Ford F-150 SVT Raptor at 2012 North American International Auto Show in Detroit (Flickr's Sarah Larson)

You can’t look at 2012 vehicles through a 2002 lens. “Efficient” no longer just means hybrid or electric – it means the new base models themselves are now much more efficient than the older vehicles they’re replacing. Every new vehicle – efficient conventional engines, hybrid, or electric - will save drivers big against an older, less efficient model.

New fuel economy standards and the burst of automotive innovation coming with them are bringing dramatically improved efficiency and fuel savings to all types of vehicles at all types of price points. The auto industry’s renaissance is bringing not just savings at the pump, but less dependence on the oil that puts us at risk of spills, pollutes our air, worsens climate change, and weakens America’s energy security.

From commuters to sportsmen looking to save on their next trip to the lake, many consumers are judging that these new benefits are worth it.

Today, we know that Rachel’s observations about “the global thermostat” were prescient. Recent studies confirm that the oceans have indeed warmed by about 1 degree F to a depth of 200 feet, and the overwhelming scientific consensus is that increasing levels of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are the principal cause of this profound change in marine temperatures.

Since higher surface-water temperatures amplify hurricane intensities, the implications of warming seas should not be ignored. As ocean temperatures continue to increase, hurricanes are expected to have stronger winds and produce more rainfall—unwelcome news for coastal areas already experiencing storm-related losses.

Warmer ocean currents also can introduce migrating fish and invasive species to areas they previously didn’t inhabit, and the new arrivals can overwhelm native populations or alter newfound aquatic habitats. Warm waters tend to amplify the threats of pollution and exacerbate overfishing on weakened marine systems. Overheated, these systems have less ability to hold oxygen, threatening near-shore habitats that carry high pollution loads. Degraded estuaries, tidal flats, bays and other nursery waters are at particular risk. These fragile habitats can become oxygen-deprived faster in a warming world. Oxygen depletion is not limited to coastal habitats, however. It is a growing menace to vast oceanic regions.

As water temperatures rise, the ocean’s most productive and sensitive ecosystems are showing the strain. On reefs, the algae living symbiotically within coral die, leaving the telltale ghostly bleached coral skeletons. Lacking algae for prolonged periods, the coral can suffer irreversible decline and, ultimately, death. Loss of coral has enormous implications for fish and the rest of the marine web of life, as well as coastal communities.

Researchers have documented that warming ocean currents have accelerated melting of the floating Arctic sea ice sheet and the decline and breakup of Antarctic ice shelves. Greenland is now losing an estimated 100 billion tons of ice annually as a result of this accelerated melting. And sea levels are now projected to rise much faster than predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 as a result of this acceleration, further threatening coastal habitats and human infrastructures.

Warming is not the only threat to our seas. Oceans collectively absorb about 25 percent of the annual carbon dioxide emissions from human activities, and they are becoming more acidic as carbonic acid accumulates. This has caused seawater to become more corrosive to shells and marine organism skeletons, and is interfering with production of phytoplankton.

A recently published study revealed that phytoplankton has declined by about 40 percent in the past 60 years. Another study suggests that increasing acidity reduces the availability of iron, an element crucial to phytoplankton production. Because iron already is limited in marine waters, increased acidity may have grave implications.

This is extremely important to everyone, even those of us who don’t visit beaches, scuba dive or go deep-sea fishing. Phytoplankton are responsible for more than 50 percent of the oxygen-producing photosynthesis on the planet. They also are vital building blocks in the oceanic web of life.

I wish I were making this stuff up. Sadly, the facts about these threats are well-documented in scientific literature. The simple truth is this: If we continue to pollute the air with carbon dioxide, the more acidic oceans will block iron needed for phytoplankton and become more corrosive to the shells of marine organisms. This will surely threaten the entire marine food web.

While more research can help us better understand the full range of consequences of human-induced acidification, carbon pollution clearly is acidifying the oceans, as well as heating our atmosphere. Leading climate scientist Robert Corell has determined that even with carbon reductions planned by 194 nations, average global temperature is expected to rise by 4 degrees F by 2050 and acidification of our oceans would continue.

What can each of us do to help reverse this crisis? Tell the president and Congress—and everyone who aspires to those elected offices—we need a science-based energy policy that ends carbon emissions. To learn more about NWF’s efforts to protect and restore coastal areas and combat warming, visit www. nwf.org/globalwarming and http://www.nwf.org/Oil-Spill/On-the-Ground.aspx.

Smog envelopes downtown Houston, TX (Flickr's Rick Kimpel)

The oil, gas and coal industries get billions of dollars in subsidies and tax giveaways every single year. A group of 35 U.S. senators last year identified $122 billion over 10 years in oil subsidies that could be cut. And globally, fossil fuel industries receive six times more government subsidies than clean energy, according to the International Energy Agency. Those aren’t loan guarantees – it’s gone and we’ll never get a dime back. Where are the media investigations into how many millions in bonuses are paid to the CEOs of these oil giants?

Instead, today we see another headline about a clean company trying to get off the ground, this time electric car battery maker Ener1:

Ener1, an electric car battery company that the Obama administration awarded a $118 million stimulus grant to expand its operations, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection Thursday after being unable to repay pressing debts. […]

Ener1 is the third company to seek bankruptcy protection among those the Energy Department backed as part of the president’s signature program to invest in clean energy. Solyndra, a California solar-panel maker, and Beacon Power, a Massachusetts energy-storage firm, entered bankruptcy court proceedings in the fall, after having received taxpayer-guaranteed loans of $535 million and $43 million, respectively.

Ener1 wasn’t controversial with Republican members of Congress when it had the backing of a Republican president:

Ener1’s application for stimulus money had bipartisan support among Indiana lawmakers. The company received $10.5 million in grants and contracts under the George W. Bush administration.

Despite obsessive coverage by the Washington Post and other media outlets, the Department of Energy’s clean energy investment program remains an incredibly safe investment. A Bloomberg Government analysis found that 87 percent of the portfolio is low-risk and that even if all 10 of the higher risk projects had to default, hundreds of millions of dollars would still remain in the Congressional fund to cover losses. And as the Ener1 example shows, even “default” could signify only a bump in the road, not the end of it – private investors have stepped up to back the company and it continues to employ hundreds of people at its Indiana plant.

America’s successful investments in the clean economy don’t get nearly as much media attention. Among the largest Energy Department investments were $5.9 billion in loans for Ford for projects in plants across 5 states. These projects were responsible for sustaining 33,000 permanent jobs making far more fuel efficient vehicles, including electric vehicles. This morning, Ford reported its sales, revenue and earnings are all rising.

As for the reporters who just can’t help themselves from writing negative stories about clean energy, you have to remember the Washington press corps thrives on controversy and in the extremely competent Obama administration, scandals have been hard to come by. But that hasn’t stopped reporters from trying. In this click-driven multimedia age, even a thin attempt at controversy can deliver big numbers for media outlets thanks to the polluter-political industrial complex.

Opposition to clean energy investments isn’t about the deficit, jobs or protecting our wildlife and public health – it’s about election year politics. Many of the very same members of Congress complaining about direct taxpayer investments are same people who blocked legislation that would’ve created a market-based cap-and-trade system to put a price on carbon pollution. So what’s their solution? They don’t have one.

But even after months of relentless attacks on clean energy, a November ORC International poll found  77 percent of Americans agree “the U.S. needs to be a clean energy technology leader and it should invest in the research and domestic manufacturing of wind, solar, and energy efficiency technologies.”

Here’s the bottom line: The National Wildlife Federation’s 4 million supporters from across the political spectrum want clean energy and they want leaders who’ll face down special interests to deliver it. And coming off a year in 2011 that saw global warming-fueled extreme weather cause record damage, action on clean energy is more critically needed than ever.

Take Action

The Environmental Protection Agency is acting now to limit carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants, but is coming under assault from polluter-funded attack groups. Let the EPA know you support limits on carbon pollution.

In 2009, when the tide was flowing against the auto industry, National Wildlife Federation stood up to support the auto recovery package because we believed that the U.S. auto industry could innovate to build the kind of clean cars and trucks that consumers – and our environment, increasingly demand.  Since then, the U.S. auto industry and its workers have proven they have what it takes for America to lead in a prosperous, clean energy future.  The standards being considered at the hearing today — which will double fuel economy from today’s levels by 2025 — are critical to staying on this path.

These standards are also critical for wildlife, which faces both the global threat of climate change and the direct impacts of oil spills and pollution.  By themselves, the 2017-2025 standards will save 4 billion barrels of oil and cut 2 billion metric tons of carbon pollution.  Taken together with the light and heavy duty vehicle standards being implemented now, they cut more oil than we get from the Persian Gulf, Venezuela, and Russia combined and cut carbon pollution annually by more than 650 million metric tons-equivalent to 10% of total U.S. carbon pollution today.  This is the single biggest step America has ever taken to cut carbon pollution and reduce our oil dependence.

Take action to protect wildlife and create jobs–show your support for strong fuel economy standards >>

I was heartened when visiting with my good friend David Orr in Oberlin, Ohio recently to hear about the Oberlin Project.  Similar to the transformative Adam Joseph Lewis Center envisioned and implemented by Adam Lewis, David and many others, the Oberlin Project is a bold initiative between the City of Oberlin, Oberlin College, and other partners that will “…revitalize the local economy, eliminate carbon emissions, restore local agriculture and forestry, and use the entire effort as an educational laboratory relevant to virtually every discipline.”[i]

Why is this initiative so important now?  As David highlights in his recent article What Do We Stand for Now, “…the era of cheap fossil fuel is over.  The era of rapid climate change is upon us.”[ii]

As we begin to accept these realities, we need to begin now to establish working examples of post-carbon communities that are fair and decent places to live, resilient to climate change and spikes in energy prices, and provide sustainable economic development opportunities.

Because the impacts of climate change will be pervasive, leaving no-one untouched, and because the solutions will be driven by changes in human behavior, the Oberlin Project’s inclusion of the psychology of climate change is an important dimension of the Project.  As Cindy McPherson Frantz, Associate Professor of Psychology at Oberlin College says, “The leaders of tomorrow need to understand psychological processes because both the problem and potential solutions to climate change have origins in human thought and behavior.”[iii]  As an example of how the Project is training students to be leaders in this area, a journalism student is developing communications pieces on energy that will maximize the potential to change attitude and behavior.

My mentor Ralph Abele once said “Be careful what you choose to be stubborn about, because you just might prevail.”  I’m grateful that David and all those working on the Oberlin Project are putting their “stubborn moral idealism” to work for the benefit of all of us.

This document is an important contribution for Christians seeking to learn more about climate change and act on it.

In the preface, Leith Anderson, President of National Association of Evangelicals, highlights the Christian imperative to care for the poor who are impacted by climate change:

God calls us to care for those who are poor, vulnerable and oppressed. It is the Christian thing to do.

While others debate the science and politics of climate change, my thoughts go to the poor people who are neither scientists nor politicians. They will never study carbon dioxide in the air or acidification of the ocean. But they will suffer from dry wells in the Sahel of Africa and floods along the coasts of Bangladesh. Their crops will fail while our supermarkets are full. They will suffer while we study.

Download the document and read more here.

One of the greatest gifts I received from my parents was not a tangible gift at all. It was a gift of an unquenchable curiosity about nature.

Mom and Dad loved the outdoors, and they spent their free time in nature with their four sons, fostering in us a fascination for nature that lives on today. Mom always encouraged us to “find something to do” outside, and I often followed Dad as he trained his beagles and in later years hunted with him in the fields and forests of western Pennsylvania.

Admittedly, it was a lot easier to get kids outside back in those days. There were far fewer of the distractions that keep youngsters indoors. My hometown of Pittsburgh launched KDKA, the world’s first commercial radio station and later the first round-the-clock commercial television channel. At first, that was the only channel we could watch on our 16-inch Crosley television, which seemed to take forever to warm up.

These days, children are bombarded by hundreds of television channels displayed on high-definition, flat screens complete with theater-quality surround sound. They create an endless stream of text messages on their cell phones and have access to the Internet, games, gadgets and seemingly endless other high-tech distractions.

By today’s standards, my family did not have a lot of money to buy toys. Mom and Dad paid $7,000 for our home, and Dad worked 12 hours or more a day to earn his $60 weekly salary. Computers or other electronic gadgets didn’t exist. The only “cell phone” in our world was on Dick Tracy’s wrist.

Yet we never thought of ourselves as poor because we were rich in imagination and exploration. Several hundred acres of field and forest awaited us just outside our front door, and we explored every inch, finding simple joys at every turn. Examples:

• I remember watching in wonder as we observed a doe nursing her twin fawns at a stream bank.
• We were inspired by the size of a great horned owl, which startled us as it silently glided overhead before landing in a nearby white pine.
• Collecting rusty nails and scraps of wood from nearby home construction sites, we built tree shacks in the aspen stands.
• We built earth-filled log dams in Girty’s Run and stocked the impoundments with bluegills that we transplanted from a nearby lake.
• We emulated Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett by building a network of “wilderness” trails with some neighborhood friends and our pet beagle.

Before many parents turned to prescriptions to calm their hyperactive kids, recess periods in our elementary school’s playground provided important outlets for students like me to expend pent-up energy. As much as I enjoyed three daily recesses, the best part of my day was running into the woods after school.

Today, I worry about how much time kids spend indoors in front of televisions, computer screens and game devices. I worry, too, about how little connection children have with nature and how little physical exercise they are getting. Based on my own experiences, I believe unstructured outdoor time allows children the freedom to explore, create and imagine. Kids who spend at least an hour each day outdoors generally are healthier—physically and mentally—and, according to recent studies, they sleep better.

Citing a rise in childhood obesity rates and a litany of health problems related to sedentary lifestyles, Senator Mark Udall (D-CO), chairman of the Senate’s Subcommittee on National Parks and co-chair of the bipartisan Senate Outdoor Recreation Caucus, insists that getting kids out into nature should be a bipartisan concern. Having worked at the Colorado Outward Bound School for 20 years, including a decade as its executive director, he knows what he is talking about.

At a recent congressional briefing on the benefits of reconnecting youngsters with nature, Senator Udall and Representative Ron Kind (D-WI) announced their intention to introduce Senate and House versions of the Healthy Kids Outdoors Act. If enacted, the legislation would support state, local and federal strategies to connect our nation’s youth with the outdoors through natural play, recreation such as camping, hiking, hunting and fishing, public health plans, service learning and other initiatives. For the sake of our children, I hope the bill receives bipartisan support and is passed quickly.

In the meantime, each of us must do our part to get children into the outdoors to discover the wonders of nature, as I did many years ago. It’s a gift that continues to renew my spirit and one that I hope to pass on to my grandchildren.

It was only Sunday that I joined 12,000 activists encircling the White House to ask President Obama to block the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline – but already, the landscape has changed. Not only is Reuters is reporting the State Department is considering revising the proposed route to go around ecologically sensitive areas, but a new investigation has been opened into the State Department’s review process:

The State Department’s inspector general has agreed to probe the agency’s review of the proposed Keystone XL oil sands pipeline, a process that project critics allege is biased in favor of developer TransCanada Corp.

The inspector general’s office disclosed the “special review” in a Friday memo to Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns that was released by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Sanders is one of more than a dozen lawmakers who called for the review.

“The primary objective of the review is to determine to what extent the Department and all other parties involved complied with federal laws and regulations relating to the Keystone XL pipeline permit process,” the memo states.

On top of the new investigation, TransCanada’s Keystone I pipeline was shut down after a power outage today. As the blog Michigan Messenger reports, “Despite assurances from TransCanada that the project would be environmentally safe, the first phase has leaked 14 times in the United States since it opened and at least that many times in Canada as well.” And now TransCanada expects us to stand aside and let it build Keystone I’s big brother?

I was proud to stand with Americans of all ages and backgrounds who’d come from all across the country to deliver our message at the White House on Sunday. We heard from organizers that there may have been enough of us there to circle the block several times.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Learn more about why Keystone XL would be such a risky, bad deal at NWF.org/TarSands, then take a moment to ask President Obama to say no to dirty tar sands.

Galileo's tomb in Tuscany (Flickr's Rob Glover)

In 1600, the Dominican friar Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for his then heretical belief that the Earth rotated about the Sun.  And it took nearly 360 years before Galileo was finally pardoned by the Pope for his scientific studies demonstrating the same. While we no longer literally burn scientists at the stake, they still face persecution for upsetting the apple cart.

Take the case of Dr. Michael Mann, a professor at Pennsylvania State University, who authored a key paper demonstrating the earth warming at a rapid rate over the last century. Some of his e-mail correspondence was stolen, and rather than the thieves being found and prosecuted, the deniers of climate change including the self-appointed Chief climate change denier Senator James Inhofe, went after Mann. They never provided a shred of scientific data disproving Mann’s conclusion.

Last month, yet another of so many investigations that I’ve lost count, completely cleared Mann of any wrong doing. In fact, the repeated exonerations of Mann lend even greater validity to his climate change research, which has withstood far greater scrutiny than the fact that the oil and gas industry has contributed more to Senator Inhofe’s campaign chest than any other industry.

Or take the case of Dr. Charles Monnett, who published a paper on his observations of drowned polar bears. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE), formerly the Minerals Management Service (MMS) which permits oil and gas wells, investigated Monnett for some completely unrelated, alleged, and obscure violation of ‘procurement’ processes.

Nonetheless, misguided investigators grilled him for hours about his polar bear observations, confiscated his field research notebooks, and even inquired about his relationship with Al Gore. Feeding off the seriously off-track investigation, the climate deniers claimed that climate change must not be real because of the investigation. BOEMRE put Monnett on administrative leave and suspended scientific research on polar bears that he’d had some involvement in. Then, last month the investigation stalled, BOEMRE hasn’t formally charged him with anything, he’s back at work, and the suspension of the polar bear research was reversed.

Climate deniers should do the research, provide the evidence, and publish in peer-reviewed scientific publications. The problem is, climate deniers don’t have the evidence. So instead, they persecute the scientists, just like Galileo was persecuted for his unpopular, but correct science.

Isn’t it time for a change? The press should stop giving ink and air time to deniers using junk science. Real climate science demonstrates the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions now; the Earth can’t wait even a few more years, let alone the nearly 360 years it took to vindicate Galileo.

In a truly significant national commitment to curb greenhouse gases, the Obama administration, a labor union and key auto manufacturers including Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Toyota, Honda and Hyundai have joined with the state of California to reach a critical deal requiring passenger vehicles to average 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.

Also announced—and broadly agreed upon—were the first ever standards for heavy duty trucks that will reduce their fuel use by 10 to 20 percent by 2018. Currently, more than 30 percent of fossil-fuel carbon dioxide emissions in this country come from petroleum that is used mainly by the transportation sector.

Fuel efficiency standards that cover all cars and trucks mean that we will see innovation and fuel savings in all types of vehicles, from semi-trailers and school buses to pickup trucks, minivans, family sedans and electric cars like the Chevrolet Volt, pictured here.

These landmark White House agreements came about through responsible negotiations with automakers, environmentalists and labor unions. While we did not get the full 60 mpg for which we had called for, these standards will make a very significant dent in tailpipe pollution. And we will continue to work with all the parties to speed innovation in cars and trucks.

New Fuel Standards Mean Gas Savings for all Vehicles

According to the Union of Concern Scientists, the latest passenger vehicle agreement will cut carbon pollution by more than 308 million tons in 2030—the equivalent to shutting down 72 coal-fired power plants. The group also predicts “lower fuel expenditures at the pump by over $80 billion in 2030—even after paying for the cost of the necessary technology, consumers will still clear $50 billion in savings that year alone.” These savings mean billions more being spent at home, boosting our economy locally and improving our serious trade deficit. They also will reduce our dependence on Middle East oil by saving as much as 23 billion gallons of gasoline annually by 2030, which is equal to the total current annual imports from both Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

The many hybrid models now in the market have certainly contributed to improving the nation’s overall fuel efficiency. As an owner of a hybrid, I can assure you that I enjoy passing gas stations that I once stopped at to fill up. But standards that cover all cars and trucks mean that we will see innovation and fuel savings in all types of vehicles, from semi-trailers and school buses to pickup trucks, minivans, family sedans and electric cars.

Will the House of Representatives Stand in the Way of More Efficient Cars?

The final rule for heavy duty trucks was adopted in August. The handshake agreement for passenger vehicles will be proposed formally as a draft regulation open for public comment and input by the end of September. A final rule, if adopted, will be published in July 2012.

Leave it to the U.S. House of Representatives to oppose the passenger vehicle agreement and try to block any responsible solution to a serious environmental and economic problem. In a three-page letter sent to the CEOs of nine major automakers, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said the committee “has begun an investigation into the nature of the negotiations.” He added that the deal appears “to have been negotiated in secret, outside the scope of law, with potentially significant negative impacts for consumers.”

The Obama administration has estimated that, under the plan, consumers will save $1.7 trillion at the pump. It appears that the only “significant negative impact” will be to big oil interests that have made record profits in recent years and pocketed many billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidizes, and their Middle East suppliers who will sell a lot less oil to the United States. The legislative backlash should be expected, since oil interests are making huge contributions to lawmakers who watch out for their interests and protect their tax subsidies.

We commend the Obama administration for working in a spirit of cooperation with affected interests to forge a reasonable compromise with major benefits for the public, the economy and wildlife. We are saddened by all attacks on our landmark environmental and conservation laws, including the Clean Air Act, that underpin these standards. As this passenger vehicle agreement (as in previous fuel-efficiency agreements) will be submitted to a formal rule-making process in which all U.S. citizens will have a chance to voice their opinions, we encourage NWF members to actively participate as it moves forward.

Share Your Views

What do you think about these new standards? Do you know if your representatives support them? Comment on this blog or connect with me on Facebook or Twitter and let me know what you think.

Related Links:

• Is an electric car right for you?
• New Report: Standards Deliver “Trucks That Work” For Wildlife, Economy
• Learn about National Wildlife Federation’s efforts to promote clean fuels