In a mid-day press conference with Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) that followed a meeting with Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) said:

We think we have a good team here to help create a dual track which we want to emphasize is done with the full consent and support of Sen. Boxer and of other senators involved in this process including the Majority Leader, Harry Reid.  We will be working very, very closely with the administration and fully respectful of all of the efforts made by each individual committee with jurisdiction in this area. And there are six of them. I happen to be chair of one. But there are five others. And they’re all equally important in their contributions to this.

Our effort is to try to reach out to broaden the base of support beyond the six committees of jurisdiction. And we’re going to do that working very closely with the chairs of those committees as well as with members across the Senate. The key here is to really negotiate once in a sense, not negotiate with ourselves and not negotiate just in the Senate and then not have the White House also at the table.

So we just completed a meeting with Secretary Chu, talking about his department’s parameters that might and might not be acceptable with respect to this legislation. We’re meeting this afternoon, the three of us, with Secretary Salazar and with Carol Browner who, as we all know, is the point person for the White House on this topic. We will be working closely with the White House over the course of the next weeks with a few to trying to pull together what ultimately could be presented to Sen. Reid and the leadership as a piece of legislation that we hope could get the 60 votes necessary to pass or more, and we would hope it would be more.

Brad Johnson at Wonk Room has Graham’s remarkable remarks and this video:

While other Senate Republicans led by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) boycott action on the climate crisis, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has chosen a leadership role. In a press conference today with Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the author of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Graham rebuked Republicans unwilling to address carbon pollution, asking, “If you can’t participate in solving a hard problem, why are you up here?” Saying that he has “seen the effects of a warming planet,” Graham called for the United States to “lead the world rather than follow the world on carbon pollution”:

The green economy is coming. We can either follow or lead. And those countries who follow will pay a price. Those nations who lead in creating the new green economy for the world will make money.

Graham’s words recall the testimony of former Center for American Progress Senior Fellow and White House official Van Jones, who told Congress in January, “We can build a green economy Dr. King would be proud of.” Van Jones, the founder of Green for All, left the White House after talk show host Glenn Beck targeted him as an “avowed communist and radical activist.” Beck has warned that efforts to build a green economy are “socialism,” “black nationalism,” and “fascism.”

Sen. Kerry announced that the three senators would work in a “dual track” to the committee process now underway to craft clean energy legislation in concert with the White House, which they hope to present directly to the Senate leadership. The senators conducted the press conference in between meetings with Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, and White House climate advisor Carol Browner.

Graham also discussed how Americans of any party “really feel uncomfortable with the fact that our nation sends a billion dollars a day overseas to buy foreign oil from some countries who don’t like us very much,” saying that part of “this initiative is to create a vision for energy independence and marry it up with a responsible climate control carbon pollution controls and create a new economy.”

Graham emphasized that his vision is to “help this planet” that “is in peril, create millions of new jobs for Americans that need them, and to become energy independent to make us safer,” because he believes that “controlling carbon pollution is good business.” Although he hoped for participation from his fellow Republicans, he said, “If you believe carbon pollution is not a problem, then you wouldn’t want to work with me, because I do.”

Transcript:

GRAHAM: The reason I’ve gotten involved in this issue is I see kind of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity politically to solve two real problems that I think the country and the world faces. One, carbon pollution. I am no scientist, but I’ve traveled throughout the world with Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.) and others and seen the effects of a warming planet. And I do believe all of the cars we have on the roads, and the trucks, and all the energy we use that produces carbon daily is not a good thing for the planet.

But if environmental policy is not good business policy, you’ll never get 60 votes. So my goal is to try to make sure that we fashion environmental policy that will create millions of new jobs for Americans who are desiring to have new jobs. Virginia and New Jersey are going to benefit from what we do. South Carolina, Connecticut, and Massachusetts will benefit.

The green economy is coming. We can either follow or lead. And those countries who follow will pay a price. Those nations who lead in creating the new green economy for the world will make money. The business community senses an opportunity they’ve not had before. That’s why they’re at least exploring the possibility of a new pathway forward.

I’ve been told by a lot of business leaders in South Carolina, “Senator Graham, once you price carbon in a reasonable way, this green economy that we’re hoping for really will begin to flourish.”

The other aspect of why I’m involved is energy independence. Remember “Drill here, drill now”? Where did that go? Four dollar a gallon gas is not in our face but it could be soon. I think most Americans -- Republicans, independents, or Democrats -- really feel uncomfortable with the fact that our nation sends a billion dollars a day overseas to buy foreign oil from some countries who don’t like us very much. Part of this initiative is to create a vision for energy independence and marry it up with a responsible climate control carbon pollution controls and create a new economy.

Finally, our country doesn’t have a vision on carbon. We need one. And we need to lead the world rather than follow the world on carbon pollution. Our country doesn’t have the infrastructure in place to build a green economy and never will until we price carbon.

And our country doesn’t have a vision for energy independence. We need one. Our goal is to create that vision that not only will help this planet -- that I think is in peril -- but create millions of new jobs for Americans that need them, and to become energy independent to make us safer.

. . .

What I’ve got to do is convince people in South Carolina and our colleagues up here as a whole that environmental policy will be good business policy. And if Congress doesn’t act, the EPA will.

Every member of Congress, Republicans included, has to answer to themselves and their constituents. Is carbon pollution a problem? If it is, what are you going to do about it? Some Republicans want a carbon tax. In many ways, that is a fairer system but I don’t think there are the votes for it. If you believe carbon pollution is not a problem, then you wouldn’t want to work with me, because I do. Now, if you … a cap-and-trade bill has to be well-crafted not to put us at competitive disadvantage to China and India.

I am convinced with my colleagues that controlling carbon pollution is good business. If you do it right, people can make money and you’ll have a cleaner planet and the world will follow. So I hope my Republican colleagues will at least listen, come to the table as the Chamber has, see where we’re going, give us input and if at the end of the day, you can’t support it, that’s okay.

But last thought. Doing nothing has a consequence. The EPA will do something. Doing nothing has a consequence to our business opportunity in leading the green economy revolution that’s coming and controlling carbon emissions.

So I think most people are upset with the Congress because we’re not doing anything that matters. And the things that we do do we’re overdoing. So we’re trying to get that sweet spot of a bill that will be good for the environment, good for business, and make us energy independent.

So my hope is that participation is seen as a positive, not a negative. If you can’t participate in solving a hard problem, why are you up here?

Related Links:

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

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

Carol Browner strongly backs bipartisan cap-and-trade bill

Obama speaking on clean energy in MIT's Kresge Auditorium. Photo: Dominick ReuterObama delivered a speech on energy at MIT on Friday, marking the kick-off for what is likely to be a protracted effort by the administration and Democrats in the Senate to pass the Kerry-Boxer clean energy bill.

Those hoping for policy substance or firm commitments were disappointed. There were no specific requests of the Senate, no bottom lines, no references to the climate negotiations looming in Copenhagen. Obama stuck with the strategy he's used from the beginning: his words are broad, sweeping, and inspiring, but on the details and mechanics of policy, he plays his cards close to his vest. He is incremental, careful, and solicitous of Congressional prerogative. Just as he did on health care, he is standing back to let the Senate find its equilibrium point. That drives progressive activists crazy -- they want ultimatums and confrontations -- but it's too early to judge whether it will be successful in the end.

Consequently, the speech was mostly boilerplate that's become familiar to those following this issue. Obama hyped the Recovery Act, which put money to doubling renewable generation capacity and represented "the largest boost to scientific research in history." He noted the "growing consensus" behind action, with a specific shout-out to the Operation Free Veterans for American Power Tour. He delivered a paean to the American spirit of progress, action, and innovation, and declared that whoever captured the growing clean energy market would lead the world economy in the 21st century.

Rhetorically, there was an interesting move. He noted two common myths of opponents: that there's no problem, and that addressing the problem will destroy the economy. He said that those who peddle denialist falsehoods about climate change "are being marginalized," and noted that "it's the economic system we currently have that limits our prosperity." Great stuff. But it was another myth, he said, that was most pernicious, because almost everyone indulges in it: that is the myth of defeatism and cynicism, that our "politics are too broken" to address this issue. That, not myths about climate or the economy, is the highest barrier to action.

While I (and other folks deeply engaged in this issue) obviously would have liked to hear more meat on the bones, it is worth noting that this narrative -- the narrative of innovation, American can-do spirit, and global economic competitiveness -- is by far the strongest one Dems have going for them. They haven't always been consistent about sticking to that narrative. (If I hear one more reference to the "cap-and-trade bill"...)

Hopefully, Obama's speech marks the beginning of better communications strategy, one that goes on the offense, that shapes a forward-looking vision, rather than constantly being on the defensive and working inside the frame of opponents.

Watch the speech:

Here's the full text of the speech:

12:44 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Please, have a seat. Thank you. Thank you, MIT. (Applause.) I am -- I am hugely honored to be here. It's always been a dream of mine to visit the most prestigious school in Cambridge, Massachusetts. (Applause.) Hold on a second -- certainly the most prestigious school in this part of Cambridge, Massachusetts. (Laughter.) And I'll probably be here for a while -- I understand a bunch of engineering students put my motorcade on top of Building 10. (Laughter.)

This tells you something about MIT -- everybody hands out periodic tables. (Laughter.) What's up with that? (Laughter.)

I want I want to thank all of you for the warm welcome and for the work all of you are doing to generate and test new ideas that hold so much promise for our economy and for our lives. And in particular, I want to thank two outstanding MIT professors, Eric Lander, a person you just heard from, Ernie Moniz, for their service on my council of advisors on science and technology. And they have been hugely helpful to us already on looking at, for example, how the federal government can most effectively respond to the threat of the H1N1 virus. So I'm very grateful to them.

We've got some other special guests here I just want to acknowledge very briefly. First of all, my great friend and a champion of science and technology here in the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts, my friend Deval Patrick is here. (Applause.) Our Lieutenant Governor Tim Murray is here. (Applause.) Attorney General Martha Coakley is here. (Applause.) Auditor of the Commonwealth, Joe DeNucci is here. (Applause.) The Mayor of the great City of Cambridge, Denise Simmons is in the house. (Applause.) The Mayor of Boston, Tom Menino, is not here, but he met me at the airport and he is doing great; he sends best wishes.

Somebody who really has been an all-star in Capitol Hill over the last 20 years, but certainly over the last year, on a whole range of issues -- everything from Afghanistan to clean energy -- a great friend, John Kerry. Please give John Kerry a round of applause. (Applause.)

And a wonderful member of Congress -- I believe this is your district, is that correct, Mike? Mike Capuano. Please give Mike a big round of applause. (Applause.)

Now, Dr. Moniz is also the Director of MIT's Energy Initiative, called MITEI. And he and President Hockfield just showed me some of the extraordinary energy research being conducted at this institute: windows that generate electricity by directing light to solar cells; light-weight, high-power batteries that aren't built, but are grown -- that was neat stuff; engineering viruses to create -- to create batteries; more efficient lighting systems that rely on nanotechnology; innovative engineering that will make it possible for offshore wind power plants to deliver electricity even when the air is still.

And it's a reminder that all of you are heirs to a legacy of innovation -- not just here but across America -- that has improved our health and our wellbeing and helped us achieve unparalleled prosperity. I was telling John and Deval on the ride over here, you just get excited being here and seeing these extraordinary young people and the extraordinary leadership of Professor Hockfield because it taps into something essential about America -- it's the legacy of daring men and women who put their talents and their efforts into the pursuit of discovery. And it's the legacy of a nation that supported those intrepid few willing to take risks on an idea that might fail -- but might also change the world.

Even in the darkest of times this nation has seen, it has always sought a brighter horizon. Think about it. In the middle of the Civil War, President Lincoln designated a system of land grant colleges, including MIT, which helped open the doors of higher education to millions of people. A year -- a full year before the end of World War II, President Roosevelt signed the GI Bill which helped unleash a wave of strong and broadly shared economic growth. And after the Soviet launch of Sputnik, the first artificial satellite to orbit the Earth, the United States went about winning the Space Race by investing in science and technology, leading not only to small steps on the moon but also to tremendous economic benefits here on Earth.

So the truth is, we have always been about innovation, we have always been about discovery. That's in our DNA. The truth is we also face more complex challenges than generations past. A medical system that holds the promise of unlocking new cures is attached to a health care system that has the potential to bankrupt families and businesses and our government. A global marketplace that links the trader on Wall Street to the homeowner on Main Street to the factory worker in China -- an economy in which we all share opportunity is also an economy in which we all share crisis. We face threats to our security that seek -- there are threats to our security that are based on those who would seek to exploit the very interconnectedness and openness that's so essential to our prosperity. The system of energy that powers our economy also undermines our security and endangers our planet.

Now, while the challenges today are different, we have to draw on the same spirit of innovation that's always been central to our success. And that's especially true when it comes to energy. There may be plenty of room for debate as to how we transition from fossil fuels to renewable fuels -- we all understand there's no silver bullet to do it. There's going to be a lot of debate about how we move from an economy that's importing oil to one that's exporting clean energy technology; how we harness the innovative potential on display here at MIT to create millions of new jobs; and how we will lead the world to prevent the worst consequences of climate change. There are going to be all sorts of debates, both in the laboratory and on Capitol Hill. But there's no question that we must do all these things.

Countries on every corner of this Earth now recognize that energy supplies are growing scarcer, energy demands are growing larger, and rising energy use imperils the planet we will leave to future generations. And that's why the world is now engaged in a peaceful competition to determine the technologies that will power the 21st century. From China to India, from Japan to Germany, nations everywhere are racing to develop new ways to producing and use energy. The nation that wins this competition will be the nation that leads the global economy. I am convinced of that. And I want America to be that nation. It's that simple. (Applause.)

That's why the Recovery Act that we passed back in January makes the largest investment in clean energy in history, not just to help end this recession, but to lay a new foundation for lasting prosperity. The Recovery Act includes $80 billion to put tens of thousands of Americans to work developing new battery technologies for hybrid vehicles; modernizing the electric grid; making our homes and businesses more energy efficient; doubling our capacity to generate renewable electricity. These are creating private-sector jobs weatherizing homes; manufacturing cars and trucks; upgrading to smart electric meters; installing solar panels; assembling wind turbines; building new facilities and factories and laboratories all across America. And, by the way, helping to finance extraordinary research.

In fact, in just a few weeks, right here in Boston, workers will break ground on a new Wind Technology Testing Center, a project made possible through a $25 million Recovery Act investment as well as through the support of Massachusetts and its partners. And I want everybody to understand -- Governor Patrick's leadership and vision made this happen. He was bragging about Massachusetts on the way over here -- I told him, you don't have to be a booster, I already love the state. (Applause.) But he helped make this happen.

Hundreds of people will be put to work building this new testing facility, but the benefits will extend far beyond these jobs. For the first time, researchers in the United States will be able to test the world's newest and largest wind turbine blades -- blades roughly the length of a football field -- and that in turn will make it possible for American businesses to develop more efficient and effective turbines, and to lead a market estimated at more than $2 trillion over the next two decades.

This grant follows other Recovery Act investments right here in Massachusetts that will help create clean energy jobs in this commonwealth and across the country. And this only builds on the work of your governor, who has endeavored to make Massachusetts a clean energy leader -- from increasing the supply of renewable electricity, to quadrupling solar capacity, to tripling the commonwealth's investment in energy efficiency, all of which helps to draw new jobs and new industries. (Applause.) That's worth applause.

Now, even as we're investing in technologies that exist today, we're also investing in the science that will produce the technologies of tomorrow. The Recovery Act provides the largest single boost in scientific research in history. Let me repeat that: The Recovery Act, the stimulus bill represents the largest single boost in scientific research in history. (Applause.) An increase -- that's an increase in funding that's already making a difference right here on this campus. And my budget also makes the research and experimentation tax credit permanent -- a tax credit that spurs innovation and jobs, adding $2 to the economy for every dollar that it costs.

And all of this must culminate in the passage of comprehensive legislation that will finally make renewable energy the profitable kind of energy in America. John Kerry is working on this legislation right now, and he's doing a terrific job reaching out across the other side of the aisle because this should not be a partisan issue. Everybody in America should have a stake -- (applause) -- everybody in America should have a stake in legislation that can transform our energy system into one that's far more efficient, far cleaner, and provide energy independence for America -- making the best use of resources we have in abundance, everything from figuring out how to use the fossil fuels that inevitably we are going to be using for several decades, things like coal and oil and natural gas; figuring out how we use those as cleanly and efficiently as possible; creating safe nuclear power; sustainable -- sustainably grown biofuels; and then the energy that we can harness from wind and the waves and the sun. It is a transformation that will be made as swiftly and as carefully as possible, to ensure that we are doing what it takes to grow this economy in the short, medium, and long term. And I do believe that a consensus is growing to achieve exactly that.

The Pentagon has declared our dependence on fossil fuels a security threat. Veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan are traveling the country as part of Operation Free, campaigning to end our dependence on oil -- (applause) -- we have a few of these folks here today, right there. (Applause.) The young people of this country -- that I've met all across America -- they understand that this is the challenge of their generation.

Leaders in the business community are standing with leaders in the environmental community to protect the economy and the planet we leave for our children. The House of Representatives has already passed historic legislation, due in large part to the efforts of Massachusetts' own Ed Markey, he deserves a big round of applause. (Applause.) We're now seeing prominent Republicans like Senator Lindsey Graham joining forces with long-time leaders John Kerry on this issue, to swiftly pass a bill through the Senate as well. In fact, the Energy Committee, thanks to the work of its Chair, Senator Jeff Bingaman, has already passed key provisions of comprehensive legislation.

So we are seeing a convergence. The naysayers, the folks who would pretend that this is not an issue, they are being marginalized. But I think it's important to understand that the closer we get, the harder the opposition will fight and the more we'll hear from those whose interest or ideology run counter to the much needed action that we're engaged in. There are those who will suggest that moving toward clean energy will destroy our economy -- when it's the system we currently have that endangers our prosperity and prevents us from creating millions of new jobs. There are going to be those who cynically claim -- make cynical claims that contradict the overwhelming scientific evidence when it comes to climate change, claims whose only purpose is to defeat or delay the change that we know is necessary.

So we're going to have to work on those folks. But understand there's also another myth that we have to dispel, and this one is far more dangerous because we're all somewhat complicit in it. It's far more dangerous than any attack made by those who wish to stand in the way progress -- and that's the idea that there is nothing or little that we can do. It's pessimism. It's the pessimistic notion that our politics are too broken and our people too unwilling to make hard choices for us to actually deal with this energy issue that we're facing. And implicit in this argument is the sense that somehow we've lost something important -- that fighting American spirit, that willingness to tackle hard challenges, that determination to see those challenges to the end, that we can solve problems, that we can act collectively, that somehow that is something of the past.

I reject that argument. I reject it because of what I've seen here at MIT. Because of what I have seen across America. Because of what we know we are capable of achieving when called upon to achieve it. This is the nation that harnessed electricity and the energy contained in the atom, that developed the steamboat and the modern solar cell. This is the nation that pushed westward and looked skyward. We have always sought out new frontiers and this generation is no different.

Today's frontiers can't be found on a map. They're being explored in our classrooms and our laboratories, in our start-ups and our factories. And today's pioneers are not traveling to some far flung place. These pioneers are all around us -- the entrepreneurs and the inventors, the researchers, the engineers -- helping to lead us into the future, just as they have in the past. This is the nation that has led the world for two centuries in the pursuit of discovery. This is the nation that will lead the clean energy economy of tomorrow, so long as all of us remember what we have achieved in the past and we use that to inspire us to achieve even more in the future.

I am confident that's what's happening right here at this extraordinary institution. And if you will join us in what is sure to be a difficult fight in the months and years ahead, I am confident that all of America is going to be pulling in one direction to make sure that we are the energy leader that we need to be.

Thank you very much, everybody. God bless you. God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

Related Links:

Washington Times: “Obama digs in on global warming”

On ‘climategate’

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

At today’s Clean Energy Economy Forum, Carol Browner, Director of White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, said that it would be a “big mistake” if Congress passed a clean energy bill without a cap on emissions.

Browner made clear that the country needs a comprehensive bill that creates a carbon market to incentivize clean energy over the long-term.  This is the first public statement I’ve heard from the White House pushing back on the statements by some Senators (not Majority Leader Reid) that have suggested they would prefer to do an energy-only bill.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu was even more blunt.

Chu said a shrinking cap and rising carbon price was “very, very important.”  He said it is the part of the bill “that really means something,” and “the rest is just carrots.”  Chu is a big supporter of carrots but was clear that the long-term signal and steady emissions reductions were critical to avoid catastrophe.

He specifically refenced the recent definitive NOAA-led report on U.S. climate impacts that warns of scorching 9 to 11°F warming over most of inland U.S. by 2090 with Kansas above 90°F some 120 days a year (which that isn’t the worst case, it’s business as usual).

Chu pointed out that on our current emissions path, St. Louis, Missouri would spend one third the year.

Finally, Commerce Secretary Locke said it is “absolutely important we pass this” bill, that it is incredibly important for economic competitiveness, pointing out that China spends $12 million an hour on clean energy!

Related Links:

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

George Voinovich (R-Ohio) [UPDATED]

Al Franken (D-Minn.)

Hundreds of business executives are descending on Washington this week in support of a clean energy economy. Calling for investment in American jobs instead of global warming pollution, the CEOs participating in the Business Advocacy Day for Jobs & Competitiveness — an effort organized by the new We Can Lead coalition — will tell the Senate to take action with strong climate legislation like the Clean Energy Jobs Act introduced last week by Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA). Several of these companies have written a public letter to Congress and the administration calling for “comprehensive legislation to cut carbon pollution”:

We need you to swiftly enact comprehensive legislation to cut carbon pollution and create an economy-wide cap and trade program. We support this legislation because certainty and rules of the road enable us to plan, build, innovate and expand our businesses. Putting a price on carbon will drive investment into cost-saving, energy-saving technologies, and will create the next wave of jobs in the new energy economy.

Carol Browner, the director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy and EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are confirmed speakers before the We Can Lead companies, who will be lobbying Congress on Wednesday, October 7 on behalf of strong climate legislation. Many of the participants in the lobby day have endorsed the House legislation, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, and others have called for even stronger action. In addition, the CEOs are “scheduled to eat dinner with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar on Tuesday, and to hold a White House meeting with Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke on Wednesday morning.”

Politico reports that “28 companies and labor and green groups — including United Technologies, Johnson & Johnson, GE, Weyerhauser, the Nature Conservancy and the Environmental Defense Action Fund — are launching” a million-dollar ad campaign “in support of comprehensive clean energy and climate change legislation.”

We Can Lead is a collaboration between the Clean Economy Network, Ceres, and other business groups including:

– Arkansas Business Leaders for Clean Energy Economy
– Apollo Alliance
– Business Council for Sustainable Energy
– Business Forward
– Environmental Entrepeneurs
– EDF – Less Carbon More Jobs
– Indiana Businesses for Clean Energy Economy
– National Venture Capital Association
– Ohio Business Council for a Clean Economy
– Pennsylvania Business Leaders for a Clean Economy
– Renewable Energy Business Network
– TechNet
– US Climate Action Network

JR:  Details on the event this a.m. in the White House follow.

On Wednesday, October 7, Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke will be joined by Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change Carol Browner and other top Administration officials in hosting a Clean Energy Economy Forum at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building with business leaders from around the country.  The Administration officials will reiterate the need for a comprehensive energy plan that puts America back in control of its energy future and breaks a dependence on oil that threatens our economy, our environment, and our national security.  They will also have the opportunity to answer questions from and get the perspective of business leaders who have first-hand experience creating jobs while contributing to American energy independence.

Coverage details are below.  The event will also be webcast live at www.whitehouse.gov/live.

WHO: U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu

U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke

Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change Carol Browner

Administration Officials

Clean Energy Business Leaders

WHAT: Clean Energy Economy Forum

WHEN: Wednesday, October 7

(Pre-Set: 8:30 am, Final Gather: 9:15 am.)

WHERE: Eisenhower Executive Office Building

Related Links:

Washington Times: “Obama digs in on global warming”

Where is all the damn climate data?

UK Guardian: “Scientists must stop sanitising their message”

Michelle Obama at White House Farmer's MarketPhoto: Obama Foodorama

Cross-posted from Obama Foodorama.

Despite rain and cold temperatures, today's opening of the new White House Farmers Market drew quite a crowd.

"I've never seen so many people so excited about fruits and vegetables!" First Lady Michelle Obama told the crowd gathered a few blocks from the White House.

Agriculture Secretary Secretary Tom Vilsack turned out for the Market's debut, along with White House chefs Sam Kass and Bill Yosses. The White House Farmer's Market will run through the fall.

Mrs. Obama selected some fresh produce from The Farm at Sunnyside, an organic producer from Rappahannock, Va. "A farmers market is not just about vegetables, it's about community," said the First Lady, who was, in fact, the First Customer.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

More NYC farmers markets accept food stamps and sales soar

Van Jones sent this message out to friends and supporters on Tuesday, Sept. 15.

Dear Friends:

My family and I want to thank everyone for the outpouring of love and support that we have received over the past week or so. I resigned from the White House on Sept. 6, and I have remained silent since then -- in keeping with my promise not to be a distraction during a key moment in the Obama Presidency.

Over the past several days, however, many people have been asking how they can help and what they can do.

The main thing is this: please do everything you can to support both President Obama and the green jobs movement. Winning real change is ultimately the best response to these kinds of smear campaigns.

I ask everyone to:

1. Support President Obama's efforts to fix our nation's health care, energy and education systems. His victory last fall did not represent the "finish line" in the fight to renew America; his election was just the "starting line." This autumn, it is time to make history again -- with victories on health care and clean energy.

2. Sign up to support groups that are working for green jobs.

As others seek to vilify or marginalize the movement for a clean energy economy, the leading groups deserve increased support. This is the year to ensure that the clean energy transformation creates good job opportunities for everyone in America.

3. Spread the green jobs gospel. The ideas and ideals of the green jobs movement are grounded in fundamental American values -- innovation, entrepreneurship, and equal opportunity. My true thoughts can be found in my book: The Green Collar Economy. Check it out from the library -- or order a copy and share it with a friend. See for yourself why clean energy and green jobs are good for our country.

4. Stay connected and speak up for me via your favorite blogs (e.g., Huffington Post, Grist, Jack & Jill, etc.), on message boards and all of your favorite social networking platforms (Twitter, Facebook, etc.). Supporters have set up a couple of them, to help you stay engaged, including: I Stand With Van Jones and I Love Van Jones.

In due course, I will be offering my perspective on what has happened -- including correcting the record about false charges. In the meantime, I must get my family affairs in order and sort through numerous offers and options.

I want to be clear that I have nothing but love and admiration for President Obama and the entire administration. White House staffers are there to serve and support the President, not the other way around. At this critical moment in history, I could not in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past. The White House needs all its hands on deck, fighting for the future.

Of course, some supporters actually think I will be more effective on the "outside." Maybe so. But those ideas always remind me of that old canard about Winston Churchill. After he lost a hard-fought election, a friend told him: "Winston, this really is just a blessing in disguise." Churchill quipped: "Damned good disguise." I can certainly relate to that sentiment right now. :)

Nonetheless, we must keep moving forward. Let's continue our work to make an America as good as its promise. These are historic times. And we have a lot more history to make.

Sincerely,

Van Jones

Related Links:

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Hot planet to Obama: What’s your Plan B?

Cass SunsteinAfter weeks of sustained attack from the right-wing on issues that are marginal to the job the President asked him to do, Cass Sunstein has emerged from the nomination process bloody but apparently unbowed (here’s yesterday’s roll call). He is now the nation’s “regulatory czar,” Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.  

Although Professor Sunstein has been sitting in the Old Executive Office Building for months, he has undoubtedly been preoccupied with his nomination battle. Having survived the occasionally nonsensical trial by partisan and self-serving flight of fancy that was his confirmations process, we hope he will notice that his staff at OIRA has been behaving as if the 2008 election never happened. Having paid careful attention to OIRA over these past few months, in search of evidence of a new outlook, I’m sorry to report that I’ve drawn the strong impression that Bush Administration culture and ideology remain unchanged at OIRA. To deliver change we can believe in, Cass Sunstein needs to convert OIRA from industry waiting room to objective arbiter of inter-agency disputes.

My impression that change has not yet arrived is based in great measure on a chart [PDF] compiled and released today by the Center for Progressive Reform, showing that in recent months, OMB met nine times with outsiders to discuss health and safety regulations, and that eight of those meetings were dominated by industry representatives complaining about proposals under development at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the National Highway Traffics Safety Administration (NHTSA). For example, tire manufacturers met to discuss NHTSA’s proposals on inflating tires to increase fuel efficiency. The oil industry met to discuss EPA’s rule on the reporting of greenhouse gas emissions. And the airline industry met to discuss EPA’s rule on water discharges from airport de-icing operations. Public interest groups have met with OIRA on only one regulatory matter: amendments to an EPA rule on renewable fuels. That meeting was one in a set of four, with the other three devoted to the views of the American Petroleum Institute, the biodiesel industry, and Shell Oil. 

Now, OIRA may well take the view that when you hold an open house for the neighborhood, you cannot help who drops by. But the history of the office makes that seem like a superficial argument.  For years, and especially during the tenure of Presidents Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II, OIRA has served as a backdoor for regulated industries, giving those aggrieved by agency decisions a second, third, and fourth bite at the apple to press their case. Having failed to persuade Congress of their arguments during the legislative process and then the regulatory agency during their deliberations, industry has found a friendly hearing from OMB, and OMB has too often watered down or scuttled regulations afterwards. But even if OMB staff sit silently at the meetings, giving an audience to industry complainants but not otherwise agreeing to overturn agency decisions, the practice is questionable. As experience in the courts since before the nation was founded has convinced us, only by airing all sides of a dispute through balanced advocacy can a wise decision be made.

Even if for some elusive reason we were willing to accept OMB’s “listening post” justification for these meetings, the sad fact is that objective evaluation of OMB’s role is impossible because OMB discloses only the fact of meeting, not its outcome. While this quasi-transparency is better than nothing, it cannot allay suspicions that the regulatory czar’s job is to kill, not improve, regulation.

We look forward to working with Cass Sunstein. And we also promise to stay in his face, making sure he remembers that his biggest challenge is to revive strong government protection of environmental quality, food, drug, and worker safety, and the control of climate change, not working to appease industry. We wish him luck and success. 

This post originally appeared in the Center for Progressive Reform blog.

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

While climate change rages ahead, the climate bill is flat on its back and the most progressive green on President Obama's staff looks on the verge of being forced out of office for silly reasons. Let's not talk about healthcare reform or Afghanistan.

 But ... there's an organic veggie garden! On the White House lawn! And a video about it starring the First Lady! Normally, my cynic meter goes haywire over this kind of stuff. I'm allergic to government-produced videos, even ones that feature someone as appeallng as Michelle Obama. Power couple hires team of professional gardeners to plant opulent kitchen garden. Is that really news? But today, I'm biting. People a lot better connected than me swear that the First Lady is dead serious about transforming our dysfunctional, unjust, greenhouse-gas-spewing, downright dangerous food system. And they say she has real influence within the USDA. So, damn it, there's hope!!!!!

And, there's a very concrete opportunity for real change coming up. In the video, Ms. Obama talks about the critical need to give children access to fresh, healthy food. Our current school-food program, with its Tyson chicken nuggets and pancake-wrapped industrial sausages, does an abysmal job of that. School cafeterias have become just another profit center for Big Food--a place to train rising generations the appeal of reheated processed dreck. This month, The Child Nutrition Act, which governs the National School Lunch Program, comes up for reauthorization. What if, instead of serving as a way to line agribiz pockets and dispose of surplus commodities, the Act mandated that federal money for school lunches be used on healthy food and to support local and regional food systems?

Slow Food USA is spearheading a Time for Lunch Campaign to pressure Congress and the White House to transform school lunches. And this coming Labor Day, they're staging "Eat Ins" in cities all across the country to agitate for that cause. Click off your TV--forget Glenn Beck and his slimy provocations. Take hope where you can get it: Get to the farmers market (or your garden), grab some nice ingredients, make something good to eat, and bring it to an Eat In in support of the kids ands their vittles. And while you're at it, get involved with the farm-to-school movement.

During dark times, one way to avoid political despair is to do something concrete. That's a big reason, I think, that the food movement gained so much force during Bush II's reign. And food may now offer the best way to move the progressive agenda forward at a time of political stasis and noisy right-wing populism, with its chilling echoes of the 1930s.

Related Links:

A parable on the National School Lunch Program

Graham, Kerry, ‘will be working closely with the White House’

White House loads policy initiatives into a few hours of fun at Healthy Kids Fair

Michelle Obama working with local students in the White House garden.Photo: The Official White House PhotostreamPresident Obama said on Thursday that he and the First Lady are looking into setting up a farmers market just outside the White House, which might sell food from the White House garden or from local farmers.  The president said it could give the city of Washington, D.C., “more access to good, fresh food, but it also is this enormous potential revenue-maker for local farmers in the area.”

Obama mentioned the idea while answering a citizen question at a health-care forum; here’s the transcript:

Q. I have a two-part question.  One is choice, the choice that we make to eat the foods that we eat and the lifestyle that we choose to engage in.  And the second part, your family is very fit.  What do you and the First Lady and the girls do to encourage physical fitness, and what can we—not the government, not private corporations—do to encourage activity in the public-school system and in young people?

A. PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, this—this is a great question.  Look, if—this is an interesting statistic.  If we went back to the obesity rates that existed back in the 1980s, the Medicare system over several years could save as much as a trillion dollars.  I mean, that’s—that’s how much our obesity rate has made a difference in terms of diabetes and heart failure and all sorts of preventable diseases.

And so what we want to do is to first of all, in health-care reform, in the legislation, encourage prevention and wellness programs by saying that any health-care plan out there has to provide for free checkups, prevention and wellness care.  That’s got to be part of your deal, part of your package.  And that way nobody’s got an excuse not to go in and get a checkup.

Now, even if we do all that—and there are a lot of—there are a lot of businesses out there that, on their own, are already providing incentives to their employees.  Safeway, for example, is a company that has given financial incentives to employees to make sure that they are taking care of theirselves (sic) and getting regular checkups and mammograms and colonoscopies and so forth.  And it has saved them a lot of money in terms of their premiums.

So there’s a—there’s a financial incentive for a lot of businesses to get in the business of prevention and wellness.

But you’re absolutely right that, even if we’ve got legislation, even if companies are encouraging it, part of what we also have to do, though, is teach our children, early, the importance of health.  And that’s—that means that all of us have to, in our communities, in our places of worship, in our school systems, encourage nutrition programs, provide young people outdoor activities that give them exercise.

And Michelle and I always talk about the fact when—when we were kids, during the summer, you know, basically, mom just said, “See ya!” after breakfast.  You were gone.  (Laughter.)  You might run in, get some lunch, go back out, and you wouldn’t be back till dinner. And that whole time, all you’re doing is moving.

Now, unfortunately, times have changed.  Sometimes, safety concerns prevent kids from doing that.  Sometimes, there are a lot of kids just don’t have a playground.  Little leagues may be, you know, diminished.  That means that, you know, we as adults in the community may have to provide more and more outlets for young people to get the kind of exercise that they need.

When it comes to food, one of the things that we are doing is working with school districts.  And the child nutrition legislation is going to be coming up.  We provide an awful lot of school lunches out there and—and reimburse local school districts for school-lunch programs.  Let’s figure out how can we get some fresh fruits and vegetables in the mix.  Because sometimes you go into schools and—you know what the menu is, you know?  It’s French fries, Tater Tots, hot dogs, pizza and—now, that’s what kids—let’s face it, that’s what kids want to eat, anyway (Laughter.)  So it’s not just the schools’ fault.

A, that’s what kids may want to eat.  B, it turns out that that food’s a lot cheaper, because of the distributions that we’ve set up. And so what we’ve got to do is to change how we think about, for example, getting local farmers connected to school districts, because that would benefit the farmers, delivering fresh produce, but right now they just don’t have the distribution mechanisms set up.

So, you know, Michelle set up that garden in the White House?

One of the things that we’re trying to do now is to figure out, can we get a little farmers’ market—outside of the White House—I’m not going to have all of you all just tromping around inside—(laughter)—but right outside the White House—(laughter)—so that—so that we can—and—and—and that is a win-win situation.

It gives suddenly D.C. more access to good, fresh food, but it also is this enormous potential revenue-maker for local farmers in the area. And—and that—those kinds of connections can be made all throughout the country, and—and has to be part of how we think about health.

Related Links:

Washington Times: “Obama digs in on global warming”

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

The First Lady helps create the world's most famous kitchen garden. When my info-larder gets too packed, it’s time to serve up some choice nuggets from around the Web.

A high-profile urban garden, two writers, and some vile sludge
Andrew Kimbrell of the Center for Food Safety is one of our most important critics of industrial agriculture. (Here's a brief video interview with him I did last fall.) Eddie Gehman Kohan of Obama Foodorama is quickly establishing herself as an important food-politics blogger--deceptively serious despite her blog's sometimes-frivolous obsession with all intersections of food and the Obamas. Both are fervent supporters of chemical-free, ecologically responsible agriculture.

The two have crossed forks, so to speak, over the White House veggie garden--specifically the revelation that the Clintons fertilized the lawn with sewage sludge in the '90s, leaving traces of lead in the soil. Kimbrell weighed in in a HuffPo piece last week, concluding that: "in the best spirit of NIMBY, the Obamas, after removing that contaminated soil from their lawn, should be the first family to push the EPA to halt the sludging of our public lands and farmlands."

Gehman Kohan quickly rose to the garden's defense, declaring Kimbrell's contamination claim "irresponsible" and the garden's lead reading "ridiculously low." She concluded:

No one is being poisoned by eating the bounty of wonderful crops that have been grown in the White House Kitchen Garden, and it's become a source of inspiration for people all over America and around the world.

Now Kimbrell has fired back, lecturing that Gehman Kohan should "acquaint herself with the real facts about the levels of heavy metals, priority pollutants and the myriad other toxins in sludge. There is ample evidence that coming into contact with or unknowingly consuming it can cause severe illness and worse."

My take: the White House should use the episode as a teachable moment on the hazards of applying sewage sludge as a fertilizer--recently documented in a Grist piece by Catharine Price. "There are pathogens," Price wrote; "there are heavy metals. PCBs, dioxins, DDT, asbestos, polio, parasitic worms, radioactive material--all have been found in sludge."

As Kimbrell demonstrates, the Clinton and Bush administrations cravenly coddled the sludge industry even as it became clear its product was toxic; half of all U.S. sludge is applied to land as fertilizer.

Obama should convene non-industry-related public health experts to examine the garden soil and decide if it presents a menace. If it does, the soil should be replaced with compost as Kimbrell suggests (perhaps with the Clintons themselves pitiching in shovel-work). If it doesn't present a threat--and it may well not, since the nasty stuff was applied back in the '90s--then the garden shold go on as normal. Either way, consumers will have been educated about the vile practice of spreading toxic sludge on farmland--which Obama's EPA will soon end, I hope. They'll also have seen seen the precautionary principle--widely scorned during the Clinton and bush years--get some respect.

Human, all-too human

For a way that human waste actually could be turned into a valuable fertilizer, see this funny LA Times piece on one writer's path to a composting toilet. "I'm single, dating and a mom," writes Susan Carpenter. "Much as I liked the idea of saving water and detouring sewage, I couldn't replace the one toilet I had with something so. . . .Berkeley." Turns out the (so-L.A.) Carpenter could start using her composting toilet--once she realized just how dire California's water situation is. Now she's even fertilizing her lemon tree with the resulting compost!

Paging Barry and Michelle--are ya'll ready for the cutting edge of "going green"?

Tater tots, the vegetable
From the Columbus Dispatch, a refreshingly blunt take on school lunches for mainstream readders. Reporter Jennifer Smith Richards:

Most school food comes frozen. It is usually not whole-grain, low-fat or low-sodium. And it is cheap because school districts need it to be: On average, local districts spend less than $1.50 per lunch to buy the food.

And later:

On a Friday last school year, Columbus' elementary-school students were offered a grilled-cheese sandwich that cost the district 42 cents, an 11-cent bag of pretzels, some canned fruit, juice and milk. The whole lunch, the cheapest of February, cost the district barely more than $1. The full price for students: $1.75.

For that month, students were offered vegetables other than potatoes three times -- raw carrots with ranch dressing twice and mixed vegetables once. Similar menus were offered all year.

Se goes on to write that "Cheetos Cracker Trax and pretzels can be counted as grains and tater tots as vegetables"; and describes a prefab "cheese-filled breadstick, served with a side of marinara sauce" that "counts for a bread, cheese and vegetable" under USDA food-group rules. Yikes. The brutalization of the American palate--its conditioning to crave processed food--starts young.

Winter veggies--in northern Minnesota!
One of the conventional knocks on reviving local and regional food systems goes like this: Eating local is fine and well, but here in [insert northern area with short growing season] I'd get tired of eating elk meat and snow all winter.

My answer has always been: appropriate technology and infrastructure investment can dramatically extend growing seasons in almost any climate. This fine article in the Willmar, Minn. West Central Tribune illustrates that point nicely. It focuses on the founders of a winter CSA in Milan, Minnesota, whose winter weather will never be confused with that of, say, Yuma, Arizona, source of the bulk of U.S. winter veggies.

Using 1970s technology and cheap materials, Carol Ford and Chuck Waibel, founders and owners of Garden Goddess Enterprises produced a variety of vegetables throughout the winter for 18 families, running up a propane bill of $75.

Related Links:

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Gourmet’s conscience, Gopnik on cookbooks, and other tasty morsels

President Obama gave a strong endorsement of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) at a White House press conference today, calling it “historic legislation that will transform the way we produce and use energy in America.”

The White House press corps didn’t seem to notice, asking not a single question about the bill, its reach into the American economy, or about energy and climate in general. Instead, reporters asked questions about the timing of his statements on Iran’s election and about his personal smoking habits. For real.

“How many cigarettes a day do you now smoke?” Margaret Talev of McClatchy Newspapers asked him. “Do you smoke alone or in the presence of other people? And do you believe the new law would help you to quit? If so, why?”

The energy bill, as Grist’s Kate Sheppard reports, could receive a vote in the House as soon as this Friday. The extent Obama is willing to lean on lawmakers to pass the bill has been a key question in determining whether the bill will pass, and in how strong a form. But it hasn’t become a “real” story for the White House press corps, apparently.

Not to diminish the importance of health care and what’s happening in Iran, but ... Obama’s smoking habits? C’mon, now.

Here are the president’s full remarks on energy, from his opening statement:

If you’re still curious, here’s Obama’s response to the smoking question.

Related Links:

Washington Times: “Obama digs in on global warming”

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

On ‘climategate’

The Administration has put together a terrific new website, globalchange.gov, on its landmark 13-agency report, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States.  Every possible summary and graphic you could want is there - heck, they even have the embed codes for their slideshow:

GlobalChange.Gov-US Impacts Summary

If you didn't catch the live webcast, then the next best thing is this liveblogging by Anne Polansky, Sr. Associate for Climate Science Watch, at DailyKos.

I happened to catch a little bit of the pre-webcast, in which Obama's science advisor John Holdren said this report was the "most up-to-date, authoritative, and comprehensive" analysis of the impacts of human caused global warming on the United States.  Holdren later said, climate disruption is "already affecting things we value, and will affect every region" of the country."

Climate Science Watch's Rick Piltz, whistleblower extraordinaire, explains why this report is even more newsworthy - 8 years of Bush administration climate-science muzzling:

This is the first climate science report to come out under the Obama administration and the most significant US climate impacts assessment since the first National Assessment issued in 2000. The Bush-Cheney administration essentially suppressed the 2000 National Assessment report and abandoned support for the scientist-stakeholder interaction it had initiated.

Holdren gave Jane Lubchenco the final words.  And they made clear that even if the NYT doesn't get it, the NOAA administrator certainly does:

This report is a game-changer.

All of the foot-dragging we've seen stems from the perception that climate change is a problem that is down the road, that it will happen sometime in the future, that the problem is remote.  The report states unequivocally that climate change is happening now, and in our own backyards.  It affects things people care about.  The report is good science, science that informs policy. The science does not dictate policy.  We must act sooner than later....

Climate change affects you and the things you care about.

Hear! Hear!

The Union of Concerned Scientists has "combed through the report to produce one national and eight regional fact sheets based on findings explained throughout the report":

More to come.

Related Posts:

Related Links:

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

A scientific hack job that won’t cripple climate talks

The big story featured on the NYT website at 11 am Tuesday ain't about climate: "With consumers in revolt, it was almost a relief that Tracey Ullman did not shy away from a bit of a roast at American fashion industry's annual awards night" (see photo below). This is the NYT as People magazine, except today they are focusing on the wrong set of "hot" people. Can you find their "exclusive" climate science story on the front page of nytimes.com? It's harder than Where's Waldo? It only made page A13 of the print edition.

The biggest U.S. climate science story in a long time is the US Global Change Research Program releasing its long-awaited analysis of Global Climate Change Impacts in United States.

After all, the Bush administration spent eight years muzzling US climate scientists, stopping them from talking to anybody about U.S. climate impacts, and blocking and burying mandated studies of U.S. impacts (see "The four global warming impact studies Bush tried to bury in his final days"). No surprise, then, that many Americans don't worry very much about global warming, particularly those who get the news from right wing media (see the deniers are winning, especially with GOP voters or rather o.nly with GOP voters).

Based on media coverage and my conversations with people, I can safely say that it is news to 99.9% of Americans that if we don't do anything to restrict greenhouse gas emissions we'll see scorching 9 to 11°F warming over most of inland U.S. by 2090 with Kansas above 90°F some 120 days a year.

The report is embargoed until 1:30 today, but the paper of record was given an exclusive yesterday. Well, you can look very hard to try to find that story on their website. Their piece, "Government Study Warns of Climate Change Effects," is buried, and the reporter actually managed to find a serious scientist to downplay the report's importance:

Michael C. MacCracken, a leader of the 2000 study and a principal outside reviewer of the current one, said in an e-mail message that the new report was a useful overview of the state of current climate science in the United States, but "there is not much that is new."

Mike's a friend, but that quote is absurd. You could say the exact same thing about the landmark IPCC reports, since they are primarily literature reviews.

Memo to Mike (and NYT reporter John Broder): This is the first comprehensive government report on climate impacts in the United States in nearly a decade. It is the first one that includes our new understanding of sea level rise and likely emissions trajectories absent strong national and international action.

Let's ignore the NYT article and look at the much better UK Guardian's piece:

The Obama administration is poised for its most forceful confrontation with the American public on the sweeping and life-altering consequences of a failure to act on global warming with the release today of a long-awaited scientific report on climate change.

The report, produced by more than 30 scientists at 13 government agencies dealing with climate change, provides the most detailed picture to date of the worst case scenarios of rising sea levels and extreme weather events: floods in lower Manhattan; a quadrupling of heat waves deaths in Chicago; withering on the vineyards of California; the disappearance of wildflowers from the slopes of the Rockies; and the extinction of Alaska's wild polar bears in the next 75 years....

For many Americans, the report released today, entitled Global climate change impacts in the United States provides the most tangible evidence of the economic costs of climate change - from the need to relocate airports in Alaska built on permafrost, to the increased need for pesticides in agriculture, to an electrical grid straining to meet the increased demand for air conditioning in summer and ageing sewer systems brought to bursting point by heavy run-off in 770 American cities and towns.

Scientists and environmentalists who had seen today's report praised the breadth of its science as well as its accessible language.

"It's a clarion call for immediate action," said Amanda Staudt, a climate scientist at the National Wildlife Federation who has seen advanced drafts of the report but not the version released today. "This report basically describes a state of emergency. It says we need to act quickly and decisively. Every state is going to be affected, and every sector of the economy."

The final draft of today's report uses climate models to map out starkly different futures if the current generation of Americans fails to act to reduce the carbon emissions that cause global warming.

If today's generation acts on climate change, the average US temperature will rise 0.4C-1.83C (4-6.5F) by the end of this century, said the draft, which was finalised in April.

If it does not, average temperatures could rise by about 2.1C-4.3C (7-11F) with catastrophic consequences for human health and the economy.

Americans have already been living with evidence of changing climate, the report said. Over the last 30 years winters have grown shorter and milder, with a 2.1C (7F) rise in winter temperatures in the midwest and northern Great Plains. Hurricanes have become deadlier.

If climate change is left unchecked, the future promises to bring even more ferocious hurricanes to coastal regions - in the Pacific as well as the Atlantic, punishing droughts to the south-west, and increasingly severe winter storms in the north-east and around the Great Lakes.

The human consequences, as envisaged by the draft, are similarily catastrophic: potential food shortages because of declining wheat and corn yields in the breadbasket of the mid-west, increased outbreaks of food poisoning and epidemic diseases.

US cities will be choking because of deteriorating air quality; leisure pursuits will disappear. The report predicts that the ski season in the north-east will be 20% shorter. As for summer holidays, 14 of 17 North Carolina beaches will be permanently underwater by 2080, the draft forecasts....

The release appeared timed to help Democratic leaders in Congress meet an ambitious target of passing a climate change bill through the house of representatives by 26 June. The Democratic speaker, Nancy Pelosi, wants to hold a vote before the house breaks up for the 4 July Independence Day holiday....

The report represents the combined expertise of more than 30 scientists working at 13 government agencies dealing with climate change. Although Congress had mandated annual updates on the science of climate change, the Bush administration failed to produce a comprehensive report on climate change impacts. Today's document is the first such exercise of this magnitude in eight years.

To the Guardian, kudos. To the New York Times, not so much.

And to the White House, well, next time give your exclusive to somebody who gets its importance.... Have you considered blogs?

Related Links:

A scientific hack job that won’t cripple climate talks

Copenhagen, U.S.A. December 7

Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving

Here's some good stuff, via Obama Foodorama: While a camera rolls, White House chef/gardener Sam Kass shows baseball star Ryan Howard around the White House garden. They have some great dialogue, climaxing with Howard's reaction to the garden beehive: "Oh snap, son!" Kass hips Howard to the genius of composting--food scraps go from the White House kitchen to the compost pile to garden beds, from whence more food and more scraps. "You can't keep taking away without giving back," Kass lectures, a gloss on the "law of return" propounded another great Howard, organic founder Sir Albert. For his part, Ryan Howard reveals that he lost 20 pounds in the off season eating organic food. "And it was good!" he adds, somewhat surprised. Say what you want about the earnestness, but under Bush II, when guys strolled the White House lawn, I doubt they spent much time discussing organic ag.

Related Links:

Washington Times: “Obama digs in on global warming”

GoodGuide scanner makes healthy food shopping point and click

Chuck Norris on Copenhagen

Check out last week’s lines.

The climate news of this week started rolling fast and hot
The papers said a memo showed the White House just was not
On board with EPA now putting carbon in its pot.

But it was just a spin, one on which you could not bank
The sole objection really came from one Bush-era crank*
So whew, glad that’s all cleared up—EPA, you go pull rank.

Escape from Maldives.nattu via flickrIn other news, a plea came from the country of Maldives:
“If climate chaos gets much worse, then each one of us leaves!”
To which the world said, “Um, that’s in Europe, we believes?”

Some posturing on climate had the power to dishearten:
We’re cracking down on marathons, according to Joe Barton.
(Good lord, that fella’s brain power is really kind of spartan.)

A promising thing happened as the week drew to a close:
The Waxman-Markey advocates had sweet-talked many foes
So they might pass the bill without a shout of “I oppose!”

Just where that leads us next, we’ll have to wait and see.
Meanwhile, check out this webcam shot of an Old Faithful pee.
Think there’s no climate link to that? Oh, how could you doubt me.

Leave ideas for future verse—or pen your own odes—in the comments section below.

Related Links:

Will the Washington Post ever fact check a George Will column?

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

When Michelle Obama plunged a shovel into the White House lawn last Friday, she wasn't just preparing a productive vegetable-garden bed. She's was also tilling fertile ground for debate about  new directions for the food system. 

In the New York Times, Andrew Martin helpfully got the ball rolling in a recent piece called "Is a Food Revoution Now in Season?"

I want to focus here on one small part of Martin's piece, one that I've been fixated on since I started to write about food politics a few years ago: the class issue. Specifically, who gets access -- who deserves access -- to healthy food that's been grown and processed in ecologically and socially sustainable ways?

(Another key question raised in Martin's article -- what I call the "Can sustainable agriculture feed the world?" conundrum -- I'll address soon. Quick response: Can unsustainable agriculture feed the world -- for long?)

In Martin's article, Nancy Joseph, a professor of food marketing at St. Joseph's University, addresses the class issue:

... Ms. Childs worries that some of the activists' recommendations for buying fresh, local or organic food cannot be adopted by many Americans because those foods may be too expensive. "By singling out certain lifestyles and foods, it's diminishing very good quality nutrition sources," she says. "Frozen goods, canned goods, they are not bad things. What's important is that people eat well, within their means."

"We'd all love to live on a farm in Vermont, right?" she adds.

Childs' critique can be summed up like this: Fresh, local, and organic food is more expensive than conventional; the U.S. middle class is being squeezed, and there's a large and growing low-income population; and we're in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Therefore, fresh, local, and organic food must be a niche market for the well-off and the food-obsessed (folks willing to make sacrifices in other parts of their lives so they can shop at the farmers market). As one green-products exec tells Martin, "The idea of the true cost of food? ... That's the last thing consumers want to hear right now."

These are important points. Surely, it's unedifying to be lectured by someone who lives on a paid-for Vermont farm -- or a pristine, rustic house in the Berkeley hills -- about the virtues of just-picked produce.  

And I think it's problematic, in a nation wherein real wages have stagnated since the 1970s, to cavalierly demand that people pay more for food.

If we accept our food system as it is, then Childs makes perfect sense. We need an industrialized food system to churn out food that people can afford; the best we can do is nudge the industry to make health and sustainability a bit more of a priority.

From what I can see, the only real way to challenge that logic is to challenge the food system as a whole. Right now, we have an extractive food system -- one that extracts wealth from communities and moves it up the commodity chain to corporate shareholders. We need to create a food system that builds wealth within communities -- and thus broadens access to fresh, local, and organic food. 

What do I mean by extractive? Look at a typical low-income urban neighborhood. In most areas, there's little space for food production, and people generally buy their food at stores owned by folks outside the neighborhood --  fast-food outlets, corner stores, eateries, and (when they exist) large supermarkets.

Here's a good rule of thumb: even in the lowest-income neighborhoods, people spend about $1000 per head annually on food. In a neighborhood of, say, 10,000 people, food expenditures represent a cool $10 million per year.

Now, where does that money go? In our typical urban neighborhood, it mainly flows to the owners of those fast-food outlets, corner stores, eateries, or large supermarkets -- i.e., mainly to distant shareholders.

And what does the community get in return? Well, food -- but generally food that appears to be contributing to a host of diet-related maladies such as diabetes and heart disease.

And there's jobs, but they tend to be low-paid and deskilled. Few industries have seen more relentless pressure on unions than supermarkets since Wal-Mart entered the grocery fray a little more than a decade ago.

As for fast-food jobs, they're  some of the worst work available in the U.S., as Eric Schlosser demonstrated in Fast Food Nation. "While a handful of workers manage to rise up the corporate ladder, the vast majority lack full-time employment, receive no benefits, learn few skills, quit after a few months, and float from job to job," Schosser wrote. He adds: "The only Americans who consistently earn lower wages are migrant farm workers." 

In other words, as currently structured, the food system is a sieve through which a substantial portion of wealth in low-income communities leaks away -- with little of value to show for it.

Yet, that $10 million per year in food expenditures could be deployed in different ways. Imagine productive community gardens spread throughout the neighborhood, that provide fresh vegetables to the folks that tend them, plus a substantial surplus. 

Now imagine that surplus is sold a to restaurant owned by community members -- one that trains and employs real cooks, not McDonalds-style button-pushers. Some of the  profits and wages generated there are spent at a community-owned food coop -- one that sources as much produce as possible both from the community gardens and nearby, exurban farmers (since community gardens can't meet all the needs).

With institutions like these, a large and increasing chunk of that $10 million stays within the community, knocking around, multiplying, and bringing in new forms of industry. Someone realizes that all this local eating is generating food scraps that could be turned into valuable compost for the community gardens -- and initiates a work-composting enterprise in the backyard. And so on.

This is the model, I think, that can address the food-and-class problem in the United States. For too long, food has been seen as an input of, not a tool for, economic development. To broaden access to healthy food, that must change.

These ideas aren't new. Two of my mentors in food-system thinking -- Oakland-based Hank Hererra and Minnesota-based Ken Meter -- have been making these points forcefully for years. Groups like Milwaukee and chicago's Growing Power, Brooklyn's Added Value, and Oakland's People's Grocery have proven they work on the ground.

And you'll also find them hinted at in such much-revered, little read classics as Jane Jacobs' Economy of Cities and E.F. Schumaker's Small is Beautiful.

As the externalized costs of our industrial food system pile up, and the conversation around food policy sparked by Michelle Obama's veggie garden heats up, I hope these ideas come to the fore.

Related Links:

Graham, Kerry, ‘will be working closely with the White House’

I drink raw milk (sold illegally on the underground market)

White House loads policy initiatives into a few hours of fun at Healthy Kids Fair

Related Links:

No to Obama’s agrichemical industry man, yes to Bed-Stuy Farm

Graham, Kerry, ‘will be working closely with the White House’

Obama energy speech contained few policy specifics, but shaped forward-looking narrative

Related Links:

Graham, Kerry, ‘will be working closely with the White House’

I drink raw milk (sold illegally on the underground market)

Obama energy speech contained few policy specifics, but shaped forward-looking narrative

Related Links:

Climate Denial Crock of the Week: The big mist take

Are carbon taxes a viable option?

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

Related Links:

Approaching Copenhagen with a Portfolio of Domestic Commitments

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring