President Obama Sets Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Target for Federal Operations

Good to see his executive order is finally being implemented.  Press release

Target to Drive Energy Cost Reductions in Federal Operations, Creating Clean Energy Jobs

WASHINGTON, DC – President Barack Obama today announced that the Federal Government will reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution by 28 percent by 2020.  Reducing and reporting GHG pollution, as called for in Executive Order 13514 on Federal Sustainability, will ensure that the Federal Government leads by example in building the clean energy economy.  Actions taken under this Executive Order will spur clean energy investments that create new private-sector jobs, drive long-term savings, build local market capacity, and foster innovation and entrepreneurship in clean energy industries.

As the single largest energy consumer in the U.S. economy, the Federal Government spent more than $24.5 billion on electricity and fuel in 2008 alone.  Achieving the Federal GHG pollution reduction target will reduce Federal energy use by the equivalent of 646 trillion BTUs, equal to 205 million barrels of oil, and taking 17 million cars off the road for one year.  This is also equivalent to a cumulative total of $8 to $11 billion in avoided energy costs through 2020.

“As the largest energy consumer in the United States, we have a responsibility to American citizens to reduce our energy use and become more efficient,” said President Obama.  “Our goal is to lower costs, reduce pollution, and shift Federal energy expenses away from oil and towards local, clean energy.”

Federal Departments and Agencies will achieve greenhouse gas pollution reductions by measuring their current energy and fuel use, becoming more energy efficient and shifting to clean energy sources like solar, wind and geothermal.  Examples of agency actions that are underway are available on the White House Council on Environmental Quality website and can be found at www.whitehouse.gov/ceq.

On October 5, 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order 13514 on Federal Sustainability, setting measureable environmental performance goals for Federal Agencies.  Each Federal Agency was required to submit a 2020 GHG pollution reduction target from its estimated 2008 baseline to the White House Council on Environmental Quality and to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget by January 4, 2010.  The Federal target announced today is the aggregate of 35 Federal Agency self-reported targets.

Greenhouse gas emissions serve as a useful metric to measure the effectiveness of agency energy and fuel efficiency efforts as well as renewable energy investments. Agencies are already taking actions that will contribute towards achieving their targets, such as installing solar arrays at military installations, tapping landfills for renewable energy, putting energy management systems in Federal buildings, and replacing older vehicles with more fuel efficient hybrid models.

As a next step, the Office of Management and Budget will validate and score each agency’s sustainability plan, assuring a long-term return on investment to the American taxpayer. To ensure accountability, annual progress will be measured and reported online to the public.

Bin Laden joins the Climate Debate, Deniers Rejoice

Bin Laden has attacked the US and industrialized nations for their greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and calls for the wheels of the American economy to be brought to a halt to stop global warming.

This month is getting even better as it draws to a close!

As soon as I saw this, I figured the conservatives were going to have a field day, and it turns out they’ve stooped low enough to go beyond the usual absurdity of loose guilt by character association, to guilt by issue association.  Apparently, if you believe that rising greenhouse gas emissions are causing dangerous global warming and must be reduced, then you’re in the same camp as a madman terrorist who shoots off rants in the form of tape recordings about all sorts of things.  This is supposed to de-legitimize the argument that we should reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

A couple of points.

1.  Everyone could play the guilt by issue association game all day long.  There are rational people who oppose abortion because of their values, and I can respectfully disagree with them.  There are also incidents where maniacs bomb abortion clinics, and kill abortion doctors.  There are people who peacefully march in the streets and lobby their congressman.  There are those who interrupt every Obama public speech screaming and shouting and getting dragged out of the room.  It would be unreasonable and unfair for me to lump every opponent of abortion into the camp of the few who bomb clinics and kill doctors.  It would be unfair for Americans to lump every Islāmic person into the same ideological camp as Osama Bin Laden just because they are both Muslim.  Likewise, it’s very unfair for anyone to lump advocates for a clean energy economy and for preventing catastrophic climate change in the same camp with a terrorist who went on a one-time rant on emissions.  Any rational person should be able to see that.

2.  The notion that Bin Laden actually wants the US to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is laughable.  Obviously, his prescription for doing it, halting the American economy, would not solve the issue.  The way to address emissions is to transition away from our dependence on the fossil fuels of oil and coal, and increase our production of clean, renewable forms of energy, which would create millions of green jobs, save money on energy, and actually grow the American economy.  If I wanted to play the same association game conservatives like Rush Limbaugh are with Bid Laden’s statements, his perspective on reducing emissions is in line with conservatives, that lowering emissions will crash the economy.  It seems foolish to me that conservatives would point to Bin Laden’s remarks as a way to legitimize their argument, since it can so easily be turned on them.  Building off this point, one of the great concerns about our dependence on foreign oil is that we’re sending hundreds of billions of dollars overseas, some of which falls into the hands of terrorists that want to kill us.  If you oppose reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and you oppose producing clean energy to replace fossil fuels like oil, you are playing right into the terrorists hands, because they want us to stay dependent on the status quo.  So long as we are addicted to oil, they have a big upper hand which they can exploit.

Bin Laden certainly wants the US to stay addicted to oil, and the real reason he is likely making those comments is to cause enough turmoil to derail ongoing efforts by activists and Congress to get us off of oil.  Conservatives have just played right into Bin Laden’s hand.

Other viewpoints:

bin Laden Hates Global Warming, Global Warming Hates Him

bin Laden’s distorted world view and distorted view of climate change

Bin Laden- How to Respond

Limbaugh, Fox News suckered by Bin Laden

The ‘Maryland Open Government Act’

I wanted to bring a bit of attention to a bill in Maryland being introduced by Delegate Heather Mizeur(D-20).  The bill will make up to the minute information about what is happening with legislation free for residents of Maryland, along with the following..

“Requiring that individuals be allowed to sign up on the General Assembly website during a specified time period to present testimony on a bill; requiring specified information about bills to be posted on the General Assembly website; requiring bill hearings to be broadcast on the General Assembly website under specified circumstances; requiring a meeting of the Board of Public Works to be broadcast on the Board’s website under specified circumstances; requiring specified broadcasts of Board meetings to be archived; etc.”

This legislation would definitely be a positive step in the right direction for government transparency, which empowers activists.  Here is the press release for the bill.

Picking up America: Part 2

This is the second in an extensive series of upcoming cross-posts as my friend and UMD for Clean Energy alum Davey Rogner walks across America to reduce waste in our society.  If you would like to contact Davey, please e-mail pickupamerica@gmail.com

My First Official Pick Up America Blog!!!!

By Davey Rogner

On March 20th, I am going to begin walking for a really long time. The journey will take about a year and a half of my life. I will stop to rest only for winter and to be the best man at my brother’s wedding. My friends and I will travel clear across the Unites States — visiting small towns, endless corn fields, dying estuaries, big cities, purple mountain majesties, decapitated mountain pastures, drying deserts, amber waves of grain, and smiling people — to understand the breadth of these United States. Along the way I am going to clean the litter that has become an omnipresent addition to the American landscape.

Tom Hanks’ bearded face. Courtesy of Paramount Pictures

My soon-to-be bearded face. Courtesy of Colm Jenkins

Okay, okay, I know what you’re thinking. The initial reaction is usually a combination of these four themes:

1. You can’t be serious.
2. That’s a lot of work.
3. How’s this really going to change anything?
4. …Something about Forrest Gump.

So I’ll make this clear right now:

1. Yes, I am very serious.
2. A life worth living takes a lot of effort
3. We will be educating/distributing tool kits that describe how to support our efforts
4. …and Yes, I did cry at the end of Forrest Gump.

Now that we’ve cleared things up, I’ll explain Pick Up America and my motives.

Pick Up America is a local, regional and nationwide initiative committed to reducing plastic waste in our communities and waterways. The Pick Up America team (also known as the Pick Up Artists) will coordinate community trash clean-ups while walking across the country to encourage alternatives to our nation’s throwaway mentality. We’ll document our encounters and experiences through our multimedia website and online social networks. The year-and-a-half-long trek will begin from Assateague Island, Md., on March 20, 2010, and span 13 states to the San Francisco Bay, Calif., sometime in August 2011.

My Motives

1. I walk so that I can be an ambassador of tolerance, unity and compassion. I have spent the entirety of my 24 years — with the exception of vacations — in Silver Spring or College Park, Md. The smorgasbord of culture that is Silver Spring has nurtured my unyielding tolerance and acceptance without presumptions.
2. I walk to eliminate the concept of a waste stream. REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE. Is it just a bumper sticker? A Jack Johnson song? What’s it even mean? Here’s what I mean: Buying bottled water and recycling it when you’re done drinking isn’t a real solution. Water bottles labeled with “green” or “eco” are a misnomer; it’s greeenwashing. The phrase has three parts: reduce, reuse, recycle. And we must act in that order. For example, we can eliminate bottled water (almost entirely) from the waste stream by reducing and reusing. An easy alternative to disposable water bottles is to have a reusable bottle (sans BPA) that you fill with filtered tap water. This immediately reduces the amount of plastic consumed, the amount of energy spent on recycling, and/or the amount of space it takes up in a landfill. We do not need to send so much of what we consider waste to land fills if we think about how our own actions can make a difference. As for recycling, it should be an option, but the last one. Time and time again, our economy has proven that one man’s waste is another man’s input. Our “waste” generation can be reduced through individual decisions on how we consume. Pick Up America will highlight alternative inputs for what some consider “waste” within industry. I walk with the belief that human economies can maximize resources by eliminating the concept of waste in the human paradigm. I walk with the belief that our economies can mimic ecology to use every organism’s output as a source of nourishment for another.
3. I walk because I know that the future of our country depends most on our ability to dis-entrench our belief systems and find common ground with one another. I believe the common ground that all cultures, all political parties, and all people can unite under is the banner of efficiency. That is efficiency in government, efficiency in resource use, efficiency in how we spend our time and money, efficiency in how we distribute our goods, and most importantly for this initiative, it is efficiency in how we dispose of our goods. At no other time in human history has a movement for efficient use of resources been so commonly heralded in speech, but so forgotten in action. If we were to spend less time on resource transaction/extraction and more time celebrating our resources by using them efficiently, I know the world would be much more hospitable. I walk for the belief that conserving resources will ensure a happier, more prosperous future for all people.
4. I walk because talk is no longer enough. I must walk the walk to talk the talk. I walk as an example of active participation in the reform of the American community and economy.
5. I walk because I know the heart rests easy when spent helping others. I expect nothing in return. To make our souls strong and the heart patient, we must all commit to one million acts of kindness in a lifetime. I hope that people will understandPick Up America’s motives, but personally, I’m in it for soul stabilization.
6. I walk to see life in first-hand account. A digitized society views LCD screens as a means. I want to feel streams and rivers, not read about how they used to flow. I want to feel you smile, not see a picture of it. I want to laugh hard with you and not stop because we are with each other. I want to sleep in the forest and not dream about it.
7. I walk to endure some sort of physical hardship. I know privilege, but I walk in solidarity with the less fortunate. I walk to separate myself from commodities that exploit others. I can no longer participate in economic actions that harm other people as a means of their continuation. I walk with the hope that individual compassion enacted through conscientious action will alleviate others sorrow.

The reason for any reform stems from a change in circumstance. Thus, we must step back from our belief systems to understand our changes in circumstance to achieve any state of reform. Our new circumstance is a dying world and declining human happiness. What path shall we all decide to walk? I smile when I think of mine — an action that should precede all endeavors.

Clean Energy: Cut the Red Tape

I had a column out yesterday in the Diamondback about how development of clean energy should take precedence over conservationist and NIMBY concerns, and legislation should clear a path for this clean energy development.  Enjoy!

Clean energy legislation: Cut the red tape

By Matt Dernoga

For environmental advocates such as myself, it’s going to be a tough legislative session to watch with Annapolis facing $2 billion worth of budget cuts. Here’s to hoping legislators resist the urge to drain the Chesapeake Bay in order to stop spending money to save it. Despite the glass being half empty with pennies, I was pleased to see Gov. Martin O’Malley announce plans to accelerate the development of offshore wind energy by adjusting various coastal zoning regulations in its favor.

This has to be the first column I’m writing where the state is trying to build something I like; however, I’m a little concerned some conservationists will attempt to stand in the way of the new zoning regulations of a future offshore wind development. These problems have slowed or stopped many wind and solar projects within the United States.

For a research paper last semester, I compared the policies states had in place to encourage clean energy production and the results. The most interesting comparison was between California and Texas. California is the hotspot for passing ambitious clean energy policies. They have strong renewable energy targets, tax incentives everywhere and legislation mandating steep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Texas has a bounty for hippies.

Guess who was hitting their targets for renewable energy production? Not California, whose state utility commission determined in 2009 it would be impossible to reach its 20 percent renewable electricity standard by 2010, which was set in 2002. Texas, on the other hand, is considered to have the most successful standard in the nation. First set in 1999 to achieve 2,000 megawatts (MW) by 2009, the target has been revised upward, to 5,880 MW by 2015 and now 10,000 MW by 2025.  At the end of 2008, Texas had 7,117 MW of installed wind capacity, by far the best in the nation.

What happened? It turns out Texas’s scorn for the environment is a boon for major wind and solar developers, who have almost no regulations and permits to go through. In contrast, California has so much red tape in place, it’s nearly impossible for large-scale wind and solar projects to be built in the state. California has still been a leader in solar production, but it has come largely on rooftop installations, which hasn’t been good enough to reach its targets.

Occasionally, the opposition to these projects has a reasonable request, such as moving a wind farm a mile to the left and clear of the migratory path for birds. However, many cases are borderline ridiculous, such as a recent example in California where Sen.Diane Feinstein pushed to protect a million acres of the Mojave Desert, right where 13 major wind and solar projects were slated to be built. To Sen. Feinstein, the sensitivity to desert wildlife takes precedence over reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This is a great policy for creating more deserts and species extinctions.

A sound prescription for helping the state meet its clean energy and emissions reduction targets would be to adopt more policies such as the one the governor is proposing and cut through the red tape for zoning and permits in instances of clean energy development.

Even the iguanas in the desert will be pleased with less coal burning.

Matt Dernoga is a senior government and politics major. He can be reached at dernoga at umdbk dot com

The State of the Union: Clean Energy or Bust

There’s a lot of chatter about what President Obama is going to say in his State of the Union address this Wednesday.  There’s no doubt that President Obama’a agenda, along with that of the Democrats has taken a serious blow of recent with the loss in Massachusetts.  Obama has had a much more fiery, populist tone to his speeches and remarks in the last week, and the two buzzwords I read him focusing on in his State of the Union speech is jobs creation, and policies for the middle class.  While I’m sure there will be a nice paragraph or two dedicated to clean energy and green jobs, I think President Obama should make clean energy the centerpiece of his address.

It’s a great opportunity to correct the greatest blunder of the Democrats and Obama’s Presidency. The House passed comprehensive clean energy and climate  legislation with bi-partisan support, and poll after poll after poll found the public was strongly in favor of the bill and its provisions, including over 60% favorable in battleground states.  This major legislative victory gave Obama and his party momentum which they could have taken to the Senate.  With the looming “threat” of EPA regulation in Senators heads, strong public support for clean energy and climate, a popular President, and the House victory, the Democrats and Obama would’ve sealed the deal last fall with a bi-partisan Senate climate bill.  Even leaving alone how much better this would’ve looked in Copenhagen, this would’ve been a phenomenal first year victory for the Democrats.  A victory that would’ve given them much better chance in passing healthcare legislation, because far more intangibles would’ve been in their favor.

Oh well, they dropped the ball, and left John Kerry to buddy up with Joe Lieberman and Lindsay Graham, yes Republican LINDSEY GRAHAM from South Carolina, to salvage something amid collapsing public support for the Democrats and their policies.  Incredibly, despite all the erosion, recent polling done by conservative pollster Frank Luntz shows bi-partisan public support for national climate legislation.  Not surprisingly, the underlying reasons for this support are more about the ways to tie the legislation into jobs, national security, and corporate accountability.

“Americans want their leaders to act on climate change – but not necessarily for the reasons you think,” Luntz said. “A clear majority of Americans believe climate change is happening. This is true of McCain voters and Obama voters alike. And even those that don’t still believe it is essential for America to pursue policies that promote energy independence and a cleaner, healthier environment. In reference to recent political events, Luntz added: “People are much more interested in seeing solutions than watching yet another partisan political argument.”

“Americans see climate legislation as more than just corporate social responsibility. When given a list of business and economic reasons to support the legislation, the top choice mirrored the public’s highest priority for Washington and Wall Street: accountability. The exact language of the statement: “Cap and trade will limit the amount of pollution companies can emit, giving companies incentives to reduce emissions—and holding those who don’t accountable…”

Luntz concluded, “Americans want clean, safe, healthy, secure energy. That’s why Republicans and Democrats alike strongly support action to address climate change.  Sure, Republicans are more concerned about the national security component and Democrats the health component, but support for action right now spans all partisan and ideological lines.”

The truth is the same today as it was last fall.  Contrary to conventional wisdom, climate legislation has more going for it than health care, and far more upside for Obama and the Democrats than anything else they could possibly propose.  Whether it’s the reduction of pollution from coal that damages human health at every stage of the lifecycle, reducing oil use by 6 million barrels a day, the creation of 1.7 million new green jobs, taking on big oil and big coal, bi-partisan support, or preventing climate catastrophe…there are plenty of winning messages for the activist base, the middle class, and especially the independent voters.  They’ve stayed winners despite everything else going to hell.  It just needs a firm push.

Four years ago, President Bush used his state of the union speech to declare we were addicted to foreign oil , which spread like wildfire in the public and the press.  It was the most memorable part of his address, until he didn’t back it up.

Wednesday night is an opportunity for this President to pick up the baton the last one had no intention of carrying, and elevate clean energy solutions and energy independence to the top of his domestic agenda, where it should have been all along.

Supreme Court Empowers Powerful Corporations

Man, this just hasn’t been a good week for progressives.  Sierra Club press release.  Also posted below.  You can read more in the Washington Post.  Below the press release is President Obama’s statement.  NY Times also has an editorial on it which is below the Obama statement.

High Court Unleashes Tsunami of
Corporate Cash with Citizens United Ruling

Washington, D.C.–The U.S. Supreme Court today, in its ruling in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,struck down significant portions of campaign finance laws.  In particular, the case removed restrictions in place for decades that have limited campaign spending from corporations.  The Sierra Club offered the following comments in response.

The High Court’s ruling can be viewed here:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

Statement of Cathy Duvall, Political Director of Sierra Club

“We are extremely troubled and dismayed by today’s decision.  It appears that the High Court confirmed our worst fears with its sweeping ruling that cast aside the laws that protected us from unlimited corporate campaign spending.

“Congress is already awash in a sea of special interest money; this decision will launch a tsunami of corporate cash whose purpose is to overrun the public’s interests.  Big Oil, Dirty Coal, and other special interests have a stranglehold on the Congress and today’s ruling will further endanger the ability of citizens to influence the political process.  This ruling could put today’s “pay-to-play” political culture on steroids.

“We already have very clear indications of the dangers that lie ahead. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has been involved in today’s case, reported just yesterday that it spent a record-breaking $71 million on lobbying last quarter.  Even before today’s decision, it has already been laundering hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate cash, most notably for the health insurance industry and polluters, and has pledged to spend tens of millions of dollars in this year’s elections.  Now it and the special interests that fund it will be allowed to spend limitless amounts not only in the legislative process, but to support or oppose individual candidates.

“Now only Congress can stem the tidal wave of special interest cash and influence peddling that is about to overwhelm the electoral process.  The Sierra Club has long supported campaign finance reform and we now urge Congress to find a solution to help candidates combat the expected increase in spending on independent expenditures.  In particular, we support passage of the Fair Elections Now Act.”

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Obama statement:

With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington–while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That’s why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.

NY Times editorial:

With a single, disastrous 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century. Disingenuously waving the flag of the First Amendment, the court’s conservative majority has paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding.  Congress must act immediately to limit the damage of this radical decision, which strikes at the heart of democracy.

80 US Companies Urge Federal Government to pass Climate Legislation

This is timely push back given the solemn mood in DC about the prospects for climate legislation given the Democrats loss of Massachusetts.  You can read their press release here, and below.

Over 80 U.S. Companies Call on President Obama & Congress to Enact Comprehensive Climate and Energy Legislation

January 21, 2009 – WASHINGTON, D.C. – More than 80 leading CEOs from U.S. businesses, including Exelon, Virgin America, NRG Energy, eBay and PG&E, sent a letter to President Obama and members of Congress today calling on them to move quickly to enact comprehensive climate and energy legislation that will create jobs and enhance U.S. competitiveness.

Saying that the U.S. is “falling behind” in the global clean energy race, the letter calls for forceful leadership to achieve legislation that will unleash innovation, drive economic growth, boost energy independence and decrease our carbon emissions. The letter comes just one week before President Obama delivers his State of the Union address on January 27th.

“American businesses recognize this challenge and have already begun to respond and innovate. However, today’s uncertainty surrounding energy and climate regulation is hindering the large-scale actions that American businesses are poised to make,” the letter states. “We need strong policies and clear market signals that support the transition to a low-carbon economy and reward companies that innovate. It is time for the Administration and Congress to embrace this policy as the promising economic opportunity that will empower American workers to compete and American entrepreneurship to lead the way.”

The letter was signed by 83 CEOs from some of the nation’s largest electric power, manufacturing, clean tech, technology and consumer facing companies. To view the full text and the list of signatories please go to: http://www.wecanlead.org

“The United States can’t afford to fall behind in the global race to lead the new energy economy,” said Jonathan Wolfson, CEO of Solazyme, a leading renewable oil and bioproducts company. “American businesses have a history of leadership and innovation and are poised to do that in a new clean energy economy.”

“Power companies need and want to be part of America’s clean energy transition,” said David Crane, president and CEO of NRG Energy Inc., which owns and operates more than 24,000 megawatts of electricity generation capacity in the U.S. “But we need the certainty of clear rules and strong policies that will help us invest in that transition while also addressing climate change and keeping power affordable.”

“The same inventive solutions that will help the environment will also help move the airline industry forward,” said David Cush, president and CEO of Virgin America, a U.S. commercial passenger airline. “Big challenges have historically propelled more innovation and greater efficiencies. Strong climate and energy policies can be that challenge – one from which we will all emerge stronger.”

“Smart businesses can only do so much on their own to address climate change,” said Stonyfield Farm CEO Gary Hirshberg. “At this point, the rules need to change: there needs to be a price or tax on carbon. This incentive for genuine innovation needs to be firmly in place in order for the US to compete effectively in the global race to a clean energy economy.”

Peter A. Darbee, Chairman, CEO and President of PG&E Corporation said, “As the country looks to ways to support job creation, promote economic growth, and improve energy and national security, it’s clear to leading businesses that smart, sensible energy and climate policies can and should be part of the solution. We are asking leaders to recognize this opportunity and make it a reality.”

About We Can Lead

Business leaders from 150 companies from 30 states across the country joined the We Can Lead effort and traveled to Washington in early October 2009 to meet with Administration officials and more than 50 members of Congress to urge passage of comprehensive energy and climate legislation. We Can Lead advocates for passage of strong energy and climate legislation that includes a price on carbon to spur American innovation, unleash U.S. investment, create millions of new jobs, restore America’s competitiveness and provide for economic and national security.

We Can Lead is a partnership of the Clean Economy Network, Inc. and Ceres’ Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy (BICEP). For more on We Can Lead, visit www.wecanlead.org

Maryland League of Conservation Voters Endorse Governor O’Malley

I’ve always had a mixed opinion of O’Malley, strong on clean energy and global warming, but weak on development and land use policies(which inevitably impact the global warming bit).  Says the right things, and follows through on half of them.  I’ll give my thoughts on whether or not environmental groups should endorse him later in the year.  LCV has just endorsed him earlier than they have for any gubernatorial candidate.  Here is their press release.  You can also read pieces from The Baltimore Sun, and the Washington Post.  Below are the accomplishments by O’Malley that MDLCV lays out in its press release.

· His leadership in the passage of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Act, giving Maryland one of

the strongest global warming caps in the nation, and the creation of the Commission on Climate Change

have cemented our role as a national leader in this area.

· Governor O’Malley’s innovative Bay Stat program is a national model for accountability and shows

how government can work better to meet specific challenges.

· His ambitious plans to help reverse the long decline in the state’s historic role as an oyster mecca and his

work across state lines to address the frightening decline in the blue crab population was important and

long overdue.

· The public is receiving real financial incentives to embrace renewable energy sources such as solar

creating new clean energy job opportunities.

· An environmentally sensitive Purple Line in the Washington D.C. suburbs of Montgomery and Prince

George’s Counties and the Red Line in Baltimore are on the move to improve transportation, reduce

green house gas pollution and encourage smarter growth in Maryland.

· Exceptionally talented managers, including Maryland Department of the Environment Shari Wilson,

Department of Natural Resources Secretary John Griffin and Secretary Richard Hall of the Department

of Planning have brought new energy, renewed and rewarded the conservation spirit of state officials

who have responsibility for the environment.

More on Murkowski trying to prevent EPA from regulating pollution

The following is a cross-post from the Media Consortium’s weekly Mulch, which gives an overview of Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski’s attempt to gut the Clean Air Act.

Weekly Mulch: Murkowski Vs. the EPA

By Sarah Laskow, Media Consortium Blogger

On Thursday afternoon, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) pulled out a rarely-used Congressional tool in an attempt to keep the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating carbon and other greenhouse gasses. Sen. Murkowski offered a “resolution of disapproval” of the EPA’s impending action, which would limit companies’ carbon emissions.

The resolution would overturn the EPA’s finding that carbon dioxide is harmful to the public health. Three Democrats—Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA)—joined Sen. Murkowski and 35 Republicans in sponsoring the resolution.

“Ms. Murkowski’s Mischief‘”

“This command and control approach is our worst option for reducing the gasses associated with climate change,” said Sen. Murkowski on the floor of the Senate yesterday. She called the EPA’s actions “backdoor climate regulations with no input from Congress” and said they would damage the country’s flailing economy.

The EPA first announced in April 2009 that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses posed a threat to the public health. The agency formalized that finding last month, giving itself the power to regulate emissions of greenhouse gasses under the Clean Air Act. In March 2010, for instance, the agency is expected to announce carbon emissions rules for the auto industry that would match California’s higher standards. Sen. Murkowski’s resolution would derail that process.

Sen. Murkowski argued that she wants to give Congress room to come up with a legislative solution to climate change, but her critics see a more dangerous tilt to her resolution. “It’s a radical attempt by the legislative branch to interfere with executive branch scientists,” writes David Roberts at Grist.

Responding to “Ms. Murskowski’s mischief” on the Senate floor yesterday, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) called the resolution an “unprecedented effort to overturn scientific decision” and “a direct assault on the health of the American people.”

Resolution of disapproval

What is a “resolution of disapproval?” Grist’s Roberts called it “the nuclear option.”

“It would rescind the EPA’s endangerment finding entirely and thereby eliminate its authority over both mobile and stationary sources,” Roberts explains. “Furthermore, the administration would be prohibited from passing a regulation “substantially the same” as the one overruled, so the constraint on the EPA would effectively be permanent.”

This type of resolution was created by the Clinton-era Congressional Reform Act. The resolution has one big advantage: It cannot be filibustered. Passage requires only a majority in both houses of Congress. Members have tried using it in the past to delay the Dubai Ports World deal, derail FCC regulations on new media, and stop the flow of bailout funds.

Kate Sheppard at Mother Jones has been following Sen. Murkowski’s actions closely. She reports that “Senate supporters of climate action say Murkowski could obtain the votes of moderate Democrats from coal, oil, and manufacturing states. However, a resolution would still need to be approved by the House and signed by the president—both long shots, to put it mildly. ‘I think we’re a little worried about [Murkowski’s resolution] winning. I’m not sure we’re worried about it becoming law,’ a Senate Democratic staffer says.”

But Grist’s Roberts argues that passage in the Senate alone would be a problem. “Even if blocked by the House or vetoed by the president, such a public, bipartisan slap at the administration would be highly embarrassing and demoralizing,” Roberts writes. “It would mean at least ten conservative Democrats washing their hands of the administration’s initiative.”

Climate change and Congress

Sen. Murkowski insists that she’s still ready to work with her colleagues on climate change and that it’s better to approach the problem of climate change via legislation, not regulation.

But no one in Washington believes that climate change legislation is going to pass—even come to the Senate floor—any time soon. The issue was already in line behind health care, and the election of Republican candidate Scott Brown to Sen. Ted Kennedy’s Massachusetts seat this week means that none of the bills that the Senate is working on are likely to come to a vote this year.

“There was hope that the [climate] bill would come to the floor in the spring,” writes Steve Benen at Washington Monthly. “Regrettably, a narrow majority of Massachusetts voters have made it significantly more likely that Congress won’t address the problem at all. Proponents focused on solutions have vowed to “persist,” but Massachusetts has made a difficult situation considerably worse.”

The role of special interests

Sen. Murkowski has come under criticism for allowing Bush-era EPA administrators, now lobbyists representing clients on climate change issues, to help her craft an earlier amendment cracking down on the EPA. Yesterday, she said that those criticisms are “categorically false.”

But as JP Leous reports at Care2, Sen. Murkowski does receive substantial backing from energy industries that oppose climate change legislation and regulation.

“According to OpenSecrets.org Sen. Murkowski has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from polluting companies, and some of her biggest campaign contributors in recent years include firms with fossil-fueled motives like Exxon Mobil Corp,” Leous writes “Add those dots into the mix and a different picture emerges — and it starts to look like a person who is poised to introduce legislation next week attacking the Clean Air Act.”

On the Senate floor yesterday, Sen. Boxer charged, “Why would the Senate get in the business of repealing science? Because that’s what the special interests want to have happen now. Because they’re desperate.”

The Democratic Senators who co-sponsored the resolution also come from energy producing states where companies object to the new EPA regulations.

If at first you don’t succeed…

If Sen. Murkowski’s resolution does pass the Senate, there’s little chance it will pass the House as well. But this isn’t the only option that regulation opponents are looking at to fight the EPA. The Chamber of Commerce and other groups are planning to challenge the regulatory action in court, as Mother Jones’ Sheppard reports.

Last week, these opponents met to discuss their strategy. What’s interesting, Sheppard says, is that “the group was apparently divided on the best course of action. The Hill observes that “two camps have emerged.” One wants to challenge whatever rules the EPA issues, while another wants to question the science of global warming itself.”

We’re back to that old saw? With legislation off the table, the fight over climate change, for now, is in the regulatory arena.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.