Today's New York Times features a story that may not shock you, but should concern us all:

According to internal reports dating back to 1995, scientists working for the Global Climate Coalition, an industry-sponsored group set up to wage a lobbying and public relations war against global warming action, were telling their bosses that human-caused global warming could not be refuted. But, that didn't stop industry lobbyists from waging a cynical campaign to undermine the science and cloud the debate.

Read the full story here.

Americans were outraged a decade ago when cigarette makers made similar claims about the evidence linking smoking and lung cancer. And then we discovered reams of damning research hidden away in tobacco company vaults.

The only real difference between then and now is that global warming stands to threaten more than just people — millions of species face extinction, entire ecosystems altered beyond recognition, the natural world as we know it today irreparably diminished.

The House Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment is holding hearings this week on landmark climate and energy legislation.

We are launching a regular Fact Check series to correct the record on false and misleading statements from climate action opponents.

Here's our third installment:

The policies to spur innovation and utilize the creativity of America's scientists and engineers are not in this bill. — Former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R)

The centerpiece of this bill will make clean energy profitable by capping carbon – and that's exactly what will give scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs an economic incentive to create new technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We have empirical evidence that cap and trade works. When the formula was applied in the 1990s to lower acid rain pollution from power plants, it worked faster and more cheaply than anyone predicted.

The expected market price for SO2 allowances was in the range of $579-$1,935 per ton of SO2. The actual market price in January, 2003 was $150 per ton.

This bill is a big energy tax. — Former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R)

The bill is not a tax. Under a cap on carbon, there will be a small increase in energy bills for the average American – and Congress has the tools it needs to protect U.S. consumers. The EPA estimates that the cap in the American Clean Energy and Security Act can be met for as little as $98 per household per year – about a dime a day per person. That’s roughly what it costs to brew one pot of coffee in the morning, and substantially less than a pack of chewing gum.

That's nothing compared to what will happen to our economy and our pocketbooks if we fail to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — punishing heat waves, droughts, water shortages, rising sea levels, worldwide food shortages, intense hurricanes and more. Even the military is worried about the national security implications.

There is no smoking gun that people are responsible for global warming. — Mike Burgess, (R-TX)

The "smoking guns" are everywhere scientists look.

Fact: the decade of 1998-2007 was the warmest on record, according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

Fact: glaciers are in retreat on every continent.

Fact: the Arctic Sea ice extent has been diminishing over the past 20 years in agreement with model predictions.

Fact: levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are higher now than at any time in the last 600,000 years (and probably in the last 20 million), and getting higher every year.

Fact: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2,500 of the best climate scientists in the world, citing hundreds of the latest studies, has concluded that global warming is happening, and human activity is responsible. So has the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which even President George W. Bush called "the gold standard."

Cap and trade legislation will export millions of jobs out of our economy.  — Steve Scalise, (R-LA)

Ohio has lost more that 213,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000. For Michigan, the figure is almost 497,000 jobs lost.

One way to create new jobs in America, including manufacturing jobs, is with a cap and trade bill to address climate change, which could spark a manufacturing renaissance. A single wind turbine contains 250 tons of steel, along with 8,000 parts, from copper wire, gearboxes and ball bearings to electronic controls. Jobs making these components, and installing and maintaining turbines, can be created here in America.

EDF has created a map detailing where a carbon cap will create jobs in 12 states – go to www.lesscarbonmorejobs.org.

Global warming will help sea life. — Joe Barton, (R-TX)

The ocean is acidifying because of increased absorption of atmospheric CO2, produced by human activity, posing a threat for shell-forming species, which are an essential part of the marine food web.

Many forms of ocean life that use calcium carbonate to form their skeletons or shells, including familiar species such as corals and shellfish. Ocean acidification makes it harder for these "calcifying organisms" to maintain themselves.

You can see why yourself with a simple experiment. Calcium carbonate comes in many forms, and is the primary component in chalk, lime, and marble. Take a piece of chalk and put it in a glass of water. It will just sit there – a wet piece of chalk. Now slowly pour in some vinegar – an acid. The water will start to bubble, emitting CO2, and the chalk will dissolve.

This is an exaggerated example of what's happening in the ocean. The ocean isn't as acidic as a glass of water with vinegar, so calcifying organisms aren't actually dissolving in front of our eyes. But the ocean's increased acidity makes it harder for them to form healthy shells and skeletons.

Changing ocean circulation patterns would also affect the nutrient delivery system for marine life. As oceans absorb more heat, upwellings of cold, nutrient-rich waters can become less frequent. Without this nourishment, blooms of plant plankton, a critical link in the marine food chain, are disrupted. Food for sea life up the food chain, like krill, larger fish, and seabirds, is cut off.

Some signs already show that the marine food web is fraying. In 2005 on the U.S. West Coast and 2004 in Britain, hundreds of thousands of seabirds failed to breed. Dead seabirds like cormorants and Cassin's auklets have washed up on West Coast beaches. The culprit for the collapse appears to be slackening upwellings, which decreased phytoplankton blooms in these coastal areas. Fewer phytoplankton mean fewer fish, leaving the birds to face mass starvation.

The delta smelt is "a worthless little worm" that deserves to go the way of the dinosaurs. — George Radanovich (R-CA)

Actually, it's a fish, not a worm. The delta smelt, once one of the most common fish in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary, is now listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The goal of the act is not just to protect single species but also the ecosystems on which they depend. Peter Moyle, a fisheries biologist at UC Davis, calls the delta smelt an indicator species: Its condition reflects the overall health of an ecosystem.

Unfortunately, no smelt were called before the Committee to testify that they deserve to live.

This Congress doesn’t know what will happen in a week, much less 30 years. — George Radanovich (R-CA)

If true, how can some members of Congress predict that global warming action will hurt the economy?

One thing we do know: In about one week some members of Congress will sieze this critical opportunity to take historic action to fight global warming while others will continue to blindly deny that human activity is causing global climate change, in the face of all scientific evidence.

That's what David Yarnold had to say about the Earth Day announcement from Wal-Mart and BP Solar to double the number of solar panels on Wal-Mart stores in California over the next 18 months.  The new solar installation project will create more than a hundred jobs while reducing use of energy from the power grid. (See a video of him discussing the announcement on Governor Schwarzanegger's blog.)

David emphasized that even with progress like this, we still need Congress to act:

We need a national cap on carbon to limit emissions, and a way to reward companies and states that develop and utilize clean energy solutions such as solar. The commitment to Wal-Mart [that] BP is making today is a step in the right direction.

As Tony wrote earlier, the House subcommittee working on climate legislation celebrated Earth Week with a packed schedule of testimony.

One of the more interesting participants was Mayor John Fetterman, from tiny Braddock, Pa., who has become a national champion in the fight to cap carbon pollution. He did a great job explaining that for communities like his, a cap on carbon will be an economic lifeline (see the video). He was joined on the panel by Nat Keohane, EDF's chief economist.

Here are some wrap-ups:

• Over at PowerShift, Danny Marx live-blogged the day of testimony.
• The hearings were noticed back in Pennsylvania, too. Read what the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote about the ads Mayor Fetterman did with EDF and his trip to Washington.
• And taking the broad view, Jimmy Seidita posted on Huffington Post that there's only one must-do to save the planet: support the Obama administration's efforts to limit carbon emissions.

We'll hear more testimony today, including appearances by former GOP Senator John Warner and Al Gore, and next week the subcommittee starts the tough work of marking up the bill.

The House Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment is holding hearings this week on landmark climate and energy legislation.

We are launching a regular Fact Check series to correct the record on false and misleading statements from climate action opponents.

Here's our second installment:

No one will buy hybrid vehicles unless forced to by the government. – Joe Barton, (R-TX)

Americans have already demonstrated that they will buy hybrids if they are reliable, economical, and stylish, and if they incorporate the convenience features we now expect in automobiles. The Toyota Prius was one of the best selling cars of 2007, with more than 181,000 sold. To date, Toyota has sold more than 700,000 Priuses in the U.S.  In 2008, Toyota sold 30,693 of its large SUV, the Sequoia.

Cap and trade will kick working families when they're down. – Fred Upton, (R-MI)

American working families are definitely down. Ohio has lost more that 213,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000. For Michigan, the figure is almost 497,000 jobs lost.

One way to get some of these jobs back is with a cap and trade bill to address climate change, which could spark a manufacturing renaissance. A single wind turbine contains 250 tons of steel, along with 8,000 parts, from copper wire, gearboxes, and ball bearings to electronic controls. A wind turbine tower contains more than 50 tons of steel. Jobs making these components, and installing and maintaining, turbines can be created here in America

EDF has created a map detailing where a carbon cap will create jobs in 12 states – go to www.lesscarbonmorejobs.org.

The number of manufacturing jobs in January 2005 (14.1 million) was well below its peak of nearly 20 million in late 1979. Causes of the decline in American manufacturing include a shift in consumer spending away from manufactured goods, in favor of services; a steady increase in labor productivity, which allows firms to produce more with fewer workers; and competition from foreign producers. 

This bill is a disguised tax.  – Robert Michaels, California State University

The bill is neither disguised nor a tax. Under cap and trade, there will be a modest increase in energy bills for the average American. EPA estimates it will only cost the average American household about 12 to 15 cents a day more in total energy costs. That's roughly what it costs to brew one pot of coffee in the morning, and substantially less than a pack of chewing gum.

That's nothing compared to what will happen to Planet Earth, and the economy, if we fail to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — punishing heat waves, droughts, water shortages, sea level rise that threatens coastal cities, food shortages around the world, intense hurricanes, and more. Even the military is worried about the national security implications. One never hears about these costs from the opponents of this bill – either because they don't believe global warming is real, or they refuse to believe what scientists are saying about the future consequences of inaction.

The House Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment is holding hearings this week on landmark climate and energy legislation.

We are launching a regular Fact Check series during the subcommittee and subsequent full committee debate to correct the record on false and misleading statements from climate action opponents.

Here's our first installment:

The renewable energy requirements in this bill are entirely unrealistic. – Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) 

A cap on carbon will unleash the investment necessary for America to meet this target. Our steel plants need orders, our factories need new customers, and our exporters need high value products to sell to Asia and Europe. A cap will drive enormous clean energy investments throughout the supply chain – generating demand for ball bearings and steel for wind turbines, glass and plastics for solar cells, and hundreds of new technologies.

We know cap and trade works because we have empirical evidence. In the 1990s, the U.S. acid rain cap and trade program achieved 100% compliance in reducing sulfur dioxide emissions. In fact, power plants participating in the program reduced SO2 emissions 22% — 7.3 million tons — below mandated levels.

All this has been achieved at a fraction of the cost estimates. Prior to the launch of the program, costs were estimated to run from $3-$25 billion per year. After the first 2 years of the program, the costs were actually $0.8 billion per year and the long-term costs of the program are expected to be around $1.0-$1.4 billion per year, far below early projections.

The doom-and-gloomers were wrong then. And they're wrong now.

We must be plain, and we must be honest when we discuss this system. It will pull thousands more out of the family budget every year. – Marsha Blackburn, R-TN

A cap on carbon pollution will help break America's addiction to oil and create jobs, while protecting the family budget. Best of all, it's affordable. Based on EPA estimates, it will only cost the average American household about 12 to 15 cents a day more. That's roughly what it costs to brew one pot of coffee in the morning.

The cost of this cap-and-trade system will kill agriculture long before global warming does. – George Radanovich (R-CA)

Nothing will kill California agriculture faster than global warming. Southern California is already subtropical in the summer. But with climate change, the dry conditions of Southern California could spread to areas like northern California, Washington and Utah.

That means climate change hits the California agriculture with a double whammy – a shift to a climate with less precipitation coupled with the loss of the mountain snowpack that acts as a reservoir for the state, which the state is already experiencing now.

In a worst case, Energy Secretary Chu has said, up to 90% of the Sierra snowpack could disappear, all but eliminating a natural storage system for water vital to agriculture. Actually, under a cap and trade policy, farmers will have the chance to profit in the new carbon markets.

We lack the fundamental piece of evidence that humans are causing global warming. – Mike Burgess, TX

Where to begin?

Fact: The decade of 1998-2007 was the warmest on record, according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

Fact: Glaciers are in retreat on every continent.

Fact: Arctic sea ice extent has been diminishing over the past 20 years in agreement with model predictions, according to NOAA.

Fact: Levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are higher than at any time in the last 600,000 years (and probably in the last 20 million), and getting higher every year. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2,500 of the best climate scientists in the world, citing hundreds of the latest studies, has concluded that global warming is happening, and human activity is responsible. So has the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which even President George W. Bush called "the gold standard."

Largest assault on democracy & freedom in this country I've ever experienced. – John Shimkus (R-IL)

Well, okay…

We have some folks from EDF down at the carbon cap bill hearing today.  Follow us on Twitter at www.twitter.com/EnvDefenseFund to keep up with the good, the bad, and the ugly!

Today, I am heading to Capitol Hill with John Fetterman, mayor of Braddock, Pa.  Mayor Fetterman recently lent his voice to Environmental Defense Action Fund’s "Carbon Caps=Hard Hats" ad campaign, which calls on Congress to pass climate change legislation.

On this Earth Day, the House Energy and Commerce Committee is holding hearings centered around the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES), and they asked the mayor to come talk about jobs.

Braddock used to be a booming steel town. When the steel manufacturing sector left in the 1970s, Braddock gradually slumped, falling from a population of 20,000 to 2,000.

When John Fetterman first came to Braddock, he saw potential, thinking not as an environmentalist, but as a citizen wanting to revitalize a community. He sees Braddock, and other cities that depend on steel (like Akron, Ohio, and Detroit, Mich.,), ready for economic growth. He has a vision of restoring jobs that left with the steel industry. And what can trigger that growth is a cap on carbon.

So today, the mayor is on Capitol Hill to tell Congress that there are jobs in renewable energy and steel, and if they pass a carbon cap, there will be jobs in Braddock, Pa.

Friday, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson officially determined that global warming pollution "endangers" the nation's human health and well-being.

The "endangerment finding," as we enviros call it, was required by the Supreme Court during Massachusetts v. EPA, a landmark victory that rejected the Bush EPA's laundry list of reasons not to address global warming pollution under the federal Clean Air Act.

Since that victory in April of 2007, we have been waiting for the EPA to "determine" what scientists have known for years: that global warming pollution is a danger to America's health and well-being.

This EPA finding, coupled with the American Clean Energy and Security Act moving out of Chairman Henry Waxman's committee by Memorial Day, offers us a glimpse at the finish line.

While the determination does not establish national emission standards for the main culprits of carbon pollution, the EPA will begin developing these standards while it finalizes the "endangerment" determination.

See our overview of the case for more about the twists and turns on the road to this determination.

Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, wrote an op-ed Monday in the Capitol Hill newspaper, Roll Call, complaining that global warming action will cost too much.

And, he might have a point — if his facts were, well, factual.

Instead, his sensationalistic claims seem to justify his opposition to global warming action rather than engage in a clear-headed debate.

In this Truth Squad entry, we'll examine his op-ed point by point:

That's Not What MIT's Report Says

Claim:

"According to a Massachusetts Institute of Technology model of a 100 percent auction cap-and-tax, the American people will be taxed $366 billion in 2015 — four times as much as the president's estimate of $80.3 billion for that year… A family of four could expect to pay as much as $4,560 in additional costs in 2015."

Truth:

MIT has publicly berated the NRCC’s misrepresentation of its report, yet the unwarranted claims using these incorrect estimates keep resurfacing.  According to MIT, the correct estimate of the cost for an average household in 2015 is about $65 per family.

It's 10 cents a Day

Claim:

"Increased energy costs would near $1 trillion in 2030. Increases in electricity costs could be more than 100 percent."

Truth:

A cap on carbon pollution will help break America's addiction to oil and create jobs, while protecting the family budget.

Best of all, it's affordable. For example, based on Department of Energy estimates, it will only cost the average American household about ten cents a day more on their utility bills — this includes electricity AND heating. That's roughly what it costs to brew one pot of coffee in the morning.

A Cap Will Unleash American Innovation

Claim:

"There is no help for businesses that may move across our borders or permanently shut down operations. Not welcome news, especially with one-third of our jobs dependent on exports. Quite simply, cap-and-trade caps our growth and trades our jobs."

Truth:

Maintaining the competitive edge of the U.S. is a critical issue that has not been lost on the policy-makers on Capitol Hill— all cap proposals include provisions to avoid losing out to overseas industry.

The real question is which countries and companies will be exporting new clean energy technologies — likely the biggest new business of the 21st century. A cap will unleash the investment necessary for America to get ahead in this race.

Our steel plants need orders, our factories need new customers, and our exporters need high value products to sell to Asia and Europe.

A cap will drive enormous clean energy investments throughout the supply chain– generating demand for ball bearings and steel for wind turbines, glass and plastics for solar cells, and hundreds of new technologies.

President Obama recognized this when he explained that the effort to create millions of jobs and restore American leadership will ‘start with a federal cap and trade system.’

Cap and Trade is a Proven Environmental Policy

Claim:

"Cap-and-tax can only hurt the economy while providing a questionable environmental benefit."

Truth:

When a similar cap-and-trade policy was proposed for reducing acid rain pollution during the 1990 Clean Air Act battle, our opponents made this very same argument over and over. It'll cost too much. It won't work.

What happened? Well, the cap on sulfur dioxide pollution worked so well that The Economist crowned it "probably the greatest green success story of the past decade." (July 6, 2002).

In the 1990s, the U.S. acid rain cap and trade program achieved 100% compliance in reducing sulfur dioxide emissions. In fact, power plants participating in the program reduced SO2 emissions 22% — 7.3 million tons — below mandated levels.

All this has been achieved at a fraction of the cost estimates. Prior to the launch of the program, costs were estimated to run from $3-$25 billion per year. After the first 2 years of the program, the costs were actually $0.8 billion per year and the long-term costs of the program are expected to be around $1.0-$1.4 billion per year, far below early projections.

The doom-and-gloomers were wrong then. And they're wrong now.

The U.S. Must Lead

Claim:

"The U.S. cannot go it alone in the effort to cut greenhouse gases. Absent a global agreement that includes the heavy-emitting developing countries, cap-and-tax will only send energy costs up while sending employment numbers down."

Truth:

The Congressman will be happy to know that 183 countries have signed and ratified the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty, which calls for emission reductions from developed countries and other commitments from lesser developed countries. In fact, the United States is one of only 14 countries not to ratify the Kyoto agreement, joining the likes of Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Brunei. We've been going it nearly alone alright — alone in inaction.

Rep. Upton actually makes the case for domestic global warming action this year. The world will meet again in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December to negotiate the next international agreement for global climate action. If we fail to lead on this issue by acting domestically, we will have a weaker negotiating position from which to shape the international debate to our liking.

Five Principles of Successful Global Warming Action

Claim:

"Any climate change legislation must adhere to five basic principles: 1) provide a tangible environmental benefit to the American people; 2) advance technology and provide the opportunity for export; 3) protect American jobs; 4) strengthen U.S. energy security; and 5) require global participation."

Truth:

1) Check; 2) Check; 3) Check; 4) Check; 5) Check. Hard to argue with these goals — in fact, they are some of the same goals that will be achieved when we pass a comprehensive cap on America's global warming pollution as proposed under the draft Waxman-Markey Clean Energy and Security Act.

83% reduction of America's global warming emissions by 2050 (as called for in the bill) is about as tangible an environmental benefit as you can get — it is entirely consistent with what most scientists say is necessary to avoid the catastrophic threats of run-away global warming.

Want more green energy technologies? A cap will unleash our clean energy future by creating powerful market incentives to invent and deploy new green energy innovation.

Concerned about jobs? As we've shown in our Less Carbon More Jobs report, a cap on carbon will put Americans back to work.

What about our reliance on foreign oil? A cap will begin to free us from our dependence on imported oil.

And, when it comes to global participation, bold leadership from the United States will encourage China, India and other emerging economies to the table — if we don't show leadership, how can we possibly expect other countries to act?