david beckham has "largest carbon footprint" ever

According to Carbon Trust, a UK-based environmental group, international soccer star David Beckham has accumulated "the largest carbon footprint in human history."

Apparently, Beckham traveled over 250,000 miles by plane last year alone. He also owns 15 cars, including SUVs and sports cars, and maintains several residences around the world. The group claims that Beckham is "responsible for 18 times more tons of carbon dioxide than the average person."

Beckham reportedly produced 163 tons of carbon dioxide, while the average Brit produced a mere 9.4 tons.

"He should use his celebrity status to make people aware of the damage that traveling can cause to the planet," a Carbon Trust spokesman told the Daily Star. "With all his money he should be using it at least to reduce his own footprint. He has more freedom of choice when it comes to methods of traveling. He could also choose greener cars."

Beckham, who has played professionally for England and Real Madrid, recently moved with his family to the U.S. to play midfield for L.A. Galaxy.

Planet Purgatory: Part II

Research any of the skeptics on global warming, and the name Fred Singer is sure to pop up. Among his many publications, Dr. Singer recently co-authored a book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years.

As Don Erler notes in his recent editorial, Singer has a burr in his saddle about Al Gore.

Singer has called Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, most "bunk," based on "really shoddy" science. For example, in attempting to show that global warming (which nobody denies) is man-made, Gore uses a "trick" by pointing to glaciers melting. According to Singer, "any kind of warming, from whatever cause, will melt ice. Whether it's natural or man-made warming, the ice doesn't care."

Now it's interesting that Erler concedes that global warming is now an accepted fact. Because Dr. Singer is on record denying that the earth's temperature is increasing. From a letter in 1998, Singer claims:

The weather satellite data, the only truly global data set we have, actually show a global cooling trend during the past 19 years.

And again, in testimony before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in July of 2000:

There is no Appreciable Climate Warming. Contrary to the conventional wisdom and the predictions of computer models, the Earth's climate has not warmed appreciably in the past two decades, and probably not since about 1940.

Of course, Dr. Singer's testimony came before the sea change in public attitude that resulted once Hurricane Katrina gave us a preview of coming attractions. So now the skeptics are willing to admit that global warming is a fact, while still denying that human activity has anything to do with it. And as for shoddy science, Singer has been known to solicit a few critics himself. A climate scientist at realclimate provided a rebuttal of Singer's key points:

The existence of climate changes in the past is not news to the climate change scientific community; there is a whole chapter about it in the upcoming IPCC Scientific Assessment. Nor do past, natural variations in climate negate the global warming forecast. Most past climate changes, like the glacial interglacial cycle, can be explained based on changes in solar heating and greenhouse gases, but the warming in the last few decades cannot be explained without the impact of human-released greenhouse gases. Avery was very careful to crop his temperature plots at 1985, rather than show the data to 2005.

As a paid gun for corporate interests, Singer isn't new to attempts to influence public policy on controversial issues.

In 1995, as President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (a think tank based in Fairfax, Virginia) S. Fred Singer was involved in launching a publicity campaign about "The Top 5 Environmental Myths of 1995," a list that included the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's conclusion that secondhand tobacco smoke is a human carcinogen.

Singer claims his studies are non-partisan, but he has extensive ties to the fossil fuel industry. Erler suggests that we should ignore the money being paid by these vested interests because the amount is insignificant. His article doesn't include specifics, but the money appears to come from several sources.

In a February 2001 letter to the Washington Post, Singer denied receiving funding from the oil industry, except for consulting work some 20 years prior. SEPP [Science and Environmental Policy Project], however, received multiple grants from ExxonMobil, including 1998 and 2000. In addition, Singer's current CV on the SEPP website states that he served as a consultant to several oil companies. The organizations Singer has recently been affiliated with - Frontiers of Freedom, ACSH, NCPA, etc. - have received generous grants from Exxon on an annual basis.

On the one hand is the testimony of a handful of industry shills, and on the other, decades of research by hundreds of the world's most prominent scientists. Denyers like Erler want you to believe that this constitutes a balanced debate.

Unless we are willing to educate ourselves at least somewhat on the science behind global warming, we will remain vulnerable to the snake oil sold by hucksters like Singer. When you weigh these arguments, it's important to remember what's at stake. As Joseph Romm describes it in Hell and High Water:

If we permit this Planetary Purgatory to occur, the nation and the world would be forced to begin a desperate race against time-- a race against the vicious cycles in which an initial warming causes changes to the climate system that lead to more warming, which makes adapting to climate change a never-ending, ever-changing, expensive, exhausting struggle for our children, and their children, and on and on for generations.

Surely the greatest threat to face humankind since the threat of nuclear annihilation warrants moving past the increasingly marginalized skeptics and their phony debates to a discussion of the hard choices we may face in the very near future.

Planet Purgatory - A Halloween Horror Story:Part I

This week is Halloween, and inspired by Bill Maher ("I'm dressing up as a melting polar ice cap because that's scary,") we're going to take a good hard look at the issue of global warming.

As fires rage in California, and stories about the southeast drought paint the very real possibility of major cities running out of water, the Fort Worth Star Telegram's Don Erler pooh poohs the hysteria of the "zealots" who suggest this might in any way be related to global warming or a preview of worse things to come.

Mr. Erler is not a climatologist, nor a physicist, nor a statistician. He is the president of General Building Maintenance. He is also what Joseph Romm, in his book "Hell and High Water" calls a "denyer."

"The people I call global-warming Delayers and Denyers are also called "climate skeptics" or "contrarians." I think those terms are misused here. All scientists are skeptics. Hence the motto "Take nobody's word." Skeptics can be convinced by the facts; Denyers cannot. Skeptics do not continue repeating arguments that have been discredited. Denyers do.....

The Denyers and Delayers, as I use the terms, are those who aggressively embrace one or both parts of a twofold strategy. First, they deny the strong scientific consensus that the climate change we are witnessing is primarily human-caused and likely to have serious negative impacts if we don't reverse our greenhouse gas emissions trends. Second, they work to delay this country from taking any serious action beyond perhaps investing in new technology.

Taking a page from the playbook of Frank Luntz before his conversion, Republicans like to sound like they are concerned about catastrophic climate change without actually committing to any solutions. This is combined with a strategy culled from the evolution debate that creates enough confusion through misquotes and half truths as to appear to cast doubt on the science of global warming itself.

Erler hits on some key arguments of the Delayers and Denyers that deserve more analysis, so we'll come back to those. In the meantime, guaranteed to keep you up at night, here is a prophetic quote from the introduction of Romm's book that seems particularly apropos.

Imagine if inland United States were 10 [degrees Fahrenheit] hotter, with many states ravaged by mega-droughts and the widespread wildfires that result. At the same time, our coasts were drowning from a 5- to 1-foot increase in sea levels, which were relentlessly climbing 5 to 10 inches a decade or more toward an ultimate sea-level rise of 80 feet.

This "Hell and High Water" scenario is not our certain future, but it is as likely as the bird flu pandemic we are feverishly fighting to fend off. And it could come as soon as the second half of this century, given the many early warning signs of accelerated climate change that scientists have spotted.

Long before then, the temperature of the inland United States will be rising nearly 1 [degree Fahrenheit] per decade, enough to cause continual heat waves and searing droughts. At the same time, sea levels will be rising a few inches every decade, with much of our Atlantic and Gulf coasts battered year after year after year by super-hurricanes with savage storm surges.

Let's call this phase Planetary Purgatory, when the world comes to know that 20-foot sea-level rise is all but inevitable, and we must endure a desperate multidecade ordeal to correct the mistakes of the past, to keep sea-level rise as low and slow as possible - to avoid the full fury of Hell and High water. If the politics of inaction and delay that have triumphed in this country continues for another decade, then Planetary Purgatory is the likely future facing our country before midcentury - probably in your own lifetime.....

TXU Receives Go Ahead for Lignite Power Plant

From the Burnt Orange Report, we have learned that the TCEQ (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality) has overruled two arbitrators and granted permission for TXU to proceed with the Oak Grove power plant. It is the first plant to receive final approval under Governor Perry's previous "fast track" permitting process.

The Oak Grove plant was green-lighted for construction along with ten other coal-fired facilities, eight of which have now been withdrawn. In originally denying the permit for Oak Grove, the arbitrators had questioned whether TXU could reduce pollution as much as they claimed.

In a statement, TXU praised the decision.

“We welcome today’s TCEQ permit approval. Texas needs new sources of power and, with today’s ruling, the Oak Grove plant could begin providing power by late 2009.

The TCEQ has determined that the Oak Grove air permit will be protective of human health and the environment. This permit contains some of the cleanest emission standards ever set for a lignite power plant, and the plant will help meet Texas’ near-term need for power.”

Notice the "lignite" qualifier in that statement. What they don't tell you is that the Oak Grove facility is still the biggest and diritiest of the eleven originally proposed plants. It's actually two power generation units in one facility. While most of the electricity produced would be used in the DFW area, the city that would most directly feel the effects of its pollution is Austin. Even with all the guarantees from TXU about emissions reductions,

the Oak Grove plant would pollute more than other coal plants proposed for the area, according to the permit application. For example, it would emit 3.5 times the smog-forming nitrogen oxides and nearly 10 times the mercury as the proposed Sandy Creek plant in Riesel.

To put that in perspective, according to the SEED (Sustainable Energy and Economic Development) Coalition

If built, it would be the fourth worst plant in the nation for toxic mercury emissions and would produce the smog equivalent of 350,000 automobiles. TXU's four other lignite-burning plants are responsible for almost one-quarter of the industrial pollution in the state.

And that doesn't even touch on CO2 emissions. Coal-fired plants are among the world's biggest producers of greenhouse gases, and powering plants with lignite produces significantly more emissions than using hard coal, making it the worst of the worst.

At the hearing, several elected officials spoke against permitting. Among those testifying were Dallas Mayor Laura Miller and State Representative Lon Burnam.

Activists vow to continue their fight. They have already asked for a rehearing, a necessary step prior to taking further legal action.

NASA Chief Regrets Comments on Global Warming

The Administrator for NASA, Michael Griffin, has apologized to his staff over the comments he made regarding global warming. In an interview with NPR, Dr. Griffin indicated he wasn't sure whether global warming was a problem that needed to be solved and implied that warming temperatures might actually result in a more optimum climate than the current one.

His comments provoked a firestorm of dissent, promting a meeting with his staff to clarify his position.

NASA administrator Michael Griffin said in the closed-door meeting Monday at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena that "unfortunately, this is an issue which has become far more political than technical and it would have been well for me to have stayed out of it."

"All I can really do is apologize to all you guys ... I feel badly that I caused this mount of controversy over something like this," he said.

Griffin then reiterated his view that NASA's role was to provide data, not to make policy recommendations.

Of course, it would be fitting if a scientific body charged with monitoring the earth's climate stuck to the facts and simply tried to carry out its mission in an unbiased manner. Unfortunately, the mission itself has become a political issue. Prior to 2006, NASA's mission statement read:

To understand and protect our home planet; to explore the universe and search for life; to inspire the next generation of explorers … as only NASA can.

In Feb. 2006, the mission statement was “quietly altered” to remove the phrase “to understand and protect our home planet.” Even a year ago, NASA scientists predicted that because of the mission statement revision, there would “be far less incentive to pursue projects to improve understanding of terrestrial problems like climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions.” Top NASA climatologist James Hansen called the deletion “a shocking loss,” because he had “been using the phrase since December 2005 to justify speaking out about the dangers of global warming.”

In fact, in an article last year, Dr. Hansen opined that such maneuvers not only kept the public from information vital to a informed debate on the most serious issue of our time, but threatened the very underpinnings of democracy itself.

"Yet Franklin, Jefferson, and the other revolutionaries would surely be distraught by recent tendencies in America, specifically the increasing power of special interests in our government, concentrated efforts to deceive the public and arbitrary actions of government executives that arise from increasing concentration of authority in a unitary executive, in defiance of the aims of our Constitution's framers......

These incidents help to paint a picture that reveals consequences for society far greater than the simple enrichment of special interests. The effect is to keep the public in the dark about increasing risks to our society and our home planet.

As to the critical role of NASA in collecting data on climate change, that mission continues to be jeopardized by decreased funding for the satellite programs that monitor, among other things, levels of soil moisture and precipitation which feed weather forecasting and climate models.

NASA Chief Not Sure Current Climate 'Optimal'

While the Decider-in-Chief is once again using his clout to attempt to water down a report from the upcoming G8 summit urging immediate action to confront the consequences of global warming, his appointee in charge of NASA, Michael Griffin, implies that anyone voicing concerns about climate change is suffering from a God complex.

If you can read this with a straight face, stop reading blogs and get to the nearest casino for a round of Texas Hold 'Em.

Q: Do you have any doubt that this is a problem that mankind has to wrestle with?

Griffin: I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change.

First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown.

And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.

NASA's James Hansen, one of the top scientists on global climate change, called his boss' position "arrogant and ignorant."

It indicates a complete ignorance of understanding the implications of climate change," Hansen told ABC News.

And if you seriously want to know how climate change might impact us here in Texas, here's a preview and it ain't pretty.

Global Warming Tipping Point Only Ten Years Away?

Mention global warming recently, and the attention rightfully turns to Al Gore, who has been hitting the airwaves promoting his new book, The Assault on Reason. One of the topics highlighted in Gore's book is the attempt to subvert science for political purposes. And one man who knows this only too well is NASA scientist James Hansen.

Like Gore, Dr. Hansen has been a tireless advocate on the environmental front. He first testified before Congress to raise awareness of the issue back in the 1980's. As one might expect, Hansen has also been a vocal and determined critic of the Bush administration's policies, or lack thereof, regarding global warming.

In the University of Iowa speech, Hansen recounted how NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe told him in a 2003 meeting that he shouldn't talk "about dangerous anthropogenic interference" -- humans' influence on the atmosphere -- "because we do not know enough or have enough evidence for what would constitute dangerous anthropogenic interference."

But Hansen said that scientists know enough to conclude we have reached this danger point and that their efforts to get the word out are being blocked by the administration. "In my more than three decades in government, I have never seen anything approaching the degree to which information flow from scientists to the public has been screened and controlled as it has now," Hansen said. He added that although the administration wants to wait 10 years to evaluate climate change, "delay of another decade, I argue, is a colossal risk."

Hansen's concern is predicated on the concept of a "tipping point," the point at which the earth's biofeedback mechanisms kick in and warming becomes a runaway process.

As the tipping points pass, "there is an acceleration, potentially uncontrollable, of emissions of vast natural stores of greenhouse gas," according to Hansen.....

The melting ice caps are one example of a biofeedback loop. As warmer temperatures cause the ice to melt...

The disappearance of that bright sea ice and snow is uncovering more and more dark water and bare ground — creating another dangerous feedback loop.

These feedbacks all produce more heat, thus all reinforcing each other, leading to evermore thawing — and thus releases of natural greenhouse gases (including CO2 and methane) in a viciously accelerating circlering more and more dark water and bare ground — creating another dangerous feedback loop.

Given this scenario, some economic advisors are suggesting that the best course of action may be adaptation rather than prevention. Hansen disagrees.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, scenarios modeled by scientists predict CO2 emissions rise to anywhere from a low of 450 ppm (parts per million) to as high as 650 ppm.

Hansen told ABC News today he believes the upper limit for avoiding dangerous climate change "could well be much lower" than 450 ppm.

In the NASA announcement, Hansen said, "'business as usual' emissions would be a guarantee of global and regional disaster."

Earth's CO2 concentration is currently 383 ppm, up from 280 ppm at the start of the industrial age.

Studies released earlier this month report human-made emissions now spiraling upward at an accelerating rate much faster than scientists expected only a few years ago.

But not to worry - after dilly dallying around for six years, President Bush has finally decided the government should take action - after he leaves office.

TXU to Judge: Global Warming Not Our Concern

The Huffington Post has an article on the TXU court debate in which the company makes clear its complete and utter lack of concern for the effects of catastrophic global climate change. If you ever needed a clearer example of why an unfettered free market isn't the solution to all our problems, consider this quote, which takes a page right out of the Lee Raymond school of public policy.

A lawyer for TXU Corp has told the judges who will rule on whether it can build a slew of new coal-burning power plants here that global warming is not on the docket, and none of their concern.

"It's for kings and presidents and world leaders to decide how to address global warming," argued TXU attorney John Riley. "It's not for air permit hearings."

With no kings in sight, Texans who oppose TXU's plan to build 11 new plants across the state are nonetheless looking to two administrative judges to block the plan.

They argue it would double CO2 emissions here overnight. Texas already emits more of the greenhouse gas than any other state in the country.

But in court Wednesday, Riley said all that was beside the point. "What we can do to forestall global warming?", he asked. "The scientists still quarrel over it. But it is a very big issue."

"For instance, India is going to build 300 of these plants over the next 10 years, and China 500. My point is, 10 plants is not the significant contributor to the problem that the counsel" is trying to make it into.

In a courtroom where the air conditioner was running on an 80-degree day in February, Riley also questioned whether the US should even want to get ahead of India and China on the issue.

"Does the U.S. want to take that step before others do?"

Now no one is denying that India and China's decision to rely heavily on coal to power their emerging markets is a terrible dilemma and one that needs more public discourse. But that didn't stop the European Union from recommending even tighter restrictions when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012.

Lawyers representing environmental groups opposing the permitting process argue that TXU has a monetary incentive to build as many coal burning plants as possible before a widely expected carbon dioxide emissions cap and trade program is instituted.

Court documents obtained from attorneys for the opposition show that in a conference call in August of '06, TXU officials did speak in detail about how CO2 regulations might work to their advantage.

"While we are not suggesting that a cap and trade program is the right answer, it is one of the many scenarios we modeled," said Jonathan Siegler, the company's vice president for strategy and mergers and acquisitions, according to a transcript.

"If a program similar to the Kyoto Protocol was put into effect in the US," Siegler said on the call, "it would impact TXU in the following ways. Based on the average allocations in the UK, TXU would receive allocations for 70 percent of its current CO2 emissions."

In other words, [attorney Steve] Susman said, the higher the emissions going in, the better for the company.

And elsewhere, Mitchell Schnurman suggests that allowing TXU to build its proposed coal burning power plants will provide a competitive edge that no other company would be able to overcome. According to David Litman, of Texas Business for Clean Air:

TXU getting its way would suck the oxygen out of the market because TXU's price basis would be so low, Litman says. Others couldn't match its costs because they couldn't build as many plants or have the same kind of existing environmental permits.

Hearings on the power plant permits are scheduled to resume June 27.

Texas Eagle Forum Weighs in on Global Warming

Maybe Cathie Adams, the President of Texas Eagle Forum, should stick to the culture wars. Her recent letter to the Fort Worth Star Telegram in support of building TXU's coal-burning power plants lends credence to the view of those who think that the term conservative think tank is an oxymoron.

More coal power? Yes.

In 2008, Texas manufacturers will need more electricity than is currently being produced. The consequence for not doing so means that we'd suffer the same rolling blackouts that California has experienced.

In view of that, Texas' largest producer of electricity, TXU, wants to build 11 coal-burning power plants, but some are worried that the plants will pollute the air -- not with black smoke but with carbon dioxide, which environmental extremists believe causes global warming.

Carbon dioxide is not a toxic gas. CO{-2} is emitted when you breathe out or when fossil fuels are burned, enhancing the growth of trees and plants that absorb CO{-2} and in turn emit oxygen. The more CO{-2} that's produced, the more trees and plants grow, and the more oxygen is released for you and me to breathe.

There's no reason to panic about global warming because there's no sound scientific evidence that the Earth is warming or that CO{-2} could cause such warming. The Earth's temperature is more affected by ocean currents, winds and sun activity than by CO{-2}.

There is only One who can control ocean currents, winds and sun activity, and let me give you a clue: It's not a United Nations treaty or even a U.S. politician, although he put them in their place, too.

President Cathie Adams, Texas Eagle Forum, Dallas

Normally, we might offer up some debate to this letter. But honestly, any attempt to parse this would be the rhetorical equivalent of a canned hunt -- it offends our sense of sportsmanship.

Map Shows Warming Trend in Texas

We know things are getting warmer, but it's very hard to visualize how catastrophic climate change might impact Texas. Last year's record-breaking temperatures, coupled with the worst drought in fifty years, gave us a preview of things to come, but dry, cracked reservoirs don't compare with glaciers melting and crashing into the sea. Dying livestock can't capture the public's attention like polar bears drowning.

The current cold snap not withstanding...

...last year was the warmest on record in the Dallas area and the contiguous United States, and winters have been more temperate as well. Eight of the last 10 years, the average low temperature at D/FW was warmer than the 30-year average. As for extremes, the annual lowest temperature at D/FW averaged 11.1 degrees in the 1980s, increasing to 15.9 degrees in the 1990s and 17.8 degrees so far this decade. Temperatures bottomed out at 20 degrees last month and have dropped to 25 so far in January.

The National Arbor Day Foundation has developed a new hardiness zone map, which divides the U.S. into regions based on the coldest low temperature for an area. Comparing the new map to the previous one, we can begin to quantify the climate trends within the state. Now we can actually visualize how the zones are clearly and steadily moving northward.

"The map shows that the winter temperatures have increased across Texas and much of the nation since 1990. For example, the map's Zone 8 now includes all of North Texas, much of which previously lay in the cooler Zone 7. Less brutal winters suggest the region is more hospitable to a wider array of plants.

Oh, yeah! We can grow bananas in Dallas. Of course, that assumes that water is plentiful. The problem is, as temperatures rise, so does the evaporation rate. Interstate I-35 roughly serves as the dividing line between the area where rainfall exceeds evaporation to the east, and where evaporation exceeds rainfall to the west. The maps show temperature changes over a sixteen year period. If the trend continues, some scientsts project a six degree Fahrenheit rise in temperature across Texas. That would require a 50% increase in rain just to maintain the status quo --a scenario that seems highly unlikely.

Maybe somebody should ask our governor how that might affect our economic competitiveness.

TXU Coal-Burning Power Plants Face More Opposition

The debate over Gov. Perry's decision to fasttrack coal-burning power plants went national during the governor's race. This month the Rolling Stone covers the story. From the introduction, you might think that Texas is getting something of a reputation.

Like most stories about energy, corruption and greed, this one is centered in Texas. TXU, an electric-power company based in Dallas, has announced plans to build eleven new coal plants in Texas by 2011 -- a move that a trade publication calls "one of the most ambitious generation capacity expansions in recent power industry history." Texas already dumps more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than any other state in the nation. TXU's new fleet of coal plants would more than double the company's current pollution, spewing 78 million tons of planet-heating pollution each year -- the equivalent of 11 million SUVs.

Coal is cheap, plentiful and extremely dirty. As the article points out, when the hurricanes of 2005 damaged refineries, TXU's CEO John Wilder decided to switch from emphasizing gas to focusing on coal to generate electricity. The result has been a surge in profits for TXU, and a nice bonus to the big guy. In 2005, Wilder was paid over $55 million -- twice the executive pay of former ExxonMobil boss Lee Raymond.

But coal is only profitable because its pollution-related costs -- blasted mountains, increases in asthma and heart attacks, neurological damage from toxic mercury, environmental chaos caused by global warming -- are all offloaded onto the public. That's why TXU is rushing to build so many new coal plants: In the next five years, Congress is widely expected to crack down on global warming by placing limits on carbon-dioxide emissions, making coal less profitable. If TXU can sneak its plants in under the regulatory wire, it could be exempt from new regulations -- allowing the company to dump massive amounts of carbon for free.

We're told that the need for new plants is so pressing because demand for energy may exceed supply in the near future. But a story last year that didn't get nearly as much attention as it deserved suggested that TXU may have been manipulating supplies at the very time it was making those claims.

TXU Corp. may have manipulated wholesale electricity supplies and prices last year, according to an annual review of the Texas market. An outside company hired by the state's Public Utility Commission found evidence that a power producer shut down some of its generating capacity on certain days in 2005 in order to squeeze supply and boost prices.

The report doesn't specifically name TXU, but it states that the company in question had about 13,000 megawatts of available capacity. The only company in Texas with that much juice is TXU.

The company's plans are running into hurdles at every turn. In addition to several lawsuits, and a pending Supreme Court decision, we learn per McBlogger [warning: not for the easily offended] that a bipartisan bill was introduced earlier this month by the Senate.

"The Climate tewardship and Innovation Act of 2007" would cap greenhouse-gas emissions of the electric power, industrial, transportation, and commercial sectors at 2004 levels by 2012 and reduce them to one-third that level by 2050.

One of the bill's co-sponsors is Sen. Barack Obama, so look for this legislation to get a lot of attention this year.

And now comes news that even Wall Street is preparing to push for legislation to curb greenhouse emissions.

The coalition of industries and environmental groups -- called the United States Climate Action Partnership -- says Congress needs to establish a cap on carbon dioxide emissions, the chief man-made contributor to climate change, and mandate deadlines for power companies to install carbon emission controls on new and existing power plants.

What makes this announcement big news is its corporate members: Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar Inc., Duke Energy, DuPont, FPL Group, General Electric, Lehman Brothers, PG&E Corp., and PNM Resources. This eye-popping list of names tells you everything you need to know about the current political climate regarding global warming. The tide has clearly turned.

And now, just in time for the president's state of the union speech, Rep. Lon Burnam (D-Fort Worth) is filing a bill to establish a global warming task force in Texas.

“The state is like the proverbial ostrich with its head in the sand. We need a plan to deal with this challenge. At the same time, the reality of global warming provides excellent opportunities for businesses that innovate and create solutions to these problems. My bill directs the global warming task force to investigate and prepare for the worst while seeking opportunities for businesses that do the rightthing,” Burnam said.

"I do hope, as it has been reported, that the President addresses global warming tonight. And I hope that the state of Texas will take the necessary steps to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for a carbon-constrained economy.”

If you want to know where TXU is proposing to build, Environmental Defense has a map showing the proposed location of some of the new plants.

democrats successfully pass "first 100 hours" legislation

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, during the 2006 campaign season, promised that if Democrats were to take back Congress in the election, that they would pass a series of reforms and important legislation within the first 100 hours of convening the session. She came through on that promise.

Via Three Wise Men, we learn that the following reforms were passed under the new Democratic-controlled Congress in the first 100 hours:

• Slap a "conservation fee" on oil and gas taken from deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico; scrap nearly $6 billion worth of oil industry tax breaks enacted by Congress in recent years; and use the money instead to fund renewable resources. Passed Thursday. Speaker Pelosi is also creating a House panel on global warming.
• Lower interest rates on federally subsidized student loans from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent in stages over five years. Passed Wednesday.
• Make the government bargain directly with drug companies with the aim of reducing prices of prescriptions for Medicare beneficiaries. Passed Jan. 12.
• Expand government-financed embryonic stem cell research. Passed Jan. 11.
• Raise the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour over 26 months. Passed Jan. 10.
• Bolster terrorism-fighting efforts with more cargo inspections. Passed Jan. 9.
• Democrats also won approval of internal House rule changes dealing with ethics, lobbying and budgeting. They were passed on Jan. 4-5. (Today they also passed much-needed new rules dealing with House pages!)

NTL commends the House of Representatives for enacting these reforms, already accomplishing more in the first 100 hours than was accomplished under the previous Republican-controlled 109th Congress. Unfortunately, still according to TWM, the president "is expected to veto the stem cell research funding, Medicare Part D reform, and cuts to oil and gas subsidies once they reach his desk."

Global Warming's Political Spin

In the September issue of The Atlantic, Greg Easterbrook, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institute, offers some thoughts on the prevailing debate on global warming (subscription required).

Easterbrook chastises Democrats and Republicans alike for inaction in the political arena, citing the gloom and doom of Al Gore's apocalyptic vision and the disingenuous arguments of Republicans who suggest that restrictions on greenhouse gases would cripple our economy. To prove his case, Easterbrook points to the successes of recent years in battling major problems in air pollution.

Since 1970, smog-forming air pollution has declined by a third to a half. Emissions of CFCs have been nearly eliminated and studies suggest that ozone-layer replenishment is beginning. Acid rain, meanwhile, has declined by a third since 1990, while Appalachian forest health has improved sharply......

One might expect Democrats to trumpet the decline of air pollution, which stands as one of government's leading postwar achievements. But just as Republicans have found they can bash Democrats by falsely accusing them of being soft on defense, Democrats have found they can bash Republicans by falsely accusing them of destroying the environment. If that's your argument, you might skip over the evidence that many environmental trends are positive. One might also expect Republicans to trumpet the reduction of air pollution, since it signifies responsible behavior by industry. But to acknowledge that air pollution has declined would require Republicans to say the words, "The regulations worked."

Last year's monster storms and this year's record-breaking drought have settled the debate. Global warming is now accepted as fact by most Americans. But compared with our foreign counterparts, Americans take the issue less seriously. Perhaps they are waiting to take their cue from our political leaders. As Easterbrook notes, "It only remains for the right politician to recast the challenge in practical, optimistic tones."

Recently, a disparate group of politicians is attempting to do just that.

This month, former president Bill Clinton launched an effort with 22 of the world's largest cities to cut their emissions, while Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, a Republican, and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain said they would explore trading carbon dioxide pollution credits across the Atlantic.

And in his recent press release, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Chris Bell expanded his "Healthy Texas" environmental plan to include the following:

State regulation limiting the emissions of carbon dioxide, the number one cause of global warming. The goal of these new rules will be to reduce CO2 emissions by up to 80%.

Give the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality (TCEQ) the authority to require power companies to consider coal gasification (IGCC) as an alternative technology to the pulverized coal burning plants that threaten our air and our climate.

Give the TCEQ the authority to require that applicant for new air permits show that their newly permitted facilities will not negatively impact the ability of Houston and Dallas/Ft. Worth to meet the federal clean air requirements by the 2010 deadline.

Institute state requirements and incentive programs for commercial builders in Texas to use building materials and techniques that reduce the radiant heating of our urban areas.

To view the complete plan: http://www.chrisbell.com/issues/environment

Whether Texans are ready for this issue in the political debate, and whether the Bell campaign can strike the right balance between alarm and optimism, have yet to be determined.