The League of Conservation Voters has sent an "unprecedented letter" to House members stating (emphasis in original):

In light of the tremendous importance of this legislation, LCV has made the unprecedented decision that we will not endorse any member of the House of Representatives in 2010 election cycle who votes against final passage of this historic bill.

At the same time, 29 nonprofit groups, including the one I work for, have sent a separate letter to House members that opens:

Dear Representative:

On behalf of the millions of members and volunteers that our organizations represent, we write to urge you to support final passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES).

We also urge you to do everything possible to strengthen the bill between now and final passage, and along its journey to the President's desk.

These are the groups urging passage of ACES:

The letter notes:

We believe this is one of the most important votes of our time. There are rare moments in American history when the urgency to act is clear, the stakes are high, the costs of inaction are untenable, and the need for courageous leadership is paramount. Now is one of those moments. An opportunity like this may not come again for many years.

Hear!  Hear!

Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

Another coal plant bites the dust

The League of Conservation Voters is taking a swing at Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) for not supporting climate and energy legislation, accusing him of being short on patriotism.

In a new television ad launched on Monday, LCV argues that Blunt does not believe in American ingenuity and the ability to develop new, clean energy sources, and has has been tainted by hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from oil companies over the years. "Roy Blunt says no. No to clean energy. No to millions of new jobs," says the ad. "Call Roy Blunt and tell him it's time to start believing in America again."

Blunt, the minority whip in the House, is the second-highest ranking Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, which will be taking up discussion of a draft climate bill this week. Earlier this month, Blunt criticized Democrats for trying to impose "new energy taxes" on Americans.

Blunt is the frontrunner for the GOP nomination to fill the seat of Republican Sen. Kit Bond, who is retiring in 2010. Thus, the ad is a very early strike in that race, which will likely be a contentious one, as Democrats have been making gains in Missouri in recent years.

The new ad, shown below, is airing across Missouri, with a focus on Blunt's district in Springfield. LCV is also launching online ads and sending direct mailers, to "ensure that Missourians know that Rep. Blunt is opposed to creating good, American jobs in a clean, American energy sector," according to the group.

Related Links:

A scientific hack job that won’t cripple climate talks

Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets

Copenhagen, U.S.A. December 7

Related Links:

The Wind Kids: How high school students helped bring a wind farm to Milford, Utah

One doctor’s quest to sound the alarm on ‘wind turbine syndrome’

To unlock wind power, put a price on carbon

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow

Related Links:

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Related Links:

Inhofe to Boxer: “We Won, You Lost, Now Get a Life!”

Merkley wants Senate jobs bill to help finance building efficiency retrofits

Reflecting on the lameness of my profession

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Related Links:

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

The League of Conservation Voters announced today that they're endorsing Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, citing the freshman senator's policies on climate change and clean energy. "When you look specifically at the twin challenges of cutting global warming pollution and moving toward a clean energy future, on those issues Barack Obama has the most comprehensive plan we have ever seen for a presidential nominee," LCV president Gene Karpinsky said. LCV gave Obama a rating of 67 in their annual scorecard this year, lower than his previous average due to missed votes while on the campaign trail. He maintains an 86 percent rating overall for his first three years representing Illinois in the Senate. His main opponent, John McCain, has a lifetime LCV score of 24 percent, and earned a zero for 2007 after missing every vote LCV included in this year's tally. LCV joins Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth, who have also endorsed Obama.

Related Links:

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Related Links:

For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow

John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles

Seven reasons for optimism about the Senate climate bill

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow

A coalition of large green groups has pledged to support Mark Udall, Tom Udall, and Jeanne Shaheen in their campaigns to become senators in 2008. Colorado Representative Mark Udall and his cousin, New Mexico Representative Tom Udall, will run for Senate seats in their respective states; Shaheen is the former governor of New Hampshire, and will run there. All three are Democrats. The green groups, including the Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, and Defenders of Wildlife, feel confident about the effect that their support will have, pointing to the 2006 defeat of Sen. Richard Pombo (R-Calif.) as evidence of previous decisive victory.

Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles

Related Links:

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe (R) is the first person to make the League of Conservation Voters' "Dirty Dozen" list of congresspeople the group hopes to unseat in 2008. Inhofe is the minority leader on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, despite having called climate change "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people"; he recently urged the EPA to drag its feet on regulating greenhouse-gas emissions and stood in the way of a Live Earth concert on the National Mall. Said Inhofe of LCV's announcement, inscrutably, "I believe our incredible environmental progress over the years is not because of Washington's morass of federal laws. ... Instead, I believe our achievements are directly attributable to the ingenuity and strong sense of personal accountability that is characteristic of the American people."

Related Links:

China, India, U.S. commit to seal Copenhagen deal

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

Related Links:

Health care, climate, and the progressive movement

Franken win means another likely Senate vote for climate action

Sierra Club and 28 other NGOs weigh in on the house; LCV puts it foot down

It's a rare political event that can draw applause from both the White House and environmental groups, but Lincoln Chafee's victory in the Rhode Island Republican primary on Tuesday was just that.

Lincoln Chafee.

The Bush administration reasons that Chafee -- the most liberal Republican in the Senate, and frequently at odds with Bush on hot-button issues from Iraq to tax cuts -- is their only hope of keeping a GOP hold on his Senate seat, given the overwhelmingly Democratic leanings of Rhode Island's voter base.

Meanwhile, the Sierra Club and League of Conservation Voters -- the only big national green groups that endorse political candidates -- are heralding the victory of a moderate who has helped block some of the Bush administration's worst environmental policies. "The environment is and must remain a bipartisan issue," says Cathy Duvall, Sierra Club's national political director. "And it's leaders like Chafee who keep it that way."

And yet Chafee is an anomaly among the 2006 Senate candidates being backed by the groups; in the rest of the cases, the enviros are rooting for Dems, who need to gain six seats to take back the majority in the Senate. (Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who's running for reelection as an independent after losing the Democratic primary, is also getting enviro backing, but he doesn't threaten the chances of a Democratic majority.)

What makes this year's Senate races particularly dramatic from the green perspective is that some of the GOP's worst environmental offenders -- Conrad Burns in Montana, Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania, and Jim Talent in Missouri -- are up for reelection and embroiled in narrow races against newcomers with ambitious green platforms. Also running for reelection is one of the Senate's strongest environmental champions, Washington's junior senator Maria Cantwell (D), whose aggressive challenger is a former insurance executive getting big support from Big Oil.

One common thread connects all the races, says Duvall: "Voters and candidates alike are placing a huge emphasis on energy. High gas prices and escalating conflict in the Middle East have opened a Pandora's box of concerns around meeting energy needs safely, smartly, affordably." No wonder challengers are developing ambitious energy platforms, and incumbents backed by the fossil-fuel industry are nervous.

It would be hard not to look green next to the Big Sky State's three-term GOP senator, Conrad Burns -- unabashed climate skeptic, advocate of human pesticide testing, beneficiary of $551,586 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry over the course of his career, and one of the "Dirty Dozen" members of Congress that LCV is most anxious to unseat.

Conrad Burns.

But Burns' challenger, Jon Tester, president of the Montana Senate and longtime organic farmer, is a strong environmental candidate in his own right. "Jon understands and champions sustainability on many levels -- agriculture, energy, land use, and lifestyle," says Theresa Keaveny, executive director of Montana Conservation Voters. "We are very proud to support him."

As a state senator, Tester led the fight to pass a 2005 law requiring Montana to produce at least 15 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2015 -- a victory that has already accelerated the development of wind farms in the state. Tester has also pushed hard to protect organic farms from "genetic drift" -- contamination from neighboring genetically modified crops -- and in the process faced off against Monsanto, chemical companies, and big grain growers in the state legislature.

Jon Tester.

Keaveny praises Tester for being a "stalwart supporter of enhancing public-land access for fishing, hunting, and recreation, steadfastly opposing all attempts to place these areas on the auction block." Burns, she says, has expressed little opposition to the Bush administration's efforts to privatize public lands.

Burns has earned a lifetime environmental voting score of 4 percent from LCV. According to the group, he has consistently voted against increasing fuel-economy standards, repeatedly sought to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, and opposed numerous efforts to push the development of renewable energy. On the subject of global warming, the senator remarked in a recent Energy & Environment Daily interview, "[It] has been happening since the glaciers started to recede. You remember the ice age? It's been warming ever since, and there ain't anything we can do to stop it." As if that weren't enough, Burns was a leading recipient of campaign donations from disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

A recent USA Today/Gallup Poll of likely voters found the two candidates neck-and-neck -- Tester leading with 48 percent to Burns' 45 percent, a difference within the poll's margin of error.

Rick Santorum -- as zealous an opponent of environmental protections as he is a Bible-thumper -- is in serious danger of losing his Senate seat to state Treasurer Robert Casey Jr., in what could turn out to be one of the biggest upsets of this election season.

Rick Santorum.

Santorum -- also a "Dirty Dozen" honoree, with a lifetime score of 10 percent from LCV and a zero score from Republicans for Environmental Protection for his voting record in 2005 -- doesn't put much truck in building a sustainable future. "Nowhere in the Bible does it say that America will be here 100 years from now," he said at a 1994 political rally. This spring, Santorum pushed for the failed GOP energy package -- ridiculed even by right-wing ideologues -- that proposed a $100 gas rebate for drivers in exchange for opening the Arctic Refuge to drilling. And yet strong fuel-economy standards don't strike Santorum as a good way to save drivers money: He has opposed efforts to increase them no less than six times. He's also opposed efforts to promote the development of renewable energy and voted against the bipartisan 2005 Sense of the Senate resolution acknowledging that global warming is a human-made problem in need of federal action.

Says LCV's senior vice president for political affairs, Tony Massaro, "Virtually every chance he gets, Sen. Santorum has voted for oil and gas interests and against the environment."

Robert Casey Jr.

While Casey has not had the opportunity to build a comprehensive environmental record as state treasurer, his environmental platform has been heartily endorsed by both the Sierra Club and LCV. Both Duvall and Massaro say his green vision would merit their support even if he weren't running against a senator with an anti-environment streak. "Bob is very impressive," says Massaro. "We think he has really solid environmental positions and would vote with us on the major issues."

Casey has pledged support for an ambitious 40-mile-per-gallon fuel-economy standard, and says he would back a requirement that an increasing percentage of the U.S. electricity mix come from renewable sources. Santorum, for his part, voted against including such a requirement in the 2005 energy bill.

The two candidates also diverge sharply on the subject of controlling mercury emissions. This is a particularly controversial issue in Pennsylvania, home to numerous coal-fired power plants; virtually every lake, river, and stream in the state is under a fish-consumption advisory due to mercury contamination. While Santorum supported the Bush rollback of Clinton-era efforts to reduce mercury emissions, Casey supports an approach outlined by Gov. Ed Rendell (D) that would impose stricter limits on mercury emissions in Pennsylvania.

The latest USA Today shows Santorum trailing Casey by a whopping 18 percentage points among likely voters./Gallup poll

Maria Cantwell.

Enviros have been relieved in recent weeks to see outspoken Arctic Refuge defender Maria Cantwell leading in the polls over her opponent, Mike McGavick, a former executive at Safeco Insurance Co. and top aide to former Sen. Slade Gorton (R), whom Cantwell defeated six years ago.

The first candidate endorsed by LCV and Sierra Club this election season, Cantwell has an 86 percent lifetime voting score from LCV. "She's not just a reliable environmental vote, she's been an incredibly gutsy and tireless leader on a host of issues ranging from fuel-economy standards to Superfund to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge," says Duvall. This year, Cantwell spearheaded a Democratic energy plan that proposes cutting U.S. dependence on oil imports 40 percent by 2020, slashing oil and gas subsidies, and promoting infrastructure development for biofuels.

Mike McGavick.

While McGavick has little in the way of a public-sector environmental record, he already has a bad rep among enviros. As an insurance industry lobbyist, he tried to ensure that taxpayers rather than polluters would have to pay for Superfund cleanups, according to LCV's Massaro. This year, McGavick has gotten help from Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens (R) in raising money from the oil industry (Stevens harbors a nasty grudge against Cantwell for her successful efforts to prevent drilling in the Arctic Refuge). Duvall says McGavick "would be expected to heavily favor industry concerns over environmental protections if he won the Senate seat."

According to a Sept. 6 Rasmussen poll, Cantwell has a 17-point lead over McGavick, boasting 52 percent of the likely vote compared to his 35. That's a substantial jump for Cantwell since August, when she led by only six points.

Missouri is another state where a pro-environment Democratic newcomer stands a decent chance of knocking out a right-wing Republican incumbent.

Jim Talent.

Jim Talent -- yes, he's also a "Dirty Dozen" designee and a low-scorer in LCV's book at 15 percent -- has supported the Bush administration's efforts to weaken restrictions on toxic mercury emissions, despite widespread mercury contamination in his state's water bodies. Talent has also been a strong supporter of Bush's controversial Clear Skies program, criticized by enviros for weakening Clean Air Act protections, and an avid proponent of drilling in the Arctic Refuge. "With all due respect, I cannot understand what coherent political philosophy cuts its own country off from oil," he said at a press conference in April. "It is time to open up the Arctic.''

Claire McCaskill.

Though challenger Claire McCaskill hasn't established much of an environmental record as state auditor, she's earned endorsements from both the Sierra Club and LCV. She has stated that "global warming threatens our way of life" in Missouri, and has made energy independence a central pillar of her campaign. In her comprehensive energy platform, she calls for 10 percent of America's electricity to come from renewable sources by 2020. While there are some tenets of her energy plan that enviros might question, such as her call for further investment and research into coal liquefaction, Massaro is confident that McCaskill "would bring a dramatic improvement to Missouri's representation on environmental issues."

Recent polls show the two in a dead heat.

Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Inhofe to Boxer: “We Won, You Lost, Now Get a Life!”

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

Progressives around the country cheered when Ned Lamont knocked out Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut's Democratic primary last month, but some enviros held their applause.

Joe Lieberman.

Photo: Paul Morigi/ WireImage

Lieberman -- now running as an independent in an effort to hold onto his seat -- has, by most accounts, been a standout leader on environmental protection during his 18 years in the Senate. While longtime allies like John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and fellow Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd are among the many high-profile Democrats backing Lamont, some leading greens are vowing not to leave Lieberman's side.

The League of Conservation Voters, which ranks Lieberman's lifetime voting record at 86 percent (one of the highest scores the group has tallied for a long-running congressional career), says it plans to stand by the endorsement of the senator it issued in March. "We've looked very carefully at his decision to run as an independent, and unanimously agreed to maintain our endorsement," said Tony Massaro, LCV's senior vice president for political affairs. "Not only do we support Sen. Lieberman, we've named him an environmental champion -- a title we give out very sparingly. His exceptional leadership should be supported no matter what party he belongs to."

The Sierra Club has not yet announced whether it will endorse Lieberman, but the group's spokesperson, David Willett, stressed that the senator's party affiliation will have no impact on the decision: "We endorse people, not parties."

Lieberman's name is best known in environmental circles in connection with the Climate Stewardship Act he initially introduced in 2003 with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), reintroduced in 2005, and plans to continue pushing this fall. The first federal bill to propose a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases, the act would impose a limit on emissions and allow companies to meet that limit by buying and selling the right to pollute. Lieberman has been a staunch defender of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and a vocal critic of President Bush's environmental agenda. He helped draft the landmark 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, and last year cosponsored the bipartisan Vehicle and Fuel Choices for American Security Act, which would reduce U.S. oil consumption by 10 million barrels a day in the next 25 years.

In contrast, Lamont doesn't have much of an environmental record to point to -- largely because he doesn't have much of a political one. A well-heeled technology entrepreneur, Lamont's political experience consists of chairing the state investment advisory council and serving on a smattering of civic boards. Nevertheless, if elected, it's expected he would vote with the majority of fellow Dems for strong environmental protections. In fact, Lamont suggests on his campaign website that he would be a stronger green champion than his opponent, and criticizes Lieberman's support for the 2005 energy bill, "which features billions in subsidies to big oil and does little for conservation and energy efficiency." Lamont also claims he is serious about fighting global warming "in the arenas that really matter -- the courts and the federal government."

Lieberman's communications director, Dan Gerstein, argues that Lamont wouldn't have nearly as much sway on environmental policy as Lieberman, who has been a longtime member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and has played a high-profile role forging bipartisan support for environmental bills. "Lieberman has been both a leader and a key consensus builder on green issues," Gerstein said. "Without him, climate politics changes. The whole landscape of environmental policy changes. ... Joe Lieberman has been at the forefront of pretty much every effort to block the administration's rollbacks of environmental standards."

Lieberman seems to be leading in the race, but only slightly. Recent polls by the American Research Group and Rasmussen Reports show the senator with a slim two-point lead over Lamont, while a Zogby poll has Lieberman leading by 10 points. (Republican Alan Schlesinger -- who is playing a largely symbolic role and doesn't even have strong support from the party establishment -- pulled only 2 percent support in the Zogby poll.)

"I am a Democrat," Lieberman declared recently on CBS's Face the Nation. "Look at my voting record. I voted 90 percent of the time with the majority of Democrats in the United States Senate. But when I disagree, I'm going to have the courage of my convictions to say so."

The big point of disagreement, of course, is Lieberman's unwavering support of the Bush administration's war in Iraq and broader "war on terror"; it's the reason Lamont launched his challenge, and the reason so many Democratic voters have backed Lamont.

Some enviros argue that this issue alone renders moot Lieberman's impressive environmental track record. Says Adam Werbach, former president of the Sierra Club and prominent green activist, "Lieberman's party should be irrelevant if you're an environmental-issue voter. The big question is whether you believe the Iraq war is an 'environmental' issue. I do. For me, the Iraq war is a travesty -- ecological and otherwise -- that far outweighs Lieberman's stellar environmental record."

The Lieberman/Lamont contest raises questions about how closely aligned environmentalists are -- or should be -- with the Democratic Party.

The same issue has cropped up during the reelection campaign of Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.), a moderate Republican who's widely seen as an environmental leader, and who's in serious danger of losing to Democratic challenger Sheldon Whitehouse (if he even survives a tough challenge in the Republican primary). The Sierra Club has endorsed Chafee, and for that the group recently got spanked by liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman: "If the Democrats gain only five rather than six Senate seats this November, Sen. James Inhofe [R-Okla.], who says that global warming is 'the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,' will remain in his current position as chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. And if that happens, the Sierra Club may well bear some of the responsibility," Krugman wrote.

But a vote for Lieberman is a far cry from a vote for Chafee, who would prop up the anti-environment GOP leadership in Congress. Though Lieberman would be an independent, he would caucus with the Democrats, says Gerstein, his communications director, thereby helping the Democrats retake the Senate.

Lieberman's campaign could, however, inadvertently hobble Dems' chances in the House. Here's why: Connecticut has three Democratic candidates who have a decent chance of unseating the state's incumbent Republican representatives: Nancy Johnson, Christopher Shays, and Rob Simmons. As The New York Times reported this week, "Democratic officials say they expect Mr. Lieberman to campaign aggressively to win over Republican and unaffiliated voters. If he does, Democratic strategists say, he may well attract voters to the polls who are likely to support the state's three Republicans in Congress."

While some enviros argue that Johnson, Shays, and Simmons have been allies in important battles like the fight to protect the Arctic Refuge, their three contested seats represent one-fifth of the 15 seats Dems need to regain a majority in the House -- and to put the House agenda in the hands of Nancy Pelosi (D), who's got a respectable environmental track record, instead of Dennis Hastert (R), who doesn't.

Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope, though, argues that it's bad long-term strategy for environmentalists to align themselves with one party. "Our job is to reward conviction, applaud leadership, and promote progress made in cleaning up the air and water and in preserving our wild lands and wildlife -- no matter which side of the aisle we find it on," he wrote in his blog in response to Krugman's broadside.

Whether the Sierra Club will endorse Lieberman -- and whether that will help the senator win the fight of his life -- remains to be seen.

Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

Another coal plant bites the dust