Annie Petsonk, International Counsel for EDF's Climate & Air Program, offers her perspective on the climate fight and the road ahead.

With the U.S. Senate apparently giving up on its efforts to pass a strong climate and energy bill this year, we took some time to talk with several EDF experts to help provide a broader perspective and describe some of the other important ways we are fighting to cut global warming pollution.

In the fourth part of our series, we interviewed Annie Petsonk, International Counsel for our Climate & Air Program. Annie talks about EDF's work on the international front.

Question: Given that we are almost exactly nine months after Copenhagen, what are your thoughts on terms of what did and didn't get accomplished there; and how that serves as a platform for what comes next in international climate negotiations?

First I think there were profoundly different expectations among different countries and different publics around the world for the Copenhagen meeting. We had been concerned and I had been concerned about the timing of the Copenhagen meeting, because December 2009 was relatively new in a new administration's tenure, but from the international perspective there were very high expectations in part because it was in Europe; there was enormous support for climate action in Denmark and throughout Europe and the expectation or the hope that this meeting might strike an agreement on a legally binding treaty that would take effect when the binding emissions caps of the Kyoto protocol expire. The Kyoto protocol caps the greenhouse gas emissions of some 35 industrialized countries for the years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012, and no one knows what will happen starting January 1st, 2013.

Copenhagen was early enough to give business a chance to get ready to implement pollution limits if negotiations had been able to reach a binding agreement that would have taken effect on January 1st 2013; but that did not happen, partly because there were wide differences among the countries over whether the caps on emissions should apply only to industrialized countries, or also to developing countries. Developing countries continue to feel like industrialized countries created most of the problems, they should go first and continue to go first; and because no legislation placing quantitative limits on emissions has been enacted in the United States, the US delegation was in a very difficult negotiating position. It could not negotiate a treaty because it could not say to other nations we're going to go up and negotiate this and we're confident we'll get 67 votes in the Senate for a treaty. They were not even sure whether they could get 60 votes for domestic legislation.

Question: Tell us about the months ahead; What's going to happen over the next year, or year and a half? Are there going to be key gatherings? Are there key pieces of progress we're looking for on the international side?

The international effort to deal with the global warming issue is going to proceed in three different arenas. The first arena will be the negotiations under the auspices of the UN climate treaty, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol. Countries are still meeting right now as we speak, over in Germany. It will be hard for the countries to reach agreement on a new UN treaty; even if the US were in a leadership position there, it will still be hard for countries to reach agreement because the views and concerns of the countries are so diverse.

The second track is several smaller gatherings of countries. The US put together one called the major economies forum, which is the major emitting countries of the world. The idea was that if you could get agreement amongst these major emitters, maybe two dozen countries maximum around the table, you would be covering 80% of the world's emissions.

There are several other forums like that.

And in the third arena is national action, which is coming about in some countries for a variety of reasons. Countries are starting to actually see the impact of global warming. I don't know if you have been following this, but Russia has been experiencing a record heat wave. It is 100 degrees in Moscow today. I have been to Moscow many times; it is not a city equipped to handle 100 degree weather. There is not air conditioning for the most part in Moscow. Some of the largest employers in Russia have had to just suspend work because it is too hot in the factories for people to work; they just shut down. People are dying from the heat. People are dying because in the effort to try and cool themselves down they jumped into rivers and had not realized the rivers were still running swiftly and drowned. People are desperate; so it is quite bad.

In China there is a growing awareness about both the implications of global warming for China and also interest in cleaning up conventional pollution, the kind of pollution that causes smog and asthma and so on, and that could be affected or exacerbated by hot weather. If you clean up conventional pollution you can clean up greenhouse gas pollution at the same time. You get kind of a double benefit but the cost of tackling both together are less than if you tackle each one separately.

There is also a growing interest in the business community. I don't know if you saw this, but since Senator Reid indicated that the climate piece of legislation would not be debated in the Senate before the recess, a growing number of companies have said look, we need to know if the world is going to be headed towards a low carbon economy. They have said, we want to get in there and compete and so before we make major investments about refurbishing an old coal-fired power plant, or replacing it with something cleaner, these are very big investments that last for many decades, we need to know whether greenhouse gases will be regulated, and if so, what those regulations will look like.

Take another field that I have been working in, which is aviation. It can take 20 years to design, build, test, refine and mass produce an aircraft engine, a jet engine, and an airplane.  And once you build it that airplane will last 30-40 years or more. Companies want to know what their regulatory future is so that they can design and build for that future. As more and more businesses start to demand this kind of certainty from their government, they also are starting to look for emission reduction opportunities that they could harvest now and put in the bank and save for the future if emissions caps are imposed and tightened.

Question: You seem to be suggesting that global climate agreements, global climate progress is starting to move in a series of national, regional pieces rather than the big blockbuster treaty. Is that right?

You are hitting the nail on the head, in fact so much so that we are actually participating in discussions between and amongst states around the world. In California, Governor Schwarzenegger convened a task force which is made up of Governors of US states that want to go ahead and Governors of the biggest states in Brazil, in Indonesia and other countries. These are very big states. One of them for example is as big as France, which is quite big. Once you see that potential, then you see lots of exciting possibilities. There may be parallels in other fields. For example, before there was a big agreement called the WTO, the World Trade Organization, countries traded with each other. They figured out how to do it and companies traded with each other. Nations figured that out trading rules on what we call a bottom up basis. So it is time to examine bottom up approaches on climate and it is very exciting.

Question: Now we are in a situation where Congress almost certainly will not deliver a climate bill. Where does that leave the US in its negotiating posture, either in this mosaic of agreements, as you have described, or in any kind of global negotiations?

First of all let me speak from the heart; I think history is going to look back and say that an enormous opportunity was missed. My son is two and two-thirds years old this week and in another twenty years he is going to look back and he is going to say, Mom, how could this Senate not have acted back then? So where does that leave the United States? Again I am not speaking for the US government. I have at times, but I am not now and I am speaking as an observer.

My observation is it puts the US in a terrible position in terms of international negotiations. The US delegation came to Copenhagen with two major pledges: to reduce US emissions 17% below 2005 levels, and to mobilize $100 billion in financing to help the poorest and most vulnerable countries adapt to climate change; and those two pledges were regarded as crucial for US credibility amongst other countries.

Question: Supposing that the EPA steps in, as I guess we hope they will, or that states take action individually. Would it be enough to keep the US in the game internationally?

I cannot tell yet. I think it depends a lot on what EPA does. This is my perspective from the point of view of how the international community could respond, depending on which path EPA takes. One path that EPA could take would be direct command and control regulation. That has the advantage of putting on the table significant greenhouse gas emission reductions from major sectors of the US economy. It's likely to be highly litigated and the international community will want to watch to mobilize much money to help poorer countries.

Another option is that the EPA could try to construct a cap and trade, using its authority under the Clean Air Act, and there's certainly a lot of work going in the academic community now, to try and see if that's possible to do. That will also be litigated, and I think the international community once again would watch to see what the outcome of litigation would be. That at least would have the potential, depending on how it's construed, to begin to mobilize some of the money.

And then there's the states, as you said, and the international community will certainly be watching to see what the states do, and they are watching the AB32 referendum very closely.

That's happening at the National and State level, and it's beginning. It's like a lumbering and slumbering giant waking up here, and as that giant wakes up in countries around the world, and countries decide to go ahead in ways that benefit their industry, there is a risk that US industry will be left behind.

Because we are at risk of being left behind. This spring China announced that it was going to build 42 high speed train lines. This was profiled in the New York Times; 42 high speed train lines. That's an enormous investment, and enormous project. It will employ many, many people. It will have enormous technology implications and demands and so on. Where are they going to get the high speed train technology from? Right now the countries that are making high speed trains, and using high speed trains, are the Europeans, the Japanese, and the Koreans. So when China announces it's going to build 42 high speed train lines, who's going to supply that technology? It's the future. Will American firms be left behind?

About 2 months after China made that announcement, there was another one. California has been looking to build a high speed train up the California coast, and China offered to help California. If that's not a wake up call, I don't know what is.

Jackie Roberts, Director of Sustainable Technologies for our National Climate Campaign, offers her perspective on the climate fight and the road ahead.

With the U.S. Senate apparently giving up on its efforts to pass a strong climate and energy bill this year, we took some time to talk with several EDF experts to help provide a broader perspective and describe some of the other important ways we are fighting to cut global warming pollution.

In the fifth and final part of our series, we interviewed Jackie Roberts, Director of Sustainable Technologies for our National Climate Campaign. Jackie talks about green jobs and how our economic crisis can be helped by a green energy economy.

Question: So Jackie, you've been helping EDF map the green energy economies through your less carbon more jobs project. Can you give us a little update on where the work stands now?

Yes. I think that this has become a tool that's been increasingly used by a variety of audiences who are all important to trying to get momentum going around moving to a low carbon economy. Some of these are investors, some of  those are obviously our initial target which is legislative folks on the hill. Going forward, our maps which highlight on-the-ground businesses that will win in the new economy will be advocacy tools for our work at the state level. We want to be able again to show that state climate initiatives, whether it's defending AB32 in California or a regional greenhouse gas initiative in the Midwest, much like one that's started in New England, can drive economic growth. Creating demand and sending new customers to the companies on our maps will translate into creating jobs. Of course, a big message in all of our work to date has been, that while global warming is a very serious issue we need to solve, there are ways to solve it that can create jobs at the same time and that's what we need to focus on.

I also think the work may be very important in helping to defend EPA. I expect that we will get the same kind of concerns on EPA's asking us to regulate greenhouse gases that we've got on proposals for national legislation; and that is, ti's going to kill jobs, our economy can't support this, we can't do this now. Of course, we look at the signs and we say we can't wait, we need to move now and we can do this and we can transition in a way that minimizes difficulties for our businesses, and also creates a lot of new market opportunities. These maps show people where and how we can create growth and which firms on the ground are going to benefit and are poised to grow.

Question: Has there been anything that's really surprised you in your findings recently? What states or industries have stood out?

I think one of the things that has been a very pleasant surprise is how aggressive Michigan has been, because it is a Midwest state that burns a lot of coal. I think transitioning to a clean energy economy is going to be more difficult for coal states. Because it has such a strong manufacturing history, I think Michigan has seen that they can be a state that benefits more than many other states. Michigan can use the transition to all of these new technologies, whether it be renewables or energy efficiency or new solutions for transportation, to revitalize their manufacturing – in particular, by participating in supply chains for many clean energy solutions. So, when you look at a wind turbine and you know that it has 8,000 different parts, many of those parts can be made in Michigan. Michigan has also built up a presence in a couple of different industries – wind, solar, batteries – very diversified.

Then there are pockets all across the country. For example, glass is a key material for energy efficient buildings (and solar panels). It's critical for the replacement of windows and creating different kinds of shells for buildings, surfaces that enable builders to put on coatings and manipulate the building in a way that takes advantage of the sun when you want to in the winter, but blocks it in the summer when you don't want the heat coming in, and other creative approaches to using natural light. All of that depends on glass. Virginia has a lot of glass making, a lot of flat glass businesses and window companies. But, then we realized this makes total sense because we established the first glass making factory in 1608 in Jamestown. That connection was a nice surprise, and made us realize that much like Michigan has its auto history and is going strong in advanced batteries, Virginia has its glass making history and a big opportunity with green buildings and the solar supply chain.

Question: Are there any sort of stand-out industries, or maybe even companies that are sort of surprising in their willingness to go in a new direction?

Well, you know, I hear stories every day. I'm actually in New Hampshire, we're just talking to a manufacturer who does steel fabrication and suddenly he's got a whole new market which is making the parts that attach solar panels to the roof with those steel clamps. His market has been a little hot and cold, but it's been better this year than last year. They are still getting some orders and hopefully we can figure out a way to keep that momentum going for folks that really want to move into alternative energy.

We've profiled on the web site a whole bunch of different companies that have. Whether it's SunRise Solar Inc., a company started by a roofer who found himself often replacing the wiring on attic fans, and he realized that if these were run by solar power, he wouldn't have to be up there all the time replacing wirings. He started a company that is doing very well, creating lots of jobs in Indiana and elsewhere, because he designed a solar powered attic fan. That's a solution.

There's auto suppliers that are out of work, auto suppliers that had a lot of experience with LED lighting because LEDs were used very early on in cars. These suppliers have realized that opportunities exist for them to start making LED lighting for commercial buildings, as an energy efficient lighting solution for the commercial sector. We have examples of people moving in that direction and auto suppliers are also moving into the wind sector, trying to figure out how to take their expertise in high speed manufacturing of large parts to make various wind turbine parts, such as blades.

Dowding Industries, a machining company near Detroit, has another great story. Not only are they making wind parts, but they've teamed with Dow to work on a carbon fiber wind turbine blade. The new carbon-based materials can prevent a lot of the breakage and cracking issues that have been happening right now in the industry.

There are great stories all the time. Even companies that you wouldn't think of as necessarily having a big play in the clean energy economy can surprise us. 3M, for example, specializes in advanced materials many of which I think will be the key to advanced, low carbon products and technologies. Already, some of the more exciting things I see are where the US has come up with innovative materials that transform technologies. Technologies that have been around for a while, but were either too slow or too expensive or too inefficient, getting an entirely new level of functionality when the new materials are built in. Suddenly, they can compete with more traditional energy sources or products. Other than the obvious standout industries that will do well in the clean energy sector, I think companies that specialize in material science such as Dow or Dupont or 3M doing very well.

Question: You did mention a lot of great manufacturing sector stuff that is going on and EDF is working on identifying energy savings in the manufacturing sector with less carbon, more innovations. What's the goal of that project?

We started that project because we were having more-and-more success persuading people that there were jobs to be created in this new energy, concerns remained that traditional businesses could not make the transition. Less Carbon More Jobs may show lots of businesses in the clean energy sector poised to do very well, but what about traditional industrial facilities or manufacturers?

I felt very strongly that based on my 20 years of experience working with companies on the ground to reduce their environmental footprint – often involving suppliers and even going back to basic commodity materials like paper and plastics and steel and aluminum and refineries – that there were ways to transition. In particular, I see a huge amount of untapped energy efficiency that has not been used as a business strategy to reduce costs – and these efficiency opportunities offer a strategy for responding to new state or federal legislation on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. If facilities can reduce energy consumption, then claims that low carbon mandates will trigger job layoffs are overstated or even unfounded.

Lots of great data exists from independent parties, but we wanted to make that information more readily available to folks. There's information from the Department of Energy, because they've done a lot of audits where they go in and they actually find energy efficiency and they publish the results of those audits. They publish the fact that only about half of the recommendations have ever been implemented. And, that's only for the companies they've already audited, which is probably no more than 15% of all manufacturing or energy intensive authorities in the US. The National Academy of Sciences has looked at this area, McKinsey – a management consulting firm – has their assessment of how much energy efficiency is available, and everybody is coming up with the same consistent numbers, that they're anywhere from 20 to 35% of available energy efficiency.

We also wanted to make that information available sector-by-sector. You can click on the "steel" tab and see case studies of steel facilities that have implemented energy efficiency. You can see the results of audits that have been done. you can see the results of academic studies that have looked at what is available, what could be done. You begin to get a sense that while many facilities may feel they've done everything, we've seen every time there's a third party auditor coming in to look for energy efficiency, they find many opportunities, and the figure often seems to be in the 20 to 30% range.

Question: When talking to people in the industry directly, have you found their reactions to be positive?

I'll tell you who has been extremely positive; it is the unions. One of the strategies I think that we will be focusing on as we move forward is trying to work both with the unions and with investors, people who own stock in these companies, because both of these groups have a stake in seeking cost savings from energy efficiency implemented.

In Denmark, they do something very creative. They have programs in many of their manufacturing facilities where the energy efficiency initiatives that have been identified by the work force are measured, and then the savings are shared between the company and the union. So an individual worker may end up with an extra $100 in their paycheck every month. If somebody on the floor of the factory is going to walk away with an extra $100 a month, that's going to be an incentive to get some of the stuff deployed.

Question: That's great. So what will the effect of the failure of the US Congress to cap carbon pollution have on the growing green industry?

Well, we're concerned that it's going to be devastating. In particular, we're very worried that a lot of US capital sitting on the sidelines is going to start to go overseas, it's going to start to go to China and Europe and places where there are customers and markets. When that happens, you start to get the new factories being built over there and then you get the next generation of innovations discovered outside the US, and you get the factory expansions and new jobs elsewhere, and then the supply chains tend to locate near their large customers, and it's just a whole domino effect.

We are going to do everything in our power to try and keep those dollars here in the US. One of our programs that's so important is our Corporate Partnerships Program, where we work to try to use large corporations like Wal-Mart to create demand in the US, and then use that demand to keep manufacturing here. State initiatives can do the same. I think it's all about local demand. We can keep jobs in manufacturing here, if those firms have customers, if they have people who want to buy their product.

National climate legislation would have obviously created huge markets here overnight. Now, I think there is a much bigger burden on EDF and entities that are involved in fighting climate change, to find creative ways of matchmaking – persuading some companies that they're going to have enough customers to make it worth it to stay in the US, persuading other companies to purchase lots of clean energy products and technologies.

Question: What would be your advice to EDF activists and donors, how can they help make a difference, how can they be part of this demand?

They are critical as customers themselves, but also making sure that whether it's their church or their employer or their school or whatever, that all types of institutions also look for ways to purchase clean energy products. It's all about creating customers. That's where I think our activists and our network can make a difference, because you can do a lot of good with your dollars and with getting those organizations you are involved with to also be customers.

My one word would be, be a customer in every venue that you can be.

As this video documents, big polluters are trying to cripple our efforts to fight global warming AND the California taxpayer with the bill to pay for their pollution.

It's outrageous and we must stand up against this assault.

If you live in California, please pledge to VOTE NO on Props 23 and 26, and urge every Californian you know to do the same.

Then, please make a donation to support our campaign.

Vickie Patton, General Counsel of EDF, offers her perspective on the climate fight and the road ahead.

With the U.S. Senate apparently giving up on its efforts to pass a strong climate and energy bill this year, we took some time to talk with several EDF experts to help provide a broader perspective and describe some of the other important ways we are fighting to cut global warming pollution.

In the third part of our series, we interviewed Vickie Patton, General Counsel for Environmental Defense Fund, and Mark MacLeod, Director of Special Projects for our National Climate Campaign. Vickie and Mark talk about working with the EPA to limit climate pollution.

Question: Can you say a word or two about EDF's strategy for pressing the EPA to regulate global warming?

Vickie: We are in a race against time to address the climate crisis. Every moment of delay means that we are failing to reduce harmful heat trapping greenhouse gases that are discharged into our atmosphere. It means that we are missing a vital opportunity for our nation to lead the race to clean energy innovation in the global marketplace, and we are missing a vital opportunity for greater energy security and national security. It is just an imperative that we work together as a nation to win this race.

We think that the US Congress needs to put in place strong protective climate legislation. But as Congress has faltered, it is critical to recognize that we have an obligation and a very important opportunity to move forward in this race under existing law. Indeed, the US Supreme Court, in 2007, held that heat trapping greenhouse gases are air pollutants that are within the plain language of the nation's existing clean air laws, and instructed the US Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate, through a rigorous science based analysis, whether those pollutants endanger human health and welfare, and if so, to take appropriate corrective action to reduce those pollutions under the nation's clean air laws. And we are now moving forward with an EPA that is using law and science and carrying out its responsibilities consistent with the Supreme Court's edict to address heat trapping green house gases from a number of high-emitting sources, where we can both reduce pollution that is harmful to human health and the environment, and create innovative new technologies and new jobs.

Question: Can you enumerate what some of those high emitting sources are that the EPA can regulate?

Vickie: The Environmental Protection Agency has put in place the nation's first ever national greenhouse gas emission limits for passenger vehicles, clean cars. These clean car standards were adopted this spring. They take effect between model years 2012 and 2016, and they both improve the efficiency of automobiles and reduce pollution dramatically. EPA estimates that by a full implementation, by 2030, those standards will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the whole fleet of passenger cars, by 21%. Millions of tons of greenhouse gases will be reduced. Vast amounts of oil consumption will be cut. And it's starting an important opportunity for the nation's automakers to begin innovating and creating new technology that will position them as part of their economic revitalization. The US Automakers, United Auto Workers, and environmentalists across the nation all supported EPA's action.

So, that is one example. Another example is that beginning in January of 2011, under a set of actions taken by the EPA in response to the Supreme Court decision, if you are building a new power plant, if you are building a new factory, a new industrial facility, those major capital investments will be harmonized with the imperative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. What that means in the real world is that our nation will make investments in reducing harmful pollution at the same time we're engaged in our core business planning. This is the smartest time to make those investments instead of having to make costly retrofits after the fact. And it means that as a nation we will begin advancing new technologies to improve energy efficiency in the power sector and in the industrial sector, so that we can be more productive as a nation in producing cleaner energy, cleaner manufacturing and saving money.

Question: So you talk about what the EPA can do, and we know the bill cap on carbon is in trouble in Congress. What can't the EPA do that a bill could do?

Mark: There are a number of important policy benefits of legislation. If new legislation is protected and well designed, it will be durable and produce lasting reductions in global warming pollution and advance new clean energy technologies irrespective of who heads the Environmental Protection Agency. Legislation would establish a schedule — the 17% reductions by 2020, the 80% reductions by 2050 — so one of the things there is an enforceable schedule of the reductions and that is something a new law can set out that an existing law does not have.

Also, if you are looking for emissions reductions due to energy efficiency programs and building standards, those are examples of things that a new law can help clarify and put in place faster, partially because of the different jurisdictions. Another example is that EDF believes that reductions in tropical deforestation is a very cost-effective means of reducing emissions. Stopping deforestation in tropical countries might be possible under existing law, but new law can establish those practices probably far more efficiently than trying to fit into the existing law. Those are just some examples.

Question: Looking into a crystal ball for a minute at these legal and legislative challenges to the EPA regulatory powers that are underway at the moment, what is your best guess about how things will unfold with those challenges?

Vickie: There are extensive challenges to EPA's policy actions to provide greater climate security that have been brought by some of the largest polluters in America. And it is a number of coal interests, big oil companies, big chemical companies that are pouring their resources into lawyers to fight EPA's efforts, to topple these efforts to carry out the law consistent with science, instead of working constructively with the agency to make thoughtful progress as a nation. If those companies were pouring that same level of investments into engineering, into research and development, into innovation, we would be so much better off as a nation. But instead there are a number of companies and big trade associations that are choosing litigation over innovation. EDF and a coalition of other environmental groups are involved in every one of those major cases defending the leadership efforts of the Environmental Protection Agency. We are confident that the agency's actions are firmly anchored in science and law, and will be affirmed in the courts and in judicial review.

It's just very disappointing that the same forces of obstruction that are preventing the US Congress from enacting thoughtful, well-designed legislation are obstructing the EPA from carrying out existing laws. It raises the question of when will these forces of obstruction decide that they want to lead, they want to innovate, and that it is time for our nation to work together to solve these problems. Because it is time. We are in a race against time.

Question: Bills in Congress attempting to limit EPA's power are some of the legislative challenges that the EPA is facing right now?

Mark: You have a couple of different instances in the Senate, led by Senator Murkowski of Alaska and Senator Rockefeller of West Virginia, where they would not only completely or in part constrain EPA's ability to address greenhouse gases or bring about the emissions reductions we need to help protect the planet, but also incentivize the technology that Vickie was talking about, that we also need for American industrial competitiveness. It is… I struggle to come up with words that I can say in public to describe how disappointing it is that members of the Senate who have now chosen not to pursue their own legislation charting a new path to reduce greenhouse gasses and provide for energy security and a new investment in the American economy, would then handcuff the Federal Agency that would do this in their stead. Not only is it an incredible lack of leadership, but just a lack of any responsibility whatsoever to fail to do your own job, and then try to stand in front of someone else who is doing their job.

Question: So for the people like EDF supporters and activists that are paying attention to this fight, what are some of the key dates and milestones people should really watch for in the coming months?

Mark: Maybe, I will start on this piece of  the legislation that would handcuff EPA from taking action. So, when the Congress comes back from recess in September there may be an opportunity — I hate to say it this way — but the threat of Congressional action is as long as Congress is in session, so there will be about four weeks or so beginning in the middle of September when Congress is in session, and some may try to pursue this. We expect Congress to break early this year so they can campaign before the November elections. There is some talk that Congress may have to come back after the November elections in a lame duck session, if nothing else, to possibly pass some spending legislation. But, that spending legislation is also sort of prime territory for what we refer to as 'appropriations and riders.' These riders are targeted at specific legislation that is amended on to these major funding bills to do a whole host of things, but we could imagine one to prevent EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. And the reason that it is such a sort of ripe target is these appropriations bills and continuing resolution, must essentially pass legislation to keep the Government functioning. So they are the kind of things that have to get out of Congress. So, that will be a threat in September. It will be a threat if there's a lame duck session coming after the elections in November. And, frankly, they will be a threat up until Congress finally passes climate legislation in both the House and the Senate.

Question: If you were going to direct their help in one or  two directions where would you point their efforts? What would be most helpful?

Vickie: There is going to be a steady onslaught of effort on Capitol Hill to handcuff the US Environmental Protection Agency from carrying out its responsibilities under existing law, and it is going to be relentless. Virtually any time a bill is moving that they could tack onto it legislation to preclude EPA from protecting human health and the environment from heat trapping greenhouse gases, it will happen, and so, push, be prepared over the next year to use your voice, to reach out to Members of Congress, to reach out to Members of the US Senate, and reach out to the President and say, "Take a stand! You must work constructively. And you must provide leadership as our nation is working to meet these challenges with its existing law that we have in place." And so we are just going to need every EDF activist, exerting every effort they can, to reach out to elected officials to encourage and to just call for their leadership. So that I think is one just critical, vital area.

And there will be a number of major EPA policy initiatives over the next year that relate to greenhouse gas emissions and other harmful air pollutants, where we are going to need the vital support of EDF members to let their voices be heard in support of E PA's actions to protect human health and environment from a range of harmful air pollutants — everything from air toxics to greenhouse gas emissions. There are also several major big policy decisions coming up at EPA relating to the harmful air pollutions discharged from the power sector, to efforts to put in place cleaner cars, cleaner diesel trucks and transportation sector where we will urgently need the support and the participation and engagement of EDF members.

Mark: It really is critical that EDF members respond to those member action alerts because they come out at a decision making point in time, they come out when we really need our supporters the most. So the good news for our activists is that they do not have to be thinking about Rockefeller and Murkowski every day; they just have to be at the ready and when they get that member action notice, they need to be able to respond. I would also just say that the members should not at all underestimate how powerful those member action alerts are because those are the things that hold Congress and other members of government accountable, and at a minimum say we are watching you, we are seeing what you are doing here. So especially on an issue like this where it is hard to say when it will pop up over the course of months, a system like the member action network is really, really important.

Derek Walker, Director of the California Climate Initiative for EDF, offers his perspective on the climate fight and the road ahead.

With the U.S. Senate apparently giving up on its efforts to pass a strong climate and energy bill this year, we took some time to talk with several EDF experts to help provide a broader perspective and describe some of the other important ways we are fighting to cut global warming pollution.

In the second part of our series, we interviewed Derek Walker, Director of EDF's California Climate Initiative. Derek talks about our fight in California to defend the landmark global warming law AB32 and our work in other states to limit global warming pollution.

Question: Now that federal legislation seems off the table for the foreseeable future, what can we accomplish at the state level on global warming?

Well, there have been a variety of studies that have come out recently that look at the total impact of state-level policies. And the good news is that there are estimates that state level policies could get us a fair amount of the way towards reducing overall emissions. So that, in and of itself, is encouraging.

But states — and cities even — have always been laboratories of innovation and places where you get proof of concept on new technologies and new approaches to environmental policy. This has always been our mantra and why we have been so active at the state level.

Certainly California has always been a transformational place, going all the way back to the 50s and 60s when we were first kind of tooling around with energy and air policy. Looking back at our track record, a lot of things we do end up getting adopted nationally.

Question: And when you say a fair amount of the way there, is there a percent range or an overall estimate of the total emission reductions we can achieve through state action?

It's hard to pinpoint. One of the studies just recently released looks at what would happen if state-level policies were implemented nationally. it looks at the state-level policies, acknowledges their value and then says: If the US would just adopt these things which are already happening as the national policy, we would have great outcomes.

Another report that was released back in December by Environment America was more of a straight aggregation of all of the climate and energy policies that are currently being pursued at the state level. It found that if all these things were to come to fruition, then we would get almost half of the way to President Obama's 2020 emissions reduction target.

Now there's obviously a double-edged sword with talking about how much the states can get accomplished, because what we really need is national and international action. But nonetheless it is critical that the states have the flexibility to put in place aggressive policies. And California certainly isn't slowing down one bit.

Question: When you say it's critical for the states to keep pushing, is that primarily on the merits of what it can do, or is it that it will keep forcing that national conversation?

I think there are two ways of looking at it. We've always felt that once state and even regional level action starts to be implemented, you get a proof of concept and there are constituencies that believe it is a good policy. You also have businesses recognize that the policies can be implemented in a beneficial fashion and there's a push for the economy of scale that you get by having the certainty of a national level policy.

So we have always felt that putting upward pressure on national action from the states is a viable strategy.

But, even apart from any sort of Federal-level action that can be motivated from the states, there are myriad benefits to having strong policies in place at the state level — whether it is economic growth; whether it is inspiring job and business growth in the clean technologies sector in a particular location like California which has been a huge hub for that; or whether it is the co-benefits of healthier communities and air quality — those are not directly related to greenhouse gases, but it's part of the package. It's part of the suite of benefits that you get when you pursue these policies. So, there is an absolute value in pursuing them.

Question: You mentioned these regional initiatives. Can you talk a little more about that?

Sure.  The main one that we've focused on over the last couple of years is called the "Western Climate Initiative." It is a coalition, or a partnership rather, of seven U.S. states and four Canadian provinces. Those jurisdictions have committed to putting in place a regional cap and trade program to control GHGs.

Each of the states and provinces has a target at the state or provincial level for reductions by 2020. And they are working together. Just two weeks ago, they released a document that offers the guidelines for how each jurisdiction should set up their program so that everything works well together.

And the reason why this is such an important process is when you add up the seven states in the U.S., they represent about 20 to 25 percent of U.S. emissions. And then you add up the four Canadian provinces, which represent almost 75 percent of Canadian emissions, you have a huge North American regional program to control greenhouse gases.

There was just an economic analysis put out. And when you aggregate the economic benefit of the Western Climate Initiative program, you not only cut emissions, but the region can save as much as $100 billion in avoided energy and fuel costs. That's very important.

Question: Getting back to California — Two questions: First, what does AB32 do? And, second, what would Proposition 23 do?

California was the first mover on this when we passed Assembly Bill 32 (AB32) back in 2006. In short, AB32 puts a limit on California's global warming pollution and says we have to crank our total amount of GHGs back to 1990 levels by 2020.

And it's fairly general. It's only a seven-page bill, incredible when you compare it to the national policies that have almost a thousand pages. This bill requires the air quality agency, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), to establish a plan to reach the 2020 emissions requirement. Their plan now includes about 70 different policies — including cap and trade — that are in the process of being implemented.

Now, Proposition 23 is a cynical effort, which is really part of the same effort we've seen at the national level by big fossil fuel companies to try to stop any limits on global warming pollution whenever and wherever they emerge. Prop 23 would suspend the implementation of the AB32 law until California reaches a highly unrealistic level of unemployment for four in the state consecutive quarters. So clearly this referendum is intended to suspend the bill's implementation.

About a year ago, two oil companies from Texas, Tesoro and Valero, started pulling millions of dollars together to promote this idea that cutting global warming pollution doesn't really mean all that much because we don't have other countries on board, that it's going to be a disaster for the economy, and that we have to protect our economy — that's the frame that they've taken.

They've also received $500,000 from a foundation in the state of Missouri called the Adam Smith Foundation. It's questionable whether this foundation is actually legitimate, or whether they're actually passing through and disguising contributions that they receive from sources that don't want to be disclosed. The California state legislative leadership — the Senate president and Assembly speaker — just yesterday asked US Attorney General Eric Holder to pursue an investigation on the Adam Smith Foundation to find out exactly what they're up to and whether they're trying to conceal where they get their money. We'll see what comes of that. But, what we do know is that this is kind of the "same old same old" in terms of the coalition of players and the sort of message that we're hearing.

Question: Do you think with all their money that Prop 23 could pass?

I think that on our side we certainly have not only a good foundation on public opinion, but we also have a huge clean technology industry in California that really sees that their future growth is jeopardized by slowing down AB32.

There have been a lot of "down payments" made on California's clean energy and climate change leadership. Just a few days ago Ernst and Young came out with an investment report that shows that from the second quarter of '09 to the second quarter of this year, there was a 67% increase in the amount of venture capital invested in California clean technology. This proves yet again California is a hot bed for innovation in clean tech — but also illustrates the widely-held expectation that California's policies will start to show a price signal on greenhouse gas emissions and start to make clean energy products and services more profitable.

In addition to all the environmental and conservation values that many California voters have, the growing clean tech community realizes how much they have at stake here.

So, I'm feeling like we have both the truth and the future on our side. That said, you can never underestimate how powerful messages that elicit fear about your economic condition can be. We just need to keep driving home the message that blocking AB32 would not only jeopardize our environment and our communities, but it would risk the thousands of businesses and billions of dollars that have poured into the state to promote our transition to a clean energy economy.

Question: So, what is your message for people who live outside of California, or these western states? What can they do to help stop global warming, given that the federal side seems to be stuck?

Well, there are a lot of states now, over 40, that have passed climate change plans which include things like renewable energy and energy efficiency standards. And so most states — almost every state in fact — is doing something that is designed to reduce energy use and cut greenhouse gas emissions.

I think it's critical to have states increasingly work together on combined strategies like the Western Climate Initiative, like the Northeast cap and trade program — the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative — that caps emissions from power plants in 10 northeast states. The buying power in terms of political capital that these states have is tremendous and so the more that they can put policies in place on the ground and start to generate benefits, the more that we can go to Capitol Hill and say, "How can you squander these benefits? Couldn't it be much better if we put these policies in place at the federal level?"

So, no matter where you live, you can talk to your neighbors, talk to your local leaders and your state representatives about these huge benefits of moving your state to a cleaner energy economy. There really is a kind of no regrets aspect to some of these policies because they save energy, they save money, and states should be pursuing them on their own, on their own merits.

Art Cooley, one of EDF's founders, offers his perspective on the climate fight and the road ahead.

With the Senate apparently giving up on its efforts to pass a strong climate and energy bill this year, we took some time to talk with several EDF experts to help provide a broader perspective and describe some of the other important ways we are fighting to cut global warming pollution.

We begin this series with Art Cooley, who helped found EDF in 1967 to campaign against the use of DDT. Art remains on EDF's board as a founding trustee.

Question: You helped found EDF more than 40 years ago. Can you tell us a bit about the early years and what EDF's mission has been since?

We originally got started because we were concerned about the decline of ospreys on Long Island. We started by looking at the science and the case we put together — the effect on brown pelicans and peregrine falcons and bald eagles and ospreys — was compelling. It was DDT.

In one of our first cases in Wisconsin they tried to confuse the debate and tell us that we couldn’t differentiate between DDT and PCBs. Well, we plotted out evidence and showed that in fact yes we could tell the difference, and so weren’t confusing the effects from DDT with other chemicals.

That focus on science has always been central to our work. And getting the science right remains at the core of our mission today, which is why we are all so concerned about climate change.

Question: Were there some moments in the big battles over DDT and later against acid rain where it felt like the situations were really hopeless? Could you tell us what happened then?

Well, I’m not sure that we ever thought it was hopeless because I think we had the arrogance to think that we were right.

In all seriousness, I think when you start out with a very strong interest in wildlife and nature, it helps keep you fresh and keeps you optimistic. I taught biological sciences for 33 years in high school, and I taught marine biology at the State University at Stony Brook and so I have a great love and affection for the wildlife of the world.

Today, I see peregrine falcons here along the coast in California. I’ve seen ospreys catching fish. We see brown pelicans all the time now. There were times in the 60’s when there were essentially no brown pelicans on the California coast — certainly there were no brown pelicans that were nesting successfully. Eagles have returned to San Diego County and are nesting now. They are nesting on Catalina by themselves, an Island off Los Angeles. And so, all of this progress helps motivate me.

Question: Getting back to the science of climate change. Do you think that as long as the science keeps mounting that will deal with the naysayers eventually?

Absolutely.

I think that there are two things going on:

One is that the science will get stronger. I just read a paper the other day that shows that the waters off and under the East Antarctic ice shelf are now deeper than they thought, which will permit warm water to get underneath the ice shelf more easily than people had anticipated and that will raise an additional threat to ice shelves in the Antarctic. So I think that we’re going to see more and more of these scientific studies coming out, showing that global warming is happening and it is going to be serious and we need to do something about it.

And the second thing is that the battle isn’t just being fought at the federal level. It is being fought in lots of places. And in fact, probably the biggest battle at the moment is in California where Proposition 23 has been put on the ballot for the November election, and it would potentially gut AB 32, which is the California climate bill which has a cap and trade program in it. And so this has attracted a great deal of attention and it’s getting a lot of press here in California and probably even in other parts of the country because it is a landmark bill. If AB32 is preserved — that is to say Proposition 23 is defeated in November, which I think it will be — that will be a real boost. But there are other activities going on. There are other carbon markets being developed. And that adds to the momentum for policy solutions.

Question: When you look at the science and all the other progress, are you optimistic about Congress eventually passing national climate legislation?

Oh absolutely. Absolutely. Overall momentum is still clearly on our side.

I mean one thing that has just happened is that while the Senate has decided that it doesn’t seem to have the stomach for a cap and trade program, China is developing its first effort at a cap and trade program that is being including in their five year plan that starts next year.

And so it is rather remarkable that China is willing to do that. They didn’t do it by themselves. And I wouldn’t mention it I suppose except that Dan Dudeck the economist who developed the policy idea of cap and trade for EDF while were working on acid rain, has spent the last decade or so in China developing small pilot cap and trade programs. And that effort is beginning to bear fruit.

And we look at other places that are doing things and I have to think that this broader global momentum will help us.

Question: If you look back a generation ago when EDF was founded, there was a tremendous amount of momentum in favor of landmark environmental laws and policies. Fast forward to today. It seems that environmental awareness has never been greater among the general public, but our institutions are not moving as fast to address some of these big issues like climate change. Why do you think that is? What would you encourage EDF supporters, activists, donors to be doing right now to keep the pressure on?

Well, it's true that the 70s will go down as the decade of the environment because there were more laws that were passed in the 70s — more than any before in the history of the United States, and probably more than ever will be again.

The 70s saw the beginnings of an environmental awareness that had been latent in the country. So, to some degree, the 70s was sort of a catch-up time. They were playing catch-up because the nature of society was changing. Threats were new and we needed new laws in order to do that.

The other thing that I think is different is that many of those laws, and I could use DDT as an example… DDT is one chemical used by a modest section of society to try to control insects – it was a relatively modest-sized problem. What we are dealing with today, in terms of global warming, is an issue that cuts across all of society. And so it is just that much more difficult to deal with, and it is going to take longer to do that.

So, my message to activists is don't be depressed. There's just too much to do. In California there is a website where you can sign up as an individual to oppose Proposition 23. There are ways that people can talk to their friends, to the organizations they belong to, to develop a petition against Proposition 23. People can donate money to organizations that support the ideas that they agree with. You can stay up to date by going on the web and looking at various websites and making sure they understand the issue and then encourage people to vote in the right way.

I was just looking on the web actually, on the EDF website, for the number of businesses that are in San Diego County that are greening the economy. And there are many. And the map that shows this, which is on EDF’s website, is very impressive. And so I am going to send that map to the people that I send out emails to, to show them what kinds of efforts are being made by local businesses to develop a greener economy.

Question: And you'd probably recommend that we all to go out and look at some brown pelicans every now and then and stay inspired?

And look at brown pelicans, yes. Stay inspired and make sure you smell the flowers on the way.