Two new polls released today have some good news for the fight against climate change.

First, according to a USA Today/Gallup poll:

A solid majority of Americans support the idea of a global treaty that would require the United States to reduce significantly greenhouse gas emissions.

The poll found that:

• 55 percent endorse a binding accord to limit greenhouse gases
• Two-thirds (66 percent) of young people ages 18 to 29 support an accord

USA Today says the results should provide some encouragement for President Obama as he gets ready for his trip to Copenhagen.

A separate Associated Press-Stanford University poll finds that most Americans think fighting climate change will be good for our economy.

• 40 percent say U.S. action to slow global warming will create jobs
• 46 percent say it would boost the economy.
• Less than one third say it will hurt the economy or result in fewer jobs

AP calls it:

A sign the public is showing more faith in President Barack Obama's economic arguments for limiting heat-trapping gases than in Republican claims that the actions would kill jobs.

Let's start with the good news first: Environmental Defense Fund president Fred Krupp wrote an op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal outlining the need for the Copenhagen talks to make progress toward an effective verification and compliance system in a final agreement.

Fred says:

The road to a serious global agreement goes through the U.S. Congress… The task, then, for U.S. negotiators and their counterparts, is to focus on establishing the fundamental building blocks for an effective treaty that can be finalized in 2010.

He then lists those building blocks as:

• Inclusiveness
• Financing
• Verifiability and compliance

Read the whole piece for insight into each point.

Now the bad news: Sarah Palin wrote an op-ed in today's Washington Post that purports to be about Copenhagen, but really just rehashes "climate-gate." The piece tries to paint global warming as purely political issue and dismisses the underlying science. Read at your own risk. Media Matters has posted a thorough fact-check of the piece.

The White House just announced an updated schedule for President Obama's trip to the international climate change talks in Copenhagen.

The President will now go to Copenhagen on December 18th. That means he'll be there for the final day of negotiations – and will have a chance to ensure the talks make progress toward an effective treaty that can be negotiated and adopted after Senate action on a bill to cap U.S. carbon pollution.

AP says the President is:

.. hoping to capitalize on steps by India and China and build a more meaningful political accord.

The Chicago Tribune's The Swamp, meanwhile, says the White House decision:

… immediately raises expectations anew for some type of climate agreement to result from the talks.

Here's the official White House statement in full.

You may have seen the new video by Annie Leonard raising questions about cap and trade. It has provoked impassioned responses by environmentalists (comments are pouring in on the post by David Roberts that Tony linked to yesterday, and here's another from  Eric de Place on Sightline).

The first and most important thing to say about the video is that we really, really, really agree with one of her central points: A cap on carbon pollution is the most important step we can take to protect our environment.

But we disagree with some other things in the video — most of all, the idea that passing the current climate bill would be a bad idea.  The bill isn't perfect, but it would be an historic and effective step forward.  Here's why:

If we don't enact a cap soon, international negotiations will fail.  Without a limit on U.S. emissions, China and India will never agree to cut their global warming pollution.  That means our slow-motion, real-life disaster movie continues, and we probably shoot past the environmental tipping point scientists have warned us about.  That’s why President Obama endorsed the bill and said “delay is no longer an option.”

But maybe the most direct and practical reason is that the bill which passed the House of Representatives will result in a reduction in global warming pollution of four billion metric tons per year. That's nearly nine trillion pounds less pollution in the atmosphere by mid-century. It's the equivalent of taking 720 million cars off the road, permanently.

Failing to pass a bill means deciding to allow those 4 billion tons of pollution to go into the atmosphere every year.  Eleven million tons per day.

And if you feel that the bill should be even stronger, remember that some of the most important laws in our nation’s history — Social Security, the Civil Rights Act, the Clean Air Act — started as important first steps that were strengthened over time.   Unless we lay the foundation, we will never make any progress.

Lastly, the video talks about using the EPA to regulate carbon emissions instead of passing a cap and trade bill.  The EPA has an important role to play, but a law passed by Congress is much better.  There are lots of reasons, but consider just one: Do you really want to let the next anti-environmental President undo pollution limits through executive action?

We think there oughta be a law against that.

What would you like to tell the world's leaders about global warming?

With the focus now on the Copenhagen climate conference, this is your chance to speak out. Go to our Facebook page and add your voice to our 10,000 Reasons to Support Strong Climate Action campaign. We will share these reasons with key members of Congress and with the White House.

Here are just a handful of the more than 650 reasons offered so far:

Deborah Beracha of Fort Lauderdale, Fla, wrote:

Let's all join together. Global warming has to be taken seriously. Leaders need to stand up and limit global warming emissions and they need to do it now.

Ken Weitzman of Bloomington, IN, wrote:

As a father, I want to be able to answer two questions my children will one day ask:
1) Did you know?
Then, after I answer "yes"…

2) So what did you do?

Jeff Riney of Asheville, N.C., wrote:

If anything we need to do this for our kids! I dread the day that my daughter says, "thanks for the mess you left us Dad!"

Gabe Schirm of northern Colorado wrote:

The technology, the science and the will are here now. We have the solutions. We just need our leaders to do the right thing. Not later, but now.

President Obama announced last Wednesday that he will attend the international climate talks in Copenhagen — and that in the context of an overall international agreement that includes commitments from China and other emerging economies, he is prepared to put on the table a U.S. emissions reduction target in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels in 2020.

For those of you who were traveling, cooking, or turkey-shopping that night and missed the evening newscasts, here's EDF's president Fred Krupp talking about the announcement on NBC Nightly News.

California has the world’s eighth largest economy and a well-earned reputation as a global trendsetter on environmental policy.

It should come as no surprise that Californians are out of the gate on the most urgent environmental challenge of our generation: building a clean energy future that protects the world from catastrophic global warming.

Given that the countdown to Copenhagen is underway and the White House and Congress are weighing proposals and priorities, California’s leadership-by-example means more than ever.

Today, the California Air Resources Board unveiled a conceptual outline – a Preliminary Draft Regulation (PDR) [PDF file, 800K]- of what will become a mandatory, multi-sector cap-and-trade program to take effect on January 1, 2012.  The program will set an absolute limit on sources of 85 percent of the state’s pollution, dialing back pollution levels by 15 percent between now and 2020. California leaders project that a final cap-and-trade program will be adopted by the state’s environmental agency in October 2010, two months ahead of the statutory deadline.

Today’s action is another step on the path to a clean energy future that will create economic opportunities and environmental benefits for all Californians.

The stage was set for today in 2006, when Governor Schwarzenegger signed the landmark Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32), a mandatory cap on greenhouse gas emissions in the state. The bill’s passage inspired several other states to adopt similar measures and led seven U.S. states and four Canadian provinces to commit to a regional cap-and-trade program called the Western Climate Initiative.

Get more details on the announcement from our press release, and keep tabs on the California cap-and-trade process on Air Resources Board's site.

After all the drama, the clean energy bill is on its way to the next stage in the Senate, having cleared committee this morning. Meanwhile, Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman are leading the charge to getting a clean energy bill passed on the Senate floor.

EDF's president Fred Krupp had this to say:

A lot has happened quickly in the clean energy world. Here's a wrap-up:

• Yesterday was day two of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's markup process for the Kerry-Boxer bill. Republicans once again boycotted the proceedings, although they made a couple of cameo appearances. The markup continues today — you can see it on C-Span. And, Greenwire is now reporting that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has given EPW Chairwoman Barbara Boxer "the green  light" to move ahead without the GOP. Reid reportedly told Boxer to advance global warming legislation on Tuesday, November 10,  if Republicans have not ended their boycott by then.
• At the same time, three strange bedfellows — Sens. John Kerry (D-MA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) announced they would work on a "dual track" to create a climate bill that would get 60 Senate votes. Our Tony Kriendler says the three have given "new life to a bipartisan process."
• The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is making tentative gestures of support in the general direction of a climate bill. The Chamber, which has been slammed by the media and abandoned by some of its own members since saying we need a "Scopes monkey trial" on climate science, said today that it "supports most of the principles outlined" in that Kerry-Graham-Lieberman proposal. Details are still fuzzy, but Tony Kreindler says: "We're delighted to see the Chamber recognize that there's a bipartisan path forward to a cap on emissions. If they support it, that would be truly a first." Indeed, we at EDF would all be thrilled if the Chamber's new tone were followed up with real action.
• A new group launched today "to support action to limit greenhouse gases and counter the U.S. Chamber of Commerce." American Businesses for Clean Energy includes high profile companies — including some who quit the Chamber because of its stance on climate change. Members include utilities — New Jersey's Public Service Enterprise Group Inc. (PSEG), Florida's FPL Group Inc. (FPL) and New Mexico's PNM Resources (PNM) — as retailer Gap Inc. and Colorado ski resort operator Aspen Skiing Co. More from the Wall Street Journal.
• And New York University School of Law's Institute for Policy Integrity released a new poll of 144 economists. It found a whopping "94% believe the U.S. should join climate agreements to limit global warming," and that "significant benefits from curbing greenhouse-gas emissions would justify the costs of action."

Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow unveiled her new agriculture and forestry title for the Senate climate bill today. The legislation would establish a domestic “offset” program for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

We gave the measure qualified praise today, saying it gives the Senate an opportunity to craft a consensus approach that delivers low-cost emissions reductions with environmental credibility — but also cautioning that the bill needs more work to guarantee that offsets are environmentally effective.

Here's the statement from our senior policy manager, John Mimikakis:

Offsets are contentious, but they are essential to effective climate policy. Senator Stabenow deserves praise for trying to find the middle ground and move climate legislation forward.

We have a number of concerns with the bill that we’d like to see addressed as the legislation moves forward. Offsets need to be measured as rigorously as any other emissions reduction. Otherwise there will be little faith in what offset developers are selling and no certainty that we’re achieving pollution reduction goals.

We look forward to working with Senator Stabenow and other members of the Senate to build on the legislation introduced today.