Environmental Defense Fund can't comment on the candidates in this year's historic election because of our tax status as a 501c3 charitable organization. But it's okay for us to provide interesting sources of information, and here's one: a site that tracks which lawmakers receive money from the coal industry.

It's very detailed and very interesting, with multiple ways to browse or search. Take a look!

Earlier this month I posted about problems with a Pew poll that found a majority of Americans now favor expanding oil drilling over protecting the environment. I suggested that the results were misleading, biased by the questions Pew asked. A new poll released last week confirms this.

When asked whether government's priority should be "invest in new energy technology" or "expand exploration and drilling", a full 76 percent said "invest in new energy technology" should be the priority.

When asked whether they thought allowing oil companies to drill in new areas would lower gas prices, 54 percent of respondents said no.

Check out the full report [PDF] by Belden Russonello & Stewart for more.

According to a poll conducted in June by the Pew Research Center, soaring gas prices have caused a significant shift in American attitudes in just four months. American priorities, they say, have shifted strongly towards energy exploration and drilling, and away from conservation.

Is environmentalism dead, or is this result mainly due to how Pew framed the survey questions? I think the latter.

Take, for example, this question:

Right now, which ONE of the following do you think should be a more important priority for this country:

Protecting the environment

OR

Developing new sources of energy

The question implies that you have to make a choice – that it's one or the other. But this isn't so — it's possible to do both. What if the options were develop clean energy or develop dirty energy? The results would have been quite different.

The second question in the Pew poll had a similar problem:

Right now, which ONE of the following do you think should be the more important priority for U.S. energy policy:

Expanding exploration, mining and drilling, and the construction of new power plants

OR

More energy conservation and regulation on energy use and prices

That's like asking people whether they'd prefer to eat disgusting food or go hungry. Those are hardly the only options! What if the choices were drill for oil or get the electric car on the road? Again, the results would have been quite different.

Pew's inartfully worded poll tells us that Americans are feeling squeezed, for sure, but little more.

The main reason to pass climate legislation as soon as possible is that the fate of the world is at stake. We're in a race against time to stop global warming, or face irreversible climate catastrophe.

But there's also another race – the race to develop the clean energy technologies that will power our future. The world is at the dawn of a technological revolution, and we need the economic incentive of climate legislation to fully participate.

Global investment in clean energy is growing – rising to over $70 billion in 2007, as you can see in the graph below. But it isn't enough.

Source: REN21 2007 Global Status Report. Used with permission.

When you look at total world energy consumption over time, you can see how far we still have to go. In the graph below, renewables are shown in red. They're growing as a percentage, as you can see, but they still provide only a small fraction of the energy we use.

Source: IEA Key World Energy Statistics 2007.

What will it cost to meet future world energy needs? Global Energy Perspectives examined this question under different scenarios. The scenarios that minimize global warming have the lowest costs, but the cost of meeting future energy needs – no matter how it's done – is massive. The green (lowest-cost) scenario still requires over $9 trillion in energy investment from 1990 to 2020, and over $14 trillion from 2020 to 2050. That comes out to nearly $400 billion per year invested in renewables.

When you put it that way it seems overwhelming, but we're poised to do it. Here are just a few of the promising projects in the works (from Earth: The Sequel):

• Cheaper solar energy from silicon nanocrystals dissolved in ink that can be printed onto any surface, including roofing material.
• Redesigned viruses that assemble themselves into the most powerful batteries ever seen.
• Reengineered yeast fermenting sugar into pure hydrocarbon fuel that any car, truck, or plane can use.
• Biodiesel fuel from algae feeding on power plant smokestacks – priced competitively with diesel made from $60/barrel oil.
• Clean, renewable energy from tides, waves, and geothermal heat.

But to bring these projects to market at a speed and scale sufficient to halt global warming, we must have the strong economic incentive of cap-and-trade legislation. Dupont CEO Chad Holliday, quoted in Earth: The Sequel, explains why this is so important:

You need some certainty on the incentives side and on the market side, because we are talking about multiyear investments, billions of dollars that will take a long time to pay off.

A similar view is expressed by the CEOs who lead the World Business Council for Sustainable Development in their report Investing in a Low-Carbon Energy Future in the Developing World [PDF]:

A lack of certainty over policies related to carbon pricing and GHG [greenhouse gas] reduction targets increases the risk of achieving a commercial return for low-GHG technology projects. While this uncertainty prevails, the bulk of potential private capital available will probably flow to traditional energy sources, or remain uncommitted until definitive policies, which underpin a pragmatic approach, begin to emerge.

These CEOs know what they're talking about. A study of global trends in renewable energy investment [PDF] found that a mandatory cap and carbon market significantly strengthen renewable energy companies:

The 'Kyoto Effect' can be observed, with quoted renewable energy companies in countries that have ratified the Protocol outperforming those in non-ratifying countries by 41.3%.

We're at the dawn of a global energy revolution. If we are to lead the world in clean energy technologies, we must create an environment that allows U.S. businesses to act. If we wait too long to pass climate legislation, we may find ourselves buyers rather than sellers.

Earth: The Sequel, the new book by EDF President Fred Krupp and Miriam Horn, is filled with interesting facts. Here are ten numbers that may surprise you.

Government Dollars

China spends 200 times more on solar energy than does the U.S., and the U.S. spends six times more on subsidies to the gas and oil industries than it does on renewable energy research. Hmmm…

• $6 billion – Amount the federal government gives to the oil and gas industries each year in subsidies and tax benefits, page 11.
• $1 billion – Amount the federal government spends each year on research into renewable sources of energy (this is less than ExxonMobil earns in a single day), page 11.
• $200 billion – Amount China has committed to invest in utility-scale solar power, page 65.

Solar Energy Production

As China clearly recognizes, judging from its investment, solar power has great potential. But solar power is underutilitized. Worldwide, that's starting to change.

• 100 square miles – Land area needed to power the entire U.S. if only 10% of the sun's energy could be converted to electricity, page 15.
• 6.6 gigawatts – Total worldwide energy production from solar in 2007, compared to 1000 gigawatts from coal, page 16.
• 0.05% – Percent of U.S. energy produced from solar, page 16.
• 44% – Percent growth in the world's solar energy-generating capacity in 2005 (at this rate, by 2050 the Sun could supply ten times the Earth's energy needs), page 14.

Solar Energy Generates Jobs

The benefits of solar power go beyond the environment. According to the National Renewable Energy Lab, solar thermal energy can generate jobs, as well as electricity.

• 3,400 – Number of construction jobs that each gigawatt of solar thermal-generated electricity will create, page 65.
• 250 – Number of permanent jobs that each gigawatt of solar thermal-generated electricity will create, page 65.
• $500 million – Amount of tax revenues that each gigawatt of solar thermal-generated electricity will create, page 65.

A federal appeals court decided last week that a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule exempting coal- and oil-fired power plants from cutting toxic mercury pollution violates the Clean Air Act and is unlawful. The court rebuked EPA for attempting to create an illegal loophole for the power generating industry rather than applying the toughest emission standards of the Clean Air Act (see full text of decision [PDF]).

The ruling invalidates the agency's so-called "Clean Air Mercury Rule," which allowed power plants that fail to meet emission targets to buy credits from plants that exceeded targets, rather than installing mercury emissions controls of their own. In other words, the EPA wanted to use a cap-and-trade system with mercury – a highly toxic substance.

Fourteen states, dozens of Native American tribes, public health and environmental groups (including Environmental Defense), and organizations representing registered nurses and physicians challenged the EPA's mercury rules. Are you surprised that Environmental Defense opposed a cap-and-trade system? It's because mercury is a toxin, and cap-and-trade doesn't work with toxins.

A cap-and-trade system is the best way to limit sulfur dioxide (acid rain) and greenhouse gases because they're ubiquitous and their negative impact is more global than local. With toxins like mercury, there can be hotspots of pollution, such as a particular lake or stream. The only way to handle a toxin is with an absolute cap – no trading. The power industry has had the technology for years now to dramatically reduce toxic mercury pollution, and it's way past time to put it to work.

Mercury is mostly emitted as air pollution that ends up in waterways and accumulates in fish. When people eat the fish, they ingest the mercury which can then cause nerve and brain damage, especially in young children and developing fetuses. EPA is well aware of how toxic mercury is. They have a whole Web site devoted to it.

Approximately 1,100 coal-fired units at more than 450 existing power plants spew 48 tons of mercury into the air each year. Yet only 1/70th of a teaspoon of mercury is needed to contaminate a 25-acre lake to the point where fish are unsafe to eat. Over 40 states have warned their citizens to avoid consuming various fish species due to mercury contamination, with over half of those mercury advisories applying to all bodies of water in the state. Power plants also emit tens of thousands of tons of other air toxics, including hydrogen chloride, arsenic and lead.

The EPA mercury rules generated controversy from the moment they were proposed in 2004. Key language was drafted by power industry attorneys who were employed by the same law firm from which EPA's political management hailed. EPA's internal auditor in the Office of Inspector General discovered that EPA senior political management had ordered staff to work backwards from a predetermined political outcome "instead of basing the standard on an unbiased determination of what the top performing [power plant] units were achieving in practice."

We filed suit against the EPA mercury rules in 2005, and it took two years for the courts to strike it down – two years during which energy companies have continued to poison the planet with mercury.

"The Bush administration cannot ignore its responsibilities to bring power plants' mercury pollution under control," said Earthjustice attorney James Pew, who represented Environmental Defense, the Sierra Club, and the National Wildlife Federation in the lawsuit. "We hope the administration will gain some new respect for the law in its last year and start working to protect Americans from pollution and stop working to shield polluters from their lawful cleanup obligations."

It's not just an election year, it's an historic election year. Every news outlet is filled with speculation and commentary. So why is it so quiet here, at Climate 411? How come we don't talk about the election and the candidates?

It's because of our tax status. Environmental Defense is incorporated as a 501c3 charitable organization. This means that donations to us are tax deductible, and we are allowed only limited lobbying and no electioneering whatsoever. Even commenting on candidates' climate change plans could imply that we prefer one over the other and jeopardize our tax status. That's why we talk about policies and not about candidates.

If (when) global warming legislation is introduced in the House, it will first be debated in the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA). If it passes after mark-up, it will then go to the full House Energy and Commerce Committee, chaired by Rep. John Dingell (D-MI).

Rick Boucher and John Dingell are among the most influential players in the House when it comes to global warming. Who are some of the others? Check out our list of House Members to Watch on Global Warming.

Sometimes it can seem like we're not making any progress at all on the global warming front, but we are! Here are ten important policy victories from 2007.

1. Supreme Court victories. We won two Supreme Court cases in 2007, but the notable one from a climate change standpoint was Massachusetts versus EPA. It all started because EPA claimed it didn't have authority to rule on California's waiver request. The Supreme Court said that, far from having no authority, EPA has a duty to regulate greenhouse gas pollution.
2. 18 states ready to adopt Clean Car program. It might seem strange to include this as a victory when EPA just denied California's waiver request, preventing all 18 states (and counting) from adopting the stricter standards. But it's not over yet. California is challenging the ruling, and having 18 states agree to the standards is a big victory.
3. U.S. DOT grants to cut traffic and pollution. Traffic jams mean a lot of idling cars spewing additional greenhouse gases. London achieved a 20 percent decrease in CO₂ emissions when it implemented congestion pricing. The U.S. Department of Transportation set aside $1.2 billion for U.S. cities to try it. New York and San Francisco have both received grants.
4. Big-city sustainability programs. Cities are taking other types of action, as well. New York's Mayor Bloomberg has been particularly active in fighting global warming. His PlaNYC will quadruple bike lanes, convert taxis to hybrids, and impose a congestion fee for driving into Manhattan. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and other mayors also have announced climate action plans.
5. State-wide mandatory caps on emissions. California enacted the first mandatory state-wide cap on global warming pollution, reducing their emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Other states have followed suit. New Jersey and Hawaii have passed emissions caps, and the governors of Minnesota and Florida have announced emissions targets.
6. Regional climate compacts. States have joined forces to fight global warming in regional initiatives representing more than half the country. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), for example, is a consortium of nine states in the northeast. The Western Climate Initiative (WCI) is a compact that several western U.S. states, Mexican states, and Canadian provinces have joined or are observing.
7. TXU coal expansion stopped. This wasn't strictly a policy victory since it occurred in the business arena, but it was a huge victory nonetheless. Environmental Defense hammered TXU with court suits and a damaging television campaign for its plans to build new dirty coal plants. TXU's stock price went down and a buyer took them over – contingent on approval by Environmental Defense and the National Resource Defense Council. Among the concessions was agreement to halt construction of eight new coal plants.
8. US-CAP launches and grows. The United States Climate Action Partnership (US-CAP) is a coalition of businesses and environmental organizations advocating national legislation for mandatory reduction of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The membership list includes the CEOs of General Electric, General Motors, and dozens of other Fortune 500 companies.
9. Climate bill passed by Senate committee. This year saw the introduction of the most promising climate bill to date, featuring mandatory caps on emissions and a national carbon market. The subcommittee where it was introduced passed the bill in November, and the full committee passed it just a few weeks ago.
10. International agreement on 'Bali Roadmap'. For a while it seemed like the U.S. delegation would never give in, but finally they did and international agreement on a roadmap for the future was achieved in Bali. The roadmap lays out a two-year process that hopefully will lead to the next international climate treaty.

We've got momentum on the climate change issue – there's no doubt about it. And we're seeing promising signs that a climate bill will be passed by the full Senate and House in 2008. Once nationwide mandatory caps are in place, we can really move forward.

Please share this list with anyone you know who feels despair about our chances of stopping global warming!

Yesterday, with the leadership of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the House passed legislation that will reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and promote energy efficiency. The bill is now in the Senate, where procedural votes are underway.

Speaker Pelosi has previously said that the energy bill passed yesterday by the House "will lay the groundwork for the Congress to move forward next year with comprehensive action to address climate change."

The Speaker is showing that she has the will – and the power – to produce real results in the House on issues important to the American people. We're pleased that she has pledged to use that same focus to pass a comprehensive climate bill in 2008.