What a day. The crowd on the National Mall was overwhelming. The hope and joy was palpable in the air. It was a day I'll never forget.

And President Obama (how great it feels to type those words!) rose to the moment and delivered an address that in my opinion struck all the right notes (though I think he flubbed the first few words of the oath of office, a charming human moment).

He spoke in direct, sober terms about the challenges we face, but also tapped into the greatness of America to offer an inspiring vision for the potential future before us. And, most importantly in my view, he committed to tackle global warming head on.

I applauded in agreement when he said, "each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet."

I cheered out loud when he made this pledge: "With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet."

And I was in full-on, fist-pumping joy when he let loose with this:

But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids(!) and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science (!!) to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories(!1!!!11!!). And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. All this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

Greenpeace was out in force today as well, handing out stickers and postcards issuing the "Rushmore Challenge"--that the President who solves global warming will get his face on Mt. Rushmore. I saw more than a few people sporting their Greenpeace-Rushmore stickers with pride. Here's the image on the postcard:

Of course today was historic for many reasons, but I'm more hopeful than ever that today will be remembered as the day that America began to finally, forcefully, tackle global warming and lead the world to a safer climate future.

I'll leave you with these shots of President Bush's helicopter fading into the distance...

 

 

 

 

Greenpeace Global Warming Campaign Director Steven Biel released the following statement on the economic stimulus package released by the House leadership and Obama administration.

“With over $50 billion in new investments for clean energy, the economic stimulus package represents an important down payment on America’s clean energy future. We congratulate the Obama administration and House leadership for their efforts and urge members of Congress to pass the bill.

“This economic stimulus package represents a significant victory for the environment. President-Obama promised change we can believe in, and that’s exactly what this is.

“Highlights of the proposal include:

• $11 billion for development of a modern “Smart Grid” that will be needed to move clean, renewable energy across the country and end our dependence on dirty fossil fuels.
• Extension of the renewable energy production tax credit.
• $6.7 billion for improving the energy efficiency of federal buildings.
• $6.2 billion for weatherization of the homes of low-income families.

“The proposal isn’t perfect. Specifically, Greenpeace urges Congress to remove the $2.4 billion in funding for the carbon capture and sequestration, a technology that has received billions in public subsidies and has yet to produce any results whatsoever.  Rather than being squandered on 1 gigawatt of purely hypothetical power in the distant future, those funds would be better spent building 1.2 gigawatts of real, clean wind energy today.  Greenpeace also urges Congress to put greater emphasis on public transportation and repairing our existing roads and bridges and less for new construction.  We should use this stimulus not just to fix the problems of yesterday, but to build the America of tomorrow.

“Also, while the issue is not explicitly addressed in the proposal, we urge Congress and President Obama to reject calls to waive enforcement of the National Environmental Policy Act for stimulus projects.”

Here's my statement on today's USCAP proposal, which is getting a decent amount of attention across the media.

 “The U.S. government’s chief climate scientist James Hansen once said that the CEOs of big fossil fuel industries should be tried for crimes against humanity. USCAP is their initial bid for a plea bargain.

“Unfortunately, the USCAP proposal falls short of what the science tells us is needed to prevent catastrophic global warming. It’s also a bad deal for taxpayers. Congress and the Obama administration should view this proposal as the absolute low bar for the debate on global warming and should respond with policy that is consistent with the findings of the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It could mean the difference between a healthy planet for future generations and one that is inhospitable to life as we know it.

“The good news is that the proposal represents how far the global warming debate has come. Just a few years ago, some of these industries denied global warming was even a problem. For that, we can thank the American people, who have come to understand the urgency of the problem and voted for new political leadership that is committed to science-based action on global warming.

“But, while Greenpeace welcomes the change represented in this agreement, it should be viewed for what it is: a political document from polluters hoping to cut a favorable deal for themselves. It is not a science-based response to global warming.”

Key Points and Shortcomings of the USCAP Proposal:

USCAP has proposed reductions of 14-20% from the country’s 2005 emissions levels by 2020 and 80% by 2050. These reductions translate to about a 0-7% cut from 1990 levels by 2020 and a 77% cut by 2050. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) finds that to have a 50% chance of preventing the worst effects of global warming (and keep warming below 2 degree C), developed nations as a whole must cut emissions by 25-40% from 1990 levels and 80-95% reductions by 2050 from 1990 levels. Therefore, USCAP’s targets fall short of even the lowest end of the range needed to achieve a 50-50 chance of preventing catastrophic global warming.

But even these numbers overstate the reductions that would be achieved by the plan. USCAP allows for a massive share of the emissions reductions proposed in the plan to be met through carbon “offsets,” which could allow polluters to demonstrate reductions on paper that are never achieved in the real world. In fact, the proposal would allow up to 3 billion metric tons of emissions “cuts” to be achieved via these offsets. According to EPA, the entire U.S. economy emitted 7.130 billion metric tons of global warming pollution in 2005. Therefore, all of the 42% emissions reduction required by the proposal by the year 2030 could be achieved with these offsets. This is a scenario that is wholly incompatible with what the science shows is needed under virtually any scenario.

Finally, USCAP would provide polluters with windfall profits by allowing them huge numbers of free, tradable pollution credits. The plan also provides large direct subsidies for pursuing the hypothetical technology of “carbon-free coal,” which has never been shown to work on even a pilot basis despite enormous public subsidies. We should be investing scarce resources in proven, truly clean technologies like wind and solar power.

Joe Romm--Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, former acting assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy during the Clinton Administration, and author of one of the best global warming blogs out there, Climate Progress.

This week he joined Greenpeace's call for the Obama administration to commit to stronger short-term emissions reduction goals to bring his plan fully in line with the findings of the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Check out his post here.

Yesterday we got word that environmental champion Ed Markey (MA) will be the chair of the House subcommittee in charge of global warming and energy legislation. Here's the article in the Boston Globe covering the announcement, which includes some really exciting quotes from the new chairman on his plans for the year.

Ed Markey's credentials as an environmental champion are unparalleled. He led the fight to block the Bush administration's headlong drive to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He was the point-man in the House on the successful effort to raise gas mileage standards for the first time in 30 years in 2007. He wrote legislation that passed the last Congress to steer train shipments bearing hazardous waste away from population centers. He was one of the key champions behind passage of the landmark Superfund toxic waste law, which cleans up the most dangerous hazardous waste sites in America, including Woburn, Massachusetts, the site in Markey's district that inspired the book and movie "A Civil Action."

All those legislative achievements are wonderful, but what always comes to mind for me when I think of Ed Markey is his passion.

I remember years ago first hearing him speak at an event to a roomful of environmental activists and Markey was practically shouting, in his thick Boston accent, "ya gotta aw-ga-nize!"

I remember another time when a campaign I was working on (and I'm embarrassed to admit this, but the story is too classic) accidentally printed some materials that listed Markey's pro-environment voting record as 95% instead of 100%. In the next meeting we had with him, he tore into us for making him seem like he wasn't a good champion for the environment. One of our people said something like, "we're really sorry, but at least 95% is still an A." And Markey replied, "not to my mother it isn't!"

With global warming champ Henry Waxman chairing the committee in charge of global warming and Ed Markey in charge of the subcommittee, we have our all-star lineup in place to pass strong legislation to solve global warming. But with so much at stake and the opposition they'll fact, we need every Greenpeace member and activist ready to fight to win.