Hey, we couldn't find a photo that screamed "polling," so how about this period shot of Seattle City Light workers?Seattle Municipal Archives via FlickrThere’s some good news about public support for climate legislation in a new Zogby poll commissioned by the National Wildlife Federation (NWF).

Seventy-one percent of likely voters say they like the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) passed by the House of Representatives earlier this summer. Two-thirds of them think Congress either should be doing more (45 percent) or is doing the right amount (22 percent) to address climate change, according to the July 31-Aug. 4 telephone poll of 1,005 likely voters.

Participants seemed to give the Senate a green light to pass its own climate bill this fall, with 54 percent saying the Senate should take action soon, and 41 percent saying it should wait. They were asked if they agreed with one of two statements:

The poll results also suggest that doomsday messages that ACES would destroy American jobs have largely fallen flat. It found that 51 percent of participants believe "efforts to reduce global warming and promote clean energy" would create new jobs; 17 percent thought they wouldn’t affect jobs and 29 percent predicted they would cost jobs. A slight majority (53 percent) of self-described political independents thought those efforts would create jobs, and 24 percent thought jobs would be lost.

There was evidence of bipartisan support too, with 45 percent of Republicans and 73 percent of independents reporting a favorable opinion of ACES, also known as the Waxman-Markey (or cap-and-trade) bill.

NWF wanted to conduct the poll shortly after the storm of pro- and anti-ACES ads that accompanied the late-June vote, NWF spokesman Miles Grant said.

“The debate going on in the media today makes it sound like it’s such a narrow, controversial issue,” he said. “Even after [hearing arguments from both sides], these likely voters are still heavily in favor of the ACES bill.

“This isn’t about who’s writing phony letters to members of Congress or who’s making up numbers. We laid out some basic arguments for the voters to see what they think. And they picked clean energy and climate action.”

NWF collected a lot of information it didn’t release—including the opinions of likely voters by age, race, location, income, education level, religion, and other demographics. It also asked participants whether they were NASCAR fans, members of the “investment class,” or frequent Wal-Mart shoppers, but it didn’t disclose how those these factors matched with opinions.

When asked to provide that information, Grant said it was a “matter of policy” at NWF not to release all demographic data, and that some demographic questions are determined by Zogby “package” polls. Holding on to this information sends a weird signal and could provide fodder to climate skeptics convinced that NWF only released findings it likes. Revealing the full demographic info might only confirm predictable divisions—high climate-bill support among the wealthy and highly educated, less among Southerners and seniors, for example. But transparency would give more credibility to the whole project.

More than anything, the NWF-sponsored poll suggests how malleable public opinion can be on complex legislation, and how much the wording of questions can influence results. For comparison’s sake, a poll last month from Worldpublicopinion.org found that only 52 percent of Americans wanted their government to do more to address climate change, the lowest support among 19 countries.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

What to make of the new climate poll

The National Wildlife Federation has done an in-depth assessment, Climate Action Toolbox, of Waxman-Markey's American Clean Energy and Security Act.

Unlike other summaries, this analysis breaks ACES down from the perspective of the key federal policy elements needed to solve the climate crisis and build a clean energy future.  It examines the legislation from the perspective of the new tools it gives us (and some tools that are still missing) for the work ahead to tackle climate change.

The "highlights" section is posted below, including this factoid:  "The bill will save more than twice as much oil as we could get by opening up protected areas to offshore drilling."

Highlights of NWF's Toolbox Assessment of the American Clean Energy and Security Act

National Wildlife Federation (NWF) believes that passing the American Clean Energy and Security Act is one of the most important legislative efforts of our time. The legislation combines a clean energy plan, an energy efficiency plan, and a global warming plan that will create millions of new clean energy jobs, set America on a path of global warming action, and enhance America's energy independence.  NWF's top priority for 2009 is to pass this important legislation while working to improve the legislation and defend it from efforts to weaken its impact. Here are some highlights of NWF's Toolbox Assessment of ACES:

Related Posts:

Related Links:

Fourteen Democratic senators stick up for coal

House passes landmark health-care bill with one GOP vote

When will we stop paying the hidden fossil fuel tax?

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:

Environmental education in Guinea Bissau

Brazil offer to reduce deforestation by 80%

Senate should consider deforestation as part of climate bill

Judge halts irrigation project that could harm ivory-billed's habitat

A federal judge has temporarily halted a $319 million Army Corps of Engineers irrigation project in Arkansas, pending further study of potential impact to the habitat of the ivory-billed woodpecker -- which may or may not be extinct. The last confirmed sighting of the bird in North America was in 1944; reported sightings since 2004 set off a massive scramble to confirm its existence. Some ornithologists are convinced the ivory-billed is still alive; others are skeptical. The Corps had concluded that woodpecker habitat would not be affected by the project, but a federal judge, ruling on a lawsuit brought by the National Wildlife Federation and its Arkansas affiliate, said the Corps "put the cart before the horse," neglecting to study the bird's full range. A more thorough study could take a year. The project, if ever completed, will help to irrigate the land of 1,000 eastern Arkansas farmers.

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

SCOTUS nominee John G. Roberts not a green's first pick

President Bush's new Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. has a distinguished conservative pedigree: He clerked for conservative Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist and was deputy White House counsel during the Reagan administration. With only two years under his belt as a federal judge, Roberts' attitudes toward environmental law are not well-documented, but as a deputy solicitor general in Bush Sr.'s administration he won a Supreme Court case blocking National Wildlife Federation members from filing claims against mining on 4,500 acres of public land. Roberts also wrote rather sarcastic comments about California's arroyo toad in his dissent from a 2003 court decision upholding protection of the amphibian under the Endangered Species Act. Roberts has served on the legal advisory council of the National Legal Center for the Public Interest, an anti-regulation conservative advocacy organization, and the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, which worries that the legal profession is dominated by a liberal ideology.

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

Pombo says: Eat up!

House Resources Committee Chair Richard Pombo (R-Calif.) -- longtime bete noire of the environmental community -- cooked up what appears to be some fishy science in a report released last week titled "Mercury in Perspective: Fact and Fiction About the Debate Over Mercury" [PDF].

The report -- written not by scientists but rather by aides to Pombo and another member of his committee, Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-Nev.) -- aims to downplay the overwhelming evidence that mercury from coal-burning power plants poses a significant health risk to Americans. Two of the report's claims are particularly stunning, as science journalist Chris C. Mooney points out. One: "There has been no credible evidence of harm to pregnant women or their unborn children from regular consumption of fish." And two: "Current, peer-reviewed scientific literature does not show any link between U.S. power-plant emissions and mercury in fish."

The report ignores reams of data indicating that mercury disrupts fetal development and can cause learning and memory disabilities in children, as well as recent research linking mercury exposure to increased risk of cardiac problems in adults. And it gives short shrift to the well-established fact that coal-burning power plants are the major industrial source of mercury pollution in the U.S.

The national controversy over mercury pollution, having simmered for more than a year, will finally come to a boil on March 15, when the Bush EPA is legally required to finalize its rule determining how rigorously the toxic pollutant will be regulated. The first draft of the rule, published in January 2004, was roundly criticized by dozens of members of Congress, public-health advocates, and environmental groups for being notably weaker than a rule proposed during the Clinton administration.

The Clinton-era proposal would have required mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants to be aggressively reduced using the best technology available on the market -- or, as the wonks put it, maximum achievable control technology (MACT) -- which would slash emissions by as much as 90 percent within a year, starting in 2008. In contrast, the Bush administration's draft rule proposes a cap-and-trade program requiring smaller and slower reductions of 70 percent from 2005 levels by 2018. And critics argue that these results would not be fully achieved until 2025, due to the nature of the market-based trading system.

Richard Pombo.

The Pombo-Gibbons report argues in favor of the Bush administration's mercury-reduction plan, just in time to feed the heated tussle expected to break out in coming weeks as the final rule is released. "The report is essentially a preemptive strike," said John Walke, a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, the environmental group that sued the EPA over delays on its mercury rule and forced it to comply with a March 15 deadline.

According to Walke, the report repeatedly references data from industry-funded groups such as the Edison Electric Institute and the Electric Power Research Institute, the latter a "quasi-scientific body that has repackaged the basic talking points that the utility industry has been relying on for years," he said. Walke accuses congressional Republicans of trying to drum up "wildly off-base claims about mercury just to make EPA's abominable rule look good by comparison."

But Pombo counters that it's the environmentalists who are wildly off-base. "[I]t is clear that some special-interest groups are crying wolf," he said last week in a public statement. Matt Streit, a spokesperson for the House Resources Committee, echoed this sentiment: "Any single green group you can name has something to say on mercury, and probably it's half truth and half misinformation. The risk has been overplayed by environmentalists."

The report itself slams greens: "As a result of the well-funded effort to push their political agenda, environmentalists have caused American citizens to become unnecessarily concerned about possible adverse health effects from exposure to trace amounts of mercury," it reads.

Of course, environmental groups are hardly alone in declaring mercury a public-health danger. The National Academy of Sciences and the EPA have warned of the risks of mercury exposure and determined that individuals should restrict their intake of fish and other seafood in order to limit exposure. And the Food and Drug Administration, along with at least 45 state agencies, have released health advisories warning of dangerous mercury contamination in fish.

Add to that the tri-partisan coalition of 45 senators which last April sent a letter to the EPA exhorting the agency to draft a stronger mercury plan, saying current proposals "fall far short of what the law requires and they fail to protect the health of our children and our environment. ... We do not believe [they] are sufficient or defensible."

Nevertheless, the Pombo-Gibbons report repeatedly criticizes the EPA's current standards for safe levels of mercury in fish. "Scaring people away from consuming fish is creating a public health crisis in its own right," it claims.

According to Streit, Americans "are on the bottom of the scale" of worldwide fish consumption. "We actually don't consume enough fish as it is," he said. When asked whether women of childbearing age should heed government advisories on fish consumption, Streit conceded, "Yes, but there are segments of the population that aren't at risk, and even they are reducing their fish intake, despite the fact that it's an important part of their diet. Like, I don't have to worry about eating fish."

Environmentalists argue that this attitude disregards evidence that mercury can impair the cardiovascular health of adult men and women. Moreover, they say, the report's boosters are trotting out these fish-consumption worries as a red herring, when their real concern is a threat to the coal and power industries' bottom lines.

As Gibbons said last week, "With a more restrictive, unnecessary regulation we could see a large portion of this country's coal supplies become useless." And the report itself argues, "Issuing an inflexible MACT rule without a commercially available and cost-effective technology that has been proven reliable is irresponsible and will force the premature closure of some coal-fired plants and/or encourage fuel switching. Either scenario exacerbates our existing energy problems."

Environmentalists dismiss the argument that MACT technology is too expensive, saying that the economic benefits of curbing mercury emissions -- which would come from reduced medical costs for those affected by exposure, higher demand for fish, and revitalized tourism at fishing destinations -- would far outweigh the cost of using pollution-control technologies. Moreover, recent innovations have already reduced the cost of these technologies in response to newly implemented state-level mercury regulations.

According to a report [PDF] by the National Wildlife Federation, implementing the MACT rule would be affordable even without these innovations: "If you spread the cost of applying pollution controls out to average households it would be the equivalent of about a cup of coffee a month -- ranging from less than a dollar to three dollars, depending on the utility," said Olivia Campbell of NWF, who worked on the report.

These costs look trivial relative to the human health threat posed by the neurotoxin. Oh, and last we checked, the EPA was an agency designed to protect public health, not the well-being of King Coal.

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Climate Hope: Inspiring 2009 Books for Clean Energy

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Enviros Say Pesticide Makers Are Illegally Influencing EPA

Northwest salmon and other endangered species could suffer because pesticide manufacturers are acting illegally to weaken rules on the use of dangerous chemicals, enviros are charging. A coalition of environmental groups, including the National Wildlife Federation and the Sierra Club, last week warned the U.S. EPA that they would file suit if the agency didn't act within 30 days to change the operations of an industry task force that they say has been pushing for looser rules on pesticide use near endangered species. The task force was created to provide the EPA with data on the use of pesticides near endangered species; enviros say it has overstepped its bounds and illegally assumed an advisory role, while the EPA and industry representatives deny the charges.

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Capturing the massive social benefits of fuel efficiency requires regulation