The Washington Post has an article today on the House fuel economy deal that is quite good in doling out cheers and jeers — good except for two sentences. Let’s start with the cheers.

The article quotes NRDC rightly praising Pelosi for being steadfast with the Senate’s 35 mpg target and Dingell too for

telling the automakers a year ago that they were going to have to accept a mileage improvement. He bargained hard for trying to make it less, but he deserves credit for coming around and agreeing.

The article also has fascinating back story on how Japanese car manufacturer Nissan “struck out on its own to lobby Capitol Hill for fuel standards that were in some ways stricter than what other automakers wanted.” A Nissan Sr. VP “said the company decided early to advocate tough fuel-economy standards as part of a company-wide effort to become more eco-friendly.”

Ungreen GM and Ford worked hard to kill a 35-mpg deal, and so did supposedly green Toyota. Google “Toyota greenwash” to see how people feel about this. [Note to Toyota: Why not have lobbying consistent with your eco-branding?]

So what are the two sentences that get the Post a thumbs down?

Read more

For those who didn’t get the message from the dire November synthesis report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, more than 200 of the world’s leading climate scientists have today issued the following declaration:

The 2007 IPCC report, compiled by several hundred climate scientists, has unequivocally concluded that our climate is warming rapidly, and that we are now at least 90% certain that this is mostly due to human activities. The amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere now far exceeds the natural range of the past 650,000 years, and it is rising very quickly due to human activity. If this trend is not halted soon, many millions of people will be at risk from extreme events such as heat waves, drought, floods and storms, our coasts and cities will be threatened by rising sea levels, and many ecosystems, plants and animal species will be in serious danger of extinction.

The next round of focused negotiations for a new global climate treaty (within the 1992 UNFCCC process) needs to begin in December 2007 and be completed by 2009. The prime goal of this new regime must be to limit global warming to no more than 2 ºC above the pre-industrial temperature, a limit that has already been formally adopted by the European Union and a number of other countries.

Based on current scientific understanding, this requires that global greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced by at least 50% below their 1990 levels by the year 2050. In the long run, greenhouse gas concentrations need to be stabilised at a level well below 450 ppm (parts per million; measured in CO2-equivalent concentration). In order to stay below 2 ºC, global emissions must peak and decline in the next 10 to 15 years, so there is no time to lose.

As scientists, we urge the negotiators to reach an agreement that takes these targets as a minimum requirement for a fair and effective global climate agreement.

Take that, Luddite delayers — this means you Bush, Lomborg, and Gingrich.

You can read the AP story on the declaration, with a quote from Climate Progress, here.

The scientists with the moral sensibility to sign this declation deserve kudos — and recognition. Here they are:

Read more

After a day-long mark-up, the Lieberman-Warner bill proposing to cut global warming gases (70 percent by 2050 from covered sources) passed the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee by a vote of 11-8, largely on party lines. [JR: The fact that Bernie Sanders (I-VT) voted for the bill is a good sign for the full Senate, since he has been the voice of the hard-core greens.]

As she hoped, Chairwoman Barbara Boxer is able to attend the UNFCCC climate discussions in Bali with something to show from her committee. Even if the White House refuses to act, at least part of Congress has acted.

As has the rest of the country. As I wrote earlier this week with Kit Batten, Managing Director of Energy and Environmental Policy at the Center for American Progress, state and local-level actors have pulled out far ahead of federal action this year. To reiterate our examples:

• In April, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide.
• Three regional initiatives have formed to reduce greenhouse gases in the absence of federal regulation: The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or RGGI, in the Northeast; the Western Climate Initiative along the West Coast; and the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Accord (of Governors).
• Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R), current head of the National Governors Association, declared energy and energy security as his top priority.
• California passed and will soon enact the country’s first global warming legislation, known as AB32. The state, backed by at least 15 others, filed suit against the Environmental Protection Agency in order to reduce tailpipe emissions through stringent fuel economy standards.
• Several states joined with international actors to form the International Carbon Action Partnership to reduce emissions.
• And finally, several states, including Washington, Maine, Florida, and Kansas, have denied permits to build traditional, pulverized coal-fired power plants, enormous emissions offenders.

Clearly, the Lieberman-Warner effort to cap emissions and trade permits has support, but it will fight an uphill battle in the full Senate. Sen. James Inhofe plans to filibuster the bill, meaning it will require 60 votes to pass the Senate, so things have really only just begun.