The Wonk Room

Australian Possum May Be Global Boiling Casualty»

The white lemuroid possum (Hemibelideus lemuroides), an Australian marsupial that lives only in the higher altitude rainforests of far north Queensland, may be the first species of mammal to go extinct because of global warming. This animal resembles a furry, snow-white lemur, with a prehensile tail and large eyes for nocturnal vision, and cannot survive sustained temperatures above 86 degrees Fahrenheit. It has not been spotted since a heat wave in 2005 struck the cloud forests of the Mount Lewis forest reserve.

Left unchecked, by 2050 global warming will have committed about one-third of all species to extinction. Global warming-related diseases have already caused the extinction of dozens of species of cloud-forest-dwelling amphibians. A third of all corals are today threatened with extinction by the changes to the world’s oceans — toxic pollution, rising waters, warming temperatures, and increasing acidification.

To limit further damage and prevent an ecological catastrophe, developing nations — home to the world’s greatest reserves of biodiversity — “are calling for industrialized nations to agree to cuts of more than 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 and more than 95 per cent by 2050″ of greenhouse gas emissions, far greater than President-elect Obama’s commitment to cut U.S. emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Yesterday, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported that 2007 U.S. emissions were 17% greater than 1990 levels.

How To Make A Coal-Fired Power Plant In Your Backyard»

The Charleston (SC) Daily Paper’s Stratton Lawrence has penned a cover article on coal industry propaganda and reality with the appropriate title, The Dirty Truth. He demolishes the myth of “clean coal” propagated by front groups like the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE):

Unfortunately, to call today’s coal “clean” requires a handful of mind-erasing psycho-somethings and a magic carpet ride to Fairyland. It’s true — the potential to burn coal far cleaner than in decades past is now here. Scrubbers, injectors, activators, and a host of other doohickeys and thingamabobs can be installed in smokestacks to trap and remove mercury, sulfur dioxide, and other toxins before they muck up the air we breathe. But the best devices are expensive and only in use at a few power plants across the country.

Lawrence also notes the problem that captured pollutants still need to be disposed of, often by “storing it in collecting ponds that can end up polluting rivers and groundwater. And that doesn’t even take into account the horrible effect that strip-mining has had on southern Appalachia, or the ecological impact of transporting mountains of coal around the nation.”

From the article also comes this excellent diagram:

The text of the diagram: More »

Brookings Science ‘Expert’ Doesn’t Understand Basic Science»

Gregg Easterbrook, a writer employed as a science expert by a prominent Washington think tank, evidently doesn’t understand basic science. Easterbrook, a prolific writer and editor for The New Republic, Atlantic Monthly, the Washington Monthy, and NFL.com, is a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, whose mission is to “conduct high-quality, independent research and, based on that research, to provide innovative, practical recommendations” for general prosperity and democracy. Easterbrook’s Brookings profile claims expertise in a remarkable swath of knowledge — environmental policy, global warming, science, space policy, “well-being” research, Christian theology, and professional sports — evidently based on his work as a journalist after receiving degrees in political science and journalism.

Dr. Joseph Romm, a Center for American Progress Senior Fellow, has well documented that Easterbrook knows nothing about global warming and environmental policy, as have other bloggers. More simply, Easterbrook knows nothing about science. To wit, in his weekly Tuesday Morning Quarterback sports column, Easterbrook digressed into other matters of his purported expertise, science and space policy:

A few columns ago, I speculated that even if there is never any way to exceed or circumvent the light-speed barrier, relatively nearby planets might still fight by hurling nuclear bombs at each other at 99 percent of light speed — with existing technology, something moving that fast wouldn’t even be seen until nearly here. Let’s hope any world advanced enough to build near-light-speed stardrive will also have become wise enough to forswear war. But based on the only model we know, human society, technology and wisdom do not go hand in hand. Anyway, John Duezabou of Helena, Mont., adds this creepy postscript: “A bellicose or paranoid extra-solar civilization that could accelerate an object to 99 percent of light speed wouldn’t need to launch bombs at us. They could shoot anything with devastating results, because the kinetic energy of a moving object is half its mass multiplied by the square of its velocity, or KE = 1/2 mv². Thus, one pound of anything — a pint of vanilla ice cream, for instance — accelerated to 99 percent of light speed has an energy of about 4.8 megatons, roughly the blast yield of the largest hydrogen bombs.” A moderate-sized object, say a small asteroid, if accelerated to 99 percent of light speed, could conceivably shatter the Earth.

Ignoring many of the obvious problems with Easterbrook’s thought experiment, the science here is simply wrong. The kinetic energy of a moving object is actually m₀c²(1/(1-v²/c²)^1/2 - 1) (where m₀ is the rest mass, v the velocity, and c the speed of light) which the Newtonian formulation closely approximates only for non-relativistic speeds. A one-pound mass accelerated to 99 percent of light speed actually has a kinetic energy of about 68 58 megatons of TNT, greater than the largest thermonuclear device ever detonated.

This isn’t grad-school level physics — this element of relativistic mechanics is taught in high schools across the nation and is of course readily available online.

This kind of scientific illiteracy is of no great shakes for a sports columnist, and science fictional scenarios are an excellent learning tool for non-scientists. But under no circumstances should anyone who writes this be considered a science expert, let alone by one of the most august think tanks in the nation. Or, as the Poor Man Institute bloggers write, “Dear God make it stop.”

(H/T Eschaton.)

Jim Jones’ Chamber Of Commerce Organization Promotes Catastrophic Energy Future»

General James L. Jones, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.), whom President-elect Barack Obama today selected to be his national security adviser, currently runs a U.S. Chamber of Commerce energy policy front group. Jones is president and chief executive officer of the U.S. Chamber Institute for 21st Century Energy, whose stated mission is “to unify policymakers, regulators, business leaders, and the American public behind common sense energy strategy to help keep America secure, prosperous, and clean.” However, following the recommendations of Jones’ institute would be catastrophic for the security, prosperity, and health of the United States.

The Institute for 21st Century Energy’s vision of America’s energy future is blind to the realities of climate change, inexcusable for an organization founded in June 2007. All of its recommendations are based on the presumpsition that “global demand for energy will increase by more than 50 percent between now and 2030 and by as much as 30 percent here at home,” based on the business-as-usual scenario from International Energy Agency’s 2007 World Energy Outlook report. But this scenario of rampant energy demand is also one of catastrophic global warming pollution. The IEA report also indicated that energy-related carbon emissions would “increase by almost 60%” by 2030, leading to global disaster.

The institute deserves credit for having its first strategic priority be energy efficiency, but its other priorities and specific policy suggestions are wrongheaded and reflect the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s typical anti-regulatory, pro-pollution industry agenda. Jones’ Transition Plan calls for billions of dollars in subsidies for the nuclear and coal industry, a dramatic expansion in domestic oil and natural gas drilling into protected areas, and massive new energy industry tax breaks and loopholes.

Meanwhile, the plan argues that Congress should prevent regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under any existing state or federal law, and that “any new national climate change policy should be conditional on an international agreement that requires full international participation.” In short, the Institute’s climate change policy looks stunningly like that of the Bush administration: “Don’t just sit there, do nothing.”

Not only are these recommendations foolhardy to the extreme, they come in direct opposition to Obama’s stated policy objectives, which include a mandatory cap-and-trade program, development of renewable energy through quality jobs, and the enforcement of existing environmental laws. If America’s future is to be secure, the next national security adviser must understand that the policies he has spent the last eighteen months promoting are reckless. Hopefully, he will renounce the efforts of his current employer to push this nation deeper into the fossil-energy hole.

Fortunately for Jones, other former senior military officers have taken the task of constructing a rational 21st century energy policy seriously. On April 16, 2007, the military advisory board to the CNA Corporation, a non-profit think tank, released the study, “National Security and the Threat of Climate Change.” The panel, including former Army chief of staff Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan and retired Marine Corps General Anthony C. Zinni, former commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, properly encapsulated the security challenge of global warming:

Climate change can act as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world, and it presents significant national security challenges for the United States. Accordingly, it is appropriate to start now to help mitigate the severity of some of these emergent challenges. The decision to act should be made soon in order to plan prudently for the nation’s security. The increasing risks from climate change should be addressed now because they will almost certainly get worse if we delay.

Shades Of Treason: White House Lobbies Against Federal Global Warming Regulations»

The Bush White House, though in the shadows of President-elect Barack Obama’s transition effort, continues to subvert the rule of law and impede action on global warming — in other words, Bush isn’t just pardoning turkeys. Last week, the White House emailed mayors asking them to oppose the Environmental Protection Agency’s draft proposal for greenhouse gas regulations. According to the Washington Post, the email by Jeremy J. Broggi, associate director of the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs reminded mayors to formally submit complaints to the EPA:

At the time, President Bush warned that this was the wrong way to regulate emissions. Chairman John D. Dingell called it “a glorious mess.” And many of you contacted us to let us know how harmful this rule would be to the economies of the cities and counties you serve.

Broggi, a young Dick Cheney protegé, also linked to a November 20 U.S. Chamber of Commerce blog post by Bill Kovacs that makes the absurd claim regulation of carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act “will operate as a de facto moratorium on major construction and infrastructure projects.” Broggi’s lobbying against his own government is nothing new — last year the Department of Transportation lobbied Congress to oppose global warming regulations.

To avoid action on global warming despite a direct order from the Supreme Court, Bush’s people have brazenly flouted their Constitutional obligation to faithfully execute the law, ignoring science, ignoring Congressional subpoenas, even ignoring emails from the EPA. Just as former attorney general Alberto Gonzales claimed the Geneva Convention’s ban on torture was “quaint,” EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson called the Clean Air Act “outdated” and “ill-suited” to the task of regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

However, it is the approach of the likes of George Bush, Stephen Johnson, Bill Kovacs, and John Dingell to the climate crisis that is “outdated,” “ill-suited,” and “a glorious mess” — not laws like the Clean Air Act. Robert Sussman, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund and co-chairman of Obama’s EPA transition team, explained last month:

In fact, a new administration could enforce new global warming regulations with common sense, focusing on large emitters of greenhouse gases to achieve reasonable reductions while spurring trillions of dollars worth of economic growth and green-collar jobs.

Come January, Dingell will have been replaced as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), and the Bush administration by Obama’s team. Sadly, Kovacs will continue plugging his dangerous message of inaction, although major companies are starting to abandon the Chamber’s reactionary rhetoric.

Broggi’s email reminded Bush’s allies in “bold, underlined text” that the public comment period for these proposed regulations closes this Friday, November 28. You can join the We Campaign in sending the message that the EPA can and should take immediate action to control global warming and to help repower America.

Politico’s Erika Lovley Promotes Toxic Stupidity About Global Warming»

Erika Lovley

Erika Lovley, the Politico’s energy and environment reporter, today wrote a full-page article on the dying breed of global warming deniers that promotes their brand of toxic stupidity.

Lovley unquestioningly quotes extremist denier Joseph D’Aleo, Sen. Jim Inhofe’s (R-OK) aide Marc Morano, and Cato Institute fellow Patrick Michaels in a piece littered with bald assertions and slanders against the scientific community without any basis in reality.

She talks of a “growing accumulation of global cooling science,” and a “growing number of scientists” who are “questioning how quickly the warming is happening and whether humans are actually the leading cause.” She claims Al Gore is a “crusader on climate change” who is “unconcerned” by the “growing science.”

The only specifics she mentions to support this extended screed are D’Aleo’s “Is Global Warming on the Wane?” in the Old Farmer’s Almanac and the Global Warming Petition Project. The Almanac piece purports that global warming is due to sunspot variation, and the petition claims — as Lovley faithfully transcribes — to have the signatures of “31,000 scientists across the world” agreeing with the assertion that “man’s impact on climate change can’t be reasonably proven.” These are both zombie lies, animated by the efforts of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and credulous reporters like Erika Lovley, years after they have been pronounced dead by all reputable authorities: More »

Coal Baron Blankenship Calls Critics ‘Communists,’ ‘Atheists,’ And ‘Greeniacs’»

Last Thursday, Don Blankenship, CEO of Massey Energy, the fourth largest United States coal company, ranted that his critics were “communists,” “atheists,” and “greeniacs.” In an address before the Tug Valley Mining Institute in Williamson, WV, Blankenship said those who criticize him are “our enemies” like Osama bin Laden:

It is as great a pleasure for me to be criticized by the communists and the atheists of the Charleston Gazette as to be applauded by my best friends. Because I know they are wrong. People are cowering away from being criticized by people that are our enemies. Would we be upset if Osama bin Laden was critical of us?

These are actually mild words for Don Blankenship, the “scariest polluter in the United States.” This spring, Blankenship was caught on tape threatening to shoot an ABC reporter and then assaulting him:

What have the “atheists” at the Charleston Gazette done that merits Blankenship comparing them to Osama bin Laden? They’ve reported on:

– The Fatal Aracoma Mine Fire. In the months before the fatal 2006 fire at the Aracoma mine, which had 25 violations of health and safety laws, Blankenship personally waived company policy and told mine managers to ignore rules and “run coal.”

– Political Corruption. Blankenship has spent millions of dollars to influence West Virginia judgeships and state legislative races, and palled around in Monte Carlo with state Supreme Court Chief Justice Elliott “Spike” Maynard and their “female friends” in July 2006. The state court reversed a $77 million verdict against Massey in 2008.

– Mountaintop Removal. Massey Energy is the king of the incredibly destructive practice of mountaintop removal mining. The Bush Administration (which includes former Massey officials) overturned Clinton-era rules limiting the practice. Massey now plans to destroy Coal River Mountain despite lacking necessary permits.

Blankenship sits on the boards of the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Mining Association, who are running multimillion-dollar campaigns to block global warming regulations and fight the Employee Free Choice Act. Blankenship claimed that global warming deniers like himself are being silenced by “greeniacs,” and called Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, and Harry Reid “totally wrong” and “absolutely crazy“:

How many times have the people in this room heard, at the US Chamber of Commerce or at the National Mining Association, “I don’t believe in climate change, but I’m afraid to say that because it is a political reality”? The greeniacs are taking over the world.

Scenes From An Auto Exhibition»

Going to the Los Angeles Auto Show, I felt something like I was entering an alien world, a planet where the native inhabitants are automobiles and all the humans just interlopers. The centrality of the automobile to Los Angeles is no secret, but only when you spend an hour journeying from the airport through the congested ribbons of the freeway system, the red streams of taillights pushing past the white streams of headlights in every direction you look, does it become a visceral truth. Even downtown, walking the sidewalks seems an odd pursuit. Every block is parking lots and parking garages. The dry, summery air carries the dusty odor of exhaust.

Inside the Los Angeles Convention Center, the press preview days of the Auto Show are intended to present the auto industry as it wishes to be seen. Executives read from teleprompters to unveil the Exciting New Car from under a silken shroud to the strange crush of industry officials, press, autobloggers, and PR reps that comprise the crowd. As I walk through the sparse, gleaming field of cars from one great unveil to the next, workers quietly buff every surface with static-resistant dust mops and photographers snap shots of dashboard layouts. It is surreal.

So far as I — no gearhead or racing fanatic or auto show habitué — could tell, the industry right now doesn’t know who it wants to be. Brash, adolescent machismo, from the Ferrari girls to the Tony Hawk Jeep Commander, is juxtaposed uncomfortably with so-earnest-it’s-painful celebrations of efficiency and eco-friendliness. Green autobloggers, like Gas 2.0, AutoblogGreen, and HybridCarBlog, had enough material for dozens of posts.

Automotive environmentalism, clockwise from top left: the “Unsurpassed Fuel Economy” of the F-150, “Drive @ earth” with Mitsubishi, Toyota’s “Regenerate Your Thinking” and “Green Technology Quiz” displays, Ford’s “EcoBoost” display.

Only the bespoke high-end sports car manufacturers like Spyker — who turn out about one hundred handmade $250,000 cars that look vaguely like 1950s era jetplanes each year for billionaire car collectors — and the self-deprecatingly geeky Smart Car salespeople seemed to be having genuine fun. But I just may not be able to read the vibe. For example, I don’t really know how I’m supposed to respond to the introduction of a more efficient diesel midsize sedan or a hybrid midsize sedan or a fuel-cell midsize sedan.

That said, the somber circumstances of this year’s show were apparent and unavoidable, with global auto sales down about 20 percent, and GM, Ford, and Chrysler on the brink of collapse. Trinkets, goodies, and glitz were cut way back. The Ford executives were mobbed by the press with questions about the bailout hearings and the company’s future. As a Honda executive acknowledged before unveiling a new high fuel-economy midsize sedan, “None of us is immune.”

Major U.S. Companies Embrace Progressive Climate Action»

On Wednesday, five major U.S. corporations launched a new business coalition with the investors’ activist group Ceres to call for immediate, muscular, and progressive action to fight global warming. The founding members of Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy (BICEP) are Levi Strauss & Co., Nike, Starbucks, Sun Microsystems and The Timberland Company. As right-wing business organizations like the Chamber of Commerce pretend that limits on pollution will destroy the economy, the members of BICEP recognize that the true threat is failing to halt catastrophic climate change.

The eight principles embraced by BICEP for national action on global warming reflect recommendations from the Center for American Progress, Green For All, 1Sky, and other progressive organizations, including a moratorium on new coal plants, no subsidies for pollution permits, aggressive efficiency standards, and green-job creation in low-income communities.

In addition, BICEP calls for greenhouse gas emissions to be at least 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, in line with scientific recommendations — and more than double the target set by President-elect Barack Obama.

As Mindy Lubber, president of Ceres said in a press call, tackling global warming is integral to future economic strength:

Rather than ignore risk, address the risk and turn it into an opportunity. We need to send the right and honest market signal. Carbon pollution has a cost.

The full list of recommendations: More »

GM’s Britta Gross Talks The Volt, Smart Grids, And The Future Of Detroit»

Editor’s note: The Wonk Room’s Brad Johnson is attending the Los Angeles Auto Show this week. Here is his first dispatch.

In an interview earlier today, Britta Gross, General Motors’ manager of Hydrogen and Electrical Infrastructure Development talks about working with electric utilities to prepare for the widescale deployment of the plug-in hybrid Chevrolet Volt. As she and the other managers of the Volt project discuss the next-generation vehicle they plan to put into production in 2010, GM’s CEO Rick Wagoner flew down to Washington, D.C. to plead for a bailout for his teetering company.

Watch it:

The mood at the auto show is subdued and uncertain, with mixed messages of machismo, affordability, and environmental responsibility. How the industry handles the great challenges of today will determine its future. As Gross said, “These are tough times for automakers, but a very exciting time.”

Global Boiling: In California, It’s ‘Fire Season All Year Round’»

In a weekend interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) talks of the impact of global warming on California’s wildfires. Climate change is lowering snowpack in the Rockies and increasing droughts, heat waves and lightning strikes, stoking more intense fires over a longer season:

Through global warming, we have now fire season all year round. We used to have fire seasons only in the fall, but now the fire seasons start in February already, so this means that we have to really upgrade, have more resources, more fire engines, more manpower and all of this, which does cost extra money.

Watch it:

By May of this year wildfires were raging at levels traditionally seen only in July. After California’s driest spring in 114 years of recordkeeping, 1700 wildfires set a record 840,000 acres ablaze from June to July, costing the state more than $200 million. Fires in the past month, the worst in the Los Angeles area in four decades, have destroyed over 1000 homes. “Through last week, 1.24 million acres burned in California, the most since 1970, when consistent, modern records were first kept.”

Last month, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) called for the Bush administration to end delays in assistance, saying, “As the climate warms and wildland fires become bigger and more intense, a rapid response is critical to prevent the spread of fires.”

Dingell Pledges His Cooperation To Progressive Climate Principles»

Roll Call reports that senior Congressional Black Caucus members John Lewis (D-GA) and John Conyers (D-MI) have announced their support for John Dingell’s (D-MI) continued chairmanship of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) announced he was seeking the chair after the elections, spurring Dingell to wage a highly visible campaign to keep his seat. Dingell’s announced supporters now include seven members of the Congressional Black Caucus, twelve Blue Dogs, two Michigan freshmen, and eight others.

In October, Dingell and Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) released “draft climate legislation after nearly two years of hearings and discussions. In the accompanying letter, they indicated significantly different priorities and emissions goals than those of Sen. Barack Obama or the majority of the Democratic caucus, who signed on to a letter of progressive principles circulated by Waxman, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), and Jay Inslee (D-WA).

Today, following news coverage of recent criticism of the draft plan by Center for American Progress senior fellow Robert Sussman, Dingell has released a defense to his fellow members, arguing that his plan “aligns with the principles and goals” of the Waxman-Markey-Inslee letter. Dingell further pledged his cooperation to ensuring any final legislation would embody the letter’s principles.

The text of this letter and accompanying press release follows: More »

Breaking: EPA Appeals Board Strikes Down Construction Of New Coal-Fired Power Plant»

In a landmark action, the Environmental Protection Agency’s final decision-making board has ruled that all new and proposed coal-fired power plants must have their carbon dioxide emissions regulated. The Environmental Appeals Board ruled today that the EPA has no valid reason for refusing to place limits on the global warming emissions from Desert Power’s proposed 110-megawatt coal-fired power plant in Vernal, Utah.

Deseret Power’s Bonanza Generating Station would have emitted 3.37 million tons of carbon dioxide each year. In July 2007, the EPA issued a permit for the plant, ignoring the Clean Air Act’s stipulation that all such permits must include a “best-available control technology” emissions limit for each pollutant “subject to regulation under the Act.” Before the Sierra Club brought suit, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform opened an investigation into the EPA’s decision, saying:

It is reckless to approve a huge coal-fired power plant with no global warming emission controls. This one massive plant will negate the emissions reductions being implemented by the Northeastern states in the first mandatory regional program to cut global warming pollution. The Administration’s shameful decision rewards polluters, flouts the Clean Air Act, and fails the American people.

Joanna Spalding, the Sierra Club attorney who successfully argued the case, delivered this statement:

Today’s decision opens the way for meaningful action to fight global warming and is a major step in bringing about a clean energy economy. This is one more sign that we must begin repowering, refueling and rebuilding America. The EAB rejected every Bush Administration excuse for failing to regulate the largest source of greenhouse gases in the United States. This decision gives the Obama Administration a clean slate to begin building our clean energy economy for the 21st century.

The 69-page decision described the Bush administration’s arguments as “weak,” “questionable,” “not sustainable,” and “not sufficient,” and rebuked EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson for failing to issue CO2 regulations, repeatedly recommending an “action of nationwide scope.”

Change For America: The National Energy Advisor»

In Change for America: A Progressive Blueprint for the 44th President, a work now in publication, two top members of President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team recommend the creation of a “new National Energy Council to drive the transformation to a low-carbon economy.” The Wonk Room offers this exclusive preview of their recommendations. Todd Stern and David Hayes write:

Transforming the energy base of the economy will demand top-level participation across the executive branch. It will require the concerted engagement of the president, and the kind of single-minded attention that only a fully empowered national energy advisor and council can bring. The National Energy Council would serve as the new president’s agent in driving both policy and strategic options with respect to energy and climate change. At the first cabinet meeting, the president should make clear the centrality of this issue and the authority of his new national energy advisor.

The national energy advisor, an idea talked about in the press as a “climate czar” or “energy czar,” would have “stature comparable to the national security advisor and the national economic advisor.” Stern and Hayes recommend that the Council involve most of the Cabinet as well as the chairs of the National Security Council (NSC), National Economic Council (NEC), and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The advisor should have a “lean staff” shared with other White House offices, including the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). Here’s how the council could be constructed: More »

Dingell’s Supporters Backed By Pollution Industry»

On Friday, Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) announced his whip team, the members of the Democratic caucus who will attempt to wrangle the votes needed to maintain his chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee when the Democrats make leadership decisions on November 17 and 18. In addition to the 26-member whip team, Dingell has received the support of House Ways and Means Committee chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY). Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), who is challenging Dingell for the post, has not made the names of his whip team public, although Reps. Howard Berman (CA), Jim Cooper (TN), and George Miller (CA) have announced their support for his candidacy.

The oil and coal industries have overwhelmingly supported Dingell’s team, and the members’ voting records reflect that. On average, Dingell and his supporters have received nearly six times as much money from Big Oil as Waxman’s team, and nine times as much money from King Coal. Dingell’s supporters have voted with Big Oil’s agenda 2.7 times as often as Waxman’s people, according to Oil Change International’s vote tracker.

Twelve of the 26 members of Dingell’s whip team are Blue Dogs, the self-described conservatives of the caucus. Seven Dingell backers signed the Waxman-Markey-Inslee statement of climate principles last month: Robert Andrews (NJ), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Jesse Jackson Jr. (IL), Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX), Charlie Rangel (NY), Bobby Rush (IL), and Ellen Tauscher (CA).

UPDATE: Gristmill’s Kate Sheppard notes that yet another industry representative has weighed in to support Dingell. “Dingell really has a very good understanding of the industry,” David Cole, chair of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, MI, told Bloomberg. Cole said a Waxman chairmanship would be “very unfortunate” and “the fur would really fly.”

Coal and oil industry donations from 2000 to 2008 to Dingell, Waxman, and their supporters: More »

Pollution Industry Says ‘It’s Scary’ To Think Of Waxman In Charge Of Climate Legislation»

This week, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) announced his intent to replace Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) as chair of the House Energy Commerce & Committee, which has jurisdiction over global warming legislation. On Thursday, Dingell told WJR Radio’s Frank Beckmann that Waxman is an “anti-manufacturing left-wing Democrat” with a “serious lack of understanding of people in the auto industry and manufacturing generally.”

Representatives of major greenhouse gas-emitting industries have also recoiled at the prospect of Waxman being in charge instead of Dingell.

R. Bruce Josten, the top lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, “took issue with the idea of a Waxman-led committee given the Californian’s support for far more aggressive greenhouse emission limits compared with Dingell,” telling E&E News, “It’s scary, isn’t it?”

The Chamber’s public comments reinforce the anonymous “refining industry insider” who told E&E News “all hell will break loose legislatively” if Waxman won.

The coal lobby has also weighed in on this dispute. Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the National Mining Association, told Bloomberg News that Waxman likely would be “a very slow learner on the importance of coal for affordable energy. It would have been problematic in the best of times to have Mr. Waxman’s views prevail.”

Climate Progress’s Joe Romm responds, “If actually trying to prevent catastrophic global warming is ’scary’ then all I can say is ‘Boo!‘”

Digg it!

UPDATE: Josten and Popovich are the top figures in the Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth, the front group formed in 2001 to promote the Cheney energy bill.

UPDATE 2: In 2006, the New Republic’s Bradford Plumer wrote this review of Dingell’s impact on clean-air legislation during his 50-year tenure: More »

Waxman ‘Has The Votes’ To Replace Dingell»

John Dingell (D-MI) and Henry Waxman (D-CA)

According to a report in National Journal’s CongressDaily, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) has sufficient votes in the Democratic caucus to win a vote to replace Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Waxman announced his intent to take the chairmanship yesterday, telling reporters, “I think I have a good chance of winning.”

A likely measure of the depth of Waxman’s support is last month’s statement of climate principles, signed by 152 members, or two-thirds of the Democratic caucus, on October 2. The letter, led by Waxman, Ed Markey (D-MA), and Jay Inslee (D-WA), details much stronger standards than were found in the draft legislation Dingell produced the following week.

The National Journal reports:

Dingell is expected to win support from Majority Leader Hoyer, Midwestern Democrats, members of the Congressional Black Caucus — who typically back the seniority — and Blue Dog Coalition members.

The Blue Dogs are self-identified “conservative Democrats,” many of whom disproportionately supported Bush’s agenda. Dingell, it should be noted, is not a Blue Dog and is a strongly progressive voice on many issues.

Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA), the coal-country chairman of the Energy & Commerce subcommittee that controls greenhouse pollution legislation, echoed the conservative mantra that this election provided no mandate for change. Supporting Dingell, Boucher warned that it would be problematic “if the first action of the new majority … is a dramatic move to the left.”

However, this is not an ideological battle. For example, Waxman has secured the support of senior Blue Dog Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN), who told reporters he is “on Henry’s whip team.” Both Waxman and Dingell have made economic justice and public health central planks of their careers. Their differences are strategic, not ideological. Dingell’s work on climate change has emphasized the approach of protecting industry from economic harm, whereas Waxman believes that robust economic health will come from the transition to a clean energy economy.

UPDATE: National Journal’s Dan Friedman has updated his report with details of a call with Dingell supporters who “forcefully rejected” the claim Waxman has sufficient support to oust Dingell:

“These claims that Mr. Waxman has the votes are just not true,” said Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee Chairman Bart Stupak, D-Mich. “There is no doubt in my mind at the end of the day that Chairman Dingell will still be referred to as Chairman Dingell.” Stupak and Reps. John Barrow, D-Ga., and Mike Doyle, D-Pa. said Waxman has not made a clear case for why he should replace Dingell. “I asked [Waxman] quite pointedly what his basis for challenging Mr. Dingell was,” Doyle said. “He was unable to give me a single reason why he thought Mr. Dingell shouldn’t be chairman other than the fact that he [Waxman] would be a better chairman.”

Obama Plans Green Economy ‘Listening Tour’ Before Inauguration»

Dan Kammen, the director of the Renewable & Appropriate Energy Laboratory at UC Berkeley and a top adviser to President-elect Barack Obama (D-IL), has told E&E News that Obama may conduct a nationwide “listening tour” to allow his team to hit the ground running for a green recovery:

The incoming Obama team is considering a “listening tour” around the country on energy and environmental issues before Inauguration Day in an attempt to build momentum for its policies and legislative plans.

Last month, Obama told Time’s Joe Klein that an “Apollo project” for a “new energy economy” is his top priority:

That’s going to be my No. 1 priority when I get into office.

In yesterday’s victory speech before a crowd of 125,000 in Chicago’s Grant Park, Obama indicated that listening to all people of this nation will be central to his administration:

There are many who won’t agree with every decision or policy I make as President, and we know that government can’t solve every problem. But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And above all, I will ask you join in the work of remaking this nation the only way its been done in America for two-hundred and twenty-one years - block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.

In the 75 days before Obama takes office, he will also have to weigh in on major events already on the calendar: More »

Waxman Plans To Challenge Dingell For Control Of Energy And Commerce»

John Dingell (D-MI) and Henry Waxman (D-CA)

Roll Call reports that Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) plans to challenge Rep John Dingell (D-MI) “for chairmanship of the influential Energy and Commerce Committee.” The Committee has jurisdiction over a wide array of issues, including energy policy, health care, and interstate commerce.

In the 110th Congress, Dingell and Waxman took very different stances on global warming issues. In stark contrast, Dingell opposed California’s petition to set automotive emission standards for greenhouse gases, while Waxman led hearings to investigate why the EPA denied the California waiver.

The two also took different paths after Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) called in January, 2007, for rapid action on legislation that would limit greenhouse emissions. Waxman introduced the Safe Climate Act in March to reduce emissions by 80 percent by 2050. Dingell, a longtime defender of the auto industry, instead worked through a series of hearings and white papers on this complex issue to introduce draft legislation this October.

Dingell “put aside” the global warming legislation to push a provision in the 2007 energy bill that increased fuel economy standards for the first time in decades. When signed by President Bush in December, it marked a major achievement for the environment and the economy — but has since been used by the Bush administration for an excuse for inaction on mandatory global warming regulations.

As Roll Call writes, “The move marks a major showdown between two Democratic powerhouses.”

UPDATE: E&E News reports:

“This is a fight for all the marbles,” said one refining industry lobbyist. “If Henry gets this, my god, given the scope of jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee, all hell will break loose legislatively if Waxman chairs this thing.”

On Election Day, King Coal Celebrates Public Relations ‘Landslide’»

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), the coal industry’s propaganda front group, is upbeat about this election day, as indicated by their press release today. ACCCE VP Joe Lucas claimed:

If “support for the use of coal for generating electricity” were on the ballot today, it would win by a landslide.

His choice of words is unfortunate, as landslides are only one of the many deadly hazards of coal mining, especially under the lax safety enforcement of the Bush administration.

ACCCE is celebrating a poll that showed their $50 million propaganda campaign influenced “adults with $80,000 or more in household income and a four-year college degree or more and a professional or managerial job title or a business owner and a high degree of involvement in politics and policy matters.”

However, all the PR spin in the world can’t affect scientific reality. America’s coal plants produce about 49 percent of U.S. electricity but account for 83 percent of power-sector emissions. And we need to