The Participants:

The main participants will be the United States, China, India(biggest world polluters) and a bloc of 27 countries of the Europian Union. But overall, there will be more than 190 countries that will be a part of this summit. Many of these countries already have been working on cutting or constraining the grow of ththeir emissions, while some refuse to make any commitments. However, though the summit hasn’t taken place yet, 11 countries that are vulnerable to climate change have dedicated 1.5% of their gross national product for climate change actions. Those countries are Bangladesh, Barbados, Bhutan, Ghana, Kenya, Kiribati, the Maldives, Nepal, Rwanda, Tanzania and Vietnam.

“We are not responsible for the hundreds of years of carbon emissions, which are cooking the planet[...]But the dangers climate change poses to our countries means that this crisis can no longer be considered somebody else’s problem.” said Mohamed Nasheed, the President of the Maldives who was a leading voice in the Climate Vulnerable Forum.

The Task:

The general set goal for the summit is to keep the increasing temperature of the globe below 2C (3.6F). That will happen through the many proposals of the participating countries. Cutting Carbon commission is a major one. Some of the European countries have agreed on cutting greenhouse emissions by 20% by 2020, the set date for these commitments. The United State’s climate change plans call for 17 percent less emissions by 2020 and by 83 percent by 2050. Janos Pasztor, climate adviser to U.N, however, told news agencies that Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon “”has consulted with a number of heads of state and so far the general feeling seems to be that we should try to complete the job earlier than later.” This has been part of what triggered the White House to consider other options (International agreement) that can be more efficient and faster but cover a shorter term, this is also because of the concern that Congress will fail to pass a climate change legislation this year. Unfortunately, world leaders have decided not to agree on ”Global pact” for climate change action in the Copenhagen summit but rather to come up with a “politically binding” agreement that will set the guidelines for a future pact in a possible forthcoming conference in Mexico City. This does nothing but postpone actions to deal with a urgent and a concerning phenomena such as our man-made-climate change. The postponement is due to recent assessment by the participants of the summit “that it is unrealistic to expect a full internationally, legally binding agreement could be negotiated between now and Copenhagen, which starts in 22 days,” said Michael Froman, the deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs.

In the summit, there will be plans for developed countries to help the developing countries to cut on their emissions through renewable energy sources.

The initiatives also include “measures such as building sea defenses, securing fresh water supplies and developing new crop varieties” as BBC reports.

What The People Are Doing

While the world leaders are set to meet to come up with an agreement to deal with climate change, the media reports that the number of people who believe there is a global warming is declining, much less believe it is caused by human activities.

This is the time to be concerned about our health and the environment. Scientist have said that you don’t have to be an environmentalist to care about the issue because global warming will affect a major element of our lives, the economy.

It will be some time until we will see an effective treatment for climate change but YOU can start Now. Some are doing the Climate Justice Fast, a demonstration to the world to show the need for an urgent action and also ” to inspire those who are already aware of climate change to become more politically active.” Others are holding debates about the issues to be discussed in the Summit. Some have come up with twelve-steps programs for America to become green. You don’t have to fast or go win a debate about climate change, you can even by as simple an action as turning off the light you don’t need.

You also can participate in:

• Hopenhagen Ambassador Contest: A contest by the Huffington Post that will award the winner a trip to Copenhagen to attend the summit.
• Cast your vote in the Angry Mermaid Award and help decide which company or lobby group is doing the most to sabotage effective action on climate change.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, cleaner cars, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

In a speech that New York Times reporter John Rudolf described as fiery, Governor Perry addressed the climate-change bill passed by the U.S. House of Representative in June. The Waxman-Markey bill is now facing great opposition by many Republicans ,along with some conservative Democrats, while being debated in the Senate.

Perry anticipates that the “misguided” piece of legislation, as he describes it, will wreak economic disaster on the state. “Between 200,000 and 300,000 Texans who today work to supply the rest of America with energy would find themselves out of work,” said the governor. But these numbers do not conform with the numbers given out by Martin Huber, the Deputy Comptroller of the State of Texas. Perry’s numbers are more than a hundred thousand off. Both numbers, given by Perry and Huber, disregard what researchers say and boldly ignore the serious economic impact of climate change on the state. Texas has already experienced a devastating drought this year which has negatively impacted the agriculture of the state.

Texas needs some fundamental change in terms of energy production. In addition, a recent study conducted by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Boston and the Center for American Progress shows that investments in clean-energy have the potential of creating more than 153,000 jobs in the state of Texas alone — about 90,000 of which are jobs for those with lower educational credentials.

Such figures would have brought down the state’s unemployment to 3.6 percent in 2008. These numbers prove that in investing in green energy, the state has a great potential in ameliorating its climatic conditions as well as boosting its economy.

LOS ANGELES – U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson will announce today in a keynote address at the California Governor’s Global Climate Summit that the Agency has taken a significant step to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act. The Administrator will announce a proposal requiring large industrial facilities that emit at least 25,000 tons of GHGs a year to obtain construction and operating permits covering these emissions. These permits must demonstrate the use of best available control technologies and energy efficiency measures to minimize GHG emissions when facilities are constructed or significantly modified.

The full text of the Administrators remarks will be posted at www.epa.gov later this afternoon.

UPDATED: that text is now available here.

“Wow” would be an understatement.  This on the heels of the release of Senator Kerry and Boxer and their climate bill.  Here’s my statement on that subject:

Sept. 30, 2009

Reaction to Boxer-Kerry Climate Change Discussion Draft

Statement of Andy Wilson, Global Warming Program Director, Public Citizen’s Texas Office

The Boxer-Kerry draft includes some important measures to address climate change and create new green jobs, but it is simply not sufficient to solve climate change or create the green jobs revolution we need. While an improvement in some ways over Waxman-Markey and its billions in giveaways to polluting special interests, the discussion draft put forth by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) still punts on many of the most contentious issues, such as how and to whom emissions allowances will be allocated or auctioned. Waxman-Markey started off similarly strong and vague but was weakened as it went through the committee hearing process. Sen. Boxer must work to strengthen the bill as she guides it through her Environment and Public Works Committee hearings.

The discussion draft calls for a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas pollution from 2005 levels by 2020. This is a slight improvement over the 17 percent called for by Waxman-Markey, but is far short of the goals our best science tells us we need to make. Specifically, the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tells us in order to avoid the worst of global climate catastrophe, we need to cut our pollution levels 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels.

Japan will cut its emissions 25 percent by 2020; the EU has signaled it may meet or beat that goal. Why would we set ourselves to lag behind the rest of the world? We must win the technology races in manufacturing advanced energy technology so we do not replace importing oil with importing solar cells.

The draft should be applauded for including strong language to protect consumers and protect the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate emissions in the future.

Among the changes we recommend to the draft are alterations to address these problems:

Allowances should be auctioned 100 percent. President Obama’s budget continues to show revenues from a 100 percent auction and EPA analysis of Waxman-Markey found this to be the least regressive method of implementation.

Subsidies for nuclear should be removed. Despite recent findings by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Commissioner Jon Wellinghoff that the United States will never need to build another traditional power plant, the bill spends considerable space on (Subtitle C, Sec 131) and would allocate significant resources to nuclear power. Nuclear is neither as carbon-free nor as safe as the draft language claims. Neither is it cost-effective. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated half of all federal loan guarantees for nuclear loan guarantees will fail, meaning any extension of these guarantees is a pre-emptive bailout of the nuclear industry leaving the taxpayers on the hook for up to half a trillion dollars.

The draft still relies on more than two billion tons in offsets – actually expanding permitted offsets from the Waxman-Markey language. This has huge potential consequences. It means that despite the intent of the draft, we could conceivably end up having failed to reduce emissions at all – and with major questions about whether alleged offsets were even achieved. While the offset oversight language is considerably better than in Waxman-Markey, it still is troubling that we are relying on offsets rather than actually decreasing our pollution.

The draft does nothing to improve vague language in Waxman-Markey, which could effectively grandfather more than 40 proposed coal-fired power plants, including up to a dozen in Texas alone. These proposed plants would be exempted from new performance standards in the bill, while a plant built just three years from now will have to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by half.

With Kerry-Boxer maintaining EPA’s right to regulate CO2 as a pollutant, this sets the table nicely to try to get a bill passed which will both solve climate change and create the new energy economy we need.  We just need to improve the ground of the special-interest-riddled Congress.  Tip of my hat to Paul Krugman and Tom Friedman for their articles on this earlier this week about the severity of the problem that faces us and the relatively lame responses by our government.  As a palate cleanser, please to enjoy this 15 second video from [adult swim] about what the REAL problem may be:

Seriously?  SERIOUSLY?

Because the only way to respond to this is through mockery and derision (surely they can’t actually be serious?), we present to you:

INHERIT THE HOT AIR!!! (a comedy in 3 acts)

We apologize for the numerous Saturday Night Live circa 1989 references (especially the somewhat obscure “Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer“) and the blatant callbacks to Inherit the Wind, and also ask people to please NOT place plastic bags on their heads and inhale deeply.  No Andys were harmed in the filming of this video and I was able to breathe freely at all times.  I promise.

On a serious note, what the Chamber is trying to do is to overturn and stall a process which is well underway.  In 2007, the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v EPA stated that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it is linked to climate change, and the EPA should regulate it under the Clean Air Act.  In compliance with this ruling, (and only after delays by the Bush Administration which kept this action from occurring), the EPA earlier this year presented an initial endangerment finding, the first step in allowing them to regulate CO2 and other greenhouse gases.  They then opened the finding for public comment, which could be sent in by writing, and also held public meetings in Arlington, VA and Seattle, WA to gather public input.

According to documents posted at the Wonk Room, the US Chamber’s main argument is that previous public comment periods have somehow “Tainted” the process and that only an elaborate show trial, orchestrated by them and by putting their junk scientists on the stand, can eliminate the “taint.”  (And you know, “Tainted Endangerment Finding” was one of my favorite 80′s songs.)

So, according to the Chamber, public comment is bad, but the opinion of big business and their sham scientists can remove the stain from input by the witless masses.

All of this seems far too much like the plot of a Coen Brothers (or Marx Brothers) movie.  These are serious times which require serious thought and reflection, not comical misdirection.  But like the Fool in King Lear, only through comedy can we confront the tragedy that surrounds us and point out the serious misdeeds taking place.  And this sham by the Chamber of Commerce is even more destructive, because as long as we keep endlessly debating “Is It Happening?” we will never get around to “How Do We Solve It?”

In the words of Stan Lee, “Nuff Said.”

Though the Netroots has gotten the message loud and clear: these are really just company picnics, not uprisings of real grassroots support, there has still been some hedging on the part of the traditional media — who is still reporting that “many of the people attending the demonstration were employees of oil companies who work in Houston and were bused from their workplaces.“

But the truth is that the Houston rally was attended ONLY by energy company employees and retirees (at least that’s the way they wanted it).  It’s no big surprise that a few rabble-rousing enviros were kicked out, but when even those that oppose cap and trade were turned away– that should raise major red flags about the true nature of these events.  This isn’t even Astroturf anymore, this is asphalt.

But don’t take my word for it, listen to the anti-cap and trade folks from Freedom Works that were  from yesterday’s rally:

Or watch the higher quality version on Vimeo:

Here is another guy we caught up with outside who was also barred from entering– he called it “a circus” and “a county fair”.

Even far-right teabaggers, brought out to the event by FreedomWorks and a promise of a free meal, weren’t allowed in, despite actually being sympatico with Big Oil’s agenda.

The offending item that got one kicked out?  An American flag.  Why does Big Oil hate our freedom?

This is just the 30 second trailer– a longer, more in-depth interview with people who were not allowed in the rally will be posted in the next 24 hours.

About 2500 energy employees were brought by charter bus to the Verizon Wireless Theater, a private location that could be easily secured to keep undesirables out.  David, Ryan, and Andy were all denied access, but stealthily dressed in Banana Republic and spectator pumps, I was able to blend in with the crowd and slip into the hot dog line.

Inside the theater it became evident quickly what a polished, professional event this was.  Right at the door you could pick up a bright yellow t-shirt with a clever slogan on it like “I’ll pass on $4 gas”, “I’m an Energy Citizen!”, and “Congress, Don’t Take Away My Job!”  The same lines could also be found on bumper stickers and the same kinds of cardboard signs you would wave at a football game.

In the middle of the arena was a giant action center where employees could voice their disapproval of climate change legislation through a variety of mechanisms.  Six or seven computers were cued up with petitions to Sens. Hutchison and Cornyn, and attendees were invited to text JOBS to 363749(ENERGY) to get involved.  Drop boxes for postcards were also positioned in the corners of the room, and “activists” could sharpie their signatures to 8 foot tall “shame on you” or “thank you” letters to Congressmen that voted for or against the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

My favorite aspect of the rally by far, however, was the high school marching band and star spangled dance team.  When I asked one of the teenage dancers what she thought the rally was about, she told me she thought that it was about conserving energy.

I was able to interview several rally attendees, but the majority of folks regarded me with suspicion or didn’t want to talk to me.  Others clearly didn’t have much of an opinion on the bill other than what they’d been told, but one gentleman I spoke to was actually concerned about the special interest carve-outs in the bill for dirty coal.  Stay posted for the video of these interviews later today, with the working title “Energy Workers Say the Darndest Things.” Teaser:

After about an hour I started to run out out of room on my camera, so I moved toward the front doors to see if I could trade off cameras with Andy, who was still stationed outside.  Big mistake.  Once the chief security guard saw me make eye contact with a marked man, I was out of there.  He grabbed my shoulder and asked “what energy company do you work for?”  When I said I wasn’t with an energy company but was a member of the media, he said I was misrepresenting myself and summarily kicked me out.

I was a little disappointed to miss out on the great list of speakers, especially rodeo man Bill Bailey, who was master of ceremonies (irony, irony, irony, seeing as this rally was all hat and no cattle).  But speaking to other individuals who had been denied access was even more enlightening than listening to Big Oil preach their sermon.

This was such a fake, Astroturf event that they didn’t know how to handle legitimate grassroots support. A couple of women who had been to some of the teabagger events and townhalls came down, armed with American flags and excited to protest “crap and tax” — but even THEY weren’t allowed in.  Several others who had heard about the rally through Freedom Works, on right wing radio, or in the paper were also locked out.

Yesterday’s rally was the first of about twenty rallies that will be staged nationwide over the next few weeks.  Thanks to Greenpeace, we already knew Big Oil’s game plan: rally up a bunch of Astroturf support to kill cap and trade.  But now we know the full story — they don’t even want to hear the voices of their real grassroots.  These events are by invitation only, and all other members of the public — for or against climate legislation — will be shut out.  If you don’t work for the company, you’re not invited to the picnic.

We were not allowed in the meeting, as we did not work for an energy company, but we managed to sneak some great footage before being escorted out and being told to leave the premises.

We have:

Footage of the 34 busses used to bring people into the rally from different energy companies.

Normal Citizens who weren”t good enough to be “Energy Citizens”– people who weren’t allowed in the meeting, as this was for energy company employees only!  Interviews include lots of crazy conservative teabaggers who hate cap and trade (I understand why Public Citizen and Sierra Club might not be allowed in– why weren’t even they allowed?), nice ladies who were escorted out of the building because they dared to bring American flags to the rally (why does Big Oil hate America?), and lots of people angry at oil companies because they’re hiding this from the public.

“Energy Company Employees Say the Darndest Things” — watch as your friends in the oil and gas industry display ignorance as to the salient details of the ACES bill and spout misinformation about it, or, the people who do know a lot about the bill talk about how it’s a bad piece of legislation because of corporate giveaways to the coal industry!  Here’s one quick tidbit:

Want more?  Read my full press statement after the jump:

From http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2946

PUBLIC CITIZEN PRESS RELEASE

Aug. 18, 2009                                                        Contact: Andy Wilson (512) 477-1155

Industry Astroturf Rally Against Climate Change Bill Shows Big Oil Can’t Organize Real Grassroots Movement – API Throws Company Picnic, Not Town Hall Meeting, on Climate Change

Statement of Andy Wilson, Global Warming Program Director for
Public Citizen’s Texas Office

Don’t be fooled if you see news stories about a rally in Houston today opposing federal climate change legislation. It’s just an industry-organized ploy designed to scuttle lawmakers’ attempts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Ultimately, the industry just wants to protect its profits.

The rally, attended by approximately 2,500 people, was organized by Energy Citizens, an astroturf alliance funded primarily by the American Petroleum Institute (API). We know this is a fake grassroots group because on Friday, Greenpeace uncovered an internal memo in which API asked member companies and groups to help recruit employees, retirees, vendors and contractors to attend this and 21 other rallies in key congressional districts. Today’s event was the first of these orchestrated events, more company picnic than town hall meeting, and gives us a glimpse into what future events will look like.

Average citizens were barred from entering today’s rally. The only people allowed in were energy company employees, who were bused in and who had to show company ID to attend. Unable to organize a legitimate grassroots campaign, Big Oil and its corporate allies have bought one.

API and its partners, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, have bought a fake grassroots campaign because they don’t have the facts or public opinion on their side. The most recent Texas Lyceum poll shows that more Texans support limits on greenhouse gases emitted by corporations than oppose them. Respondents to the Houston Area Survey held the same opinion, even if it meant that electricity rates would rise.

We have our concerns about the current version of federal climate legislation, which we believe gives far too much to the fossil fuel industries. For example, oil companies receive $2 billion worth of free allowances under the Waxman-Markey climate change bill and are asking for even more.

But contrary to the complaints of “Energy Citizens” that climate legislation will be a job killer, studies done by the Natural Resources Defense Council have shown that Waxman-Markey, even in its current, weakened form, would still create 1.7 million green jobs, 153,000 of which would be in Texas. A more robust climate bill could be even more transformative.

Houston has always been an energy city, but it doesn’t have to remain a polluting city. Houston can maintain its place as the energy capital of America while simultaneously creating new clean energy industries and jobs.

###

Public Citizen is a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C., with an office in Austin, Texas. For more information, please visit www.citizen.org.

TXsharon needs your help to Expose This Dirty Video.

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme calls out KBH and the GOP for using racism and the NRA to get out the vote in 2010. Having a competent, experienced Latina judge? Not important.

Off the Kuff reminds us that Governor Perry’s consistently wrong decisions regarding unemployment insurance will cost the state two billion dollars, maybe more.

McBlogger takes a look at a lawsuit against TRS and discovers losses, possible corruption and a nightmarish problem for the Republicans in 2010.

John Coby says you better think before you trust a republican with your family’s health care.

Mean Rachel decides that Democratic gubernatorial candidate is still too Bush League for her tastes.

Our governor is living the life of the rich and famous. It does so on our dime and on the “dimes” of his fat cat contributors. Libby Shaw gives us the ulgy details over at TexasKaos, Our Kept Governor to the Unemployed: Eat Cake.

Why did Ciro Rodriguez vote against the Waxman-Markey climate change bill and then suddenly flee the House? And why is he taking grip-and-grin meetings with David Dewhurst? PDiddie at Brains and Eggs would really like to know.

Vince at Capitol Annex tells why he believes that the smart money is on Texas Governor Rick Perry picking Lt. Governor David Dewhurst to replace U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison if she resigns before the end of the year.

Neil at Texas Liberal posted a video he made that will take only 39 seconds your life to watch. Also, Neil made a post marking the third anniversary of Texas Liberal. Texas Liberal has run 1500 page views a day so far this year and had racked-up over 725,000 views since it began. Thank you blog reading public!!

WhosPlayin notes that the City of Lewisville is cancelling its Cinco de Mayo celebration for 2010 due to budgetary concerns.

Dembones at Eye On Williamson points out Rep. John Carter’s latest nuttiness, Franking Commission draws the line on Rep. Carter.

Mike Thomas at Rhetoric & Rhythm reviews Debra Medina’s campaign video and deems her the Sarah Palin of South Texas.

Teddy of Left of College Station was forced to evacuate his home in Bryan due to a warehouse fire that was burning toxic materials, but was able to return to his home the next day. Before the evacuation Teddy was able to write about Michael Vick’s return to the NFL, and whether or not he deserves a second chance. Left of College Station also covers the local and progressive events in the Bryan-College Station this month.

I couldn’t agree more with point made by Jon Stewart in the first clip. The best intentions of the original bill were radically altered to accommodate the financial interests of big energy corporations. This highlights the need to strengthen the bill in the Senate. I also enjoyed Jon Stewart’s discussion of global warming denial with Secretary Chu.  Its amazing how misinformed our population can be, and unfortunately this includes many of our Representatives in Congress.

The House Committee on Energy and Commerce is responsible for oversight in legislation concerning: telecommunications, energy, international commerce, public health, consumer protection and much more. The Energy Department, Health and Human Services, the Transportation Department to the Federal Trade Commission, Food and Drug Administration, and Federal Communications Commission all fall under this committee’s jurisdiction.

Being that this is the committee that was given the responsibility of approving the Waxman Markey bill (the legislation that will determine our future energy policy); I was particularly interested in the amount of influence the energy industry had on shaping these positions of its members. The only way I could actually come close to measuring this is by looking at how much energy companies contribute to these candidates and how much their votes reflect the contributions they receive. As a control for this highly informal quasi-experiment I compared the contributions Energy and Commerce Committee members received from the energy industry the amount of contributions members of the Ways and Means Committee (which deals with taxation and welfare) received from the same industries. I limited this to congressmen who received $10,000 or more in contributions from energy companies during the 2008 election cycle.

I found that in the 65.52% of energy and commerce committee members received energy contributions above $10,000, while 58.53% of Ways and Means members received contributions above $10,000, during the 2008 campaign season. On average Energy and Commerce members received $53,972, while Ways and Means members only received $35,986, on average. The biggest recipients of both parties on the Energy and Commerce Committee got substantially more than their counterparts on Ways and Means Committee. In fact the biggest recipient on Energy and Commerce got $267,559 more than the largest recipient in Ways and Means. The Democrats in both committees received fewer contributions from these industries than the republicans, but the biggest recipient among Energy and Commerce Democrats, Louisiana’s Charlie Melancon, received $40,176 more than Charles Rangel the biggest Democrat recipient on the Ways and Means committee. It should be noted that a bigger percentage of Republicans on both committees received contributions above $10,000 in Energy Contributions. 100% of Republicans on Energy and Commerce received $10,000 or more while only 44% of Democrats did.

So how effective were these contributions at swaying the representatives? It is difficult to say to say because the deliberations took place behind close doors.  Many of the representatives who voted for the final version of the bill may have attempted to weaken some of its environmental protections or add favors for their favorite industries during the deliberations — we can’t know for sure. We can, however, see how the different representatives voted.

Any bill that improves pollution standards or requires businesses to switch to cleaner or more efficient energy sources is likely to get shot down by the Republicans.  This was the case here, with all Republicans but Mary Bono Mac, of California, voting against the bill. It should be noted that her $60,000 thousand in energy contributions put her well below the average ($102,654.50) for Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee (though there were 9 with lower contributions).

The Democrats votes were a little more telling. Three biggest Democrat recipients voted against Waxman Markey, while Gene Green, of Texas, and John Dingle of Michigan, received the fourth and fifth largest amounts of energy contributions and still supported the bill.

I suspect campaign contributions help create a positive feed back cycle. Contributors give to candidates that support their interest initially, and the contributions increase this support. This increased support leads to further special interest contributions and further loyalty to this lobby. Unfortunately this cycle of political indebtedness is at odds with the public interest and gives special interest groups too much power over our politicians.

The letter reads:

We have an unprecedented opportunity to put San Antonians to work in new green jobs — building wind turbines, installing solar panels, weatherizing homes, and laying a smarter electric grid that will power our new energy economy.  We also believe it is of the utmost important that we rescue our children, our grandchildren, and the world they’ll inherit from the ravages of global warming.

According to Greg Harman at the San Antonio Current’s QueQue blog,

The cadre adds the weight of local elected leadership to an ongoing campaign working to ensure San Antonio’s representative in Congress (serving on the influential House Committee on Energy & Commerce) pushes for binding commitments to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions quickly while transitioning the economy into a more sustainable direction.

Hopefully Charlie is feeling the pressure and will back away from the polluter giveaways he’s been flirting with as of late.  That’s because, everybody with me now, Giving Away Allowances is a Terrible Way to Write This Bill.  EPA’s most recent analysis says that giving away pollution credits is “highly regressive”, meaning it hurts low-income families the most. At best, this is a bailout and a free ride for the polluters. At worst it will create windfall profits for huge energy companies at the expense of every lower and middle income family in Texas.

Just listen to that broken record spin. No shame here, I’ll say it as many times as it takes for it sink in.

The Cost of Climate Inaction, Op-Ed in the Washington Post

An Affordable Salvation, New York Times Op-Ed about the benefits of cap and trade

Carbon Offsets in Waxman-Markey Bill, An Overview, Carbonfund.org Blog

Maryland Passes Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act, SustainableBusiness.com News

Cap and trade won’t push heavy industries overseas — study, The New York Times

Net metering: The civil rights movement for solar energy, Photovoltaics World

Who gets tough against companies polluting Texas? Hint: It’s not the state, Houston Chronicle

Utah takes nuclear waste from states with own dump, Houston Chronicle (A glimpse of what could happen in Texas if the Andrews Waste Dump goes through)

As you may recall, we’ve been pushing on US Congressman Gonzalez lately to support a strong climate change bill ever since we heard he might want to go over to the dark side and  give away free carbon credits to utilities.  Two weekends ago we hit him up at the King William’s Fair in San Antonio to make sure he heard the message loud and clear: No Giveaways for Polluters.

Giving away allowances would force customers to pay for industry and utilities’ right to pollute without even cutting carbon emissions.  This is exactly what went wrong with the European Union’s cap and trade experiment.  They gave away carbon credits, so that industries had a free ticket to pollute — but then industry turned around to consumers, raised rates because they could pretend they had “compliance costs” to cover, and working families had to foot the bill while energy companies made windfall profits.

But according to a new EPA analysis of the Bill That May or May Not Save the World, making polluters pay would actually leave families better off than before:

Assuming that the bulk of the revenues from the program are returned to households, the cap-and-trade policy has a relatively modest impact on U.S. consumers. . . . Returning the revenues in this fashion could make the median household, and those living at lower ends of the income distribution, better off than they would be without the program.

This new VoteVets ad explains how tackling climate change and moving toward clean energy is also a national security matter.  Phil posted the following quote from Patrick Bellon, an Iraq War Veteran from Texas that speaks in the ad,

Getting America less dependent on foreign oil and towards clean energy is a national security matter,” said Bellon, who also is a member of VoteVets.org. “Congressman Gonzalez has a chance to vote for a comprehensive clean energy jobs bill that would lessen those Middle East oil profits that help fund terrorism, and would create jobs right here. As someone who’s fought against insurgents in Iraq, this bill is a no brainer, and we’re hoping the Congressman feels the same way.

Check it out for yourself:

Word is that the ad will run over 600 times in the San Antonio market, and a similar ad is running in Congressman Gene Green’s district.  Many thanks to Phil at BOR for bringing this to our attention

It really warms my heart that VoteVets has joined in this fight, adding another crucial voice to the cap and trade choir.  Done right, this bill could reduce our emissions such that the US can steer clear of runaway global warming, jump-start a new clean energy economy and set the standard for strong climate legislation at Copenhagen in December.

There are a lot of good reasons to support this bill, and only two real voices that oppose it: those that don’t believe global warming is real, and the monied interests that benefit from the status quo.  Looking at what we and future generations stand to lose, neither represents a legitimate argument.

On a related note, San Antonio folks have another opportunity this afternoon to show Charlie their support for a strong climate change bill at a MoveOn.org rally.  Details after the jump.

MOVE ON.ORG RALLY–CO SPONSORED BY TEXAS CLIMATE EMERGENCY CAMPAIGN AND SAN ANTONIO FOR CLIMATE ACTION NOW (SA CAN).

Where: 727 East Durango, just west of the I-37/281 intersection with Durango, across from the Alamodome and Sunset Station complex

When: Tuesday, May 5th, at 4:00PM

What: A rally to convince Cong. Gonzalez that we all want the Waxman-Markey bill to represent our best interests

Why: Because climate change is real, and we want serious cuts in carbon emissions, no offsets, and 100% auctions of pollution allowances.

Who: YOU!!!!!

For more information, please email Alyssa Burgin at alyssatexasclimate@gmail.com, or call 210.381.4021.