Frances Beinecke's Blog: Solving Global Warming

Gulf Oil Rig Disaster: Perspectives from in the air and on the ground

2010-05-12T23:06:02Z

High over the Gulf of Mexico, I looked down in horror and sadness Wednesday at the site of the massive BP oil spill.

Clear blue waters were streaked with rivers of crude oil, a thick brown stew of petroleum toxics streaming unchecked toward the open sea.

A thinner but still poisonous sheen coated the surface with a curd-like film as far as the eye could see.

"Off to the right," my helicopter pilot, Ted Grove said, tilting slightly to open my view to dark red plumes of oil, stretching for miles from the site where the BP oil rig sank April 22 after an explosion two days before.

Since then, more than 4 million gallons of crude oil have gushed into the fertile Gulf, threatening marine life and bearing down on the rich coastal waters, beaches and wetlands some 40 miles to the north.

As we circled the site, I felt I was looking down on some seaborne disaster area, as, indeed, I was.

There were some three dozen ships working within an area of perhaps 20 square miles or so.

I counted eight skimmers trolling the waters corralling the thick crude near the center of the site.

Close by, huge fountains of ~~water~~ fluid gushed from a pair of ships -- spraying dispersant directly at the spill site, according to the Deepwater Horizon Incident Joint Information Center.

A ship with an enormous industrial-style crane was on site -- apparently in connection with the "top hat" BP was hoping to deploy to try to stem the flow of oil.

And there were tenders working the underwater robotic vehicles prowling the deep water below in search of a solution to the raging spill.

We can only hope -- and pray -- for their success.

What took my breath away, though, was the extent of the calamity unfolding in the Gulf.

The skimmers are a help, and the dispersant will chemically break apart ~~down~~ the oil into smaller globs. Some of the crude will evaporate in the warm Gulf air. [ed note: The dispersant doesn't chemically degrade the oil itself.]

The oil, though, is there, and the pollution with it -- in the ocean, in the air, and headed, inevitably, toward the shallow coastal waters and fertile wetlands and shore.

We can struggle to contain it -- as many were clearly doing on Wednesday and have done for weeks. But we can't put it back in the well.

That's why we need to find out what caused this terrible accident, what we must do to prevent anything like this from ever happening again and what we can do to hold BP accountable for the terrible cost this disaster has already begun to exact from the region.

I was reminded of those costs as we flew back toward shore. I saw hundreds of miles of coastal wetlands and waterways, essential habitat for shrimp, oysters, fish and birds.

I recalled the voices of oystermen, fishermen, shrimpers and others I visited with Tuesday on the bayou below, the Gulf Coast community activists I'd met with in Biloxi, Miss., and the environmental justice experts I'd listened to in nearby New Orleans.

As this oil creeps over the ocean it is suffocating not only habitat and wildlife but also the livelihood and way of life for thousands of Gulf Coast residents.

The people of this region are a resilient lot. This, though, has them scared.

They are untrusting of BP. They are worried about their health. They are frightened for their future and their families.

We need to do better in this country.

We need to begin the long process of reducing our reliance on oil and increasing our use of renewable and sustainable fuels.

As I was flying over the Gulf of Mexico, the despair of Gulf people mirrored in the terrifying glaze of oil moving menacingly over the sea, Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut were unveiling legislation that can help.

It isn't perfect legislation. There is much to improve. As I flew over those wounded waters today, though, I felt hopeful that this legislation can begin that process. Now, let's move it forward.

Clean Energy Bill Released: Now It’s Time for Leadership

2010-05-12T18:20:54Z

Today, Senator Kerry and Senator Lieberman released comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation. The bill provides a good starting point, and we look forward to working with Senator Majority Leader Reid and President Obama to build on this foundation without delay to deliver legislation that puts Americans back to work, reduces our dependence on oil, and creates a healthier future for our children.

We need that legislation now more than ever. As the Deepwater Horizon disaster continues to unfold with tragic consequences, it has become painfully clear that America needs a safer, cleaner approach to energy development. Congress must enact a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill this year that puts America back in control of our energy situation.

This draft legislation gets us moving in the right direction.

It is too soon to say where NRDC stands on every aspect of the bill. As I write this, NRDC experts are combing through the document, and I imagine they will discover things in it that NRDC likes and things we don’t. Here's where we stand on what we've seen so far.

The bill’s core carbon pollution limits are solid. These emission limits get tighter every year and will drive investments in clean energy that create jobs, cut pollution, and end our addiction to oil from dangerous locations, both offshore and overseas.
The bill would be more effective if its overall pollution limits were backed up by minimum performance standards for the largest polluters. We will work to strengthen the bill to preserve more of the Clean Air Act's proven approach to cutting air pollution.
The bill must not create incentives for offshore oil drilling or push forward drilling before we understand the risks involved for specific areas. The current Presidential moratorium does not go far enough, and does not, for example, stop the drilling planned for this summer in Alaska.
The subsidies for nuclear power in the draft bill are excessive and the proposed weakening of safety and environmental licensing reviews is ill-advised. NRDC will oppose these provisions.
The energy efficiency and forest protection provisions should be more robust, and NRDC will work to strengthen these provisions as the process moves forward.

Senators Kerry and Lieberman have done a remarkable job of building the foundation for clean energy and climate action and overall, I believe the bill is a good start. But to realize the promise of the bill, we need leadership from the top.

We need President Obama and Majority Leader Reid to guide a process that brings Senators of good will from both sides of the aisle together around a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill--one that draws on the best elements of this bill as well as other proposals so the Senate can pass effective legislation without delay.

This is the kind of solution Americans are looking for. According to a new poll conducted by Belden, Russonello & Stewart for NRDC, seven in ten American say it’s time to fast-track clean energy legislation that begins to break our dangerous addiction to oil by increasing our use of sustainable and renewable power and fuels.

NRDC will work to build on today’s proposal to achieves these clean energy results. Done right, a comprehensive bill could create nearly 2 million jobs for American workers-- good-paying jobs coast to coast that can't be shipped overseas.

It could slash our reliance on dirty oil, thereby protecting marine life and coastal communities from future offshore oil disasters. It could position America to dominate the global clean energy market, which is expected to attract $230 billion in annual investment by 2020. And it will strike a blow against the most pressing environmental challenge of our time --climate change.

By promoting the development of the next generation of energy efficient cars, homes and workplaces, this legislation will put us, as a nation, back on track for growth.

But we need our leaders to pass the bill this year, so that Americans can start reaping these rewards as soon as possible.

After 2 Carbon Disasters in 1 Month, Time for Clean Energy

2010-05-09T00:29:14Z

America has experienced two energy-related disasters in the past month, and though they involved different technologies and occurred in different parts of the country, they had one thing in common: fossil fuels.

On April 5, a massive accident at the Upper Big Branch coal mine in West Virginia killed 29 people and injured 2 others.

On April 20, the explosion at the Deepwater Horizon offshore oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico killed 11 people and continues to send 20,000 gallons of oil into the Gulf every day.

The mine collapse and oil explosion follow on the heels of the third catastrophe, the massive coal ash spill when a dam near a Tennessee Valley Authority power plant in Kingston, Tennessee burst in December, 2008, spreading coal waste ash and sludge into nearby homes and farmlands.

These tragic incidents illustrate in vivid detail the tremendous, usually hidden cost of our addiction to dirty carbon energy sources and why Congress must adopt comprehensive climate and energy legislation. Such legislation will unleash clean energy, encourage energy efficiency and reduce our dependence on coal and oil.

Cleaner technologies already exist that can free us from the hazards of America’s energy policy. Because the most alarming thing about April’s fossil fuel disasters is that they are not unique. There is a pattern here.

The Santa Barbara and Exxon Valdez oil spills are well known, but there are plenty of recent incidents as well. In the fall of 2009, a massive oil spill occurred off the coast of Australia at a supposedly state-of-the-art facility. The spill ultimately dumped tens of thousands of gallons of oil, covering over 20,000 square miles of sea, and taking 10 weeks to bring under control.

In September 2008, Hurricane Ike destroyed oil platforms, tanks, and pipelines throughout the Gulf of Mexico, releasing at least a half million gallons of crude oil. Previously, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused 125 spills from platforms, rigs, and pipelines in the OCS, releasing almost 685,000 gallons of petroleum products.

The impacts of such spills are long-term. According to the National Academy of Sciences, current cleanup methods can only remove a small fraction of the oil spilled into the ocean, leaving the remaining oil to continue affecting ocean ecosystems over time.

Coal mining casts a similarly long shadow over Appalachia. While mining fatalities have declined to a yearly average of 30 deaths, the culture of lax safety regulation and environmental enforcement has put miners’ lives and mining communities at risk.

Mining companies are clear cutting thousands of acres of some of the world's most biologically diverse forests. They're filling local rivers and streams with blasted debris, polluting drinking water with toxic waste. MTR coal mining sites, which can exceed 10 square miles, have already leveled more than 470 summits so far.

And these are just the visible hazards of fossil fuel extraction. As Paul Krugman recently pointed out in the New York Times, the one we can’t see may be the most dangerous: the global warming pollution released when we burn oil and coal. This pollution will lead not only to extreme and costly weather events, but also greater civil unrest and forced migration around the globe, according to the Pentagon and CIA.

We don’t have to sacrifice the Gulf of Mexico, the mountains of Appalachia, or the well-being of fellow human beings in order to power our economy.

More fuel-efficient cars and plug-in hybrids, better rail and public transit can slash our need for oil, while more energy efficient buildings and renewable power can reduce our need for coal plants.

These are the technologies that will put Americans to work, protect our coastal fishing and tourism industries, and preserve marine life and mountains from fossil fuel extraction.

Three Steps Obama Should Take to Prevent Future Oil Disasters

2010-05-04T22:11:46Z

As tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico continues to unfold in painful and unpredictable ways, Americans are wondering what we can do to prevent another offshore oil disaster in the future.

I have just sent a letter to President Obama outlining NRDC’s recommendations for how we can protect marine life and coastal communities from similar spills in the Gulf or elsewhere.

TAKE ACTION: Tell President Obama to Impose a Moratorium on New Offshore Drilling

The best protection we have against offshore accidents is to end our dependence on oil. We simply don’t have to jeopardize our oceans, fishing industry, tourism business, and rich coastal ecosystems in order to fuel our cars and trucks. We can pass clean energy and climate legislation--legislation that will slash our oil reliance by spurring innovation in cleaner solutions--things like more efficient cars and plug-in hybrids.

But even as we begin the shift to clean energy, America’s oil exploration policy must be thoroughly reviewed and reconsidered in light of the startling new facts on the ground.

Here are there steps the Obama Administration can take right now in order to protect marine life and coastal communities from future offshore oil disasters.

1. Impose a moratorium on all new offshore oil drilling activities. Existing plans to move ahead with offshore drilling were based on the assumption that the likelihood of a serious spill was virtually too remote to contemplate. The catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico has shattered that assumption.

America should halt new offshore leasing, exploratory drilling, and seismic exploration, including the exploratory drilling that is scheduled to begin in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas in Alaska this summer. The moratorium should remain in effect until the causes of the current spill and their ramifications are fully understood.

2. Ensure rules for future drilling reflect the lessons of Deepwater Horizon. Obama administration should immediately suspend the processes for opening up new offshore areas to drilling. The processes now underway will set the ground rules for future drilling. For those ground rules to make any sense, they would have to be designed to prevent a spill like the one in the Gulf of Mexico from recurring. But no one yet knows how to do that.

Before comments are due and decisions are made on how to proceed, the American people--and the administration--should have a full understanding of the causes and impacts of the Gulf of Mexico spill. The planning process could resume when the ground rules for future drilling could reflect what is learned from the current tragedy.

3. Initiate an independent investigation. In order to fully understand the demise of the Deepwater Horizon, the ensuing spill and its ramifications, the administration must launch an independent investigation staffed by experts who do not work for the government or the oil industry. It should assess the causes of the current spill, how such spills can be avoided in the future, the adequacy of containment and clean-up measures for spills generally, and the implications of these findings for drilling in or near sensitive or ecologically important areas.

The experts should issue recommendations on how to strengthen regulations to prevent spills and to protect sensitive and ecologically important areas. They should also propose criteria to determine whether areas should be excluded from leasing. The moratorium and suspensions called for above should not be lifted before the investigation has been completed.

These three steps would help ensure that the lessons of this disaster can be used to reform drilling policy. While the situation remains fluid, it is already clear that the status quo cannot adequately protect the public. Simply continuing along based on assumptions that have now been disproven should not be an option.

Say no to offshore drilling. Take action and Tell President Obama to Impose a Moratorium on New Offshore Drilling

Which Would You Choose: Offshore Wind or Offshore Oil?

2010-05-03T16:12:22Z

Like all Americans, I am sickened by the news coming from the Gulf of Mexico. The oil spill is now 100 miles long and is moving toward the Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida coastlines.

As I watch coverage of the devastation, I am reminded of another energy story from last week: the approval of the Cape Wind offshore wind farm in the Nantucket Sound.

What a contrast these two energy projects make: The dirty, hazardous fuel that can swamp local communities versus the clean, sustainable energy that doesn’t spill.

If I were an official in a coastal state, I know which one I would choose. I would reject President Obama’s plan for more offshore oil drilling and I would invest in renewable offshore projects that wouldn’t harm my state.

I realize that oil and gas drilling has brought jobs and income to the state of Louisiana. It has helped fuel the state’s economy, but it is painfully clear that it also brings real risk.

Louisiana is home to 40 percent of America’s wetlands. Over the years, the oil support infrastructure has eaten away at those wetlands, with more and more being dredged to support offshore oil. I saw the erosion of the wetlands and coastal barriers first hand when I visited the region after Katrina. There have been cries to restore the wetlands for years, yet now another devastating blow has landed on one of the richest ecosystems in the nation.

The economy will suffer along with the ecosystem. A 2006 report found that the U.S. commercial fishing industry generated more than $103 billion in sales, provided $44.3 billion in income, and supported more than 1.5 million jobs. But these are jobs that rely on clean water and healthy fish--not oil slicks.

Fishermen in the Gulf know their livelihood is at stake. The State of Louisiana opened shrimp season early on Thursday in an effort to let shrimpers harvest as much as possible, but by Sunday, the federal government ordered a halt to all fishing in the oil-slick region due to public safety concerns. Fishermen who struggled to rebuild their business after Hurricane Katrina are worried they won’t rebound after this. Several Louisiana shrimpers have filed a class action lawsuit against BP, the owners of the oil rig, and its contractor Halliburton, for endangering their income.

There is, of course, yet another hazard that comes from a heavily reliance on offshore drilling: 900 pounds of carbon dioxide pollution for each barrel of oil we burn. While not as visible as the impact of the oil spill, carbon pollution could be just as devastating to Louisiana. Global warming could inundate Louisiana’s wetlands as sea levels rise and hurricanes become more ferocious. In the ocean, carbon dioxide becomes an acid that could make it impossible for Louisiana’s oysters and crabs to build the shells they need to reproduce.

In contrast, offshore wind farms do not pollute the water, air, or local communities. These renewable projects--which could provide power for plug-in hybrid cars--have a track record of success and reliability.

I recently blogged about my trip to offshore wind farms in Denmark, which generates 20 percent of its electricity from wind. At first, people living in nearby coastal towns were concerned that the wind farms would hurt their vibrant tourism and marina businesses. Yet that never came to pass.

Now, the mayor of one of the town’s told me, “We look back and wonder what we were so worried about.”

Sadly, that cannot be said for the communities along the Gulf of Mexico that are about to be turned upside down by the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

As we watch the horrific spectacle of yet another oil spill ravage our waters, our wildlife, our fishing and tourism industries, we must ask, once again: what will it take to get our leaders to act?

We must pass a clean energy and climate bill that is designed to prevent tragedies like this in the future--legislation that will shift America away from oil, toward cleaner and renewable sources that can’t poison our coasts. The work has begun. It must move ahead now.

Tell the Senate to Get Its Job Done--Pass the Climate Bill Now

2010-04-30T15:49:10Z

The clean energy and climate bill drafted by Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman remains stuck in limbo. After all the careful drafting and negotiations the senators conducted, the bill has been slowed by Washington politics.

This stalling has to stop. Too much is at stake and the finish line is too close to let a cleaner, more prosperous future slip away.

There is a real danger here that we could lose an historic opportunity and all the vital benefits that would come with it--nearly 2 million jobs that will help American families, cleaner cars and fuels that will cut oil imports in half, and climate solutions that will address the biggest environmental and humanitarian crisis of our age.

The time has come to move into the future, not remain stuck in the past, and Americans from all walks of life agree. In the past few days, business executives, labor unions, religious groups, and environmental organizations have said loud and clear that they want our lawmakers to pass a clean energy and climate bill now.

I believe our leaders are listening. On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said:

"Immigration, energy are equally vital to our economic and national security. And we've ignored both of them for far too long. I'm committed to doing both this session of Congress … Common sense dictates that if you have a bill that's ready to go, that's the one I'm going to go to … the energy bill is ready."

But we have to make sure Senators and the White House hear how urgent this bill is. More delay will hurt America--and help our rivals.

Stalling this bill makes climate change impacts worse. This week, the EPA released a report confirming that global warming is already hitting America: 7 of the top 10 warmest years on record and 8 of the top 10 years for extreme one-day precipitation events have occurred since 1990 (you can see some of the startling graphs here). These trends will continue unless low-carbon technologies are put in place now.

Stalling this bill helps China’s economy, not ours. On Wednesday, Tom Friedman wrote that people were high-fiving in Beijing this week because the Senate’s failure to pass a clean energy and climate bill means China can dominate the global clean energy market, which is expected to attract $230 billion in annual investment by 2020.

Stalling this bill helps Iran and other regimes that support extremists. If the Senate fails to pass clean energy and climate legislation, Iran alone will earn an extra $100 million per day on average from higher oil prices.

It doesn’t have to be this way. You can urge your senators to get clean energy and climate legislation back on track by clicking here.

President Obama also has a critical role to play. Last week, I stood in the Rose Garden and heard the president call for a clean energy and climate bill.

Now that the bill has slowed down, it is time for President Obama to step in to stop the finger pointing, and bring people together to get this done this year.

America can’t wait any longer--we NEED a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill now.

Cape Wind Can Now Help America Start the Clean Energy Future

2010-04-28T22:10:49Z

America took one giant step into the clean energy future today when Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar approved the Cape Wind offshore wind project. Finally, we can move forward with this critical tool for addressing climate change.

I spent every summer of my childhood on Cape Cod, digging for clams and collecting shells on Nauset Beach. My father still goes to there regularly, and the Cape means a great deal to my family.

When the Cape Wind project was proposed, I traveled to Denmark to see for myself what an offshore wind farm looks like.

One morning, we boarded a boat from the charming tourist town of Nysted. As we left the marina, a light haze made it hard to see the 72 turbines from shore. But when we drew closer, the white towers appeared in an arc of clean, gleaming lines. I was struck by the simple ingenuity of the project. From the quiet hum of those turbines, Denmark taps into a free and inexhaustible resource and generates enough electricity to supply 145,000 households. All while releasing zero global-warming pollutants.

After we returned to shore, we spoke with Nysted's mayor, Lennart Damsbo-Andersen. When the wind farm was first announced, residents were very concerned about what the turbines would do the town’s charm and livelihood. Now, the mayor told me, “We look back and wonder what we were so worried about.” Life goes on much as it did before the wind farm.

Denmark generates 20 percent of its electricity from wind—the highest proportion in the world. The Danes have figured out how to make wind power work and how to address issues if they arise.

My trip to Denmark was four years ago. In that time, not one offshore wind project has been approved in the United States until today. Meanwhile the temperature continues to climb, the Arctic continues to melt, and America continues to lag on clean energy.

Kudos to Secretary Salazar for taking this first critically important step into the cleaner energy future. Cape Wind experienced thorough environmental reviews, and every detail was examined. I am confident it will be a safe and successful project.

I will always return to the Cape, and now, when I look out on the seascapes I love so much, I will be pleased to catch sight of wind turbines. That is the view to the future.

We Can't Afford to Wait for Climate Action

2010-04-26T19:46:46Z

The clean energy and climate legislation so vital to our country has been temporarily delayed. We need to get it back on track. We can’t afford to lose any more time.

Americans want action on legislation that will create jobs, cut our oil imports in half and reduce the carbon pollution that threatens us all.

Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman responded to that desire and labored for months to bring legislation forward. Political leaders from both parties – in the Congress, in the White House and the states – have worked hard to forge a broad consensus for change. Business and labor leaders, national security experts, environmentalists and others want to move forward into the clean energy future we need.

And the rest of the world is watching. Our friends are counting on us for the leadership needed to find global solutions to climate change. And our rivals are hoping for the kind of inaction that will keep our workers on the sidelines while foreign competitors reap the benefits and claim the jobs from the clean energy technology of tomorrow.

We can’t sit by and watch this happen. Americans don’t want our role in the global arena to shrink. From businesses to state houses, union halls to kitchen tables, people are demanding cleaner energy and real climate action.

The question is: Will Congress hear this call and press forward with legislation? Will our lawmakers deliver the bill that will put Americans back to work, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and create a healthier future for us all?

I urge Senators on both sides of the aisle and the White House to sit down without delay and work out a path forward that ensures strong climate and energy legislation is signed into law this year. Our future demands no less.

Done right, this bill will strike a blow against the most pressing environmental and humanitarian challenge of our time--climate change.

It will also create nearly 2 million jobs for workers--carpenters in Missouri, electricians in Pennsylvania, steelworkers in Indiana, machinists in Ohio, wind turbine technicians in South Carolina--good-paying jobs coast to coast that can't be shipped overseas.

And it could cut our oil imports in half and position America to dominate the global clean energy market, which is expected to attract $230 billion in annual investment by 2020.

By promoting the development of the next generation of energy efficient cars, homes, and workplaces, this legislation will put us, as a nation, back on track for growth.

Still, I know a tough legislative battle lies ahead. But after all that Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman have invested in creating this bipartisan legislation, a path to success remains.

My Earth Day at the White House: Obama Calls for Climate Action

2010-04-23T00:45:33Z

I celebrated Earth Day in a garden this year, the Rose Garden. I was honored to attend a White House reception marking Earth Day’s 40th anniversary, and under beautiful spring skies, we cheered President Obama as he recalled the great strides America has made in protecting our environment over the past four decades.

But the event wasn’t just about the past. It was most definitely about the future too.

President Obama affirmed his support for passing clean energy and climate legislation, which he said, “will safeguard our planet and spur innovation and help us to compete in the 21st century.”

The president’s call to action drew rousing applause from the business owners, members of Congress, and environmental leaders gathered together in the garden.

Everyone in the audience is looking ahead to Monday’s release of a clean energy and climate bill drafted by Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman. President Obama’s comments will add to the growing momentum behind real climate action.

After the speech, I had a chance to talk briefly with the president. Sigourney Weaver and I handed him a copy of the Acid Test, NRDC’s film about how soaring levels of carbon dioxide are dangerously altering the chemistry of the world’s oceans.

I was thrilled with President Obama said he would screen Acid Test for his wife and daughters.

It was a gratifying end to a day in which I had accompanied Sigourney to the Senate Hearing on the Environment and Economic Impacts of Ocean Acidification, where she testified along with diving industry representatives, scientists, and a passionate fisherman from the Gulf of Mexico. Each one of them said we must act now to protect our oceans from further devastation. (You can hear Sigourney talk on CNN about the issue here.)

It was great to spend this Earth Day in Washington among so many leaders who understand the urgent need to pass clean energy and climate legislation.

Passing a law that will slash dangerous pollution, create green jobs, and put America on a path to clean energy would be a fitting tribute to the millions of Americans who have kept the spirit of Earth Day alive for the past 40 years. A safer, more sustainable future is surely a cause for celebration.

I explain more about what Earth Day means to me and where I think the country can go in this clip taken just before I went to the White House today.

Sheryl Crow Tells Why She Became a Green Advocate

2010-04-22T17:19:16Z

Last week, I had the honor of presenting the NRDC’s Forces for Nature Award to Sheryl Crow, the Grammy-winning artist and environmentalist, at NRDC’s benefit in New York City.

It was a pleasure to celebrate Sheryl’s commitment to the environment. She has tapped her passion and expertise to promote green solutions.

As a global warming advocate, took a model she is deeply familiar with--hitting the road in a tour bus--and joined NRDC Trustee Laurie David in a barnstorming campaign through Southern college towns to educate students about climate change.

She was able to attract people who might not have been concerned about the issue, and then she mobilized them to take positive action.

And that is one of the things I admire most about Sheryl. An air of optimism animates her work. She believes that given the right information, more and more Americans will embrace sustainable practices.

You can hear Sheryl describe where that sense of optimism and purpose comes from in this clip from her acceptance speech. She talks about childhood trips to national parks, but she also says her father, an Atticus Finch-style Southern attorney who found God in nature, helped her see the profound role the natural world can play in our lives.

We Need EPA’s Authority: Would You Fly a Plane without a Backup Engine?

2010-04-15T17:54:41Z

As Senators Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman get closer to introducing their clean energy and climate bill next week, there has been a lot of speculation about whether it will displace the EPA’s and the states’ authority to regulate global warming pollution.

While this may sound like some dense, bureaucratic tussle, it has real implications for America’s best tools for keeping our air clean and safe. So let me put it in more familiar terms.

Would you fly in an airplane that had no back up system? Imagine that the hydraulics in your plane suddenly failed and the captain couldn’t get the landing gear down. Wouldn’t you want the plane to have a back up system so you could return to the ground safely?

That is what the existing Clean Air Act as administered by the EPA and the states offers in the case of federal legislation to regulate global warming pollution: back up.

I support enacting a federal cap to cut carbon emissions. I think a well-designed cap will be effective. But what if unanticipated problems arise and the federal cap doesn’t work as expected to meet the reduction targets? That is when the key provisions of the existing Clean Air Act should be there as our back up system. The EPA and the states should be there with extra tools to get the job done.

This dual-pronged approach is nothing new. The Clean Air Act has never relied on one system alone to reach its pollution limits. The Acid Rain program, for instance, includes an overall cap on sulfur emissions, but it also includes New Source Review, so that when a company puts new money into an old plant to refurbish it, then it has to invest in modern pollution control technology at the same time.

Industry already has 20 years of experience working with a cap and complementary programs at the same time. This approach-- of focusing on one main cap, but working with a safety net below--has indisputably made our nation’s air cleaner and safer. The acid rain program, for instance, has dramatically reduced soot and smog by levels that will reduce premature deaths by between 20,000 and 50,000 per year in 2010.

The two-pronged approach gets results. And that is why we should also maintain state authority to regulate emissions as well. It offers a similar safety valve.

For example, it is absolutely imperative to keep California’s authority over vehicle emissions. When the federal government has turned its back on innovation, California administrations of both parties have lead the nation with ambitious new standards, and other states have eagerly followed. Likewise, all states must maintain their freedom to curb emissions through a variety of efficiency standards, performance standards, and limits on factory-type sources.

This is the authority that turns states into laboratories of innovation. When the federal government goes dark, the lights stay on in states across the nation, and this is what pushes America forward.

Innovation coupled with strong safety nets make for a powerful combination--in carbon caps and in airplanes.

EPA's New Clean Car Standards: The Right Kind of Energy Solution

2010-04-01T20:57:19Z

America took a major step forward in our efforts to fight climate change on Thursday. The Environmental Protection Agency finalized new clean car standards that will slash greenhouse gas pollution from cars, minivans, and pickup trucks.

President Obama queued up this announcement yesterday in his address at Andrews Air Force Base, but it was largely drowned out by news of the administration’s misguided offshore drilling policy.

But these standard are precisely the kind of clean energy solution we need right now. Not only will they save consumers an estimated $65 billion at the pump in 2020, but they will also cut oil consumption by 1.3 million barrels of oil a day and slash global warming pollution by more than 220 million metric tons in the year 2020 alone.

That is equivalent to taking 38 million cars off the road for a year.

Think about it. That is 1.3 million barrels of oil we won’t have to extract from unspoiled landscapes or ocean ecosystems. It is 1.3 million barrels of oil we won’t have to import from unstable regimes. It is 1.3 million barrels of oil we won’t have send our troops to fight for.

President Obama entered office saying he would reduce America’s oil addiction and today he is delivering on that promise. Yet this is only the beginning. We can save even more oil--and create nearly 2 million jobs in the process--but passing a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill. This legislation will unleash even more oil-saving technologies for our cars and trucks.

As we fight hard to pass this bill in the Senate, I am proud to say that NRDC played a central role in establishing the new clean car standards announced on Thursday. We helped draft the original standards in California, we defended them in court when automakers tried to block them, and we helped broker the “Clean Car Peace Treaty” that led to Thursday’s announcement.

Now we are bringing the same relentless approach to the climate fight, as we can help generate more clean energy solutions.

Obama Goes Forward on Clean Cars, Backward on Offshore Drilling

2010-03-31T20:02:45Z

President Obama traveled to Andrews Air Force Base today to talk about the need to strengthen America’s energy security. I agreed with his emphasis on the need to invest in clean energy. I welcomed his mention of the new clean car standards for cars that will be formally announced tomorrow.

But I do not support his decision to open vast areas of our oceans to offshore drilling. Protecting coastal communities was one of the first things I worked on as an environmentalist, and for 30 years I have fought for sound ocean policies. Expanding offshore drilling will take us backward, not forward.

Spending time and money on dirty, 19th century fuels is a move in the wrong direction, especially since President Obama said today:

“Drilling alone cannot come close to meeting our long-term energy needs, and that for the safe of the planet and our energy independence, we need to begin the transition to cleaner fuels now.”

The new clean car standards President Obama is establishing are the kind of solution we need right now--the kind that will get us moving into the 21st century.

As Obama pointed out, these new standards will not only save drivers money, but will also save 1.8 billion barrels of oil. That is the equivalent of taking 58 million cars off the road for a year.

If we want to boost our domestic oil supply, we should focus on enhanced oil recovery from existing fields, a process that can supply more than 10 times the amount of oil that could be produced by drilling in our oceans over the same period.

Turning back the clock and returning to more offshore drilling, meanwhile, will do little to relieve America’s oil addiction.

According to the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration, drilling in America’s previously closed ocean areas “would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production…before 2030.” Even then, “because oil prices are determined on the international market …any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.”

Offshore drilling would yield little cost or supply benefit, and yet it would pose serious long-term danger to our beaches and marine life. It also threatens commercial fishing, ocean-related tourism, and recreation industries that contributed more than $128 billion to the nation’s economy in 2004 and supported more than 2 million jobs.

As our economy falters and climate change continues unchecked, we should be preserving the jobs we have and investing in the clean energy technologies, which studies show, generate three times as many jobs as if the same amount were invested in the oil and gas industry.

If the administration proceeds with offshore drilling, NRDC will fight to make sure the strongest environmental standards are put in place. Those include making science-based assessments to identify fragile areas that must be set off-limits, placing no-drill buffers around parks and other sensitive areas, and requiring the use of the best available technology.

I agree with President Obama that we need to transition to cleaner fuels now. And I applaud the U.S. military’s efforts to confront the twin challenges of oil addiction and climate change.

But sinking more drill pads into our oceans is not the answer. Not when better running cars and more efficient use of existing oil fields can transition us to the 21st century without harming marine life or marine jobs.

Climate Change "Pervasive, Wide-Ranging" White House Task Force Reports

2010-03-17T21:49:38Z

Climate change is already having "pervasive, wide-ranging" effects on "nearly every aspect of our society," a task force representing more than 20 federal agencies reported Tuesday.

"These impacts will influence how and where we live and work as well as our cultures, health and environment," the report states. "It is therefore imperative to take action now to adapt to a changing climate."

Indeed, climate change has begun to affect the ability of government agencies to fulfill their missions, reports the White House Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force.

The group is led by the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

It is made up of representatives from more than 20 federal agencies, departments and offices, including the Department of Commerce, the National Intelligence Council, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Pentagon. That's diverse - and it's definitive.

President Obama convened the task force in October, directing it to look into whether climate change was affecting the United States and, if so, what might be done about it.

On Tuesday, the group issued preliminary findings. As to the question of whether climate change is impacting our country, the report is emphatic.

"The Task Force has found that climate change is affecting, and will continue to affect, nearly every aspect of our society and the environment," the report states. "Some of the impacts are increased severity of floods, droughts, and heat waves, increased wildfires and sea level rise.

"Climate change impacts are pervasive, wide-ranging and affect the core systems of our society: transportation, ecosystems, agriculture, business, infrastructure, water, and energy, among others," the report continues. "Climate change already is affecting the ability of Federal agencies to fulfill their missions."

Strong stuff.

When reports like this come out of a White House task force, each word is parsed, discussed and vetted by all participants. It's a consensus document, meaning it reflects the view of the group as a whole. That makes writing the report a challenge, but it ensures authenticity and weight.

Those are two things notably lacking from the raft of climate change deniers who have been having a field day of late trying to rally an assault on science with a handful of stolen e-mails and a couple of minor errors in a 2,800-page report by the International Panel on Climate Change.

These same critics will likely try to paint the task force report in partisan terms. In fact, it relies on sound science developed over two decades through four administrations – two of them Republican, and two Democratic.

The White House task force tells us the truth. Our climate is changing, and it's affecting our country in fundamental ways.

One reason is that U.S. smokestacks and tailpipes will dump roughly 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the Earth's atmosphere this year alone. That's nearly one-fifth of the world total of this heat-trapping pollution.

We can do better.

The clean energy and climate legislation being drafted in the Senate can put us on the path to curbing carbon pollution. It can put Americans back to work building the next generation of energy-efficient cars, homes and workplaces. And it can make our country more secure by cutting our dependence on foreign oil in half. It needs and deserves our support.

I look forward to October, when the task force issues its final report.

A few things, though, are already clear. Climate change is happening, right here, right now. It threatens our future, our children, our way of life. It's time we face the facts and deal with what's happening right before our eyes – before it’s too late.

Climate Change Is a Scientific Reality, Not a Political Debate

2010-03-17T16:33:40Z

Climate denials have reached a fever pitch in the past few weeks. Anti-science screeds have littered the pages of the major newspapers and dominated talk radio.

From a New York Post editorial called “The EPA’s Climate Con” to a Rush Limbaugh show in which he says “Al Gore…ought to be subject to being sued” because global warming is a “hoax,” commentators have been trashing documented scientific evidence.

What I found most alarming about this trend is the fact that the media coverage and political debate so often take these rants at face value.

The scientific consensus confirms the dangers of climate change. Yet rarely are climate deniers called on to cite fact-based, peer-reviewed evidence for their rebuttals.

Instead, they spout unsubstantiated claims that fly in the face of climate data compiled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Academy of Sciences, the Pentagon, the National Intelligence Council, and the CIA.

Secretary of Energy Steven Chu characterized this trend in a recent interview: “If you look at the climate skeptics, I would have to say honestly, what standard are they being held to? It’s very asymmetric. They get to say anything they want.” (See multiple examples at MediaMatters.)

Inadvertently, Marc Morano, one of the driving forces behind denier website Climate Depot, identified the right’s key strategy. At the Accuracy in Media Awards at the 2010 Conservative Political Action Conference, Morano said climate change is “a political movement. It is not a scientific movement.”

But Morano and his cronies don’t get to classify what constitutes scientific fact according to their likes and dislikes. I am happy to engage in a political debate about which policies will most effectively solve global warming. But there is no debate about the fact that a third of the Arctic’s perennial ice has vanished in just 30 years or that the past decade was the hottest on record.

As the esteemed Dr. George Woodwell, the founder of the Woods Hole Research Center, and long-time NRDC trustee wrote to Joe Romm, “The climatic disruption is not a theory open to a belief system any more than the solar system is a theory, or gravity, or the oceanic tides, or evolution.” Woodwell has been studying climate change for more than 30 years and started testifying about it before Congress back in 1988.

Even if deniers feel entitled to disregard the IPCC’s entire 2,800 pages of documentation because of two errors and a few botched citations, they still must contend with voluminous evidence compiled by America’s leading research institutions.

Back in 1989, then-President George H. W. Bush decided to get to the bottom of the climate change debate. He initiated the U.S. Global Change Research Program--one of the most exhaustive undertakings in the annals of scientific inquiry. It was a 20-year study commissioned by Congress and conducted over the course four administrations--two of them Republican and two Democratic.

The agencies included NOAA, NASA, the Pentagon, the National Science Foundation, the Department of State and eight others. Their findings were released last June and here is how the report begins:

“Observations show that the warming of the climate is unequivocal.”

That’s right. The report is based on observation, not on conjecture, political views, or ideology. The report goes on to say, “The global warming over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases.”

These are definitive conclusions from the best research agencies in the world. They reflect scientific truths, not political interest groups.

Saying the Earth is flat doesn’t make it so. Nor does ignoring climate change make it go away. Still, we haven’t heard the last of the deniers. Now that clean energy and climate legislation is moving through the Senate and has the backing of the White House, we will likely hear more talk of “hoaxes” and “cons.” The fossil fuel industry, which has the most to gain by delaying climate action, is eager to amplify these false claims.

But next time you hear them, email, call, or write to the journalist or politician and demand to know where they get their facts from. If their standards are higher than the IPCC’s then they should be happy to share their evidence.

And when you want to get the truth behind the counterfeit theories, visit this great Union of Concerned Scientists’ Fact Checker site, where real climate scientists assess questions through the lens of science not politics.