Climate Politics

America’s largest labor federation announces green jobs program

Some actual news from the green jobs conference this morning: the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), the largest federation of unions in the country, announced that it is forming a new Center for Green Jobs at its Washington, D.C., headquarters. The center will focus on helping unions, employers and government […]

Announcing energy efficiency order, Obama goes on stimulus attack

President Obama today used a visit to the Department of Energy to blast Republican opposition to energy efficiency measures contained in the economic stimulus legislation. Obama, who was at DOE to sign a memorandum [PDF] ordering the department to set new energy efficiency standards for appliances, rebutted GOP complaints about a proposal to use some […]

Senate panel to (finally) vote on Solis confirmation

Since I’m over here at the Green Jobs, Good Jobs summit, perhaps I should post on one of the top green jobs questions on everyone’s mind here: When is the Senate going to finally get around to confirming Obama’s green-jobs-promoting nominee for Labor Secretary, Hilda Solis? There has been an anonymous hold on her nomination […]

Bipartisan duo introduce renewable-electricity-standard bill in House

Reps. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Todd Platts (R-Pa.) on Wednesday introduced legislation in the House to create a federal renewable electricity standard (RES) that would require the United States to draw a quarter of its electricity from clean sources by 2025. Markey also introduced a second bill that would require the country to reduce energy […]

NWF VP believes we'll see a cap-and-trade bill this year, and 'Waltzing Matilda' isn't about dancing

First, one of my favorite tunes, "Waltzing Matilda," has nothing to do with dancing.

Second, somebody out there thinks Congress might actually put a climate bill on Obama's desk this year.

First things first. So I'm singing to my daughter, reworking the lyrics to the "the unofficial national anthem of Australia," to distract her from her quest to watch videos on my PC, and she cleverly asks to see a "Waltzing Matilda video." And this is what I find on YouTube:

Turns out the song is about an Australian hobo, who gives the name Matilda to his swag -- his "bed roll that bundled his belongings." Turns out "waltzing Matilda" is slang for traveling with all one's belongings on one's back.

Given where Australia is headed -- "Australia faces collapse as climate change kicks in" -- and for how long (if we don't act soon and strongly to stop it) -- Climate change "largely irreversible for 1,000 years," with permanent Dust Bowls around the globe -- I'm now thinking that Waltzing Matilda will eventually be the official national anthem of Australia. But I digress.

So who is this mystery person who thinks we are on the fast track for climate action?

Ashley Judd and Defenders of Wildlife want you to know that Sarah Palin still hates wolves

Ashley Judd (yes, that Ashley Judd) and Defenders of Wildlife would like you to know that even though Sarah Palin is no longer running for vice president, she still hates critters. They’ve launched a new campaign and website, Eye On Palin, that decries her “anti-wolf, anti-wildlife” agenda. Here’s their new YouTube video:

'Coal makes no sense in this day and age'

Originally posted at the Wonk Room.

The coal industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to get out the message of "clean coal" through front groups like the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, campaign contributions, and an army of lobbyists. But the devastating Dec. 22, 2008, coal ash slurry spill of the Kingston Fossil Plant in rural Tennessee broke through the cacophony of clean coal carolers. The sludge came from "cleaning" coal of toxic metals like arsenic, mercury, and lead so less went into the air. This ThinkProgress Wonk Room video is a stark reminder that in reality, coal isn't clean.

Watch it:

This week the news of progress away from dirty coal has reached a fever pitch:

Labor and environmental leaders come together in D.C. to talk jobs

I’m going to be at the Good Jobs, Green Jobs conference for the next few days here in Washington, D.C., where environmental activists, labor leaders, and politicos will be discussing how to make those jobs a reality. The Blue Green Alliance, United Steelworkers, and Sierra Club are coordinating the conference. They’re also set to give […]

A proposal to integrate international and domestic climate policy development

Joe Romm is fond (well, maybe "fond" isn't the right word) of saying that there's no way a substantial international climate treaty could get to 67 votes in the U.S. Senate, which is the constitutional requirement for such treaties. And he's right. This is an enormous barrier not only to ratifying but to developing such a treaty -- why should the 150+ countries involved in international climate negotiations deal with us in good faith when they know there's no way we can follow through?

Last week, William J. Antholis and Nigel Purvis of the Brookings Institution offered some intriguing thoughts about how to get around this dilemma.

They propose a "Climate Protection Authority" that would work like so:

First, in consultation with Congress, the president would decide that future climate and energy agreements are to be approved by the United States by statute rather than as treaties. Statutes require a majority in both houses of Congress, whereas treaties require two-thirds of only the Senate. Federal courts have repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of bicameral statutory approval of international pacts. In fact, the United States enters into more international agreements this way than by treaty, including some arms control agreements and environmental pacts and almost all trade deals.

Second, Congress should spell out in cap-and-trade legislation the conditions necessary for U.S. participation in new climate and energy agreements. For example, it should describe the role we envision for China, India and other major developing countries.

Third, cap-and-trade legislation should preapprove new climate and energy agreements that meet these congressional preconditions. Agreements that do should come into effect for the United States either without further congressional review or pursuant to the streamlined approval process Congress has used for most trade agreements.

No. 2 sounds a bit high-handed to me. Perhaps India and China might like to have some say in the role the play, no?

But the basic idea -- lowering the barrier to treaty approval and integrating international negotiations into the domestic policy process -- seems well-worth pursuing.

By naming the root cause behind food crises, we stand a chance at solving them

This is a guest post by Cary Fowler, executive director of the Rome-based Global Crop Diversity Trust and co-author of Shattering: Food, Politics, and the Loss of Genetic Diversity.

-----

Southern Africa, 2030. A throng of emaciated people waits for food rations to arrive. The maize crop has failed, devastated by hot weather and drought. Yet again. A "food crisis?" Yes. That's what we'll call it in 22 years.

But not today. If we want to do something about future food crises, we should name them today, and name them properly. Problems unnamed or improperly named are problems left unsolved.

In many cases, what we call food crises are more precisely thought of as crop-diversity crises. That's what history's most famous "food crisis" -- the Irish potato famine -- really was.

A paper recently published Science -- abstract here -- by a group of scholars with whom the Crop Diversity Trust collaborates, predicts a drop in maize (corn) yields of 30 percent in southern Africa by 2030 as a result of climate change, unless new climate-ready varieties of maize are developed. A huge drop in production of the region's most important food crop will bring instant famine.