American energy (image by: KB35)

As oil prices continue to spike with the unrest in the Middle East, consumer anger has inevitably increased along with it – and so has the political rhetoric.

Though it was intended to create calm, Obama’s speech outlining his “Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future” on Wednesday at Georgetown University added more anger, from both environmental and business leaders alike. Environmental groups are upset that Obama supports nuclear energy, even after the Japan nuclear disaster, as well as offshore drilling, oil from Canada’s tar sands, and gas from domestic shale reserves. They are also upset that he did not address Republican attempts to “rein in” greenhouse gas rules by the Environmental Protection Agency. Business leaders, on the other hand, accuse Obama of cutting domestic production short and increasing costs.

Despite the heated debate, however, much of what Obama said in his announcement of his national goal to cut oil imports by one-third by 2025 was an affirmation of earlier statements, such as his ongoing support for renewable energy sources and investments in clean energy technology. More ominously, it also included a reference to the now discarded cap-and-trade bill.

While Obama’s support for nuclear energy and for offshore and domestic drilling are also not new, they highlight the tradeoffs between nuclear safety and low emissions, and between drilling safety and domestic energy security. These tradeoffs point to the political difficulties Obama might have in achieving his plan. With the devastating impacts from the Japanese earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster, as well as those from the BP Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico, uppermost in the public’s mind, Americans are currently more likely to support nuclear safety over low emissions, and drilling safety over domestic energy security. Yet in his speech, Obama nodded toward these concerns with a mention of his request for a safety review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as well as of his implementation of strict new deepwater drilling regulations since the BP accident.

Obama’s commitment to the Canadian oil sands – seen by some as reliable, compared to Middle Eastern sources of oil – is also not new. Liz Barratt-Brown at the Natural Resources Defense Council pointed out that in this speech, he never agreed to increase oil sands production, despite Canadian media reports suggesting otherwise. Rather, he stated that imports from various countries would be a necessary part of the mix until alternative energies are fully in place.

Perhaps the reaffirmation of existing policies or platforms, rather than the introduction of new ones, is a good thing for the “Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future.” Luke Tonachel of the NRDC argues that better cars, increased efficiency and alternative fuels can meet Obama’s goal of cutting one-third of imports by 2025 without new drilling, and the New York Times explains how tools such as biofuels and more fuel-efficient cars were used effectively to advance energy security 30 years ago – and can be used again.

In his announcement, Obama ackowledged that ongoing attempts to secure America’s energy future have been made by U.S. presidents since the first oil crisis in the 1970s, yet have so far remained unsuccessful. It remains to be seen, however, whether the policy trade-offs, political differences and opposition can be addressed well-enough to implement it this time around – with the stakes that much higher.

As the mid-term elections approach, Californians will not only be faced with a choice for a new governor, but also new energy legislation that will have ripple effects throughout the country. Proposition 23 would suspend the existing Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which aimed to lower carbon emissions 25% by 2020, until the state’s unemployment rate falls below 5.5%. If enacted, the measure will further delay progress in Washington on climate legislation and lead to a very long wait for a regional carbon market.

California has been hit with some of the worst unemployment rates in the country. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics 12.4% of the state’s population were unemployed in September 2010, 2.8% higher than the national average. When Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the Act in 2006, unemployment was at 4.6% but that was also during a very different economic climate throughout the country.

Both California gubernatorial candidates Republican Meg Whitman and Democrat Jerry Brown say they oppose Prop 23. However, this is not only a state issue. The outcome of Prop 23 will reflect the path of climate legislation on a national level. Even though the candidates in California are united on this issue, Washington is divided, where Republicans and Democrats are at odds on the passage of comprehensive climate legislation that would enable a national cap-and-trade market and legally reduce emissions.

If Prop 23 passes, its effects will be felt in Washington. This can give lawmakers further fuel to negate any type of national carbon cap. The Global Warming Solutions Act was also prepared to establish a regional cap and trade market, one of the few initiatives in the country. If Prop 23 is enacted, that situation will not only put a carbon market on the backburner for California, but it will also hinder any type of national carbon market. A potential positive note is that if it is passed, the Global Warming Solutions Act will only be suspended until unemployment drops below 5.5%, giving hope that it can be resumed in the near future. However, unemployment rates in California have dropped below 5.5% levels only three times in the past 40 years. California and Washington will be in for a very long wait.

On the other hand, if Prop 23 fails, that may give politicians in Washington the leverage they need to pass national legalisation. They can argue that the American people, especially those in California, want state and perhaps national regulation of carbon emissions. They can use the failure of Prop 23 with the gubernatorial winner to gather support. It can also be used to promote an increase in the investment in renewable energy sources. California can set an example and become a national leader in the development of clean energy technology.

In 2009, only 36% of Americans believe climate change is man-made, according to a study byPew Research Center. This figure has reflected failed climate legislation in Washington. If Prop 23 fails, it may be an indication of a change in public perception that can provide tools for the Senate to pass national legislation.

(Image by: Kevin Dooley)

Article By Guest Contributor: Lynann Butkiewicz

As world leaders gathered in New York for the United Nations General Assembly, another type of gathering was taking place across the city. Government officials, NGOs, and private sector leaders held a series of meetings during Climate Week, a week dedicated to the growth of public-private partnerships in response to climate change. While US climate legislation is stalled in Congress, Climate Week provided hope that the private sector could fill in the gap.

The meetings at Climate Week emphasize the private sector’s role in reducing US carbon emissions, highlighting that the private sector, even without a cap and trade market, can encourage legislation to be passed.

In other areas, the private sector took the lead in building and investing in programs and technology that then led to a change in government. International corporations were some of the first responders to deliver goods after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. After the disaster, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was highly criticized for its response and adjusted to later situations. Therefore, if the private sector steps up its efforts in clean energy technologies, that may lead to a review of government policies and perhaps encourage legislation.

United States President Barack Obama highlighted in the UN General Assembly address that clean energy has the power to “serve as an engine of growth and development” in a tough economy and pledged $80 million in clean energy technology in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Still, during Climate Week, investor George Soros pledged $100 million to aid environmental policy legislation and another $1 billion toward clean energy technology. This, along with the EV20 initiative that would increase the market for electric cars as well as a continued rise in the number of green businesses, proves that the private sector is still well ahead government in reducing carbon emissions, with the prospect of Washington following suit not too far away.

Meanwhile, the UN General Assembly focused on progress in the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) and the efforts to eliminate poverty in developing nations. Climate Week’s emphasis on the transfer of clean energy technology runs parallel to this target and can help those in developing countries out of poverty. US climate change special envoy Todd Stern said at the Geneva Dialogue on Climate Finance earlier in September that the US does not believe technology transfer will work because climate change will not be solved by existing technologies. Again, while the government stalls on this, the private sector has a chance of taking control of the situation and investing in clean technology in these countries that could also eventually lead to a change in intellectual property rights laws.

The backdrop of New York is particularly interesting for the Climate Week meetings as the US will no doubt go into the COP16 negotiations in Cancun, Mexico without a binding target. Obama told the UN General Assembly crowd during his address, ”We helped forge an accord in Copenhagen that — for the first time — commits all major economies to reduce their emissions. We are keenly aware this is just a first step.”

While Obama may have considered it a first step, the chances of a next step were subdued by Stern. “No one is anticipating or expecting in any way a legal treaty to be done in Cancun this year,” he said after two days of talks during the Major Economies Forum. Without the commitment of one of the largest emitters per capita, others can provide this as an example to not commit to goals.

Climate Week further proves that UNFCCC negotiations should not be the main platform where climate change is tackled. A multidimensional patchwork of regimes, merging the private with the public, and meeting at varying levels of regional, local and global is the only way to kick-start progress on emission reductions.

Although the US has its arms tied when trying to present a binding carbon reduction commitment in Cancun, Climate Week has proven that the private sector offers hope in starting the trend that could one day encourage legislation and offer alternative means of bringing forth progress while Washington struggles to reach an agreement.

3-D US Electoral Map (Image by: Alexander O'Neill)

Article By Guest Contributor: Lynann Butkiewicz

As Congress convenes in the weeks before the mid-term elections, there is likely to be one final push for a comprehensive energy bill, although the chances of it passing are slim. Congress will be looking to pass top priority legislation addressing the key issues concerning the American public including job growth and an increase in credit for small businesses. Politicians will shy away from highly politicized issues, such as climate change, and vote for legislation that will rally the base.

Senator Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he would like to push for the new energy bill vote in the Senate before the elections, but he also told reporters he would allow a vote on blocking the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from curbing carbon emissions sometime after the elections this year.

Environmentalists had hoped that if the energy bill does not pass in Congress then the EPA could be a last resort in order to cut back on carbon emissions. An expected Republican majority in Congress after the elections would not only vote down the energy bill but also likely pass the vote on limiting the EPA. A Wonk Room survey reported this week that only one of the 37 Republican candidates up for Senate seats this year believe that climate change is manmade. With winds shifting the nation toward a Republican majority, the prospect of passing comprehensive climate legislation is doubtful.

The proposed Clean Energy Jobs and Oil Company Accountability Act is significantly different to the last failed energy bill. In the 2009 bill, that was passed in the House of Representatives and killed in the Senate, there was a measure to price carbon, indicating the potential for a US national carbon market. The 2009 legislation barely passed, including 44 Democrats rejecting the bill.

This new proposed bill does not address pricing carbon, leaving open the question of if and when cap and trade will become a reality in the US and whether this energy bill will make a significant impact on climate change regulation in the lead-up to the negotiations in Cancun in November. If Democrats cannot pass comprehensive climate legislation with a majority in Congress before the elections, then the chances of having a national carbon market and clear carbon mitigation target are doubtful for the next several years.

Instead, this bill includes a Home Star rebate system in order to encourage consumers to purchase energy efficient upgrades, similar to the debated Cash for Clunkers scheme introduced in 2009. It also includes a measure for BP to pay for the damages caused by the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

The recession has put the brakes on carbon trading expansion worldwide, and the US is no exception. Opponents claim that new energy taxes will stifle job growth in the private sector and force the US to rely more on foreign oil, exactly the type of legislation the Democratic Congress is looking to avoid in an election year.

As former Bill Clinton strategist James Carville said in 1992, “It’s the economy, stupid.”

If the Democratic-majority Congress wants to succeed in passing climate legislation before the anticipated Republican majority takes over, it needs to be framed toward economic recovery.

The very title of the “Clean Energy Jobs and Oil Company Accountability Act,” indicates that the bill will stimulate job growth and add accountability for BP’s role in the Gulf oil spill. Democrats will try to highlight this when lobbying for support of the bill before the elections, but Republicans are not looking for votes that will frame Congress as making progress. Instead, a tactic could be to make the Democratic-majority Congress look as if it is not getting legislation passed, encouraging voters to make a change in the establishment at the polls.

The Republican strategy up until the elections seems to be based on passing legislation in the House of Representatives and then killing it in the Senate, which was the fate of the last climate bill. If this continues to happen through to November, and Republicans sweep Congress, then climate legislation may not only be impossible for 2010, but also for the next several years.

As of July 22^nd , the second effort to enact a Climate Change bill in this congress failed. Democratic Senate Majority leader Harry Reid announced that the ‘We know that we don’t have the votes’ for a comprehensive reform. Instead, the focus will be on a slimmer package focusing on household efficiency and the gulf oil spill.

Continue reading…

The past week has marked Barack Obama’s first State of the Union address, where the president traditionally outlines his agenda and priorities for the coming year, as well as reporting on the condition of the United States. As far as climate change is concerned, Obama seems to be continuing the approach we have seen him taking in the past months – while it is probably important to him, there are apparently many other issues that are more pressing and deserve a larger share of his attention.

In fact, he did not even mention climate change per se, other than referring to the (energy and) climate bill that was passed in the House over the summer, and even that, only as it relates to clean energy. Clean energy by the way – as far as Obama is concerned – is apparently nuclear (Obama’s proposed budget for 2011, to be sent to Congress on Monday, contains a tripling of government loan guarantees for nuclear power), offshore oil and gas, biofuels and clean coal. There was no mention of solar nor of wind, and the word ‘renewable’ was never used throughout the 71 minutes speech.

Once again, Obama skirts around the issue of climate change, referring only to clean energy, energy security and jobs. High speed rail is not a matter of moving away from dirty fuels used in planes and cars, but rather a way to create jobs. And it does not seem to take higher priority than building new highways. Apparently the Recovery Act should be enough to prevent “Europe or China [from] hav[ing] the fastest trains” (it’s not), as there was no mention of continuing investing in rail infrastructure beyond the one off investment in the Act.

Obama continues not to show strong leadership when it comes to climate change. He says he is grateful to the House for passing its bill last summer and that he is eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate, yet he does not mention what he would like to see in such a bill, he does not use this rare platform to move the discussion forward.

This was not the case in other issues – he used the SOTU to give quite a talking to to Republicans, especially in the Senate, for being continually obstructive and for focusing only on the next election rather than on governing the country. He made a gentle veto threat “if the [financial reform] bill that ends up on my desk does not meet the test of real reform”. Why then didn’t Obama even mention what a good climate bill should contain in his opinion? Why is there no mention of cap-and-trade or some other mechanism to reduce carbon emissions? Pandering to wavering Democrats and potential Republican allies is all very well, but what about showing the way? What about using this opportunity to outline his plans and his vision, as he has done with financial reform or Afghanistan?

Already, in the aftermath of the SOTU, business leaders such as Tom Donahue, President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a well known antagonist to the House climate bill, and John Rice, a vice chairman of General Electric Co. pointed to the fact that America has a lot on its plate, and therefore a cap and trade bill is not likely to be passed in the coming year.

This is how momentum is brought to a halt…

Guest Author: Bettina Wittneben, University of Oxford

Hopenhagen (Image by:/kallu)

I have to admit, seeing President Barack Obama finally walk up to the podium did make my heart beat just a little bit faster. After so much hype about his arrival – the potential visit in the first week, then a firm commitment to support the process personally in the second week and, yesterday, some rumours that he may not come after all – it was exciting to finally see him there. Agile, hopping onto the stage, adjusting the microphone, obviously fully comfortable in his role of addressing the world on the most important issue of our time. It is all too easy to rekindle your hopes when you see President Obama speak.

His tone of voice was serious yet hopeful. He spoke of climate change being science, not fiction (a comment most likely addressed to his home audience), of not wasting any more time by talking, and of taking action now. Of choosing the future over the past. He eloquently reiterated the US position:

1. All major economies need to declare to take decisive action. The US proposing to reduce emissions by 17% by 2020 and 80% by 2050.
2. Transparency in the reporting of emissions that leads to a credible treaty and accountability of the parties.
3. Financing of adaptation in the poorest countries, with the US contributing $10bn by 2012 for the fast start and later, in 2020, being part of a $100bn funding effort globally. This is contingent on countries signing a treaty that fulfils the first two aims.

This triple aim of mitigation, transparency and financing could be the backbone of a new treaty, says Obama, one that has gone further than any treaty before.

President Obama’s speech was very moving, motivating and makes one think: hey, why have they not all gone for this great deal that seems so honest and makes so much sense. Well, let’s look behind the words and see what is left when we boil down Obama’s speech to what the US is bringing to the table and what they are demanding of others.

Stop talking, start acting – It must be a slap in the face of the countries that have been serious about reducing emissions since signing the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992. The US has spent the majority of the past 17 years either openly blocking progress or complicating talks to absurdity. Surely not Obama’s personal fault, but he is speaking for his country in this forum. Nevertheless, it is a positive note and gives hope for the US finally coming around to accepting climate change as a global challenge.

Choosing the future over the past – This is a direct confrontation with countries like Brazil (whose President gave a passionate speech just minutes earlier) who argue that industrialized countries have been polluting the atmosphere for the past century and cannot tell newly industrialized countries to halt climate change. It depends on your definition of equity. It depends on whether you look at emissions as a flow or a stock. Looking at emission flows, we know that countries such as China and India will be emitting much more in the future; looking at emission stocks, we know that most of the dreadful stuff in the atmosphere is due to industrialized countries having burned fossil fuels to fire up their economies in the past. President Obama wants us to look at climate change as a challenge for the future, not a bundle of opportunist behaviour of the past.

Mitigation – It is indeed very comforting to hear the US speak of mitigation. After all these years of the Bush doctrine, that is very refreshing. However, the numbers Obama is bringing to the table are very low. In his speech, he neglected to mention that the 17% reduction refers to the baseline year of 2005, a year of strong economic growth and high emissions in the US. Usually, negotiators refer to the baseline year of 1990, which is the one used in the Kyoto Protocol. When calculating the proposed US emission cut on a baseline year of 1990, we get a mere 4% of emission reduction. This is well below the proposed EU target of 20-30% and even below the US target that Clinton’s administration signed in Kyoto in 1997. I looked it up – it was 7% then. When Obama says ‘all major economies’ he means China. China has proposed taking on a target, albeit an emission intensity target, which takes the edge off the argument that the US has used for years to justify its refusal to act on climate change. It is questionable, whether Obama’s meagre emission reduction target can be called ‘decisive action’ and hence complies with his own first major aim.

Transparency – Now that China has come forward with a target, the US has a new complaint: are they really going to do it and how do we know? Both the Convention and the Protocol require industrialized countries to report their emissions according to agreed-upon methodologies. These emission inventories are checked by UN staff.

Developing countries have been cut some slack and can report their emissions in any way they want and at any time they want. They do receive guidance from the UN but are not checked rigorously. Having said that, some industrialized countries have in the past failed to report adequately and timely. Given these previously agreed upon rules, countries such as China could take on targets but would not be monitored. The US, as an industrialized country and a member of the OECD, is under much more stringent requirements to report emissions. So, Obama’s requirement number two is firmly aimed at newly industrializing countries. It is a demand, not an offer.

Financing – Hilary Clinton already announced the large number of $100bn by 2020 yesterday. It turns out that this is not something the US administration will provide, but something that the US proposes to be part of as a global effort, both from governments and industry. It is supposed to be raised through public and private partnerships. It is a relief to see that President Obama was able to underscore that with a promise of a more concrete $10bn by 2012, similar to the EU amount, to support adaptation efforts by the most vulnerable in a fast start programme. But here is the hook – it is conditional to signing an agreement that the US deems ‘decisive’. Basically, it is a bribe for the least developed countries and other vulnerable states to pressure China to bow to US demands.

Mitigation, transparency and financing – Even with all its faults, the Kyoto Protocol already contains these three elements. Why not just ratify that and build on it to make it a better treaty in its second commitment period?

Overall then, Obama brings very little to the negotiation table: a mere 4% cut in emissions and some money if conditions are met. The only reason one can be excited about this is that, for once, they are not entirely blocking the process from the start. Asking China to open its books to UN evaluators is the gamble that Obama is willing to take to save the planet. If climate change is such a real concern to the country, why is the US not moving ahead with more ambitious plans to be part of the solution?

After much speculation, including people pointing out that Copenhagen is just around the corner from Oslo where he will receive his Noble Peace prize, President Obama finally addressed the issue of his possible attendance at the Copenhagen negotiations.

In a Reuters interview Obama said yesterday that he will go to Copenhagen “If I am confident that all of the countries involved are bargaining in good faith and we are on the brink of a meaningful agreement and my presence in Copenhagen will make a difference in tipping us over edge”

This is still a far cry from a promise to be at the talks, which is what forty heads of state already indicated they will do (including UK’s Gordon Brown, Brazil’s Lula de Silva and France’s Nicolas Sarkozy) according to Yvo de Boer . Not only is he not promising to help reach that “brink of a meaningful agreement”, but his pinning his travel on his belief that all countries are “bargaining in good faith” seems to me like a potential ‘exit clause’ from this promise.

The main reason for this feeling is Todd Stern’s testimony last week in front of the House Foreign Affairs Committee where he said that “some developing countries … focus more on citing chapter and verse of dubious interpretations … designed to prove that they don’t have any responsibility for action now”. His full testimony, as it was originally written, was – I felt – rather haughty and laid most of the blame for the slow progress of the negotiations on developing countries. Though his actual testimony was more balanced, with more focus on US’s and other developed countries’ necessary actions, to me the general tone indicates a lack of faith in developing countries negotiators on the part of the administration.

Some observers noted in the past that Obama is not likely to put himself in a position where he will be forced to personally sign a treaty he can’t be sure of passing in Congress. It is possible then that this half promise to attend comes now as it seems extremely unlikely that Copenhagen will result in a legally binding treaty, the hopes have now scaled down to achieving a “meaningful agreement”.

So while Obama coming outright and saying that he might go to Copenhagen is good news, I would have liked to see a much stronger commitment as, at least in this case, I don’t share Al Gore’s optimism when he told the Guardian that “He hasn’t told me that he will, and no one representing him has told me that he will. But I feel certain that he will.”

It started the previous Friday, when President Obama paid a visit to MIT and gave a speech on clean energy and climate change. Without going into policy details, Obama emphasized the innovation needed to respond to the climate challenge (which was very appropriate to the location) and reminded how such innovation is part of what helped shape the United States and how it can place the US back in a leadership position. He also attacked those who appose any attempts to move towards a low carbon economy, saying that “There are those who will suggest that moving toward clean energy will destroy our economy — when it’s the system we currently have that endangers our prosperity and prevents us from creating millions of new jobs.”

As if to prove that last point about creating new jobs, Vice President Biden went to Delaware on Tuesday to announce the reopening of a former General Motors factory by Fisker Automotive. Only now the factory will produce plug-in hybrid vehicles. Like other members of the administration, the vice president noted the importance of such projects to the American economy as a whole – “we’re on our way to helping America’s auto industry reclaim its top position in the global market.”

That very same day, Obama was in Florida where he announced an investment of $3.4 billion of Recovery Act funds in projects aimed to start the transition to a smart energy grid. Out of the three this is by far the biggest development – not only is it the largest single energy grid modernization investment in U.S. history, it is also a huge push towards making America more energy efficient and more reliant on alternative energy. And of course, another opportunity for new jobs. This is a very important point when garnering support for climate action within the US, alongside direct economic benefits to the public, which is why Obama once more emphasized that “Such an investment won’t just create new pathways for energy — it’s expected to create tens of thousands of new jobs all across America… It’s expected to save consumers more than $20 billion over the next decade on their utility bills.”

These are just the most public and high-level of the administration’s involvements this past week in supporting a clean energy future. There were also the testimonies of several cabinet members and the head of the EPA in front of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works committee (which held three days of hearings on the Kerry-Boxer climate bill – the bill’s markup is expected to start today, assuming the Republican boycott of the meeting won’t prevent it from happening) and Energy Secretary Chu published a piece about weatherisation and energy efficiency in the Huffington Post.

It seems then, that now that the climate bill is being discussed in the Senate, the administration is publicly showing its support for climate action, something that was sorely lacking during discussions in the House (though behind the scene the White House did apply pressure on Democrats to support the bill). And though the main target is domestic, this is probably also suppose to serve as a demonstration of the administration’s commitment in the international arena in the run up to Copenhagen.

For Blog Action Day, focusing this year on climate change, I thought to do something a little different and take a look at climate action, and how it relates to climate policy and politics. So I talked with Ada Aroneanu, an organiser with 1Sky, a collaborative campaign bringing together many organisations so as to bring about “public demand for a clear, simple, specific national policy platform that would set America on the road to real solutions.”

I asked Ada how and when 1Sky came into being?

During 2007 several groups who were active on climate change at the local level came to realise that there was a need for a mouthpiece on the federal climate policy level, and that these groups involved in climate action lacked variety. 1Sky evolved out of the coming together of these local groups as well as new groups who haven’t been directly involved with climate change before then (faith, human rights, anti-poverty, etc).

This also coincided with other national events – the ‘Step It Up’ campaign, which formed in 2007, and the 2007 Power Shift in November which saw 6,000 youths lobbying Congress on 1Sky principals.

And what are these principles?

1Sky promotes 3 main principles –

These principles are the prism through which 1Sky analyses policy.

My main interest was how on-the-ground actions might affect policy, so I asked Ada to tell me about some of their past actions and successes.

1Sky actions kicked off with the 2^nd Step It Up action in November 07 which called for a 20% reduction by 2020 and 80% by 2050 (below 1990 levels). At the time these numbers were not in the public debate, but following this action they started to be commonly referred to.

Green Jobs Now – a call to create 5 million green jobs. A collaboration with Green for All and Al Gore’s “We” campaign (now Repower America), with about 700 events covering diverse locations – urban sprawl, coloured communities – across the country. This number – 5 million jobs – and the principles of this campaign were incorporated into Obama’s presidential campaign which was nearing its final stages before the elections.

Power Shift 09 brought 12,000 students to Washington. 6,000 went to campaign on the Hill (despite a freak snow storm). There was a lot of face time with politicians over that weekend.

When asked about 1Sky’s current focus Ada told me about two of their summer actions -

Business outreach where 1Sky volunteers contacted local businesses and encouraged them to call their local chambers of commerce and talk to them about their climate change policy; and direct lobbying, with visits to – and rallies at – regional offices of representatives before the vote on the Waxman-Markey bill in June.

Currently 1Sky are focusing on the 350.org’s International Day of Climate Action on October 24, getting their volunteers and mobilizers to participate. Following that they are shifting their focus to placing some pressure on President Obama, calling on him to make America a leader in clean energy. Pushing the president, which will be done alongside pushing senators, comes as – in Ada’s words – “we need to be putting pressure on both branches of the federal government to act at the executive/agency level as well as Senators to act through congress.”

[I believe this focus on the president might also prove to be important in encouraging him to take a more active role in the climate legislation, as he did with health care but only very little with the climate bills, something that many US climate campaigners and analysts have noted.] 

Finally, as the main action in US domestic climate politics at the moment is the bill currently making its way through the Senate, I wondered how 1Sky were dealing with it.

“As it is currently at the committee level, we are working in the states of the relevant committee members. Once it reaches the floor, hopefully before Copenhagen, we will work across the entire country.”

With over 2,000 Climate Precinct Captains across the country, and 40 organisers, mobilizing communities on the ground, 1Sky joins million of people the world over in demanding bold climate action from their leaders.