Use Your Inside Voice

It's just a reflection of reality, but I'm wondering why Carol Browner felt the need to say this the very week that Kerry-Boxer got released:

President Obama’s top climate and energy official said Friday that there was virtually no chance Congress would have a climate and energy bill ready for him to sign before negotiations on a global climate treaty begin in December in Copenhagen.

The remarks by the official, Carol M. Browner, during an onstage interview in Washington, were the first definitive statement by the administration that it saw little chance of Congressional passage this fall.

Lawmakers and environmental campaigners have cast similar doubts on the prospect in recent weeks, given the high priority put on health care legislation and the array of hearings that would be needed on the energy initiative, to say nothing of the time needed to reconcile competing versions of it. Climate legislation was introduced in the Senate only Wednesday, a full three months after the House passed its version.

I just think this unnecessarily dampens the prospects for passage.

Another thing Browner could have said is, "We're going to have something available for Copenhagen. The EPA will have rules in place to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and we will have a detailed blueprint for them to do that." Rather than Republicans and climate denialists breathing a sigh of relief, they might think, "Crap, these guys are serious, we'd better at least get our hands on the legislation to make it not so outrageous."

Byrd, Brown Keys To Climate Fight; EPA Steps Up

Yesterday's release of the Kerry-Boxer climate bill found at least one surprising supporter - West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd.

Senator Byrd put out a statement making surprisingly supportive noises, saying he’s “glad” that Kerry and Boxer incorporated his suggestions and promising to keep working on the bill with them. A Kerry aide says Byrd’s comments came after Kerry lobbied Byrd’s staff extensively in one-on-one meetings.

Now, I'd rather have the Senator from West Virginia who is physically able to perform - Jay Rockefeller criticized the bill - praising the bill, but if Byrd is reachable, that does widen the list of reachable Senators. The Hill reports that Sherrod Brown of Ohio could be a key:

The Ohio liberal has been working diligently behind the scenes on behalf of manufacturers, seeking concessions from two Democrats who share his views on most other policy matters [...]

For starters, he thinks the Senate climate change bill needs to invest significantly more to help U.S. manufacturers, which face a competitive disadvantage with companies in China and other countries with less strict environmental rules.

Brown wants Boxer to increase the size of rebates to manufacturers that consume large amounts of energy, and give more assistance to small- and midsized manufacturers trying to retool their businesses to compete in the clean-energy economy.

Perhaps most controversially, Brown wants the Senate to consider imposing tariffs on foreign competitors operating in countries with lax rules for greenhouse gas emissions.

“Carbon dioxide emissions expand if a company closes down in Toledo, Ohio, and moves to Shanghai, where the emissions standards are weaker,” he said. Brown describes this phenomenon as “carbon leakage.”

Democrats such as Sens. Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Carl Levin (Mich.) and Bob Casey Jr. (Pa.) say they have the same concerns as Brown and acknowledge that he has been a leading advocate for industrial states.

“His voice on manufacturing is really important,” said Stabenow of Brown.

I'm actually pleased that there is a voice for manufacturing in the Senate, though I don't necessarily agree with all of Brown's proposals, many of which are admittedly parochial. But I strongly support carbon adjustment tariffs. It's just a fact that greenhouse gas emissions should be factored into the price of goods, and such a tariff would be a way to do that. If Wal-Mart sells me a set of tube socks for $2, the cost to the environment and eventual cleanup is far higher.

The good news yesterday is that the Obama Administration stepped up. The EPA issued a new rule on regulating greenhouse gases emitted at stationary sources, and it could prove a motivator for Congress to get something done.

Appearing at a climate summit in Los Angeles today, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson will announce the administration’s plan to regulate industrial global warming pollution, with or without the support of Congress. In May, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed global warming standards for motor vehicles, applauded by the auto industry. Under the rules of the Clean Air Act, when these regulations go into effect in March 2010, all major greenhouse gas polluters — from coal-fired power plants and oil refiners to methane-emitting landfills — are automatically subject to regulation:

Under EPA’s current interpretation of PSD [Prevention of Significant Deterioration] and title V applicability requirements, promulgation of this motor vehicle rule will trigger the applicability of PSD and title V requirements for stationary sources that emit GHGs.

Today’s proposed rule — which allows public comment until December — technically is a “tailoring rule” to limit regulation of global warming pollution to emitters of 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year, instead of the automatic statutory amount of 250 tons. This 250-ton standard would cover about four million businesses and homes — the “glorious mess” President Bush used as an excuse for his inaction. The EPA plans to raise the pollution limit to 25,000 tons, so that only 14,000 industrial pollution sources nationwide would be covered by the regulations, 11,000 of which are currently covered by the Clean Air Act permitting requirements already.

Raising that pollution limit means that churches or schools, who emit over 250 tons, would not be targeted. But it does mean that thousands of power plants will get permits showing they are working to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. That sets a date - March 2010 - for the fight. And Congress can either provide their own counterpart legislation or get out of the way. That's helpful to Kerry and Boxer's efforts.

Kerry-Boxer Released

Color me surprised that the Kerry-Boxer climate change draft bill actually improves upon the version that passed the House.

The Senate's environment committee will take up an energy and climate-change bill today that calls for a 20% cut in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, according to a draft copy of the bill.

The measure, co-sponsored by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), will serve as the starting point for what promises to be a long and complicated series of negotiations. The Senate may not produce a final bill until next year.

A House measure passed this summer calls for a 17% reduction in greenhouse gases.

It's not consistently better - the permits for polluting industries are free to begin with, and more are given away than in the Waxman-Markey bill. And the big bipartisan handout here is major incentives to build nuclear power plants - you won't hear Republicans say this, but probably nothing else in the bill will be as costly to taxpayers. However, it does preserve the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases, the back-up plan to climate legislation. There are also lots of incentives for mass transit and bicycling.

The interesting piece of the legislation is something called a carbon collar.

Still, environmentalists hailed the bill as an ambitious effort to address global warming while providing some reassurances to the U.S. business community. It includes provisions aimed at curbing speculation in the carbon market -- a concern of senators such as Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) -- and would reserve some carbon allowances in a market-stability fund that would help ensure that the price of those allowances would not exceed $28 per ton. This provision, known as a "carbon collar," would not be likely to kick in for some time, since the Congressional Budget Office has predicted that the cost of carbon under a cap-and-trade system would probably be $26 per ton by 2019. That is what a company would pay to compensate for each ton of carbon pollution it emits.

Daniel J. Weiss, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, said the provisions amount to "a safety net to ensure that cleanup costs remain affordable. The draft Boxer-Kerry bill provides a solid foundation for Senate action on clean-energy-jobs legislation."

Adam Siegel praises the potential of this provision, with its floor and ceiling caps for allowance auctions. It provides a lot of stability for businesses to prepare for a shift to less carbon-intensive sources of energy. Joe Romm likes it too.

The bill makes a monumental improvement over the House bill by adopting a version of the carbon collar …

The floor price is $11 (the draft bill above is, as I say, not final) and the ceiling is $28 — and they both starting rising 5% plus inflation each year. The draft bill adds an excellent twist — from 2018 on the ceiling rises 7% plus inflation each year. …

Fence-sitting Senators and industries can legitimately see the Carbon Collar as achieving stronger cost-containment protection than their analysis suggests the House bill now provides, including protection against speculators running the permit price up, while progressives can legitimately see it as achieving better environmental outcomes than their analysis suggests the House bill now provides.Win-win.

There are possible problems with implementation, but in theory, having a floor will spur emissions cuts among businesses which may not otherwise bother.

As Paul Krugman noted this week, we cannot really wait until better legislation comes along. The House has passed their version, and Kerry-Boxer is the primary legislation in the Senate. There's a lot riding on this, and despite its lower profile right now, you can bet that industry will line up to take whacks at it. But we cannot afford to see it fail.

Here's the bill, called the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (CEJAP?). It could have as many as three other committees to go through, so this is just a starting point.

Bullet Dodged

Lisa Murkowski's effort to stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions at power plants failed yesterday, which is a boon for the public. The EPA is complying with a Supreme Court ruling to regulate carbon, and if Republicans don't like it, they can write their own legislative guidance for how to do so. Even my Senator got this one right:

Sen. Feinstein (D-CA) smacks down Murkowski at great length, saying “we can’t afford to bury our heads in the sand on climate change” and if you don’t want the EPA to take action, then the only alternative is cap-and-trade. “Global warming is real…. it’s happening all over the world.” Attacks the “Flat Earth Society” who opposes action.

Murkowski has vowed to bring this back up, but she could also work to pass a real climate bill. The EPA's jurisdiction on setting their own rules is the proverbial gun to the head to force something to get done, and Murkowski may not like it, but her only recourse is to take action.

I don't know what that action will be. Jeff Bingaman is talking about splitting cap and trade from the renewable energy standard. But hopefully we can get something, and failing that, the EPA will be able to carry out its mission.

Lisa Murkowski Plans To Melt The World

The Senate is a club bound and determined to do absolutely nothing in the most boisterous and attention-grabbing way possible. It is filled with the kind of people who get angry when told they're a bunch of do-nothings while holding fast to the ideal of doing nothing. Indeed, there are US Senators like Jim Inhofe who plan to lead a delegation to Copenhagen to tell the world proudly that the Senate will do nothing on climate change.

This is what the Administration has to deal with. So, unsurprisingly, faced with the prospect of Copenhagen fracturing, and rather than being left in China's wake as the world's biggest polluter without a strategy to deal with a warming planet, the White House instructed the EPA to come up with some goals under the law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Supreme Court essentially ratified this already. So as a last-ditch attempt to do absolutely nothing, Lisa Murkowski wants to stop the EPA.

WASHINGTON — Environmentalists say they're disappointed in a proposal by Sen. Lisa Murkowski to force the Environmental Protection Agency to hold off for a year on regulating so-called "stationary" emitters of greenhouse gases, such as power plants.

The Alaska Republican's proposal essentially forbids the EPA from working to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and large manufacturers while the Senate continues to work on its own global warming proposal. It would not keep the agency from continuing work on emission standards from mobile sources, such as automobile emissions.

"The Senate is moving so slowly it's disingenuous to say we just need a time out," said Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch. "They want to handcuff the EPA."

Murkowski, the top Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee, plans to introduce the proposal in an amendment to a spending bill. Her proposal does not have the backing of the EPA, which is currently working to comply with a 2007 Supreme Court decision, Massachusetts v. EPA, which requires the agency to determine whether certain greenhouse gas emissions are harmful to the environment and public health.

Believe it or not, Murkowski is seen as one of the gettable votes in the Senate on climate change.

While the Senate dithers, the courts have consistently ruled, including just this week, that carbon is a pollutant and governmental entities can sue or create regulations to limit those emissions. Only some members of the Senate want to revoke that power, and they plan to use multiple steps to force the hand of the other branches.

It's quite a political system we've got here.

If The Congress Won't Do It, The EPA Will

Harry Reid is signaling that health care and financial regulatory reform will take precedence in the Senate over the climate change bill, which could push the legislation into next year. The problem with that is the Copenhagen conference coming up in December, and the need for the US to bring something tangible to the table if there is any hope for an agreement. Indeed, the Europeans are already angry at the US approach, and not having some movement on the climate in hand will probably kill it completely. So the Administration has taken the law into their own hands, as allowable under the Supreme Court mandate to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The Obama administration on Tuesday formally proposed new fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks, a move that signals the first federal limits on greenhouse-gas pollution.

In May, President Obama announced in a Rose Garden ceremony that cars would be held to a higher environmental standard. On Tuesday, officials filled in the details, linking fuel economy to emissions from vehicles.

The net effect would be to require manufacturers to ratchet up fuel economy 5 percent per year. In 2016, new cars and trucks would have to achieve an average rating of 35.5 miles per gallon. Cars currently must average 27.5 miles per gallon; light trucks must average 23.1 miles per gallon.

If this is any indication, it's only a first step, leading to other command-and-control measures from the EPA and other regulatory agencies in the absence of a climate deal from Congress. Power plants, one presumes, would be next. In fact, they've already started revising the rules on waste discharges from coal plants.

It's probably not the best practice, but under the current gridlock, it's the only tool available to the Administration. So members of Congress, particularly Republicans, have a choice to make. Legislation or regulation?

Polluting industries certainly didn't give up the fight against legislation in the face of regulation, and they'll continue to fight tooth and nail against the regulation in an attempt to run out the clock and maximize profits. David Roberts says that's why Obama needs to get involved and get a climate bill passed.

The war against EPA regulations will also be waged with aggressive public relations campaigns. There will be great hue and cry about the economy-destroying burden that command-and-control regulations impose on American business. And unlike with a climate bill, responsibility (read: blame) cannot be dispersed. There is no hint of bipartisanship. Responsibility for EPA regulations will fall entirely on Barack Obama and his administration, not on Congress—which is probably how Congress prefers it. If it’s a total mess, or demagogued as one (as is all but certain), it’s Obama that takes the hit. That is yet another reason he’d rather avoid it.

Greens are fighting to preserve EPA authority in the climate bill. Some have even said that it would be preferable for legislation to fail and the EPA to take over. It’s not hard to understand why—something needs to be done about existing coal plants, and there aren’t many tools in the climate bill toolbox to address them. But no one should be under any illusions. The NSR/PSD/BACT approach is grossly suboptimal for the job that needs doing. It might have the intended effect—killing coal plants—but there’s potential for unintended effects as well, including substantial political blowback.

Both sides, greens and industry, have reason to fear if the climate bill fails. It’s terra incognita, a volatile and unpredictable situation. Obama doesn’t need any more problems like that. That’s among the reasons he is likely, this fall, to put some of the time and energy toward lobbying for a good climate bill. From his narrow political perspective, virtually any bill is preferable to catching the EPA tiger by the tail. That tiger eats bunnies.

In this case, the House has already passed a bill, so really we're looking at the Senate as the holdup here. But the dynamic of Senators not wanting to be responsible, pushing all the political liability on to the President, will be difficult to change.

The Degrees Of Seriousness

Democrats and liberals are wrestling with whether or not to pass the Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill, whether the benefits outweigh the costs, whether the arm-twisting by the Speaker of the House was too unseemly - in other words, the typical sturm und drang exhibited often on the left, the crisis of conscience, the Hamlet-like paralysis of analysis, the desperate attempt to do the right thing.

On the right, they just lie about the bill and try to turn the side-work of a crank into a scandal worthy of a -gate suffix:

Conservatives are jumping up and down over a report by an EPA analyst expressing skepticism about climate change, which, they claim, was suppressed by agency brass because it didn't conform to Obama administration orthodoxy on global warming. The story has sparked explosive claims, on Fox News and other right-wing outlets, that the EPA censored scientific data for political reasons. And Monday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) called for an outright criminal investigation into the matter.

But it's hard to blame EPA for not paying much attention to the study. And it's more than a little ironic that DC Republicans have chosen its author as their new standard-bearer in the defense of pure science against politics. Because the author, EPA veteran Al Carlin, is an economist, not a climate scientist. EPA says no one at the agency solicited the report. And Carlin appears to have taken up the global warming topic largely as a hobby on his own time. In fact, a NASA climatologist has called the report -- whose existence was first publicized last week by the industry-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) -- "a ragbag collection of un-peer reviewed web pages, an unhealthy dose of sunstroke, a dash of astrology and more cherries than you can poke a cocktail stick at."

I'm not saying that liberals should learn something from the "Big Lie" tactics of the right. But clearly when you have one responsible party and one who doesn't care about the truth, the latter will sound clearer, more direct and more palatable to the uninformed. It's just easier not to be serious about any of this.

Welcome to 2007

The Blue Dogs and the Energy and Commerce Committee have finally reached agreement on an energy and climate bill, says Jay Newton-Small:

Ending a turf war, Waxman – whose committee has jurisdiction over the Environmental Protection Agency -- allowed the Agriculture Department, not the EPA, to oversee a potentially lucrative program of energy offsets for farmers (Peterson allowed that the Obama Administration could weigh in on the EPA's role in the issue, if any). And Waxman agreed to bar the EPA for five years from calculating how much greenhouse gas emissions are generated when forests are converted to crop fields for ethanol and biofuels. The move helps get ethanol and biofuels counted as renewable energies, thus benefiting from a big renewable investment in another part of the bill that aims to see 20% of U.S. energy derived from green sources by 2025.

When asked Peterson said he believed the bill would enjoy “broad support” and even “draw a few Republicans.” Peterson's changes will be added as an amendment when the 900+ page bill reaches the House floor Friday.

I know that Waxman has throughout this process focused on the cap, and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and he's been willing to bargain around the edges to bring that cap into reality. But these are really abominable changes. For example, by enabling farm-state Dems through holding off the calculation of biofuel land use in emissions, Waxman keeps in place the failed structure of corn-based ethanol, which takes up more energy to produce than it saves. And keep in mind that the bill out of the House is likely to be BETTER than the craptastic bill that will emerge from the Senate.

This sounds like something the Democrats would do two years ago, when they held the House and would go through compromise after compromise to get something through on an agenda item, only to see the Senate do nothing with it. What's the point?

The EPA had a good analysis of the consumer implications of the bill (it would probably lower electricity costs for most people), and the energy efficiency standards are still pretty good. But at some point, "revolutionary in its intent" just doesn't cut it. And even Podesta, in the previous link, admits the Senate bill is unacceptable. Some advocacy groups like the League of Conservation Voters are going to the mattresses, saying that "In light of the tremendous importance of this legislation, LCV has made the unprecedented decision that we will not endorse any member of the House of Representatives in the 2010 election cycle who votes against final passage of this historic bill. "

Is the bill historic? I guess, but it won't come close to doing what is needed, and furthermore the pressure needs to be exerted in the Senate. Combine the sketchy work from the enviro groups, the endless willingness to compromise from liberals, the plain old avarice from Blue Dogs and farm-state Democrats, and the sloth of the Senate, and you have a bill that won't do what's necessary to mitigate the worst effects of climate change. We'll be switching to an adaptation strategy - climate-controlled plastic bubbles for everyone - within half a decade.

The Big Shift On Cleaner Cars

I'm looking at the President's speech on raising gas mileage standards and finally putting to an end the slow-walk approach to reining in greenhouse gas emissions. My state Senator, Fran Pavley, is there, and there may be nobody more responsible then her for this day. She authored the landmark tailpipe emissions law in the California legislature that provoked this eventual solution. And as Kate Sheppard explains, this is really a big step.

The move will push the entire country to meet the aggressive standards proposed by the state of California. California and 13 other states had requested a waiver from the U.S. EPA that would allow them to set tougher auto-emissions standards than the federal government by requiring cars to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide—and the only viable way to cut CO2 emissions is to require cars to get better gas mileage. The Bush administration denied California’s request last year, but Obama directed the EPA to reconsider the petition almost immediately after he took office.

The Obama administration will now officially grant California’s request for a waiver, and at the same time will adopt California’s standard for the whole country. This means fuel-economy and emissions standards will be combined into one straightforward set of rules [...]

The announcement will also be an opening move for the EPA in its fight against global warming. Last month, the agency indicated that it intends to begin regulating greenhouse-gas emissions under the Clean Air Act, having determined that planet-warming gases threaten human health. EPA’s first target was expected to be mobile sources—i.e., cars and trucks—which account for 20 percent of all U.S. emissions.

The move will please the Auto Alliance, the major industry group representing car makers, which has been asking for one standard that unifies emission and fuel-economy standards across the whole country.

Environmentalists do not consider this a backtrack or a compromise at all, but the "single biggest step the American government has ever taken to cut greenhouse-gas emissions," according to Daniel Becker of the Safe Climate Campaign. The cost of cars will increase, but the reduction in fuel costs will offset that.

And this shift will aid the climate and energy legislation moving through the House. Obviously the White House is signaling that they're moving forward, and the Congress can either get involved in the solution or sit back and watch. I have no doubt that Obama's EPA will be vigorous in pulling the trigger on regulating more greenhouse gas emissions, for example from power plants, in the absence of legislation.

The Battle Begins On Climate Legislation

Today is the 39th anniversary of Earth Day, which drew 20 million people to events in 1970. Without the Internet. Or Fox News promotion. And the House of Representatives used the anniversary to fire the starting gun for major climate change legislation:

Congress is launching the “mother of all climate weeks” on Tuesday, with a monster hearing designed to push forward global warming legislation.

Fifty-four witnesses will testify on climate change legislation in three full days before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, topped off with an appearance from Al Gore on Friday. The committee will also hear from EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and high-profile representatives from business and the environmental movement.

As I noted last week, Chairman Henry Waxman seeks to get the bill out of committee by Memorial Day. The hearings are taking place right now. The efforts for legislation got a major boost with an EPA report suggesting that the consumer cost would be far less than the claims being made by Republicans.

With Republican critics of the bill zeroing in on the cost to consumers and industry, a pivotal issue will be how to mitigate the bill’s economic impact. Under a cap-and-trade plan, overall emissions would be limited and polluters would be issued emission allowances, which they then could buy and sell.

An EPA analysis released to the committee on Tuesday found that the price of emission allowances would be less than projected for a similar bill the Senate debated but did not pass last summer. Allowance prices would range from $13 to $17 per ton of emissions in 2015, and $74 to $96 per ton in 2050, the EPA reported. Last year, the agency projected that the Senate bill would cost $20 to $50 per ton in 2015 and $160 to $200 per ton in 2050.

The agency said forecasts have changed in part due to lower projected growth in gross domestic product, which means industrial output of greenhouse gases will be lower than expected.

“With lower forecast emissions, the allowance prices necessary to achieve the goals set in the discussion draft are also reduced,” the EPA said.

The EPA also said the bill’s average annual cost per household would be between $98 and $140, leading proponents to say the bill would have a relatively modest impact.

“When you combine this analysis with cost-saving measures from updated energy efficiency measures and weatherization, the savings will pile up for consumers,” Markey said in a statement.

In addition, the benefit to energy companies, having the certainty of a cap and carbon pricing, so they can manage their businesses and support the kind of innovation needed to get under the caps, would actually provide long-run savings as well, apart from mitigating the worst effects of climate change (which would cost lots of money).

Of course, Republicans will continue to smear and fear about consumer costs, even though revenues from cap and trade can roll back to ratepayers. In fact, the Republican opposition to this bill represents throwing a bunch of junk at the wall to see what sticks. They are vacillating between denying the science and focusing on costs, and the result is muddled.

The Senate clearly wants to follow the House's lead, and this will be a long process. But in the meantime, there are steps the Administration can take to improve our energy outlook, like allowing offshore wind turbines; and the looming EPA regulations under the Clean Air Act can work as a vice to force the Republicans to either allow a cap and trade system or get steamrolled by the executive branch.

It's exciting to see a very real transition to a new energy economy, and the hard work of the policymakers committed to moving forward. I urge you to watch these hearings.

...This is awesome from new Obama Administration advisor Van Jones.

Waxman: Focus on the Cap

The EPA today took a major step in declaring greenhouse gas pollution a danger to the public, increasing the urgency to regulate CO2.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson is officially confirming today that greenhouse gas pollution endangers the health and welfare of the American public, finally obeying the mandate set down by the U.S. Supreme Court on April 2, 2007. Following a review from the White House and agencies across the administration, Jackson is announcing this morning that she has signed the Clean Air Act endangerment finding for six greenhouse gases. By the time the decision is finalized after two months of public comment, it will have been nearly two years since the EPA was blocked by the Bush White House from issuing such a finding.

The implications of this ruling loom large over proposed climate and energy legislation under consideration in the Congress. I agree with Barbara Boxer that this finding will provide a serious boost to those efforts, because now the EPA is obligated under the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon emissions.

The EPA's endangerment finding will open the door for the Obama administration to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions under the 1970 Clean Air Act.

Although the president would prefer not to tackle this issue through his administration's regulatory power, the threat of EPA regulation could be used as a hammer to persuade moderate senators of both parties to get behind cap-and-trade legislation.

"What it says to the senators on the fence is that it's not really a question of whether regulation is happening. It's a question of how it will happen," a senior aide to Boxer told ABC News.

Call it "blackmail," as the corporate lobbyists do in this piece, or call it what it is, a requirement under the law mandated by the Supreme Court. So the obstructionists can block legislation in Congress and watch the EPA enact strict mandates, or they can have a say in the regulation. Their choice.

Respective of Congressional legislation, I recently had a great opportunity to sit down as part of a lobbying delegation with Henry Waxman, my Congressman and the chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, to discuss the Waxman-Markey clean energy legislation introduced on March 31. There are actually two bills, one in Energy & Commerce and one in the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, both following similar tracks and expected to be out of committee by Memorial Day. And it can be argued that this provides a wealth of options for Congress to consider in pricing carbon, and thus the multiplicity of bills makes sense. But clearly, by virtue of its expansiveness and impact on a host of energy/climate issues, not just carbon pricing and hard caps but energy efficiency and renewable energy standards, the Waxman-Markey bill will be the template for energy legislation in this Congress.

Waxman brings an interesting perspective to the debate. He believes that the best way to get energy legislation through the Congress is to just start moving it, with tight deadlines, and dare the Republicans to stop it. He frames the issue as one of national security, to reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy; of environmental imperative, to mitigate the catastrophic impacts of climate change; and of economic necessity, to move the country into a renovated, clean energy economy.

There's a lot of talk about how the cap and trade portion of the bill will be handled. The bill is somewhat murky on these points. The potential exists in the bill for offsets that would give a substantial portion of the carbon permits away for free. And the bill has no mention of how the revenues gained from what permits are auctioned off would be used (Waxman said that he would like to see some money directed to ratepayers, and some money directed to R&D for innovation in the energy space, and he would like to see the money targeted rather than applied as a broad tax cut). But Waxman de-emphasizes these concerns in favor of looking at the cap part of cap and trade. If the cap is firm and based on what the scientists have set as a goal to mitigate the effects of climate change, he reasons, the rest will fall into place. He used the example of acid rain, which used a similar cap and trade system in the 1980s. Industry feared that they'd have to spend billions for compliance, but lawmakers focused on the cap, and the problem was resolved for 1/10th of the expected cost. The goal, then, must be the cap. Waxman believed that offsets would have to be verifiable, and in exchange for the offsets there would have to be more reductions (a 1-to-1 1/2 ratio rather than 1-to-1). But if that's the cost to make the bill more politically attractive, Waxman is content to focus on the cap. Waxman also responded to a question I had about Europe's cap and trade system, which was marred by offsets and giveaways, by saying that the committee worked with Europe's regulators in drawing up the legislation, and that they will not fall into the same traps.

Waxman also played up the economic possibilities of the legislation, that only the innovation unleashed by having to get under the cap will be sufficient to actually create valuable goods for America and "get us out of the recession." Dozens of new industries can be developed and tremendous potential realized through innovation and technological advancements.

The other problematic element of the bill, for the progressive citizen lobbyists in the room with me, was the inclusion of clean coal technology in the bill, something that has been accepted by the White House and the Department of Energy as part of the solution. The typical response to this is that India and China will keep using coal even if the Western world stops, and we'd better come up with a way to capture and store the carbon produced or else our efforts will come up lacking. Waxman said that "we have to figure out if we can keep coal in our future." Obviously, the cap will eventually be too stringent for coal to remain a going concern in the United States without capture and storage technology advancing. And hopefully, the cap can force that, and develop new industries and new exports in the process. I don't know that I totally agree with that, but it's the party line on this, anyway. And besides, renewable energy has its own trade-offs.

Overall, I am far more optimistic about the prospects of climate and energy legislation coming through the Congress than I was before walking into that meeting. We still need to work hard to make the bill stronger, but the combination of the EPA ruling and the deliberate pace of the legislation moving through the House could provide the necessary momentum. We have to get this done, and hopefully we can create that sense of urgency. Also, we need to use the leverage of the EPA ruling to ensure this bill doesn't get weakened as it goes through the legislative sausage-making.

A New Day To Address Climate Change

Juliet Eilperin reports on the sweeping changes being made by the Obama Administration on environmental policy:

After the United States voiced support for the idea of a new, binding mercury treaty, the world community embraced it in Nairobi.

The rapid policy reversal is just one of more than a dozen environmental initiatives the new administration has undertaken in its first two months. In nearly every case, the decisions were based on extensive analysis and documentation that rank-and-file employees had prepared over the past couple of years, often in the face of contrary-minded Bush administration officials.

After years of chafing under political appointees who viewed stricter environmental regulation with skepticism, long-serving federal officials are seeing work that had been gathering dust for years translate quickly into action.

Some of these proposals include the creation of a national greenhouse gas registry, to put real numbers on emissions so industry can account for them; a halt to plans for mountaintop removal; real resources for prosecuting coal-fired power plants under the Clean Air Act for violations; a fresh look at granting a waiver to California and other states to regulate their own tailpipe emissions; and study of whether the EPA will regulate greenhouse gas emissions on their own. For all of this, the EPA is drawing on the work of career officials they were unable to put forward in the eight long years of the Bush Administration. Finally, employees of the EPA are allowed to write the rules again.

And the President has followed this up by announcing a series of global meetings over the next few months to discuss climate change and renewable energy issues, leading into the negotiations for a new global treaty in Copenhagen in December. While the Bush Administration also set up meetings, there was a sense by stakeholders that the plan was to talk the issue to death. Just looking at the work of the EPA, the Obama Administration is primed for action.

News of the Good

I think I need a little good news, so here goes:

• A Senate Judiciary Subcommittee heard debate yesterday on a bill to cap credit card fees for people in bankruptcy.

Under current law, people filing for chapters 7 and 13 bankruptcy protection are obligated to pay credit card balances along with secured debts, such as house and auto loans. The measure is aimed at punishing credit card companies that raise their interest rates to a high level and at giving consumers who may be on the verge of bankruptcy greater leverage to negotiate better deals with those lenders.

The bill, introduced in January by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), is another weapon the government is wielding against exorbitant rates charged by credit card companies. New regulations issued by the Federal Reserve targeting predatory lending practices are scheduled to go into effect next year.

Tom Geoghegan has a great article on how unlimited interest rates destroyed the economy at Harper's; unfortunately it's not online and only in the magazine. He correctly labels what the credit card industry is doing as usury, which used to be a crime for, oh, 5,000 years, but which is now accepted. This money suck from debtors to creditors fattens the financial services industry and causes bubbles and speculation. It's high time we did something about it. This is good.

• The Obama Administration's Justice Department will release Bush-era torture memos, over CIA objection.

Over objections from the U.S. intelligence community, the White House is moving to declassify—and publicly release—three internal memos that will lay out, for the first time, details of the "enhanced" interrogation techniques approved by the Bush administration for use against "high value" Qaeda detainees. The memos, written by Justice Department lawyers in May 2005, provide the legal rationale for waterboarding, head slapping and other rough tactics used by the CIA. One senior Obama official, who like others interviewed for this story requested anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity, said the memos were "ugly" and could embarrass the CIA. Other officials predicted they would fuel demands for a "truth commission" on torture.

While Obama's record on civil liberties is mixed thus far, on transparency and disclosure he has done quite a good job. The argument between Obama and Dick Cheney over the weekend was not an argument about detention, necessarily; it was an argument about torture. And the truth will come out. This is good.

• The EPA will review mountaintop mining projects which do great harm to the environment.

Dozens of mountaintop coal-mining permits will be reviewed for their potential impacts on streams and wetlands, the Environmental Protection Agency said Tuesday in breaking with Bush administration policy.

Announced by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, the move targets a controversial practice by coal mining companies that blasts away whole peaks and sends mining waste into streams and wetlands. It does not apply to existing mines, but to requests for new permits, a number estimated to be as high as 200.

I wish it were retroactive, but I'll take it. Mountaintop mining is a horrific practice and steps should be taken to stop it. This is good.

• Sen. Dick Durbin is introducing his public financing bill once again.

After the most expensive campaign cycle in U.S. history, a bipartisan group of lawmakers will introduce legislation this week to create an ambitious voluntary public campaign financing system that would ban contributions from lobbyists and place strict limits on other sources of campaign cash.

Under the proposed overhaul of campaign finance law, candidates would be prohibited from accepting donations from registered federal lobbyists but would receive public matching money for contributions from people in their communities. Advocates of the "Fair Elections Now" measure said the system would weaken the predominance of special interests in politics.

A lot of times, politicians offer "reform" that would do little or nothing to reform anything. This is an exception. Public financing is a proven technique, in Arizona, in Maine, in various municipal elections, to reduce the influence of money in politics. This is good (though I'm not hopeful, despite it being sponsored by members of both parties, that it will be successful).

• A federal judge paved the way for the dispensation of the morning-after pill to girls younger than 18.

U.S. District Judge Edward R. Korman in New York instructed the agency to make Plan B available to 17-year-olds within 30 days and to review whether to make the emergency contraceptive available to all ages without a doctor's order.

In his 52-page decision, Korman repeatedly criticized the FDA's handling of the issue, agreeing with allegations in a lawsuit that the decision was "arbitrary and capricious" and influenced by "political and ideological" considerations imposed by the Bush administration.

"These political considerations, delays and implausible justifications for decision-making are not the only evidence of a lack of good faith and reasoned agency decision-making," he wrote. "Indeed, the record is clear that the FDA's course of conduct regarding Plan B departed in significant ways from the agency's normal procedures regarding similar applications to switch a drug from prescription to non-prescription use."

The common argument from the right is that the ability to obtain Plan B will cause promiscuity. Plan B causes nausea and temporary bodily harm, which nobody seek out, and besides nobody on earth thinks that way. What will happen is a decrease in the unwanted teenage pregnancy rate, which is desired by most, and an enhancement of free choice for women. This is good.

Now, some may say that none of this matters, and Obama's taxpayer giveaway to the banks will destroy the country, and overall he's a very bad person. But tell that to the 17 year-old who now can rectify her bad situation, or the residents who get sick from living next to the mountaintop removal mine, etc.

The EPA As Bad Cop

Some believe that the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is through a carbon tax on either production or consumption. Others favor a cap and trade approach that sets a ceiling on emissions and either gives away or sells credits to industry to emit. Then there's a third strain of thought that the EPA could simply declare carbon dioxide and methane poison and regulate the hell out of it.

The Environmental Protection Agency, about to declare heat-trapping gases to be dangerous pollutants, has embarked on one of the most ambitious regulatory challenges in history.

The move is likely to have a profound effect across the economic spectrum, affecting transportation, power plants, oil refineries, cement plants and other manufacturers.

It sets the agency on a collision course with carmakers, coal plants and other businesses that rely on fossil fuels, which fear that the finding will impose complex and costly rules.

But it may also help the Obama administration’s efforts to push through a federal law to curb carbon dioxide emissions by drawing industry support for legislation, which many companies see as less restrictive and more flexible than being monitored by a regulatory agency. And it will lay a basis for the United States in the negotiations leading up to a global climate treaty to be signed in Copenhagen in December.

The ultimate problem with making the EPA the bad cop is that the chief of police changes depending on the party in power. But in the short term, characterizing Lisa Jackson as a determined regulator who will restrict greenhouse gas emissions in transportation vehicles, power plants, factories and oil refineries would certainly get the business community's attention. And maybe a carbon pricing system, through cap and trade or a carbon tax, would be seen as a more fuzzy alternative. Ultimately, Congress needs to manufacture a solution, but the EPA finding could be a very large bargaining chip. In theory it will work, but if the corporate community owns the huevos of the Administration on this issue the way they do on the banking crisis, all the strategies in the world won't matter.

As far as what Congress may produce, Brian Beutler, apparently in his new gig at TPM, reports that the Administration seeks to put the clean energy R&D tax credit under budget reconciliation rules. I believe we can only innovate our way out of this climate crisis, and the R&D credit should be protected and extended as a national security priority in addition to an environmental one. The President discussed investments in clean energy just yesterday:

We can remain the world's leading importer of foreign oil, or we can become the world's leading exporter of renewable energy. We can allow climate change to wreck unnatural havoc, or we can create jobs preventing its worst effects. We can hand over the jobs of the 21st century to our competitors, or we can create those jobs right here in America.

We know the right choice. We have known the right choice for a generation. The time has come to make that choice, to act on what we know. And that's why my budget makes a historic investment: $150 billion over 10 years in clean energy and energy efficiency, building on what we've achieved through the Recovery Plan.

And it includes a 10-year commitment to make the Research and Experimentation Tax Credit permanent. This is a tax credit that Serious Materials has used to grow its business, and one I'm sure others here today have used, as well. This is a tax credit that returns $2 to the economy for every dollar we spend.

Yet over the years we've allowed this credit to lapse or we've extended it year to year -- even just a few months at a time. Under my budget, this tax credit will no longer fall prey to the whims of politics and partisanship. It will be far more effective when businesses like yours can count on it, when you've got some stability and reliability [...]

Progress is rarely easy, and I know people in this room understand that. Sometimes it takes months to learn that your ideas just won't work -– or years to learn that it will. Sometimes the funding dries up or the investors walk away. Sometimes you have to fail before you can succeed.

And often it takes not just the commitment of an innovator, but the commitment of a country to innovation. Often, what's required is the support of government, recognizing that our future is what we make of it. Our future is what we build it to be.

Sometimes progress comes not in waves, but in the small inching of water onto the shore. The R&D tax credit may be one of those puddles, but enough of them can add up to an ocean.

The Move On Energy

It is commonly believed that the Obama Administration will make health care reform its next big policy push. But there are enough signs that energy actually has more momentum right now. In the stimulus there is as much attention paid to energy and energy infrastructure (like the smart electric grid) as health care. And the imminent EPA decision to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act is a major step forward.

The decision, which most likely would play out in stages over a period of months, would have a profound impact on transportation, manufacturing costs and how utilities generate power. It could accelerate the progress of energy and climate change legislation in Congress and form a basis for the United States’ negotiating position at United Nations climate talks set for December in Copenhagen.

The environmental agency is under order from the Supreme Court to make a determination whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant that endangers public health and welfare, an order that the Bush administration essentially ignored despite near-unanimous belief among agency experts that research points inexorably to such a finding.

Lisa P. Jackson, the new E.P.A. administrator, said in an interview that she had asked her staff to review the latest scientific evidence and prepare the documentation for a so-called endangerment finding. Ms. Jackson said she had not decided to issue such a finding but she pointedly noted that the second anniversary of the Supreme Court decision, Massachusetts v. E.P.A., is April 2, and there is the wide expectation that she will act by then.

“We here know how momentous that decision could be,” Ms. Jackson said. “We have to lay out a road map.”

At Grist, Dave Roberts lays out the importance, including how this will end new coal plant production in the US as we know it. Some would call that exclusionary, but actually it just properly prices the externalities in a way that the coal industry has never had to deal with. If they want to keep spewing toxicity into the atmosphere, they can pay the public health costs and the costs in changing weather patterns and increased natural disasters and droughts.

Depending on how they want to play it, the Obama administration could use the regs one of two ways, either:

• use them to put the screws to the economy's biggest CO2 polluters, thereby easing some pressure off the economy-wide cap-and-trade program, allowing it to ramp up more gently and serve as the backstop rather than the primary means of transforming America's dirtiest industries;

• use the threat of regs to reduce industry opposition to cap-and-trade and force big polluters to the table; however much industry hates cap-and-trade, they'll prefer it to hard regs.

Ultimately, if I had to guess, I'd say it's the latter: ultimately, the EPA rulemaking will be a cudgel to force big polluters to play ball on cap-and-trade.

And the other way that old-energy power plants will be legislated into irrelevance is through a renewable energy standard, which apparently is going to happen without delay.

Not satisfied with the billions for clean energy projects in the stimulus package, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said today he will work to pass a new energy bill within a matter of weeks.

Reid -- who's helped organize a clean energy summit next week in Washington that is bringing former president President Clinton and vice president Al Gore to town along with entrepreneur T. Boone Pickens -- said he's asked Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) to prepare a bill that will set a national renewable portfolio standard.

That would mandate that a percentage of the nation's electricity come from renewables by a certain date. I've heard 25% by 2020 as a baseline. It could be more, but that's a very good start.

I think energy is an issue that unites individuals of both parties, if not their legislators. It's a good issue for Obama and the Democrats to take up.

Time To Burn The Coal Industry

Fantastic news for the environment and efforts to reduce climate change.

The Obama administration on Tuesday agreed to review whether it should regulate carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants, portending a major reversal of the Bush administration's policy on global warming.

The Environmental Protection Agency granted a petition from environmental groups seeking to overturn a Bush-era EPA memo that prohibited controls of those emissions.

"I am granting this petition because we must learn more about how this memo affects all relevant stakeholders impacted by its provisions,” EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said in a statement.

Sierra Club lawyer David Bookbinder welcomed the move, saying it "stops the Bush administration's final, last-minute effort to saddle President Obama with its do-nothing policy on global warming."

"With coal-fired power plants emitting more than 30 percent of our global warming pollution, regulating their carbon dioxide is essential to making real progress in the fight against global warming," he said in a statement.

The industry is busy doomsaying this decision (Higher prices! Inflexible standards!), but it's too bad. We simply cannot do what is necessary to control emissions if 30% of the emissions are shielded from reductions. Coal makes people sick and Americans are actively fighting them. If the industry wants to stay in business they can abide by the restrictions.

To be clear, I support research and development solutions that would make coal feasible, if only because China and India are likely to keep burning it. That's just pragmatic. But there is no way that coal should be burned in this country at current levels. If they can't make it clean and profit-generating, they can't stay in business. The cost of the externalities outweigh the additional costs in energy.

Auto Industry Resigned to California's Leadership On Climate Change

President Obama has officially directed the EPA to review the decision to deny California (and 17 other states) a waiver under the Clean Air Act to regulate its own greenhouse gas emissions, and considering that Obama's EPA is about to hire the lead attorney in the Supreme Court case that found the EPA has the authority regulate carbon emissions, I expect we will see the waiver granted in short order.

"For the sake of our security, our economy and our planet, we must have the courage and commitment to change," Obama said in the East Room of the White House. "It will be the policy of my administration to reverse our dependence on foreign oil while building a new energy economy that will create millions of jobs."

Today's actions come as Obama seeks to fulfill campaign promises in the first days of his administration. The moves fulfill long-held goals of the environmental movement.

Lawmakers and environmentalists throughout California are predictably hailing the move. But notably, another group on board with the decisions are - wait for it - the automakers.

Auto-industry officials were surprisingly receptive to President Obama’s announcement about tightening emission standards, saying the steps he announced were the best they could hope for.

“It seems the president has set out a reasonable process,” said a top industry official who refused to be named. “He can say with credibility that there’s a new sheriff in town. Now, maybe there’s room to discuss this with stakeholders.”

The uncertainty of the process, given the Bush Administration's failure to set standards passed by Congress in the 2007 energy bill and this looming fight over the California waiver which could have ended up in Congress or the courts, may be a factor in the auto companies' tepid support. So too is the fact that Obama and the federal government still partially controls the fate of the Big Three in the auto industry bailout.

Eventually, we will much to what amounts to a national standard, with 40% of the country's population poised to back California's emissions targets and the auto industry forced to calibrate to the higher standard. This will SPUR innovation, not dampen it, and will eventually be a boon to an industry which has failed to adapt to changing needs for far too long.

Elections Have Consequences

This was expected, but President Obama is setting in motion a process that would finally allow California to set its own emissions standards.

President Obama will direct federal regulators on Monday to move swiftly on an application by California and 13 other states to set strict automobile emission and fuel efficiency standards, two administration officials said Sunday.

The directive makes good on an Obama campaign pledge and signifies a sharp reversal of Bush administration policy. Granting California and the other states the right to regulate tailpipe emissions would be one of the most emphatic actions Mr. Obama could take to quickly put his stamp on environmental policy.

Mr. Obama’s presidential memorandum will order the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider the Bush administration’s past rejection of the California application. While it stops short of flatly ordering the Bush decision reversed, the agency’s regulators are now widely expected to do so after completing a formal review process.

Just to pre-empt the whining from the right, the EPA had never before in its history denied California a waiver under the Clean Air Act. The courts have looked at this from the perspective of the automakers and have ruled repeatedly in favor of California and other states, agreeing that they are well within their rights to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Not only did the Bush Administration deny California the right to implement their tailpipe emissions law, they slow-walked the fuel efficiency standards passed by the Congress and signed by the then-President in 2007. President Obama will direct the Transportation Department to finalize those standards as well.

This will be announced in the East Room tomorrow. We now have a President who understands the need to act swiftly to combat the worst effects of climate change. California will finally be allowed to lead this effort.

News Of The Good: EPA Waiver For California Imminent

It's worthwhile every so often to look for the silver lining in the storm clouds over this state. After all, we do have a new President! That seems to be working out! And his pick for EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, was confirmed last night. Which means that it's probably only a matter of days before California gets its long-sought waiver to regulate tailpipe emissions.

With a new occupant in the White House, California could soon start enforcing its landmark 2002 law requiring a sharp reduction in vehicle emissions.

State leaders and environmentalists are pressing for quick approval of a waiver that would let California and at least 13 other states impose tougher air-quality standards than allowed under federal law. The Bush administration rejected the request a year ago, but that could be reversed by President Barack Obama and his environmental team.

During the presidential campaign, Obama said he backed the California law. Last year, he co-sponsored a bill by Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California to approve the waiver.

"If I'm confirmed, I will immediately revisit the waiver," Lisa Jackson, Obama's choice to head the Environmental Protection Agency, told Boxer at her confirmation hearing last week.

This would set in motion a program to reduce emissions from vehicles by 30 percent over the next seven years. It would spur alternative transportation development like SUPERTRAINS out of necessity, and force the production of clean-energy vehicles. Industry was not going to innovate on their own; they had 30 years to recognize this problem but they sat on their hands. It's not a question of whether or not we can afford to implement this; given the natural disasters like wildfires that hit the state with increasing frequency, given the melting of the Sierra snowpack which decreases our access to water resources, given the public health effects of dirty air (a recent report showed that clean air increases lifespans by up to three years), given all the ancillary costs of climte change, we can't afford not to.

The Governor and state leaders have been lobbying for the waiver since President Obama's inauguration, and I'm confident that we'll see granting within the next week.

Losing The Climate Spin War

I don't really know what quite went on here, but TPM followed all day this effort to delay President Obama's environmental nominees, terming it "the first shot" in the battle against action on climate change. Elena Schor claimed that an anonymous Senator was holding up Nancy Sutley (for head of the Council on Environmental Quality) and Lisa Jackson (for head of the EPA), with the actual pressure being put on the "climate czar" Carol Browner:

... it's about Carol Browner, the incoming White House climate and energy adviser. As Sen. Jim Inhofe (OK), senior Republican on the environment committee and the leading fly in the climate change ointment, told the Washington Times:

"I'm quite concerned that [Sutley's] role has been diluted by the addition of former EPA Administrator Carol Browner as White House climate and energy czar. The new Senate-confirmed CEQ chair will be expected to have the full authority to represent the White House on all matters before this committee."

By holding up Jackson and Sutley, Senate Republicans are doing more than just signaling their discontent that they won't get to question and vote on Browner -- although Sen. Bob Corker [R-TN] suggests to the Times that Browner be called in for a "quasi-confirmation" hearing. They're previewing their strategy to knock down the climate regulation bill that Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), environment committee chairman, will release later this year.

Then Schor claimed that Wyoming Senator Tom Barrasso was behind the delay; then it wasn't him; then the nominees could be cleared by tomorrow; and then, they were confirmed along with several other cabinet heads (I think only Geithner, Solis and Holder are left, though I could be missing one or two, and of course there is no nominee for Commerce Secretary).

Exactly what the hell happened here? Between Schor's over-reporting and Matt Cooper's thousand-word musings about Caroline Kennedy, I'm thinking of turning away from the new TPMDC.

However, it would be silly to ignore that the Republicans will stop at nothing to halt meaningful action on climate change. And, that they're winning. Not because nutcase James Inhofe says so, but because the issue is simply not a tangible enough concern to force it into Washington's power centers:

the latest Pew poll on priorities contains grim news for those of us who think we're rapidly destroying out planet: the public couldn't care less. Global warming, once again, ranks as the lowest priority from a list of 20, and the more general category of "protecting the environment" fell 15 percentage points from last year.

And as if that's not bad enough, Revkin also points to a new Rasmussen poll, which finds that 44% of U.S. voters don't believe humans are the cause of global warming, compared to only 41% who do. That's even worse than last year's results.

In one sense, this is because the economy and jobs have superseded the environment and everything else as the biggest concern. (People should listen to Van Jones more, who solves both of these vexing problems with the promise of green jobs). But the need for action grows larger every year, and yet the willingness to do so wanes. I think part of this is the PR machine being global warming denial. I mean, this memo from the coal industry tells you about everything you need to know:

A Virginia-based public relations firm called the Hawthorn Group sent out a newsletter to their "friends and family" outlining the work they did on behalf of a coal industry lobby group called the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.The newsletter outlines in quite a bit of detail about how Hawthorn spindoctored coal during the Presidential election.

The newsletter starts:

"We thought the most fixated of the political and communications "junkies" might find interesting some highlights of a recent grassroots campaign Hawthorn created and managed for the American Coalition of Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE)."

Hawthorn celebrates the fact that their coal-is-clean campaign was a success:

"In September 2007, on the key measurement question—Do you support/oppose the use of coal to generate electricity?—we found 46 percent support and 50 percent oppose. In a 2008 year-end survey that result had shifted to 72 percent support and 22 percent oppose. Not only did we see significantly increased support, opposition was cut by more than half. Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain addresses a crowd wearing "Clean Coal hats" in Pennsylvania."

Instead of actually demostrating that somehow coal is clean, Hawthorn used age-old PR tactics to create the image instead:

"Building on our existing 200,000-strong grassroots citizen army, we leveraged the presidential candidates' own supporters, finding advocates for clean coal among the crowd to carry our message. We got these on-the-spot advocates to show strong public support to the candidates and to the media, and enhanced that visibility by integrating online media that created even more of a buzz. We did this by sending "clean coal" branded teams to hundreds of presidential candidate events, carrying a positive message (we can be part of the solution to climate change) which was reinforced by giving away free t-shirts and hats emblazoned with our branding: Clean Coal. Attendees at the candidate events wore these items into the events."

Polluting industries have a huge megaphone and lots of money to deny the problem, deny that anything can be done, warn that job loss and economic contraction would ensue, and on and on. And yet with each passing day, the landscape is charred by the effects of a warming planet. The trees are dying, the ice is melting, the planet still has that fever. And we aren't gaining much traction to get us out of it.

President Obama, if you care about this, it's time for one of those stemwinders of a speech.