A new Zogby poll finds that a significant majority of likely voters supports the American Clean Energy and Security Act, recently passed in the House.

The poll, commissioned by the National Wildlife Federation, found that a majority of respondents supported Senate action on a clean energy economy, and more than half felt a concerted effort to curb global warming and create a clean energy economy would create more jobs.

According to Zogby International Research Analyst Sam Rodgers, the results show that interest in a strong clean energy economy has not abated in the months since President Obama’s election. "Clearly, voters strongly favor the ideas outlined in the bill. Support for action on clean energy and energy efficiency was strong coming out of the election, and it is still strong today,” Rodgers said.

When asked how a vote in favor of the bill by their congressman would affect their opinion of them, most responded that the vote would result in a favorable or neutral view. This stood in stark contrast to recent claims that supporting clean energy legislation would require great political sacrifice.

"Most voters would view their member of Congress more favorably or would not have their opinion impacted either way by a "yes" vote," said Rodgers. "This survey shows clear movement in favor of Congress taking greater action on global warming and most Americans believe this legislation would give a much-need boost to the American job market in this down economy."

The positive findings weren’t restricted to one group. Favorable views of legislation were high across all age groups, income levels, and political affiliations: 45% of Republicans polled indicated a favorable view of the bill along with 73% of Independents and 89% of Democrats.

Mimicking the recent spate of obstructionist rallies organized to protest health care reform, big oil and allies are coordinating demonstrations to snuff out constructive clean energy legislation, allegedly asking  employees and other ‘plants’ to help swell their numbers at public events.

The interest group will launch a campaign aimed at pressuring the Senate to make injurious changes to a recent House-passed bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

The sponsor group organizing and funding the gatherings is a mix of conservative advocacy organizations and business and industry groups, including the American Petroleum Institute.

Materials in production for the rallies contain dubious claims about the economic toll of clean energy legislation, including hype that it will cost jobs and raise costs for average Americans despite recent non-partisan analyses to the contrary.

News of the campaign comes in the wake of the discovery of a fraudulent letter-writing operation in opposition to clean energy legislation, and in the midst of a broader debate on the merit of sponsor-engineered ‘astroturf’ activism.

A new government study comes to the same conclusion as most others: clean energy legislation would cost little for the average consumer.
 
According to the Energy Information Administration, the nation's foremost energy projection authority, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, passed by the House in June, would cost only about $114 per household in increased energy bills by the year 2020.
 
Despite flaws in the analysis that artificially inflate the cost of the bill, the EIA study was in line with recent estimates from other nonpartisan groups, including the Congressional Budget Office and Environmental Protection Agency, which pegged the cost at less than a dollar per day by 2020.
 
The bill requires energy companies to help consumers mitigate costs during the crucial early years of the emissions-limiting system. The EIA study does not take into account the extension of consumer protection measures beyond the year 2025.
 
Adding to the growing consensus, the CBO reported last week that emission offsets could cut the costs of the bill by 70 percent from 2012 to 2050. The Government Accountability Office, an arm of the CBO, concluded that consumer costs could be largely offset if revenues are properly utilized.
 
Building on the findings, Senate leaders say they’re prepared to move forward with their own version of the House bill.
 
Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) says he will meet a September committee deadline set by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) for global warming legislation. According to Sen. Baucus, the Finance Committee is already planning for hearings and mark-ups on an emissions-limiting piece of clean energy legislation.

A group of 150 trade associations and manufacturers is backing a piece of legislation it says will increase the number of green manufacturing jobs in the U.S.
 
The Apollo Alliance, a group of labor, business, and environmental groups, announced it supports a bill sponsored by Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Oh.) that would establish a two-year $30 billion loan fund for businesses to help establish clean energy and efficiency systems.
 
"We consider the stimulus bill a down payment on the transition to a clean energy economy," said Sam Haswell, a spokesman for the Alliance. "It was an important first step, but the stimulus alone won't get us fully to a clean energy economy where we will become competitive on a global basis."
 
The group also supports the American Clean Energy and Security Act, passed by the House in June, and is pushing for the Senate to include green job incentives when it devises its own version of the energy bill later this year.
 

It seems opponents of clean energy are increasingly resorting to dirty tactics in their fight against climate legislation.

Washington lobbying group Bonner & Associates recently sent fraudulent letters to U.S. Representative Tom Perriello (D-Va.) purporting to represent the local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and Creciendo Juntos, a Latino advocacy network, and asserting opposition to the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

The notes first surfaced in June, when, two weeks prior to a House vote on the clean energy bill, Rep. Perriello's office received letters urging the freshman representative not to vote for the legislation, which institutes an emission-limiting system and initiatives to stimulate job growth. Rep. Perriello ultimately supported the bill.

The six letters contained nearly identical language and were 'signed' by fictitious members of each organization.

Bonner & Associates has been accused of so-called 'astroturfing' in the past, and has lobbied on behalf of utility companies and obstructionist groups. This time, the firm did not register to lobby against the clean energy bill for any company or organization, a requirement in many cases.

Victims of the deception campaign have been vocal in their condemnation of the firm.

Tim Freilich, who sits on the executive committee of Creciendo Juntos, claimed the firm "stole (its) name" and criticized the act as an example of "an activity that undermines Americans' faith in democracy."

Leaders at the NAACP, which recently ratified a resolution to fight global warming and its effects, were similarly outraged. Hilary O. Shelton, director of the NAACP’s Washington bureau, released a statement saying he was “appalled that an organization like Bonner and Associates would stoop to these depths to deceive Congress." Shelton further accused the firm of "exploiting the African-American community to achieve their misdirected goal."

Bill co-sponsor Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), in response to what he calls "an appalling abuse," said  that the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming would launch an investigation of the incident. "This fraud on Congress shows that some opponents of clean energy have resorted to forgery and theft to block progress," Markey said.

According to an analysis by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the American Clean Energy and Security Act would cost the farming sector little in the short-term and yield great long-term benefits.

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, discussing the analysis and the role of rural America in fighting global warming in testimony before the Senate Agriculture Committee, said economic opportunities for farmers and ranchers resulting from the bill may "significantly" outpace costs:

"In the short term, the economic benefits to agriculture from cap and trade legislation will likely outweigh the costs. In the long term, the economic benefits from offsets markets easily trump increased input costs from cap and trade legislation."

Secretary Vilsack also noted that the USDA analysis is "conservative," not taking into account technological advances that would help farmers or the higher service costs farmers would command "as a result of enhanced renewable energy markets and retirement of environmentally sensitive lands domestically and abroad."

Provisions in the bill would reduce impacts on the cost of fertilizer, part of the reason it would only lightly impact agriculture in the near future. The analysis also found that income from biofuels would be worth a net return of at least $600 million a year.

Following the USDA analysis, agricultural groups reiterated their support for clean energy legislation. National Farmers Union President Roger Johnson testified before the Senate Agriculture Committee, saying farmers "do not agree with those who claim climate change legislation will be void of economic opportunities and incentives."

“Since passage of ACES, regional and national press has focused its efforts on negative scenarios for agriculture under a cap and trade system,” Johnson said. “I believe as the leader of a national organization, it is my responsibility to help change the conversation about this legislation.”

Three Democratic governors told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that curbing emissions and developing a national clean energy economy could mean more jobs and economic prosperity.

Citing the successes of their own states in greenhouse gas reduction and job creation, Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter, Jr., Washington Gov. Chris Gregoire, and New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine touted the benefits of adopting renewable electricity standards and other energy measures.

Gregoire said the state of Washington has created nearly 50,000 new green jobs in the last two years, twice the target number set for the year 2020. Corzine, who emphasized the need for national leadership in the clean energy revolution, said New Jersey is committed to reducing emissions by 80 percent and building wind farms offshore.

Overall, Ritter, Jr., said, the "lesson...for other states and the nation as a whole, it is that good energy policy and climate policy can energize the economy and help create good-paying private sector jobs."

As part of the Alliance for Climate Protection's Repower America National Mobilization Weekend, members and volunteers went door to door to educate Americans about the transition to a clean energy economy.

The campaign, which featured more than 12,000 stops, focused on the new jobs that stand to be created in a clean energy economy, as well as the environmental benefits.

Repower America Campaign Manager Steve Bouchard emphasized that Americans from many communities will need to answer the call to arms:

 "We will need Americans from all parts of the country and all walks of life to help make the transition to a clean energy economy that will help create millions of jobs, save our families money on their utility bills and end our harmful dependence on foreign oil."

According to a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report, coral reefs in the Caribbean face a considerable risk of bleaching and die-offs partly due to rising water temperatures.

The report says bleaching, a trauma-induced ejection of symbiotic algae often resulting in paler coloring, may exceed the record levels recorded in 2005, when, in the eastern Caribbean, "as much as 90 percent of corals bleached and over half of those died."

The NOAA reported in June that National Climatic Data Center found global ocean temperatures were the highest on record, creating a habitat conducive to bleaching. That study also found that arctic sea ice had receded drastically from the 1979-2000 period.

It is thought that similar conditions may develop in the Gulf of Mexico and Central Pacific.

In regional newspapers around the country, members of President Obama's cabinet have published op-ed columns on the heels of their testimony before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack each wrote in favor of plans for a clean energy economy that they say will create millions of jobs, reduce carbon emissions, and make America energy independent.

 Secretary Chu, writing in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, said the time for action has come: "We have talked for decades about the energy problem; it is time to solve it. By passing a comprehensive energy bill that spurs a revolution in clean technologies, the United States can position itself to lead this new industrial revolution." Secretary Salazar struck a similar cord, imploring lawmakers to "step up to the plate" in the Denver Post. In the Philadelphia Inquirer, Administrator Jackson discussed the groundswell of public support for legislation and the need for bipartisan cooperation, and Secretary Vilsack, in the Des Moines Register, addressed the great economic opportunities provided for farmers and others by a carbon-capping system.