By Joseph Romm

Obama ran on clear and detailed energy and climate plans.

The election poses three over-arching questions:

1. On solutions: Does Obama have a clear mandate to enact his plans to transform our energy and climate policy?
2. On science: Will the transformation he is actually able to enact be sufficient to avert the worst climate impacts (and, relatedly, the worst peak oil impacts).
3. On politics: Will this transformation be bipartisan?

The answers are, I think, “yes,” “probably not,” and “almost certainly not.”

The answers are related, of course. If conservatives accepted the overwhelming evidence of the dire nature of the climate problem, then the policy measures that progressives could enact would be far stronger. And I’m including Democratic conservatives in that assertion.

On the first question, the NYT’s lead editorial today explains a core reason Obama swept to victory:

His triumph was decisive and sweeping, because he saw what is wrong with this country: the utter failure of government to protect its citizens. He offered a government that does not try to solve every problem but will do those things beyond the power of individual citizens: to regulate the economy fairly, keep the air clean and the food safe, ensure that the sick have access to health care, and educate children to compete in a globalized world …

Climate change is a global threat, and after years of denial and inaction, this country must take the lead on addressing it. The nation must develop new, cleaner energy technologies, to reduce greenhouse gases and its dependence on foreign oil.

Traditional Republican conservatives simply don’t get the nature of the problem or even the message of the election — and as a result they are likely to

1. Continue their obstructionists efforts that threaten the health and well-being of all humanity.
2. Be in the political wilderness for a long time.

If that wasn’t clear from the increasingly desperate embrace of coal and oil by the GOP, including one-time-climate-advocate John McCain, then it should be clear from the op-ed in today’s Post by conservative Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), “A way out of the wilderness“:

In January, Democrats will enjoy lopsided congressional ratios not seen since the 1970s. Let’s face it: We Republicans are now, by any reasonable measurement, deep in the political wilderness …

I suggest that we return to first principles. At the top of that list has to be a recommitment to limited government. After eight years of profligate spending and soaring deficits, voters can be forgiven for not knowing that limited government has long been the first article of faith for Republicans …

Second, we need to recommit to our belief in economic freedom. Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations” may be on the discount rack this year, but the free market is still the most efficient means to allocate capital and human resources in an economy, and Americans know it. Now that we’ve inserted government deeply into the private sector by bailing out banks and businesses, the temptation will be for government to overstay its welcome and force the distribution of resources to serve political ends. Substituting political for economic incentives is not the recipe for economic recovery.

Most House Republicans opposed the recent bailout and will be in a strong position to promote economic freedom over central planning as the Obama administration stumbles from industry to industry trying to determine which is small enough to be allowed to fail and which is not. Since timetables will be in vogue, perhaps Republicans could even insist on a timetable for getting the government out of the private sector …

But there is reason for Republicans to feel optimism. Politically, America remains a center-right country, and America loves a chastened and repentant sinner. As surely as the sun rises in the east, the Democrats will overreach.

As long as we Republicans are willing to admit our folly, get back to first principles and work like there’s no tomorrow, we’ve got ‘em just where we want ‘em.

Sad. One could easily argue that this election — and the campaign McCain ran and decisively lost — utterly undercuts every single point Flake makes.

What could be clearer than that conservatives haven’t figured out the public wants strong government engagement on key issues related to economy, health, energy, and the environment?

I had previously explained why I don’t think a climate bill is likely to get many Republican votes, see “Q: Does a cap-and-trade bill have to be bipartisan?” Flake’s op-ed only serves to underscore my conclusion.

This, of course, will pose an enormous challenge for Obama, since he campaigned strongly on two mutually exclusive issues: enacting a serious energy/climate policy and achieving bipartisan solutions. Ironically, enough, though, it may be John McCain who allows at least Obama’s climate bill to have the aura of bipartisanship, as I’ll discuss in "Part 2."

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Continue reading " Losers find ways to lose "

By David Roberts

Reuters adds a few names to the list of candidates being considered to head EPA: Governors Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, and World Resources Institute head honcho Jonathan Lash. That’s in addition to the usual names of Kathleen McGinty and Mary Nichols.

I’m beginning to think reporters are just pulling these names out of their rear ends, and that none of them has sources inside the Obama transition at all. Surely, that can’t be the case, right?

Reuters also says Obama’s considering creating a “climate czar” position, but offers no evidence for that either. Could they have gotten the idea here?

Continue reading " More EPA speculation "

1 // Arizona is confused about daylight-saving

The state of Arizona doesn’t observe Daylight Saving Time. But it is the law in the Navajo Nation, located in Arizona’s northeastern corner. The Hopi Nation—situated inside the Navajo Nation—follows the rest of the state and disregards DST. So if you drive the length of Route 264 during the summer, you might have
to reset your watch three times.

2 // Venezuela is off by 30 minutes

In 2007, Venezuela’s president, Hugo Chavez, turned the country’s clocks back 30 minutes—saying
if people wake up in the daylight, they will be more productive. (Some speculate that he made the switch just to mess with El Norte.)

3 // All of China is on Beijing time

China spanned five time zones until 1949, when the entire country was synchronized to
the same hour.
So when dawn breaks in Beijing at 6:43 am, it’s also 6:43 am more than 2,000 miles west
in Kashi, where the sun won’t rise for another two hours and 45 minutes.

Continue reading " 3 Smart Things About Time Zones "

As the world celebrates a historic Presidential election in the U.S., as democrats take more seats in Congress, and, as many of us nurse our post-victory party hangovers, even chickens have a reason to celebrate. Or, at least the chickens in California.

You see, Prop 2 passed in our nation’s largest agricultural state. This law phases out some of the most restrictive confinement systems used by factory farms — gestation crates for breeding pigs, veal crates for calves and battery cages for egg laying hens. The new legislation will affect nearly 20 million farm animals in California by mandating that they have room to stand up, stretch their limbs, turn around and lie down comfortably.

The newly liberated farm animals join their freer brethren in states such as Colorado, Oregon, Florida and Arizona. The entire European Union will phase out battery cages for hens by the year 2012.

I hear that chickens in the other 45 states are beginning to organize.

Continue reading " Even Chickens Have a Reason to Celebrate Today "

We’re told that McCain is spending these last crunch hours vacuuming up support in Republican states. Apart from Sunday’s stop in Pennsylvania, his itinerary has pit-stop trips to Florida, Ohio, Missouri, and Tennessee, followed by a lightning tour of Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico, before returning to his home-state of Arizona on Monday night. On the other hand, vote-early Obama hit rallies in Nevada, Colorado and Missouri on Saturday, spent Sunday campaigning in Ohio and will be visiting Virginia and Florida on the very evening of the election.

What’s wrong with this picture?

Could it be the carbon footprint of the two candidates, spreading to Sasquatch-like proportions as they criss-cross the United States exhorting voters, already reeling from the economic kidney-punches of the past few months, to get out there and vote?  Is it possible that this kind of environmental irresponsibility is ringing warning bells with the average voter, wondering when gas prices will fall and whether they can heat their homes this winter?

Read more of this story »

Continue reading " Election Update: Last Days are an Environmental Issue "

By Sara Barz

In addition to electing George W. Bush’s successor, voters in 10 states will decide the fate of a diverse range of environment-related ballot measures on Nov. 4. Here’s a quick rundown of these measures and links to where you can find more information about them:

California

Proposition 2, or the Standards for Confining Farm Animals, would prohibit the confinement of livestock in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, stand up, lie down, or extend their wings and limbs. Specifically, the measure would ban cages for egg-laying poultry, gestation crates for sows, and veal crates for calves, and it would impose a misdemeanor penalty and fine up to $1,000 or six-month sentence in county jail. If passed, the measure would take effect Jan. 1, 2015.

Californians for Humane Farms, a group sponsored by The Humane Society of the United States, runs the YES! on Prop 2 campaign, which has been endorsed by the California Veterinary Medical Association, the San Diego Union-Tribune, the Oakland Tribune, and U.S. Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein.

Opponents to Prop. 2 formed Californians for SAFE Food. From the SAFE Food website: “Proposition 2 is a risky, dangerous and costly measure banning almost all modern egg production in California. Proposition 2 jeopardizes food safety and public health, wipes out Californians’ access to locally grown, fresh eggs, and harms consumers by driving up prices at grocery stores and restaurants and creates a dependency on eggs shipped from other states and Mexico.”

Businesses and organizations that have joined the Californians for SAFE Food coalition include the Agricultural Council of California, United Egg Producers, the California Chamber of Congress, Cal-Maine Foods, and the California State Conference of the NAACP. Citing the potential economic burden, the editorial boards of the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle also sided with the SAFE Food Campaign, recommending a “no” vote on Prop. 2.

For more in depth coverage see “Cluck and Cover” by Grist contributing writer Carol Ness.

Proposition 7, sometimes referred to as “Big Solar,” would require all utilities, including ones owned by the government, to generate 20 percent of their power from renewable energy sources by 2010, 40 percent by 2020, and 50 percent by 2025. The measure would impose new penalties for noncompliance, fast-track approval processes for new renewable energy plants, and require that utilities sign longer-term contracts — 20-year minimum — to procure renewable energy.

The Yes on 7 campaign has the backing of three Nobel laureates — Walter Kohn, Alan Heeger, and Herbert Kroemer — as well as renewable energy activist S. David Freeman and Hollywood actor Danny Glover. Freeman said in a news release on behalf of Prop.7: “California’s current renewable energy standards are laudable, but insufficient to help solve the global warming, climate change and energy crises we face. We have one last clear chance to make a determined transition to renewable energy. But we have no time to lose. A continued massive use of fossil fuels is an almost certain path to havoc and destruction of the high-energy civilization we enjoy. Prop. 7 is both visionary and practical. Prop. 7 will help our state and our nation move more rapidly to renewable energy.”

Prop. 7 is also backed by a long list of elected officials and public figures, such as Jim Gonzalez, former San Francisco County supervisor, and John Burton, past president pro tem of the California State Senate and former Chair of the California Democratic Party.

The formal opposition group to Prop. 7 is organized under the banner of Californians Against Another Costly Energy Scheme. Members include a wide array of businesses, taxpayer groups, energy and environmental groups, along with both the California Democratic and Republican parties. According to CAACES’s website: “Prop. 7 was placed on the ballot by an Arizona billionaire with no expertise in renewable power issues. The measure purports to increase the percent of renewable power utilities must purchase. However, it is so poorly drafted that renewable energy and environmental experts warn Prop. 7 will not achieve its goals and, instead, will actually “slam the brakes” on renewable energy development in California, result in significant increases in our electric bills and could result in another energy crisis.”

The state’s leading environmental groups — the California League of Conservation Voters, Sierra Club California, the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies — also oppose Prop. 7, along with the Union of Concerned Scientists. These groups have formed a separate, independent opposition group. Jim Metropulos, a senior advocate of the Sierra Club California wrote in an explanation of his group’s opposition: “The lack of a sound, steady source of funding represents one major flaw that’s sure to get in the way of a 50% renewables goal. Instead of setting up such a funding stream, Prop. 7 would force renewable power generators to depend upon an uncertain system of penalty monies. It also locks in energy rate raises to just 3% annually, even though there are no limits for nonrenewable power sources. Existing loopholes in enforcement and archaic policies that tie the price of renewable energy to the price of natural gas-generated energy would be locked in place. In fact, Prop. 7 even lowers some penalties.”

Editorial boards of the San Diego Union-Tribune and the Los Angeles Times also urged “no” votes on Prop. 7.

Considered the transportation counterpart to the energy-focused Prop. 7, Proposition 10, or “Big Wind,” would authorize $5 billion in bonds paid from the state’s general fund to be dispersed as cash payments to purchasers of certain high fuel economy and alternative fuel vehicles or to be invested in renewable energy R&D, production, and education. The initiative would also provide grants to cities for renewable energy projects.

Californians for Clean and Renewable Energy sponsors the Yes on 10 campaign, claiming it will provide much needed funds for clean energy projects without raising taxes. From the Yes on 10 website: “This initiative will provide funds for a wide variety of clean energy projects, including consumer incentives for clean alternative vehicle fuels and the construction of renewable energy generation facilities, such as solar and wind power plants. It will also provide funds for research to improve our renewable energy options and to educate consumers about what clean and renewable energy products are available to them.”

Supporters of Prop. 10 include Plug in America, Consumers First, the city of Oakland, and Fred Keeley, Santa Cruz County Treasurer and a board member of the League of Conservation Voters, who argued in an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle: “TIAX, an environmental engineering and consulting firm, estimates that upon full implementation, Prop. 10 will displace annually 75 million gallons of gasoline and 648 million gallons of diesel fuel. That is roughly $3 billion each year that we will be spending here at home rather than on polluting foreign oil.”

The opposition campaign, No on 10: A $10 Billion Lemon, is sponsored by the Consumer Federation of California and touts a wide coalition of environmental groups, consumer rights organizations, labor unions, and chambers of commerce as endorsees. Opponents target Pickens’s company’s bankrolling of the Prop. 10 campaign as an opportunistic money-grab in the name of alternative fuels. From the No on 10 website: ” ‘The California Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Act’ — a deceptively named initiative on the November ballot — seeks to authorize $5 billion in bonds ($9.8 billion with interest), much of which would provide rebates to buyers of natural gas run vehicles and other research and development funding. It doesn’t clean the air but it does line the pockets of the billionaire who paid for it.”

Some of the same environmental groups that oppose Prop. 7 also oppose Prop. 10, such as Sierra Club California, the California League of Conservation Voters, and the Union of Concerned Scientists. Editorial boards of the Los Angeles Times, the San Diego Union-Tribune, the San Francisco Chronicle also urge a “no” vote on Prop. 10. In explaining its opposition, the L.A. Times analyzed the consumer alternative vehicle rebate structure detailed in Prop. 10 and found it to unduly favor new natural gas vehicles like those sold by Clean Energy Fuels: “Buyers of hybrid cars like the Toyota Prius that get combined highway-city fuel economy of 45 miles per gallon or better would be eligible for a $2,000 rebate, handed out on a first-come, first-served basis to 55,000 buyers. But if you buy a ‘clean alternative fuel vehicle,’ you get a $10,000 rebate. These are defined under Proposition 10 as cars, vans or light trucks powered by natural gas, electricity or hydrogen. Last we checked, there were no hydrogen or electric vehicles on the new-car market.”

Colorado

Amendment 58, also known as the Scholarship Fund Initiative, would raise the severance tax on oil and gas companies operating in Colorado, eliminate the property tax deduction against the severance tax, and allocate the tax revenues to college scholarships, wildlife conservation and renewable energy projects, energy-impacted areas, and water treatment.

Though the political force behind Amendment 58 is Gov. Bill Ritter (D), the official campaign for Amendment 58 is lead by A Smarter Colorado and sponsored by groups and individuals such as Environment Colorado, the Colorado Education Organization, Colorado University President Bruce Benson, and former Colorado State president Al Yates. From the campaign’s website: “Amendment 58 will end Colorado’s outdated $300 million a year tax subsidy for the oil and gas industry and make smarter investments in Colorado’s future. By voting YES on 58 you will make the common sense decision to stop giving the wealthiest companies in the world huge tax breaks in Colorado.”

Ritter estimates that Amendment 58 could bring in over $200 million in new revenue to the state, and the Denver Post backed-up Ritter’s numbers in a ringing endorsement of the measure: “Someday, the current oil and gas boom will end, just as the gold and silver booms before them ended. Those earlier booms left nothing behind as a legacy except polluted streams and abandoned mine shafts. This initiative, if approved by voters, ensures that when Colorado’s oil and gas reserves are exhausted, the state’s wildlife, natural environment and the most precious resource of all, our children, will enjoy lasting benefits.”

In opposition to Amendment 58 stands Coloradans for a Stable Economy which, thanks to the major oil and gas companies operating the Colorado, has run a $10 million campaign. The Rocky Mountain News reported that the opposition broke the record for fundraising for a single issue campaign in Colorado. CSE says Amendment 58 would raise consumer prices on gasoline and heating fuels. From the website: “The poorly considered Amendment 58 is an empty promise; the language is vague and bursting with unintended consequences. The revenue from severance taxes is a valuable resource to help citizens throughout our state. That’s why it is so important that severance tax revenue is used judiciously. Amendment 58 doesn’t do that.”

In its coalition, CSE counts the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, the Colorado Cattleman’s Association, many regional chambers of commerce, and Club 20 — an influential coalition of local governments, businesses, and individuals from Colorado’s Western Counties. Citing the unnecessary nature of the tax increase, The Rocky Mountain News also broke with the Denver Post and urged a “no” vote on Amendment 58: “Colorado is already a national leader in protecting habitat and in subsidizing renewable energy. It’s not enough to say that more money could be spent in those areas. More money could be spent on every program. Such reasoning is weak justification for a higher tax.”

Amendment 52, a counter initiative that would maintain the present severance tax structure and redirect a majority of the funds presently going to the Department of Natural Resources — for mineral extraction, clean energy, and low-income energy assistance programs — to a new transportation trust fund to ease congestion on the I-70 corridor. Should both ballot measures pass on Nov. 4, Amendment 52 would supersede 58, as 52 is a constitutional amendment while 58 is a statutory change.

Missouri

The Clean Energy Initiative, or Proposition C, would create a renewable electricity standard that requires 15 percent of the state’s electricity come from clean energy sources by 2021. The measure would also require that utilities raise consumer rates no more than 1 percent per year to pay for the renewable energy.

Missourians for Cleaner Cheaper Energy sponsored the initiative with support from the American Wind Energy Association, the Missouri Coalition for the Environment, the Sierra Club, and other renewable energy and environmental groups. Kansas City Power & Light, a subsidiary of Great Plains Energy, also endorsed the measure: “A strong renewable energy policy benefits our customers by reducing costs and stimulating the growth of the renewable energy industry locally,” said Michael Chesser, chairman and chief executive officer of Great Plains Energy, in an April news release.

Editorial boards of both the Kansas City Star and the St. Louis Post Dispatch have also endorsed Prop. C.

There’s little organized opposition to Prop. C. AmerenUE, the St. Louis electricity utility, has expressed some reservations, but not outright opposition. The company spokesman, Tim Fox, told the West County Journal in April that the utility does not support mandates; however, the company does support renewable energy and “will soon commit to purchasing 100 megawatts of wind power to add to AmerenUE’s system.” In a Sept. interview with NPR affiliate KWMU, Fox said, “We’re neutral on this particular ballot proposal, but our concern is that renewable energy mandates could lead to significantly higher costs for our customers in the future.”

Other environmental initiatives of note:

Arkansas

Question No. 1 would issue a $300 million bond for the financing and refinancing of the development of water, waste disposal, water pollution control, abatement and prevention, drainage, irrigation, flood control, and wetlands and aquatic resources projects.

California

Prop. 1A would approve the issuance of $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds that would partially fund a $40 billion, 800-mile high speed train under the supervision of the California High-Speed Rail Authority.

Like Proposition 7, San Francisco’s Proposition H, or the “San Francisco Clean Energy Act,” would create an aggressive renewable electricity standard that would require 51 percent of the city’s electricity be sourced from “renewable sources” by 2017, 75 percent by 2030, and 10 percent — or all that is “technological feasible or practicable” — by 2040. The measure would also call on the city to evaluate taking over the electric utility and allow the Board of Supervisors to issue bonds to buy the utility from Pacific Gas & Electric without voter approval.

According to the Yes on H campaign, the measure “will ensure San Francisco builds enough renewable and conservation projects to achieve 100% clean energy by 2040, making San Francisco a worldwide leader in the fight against global warming.” For endorsees Yes on H counts eight of the 11 members of the Board of Supervisors, the San Francisco Democratic and Green parties, and the San Francisco Bay Guardian.

But as with Prop. 7, the San Francisco Chronicle advocated a “no” vote on Prop. H, and Mayor Gavin Newsom described it as a “thinly veiled takeover of PG&E” by public utility-activists who are using the today’s “hyper-green awareness” to win an 80-year battle to make the utilities public.

The No on H campaign considers Prop. H tantamount to a blank check to the city as it “allows the Board of Supervisors to spend billions of dollars to take over any utility WITHOUT voter approval.” No on H counts Newsom, the Chronicle, and three board supervisors among its fellow naysayers, as well as Sen. Diane Feinstein (D).

Florida

Amendment 3 [PDF] would authorize the Florida legislature to prohibit the consideration of certain improvements and changes to property when assessing the property’s value to ad valorem taxation. These changes and improvements include the installation of renewable energy source devices.

By a 60 percent vote, Amendment 4 [PDF] would institute a property-tax exemption for property placed under permanent conservation protection. In late Oct., Gov. Charlie Crist (R) endorsed the measure.

Georgia

Amendment 1 would amend the Georgia Constitution to provide that the General Assembly encourage forest preservation by specially taxing certain forest lands and giving grants to local governments.

Ohio

Issue 2 would authorize the state to borrow $400 million for environmental conservation. Issue 3 would create constitutional amendment protecting property rights and rights to the reasonable use of water; its supporters argue that the measure is needed to offset any threat to property rights that might come from the state’s participation in the Great Lakes Water Compact.

Oklahoma

Question No. 742 [PDF] would give state residents the right to hunt, trap, fish and take game and fish, subject to reasonable regulation.

Rhode Island

Question 2 would provide funds to “purchase, or otherwise permanently protect through the purchase of title to, development rights, conservation easements and public recreation easements, greenways and other open space, recreation lands, agriculture lands, forested lands and state parks.”

Washington

Proposition 1 would provide $18 billion to support mass-transit services and expand an existing light-rail system into several bedroom communities south of Seattle.

I-985 [PDF] or the Washington Reduce Traffic Congestion initiative, would open high-occupancy vehicle lanes to all traffic during specified hours, require traffic light synchronization, increase roadside assistance funding, and dedicate certain taxes, fines, tolls and other revenues to traffic-flow purposes.

Are we missing any statewide or regional measures of importance to environmental groups? If so, drop a line to sbarz@grist.org.

Continue reading " Green intentions "

By Kate Sheppard

The Las Vegas Sun editorial board isn’t too pleased by John McCain’s “safe, environmental, blah blah blah” comment:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain has said he would support the use of Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, as the dump site for the nation’s high-level nuclear waste. That is one of many reasons why Nevadans should vote for Democratic opponent Barack Obama, who has said he would kill the repository plan.

At a campaign stop Sunday in Cedar Falls, Iowa, 1,300 miles away from Southern Nevada, McCain continued to show that he doesn’t care about Nevada. He did so by mocking Obama’s concerns about how to safely store spent nuclear fuel, something McCain brought up during their last debate.

“We talked about nuclear power,” McCain said. “Well, it has to be safe environment(ally), blah, blah, blah.” That dismissive response, which drew cheers and applause from Iowans at this McCain rally, showed just how out of touch McCain is with the majority of Nevadans, who steadfastly oppose the dump. If the federal government had instead planned for the dump to be in Arizona, McCain’s home state, do you think he would have taken Obama’s remarks so lightly?

McCain’s nuclear power response is symbolic of a campaign that has never embraced the deep thought and creative ideas Americans demand in this general election. Instead, McCain has resorted to shallow catchphrases, name-calling and other negative attacks to appeal to an ever dwindling base of support.

There is nothing funny or trite about nuclear waste. No one in their right mind would want to live anywhere near a radioactive dump or along any of the routes that would be used to transport the deadly material. Why should Nevadans, who are concerned about the future of this state, support a candidate who cares so little about their well-being?

Have we mentioned lately that Nevada is a swing state? Perhaps not surprisingly, current polls show Obama up 7 percent in the state.

Continue reading " Swing state, blah blah blah "

By Joseph Romm

OK. The chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee didn’t quite say that, at least not directly. But E&E News PM reports ($ub. req’d):

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) expects to take her cues on climate in the 111th Congress from the next president.

The chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee told reporters here today that the next administration — whether led by a Democrat or a Republican — will likely set the pace when it comes to moving a greenhouse gas reduction bill through the House and Senate.

“It all depends on what the president wants,” said Boxer, in response to a question on whether she would reintroduce her own bill. “If the president wants the same bill back, we do it.”

Her plan is to reach out to the next administration “the day after Election Day” to talk principles on climate legislation, she said. Whether the chief executive is Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) or Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) matters little on global warming, she added, as she expects “a friendly administration either way.”

But would she have said that if Obama weren’t six points ahead in the polls? After all, McCain’s proposed climate plan is far, far weaker than Boxer’s. And even that assumes climate regulation remains a priority for McCain. The point should be moot in six days. Here’s the rest of the story:

Boxer, along with Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.), led a Senate floor debate this spring on a cap-and-trade bill that sought emission cuts of about 70 percent below 2005 levels by midcentury. But the legislation did not come close to passage, as Republicans presented both procedural and political challenges.

The one policy priority Boxer did identify today is protecting California and other early-acting states from losing out to a federal bill. Boxer said she intends to see that California, especially, gets credit for leading the way on climate with an aggressive law that would cut emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, starting in 2012.

Moreover, Boxer indicated that the next go-round on federal legislation could cede much of its design to California’s A.B. 32, which set the big-picture targets but left the implementation details to the state’s Air Resources Board. A federal bill, she said, could give U.S. EPA the same authority rather than get mired in the sticky policy details.

“It will be up to negotiations we have with the next administration,” she said.

Much more on this crucial subject post-election.

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Continue reading " Led by the ears "

By Kate Sheppard

Last week, we looked at Barack Obama’s and John McCain’s positions on public-lands issues. This week, we delve into their stances on another often-overlooked environmental topic: endangered species.

The Endangered Species Act hasn’t been discussed much by the candidates this election season, but it has been in the news in recent months. In August, it came to light that the Bush administration was trying to push through changes to the ESA that would exempt federal agencies from the independent reviews currently mandated for thousands of projects. Instead, agencies would be able to conduct their own reviews to determine whether projects would harm species. This month saw the release of new memos from Bush admin lawyers arguing that the ESA can’t be used to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions, even if climate change is melting a species’ habitat.

Will the next president be inclined to follow the Bush path or take a more aggressive approach in protecting species? Here’s what we know about McCain’s and Obama’s records:

John McCain:

McCain had no comment on Bush’s ongoing effort to change the ESA review process, but the candidate has a long record on other species issues. And the topic gets passing mention on his campaign website, where he notes, “The long term success of wildlife and fisheries populations is dependent upon a knowledgeable society invested in the efforts to provide for wildlife access and habitat protection.”

McCain has stood up for whales over the years. In 2001, he cosponsored a resolution that called for parties involved in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species to oppose all efforts to reopen international trade in whale meat or to downlist any whale population. In 2005 and 2006, McCain cosponsored a resolution encouraging the International Whaling Commission to oppose commercial whaling.

In 1999, McCain sponsored legislation requiring study of the habitat of the endangered Sonoran pronghorn antelope, which has a population in his home state of Arizona. Congress had allocated 2.7 million acres of land in the Southwest to the Department of Defense, which conservationists feared would put the pronghorn in danger. McCain’s bill mandated that the Interior and Defense departments study the transfer and determine the best natural-resource manager for the range.

But enviros have been alarmed by McCain’s actions related to another endangered species in his home state: the red squirrel. In the late ’80s and the 1990s, McCain was a tireless advocate for building the Mount Graham International Observatory in southeastern Arizona, despite concerns that it could threaten an endangered red squirrel population. Work on the observatory had been delayed over concerns about the squirrels and whether it would encroach upon land sacred to local Native Americans, and McCain called upon the Government Accounting Office, the nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress, to study the project.

Former GAO manager Joe Gibbons told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that McCain interfered with the agency’s work, “going bananas” and “steamrolling the GAO” in order to get the project approved. There were also reports that McCain threatened the job of U.S. Forest Service Supervisor Jim Abbott, whom he blamed for the slow movement on the observatory, allegedly telling Abbott he would be “the shortest-tenured forest supervisor in the history of the Forest Service” if he didn’t help move the project forward. McCain denied making the threat, and in 1992 the Senate Select Committee on Ethics found that there had been “no impropriety” on the part of McCain regarding the observatory — though an internal GAO note from 1990 refers to McCain’s “admitted threat.” The observatory was built, and its optical telescope, the world’s largest, began operating earlier this year. The squirrels, meanwhile, remain endangered.

In 2003, McCain voted against an amendment to limit Defense Department waivers under the ESA. He voted in 1995 to prohibit the addition of any new species to the endangered species list or designate new areas of critical habitat under the ESA, and in 1996 supported a measure that effectively continued that moratorium.

McCain has expressed support for keeping four dams along the lower Snake River in the Pacific Northwest, though many scientists say the dams are a major detriment to endangered salmon species. McCain cited concerns about energy security and climate change as reasons to keep the dams. He did, however, address the need for better fisheries management programs to protect salmon in this video interview with Outdoor Life.

Wildlife advocates are more worried about Sarah Palin than they are about McCain. As governor, she sued the Interior Department over its decision to list the polar bear as a threatened species, expressing concern that the listing would impair oil and gas development in Alaska. According to emails released via a public-records request, she lied about the opinions of Alaskan state scientists on the listing.

Palin has also opposed efforts to protect Cook Inlet beluga whales, a genetically distinct population located only in this Alaskan inlet. Environmental groups have been calling for a listing to protect the whales; Palin has urged the federal government not to make the listing, again citing threats to the oil and gas industry. The feds this month declared the whales endangered.

Barack Obama:

Barack Obama hasn’t been in the Senate long enough to rack up much of a legislative record on endangered species, but he has made a few notable comments on the campaign trail. The Obama campaign in August came out against Bush’s proposed ESA changes. “This 11th-hour ruling from the Bush administration is highly problematic,” said spokesperson Nick Shapiro. “As president, Senator Obama will fight to maintain the strong protections of the Endangered Species Act and undo this proposal from President Bush.”

On the issue of salmon and the Snake River dams, an Obama spokesperson said the candidate “believes all efforts to restore habitat must be exhausted before dam breaching is considered.” Said Obama in a statement, “Implementing a meaningful salmon population recovery plan will be a key environmental priority of my administration, and I support efforts to create a salmon recovery plan that balances all of these important environmental, agricultural and renewable energy interests.”

The Humane Society Legislative Fund has endorsed the Obama-Biden ticket, citing, among other things, its fear that electing Sarah Palin “could mean rolling back decades of progress on animal issues.”

Also on the subject of critters, a crowd member at a town-hall meeting in Las Vegas earlier this year shouted to Obama, “What about animal rights?” To which Obama responded, “I think how we treat our animals reflects how we treat each other. And it’s very important that we have a president who is mindful of the cruelty that is perpetrated on animals.”

Continue reading " Species claims "

By Kate Sheppard

Say what you may about last night’s debate, but it was anything but boring for enviros. Even if the candidates largely recycled preexisting talking points on energy and climate, the mere fact that both issues got top billing in a presidential debate was an historic first.

“What strikes me as important is that energy has risen to the top of the list in terms of issues that people are concerned about right now. It’s really energy, the economy, health care, and the war that are dominating the conversation,” said Gillian Caldwell, campaign director for 1Sky. “And energy is of course so connected to the conversation that we’re having about the economy and the war, and it even has substantial health implications when you think about particulate matter and hot spots and the disproportionate impact on low-income communities.”

The most heralded portion of the debate was the question from Ingrid Jackson asking the candidates what they would do in their first two years in office regarding climate change.

“After the millions of questions with zero focus on global warming, we got a really good one,” said Jamie Henn, co-coordinator for 350.org. “I think that what the questions emphasized, and what was exciting about it, was the need for speed. We don’t just want ambitious plans, we want something to get started right away.”

Henn said the candidates didn’t look like they were expecting any questions on climate change last night.

“It seemed like it almost caught them off guard a bit. They got warmed up as they were talking about it, but it’s understandable. They haven’t gotten any questions from the media on global warming lately,” he said.

Henn thought that both candidates handled it well in the end, giving him faith that enviros could work with them on the issues. “I think once they got going, it was way better than what we’ve heard in the last 8 years,” said Henn. “We have an opening to really push them on it, but it’s going to take some pressure to get both of the candidates to where we want them to be.”

Some enviro observers were disappointed that there was not much time for follow-up questions allotted in last night’s debate, and though the candidates repeatedly talked about energy, they left a lot of questions about their policies unanswered. Dan Weiss, director of climate strategy for the Center for American Progress Action Fund, said someone should have asked John McCain about why his cap-and-trade plan doesn’t force polluters to pay for carbon credits.

“That bailout is worth several hundred billion dollars a year, based on EPA studies. And that’s a big difference between the two candidates,” said Weiss. “I’m not sure that is the kind of thing that’s ever going to come up in the debates, because that’s kind of in the weeds, but it is important to note that McCain’s plan would be basically a polluter’s bailout.”

Weiss said he also wanted to hear more about specific, short-term solutions to energy concerns. McCain’s emphasis, instead, was on nuclear power and increased drilling.

“McCain talked about energy independence without making any proposals that would actually, in the short term, move us toward that goal,” said Weiss. “The two things he really talked about were offshore oil drilling and nuclear power … That’s not going to provide any relief at all, even in the medium term.”

Some in the environmental community wanted to see some follow-up with McCain on nuclear power, which he described as “the best way of fixing” climate change. The Arizona senator candidly dismissed concerns about nuclear waste, safety, and storage — “Sen. Obama says that it has to be safe or disposable or something like that” — but this remains one of the biggest concerns with his proposal to increase the role of nuclear in the country’s energy portfolio.

“[McCain] pretty much defaulted to nuclear power every chance he got. He brought it up a number of times, even when that wasn’t the question,” said Sierra Club political director Cathy Duvall, who noted that the waste issue is of particular concern to the people who live near the proposed waste dump at Yucca Mountain. “I wonder how the voters in the swing state of Nevada were feeling when he was saying that.”

Some, though, pointed out that Obama should have driven home the fact that relying on drilling and nuclear energy isn’t going to do anything for the American consumer, considering how much of the debate focused on the economy. While happy that Obama acknowledged that “we can’t simply drill our way out of the problem” of dependence on foreign oil, he should have emphasized the pocketbook argument.

“He didn’t make the point, which we’re all aware of, that continuing to drill is not going to reduce your price at the pump substantially, and not for a good period of time,” said 1Sky’s Caldwell. “In the absence of regulations, in the absence of a cap on carbon, we’ve seen a dramatic increase in the price at the pump, and drilling for oil is not going to lighten the load on consumer pocketbooks as much as would raising the fuel economy standards and producing hybrid-electric vehicles.”

Caldwell also criticized both candidates for repeating their praise for “clean coal.”

“‘Clean coal’ does not exist at this stage of the game,” said Caldwell. “It’s hypothetical, it’s at least a decade away, and coal is the biggest contributor to global warming pollution.”

Even if everything out of the candidates’ mouths wasn’t solid gold green last night, the fact that it played so prominently should be heeded as a sign of new times, according to many in the enviro field.

“Both of the candidates, at least at the top of the ticket, recognized that [climate change] is an issue. That’s different than what we’ve seen in the presidential elections before,” said Sierra Club’s Duvall. “If you’d asked me a year ago, in these economic times, would energy have come up as much as it did in the answers they gave, I’m not sure I would have thought that was the case. And when we started talking about green jobs a year ago, I think we felt that this was an important piece of it, but we didn’t realize how much it could become a cornerstone.”

Continue reading " Let’s talk about caps, baby "