Republicans in disarray.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said today he opposes lifting a ban on new oil drilling in coastal waters, breaking with President Bush and Republican presidential candidate John McCain.

He called California’s coastline “an international treasure” that must be protected by a federal oil-drilling moratorium that has been in place for 27 years.

“We’re serious about that, and we’re not going to change that,” he told reporters and business executives at BIO International, an annual biotechnology industry conference in San Diego.

Schwarzenegger, who has endorsed McCain’s presidential bid, said the federal offshore drilling ban was not to blame for soaring gas prices. In a statement issued earlier in the day, the governor said technological innovations and expanded fuel choices for consumers ultimately will lead the way to reduced fuel costs.

“We are in this situation because of our dependence on traditional petroleum-based oil,” Schwarzenegger said in the statement, which referred only to Bush’s call for lifting the ban and did not mention McCain.

He missed mass transit and smarter, more dense development, but in the main Arnold is right.  Sen. Feinstein and Speaker Bass are quoted in the article as well dismissing the notion of offshore development as a stunt.  GOP wingnut-in-charge Dave Cogdill, on the other hand, has a catch phrase:

“Personally, yes, I believe we need to be drilling in our own reserves,” Sen. Dave Cogdill, R-Modesto, said today during a news conference related to the state budget. “We need to use the resources available to us in this country.”

He said it would reduce the country’s dependence on foreign oil and would help drive down the cost of gasoline.

“So I am a very strong supporter, as I think most of my caucus is, in the catch phase ‘Drill here, drill now, pay less,'” Cogdill said. “It’s certainly a better energy policy relating to the needs of the citizens of the United States.”

Except there’s little to drill, the oil companies don’t want to do any drilling but want the reserves to line their pockets, and the structural problem with a carbon-based economy lingers.

So the real slogan is, “Drill here. Drill now. Run out sooner.  Get no benefits for 10 years.”

By Dave Johnson, Speak Out California

As I wrote the other day, the California Chamber of Commerce has come out with their annual list of “job-killer” bills.  The list only targets bills by Democrats, and the bills are all acts that would help the people of California by improving the environment, worker wage and safety, public health, etc.

The California Chamber of commerce is a lobbying association.  They represent their members: businesses, many of which are large corporations.  This is about private greed vs. the public good.  The Chamber’s job is to convince the legislature to pass laws that enrich the owners of the corporations that fund them.  Nothing more, nothing less.  

If that involves convincing the public of something, then they do that.  Hence the label “job killer.”

But the companies represented by the Chamber are the real job killers.  They outsource jobs to other countries.  They lay people off when they calculate it will maximize their profits.  They employ as many people as needed to maximize the income to and wealth of their owners.  Nothing more, nothing less.

The very idea that the Chamber of Commerce would care if something is a “job killer” is ludicrous when you understand their function.  They are a lobbying association that represents the interests of companies that eliminate as many jobs as they want to, at their discretion, and then use some of the money that would have been paid in salaries to pay the Chamber to convince us to support their interests — and the rest of it to enrich themselves, which is their primary interest.  

That is how corporations work in the modern, “free-market” world that we find ourselves in since the Reagan era.  Not for the public benefit, not necessarily even for the company’s benefit, but for the financial benefit of the executives and (some of) the owners of the company.

Private greed vs. public good.  Nothing more, nothing less.

So there isn’t really an argument about whether the “job-killer” bills on this year’s list really do or do not “kill jobs.”  That is not the point of the label.  Instead it is up to us to understand who we are hearing from.  If we get caught up in arguing about whether these bills create more jobs than they might cost, we’re missing the point.  Their arguments are propaganda with no basis in reality, designed to do nothing more than sway opinion.  The point of the “job-killer” label is to make people afraid for their jobs, not to actually argue that these bills will or will not actually “kill” any jobs.

For example, a bill to require energy efficiency in new housing construction obviously creates many new jobs in the new, innovative “green” industries.  But such a bill might lower the profits that go into the pockets of the executives and owners of some of the companies that the California Chamber of Commerce represents.  (The LA Times on Wednesday said the Chamber’s agenda “seems dominated by development and energy interests”.)  And, again, it is irrelevant whether the bill might or might not really cost jobs in some of those companies.  The Chamber doesn’t care.  That is not their function.

The use of the label “job killers” is about scaring the public.  Nothing more, nothing less.  It is about fear.  It is about creating a climate in which people who are afraid for their jobs will go along with measures designed to enrich the owners of the companies that the Chamber — a lobbying association — represents.

So please don’t be fooled.  Don’t be swayed by propaganda designed to make you afraid.  As I wrote above, it is up to us to understand who we are hearing from.

Click through to Speak Out California

(Congratulations to Asm. Dave Jones for winning the annual “Job Killer” Sweepstakes. Jones leads the pack with 4 bills on the list of bills that protect workers and Californians. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

By Dave Johnson, Speak Out California

The California Chamber of Commerce has released its annual list of what it calls “job-killer bills.”  

Why is it that the Chamber’s job-killer bills hit-list seems to only target Democrats? Not a single targeted bill belongs to a Republican. “Bad bills”, like those designed to protect public health, climate concerns or consumer rights legislation, are all authored by Democrats.  The chamber has always been a lobbying organization, but it has gotten so bad that the Chamber seems to have devolved into little more than just one more fear-mongering Republican Party front group.

The “job killers” on this list are any laws that protect consumers, reduce energy use, require worker protections or anything else that might hinder a very few corporate executives from reeling in another several-hundred-million dollars a year.  The jobs that are “killed” are those of lobbyists for the energy industry.  

The first group on the “job killer” list is bills that ask for any kind of energy or water conservation or environmental standards for new housing construction.  For example, AB 1085.  The bill describes itself as undating,

“building design and construction standards and energy conservation standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings to reduce wasteful, uneconomic, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy.”

But the Chamber’s job-killer list says this

Substantially increases the cost of housing and development in California by implementing significant energy efficiency measures

Now, think about this — if it costs less to heat and cool your house, this saves you money.  If you want to add energy-saving technology like solar electric or water-heating on your house this creates good jobs.  Maybe Exxon won’t benefit as much from this as the new, upcoming solar industry, but heck, the solar companies aren’t coughing up the big bucks and providing the good jobs to the Chamber of Commerce’s lobbyists!

The next group of “job killers” is “workplace mandates” like paid sick leave for employees, disability pay for on-the-job injuries or providing California’s citizens with health insurance.

Ah yes, the money businesses pay out to provide sick leave and disability pay for those pesky employees “kills jobs.”  They could hire so many more people if they didn’t have to actually pay them and keep them from getting injured!  This is one of the oldest arguments in the books.  Slaves are always cheaper.  But why do we have an economy if not to provide US with good jobs and other benefits?  Do we have an economy so a very few corporate CEOs get all the money and benefits, or do we have an economy so the people can also get good pay and benefits and safe working conditions?  The evidence (this, for example) is clear that good wages and benefits do not hurt jobs or the economy.

Then there are “economic development barriers” like asking online retailers to collect the same sales taxes that you local business owner collects, asking the wealthy to help pay for our schools, raising fire standards in high-risk fire areas and protecting our environment.  I guess the online retailers must be paying the Chamber more this year than the retailers who have to actually rent storefronts and pay wages in your town.  I can’t think of any other reason why SOME retailers should collect sales taxes and others should be exempt.  Doesn’t this change the playing field waaayyy in favor of online retailers and harm the prospects of businesses that actually set up in our local communities?  God forbid we ask them to help pay for our schools and police and fire protection!

This “job killer” list is nothing more than the use of fear to scare us into allowing a few rich corporations to have their way.  By saying that protecting workers or the environment might “cost jobs” they are trying to make us afraid to ask these big corporations to live up to their responsibilities to our communities.  How long will we let these lobbyists make us afraid?

Click through to Speak Out California

Here’s what I wrote yesterday about CA-46 challenger, the best we’ve had in years, Debbie Cook:

Debbie Cook (CA-46): Cook, running against certified loon Dana Rohrabacher in a district mostly in Orange County and part of Long Beach, is running on the environment, but not as an advocate against global warming necessarily.  She is on the board of directors of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO-USA), and really is passionate about moving to a post-carbon future and radically reinventing our energy infrastructure.  When I asked about carbon taxes or cap and trade systems, she really looked beyond that debate about greenhouse gas emissions and toward a debate about sustainable living.  This is about land use, about smart growth, about living closer together, adopting mass transit, eating locally grown foods, reorganizing society to deal with the prospects of a world without as much oil.  It’s an interesting message for a Congressional campaign, especially when going up against someone who speculates that global warming may have been caused by dinosaur flatulence.  But Cook also supports the Repsonsible Plan to End the War in Iraq and understands the post-carbon fight as a national security and an economic issue as well.

Cook has a total command of these issues, and on a day when the heads of the top oil companies bobbed and weaved on Capitol Hill, it would have been great to see her up there doing the questioning.  The video is in three parts, and it’s below.  There’s actually quite a bit more of the interview on Robert’s microcassette recorder, and he will copy it and mail it to you. (just kidding)

Plug In America, an electric car advocacy group, has been organizing a campaign around this week’s California Air Resources Board (CARB) meeting, where the board will vote on a proposal to reduce the Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) yearly requirement for automakers to just 150 through at least 2015. Currently the requirement is 25,000 ZEVs for the years 2012-2014.

Chelsea Sexton, executive director of Plug In America, has been posting an open letter to Arnold Schwarzenegger around the blogosphere, including at Open Left. It reads in part:

Gov. Schwarzenegger, you showed true leadership when you signed the nation’s first global warming law. You showed true leadership with your vow to “turn back the clock on pollution” through your Million Solar Roofs Plan, an initiative that is the equivalent of taking one million gasoline cars off the road.

Now, how about putting one million electric cars on the road?

Please continue to lead our state by asking the California Air Resources Board to strengthen their staff proposal and get more electric cars on the road.

As you prepare to take delivery of your electric Tesla, we ask you to support a stronger Zero Emission Vehicle Program that will help us all turn back the clock on pollution.

I especially like the reference to Arnold’s order of a Tesla Roadster – their 2008 model is completely sold out and a waiting list is already in place for the 2009 models. This despite the car’s base price of $98,000. Given the success of cars like the Toyota Prius it stands to reason that there is a broad market for ZEV cars in California, even among those who can’t afford a hundred thousand dollar car. If it’s good enough for Arnold, surely it’s good enough for Californians.

CARB has long taken the lead in forcing automakers to improve mileage and emissions standards. Now, as the state works to implement its AB 32 goals, CARB needs to take a strong stand and drag these reluctant automakers into the 21st century. For their own good.

Plug In America is holding a rally in front of the CARB offices, tomorrow (Wednesday) morning at 10:30, ahead of Thursday’s CARB meeting. And on their website they’ve got contact info for both the governor and CARB.

Let’s hope that their activism is a success. It is long past time for this state to get serious about ZEV transportation.

(Cross-posted from Warming Law) 

As the Bush administration's environmental team returns from reluctantly endorsing a “road map” for future international climate negotiations, and prepares for a critical regulatory decision on concrete action here at home being initiated by California and other states, the expectations remain somewhat dimmed. While the Washington Post editorial board reviews the administration's history of foot-dragging and other negative machinations regarding California's key waiver request, reporter Juliet Eilperin's coverage of Bali includes one critical observation on its continued difficulty with strong emissions-reduction targets:

While the Bush administration made some concessions, it also scored a key victory by eliminating explicit language calling on industrialized countries to cut their emissions 25 to 40 percent, compared to 1990 levels, by 2020, a high priority for the European Union. Eventually the Europeans relented, settling for a footnote in the document's preamble that refers to a section in the 2007 scientific report of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). That section suggests that cuts that deep will be required to keep Earth's average temperature from rising more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial levels.

There are several important points to take away from this telling footnote. First and foremost is the reality that for an administration recently caught down-playing science in its climate-related efforts– including the process by which it formulated the position on mandatory carbon limits that was knocked down in Mass v. EPA–  deliberately relegating a scientific finding by a group of Nobel laureates isn't exactly a confidence-booster. (Seriously, if you haven't read through Rep. Waxman's report already, do so!)

But even more important is the simple observation, as conveyed at Bali by the likes of Al Gore and by local officials themselves– and described at Gristmill by Professor Andrew Light– that the states have been moved to action in a way that completely contradicts administration naysaying and obstruction:

In his remarks, Gore repeated the promising news that had been at the center of John Kerry's message to the conference earlier in the week: The states are on the move. Regional state compacts have been launched in the Northeast, Midwest, and West on cutting greenhouse gases, which will commit over half the U.S. economy, and just under half the population, to significant cuts, amounting to responsibility for just under 40 percent of total U.S. emissions.

Reports from Bali indicate that this reality was critical in conveying that the U.S. as a whole is prepared to go further than the current executive leadership, and in forcing the limited movement that was ultimately attained. The world is truly watching what goes on at every level here, as we can easily deduce from learning that leading denialist Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) is somewhat of an international anaethema, and from the State Department's own attempts to spin state leadership to its diplomatic benefit. And with the EPA set to rule any day now on California's waiver, which is absolutely critical to setting state targets in motion, that spotlight could not come at a better moment.

The official grounds for granting a waiver are plain. The state's application is sound, the precedent of dozens of similar grants of authority is on California's side, and the courts have consistently undermined any rationale that might be used in a denial ruling. Still, if that's not enough, the reality that a failure to follow through on the law will have international reverberations should be an additional source of reflection.

Viewed in this light, a positive decision would be a pleasant surprise, showing that even if the current administration isn't fully sold on rapid and mandatory actions, it's at least evolving toward a position of not actively standing in the way of those who would pick up the slack.

As we all know by know, the so-called Bush Administration (afterall, how can you actually call it an Administration when there is no direction, leadership, or structure beyond faith) has been a disaster in progress across the board.  However, more specifically, the Bush Admin has been a nightmare for the environment and for the development of alternative energy sources.  For Bush, energy is a faith-based initiative.  Never again should we elect an Administration lead by two oil executives.  Surely, the voters must have suspected that Bush’s energy policy would consist of enriching the coffers of his cronies in the Texas oil industry.

Push-come-to-shove, energy and the environment are two of the areas hardest hit by this inept Presidency.  In Bush-speak, ‘drilling for oil’ became ‘exploring for increased energy supplies.’  The Arctic Wildlife Reserve has became a renewable fundraising source for the Bushes.

Palm Springs and the Coachella Valley could become a center in California for real renewable energy sources.  Windfarms dot the approaches to Palm Springs, Desert Hot Springs, and Cathedral City.  Solar is an overwhelming commodity at times, just witness the 120 degree temperatures in Julys, Augusts, and Septembers, the lack of clouds generally, and the absence of rain.  The desert is an energy source just waiting to be tapped.

Thankfully, we have a U.S. Senator in Barbara Boxer who is interested in developing renewable energy sources and developing a green approach to the search for energy.

I Received this Press Release from the Cathedral City Office of Sen. Barbara Boxer Friday, December 14, 2007:

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) expressed her support of the Energy Bill passed by the Senate tonight by a vote of 86-8.

Boxer said, “While it should have been a better and stronger bill with tax breaks for renewable energy and a requirement for electric utilities to use more solar, wind and geothermal energy, it is still a good first step toward a cleaner future for America.”

More below the flip…

The Press Release from the office of Sen. Barbara Boxer continues:

Boxer outlined four provisions included in the Energy Bill that came out of the Environment and Public Works Committee, of which she is Chairman:  

• The green buildings provision for the construction of “green” government buildings.  This provision would also provide grants to states to build green schools;
• The provision to retrofit old federal buildings with energy-efficient technologies such as better lighting.  This provision would also provide grants to cities and counties to make buildings more energy-efficient;
• The provision to establish a demonstration project at the Capitol Hill Power Plant to capture greenhouse gases from burning coal;
• And the provision authorizing construction of a “solar wall” on the   roof of the Department of Energy headquarters in Washington, DC.

Boxer said, “As a Senator from California, whose state has been such a leader on energy efficiency, I am pleased to see the federal government finally taking these steps, especially in the face of soaring energy costs and the threat of Global Warming.”

Now, all we have to do is hold our breath until regime change in 2008 and the Bush Administration succumbs to the inevitable in January 2009.

A big step forward in the opportunity to finally regulate the air we breathe and the emissions we create in California.  Today a US District Court judge threw out a lawsuit by the automakers that challenged the state’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases.

Automakers sued the state over the tailpipe standards it approved in 2004, which would force automakers to build cars and light trucks that produce about 30 percent fewer greenhouse gases by 2016 […]

In its lawsuit against the state, the auto industry argued that California did not have the authority to set its own standards because it would force manufacturers to produce vehicles using too many different fuel efficiency standards.

But Ishii rejected that claim, saying Congress gave California and the EPA the authority to regulate vehicle emissions, even if those rules are more strict than those imposed by the federal government.

This is a big victory.  However, the state still needs a waiver from the EPA to allow it to implement the tailpipe emissions law.  So far the EPA has dragged its feet, and the state sued them back in November.  There is now a voluminous amount of case law arguing in favor of the EPA granting the waiver, so they almost can’t deny the state at this point.  But the biggest impediment to this now is the Bush Administration trying to subvert their authority through changes in the latest federal energy bill.

The White House has raised last-minute concerns over regulation of automobile emissions and fuel economy that aides said could lead to a presidential veto of the energy bill now before Congress.

The bill, which passed the House and is now pending in the Senate, requires auto makers to meet a fleet average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, but does not specify which government agency should enforce the new rule.

Primary regulation of mileage standards has historically fallen to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, an arm of the Transportation Department. But vehicle tailpipe emissions are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency, and a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year affirmed the E.P.A.’s authority to regulate emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from passenger vehicles, which basically would mean regulating their fuel use.

The White House, echoing a position taken by auto manufacturers and a coalition of industry groups, is asking that the energy legislation be changed to specify the highway safety administration as the primary enforcer of fuel efficiency standards, with the E.P.A. in only an advisory role. Democratic leaders in Congress rejected that position as a “nonstarter” and indicated their intent to move the bill with the current language intact.

If the EPA is stripped of their authority to enforce mileage standards and regulating emissions, California (and the other states who want to copy their law) would essentially have to restart the process, and may not be able to be granted the waiver.  I’m confident that Nancy Pelosi would do nothing to subvert the state’s ability to regulate emissions, but Congress must hold firm.  This is a dirty trick designed to undermine current law and forestall any meaningful action on climate change.

(Cross-posted from Warming Law)  

It's a shame that Roll Call operates behind a subscription wall, because Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), who chairs the House's special committee on global warming, has a great op-ed there today summarizing where things stand moving forward from the solid energy bill framework that congressional Democrats hope to pass, “Global Warming At the Starting Gate.” One key highlight:

Seventeen states (representing over 46 percent of Americans) have adopted or will soon adopt global warming emissions standards for vehicles. The federal district court in Vermont recently held that federal law does not prohibit such measures. What remains to be seen this year is whether the Bush EPA will grant these states the waiver they need to enforce these tailpipe standards, or spurn their ambitious action.

In addition to loving Markey's framing of Congress' movement as a launching point for so much more, we cannot stress the point he makes above with any more emphasis. Given the trends in the courts (which Markey also notes) and the rising tide of action at all levels, the spotlight is now on the EPA regardless of what happens with the energy bill. Now that Congress has smartly resisted pressure to do anything that remotely borders on preemption, it's incumbent on the administration to follow suit.

Yesterday's veto threat on the energy bill doesn't exactly inspire confidence along those lines, as White House economic advisor Allan Hubbard's letter to Speaker Pelosi pretty much reiterates the industry's ideal outcome in its language regarding auto efficiency (emphasis ours):

Unfortunately, while assigning new requirements to the Department of Transportation, the proposed legislation leaves ambiguous EPA's role in CAFE regulations, and likely creates substantial amounts of regulatory uncertainty and confusion…Legislation should clarify that there should be consultation between the agencies, while clearly establishing a single fuel economy regulatory standard.

There is a remote theoretical possibility that Hubbard is asking for something less troubling than it would appear. And some reports indicate that this may partly be bluster to try and wring out more compromises or satisfy industry-based pressure (and possibly worse still, Cheney-based-pressure) on EPA's regulatory process.

Yet quite frankly, NO ONE should give the benefit of the doubt to an administration that, even as momentum has shifted against its long-standing arguments, has delayed and blustered at best while (rather pathetically) plotting intransigence at worst. The proposed energy bill, thankfully, gives EPA no excuses to shirk its responsibilities, either to California or to its own post-Mass v. EPA deliberations on greenhouse gas emissions. That shouldn't give it license to instead come up with twisted logic of its own.

The ball is EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson's court, with rumors abounding that he'll be announcing GHG regulations in the coming weeks (hoping to give the administration something to brag about in international climate negotiations) and a vow that he'll rule on California's waiver by year's end. He'd best not drop it. 

Greetings from the almost-impossible-to-enter-by-car Wadsworth Theater for a Presidential forum on energy and environmental issues, featuring John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Dennis Kucinich.  All the campaigns had good support out in front of the venue.  I’m here with Hekebolos, thereisnospoon from Daily Kos, RJ Eskow from the Huffington Post, Todd Beeton of MyDD and a couple others in Blogger’s Row.  Each candidate will get a half-hour to answer questions on their energy plans.  There’s a live webcast starting at 2:00pm PT at the enviro website Grist.

There will be press availability afterwards, possibly with Edwards. (UPDATE: Edwards is confirmed for the press tent, along with Hillary surrogate Carol Browner, the former head of the EPA.)

UPDATE (1:26pm) Just got a pamphlet from the NRDC entitled “Solving Global Warming: It Can Be Done.”  Interesting, considering that the latest IPCC report yesterday basically said it can’t be done and it’s time to adapt to a warmer future.  Wonder if that will come up today.

UPDATE (1:30pm) The event kicks off with welcoming remarks from Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.  Yesterday the LA Planning Commission approved a very ambitious green building plan, which would have a dramatic impact on energy use.

Under the L.A. rules, new buildings with more than 50 units or 50,000 square feet of floor area would be required to meet national standards established by the U.S. Green Building Council, a Washington-based nonprofit organization that is working with cities across the country. The measure is expected to come before the City Council early next year.

The standards — known as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, or LEED — would reduce the amount of energy used in large developments to well below what is required by California’s building code, the strictest in the nation.

Green building is a major part of mitigating the effects of global warming and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

UPDATE (1:42pm) Dante is liveblogging at Daily Kos.

Future updates on the flip:

UPDATE (2:02pm) Incidentally, every candidate from both parties was invited to attend this event.  Shows you the commitment on the Republican side to the environment.  Also, our friend Steve Maviglio and his boss Fabian Nuñez decided to attack Obama for not atending (as per a stated policy that he would only do the DNC-sponsored debates in the future).  Boy, if they’d only put that energy to attacking Republicans instead of other Democrats…

UPDATE (2:33pm) Bit of a late start, they’ll be getting going in about 15 minutes.

UPDATE (2:42pm) OK, we’re getting it going now.  Steve Kirwood from Living On Earth on PRI is speaking.  He’s talking about Bangladesh’s Katrina, the cyclone that killed over 1,500 people, and the IPCC report released today.  This should be a very substantive forum on the issues.  We’re maxing out the ability of the oceans and the forests to handle the carbon dioxide levels.  This is a crucial issue for our future.  Kirwood said, “We invited all of the candidates here today, and we are pleased to have 3.  And we expect to see more later.”

UPDATE (2:45pm) Dave Roberts from Grist is speaking now.  Grist is really a go-to site for news and information about the environment.  I try to check it out as much as possible.  Their interview with Ron Paul is priceless.  His position of climate change is basically “people can control the air above their house!”

UPDATE (2:47pm) Roberts gets a huge applause line talking about the “failure of the political media” in talking about this issue.  “Tim Russert has had candidates on MTP 16 times and asked 300 questions, the word climate change has not passed his lips.”

UPDATE (2:50pm) Susan Smart from the California League of Conservation Voters touted California’s efforts to fight global warming, and now the chair of the LCV, Gene Karpinski, is speaking.  The LCV’s goal is to make global warming a priority in the Presidential campaign.  They might want to give Tim Russert a call.

UPDATE (2:51pm) More speakers.  This is a major step back by Gordon Brown in Britain, where he’s cutting the climate change department in his government by almost $600 million dollars.  England was the bulwark worldwide for real change on global warming.

UPDATE (2:56pm) A bunch of other speakers went, and now Laurie David (producer on An Inconvenient Truth, environmental activist) is about to speak.  She’ll be introducing Antonio Villaraigosa.  David is relating a discussion with James Hansen, who said “we are already guaranteed 2 degrees of warming, and Lord help us if we go beyond that.”  Her point is that if scientists, who are extremely cautious, are willing to go that far and talk in such alarmist terms, it’s time to be worried.  “Solving global warming can be America’s finest moment; continuing to ignore it can be our worst.”  She’s now introducing Villaraigosa.  I expect him to touch on the green building proposal passed on Thursday.

UPDATE (3:00pm) Will Villaraigosa disclose that he’s supporting Hillary?  So far he’s praising Laurie David.  He is evenhanded in his praise of the candidates who chose to attend.  “I know the press is focused on Iowa and New Hampshire, but these candidates came West because they know we can’t kick these problems down the road.”  Talks about the wildfires, the Bay Area oil spill, and our SoCal drought problem.  Mentions how the Bush Administration slashed Julie Gerberding’s testimony in the Senate Environment Committee on the public health problem with a warming planet.  “It’s time we had somebody in the White House who actually believes in science.”

UPDATE (3:04pm) I’m glad that they’re giving the candidates a half-hour.  Climate change, as Steve Kirwood just said, is a difficult issue that doesn’t play as a soundbite.  This should really be the model for these kinds of forums, not the Wolf Blitzer-fest we saw on display this week.

UPDATE (3:07pm) The panelists are Dave Roberts from Grist, Mary Nichols from the California Air Resources Board, and Steve Kirwood.  Kucinich is being introduced right now.

UPDATE (3:09pm) Kucinich has taken the stage.  “It’s great to be at a Presidential forum that’s not sponsored by the coal industry, as the last one was.”  Good line.

UPDATE (3:10pm) This starts off as a pretty head-in-the-clouds speech by Kucinich.  I like that he’s talking about using his own life as a model for sustainable living (his 1,600-foot home, old Ford Focus that gets 30mpg, etc).  Starts with abolishing nuclear weapons (?) and biological and chemical weapons and the landmines treaty.  I guess he’s moving into cooperating with international conventions.

UPDATE (3:13pm) This is a “call to conscience” by Kucinich, talking about our interconnectedness and how global warring intersects with global warming.  Now we’re getting specifics.  The “Works Green Administration” would involve every government agency. In transportation, that means mass transit.  In housing, incentives for green building and homes that use natural lighting.  In the Dept. of Energy, disincentives for oil, coal and nuclear, incentives for wind and solar microtechnologies.  This is about government as an engine of sustainability.  In health, “imagine a President who stands for a not-for-profit health care system, where we meet the challenge of obesity, which is connected to the kind of diet people have.”  In education, educating at an early age.  In commerce, mandating environmental standards by cancelling NAFTA and the WTO.  in Interior, removing the incentives for extracting our natural resources.  And on and on.  This started slow, but is a really good platform.

UPDATE (3:18pm) Kucinich “I would use NASA’s brainpower to move America toward a green economy.”  An Apollo program for energy is sorely needed.  “I think there’s an enormous amount of wealth out there that is waiting to be harnessed if we would only go green.”

UPDATE (3:20pm) We move to the question stage.  Kirwood asks “how would you do this,” and Kucinich answers that he would go directly to the people and get them behind me to challenge the special interests.  “This government has enormous potential as the government of the people.”

UPDATE (3:22pm) Mary Nichols is basically asking about the politics of it.  How do you reverse the dynamic in the Senate?  There’s tremendous resistance at the federal level.  Kucinich is giving kind of the same answer.  He thinks that a President who isn’t tied to these interest groups is the answer.  That’s really not sufficient.  A grassroots movement to reclaim the country is fine, but the legislative process still exists.  “I will go over the heads of Congress to the people.”  How?  It’s not much of an answer.

UPDATE (3:26pm) This is a better answer.  The global warming fight can be an economic engine for this country.  He explains that you can protect the coal miners at the level of pension and health care while transitioning to a new economy.  There is a need to step outside the status quo.

UPDATE (3:32pm) “The only thing that limits us is our thinking.” -Dennis Kucinich.  The speech ends up veering into some other areas, but at root that’s his approach.  I like that Steve Kirwood is bringing it back to the practical implementation.  Kucinich is being stubborn about this, and good for him, in a way, but practicalities need to be addressed.

UPDATE (3:34pm) “Clean coal is an oxymoron.”  Good to hear a Presidential candidate say that.  And it’s a nice turn to say that the price of lost jobs in stopping coal plants, for example, is miniscule compared to the price we’d pay from catastrophic global warming.  Dennis is hitting his stride here.

UPDATE (3:38pm) Kucinich on the moral issue at work here.  The effects of climate change are starting to impact people’s lives.  “Resource wars” like Iraq and Iran.  Peace=sustainability.  And all of our trade agreements must include worker’s rights, human rights, and environmental quality principles.  Kucinich often offers everybody a pony, but the underpinnings are sound.  “You are the ones who can change it all.  This candidacy offers the profoundest change.”

UPDATE (3:42pm) A smattering of boos as Hillary Clinton is introduced.  That’s not really right.

UPDATE (3:43pm) Hillary came armed with a speech, and her people provided the press with her detailed energy and climate plan.  It’s pretty solid, actually, she waited until the end to deliver it, but it provides some great pieces, including a 100% auction for pollution permits, and a goal of 80% reductions in greenhouse gases by 2050.

UPDATE (3:45pm) A sober yet detailed speech here.  Clinton slams “a President who has dodged, denied and dissembled.”  She says that we are more dependent on foreign oil than we were on 9/11.  This is pretty boilerplate, actually.  Clinton says she understands how hard this will be, but she wants to actually talk about implementation.  Her goals, beyond reducing greenhouse gases by 80%, are cutting foreign oil imports by 2/3 by 2030, and creating an efficient green economy which would increase 5 million jobs.

UPDATE (3:49pm) Clinton believes that the case has not yet been made on global warming.  She’s really touting California’s energy efficiency (our usage has remained stagnant over the last 30 years).  She’s asking for everyone to pitch in.  Now she’s discussing the cap and trade program she’s proposed.  She’s calling for a $50 billion Strategic Energy Fund, taking the money from oil company subsidies.  All future federal buildings would be carbon neutral.  Renewable energy by 2025.  Green-collar jobs.  The US Treasury will issue energy independence bonds.

UPDATE (3:52pm) Everyone has put forth a good plan on global warming.  Now Clinton is segue-ing into operationalizing it.  She wants to found a National Energy Council so all agencies can talk to one another.  Wants an E8 modeled on the G8 to get the world’s largest emitters talking.  This is a good framework that I would hope any Democratic candidate would pick up.

UPDATE (3:55pm) Kirwood asked pretty much the same question as he did Kucinich.  Everyone says they’ll tackle climate change.  The question is how.  Clinton pushes back that George W. Bush intended to do anything about global warming.  The difference is that people’s awareness is greater.  But didn’t she just say that when she talks about global warming on the trail, it falls flat?

UPDATE (3:58pm) Clinton mentions that we’re falling behind in global leadership on this issue.  That’s true; it’s shameful that we created solar energy and yet we’re not the global leader in it.  Now Clinton’s talking about the movement in the federal energy bill.  We’ve never had a renewable energy portfolio and increased CAFE standards before.  She’d do as much as possible in the executive seat, but would work with Congress and she thinks it’s realizable.

UPDATE (4:01pm) “I would meet every 3 months with the leaders of the most emitting countries.” -Hillary Clinton.

UPDATE (4:03pm) I’m surprised at the lack of detail in this forum.  It’s all about politics and not policy.  Very meta about how “the forum is significant,” but nobody’s digging in to the actual details about how to best go about this.

UPDATE (4:04pm) There was some sort of disturbance inside the hall, leading Clinton to snap “Were you invited to speak here today?”  As Vernon Lee sitting next to me remarked, this is a “Don’t tase me, bro” waiting to happen.

UPDATE (4:06pm) Hillary launches into a stirring defense of incremental change.  This is really odd.  What happened to the global warming forum?  This whole “we have to stand united from the attacks from the other side” is too candidate-as-pundit for my taste.  How about leading and uniting instead of talking about leading and uniting?

UPDATE (4:08pm) Finally, a policy question.  Dave Roberts is asking about Lieberman-Warner, which is a bill that has little support among environmentalists as an insufficient step.  Clinton says “the bill needs a lot of improvement.  It’s not a bill that I would write or that Sen. Boxer would write.  I’m a cosponsor of the Sanders-Boxer bill.  Boxer is trying to improve the bill and create a context where that bill can lay down a marker.  George Bush would likely veto this bill… what is the strongest bill we can get out of committee right now?  I can’t tell you what the bill is going to be, so I don’t know how to vote.  I don’t like the cap and trade without auction and the payouts to polluters.  On the other hand, we have never gotten this far.  If it can get stronger, Boxer thinks it’s the right thing to do.  It really comes down to a pragmatic assessment.  Is a bipartisan bill more important?”  There you have it, there’s a Clinton Presidency right there.

UPDATE (4:13pm) Clinton’s basically hiding behind Boxer on this thing.  She’s lashing out at one environmental group running ads against her in Iowa.  There’s a touch of “let’s unite and line up behind me” to this thing.

UPDATE (4:15pm) Question about foreign policy and climate change.  Clinton’s talking about China and India in this context, stressing the power of dialogue and showing countries that we’re not trying to slow their development but jump-start it.  The power of listening and not just talking.  Namechecks Gore and the Nobel Peace Prize, he could be used as a spokesperson (vaguely mentions a “position in our government”).

UPDATE (4:19pm) Edwards is being introduced.

UPDATE (4:20pm) Edwards: We need a President who won’t just deliver a message on climate change to a friendly audience.  I believe that our generation needs to face hard truths.  Adds his theme of “the system is broken” to global warming.  I see politicians who are too afraid of rocking the boat to challenge the status quo.  Oil and gas companies block progress by spending millions.  Mentions the IPCC report and the need for immediate action.  Two weeks from now we’ll be sending someone to the climate change conference in Bali with no ideas “it’s an embarrassment.”  We need to cap greenhouse gas pollution (similar stats to Clinton, he did come out with it earlier, but as I said, everyone’s on board in the Democratic Party with good plans).  I believe carbon caps will have an impact on fossil fuels.  The truth is that the big change we need will not be easy.  We need a President that will challenge them to be a part of the solution.

UPDATE (4:26pm) I’m glad that all three candidates have picked up the theme that we are missing out on an economic goldmine if we don’t go green.  Edwards devoted a good bit of his speech to it.  Why should there be a headline “Foreign Firms Build Wind Farms in US”?  Pushing the green jobs and entrepreneurship angle is a political winner.  So is using the term “carbon welfare,” which Edwards just did.

UPDATE (4:28pm) Edwards uses his signature “It’s time for the American people to be asked to be patriotic about something other than war.”  He adds to that by citing the examples of our ancestors and the moral tests they faced.  This has become more of a stump speech now.  But there was some solid stuff in there.

UPDATE (4:32pm) Moving into the Q&A segment.  Let me guess: Steve Kirwood is going to ask “How?”…… Bingo!

UPDATE (4:34pm) Edwards is saying that America is hungering to do something.  After Katrina, the government was a mess, but the people took action.  We need a President to echo the JFK speech “Ask not what your country can do for you.”  He jibes at Clinton subtly by not that a leader shouldn’t be driven by polls.  The government has become corrupt, and we need to be honest about that.  This is pretty much the theme that he’s going to live or die with.  That was an extremely strong bit of rhetoric right there, talking about how we can take on the powerful interests that are committed to blocking change.

UPDATE (4:38pm) Another process question.  “How are you going to build change in areas most impacted by the coal economy.”  America should not be building more coal-fired power plants.  But we should use some of the cap and trade money to revitalize those communities.  As we make this transition to a green economy, we can work hard to generate new jobs where people are suffering.  This is true, because the jobs can be held pretty much anywhere.

UPDATE (4:41pm) Question on climate change impacting poor and undeveloped nations.  How can we help those countries adversely affected?  Edwards: We’re doing nowhere close to what we need to do.  We have to be willing to invest in a way we’re not investing today.  Drought-resistant irrigation techniques, walls, drought-resistant crops.  The poorest countries are ALWAYS adversely affected.  We need to be a moral leader on all the big issues, not just global warming.  Edwards spins off into international efforts on education, disease, HIV/AIDS, clean drinking water and sanitation, economic development, etc.  The only way America will be a global leader is that the world needs to see us as a force for good again.

UPDATE (4:47pm) There’s a bit more on moral leadership, starting with ending the war, Guantanamo, rendition, secret prisons, warrantless wiretapping, torture, etc.

UPDATE (4:48pm) This debate could have been by three CNN commentators.  Wow.  The lack of specifics in the questioning is pretty astounding.  The candidates are actually doing a pretty good job putting it back on the issues.

UPDATE (4:52pm) “I believe in the progressive agenda.” -John Edwards.  We won in November 2006 because we wanted change.  If we have a Presidential candidate that’s all about big, transformative change, and we’re talking about weeding out the corruption in DC, then we can win big.  This is an electability argument.  An Edwards candidacy would be a tremendous test case on the progressive agenda.

UPDATE (4:54pm) Edwards reiterates that people in the country don’t have a full sense about the scope of the climate change problem.  It’s really something environmental activists have to come to terms with.  A brief mention on stopping media consolidation led to a cheer in the press room.

UPDATE (5:09pm) OK, I got to ask Robert in Monterey’s question to Sen. Edwards about mass transit and the subway to the sea.  He expressed strong support for mass transit as playing a role in his overall policy, and stressed his efforts in the US Senate for railway transit in the Research Triangle in North Carolina.  We wasn’t familiar with the Subway to the Sea project.  It was a fairly boilerplate answer, but I’m glad I got mass transit on the radar screen.  Thanks Robert!