Yesterday the leadership of the California Legislature and Gov. Schwarzenagger agreed on a historic global warming bill which has now passed through the Senate with passage in the Assembly expected soon.

This bill mandates that California be at 1990 levels of carbon emissions by 2025, a 25% reduction, and that by 2011 the state will set greenhouse gas emissions limits and reduction measures. You can read a short synopsis of the legislation here.

To be clear, this makes California the first state to put caps on carbon dioxide emissions and other pollutants.

This underscores what I love about environmentalists. In the midst of massive federal attacks on the environment, state groups like Environment California, CLCV, and coalition groups like Clean Power Campaign worked tirelessly - canvassing the streets, running ads, and lobbying legislators - to build enough momentum to pass a very proactive piece of legislation. Kudos to all involved!

Ok, not really - but we've been awfully serious lately, and wanted to offer up a little levity. I think this made the rounds a while back, but we love Futurama, and this is pretty great. Enjoy!

If you're like me at all, you're furious that Congress won't raise the CAFE standard. Even a cursory glance shows if we were to double the gas mileage of cars from 20 mpg to 40 mpg, we'd see a 30% drop in our overall consumption of oil. This takes our usage from 25% of the world's supply of oil down to 16%. While that's not where we need to be, it would be a huge start.

But we've all heard the rhetoric that 'market forces will work it out'. And, to some degree, that's happening. Because of high gas prices, domestic production of SUVs is plummeting. Last week, Ford announced a 21% decrease in it's fourth quarter output. But, that's not a reason to rejoice. That kind of decrease means a loss of American jobs, upwards of 30,000 according to Ford. The snot-nose in me wants to point out that market driven forces are cutting American jobs, not environmental regulations as is often the claim, but again, this news brings me no joy.

As I pointed out last week, chemical companies suffer little when dumping chemicals and oil companies no longer have to pay a fee into the emergency oil spill clean up fund. Similarly in the auto industry, there is precious little penalty for manufacturers who fail to meet the CAFE standard. I found this on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) site today. It's a pretty simple breakdown of CAFE, how it works and its history.

One shocking piece however, is the fine breakdown when manufacturers' fleet fails to meet the CAFE standard. The site boasts:

Since 1983, manufacturers have paid more than $590 million in CAFE civil penalties. Most European manufacturers regularly pay CAFE civil penalties ranging from less than $1 million to more than $20 million annually. Asian and most of the big domestic manufacturers have never paid a civil penalty.

There are two important pieces here: first, $590 million sounds like a lot to you and me. In reality that is a drop in the bucket to them. If it's the top five companies who pay, it works out to $5M/year, or the cost of two Superbowl ads a year.

Secondly, Asian and 'big domestic manufacturers' have never paid a penalty. On the Asian side, you've got companies who produce a fleet that regular exceeds the CAFE standard, so it literally doesn't apply to them. As for the 'big domestic' guys, there's a section in CAFE that gives companies 'credits'. So, if one year you're above, you may credit that to a deficiency the next year.

In addition to benefiting from the fine offset, domestic manufacturers have moved heavily into SUV production, taking advantage of the loophole created by the distinction between cars and light trucks. Currently 'cars' are held to a higher standard of 27.5 mpg, while 'SUV/light trucks' can get away with only 22.2 miles per gallon for model year 2006.

Because SUVs aren't that much more expensive to manufacture, have smaller regulations on fuel economy, and are marked up incredibly, they've made a financial killing in the last fifteen years. Unfortunately, this has led to an 'all eggs in one basket' approach which is now hurting everyone badly.

The bottom line is that CAFE needs to be raised dramatically - there is no viable argument here, but we need to make sure fines for non-compliance are actually a deterrent. If it's going to be a market driven situation, then we need to drive the market by pressuring both our government and our industry, as well as with our pocketbooks.

Have you ever heard of the Oil Pollution Act (OPA)?

It was passed by Congress shortly after the Exxon Vadez disaster, and is the law allowing the federal government to oversee the cleanup of onshore and offshore oil spills. And, it seems like it's a pretty good law. It calls for the at-fault party to pay all cleanup and removal costs, it mandates that companies engaged in the production or transportation of oil have an amount of money to meet the liability limits set out, and provides money for clean up with the at fault party can't or won't. Not bad right?

The cool part is that the money for the fund used to clean up comes from a 5 cent levy on every barrel of domestic or imported oil used in the US. In the first 4 years under the law, that would've generated $1.25 billion for clean up costs. Great, right?

Except the provision for that 5 cent levy expired on December 31. 1994. Based on figured from the Department of energy, this means the federal government (us) has lost out on $3,521,629,793, and that doesn't count 2005 or 2006, which would bring that to over $4 billion dollars we've lost out on since 1994.

This mean we the taxpayer pays for this - we're paying for deadbeat corporations every day. Not only do they poison us with their toxic sludge, they make us pay to clean it up. Then they sell it to us for $3/gallon.

A child learns faster than this. We're getting burned, over and over again by big oil, and we keep supporting them. I know it's not easy, and I know it's going to take work, but we have to get off oil, because let's face it - if it weren't for oil, we wouldn't polluting our air so intensely, destroying our waterways so thoroughly, contaminating our communities so viciously, be doing business with unstable foreign powers, and paying for it at every step of the way.

We're swimming in signed petitions here in the office, and we had to give a quick note of congratulations to Liz and Dennis Goss of Missouri, who have collected the most so far at 62.

Nice work!

If you've got petitions yet to send in, it's not too late! Send them off to us, so we can get every voice counted!

So far we've heard back from a handful of the house parties - overall, everyone really enjoyed the film, 'Addicted to Oil', and also had a lot of fun with their fellow Environmental Action activists.

Big or small, the events seem to have been not only successful, but also the START of something, which is really quite exciting.

Matt, one of out Chicago-area hosts had this to say,

..everything went great......we are planning on having similar events in the future

Turns out, we've got some great writers too! Lauren, our Atlanta host, said that everyone who showed decided to write one 'group' letter to the editor, which this as the sign-off:

As global warming accelerates, as pressure to drill in pristine places like the Arctic Refuge grows stronger, and as our dependence on oil jeopardizes our economy and our security, we urge other readers to support a massive, government-led increase in fuel efficiency for our cars and trucks. We believe that cars and trucks that travel much further on a gallon of gasoline are the most important piece of the puzzle to reducing – and eventually breaking free entirely – from our dangerous dependence on oil.

So overall, a pretty great success! We'll keep everyone posted about other events as they come up through out the year!

I still haven't seen this film yet, but I intend to once the schedule permits.

I'm actually a little worried that with the massive success of 'An Inconvenient Truth', people may not swarm out to see this one. (AIT, btw, is now officially the 3rd highest grossing doc of all time, surpassing 'Bowling for Columbine recently)

The premise of WKTEC is that in the 90's there was a strong electric car program in California which was killed after a short time. According to people who took part in the program, the cars were fantastic, and they wanted to keep them, but since all the cars were leased, when the lease was up there was no option for renewal.

One of the lessees made this documentary wondering why the program was killed, and it appears the usual suspect (oil and car industries) torpedoed the program.

Check the link above to learn more, and find show times near you.

Today's Tulsa World quotes Sen. Inhofe of OK as being both for the 'Bridge to Nowhere', which is the bridge in Alaska Congress has funded to the tune of $230 million, even though it connects an island of only 50 inhabitants to the mainland (that's $4.6 million PER PERSON), while simultaneously believing in and rebuking global warming:

He didn't dispute that the Earth is warming but said the reasons for it and the likely outcome are not as certain as many others believe.

He reiterated his belief that global warming is largely a front for international economic movements.

"I see this, I see this, and I know it's true," he said.

So, I put this out to Sen. Inhofe right now - I am fighting global warming tooth and nail, and if he wants to come take a look at my 'international economic movement' he is welcome to. He can contact me through this site.

The only thing I think he'll find is an '83 Volvo sedan I stopped driving almost a year ago.

Really, what is it with these guys? We're saying, let's produce energy cleanly and safely, at home, employing Americans. They're saying, let's keep importing 60% of our oil from unstable foreign economies, drill every pristine area just in case it has oil, and ship jobs oversees. Who is it that's being ruled by international financial concerns?

I'll let you all know when I hear from Sen. Inhofe.

One aspect of oil which has been little-discussed at any serious level is seriously hiking the cost of a gallon of gas. Grist discussed this over the weekend, but it's been on our minds as well.

The reality is that to be sustainable as a society, we have to drastically reduce our dependence on oil. The solutions are clear, and we've discussed those at great lengths - but how to get a rather large populace to embrace those solutions and clamor for them?

It's hard to deny that if gas cost $6-10/gallon, the people would respond with a resounding call for better gas mileage, more alternative fuels, and better public transit.

Most people have either seen or heard about the massive Lebanese oil spill last month, and then today's pledge from the UN to spend $64 million on its clean up.

Grist today pointed out the United Nation's Environmental Project's impact page, which goes into some pretty amazing detail about the spill, and its longterm impacts. Well worth checking out.

To put it into perspective, if the Lebanese spill hits the 'worst case scenario' level, it would be on par with the Exxon Valdez spill, one of the worst in history. Obviously the coast of Lebanon is an important eco-system, and we applaud the UN for stepping in to help.

Just two months after being sworn is as Secretary of the Interior, Dirk Kempthorne has opened up tens of thousands of acres of sensitive wetlands on the north slope of Alaska for oil and gas exploration.

This comes just 10 days after BP-Alaska shut down a bunch of their operations in Prudhoe Bay due to faulty and rusty pipelines.

According to AP:

The oil industry says it spends tens of millions of dollars for environmental protection on the North Slope and using modern technology can explore and develop oil fields in sensitive areas without a risk to wildlife and the environment.

Add to BP's shutdown the two massive oil spills this week, including the worst in the Philippines history, I find it hard to believe anyone would believe this line from the industry.

According to CBS news, a Japanese tanker carrying 250,000 tons of oil collided with a cargo ship and spilled 1.4 million gallons of crude into the Indian Ocean.

Separately, in the Philippines a tanker with 528,000 gallons of industrial fuel sank in rough waters, and the fuel was leaking.

Obviously, we need to get off oil. If you haven't seen this map yet, you should check it out. It's an interactive world map chronicling major oil spills since 1960, and is pretty disturbing.

A few things bug me, outside of the obvious destruction of our oceans.

First - when I think of words like 'spill' and 'leak' as they use in most news articles about oil catastrophes, I think of 'glass of milk' and 'toilet/plumbing', both problems I can fix easily at home, and which cause harm to nobody. It seems that dumping 1.4 million gallons of oil into the ocean is not a 'spill' at all, but a disaster.

Second - according to the map above, and adding in this weeks' spills, since October of 2002, we've dumped 1,511,085 barrels, or 63,465,570 gallons of oil into our waterways. At $70/barrel, that's $105,775,950 bucks.

Thirdly - Really, we can't forget the environmental devastation. That much oil pumped into our oceans kills plant life, bird life, and could have negative impacts on the oceans' eco-system for decades to come.

I have to say it again - Environmental Action members are the best! So far, we've got a bunch of people signed up for the first Environmental Action House parties happening on the 23rd!

We'll be watching 'Addicted to Oil: Thomas Friedman Reporting', discussing the energy issue, and then writing letters to editors of local papers.

It's all part of our plan to take Energy Independence to the Senate - and it's going very well.

Thanks to everyone who's signed up, and to see what you can do, click here.

Last week, I talked about how there's some decent sized PR campaign to actually compare environmentalists to Nazis. Well, the campaign is not stopping, though it may be shifting a little.

A member wrote in today about this article in USA Today which pulls apart Gore's enviro street cred because he's not using a ton of green energy himself and owns a couple homes.

There're a couple intrinsic flaws in this argument, I believe.

Firstly, there's the fact that Al Gore, with his film, book, and lecture series has done more for the environment than most any other large public figure

Secondly, from a big picture standpoint, this argument is frustrating. I've done quite a bit of door-to-door canvassing for Environment Action and other environmental groups. There's always a tension in aspects of running a field campaign office - you have to use paper, you have to transport bodies to canvass, etc. Obviously, there's a a gain environmentally from getting more people involved, but it's not 'free' - there's also an eco-cost, and the important thing is to weigh the long term gain from the long term loss, and figure out how to come out ahead.

Again, this whole Gore-bashing campaign is frustrating, and I would argue, getting out of hand.

Together we've launched a successful campaign to take Energy Independence to the Senate. We've generated over 1,500 emails to Senate targets, and right now hundreds of you are out collecting signatures on a petition to our Senators. Based on your feedback, we should have no problem getting 5,000 petition signatures.

We want to continue building momentum - by bringing Environmental Action members together to learn more about the issue and sending a message to the media.

So we're setting up house parties for Wednesday, August 23rd where members can gather to watch 'Addicted to Oil: Thomas Friedman Reporting', which recently aired on the Discovery Channel, and then write letters to the editor about our effort. This is a great chance to meet each other face to face and get some political work done.

We need hosts all over the country, so if you're interested, click here.

Hosting a house party is both fun, and important. And this documentary is fantastic. Thomas Friedman, a writer for the New York Times, has done some of the best reporting on America's dependence on oil in the last year, really bringing the issue to the forefront of mainstream media.

Events will kick off at 6:30 - we'll send you a free copy of the DVD, and then make sure you know who's coming to your party.

First, there's Al Gore signing my copy of 'An Inconvenient Truth' at Tattered Cover Books in Denver this weekend, which was very exciting!

I'm sure by now the news is pretty played out that a PR firm funded by ExxonMobil created an 'anonymous' video on YouTube mocking Al Gore's film, and played it off as if it was directed by an unknown 29-year old filmmaker.

Obviously, this runs counter to much of what's great about YouTube, but what's interesting is how everyone is SHOCKED that a PR firm and/or an oil company would stoop so low as to lie. These are the same people who tried to convince the American people that oil pipelines through the Arctic Wildlife Refuge would be good for the caribou since it would provide them with warmth. They fund bogus 'grassroots groups' all the time, and then call Environmental Action canvassers 'paid agitators'. They fund a small handful of scientists to say that global warming is just a theory, then parade them around the talkshows to talk about sensible science. They have no morals, scruples, or tact.

But I'm not cynical, because we're going to beat these guys.

Before signing the books on Saturday, Mr. Gore spoke for a few minutes about global warming. He described how during World War II America came together to stop fascism - and that he believes we will do so again. Essentially, when faced with a global threat, Americans will rise to the challenge.

I think that's been my biggest beef with the Bush Administration's environmental policies - they're based on a 'me-first' mentality; that we shouldn't have to sacrifice for the greater public good. When in fact, most Americans believe that we can and should. Just look at how many people, Democrat and Republican, volunteer, donate, write letters, or just help their neighbors and you can see proof of it.

In six years, the Bush administration has pushed some devastating proposals to weaken our environmental protections. But perhaps none is quite as outrageous as the proposed sell-off of 800,000 acres of our national forests and public land.

Thousands of people have responded by telling Congress to stop this sale of our public lands. And so far, it's worked. Unfortunately, the Bush administration continues to push forward.

That's why we've been out in the streets talking to Americans about this risk to our national forests. And this weekend, we're going to inject a little humor and fun into our message.

We'll be holding a Mock Auction in Union Square to protest Bush's Bargain Basement Sale of our national forests.

To create a real stir and send a clear message, we'd need people to join us at the event.

To join our Mock Auction, click here

The event will be held at Union Square (14th Street) in the South Plaza from 1-3 pm this Saturday, August 5. We're looking to turn out as many members as possible and create a real crowd to make the event a success.

Daniel Kish, a senior advisor to Rep. Pombo, responded to a Connecticut newspaper's editorial against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as follows:

Connecticut should have its statehood taken away from it. The foolishness of its pampered residents should be demonstrated to others by a government program to bulldoze the entire state, salt the land and construct a windfarm to supply NYC with electricity. And its residents should be relocated to Guantanamo Bay where they can take a number behind the 3 who hung themselves this weekend, since they seem so intent on suicide.

Now, I have to applaud Rep. Pombo's staff for finally getting behind wind farms & renewable energy!

I mean, if Mr. Kish wants to talk 'pampered', I'd invite him to hang out at the New Haven Greyhound Terminal around midnight to speak with the locals about the oil subsidies Alaskans get for drilling, or the tens of thousands of dollars his boss has gotten from Chevron, ExxonMobil and the like.

Ok - kidding aside - this is an offensive statement from Mr. Kish, and I hope Mr. Pombo treats it seriously. To mock the suicides of prisoners, to suggest destroying an entire state, even in jest, is wildly inappropriate for a government employee, and certainly one who advises a Congressman.

It's a little frightening to me how wildly these anti-environmental officials lash out. Let's bulldoze Connecticut? We're Nazis? And this isn't coming from the fringe - this is coming from legitimate people within our government, and it's pretty damn sad because these are the people who are tearing the country apart.

Thanks to The Stakeholder for the heads up.

Two hours ago we sent an email asking our members to collect petition signatures to their senators. This is not a small ask; we know that our members are busy people - jobs, family, hobbies, and asking them to take some time out of their lives to stand at a grocery store, or the company water cooler or whatever, is a big thing. It's big in both time, and energy. But then again, we've got fantastic members.

So far, we've already gotten enough commitments from our members to collect close to 1000 of the 5000 signatures we need to get. This is fantastic.

If you're able to collect signatures, let us know by clicking here. We'll send you the petition form, and instructions for getting them back in to us.

And tremendous thanks to everyone who has already signed up.