Hundreds of Scientists Call on Congress to Help Wildlife Survive Global Warming

January 29, 2008 -- WASHINGTON, DC – More than 600 prominent scientists from across the United States are calling on Congress to pass legislation that will curb America’s global warming pollution and help protect wildlife and other natural resources threatened by global warming. Spearheaded by some of America’s greatest scientific minds, including Harvard Professor E.O. Wilson, Thomas Lovejoy, Paul Ehrlich and Camille Parmesan, the scientists have sent a letter to Congress urging action.

“The science is irrefutable not only about the reality of climate change, but also that plant and animal species are already being harmed by it,” said Dr. Thomas Lovejoy, renowned conservation biologist and president of the H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment. “Alarming effects are already being observed in nature from mountaintops to the oceans, and from the equator to the polar regions. We have the choice to allow these effects to intensify or to move to avoid the more disastrous consequences for life on earth.”

“The precarious status of polar bears and their melting sea ice habitat in the Arctic is only the tip of the iceberg,” said Dr. Dan Svedarsky, president of The Wildlife Society, on behalf of its over 8,000 professional wildlife biologists. “It’s not just polar bears – wildlife across America are being impacted by global warming, including birds, butterflies, fish and mammals.”

“The science is clear that without major action to both reduce global warming pollution and to help wildlife survive global warming, species will suffer rapidly increasing extinction rates,” said Jeff Price, one of the authors of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (2007). “It is not too late, but we must take action now.”

The U.S. Senate is currently considering legislation that would begin to take the urgent actions these scientists say are necessary. The Climate Security Act, introduced in 2007 by Senators Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA), creates a market-based system that cuts global warming pollution and helps communities address the impacts of climate change.

“Global warming is an unprecedented challenge for wildlife, adding a host of new threats such as thawing permafrost, disappearing mountain snow pack, and the warming of rivers, lakes and estuaries,” said John Kostyack, executive director of wildlife and global warming at the National Wildlife Federation. “Senators Lieberman and Warner recognize the gravity of the threat and the necessity of timely and effective action. The Climate Security Act provides the best hope for saving wildlife at risk of extinction and for conserving ecosystems that are essential for both wildlife and people.”

Under the bill’s carbon cap-and-trade system, global warming pollution would be capped at levels that enable the U.S. to achieve 2 percent annual reductions through the middle of the century. Permits, also known as allowances, to release global warming pollution would be auctioned annually. Revenues from these auctions would be dedicated to various public purposes, including conservation of wildlife and other natural resources at risk from global warming.

During the first 19 years of the program the bill would raise an estimated $175 billion in revenue for wildlife and natural resource conservation. With this critically needed funding, managers of wildlife, land and water would be able to effectively utilize a number of tools at their disposal to protect and restore wildlife and ecosystems harmed by global warming. The bill would provide substantial investments to state and federal agencies to reduce non-climate stressors on ecosystems, prevent and control invasive species, and protect coastal wetlands and address the impacts of sea level rise, all of which will help wildlife survive the pressures of global warming.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change points to droughts, wildfires, flooding and intensified storms as consequences of unchecked global warming. Both people and wildlife are at risk from these impacts. Investing in the conservation of wildlife and natural resources will directly benefit Americans whose jobs, health and quality of life depend on maintaining natural ecosystems. The letter emphasizes that “global warming represents, by far, the greatest threat ever posed to the planet’s living resources, which provide the foundation of our economy and quality of life.”

“Salmon and trout are among our most vulnerable species and their protection in the face of a rapidly changing climate demands strong actions,” said Helen Neville, research scientist with Trout Unlimited. “Trout Unlimited urges Congress to enact legislation reducing global warming pollution and funding conservation of fish and wildlife threatened by global warming.”

The signers are hoping to convey to Congress “our sense of urgency. Global warming is already causing serious damage and disruptions to wildlife and ecosystems, and reliable projections call for significant additional damage and disruptions. To fulfill the nation’s longstanding commitment to conserving abundant wildlife and healthy ecosystems for future generations, Congress must craft legislation that greatly reduces global warming pollution and generates substantial dedicated funding to protect and restore wildlife and ecosystems harmed by global warming.”

The Lieberman-Warner bill is expected to come to a full Senate vote within the next several months.

See the full list of signers


click to download and view scientists letter


Source: National Wildlife Federation



original article

Shell Oil Exec Ponders Impending Energy Crossroads

By Jeroen van der Veer

By 2100, the world’s energy system will be radically different from today’s. Renewable energy like solar, wind, hydroelectricity, and biofuels will make up a large share of the energy mix, and nuclear energy, too, will have a place.

Humans will have found ways of dealing with air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. New technologies will have reduced the amount of energy needed to power buildings and vehicles.

Indeed, the distant future looks bright, but much depends on how we get there. There are two possible routes. Let’s call the first scenario Scramble. Like an off-road rally through a mountainous desert, it promises excitement and fierce competition. However, the unintended consequence of “more haste” will often be “less speed,” and many will crash along the way.

The alternative scenario can be called Blueprints, which resembles a cautious ride, with some false starts, on a road that is still under construction. Whether we arrive safely at our destination depends on the discipline of the drivers and the ingenuity of all those involved in the construction effort. Technological innovation provides the excitement.

Regardless of which route we choose, the world’s current predicament limits our room to maneuver. We are experiencing a step-change in the growth rate of energy demand due to rising population and economic development. After 2015, easily accessible supplies of oil and gas probably will no longer keep up with demand.

As a result, we will have no choice but to add other sources of energy – renewables, yes, but also more nuclear power and unconventional fossil fuels such as oil sands. Using more energy inevitably means emitting more CO2 at a time when climate change has become a critical global issue.

In the Scramble scenario, nations rush to secure energy resources for themselves, fearing that energy security is a zero-sum game, with clear winners and losers. The use of local coal and homegrown biofuels increases fast. Taking the path of least resistance, policymakers pay little attention to curbing energy consumption – until supplies run short. Likewise, despite much rhetoric, greenhouse gas emissions are not seriously addressed until major shocks trigger political reactions. Since these responses are overdue, they are severe and lead to energy price spikes and volatility.

The Blueprints scenario is less painful, even if the start is more disorderly. Numerous coalitions emerge to take on the challenges of economic development, energy security, and environmental pollution through cross-border cooperation. Much innovation occurs at the local level, as major cities develop links with industry to reduce local emissions. National governments introduce efficiency standards, taxes, and other policy instruments to improve the environmental performance of buildings, vehicles, and transport fuels.

Moreover, as calls for harmonization increase, policies converge across the globe. Cap-and-trade mechanisms that put a price on industrial CO2 emissions gain international acceptance. Rising CO2 prices in turn accelerate innovation, spawning breakthroughs. A growing number of cars are powered by electricity and hydrogen, while industrial facilities are fitted with technology to capture CO2 and store it underground.

Against the backdrop of these two equally plausible scenarios, we will know only in a few years whether December’s Bali declaration on climate change was just rhetoric or the start of a global effort to counter it. Much will depend on how attitudes evolve in China, the European Union, India, and the United States.

Shell traditionally uses its scenarios to prepare for the future without expressing a preference for one over another. But, faced with the need to manage climate risk for our investors and our descendants, we believe the Blueprints outcomes provide the best balance between economy, energy, and environment. For a second opinion, we appealed to climate change calculations made at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. These calculations indicate that a Blueprints world with CO2 capture and storage results in the least amount of climate change, provided emissions of other major manmade greenhouse gases are similarly reduced.

But the Blueprints scenario will be realized only if policymakers agree on a global approach to emissions trading and actively promote energy efficiency and new technology in four sectors: heat and power generation, industry, transport, and buildings.

This will require hard work, and time is short. For example, Blueprints assumes CO2 is captured at 90% of all coal- and gas-fired power plants in developed countries by 2050, plus at least 50% of those in non-OECD countries. Today, none capture CO2. Because CO2 capture and storage adds costs and yields no revenues, government support is needed to make it happen quickly on a scale large enough to affect global emissions. At the least, companies should earn carbon credits for the CO2 they capture and store.

Blueprints will not be easy. But it offers the world the best chance of reaching a sustainable energy future unscathed, so we should explore this route with the same ingenuity and persistence that put humans on the moon and created the digital age.

The world faces a long voyage before it reaches a low-carbon energy system. Companies can suggest possible routes to get there, but governments are in the driver’s seat. And governments will determine whether we should prepare for bitter competition or a true team effort.

* Jeroen van der Veer, Chief Executive of Royal Dutch Shell plc, is Energy Community leader of the World Economic Forum energy industry partnership in 2007-2008 and chaired this year’s Energy Summit in Davos. He also chairs the Energy and Climate Change working group of the European Round Table of Industrialists.

New study finds sea change in Americans' views on Climate Change

A growing number of Americans consider global warming an important threat that calls for drastic action, and 40% say that a presidential candidate's position on the issue will strongly influence how they vote, according to a national survey conducted by Yale University, Gallup and the ClearVision Institute.

One of the most surprising findings was the growing sense of urgency, said Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Project on Climate Change and the study's principal investigator. Nearly half of Americans now believe that global warming is either already having dangerous impacts on people around the world or will in the next 10 years - a 20-percentage-point increase since 2004. These results indicate a sea change in public opinion.

'When do you think global warming will start to have dangerous impacts on people around the world - is it having dangerous impacts now, will it have dangerous impacts in 10 years, in 25 years, in 50 years, in 100 years, or will it never have dangerous impacts?'The survey's findings further include:

62% percent of respondents believe that life on earth will continue without major disruptions only if society takes immediate and drastic action to reduce global warming.

68% of Americans support a new international treaty requiring the United States to cut its emissions of carbon dioxide 90 percent by the year 2050. Yet, Leiserowitz notes, the United States has yet to sign the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty that would require the United States to cut its emissions 7 percent by the year 2012.

A surprising 40% of respondents say a presidential candidate's position on global warming will be either extremely important (16 percent) or very important (24 percent) when casting their ballots. With the presidential primaries and general election near, candidates should recognize that global warming has become an important issue for the electorate.

85% of those polled support requiring automakers to increase the fuel efficiency of cars, trucks and SUVs to 35 miles per gallon, even if it meant a new car would cost up to $500 more; and 82 percent support requiring electric utilities to produce at least 20 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources, even if it cost the average household an extra $100 a year.

50% of respondents say they are personally worried - 15 percent say a 'great deal' - about global warming.Many Americans, however, believe that global warming is a very serious threat to other species, people and places far away, said Leiserowitz, but not so serious of a threat to themselves, their own families or local communities. Nonetheless, they do strongly support a number of national and international policies to address this problem:

energy :: sustainability :: biomass :: bioenergy :: biofuels :: fossil fuels :: climate change :: global warming :: carbon tax :: Kyoto Protocol :: United States ::

The survey was conducted July 23-26, 2007, using telephone interviews with 1,011 adults, aged 18-plus. Respondents came from Gallup's household panel, which was originally recruited through random selection methods. The final sample is considered to be representative of U.S. adults nationwide, with a margin of error of 4 percentage points.

The Yale Project on Climate Change at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies supports public discourse and engagement with climate-change solutions.Gallup, Inc., headquartered in Washington, D.C., is one of the world's leading research companies focusing on studying human nature and behavior. The Gallup Poll has been monitoring U.S. public opinion since 1935, and Gallup now tracks public opinion in over 100 countries worldwide on an ongoing basis.

The ClearVision Institute is a nonprofit organization dedicated to applying entertainment education as a social-change strategy to address climate change through U.S. commercial television.References:Yale University, Gallup, ClearVision Institute: American Opinions on Global Warming [*.pdf].

Politics 'threatening energy security'

Politically driven state energy companies are hindering access to global oil reserves, threatening worldwide energy security, senior oil executives said today.

High oil prices and perceptions of soaring industry profits have prompted many producing countries to give national oil companies more power to extract richer fiscal terms and greater control over resources, pushing out international players, Rex Tillerson, chief executive of US supermajor ExxonMobil, said.

Such policies will lead to tighter oil supplies as ExxonMobil and other majors stop deploying their technology, know-how and capital in some of those countries, he said.

"If there's no room to share it then there is no role for us - it's a simple as that," he told business and political leaders at a meeting in Calgary, Reuters reported.

"I think that's something that national oil companies have to get their minds around and they've got to help their governments get their minds around."

Exxon left its Venezuelan operations behind this year after it refused to accept more nationalistic terms set by President Hugo Chavez, which gave state-controlled PDVSA bigger stakes.

"The big value in resources development is not in the upfront bonus money that you're paid, it's in the incremental recovery over the life of that resource that's of huge value to the host country," he said.

State oil companies now control 75% of the world's proven oil reserves and international companies like ExxonMobil, Anglo-Dutch supermajor Shell and French giant Total account for about 10%, he said.

Total chairman Thierry Desmarest agreed that many countries in regions like the Middle East, former Soviet Union, Africa and South America have been putting more political obstacles in place, restricting access to new reserves.

Meanwhile, production in most of the rich countries of the West is expected to keep declining.

Still, Total agreed to Venezuela's new terms, allowing it to maintain some heavy oil operations in the Opec country.

"We have made our choice because we think that Venezuela's oil potential is substantial. The country needs the world-class technology that my company and other companies provide," Desmarest said. "And we think that in the long term the convergence of interests should be recognised."

The two other big issues for the industry as it struggles to meet rising demand in developed and developing countries are improving technology to get at hard-to-reach reserves and meeting stringent environmental regulations, oil bosses said.

"For every barrel of oil or cubic metre of gas that you consume today, to replace that barrel it costs more, so our industry gets a lot more more capital intensive per unit all the time," said Jeroen van der Veer, chief executive of Shell.

All three of the companies, along with numerous others, have invested billions of dollars to develop Canada's massive oil sands, access to which has not been hindered by politics.

Upstream Online

White House Hopefuls Love Iowa Ethanol

By AMY LORENTZEN - Associated Press Writer

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) -- Don't expect to hear much talk about farming from the presidential candidates who regularly tour Iowa, one of the nation's premier agriculture states.

Instead, prepare for three words: I love ethanol.

At a time when demand for the corn-based fuel is soaring, support for ethanol among candidates is nearly unanimous and has largely crowded out talk of other agriculture-related issues.

"They pay lip service (to agriculture), and then they're pro-ethanol, and I think that's enough," said Bruce Babcock, director of the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State University. He adds that a pro-ethanol stance translates to farm support "because pro-ethanol means high prices for corn and soybeans here."

Iowa has 28 ethanol refineries and 19 under construction or expanding. There also are a dozen plants that refine soybean-based biodiesel and three under construction, according to the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association.

Because of the demand for ethanol and a resulting rise in corn prices, farmers have planted the largest corn crop in U.S. history. And the decision by so many farmers to grow corn has led to a drop in soybean planting and a resulting rise in that commodity's prices.

In Iowa, it means that agriculture is all about ethanol.

And to a great extent, it's the only agricultural topic that candidates address, often during stops at one of the state's ethanol plants.

"It's sort of an obligatory stop to say, 'Hey, I get it. I know the farm economy is important and ethanol is potentially an important part of that economy,'" said David Redlawsk, a University of Iowa political science professor.

Candidates who have toured ethanol plants include Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. Even John McCain, who in the past was skeptical about the use of ethanol, now jokes during his Iowa visits that he enjoys a drink of ethanol every morning.

The widespread support for ethanol comes despite serious questions about the fuel.

Critics contend that it takes more energy to grow the corn and process it into ethanol than the fuel produces, although advocates argue that thanks to advancements in farming and production, this is no longer true.

Others note that it's unclear how much environmental benefit the fuel offers. Pesticides and fertilizers are used in growing corn, and vast amounts of water are required to produce ethanol.

Although the increase in corn prices is good news for farmers, it's worrisome for food manufacturers and livestock producers who rely on the commodity. Thanks to huge corn harvests, farmers so far have managed to meet the demand with only minor increases in prices passed along to U.S. consumers.

In Mexico, however, a decision by many farmers to grow corn for ethanol use rather than tortilla production has caused prices of the food staple to soar.

Despite disagreements over ethanol's value, there's little argument over the importance of the fuel, and other agricultural issues, when it comes time for Iowa's precinct caucuses.

The caucuses jump-start the presidential nominating process, and estimates show as many as 40 percent of Iowa caucus-goers come from small towns and rural areas, "where farm issues are an everyday matter," Redlawsk said. He added that about a quarter of Iowa's population is involved somehow with the state's farm economy, and that means hundreds of thousands of Iowans have a stake in keeping corn prices high.

"In the end, the caucuses are about motivating a pretty small number of folks to get out on a cold winter night, so any key issue group - like those concerned about ag - can make a difference," he said.

Because of the Iowa's leadoff status, some believe presidential candidates are more inclined to support pro-ethanol and other Corn Belt policies.

"I've long said that the Iowa caucuses are the gift to Midwestern agriculture," said Jon Doggett, vice president of public policy for the National Corn Growers Association.

Many in Iowa are pushing Congress to raise the amount of renewable fuel that must be used in the nation's fuel supply. And there's interest in what presidential candidates would do in 2010, when a 51-cent-per-gallon of ethanol tax break is up for review.

"Energy policy is arguably more important to Iowa farmers than commodity policy," Babcock said.

Candidates acknowledge their support of ethanol, but say it is for environmental, economic and national security reasons rather than political expediency.

Romney has emphasized the benefit of ethanol for reducing dependence on foreign oil, and a Clinton spokeswoman cited the need to reverse course on global warming. Giuliani has said he supports continuation of the ethanol tax break, and Obama has noted that his home state of Illinois is second only to Iowa in corn and ethanol production.

Matt Hartwig, a spokesman for the Washington-based Renewable Fuels Association, said it's ethanol's value as a fuel that has drawn such widespread support.

"It's not because they have got to come and kiss the ethanol ring in Iowa," he said.

Regardless, some argue that candidates learned a lesson from McCain's experience in his 2000 presidential bid. McCain wound up passing up the state's caucuses after he said ethanol wasn't a worthy endeavor and that subsidies on the grain-based fuel should end.

"I think candidates look at experiences like that and say, 'Whoa, I can't afford to do that,'" Redlawsk said.

A Perfect Storm Gathering on the U.S. Horizon

A perfect storm is gathering on the U.S. horizon, and it begs the question, what will our way-of-life look like after the skies clear, should we as a nation not reach political consensus - and fail to act.

The convergence of elements relating to America's dependence on fossil fuels and foreign oil represent profound and ominous consequences: expanding extremism abroad, compounded by indifference at home, both being byproducts of our dependence on fossil fuels:

• Deeply Entrenched Special Interests
  
• Increasing Fossil Fuel Induced Air and Water Pollution
  
• Unabated Nuclear Proliferation
  
• Intensifying Effects of Climate Change
  
• Looming Implications of Peak Oil
  
• Deeply Rooted Oil Dependence in Volatile Regions
  
• Escalating Middle East Tension and Conflict
  
• Increasing Global Confrontation over Decreasing Resources
  
• Mounting Environmental Threats via Mountaintop Removal and Oil Exploration
  
• Economic Volatility via Rising Fuel Costs
  
• Swelling World Population and Industrialization

Each inseparably intertwined with U.S.energy and foreign policies…

Yet, when it comes to the precarious (fossil fuel induced) situation we find ourselves in today, as much as we may want to lay the burden of blame on the doorstep of Capitol Hill and the White House, the real problem lies in our own indifference and failure to hold our past and present leaders accountable.

Perhaps as a nation have we forgotten, democracy is not, nor has it ever been, a spectator sport. In the final analysis...we are response-able!

Since the oil embargo of the early 70’s, it has been an abundance of talk and scarcity of action by lawmakers and leaders, that has brought us to the precipice we now face.

Therefore, with a high degree of confidence, we can assume talk is not the answer, but rather action.

Throughout history we have seen the incredible change one person can bring about when totally dedicated to a cause; Rosa Parks, Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., to name a few examples. Likewise, monumental change also occurs when many dedicated even a small amount of effort to a worthy cause.


So, how do we as a nation get from here to there?

We must start by asking ourselves, do we care as much as we say we do. Do we care enough to make subtle the changes in our lifestyles indicative of foresight to take a different path, a sustainable path where our children and theirs can follow?

Do we care enough to pick up the phone…to send an email…to sign an online petition? Do we care enough to contact other like-minded people within our circle of influence to ask them to do the same?

In a few weeks time, a bi-partisan effort will be under way to produce a cohesive piece of legislation for presidential approval. The conference committee which will convene on or about September 4th to reconcile the Senate & House bills, will be debating hotly contested items.

Specifically, whether to require electric utilities to produce 15 percent of their power from renewable sources such as wind, solar and biomass by 2020 (today only 2.3 percent of the country's electricity is produced via renewable sources). And, to raise fleet-wide fuel economy standards for cars and trucks to 35 miles per gallon by 2020 (efficiency standards have not been increased in over two decades).

Yet, each proposal is strongly opposed by the utility industry and automotive industry respectively, each having lobbied hard to defeat these initiatives.

Both measures are profound in their impact on reducing GHG emissions and reducing our dependence on countries that do not have our best interest in mind.

Thus, It is up to us to lobby hard for their enactment and provide congress with the support and political confidence to make the right choices!

Take the time now to contact your Senate & House legislators, and let them know you support the 15% renewable by 2020 amendment - as well as raising vehicle fuel economy standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020.

Let's use our collective power to lead our country to "greener" pastures.

Thank you,
Energize Now Initiative

Start by signing the Fueling the Renewable Energy Movement Petition

FYI...

Edison Electric Institute - call (202-508-5000) and / or environment@eei.org

Atlanta-based Southern Co – call (202-261-5000) and / or email

Ford Motor Company – call 800-392-3673 and / or email

General Motors Company – call 800-462-8782

Chrysler Motor Corp – call 1-800-992-1997 and / or email

"Fueling the Renewable Energy Movement"

When it comes to addressing the security of our nation and planet, we cannot afford politics as usual. Help insure America’s voice is heard in Washington. Please sign the “Fueling the Renewable Energy Movement” petition below:

"The years teach much which the days never knew"
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Dear U.S. Legislators,

Energy is the common thread running through every aspect of our society; interweaving economic, trade, agriculture, environmental, defense and foreign policies, inseparably linking one to the next. Accordingly, it is no coincidence energy is at the epicenter of the unprecedented challenges facing America today, challenges in the form of fossil fuel & foreign oil dependence.

The energy bills recently passed by the Senate & House of Representatives represent real progress toward addressing America's fossil fuel dependence, environmental and national security concerns.

However, as these historic Senate & House bills make their way to committee and becoming law, more partisan progress is needed.

To act in a manner consistent with that which is best for our nation, final legislation must contain a renewable energy standard requiring electric utilities to produce 15% of their power via clean renewable sources such as wind, solar, etc. It must also include fuel-efficiency increase for automobiles to 35mpg by 2020, and a nationwide utility net-metering standard, a prerequisite to wide-scale adoption of solar energy.

Awareness and understanding of the profound implications of our nation's past and present energy policies is increasing among constituents and the nation's social and political conscience as a whole. Similarly, the consequences of politics as usual, pandering to special interests, and placing party before principle is becoming better understood by many.

Whereas a growing, energized and informed non-partisan movement is under way across the nation, clearing a path for reason to prevail regarding the most important issues of our time: The overriding need to safeguard our planet while obtaining energy independence through conservation and clean, domestic renewable / alternate energy sources.

Be it through indifference, ignorance or blind faith, our actions or lack thereof, all of us have participated in creating the precarious (fossil fuel induced) situation that exists today. Likewise, it will require everyone's participation to bring about a new level of thinking with regard to the environment and our nation's energy independence.

In recognition of our shared responsibility, by signing this petition, we the undersigned each pledge to act for the good of the many...not the few...by making every reasonable effort to promote and practice energy conservation, and supporting clean, domestic renewable energy initiatives. We respectfully request your pledge in doing the same.

With world oil production nearing or at peak capacity; energy demand and climate-change increasing unabated, man's law of supply and demand, coupled with nature's law of cause and effect, will inevitably bring about change. The only question is for better or worse. Will we as a nation have the will to act now...not talk...nor posture or politic, but act out of conscience endeavor to usher in a new energy era, or through indifference will we be acted upon by the environmental, economic and geo-political threats now gathering on the horizon?

Dating back to the Arab oil embargo of 1973, each new administration and congress has pledged to lead our country toward greater energy security. Yet, in the absence of accountability, our previous leaders have been far more proficient at following (money & power) than leading. Consequently, our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels has increased year-over-year, as the security of our nation and planet decreases at our own peril.

For these reasons Ladies and Gentlemen, via the inherent power of "we the people" energy security and safeguarding our planet can and will be elevated to the level of national priority... we request your assistance in the effort. For the influence, this legislative session has over America's continued prosperity, our personal future well-being, and that of generations to come, is as powerful as its willingness to exert it.

Our Nation requires your leadership, not to the left neither to the right, but rather to a state of stainable independence...it is time to end the era of fossil fuel and foreign oil dependence!

Respectfully Submitted,

The undersigned

House Passes Bill to Support Renewable Energy

The House yesterday passed a far-reaching package of energy legislation that would promote conservation and the use of renewable resources at the expense of the country's oil and gas interests.

The bill, which passed 241 to 172, would require more energy efficiency in appliances, buildings and power grids, which proponents of the bill say would reduce carbon dioxide emissions and electricity use. It calls for more energy efficiency measures in the Capitol building. It also would provide grants for studies to promote ethanol pipelines, installation of pumps for 85 percent ethanol fuel at gas stations and production of cellulosic ethanol.

The Democrats also won passage of a provision that would require that 15 percent of electricity from private utilities come from solar, wind or other renewable energy sources. It would be the first such requirement to apply to all the states.

The House last night also passed, 221 to 189, a companion tax package, totaling nearly $16 billion, that targets the oil and gas industry. In a letter to Congress, however, the Bush administration said Friday that the two House measures would result in less domestic oil and gas production. The letter said President Bush's senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bills.

Since taking control of Congress last year, the Democrats have identified the reordering of the nation's energy priorities as an important goal that would position their party as the principal advocates for environmentally friendly policies.

"This is the historic break with the fossil-fuel past and the beginning of the solar wind renewable era in the United States," said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. "People will look back at this as the turning point where Congress began to embrace renewable energy."

However, the energy bill omitted several proposals, including other mandates for renewable energy, incentives for coal-to-liquid production and a tougher vehicle fuel-economy standard contained in a Senate package that was passed in June. They could be taken up later this year, when the House and Senate reconcile their energy bills, or in a possible bill on global warming.
"There are many things that will put the strength of the federal government behind energy conservation and renewable energy," Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) said of the House legislation. "This bill is some of the low-hanging fruit -- the issues that we can agree upon across regions. This is a warm-up for us to tackle those tougher issues."

Republicans pilloried the bill for ignoring ways to boost the nation's traditional energy supplies -- labeling it the Democrats' "energy scarcity bill." Republicans challenged Democrats for doing nothing to promote nuclear power, coal-to-liquid plants or new oil offshore drilling in federal waters.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) launched a drive for a new energy bill in January, but Democrats struggled over key issues. The byproduct of 10 committees, the "consensus" energy bill nearly came unraveled in skirmishes over turf and regional conflicts.

Pelosi has had to mollify members from oil- and gas-producing districts by changing provisions on oil royalties and permitting. Democrats also had to contend with opposition to the renewable electricity mandate by lawmakers from Southern states, where officials say they lack the wind or hydropower resources to meet those standards.

Earlier in the week, Rep. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), the lead sponsor of the provision, lowered the mandate from 20 to 15 percent, broadening support for the measure. Later in negotiations, supporters made another change allowing states to achieve up to 4 percent of the new mandate through efficiency. The provision passed as an amendment to the energy bill by a vote of 220 to 190.

The House energy bill left out vehicle fuel economy increases included in the Senate bill, in the face of heavy opposition from auto lobbyists, the United Auto Workers and Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.).

Dingell, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, wants to make auto fuel usage part of a broad climate change bill later in the year.
Throughout the year, Dingell squared off with Markey, a principal supporter of higher fuel economy standards. With that fight moving to a conference committee, Markey said yesterday that he wants a seat at that table.

By Sholnn Freeman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 5, 2007; Page A09