Growing Renewable Energy in the U.S. through CLEAN Contracts - a Perfect Fit

A Policy to Repower the Nation with Clean Energy

No policy has helped other countries expand their renewable sources of electricity more than the CLEAN contract, also known as a feed-in tariff or FIT. Transparency, certainty and longevity of the contract forms the basis for its widespread acceptance, and its success in developing wind and solar power in other countries and a few states.

A CLEAN contract makes Clean Local Energy Accessible Now. The policy allows renewable energy project owners to sell their electricity to utilities at a predetermined, fixed price for a long period of time. Clean energy providers are paid a price for their electricity that covers the cost of the generation. It makes clean energy investment a smarter choice for homeowners, utilities, and developers of renewable energy projects.

The CLEAN contract helps overcome upfront cost barriers to investment by making renewable energy projects more easy to finance. The contract offers a standardized process for new projects, minimizing uncertainty for developers and confusion for homeowners. It reduces risk and lowers the costs of getting things built. The CLEAN contract makes it easier to run businesses, build projects, and give consumers what they want.

The Center for American Progress has written a detailed paper that examines the workings and ingredients of CLEAN contracts. The paper also looks at how lawmakers and advocates can successfully move CLEAN contracts forward given how the contracts are affected by federal regulation. Finally, it provides recommendations to ensure that policies benefit ratepayers, workers, investors, and the U.S. economy.

Learn more about CLEAN contracts at the Center for American Progress. A brief description of CLEAN contracts is provided in a video here and also below.

Isn't it time that we get on board and promote renewable energy development on a large scale through CLEAN contracts? Implementation of CLEAN contracts across the U.S. will accelerate clean energy deployment, recharge the economy and create new jobs. A shift from burning fossil fuels to utilizing clean energy sources will curb greenhouse gas emissions, reduce toxic pollution and protect human health.

Don't believe in global warming? That's not very conservative.

By Bracken Hendricks
The Washington Post
Sunday, November 7, 2010

Few causes unite the conservatives of the newly elected 112th Congress as unanimously as their opposition to government action on climate change.

In September, the Center for American Progress Action Fund surveyed Republican candidates in congressional and gubernatorial races and found that nearly all disputed the scientific consensus on global warming, and none supported measures to mitigate it. For example, Robert Hurt, who won Tom Perriello's House seat in Virginia, says clean-energy legislation would fail to "do anything except harm people." The tea party's "Contract From America" calls proposed climate policies "costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation's global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures." Even conservatives who once argued for action on climate change, such as as Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and Rep. Mark Kirk (Ill.), have run for cover.

But it's conservatives who should fear climate change the most. To put it simply, if you hate big government, try global warming on for size.

Many conservatives say they oppose clean-energy policies because they want to keep government off our backs. But they have it exactly backward. Doing nothing will set our country on a course toward narrower choices for businesses and individuals, along with an expanded role for government. When catastrophe strikes - and yes, the science is quite solid that it will - it will be the feds who are left conducting triage.

My economic views are progressive, and I think government has an important role in tackling big problems. But I admire many cherished conservative values, from personal responsibility to thrift to accountability, and I worry that conservatives' lock-step posture on climate change is seriously out of step with their professed priorities. A strong defense of our national interests, rigorous cost-benefit analysis, fiscal discipline and the ability to avoid unnecessary intrusions into personal liberty will all be seriously compromised in a world marked by climate change.

In fact, far from being conservative, the Republican stance on global warming shows a stunning appetite for risk. When faced with uncertainty and the possibility of costly outcomes, smart businessmen buy insurance, reduce their downside exposure and protect their assets. When confronted with a disease outbreak of unknown proportions, front-line public health workers get busy producing vaccines, pre-positioning supplies and tracking pathogens. And when military planners assess an enemy, they get ready for a worst-case encounter.

When it comes to climate change, conservatives are doing none of this. Instead, they are recklessly betting the farm on a single, best-case scenario: That the scientific consensus about global warming will turn out to be wrong. This is bad risk management and an irresponsible way to run anything, whether a business, an economy or a planet.

The great irony is that, should their high-stakes bet prove wrong, adapting to a destabilized climate would mean a far bigger, more intrusive government than would most of the "big government" solutions to our energy problems that have been discussed so far.

Let's start with costs. The investment needed to slow carbon pollution might total from 1 to 2 percent of global GDP each year for several decades, according to a 2006 study by the British government. This spending would pay for advanced technology, better land use and modern infrastructure. The same study put the cost of inaction - including economic harm from property damage and lost crops - at 5 to 20 percent of global GDP, lasting in perpetuity, with the risk of vastly higher catastrophic damage. You tell me which option is more fiscally responsible.

But it's not this cost-benefit arithmetic that should most concern conservatives. Their real worry should be what it will take to manage the effects of climate change as they are felt across the economy over the course of our lifetimes.

The best science available suggests that without taking action to fundamentally change how we produce and use energy, we could see temperatures rise 9 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit over much of the United States by 2090. These estimates have sometimes been called high-end predictions, but the corresponding low-end forecasts assume we will rally as a country to shift course. That hasn't happened, so the worst case must become our best guess.

With temperature increases in this range, studies predict a permanent drought throughout the Southwest, much like the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, but this time stretching from Kansas to California. If you hate bailouts or want to end farm subsidies, this is a problem. Rising ocean acidity, meanwhile, will bring collapsing fisheries, catch restrictions - and unemployment checks. And rising sea levels will mean big bills as cash-strapped cities set about rebuilding infrastructure and repairing storm damage. With Americans in pain, the government will have to respond. And who will shoulder these new burdens? Future taxpayers.

This is just the beginning. If conservatives' rosy hopes prove wrong, who but the federal government will undertake the massive infrastructure projects necessary to protect high-priced real estate in Miami and Lower Manhattan from rising oceans? And what about smaller coastal cities, such as Galveston and Corpus Christi in Texas? Will it fall to FEMA or some other part of the federal government to decide who will move and when and under what circumstances? Elsewhere, with declining river flows, how will the Bureau of Reclamation go about repowering the dams of the Pacific Northwest?

And while we're busy at home, who will help Pakistan or Bangladesh in its next flood? What will the government do to secure food supplies when Russia freezes wheat exports? Without glaciers, what will become of Lima, Peru, a city dependent on melting ice for drinking water? Will we let waves of "climate refugees" cross our borders?

As the physicist and White House science director John Holdren has said: "We basically have three choices: mitigation [cutting emissions], adaptation and suffering. We're going to do some of each. The question is what the mix is going to be."

Today's conservatives would do well to start thinking more like military planners, reexamining the risks inherent in their strategy. If, instead, newly elected Republicans do nothing, they will doom us all to bigger government interventions and a large dose of suffering - a reckless choice that's anything but conservative.

Bracken Hendricks is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and a co-author, with Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.), of "Apollo's Fire: Igniting America's Clean Energy Economy."

Bill McKibben on the Letterman Show

Environmentalist Bill McKibben appeared on The Late Show with David Letterman and discussed climate change, putting solar back on the White House, and a Global Work Party on October 10, 2010 -- 10/10/10.

Oil Spill: Obama's chance to Lead on Energy

Mr. President, lead now on fossil fuels
The gulf oil spill is Obama's chance to take bold steps on climate change.
By Bill McKibben

Which one is the real Obama? Has he really been transformed by the oil spill in the gulf, or is he merely trying to ride out the public reaction with stronger words? I think the answer is as murky as the water off Mobile. We don't know because so far it's all words; the closest he's come to specifics is that pledge that we won't be off oil in a decade.

We need someone to stand up and tell it the way it is, and in language so compelling and dramatic it sets us on a new path.

Read the full article here.

Brown Pelican on the beach at East Grand Terre Island along the Louisiana coast on Thursday, June 3, 2010. (AP photo)

Make EVERY Day, Earth Day!

EARTH DAY 2010

EVERY Day should be EARTH DAY!

In 1970, the first Earth Day’s original organizers made “the environment” a voting issue. A few weeks after the election — despite the furious opposition of the coal, oil, electric utility, automobile, and steel industries — the Senate version of the 1970 Clean Air Act, passed unanimously and it was later adopted by the House on a voice vote.

Denis Hayes, national coordinator for the first Earth Day in 1970, is the international chair of Earth Day 2010. He thinks that the environmental movement sometimes projects a vague image about what it stands for and that the only way Congress will act intelligently and boldly on climate change is if we give it no choice. Learn more by reading his article, "Turning up the heat on climate".

Sunday, April 25th - Earth Day Network and partner organizations will organize a massive climate rally on The National Mall in Washington D.C. to demand that Congress pass a strong climate bill in 2010. To learn more, and to Sign the Earth Day 2010 Climate Declaration demanding a comprehensive climate bill from Congress, Click Here.

President Obama marked the 40th Anniversary of Earth Day in a Video. To watch the Video, Click Here.

Climate Change: Dealing with Deniers

The recent snow storms in the Washington DC area brought out droves of global warming deniers who mocked those that accept the scientific evidence for global warming and climate change. Thinking people know that despite the cold temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere (where it is winter), it is hot in the Southern Hemisphere (where it is summer), and so it is not unreasonable that on average the global temperature could be warming despite the unusual snow storms in DC. In fact, warming elsewhere in the world could be a contributor (see below). Also, the day to day variations in weather can not predict the multi-year trends that define climate change. But how to deal with deniers who are definitely not thinking along the same lines?

Below are examples of how experts in different fields view weather, global warming and climate change:

Meteorologist: Dr. Jeff Masters, Weather Underground -- "It is quite possible that the dice have been loaded in favor of more intense Nor'easters for the U.S. Mid-Atlantic and Northeast, thanks to the higher levels of moisture present in the air due to warmer global temperatures."

Scientist: Dr. Joe Romm, Climate Progress -- "An amazing, though clearly little-known, scientific fact: We get more snow storms in warm years!"

Environmentalist: Bill McKibben, 350.org -- "Washington's snowstorms, brought to you by global warming"

President: Barack Obama addresses climate change and weather in this Video.

The Military: Military leaders address the national security threats of climate change in this Video. See also related information about the Pew Project on National Security, Energy and Climate.

Climate Warrior: WARNING: not for the faint of heart! Video with edgy humor.

Coal Humor

What if you could power an entire city for $100? In a world of ever changing climates, isn't nice to know that one thing stays the same? Coal -- cheap, abundant, clean...errrr cheap. [mobile link is here]

CandleLight Vigil for the Climate

[click image to enlarge]

McKibben to Obama: Stop Climate Spin -- Feel the Heat

Mother Jones
Mr. President: Time to Quit Fibbing and Spinning
By Bill McKibben | Monday, November 16, 2009

The real tip-off of Obama’s unwillingness to lead, however, has been the endless spinning of his climate negotiators. For 12 months they have been fibbing about the science—reiterating over and over again that their goal is the “scientific standard” of 450 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere. That’s no longer scientifically accurate—in the last two years, since the rapid Arctic melt in the summer of 2007, scientists have made it clear that a treaty that aimed at 450 ppm would be a treaty that left the planet free of ice, a planet where many current nations would disappear beneath the waves. We’re at 390 now—we’re already too high.

Read the full report here.Washington Post
Obama needs to Feel the Heat
By Bill McKibben | Sunday, November 22, 2009

As one of the U.S. spokesmen put it, "There was an assessment by the leaders that it is unrealistic to expect a full, internationally legally binding agreement could be negotiated between now and Copenhagen, which starts in 22 days."

This is not just spin, it's pathetic spin. Copenhagen has been on the calendar for years -- it's not a surprise that someone sprung on the president, who shortly after last year's election declared: "Once I take office, you can be sure that the United States will once again engage vigorously in these negotiations and help lead the world toward a new era of global cooperation on climate change. Now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all. Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response. The stakes are too high." [emphasis added]

Read the full report here.

Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act

The Senate climate bill, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, was released by sponsoring Senators Kerry and Boxer on September 30, 2009. This is an independent version of the House of Representatives climate bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, which was passed earlier this year. If the Senate bill is passed, the Senate and House will then reconcile their versions, vote, and if that version is passed, Congress will send it on to President Obama.

The White House is running its own climate campaign, meeting with more than half the Senate, making calls to almost 100 mayors, and meeting with many governors. Their goal, according to Carol Browner, the president's assistant for energy and climate change, "is to get the bill moving and keep it moving." However, Ms. Browner is not optimisic about the bill being passed before the December's UN conference in Copenhagen.

President Obama welcomed a Senate bill to cut carbon emissions and said he was "deeply committed" to passing it even as the White House played down chances that it would happen this year. Obama, whose international credibility on global warming is largely tied to the Senate's effort, called the draft bill a major step forward in his plans to revamp U.S. energy policy.

Subsequent to the above events, President Obama was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Nobel Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of, and work for, a world without nuclear weapons. Also, "Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened", as stated in the announcement from the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

On the Senate climate bill, you can read an overview, a summary, a section by section summary, or the full bill. Also available is a description of the Pollution Reduction and Investment Mechanism of the bill. The files are available here.

An analysis of the Senate climate bill done by Jason Kowalski at 1Sky is available here.

[UPDATES: Sunday, Oct.11, 2009]
NY Times Op-Ed
Yes We Can (Pass Climate Change Legislation)
By JOHN KERRY and LINDSEY GRAHAM
John Kerry is a Democratic senator from Massachusetts. Lindsey Graham is a Republican senator from South Carolina.

Republican senator backs climate-change effort
By Andy Sullivan | Reuters
Sunday, October 11, 2009; 3:35 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Prospects for climate-change legislation in Congress improved on Sunday when a Republican senator broke ranks with his party to outline a compromise with a leading Democrat on the issue.

Clean Energy SAVES Money

Climate 2030: A National Blueprint for a Clean Energy Economy
A New Analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists

The United States has many reasons to make the transition to a clean energy economy: Reducing oil dependence. Strengthening energy security. Creating jobs. Tackling global warming. Addressing air pollution. Improving our health.

What we need is a comprehensive set of smart policies to jump-start this transition without delay and maximize the benefits to our environment and economy. Climate 2030: A National Blueprint for a Clean Energy Economy (“the Blueprint”) answers that need.

Under the Blueprint, every region of the country stands to save billions. Households and businesses—even in coal-dependent regions—will share in these savings.

Net Consumer and Business Savings (by Census Region in 2030)

A link to the full report by the Union of Concerned Scientists is here.

350: A Number to Hang a Carbon Cap On

A team of scientists, led by NASA climatologist Dr. James Hansen, has determined that 350 parts per million (ppm) is the safe level of heat-trapping carbon dioxide (CO2) which we must get below in order to preserve climates similar to which life on Earth is adapted. The level now is 387 ppm, and is increasing at least by 2 ppm per year. We need to start now and reduce the level of CO2 below 350 ppm.

Scientists studying Antarctic ice cores that include more than 650,000 years of past climate history have never found CO2 levels even close to those of the present ones. Pre-Industrial Revolution levels, i.e., before the extensive burning of fossil fuels, were at 275 ppm, far below the current level of 387 ppm.

The CO2 level recorded prior to industrial fossil-fuel burning is that which trapped enough heat to maintain global temperatures to which life on Earth adapted. At the current elevated level of heat-trapping CO2, the Earth is showing signs of a planetary "fever".

Arctic sea is melting, sea levels are rising, and climate patterns around the globe are changing. Glaciers, the source of drinking water for hundreds of millions of people, are melting and disappearing. Disease-carrying mosquitoes that thrive in a warmer world are spreading to new places including south Texas. Drought is becoming more common, making food crops harder to grow in many regions.

Environmentalist and author, Bill McKibben, thinks that 350 is the most important number on Earth. In fact, he founded an international movement called simply 350, aiming to inform people around the world that 350 ppm is the level scientists have identified as the safe upper limit for CO2 in our atmosphere. Hopefully, this will help move international climate negotiations closer to science than they’ve been in the past.

McKibben aims to create a world-wide grassroots movement connected by the internet and to hold decision-makers accountable to producing a climate treaty that is strong, equitable, and grounded in the latest science, the science of 350. On October 24, 350.org is holding a Global Day of Climate Action to do just this. “We hope it represents a climactic moment in the climate movement to show that people around the world are watching the outcome in Copenhagen,” says May Boeve, an international 350 coordinator. “We need a strong treaty to get us to a safe level. We are ultimately building toward that point.”

So how do we reduce the CO2 level below 350?

• No more new coal plants, because although the world still has immense amounts of coal, it's immensely dirty.

• A cap on the amount of carbon the country can produce, with permits paid for by the upstream producer who mines, imports, or sells the fossil fuel .

• An international agreement, including China and India, to do the same thing around the world.

If the global 350 movement succeeds, McKibben has hope that we can get the world back to climate safety. It won't be easy, because the planet is already developing a fever, and prompt action is necessary. Visit 350.org to learn more about how you can help.

This weekend there were two conferences focused on that single number, 350. "Getting to 350" was held at Middlebury College in Vermont, and "The 350 Climate Conference" was held at Columbia University in New York. James Hansen spoke at Columbia and via video conference at Middlebury. Bill McKibben spoke at Middlebury via video conference from the other side of the planet in New Zealand, where he is spreading the word about the most important number on Earth.

Soot/Black Carbon: Quick Climate Fix?

The chief culprit in global warming is carbon dioxide. But recent studies show that black carbon - microscopic airborne particles commonly known as soot - is also a big factor. According to a recent study, black carbon may account for as much as half of Arctic warming. Along with deep cuts in CO2, curbing black carbon is crucial for slowing Arctic and global warming, and for averting catastrophic tipping points such as the melting of sea ice and the Greenland ice sheet.

Black carbon comes from diesel engines, industrial smokestacks and residential cooking and heating stoves. Most black carbon that falls in the Arctic comes from North America, Europe and Asia. Because black carbon air pollution is also a leading cause of respiratory illness and death, controlling emissions will save lives and improve health around the world. In India alone, black carbon-laden indoor smoke is responsible for over 400,000 premature deaths annually, mostly of women and children.

The direct absorption of sunlight by black carbon heats the atmosphere. When black carbon falls on snow and ice, it reduces reflectivity and speeds up melting. The good news: Because black carbon stays in the atmosphere for only days or weeks, moving quickly to expand existing technology can be an effective rapid response to slow warming, buying critical time to achieve reductions in CO2.

Starting April 28, the nations of the Arctic Council, including the United States, will meet in Tromso, Norway, where action to slow Arctic warming such as reducing black carbon will be a major focus. The U.S. and Europe must lead on this issue by committing to stricter standards at home for diesel engines and other sources of black carbon pollution, and by committing to increased financial and technological assistance to the developing world to reduce black carbon pollution from diesel, home cooking and heating and other sources.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will send a team to represent the United States at Tromso. While she was still in the Senate, she co-sponsored a bill on black carbon and visited the Arctic to see the devastating effects of climate change first hand. Now, as her team prepares for the Arctic Council Ministerial, we must let her and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson know we understand how important it is for the United States to lead the way.

Take action to Stop Soot. To send an e-mail message to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, click on the "STOP SOOT" tab at StopSoot.org.

News Briefs -- 4.5.2009

Kansas Coal Plant Bill: Legislature OKs, But Veto by Gov Likely
AP -- 4/3/2009
A bill allowing two coal-fired power plants in southwest Kansas won final legislative approval Friday, but supporters failed again to generate the support they need to override an expected veto by the governor.

The bill goes next to Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who objects to provisions that would overturn an October 2007 decision by her administration that prevented Sunflower Electric Power Corp. from building the plants in Finney County.

Rod Bremby, Sebelius' Secretary of Health and Environment, denied Sunflower an air-quality permit, citing the plants' potential carbon dioxide emissions. Sebelius also opposes provisions limiting the Secretary's power to regulate greenhouse gases linked by many scientists to global warming and preventing the secretary from using emergency powers to deny an air-quality permit in the name of protecting the environment or public health.

Those provisions are tied to others designed to encourage the development of wind farms and other renewable energy sources. The full report is here.

Obama climate plans face long route for passage
4/3/2009
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Senate vote this week rejected an effort to put climate-change legislation on a fast track, making it harder for Congress to put limits on greenhouse gas emissions this year.

Democratic leaders and the Obama administration had floated the idea of using the federal budget to move cap-and-trade legislation through Congress. Making the plan part of the budget would enable it to pass with a simple majority.

But the Senate on Wednesday voted 67-to-31 in favor of a measure blocking lawmakers from attaching a cap-and-trade bill to the federal budget.

Democrats now will need 60 votes in the Senate to end a potential filibuster of any bill to create a system limiting greenhouse gas emissions and requiring industry to buy permits to release gasses blamed for global warming. The full report is here.

Discussion Draft of New Clean Energy Legislation Released
Chairman Henry A. Waxman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and Chairman Edward J. Markey of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee released a draft of clean energy legislation. The American Clean Energy and Security Act will create millions of new clean energy jobs, save consumers hundreds of billions of dollars in energy costs, enhance America’s energy independence, and cut global warming pollution. To meet these goals, the legislation has four titles:

• A clean energy title that promotes renewable sources of energy, carbon capture and sequestration technologies, low-carbon fuels, clean electric vehicles, and the smart grid and electricity transmission;

• An energy efficiency title that increases energy efficiency across all sectors of the economy, including buildings, appliances, transportation, and industry;

• A global warming title that places limits on emissions of heat-trapping pollutants; and

• A transitioning title that protects U.S. consumers and industry and promotes green jobs during the transition to a clean energy economy.
  

Link Waxman's Website is here.

DC Climate Bills Blooming like Cherry Blossoms
Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) had a different idea on what to do about climate, and particularly with all the money the government might raise by putting a price on carbon.

Van Hollen has proposed a "cap and dividend" scheme. It's noteworthy because he's assistant to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and no slouch on energy and environmental issues, as co-chair of a House renewable energy caucus.

The emission targets vary slightly from the Waxman-Markey draft bill, but where Van Hollen's plan is different is that he would have the government give back to consumers the millions and billions raised by auctioning off credits or rights to emit limited quantities of greenhouse gases.

Under Obama's plan, roughly two thirds of the money raised through those carbon auctions would be returned in tax breaks. But Van Hollen's proposing to give all of it back, returning 100% of auction proceeds in the form of a monthly Consumer Dividend to every lawful resident of the United States with a valid Social Security number. See the full report at the Baltimore Sun blog.

Wind turbines could more than meet U.S. electricity needs
The Interior Department report, which looks at the potential of wind turbines off the U.S. coast, is part of the government's process to chart a course for offshore energy development.
Los Angeles Times -- 4/3/2009
Arlington, Va. -- Wind turbines off U.S. coastlines could potentially supply more than enough electricity to meet the nation's current demand, the Interior Department reported Thursday.

Simply harnessing the wind in relatively shallow waters -- the most accessible and technically feasible sites for offshore turbines -- could produce at least 20% of the power demand for most coastal states, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said, unveiling a report by the Minerals Management Service that details the potential for oil, gas and renewable development on the outer continental shelf.

The biggest wind potential lies off the nation's Atlantic coast, which the Interior report estimates could produce 1,000 gigawatts of electricity -- enough to meet a quarter of the national demand. The full report is here.

Offshore windpower is also feasible within the U.S. on the Great Lakes. Video discussing the possibility of Offshore Windpower on Lake Erie in Buffalo is here, presented by Dave Bradley.

Liberty, Justice & Clean Energy for All

The Capitol Climate Action, a protest held in Washington DC at the U.S. Capitol Power Plant on March 2nd, was a huge success. This was a non-violent protest and no one was arrested. Around 2,000 people showed up, despite a freak snow storm and cold weather in DC.

The protest was about generating energy by burning coal, the largest single contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change. We heard from NASA's Dr. James Hansen, climate change guru. We also heard from Bill McKibben, environmentalist author of The End of Nature (1989), the first book on global warming for a general audience. But the protest was about more than global warming. Young people, whose futures are on the line, were shouting exuberant chants such as:

Tell me what Democracy looks like,
THIS is what Democracy looks like!

Many of these young adults had attended the PowerShift '09 conference, and were in DC to lobby Congress for a clean energy future with green jobs and environmental justice.

We saw all sorts of placards: Coal stinks! Coal is dirty! Coal makes us sick! Stop Coal!

We heard from indigenous peoples speaking with the utmost respect for the environment and "Mother Earth", and who view the seams of underground coal as her "liver". These people are being pushed off their land in the southwest to make way for coal strip mines. Others can't eat the fish from their waterways because of mercury contamination from burning coal.

We heard from a local resident who lives one block from the Capitol Power Plant who told of getting "rained on" by power plant emissions that later had to be removed her car windshield with an ice scrapper. She also told of a high cancer incidence on her street, in people and in dogs.

A woman from Australia where coal and uranium are mined for export said, "We are dying to give the world energy!"

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. gave a rousing speech, saying that coal companies could not survive in the marketplace if they had to pay their own freight, referring to the heavy government subsidies that taxpayers provide to keep coal "cheap". He also talked about the negative impact on public health of mercury pollution and particulates from coal-fired power plants, and the environmental devastation of coal mining by mountaintop removal.
Below is a brief video interview about the protest with R.F.K.Jr. just before the march to the power plant:



There were many other luminaries, celebrities and concerned citizens who spoke. Here's a sampling of the Capitol Power Plant protest NEWS:

• ENS: Anti-Coal Protesters Block Gates to Capitol Power Plant
• AP: Thousands rally for legislation on climate change
• TIME: Despite Snow — and Irony — a Climate Protest Persists
• USA TODAY: Thousands gather in D.C. cold for rally about global warming

UPDATE, March 4th: Protest video from Capitol Climate Action:

PowerShift 2009

Young People to Swarm Capitol With Green Agenda
Sunday, March 1, 2009
WASHINGTON -- Thousands of young people, many of them emboldened by the 2008 presidential contest, will descend on the Capitol tomorrow to urge the government to take radical action to stem climate change and plant the seeds of a green economy.

Arriving Friday from every state in the union -- as well as every Canadian province and more than a dozen countries -- about 12,000 people, most between 18 and 26 years old, are in the District this weekend for Power Shift '09, a summit aimed at raising environmental awareness and lobbying leaders on green issues. Full story in The Washington Post.

PowerShift 2009, the video:

Here is a small sampling of a long list of fine speakers at PowerShift 2009:
Two Obama administration officials spoke. EPA administrator Lisa Jackson said that “science is back” at the EPA. Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, promised that the department would no longer be the department of fossil fuel extraction. Youth climate leader, Billy Parish stressed the need to tell Congress that clean energy is a better investment than dirty energy because it creates more jobs. Other youth climate leaders included the Energy Action Coalition Executive Director Jessy Tolkan, and Adam Gardner of the eco-friendly band, Guster. There were multiple keynote addresses, including those by Bill McKibben, environmental author and founder of 350.org, and by legislators Rep. Ed Markey and Rep. Donna Edwards, and by Majora Carter of the Majora Carter Group and founder of Sustainable South Bronx, and Van Jones of Green For All. Accompanied by her two little children and sources of inspiration, was Gillian Caldwell of 1Sky.
Speaking sessions ended at night with musical performances by Santigold, The Roots and The London Souls.

For running instant updates via Twitter, the Youth Climate way, click here. For more information, visit PowerShift 2009.

Whose Planet Is It, Anyway?

Take OUR Planet Back!

Will.i.am with Al Gore

Gore shows Senators New Climate Slides

Al Gore testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations at a hearing entitled "Addressing Global Climate Change: The Road to Copenhagen" on January 28, 2009.

His written testimony stated: "Most importantly, as long as we continue to depend on dirty fossil fuels like coal and oil to meet our energy needs, and dump 70 million tons of global warming pollution into the thin shell of atmosphere surrounding our planet, we move closer and closer to several dangerous tipping points which scientists have repeatedly warned – again just yesterday -- will threaten to make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable destruction of the conditions that make human civilization possible on this planet." His full written testimony is here.

In addition to his testimony, he presented an update of his slide show. A video of Gore's slide presentation is shown below in 2 parts.

First Part:


Second Part:

Obama Promises Climate Leadership

Calling climate change an urgent challenge, President-elect Barack Obama promised Tuesday that Washington would take a leading role in combating it in the United States and throughout the world. "My presidency will mark a new chapter in America's leadership on climate change," Obama said in a video message to governors and others attending a Los Angeles summit on the issue.

Said Obama: "I promise you this: When I am president, any governor who's willing to promote clean energy will have a partner in the White House. Any company that's willing to invest in clean energy will have an ally in Washington. And any nation that's willing to join the cause of combating climate change will have an ally in the United States of America." Read more Here.

In the video message addressed to the Summit's attendees, Obama emphasized his enthusiasm for the upcoming Climate Conference in Poland, acknowledging he wouldn't attend since he won't be president at the time of the meeting and the U.S. has only one president at a time.

Through a cap and trade system, he pledged to reduce carbon emissions and to make investments that would "help us transform our industries and steer our country out of this economic crisis by generating five million new green jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced." The video is below.

HEAT is On...PBS Tonight

Tonight on PBS: watch HEAT
For years, big business--from oil and coal companies to electric utilities to car manufacturers--has resisted change to environmental policy and stifled the debate over climate change in America and around the globe. Now, facing rising pressure from governments, green groups and investors alike, big business is reshaping its approach to the environment. With the election looming, FRONTLINE producer Martin Smith investigates what some businesses are doing to fend off new regulations and how others are repositioning themselves to prosper in a radically changed world.

Watch on TV tonight at 9pm-11pm, or watch at PBS.org anytime.
Here is a Preview: