This post is by Tony Kreindler, media director for the National Climate Campaign at Environmental Defense Fund.

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

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

Read more »

This post is by Sheryl Canter, an Online Writer and Editorial Manager at Environmental Defense Fund.

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

Government Dollars

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

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

Read more »

This post is by John Balbus, M.D., M.P.H., Chief Health Scientist at Environmental Defense.

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

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

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

Read more »

This post is by Sheryl Canter, an Online Writer and Editorial Manager at Environmental Defense.

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

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

This post is by Sheryl Canter, an Online Writer and Editorial Manager at Environmental Defense.

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

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

This post is by Sheryl Canter, an Online Writer and Editorial Manager at Environmental Defense.

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

Read more »

This post is by Steve Cochran, National Climate Campaign Director at Environmental Defense.

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

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

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

This post is by Carol Andress, Economic Development Specialist at Environmental Defense.

Climate Vote 2007

This post is part of a series on the work of the Environmental Defense Action Fund to enact an effective climate law. You can help by writing to Congress.

Last night's committee passage of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (CSA) means that the bill now can be considered by the full Senate - an important step towards enacting national climate legislation. But for a bill to become law in this country it has to be passed by both the House and Senate, and the House is lagging behind. (See our previous post for more on the legislative process.)

So while we celebrate last night's Senate victory, we still have our work cut out for us in the House. The House Energy Commerce Committee has been tied up with the energy bill, and has not yet circulated a proposal on climate legislation. Now that a vote on the energy bill is imminent, it's time for House leaders to turn their attention.

Read more »

Today's post is by Bill Chameides, Ph.D., science adviser to Environmental Defense and member of the National Academy of Sciences.

In 2002, the Bush Administration set up the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP). Yesterday, an independent panel released a report through the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) evaluating how that program has done. The headline in the New York Times sums it up: "Panel Faults Emphasis of U.S. Climate Program."

When I look at the work of the CCSP over the last five years, here's what stands out.

Read more »

Today's guest blogger, Tony Kreindler, is a Media Director at Environmental Defense.

There's been a lot of buzz lately about the Energy Bill under debate in the Senate. With all the lobbying and spin, it can be hard to sort out what's really going on. Here's the bottom line.

When it comes to solving climate change, our best yardstick for measuring success is how much we cut global warming pollution. The Energy Bill could make some progress, but it's no substitute for the comprehensive climate legislation Congress will work on later this year. Let's look at the numbers.

Read more »