Kevin Knobloch

California has long been a state that enacted innovative policies that the rest of the country later adopted. For example, in 2002, California set a standard limiting the amount of global warming pollution that cars sold in the state may emit. After several years, the U.S. Department of Transportation and Environmental Protection Agency saw the wisdom of this mandate and incorporated California’s tailpipe rule into new national automobile standards. The new standards will raise the average fuel economy of U.S. cars and light trucks to 34.1 miles per gallon by 2016, and reduce their global warming emissions nearly 30 percent. Consumers around the country will save a total of $32 billion in gasoline by 2020 as a result.

California also has adopted cutting-edge energy-efficiency standards over the last 30 years. Because of these policies, Californians on average use less energy and pay less to light their homes and offices than residents in most other states. These standards give manufacturers in California a competitive edge because they spend a smaller percentag

Dr. Jeremy Martin, a senior scientist in the Union of Concerned Scientists Clean Vehicles Program, is filling in for Kevin Knobloch this week.

Biofuels could be an important part of a new clean energy economy. Done right, increased biofuel production could cut America’s oil dependence, cut the carbon pollution that causes climate change, and create new economic opportunities for rural communities. Unfortunately, our current policies are not helping biofuels reach their potential.

Current tax credits for ethanol are expensive and ineffective. They give billions of dollars in tax subsidies to oil companies that are already required to purchase biofuels under the federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). These tax credits deliver few if any benefits to farmers or biofuels producers. Nor do they protect the environment.

Yesterday, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack called for a “fiscally responsible short-term extension” of the tax credits during

The renewable electricity standard isn’t perfect, but it certainly is worth passing. The bill would establish the first national market for renewable electricity and send a strong signal to utilities that it’s time to invest in clean energy.

Right now, China and Europe are thumping the United States when it comes to putting clean energy online. Last year, China claimed the lead in wind power installed and solar power manufactured. Financing in Chinese clean energy technology jumped 72 percent to $11.5 billion dollars, nearly triple the U.S. investment over the same period. Meanwhile, U.S. wind installations are down 71 percent in the second quarter compared with last year, while billions of dollars of potential investment in our outdated electricity grid sit idle on the sidelines.

Politically, the renewable electricity standard is more than achievable. The Senate has passed such a standard three times since 2002. Meanwhile, 29 states and the District of Columbia already have enacted their own standards. More than half of those st

Congress still has plenty of opportunities to promote clean energy and reduce the heat-trapping emissions that are driving climate change.

First and foremost, Congress should preserve the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to protect public health by reducing emissions from power plants, vehicles and other sources. The EPA made a science-based determination under the Clean Air Act that climate change threatens public health. Undermining the EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act would run contrary to the vast body of scientific evidence that climate change -- by reducing air quality, exacerbating heat waves and other effects -- threatens human health.

The Clean Air Act has served Americans extraordinarily well. It has been successfully applied to clean up acid rain, soot and smog. The act has saved and extended countless lives and improved quality of life for millions of Americans. The EPA should continue reducing harmful pollution from dirty coal- and oil-fired power plants, vehicles of all sizes and other sources across the country that lead to

Dr. Brenda Ekwurzel authored this post. Dr. Ekwurzel is a climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

An unusually large number of extreme weather events have occurred around the world this summer. In Pakistan, record floods have displaced millions of people and killed more than 1,500. In China, torrential rains have caused massive flooding and landslides that have killed more than 3,000. In Russia, the worst drought in decades has triggered wildfires; during its worst the daily death rate in Moscow doubled to some 700, and a third of the country’s wheat harvest was wiped out. Meanwhile, closer to home, a number of states have been pummeled by heavy rainstorms, and more than a dozen states have suffered withering heat waves.

These extreme weather events are consistent with trends scientists say are caused by global warming. The most recent report by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), issued in 2007, projected more flooding in Pakistan and China this century and noted that precipitation already has inc

These comments are submitted by Kathleen Rest, executive director of Union of Concerned Scientists.

The resolution offered by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) to force the EPA to rescind its finding that global warming emissions harm public health is an unprecedented assault on science. The Senate should reject it.

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that heat-trapping emissions qualify as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The court directed the EPA to limit those emissions if the agency determined that climate change endangers public health and welfare.

Last December, after an extensive scientific review, the EPA issued its “endangerment” finding. Among other things, it found that public health would be put at risk from longer heat waves that harm the sick, poor, and elderly; extreme weather events that could lead to death and injuries; and increases in ground-level ozone that would exacerbate respiratory illnesses such as asthma. Now the EPA is moving forward carefully and pragmatically with its required r

President Obama is seizing the moment to push for major reforms that could dramatically reduce our oil dependence. His administration has already made great progress on vehicle fuel economy and is promising to do more.

America consumes about 20 million barrels of oil and related petroleum products a day. President Obama should introduce a national oil saving plan that builds on recently adopted polices, such the administration’s national clean vehicle standards and the 2007 energy bill's renewable fuel standards. Looking forward, we can, with known technologies and practices, further reduce our oil dependence by a million barrels of oil a day in 2015, 3 million in 2020, and 7 million by 2030. That final figure is about four times the amount of oil we currently import from the Persian Gulf. And to ensure that future presidents carry the plan through, Congress should enshrine it in law by passing comprehensive energy and climate legislation that includes such oil savings requirements.

The largest source of the oil savings would come from improving fuel economy a

Now more than ever, our country needs a smart, effective plan to cut our dependence on oil and launch a clean energy economy. The disaster in the Gulf is yet another reminder of the damage that oil drilling – both on and offshore – can cause to local communities, wildlife and the environment. No matter which way you look at it, it’s time to stop talking about cutting America’s oil dependence and start taking action.

We need to make every effort we can to protect the communities and ecosystems of the Gulf Coast by capping the well and cleaning up the spill. But we can’t stop there. Congress needs to send comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation to President Obama this year. The House has already taken action. It’s now time for the Senate to come up with a plan that launches a clean energy economy, cuts America’s oil dependence and curbs global warming.

A