Email your Senators and tell them to VOTE YES on Clean Energy Jobs for America.

There's a clean energy bill sitting, waiting in Congress.

A bill that the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund says "will break foreign oil's stranglehold on our country, reduce carbon pollution, and create jobs right here in America--good jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced."

And the NRDC Action Fund wants you to do something about it. It's simple enough-- visit thisisourmoment.org to email your senators and ask them to pass the Clean Energy Jobs & American Power Act. They even got an all-star cast including Leonardo DiCaprio, Jason Bateman and Edward Norton cracking jokes and urging you to do this one, simple thing.

"Flood the inboxes of your senators, it freaks them out," Bateman says. "They don't even know how to use e-mail, then they see a bunch of stuff in the inbox, they know they gotta do something."

Let's hope so. Justin Long even takes off his pants to get the point across.

Watch this great video here.  thisisourmoment.org

SOURCE:  The Huffington Post   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/28/nrdc-clean-energy-bill-ce_n_440104.html

Share this video with a friend and help spread the word.
This should take less than 5 minutes -- here is what you can do:

1. Tell your senators This is Our Moment, by clicking this link

2. Spread the word about this video by posting this link on your Facebook wall

3. Update your Facebook status to "Thisisourmoment.org" so friends will see our video

4. Tweet ThisIsOurMoment.org and tell your followers to take action today!

5. Post ThisIsOurMoment.org on your personal blogs

And now, still learning educating and training the younger generation’s to involve individually and collectively in all eco-development activities and decision makings  I have individually conducted hundreds of seminars and converted them to eco-actions,

24 hour x 7 days Snake Rescues along with a trained team,

Free seminars, slid shows and movie for the all local and surrounded educational institutions,

Conservation based weed removal action for Tribal livelihood development trainings

Clean renewable energy solar lamp implementation to rural and tribal those not accessed with power,

And many innovative initiatives like craft from the plant lantana camera which is considered as a weed destroying native forest and farm lands, GREEN CROSS eco action clubs, and more to bring a change in the un-mind full living of the most populace   even though we find very tuff and hard to move every step without any support, I believe that we can make it, I also swear that what ever happens I am not going to quit my duty towards nature, of conserving the only home at least in this 11 hour... 

In his closing speech to the international climate talks in Poland in December 2008, Al Gore stated that former targets for fighting global warming had been rendered obsolete by new findings, and that 350 parts per million of atmospheric carbon dioxide was the new standard for which the world should aim. His remarks drew the longest applause of the conference.

The 350 target accepts that we are challenged not only to reduce carbon gas emissions, but to actively remove huge quantities of fossil carbon already present in the atmosphere. It represents the upper limit of a safe-climate zone (300–350 ppm) for human civilization. It is the only target so far proposed that is consistent with the avoidance of runaway global warming. The existential challenge we face is expressed as a simple target figure, first defined by NASA’s James Hansen and colleagues in their key 2008 scientific paper, “Target Atmospheric CO2–Where Should Humanity Aim?” which states:

If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2  will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm, but likely less than that… An initial 350 ppm CO2 target may be achievable by phasing out coal use except where CO2is captured, and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon. If the present overshoot of this target CO2 is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects.

At many sites around the world, such as Mauna Loa in Hawaii, scientists have measured man-made increases in the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, the main driver of global warming. Atmospheric carbon dioxide fluctuates annually, because more is “drawn down” during summer by large Northern Hemisphere forests. The annual cycle, shown in the inset figure, appears as “saw-teeth” behind the yearly average rise.

The pre-industrial atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide was 280 ppm (parts per million).The current level is 390 ppm—the highest for 650,000 years, long before the modern human species appeared. Where should humanity aim? The safe-climate target for atmospheric carbon dioxide is 350 ppm, the level that avoids the possibility of runaway warming and maintains the planet we know.

We are honored to present here the Dalai Lama’s official letter of endorsement of the 350 ppm target. Among the growing list of other international figures supporting this target are Nobel Laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Indian environmental leader Dr. Vandana Shiva, Canadian biologist and broadcaster Dr.David Suzuki, Dr.Hermann Scheer, chairman of the World Council for Renewable Energy, and Sheila Watt-Cloutier, chairperson of the Inuit Circumpolar Council. It has been endorsed in a personal capacity by Dr Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC. The world's leading climate economist Sir Nicholas Stern describes it as "a very sensible long-term target" 

On 24th October 2009, many activists around the world joined forces to organize an International day of Climate Action. They generated and sent in thousands of creative digital images recording unique individual contributions to a global demonstration for a Safe Climate Future and the 350 ppm target. Climbers high on the Swiss Alps held up 350 banners, bicycle parades took place in San Francisco and Copenhagen, churches in Barcelona rang their bells 350 times, people protested coal plants and celebrated windfarms, schoolchildren, Buddhist monks and other citizen groups formed the letters 350 with their bodies and were filmed from above, thousands of people marched under the 350 banner in the streets of Bogota, Kathmandu, Addis Ababa,  Mexico City, Togo and Seattle. It was the biggest news story of the day on Google, CNN and many newspapers around the world. It showed that a global climate protection movement is not only possible, but sufficiently informed and determined to set a new agenda.

  
One of many moving images from the International Day of Climate Action 
organized by environmentalist Bill McKibben & his colleagues at 350.org

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon sent this message to the organizers:

"I would like to thank the millions of people in 181 countries who participated in 350.org's Day of Climate Action on October 24th. It was one of the most inspiring examples of grassroots political action on global warming the world has ever witnessed. This Day of Climate Action came at a critical time in the global negotiations, and demonstrated that people around the world - from Ethiopia to India and Paraguay to the United States - understand the scientific challenge the world faces. I encourage governments to heed the example set by their citizens, and to take strong action in Copenhagen to address this crisis through bold, visionary leadership"

A special report on climate change and the carbon economy

Dec 3rd 2009
From The Economist print edition

THE mountain bark beetle is a familiar pest in the forests of British Columbia. Its population rises and falls unpredictably, destroying clumps of pinewood as it peaks which then regenerate as the bug recedes. But Scott Green, who studies forest ecology at the University of Northern British Columbia, says the current outbreak is “unprecedented in recorded history: a natural background-noise disturbance has become a major outbreak. We’re looking at the loss of 80% of our pine forest cover.”* Other parts of North America have also been affected, but the damage in British Columbia is particularly severe, and particularly troubling in a province whose economy is dominated by timber.

Three main explanations for this disastrous outbreak suggest themselves. It could be chance. Populations do fluctuate dramatically and unexpectedly. It could be the result of management practices. British Columbia’s woodland is less varied than it used to be, which helps a beetle that prefers pine. Or it could be caused by the higher temperatures that now prevail in northern areas, allowing beetles to breed more often in summer and survive in greater numbers through the winter.

The Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which the United Nations adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, is now 17 years old. Its aim was “to achieve stabilisation of greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”. The Kyoto protocol, which set about realising those aims, was signed in 1997 and came into force in 2005. Its first commitment period runs out in 2012, and implementing a new one is expected to take at least three years, which is why the 15th conference of the parties to the UNFCCC that starts in Copenhagen on December 7th is such a big deal. Without a new global agreement, there is not much chance of averting serious climate change.

Since the UNFCCC was signed, much has changed, though more in the biosphere than the human sphere. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the body set up to establish a scientific consensus on what is happening, heat waves, droughts, floods and serious hurricanes have increased in frequency over the past few decades; it reckons those trends are all likely or very likely to have been caused by human activity and will probably continue. Temperatures by the end of the century might be up by anything from 1.1ºC to 6.4ºC.

In most of the world the climate changes to date are barely perceptible or hard to pin on warming. In British Columbia and farther north the effects of climate change are clearer. Air temperatures in the Arctic are rising about twice as fast as in the rest of the world. The summer sea ice is thinning and shrinking. The past three years have seen the biggest losses since proper record-keeping started in 1979. Ten years ago scientists reckoned that summer sea-ice would be gone by the end of this century. Now they expect it to disappear within a decade or so.

Since sea-ice is already in the water, its melting has little effect on sea levels. Those are determined by temperature (warmer water takes up more room) and the size of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps. The glaciers in south-eastern Greenland have picked up speed. Jakobshavn Isbrae, the largest of them, which drains 6% of Greenland’s ice, is now moving at 12km a year—twice as fast as it was when the UNFCCC was signed—and its “calving front”, where it breaks down into icebergs, has retreated by 20km in six years. That is part of the reason why the sea level is now rising at 3-3.5mm a year, twice the average annual rate in the 20th century.

As with the mountain bark beetle, it is not entirely clear why this is happening. The glaciers could be retreating because of one of the countless natural oscillations in the climate that scientists do not properly understand. If so, the glacial retreat could well stop, as it did in the middle of the 20th century after a 100-year retreat. But the usual causes of natural variability do not seem to explain the current trend, so scientists incline to the view that it is man-made. It is therefore likely to persist unless mankind starts to behave differently—and there is not much sign of that happening.

Carbon-dioxide emissions are now 30% higher than they were when the UNFCCC was signed 17 years ago. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 equivalent (carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases) reached 430 parts per million last year, compared with 280ppm before the industrial revolution. At the current rate of increase they could more than treble by the end of the century, which would mean a 50% risk of a global temperature increase of 5ºC. To put that in context, the current average global temperature is only 5ºC warmer than the last ice age. Such a rise would probably lead to fast-melting ice sheets, rising sea levels, drought, disease and collapsing agriculture in poor countries, and mass migration. But nobody really knows, and nobody wants to know.

Some scientists think that the planet is already on an irreversible journey to dangerous warming. A few climate-change sceptics think the problem will right itself. Either may be correct. Predictions about a mechanism as complex as the climate cannot be made with any certainty. But the broad scientific consensus is that serious climate change is a danger, and this newspaper believes that, as an insurance policy against a catastrophe that may never happen, the world needs to adjust its behaviour to try to avert that threat.

The problem is not a technological one. The human race has almost all the tools it needs to continue leading much the sort of life it has been enjoying without causing a net increase in greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Industrial and agricultural processes can be changed. Electricity can be produced by wind, sunlight, biomass or nuclear reactors, and cars can be powered by biofuels and electricity. Biofuel engines for aircraft still need some work before they are suitable for long-haul flights, but should be available soon.

Nor is it a question of economics. Economists argue over the sums (see article), but broadly agree that greenhouse-gas emissions can be curbed without flattening the world economy.

It is all about politics. Climate change is the hardest political problem the world has ever had to deal with. It is a prisoner’s dilemma, a free-rider problem and the tragedy of the commons all rolled into one. At issue is the difficulty of allocating the cost of collective action and trusting other parties to bear their share of the burden. At a city, state and national level, institutions that can resolve such problems have been built up over the centuries. But climate change has been a worldwide worry for only a couple of decades. Mankind has no framework for it. The UN is a useful talking shop, but it does not get much done.

The closest parallel is the world trading system. This has many achievements to its name, but it is not an encouraging model. Not only is the latest round of negotiations mired in difficulty, but the World Trade Organisation’s task is child’s play compared with climate change. The benefits of concluding trade deals are certain and accrue in the short term. The benefits of mitigating climate change are uncertain, since scientists are unsure of the scale and consequences of global warming, and will mostly accrue many years hence. The need for action, by contrast, is urgent.

The problem will be solved only if the world economy moves from carbon-intensive to low-carbon—and, in the long term, to zero-carbon—products and processes. That requires businesses to change their investment patterns. And they will do so only if governments give them clear, consistent signals. This special report will argue that so far this has not happened. The policies adopted to avoid dangerous climate change have been partly misconceived and largely inadequate. They have sent too many wrong signals and not enough of the right ones.

That is partly because of the way the Kyoto protocol was designed. By trying to include all the greenhouse gases in a single agreement, it has been less successful than the less ambitious Montreal protocol, which cut ozone-depleting gases fast and cheaply. By including too many countries in detailed negotiations, it has reduced the chances of agreement. And by dividing the world into developed and developing countries, it has deepened a rift that is proving hard to close. Ultimately, though, the international agreement has fallen victim to domestic politics. Voters do not want to bear the cost of their elected leaders’ aspirations, and those leaders have not been brave enough to push them.

Copenhagen represents a second chance to make a difference. The aspirations are high, but so are the hurdles. The gap between the parties on the two crucial questions—emissions levels and money—remains large. America’s failure so far to pass climate-change legislation means that a legally binding agreement will not be reached at the conference. The talk is of one in Bonn, in six months’ time, or in Mexico City in a year.

To suggest that much has gone wrong is not to denigrate the efforts of the many people who have dedicated two decades to this problem. For mankind to get even to the threshold of a global agreement is a marvel. But any global climate deal will work only if the domestic policies through which it is implemented are both efficient and effective. If they are ineffective, nothing will change. If they are inefficient, they will waste money. And if taxpayers decide that green policies are packed with pork, they will turn against them.

Composite picture of planetary ground lighting at night seen from space, courtesy NASA

I PLEDGE

1. To demand that my country join an international treaty within the next 2 years that cuts global warming pollution by 90% in developed countries & by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy earth

2. To take personal action to help solve the climate crisis by reducing my own carbon dioxide pollution as much as I can & offsetting the rest to become carbon neutral

3. To fight for a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap & store the carbon dioxide

4. To work for a dramatic increase in energy efficiency of my home, workplace, school, place of worship & means of transportation

5. To fight for laws and policies that expand the use of renewable energy sources & reduce dependence on oil and coal;

6. To plant new trees and to join with others in preserving and protecting forests;

7. To buy from businesses and support leaders who share my commitment to solving the climate crisis & building a sustainable, just, & prosperous world for the 21st century

Please check out the source: Live Earth 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Something I recently received:

Greetings! You are among 5500 individuals and 60 teachers from all traditions who joined the Dalai Lama in signing the Buddhist Declaration on Climate Change.

We are happy to announce the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) will present the Declaration and signatories to world leaders at the CopenhagenClimate Conference, December 7-18th. You may be interested to look at the analysis of signatories by country and affiliation. Others can still sign the Declaration.

www.ecobuddhism.org continues to attract visitors from across the world—over 1.25 million in the last 12 months. You will find informed new articles and updates in the lead-up to COP-15…and beyond. We will continue to examine the challenge and opportunity of the climate crisis, in the light of integral, contemplative activism.

A Buddhist Response to the Climate Emergency is a primer for the development of a pan-Buddhist policy for a safe-climate future. The book contains 60% new material not found on any website. Please consider purchasing a copy from Wisdom Publications, Snow Lion, Amazon or other online booksellers.

With our sincere thanks for supporting the Declaration,
The Buddhist Climate Project team
ecobuddhism@gmail.com

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act - S. 1733

Download this Summary

November 2009

The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, in an 11-1 vote (with only Democrats voting) taken on November 5, 2009, approved The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S. 1733). The bill that passed out of committee is a slightly revised version of the Chairman’s Mark which had been introduced in late October.  Important final changes included designating the Department of Agriculture as the lead agency for regulating offsets from the forestry and agricultural sectors, and limiting the scope of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority under the Clean Air Act in certain areas. The committee-passed Kerry-Boxer bill includes the details on the distribution of greenhouse gas emission allowances and other provisions, but continues to have placeholders for important issues such as international trade measures and carbon market oversight which are likely to be taken up by other committees.  Like the early drafts, the final committee bill draws heavily from the climate provisions of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (Waxman-Markey bill) passed by the House of Representatives on June 26, 2009, but continues to differ in several important areas (e.g., 2020 reduction target and preemption of certain aspects of EPA regulatory authority).  In addition, while the House bill is a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill, the Kerry-Boxer bill focuses primarily on reducing U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.  Earlier this year, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which has jurisdiction over most energy issues, passed a comprehensive energy bill (American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009) that corresponds with some of the energy policy provisions contained in the House bill.  The Kerry-Boxer bill should be viewed as an important starting point for Senate deliberations.  Further work by other Senate committees of jurisdiction, and by other interested Senators will likely modify some aspects of what was passed and fill in some of the unaddressed issues.  Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) is expected to combine the various elements into a bill to be brought before the Senate sometime in the coming months.

The following describes key aspects of the committee-passed bill (Kerry-Boxer bill) with specific attention to the sections that expand on earlier versions of the Kerry-Boxer bill or those that differ from the House bill.

Overview
The goal of the Kerry-Boxer bill is “to create clean energy jobs, promote energy independence, reduce global warming pollution, and transition to a clean energy economy.”  The core of the bill creates a “Pollution Reduction and Investment” program aimed at setting up an economy-wide, market-based program for reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs).  Businesses covered by this program would be required to hold enough GHG emission allowances to match their emissions.  The bill also contains complementary measures including: targeted emission standards; support for research, development and deployment of low carbon energy alternatives; and expanded programs to increase energy and water efficiency.  Finally, the bill includes provisions intended to ease the transition to a clean energy economy by protecting consumers, workers, and energy-intensive industries from the impact of higher energy costs.

Scope of Coverage
The Kerry-Boxer bill covers the same seven GHGs identified in the House bill:  carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride.  Entities covered by the bill include large stationary sources with annual GHG emissions over 25,000 tons, producers and importers of petroleum fuels, distributors of natural gas, producers of hydrofluorocarbon gases, and other specified large sources.  Approximately 85 percent of national greenhouse gas emissions are covered under the cap.  Hydrofluorocarbons are covered by a separate cap and emissions from perfluorocarbon production may also be regulated separately based on a future decision delegated to EPA.  The bill also calls for a decision by EPA on whether additional domestic regulations on black carbon are warranted.

Targets
The Senate bill sets a more stringent 20 percent reduction target for sources covered under the cap from 2005 levels in 2020 compared to the 17 percent reduction in the House bill.  The other targets are the same: a 3 percent reduction from 2005 levels in 2012; 42 percent reduction in 2030; and an 83 percent reduction in 2050.

Distribution of Allowances
The bill that passed the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee provides detailed information on how allowances are to be distributed.  While most of the purposes to which allowance value is dedicated, most of the entities receiving allowances, and most of the amounts they receive are similar to the House-passed bill, a few differences are worth noting.  Similar to the House bill, allowances are allocated to electricity (35 percent) and natural gas local distribution companies (9 percent) and to states for home heating oil and propane users (1.5 percent) expressly for the purposes of benefiting residential, commercial and industrial consumers.  Free allocation of allowance value is also provided to refineries and to energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries to prevent “carbon leakage” – the migration of industries (and their emissions) to countries without similar GHG mitigation programs.  (The bill includes placeholder language that indicates the Senate’s intention to also address “carbon leakage” through some form of border measure on energy-intensive imports.)

To further ease the transition to a low carbon economy, allowance value is provided to support deployment of carbon capture and storage technology; to fund energy efficiency and renewable programs by states; to finance transportation programs, clean vehicle, and advanced energy technologies; to support programs to train workers for the nuclear industry; and to support worker transition and training for those dislocated by the shift to low carbon energy.  In addition, allowance value is used to recognize early action to reduce GHG emissions, to support a program to create supplemental domestic agriculture and forestry reductions, to supply allowances for the Market Stability Reserve (see Cost Containment, below), to fund domestic and international adaptation programs, to support international clean technology programs, and for reduced deforestation in developing countries.  The bill designates allowance value for energy refunds for low and moderate income households and establishes rebates for all energy consumers beginning in 2026. Unlike the House bill, this bill provides allowance value to support transportation planning programs, building code enforcement, water efficiency programs, and training for workers in the nuclear power industry.  It also differs from the House bill in that it calls for initially auctioning 10 percent of allowances annually (increasing to 25 percent by 2040) specifically for the purpose of making sure the bill does not add to the budget deficit. Distribution of allowance value for all other purposes would occur after these allowances are set aside from the total. 

Cost Containment and Offsets
The EPW-passed bill includes measures aimed at reducing the costs of compliance and minimizing allowance price volatility.  Like the House bill, it provides for a two-year rolling compliance period, unlimited banking of unused allowances, and limited borrowing (with restrictions on the amount and time period with the payment of interest).  Also like the House bill, it allows for the use of 2 billion tons of qualified offsets annually, but divides this amount differently, with three quarters allowable from domestic sources (1.5 billion) and one-quarter (500 million) from international sources.  However, if domestic supplies of offsets prove inadequate, an additional 750 million tons from international sources (1.25 billion tons total) can be used to reach the total of 2 billion tons annually.  The bill gives authority for managing the offset program to the President, but in its latest version designates the Dept. of Agriculture with responsibility for implementing any offsets related to forestry and agriculture. 

The bill creates a Market Stability Reserve (“reserve”), from which allowances would be auctioned to covered entities if allowance prices exceed a designated threshold.  The reserve would be stocked with allowances borrowed from future years (larger quantities are designated as supply for the reserve than were included in the House bill) and would be replenished with domestic and international forestry offsets purchased with reserve auction revenue.  The minimum threshold price triggering these auctions would initially be set at $28 per ton (in 2005 constant dollars), but would increase each year by a certain percentage (5 percent through 2017 and 7percent thereafter) over the previous year’s reserve auction price plus inflation.

Complementary Policies
In addition to establishing the GHG Pollution Reduction and Investment program described above, the Kerry-Boxer bill seeks to supplement measures contained in the clean energy bill that has been approved by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.  It provides support for:

• Deployment of carbon capture and storage technology through a ten-year program funded through wire charges, bonus allowances for early deployment projects, and  allowance value designated through 2050 for further deployment;
• Expansion of nuclear technology by establishing research and development programs for waste management and to safeguard aging existing power plants, and a program to train workers in the nuclear industry;
• Expansion of electricity generation using natural gas and RD&D for advanced, low-emitting natural gas end uses, such as natural gas use coupled with carbon capture and storage; and
• Expanded funding for programs for state energy efficiency initiatives, and building code and retrofit programs.

In addition, the bill requires performance standards for newly constructed coal-fired power plants to require carbon capture and storage technologies once the technology has been adequately demonstrated.  It also requires GHG standards for heavy duty and other vehicles and engines to complement the recent EPA proposal for greater fuel efficiency from light duty vehicles.  The bill includes a 6-year moratorium (2012 through 2017) on states imposing their own GHG cap-and-trade programs.  Unlike the House bill, it does not preempt EPA from requiring performance standards on new and existing stationary sources, but it does delay until 2020 any EPA standards on sources that are outside the cap but that could supply domestic offsets (e.g., landfill and coal mine methane).  It also now specifically exempts greenhouse gases from being regulated under a national ambient air quality standard or as hazardous air pollutants and sets the threshold for new source review and Title V permitting at 25,000 tons per year (similar to EPA’s recently proposed “tailoring” rule).

Click here for a more detailed summary of the bill (PDF).  

• BUSINESS
• U.S. STATES & REGIONS
• U.S. FEDERAL
• INTERNATIONAL

• Global Warming Basics
• Science & Impacts
• Technology Solutions
• Economics

Your Email Address 

• RSS Feed
• Donate Now

• Copenhagen
• Senate Debate
• Waxman-Markey Bill
• USCAP Recommendations

  Senate Legislation: Access our resources of the Kerry-Boxer climate and clean energy bill. (October 2009)

• Detailed bill summary
• Brief bill summary

  Post-2012 Climate Agreement: A new series of briefs addresses the key issues of verification and comparability in the global climate change negotiations. (October 2009)

For more on the outlook for a post-2012 climate agreement, read Eileen Claussen's testimony before Congress. (November 4, 2009) 

  Climate Adaptation: In testimony before Congress, Steve Seidel details actions the federal government should take to help the U.S. effectively adapt to climate change. (October 2009)

  Business Leaders: Daimler joins the Pew Center's Business Environmental Leadership Council (BELC). (October 2009)

  Climate Policy Outlook: Eileen Claussen discusses the domestic outlook for climate legislation and progress on the international scene. (September 29, 2009) 

  Copenhagen: The Pew Center outlines its vision for a Copenhagen climate agreement. (September 2009)

  National Security: Experts warn that climate change represents a real threat to American security. A new Pew Center memo looks at these national security implications.

  Landmark Climate Legislation: Find the bill summary and fact sheets on specific provisions in the Waxman-Markey clean energy and climate bill that passed the House of Representatives.

     Key Resources

• In Brief: What Pending Climate Legislation Does for Nuclear Power
• In Brief: What the ACES Act Does for Coal
• Policy Memo: Eight Myths about the ACES Act 

  Impacting Corporate America: A customized carbon calculator and interactive website highlight the Make an Impact campaign, a newly-launched partnership between the Pew Center and the Alcoa Foundation.

Climate Briefing Videos

Policy Briefs

• Contact Us
 
• Glossary
 
• Sitemap
 
• Privacy
 
• Copyright Permission

Now available in العربية, Deutsch, हिन्दी, ไทย, Русский, and more …. More about the TED Open Translation Project.

• Newest releases
• Most languages
• Most emailed this week
• Most comments this week
• Most favorited all-time
• Rated jaw-dropping
• ... persuasive
• ... courageous
• ... ingenious
• ... fascinating
• ... inspiring
• ... beautiful
• ... funny
• ... informative

• Technology
• Entertainment
• Design
• Business
• Science
• Global issues
• All

View all tags »

Eric Schmidt has been a long time supporter of the Smart Grid, part of Obama's Energy Bill:

I’m delighted to announce that Google Chief Executive Officer Eric Schmidt has agreed to speak at our GreenBeat event on Nov. 19, which focuses on the overhaul of our nation’s electrical grid.

Schmidt has been a vocal proponent of our nation’s need to invest in a cleaner, more efficient electrical grid, arguing that it part of a “second industrial revolution” that, if done properly, will create jobs and new industry.

In fact, Google has emerged as an aggressive player on the grid in its own right. It recently launched PowerMeter, a tool for consumers to gauge the amount of energy their various household devices are using with a central, online dashboard. In the U.S, you can get PowerMeter easily by buying the $200 device called TED 5000 (manufactured by Energy Inc.). The device is so popular that it is back-ordered right now (we’re trying to get one, and will let you know what it’s like. The home energy management system is rolling out to thousands of households this year. You can also get it in the U.K., by buying anAlertMe system).

Schmidt’s support for investments in the nation’s energy infrastructure comes at a crucial time. A majority of scientists say it urgent for us to shift our energy reliance from carbon-based sources to renewable sources, but theU.S. Congress appears to be stalling on legislation that would push this forward, blocked by special interests. Sadly, many U.S. states, represented by both democrats and republicans have businesses and utilities that rely on fossil fuels for their main energy supply or significant revenues. They fear a shift would hurt their businesses.

Schmidt has been avidly supporting the Obama administration’s smart grid initiatives over the past few weeks, for example going on MSN, and saying that such support is a big deal because our existing grid was built in the 1950s and 1960s and it’s important that we upgrade it for the digital economy — especially now that we’re moving to a two-way grid that allows people to feed their own solar and wind-generated power back to the grid. More sophisticated communications are needed for this. He also invited Energy Secretary Steve Chu to speak at Google last week (see video below). Google is seen as such a formidable player in the space that Chu chose it as his venue to announce $151 million in grants for global warming projects.

We recently covered Schmidt’s argument that in fact, the cost of legislative measures will be relatively minor, and the benefits huge. Schmidt uses California as an example: It leads the nation in efficiency, has established strong renewable energy requirements, and decoupled utility revenue from how much power customers use (giving utilities an interest in helping people conserve). As a result, consumers and businesses alike have redirected their energy spending to other goods and services, creating more than a million jobs with a payroll of more than $45 billion, according to Schmidt. (See Schmidt’s column written with his wife Wendy, here.)

The California Air Resources Board, the agency responsible for implementing a law that will reduce California greenhouse emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, predicts $33 billion in increased economic production as a result of the policy, Schmidt noted. In addition, the state’s gross product will increase by $7 billion, and personal income will grow by $16 billion.

By the way, you can get early-bird discount tickets for GreenBeat here, until Nov. 5.

Here’s that video of Chu at Google:

VentureBeat is hosting GreenBeat, the seminal executive conference on the Smart Grid, on Nov. 18-19, featuring keynotes from Nobel Prize winner Al Gore and Kleiner Perkins’ John Doerr. Get your discounted early-bird tickets before Nov. 5 atGreenBeat2009.com.

Next Story: Ford drops Smith, picks up Azure for all-electric van batteries 
Previous Story: Boxer pushes Climate Bill forward, whether the GOP likes it or not

• Selected for you by a sponsor:
• Google, British Gas Help AlertMe Launch Home Energy Control (Seeking Alpha)

• You might also like:
• Latest speaker at GreenBeat 2009: Cisco’s Smart Grid guru, Laura Ipsen (this site)
• AlertMe teams with Google, British Gas to give consumers more control over energy use (this site)
• iControl links home security and energy efficiency (this site)

 http://green.venturebeat.com/2009/11/02/newest-greenbeat-speaker-google-ceo-eric-schmidt/