Four out of five North Carolina residents -- including 74 percent of Republicans, 84 percent of Democrats, and 82 percent of Independents -- say the state should focus on increased energy efficiency, conservation and sustainable energy sources before building new coal-fired power plants.

That's among the findings of a new poll conducted by the Opinion Research Corp. for the Civil Society Institute, a nonprofit think tank in Massachusetts. The results were released today -- Earth Day, of course -- by the N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, a Durham-based group that's fighting to stop Duke Energy from opening a new coal-fired power plant in the western part of the state.

The poll also found that 69 percent of North Carolina residents would pick wind or solar energy if they could decide where to invest money for new electric power generation. In addition, it found that 59 percent of the state's residents -- including majorities of Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike -- would be more likely to vote for a political candidate who spoke out against Duke's plans.

"The pressure to cancel Cliffside will keep growing as the public learns the intensity of our climate crisis," said N.C. WARN Director Jim Warren. "We urge [Duke CEO Jim] Rogers to avoid dragging Duke Energy through a four-year battle against the people of North Carolina."

But when it comes to educating the public about Duke's plans, Warren and his allies have their work cut out for them. The poll found that two-thirds of North Carolina residents have little or no awareness of the company's intention to build the Cliffside facility. Only 34 percent said they were aware of the plans, with just 9 percent "very aware."

Labels: climate, coal, Duke Energy, global warming, Jim Rogers, NCWARN, polls

While President Bush serves up a too-little, too-late plan for addressing climate change, the South faces growing water problems as a consequence of global warming.

Water mismanagement and ill-advised projects are threatening rivers across the South -- and those risks are being exacerbated by climate change. That's the conclusion of the latest annual report on the United States' most endangered rivers, released this week by the conservation group American Rivers.

"Water will be the oil of the 21st century," said the group's president, Rebecca Wodder. "Yet all across the country, water mismanagement is on full display as politicians resort to placing another straw in their rivers, or outright stealing water from their neighbors, instead of adopting water policies that will make our communities more resilient in the face of global warming."

Of the nation's 10 most endangered rivers, three are in the South -- including the number-one most endangered river, the Catawba-Wateree in the Carolinas. While the surrounding region is still suffering the effects of a long-standing drought, policy makers are actually considering draining more water from the river. The other Southern waterways that made the list are Florida's St. Johns River at number 6, and the Pearl River in Louisiana and Mississippi at number 9.

In other worrisome news for the South, a new scientific analysis suggests that sea levels could rise as much as 1.5 meters -- almost five feet -- by the end of this century. That's far more than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change forecast in its most recent assessment.

The findings by a team of British and Finnish scientists were presented earlier this week at the European Geosciences Union annual meeting in Vienna. Their estimate differed from the IPCC's in that it took into account accelerated melting of polar ice sheets.

A sea-level rise of the magnitude described by the researchers would have devastating impact for low-lying areas across the globe, including much of the Southeast coast. If sea level were to rise by just one meter, for example, North Carolina's Outer Banks would be under water, according to scientists trying to develop a global warming management plan.

(Photo of the Catawba River by Nancy Pierce courtesy of American Rivers)

Labels: climate, global warming, sea level rise, water resources

Two weeks after the arrest of eight people protesting Duke Energy's plans to build a new coal-fired power plant in western North Carolina, another group of activists was detained following a similar action in Virginia.

Three people were arrested yesterday morning while blocking the entrance to Dominion Power's headquarters in Richmond. They were part of a larger group of activists with Blue Ridge Earth First! who were protesting the company's plans to build a new coal-fired power plant in southwest Virginia's Wise County.

"Climate change is jeopardizing my future and I'm not going to just sit by and let Dominion lock us into another generation of dirty coal," said Barbie Spitz, a student who participated in the roadblock.

Dominion's Wise County plant would release 5.4 million tons of carbon dioxide annually as well as 49 pounds of mercury and other hazardous pollutants. The plant's demand for coal would also accelerate the rate of mountaintop removal mining, which has already destroyed 25 percent of Wise County's mountains.

Earth First! also recently blockaded the construction site for FPL's planned gas-fired power plant in Palm Beach County, Fla. That February protest, which was organized by Everglades Earth First!, resulted in the arrest of 27 people. FPL's facility would release 12 millions tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere each year.

(Photo courtesy of Blue Ridge Earth First!; to see more photos from the action, click here.)

Labels: climate, coal, Earth First, global warming, protests, virginia

Last week James E. Hansen, one of the nation's leading scientific experts on climate change, publicly released a letter he sent to Jim Rogers, CEO of North Carolina-based Duke Energy. Citing his new study about how climbing atmospheric carbon levels are putting life on earth at risk, Hansen urged Rogers to cancel plans to build new coal-burning power plants in North Carolina and Indiana.

Noting that coal accounts for half of fossil fuel-related carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today, Hansen said it can safely be used to generate power in the coming decades only if the carbon dioxide released is captured and sequestered. Plants under construction that lack this sequestration technology -- including Duke's Cliffside and another company facility planned for Edwardsport, Ind. -- are a "terrible, foreseeable waste of money," charged Hansen, who directs NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

He went on to compare the tactics of Big Coal in fighting climate action to those of Big Tobacco after it became clear that smoking caused serious health problems:

Tobacco companies manufactured and magnified public doubt about scientific evidence; they masqueraded PR as news and expert opinion; they emphasized maintaining "balance" in a "controversy," and they supported doctors and scientists wo disputed the evidence, thus proclaiming concern about discovering the truth while actually suppressing it.

Big Tobacco's playbook proved a great "success." Tobacco profits were so great that court settlements could be paid with hardly a blip on stock values. Can it be any wonder that Big Coal and Big Oil have stolen Big Tobacco's playbook?

Hansen invited Rogers to meet with him for a one-day discussion over the next two or three months with top experts on energy efficiency, renewable energy, carbon capture and nuclear power. Rogers accepted -- though he sounds skeptical the two men will find common ground, the Washington Post reports:

...Rogers, who praised Hansen as "an early voice in the wilderness" on climate change, said the scientist's demand reflects a "snap-your-fingers, instant transition of the economy" mind-set.

"My requirement is to balance reliability, affordability and clean energy," Rogers said. "He's apparently focused on the clean perspective."

(Hansen photo, top, courtesy of GISS; Rogers photo from Duke Energy Web site)

Labels: Cliffside, climate, coal, Duke Energy, James Hansen, Jim Rogers

The nation's two largest religious denominations have taken significant steps to promote a healthier environment.

A group of more than 40 Southern Baptist leaders have signed a declaration calling for action on climate change. Released today, the declaration marks a major departure from the resolution passed last year by the Southern Baptist Convention questioning whether human activity significantly contributes to global warming. The SBC is the nation's second-largest denomination after the Roman Catholic Church.

The SBC's current president, Rev. Frank Page, signed the declaration, as did past presidents Jack Graham and James Merritt. The document calls on Baptist churches to promote creation care, and it calls on individual Baptists to give "serious consideration" to responsible policies addressing the climate problem:

We believe our current denominational engagement with these issues have often been too timid, failing to produce a unified moral voice. Our cautious response to these issues in the face of mounting evidence may be seen by the world as uncaring, reckless and ill-informed. We can do better. To abandon these issues to the secular world is to shirk from our responsibility to be salt and light. The time for timidity regarding God’s creation is no more.

And in a newspaper interview published this past weekend, a top Vatican official was asked about "new sins" and listed "ecological offenses" among modern evils. Also on the list were genetic manipulation, drug trafficking, and social and economic injustices.

The statement from Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti follows Pope Benedict's earlier declaration that issues such as climate change and care of water resources "are matters of grave importance for the entire human family."

Labels: Catholic Church, climate, environment, environmental justice, Southern Baptist Convention

It's been a rough week for Southern power giant Duke Energy.

A federal lawsuit filed this week accuses the Charlotte, N.C.-based utility of paying off opponents to its 2004 Ohio rate hike with as much as $100 million in special rebates, arguing that the special deals represented fraud that hurt other consumers. The rebate program was launched by Cinergy before Duke's 2005 merger with the Cincinnati-based power provider.

The attorneys behind the suit against Duke include Stanley Chesley, an Ohio trial lawyer whose first claim to fame arose from his role following the 1977 Beverly Hills Supper Club fire that killed 165 people. Rather than sue just the nightclub, Chesley targeted the entire aluminum electrical wire industry, eventually winning $49 million in verdicts and settlements. Chesley has also been involved in other high-profile cases including suits against Pan Am over the Lockerbie terrorist attack, Dow Corning over breast implants, and the $246 billion tobacco settlement on behalf of state governments.

In an official statement, Duke Energy said it "believes the allegations are without merit and will vigorously defend itself."

Also this week, Duke Energy and its plans to expand a coal-fired power plant in western North Carolina have been the target of full-page attacks ads running in newspapers across the state. Sponsored by the N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, the ads call on citizens to press for the cancellation of the Cliffside project by e-mailing CEO Jim Rogers and by urging the media, N.C. Gov. Mike Easley and other public officials to stand up to Duke Energy. The ads quote Dr. James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute:

"Business-as-usual, if it continues for even another decade, will be disastrous …. Stopping this new coal plant is the best thing North Carolina can do to slow global warming."

Last month N.C.WARN and 10 other groups sent a letter to Rogers urging him to reconsider the Cliffside expansion due to its impact on the climate. The 800 megawatt Cliffside plant would release 6 million tons of greenhouse gases annually for the next 50 years and would double daily water evaporation from present levels to 21 million gallons per day. Much of North Carolina, including the region where the plant is located, is currently experiencing an exceptional drought.

As if that weren't enough trouble for one week, Moody's Investor Service this week downgraded its outlook for Duke Energy from "Positive" to "Stable," saying the company's expected cash flow will not be enough to cover significant capital investments planned for this year. The company's shares fell 11 cents following the announcement.

Labels: climate, coal

Most of Alabama and Georgia, the Tennessee Valley, and now North Carolina are experiencing "exceptional" drought conditions in the record-breaking drought that has plagued the South throughout the second half of 2007.

Rainfall in Alabama is more than 30 inches below normal for the year. Here in East Tennessee, we are about 18 inches below normal. (Although we are getting some welcome relief from a severe storm system blowing through as I type this.)

According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, "Many locations in the Southeast are on pace to have the all-time driest year on record, with many stations having histories back to the 1880 time period." Also, "Of the 628 water systems being tracked, 173 have mandatory water conservation measures in place, while 162 have voluntary restrictions in place." You can read their full report and review the latest map here.

More "water wars" controversy erupted earlier this week, when the chairman of the Atlanta Regional Commission suggested running a pipeline from the Tennessee River to Atlanta, where water supplies are running dangerously low. According to the Huntsville Times, there was even talk of a deal involving cooperation on a light rail line between Chattanooga and Atlanta in exchange for a water pipeline.

TVA says there are no such plans in the works, but even if there were it would violate all kinds of current federal regulations. TVA is expected to review their water transfer policy sometime in 2008, but it is unlikely they will get in the middle of the ongoing Alabama/Georgia/Florida water war. The Decatur Daily has more on the controversy.

Ironically, the Tennessee River would flow through a corner of Georgia if not for a stingy governor who, in 1818, provided only "a sextant 'of English construction' and astronomical tables that 'were not such as I could have wished them to be'" instead of proper surveying tools for teams sent to survey the border between Tennessee and Georgia. It was supposed to be at the 35th Parallel, but they missed by about a mile. You can read the fascinating story here.

Labels: climate, drought

Texas, a state that's home to 24 million people, releases more greenhouse gas pollution than the United Kingdom, a nation with 60 million residents. It also emits more than Italy or France. Louisiana, which has a population of about 4.5 million, releases more greenhouse gas pollution than Egypt, with 72.5 million people. Florida, population 18 million, releases more greenhouse gas pollution than Thailand, population 67 million. And while North Carolina has only 9 million residents, it emits more global warming pollution than 87 developing nations with a total of about 550 million people.

These are among the eye-opening findings of a new report from the National Environmental Trust titled "Taking Responsibility: Why the United States Must Lead the World in Reducing Global Warming Pollution." The report was released in conjunction with the ongoing United Nations climate change conference in Bali, Indonesia, where delegates from 180 countries are hammering out a new greenhouse gas reduction agreement to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, which is set to expire in 2012.

Speaking at the Bali conference today, Nobel Peace Prize laureate and former Vice President Al Gore accused the United States of blocking progress on the agreement, the Associated Press reports:

"My own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress here in Bali," said Gore, who flew to Bali from Oslo, Norway, where he received the Nobel Peace Prize for helping alert the world to the danger of climate change.

The Bush administration and its congressional allies have long objected to requirements that developed nations curb emissions without similar mandates for developing countries. But as the NET report notes, the U.S. has a special responsibility to take action since it's responsible for 27.8 percent of all historic global warming pollution, compared to just 23 percent for all developing nations’ historic emissions combined.

Angela Anderson, NET's vice president for climate programs, says the good new is that many U.S. states are putting their own greenhouse gas reduction plans into place. Here in the South, they include North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida and Arkansas. But as we have reported previously, there's now an effort underway by fossil-fuel-funded think tanks to scuttle these state-level regulatory efforts. NET's report offers more evidence about why it's so critical for state policymakers to resist pressure from polluters and the pundits that do their bidding.

"The data is clear -- the United States has long been, and remains, the world's most prolific emitter of greenhouse gases," says Anderson. "We have a clear responsibility to reduce our own pollution and help poorer countries respond to the current and future impacts of global warming."

(Graphic from NET's report, "Taking Responsibility.")

Labels: climate

...and mislead policymakers and the public about the dangers of global warming."

So concludes a statement by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform about its report [PDF] released yesterday on the findings of a 16-month investigation into allegations of political interference with government climate change science. According to the statement:

In 1998, the American Petroleum Institute developed an internal "Communications Action Plan" that stated: "Victory will be achieved when … average citizens 'understand' uncertainties in climate science … [and] recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the 'conventional wisdom.'" The Bush Administration has acted as if the oil industry's communications plan were its mission statement. White House officials and political appointees in the agencies censored congressional testimony on the causes and impacts of global warming, controlled media access to government climate scientists, and edited federal scientific reports to inject unwarranted uncertainty into discussions of climate change and to minimize the threat to the environment and the economy.

The Bush administration had help with its efforts to mislead policymakers and the public from outfits like the John Locke Foundation of North Carolina. As we recently reported, the fossil-fuel-funded think tank is currently trying to scuttle state-level efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions by exaggerating the uncertainty around the reality and seriousness of climate change, and by emphasizing the costs of addressing the problem while ignoring the costs of doing nothing.

Labels: climate, politics

It's 80 degrees here in Raleigh, N.C. today -- a new record high for this date. We're also expecting record-setting temperatures tomorrow and Wednesday. Temperature records are also being broken in Georgia and South Carolina, with 2007 forecast to be one of the planet's warmest on record.

Which makes this an especially appropriate time to contemplate what former Vice President, Senator and Tennesse native son Al Gore said in Oslo today upon accepting the Nobel Peace Prize he was awarded along with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for efforts to address the deepening climate crisis:

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Honorable members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Excellencies, Ladies and gentlemen.

I have a purpose here today. It is a purpose I have tried to serve for many years. I have prayed that God would show me a way to accomplish it.

Sometimes, without warning, the future knocks on our door with a precious and painful vision of what might be. One hundred and nineteen years ago, a wealthy inventor read his own obituary, mistakenly published years before his death. Wrongly believing the inventor had just died, a newspaper printed a harsh judgment of his life’s work, unfairly labeling him “The Merchant of Death” because of his invention – dynamite. Shaken by this condemnation, the inventor made a fateful choice to serve the cause of peace.

Seven years later, Alfred Nobel created this prize and the others that bear his name.

Seven years ago tomorrow, I read my own political obituary in a judgment that seemed to me harsh and mistaken – if not premature. But that unwelcome verdict also brought a precious if painful gift: an opportunity to search for fresh new ways to serve my purpose.

Unexpectedly, that quest has brought me here. Even though I fear my words cannot match this moment, I pray what I am feeling in my heart will be communicated clearly enough that those who hear me will say, "We must act."

The distinguished scientists with whom it is the greatest honor of my life to share this award have laid before us a choice between two different futures – a choice that to my ears echoes the words of an ancient prophet: "Life or death, blessings or curses. Therefore, choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live."

We, the human species, are confronting a planetary emergency – a threat to the survival of our civilization that is gathering ominous and destructive potential even as we gather here. But there is hopeful news as well: we have the ability to solve this crisis and avoid the worst – though not all – of its consequences, if we act boldly, decisively and quickly.

However, despite a growing number of honorable exceptions, too many of the world’s leaders are still best described in the words Winston Churchill applied to those who ignored Adolf Hitler’s threat: "They go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent."

So today, we dumped another 70 million tons of global-warming pollution into the thin shell of atmosphere surrounding our planet, as if it were an open sewer. And tomorrow, we will dump a slightly larger amount, with the cumulative concentrations now trapping more and more heat from the sun.

As a result, the earth has a fever. And the fever is rising. The experts have told us it is not a passing affliction that will heal by itself. We asked for a second opinion. And a third. And a fourth. And the consistent conclusion, restated with increasing alarm, is that something basic is wrong.

We are what is wrong, and we must make it right.

Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.

Seven years from now.

In the last few months, it has been harder and harder to misinterpret the signs that our world is spinning out of kilter. Major cities in North and South America, Asia and Australia are nearly out of water due to massive droughts and melting glaciers. Desperate farmers are losing their livelihoods. Peoples in the frozen Arctic and on low-lying Pacific islands are planning evacuations of places they have long called home. Unprecedented wildfires have forced a half million people from their homes in one country and caused a national emergency that almost brought down the government in another. Climate refugees have migrated into areas already inhabited by people with different cultures, religions, and traditions, increasing the potential for conflict. Stronger storms in the Pacific and Atlantic have threatened whole cities. Millions have been displaced by massive flooding in South Asia, Mexico, and 18 countries in Africa. As temperature extremes have increased, tens of thousands have lost their lives. We are recklessly burning and clearing our forests and driving more and more species into extinction. The very web of life on which we depend is being ripped and frayed.

We never intended to cause all this destruction, just as Alfred Nobel never intended that dynamite be used for waging war. He had hoped his invention would promote human progress. We shared that same worthy goal when we began burning massive quantities of coal, then oil and methane.

Even in Nobel’s time, there were a few warnings of the likely consequences. One of the very first winners of the Prize in chemistry worried that, "We are evaporating our coal mines into the air." After performing 10,000 equations by hand, Svante Arrhenius calculated that the earth’s average temperature would increase by many degrees if we doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Seventy years later, my teacher, Roger Revelle, and his colleague, Dave Keeling, began to precisely document the increasing CO2 levels day by day.

But unlike most other forms of pollution, CO2 is invisible, tasteless, and odorless -- which has helped keep the truth about what it is doing to our climate out of sight and out of mind. Moreover, the catastrophe now threatening us is unprecedented – and we often confuse the unprecedented with the improbable.

We also find it hard to imagine making the massive changes that are now necessary to solve the crisis. And when large truths are genuinely inconvenient, whole societies can, at least for a time, ignore them. Yet as George Orwell reminds us: "Sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield."

In the years since this prize was first awarded, the entire relationship between humankind and the earth has been radically transformed. And still, we have remained largely oblivious to the impact of our cumulative actions.

Indeed, without realizing it, we have begun to wage war on the earth itself. Now, we and the earth's climate are locked in a relationship familiar to war planners: "Mutually assured destruction."

More than two decades ago, scientists calculated that nuclear war could throw so much debris and smoke into the air that it would block life-giving sunlight from our atmosphere, causing a "nuclear winter." Their eloquent warnings here in Oslo helped galvanize the world’s resolve to halt the nuclear arms race.

Now science is warning us that if we do not quickly reduce the global warming pollution that is trapping so much of the heat our planet normally radiates back out of the atmosphere, we are in danger of creating a permanent "carbon summer."

As the American poet Robert Frost wrote, "Some say the world will end in fire; some say in ice." Either, he notes, "would suffice."

But neither need be our fate. It is time to make peace with the planet.

We must quickly mobilize our civilization with the urgency and resolve that has previously been seen only when nations mobilized for war. These prior struggles for survival were won when leaders found words at the 11th hour that released a mighty surge of courage, hope and readiness to sacrifice for a protracted and mortal challenge.

These were not comforting and misleading assurances that the threat was not real or imminent; that it would affect others but not ourselves; that ordinary life might be lived even in the presence of extraordinary threat; that Providence could be trusted to do for us what we would not do for ourselves.

No, these were calls to come to the defense of the common future. They were calls upon the courage, generosity and strength of entire peoples, citizens of every class and condition who were ready to stand against the threat once asked to do so. Our enemies in those times calculated that free people would not rise to the challenge; they were, of course, catastrophically wrong.

Now comes the threat of climate crisis – a threat that is real, rising, imminent, and universal. Once again, it is the 11th hour. The penalties for ignoring this challenge are immense and growing, and at some near point would be unsustainable and unrecoverable. For now we still have the power to choose our fate, and the remaining question is only this: Have we the will to act vigorously and in time, or will we remain imprisoned by a dangerous illusion?

Mahatma Gandhi awakened the largest democracy on earth and forged a shared resolve with what he called "Satyagraha" – or "truth force."

In every land, the truth – once known – has the power to set us free.

Truth also has the power to unite us and bridge the distance between "me" and "we," creating the basis for common effort and shared responsibility.

There is an African proverb that says, "If you want to go quickly, go alone. If you want to go far, go together." We need to go far, quickly.

We must abandon the conceit that individual, isolated, private actions are the answer. They can and do help. But they will not take us far enough without collective action. At the same time, we must ensure that in mobilizing globally, we do not invite the establishment of ideological conformity and a new lock-step "ism."

That means adopting principles, values, laws, and treaties that release creativity and initiative at every level of society in multifold responses originating concurrently and spontaneously.

This new consciousness requires expanding the possibilities inherent in all humanity. The innovators who will devise a new way to harness the sun's energy for pennies or invent an engine that’s carbon negative may live in Lagos or Mumbai or Montevideo. We must ensure that entrepreneurs and inventors everywhere on the globe have the chance to change the world.

When we unite for a moral purpose that is manifestly good and true, the spiritual energy unleashed can transform us. The generation that defeated fascism throughout the world in the 1940s found, in rising to meet their awesome challenge, that they had gained the moral authority and long-term vision to launch the Marshall Plan, the United Nations, and a new level of global cooperation and foresight that unified Europe and facilitated the emergence of democracy and prosperity in Germany, Japan, Italy and much of the world. One of their visionary leaders said, "It is time we steered by the stars and not by the lights of every passing ship."

In the last year of that war, you gave the Peace Prize to a man from my hometown of 2000 people, Carthage, Tennessee. Cordell Hull was described by Franklin Roosevelt as the "Father of the United Nations." He was an inspiration and hero to my own father, who followed Hull in the Congress and the U.S. Senate and in his commitment to world peace and global cooperation.

My parents spoke often of Hull, always in tones of reverence and admiration. Eight weeks ago, when you announced this prize, the deepest emotion I felt was when I saw the headline in my hometown paper that simply noted I had won the same prize that Cordell Hull had won. In that moment, I knew what my father and mother would have felt were they alive.

Just as Hull’s generation found moral authority in rising to solve the world crisis caused by fascism, so too can we find our greatest opportunity in rising to solve the climate crisis. In the Kanji characters used in both Chinese and Japanese, "crisis" is written with two symbols, the first meaning "danger," the second "opportunity." By facing and removing the danger of the climate crisis, we have the opportunity to gain the moral authority and vision to vastly increase our own capacity to solve other crises that have been too long ignored.

We must understand the connections between the climate crisis and the afflictions of poverty, hunger, HIV-Aids and other pandemics. As these problems are linked, so too must be their solutions. We must begin by making the common rescue of the global environment the central organizing principle of the world community.

Fifteen years ago, I made that case at the "Earth Summit" in Rio de Janeiro. Ten years ago, I presented it in Kyoto. This week, I will urge the delegates in Bali to adopt a bold mandate for a treaty that establishes a universal global cap on emissions and uses the market in emissions trading to efficiently allocate resources to the most effective opportunities for speedy reductions.

This treaty should be ratified and brought into effect everywhere in the world by the beginning of 2010 – two years sooner than presently contemplated. The pace of our response must be accelerated to match the accelerating pace of the crisis itself.

Heads of state should meet early next year to review what was accomplished in Bali and take personal responsibility for addressing this crisis. It is not unreasonable to ask, given the gravity of our circumstances, that these heads of state meet every three months until the treaty is completed.

We also need a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store carbon dioxide.

And most important of all, we need to put a price on carbon – with a CO2 tax that is then rebated back to the people, progressively, according to the laws of each nation, in ways that shift the burden of taxation from employment to pollution. This is by far the most effective and simplest way to accelerate solutions to this crisis.

The world needs an alliance – especially of those nations that weigh heaviest in the scales where earth is in the balance. I salute Europe and Japan for the steps they’ve taken in recent years to meet the challenge, and the new government in Australia, which has made solving the climate crisis its first priority.

But the outcome will be decisively influenced by two nations that are now failing to do enough: the United States and China. While India is also growing fast in importance, it should be absolutely clear that it is the two largest CO2 emitters — most of all, my own country –– that will need to make the boldest moves, or stand accountable before history for their failure to act.

Both countries should stop using the other’s behavior as an excuse for stalemate and instead develop an agenda for mutual survival in a shared global environment.

These are the last few years of decision, but they can be the first years of a bright and hopeful future if we do what we must. No one should believe a solution will be found without effort, without cost, without change. Let us acknowledge that if we wish to redeem squandered time and speak again with moral authority, then these are the hard truths:

The way ahead is difficult. The outer boundary of what we currently believe is feasible is still far short of what we actually must do. Moreover, between here and there, across the unknown, falls the shadow.

That is just another way of saying that we have to expand the boundaries of what is possible. In the words of the Spanish poet, Antonio Machado, "Pathwalker, there is no path. You must make the path as you walk."

We are standing at the most fateful fork in that path. So I want to end as I began, with a vision of two futures – each a palpable possibility – and with a prayer that we will see with vivid clarity the necessity of choosing between those two futures, and the urgency of making the right choice now.

The great Norwegian playwright, Henrik Ibsen, wrote, "One of these days, the younger generation will come knocking at my door."

The future is knocking at our door right now. Make no mistake, the next generation will ask us one of two questions. Either they will ask: "What were you thinking; why didn’t you act?"

Or they will ask instead: "How did you find the moral courage to rise and successfully resolve a crisis that so many said was impossible to solve?"

We have everything we need to get started, save perhaps political will, but political will is a renewable resource.

So let us renew it, and say together: "We have a purpose. We are many. For this purpose we will rise, and we will act."

Labels: climate

We recently reported on the effort led by the fossil-fuel-funded John Locke Foundation and Heartland Institute to scuttle North Carolina's efforts to regulate greenhouse gas pollution. Among their arguments against addressing such pollution: the biblical End Times are coming, so what's a little warming anyway?

Well, one of the latest states to be subjected to the wacky ideas of the climate change doubters is Kentucky. Last month, state Rep. Jim Gooch -- the Kentucky Democrats' chief environmental strategist and longtime coal industry buddy -- held a hearing on global warming but declined to invite any scientists to speak. Instead, he invited Lord Christopher Monckton ("the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley"), an adviser to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who once called for HIV/AIDS patients to be locked up for life, and James Taylor, a Florida-based fellow with the Heartland Institute.

Taylor blatantly lied to the lawmakers, claiming that "most scientists don't believe in global warming." He also claimed that warmer weather would allow "our children" to "enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life." Monckton, meanwhile, quoted the Bible while claiming global warming was a myth perpetuated by Al Gore, the United Nations, Hollywood and the media.

After protests by lawmakers over the unbalanced two-hour presentation, Gooch allowed two environmentalists from the audience to speak for a few minutes. Read about the whole debacle in this story from the Kentucky Herald-Leader.

Labels: climate, kentucky, politics

Storms bringing heavy rainfall are now 24 percent more frequent across the United States today than they were 60 years ago, including in many areas of the South. That confirms scientists' warnings that a warming global climate will bring more extreme weather events, from prolonged droughts such as the one currently afflicting the Southeast to more heavy rainstorms.

The storm findings come from a new report by Environment America, which looked at trends in the frequency of big rain and snow events across the continental United States from 1948 to 2006.

"This report demonstrates that we are already seeing the effects of global warming even with a relatively small increase in temperatures," said Dr. William Moomaw, director of the Center for International Environment and Resource Policy at The Tufts University Fletcher School and a member of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "The projected increases are much greater, and the impacts are already much more than was predicted. It is imperative that we begin now to reduce the emissions of heat trapping gases to avoid serious and uncontrollable damage."

While New England and the Mid-Atlantic region experienced the biggest increases in storms with heavy precipitation at 61 and 42 percent respectively, the frequency of such strong storms has also increased significantly in many Southern states, including Louisiana (52 percent), West Virginia (40 percent), Alabama (35 percent), Mississippi (34 percent), Texas (28 percent), Virginia (25 percent), Tennessee (21 percent), Kentucky and North Carolina (16 percent), and Georgia and South Carolina (14 percent).

While the frequency of such storms decreased in Arkansas (by 1 percent) and Florida (by 12 percent), at least one Florida community experienced significant increases in heavy rainfall events: the Sarasota-Bradenton metro area, with a 95 percent increase. Other Southern metro areas with big increases in extreme rainstorms included Jackson, Miss. (187 percent); Baton Rouge, La. (110 percent); the Augusta-Aiken area in Georgia and South Carolina ( 84 percent); Mobile, Ala. (80 percent); and New Orleans and El Paso, Texas (51 percent).

The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is expected to begin work today on historic legislation to address global warming -- the Lieberman-Warner Security Act of 2007 (S. 2191), sponsored by Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.). The bill would cap greenhouse gas emissions and reduce them by 60 percent by 2050 through a system under which companies are assigned pollution credits that can be bought, sold and traded. By midday yesterday, Republican critics of the measure led by global warming skeptic Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) had filed more than 150 amendments that would weaken the bill's efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Meanwhile, Environment America Director Anna Aurilio says the bill’s current pollution reduction targets fall short of what's necessary to avoid the worst effects of global warming. At the same time, the legislation subsidizes dirty and dangerous energy sources. For Environment America's analysis of the legislation and proposed amendments, click here.

According to the latest science, the United States must reduce its total greenhouse gas emissions by at least 15 percent by 2020 and by at least 80 percent by 2050 in order to stave off the worst effects of global warming.

(Photo of July 2007 Texas flooding by Bob McMillan for FEMA)

Labels: climate, politics

We recently brought you the story of how the John Locke Foundation of North Carolina has been leading the attack on states' efforts to regulate greenhouse gases while failing to disclose that it's funded by business interests with a financial stake in stopping such regulations. Well, this week the market-fundamentalist think tank fired another shot in its war against efforts to address global warming with a report on how cap-and-trade programs for carbon dioxide emissions -- one of the options being considered by state lawmakers -- would "hurt consumers and the poor disproportionately."

After we recovered from the shock of hearing an organization that's defended post-disaster price gouging and balancing the state budget with human-service program cuts expressing concern for consumers and the poor, we decided to check out their claims.

As it turns out, they're not completely accurate. Whether carbon cap-and-trade will hurt the poor depends on how those programs are designed.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities -- a Washington-based think tank that analyzes policies for their impact on low- and moderate-income families -- recently turned its attention to cap-and-trade programs. The conclusion of their report, released earlier this month? The government can reduce greenhouse-gas emissions with cap-and-trade programs in a way that does not increase poverty or otherwise harm low-income households:

Higher energy prices affect households with limited incomes the most. They spend a larger share of their budgets on energy than better-off households do. They also are less able to afford investments that can reduce their energy demand, such as a more efficient car or heating and cooling system.

Fortunately, well-designed climate-change policies can provide sufficient revenue to cushion the impact on vulnerable households and meet other legitimate public needs, such as expanded research on alternative energy sources. A carbon tax can accomplish these goals. So can a "cap-and-trade system" -- as long as it treats the emission allowances as a resource to be auctioned off for public purposes rather than handed to energy companies free of charge. In contrast, giving away the allowances would provide "windfall profits" for energy companies, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and would amount to "corporate welfare," according to Greg Mankiw, the former chairman of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers.

If policymakers do not adequately protect vulnerable households from the increase in energy prices, many low-income Americans will slip into poverty and those who are already poor will grow poorer. Alternatively, if policymakers address these and other public needs but do so through deficit spending because they fail to auction enough of the emission allowances to cover the costs, the federal budget deficit -- already on course to reach unsustainable levels in future decades -- will grow still larger.

Well-designed climate-change policies can avoid both of these outcomes. In other words, they can slow global warming without increasing poverty and hardship among low-income households and without enlarging the deficit.

The CBPP report notes that policymakers need to reserve only an estimated 14 percent of the total value of the emission allowances under a cap-and-trade system to fund so-called "climate rebates" that protect vulnerable households from higher energy costs. It puts forth a number of principles for doing this, which include providing relief through existing systems rather than creating new bureaucracies, focusing not only on utility bills but also taking into account higher prices for gas and other products, and adjusting relief to reflect changing needs over time. The organization is now developing policy options based on these principles.

Meanwhile, a United Nations Development Programme report released this week points out that doing nothing to rein in carbon emissions would itself have a devastating impact on the world's poor. Said UNDP Administrator Kemal Derviş in a statement announcing the report:

An increase of a worldwide average of 3 degrees centigrade (compared to pre-industrial temperatures) over the coming decades would result in a range of localized increases that could reach twice as high in some places. The effect that increased droughts, extreme weather events, tropical storms and sea level rises will have on large parts of Africa, on many small island states and coastal zones will be inflicted in our lifetimes. Increased exposure to droughts, floods and storms is already destroying opportunity and reinforcing inequalities. Thus, while climate change is a challenge for all, it is primarily and most immediately a challenge for developing countries in the lower latitudes which will face the impact of global warming not within centuries, but within decades.

Labels: climate, john locke foundation

Last week we brought you news of the excellent database launched by the Center for Global Development showing carbon dioxide emissions from the world's power plants. Now a British newspaper has used that database as a starting point to illustrate the close ties between a major greenhouse gas polluter and the Bush administration, which has been reluctant to take strong steps to curb global warming pollution -- and has even tried to deny the reality of the problem despite the scientific consensus that the threat is real and demands immediate action.

The CARMA database shows that the top carbon dioxide-polluting company in the United States -- and the sixth-worst in the world -- is the Atlanta-based Southern Co., which serves more than 4 million people throughout the Southeast. One Southern Co. coal-fired plant in Juliette, Ga. releases more carbon dioxide each year than Brazil's entire power sector, according to CARMA. Not surprisingly, the company does not support mandatory caps or taxes on carbon emissions, which it claims are likely to slow economic growth.

A story in today's Independent UK points out that Southern in turn is one of the largest financiers of the Republican Party, whose leadership has also resisted carbon caps and taxes. Reports the Independent:

Southern's employees handed George Bush $217,047 to help him get elected twice, and they and the company have contributed an extraordinary $6.2m to Republican campaigns since 1990 according to the Centre for Responsive Politics.

The Independent also notes that one of the main lobbyists for the Southern Co. when Bush took office was none other than Haley Barbour, former chair of the Republican Party and the recently re-elected governor of Mississippi. Barbour "played a crucial role in persuading [Bush] to back away from his original campaign promise to reduce CO2 emissions when he first ran for president in 2000," the paper reports.

On Friday, the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its fourth report, which summarizes the global warming problem for policy makers. Citing concerns over species extinction and the growing risk of extreme weather events, it argues strongly in favor of taking immediate action to mitigate and adapt to a climate that's already changing.

And in a rebuke to Southern Co. and others who argue against taking action on economic grounds, the IPCC summary says that combating greenhouse gas pollution would not lead to economic ruin. "There is high agreement and much evidence of substantial economic potential for the mitigation of global greenhouse gas emissions over the coming decades," the report says -- if governments adopt the right policies and incentives now.

Labels: campaign finance, climate, energy policy, politics

The Institute's special report released this week -- exposing the NC-based John Locke Foundation's crusade against state climate policy, and the corporate interests backing them -- continues to rage on.

See, for example, the spirited discussion over at Ed Cone's blog. Once you get past the odd food-fight debate tactics -- like John Hood of the Locke Foundation trying to link us to Fidel Castro (huh?) -- there's a useful debate developing about the importance of disclosing one's funders, and the role financial backers play in shaping politics.

There's more coverage over at NC Public Radio's policy blog Isaac Hunter's Tavern, although writer Laura Leslie bypasses these key issues and focuses on one narrow aspect of the study:

What's missing from the [Institute for Southern Studies] report is the fact that JLF took in somewhere north of $8.5 million in that timeframe. That puts the allegedly oil-tainted money at less than 1.5 percent of its budget, which would be a fire-sale price for a major policy position.

Leslie is overlooking the central thrust of our report, which is about disclosure: the fact that the John Locke Foundation has publicly gone after the Center for Climate Strategies for taking money from "environmentalist foundations" -- which, in Locke's eyes, undermines the credibility of the entire operation -- yet it has taken a series of steps to obscure and conceal many of its own funders.

Yesterday, my colleague Sue Sturgis elaborated on several ways in which the Locke Foundation has been less than forthcoming with such information. When Locke is so secretive and disingenuous about their funding -- and other issues like their sponsorship of the Climate Strategies Watch website, their connection to the Heartland Institute, etc. -- the question looms: what are they trying to hide?

Second, in our report we clearly note that there are other corporate interests that give money to Locke who have an interest in defeating global warming legislation, beyond the $126,000 in energy-related funding. We devote two paragraphs to Art Pope -- far and away Locke's leading backer -- and explain why he also has a "dog in the fight" of defeating energy regulations. Further down, we note both the energy industry AND automotive industry money tied to Sen. Robert Pittenger, Locke's leading advocate for defeating climate policy in the NC legislature.

Finally, does it really make sense to measure the impact and influence of corporate contributions to an outfit like Locke in terms of the percentage of its annual budget? The history of politics is filled with seemingly small contributions that exert a major influence; for example, deposed North Carolina House Speaker Jim Black received only $8,000 from video poker PACs in 2004 (pdf) -- a miniscule percentage of his total haul -- but it was symbolic of a relationship that was central to his operation (and downfall).

My quick estimate is that roughly 5-10% of the Locke Foundation's overall program relates to climate issues -- which means that $126,000 of money tied to energy interests isn't small at all. It's at least enough to bankroll one in-house climate skeptic "expert" -- even if this "expert" happens to occasionally fall for hoaxes published in non-existent science journals.

But such percentages really don't tell a useful story. A better question to ask might be, if energy interests really thought their contributions weren't having any impact in shaping the policy direction of anti-regulation think tanks like Locke, why would they keep making them?

Big Energy and other corporate interests are not giving John Hood money because of his good looks. As the Union of Concerned Scientists report we cite and others have documented, energy companies have devised a thoughtful, national strategy to help defeat efforts to curb global warming pollutants. This includes investing money in think tanks who will make the needed arguments -- largely based on scant evidence -- that global warming doesn't exist, that regulations will destroy the economy, etc.

The energy companies, shrewd strategists that they are, clearly think they are getting something for this investment -- and I think they'd know best.

The fact that Locke goes to such great lengths to conceal its relationship to this larger effort only bolsters the case that Big Energy and other corporate interests are putting money into the John Locke Foundation for a reason. That's the central point to remember.

Labels: center for climate strategies, climate, energy policy, john locke foundation

Anyone interested in understanding how much carbon dioxide pollution is being emitted by the world's power plants has a terrific new resource to turn to: the Carbon Monitoring for Action database, or CARMA.

A project of the Confronting Climate Change Initiative at the Center for Global Development, an independent and nonpartisan think tank located in Washington, D.C., CARMA offers details about carbon emissions for power facilities around the world, whether they're fueled by coal, nuclear or renewable resources.

CARMA includes data on more than 50,000 power plants, 4,000 power companies, and nearly 200,000 geographic regions in every country on Earth. Users can view carbon emissions data for the present, the year 2000, and future plans. CARMA’s data will be updated quarterly to reflect changes in plant ownership and planned construction. The data shows that the United States is the world leader in terms of carbon emissions from electrical production, emitting 2.79 billion tons, followed by China at 2.66 billion tons and Russia a distant third at 661 million tons.

The database offers eye-opening information about carbon emissions from power plants in the 13-state region we consider the South (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia). The region has a total of 1,624 power plants, less than 20 percent of the nation's total of 9,190 plants. But the South's facilities this year alone will pump out about 1.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide -- 43 percent of the nation's total emissions of about 2.8 billion tons. In other words, dirty power plants are disproportionately located in the South.

Of the 13 Southern states, the leader by far in the total number of power plants, "red alert" plants producing more than 1,750 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour, and total CO2 tonnage is Texas. The Lone Star State has 335 power plants, 81 "red alert" plants, and total CO2 emissions of 290 million tons for this year alone. Florida and Georgia tie for second in the number of "red alerts," with 52 each. And Kentucky leads the region in terms of its plants' "intensity," a measure of pounds of CO2 emitted per megawatt-hour of electricity produced.

The following chart is based on data drawn from the CARMA database:

Labels: climate, energy policy, global warming

In my story about the fossil fuel-funded attack on the Center for Climate Strategies, I incorrectly reported that the group "embraced" gas taxes. In fact, the Center does not "embrace" any policy solutions to climate change; gas taxes are merely one of the options the group catalogues for policymakers' consideration. I regret the error.

Labels: climate, energy policy, politics

The story I wrote about the fossil-fueled attack against the Center for Climate Strategies by the North Carolina-based John Locke Foundation has apparently touched a nerve with Locke's Executive Director John Hood, judging by his defensive comments over at Greensboro, N.C.-based blogger Ed Cone's site.

Hood calls my story a "rehash" of a piece I wrote two years ago for the Durham, N.C.-based Independent Weekly. Actually, the earlier story I wrote -- "Turning the warming tide" -- focused on the effect climate change was expected to have on North Carolina if no effort were made to rein in human contributions to the problem. But it did examine the work of the John Locke Foundation as the most outspoken opponent of attempts to address greenhouse gas pollution in the state.

Since that earlier story was published, Hood has repeatedly misrepresented a question I asked him during our interview. He's done that again on Cone's blog.

I'd like to set the record straight.

While reporting the Independent story, I met with Hood to discuss his organization's scientifically unconventional ideas on climate change as well as its funding sources. On the latter topic, I asked him to let me look at his group's 990 Schedule Bs -- tax forms that disclose funding sources. As a nonprofit, the organization is legally obligated to share that information. But Hood refused, telling me, "We don't ever give that out. That's just not something we ever do." (He later blamed his gaffe on bad legal advice.)

I then asked him if his organization accepted money from outfits with ties to fossil-fuel interests. Hood disputes that, insisting I asked only if his group got money from oil interests. As he wrote on Cone's blog:

In that case, she asked me a question about funding from oil companies, I answered it, then she retroactively rewrote the question and reported that I had evaded it.

What Hood apparently did not count on in that interview was that I already had copies of his organization's tax forms showing it had taken money from Big Coal as well as Big Oil. Obviously I wasn't interested only in his organization's oil funding but in its funding from all interests with a financial stake in scuttling carbon regulations. I formulated my question accordingly.

But even if I had asked Hood only about his oil industry funding, he still prevaricated in telling me that he did not accept money from such interests. In fact, his organization has received a significant amount of money over the years from the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundations, one of the Koch family funds operated by David and Charles Koch of Koch Industries, the nation's largest privately held oil conglomerate.

So now Hood accuses me of "construct[ing] an elaborate conspiracy theory" by connecting the Kochs' financial interests with their charitable giving. But is it really an "elaborate conspiracy theory" to note that the Kochs' charity has founded and supported groups that have helped boost Koch wealth by denying the reality of climate change and fighting efforts to address it?

The fact is, there has been a concerted, corporate-funded effort to deny global warming and to fight efforts to regulate greenhouse pollution, as Greenpeace, the Union of Concerned Scientists and others have documented. And the John Locke Foundation and its allies in the attack on the Center for Climate Strategies have been part of that effort.

What especially concerns me is Locke's effort to thwart full disclosure, as evidenced by its past refusal to hand over its tax paperwork, its unwillingness to list institutional funders on its Web site (unlike we at the Institute for Southern Studies do, and its failure to reveal its own funding in its coverage of the Center for Climate Strategies while at the same time attacking that group for its own money sources. Then we have the effort by Locke and the Heartland Institute to hide their role behind the Climate Strategies Watch Web site by registering the site anonymously, initially leaving out any sponsorship information, and announcing the site on the Locke blog without disclosing the group's own role in creating it. That's no way to have an honest discussion about an important public policy issue.

In his post at Cone's site, Hood raises a point he also made in my Independent story: that funding of the organizations participating in the public debate over climate change policy should not matter because we ought to be evaluating ideas on the basis of their validity, not who's bringing them to the table. Unfortunately, that idealistic vision of a public policy debate where all voices are listened to equally does not describe the reality of the state policy-making process, where money amplifies some voices above others. Given that reality, full disclosure of players' financial interests is crucial.

It made me chuckle when Hood accused me of engaging in "anti-Christian bigotry" for mentioning his editor's attack on the Evangelical Climate Initiative. My straight reporting of his editor's mean-spirited, name-calling rhetorical assault on a Christian group concerned about global warming is "anti-Christian bigotry"? That's rich.

In closing, I'd like to correct another error of fact in Hood's comments. He wrongly stated that the Institute for Southern Studies is associated with "IPS in Washington," by which I assume he means the nonprofit Institute for Policy Studies. While it's true that some ISS board members were involved with IPS in the early 1970s, there has been no connection between the organizations since then.

That said, I must disagree with Hood's characterization of IPS as "odious" -- especially given the group's work documenting the social and environmental consequences of public lending for fossil-fuel projects. However, I can understand why a mouthpiece for the interests of Big Oil and Big Coal wouldn't appreciate that sort of thing.

Labels: climate, energy policy, politics

Our report yesterday on the North Carolina-based John Locke Foundation and its efforts to derail state climate policy is generating a lot of attention -- and ruffling a few feathers.

The Raleigh News & Observer's Under the Dome blog -- which looks at key issues in state politics -- covered the report today. Blue NC and ExxonSecrets have more.

But most interesting is the debate heating up at Ed Cone's excellent blog, where none other than Locke Foundation president John Hood himself took time out of his busy day to pen a (rather cranky) 578-word "rebuttal."

We'll have a lengthier reply soon, but for the moment note that Hood never challenges one of the central arguments of the Institute report: that one of the Locke Foundation's key lines of attack against the centrist Center for Climate Strategies is that they take money from supposedly "environmentalist" funders -- which, according to Locke, taints the Center's entire program.

Yet Locke sees no conflict in collecting more than $126,000 in money from outfits directly tied to ExxonMobil and other energy interests as they weigh in on climate policy.

Hood and the Locke Foundation can't have it both ways -- just like they can't dismiss as "anti-Christian bigotry" the seeming disconnect we found between their calls for "harder science" and the interesting End of Times beliefs of their staff (see end of story).

Labels: climate, energy policy, institute investigations

HOSTILE CLIMATE

The Center for Climate Strategies wants to help states cut global warming pollution. A North Carolina think tank funded by energy interests wants to stop them.

By Sue Sturgis

Given Washington's reluctance to tackle global warming, many states have recently taken the initiative, drawing up their own plans to cut carbon emissions. For help, 25 states have turned to the Center for Climate Strategies, a nonprofit group of scientists, engineers, business strategists and policy experts who guide states in figuring out how to best reduce greenhouse gas pollution.

But in recent months, the Center has become the target of concerted attacks by the John Locke Foundation, a conservative North Carolina-based think tank that opposes strict environmental regulations. A longtime skeptic of prevailing climate science, which it criticizes as "alarmist," Locke has published a series of scathing attacks directed at the Center in its own publications and other outlets including the American Spectator, Washington Times, Washington Examiner and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

Why the hostility? Among Locke's criticisms is that the Center for Climate Strategies was founded by an "environmental advocacy group." In fact, it was created by a business-friendly organization, the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, whose current directors include representatives from leading energy companies like PPL Corp., Inter-Power, Exelon and Reliant.

Locke also criticizes the Center for taking money from foundations that it accuses of being "on the global warming panic train," among them the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Turner Foundation and the Heinz Endowments.*

But Locke's diatribes against the Center fail to disclose the potential bias in its own funding sources. According to an Institute for Southern Studies analysis of the group's tax returns, the John Locke Foundation received at least $126,500 from outfits with ties to the fossil-fuel industry between fiscal 2002 and 2005.

Looming large behind a number of Locke's funders is ExxonMobil. Since 1998, the oil giant has funneled more than $16 million to several dozen advocacy organizations in an effort that a recent Union of Concerned Scientists report described as seeking "to deceive the public about the reality of global warming" by "using seemingly independent front organizations to publicly further its desired message."

Among the fossil-fuel-tainted contributions the Locke Foundation has received:

* $70,000 from the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, one of the Koch Family Foundations operated by billionaires David and Charles Koch of Koch Industries, the largest privately owned oil company in the United States.

* $20,000 from the Cato Institute, an anti-regulatory think tank that was co-founded by Charles Koch. Cato has received at least $110,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998, according to ExxonSecrets.org, a Web site sponsored by Greenpeace USA. ExxonSecrets.org also reports that Cato has received funds from such other fossil-fuel interests as the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron and Shell Oil.

* $15,000 from the Reason Foundation, an anti-regulatory think thank that's received $381,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998, according to ExxonSecrets.org. Reason has also received funds from the American Petroleum Institute, BP Amoco and Koch Industries.

* $10,000 from the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, an anti-regulatory think tank that's received $780,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998, according to ExxonSecrets.org. Charles Koch is also a major funder.

* $6,500 from the Center for Energy and Economic Development, a Texas-based nonprofit dedicated to protecting the viability of coal-based electricity.

* $5,000 from the DCI Group, a Republican lobbying firm that has received $140,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998, according to ExxonSecrets.org.

The John Locke Foundation's biggest funder is James Arthur "Art" Pope, who founded the organization and has given it more than $8 million since 2002. A former Republican N.C. state representative, Pope has served on the boards of the Exxon-funded Atlas Economic Research Foundation, as well as Citizens for a Sound Economy, another Koch-founded group that's also taken more than $380,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.

Aside from being a prominent politico -- his hometown paper has dubbed him "the knight of the right" -- Pope is president and CFO of Variety Wholesalers, a company operating more than 500 discount retail stores in 14 states. Though not an energy firm, Variety does have an economic interest in avoiding gas taxes -- a proposal embraced catalogued* by the Center -- since its profits depend on importing and distributing foreign-made goods as cheaply as possible.


The John Locke Foundation stepped up its crusade against the Center for Climate Strategies this September, when it teamed up with the Heartland Institute to host a conference call promising to expose the Center’s "hijacking of climate policy."

The Heartland Institute was a natural ally: The Chicago-based think tank has long fought any attempts to curtail global warming pollutants. Heartland has also taken at least $791,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998, according to ExxonSecrets.org, and the Union of Concerned Scientists found that nearly 40 percent of the funds the institute got from the oil giant were earmarked for fighting climate change regulations. In addition, Walter Buchholtz, who's listed as Heartland's government relations advisor on the group's 2005 tax return (PDF), has also served as ExxonMobil’s senior environmental advisor.

The featured speaker for the Sept. 12 conference call -- which drew state legislators, policy analysts, and a lobbyist for Peabody Energy, the world's largest coal company -- was Michael Sanera, Locke's research director. Sanera is also a member of an advisory board for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow and a former analyst at the Heritage Foundation -- both funded by ExxonMobil.

Sanera led the attendees through a Power Point attack, accusing the Center for Climate Strategies of, among other things, peddling false assumptions such as the idea that "CO2 emission reduction is the solution to global warming." It offered participants a list of suggestions on how to counteract the Center that included "Discredit CCS's Sponsoring Organization (State environmental bureaucracy)," "Demand scientific peer review process," and "Demand cost-benefit analysis by academic economists."

The assault on the Center continued on Oct. 5, when Locke's blog announced the launch of Climate Strategies W