This failure would be hard to understand at any time, to say the least. But coming as it does in the middle of a record-hot summer and a series of environmental disasters, Washington’s abandonment of this effort is all the more confounding and frustrating.

However, this setback only makes our work more necessary. As long as we care about our country, our planet, and the future we’re leaving for our children and grandchildren, we must continue to fight.

Remember: The climate crisis isn’t going away. And neither can we. It is getting worse, so we have to redouble our efforts.

We’re already planning the next phase of our work, and I’m counting on your continued involvement. I’d like to invite you to join me next Tuesday, August 10, for a conversation to discuss how we should move forward from here. I’ll be answering some questions from Repower America members like you — so please submit a question for discussion.

“Next Steps for the Climate Movement”
Virtual Town Hall
Tuesday, August 10 at 8:30 p.m. EDT
RSVP to join and submit your question

The Senate’s decision is a major disappointment for the climate movement, but there is a silver lining. In the last year, supporters like you have organized on an unprecedented scale. And we’ve built overwhelming popular support for action on comprehensive climate and clean energy solutions.

But by using the right-wing media echo chamber, record campaign contributions and an army of well-paid lobbyists, the oil and coal industries have stopped at nothing to protect the status quo and their profits. They want to keep using the atmosphere as an open sewer for the dumping of their greenhouse gas pollution.

The Senate’s inaction reflects that reality. We have always known that solving the climate crisis is a generational challenge — and the urgency of the climate crisis demands that despite these substantial obstacles, we must fight for every inch of progress. The science has never been more clear and the evidence is mounting day by day.

For those of us who understand the stakes, it’s a moral obligation.

And so we must fight even harder. Together, we must continue to beat back repeated assaults on the authority in the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon pollution. We must continue to pressure our elected leaders — local, state and national — to stand with the American people instead of the fossil fuel industry. We must each take individual action to transition to clean energy in our daily lives. And we must win the ongoing battle of science against spin.

We can and must continue the fight. Please join me on Tuesday, August 10 at 8:30 p.m. EDT to discuss our next steps.

http://acp.repoweramerica.org/jointhecall

Thanks for all you do — we’re all in this together.

Al Gore
Repower America

In an unsurprising move, Senate majority leader Harry Reid made it official this afternoon. He announced he would introduce an “admittedly narrow, limited” energy bill that contains no greenhouse gas provisions and maybe even no renewable electricity mandate. The votes, he said, just weren’t there.

“It’s easy to count to 60,” said Reid, according to Politico. “I could do it by the time I was in eighth grade. My point is this, we know where we are. We know we don’t have the votes.”

Despite tireless climate champion Sen. John Kerry’s  vague assurances that he will keep negotiating for a cap on carbon emissions at some future point in time, Democrats just gave up on the last, best chance to pass a global warming measure anytime soon.  How often does an oil spill Armageddon come along to illustrate why this matters? And the Democrat majority ain’t getting any bigger in November, that’s for sure.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world gets it. For god’s sake, even China — America’s eternally convenient climate punching bag  — is reportedly on the verge of establishing a mandatory carbon trading program by 2015.

Looking for someone to blame for this sad state of affairs? Here are a few options:

1) Beholden Democrats: If Republicans go down in flames together, Dems are the stumbling drunks who wouldn’t know party discipline if it hit them upside the head. A few from states such as Louisiana and Nebraska, beholden to their home-state energy interests, balked at any measures to limit carbon dioxide emissions. Even Sen. Reid screwed things up when he suggested he would make politically convenient (for him) immigration reform a priority over climate. Compared to the House-passed version from a year ago, the failed bill was already watered down to cover only electric utilities — even that would only secure only some 53 Democrat votes. Hence, we can also blame:

2) Promiscuous Republicans: The John Boehners and James Inhofes of the Senate would probably wait until the Earth looked like it belonged in The Day After Tomorrow before voting for a climate bill. But some more moderate GOPers, notably South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham and Maine Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe played coy — teasing their support for a compromise that they abandoned in the end.

3) Mr. Clean Energy Revolution himself: Green groups have been torn of late about whether to go attack President Obama’s lame climate campaign or whether to pull their punches for the best hope they’ve got. Obama never gave a rousing speech dedicated to climate change and never pulled out the big guns in lobbying for what was supposedly one of his top policy priorities coming into office, as Dot Earth’s Andy Revkin sums up so well.

4) Greedy Power Companies: After Big Oil and Big Manufacturing eked out a pass from the climate bill in the end — it came down to electric utilities, which represent a major portion of U.S. emissions. Would they go-it-alone? Some executives did in fact negotiate in good faith for a bill they could live with. But, sensing their leverage, they also tried to win major exemptions from existing air pollution rules, making the negotiations a tough pill for liberals to swallow in the end.

5) Big Green vs. Grassy Green? The environmental world is increasingly fractured between two camps (see #4 above). Big Green groups, such as the Environmental Defense Fund, believe the best strategy to win a climate bill is to negotiate politically realistic compromises with energy interests. Grassroots groups such as Greenpeace or 350.org are less willing to settle and believe a push from below is the key missing piece. Both ideally want the same thing in the end, but this division of interests is not helping anyone.

In the end, there is no one person, industry or group who killed this bill. But, I’m honestly disappointed in President Obama for not doing more to back up Sen. Reid. The health care bill and the financial reform bill looked bleak, but in those cases, our leader would not settle for inaction. As always for climate, here’s to next year.

Photo Credit: Sister 72, Flickr User

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

Who Killed the Climate Bill?

Dr. Stephen Schneider, who died suddenly yesterday of a heart attack, devoted his life to the climate cause. If Al Gore is the poster child of the climate campaign, Stephen Schneider was the science, messaging and brains behind the show. This humble genius was a power-broker who changed the world and was doing it well before most others arrived on the scene.

Schneider has long been an inspiration in his ability to inspire other scientists, politicians and average citizens to care about global warming, which was, and still is, no small task. I first met him more than 10 years ago when he spoke at the annual conference of a faith-based global warming groups. What impressed me most was how he commanded the awe and respect of religious leaders of all denominations. He had the unique ability to speak with both scientific authority and with respect and honor for those who took stock in the power of faith. He knew, early on, the climate movement needed their voices and clout. Part of his genius was his ability to bring together people of all stripes.

His book Science as Contact Sport, released this year, outlined the day-in and day-out challenges he faced in grappling with global warming for a whopping four decades, offering details of the tumultous scene he so deftly navigated. Our lack of real progress on the climate front so far, he concluded, is due to  “ignorance, greed, denial, tribalism, and short-term thinking.” Yet despite his land-mine riddled world, in which the media and politicians so often insisted on pitting his expertise against skeptics with a sliver of his training, Schneider continued to be a leader, and continued to maintain an optimistic, enthusiastic and upbeat attitude about our ability to solve this crisis.

In seeking examples of leadership, others looked to Schneider. Those looking for a target did too. Tim Flannery, the chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council  noted that Schneider had “been so effective at countering climate skeptics and lobbyists that he’s become a special target of their campaign to discredit leading scientists.”

His death is too early for us and for the planet. We can each honor his memory by humbly doing our part to address global warming. When I heard him speak in Los Angeles, I asked him what he tells people who want to make a difference, since this issue can be daunting and depressing and discouraging. In his answer, Schneider emphasized that environmentally-literate individuals empower the movement and can counter unscientific arguments from others. And despite all the potential that he had become disillusioned in his long political fight, Schneider also maintained that simple consumer changes, such as switching light bulbs, turning off lights, and driving less do indeed make a difference.

The global warming movement will continue but, this week, it is pausing to remember a man who tirelessly worked to help the world save itself.  I would encourage you to honor his memory by reading Schneider’s book and becoming more climate-literate or by joining our recent Change.org campaigns to combat climate misinformation: here and here.

Photo credit: Joi Ito, Flickr User

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

The Death of a Climate Giant

But when do aggressive emails and comments cross this line? This has been an issue in so many areas of our modern life. Sure, the occasional controversial academic could get used to attacks, but in the climate change arena, the discourse is getting seriously out of hand.

When a steady stream of vitriolic hate is directed at a whole pack of prominent scientists whenever they dare venture beyond obscure journals, I think this line is surely crossed. Some of it is almost certainly from individual crazies. Others suggest these attacks are orchestrated, and blogger Tim Lambert notes that one high-profile spokesperson for the climate denial machine regularly publishes the email addresses of “target” scientists. Regardless of the source, I fear it is only a matter of time before abusive words translate to abusive actions.

The Guardian in the U.K. has compiled some of this hate mail, much of it directed at scientists whose private email exchanges were published by unknown hackers last year. These scientists were called “Nazi morons” and told to “gargle razor blades” and “rot in hell,” in a small sampling of hundreds of expletive-laden rants, many from anonymous writers. (I actually can’t a imagine a U.S. paper publishing the language in the above link.) They’ve also received many death threats and been told to commit suicide. Phil Jones, the scientist at the center of the “Climategate” scandal, said a few months ago that he has indeed had suicidal thoughts.

These scientists have called out for help, but U.S. local police and the FBI have generally not taken any action, citing free speech rights. Instead, researchers are left fearful and paranoid, which surely affects their ability to concentrate on their job and most certainly colors what they are willing to say in public.

“The effect on me has been tremendous,” Stanford University scientist Stephen Schneider told The Guardian. “Some of these people are mentally imbalanced. They are invariably gun-toting rightwingers. What do I do? Learn to shoot a Magnum? Wear a bullet-proof jacket?”

Earlier today, Change.org blogger Nikki Gloudeman wrote about growing calls for transparency in the climate science process. I wonder how in the world scientists can be more “transparent” when they fear for their lives. Clearly, these anonymous attackers — the original Climategate hacker, likely among them — are not after any real honesty. They are after blood. I truly hope they don’t ever get what they came for.

Photo Credit: Alan_Cleaver2000, Flickr User

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

For Climate Scientists, Death Threats Come With The Job