The big news from Copenhagen this morning: U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's announcement that transparency is absolutely necessary for any U.S. participation in financing a global climate change treaty.

Saying the U.S. is "ready to do its part," Clinton pledged that the U.S. would raise $100 billion a year by 2020 to help poor countries fight climate change — but ONLY if all countries agree to binding and verifiable emissions cuts.

Clinton made the condition crystal clear:

If there is not even a commitment to pursue transparency, that is a kind of deal breaker for us… In the absence of an operational agreement that meets the requirements that I outlined, there will not be that kind of financial commitment, at least from the United States.

Environmental Defense Fund president Fred Krupp applauded Clinton's speech for its "sharp focus" on the need for transparency in any international climate agreement:

Transparency — knowing whether countries are living up to their commitments — is the linchpin of an effective global effort. The details of how we measure progress and hold countries accountable to their commitments can be worked out over the coming months. The single most critical goal here in Copenhagen is a commitment by all nations to address transparency … The outlines of an agreement are taking shape. But they could be erased if transparency is blocked or diluted.

Assuming all countries do commit to transparency, Clinton says the $100 billion per year would come from a wide variety of sources, including the public and private sectors in the U.S. and other developed nations.

You can watch Clinton's entire news conference from Copenhagen.

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 past decade was the warmest on record, according to a new analysis unveiled today at the international climate change summit in Copenhagen.

The World Meteorological Association held a news conference in Copenhagen to announce a provisional summary of their study.

They found that the overall global warming trend is continuing and shows no signs of stopping. The data shows our current decade is likely to be the warmest in the past 150 years, and:

• The decade of the 2000s (2000–2009) was warmer than the decade spanning the 1990s (1990–1999), which in turn was warmer than the 1980s (1980–1989)

Among their other findings:

• 2009 is likely to rank as the fifth warmest year worldwide since we started keeping records in 1850.
• Large parts of southern Asia and central Africa are likely to have the warmest year on record.
• Above-normal temperatures were recorded in most parts of the continents this year.
• Only North America (United States and Canada) experienced conditions that were cooler than average.
• This year, Arctic sea ice extent during the melt season ranked the third lowest, after the lowest and second-lowest records set in 2007 and 2008, respectively.

The final figures will be published in March 2010.

The New York Times has a good article on the subject if you want to read more.

The Environmental Protection Agency officially announced today that greenhouse gases are a danger to human health.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson made the announcement at a news conference this afternoon. The statement finalizes an initial "endangerment finding" made last April, and sets the stage for U.S. action at home as officials from across the world gather in Copenhagen to forge an international solution to global warming.

The EPA news release and video from the news conference are now up on agency's web site.

Environmental Defense Fund president Fred Krupp praised the decision, saying:

The danger of global warming pollution is clear and present, the solutions are at hand, and the time for action is now. It’s time for Congress to finish its work on U.S. legislation to cap and reduce the 19 million tons of heat-trapping pollution we emit every day. American leadership on climate change will strengthen our security, wean us off of foreign oil, and ensure that America wins the race to clean energy innovation in the global market place.

You can read more about the issue in EDF’s full statement.

If you're following the Copenhagen climate talks and you're looking for some interesting reading, we recommend Paul Krugman's latest op-ed in the New York Times, "An Affordable Truth". In Krugman's words:

If things go well in Copenhagen, the usual suspects will go wild. We’ll hear cries … that climate-change policies will destroy jobs and growth.  The truth, however, is that cutting greenhouse gas emissions is affordable as well as essential.

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.

The energy and enviro communities are all buzzing about today's Washington Post op-ed by James Murdoch, the head of News Corporation's Europe and Asia divisions, and son of its founder, Rupert Murdoch.

The op-ed, "Clean energy conservatives can embrace", calls for a capping carbon pollution and supports market-based incentives for clean energy. If you haven't seen it yet, it's worth reading.

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.

Many of you have already seen the video, "The Story of Cap and Trade." David Roberts of Grist writes,

The greenosphere is all abuzz about a new video from Annie Leonard, creator of semi-famous anti-consumerism video/book The Story of Stuff.

While the video is very engagingly done and gets many things right, it unfortunately gets some important things wrong.

David addresses some of those things in his response to it:

…I think it’s the wrong argument. Activists like Leonard are just mis-identifying the barriers to effective climate action. I’ll have lots more to say on that subject soon, but for now, let’s focus on the video.

Click through to watch the video and read David's post.