Oil-funded protests staged to show 'energy citizens' ire against House climate change bill

(Photo of protest at Sen. Mark Warner's (D-Va.) office from Flickr and photographer formatted_dad/Michael

If you’ve been annoyed at the phony grass-roots protests of health reform, just wait till you see what’s coming on climate change.

Starting Tuesday in Houston, the American Petroleum Institute will bankroll at least 20 rallies across the country in coordination with Freedom Works (Dick Armey’s group that brought you the screaming health protestors) and many other industrial and conservative organizations. In an email that was leaked, API said it would do all the organizing (by hiring a professional events manager) and all the others had to do was “show up.”

The Astroturf “energy citizens” rallies are being staged at lunchtime, primarily in areas where Democratic senators have conservative constituencies. They are staged to give the impression there’s a groundswell of public opinion against Obama’s climate strategy.

The purpose is not to kill climate change legislation, API insists, but to make the Senate version of the bill more energy (read “oil”) friendly.

Talking points
Expect the usual half-truths, exaggerations and mostly downright lies.
A flier promoting the rallies says the House version of the climate bill, would:
• Cost 2 million jobs.
• Push gasoline prices over $4/gallon.
• Reduce energy security.
• Hurt American businesses’ ability to compete.

Talking points will include budget projections that were refuted by the Congressional Budget Office weeks ago.

Other organizations participating in the rallies include the American Farm Bureau, American Highway Users Alliance, National Black Chamber of Commerce, Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, American Conservative Union, Americans for Tax Reform, and Council for Citizens Against Government Waste.

Another group, the Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (don’t be fooled by the word “clean”) has already begun a program of harassment at town meetings and other events.

Some companies are members of both the American Petroleum Institute and U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), which backs the legislation. ConocoPhillips is urging its employees to turn out for the rallies and Exxon backs them. Shell, on the other hand, says it does not support them.

Oil and coal companies are basically fighting for their lives here. Strong regulation of emissions and a shift to clean energy will hurt them badly. So their motivation is strong. And they have the money to do this.

Environmental groups don’t have the money to stage such events, but there will be some rallies to strengthen climate legislation and as well as plans to contact senators in person and by phone or email. We all need to lend a voice. The other side is going all out.

(Sources: Greenwire, The Guardian)

Follow the $$ that influenced climate change bill

(Picture of money from Flickr and photographer Tracy O.)

There are 2 ways for industry to gain access to congressman considering global warming (or any other) legislation. Both involve money. There are paid lobbyists and contributions to campaign funds.

And Big Energy was busy trying both ways in the House this spring as the American Clean and Energy Security Act (ACES) was heatedly debated and narrowly passed with some concessions to electric utilities and coal.

As Tyson Slocum of Public Citizen told Greenwire, “The more you spend the better chance you’ve got at influencing legislation.”

Lobbyists
In the second quarter alone (April-June, when the bill was debated in committee), the 10 industries with the biggest stake in the results spent $122 million. Oil and gas spent the most, at $37.7 million. Chevron alone spent $6 million. Environmental groups spent just $5.2M.

In the whole first half of 2009, oil and gas spent $82.2M and electric utilities spent $35.9 million on lobbyists, while Exxon Mobil by itself spent $15M, slightly more than all clean energy combined.

Campaign contributions
In the same quarter, coal-fired electric utilities, with potentially the most to lose, were busy contributing to Congressmen’s campaign funds. Especially those on the Energy and Commerce Committee, which was debating the climate change bill.

Employee PACS at American Electric Power, Southern Co. and Duke Energy together donated $165,000 to 70 house members, many on the Energy Committee. The largest donation, $11,500, went to Minority Leader John Boener (R-Ohio).

Those who received these contributions voted 2-1 against the bill. This despite the fact that the three companies ended up supported it – and why not? They got a pretty good deal, with 35% of the free credits allocated to electric utilities. Plus the EPA lost some of is power to regulate coal-fired utility plants under the Clean Air Act. And research money for carbon capture and sequestration was included.

Eight Republicans ended up voting for the bill. Of those, 7 got little or no money from the utilities. An industry rep explained to E&E Daily they only contribute to those with whom they see eye-to-eye on issues. The wavering Mary Bono Mack (R-Calif.), who ended up voting for the bill, was wooed with contributions by both sides.

More money for Democrats
Because they now have the majority (and some hail from oil patch and coal states), Democrats in the House and Senate got a bigger share of energy money than before. In the first half of the 2009 utilities gave 59% of their cash to Democrats, and the nuclear industry gave 65% of theirs.

But oil and gas, and coal, continued to favor the GOP. Oil and gas gave less than 25% to Dems, among them Sens. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), while the National Mining Assn. gave 40%. Exxon Mobil gave just 17% to Democrats.

Both sides (corporations and lawmakers), of course, deny this money buys votes. Industry sources say they tend to give money to those who see issues as they do. They said they donate when lawmakers hold fundraisers, not when a key bill is being considered.

Senators must not have been holding as many fund-raisers this spring, because they got considerably less from the electric utilities than House members.

As action on the climate bill moves to the Senate, look for a rise in “fund raising” there this fall.

(Sources: E&E Daily, Greenwire)

Duke vs. Newt: frantic lobbying as House climate bill vote draws near

Duke Energy wants it, Newt Gingrich doesn't. With the House climate bill heading to the floor for debate Friday, lobbying is fast and furious.
In the past two days:
• A group of 22 environmental groups sent a letter to all House members urging them to vote for the bill – the American Energy and Climate Security Act (H.R.2454). Groups included the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and League of Conservation Voters. LCV said it would not endorse anyone who votes against it.
• 20 companies and electric utilities took out full-page ads in Washington papers calling for passage because they want the clarity of rules it would bring (and likely because most allowances for cap-and-trade will be given -- not sold -- to polluters at the start). Those signing on included Duke, NRG Energy and PSEG Inc.
• 20 climate scientists sent a letter to Congress saying that to avert a "rapidly developing global climate crisis” they should pass a strengthened version of the bill as a basis for stronger federal policies. Well-known NASA scientist James Hansen, who is convinced CO2 emissions must be cut back to 350 parts per million (from the current 385) rather than the early target of 450 ppm, did not sign.
• President Obama urged passage during his news conference Tuesday, saying it would spark a clean-energy transformation.
• The Cooler Heads Coalition, a new group of science skeptics and other legislative opponents began lobbying Congressmen.
• Newt Gingrich’s American Solutions for a Winning Future planned to run a TV ad, starting Wednesday, opposing the bill and saying it would hurt the economy.

Are the votes there to pass it?
On Tuesday there were 170 reliable votes and 108 on the fence, according to an analysis by E&E Daily. 218 votes are need to pass the bill. If the votes aren’t there, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said he may push it back until after the Fourth of July.

In years past the Senate took the lead on climate legislation, and the House has never passed a cap-and-trade bill. But this year the Senate is lagging behind, with a weak energy bill out of the Energy Committee and Barbara Boxer still crafting a cap-and-trade bill in her Environment Committee. So even if the House manages to pass this bill, Senate agreement is not by any means secure.

A few other points
* The EPA said Tuesday the bill would cost the average household between $80 and $111 a year. Congressional Budget Office figures released Friday said an average of $175 a year, with a range of $40 to $245 depending on income level.

* The bill has been changed somewhat in recent days to accommodate the eight committees with some jurisdiction. A concern of Agriculture Chair Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) has apparently been met by giving rural electric cooperatives one-half a percent of the free allowances. But agriculture is still concerned about who will oversee farm offsets, the Agriculture Department or the EPA. And moderate Democratic representatives from farm states are needed on this vote.

* States would now be permitted to spend 10% of their allotment (which in turn is 10% of free allowances) on public transportation.

* Because of the powerful farm interests, methane emissions from cows have been exempted from the bill. They called it a “cow tax.” Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and cows produce about 25% of the emissions so that’s a significant exemption.
(Sources: E&E Daily, E&E News PM)

California voters OK bonds for high-speed rail, Missouri passes renewable electricity standard

(Photo of ballot marked yes for highspeed rail from Flickr and and photographer Brad Lauster)

News Update: A smattering of good news from around the nation:
• California authorized $20 billion in bonds to construct a 700-mile high-speed train line from San Diego to San Francisco. Not surprisingly, the coastal communities wanted it, because they’ll benefit, but the inland voters did not. The project will need additional federal and private funding for completion, not an easy ask in these tough economic times.
• Two other California propositions, opposed by environmental groups, were voted down: The T. Boone Pickens-backed proposal that encouraged natural gas use for autos and a poorly written plan for 50% RES by 2025. (Bad news: San Francisco’s effort to take over the local utility and shift to renewables also failed.)
• Missouri voters OK’d a 15% renewable electricity standard by 2021, the third state to vote for an RES after California and Washington (others have been approved by state legislatures).
• Voters in 11 coastal towns south of Boston gave 87% approval to the controversial Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound. None of the towns are on Cape Cod, where opposition is strongest. The project has the state’s environmental OK and the state’s Siting Board begins hearings this week. Final hurdle will be the U.S. Interior Dept. A ruling there is expected this month.
• In Seattle, 3 urban counties around Puget Sound, approved $22.8 billion for bus and rail transit.
• Florida voted for a modest measure giving tax exemptions for rooftop solar installations.
• Colorado voters reduced tax credits on oil and gas, with money to be used for a number of purposes including renewable energy and efficiency. So the states inch
(Sources: ClimateWire, Greenwire)

Senate races may tip Congress on global warming

(Photo of Cong. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) speaking at Democratic Convention from Flickr and photographer Jeffrey Beall)

Weekly Angst: Over the past 2 years a narrowly divided Senate has stymied all kinds of efforts to curb global warming. Now we have a chance to elect 8 new senators who could turn that around. In 6 of the 8 races that offer a clear choice, the environmental candidate either leads or is neck-and-neck with an anti-environment one. The 7th race looks bad and the 8th appears to be a lost cause. The key races are in New Mexico, Colorado, New Hampshire, Oregon, North Carolina, Alaska, Kentucky and Oklahoma. But there’s also mention of Minnesota and Maine at the end of this blog.

New Mexico: Cong. Tom Udall (D) has a commanding lead over Cong. Steve Pearce (R). Udall leads in the Real Clear Politics average of polls by a commanding 17.6 percentage points. Udall, endorsed by a coalition of 5 national environmental groups, is the son of Stewart Udall, who was Interior Secretary under Kennedy and Johnson. Udall co-wrote the Udall-Platts renewable electricity standard (RES) bill that passed the House last year but not the Senate. It would have mandated that power plants use 15% renewable energy by 2020. He has a lifetime score of 96% with the League of Conservation Voters and is seen as someone who would be a leader in the Senate. His opponent is one of LCV’s Dirty Dozen, with a lifetime score of only 1%. He owns millions of dollars worth of Key Energy stock and voted against repeal of oil subsidies, RES and better fuel economy standards for cars. They are vying for the vacancy left by Republican Pete Domenici’s retirement.

Colorado: Tom’s cousin Mark Udall (D) is a 5-term congressman who also has the endorsement of the 5 national groups who see him as another potential leader against global warming in the Senate. Mark leads his opponent by 9.3 points. The son of “Mo” Udall, who served in Congress 30 years and ran for president, Mark had a 95% LCV score in the last Congress and 100% every term before that. He was involved in passing RES and mandating fuel efficiency for cars (CAFE). He’s running against another Dirty Dozen candidate, former Cong. Bob Schaffer (R), who left Congress to work for an oil company. His lifetime LCV score is 5%. He supports drilling in ANWR and opposes more fuel efficient vehicles and incentives for energy conservation. They are competing for the seat held by Sen. Wayne Allard (R).

New Hampshire: Former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen (D) is the third candidate seen as a leader against global warming and supported by the coalition of 5 organizations (LCV, Sierra Club, Environment America, Defense of Wildlife Action Fund and Clean Water Action.) As governor, she made her state a leader in clean energy. N.H. was the first state to pass a law requiring power plants to cut emissions of 4 pollutants and she made state buildings more energy efficient and promoted alternative energy. She is challenging incumbent Sen. John Sununu (R) and leads him by nearly 6 points in the polls. Sununu has voted for drilling in ANWR, opposes a binding international climate change treaty, and helped block votes on fuel economy, clean energy and the repeal of big oil subsidies. His lifetime LCV average is 35%.

North Carolina: State Sen. Kay Hagan (D), endorsed by the League of Conservation Voters and Environment America, has a narrow lead of 3.4 over incumbent Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R). Hagan has an 85% score from the N.C. Conservation Council and is considered a proven leader for clean, renewable energy. She has supported solar energy and an RES for N.C. and opposed big handouts to oil and gas. Dole, one of LCV’s Dirty Dozen, has a lifetime score of just 4%. She has consistently voted for Big Oil and against CAFE standards. She supports incentives for coal and other dirty technologies.

Oregon: This is another state where the incumbent Republican is trailing slightly behind the Dem challenger, State House Speaker Jeff Merkley.
Merkley has a record of leadership in enacting renewable energy solutions, including an RES of 25% by 2025 and favors cutting GHG by 80% by 2050. Merkley leads by 3.3 points and has strong support from Environment America. Incumbent Sen. Gordon Smith, a 2-term senator, is “an election year environmentalist,” according to Environment America. Generally he has sided with the oil and auto industries and voted against fuel efficiency and curbing global warming, while favoring drilling in ANWR. His lifetime LCV score is 37%.

Alaska: Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich (D) is challenging 40-year incumbent Ted Steven (R) of bridge-to-nowhere fame and currently on trial for corruption involving gifts and home improvements from an oil man. Begich holds a 2.3 lead in polls and the race is considered a toss-up, despite McCain-Palin's huge lead there. While he has the Alaskan affinity for drilling in ANWR, Begich says Alaska is “ground zero” for global warming and feeling its affects more than anyplace else. He joined the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Initiative and has replaced streetlights with LEDs, shut down city computers when they’re not in use and harnessed methane from landfills. Stevens, in addition to his other problems, is one of the Dirty Dozen for his environmental policies. He has a 14% lifetime voting record. He consistently votes for tax breaks for oil and has collected $460,000 in gas and oil contributions.

Kentucky: Challenger Bruce Lunsford (D) is putting up a good fight against House Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, though McConnell leads by 6.5 points. While favoring “clean coal” Lunsford also touts investment in renewable resources, efficiency and hybrid cars. He’s a health company entrepreneur and raises thoroughbreds. McConnell is one of LCV’s Dirty Dozen and is considered an “impassable roadblock in the way of clean energy efforts." So it’s more a matter of getting rid of McConnell, who’s position is powerful, than of pushing Lunsford. But 6.5 two weeks out is not encouraging.

Oklahoma: Even more discouraging is Andrew Rice’s (D) challenge against incumbent James Inhofe (R), who won’t even acknowledge global warming exists. Rice trails by 18 points. He is endorsed by the LCV. He favors putting a price on carbon, accelerating the CAFE standards and passing an RES. Inhofe, No. 1 on the Dirty Dozen list, is ranking member of the Environment Committee (used to be chairman) and has threatened to filibuster every piece of global warming legislation. His lifetime score is 5%. He has accepted nearly $1 million from the oil and gas industry.

Minnesota and Maine: Two other races are worth a quick mention: In Minnesota, challenger Al Franken is running a close race with incumbent Norm Coleman (R), and leads slightly by 2.2 points. Coleman’s environmental record isn’t bad, but Franken who calls for an “Apollo Project” in renewable energy, is endorsed by LCV. Also endorsed by LCV is incumbent Sen. Susan Collins (R) of Maine, who is comfortably ahead (15 points) of challenger Tom Allen (D). Collins often crosses over to vote with the Democratic majority on environmental and other issues and has a 100% LCV score the past 2 years.

Take action: So if you want to see good global warming laws passed by the next Congress, think about sending a contribution to one of the candidates in a toss-up race. And if you live in one of those states, get active and help out in the last 2 weeks if you haven’t already. You can help make a difference.

(Sources: League of Conservation Voters, Sierra Club, Environment America, realclearpolitics.com)

In case you missed it, an earlier EarthlingAngst post shows why Obama is better than McCain for the fight against global warming.


And by the way, Environmental Defense has a cool timeline of progress lost on climate change during the Bush Administration.

Environmental organizations protest nuclear amendment to Senate global warming bill

(Photo of nuclear power plant in Byron, Ill., from Flickr and photographers iluvcocacola/Bill and Vicky Tracey.)

Washington Report 1: Ten environmental organizations have sent a letter to Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.) protesting their nuclear title amendment to the global warming bill (S. 3036), which would give a portion of carbon-credit auction revenue to support the making of nuclear reactor parts. The groups say the money isn’t needed because nuclear energy already gets loan guarantees, production tax credits and disaster insurance from the 2005 Energy Bill, and that it is likely to sit unused. Instead the funds should go to energy efficiency and renewables, say Clean Water Action, Environment America, the Environmental Working Group, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the League of Women Voters, Nuclear Policy Institute/Beyond Nuclear, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Public Citizen and the Sierra Club. (Source” E&E News PM)

Polar bears in cross-hairs of legal maneuvers

(Photo of polar bear from Flickr and and photographer metrognome0.)

Washington Report 4: A flurry of lawsuits have been filed against the Interior Department in the wake of it’s decision earlier this month that the polar bear is “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act but that it will do little to protect the marine mammal that requires sea ice to hunt, mate and dig a den for its offspring. The day after the decision, several environmental groups filed a complaint saying the new special rule against regulating greenhouse gases violated the ESA. Then Alaskan officials sued to reverse the “threatened” status, apparently concerned about the oil business, though under this Administration they need not worry. Finally, a hunting group, U.S.-based Safari Club International, sued to allow hunters to continue bringing back trophy polar bear carcasses from Canada. The group pointed out that hunters must pay $1,000 for each carcass they bring back and that money goes to research and conservation of the polar bear. Huh?? (Source: E&E PM)

Global warming debate in Senate set for next week

(Photo of Capitol Building from Flickr and photographer Charles Pence.)

Weekly Angst: Prepare to turn on C-Span next week and watch the debate over the Senate global warming bill. It should be revealing.

Environment Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) came up with a “substitute” bill (S. 3036) last week, which incorporates the one by Lieberman and Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), but tries to meet some objections to garner more support. It includes, for example, a $955 billion fund (from now through 2050) to pay down the federal deficit, to make the bill budget neutral (if not carbon neutral). The debate is expected to start in the early evening June 2, with a cloture vote that even staunch opponents are likely to go along with – they want a debate too. Lieberman and Warner have signed off on Boxer’s substitute and John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Me.) are co-sponsors.

It should be a zoo. This topic elicits strong feelings because global warming is an enormous issue that threatens the planet but also has implications for industry, as it calls for a seismic shift from fossil fuels to carbon-free (or at least low-carbon) energy. The bill sets up a cap-and-trade system, which puts an ever-lowering cap on greenhouse gas emissions and auctions or gives away credits that businesses can trade depending on whether they meet their emissions targets. If they don't, they must buy credits from those who do.

All kinds of amendments planned, from one by Lieberman and Warner to include more nuclear power, to one by Republicans to return revenue from the auction of carbon credits to the taxpayers as tax cuts. Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) wants to tell the U.S. to engage in global climate negotiations for real, and a likely Republican amendment will ask for inclusion of offshore drilling for oil and gas. Dems have been alerted, too, about planned GOP amendments specifically designed to embarrass them and their likely presidential nominee, Barack Obama.

Environmental groups (2 dozen of them) released a statement late last week saying the bill still “needs to be strengthened to ensure it will meet the reductions science dictates” (at least 80% cut by 2050), which it does not. Boxer did not increase the target, which is 71% by 2050, but really only 66% because it does not include all greenhouse gas emissions. It's not clear to me if there’s been any change in the percent of credits auctioned off, which start as 26.5% in 2012, going up to 79% in 2031. Bur since there’s been no mention of it, I assume it hasn’t changed much. That percentage is deemed too low by most environmentalists, because it means more free credits to polluters and less money bolster renewable energy. Many want 100% auctioned.

Where the revenue will go
The Boxer version of the bill lists specific payoffs to different segments from the bill’s revenues, which will come from auction of credits:
• $911 billion for consumers for help with increased energy costs and energy efficiency projects. Most ($850B) would help with energy costs.
• $231B in assistance to steel, glass, aluminum, rubber and paper companies to make needed changes -- they're seen as the industries that will have the most trouble adjusting.
• $566B for states to deal with GHG cuts.
• $307B for electric utilities to revamp.
• $150B for renewable energy companies.
• $68B to the auto industry to retool for hybrids, plug-ins, electric and fuel-cell vehicles.
• $250B for adaptation to climate change, largely for coastal states.
• $288B for wildlife adaptation.
• $560B for a fund states can access if they switch over from their own emissions programs to the federal one.
(All these amounts are spread over 40 years)

Free credits for fossil fuels have shrunk in the new version but more credits will be given for capture and storage of carbon dioxide. But if I’m reading this right, there is WAY too little going to renewable energy like wind, solar and geothermal. We need to be virtually switched over to them from fossil fuels by 2050. So why so stingy? Could it be that the lobbyists for these fledgling industries don't have the money to spread around that oil, gas and other mature industries have? You betcha.

It looks like nuclear energy will be one of the winners in this new version. The bill now provides $92 million in incentives, on top of what the nuclear power industry already gets from the government. And a successful Lieberman-Warner amendment would bring them even more. Nuclear, which now provides 8% of U.S. power, is a huge bone of contention with many environmentalists who don’t like the radiation involved and say "no nukes, no way." Even those who think some nuclear plants might be necessary to wean us off fossil fuels -- if safety and disposal problems can be solved -- would far rather see money go to really clean sources like wind, solar, geothermal and wave action.

Even if this bill should pass the Senate, it's unlikely the House will act before the end of the year. And this president would not sign a bill that would satisfy anyone who sees a need for urgent change. So the debate is probably just the first salvo in a battle that may be more successful with the next Congress and next president. But it still should be interesting to watch it unfold.
(Sources: Greenwire, ClimateWire, E&E News PM)

Take action: Send an e-mail to your senators.

Environmental groups target 3 Senate races to elect champions to fight global warming

(Photo of Jeanne Shaheen at 2007 Step It Up rally from Flickr and Step It Up 2007.)

Washington Report: A coalition of 5 environmental groups said last week they will work together to elect 3 Senators they believe will be leaders for the environment and against global warming. The three they will support are cousin congressmen Mark Udall (D-Co) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and ex-Gov. of New Hampshire Jeanne Shaheen. Working together will be the Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, Environment America, Clean Water Action and Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund. The Udalls are running for vacant seats and Shaheen is opposing incumbent John Sununu. All 3 seats have been held by Republicans, but the Democrats are leading in polls. The Udalls have a strong pedigree. Mark is the son of "Mo" Udall, who was in Congress 30 years and ran for president. Tom is the son of Stewart Udall, Mo's brother, who served as Interior Secretary under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. The 5 environmental groups collaborated to help oust former House Resources Committee Chair Richard Pombo (R-Calif.) in 2004.

Don't get discouraged, get active

(Photo of StepItUp demonstration in Santa Monica, Calif., Earth Day 2007 from Flickr and Step It Up 2007)

(Author’s note: I know many of my readers work on this issue every day of their lives. For some it’s a job. Others are volunteers. This isn’t targeted at you, but rather the many, many people who are concerned about global warming but feel helpless to do much about it. This is a pep talk for them.)

Weekly angst: A relative told me she no longer reads my blog on a regular basis because “I get too discouraged.” That wasn’t the point, but maybe others feel the same way. The point was to help you all:
* get informed,
* get motivated,
* get involved.
Perhaps I've fallen short helping you with the last item.

Just as the civil rights and anti-Vietnam war movements bubbled up from the people, so too must the global warming movement, if we are to accomplish what we need to in … well, a couple of years ago we were told we had just a decade to make big changes and avoid disaster.

What you can do
There are endless opportunities for individuals to get involved and help push the movement forward (quickly!).
* You can lobby your elected reps and you can vote.
* You can join forces with one or more environmental groups (see partial list in right column).
* You can reduce your own carbon footprint.

The League of Conservation Voters and Sierra Club are both very active in promoting global warming legislation and in endorsing candidates. The upcoming election is especially important at the national level. We need a president in the White House who will lead and reps in the House and Senate who will vote for cutting greenhouse gases sharply and quickly. LCV is also developing a “dirty dozen” list of those who need to be defeated.

Join and sign up for action alerts from those two and other environmental groups, so you can sign petitions, make phone calls and send e-mails about important votes. For example, extension of tax credits for renewable energy sources, like wind and solar, keeps falling one vote short of the 60 it needs in the Senate. (Yo, John McCain) Those extensions are needed to keep the alternative energy business healthy and reduce reliance on fossil fuels.

States and cities matter
The states are important too, because that’s where much of the trail-blazing is happening in the absence of federal action. So find out who your state reps are (if you don’t know now) and who is running in November. Work for the “good guys,” donate to their campaigns, lobby them in their district offices when they are home. Their vote or sponsorship of a clean-car or global warming bill could be critical. The local chapters of either LCV or Sierra Club can tell you what you need to know. Environment Illinois is also active in Illinois and the Environmental Law and Policy Center in the Midwest.

At the city level, urge your mayor and city council (or village board and president) to sign on to be a “cool city” with the 800 others across the country, and cut back on greenhouse emissions to meet Kyoto Protocol goals. Sierra Club has active volunteers working in their own communities to do just that.

With Earth Day coming up, there will be plenty of activities you can join this spring. One is Earth Hour, where businesses and individuals pledge to turn out their lights from 8-9 p.m. (regardless of time zone) on March 29. This is a worldwide event, with Chicago, San Francisco, Phoenix and Atlanta among the leading cities in the U.S. Learn more from a video at Earth Hour and sign up. (Thanks for the tip, Cara W.)

This is only one of many events you can participate in. I’ll do more to keep you informed of others.

Reduce your carbon footprint
At home, you can get rid of incandescent light bulbs, switching to CFLs or LEDs; bike, walk or take mass transit much more instead of driving; stop using plastic bags and water bottles; turn down the heat or air conditioning; and recycle. Check out “One Easy Thing” on The Daily Green for a lot more tips, or buy “The Low-Carbon Diet,” which I plan to review next month.

Many of you are already doing some of these things. But we need you to do more, to join forces with others to make things happen big and happen soon. You can make a difference. We're all part of the problem -- because of the way we live. We need to be part of the solution.

Cars come in 'clean' and 'dirty'

(Photo of traffic on Lake Cook Road in Buffalo Grove, Ill., from Flickr and photographer Isipeoria)

Weekly Angst: It’s outrageous. Did you know auto manufacturers make two versions of each model. Some spew more smog-causing hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide, more carbon monoxide and particulates than others. It all depends on what state you live in and whether it has adopted California’s clean-car regulations. If it hasn’t, you get the dirty kind.

Conn., Maine, Md., Mass., N.J., N.Y., Ore., Pa. R.I., Vt., and Wash. have all adopted the California law. They’ve seen a change in air quality. Ariz., Colo., Fla., Ill., Iowa, Minn., N.M. and Utah have it under consideration. And environmental groups are pushing those states to pass the law, even though the U.S. EPA has blocked the latest change, reducing CO2. (Another outrage.)

Many believe the EPA will be overruled by the courts, or a new administration, or the bill introduced by Senate Environment Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), and states that adopt California’s law may soon be able to regulate greenhouse gases too, more stringently than the federal CAFE law allows.

The California standards cut greenhouse-gas tailpipe emissions 30% by 2016, though the EPA-forced lag may change that because it was supposed to start with the 2009 model.

The Sierra Club and other environmental groups are asking for e-mails or calls to your state reps to co-sponsor and support a clean car bill. In Illinois you can do that through the Environmental Law and Policy Center's action network.

Clean cars for Illinois
Illinois is No. 6 in emitting greenhouse gases in the U.S.A. Not a record you want to have. Education maybe, or employment, but not No. 6 in GHG. And transportation contributes about 28% of the global warming pollution in the state.

When Illinois passes a clean car bill, it might cause a tipping point, advocates say, benefiting the entire country. A populous state, with 9 million cars on the road, a victory here could lead to manufacturers deciding it no longer pays to make two versions and all their cars could become cleaner.

The bill in Illinois (H.B 3424) has passed out of committee with House Speaker Michael Madigan (D) as a co-sponsor. It requires 2011 models to meet the stricter emissions standards, which would reduce GHG an estimated 18% by 2020 and 27% by 2030.

Global Warming Solutions Act
The clean car bill is also part of a larger package called the Illinois Global Warming Solutions Act (S.B. 2220). A shell bill, with the details not yet revealed, the Solutions Act also will deal with power plants, efficiency and cap-and-trade. It contains major recommendations from the Illinois Climate Change Advisory Group, appointed by Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D), and helps meet goals of the Midwest Governors Conference. (Stay tuned for more on this package.)

RES already law
If you’re wondering about a renewable electricity standard for Illinois, one was already passed last year. Advocates took advantage of the electric utilities’ request for a rate hike and added in an RES that increases the proportion of renewable energy 2% a year until 2015 and then 1.5% until it reaches 25% in 2025. One caveat though – the changes have to stay within the rate cap set for the utility. Many other states have passed their own RES, which is good because while the U.S. House passed one mandating 15% by 2020, the Senate has rejected it. (Sources: Environment Illinois, Sierra Club, Environmental Law & Policy Center)

Tar sands oil disaster for planet

A top Canadian official has asked the U.S. to go slow in plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions. What’s THAT about?

It’s about the Alberta tar sands, and the desire to keep us buying their synthetic oil made by a filthy, messy process that:
• destroys thousands of miles of pristine forests and wetlands
• releases 3 times the carbon dioxide into the air as conventional oil
• digs up 2-4 tons of earth to produce each barrel of oil
• burns enough natural gas each day to heat a million homes
• takes 3 barrels of water from the shrinking Athabasca River for each barrel of oil
• generates 2 barrels of toxic waste for each barrel of oil, stored in holding lagoons so big they can be seen from space
• leaves the land spoiled instead of reclaiming it
• smells like rotten eggs.

Matthew Simmons, author of “Twilight in the Desert” calls the process “atrocious.” Al Gore says it’s “truly nuts.”

The tars sands are Canada’s fastest growing GHG emissions source and one reason it’s not meeting its Kyoto targets.

Show me the money
Why would anyone make such a mess to produce oil? Money, that’s why. Tar sands became economically viable in 2003. Investors are piling on ($52 billion with much more expected), and the Canadian government stands to make $51 billion in taxes by 2020, while Alberta province will get $44 billion. Not surprising they haven’t done an impact assessment.

And we’re the enabler because we’re buying almost all their exports, to the tune of $73 billion a year. Why? To reduce our reliance on Middle East oil. Canada is now our biggest supplier, at 16% of our total. They want to sell us much more, and together the countries plan to increase production 5-fold.

To make matters worse, refiners here at home are trying to expand to refine the stuff and build pipelines to bring it in. The Sierra Club and other environmental groups have fought permits in several states, including Ill., Ind. (remember the row with Chicago over the Whiting plant?), Michigan, Ohio and Wis.

The basics
Tars sands, re-branded “oil sands” by the industry, is also found in Venezuela. About 20% is near the surface and mined in open pits by giant equipment. The remainder is far underground and recovered by injecting steam into the earth to melt the tar (or bitumen) so it’s thin enough to pump up. Then impurities are removed in an energy-intensive process. The Canadian government wants to replace the natural gas that powers the operation with 20 nuclear reactors.

Alberta is sitting on the second largest reserves in the world, after Saudi Arabia. It is producing 1.25 million barrels a day from its tar sands, an amount expected to triple by 2016. China, another likely market, has invested in two companies there.

But tars sands are not the only source of “unconventional” or synthetic oil. Oil shale and coal-to-liquid are other means to make a dirtier form of oil that produces more GHG and could tear up OUR landscape.

Why even mess with this stuff, when there are cleaner forms of energy like wind, solar, geothermal and cellulosic ethanol. We should be investing in those, as well as cutting waste and driving electric cars. But we’d better get busy. Because tar sands are clearly on a tear.

Note: "Highway to Hell" is a compelling account of work at the large Ft. McMurray tar sands in northern Alberta in OnEarth magazine online.
For more on tar sands, see Climate Progress

(Sources: Washington Post, OnEarth, PlanetArk, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, World Watch Institute, E&E Daily, E&E News PM, Tar Sands Watch/Cleveland Plain Dealer and Oil Sands Truth)

(Photo of the Alberta tar sands courtesy of Flickr and photographer Gord McKenna)