summary of the Waxman amendment, broken down by its the component amendments:

– Waxman (CA): Makes changes to accommodate States that utilize a central purchasing model for its renewable electricity standard, and makes additional changes.

– Inslee (WA) / Markey (CO): Provides FERC with sitting authority for the construction of certain high-priority interstate transmission lines constructed in the Western Interconnection and amends the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors.

– Peterson (MN): Requires the Agriculture Secretary to establish a list of types of domestic agricultural and forestry practices that result in reductions or avoidance of greenhouse gas emissions, exempts the agriculture and forestry sectors from the bill’s emission caps, redefines “biomass,” and grandfathers existing biodiesel plants to exempt them from lifecycle analysis under the RFS.

– Polis (CO): Permits states to convey allowances in a SEED account directly to renewable energy generators.

– Kratovil (MD): Requires the Agriculture Secretary to establish a carbon incentives program to achieve supplemental greenhouse gas emissions reductions on private agricultural and forestland.

– Titus (NV)/ Giffords (AZ)/ Heinrich (NM): Establishes a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) for Federal agencies, and provides Federal agencies with the authority to enter into renewable energy power purchase agreements for up to 20 years.

– Boren (OK)/ Larson (CT)/ Sullivan (OK): Makes natural gas fueled vehicles eligible for clean vehicle incentives, the vehicle integration program, and the manufacturing incentives for alternatively fueled vehicles.

- Cardoza (CA): Limits the cost of a permit for a license for the construction of a solar energy system, and provides that noncompliance with permit cost requirements disqualifies the entity from Community Development Block Grants.

– Halvorson (IL): Authorizes a national education and awareness program for the purpose of informing building, facility, and industrial plant owners and managers and decision makers, government leaders, and industry leaders about the large energy-saving potential of greater use of mechanical insulation and other benefits.

– Hinchey (NY): Amends the definition of a “cluster,” as it applies to Energy Innovation Hub, and ensures that virtual connections qualify when defining a cluster.

– Loebsack (IA): Amends the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) program to provide that funds provided to disaster victims through the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act may qualify as the building owners’ contribution toward the matching requirements of the REEP program, requires the Federal agencies administering assistance to disaster victims through the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act shall provide information to disaster victims on the REEP program, and provides 10 percent of funding under the REEP program for retrofits of public and assisted housing.

– Moore (KS): Creates a Community Building Code Administration Grant program, providing $100 million over five years in competitive, matching grants for local building code enforcement.

– Perlmutter (CO): Limits the Building Energy Performance Labeling Program in sec. 204 of the bill to new construction only.

– Perlmutter (CO): Provides incentives to lenders and financial institutions to provide lower interest loans and other benefits to consumers who build, buy, or remodel homes and businesses to improve their energy efficiency.

– Cardoza (CA): Directs HUD to issue rules to prohibit private covenants that restrict or prohibit the installation of solar energy systems.

– Holt (NJ) / DeLauro (CT) / Baldwin (WI) / Baird (WA): Authorizes the Energy Secretary to develop a research program to study the factors affecting whether consumers adopt energy conservation practices or make energy efficiency improvements.

– Sestak (PA): Requires the Energy Secretary to report to Congress on a study on the use of thorium-fueled nuclear reactors for national energy needs, including a response to the IAEA study entitled “Thorium fuel cycle – Potential benefits and challenges.”

– Polis (CO): Establishes a clean energy career training clearinghouse to aid institutions with Federal resources, expertise, information and points of contact in establishing and maintaining quality training programs.

– Jackson-Lee (TX): Adds provision seeking to ensure that minority-owned and women-owned businesses can benefit from grants aimed at stimulating business development, and requires the Labor Secretary to monitor the potential growth of impacted and displaced workers to ensure that the necessary funding continues to support the number of workers affected.

– Larsen (WA): Expresses the senses of Congress that the United States should work with the International Civil Aviation Organization.

The main argument conservatives and big oil and coal companies use against the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) is that it would cripple American households with a crushing energy tax. To make that claim, they have distorted cost estimates from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and conducted their own biased studies. Today, the Environmental Protection Agency obliterated these phony numbers with the release of its economic analysis of H.R. 2454. The EPA estimated the bill would actually lower household electricity bills:

As a result of energy efficiency measures, consumer spending on utility bills would be roughly 7% lower in 2020 as a result of the legislation.

That’s right — lower bills. In 2007, this would have saved the average residential user $84, or 23 cents per day. EPA’s analysis also found:

The overall impact on the average household, including the benefit of many of the energy efficiency provisions in the legislation, would be 22 to 30 cents per day ($80 to $111 per year).

We don’t have to just wish we were there — we can have a clean energy economy for the cost of a postcard stamp a day. And the EPA’s analysis does not “take into account the benefits of reducing global warming.”

EPA’s findings are consistent with the independent Congressional Budget Office analysis released on June 19th. CBO determined “that the net annual economywide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion—or about $175 per household.” CBO did not evaluate the impact of the energy efficiency measures on consumer spending on utilities.

The bottom line is that independent analyses found that ACES would cut spending on utilities, as well as have minimal overall costs to the average household – somewhere between 22 to 48 cents a day. Hopefully, representatives will pay heed to these government studies and ignore conservatives’ counterfeit estimates when they vote on the American Clean Energy and Security Act this Friday.

Rep. Diane DeGette’s (D-CO) attempt to regulate fracking — underground hydraulic fracturing for natural gas extraction — is under attack by a multimillion-dollar lobbying and public-relations campaign from the oil and gas industry. Led by the American Petroleum Institute and the Independent Petroleum Association of America, dozens of industry organizations established the Energy in Depth front group to denounce fracking legislation as an “unnecessary financial burden on a single small-business industry, American oil and natural gas producers.” The Energy in Depth blog personally attacks DeGette as being “squarely focused” on ending this “critical energy-producing practice”:

Consistent with her legislation in the 110th Congress, DeGette remains squarely focused on stripping states – who have a 60-year record of ensuring hydraulic fracturing is done safely and effectively – of their regulatory authority and enacting a one-size-fits-all federal mandate that could effectively halt this critical energy-producing practice at a time when our economy, working families, and state and local governments desperately need the boost.

The “multimillion-dollar lobbying and public-relations campaign to defend the practice” of fracking includes a website, Twitter feed, Facebook group, YouTube channel, an “aggressive ad campaign” on the Drudge Report.

Fracking, which was developed in the 1950s by Dick Cheney’s Halliburton, involves “injecting a million gallons or more of water and chemicals deep underground to pry out gas that’s locked away in tight spaces,” contaminating groundwater with toxic chemicals. A 2008 hydrogeologic study in Garfield County in Colorado, where fracking is extensively used, found evidence of methane and chlorine contamination of groundwater supplies. Under the Bush administration, fracking was exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act by the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Furthermore, the fracking fluids — industrial solvents including known carcinogens and endocrine disrupters such as diesel fuel, and benzene — are largely unregulated. Even after a Colorado nurse nearly died from exposure to fracking chemicals in 2008, industry officials continue to argue that their toxic formulas must be kept secret. In recent testimony, a Halliburton executive compared the chemicals which cause “heart, lung, and liver failure, plus kidney damage and blurred vision” to secret flavorings:

It is much like asking Coca-Cola to disclose the formula of Coke.

The Fracking Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act has been introduced in both chambers of Congress to close these loopholes, restoring Safe Drinking Water Act oversight and requiring that companies disclose to U.S. EPA or state agencies the specific chemicals that are injected into the ground to extract gas supplies. The sponsor of the Senate bill is Sen. Robert Casey Jr. (D-PA), while the House bill is sponsored by Reps. Diana DeGette (D-CO), Jared Polis (D-CO), and Maurice Hinchey (D-NY). “We’re not opposed to gas drilling,” Congressman Hinchey has explained. “We just want it to be done in a way that is not going to injure other people, not going to damage their property, not going to contaminate their water supply.”

The intent of the FRAC Act is to protect the public through healthy drinking water standards and greater public awareness. It would reduce some of the problems currently resulting from the unregulated use of the procedure while continuing to allow its use for production of oil and natural gas. If the technology truly has “an exemplary safety record,” as industry representatives claim, then they should have nothing to fear from a law that calls for greater disclosure and the protection of public safety.

Intern Erica Goad contributed to this post.

“We really can’t say we’re the Saudi Arabia of coal anymore,” says Brenda Pierce, head of the USGS team that conducted the study. No one says the U.S. is facing a coal shortage. But the emerging ranks of “peak coal” theorists argue that current production levels may be unsustainable and, if anything, create a false sense of security.

The “Saudi Arabia of coal” slogan emerged during the oil shocks of the 1970s, when the coal industry and politicians promoted the use of the Nazi-era technology of turning coal into a gasoline substitute:

J. Allen Overton, Jr., president of the American Mining Congress: “You and I know that America is the Saudi Arabia of coal, and the more we extract it the less we’ll have to keep bowing to Mecca for oil. Perhaps in the long run nuclear fusion or solar power or some other esoteric form of energy will ride to our rescue. But, between then and now, we need a resource that will bridge the gap. And the name of it is coal.” [Oil & Gas Journal, March 26, 1979]

Vice President Walter Mondale: “We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. We’ve got lots of it, but we’re not using it like we should.” [Associated Press, June 26, 1979]

President Jimmy Carter: “America is the Saudi Arabia of coal, blessed with enormous reserves … I would rather burn one ton of Kentucky coal than see our nation become dependent by burning another barrel of OPEC oil.” [AP, July 31, 1979]

The industry-promoted metaphor has enjoyed popularity to this day, adopted by Republican and Democratic politicians alike to justify a continued dependence on this dirty and dangerous fuel, instead of true energy reform:

Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL): “When it comes to America’s tried-and-true means of producing energy, Democrats Just Say No. No to developing new oil and natural gas reserves. No to coal, although America is the Saudi Arabia of coal.” [House Republican Conference Radio Address, 7/18/08]

Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL): “Look, we are the Saudi Arabia of coal. And we can figure out the technology to make it environmentally sound. I believe in global warming. It is true that the planet is getting warmer and we have to deal with it. But this is America. We figured out how to put a man on the moon in ten years. You can’t tell me we can’t figure out how to burn coal that we mine right here in the United States of America and make it work. We can do that.” [CNN, 9/14/08]

Steve Forbes: “Take what can be done with technology with the shale. It’s just huge. And coal. Technology. If we learn to deal with the emissions when we’re doing a better and better job at it, we are the Saudi Arabia of coal. [Hannity & Colmes, 7/7/08]

Jack Gerard, American Chemistry Council: “Coal is our number one source of electricity, and some people just immediately dismiss it and say, let’s not use coal. But if we use this vast reserve of coal which we have – some have often said the United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal, it’s much more significant than that. The BTU capability of the coal in the United States is equal to the entire world oil reserve.” [NPR Talk of the Nation, 7/8/08]

Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), House Minority Leader: “We’re the ‘Saudi Arabia’ of coal. Whether it’s coal-to-liquid, coal-to-gas, we’ll let the market decide. But we can use coal in a clean way.” [House Republican press conference, 9/3/08]

Rep. John Dingell (D-MI): “The hard fact of the matter is we are the Saudi Arabia of coal, and we also have an unbelievable dependence upon it. It is the largest source of energy in terms of electrical power generation. And so we have a huge investment, and we happen to have — this is a long-term investment — and we have this as a reliable homegrown source of fuel.” [Washington Post Conference Transcript, 3/20/09]

Sen. John Tester (D-MT): ” I fully agree with the fact that we are going to be burning coal for a long, long time. Montana happens to be America’s version of the Saudi Arabia of coal. [Senate Hearing Transcript, 5/7/09]

George Allen, American Energy Freedom Center: “We’re the Saudi Arabia of the world when it comes to coal.” [E&E News, 6/4/09]

It’s troubling that politicians find the comparison to Saudi Arabia — a dictatorial monarchy that is a breeding ground for religious extremism — so appealing. However, there may be a more apt comparison — Saudi Arabia has done the least to tackle the problem of global warming, with the United States close behind.

A yield loss of three percent of the U.S. corn crop due to a rise in temperature of 2 degrees F totals $1.4 billion. Environment America, April 2009.

Farm-belt lawmakers are posing a challenge to passage of clean-energy legislation in Congress, but torpedoing the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) would hurt farmers because harms linked to global warming — including drought, flooding, and other crop damage — would continue unabated. House Agriculture Committee Chair Collin Peterson (D-MN) has threatened to bring down the entire green economy legislation if he doesn’t get his way on the renewable fuel standards and jurisdiction in the agriculture committee:

If they don’t want to change it, they’ll have to find the votes some other place. In my district a “no” vote would be a good vote.

Without congressional action on climate change legislation, global greenhouse gas emissions would continue to rise and the impacts on agriculture would grow. The link between global warming and extreme weather events is evident, and research predicts that the trend will intensify in coming decades:

Heatwaves, Extreme Storms, And Droughts Will Increase In Frequency And Intensity. Changes in extreme weather are “among the most serious challenges to society in coping with a changing climate,” a 2008 federal report indicated. In the future, the report predicts, “With continued global warming, heat waves and heavy downpours are very likely to further increase in frequency and intensity. Substantial areas of North America are likely to have more frequent droughts of greater severity.” [U.S. Climate Change Science Program, 2008]

Climate Disasters Have Increased Sixfold Since The 1950s. An insurance company database showed that weather-related disasters have increased sixfold since the 1950s, compared to only a slight increase in non-weather disasters. At a meeting of climate and insurance experts in 2006, “delegates reached a cautious consensus: Climate change is helping to drive the upward trend in catastrophes.” A Government Accountability Office investigation in 2007 found that private and government insurers including the federal crop and flood insurance programs paid out more than $320 billion for weather-related losses between 1980 and 2005. [Nature, 6/2006; GAO, 5/3/2007]

The 1988 And 1993 Midwest Climate Disasters Caused $79 Billion In Damages Alone. Not only are the costs of climate disasters high, they come in the form of unpredictably catastrophic events. A report in 2000 by Harvard Medical School’s Center for Health and the Global Environment found that extreme weather events have “caused severe crop damage and have exacted a significant economic toll for U.S. farmers over the past 20 years” and “could rise significantly due to greater climate variability, and to increases in insects, weeds, and plant diseases.” Total damages — including agricultural losses — from the 1988 drought and 1993 Midwest floods were $79 billion. In the future, “variability of precipitation — in time, space, and intensity — will make U.S. agriculture increasingly unstable and make it more difficult for U.S. farmers to plan what crops to plan and when.” [Harvard Medical School’s Center for Health and the Global Environment, 5/2000]

Crop Losses To Rise To Billions A Year, Doubling By The 2030s. Crop losses insured by the federal government have also risen substantially in the past two decades, due to higher participation by farmers, rising crop prices, and big loss years like 2008, when the federal program paid out nearly $8.6 billion, much of it because of flooding in the Midwest. Looking just at increased soil moisture that comes with higher precipitation driven by climate change, authors of a study published in 2002 by Global Environmental Change estimated that the roughly $1.5 billion per year in crop damage could double by the 2030s. And an April report by Environment America found that U.S. corn growers could face annual losses of $1.4 billion due to future climate change, looking just how higher temperatures reduce yields. [USDA Risk Management Agency; Global Environmental Change, 11/15/2002; Environment America, 4/2009]

Return Of The Dust Bowl? A 2007 report cites a potential agricultural loss of as much as $10 billion by 2090 in the Edwards Aquifer region of Texas, and productivity losses exceeding 50 percent for wheat and soybeans in the southern and Great Plains regions. Other research predicts that the American Southwest will by mid-century face extremely difficult choices between supplying water for agriculture and the region’s booming cities. A study reported in Science in April 2007 said that a drought similar to conditions during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s could become the norm in the Southwest by 2050. [Center for Integrative Environment Research at the University of Maryland, 10/2007; Science, 4/2007]

In 2007, the Center for Integrative Environment Research at the University of Maryland report, “The U.S. Economic Impacts of Climate Change and the Costs of Inaction,” included a review of previous studies on climate change impacts on agriculture and water for various regions of the United States:

The uneven nature of climate change impacts throughout the country makes the net impacts of global warming on the agricultural sector uncertain . . . Some northern regions are likely to experience fleeting economic benefits with more profitable crops migrating there (as the climate becomes hospitable to those crops.) As climate conditions continue to change, however, those temporary benefits may be lost. Other regions, such as the Southeast, West, and southern Great Plains may face challenges from increased temperatures, water stress, saltwater intrusion, and the potential increase in invasive species and pests — the impacts of which may cause costs to outweigh benefits.

American farmers, like all of us, have a huge stake in the fight to stem global climate change. To hold their future hostage to a rulemaking battle over ethanol would be a grave, shortsighted disservice.

Read an extended version of this post at the Center for American Progress website.

The biggest challenge is the political one — how to convince lawmakers that standing up for a truly just and green future is both necessary and wise, when the rewards of defending corporate interests against change are so evident. Congress lags behind the American public in recognizing the urgency and scope of the climate threat, and lags behind the American public in recognizing the opportunity and reward of clean energy leadership.

Even as the greatest challenge in passing green economy legislation is energizing the American public and giving confidence to Congress to become champions of clean energy reform, efforts need to be made to improve the underlying text of Waxman-Markey. Here’s one policy recommendation:

Strengthen the Renewable Electricity Standard

Strengthening the renewable electricity standard (Title I) will create hundreds of thousands of clean energy jobs and save consumers and industry billions of dollars. The weakened standard in the energy committee compromise is not expected to exceed business-as-usual growth in renewable energy, acting only as a backstop to prevent regress.

BEST: Implement Vice President Al Gore’s “Repower America” recommended renewable electricity standard of 100 percent in ten years, putting American in the lead on global warming pollution reduction and advanced clean energy technology, from concentrated solar power to smart grids.

BETTER: Implement President Obama’s recommended renewable electricity standard of 25 percent by 2025. The Union of Concerned Scientists estimated a 25-by-25 standard would create 297,000 new jobs, generate $263.4 billion in new capital investment, and save $64.3 billion in lower electricity and natural gas bills by 2025.

GOOD: Restore the renewable energy standard in the Waxman-Markey discussion draft of 20 percent by 2025 plus five percent efficiency improvements.

Too many people in Washington, whether liberal or conservative, believe that the most significant effect of a cap on carbon pollution is an increase in electricity rates, especially in coal-using states. They don’t see that the status-quo energy policy has given us double-digit increases in electricity rates. They don’t see the record profits of oil and coal companies and the banks that support them even as manufacturing jobs disappear and the rest of the economy subsides. They don’t see the skyrocketing costs of storms, floods, droughts, and disease.

The dramatic change in Washington from last year has made sorely needed national clean energy legislation possible for the first time. But there needs to be even more political transformation inside the Beltway for that legislation to be truly progressive. This is why activists are working to strengthen the hand of the “Green Dog” Democrats and challenge the “Brown Dogs” to reform their act:

– VoteVets, the League of Conservation Voters, and unions are running television ads targeting John Barrow (D-GA), Mike Ross (D-AR) , and Roy Blunt (R-MO) for voting against Waxman-Markey in the energy committee.

– The National Wildlife Federation Action Fund is challenging Ross with print ads in Arkansas for taking the “energy companies’ side… hook… line… and sinker.”

– MoveOn.org is holding Clean Energy Jobs tours across the country, from Providence, RI to Tuscon, AZ, Albany, NY to Albuquerque, NM, and New London, CT to Pittsburgh, PA.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s selection to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court, is likely to be solid on the environment, based on her record on the Second Circuit of Appeals. In 2007, she authored the decision to strike down an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Clean Water Act rule that had been corrupted by the Bush White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) on behalf of energy companies. Georgetown law professor and American Progress affiliated scholar Lisa Heinzerling, now senior counsel for the EPA, explained at the time that Sotomayor’s Riverkeeper v. EPA decision was a “huge victory“:

In a huge victory for fish and other fans of the Clean Water Act, the Second Circuit last week ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency may not use cost-benefit analysis in setting standards for cooling water structures used at existing power plants around the country. . . .

The court ruled that the Clean Water Act does not permit the use of cost-benefit analysis in setting these standards or in allowing deviations from the standards. Quite reasonably, the court held that the agency could engage in a form of cost-effectiveness analysis in setting standards, by identifying the level of protection afforded by state-of-the-art technology and then allowing use of cheaper but equally effective technologies in meeting the standards. But the court clearly ruled out OIRA’s favorite technique for undoing regulatory advances, cost-benefit analysis.

As OMB Watch explained in 2002, EPA originally “sought to require the 59 largest plants in the most ecologically sensitive areas to meet the performance achievable by a closed-cycle cooling system, which reduces fish kills by up to 98 percent by recirculating or reusing water.” But by “ignoring the requirements of the law” and applying corporate-friendly cost-benefit analysis to the question of the “best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact”, OIRA “embraced alternative, less protective measures urged by energy companies — including Cinergy, Edison Electric, and Public Service Electric & Gas (PSE&G), among others.” Riverkeeper noted that this weaker rule “would allow existing plants to kill 20 to 1000 times more fish” than the stronger proposed mandate.

This April, Sotomayor’s decision was wrongly struck down by the Supreme Court. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the 6-3 opinion to uphold Bush’s activist interpretation of the Clean Water Act, with Souter, Ruth Ginsberg, and John Stevens in dissent. Scalia’s decision reversed not only the Second Circuit decision but earlier Supreme Court precedent. Scalia effectively ruled that Congressional silence equals consent, writing that the Clean Water Act’s “silence is meant to convey nothing more than a refusal to tie the agency’s hands as to whether cost-benefit analysis should be used.” As Justice Stevens wrote in his dissent:

Section 316(b) neither expressly nor implicitly authorizes the EPA to use cost-benefit analysis when setting regulatory standards; fairly read, it prohibits such use.

If Sotomayor’s record on the Second Circuit is any guide, she will hold with Justice Souter’s example of putting science and the law above the interests of corporate polluters.

Download the Second Circuit opinion.

Download the Supreme Court decision.

Let’s go to the bill and look at the penalties. Because there are actually civil penalties in this bill. We’re actually creating a global warming police. . . And then further to page 236: “Each day of unlawful occupancy shall be considered a separate violation.” We’re setting up a global warming Gestapo that can literally come in and now this new term, “unlawful occupancy.” Now living in your home is considered unlawful under this bill.

This is ludicrous.

Watch it:

Putting aside Scalise’s inflammatory rhetoric, his understanding of the provision — which would save working families and businesses millions of dollars, create hundreds of thousands of green jobs, and tackle the nation’s biggest source of global warming pollution — is flawed. Scalise ignored the difference between energy efficiency building codes and safety codes. Scalise was also seemly ignorant that the legislation explicitly preserves local building codes that meet or exceed the national standard, while providing federal support for states to implement new standards. Federal enforcement would only take place if states failed to act.

Without irony, Scalise argued that fighting global warming would threaten the health and safety of Lousianans in danger of “hurricanes and flooding” and tornadoes:

Safety and health have always been the main driving factors behind a building code. What this bill does in Section 201, it’s literally taking global warming, and using global warming to trump safety and health. Because now, if I’m in South Louisiana, and I want to rebuild after hurricane damage — which by the way we had 120,000 homes in Louisiana that had more than 50 percent damage due to Hurricane Katrina — under this bill in section 201, when people are rebuilding those 120,000 homes, they would have to follow the federal building code, and in many cases that would mean they can’t use the same types of strength that they might want to use in their windows. They might want to use stronger windows because they don’t want the storm to blow out their windows. But under this bill, a federal standard could say their windows are out of the federal code.

Global warming likely significantly intensified the devastating power of Hurricane Katrina. As the state of Louisana itself has explained, “Coastal Lousiana is more vulnerable to the effects of global climate change than any other region in the United States. Its low elevation, high rate of subsidence and rapid loss of wetlands expose this area to the worst consequences of climatic change — a rising Gulf, possibly stronger storms, unpredictable rainfall and warmer weather.”

Full transcript:

SCALISE: Section 201 of this cap and trade energy tax creates a national building code, something that we don’t have in place today. If you look across the country right now, 30 states have their own state building codes. A number of states actually go even to the local level where they have codes that are based on different cities or different parishes or counties.

Just to use Louisiana, for an example, right after Hurricane Katrina, we — our legislature passed a statewide building code. We didn’t have one before. We created a statewide building code, and we took into account in our code the various segmented differences between regions of our state. In fact, the code is different in South Louisiana where our main threats are hurricanes and flooding, much different than they are in the northern part of the state of Louisiana, where tornados are a bigger threat.

And so if you look at the fact that thirty states have these types of statewide codes, this bill in section 201 creates a federal code that would trump, throw out all of those state building codes that have been worked on for years in many cases. We worked on ours for months, just for our state’s code. Here, with really no debate, we’re creating a federal code that trumps all of the states’ codes and in some cases would actually lower the standards that states have for building.

And if you go back to why we have building codes and why states have done this, the purpose typically is to protect safety and health. Safety and health have always been the main driving factors behind a building code. What this bill does in Section 201, it’s literally taking global warming, and using global warming to trump safety and health. Because now, if I’m in South Louisiana, and I want to rebuild after hurricane damage — which by the way we had 120,000 homes in Louisiana that had more than 50 percent damage due to Hurricane Katrina — under this bill in section 201, when people are rebuilding those 120,000 homes, they would have to follow the federal building code, and in many cases that would mean they can’t use the same types of strength that they might want to use in their windows. They might want to use stronger windows because they don’t want the storm to blow out their windows. But under this bill, a federal standard could say their windows are out of the federal code.

And then what does that mean? Let’s go to the bill and look at the penalties. Because there are actually civil penalties in this bill. We’re actually creating a global warming police. To page 235: “The Secretary may set and collect reasonable inspection fees to cover the costs of inspections required.” So number one, they can come in, the federal government can come in and inspect your house and send you the bill. And if they find that you’re out of compliance with this new federal code, “The Secretary shall assess a civil penalty for violations of this section.” And then further to page 236: “Each day of unlawful occupancy shall be considered a separate violation.” We’re setting up a global warming Gestapo that can literally come in and now this new term, “unlawful occupancy.” Now living in your home is considered unlawful under this bill.

This is ludicrous.

If you go — first of all, let’s go to the U.S. Constitution and look at the tenth amendment. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to states respectively or to the people.” The tenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution says the states have the right to do what they’re doing if they’re not prohibited by the Constitution. so states have established building codes. This bill comes in and basically says throw out the tenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the federal government’s gonna throw out your building code.

I would like to submit the U.S. Constitution into the record, if I can, by unanimous consent so it can be reviewed because I think we also need to go to another section that talks about unlawful occupancy. The only part of the constitution that talks about unlawful occupancy of your home says, in amendment three, “No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house.” So basically, the federal government and the constitution says the protection as a homeowner gives you the ability to determine who comes in your house. Here we’re saying, “Each day of unlawful occupancy shall be considered a separate violation” and you’ll be subject to a federal fine. That’s what this section does.

You’ve got a number of groups that have come out in strong opposition to section 201 and support my amendment. I’d like to read and enter into the record a letter from about nine different organizations including the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of Realtors, the Building Owners and Managers Association International, the National Apartment Association and a number of others who said, “The proposal creates a new authority for the federal government to police building codes, holds developers and owners of buildings including homeowners liable for not reaching federal energy efficiency mandates, even if the buildings are presumably in compliance with applicable local building codes and establishes a civil penalty for violators of this section of the bill. This measure would have a chilling effect on development and property transfer across the spectrum of real properties.”

Now we’re in a housing slump right now. Why would we want to be passing legislation that creates a federal building code with civil penalties and tells people living in their houses that they’re unlawful occupying that house if they don’t immediate this new federal building code when they’re in compliance with their own state’s federal building code? This is ludicrous. I’ll enter these letters into the record including the one from the National Association of Home Builders which goes further and talks about the legal problems with this, and also the shortfalls, how this would adversely effect homeowners in this country, who would be subject to this global warming police that would be created to come in and drag you out of your house and fine you civilly in federal court because maybe you wanted to protect your family at a higher level than the federal government.

There’s little doubt in my mind that this legislation will shut down businesses and eliminate blue and white collar jobs. While I know the majority has prided its plan on the creation of green jobs mr chairman I have listened to some of our counterparts in Europe discuss their experience with these green jobs. It seems to me that green jobs, just like leaves on a tree, they may shine in the summertime when everything is sunny, but when the fall comes these leaves will fade and in winter they’ll be long gone. They may be described as “subprime” in comparison to solid traditional manufacturing jobs we’ve recently lost to other countries.

Watch it:

Gingrey and Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), who also attacked green jobs by reading from a National Post hit piece (which Whitfield mistakenly called the “New York Post”), were relying on a study by Spanish libertarian Gabriel Calzada that blamed Spain’s support for its renewable industry for its high current level of unemployment. The only problem is that the study — produced by a right-wing Spanish think tank — is “completely untrue.” The Wall Street Journal has pointed out that “the study doesn’t actually identify those jobs allegedly destroyed by renewable-energy spending” and that “hard to see how” Spain’s support for green jobs “could have edged out private-sector spending, especially when the Socialist government there has reduced corporate income-tax rates, most recently this past January.”

Gingrey was right when he said that “solid traditional manufacturing jobs” have been recently lost to other countries. His mistake is in not understanding that investing in green jobs is how to keep these traditional jobs in the United States — from designing, building, and transporting wind turbines to installing insulation and solar panels in millions of homes. Gingrey needs to spend more time in his district and visit his constituents working for green companies like the industrial heating engineering firm Sigma Thermal, home refitting company Wheeler’s Windows and Doors, and the electrical design engineering firm Lunar Accents Design. I doubt they consider their work to be “subprime.”

Transcript:

GINGREY: There’s little doubt in my mind that this legislation will shut down businesses and eliminate blue and white collar jobs. While I know the majority has prided its plan on the creation of green jobs mr chairman I have listened to some of our counterparts in Europe discuss their experience with these green jobs. It seems to me that green jobs, just like leaves on a tree, they may shine in the summertime when everything is sunny, but when the fall comes these leaves will fade and in winter they’ll be long gone. They may be described as “subprime” in comparison to solid traditional manufacturing jobs we’ve recently lost to other countries.

WHITFIELD: I’d like to read from an article in the New York Post. “Green jobs based on top-down subsidies are, of course, unsustainable.” That’s what this legislation does, it subsidizes green jobs. “The Spanish government has recently had to reduce its subsidies to solar by 30%, the green industry is in retreat, and green jobs, too, are being lost by the tens of thousands.” They go on to say if that money had been spent for traditional industries and technology, they would have produced 2.2 jobs for every one job produced by the subsidies. And as a result of those subsidies and the mandates for renewable in Spain, they have an excess of a 17 percent unemployment rate. And at a time when our economy is weak, and no one can say with certainty — except to say we know this bill will be particularly expensive — we jeopardize our global competitiveness in the world, and we are very much concerned about the loss of jobs that will be the result of passing H.R. 2454.

He has got a chance to get the votes. If you are familiar with Texas Hold ‘em poker, he doesn’t have the nuts. It is not a done deal. Nor do I. . . We will see which has the other by the nuts next week.

Watch it:

Even though he began with a poker analogy, “Barton couldn’t help himself” and vulgarly described his intent to obstruct the passage of the Waxman-Markey bill. And he indeed intends to play hardball: Barton and his fellow Republicans have released a list of 450 poison-pill amendments that aim to make the debate over energy reform about the costs of change or attacks on supporters of reform, instead of the risks of inaction.

President Barack Obama has nominated a lawyer for the nation’s largest toxic polluters to run the enforcement of the nation’s environmental laws. On Tuesday, Obama “announced his intent to nominate” Ignacia S. Moreno to be Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division in the Department of Justice. Moreno, general counsel for that department during the Clinton administration, is now the corporate environmental counsel for General Electric, “America’s #1 Superfund Polluter“:

Number five in the Fortune 500 with revenues of $89.3 billion and earnings of $8.2 billion in 1997, General Electric has been a leader in the effort to roll back the Superfund law and stave off any requirements for full cleanup and restoration of sites they helped create.

This February, General Electric lost an eight-year battle to “prove that parts of the Superfund law are unconstitutional.” One of the 600-person DOJ environmental division’s “primary responsibilities is to enforce federal civil and criminal environmental laws such as” the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Superfund.

Before General Electric, Moreno worked as a corporate attorney at Spriggs and Hollingsworth. Moreno’s name is found in the Westlaw database as an attorney defending General Motors in another Superfund case, the GM Powertrain facility in Bedford, Indiana:

Historical uses and management of PCB containing hydraulic oils and PCB impacted materials has contaminated on-site areas as well as the sediment and floodplain soil within Bailey’s Branch and the Pleasant Run Creek watershed.

Although General Motors entered into an agreement in 2001 with the EPA to clean up the site, a number of local residents whose land has been contaminated by polychorinated biphenyls (PCBs) have sued for damages in Allgood v. GM (now Barlow v. GM), in a contentious and caustic dispute over cleanup, monitoring, and lost property values.

During the Clinton administration, Moreno was involved in another controversial case, unsuccessfully defending the Secretary of Commerce’s decision to weaken the dolphin-safe tuna standard. In Brower v. Daley, Earth Island Institute, The Humane Society of the United States, and other individuals and organizations brought suit against the United States government for actions that were “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to law,” winning their case in 2000.

Floods caused by a rapid spring thaw in Alaska have destroyed an entire village and forced evacuations along the length of the Yukon River. Wildfires are burning in drought-ravaged California and Florida. The governors of Alaska, Missouri, West Virginia, Illinois, Kentucky, Arkansas have declared states of emergency or made disaster declarations for their ravaged states. The National Guard is being deployed in Alaska, Kentucky, and West Virginia.

ALABAMA

A tornado caused damage across two counties in north Alabama last Wednesday, causing “a path of destruction nearly 11 miles long that was up to 75 yards wide in places.”

ALASKA

A record flood of the Yukon River caused by an unusually warm spring thaw “totally destroyed” the village of Eagle. Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) declared a state of emergency on May 6. The “Weather Service still had flooding warnings in place for Stevens Village, Rampart, Tanana and Ruby as of yesterday afternoon.” Alaska Guard personnel “are being dispatched for at least 14 days with trucks carrying clean, potable water for residents in need.”

ARKANSAS

Governor Mike Beebe (D-AR) “has declared 32 Arkansas counties disaster areas from heavy rains and flooding that have hit the state over the past two weeks.” from heavy rains and flooding. Beebe’s declaration “also authorizes $200,000 in individual assistance from the Governor’s Disaster Fund for flood victims in Clark, Dallas, Jefferson, Garland, Lonoke, Miller, Monroe, Phillips, Poinsett and Saline counties.”

CALIFORNIA

30,000 people were ordered to flee a raging Santa Barbara fire that consumed 8,700 acres, “destroyed 78 homes and damaged 22 others.” Costs totaled “more than $12.2 million.” “Global warming and other factors have led to longer fire seasons that now stretch well beyond mid-May to November.”

FLORIDA

“This year alone Florida has already had more than 2,000 wildfires that burned about 56,000 acres.” “A Martin County sheriff’s deputy was injured as wildfires burned more than 1,400 acres near Indiantown, Fla., emergency officials said.”

ILLINOIS

68,000 customers of Ameren Corp. lost power in Friday’s storm in southern Illinois. Gov. Pat Quinn (D-IL) designated six southern Illinois counties “state disaster areas after last week’s deadly storms.” “Eighty-seven-year-old George Arbeiter died after a limb crashed onto his Murphysboro home and hit him on the back of his head, sending him down a flight of stairs.”

KENTUCKY

Gov. Steve Beshear (D-KY) declared an emergency in central and southeastern sections of his state Saturday. On Friday, a tornado killed two people and damaged dozens of homes and structures in the Kirksville community of Richmond in Madison County. “42-year-old Glenda Charbonnel and 35-year old Mike Yarber, died when the trailer they were in was blown into a pond.” A Gilbert firefighter “had a heart attack while providing aid to flood victims.” “More than 100 Kentucky Guard members are helping more than 10,000 citizens left without power” in seven counties.

MISSISSIPPI

“Homes and businesses in 18 counties received damage from the weekend severe weather that brought strong winds, heavy rains and flash flood warnings to much of the state,” including “about 48 homes and a dozen businesses” in Adams County.

MISSOURI

Friday’s “severe storms across southern Missouri” prompted Governor Jay Nixon (D-MO) to declare a state of emergency. “Four deaths and 12 injuries” are blamed on the storm. “Ted Agee, 61, of rural Dallas County was killed when his house was destroyed by high winds. Two other deaths happened in Poplar Bluff, when a tree fell on a car.” 150,000 utility customers lost power.

NORTH CAROLINA

Some “50,000 North Carolina residents were without power Sunday” as crews cleaned up after quick-moving thunderstorms blew through the region. “Straight-line winds as strong as 125 mph snapped trees from Scotland County to Columbus County. Damage appeared heaviest in Robeson County, where at least two homes were destroyed and seven others were damaged ” The extent of the damage “was similar to an EF-2 tornado and winds of a Category 3 hurricane.” A tornado that hit Johnston County last Tuesday “destroyed one home and damaged 18 others,” leaving behind about $1.65 million in damage.

WEST VIRGINIA

“Heavy rain and flooding Friday and Saturday” prompted Gov. Joe Manchin III (D-WV) “to declare a state of emergency in six West Virginia counties and to call up 330 members of the National Guard.” Guard members of the 111th Engineering Brigade “are helping in two of those counties — Mingo and Wyoming – where a steady rainfall combined with a recent thunderstorm has caused mudslides and flooded homes and roads,” destroying at least 300 buildings. Nearly 10,000 Appalachian Power customers in southern West Virginia were without electric service Saturday.

So if we wonder why the Senate is the last place in America that still doesn’t get it – that climate change is a real problem for people and that carbon pollution is something that people should pay for when they emit it, big utilities, big industry — gee, connect the dots.

Watch it:

“For as long as there’s been pollution,” Sen. Whitehouse explained, “there has been a constant battle with polluters who don’t want to pay the costs of their pollution, either preventing or cleaning it up”:

They’d like to just dump it and have it be somebody else’s problem. There’s absolutely nothing new about that. Polluters don’t want to pay. What’s new is our understanding of what the costs are of carbon pollution. Economic costs, environmental costs, wildlife and habitat costs, and as we’ve recently learned, very significant national security costs.

The E&E News story Whitehouse entered in the Congressional Record explains how pollution lobbyists are vastly outspending environmental groups and clean energy companies:

Thus far in 2009, all environmental groups combined have spent a grand total of $4.7 million on lobbying, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The Nature Conservancy, which has spent $850,000 thus far, tops the list.

The various renewable energy companies have spent a grand total of $7.5 million, with the biggest spender there being the American Wind Energy Association which has spent just over $1.2 million.

By comparison, Exxon Mobil Corp. alone has spent more than $9.3 million in the first few months of 2009. The company’s lobbying totals exceed any other single corporation or organization except the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has spent a total of $15.5 million.

The chamber, which has been by far the single biggest lobbying force in Washington over the last decade, has likewise been active in the energy debate this year, though it is unclear from the disclosure records what amount — if any — the organization has spent on lobbying of lawmakers. Its totals are not included in the calculations for any energy-specific industries.

Other heavyweights in the energy sector include: Chevron Corp. at $6.8 million, ConocoPhillips at $6 million, BP at $3.6 million and Marathon Oil at $3.4 million. All four are among the 20 biggest lobbying spenders in any sector in the first few months of 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

As for electric utilities, the biggest single lobbying spender is Southern Co. at $3.7 million, followed by the Edison Electric Institute at $2.6 million, American Electric Power Co. Inc. at $1.7 million and Exelon Corp. at $1.54 million.

If we can reach agreement with the coal sector, with the steel, with the auto sector, with the refining sector on our committee, which is very representative of the Congress as a whole, then we believe that’ll be a template for passage in the Senate, as well. Because the agreements we’ll reach will be the very same agreements that those industry leaders … will be able to represent to senators are the basis for passage of legislation that they can support.

Members of Markey’s energy and environment subcommittee with strong ties to those sectors include Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA: $50,942 from steel), Rep. Baron Hill (D-IN: $113,033 from auto), Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT: $177,946 from coal), and Rep. Gene Green (D-TX: $330,613 from oil). The trade publication E&E News has identified 13 members of the 34-member subcommittee as swing votes. These “maybe” officials have received an average of $678,570 in lifetime contributions from those sectors, as opposed to $149,397 for the nine “yes” votes:

Average lifetime contributions from the automotive, steel & chemical, oil & gas, and mining & utility sectors to members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Energy & Environment Subcommittee (Center for Responsive Politics). Position on Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act estimated by E&E News. Chart by the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

The average energy committee member opposed or wavering on the green economy legislation has received six times as much lifetime climate polluter cash as the average supporter:

Carbon-sector contributions to members of the House Committee on Energy & Commerce. Click to enlarge.

The obstructionist politicians working to weaken the ACES Act are ironically threatening the future of the industries who fill their campaign coffers. The nation needs to set strong standards for energy efficiency, renewable energy, and global warming pollution in order to compete in the 21st century economy. “Limiting greenhouse gas emissions will enhance U.S. competitiveness,” Center for American Progress senior fellow Jake Caldwell writes. “A carbon cap-and-trade program will reduce emissions and send a predictable price signal on carbon, which in turn will spur major investment in energy efficient and low-carbon technologies, foster innovation and upgrades, and create jobs and export led growth in clean energy technology.”

When the incomplete draft of the ACES Act was unveiled at the end of March, co-sponsors Markey and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, indicated that they planned to conduct a markup of the bill in Markey’s subcommittee before going to the full committee. After the meeting with Obama, Waxman announced that he could potentially bypass Markey’s subcommittee “and mark up the legislation before the entire 59-member panel.”

E&E News Projected Vote Breakdown For Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act:

While the exact numbers were still in flux, Doyle said, “The majority of the permits will be allocated (given away) at first.”

Asked what percentage would be sold to utilities, manufacturers and other firms, Doyle responded, “Not a big number initially…in the first 10 to 15 years.”

The Center for American Progress “supports auctioning 100 percent of the greenhouse gas emission permits from day one under a cap-and-trade program” and using the auction revenues to assist workers and industries to make the transition to a low-carbon economy:

This would include supporting new investments in green technology and energy efficiency; sheltering American households from any economic dislocations due to shifting energy prices; alleviating higher costs for energy-intensive industries; adapting to some of the effects of global warming that we are already experiencing globally; and creating good, “green jobs” and more vibrant, healthier communities in this process. A 100 percent auction will ensure that large polluters, and not the hardworking Americans least able to foot the bill, are financing the investments necessary to carry out these vital public projects.

Of course, without any climate policy, the public is subsidizing all the costs of global warming pollution, as the threat of catastrophic climate change grows without bound. So even a cap-and-trade system that pays hundreds of billions of dollars of public money to corporate polluters to get them to clean up their act is better than the alternative. As President Obama explained to business leaders in March, he is flexible on his campaign pledge for full auction of pollution permits:

Now, the experience of a cap-and-trade system thus far is that if you’re giving away carbon permits for free, then basically you’re not really pricing the thing and it doesn’t work, or people can game the system in so many ways that it’s not creating the incentive structures that we’re looking for. The flip side is, you’re right, if it’s so onerous that people can’t meet it, then it defeats the purpose — and politically we can’t get it done anyway.