Our guest blogger is Lowell Feld, the editor of Blue Virginia.

Yesterday afternoon, Sen. Jim Webb’s office put out a press release (see the full release at Blue Virginia) calling for a vote on the “Rockefeller Amendment to Delay EPA Greenhouse Gas Regulations.” Needless to say, I strongly disagree with Jim Webb that any delay in taking aggressive, comprehensive action on clean energy and climate change makes any sense whatsoever. There are three main reasons we need to act immediately, not delay a minute longer:

One: The scientific evidence of dangerous, man-made climate change is crystal clear and voluminous, as is the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that we need to act urgently – as in, this is a planetary environmental emergency – to slash greenhouse gas emissions now;

Two: Our national security depends heavily on a rapid move off of our oil addiction, which means first and foremost transitioning the U.S. vehicle fleet to far higher efficiency, and also to clean-energy-generated electricity;

Three: Our economic future will be determined in large part on how rapidly we transition off of 19th and 20th century fuels (mainly coal and oil) and into 21st century energy sources (efficiency, wind, solar, wave, geothermal, next-generation biofuels).

Frankly, none of that should be remotely controversial. The vast majority of people who aren’t in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry – or snookered by the constant barrage of Big Lie propaganda that industry puts out — see the Chevron “Human Energy” campaign or “Energy Tomorrow” for a constant stream of lies, half-truths, and distortions — would almost certainly agree with those three points. I know Sen. Mark Warner gets it, because I’ve sat down and discussed these issues with him. As for Jim Webb? Sadly — and it truly is sad for me, as someone who led the “Draft James Webb” effort and who worked for his campaign — it doesn’t seem that he has much if any understanding – or even curiosity to learn – about energy and environmental issues. Yesterday, he actually said the following words:

I am not convinced the Clean Air Act was ever intended to regulate or classify as a dangerous pollutant something as basic and ubiquitous in our atmosphere as carbon dioxide.

Watch it:

That’s bad enough. But for now I just want to focus on a truly egregious distortion and piece of revisionist history from Webb’s press release. According to Sen. Webb, the “sweeping actions that the EPA proposes to undertake clearly overflow the appropriate regulatory banks established by Congress, with the potential to affect every aspect of the American economy.” Webb believes that “[s]uch action represents a significant overreach by the Executive branch.”

That’s so many kinds of wrong it’s hard to know where to start. Just a few points. First off, the EPA’s establishment (by President Nixon) was approved by Congress, back in 1970. Second, the Clean Air Act was passed by Congress, extended multiple times by Congress, revised many times by Congress, etc. Third, the U.S. Supreme Court clearly ruled in 2007 that the EPA “can avoid taking further action [on global warming] only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation.” Finally, the U.S. Senate has utterly failed in its duty to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, per the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, the overwhelming scientific evidence, etc. In 2009, recall that the U.S. House of Representatives passed a comprehensive, clean energy and climate law.

The U.S. Senate, of which Jim Webb was and is a part, then did what it usually does – nothing. Clearly, that is where the failure lies, in the U.S. Senate, not with the Executive Branch — or the Judicial Branch, for that matter. Frankly, at this point, the U.S. Senate has made it abundantly clear that it has zero ability to tackle this issue.

So, here’s my message to Sen. Webb and to the rest of his “scorpions in a bottle” — as he calls them — in the Senate: on clean energy and climate change, either lead, follow, or get the heck out of the way!

Cross-posted from Blue Virginia, where Webb’s anti-EPA press release can be read.

A new study finds that all those aircraft condensation trails you see across the sky may, on any given day, be warming the planet more than all the CO2 emitted by all the planes since the Wright Brothers’ first flew over a century ago.

The study is “Global radiative forcing from contrail cirrus” (subs. req’d) in Nature Climate Change by Ulrike Burkhardt1 and Bernd K¤rcher of the DLR German Aerospace Center. That the climate forcing from airplanes is considerably greater than just that of their CO2 emissions has been known a long time.

What this study adds is an analysis of an “important but poorly understood component of this forcing,” namely contrail cirrus“””a type of cloud that consist of young line-shaped contrails and the older irregularly shaped contrails that arise from them.”  It turns out that “the radiative forcing associated with contrail cirrus as a whole is about nine times larger than that from line-shaped contrails alone.”  On the bright side, “contrail cirrus cause a significant decrease in natural cloudiness, which partly offsets their warming effect.”

Nature CC‘s news story has this explanation and satellite images:

Read more

Tokyo Electric to scrap Reactors 1 to 4, probably 5 and 6, too

… a deluge of contaminated water, plutonium traces in the soil and an increasingly hazardous environment for workers at the plant have forced government officials to confront the reality that the emergency measures they have taken to keep nuclear fuel cool are producing increasingly dangerous side effects. And the prospect of restoring automatic cooling systems anytime soon is fading.

Hiroto Sakashita, a professor in nuclear reactor thermal hydraulics at Hokkaido University, said of the fuel rods, “Handling this situation is getting increasingly difficult.”

The NY Times explains how the very efforts to stop a full meltdown have themselves had serious consequences:

Read more

In a speech at Georgetown University today, President Barack Obama outlined a modest vision for improving our nation’s energy security — a vision that is unfortunately bold and ambitious by the standards of today’s Washington DC politics. With a Republican Party running full-tilt into Big Oil fealty and climate denial, with a significant bloc of the Democratic Party that believes protecting the economy means protecting coal barons, with thousands of polluter lobbyists flooding the system, even the dangerous status quo is difficult to maintain. Obama hinted at that toxic reality near the end of his speech, when he castigated the “some folks” — that is, the fossil fuel industry and their conservative allies — that want to cut clean-energy investment and increase global warming pollution:

As we debate our national priorities and our budget in Congress, we’re going to have to make tough choices. We’re going to have to cut what we don’t need to invest in what we do need. Unfortunately, some folks want to cut critical investments in clean energy. They want to cut our research and development into new technologies. They’re shortchanging the resources necessary even to promptly issue new permits for offshore drilling. These cuts would eliminate thousands of private sector jobs, it would terminate scientists and engineers, and end fellowships for researchers — some who may be here at Georgetown — graduate students and other talent we desperately need to get into this area in the 21st century.

That doesn’t make sense.

We’re already paying a price for our inaction. Every time we fill up at the pump; every time we lose a job or a business to countries that invest more than we do in clean energy; when it comes to our air, our water, and the climate change that threatens the planet that you will inherit – we are already paying a price. These are the costs we’re already bearing. And if we do nothing, that price will only go up.

So at moments like these, sacrificing these investments in research and development, supporting clean energy technologies, that would weaken our energy security and make us more dependent on oil, not less. That’s not a game plan to win the future. That’s a vision to keep us mired in the past. I will not accept that outcome for the United States of America. We are not going to do that.

Watch it:

Although Obama outlined steps to maintain incremental progress with somewhat stronger fuel economy standards, a gradual increase in low-carbon electricity, and investment in advanced biofuels, he failed to deliver a “game plan to win the future.” The harsh reality is that we need leadership that ends our dependence on fossil fuels within the next few decades. And that requires leadership that chooses to accept actual reality instead of political “reality.” The president noted that increasing domestic drilling for oil isn’t a long-term solution for energy security, but made it the primary plank of his speech. He noted that “we can’t drill our way out” of our problems, but called for incentives for major increases in natural gas and oil drilling, citing the influence of T. Boone Pickens. He spent literally only one sentence mentioning policies that would actually reduce gas costs, cut oil dependence, and clean the air:

We’ve also made historic investments in high-speed rail and mass transit, because part of making our transportation sector cleaner and more efficient involves offering Americans – urban, suburban, and rural – the choice to be mobile without having to get in a car and pay for gas.

The choice President Obama presented in his speech today is between running back into the 19th century with the Grand Oil Party or slogging timidly ahead. The real world is moving much faster than Washington, DC can handle, and we need much more than the half-measures offered today to survive.

President calls for 1/3 cut in oil imports by 2025 — but we’re already most of the way there!

UPDATE:  Obama went off of his prepared remarks to point out that we haven’t increased fuel economy standards in 30 years — but the President never bothers to explain to the public that’s because Republicans opposed such increases!  And so it looks like he is saying both parties are equally culpable and equally incompetent.  Is it any wonder so much of the public agrees.

His speech also says, “some want to cut these critical investments in clean energy.  They want to cut our research and development into new technologies.”  But he never says who it is — Republicans, once again.  It’s like he’s playing college basketball and the GOP are in the NBA.

Just to be clear, if there is no political penalty for the GOP’s obstructive and destructive policies, they will never change — and all of Obama’s proposed policies will go nowhere.

President Obama is delivering today what is being billed as a very big speech on “energy security.”  You can watch it live around 11:20 am here.

UPDATE:  Obama calls for a one-third cut in oil imports by 2025 from 2008 levels of 11.1 million barrels a day.  But the EIA reports that net imports for have averaged 9.0 MBD for the first two months of 2011 — and 8.9 MBD over the last 6 months (h/t Oildrum)   We only need to hit 7.4 to achieve Obama’s goal!

I propose the following drinking game:

1. The first time the President uses the phrase “climate change” or “global warming,” down the drink of your choice.
2. The second time, empty out the liquor cabinet.
3. The third time, it’s a weekend in Las Vegas with Charlie Sheen (or Chelsea Handler).

OK, perhaps this is best called a sobriety game, if this is anything like his State of the Union Address (see Obama calls for massive boost in low-carbon energy, but doesn’t mention carbon, climate or warming).

UPDATE 2:  Obama threw in a few extra “climate change” mentions, but one of them negated another — “So those of us who are concerned about climate change, we’ve got to recognize that nuclear power, if it’s safe, can make a significant contribution to the climate change question” – could that possibly be blander?  How about explaining to the public why everyone should be concerned?  And how about something stronger than “question”?   Still, it is Charlie Sheen time.  But not in a good way.

Of course, like the speech, the fact sheet that the White House released this morning ahead of the speech leads with expanded production of fossil fuels:

Read more

A recent study found “air quality in Houston is still among the worst in the nation.”  Yet, as this Wonk Room cross-post makes clear, “Smokey” Joe Barton apparently lives in a different Texas.

Visiting the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality in Fort Worth, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) “” who infamously apologized to BP CEO Tony Hayward for having to pay Gulf residents for damage caused by his company’s oil spill “” stated that the air in Texas is “excellent“:

Read more

Hawkins: A Vote to Remember

I have two reposts from the Natural Resources Defense Council.  David G. Hawkins, NRDC’s Director of Climate Programs, explains what is at stake in the Senate votes today.  But first, Pete Altman, their Climate Campaign Director, explains how you can make your voice heard:

Read more

John Podesta, Carl Pope, and Gene Karpinski propose a path to economic prosperity and oil security in this CAP cross-post.

Read more

California Raises Renewable Energy Requirements

California lawmakers passed a bill Tuesday that would require a third of the state’s power to come from renewable energy sources by 2020, setting a new bar for the rest of the country.

Read more

Visiting the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality in Fort Worth, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) — who infamously apologized to BP CEO Tony Hayward for having to pay Gulf residents for damage caused by his company’s oil spill — stated that the air in Texas is “excellent“:

Texas’ environmental regulators are “the best in the country,” and “Texas air quality is excellent,” U.S. Rep. Joe Barton said Friday during an event that highlighted the state’s ongoing scrap with federal authorities over air quality.

“The federal government sets the standard, but then the states implement it,” Barton said. “I think Texas has done an excellent job of not only implementing the standards but of proving they’re in compliance.”

Not only is Texas the biggest polluter in the country but it isn’t complying with federal air quality standards. Texas leads the nation in carbon dioxide emissions, and in 2008, Houston was ranked the fourth worst city for ozone — a far cry from “excellent” air quality.

Texas has not been in compliance with federal air quality standards since 1994, when the state submitted a system of issuing flexible air pollution limits to the EPA — which allowed for a portion of a refinery or chemical plant to emit more pollutants than federal standards authorize as long as the total emissions did not infringe on federal air quality standards. Both the administrations of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush missed deadlines to make a decision on the Texas permitting program, but the Bush administration repeatedly sent notices insisting that they comply with federal requirements. Finally, in June 2010, the EPA published its “disapproval” of Texas’ air quality standards, stating, the Texas program “does not meet several national Clean Air Act requirements that help to assure the protection of health and the environment.”

Texas Department of Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples has pushed back against the EPA’s decision, saying, “[u]ltimately, in this process, it is the consumer, American families, that will be picking up the tab for” stronger air quality enforcement.

Gina McCarthy, the EPA’s top air official, responded to the agency’s critics, saying that “enforcement of the Clean Air Act has saved lives and allowed the economy to grow.” In fact, the EPA just released a study which concluded that the Clean Air Act will “prevent 230,000 premature deaths and result in $2 trillion in economic benefits in 2020.”

– Paul Breer

Last year, 33 generals and admirals supported strong action on climate and clean energy, asserting “Climate change is making the world a more dangerous place” and “threatening America’s security.”  The Pentagon itself has made the climate/security link explicit in its Quadrennial Defense Review.

But, as Brad Johnson points out, while the U.S. Senate is preparing to vote on a series of amendments “to cripple the federal response to climate pollution” the “military brass are working intensely to do their job of defending our nation from the very real threats of dependence on fossil fuels and their world-altering pollution.”  This week the military is discussing how to use clean energy innovation to address the climate security crisis:
Read more

Today, the U.S. Senate will debate and vote on how much to cripple the EPA’s efforts to protect civilization from global warming. Brad Johnson has the story of the pollution lobby pushing hard to gut the Clean Air Act.

Read more