The green economy is coming. We can either follow or lead. And those countries who follow will pay a price. Those nations who lead in creating the new green economy for the world will make money.

Watch it:

Graham’s words recall the testimony of former Center for American Progress Senior Fellow and White House official Van Jones, who told Congress in January, “We can build a green economy Dr. King would be proud of.” Van Jones, the founder of Green for All, left the White House after talk show host Glenn Beck targeted him as an “avowed communist and radical activist.” Beck has warned that efforts to build a green economy are “socialism,” “black nationalism,” and “fascism.”

Sen. Kerry announced that the three senators would work in a “dual track” to the committee process now underway to craft clean energy legislation in concert with the White House, which they hope to present directly to the Senate leadership. The senators conducted the press conference in between meetings with Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, and White House climate advisor Carol Browner.

Graham also discussed how Americans of any party “really feel uncomfortable with the fact that our nation sends a billion dollars a day overseas to buy foreign oil from some countries who don’t like us very much,” saying that part of “this initiative is to create a vision for energy independence and marry it up with a responsible climate control carbon pollution controls and create a new economy.”

Graham emphasized that his vision is to “help this planet” that “is in peril, create millions of new jobs for Americans that need them, and to become energy independent to make us safer,” because he believes that “controlling carbon pollution is good business.” Although he hoped for participation from his fellow Republicans, he said, “If you believe carbon pollution is not a problem, then you wouldn’t want to work with me, because I do.”

Transcript:

GRAHAM: The reason I’ve gotten involved in this issue is I see kind of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity politically to solve two real problems that I think the country and the world faces. One, carbon pollution. I am no scientist, but I’ve traveled throughout the world with Sen. McCain and others and seen the effects of a warming planet. And I do believe all of the cars we have on the roads, and the trucks, and all the energy we use that produces carbon daily is not a good thing for the planet.

But if environmental policy is not good business policy, you’ll never get 60 votes. So my goal is to try to make sure that we fashion environmental policy that will create millions of new jobs for Americans who are desiring to have new jobs. Virginia and New Jersey are going to benefit from what we do. South Carolina, Connecticut, and Massachusetts will benefit.

The green economy is coming. We can either follow or lead. And those countries who follow will pay a price. Those nations who lead in creating the new green economy for the world will make money. The business community senses an opportunity they’ve not had before. That’s why they’re at least exploring the possibility of a new pathway forward.

I’ve been told by a lot of business leaders in South Carolina, “Senator Graham, once you price carbon in a reasonable way, this green economy that we’re hoping for really will begin to flourish.”

The other aspect of why I’m involved is energy independence. Remember “Drill here, drill now”? Where did that go? Four dollar a gallon gas is not in our face but it could be soon. I think most Americans — Republicans, independents or Democrats — really feel uncomfortable with the fact that our nation sends a billion dollars a day overseas to buy foreign oil from some countries who don’t like us very much. Part of this initiative is to create a vision for energy independence and marry it up with a responsible climate control carbon pollution controls and create a new economy.

Finally, our country doesn’t have a vision on carbon. We need one. And we need to lead the world rather than follow the world on carbon pollution. Our country doesn’t have the infrastructure in place to build a green economy and never will until we price carbon.

And our country doesn’t have a vision for energy independence. We need one. Our goal is to create that vision that not only will help this planet — that I think is in peril — but create millions of new jobs for Americans that need them, and to become energy independent to make us safer.

. . .

What I’ve got to do is convince people in South Carolina and our colleagues up here as a whole that environmental policy will be good business policy. And if Congress doesn’t act, the EPA will.

Every member of Congress, Republicans included, has to answer to themselves and their constituents. Is carbon pollution a problem? If it is, what are you going to do about it? Some Republicans want a carbon tax. In many ways, that is a fairer system but I don’t think there are the votes for it. If you believe carbon pollution is not a problem, then you wouldn’t want to work with me, because I do. Now, if you … a cap-and-trade bill has to be well-crafted not to put us at competitive disadvantage to China and India.

I am convinced with my colleagues that controlling carbon pollution is good business. If you do it right, people can make money and you’ll have a cleaner planet and the world will follow. So I hope my Republican colleagues will at least listen, come to the table as the Chamber has, see where we’re going, give us input and if at the end of the day, you can’t support it, that’s okay.

But last thought. Doing nothing has a consequence. The EPA will do something. Doing nothing has a consequence to our business opportunity in leading the green economy revolution that’s coming and controlling carbon emissions.

So I think most people are upset with the Congress because we’re not doing anything that matters. And the things that we do do we’re overdoing. So we’re trying to get that sweet spot of a bill that will be good for the environment, good for business and make us energy independent.

So my hope is that participation is seen as a positive, not a negative. If you can’t participate in solving a hard problem, why are you up here?

The United States is having the wrong public debate about global warming. We are asking important questions about pollution caps and timetables, carbon markets and allocations, but we have lost sight of our principal objective: building a robust and prosperous clean energy economy. This is a fundamentally affirmative agenda, rather than a restrictive one. Moving beyond pollution from fossil fuels will involve exciting work, new opportunities, new products and innovation, and stronger communities. Our current national discussion about constraints, limits, and the costs of transition misses the real excitement in this proposition. It is as if, on the cusp of an Internet and telecommunications revolution, debate centered only on the cost of fiber optic cable. We are missing the big picture here.

Let’s be clear: Solving global warming means investment. Retooling the energy systems that fuel our economy will involve rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure. We will create millions of middle-class jobs along the way, revitalize our manufacturing sector, increase American competitiveness, reduce our dependence on oil, and boost technological innovation. These investments in the foundation of our economy can also provide an opportunity for more broadly shared prosperity through better training, stronger local economies, and new career ladders into the middle class. Reducing greenhouse gas pollution is critical to solving global warming, but it is only one part of the work ahead. Building a robust economy that grows more vibrant as we move beyond the Carbon Age is the greater and more inspiring challenge.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avert dangerous global warming is an environmental challenge, but it is also an economic, national security, societal, and moral imperative. The “cap and trade” provisions, which will set limits on pollution and create a market for emissions reductions that will ultimately drive down the cost of renewable energy and fuel, represent a very important first step and a major component in the mix of policies that will help build the coming low-carbon economy. But limiting emissions and establishing a price on pollution is not the goal in itself, and we will fall short if that is all we set out to do. Rather, cap and trade is one key step to reach the broader goal of catalyzing the transformation to an efficient and sustainable low-carbon economy. With unemployment at 9.5 percent, and oil and energy price volatility driving businesses into the ground, we cannot afford to wait any longer. It is time for a legislative debate over a comprehensive clean-energy investment plan. We need far more than cap and trade alone.

Importantly, many elements of this positive clean-energy investment framework are already codified within existing legislation such as the American Clean Energy and Security Act, passed by House of Representatives earlier this year. But with all the attention given to limiting carbon, too little attention has been placed on what will replace it. These critical pieces of America’s clean-energy strategy should be elevated in the policy agenda and political debate as we move forward into the Senate, and used to help move legislation forward that advances a proactive investment and economic revitalization strategy for the nation.

Read the Center for American Progress report, The Clean-Energy Investment Agenda.

Last night, Glenn Beck accused President Obama of “outright lies,” engaging in a “coverup” of the cost of his green economic agenda. Beck claimed that “buried” Treasury documents from March show that the cost of a cap-and-trade carbon market to regulate global warming pollution is $1,761 per household per year, despite the president’s assurance to the American public in June that “the price to the average American will be about the same as a postage stamp per day“:

I have a question. Did the President of the United States tell the people in Congress about this? Facts are stubborn. Don’t they suck? It is always the coverup that gets you. March 9. June 25. Mr. President, did you tell Congress about prior estimates? That, you know, that you knew about? Or did you just kind of keep it secret and hide it away from them and those pesky American people? I want to show you something that I said a few weeks ago. I was talking directly to the Democrats. I was telling them wake up. “Democrats in Congress, wake up! You are being played and you’re being bypassed.”

Watch it:

In reality, Beck’s figure of $1,761 per household for the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) is not actually based on secret Treasury documents, but on the confabulation of a right-wing blogger at CBSNews.com. Although the Treasury Department has called this story “flat out wrong,” conservatives and the oil industry have heavily promoted this inflated number, much in the same way they wildly overestimated the number of Tea Party activists who attended the Glenn Beck rally in Washington, D.C. last weekend.

On June 19th, the Congressional Budget Office analyzed the ACES Act — legislation crafted by Congress, not by “czars” in the White House — and determined “that the net annual economywide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion—or about $175 per household.” Yesterday, the CBO — a Congressional research arm independent of the “spooky” executive branch — released an updated analysis that lowered its previous cost projection to “$160 per household.” In other words:

The average household would spend 44 cents per day – the price of a postage stamp.

The revised analysis also determined that the least well off Americans would receive a greater net benefit than its previous projections. “CBO estimates that households in the lowest income quintile in 2020 would see an average gain… [of] about $125” per household. By 2050, this net gain would increase to “$355 measured at 2010 income levels.”

A clean energy economy would enjoy massive growth, according the the CBO:

CBO projects that real (inflation-adjusted) GDP [Gross Domestic Product] will be roughly two and a half times as large in 2050 as it is today.

Investing in efforts to prevent catastrophic climate change, the CBO concluded, would reduce this GDP by as little as one cent per dollar. CBO concluded that the impact of the ACES Act on the overall economy would be “modest.” However, the CBO did not analyze elements of the legislation that would increase our energy independence and household savings further:

The analysis does not include the effects of other aspects of the bill, such as federal efforts to speed the development of new technologies and to increase energy efficiency by specifying standards or subsidizing energy-saving investments.

Glenn Beck is spinning a paranoid fantasy in which Democratic members of Congress are either puppets of — or conspirators with — an out-of-control, “racist” and “spooky” President. In the real world, the Congressional Budget Office has repeatedly found that a clean energy future can be ours for less than a (real) postage stamp a day.

Transcript:

BECK: You have what came out today, the outright lies coming out of the White House. I hate to call anybody a liar. You tell me. It’s the cap and trade energy bill. We want to thank our friend Chris Horner at CEI for pointing this out to us. Chris, watchdog, thank you very much. This is a document behind me. This is something that the Department of the Treasury did for the White House and the government, so, you know, they could be informed. I want you to take a look at the date. It’s March 9th, 2009. You remember that date. This is when the White House got this, and then it just lkinda was buried, lost. We had to get it through a Freedom of Information Act.

Look at the document, because in the document, it says “a cap and trade program could generate receipts on the order of $100 to $200 billion annually.” Wow, that’s a lot. In fact, it’s so much it’s the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15%. Huh. Bigger is always better. That’s $1,761 a year, per household, all of us, every one. Okay. That’s in March. March 9th, 2009, The Department of Treasury issues a report and says, “Here, Mr. President, boy, that looks like it is going to suck. It is going to cost $1,761.” Got it?

Now let’s fast forward to April 20th, 2009. March — April — I’m not very good with numbers and calendar stuff, because that’s complicated, because there are 12 whole months out of the year, but I think April comes after the report came out! Here is Henry Waxman, you know, from the Waxman-Markley [sic] energy bill. he said this —

“The cost of the bill that Mr. Markey and I proposed, this analysis says the bill will cost the average family less than 40 cents per day.”

You know, I’m not very good with numbers but I think $1,761 is more than 40 cents. I’m not a congressman. If you look at the Treasury estimates, Waxman is only underestimating the cost by 1200%. Now, let’s fast forward a little further. Listen to President Obama. Remember, March 9th, 2009, Department of the Treasury. Here’s their confidential analysis. “Dear Mr. President, it’s going to cost a lot of money.”

Let’s listen carefully to what President Obama estimated on June, June 25th.

“In a decade, the price to the average American will be about the same as a postage stamp per day.”

Wow. I think he just did it, too, 1200%, but he was a little more careful, you know. He did actually say, “in a decade from now.” He didn’t mention that today that stamp would cost $1,671! I’m just saying. He’s very accurate, because that’s the new stamp.

I have a question. Did the President of the United States tell the people in Congress about this? Facts are stubborn. Don’t they suck? It is always the coverup that gets you. Hah. March 9th. June 25th. Mr. President, did you tell Congress about the higher estimates? That, you know, that you knew about? Or did you just kind of keep it secret and hide it away from them and those, ha, pesky American people? I want to show you something that I said a few weeks ago. I was talking directly to the Democrats. I was telling them wake up. Democrats in Congress, wake up! You are being played and you’re being bypassed.

Look at all of the czars. I mean, what do you think they’re for? Look, they don’t answer to anybody. Look, the presidents have had czars for a long time. Woodrow Wilson, he was spooky. FDR, spooky with the czars! Some of the people, you know, they had a bunch of drinking buddies, you know like, oh, would you just make this guy go away? Fine. You want to put them in as special advisors and they don’t have any power, they don’t have any muscle. Wasn’t it Carol Browner who said that? Hey, I don’t ever want to see this in writing as she’s talking to the car dealers or the car companies, yeah, that kind of spooky power. If they have real power, it’s a problem. This guy, Woodrow Wilson, he was a progressive just like this president. He talked about, you know, ways to get things done by going around Congress.

Guess what? This is a progressive in the White House. That’s what he’s doing. He’s going right around Congress. When are you going to wake up, Congress?

The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent. A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration’s estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.

This is pure twaddle. McCullagh is confabulating a “disclosure” out of whole cloth:

Obama’s Plan Would Have Established Tax Cuts For Working Families. In his State of the Union address, President Obama proposed a green economy plan that would create a $100 to $200 $80 billion carbon market and use the money raised from polluters for middle class tax cuts.

Congress Did Not Adopt President Obama’s Plan. The Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) is comprehensive clean energy legislation, coupling the carbon market with national renewable energy and energy efficiency standards. Unlike Obama’s plan, the ACES Act would establish a more limited carbon market, distribute most permits for free to polluting industry, with provisions that compel utilities to pass along their value to ratepayers, and provide further assistance for low-income consumers. One can’t use an analysis of Obama’s proposal to calculate the economic benefits of the legislation now being considered.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act Builds A Clean Economy For A Postage Stamp A Day. The EPA estimates a net cost of about $100 per household per year, which would be fully offset for lower-income consumers. The Congressional Budget Office — which did not consider the energy efficiency measures or the cost of inaction — determined “that the net annual economywide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion—or about $175 per household.”

The American Clean Energy and Security Act Cuts Electricity Bills And Dependence On Foreign Oil. The EPA has found that Waxman-Markey cuts household electricity bills by seven percent by 2020. The EIA found the legislation would save Americans $5,600 per household in reduced dependence on foreign oil.

To come up with false claim that Obama’s plan was “the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent,” McCullagh ignored where the money would come from — polluting industries with billions of dollars in annual profits — and where the money would go — tax cuts for working people.

In reality, President Obama’s proposal would have amounted to tax cuts worth hundreds of dollars for working families, with the added benefits of greatly reduced dependence on toxic oil and coal, billions of dollars of investment in clean energy, and the avoidance of catastrophic climate change.

McCullagh argues that his so-called “disclosures” will “probably not aid the political prospects of the Democrats’ cap and trade bill,” and quotes CEI’s Chris Horner: “It’s nice to see they’re not spinning each other behind closed doors.” Horner, who filed the FOIA request, runs global warming denial blogs for CEI and the National Review. In June, McCullagh breathlessly promoted CEI’s other “scandal” of a global warming denier economist who works for the EPA.

Opponents of clean energy reform are inflating the costs of action by 1,000 percent, while minimizing that the threat of climate change and our dependence on fossil fuels. Ironically, these lies may actually aid the political prospects of action, as the American public grow more disgusted with the unethical tactics of polluters and their right-wing allies.

In the early hours of September 10th, the New York State Senate passed a major bill championed by the Working Families Party to make energy efficiency upgrades to one million homes and businesses over the next five years. The Green Jobs-Green New York Act will leverage private investment and Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative funds to make the upgrades. The bill passed the Assembly unanimously in June and now awaits the Governor’s expected signature. The program created by this bill will create an estimated 14,000 living wage jobs. The key innovation is a revolving capital fund, which would leverage private investment in energy efficient to massively increase the use of existing technology.

Here’s how it will work:

— State-certified contractors would perform free or low-cost energy audits for homeowners, looking for repairs and upgrades (air sealing, insulation, new boilers, etc.) that can pay for themselves through energy savings in an 8 – 10 year window.

– The work is paid for by the Green New York fund, and homeowners pay the fund over time back out of a portion of their energy savings. They pocket the rest, plus get their homes repaired.

Compare this to the current situation:

— A homeowner has to independently do the research to find a contractor they trust to perform an energy audit, pay for it themselves, and then pay the upfront costs of the repair — without support from lenders or energy providers.

For a cold, old state like New York, the number of existing residential and commercial buildings that can be upgraded is huge — we estimate the program could reach one in seven existing homes. It’s a great example of how market failure can be solved through progressive policy.

And none of it would have been possible without the policy work done by the Center for American Progress along with the Center for Working Families.

I love it because they’re ashamed to say the name of the bill I voted against, which was the Cap And Trade National Energy Tax. Only a left-wing group would come up with 1.7 million new jobs. I know what’s going to happen to a manufacturing state like Michigan. I think the vast majority of our constituents understand that cap-and-trade would have been horrible for them. It would have raised the cost of energy and cost them jobs.

In reality, H.R. 2454 is officially known as the “American Clean Energy And Security Act of 2009.” The legislation, by setting standards for renewable energy, energy efficiency, and global warming pollution, will establish market incentives that reward work instead of pollution. The Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, in a report commissioned by the Center for American Progress, found that a clean energy economy could generate 1.7 million new jobs through $150 billion in public and private investment each year — including 54,000 new jobs in Michigan, which would significantly lower unemployment.

Instead of supporting the clean energy economy that is even now rebuilding the American auto industry, McCotter is using his time in Congress on petty partisan resolutions and claiming hysterically that “this job-killing cap and tax bill is a fundamental shift from a manufacturing economy to an old, green economy called hunting and gathering.” Because of his record, McCotter has been named one of the first members of the “Caveman Energy Caucus“:

If “only a left-wing group would come up with 1.7 million new jobs,” then maybe McCotter should let one do so.

The analysis by the authors from King Juan Carlos University represents a significant divergence from traditional methodologies used to estimate employment impacts from renewable energy. In fact, the methodology does not reflect an employment impact analysis. Accordingly, the primary conclusion made by the authors – policy support of renewable energy results in net jobs losses – is not supported by their work.

NREL reveals that what Republicans have called a “50-page empirical study” could have been written by ten-year-olds. All the study does is calculate two ratios of Spanish economic figures — renewable subsidies vs. private capital and subsidies vs. average productivity — and then draw extravagant conclusions not only about the Spanish economy, but project them onto the United States. Here are a few of the fundamental limitations, technical errors, and false assumptions drawn from NREL’s takedown of Calzada’s work of pseudo-economics:

The metrics used in the Spanish study are not jobs impact estimates. The primary conclusion of the report is that the Spanish economy has experienced job loss as a result of its RE installations. However, comparing the RE subsidy per job with the Spanish economy’s average capital per job and average productivity per job is not a measure of job loss.

The report lacks transparency and supporting statistics. It is striking that the authors’ calculations with two very different economic metrics generate the same result. The authors claim this increases their confidence in their result. However, because there is no statistical analysis, it does not seem reasonable to draw conclusions regarding confidence in either result. The authors also fail to justify their chosen methodology or cite others who have applied a similar methodology.

The authors assume that a dollar spent by the government is less efficient than a dollar spent by private industry and that it crowds out private investment. Government spending may be more or less efficient than private investment. To the extent that government spending is a correction for market failures (e.g., existing fossil fuel subsidies, environmental externalities), it is less likely to represent an inefficient allocation of resources. Furthermore, there is no justification given for the assumption that government spending (e.g., tax credits or subsidies) would force out private investment. This assumption is fundamental to the conclusion that Spain’s renewable energy policy has resulted in job loss.

Calzada also “fails to account for technology export potential,” “relies on jobs estimates that were developed in 2003 and do not reflect Spain’s RE industries in 2009,” and “relies on jobs as the sole metric to assess the value of renewable energy.” NREL’s Suzanne Tegen, a Ph.D. energy market analyst, and Eric Lantz conclude with a summary of what serious economic analysis of the impact of renewable energy investments has found:

In general, comprehensive analyses show that net employment impacts are sensitive to assumptions regarding future energy prices, strategies for addressing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions, and the capacity to export technology. With increased awareness of potential energy price scenarios, recent research has found that it is only when conventional energy prices are forecast to be very low that net employment impacts from RE investments are negative.

In other words, unless you live in a world where global warming and oil spills don’t exist, and fossil fuels remain cheap forever, government investment in renewable energy creates jobs — just what our nation needs now.

(H/T Pete Altman)

I think once the president makes this case in prime time, after this health care debate passes us by, I think it’s going to pass. I think the American people are going to understand the bill and support the bill in overwhelming numbers. The polling actually says that when the argument is made that way, 70 percent Americans want us to finally put this relationship we have with these old technologies to the rear of us and move ahead. And that’s going to be our opportunity this fall, hopefully with the help of everyone here.

Watch it:

Markey concluded that “the larger goals in this bill, what it’s going to accomplish, are so historic, that it would be the most important energy and environmental bill that has ever passed this United States Congress.” To great applause, he asked the entire audience of climate activists and clean energy supporters to accomplish its passage.

Transcript:

MARKEY: If Americans understood that we produce 8 million barrels of oil a day, but we import 13 million barrels of oil a day, and this bill combined with fuel economy standards can reduce by 5 million barrels of oil a day the amount of oil we import, I mean we can tell OPEC we don’t need your oil any more than we need your sand– that’s a big selling point.

If we tell them we can create two to three million new jobs in this sector over the next ten years– that’s a big selling point.

If we tell them we can stabilize countries around the world that are otherwise going to be destabilized by what climate change is going to do to their rivers, to their glaciers, to their deserts– I think that’s a big selling point.

I think once the president makes this case in prime time, after this health care debate passes us by, I think it’s going to pass. I think the American people are going to understand the bill and support the bill in overwhelming numbers. The polling actually says that when the argument is made that way, 70 percent Americans want us to finally put this relationship we have with these old technologies to the rear of us and move ahead. And that’s going to be our opportunity this fall, hopefully with the help of everyone here.

All issues go through three phases: political education, political activation, political implementation. We’re going to need everyone here to make this possible.

Yes, you can find deficiencies in the bill. But the larger goals in this bill, what it’s going to accomplish, are so historic, that it would be the most important energy and environmental bill that has ever passed this United States Congress. And we’re going to need everyone here if we are going to accomplish that. [APPLAUSE]

If you believe recent media reports, the two international climate change meetings held last week in L’Aquila, Italy, at best failed to do anything and at worst signal that no serious progress will be made on a global climate agreement this year. If true, this is bad news. According to the byzantine rules of the Kyoto Protocol, set to expire in 2012, a successor to that treaty must be decided this December at the U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen.

The good news is that many of the assessments of these meetings are incomplete, if not inaccurate. A New York Times editorial last week described the recognition by the world’s major carbon emitters that temperatures should not increase more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels as an “aspirational” goal. They concluded:

But with global climate talks in Copenhagen only five months away, aspirational goals won’t carry things very far.

However, the Times based its argument in language from a draft of a declaration — not from the document itself. This weakened, “aspirational” language was struck in the final version of the document, rendering this claim obsolete.

All in all, the twin declarations emerging from the G-8 and the Major Economies Forum (MEF) indicate that progress has been made on the road to Copenhagen. So why the rush to publish such dour reports from Italy, whether accurate or not? It’s simple: Invested parties had unrealistic expectations of meetings, which have no binding impact on the upcoming U.N. summit.

There were, of course, disappointments. Developed countries in the G-8 failed to agree on the medium-term goal of reducing reductions targets by 2020. Developing nations, especially China and India, refused to embrace the long-term goal of halving global emissions by 2050, a cap most of the world’s leading scientists believe is essential to avoiding the worst impacts of climate change.

But if we only focus on what did not happen, we miss seeing the achievements made in a very short amount of time. When the United States rejoined the global discussion on a new climate treaty in January, it triggered an 11-month countdown to solve the most complicated problem humanity has ever faced. For the 16 countries responsible for 80 percent of carbon emissions to recognize even one marker of failure — a rise in temperature over 2 degrees Celcius — is fantastically impressive. A week before the Italy meetings, negotiators doubted that this language would make the final cut.

Some will argue that it’s easy to agree on an abstract target like limiting planetary warming. But the G-8 struck an appropriate balance in creating objectives that are both ambitious and achievable. Industrialized countries finally determined their fair share of long-term emissions cuts: 80 percent by 2050. Plus, U.S. President Barack Obama prudently hedged on setting a 2020 emissions target. The Markey-Waxman climate change bill, which includes emissions cuts, is working its way through Congress. While it does, the president should not signal that he will preempt or undercut the legislature.

What about China and India’s apparent intransigence to halving emissions by 2050? The fact is that the United States cannot criticize their behavior. If a Chinese leader had promised to join the world eight years ago in reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and then reversed course — as former President George W. Bush did in 2001 — the United States would hardly agree to his demands now. So it is with China and India. It will take incentives, diplomacy, and, most of all, time to bring about world-saving targets from them.

Ultimately, the most promising parts of last week’s agreements received only marginal coverage. The MEF announced that developed countries will double clean-energy funding for developing nations — putting pressure on those countries to commit to emissions reductions in exchange, as agreed upon at the Bali summit in 2007. Additionally, the participating countries agreed to determine how they will finance their plans by the G-20 meeting in September.

The countries assembled last week didn’t get everything settled on the first go around. But in light of their accomplishments, we should hold off on our rush to proclaim failure.

This coalition letter became the basis for a letter from progressive leaders Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME), asking fellow members to join in their call for higher clean energy standards, stronger regulations for coal plants, and fewer giveaways to polluters:

Ensure More Clean Energy for America. Increase the Renewable Electricity Standard to 30 percent by 2020, combining renewable energy and energy efficiency to deliver more clean energy jobs to the U.S. economy more quickly. Utilities would have to achieve 17 percent mandatory renewables and 10 percent mandatory efficiency by 2020, while maintaining flexibility to do either with 3 percent.

Ensure that All Coal Plants Meet Strict Global Warming Emissions Standards. Maintain or strengthen existing authority under the Clean Air Act to establish limits for global warming emissions from coal plants.

Create More Clean Energy Jobs for America and Build Resiliency to Climate Change. Reduce allocations to polluting industries in order to supplement allowance accounts that would bolster green job development and protection of vulnerable communities that are impacted first and worst by climate change. Shave allocations from fossil fuel producers and redistribute to programs that deliver energy efficiency and renewable energy, create green jobs and train workers to fill them, and protect natural resources and vulnerable communities here and around the world.

The groups, also including the Progressive Democrats of America, collectively generated hundreds of thousands of emails, calls, visits and faxes to Congress asking for these strengthening amendments. The Pingree-Ellison letter has garnered 49 signatures, including a number of members of the Congressional Black Caucus and Blue Dog Adam Schiff (D-CA).

Nearly all of the signatories are expected to vote for passage of the legislation when the vote comes Friday, no matter its final language, so this is primarily an opportunity for members to note they would prefer more equitable and stronger legislation, given the chance. That there are so few members of the House of Representatives willing to take even this soft stand on behalf of a just, green economy is a harsh judgment on the strength of the climate movement.

Signatories of the Pingree-Ellison letter:

Michael E. Capuano (D-MA)
Yvette D. Clarke (D-NY)
Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO)
John Conyers Jr. (D-MI)
Elijah E. Cummings (D-MD)
Donna F. Edwards (D-MD)
Keith Ellison (D-MN)
Sam Farr (D-CA)
Chaka Fattah (D-PA)
Bob Filner (D-CA)
Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ)
John J. Hall (D-NY)
Alcee L. Hastings (D-FL)
Maurice D. Hinchey (D-NY)
Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI)
Paul W. Hodes (D-NH)
Rush D. Holt (D-NJ)
Michael M. Honda (D-CA)
Jesse L. Jackson Jr. (D-IL)
Henry C. Johnson Jr. (D-GA)
Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH)
James R. Langevin (D-RI)
Barbara Lee (D-CA)
John Lewis (D-GA)
Nita M. Lowey (D-NY)
Dan Maffei (D-NY)
Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY)
Betty McCollum (D-MN)
Kendrick B. Meek (D-FL)
James P. Moran (D-VA)
Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)
Grace F. Napolitano (D-CA)
John W. Olver (D-MA)
Chellie Pingree (D-ME)
Jared Polis (D-CO)
Steven R. Rothman (D-NJ)
John P. Sarbanes (D-MD)
Adam B. Schiff (D-CA)
Robert C. “Bobby’’ Scott (D-VA)
Joe Sestak (D-PA)
Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH)
Adam Smith (D-WA)
Fortney Pete Stark (D-CA)
Paul Tonko (D-NY)
Diane E. Watson (D-CA)
Robert Wexler (D-FL)
David Wu (D-OR)

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.

A new study by a Department of Energy laboratory predicts that consumers would see a negligible increase in their electricity costs if Congress requires utilities to produce up to a quarter of their power from renewable sources. The analysis of three Democratic proposals to impose a national renewable energy standard (RES) of 20 to 25 percent concludes that electric rates would increase less than one percent under any of the plans proposed by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Edward Markey (D-MA). The report by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, CO. concludes:

None of the RES bills modeled have a significant impact on consumer electricity prices at the national level.

During Senate debate on a 15 percent RES in late 2007, utilities including Southern Co. and American Electric Power Co. claimed the measure could cost $67 billion or more. The NREL study is the latest analysis to rebut arguments from some utility companies that a national RES would impose high costs on consumers. On the Waxman-Markey proposal of 25 percent RES by 2025 and a 15 percent electricity and 10 percent natural gas EERS by 2020:

“Given the amount of eligible renewable generation projected in the reference case, the RES is not expected to affect national average electricity prices until after 2020. . . By 2030, electricity prices are projected to be little changed from the reference case in both RES cases, with 2030 prices less than 1 percent higher than in the reference case.” [Energy Information Administration, April 2009]

“By 2030 the aggressive EERS and RES policies in the draft bill would save consumers over $200 billion dollars per year compared to the costs that would be incurred if investor-owned utilities are left to pursue their preference for expensive central station generation units.” [Consumer Federation of America, 5/21/09]

The Union of Concerned Scientists found that a 25 percent RES by 2025: “would create more than three times as many jobs as producing an equivalent amount of electricity from fossil fuels — resulting in a net benefit of 202,000 new jobs in 2025.”

The comprehensive energy and climate change legislation sponsored by Waxman and Markey and now being debated by the House Energy and Commerce Committee would establish a national RES of 15% by 2020. It would also require utilities to reduce electricity demand by another five percent through efficiency measures.

The NREL study, like earlier ones, forecasts significant regional differences in how states would be able to meet a national RES. Western states, which have abundant wind and solar resources, would likely exceed the national requirement and be able to sell renewable energy credits. Southern states would rely more on purchased credits and electricity produced by biomass.

The Department of Defense (DOD) is the single largest consumer of energy in the United States. A new report by the Military Advisory Board (MAB) of the Center for Naval Analysis, “Powering America’s Defense: Energy and the Risks to National Security,” describes the significant security threats the energy status quo poses to US military missions and the country:

Energy, security, economics, climate change — these things are connected.

General Charles F. “Chuck” Wald, the chairman of the MAB, laid bare the conclusions of the report in his opening remarks at the panel discussion to launch the report, held at the Newseum on Monday. Describing the oil crisis as a serious and urgent threat to national security, General Wald noted that not only does the military’s inefficient use of oil “reduce combat effectiveness,” but that American dependence on oil has a major impact on foreign policy. Significantly, he noted that the problem was “dependence on oil, and not just foreign oil.” The US has less than two percent of global oil reserves, making it dependent on foreign sources for current consumption levels.

The panel explained that US’s exposure to volatile international oil markets also poses a significant financial threat:

– The US military consumes over 300,000 barrels of oil per day, leading to a bill of $20 billion in FY 2008.

– Skyrocketing oil prices in 2008 led to a more than 50 percent increase from the $13 billion paid for oil in FY 2007.

General Wald warned that the current status quo on oil was part of the reason for the current global financial crisis. Even worse, unless urgent action is taken to overhaul energy use in the US, a future financial crisis “could dwarf this one.”

Calling efficiency the “hat trick” of energy, the panel experts described efficient energy use as essential to protecting American troops and saving lives. As General Ronald F. Keys, a retired US Air Force commander pointed out:

When you’re being shot at, of course that’s important for folks who are out there in harm’s way.

In Afghanistan, 70 percent of the convoys are used for carrying fuel and water. In Iraq, where the majority of fuel delivery is for generators that provide for tent air-conditioning, the military tried insulating tents with foam, reducing energy consumption by a remarkable 45 percent. Cutting the energy use not only saves money but also cuts the number of dangerous convoy runs.

The vulnerability of domestic bases to the conventional electric grid can cause them to fail when there are malfunctions, thus jeopardizing overseas operations and potentially leading to a national state of emergency at home. Dr. Ashton Carter, the undersecretary of Defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, noted, “Terrorists and other antagonists recognize the vulnerability of our energy infrastructure.” Not only does smart grid technology bolster physical security and cybersecurity, it also allows for electricity from renewable sources to connect to the main grid, delivering clean energy over long distances to reach consumers. Senator John Warner (R-VA), one of the sponsors of the Climate Security Act of 2008, spoke at the event to say that a smart grid was needed “to get renewable sources of energy to the marketplace in a cost-effective way.”

A smart grid is one of the six priorities for DOD that are emphasized in the MAB report. Dr. Carter spoke of deepening partnerships between DOD and the Department of Energy to further such goals, especially with “a gaggle of physicists working on energy issues” in the administration, including Secretary of Energy Dr. Stephen Chu and White House science advisor John Holdren. By undertaking a comprehensive energy reform program, the US military can play an important part in repowering America, and in strengthening the United States at home and abroad.

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.

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:

No amount of PR spending or jazzy jingles can obscure the actual facts about coal: it’s a dirty killer of jobs, health, and the environment. Arch Coal, as can be seen from the Factuality video itself, is profiting obscenely from the literal stripmining of our planet:

Arch Sold Three Billion Dollars Of Coal Pollution In 2008. Arch sold 139.6 million tons of coal in 2008, about 12% of the United States supply, making $354.3 million on nearly three billion dollars of revenue. Employing only 4300 people, Arch produced over 32,000 tons of coal and made $82,400 per employee. Arch Coal’s CEO Steven Leer pulled in $6.56 million.

Arch Coal Is A Top Global Warming Polluter While Doing Nothing To Solve The Threat. The burning of Arch’s coal in 2008 generated about 223 million tons of carbon dioxide, approximately three percent of all U.S. emissions, and 52,000 tons per employee. Despite having made $929 million since 2003, Arch Coal is not investing in a single project to develop the technology needed to capture and store coal’s global warming pollution, according to a Center for American Progress analysis.

Arch Coal Is A High-Rolling Lobbying And Political Spender. Arch Coal spent $970,000 last year lobbying Congress, and has already spent $240,000 this year. Arch gave $116,750 to House members in 2007-2008, and $73,250 to Senate members in 2007-2008.

The average American carbon footprint is about 20 tons a year; the average Chinese carbon footprint is 3 tons a year. As he makes about two percent of Arch Coal profits, CEO Steven Leer’s footprint is over four million tons of global warming pollution a year.

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.

Um. I, I just would say that any American who is prepared to endorse a national energy tax that there’s a better solution. Uh, that they should keep their powder dry. And uh, take their case to the American people that they don’t need, particularly during this very difficult time in the economic life of our nation, to raise the energy cost on our businesses and on American families.

Watch it:

Unfortunately for climate deniers like Pence and his fellow members in the GOP American Energy Solutions Group, corporate leaders aren’t heeding his warning, because they know the “national energy tax” scare is just a lie. As Grist noted, “the House heard the leaders of Duke Energy, ConocoPhillips, and DuPont ask for a cap as recently as April 22.” Politico reports that Nike has been telling the U.S. Chamber of Commerce “to take a more progressive stance on the issue of climate change.” And Exelon Corporation, one of America’s largest electric utilities and another US-CAP member, is featured in a new advertisement today from the Environmental Defense Action Fund calling for a carbon cap as a part of comprehensive clean economic policy:

The French government is welcoming the “new atmosphere” that the Obama administration brings to international climate negotiations, but is looking for results. Brice Lalonde, France’s chief climate negotiator, sat down for an interview with reporters in Hotel Willard’s Cafe du Parc, following the Major Economies Forum convened this week in Washington, D.C. Lalonde dismissed corporate pressure to block green economy legislation in the United States as an “arrière-garde” doomed, in time, to irrelevance, saying that the “economic center is moving.” While expressing great optimism for eventual success, Lalonde explained that the international community is looking for Obama to go farther than his campaign pledge for 2020 emissions reductions:

Politically it’s very important for the U.S. to go under 1990 levels by 2020.

Lalonde indicated that the means for achieving that symbolic target doesn’t have to be solely through domestic reductions, but could include international mechanisms. The World Resources Institute estimates that the Waxman-Markey Clean Energy and Security Act may achieve reductions of 20 to 38 percent below 1990 levels, if all complementary policies and offsets to the mandatory reductions are considered. Even before the Copenhagen treaty negotiations this December, he said, “We could go very far on forest issues.” He expressed great optimism that the U.S. Senate could take the lead on legislation to deal with tropical deforestation. “A deforestation agreement could be fantastic. You could have a bipartisan agreement on that.”

The participants at the Major Economies Forum were very aware of the implications of the global recession, and believe that “green recovery plans are the beginning of fighting climate change.” Lalonde described the fiscal and financial debt bubbles, and concluded, “Climate change is also a debt.”

Dismissing the argument that emissions reductions would kill the coal and oil industries, he expressed confidence that corporate resistance to action would fade: “It’s finished.” The hydrocarbon industries would continue to prosper in a clean energy economy, he said, discussing the numerous chemical and industrial uses of coal: “It’s a shame to burn it.” However he recognized that policy makers need the support of the public, and sounded almost resigned when asked about the American public’s low priority for action on global warming. “You had Katrina already,” he replied.

Despite his optimism and respect for the “Dream Team” that the U.S. now has on climate change, Lalonde was sober about the challenges facing small island states that face likely annihilation even with a 50% reduction in total emissions by 2050. “It’s going to be difficult to catch up with the eight years we’ve lost.”