Running Scared

Why are fossil-fuel billionaires spending unprecedented amounts of money during this election? Because they're running scared.

Over the past four years, we've seen the clean-energy economy become strong enough to threaten the status quo. Wind energy has doubled -- our nation is now up to 50 gigawatts of wind power, enough to supply nearly 13 million American homes. Solar installations have increased by a factor of five, and the United States has regained its place as a global leader in clean-energy investment.

To you and me, that might sound like great news. But to dirty-energy billionaires determined to maintain their stranglehold on the American economy, clean energy has grown from a nuisance to a direct threat. In response, they've pulled out every stop and spent unprecedented amounts of money in a bid for control of the White House and Congress. Through September, they spent more than $150 million on ads that push their dirty-energy agenda and smear clean-energy champions.

Isn't that just how politics works? Perhaps, if you’re cynical, but this election is about much more than whether Big Oil and other corporate polluters get to keep all their marbles. The decisions we make today about how we power our nation will determine whether we leave a better, healthier world for our kids -- and for countless generations beyond. The fight over fuel-efficiency standards isn't just about using less oil -- it's about achieving the biggest reduction in climate-disrupting carbon pollution in history. The battle to build a clean-energy economy isn't just about erecting more windmills and solar panels -- it's about powering our nation in a way that doesn't dump toxins into our air and water.

The lines have been drawn in election campaigns across the country, from the highest office on down, with champions for clean energy and the environment on one side and allies of dirty-energy industries on the other. It's on these critically important races that Big Oil and Big Coal are spending millions to get their way.

The good news is that all that dirty-energy money hasn't been enough to scare away clean-energy candidates who are eager to fight climate disruption and stand up to big polluters. They know what's at stake, and they're determined to win. But they can't do it alone.

From now until Election Day on November 6, the Sierra Club is going to highlight champions running for office across the country who need your help.

One of those races is in New Mexico, where U.S. Representative Martin Heinrich is running against Heather Wilson for an open Senate seat.

In Congress, Martin Heinrich has never wavered. He’s voted consistently to support America's growing clean-energy economy. He’s championed new safeguards that will keep our air and water clean and has fought to keep drills out of our parks and public lands. And he's been a passionate advocate in the fight against climate disruption, standing up for solutions that would create new American jobs while slashing carbon emissions.

That's the kind of record you would expect from a Sierra Club member -- so it's no surprise that Martin Heinrich once served on the Rio Grande Chapter’s Executive Committee. When you have a champion like that, you can expect resistance from the big polluters -- and they’ve doubled down for Heinrich’s opponent, Heather Wilson.

Before leaving the U.S. House for an earlier failed Senate bid, Wilson had the kind of voting record that big polluters dream about. She voted to kill investments in clean energy. She pushed to give billions in tax handouts to BP, Exxon, and Shell. And she voted to let Big Oil companies off the hook for contaminating the water supplies used by tens of thousands of New Mexicans with MTBE -- a potentially life-threatening chemical.

Wilson also happens to be one of Congress’s all-time leaders in taking money from oil and gas companies.

Wilson's record is so bad that the Sierra Club joined a coalition of environmental groups to run ads to make sure that New Mexicans knew about it. In response, groups with oil-soaked footprints like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS are pumping money into attack ads to prop up Wilson and tear down Heinrich.

It’s a pattern we are seeing all over the country. Big Coal, Big Oil, and other polluters are spending millions to force their agenda on the American people. But there's one thing their money can never buy -- the passion of our volunteers. Thousands of grassroots activists are giving their time to work hard for environmental champions like Martin Heinrich.

The choices this election are clear in New Mexico and across the country: We can put politicians like Heather Wilson in power who will do or say whatever it takes to push a reckless agenda driven by a few billionaire campaign donors. Or we can help guarantee a bright, healthy future for of our children by voting to clean up not just the air we breathe and the water we drink but our political system, too.

I urge you all to get involved in supporting candidates like Martin Heinrich and to work as hard as you can for the next two weeks to make sure they are elected. We need your help. Our planet’s future depends on it.

For more on Martin Heinrich, click here.

Use the Sierra Club Voter Guide to learn more about the records of candidates near you.

Paid for by the Sierra Club Political Committee (www.sierraclub.org) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

You Don't Miss Your Water...

When 40 years ago yesterday Congress passed the Clean Water Act, no one had to ask why we needed it. Memories were still fresh of seeing Ohio's Cuyahoga River actually catch fire, and many of our national waterways were filthy. In the four decades that followed passage of the Clean Water Act, things improved a lot. So much so, in fact, that we're now in danger of taking clean water for granted. That would be a mistake because even though the threats to our water are not as obvious as they were 40 years ago, they're still deadly serious.

Although Cuyahoga hasn't caught fire lately, communities across the U.S. are still discovering that their water supplies are being contaminated by industrial and agricultural pollutants like nitrates, perchlorate, and hexavalent chromium. Natural gas fracking, which could contaminate entire aquifers, is rampant and poorly regulated.

According to the EPA, nearly 1 in 10 Americans still don't have round-the-clock access to safe, clean drinking water that meets national health standards. Nearly a third of our waterways, in fact, still don't meet federal clean-water standards.

This is no time to let our guard down. It's time to step up and finish the job we started 40 years ago.

Back in 1972, Congress rose to the occasion with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote to pass the Clean Water Act. I wish I could say the same for the Congress of today. I can't. Not only has it done nothing to strengthen clean water protections -- it has done everything it could to weaken them, with vote after vote. Although that's in keeping with its ignominious reputation as the most anti-environmental Congress in our nation's history, it still amazes me that so many politicians are willing to put the interests of plutocratic polluters ahead of the health and welfare of their own constituents.

Maybe they figured no one would notice.

They figured wrong. You can see for yourself exactly how your congressional representative voted on clean-water issues this year. Our Clean Water Report Card assigns grades from F to A+. Unfortunately, there were a lot of F's.

Did your representative flunk? Take a look and keep that grade in mind next time you pour yourself a glass of water, see an "unsafe for swimming" sign, or take your child or grandchild fishing. "You don't miss your water till your well runs dry," goes the old soul chestnut. We can't afford to test that adage. Let's strengthen -- not weaken -- the Clean Water Act before it's too late.

High Stakes on the Great Lakes

This November, a ballot initiative in Michigan will determine whether that state's boom in renewable energy and clean-tech jobs gains even more momentum. It's a popular and sensible measure, but it's by no means a slam-dunk. An article by Jill Lepore that ran in The New Yorker last month, called "The Lie Factory," explains why good legislation doesn't always succeed.

Lepore tells the story of the first-ever modern political-consulting firm (Campaigns Inc), which successfully torpedoed a 1945 proposal for comprehensive health insurance in California. A few years later, when Harry Truman proposed a national health insurance plan, the same firm was hired by the American Medical Association to kill it:

[the] campaign against Harry Truman's national-health-insurance proposal cost the A.M.A. nearly five million dollars, and it took more than three years. But they turned the President's sensible, popular, and urgently needed legislative reform into a bogeyman so scary that, even today, millions of Americans are still scared.

Fast-forward to present-day Michigan and Proposal 3, the ballot initiative that would require Michigan utilities to utilize 25 percent renewable energy sources by 2025, or "25 X 25." The idea didn't come out of nowhere -- it's building on success. Four years ago, Michigan adopted a standard that requires utilities to get 10 percent of the power they sell from renewable energy sources by 2015. So far, it's working great.

One reason why it's working is because moving to renewable energy plays to Michigan's resource strengths. The state currently must import coal and oil from other states, even though it has enough potential wind-energy resources (thanks to the Great Lakes) to supply all the power it needs and then some. What's more, developing and producing renewable energy technologies like wind and solar within the state's borders creates exactly the kinds of construction and manufacturing jobs that Michigan needs.

For these reasons, and because people have seen for themselves that the existing renewable standard is working, the new 25 percent proposal is popular with likely voters and with small business owners.

Here's who doesn't like it, though: The companies that sell coal to Michigan. Big Coal is spending millions of dollars in an attempt to convince people that clean, affordable renewable energy is somehow bad for Michigan. With no sense of irony, they've even named their front group "Clean Affordable Energy for Michigan."

Clean-energy advocates are working hard to tell the real story, but they're being outspent big time. Not just in Michigan but across the country, entrenched energy utilities and fossil fuel companies are spending whatever it takes to protect their status quo. Just like six decades ago, most of the money is being spent in an attempt to make people fear change -- even change for the better. My guess is that it's going to be close, but I think reality will prevail this time.

So keep an eye on Michigan next month. If Proposition 3 passes, it'll be both a victory for grassroots organizing and a message to the world that Americans are ready to drive full speed ahead toward a clean-energy future.

Mighty Wind

Did you notice that last weekend the largest onshore wind farm in America started operation in north-central Oregon? The 845 MW Shepherds Flat facility will generate an estimated 2 billion kWh each year -- enough to power 235,000 homes. On top of that, this clean power will eliminate about 1.5 million metric tons of carbon pollution annually -- the equivalent of taking approximately 260,000 cars off the road.

Who built Shepherds Flat? We, the people, did! Caithness Energy relied on more than a billion dollars in loans guaranteed by the Energy Department. With the project up and running, and with a long-term commitment from Southern California Edison to buy power, it looks like a good investment. Maybe that's why Google also kicked in $100 million.

Shepherds Flat is the kind of project we should be building across the U.S. -- or at least in those parts, like the Eastern Columbia River Gorge, with abundant wind resources. Yet the Republican Party opposes even extending the Production Tax Credit that wind power has had for decades. Right now, they would probably sooner move Burning Man to the National Mall than help finance more success stories like Shepherds Flat.

Here's why that's crazy:

Remember red states and blue states? It turns out that it's the red ones that have the most to gain by investing in renewable energy. For one thing, many of them are rich in renewable resources -- solar in the Southwest and wind in the Midwest. This isn't just hypothetical. According to a new report from DBL Investors, of the 10 states with the fastest growth in clean-tech jobs, only two (Hawaii and New York) are considered traditionally Democratic.

In fact, when you look at the total number of clean-tech jobs per state, rock-red Texas comes in third! That's because both Governor Rick Perry and his predecessor, George W. Bush (not exactly card-carrying enviros) pushed for wind energy incentives in their state. And it worked. In 2010, Texas got eight percent of its energy from wind.  

Governors Bush and Perry are not the only Republicans who've refused to pretend that renewable energy isn't good for their states' economies. Particularly in the Midwest, Republican leaders like Kansas Governor Sam Brownback are up in arms about their party's opposition to wind energy -- not to mention the thousands of jobs at stake if the Production Tax Credit expires.

So why has the national GOP adopted its topsy-turvy worldview? For the answer, you have to look toward a different kind of green -- the unprecedented hundreds of millions of dollars that Big Oil and Big Coal are spending to make sure that everyone in America knows the name of Solyndra (even if they aren't sure exactly what happened there) but as few as possible hear about successes like Shepherds Flat.

In the long run, of course, the dirty energy advocates will fail because they're swimming (as hard as they can) against the tide of history. But we can't afford to wait for reason to triumph over ad dollars. What can you do right now? Tell Congress to renew the Production Tax Credit before we lose even more wind-energy jobs.

A New (Yet Ancient) National Monument

Today's designation of Chimney Rock National Monument by President Obama not only adds to our country's conservation legacy but also serves as a perfect example of why the Antiquities Act is so important. The Act was passed by Congress in 1906 to allow the president to ensure "...the protection of objects of historic and scientific interest."

Chimney Rock fits the bill perfectly. The area contains stunning remains of ceremonial and other archaeological sites from the ancient Pueblo culture that thrived in the Southwest for hundreds of years. The twin rock spires that lend Chimney Rock its name are as inspiring today as they were 1,000 years ago -- every 18.6 years they perfectly frame the moon during what's known as the northern lunar standstill (the last one was in 2006).

But despite its cultural significance, Chimney Rock lacked any protective designation to provide permanent support for and protection of its sites and resources -- until now. Along with protecting the site, the designation is expected to increase heritage tourism in the region, adding to the 9,000 visitors who already come to experience Chimney Rock each year. A recent economic study showed that this national monument designation will double the economic benefits to the region within five years.

While Chimney Rock is unique, its story is not. A number of other studies by Headwaters Economics have documented post-designation job and personal income growth in communities near new national monuments. Across the country, protected public lands draw millions of visitors each year and are vital to our nation's $646 billion outdoor recreation economy, which supports over 6 million jobs.

As with the designation of Fort Monroe National Monument in Virginia and Fort Ord National Monument in California, this new designation will benefit Americans now and for generations to come. Please take a moment to thank President Obama!

Help Keep a Good Idea Alive

What's the purpose of our government? No matter whom you ask, I doubt that stifling innovative solutions would be part of their answer. Yet that's exactly what the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) seems determined to do. And we have only a couple of days left to help them see the light.

This craziness started two years ago, when the FHFA cut the legs out from under a terrific idea for helping homeowners save on their energy bills -- property assessed clean energy (PACE) programs. PACE programs make it possible for people to borrow money at low interest rates to fund projects like a home energy-efficiency retrofit or rooftop solar installation and then repay the loan via an annual assessment on their property tax bill, usually over a period of 20 years. The loan is attached to the property, not to the individual homeowner. If you sell your house, the loan stays behind with the new owner. That makes sense, because it's also the new owner who inherits the lower energy bills that the PACE loan made possible.

For homeowners, a big advantage of a PACE loan is that you can invest in a home improvement that might take 10 or more years to pay for itself -- without worrying that you might have to sell your house before you recoup that investment. It's such a great idea that -- even though PACE programs have existed only since 2008 -- 27 states have already passed legislation to enable them.

Two years ago, however, the FHFA, which oversees the federal mortgage underwriters Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, told them not to buy mortgages with PACE assessments. Their objection was that the PACE loan's association with the property tax bill would prioritize it ahead of the regular mortgage in the event of a default. That decision was enough to cause the immediate suspension of most residential PACE programs (commercial PACE programs are largely unaffected by the FHFA).

What do we lose when PACE programs are killed? Start with the financial savings for homeowners who could make home improvements that allowed them to use less energy, generate their own energy, or both. Those individual energy savings add up quickly, too. For states and communities that are trying to meet a renewable energy goal, PACE programs are a powerful tool for boosting home solar installations and reducing the demand for more dirty energy. Lastly, let's not forget the construction and installation jobs lost when energy retrofits and home solar projects are suddenly canceled. That's exactly what happened after the FHFA announced its misguided decision.

How this could happen when the Obama administration is so committed to renewable energy? Although the FHFA is technically part of the Obama administration, it operates as an independent regulatory agency -- it's not answerable to the White House.

PACE programs are simply too good an idea to give up. Although there's a bipartisan bill in Congress that would reverse the FHFA's policy, it's going nowhere fast. Right now, our best bet is to send comments directly to the FHFA, which is accepting them until September 13. Send your comment today and urge the FHFA to stop opposing energy-efficiency and renewable energy upgrades. We can't afford to waste our best ideas for saving energy.

Giant Sequoias -- Safe at Last?

This week, Sierra Club supporters made a giant difference in protecting one of the greatest natural treasures on Earth. The giant sequoias are direct descendants of the enormous trees that once covered North America and loomed over dinosaurs in vast forests of fern and evergreen. Now they survive in just one small redoubt -- the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada.

By the time modern man first encountered the giant trees, only sixty-odd scattered groves remained. Our first response was awestruck incredulity. Our second was to start cutting them down. The wood wasn't good for much -- too fibrous and brittle for construction, most of it became shingles, stakes, and matchsticks. The plundering lasted for decades, with one lumber company felling an estimated 8,000 trees in the Converse Basin alone. Soon, nearly a third of the giant sequoias were gone.

In fairness, it's difficult to imagine the mindset of a 19th-century lumberman. We can more easily understand why over 1 million people would sign a petition to President Theodore Roosevelt in 1909 demanding that something be done to protect the trees (that's about one in 80 Americans, at a time when signing a petition required more than a mouse click). Little wonder that a fledgling conservation group called the Sierra Club adopted the giant sequoia for its first official seal and for every logo to this day. The word iconic has been overused to the point of meaninglessness, but no adjective better suits these majestic trees.

Thankfully, something was done. Eventually, about half of the remaining giant sequoias wound up under the protection of the National Park Service -- in Yosemite, Sequoia, and Kings Canyon National Parks. Finally, these trees would be safe from logging.

Most of the remaining trees, however, were in Sequoia National Forest, which was (and still is) managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The Forest Service was accustomed to managing trees and other natural resources as commodities, and the giant sequoias were no exception. Some logging of giant sequoias continued well into the 20th century. Almost as alarming, though, was the aggressive logging of other tree species in giant sequoia forests, which severely harmed the unique ecosystem on which the giant sequoias depend.

President Clinton's creation of Giant Sequoia National Monument on April 15, 2000, was designed to change that. The new national monument held most of the giant sequoia groves not already under federal protection. Although most national monuments are managed by the National Park Service, this one, which had been carved out of Sequoia National Forest, was placed under the authority of the Forest Service, but with a key provision:

 

No portion of the monument shall be considered to be suited for timber production, and no part of the monument shall be used in a calculation or provision of a sustained yield of timber from the Sequoia National Forest. Removal of trees, except for personal use fuel wood, from within the monument area may take place only if clearly needed for ecological restoration and maintenance or public safety.

The Forest Service was given three years to develop a plan for managing the new national monument. But when the plan was finally unveiled, under the Bush Administration, it didn't take the intent of the proclamation to heart. The Forest Service wanted to allow 7.5 million board feet of timber -- enough to fill 1,500 logging trucks -- to be removed from the monument each year.

Because the Forest Service's plan was so obviously at odds with the intent of the monument proclamation, the Sierra Club and five other groups, as well as the California attorney general, challenged it in court. More than two years later, we won. Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court for Northern California found that "the Forest Service's interest in harvesting timber has trampled the applicable environmental laws." Judge Breyer added that the monument plan was "decidedly incomprehensible."

The Forest Service was told to start over and try again.

Now, after six years, hundreds of thousands of public comments, and countless hours of hard work from Sierra Club volunteers and others, the U.S. Forest Service has finally released a management plan for Giant Sequoia National Monument that doesn't default to cutting trees down. That's a significant departure from the Bush administration's practice of logging without limits.

Like the National Park Service, which has done a stellar job of managing its own giant sequoia forests, the new plan clearly states that the Forest Service will give priority to using fire (instead of chain saws) as a means of keeping the forests healthy (giant sequoias are resistant to fast-burning fires, which are essential to the giant sequoia ecosystem). It also spells out more clearly when trees may be removed for ecological and safety reasons. No giant sequoias greater than 12 inches in diameter can be cut, and then only as a last resort. The new plan even recommends the creation of a new 15,110-acre Moses Wilderness Area, which will be important as plants and wildlife adapt to climate change.

Is it perfect? No. There's still the possibility that some exemptions and loopholes could allow too much logging in the wrong places in the name of fire prevention. We look forward to working with our members, volunteers, scientists, and the Forest Service to address those concerns.

But under this plan for the Giant Sequoia National Monument, it's at least possible that the U.S. Forest Service will finally treat the surviving giant sequoias like the irreplaceable treasures they are -- using the same tools for ecological restoration that have worked so well in the neighboring national parks. We will remain vigilant to assure that this possibility becomes a reality and that these mighty forests are finally restored to health.

We've spent more than a century working to protect all of these forest giants. But for trees that have watched the seasons change for thousands of years, and for a species that's adapted and endured for millennia, these perilous decades have been only the merest wink of time. Let's hope their patience pays off.

You can thank the U.S. Forest Service for improving their plan and encourage them to make it even stronger here.

Radically Different Visions for America

With Mitt Romney preparing to accept the Republican nomination and with the ink still wet on his energy plan, this might be a good time to ask how far apart the two presidential candidates are on energy (and, by extension, environmental) issues. They aren't in different rooms; they're on different planets. Never have two candidates openly presented such fundamentally disparate visions for America's energy future. Here are five ways that a Romney presidency would take the U.S. down a different road.

1. Protect Polluters, Not People. Obama has strongly backed the Environmental Protection Agency in its mission to enforce the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and other environmental protections. During the past four years, the EPA has delivered big time on mercury, soot, acid rain, and carbon pollution safeguards that will save many thousands of lives, dramatically clean up the environment, and help move the U.S. to clean, renewable energy.

Romney believes that the EPA is "completely out of control" and opposes safeguards against both mercury and carbon pollution. His close ties to billionaire polluters are well documented, starting with the Koch brothers and including many of his advisors on energy policy.

2. Put the Brakes on Renewable Energy. Obama has been by far the strongest supporter of clean, renewable energy ever to occupy the White House. Stimulus dollars from the Recovery Act were the single largest investment in clean and renewable energy in our nation’s history and helped create thousands and thousands of new jobs in the clean energy economy nationwide. U.S. wind power has doubled during the past four years, and solar has grown by a factor of five. Not satisfied, though, Obama has called for "doubling down" on renewable energy. Obama supports extending the production tax credit for the wind industry.

Romney says he likes wind and solar "as much as the next guy." That’s only true if the "next guy" is the CEO of an oil company. Romney has attacked clean energy investments and opposes extending the wind production tax credit, even though it means the loss of tens of thousands of U.S. jobs. He does not believe that we should do anything to improve our country’s competitive position in the clean energy economy, but instead should revert back to policies that prioritize fossil fuels above all else. Romney’s energy plan would be innovative if we were living in the year 1912, not 2012.

3. All-in on Oil. Presidents have been bemoaning our dependence on oil for decades. But Obama is the first one to actually do something truly significant about it -- two rounds of stronger vehicle fuel-efficiency standards. By 2030, the two standards combined will cut our oil use by 3.1 million barrels per day. That's the amount of oil we currently import from the entire Persian Gulf and Venezuela combined. They'll also create jobs, as we continue developing the automotive technologies required to meet fuel-efficiency goals. According to a recent study by the Blue Green Alliance, the new standards for cars and light trucks sold from 2017 through 2025 will create 570,000 new jobs across America by 2030.

Romney opposed the fuel standards and believes that the U.S. should continue relying on oil. That means more drilling in the Arctic, offshore, and on our public lands. To facilitate this, Romney would leave it to individual states to decide whether to drill on public lands. Unfortunately, state officials are often beholden to local mining and drilling interests -- with disastrous consequences (see #5).

Lastly, Obama has repeatedly called for an end to taxpayer subsidies of oil companies, which are among the wealthiest corporations on the planet. Romney, who is heavily supported by the oil industry and whose chief energy adviser is the billionaire CEO of an oil company, sees no reason to end subsidies.

4. Do Nothing about Climate Change. Obama acknowledges that climate disruption is a problem and accepts the overwhelming scientific consensus that it's caused by carbon pollution. More importantly, he has done something about it. Stronger fuel-efficiency standards for cars and light trucks, in addition to helping move us beyond oil, are the biggest action any president has taken to address climate disruption. Once implemented, these standards will cut U.S. carbon pollution by 10 percent.

In fact, during the last four years, carbon emissions in the U.S. have steadily declined and are potentially on track to meet the goal that Obama promised in Copenhagen -- 17 percent (from 2005 levels) by 2020. Bottom line: In spite of fierce resistance from the fossil fuel lobby and its political supporters, we have been making real progress on the climate issue.

Romney, however, doesn't accept that climate disruption is caused by carbon pollution, nor does he believe we can or should do anything about it. On the contrary, he believes that the U.S. should work to increase its use of the dirtiest and most climate-polluting fossil fuels: coal and oil.

5. Make Parks and Public Lands Pay. One of Obama's first acts as president was to sign the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, which was the most important lands protection legislation in decades, safeguarding millions of acres of new wilderness, protecting hundreds of miles of rivers, and expanding trails. In addition, more than 1 million acres in the Grand Canyon watershed have been placed off-limits to new uranium mining.

Romney has questioned whether public lands serve any purpose beyond their potential for mining, drilling, and other extractive industries. And it's not just lands that currently aren't protected that would be at risk. At least five national parks, including the Grand Canyon, Bryce Canyon, and Grand Teton parks, could be threatened under Romney's energy plan.

If you’ve read this far, you know that there are plenty of other differences, but these might be the most important. Which road -- which future -- we choose is up to us.

Paid for by the Sierra Club Political Committee (www.sierraclub.org) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.

Obama's Greenest Day

The word gridlock was coined in 1980 to describe a traffic jam, so it's fitting that one of the Obama administration's most impressive feats of gridlock-busting has been in the automotive realm. The 54.5 miles per gallon fuel-efficiency standards announced today will double the average fuel efficiency of all vehicles on the road by 2025. Not only is this "change we can believe in" -- it's also the most significant measure to get off oil by any U.S. president in four decades.

The most obvious immediate beneficiaries are American consumers, who have long been held hostage by fluctuating oil prices and gas spikes. The new standards will save vehicle owners $8,000 over the lifetime of a vehicle sold in 2025 compared with the average vehicle on the road today. And that's after factoring in the cost of new fuel-saving technology. Little wonder that three-quarters of the American public strongly supports improving fuel economy.

But did you know that these fuel-efficiency standards were also endorsed by both automakers and automobile workers? Thirteen major auto manufacturers, including Detroit's "Big Three," signed letters of commitment supporting strong standards. Who would have guessed four years ago that we would be talking about a thriving U. S. auto industry? Yet, as people upgrade their older vehicles for cleaner, more-efficient models, U.S. automakers are expecting a third straight year of double-digit sales growth in 2012. Leaders in Detroit know better than to abandon a winning strategy.

At the same time, autoworkers recognize that building more fuel-efficient vehicles will both help create new jobs and, by helping the industry thrive, better protect the jobs of current workers. The United Auto Workers, a partner in the BlueGreen Alliance that includes the Sierra Club, called the new standards a "win-win" for jobs and the environment and estimated that they will result in 570,000 new jobs.

Most exciting of all, though, are what these standards mean for the environment and the future of our planet.

Because we use so much of our oil for transportation, improving fuel efficiency is by far the most powerful tool we have for moving America beyond oil. By 2030, the new standards mean we'll be using 3.1 million fewer barrels of oil every single day -- the same amount that we imported from Saudi Arabia and Iraq combined last year. Less oil, of course, means less pollution, less drilling, and greater energy security.

What's more, moving beyond oil is one of the most potent steps we can take to address climate disruption. In 2030, these new fuel-economy standards will cut our greenhouse gas pollution by an astounding 10 percent. By itself, that is by far the most important action any president has ever taken to reverse climate change.

All told, these standards are a high-water mark for the Obama administration, a boon to a key American industry, a godsend to American consumers, and a bold stroke against climate disruption. I'd call that a good day, and Obama's greenest day ever. (If you agree, you can thank the president here.)

Before the Elephant Forgot...

My latest column in Sierra magazine, "Common Ground: America's Most Endangered Habitat," talks about the frustrating lack of bipartisan cooperation on finding solutions to big problems like climate change. I quoted one prominent Republican who told me: "Mike, we may not agree on much, but on climate change, there's not really that much separating us. But there's no way I can say that publicly."

Could that finally be starting to change?

Not, I'm afraid, at the highest levels of the party. When the Republicans adopt their 2012 platform in Tampa next week, you're more likely to find that it includes billions in subsidies for finger painting than bold solutions to the climate crisis.

But not everyone in the GOP rank and file is marching in lockstep. Consider this week's "man-bites-dog" story from the National Journal, "Conservative Group Plans to Push Republicans Toward Action on Climate, Cleaner Energy":

Leading members of the Christian Coalition and the Young Republicans on Monday will launch nationwide the Young Conservatives for Energy Reform, a grassroots group aimed at engaging Republicans on the goals of cutting oil use, backing alternative energy and clean-air regulations, and fighting climate change.

Increasingly, the GOP has also found itself out-of-step with some of its own party members and leaders over commonsense solutions like wind power in Ohio and renewable energy standards in Michigan.  

In the short-term, voices of reason will have a tough time being heard over the oil- and coal-powered bullhorns wielded by the Koch brothers and other wealthy fossil fuel campaign donors. But don't forget -- it was less than five years ago that John McCain campaigned for president on the promise to do something about climate change.

Someday, the elephant may yet remember.

The Sierra Club Voter Education Fund seeks to educate voters about issues important to our members by responding to statements and positions made in an electoral context, with the goal to encourage the public to find out more about the candidates and their positions on these issues.