President Obama arrives for his Second Inaugural (photo by Chris Moody/Yahoo News)

“We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.

“Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.

“The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries—we must claim its promise. That is how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure—our forests and waterways; our croplands and snow-capped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That’s what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.”

“Today, President Obama affirmed what we know in our hearts as well as our minds: we can no longer turn our head away while future generations are put in peril by climate change. His vision is clear, his resolve will be tested, and the work to protect our children’s future begins anew,” said Larry Schweiger, president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation. “The National Wildlife Federation’s four million supporters are ready to help achieve politics and policies that are sufficient to meet the challenge, cutting carbon pollution in half by 2030. My hope is renewed, because confronting climate change is not a cause of a president or a party but an imperative for the American people.”

Polls show President Obama has voters on his side. Two-thirds of voters (65 percent) say elected officials should take steps now to reduce the impact of climate change on future generations, while just 27 percent say we should wait for more evidence, according to a Zogby post-election poll.

Obama’s inaugural address capped a big weekend for conservation in Washington. On Sunday night, thousands of people gathered at the Newseum for the 2013 Green Inaugural Ball. The crowd included dozens of presidential cabinet secretaries, governors, and members of Congress. The night’s entertainment was headlined by will.i.am and included a  call for climate action from ”The Science Guy” Bill Nye.

>> See more photos from the Green Inaugural Ball Flickr Group

Vice President Joe Biden at the 2013 Green Inaugural Ball (photo by NWF’s Avelino Maestas)

“I also came to tell you what my green wish is: that we finally face up to climate change,” Vice President Joe Biden said during a surprise appearance at the “Green Ball,” an inaugural weekend event for environmental groups.

The vice president stressed that the environment would not be a second-tier issue and thanked the environmental community for its support for the president.

“I came to say thank you,” Biden said to thunderous applause.

We may not have to wait long to get the results of one test of the Obama administration’s commitment to cutting carbon pollution. A final decision on the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline could come any day now.

Take Action

Approving the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would roll back much of the Obama administration’s gains in cutting carbon pollution and would threaten wildlife from Alberta to Texas. Please take a moment to ask President Obama to reject the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline now.

What was completely lost in the discussion is that increasing oil drilling in the United States will not bring down prices at the pump, and, since oil prices are set on the world market, more drilling here at home will do little to reduce gas prices.  In fact, an Associated Press analysis of 36 years of Energy Information Administration data shows “no statistical correlation” between domestic oil production and gas prices.  In short, we just can’t drill our way to cheaper gasoline.  Increasing vehicle efficiency is a far better solution to decrease our dependency on oil and gas.

I catch a breather near Gunsight Pass in Glacier National Park

Also missing from all the finger-pointing over gas prices was any recognition of the fact that the explosion of drilling in this country over recent decades has had a profound impact on water resources, air quality, and fish and wildlife habitat.  These vital resources suffer because of the direct cumulative impacts of the drilling process but also because burning fossil fuels is warming our planet and causing global climate change, which carry devastating consequences for decades to come.

We have yet to see enough detail in the debates, from either candidate, as to how they plan to protect wildlife, wild landscapes and recreational opportunities even as oil and gas permitting increases.  Governor Romney’s energy plan proposes opening new, sensitive offshore areas for drilling, fast-tracking the Keystone XL pipeline, undermining environmental review, and turning over control of federal public lands to states for the purposes of energy development.  However, nowhere in Governor Romney’s plan does it even mention the importance of the conservation of  fish and wildlife, and we have yet to hear a commitment from the campaign to protect the water we drink and their air we breathe from more drilling.

Land Tawney & his daughter fishing on Rock Creek

I called Land Tawney, the National Wildlife Federation’s senior manager for sportsmen leadership based in our Northern Rockies and Prairies Regional Center in Missoula, MT, for his take. “Sportsmen are a valued constituency, both during and after the election season, and I look forward to reading Mitt Romney’s plan to address our concerns,” Land began. ”But a top issue Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will need to address is their thoughts on selling public lands. Exactly what would that mean for America’s public lands, the fish and wildlife that live there, and the hunters and anglers that rely on them?”

Larry Schweiger, president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation, wrote to Rep. Ryan last week asking him to clarify some recent comments on public lands:

As an organization deeply committed to the conservation interests of America’s hunters, anglers and outdoor enthusiasts we appreciated your statement in an October 1 interview with Outdoor Life magazine that “we need to open up public lands for access for hunting.” Public lands are critical part of America’s national heritage, and access for all Americans is a conservation legacy that provides everyone the opportunity to hunt and fish.  Public lands also play a critical role supporting local economies: in 2011, 13.7 million hunters spent $33.9 billion and 33.1 million anglers spent $22 billion.

We are concerned however that in another portion of the interview you seemed unfamiliar with the provisions of your budget proposal which call for liquidating millions of acres of America’s public lands, resulting in less access for sportsmen.

While your statement to Outdoor Life indicated this was more about “buildings and assets like cars … [and] vacant properties,” your budget proposal specifically touts legislation (HR 1126) introduced by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) as a model to sell federal lands to generate revenue. In fact, HR 1126 would force the government to sell off 3.3 million acres in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming to the highest bidder.

Four in five sportsmen want more access to public lands that to date have been inaccessible, according to a recent poll of sportsmen conducted by Chesapeake Beach Consulting for the National Wildlife Federation. Given a choice between protecting America’s public lands and prioritizing the production of oil, gas and coal, 49% want to protect public lands and just 35% choose fossil fuel production. Will the campaigns confront these issues? So far, the presidential debates have ducked conservation almost entirely.

Read more about where Barack Obama and Mitt Romney stand on conservation in National Wildlife magazine’s special report.

Click here to view the embedded video.

MR. BROKAW: I think that the two candidates are going to have to have big ideas and they’re going to have to be explained not only coherently but practically speaking. And they’re going to have to be candid with the American public. I think that we’ll hear from President Obama as we did not in that first debate a lot more about the 47 percent remarks, about the auto bailout for General Motors. I think the challenger, Governor Romney, will be saying once again are you better off now than you were four years ago? Where is that plan? So, this is good for the country. And I– I look forward to it. Here are some things that we have not we have not talked about. Not talked about immigration so far. There has been no discussion of global warming. There has been no discussion across the country, including in the State of Virginia, public pensions that are unfunded. And that’s a burning fuse for this country and that’s going to play into the economy downstream as well as municipalities and county governments begin to look for help from the federal government because they can’t pay off whatever they’re going to do. We’re in for a tough time here folks. And I think the American public, as I talk to them, want detailed answers and they want candor and they say, hey, look, don’t try to smoke me this time.

Unfortunately, moderator David Gregory immediately steered the panel discussion back to the format of the next debate – a topic of great interest to Washington insiders, but not exactly a critical issue on Main Street.

Climate Silence

So far, the debates have ducked conservation. That’s even though poll after poll shows deep concern about climate change:

• Two-thirds (67%) of Americans, including 65% of independents, see solid evidence of global warming, up 10% in the last 3 years. That’s according to a new Pew Research Center poll.
• Government action to regulate the release of greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cars and factories in an effort to reduce global warming is supported by 74% of Americans, according to an August poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
• Among sportsmen, a conservative-leaning group, two in three (66%) believe we have a moral responsibility to confront global warming to protect our children’s future. Additionally, 69% agree the U.S. should reduce its carbon emissions that contribute to global warming and threaten fish and wildlife habitat.

Tuesday night’s town hall debate may open up new topics, thanks in part to the over 3,000 questions submitted by Google users. However, the early agenda for the final debate doesn’t look good for talk of global climate change. Moderator Bob Schieffer is defining “foreign policy” to focus heavily on terrorism and the Middle East. His released list of topics doesn’t even mention energy policy or climate change, even though the Pentagon calls global warming a national security threat.

Take Action

If President Obama and Mitt Romney think climate change is worth debating, they don’t have to sit back and wait to be asked. Take action right now and urge President Obama and Governor Romney to tell us their plans to confront climate change.

Fran Steidle, a supporter of conservation from Florida, has already submitted a great climate question to Google: “What actions will you take to address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions?”

Use the link above to see Fran’s question and click the check mark under the words “Good question” to let Google know that you stand with her. (Please note that you will need to sign in to a Google account in order to vote.)

The questions that receive the most votes are the ones most likely to be asked during the debate. By all voting YES to Fran’s question, we can make climate change — the most important threat to polar bears — an issue in the next debate!

Sea Ice Melts to Record Low

A polar bear climbs onto thin Arctic Ocean ice (Flickr/U.S. Geological Survey)

This is devastating news for polar bears, who rely on sea ice as they hunt for food.

Despite this increasing threat facing polar bears, the presidential candidates have not been asked to compare their positions on climate change in the weeks leading up to the election.

The debate moderator failed to address global warming last week during the first presidential debate, despite over 160,000 people calling for Jim Lehrer to ask President Obama and Governor Romney about the climate crisis putting the future of wildlife at risk.

Make Climate Change Part of the Debate

We can’t expect our leaders to take action to protect wildlife from rising global temperatures unless they start talking about it now. This debate is an important opportunity to demand that the candidates tell us their plans to address climate change before Election Day.

Speak up for polar bears! Vote for the climate question to be used in the presidential debates.

First Presidential Debate (via University of Denver)

Conservation barely came up at all, an omission that was all the more glaring given that the debate was held in Colorado. Hundreds of thousands of acres in Colorado burned this summer in wildfires that are becoming more common and more intense due to global warming. And as the candidates discuss expanded oil and gas drilling, a new National Wildlife Federation poll of sportsmen shows they’re concerned public lands are in the crosshairs.

And when clean energy did come up, as the Washington Post reports, it was falsely attacked:

The Energy Department put $90 billion worth of grants, loan guarantees and loans into what it calls a “clean energy” economy. But that money is spread widely: About $3 billion went to carbon capture and storage projects needed to make coal “clean,” a goal Romney shares; about $11 billion went to energy efficiency; about $5 billion went to clean up old nuclear weapons sites; about $4 billion went to modernizing the electricity grid; and about $2 billion went to research and development, which Romney has also supported. DOE has a breakdown here.

Romney said that Obama sent money to firms whose executives had donated to his campaign. That is true in the case of Solyndra, but while House Republicans have harshly criticized the administration for that, investigations have not revealed any direct link between the loans for Solyndra and campaign support for the president.

In addition, a significant portion of the money the Energy Department distributed came in the form of loans, some of which will be paid back.

Here’s hoping conservation comes into focus at the rest of the debates:

Vice presidential debate (domestic & foreign policy):

Thursday, October 11

Centre College, Danville, KY

Moderator: Martha Raddatz, Senior Foreign Affairs Correspondent, ABC News

Second presidential debate (town meeting format):

Tuesday, October 16

Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY

Moderator: Candy Crowley, Chief Political Correspondent, CNN and Anchor, CNN’s State of the Union

Third presidential debate (foreign policy):

Monday, October 22

Lynn University, Boca Raton, FL

Moderator: Bob Schieffer, Chief Washington Correspondent, CBS News and Moderator, Face the Nation

President Barack Obama shakes hands with House Speaker John Boehner before delivering the State of the Union address, Jan. 25, 2011 (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

In 2011, Congress repeatedly targeted conservation programs that protect America’s clean water, clean air, healthy rivers, lakes and shorelines teeming with wildlife, benefits that every American has a right to enjoy. At the same time, Congress protected tax giveaways for coal, oil and gas special interests totaling billions of dollars.

Will we hear a different tune in 2012? Some key issues to consider in advance of President Obama’s State of the Union address:

• Keystone XL tar sands pipeline: Big Oil and its Congressional allies tried to ram this pipeline down the throats of American families in their insatiable appetite for more profits, forcing President Obama into a decision even before a final route was mapped out. Keystone XL is a scam – Canada would get the jobs, China would get the oil, and America would get spills of toxic tar sands oil. House Speaker John Boehner said on Sunday he may once again hold a critical payroll tax extension hostage in an attempt to force approval of the pipeline over concerns from Nebraska landowners and safety regulators.
• Clean Air Act limits on mercury and carbon pollution: The House took an incredible 191 anti-environment votes in 2011, but new limits on mercury pollution (rolled out last month) and carbon pollution (due this year) have survived the assaults. The new mercury standard will not only prevent 11,000 thousand premature deaths, it will support 46,000 new short-term construction jobs and 8,000 long-term utility jobs. The first-ever carbon standard is an important step towards holding polluters accountable for their emissions, creating a more level playing field to give a fair shot to America’s expanding clean economy, which already supports 2.7 million jobs.
• New fuel efficiency standards: American businesses, labor, conservation and consumer groups have all gotten behind the Obama administration’s stronger fuel efficiency standards that cut pollution, build jobs, save families and businesses money and enhance America’s security.  With big benefits across the board, it’s no surprise that the most recent survey by consumer reports found that 93% of the public supports stricter fuel economy standards.
• Renewable energy tax credits: Despite the economic struggles, 2011 was a banner year for clean energy, with global investment surging to a record $260 billion according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Congress can ensure continued growth simply by extending existing renewable energy tax credits, which would create and sustain 54,000 jobs within the next four years according to Navigant Consulting and represent just a fraction of the subsidies Congress feeds to the coal, gas and oil industries.
• Clean Water Act restoration: Clean water protections have been weakened by two Supreme Court decisions that ignored congressional intent and narrowly interpreted the scope of waters covered by the Act, putting in doubt pollution safeguards for many vital wetlands, lakes and streams. Restoring the Clean Water Act would help protect the $122 billion outdoor recreation economy and over 1 million outdoor recreation jobs supported by hunters, anglers, and other Americans who enjoy the outdoors.
• Gulf Coast restoration (RESTORE Act): Under current law, BP and others responsible for the Gulf oil disaster must pay Clean Water Act penalties for each barrel of oil spilled into the gulf, but without action from Congress, this money will go towards unrelated federal spending instead of restoring the area damaged by the spill. Will the White House and Congress make this urgent legislation a priority?

In 2012, Washington has a chance to restore not just fiscal balance to our budget, but moral purpose to America’s future. Future generations will judge us on the legacy that we leave behind.  We must not turn back the clock and say we can’t afford clean air and water for our children and grandchildren.

The National Wildlife Federation’s four million supporters from across the political spectrum want clean energy and they want leaders who’ll face down special interests to deliver it. President Obama has shown he’s willing to stand up to oil lobbyists to safeguard clean water, clean air and wildlife to create a better, stronger, healthier America. Is Congress willing to do the same?

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 Environmental Protection Agency know support limits on carbon pollution to protect the future of polar bears.

Via Flickr's Viri G

First, let’s take a step back & look at how skyrocketing oil prices have made Canadian tar sands oil more profitable, flipping conventional oil wisdom on its head. Oil analyst Philip Verleger explains:

In the past, Midwestern refiners paid more for oil than their counterparts in Texas and Louisiana because oil had to be shipped north.

Recently, though, these refiners have gotten a break as Canadian output has increased. Oil now flows south, not north. Midwestern refiners can save significant sums, savings that ultimately get passed on to consumers.

Executives at Canadian oil companies want to end this discount. They propose building the Keystone line to go around Midwest refineries.

Build the Keystone XL pipeline to refineries on the Gulf Coast and suddenly oil companies don’t have to keep selling it at a discount to drivers in the Midwest – they can just put it on the global market and ship it to the highest bidder in China or anywhere else. Verleger estimates building Keystone XL would result in Americans paying $5 billion more every year, not just in higher gas prices, but in higher production costs for food and other goods. That’s why Cornell University researchers actually say Keystone XL would result in a net loss of American jobs.

National Wildlife Federation Senior Vice President Jeremy Symons broke it down in very simple terms in testimony to a Congressional committee last May. Skip ahead to 1:37 of this clip:

Click here to view the embedded video.

That’s why oil prices falling in the wake of Keystone XL’s rejection was such a big tell, a tip of Big Oil’s hand. If Keystone XL was really about energy security as its supporters claim, wouldn’t its rejection create more insecurity and a rise in oil prices?

Between the Obama administration’s setback of Keystone XL and its rollout of new fuel efficiency standards, Big Oil faces two major threats to its massive profits. As National Wildlife Federation President & CEO Larry Schweiger testified in Detroit this week, the new fuel efficiency standards will cut our oil dependence by billions of barrels, saving consumers money, cutting America’s carbon pollution, and reducing the risk of oil spills that threaten people and wildlife.

The rejection of this Keystone XL permit is a major victory not just for conservationists but for the Nebraska families worried about their drinking water and landowners threatened with having their property rights stripped by TransCanada. “The National Wildlife Federation’s 4 million supporters from across the political spectrum believe that clean water, wildlife and the rights of American families should come before the power of big oil companies,” said NWF’s Larry Schweiger.

But while we’ve won this battle, you can bet this war isn’t over. Big Oil spent $110 million on lobbying in 2011 alone and its top lobbyist has already threatened President Obama with political payback.

Take Action

Tell President Obama to keep standing strong for wildlife against Big Oil.

The bill heading to the president will likely include the rider that rushes the decision on the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.  So what does this mean for the pipeline?  Speaker Boehner is trying to satisfy Big Oil’s lobbyists and some of the GOP’s top corporate donors by forcing the president to make a hasty decision, but it will backfire.   I am confident that President Obama will stand up to big oil and reject this dangerous and unnecessary pipeline because it is the right thing to do, and that the American public will support him.  Americans understand that it is wrong to play political games and strip families of our right to protect our land and our clean water from foreign oil companies, because you can’t drink oil.

I asked  Jane Kleeb of Bold Nebraska and Bill McKibben of 350.org, two of the leading fighters to stop this pipeline,  for their reaction today as well. Here is what they wrote me:

Bill McKibben:  ”The administration’s promise to deny this permit, if fulfilled, will be one of the rare pieces of good news for the climate in a year which saw America shatter all records for billion-dollar weather disasters. The president campaigned hard in 2008 on trying to slow the climate crisis, and this would be a strong sign he meant what he said.”

Jane Kleeb: “The pipeline is unnecessary and a scam that would export the oil while burdening our families with all the risks.”

 Prior Update: Tweet from White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer (@pfeiffer44):

Keystone XL Legacy: More Tar Sands Pollution (image courtesy circleofblue.org)

As someone who has testified twice this year in Congress against the pipeline, you might think I should be alarmed about Big Oil’s latest stunt to rush the president’s decision on the Keystone XL pipeline. I’m not. Here’s why it will backfire.

Of course oil companies want to rush approval of the project. The pipeline means more profits– a lot more.  Not just more oil, but higher prices too (a price tag of $4 billion more every year, according to Transcanada’s analysis). The president has the responsibility to determine whether the pipeline is in the “national interest.” If he says “yes,” then Canadian oil company Transcanada will start taking American families to court to take their land under eminent domain laws.  After Nebraskans rebelled against the original pipeline route, Transcanada announced they will pick a new route.  They still haven’t told us where they will build it.  The ill-conceived rider would essentially be a blank check to route the pipeline where they want without federal oversight.

House Speaker John Boehner, who seems to have trouble saying “no” to oil companies on anything, fell in love with the rider. He threatened to torpedo the payroll tax relief bill for American families unless it includes a rider to rush the pipeline decision in 60 days.

Here’s the catch:  The State Department (which is responsible for doing the required assessments of the Canadian pipeline) had already clearly said that a Congressional order to rush the pipeline is a mandate to kill the pipeline.

Here is what the State Department said:

“Should Congress impose an arbitrary deadline for the permit decision, its actions would not only compromise the process, it would prohibit the Department from acting consistently with National Environmental Policy Act requirements by not allowing sufficient time for the development of this information. In the absence of properly completing the process, the Department would be unable to make a determination to issue a permit for this project.”

This makes sense. If there is one thing we learned from the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf, it is the danger of rushing oversight and trusting oil companies to regulate themselves.  The first Keystone pipeline, which has been in operation for only a year, has already had 14 spills! How can regulators approve a pipeline when the company building it hasn’t decided where it will be routed, whose land they will grab, and which water supplies they will put in harm’s way? And how can anyone say that highly corrosive tar sands oil is safe to transport in pipelines when Congress this week passed a bill requiring the first-ever study of tar sands pipeline safety?

Rally against tar sands in Washington, DC, October 2011

More than 500,000 Americans have already commented against the Keystone XL pipeline. They understand that oil companies don’t build pipelines to change where we get our energy next year or the year after–they build oil pipelines to deepen our addiction for decades to come. We need to set our compass to steer toward cleaner, safer energy sources, not Canadian tar sands, the most toxic and most expensive form of oil on the planet.

Oil companies have plenty of money to spend on the media and politicians to keep up their drumbeat in the coming weeks. Even though we know how this story ends, we don’t intend to let oil companies be the only voices heard on the way there. People who care about the energy future we leave our children and grandchildren now need to mobilize once more.

Update 12/17:  The Obama administration has been confirming to reporters that the payroll tax rider will sink the pipeline. According to a Bloomberg report:

Republican insistence on including a demand to speed a decision on a controversial Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline means it almost certainly will not be built, a senior administration official said. [...]

Obama stands by the State Department’s warning on Monday that a Republican effort to limit the pipeline review to 60 days would violate environmental laws and force it to withhold approval, the senior official said. [...]

The Democratic president can live with the Keystone clause in the tax deal because it does not mandate that he approve the pipeline, only that he make a decision within 60 days on whether or not to allow construction.

The official said the project would now almost surely be killed because Obama has made clear he will not give the go-ahead without time for an adequate review of the health, safety and environmental risks.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY)  is calling the pipeline rider a “Pyrrhic victory” for Republicans.

Support National Wildlife Federation’s work on to stop dirty fuels and the Keystone XL pipeline at our Choose Your Cause website.

Aerial shot of Alberta tar sands taken during NWF flyover

Reuters reports a decision on the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline will be delayed by at least a year:

The Obama administration plans to announce on Thursday it will explore a new route for a Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline, delaying a final approval beyond the 2012 U.S. election, sources briefed on the matter said.

The decision would be a victory for environmentalists, many of whom oppose the pipeline, and a setback for TransCanada Corp, whose $7 billion Keystone XL project is seen as the most important North American oil pipeline plan for decades. [...]

If the administration explores a new route, “it’s a huge victory, and it would probably be the biggest environmental gift that President Barack Obama has given us,” said Tony Iallonardo, a spokesman at the National Wildlife Federation.

UPDATE 2:54pm: The State Department has just issued statement regarding the Keystone XL pipeline project review. It reads in part, “Particularly given the concentration of concerns regarding the environmental sensitivities of the current proposed route through the Sand Hills area of Nebraska, the Department has determinded it needs to undertake an in-depth assessment of potential alternative routes in Nebraska.”

It concludes, “Among the relevant issues that would be considered are environmental concerns (including climate change), energy security, economic impacts, and foreign policy.”

UPDATE 3:36pm: Dan Pfieffer, a White House spokesman, just tweeted reaction from President Barack Obama:

POTUS: I support the State Department’s announcement today regarding the need to seek additional information about the Keystone XL Pipeline.

UPDATE 4:34pm: Larry Schweiger, president & CEO of the National Wildlife Federation, reacts to the delay for additional review:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Learn more about the proposed path of the Keystone XL pipeline >>