When the House rolled out its stimulus plan on Thursday, the set-aside for mass transit had fallen significantly from the proposal outlined last week by House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chair James Oberstar (D-Minn.).

Oberstar had called for $30 billion for roads and bridges and $17 billion for mass transit, which would give mass transit 36 percent of all the transportation funding in the stimulus package. But in the plan unveiled yesterday, while the road money stayed the same, the transportation portion was reduced by 25 percent, which includes cutting operation assistance funds entirely. As for rail, for which Oberstar wanted $5 billion, its funding was reduced to $1.1 billion -- a 78 percent cut.

Whose decision was it to ax so much mass-transit funding, considering that the House committee chair responsible for it has been so pro-public-transit? Sources on the Hill say that the incoming administration's economic team was very involved in the drafting of this final proposal. Are they responsible for reducing transit so significantly, despite repeated claims that reducing oil use and investing in public transit is going to be top priority?

Oberstar's office says the cuts were the product of the House speaker's office, the Senate majority leader, and the Obama transition team. "How those decisions were made, I don't know," Jim Berard, communications director for the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, told Grist. "It's disappointing that our recommendation was not accepted on the whole, but at the same time we got a good deal for transportation infrastructure and we want to keep the momentum going for this bill."

Berard says that at this point it's not likely transit advocates in Congress will make too big a deal out of the cuts. "We don't want to get into a family squabble at this point. I think the imperative is to get a bill going and get it going fast, and get it enacted quickly," he continued. "I think there's a lot of arguments to be made for more funding in every category on there. So to slow the process down by lobbying for more money for one particular sector or another may not be productive."

Transit activists, of course, are not happy.

President-elect Barack Obama took his "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" on the road Friday, talking up his clean energy plans at an Ohio factory that manufactures nuts and bolts used to build wind turbines.

Obama toured the Cardinal Fastener & Specialty Company in Bedford Heights, Ohio, which he cited as evidence that "a renewable energy economy isn't some pie-in-the-sky, far-off future."

"It's happening all across America right now," he said. "It's providing alternatives to foreign oil now. It can create millions of additional jobs and entire new industries if we act right now."

The visit and his speech afterward were meant to highlight his stimulus plan, which calls for doubling the production of renewable energy in the next three years, doing energy-efficiency retrofits on 75 percent of federal buildings, and weatherizing 2 million homes.

Obama said his plan, if enacted, would "put nearly half a million people to work building wind turbines and solar panels; constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings; and developing the new energy technologies that will lead to new jobs, more savings, and a cleaner, safer planet in the bargain." A stronger economy, he said, "starts with new, clean sources of energy."

He also warned that without significant investments, renewable industries like Cardinal could go under. "I'm told that if we don't act now, because of the economic downturn, half of the wind projects planned for 2009 could wind up being abandoned," said Obama. "Think about that. Think about all the businesses that wouldn't come to be, all the jobs that wouldn't be created, all the clean energy we wouldn't produce."

Enviros are heartened by much of what they see in the newly released summary of the House's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, better known as the stimulus package. But they're also concerned about how the transportation funds will be spent.

The bill includes a section focused on "clean, efficient, American energy." The summary states, "To put people back to work today and reduce our dependence on foreign oil tomorrow, we will strengthen efforts directed at doubling renewable energy production and renovate public buildings to make them more energy efficient." Another section of the bill aims to "modernize roads, bridges, transit and waterways." Here's the broad breakdown of those portions:

• $32 billion to transform the nation's energy transmission, distribution, and production systems by allowing for a smarter and better grid and focusing investment in renewable technology
• $16 billion to repair public housing and make key energy-efficiency retrofits
• $6 billion to weatherize modest-income homes
• $30 billion for highway construction
• $31 billion to modernize federal and other public infrastructure with investments that lead to long-term energy cost savings
• $19 billion for clean water, flood control, and environmental restoration investments;
• $10 billion for transit and rail to reduce traffic congestion and gas consumption

There's also $4 billion for training and employment services through grants for worker-training programs in "high growth and emerging industry sectors." Priority for these funds would be placed on green jobs and jobs in healthcare. "Green jobs training will include preparing workers for activities supported by other economic recovery funds, such as retrofitting of buildings, green construction, and the production of renewable electric power," says the summary.

The Sierra Club praised the bill, saying it "makes an important down payment on solutions that will transform America's economy and lead to a clean energy future that will benefit generations to come."

Friends of the Earth President Brent Blackwelder pointed out both the good and the bad. "This proposal demonstrates a serious commitment to clean energy with a number of smart and much-needed investments that can create green jobs and be instrumental in our transition to a clean energy economy," he said. "Unfortunately, the transportation spending doesn't take the same forward-thinking approach. The stimulus as it currently stands doesn't do enough to create green jobs through clean transportation investments, and it doesn't prevent spending from going to unnecessary new roads that increase pollution and oil consumption."

Ken Salazar.

At his Senate confirmation hearing on Thursday, Interior Secretary nominee Ken Salazar said he would promote sound environmental and energy policies through his role in the new administration. His former colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee seemed to think he'd do a fine job.

Salazar pledged to "clean up the mess" at the Department of Interior, which has seen controversies over non-collection of oil royalties and an embarrassing sex, drugs, and bribery scandal within the Minerals Management Service.

He said he would revisit some of the more contentious rules put out by the Bush administration. "We will review what decisions have been made to see whether there is action necessary to make sure that they're in compliance with the law and to make sure they're in compliance with the science," he said.

Energy issues were central during the hearing. "If confirmed, I will remain committed to helping our nation reduce its dangerous dependence on foreign oil," said Salazar. "President-elect Obama believes, as I do, that our foreign oil dependence is a grave threat to our national security, our planet, and our economy."

"I will work to modernize our interstate electrical grid, expand the use of renewable energy like solar and wind on public lands, and help tribes develop renewable energy resources on their lands," he continued.

On the subject of more conventional fuel sources, Salazar said he would advocate for "wise use" of coal, oil, and natural gas and "responsible energy development" in areas like the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. He also said he would prioritize the construction of the Alaska natural-gas pipeline. "But as we develop our natural resources, we must adhere to the principles of good stewardship, and we must protect our nation's most treasured landscapes," he said.

In his first hearing as chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) on Thursday pledged to act "quickly and decisively" on climate change, and said he wants a bill ready to go by Memorial Day recess in May.

"Our environment and our economy depend on congressional action to confront the threat of climate change and secure our energy independence," Waxman said. "U.S. industries want to invest in a clean energy future, but uncertainties about whether, when, and how greenhouse-gas emissions will be reduced is deterring these vital investments."

But not everyone is on board. Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said there are "many different views on this committee" as to whether climate change is caused by humans.

The committee heard from representatives of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership about its new blueprint for a cap-and-trade climate bill. President-elect Barack Obama and Waxman have both called for cap-and-trade programs, though considerably stronger ones than USCAP proposed.

But some committee member suggested that cap-and-trade is not the way to go. Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas) said he prefers a carbon tax, though it may not be as politically palatable. "It's probably the cleanest and most transparent thing Congress can do is to put a tax on something we shouldn't be putting in our atmosphere," said Green. His fellow Texan, Republican ranking member Joe Barton, also indicated that a carbon tax might be preferable to cap-and-trade.

Today's hearing illustrated that despite the leadership change in the committee -- climate advocate Waxman replacing automaker-friendly John Dingell -- it's going to be a tussle to move climate legislation this year. "Be prepared for a battle," warned Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.).

The United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a coalition of businesses and environmental groups, today released its Blueprint for Legislative Action [PDF] at a press conference on Capitol Hill, and then presented it to the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

With climate legislation appearing imminent, USCAP members want a voice in shaping it -- and they seem to want to make sure it isn't too stringent.

"Today, cap-and-trade legislation is a crucial component in fueling the bold clean energy investments necessary to catapult the U.S. again to preeminence in global energy and environmental policy, strengthen the country's international competitiveness, and create millions of rewarding new American jobs," said Jeff Immelt, chair and CEO of General Electric, a USCAP member.

Other corporate members of USCAP include General Motors, Ford, Duke Energy, Dow Chemical, and ConocoPhillips. The coalition also includes a handful of big green groups: Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Nature Conservancy, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, and the World Resources Institute.

WRI President Jonathan Lash issued a statement praising the document and the partnership that produced it. "The health of our economy and the safety of our climate are inextricably linked, except nature doesn't do bailouts," said Lash. "USCAP has redefined what is possible. If the diverse membership of USCAP can find common ground, Congress can agree on effective legislation."

But one environmental group, the National Wildlife Federation, pulled out of the partnership rather than sign on to the blueprint. In a statement to The Washington Post, NWF called USCAP "a welcome, strong force for action," but said it would work separately to "enact a cap-and-invest bill that measures up to what scientists say is needed and makes bold investments in a clean energy economy."

Nancy Sutley, President-elect Obama's pick to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, faced tough questions from several senators about whether she will play second fiddle to Carol Browner, the Clinton-era EPA chief who has been tapped by Obama to serve as climate and energy czar.

During her confirmation hearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Sutley insisted that CEQ "would retain all its statutory responsibilities and its role as an adviser to the president on environmental issues." She said her office "will play an important role in coordinating the efforts of the federal government to build a cleaner environment and a sustainable economy and future for our nation," and said that CEQ will be "the voice for the environment" in the White House.

Some of her comments were prompted by questions from James Inhofe (Okla.), the committee's ranking GOP member and resident climate-change skeptic. "I am quite concerned that the chair's role has been diluted by the addition of former EPA administrator Carol Browner as White House climate and energy czar," Inhofe said. "The law states that the CEQ chair is to report directly to the president on environmental policy. I sincerely hope that Ms. Browner's new position will not undermine the statute's intentions nor overshadow the chair's autonomy and judgment."

Sutley sought to allay those concerns, asserting that the council would oversee critical environmental issues like the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act. But she also argued that there will be plenty of climate and energy work to go around.

Lisa Jackson.

Photo: Lauren Victoria Burke / AP

Lisa Jackson, Barack Obama's nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency, got a warm reception from both sides of the aisle at her Wednesday hearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, facing little of the tough questioning her critics had hoped for.

In her testimony, Jackson promised that "scientific integrity and the rule of law" would be her guiding principles at the agency. "I understand that the laws leave room for policymakers to make policy judgments," said Jackson. "But if I am confirmed, political appointees will not compromise the integrity of EPA's technical experts to advance particular regulatory outcomes."

She was given an especially warm welcome from Environment and Public Works Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who called the hearing "a turning point for the EPA and the Council on Environmental Quality." Boxer has faced off regularly with current EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, who has in the past refused to testify before her committee. "I'm reminded of Sleeping Beauty ... who needs to be awakened from a deep and nightmarish sleep," said Boxer. "I am confident we can wake up the EPA and the CEQ to their critical mission of protecting health and the environment."

The Republicans on the committee, including climate-change skeptic James Inhofe (Okla.), were also largely complimentary. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) called Jackson "imminently qualified."

A New Climate

Jackson said her early priorities would include reevaluating California's request for a waiver to set tougher tailpipe CO2 emission standards and following the Supreme Court's directives from the Massachusetts v. EPA climate-change decision.

There was plenty of confirmation hearing action on Capitol Hill today, but apparently Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), President-elect Obama's pick to head the Department of Transportation, was not a part of it. He was slated to appear before the Senate Commerce Committee this morning, but a notice posted on the hearing room door announced that the hearing has been postponed to an indefinite later date.

The New York Times quotes an anonymous Senate aide as saying LaHood's paperwork had not yet been sent over by the president-elect's transition staff.

The enviro angle on LaHood, of course, is that he'll have a role in spending a portion of Obama's big stimulus bill. Among other things, greens will be pushing for more mass transit funding, not more roads.

Nancy Sutley, the nominee to head the Council on Environmental Quality, also appeared before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee this morning, along with EPA-nominee Lisa Jackson. Sutley, 46, is currently the deputy mayor for energy and environment for the city of Los Angeles.

Here an excerpt from Sutley's prepared opening statement on her plans for the CEQ:

My focus, if confirmed as the chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, will be to ensure that there is a strong science and policy basis for our environmental policy, to move the nation to greater reliance on clean energy and increase energy security, to combat global warming while growing the green economy, to protect public health and the environment, especially in vulnerable communities, and to protect and restore our great ecosystems.

My parents came to the United States in search of a better life. I learned the values of hard work and integrity from them. They also taught me how important it is to give back to the community, and I have devoted much of my career to public service. I have tried to honor those values by working toward protecting our communities and our environment. If I am confirmed, I look forward to working with this committee and the Congress to carry out the goals of the National Environmental Policy Act and the mission of the Council on Environmental Quality.

Lisa Jackson, President-elect Obama's nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency, is appearing this morning before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee for her confirmation hearing. Jackson, 46, has been the commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection since Feb. 2006.

While she's expected to get a mostly warm reception from senators -- even climate skeptic James Inhofe (Okla.) has had nice things to say about her -- it's also likely that contentious issues like perchlorate and criticisms about Jackson from some New Jersey environmentalists will be raised.

Nancy Sutley, the nominee to head the Council on Environmental Quality, will also appear before the committee this morning, following Jackson.

Here are some key excerpts from Jackson's prepared opening remarks pertaining to her plans for the U.S. EPA:

Science must be the backbone of what EPA does. The environmental and public health laws Congress has enacted direct the EPA administrator to base decisions on the best available science. EPA's addressing of scientific decisions should reflect the expert judgment of the agency's career scientists and independent advisors.

If I am confirmed, I will administer with science as my guide. I understand that the laws leave room for policy-makers to make policy judgments. But if I am confirmed, political appointees will not compromise the integrity of EPA's technical experts to advance particular regulatory outcomes.

And here's her take on environment vs. economic development:

The president-elect strongly believes responsible stewardship of our air and water can live side-by-side with robust economic growth. Done properly, these goals can and should reinforce each other.

The president-elect's environmental initiatives are highlighted by five key objectives: reducing greenhouse-gas emissions; reducing other air pollutants; addressing toxic chemicals; cleaning up hazardous-waste sites; and protecting water. These five problems are tough, but so is our resolve to conquer them.

Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) made two of the more aggressively pro-drilling arguments during Tuesday's confirmation hearing for Energy Secretary-nominee Steven Chu. Neither was totally related to Chu's testimony, but both were, er, colorful.

First, Landrieu disputed Chu's citation of the fact that the United States contains only three percent of the world's oil supply, arguing that she believes there is more oil available domestically:

I listened with interest to your comments to Senator Murkowski about the known inventory in the United States of oil and gas and just wanted to point out that the emphasis is on the word known because we believe, many of us, that there are great resources that have yet to be discovered based on the fact that there's never been a comprehensive technology-driven inventory taken of oil and gas resources.

So one of the things that our chairman has been leading the effort and to some degree of success with my support and others, has been to push the United States government on behalf of the taxpayers who might be interested to actually know how much oil and gas they have. And so with so much off limit in the past and with limited access to just look, I would just urge you to be careful about the comment about four percent. It is true. We have four percent of the known reserves, but there is great evidence to suggest that there are lots of reserves that are unknown.

Her second remark pertained to pirates:

Renewable energy advocates are enthused by Barack Obama's call to double the production of clean, domestic energy and create three million jobs in the sector, but they don't think he'll be able to pull it off unless he backs two changes to the tax code -- changes they say will help spur millions more jobs in the wind and solar industries.

Right now, the tax credits for solar and wind energy (yes, the much-beleaguered credits that were finally slipped into the October bailout of the financial markets) are not refundable -- that is to say, a producer only gets the money back if it makes a profit. Problem is, given the economic downturn, not many renewable energy companies are making money. That means the tax credits aren't helping them. The solar and wind industries would like the renewable tax credits to become refundable, which would offer rebates even to companies that aren't making money.

Obama has said his stimulus plan would create nearly half a million jobs through clean energy investments, but neither the investors nor the lenders who would normally provide the upfront funding for start-up renewable projects are feeling confident enough to do so right now. It also doesn't help that some major financial backers of renewable projects -- like Lehman Brothers -- have gone under in recent months.

"Lehman goes away, and many other banks have suffered major losses because of the sub-prime crisis, and because they're suffering these huge losses they don't have much tax liability," Chris O'Brien, head of market development and government relations for North America at the Swiss company Oerlikon Solar, told Grist. "They don't need more losses, so their appetite for investing in solar projects has gone way down at a point in time where the interest in and the need for tax equity has gone way up."

Another idea floating around the Hill is for the stimulus plan to put $10 billion into a "National Clean Energy Lending Authority" that could lend to renewable projects and help support homeowners who want to retrofit. Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.) wrote a letter to Obama this week asking him to support something like this. "The current financial crisis has not only thrown us into recession, it has significantly derailed or killed off virtually every alternative energy project in the pipeline, making renewable energy yet another victim of the economic fallout," they wrote.

Barack Obama's pick to head the Energy Department, Steven Chu, got his turn in the confirmation spotlight this morning, with senators asking him to clarify some of his previous statements on contentious energy issues like coal and nuclear power.

The hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee was, for the most part, amiable, with the lawmakers warmly welcoming the Nobel Laureate physicist. But when the subject turned to Chu's previous assertion that "Coal is my worst nightmare," some coal-state senators got a little touchy. Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) inquired directly about the remark that's been "ricocheting around the internet," while others asked more in-depth questions about what coal-related policies Chu supports.

By equating coal to a nightmare, Chu said his point was, "If the world continues to use coal the way we are using it today, and the world -- I mean in particular not only the United States but China, India and Russia -- then it is a pretty bad dream." He continued, "That is to say in China, for example, they have not yet begun to even trap the sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides. There's mercury. There's particulate matter, as well as carbon dioxide."

If anything, though, Chu's remarks at the hearing likely eased the lawmakers' fears, as he asserted that nuclear and coal will remain crucial components in the energy mix. On coal, Chu had previously said, "It's not guaranteed that we have a solution for coal" -- meaning that there is currently no proven technology to offset the C02 emissions resulting from burning coal. In today's hearing, he softened, saying he's "very hopeful" that carbon capture and sequester (CCS) technology is possible on a commercial scale. "I am optimistic we can figure out how to use those resources in a clean way. I'm very hopeful that this will occur and I think that we will be using that great natural resource."

Hillary Clinton.

Photo: Gerald Herbert / AP

The hot news in foreign relations on Tuesday was, of course, the confirmation hearing for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) to be the next secretary of state. But also noteworthy is the new head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's declaration that the panel's attention will soon turn to global warming, which he plans to be the subject of the panel's first hearing this year.

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who takes over the committee with Joe Biden's ascension to the vice presidency, tells the New York Times that he wants to use his committee to urge the Obama administration to act fast on climate change. "I think we are standing on the threshold of a huge opportunity to actually get something done," he said. "The Obama administration is going to have to get up to speed very, very quickly."

The Times described Kerry's new role as "a gold-plated consolation prize," considering he ran for the presidency in 2004 and was rumored to be a top contender for secretary of state post under Obama. But Kerry seems to be ramping up to use his chairmanship for big things, not least of which is climate change. Shortly after it became clear that he wasn't going to the Department of State, he pledged that his committee would "pick up the baton and really run with it" on climate.

His first action as chair of the committee, though, was to preside over Tuesday morning's confirmation hearing for Clinton. His made a nod to climate change in his prepared opening remarks:

Before turning to Senator Lugar, let me say one thing about global climate change: Many today do not see it as a national security threat. But it is -- and the consequences of our inaction grow more serious by the day. In Copenhagen this December we have a chance to forge a treaty that will profoundly affect the conditions of life on our planet. The resounding message from the recent Climate Change Conference in Poland was that the global community is looking to our leadership. This Committee will be deeply involved in crafting a solution that the world can agree to and the Senate can ratify. And as we proceed, the lesson of Kyoto must remain clear in our minds: all countries must be part of the solution.

In her own opening remarks, Clinton recognized Kerry's work on climate and pledged to focus on the issue in her new role as the country's top diplomat:

You, Mr. Chairman, were among the very first in a growing chorus from both parties to recognize that climate change is an unambiguous security threat. At the extreme, it threatens our very existence but well before that point it could well incite new wars of an old kind over basic resources like food, water and arable land.

President-elect Obama has said America must be a leader in developing and implementing a global and coordinated response to climate change. We will participate in the upcoming UN Copenhagen Climate Conference and a global energy forum; and we'll pursue an energy policy that reduces our carbon emissions while reducing our dependence on foreign oil and gas; fighting climate change and enhancing our economic and energy security.

Stephen Chu.

Steven Chu, Nobel laureate and director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, will go before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee for his confirmation hearing on Tuesday, where he's certain to be grilled about his positions on key energy and climate issues. Here's a guide to what Chu thinks -- or at least what he's said in the past.

"Coal is my worst nightmare"

Chu is no fan of coal. "Coal is my worst nightmare," he said repeatedly in a speech earlier this year. He says "clean coal" technologies would need to be developed in order to keep the fossil fuel in the energy portfolio in a carbon-constrained world, but notes, "It's not guaranteed we have a solution for coal."

As energy secretary, Chu will address the issue of government funding for coal research. The Department of Energy has been a major funder of projects to turn coal into liquid fuel, as well as the controversial FutureGen pilot program that was supposed to build the nation's first zero-emission, "clean coal" power plant in Illinois. The Bush administration abandoned the effort after the price tag ballooned to $1.8 billion, moving the money to other projects and aiming to get carbon-capture-and-sequestration technologies in place at other power plants. But supporters (including President-elect Barack Obama) have sought to keep it alive.

Nuclear power

Chu's comments on nuclear power have drawn fire from both nuke opponents and supporters. In a 2005 interview, he said he "absolutely" thinks the role of nuclear in the country's energy portfolio should be increased -- alarming the anti-nuke crowd.

As the nation's capital braces for an onslaught of merrymakers at next week's inauguration, efforts are underway to make this year's festivities the greenest ever. Reports the Los Angeles Times:

"Not only are we committed to holding an inauguration that is the most open and accessible in history," said Linda Douglass, chief spokeswoman for Obama's inaugural committee, "but we are also committed to making sure that it is as environmentally friendly and sustainable as possible."

The Environmental Protection Agency has provided a liaison to the Presidential Inaugural Committee to advise on "best practices" -- a first, Douglas said.

"We're obviously not going to have paper towels in the bathroom," said Shelley Cohen, helping organize the green ball featuring Gore, the ex-vice president who shared a Nobel Peace Prize for efforts in raising awareness about climate change. "We're going to have air dryers."

"Making the inaugural balls as low-energy and low-carbon as possible won't stop global warming, but it is a very important symbol about the direction of the incoming administration," said Dan Weiss, director of climate strategy for the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.

The Forest Stewardship Council has announced that the one million inaugural invitations and their envelopes have been printed on FSC-certified paper.

Now, about the travel-related emissions of those two to four million people zooming into D.C. next weekend ...

The Senate approved a motion to move forward with the omnibus lands bill on Sunday, a bill that would protect more than 2 million acres of wilderness in nine states.

The bill combines more than 150 separate pieces of legislation on wilderness areas and other federal lands, and was put together last Congress. It has been repeatedly held up by procedural stalling from several Republican senators, most notably Oklahoma's Tom Coburn. The cloture motion, which passed 66-12, allows the Senate to proceed to debate.

Coburn was nonplussed. "I'm disappointed the Senate majority leader has refused to allow senators the opportunity to improve, amend or eliminate any of the questionable provisions in his omnibus lands bill," said Coburn in a statement.

The Democratic leader, Harry Reid (Nev.), has said he would like this and another pieces of legislation passed before the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday and the inauguration next week. "I'm gratified by the impressive bipartisan support my colleagues showed today in voting to advance this bill," said bill sponsor Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) in a statement on Sunday. "I look forward to proceeding to the legislation next week."

Wilderness advocates were pleased as well. "By voting to protect mountains and pristine wildlands, Congress is starting out on the right foot," said Environment America Preservation Advocate Christy Goldfuss. "This Congress is serious about protecting the environment and the outstanding lands that Americans treasure."

Newly sworn-in Alaska Sen. Mark Begich (D) on Friday kicked off the 111th Congress by attacking Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) for reintroducing a bill to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Begich has been bullish on opening the reserve for drilling. In a press release he accused Lieberman of "knee-jerk reaction" to please greens:

"Sen. Lieberman's ANWR legislation is another misguided attempt at locking up ANWR to appease environmentalists across the country," he said. "What this country needs is a comprehensive energy plan dealing with oil and gas development, as well as renewable energy resources, to ease our dependence on foreign oil. Domestic production including the enormous oil and gas reserves believed to lie beneath the Arctic Refuge must be a part of that policy."

Hmmm, sound like anyone else we know from Alaska?

Most importantly, this is further proof that an increased Democratic majority in the Senate doesn't mean it will be all rainbows and sunshine when it comes to environmental policy. Major differences exist within the caucus and are already flaring up.

(Via Politico.)

Senate Democrats on Sunday convinced President-elect Barack Obama to add more money for clean-energy tax credits to his economic-stimulus plan, doubling available funds to at least $20 billion.

Horse-trading is sure to continue as the Obama team and congressional leaders try to agree on what should be included in a package that could cost more than $775 billion. The initial Obama plan didn't include details on how much would go toward infrastructure and didn't specifically mention mass-transit funding, though it called for doubling the production of renewable energy and retrofitting the majority of federal buildings. Some enviros and transit advocates are concerned that the stimulus plan could put massive amounts of money into traditional infrastructure without taking into account the long-term environmental impacts.

And in his Saturday radio/YouTube address, Obama said the plan would create nearly half a million jobs through clean energy investments, including doubling the amount of renenwable energy used in the country and retrofitting the majority of federal buildings. "These made-in-America jobs building solar panels and wind turbines, developing fuel-efficient cars and new energy technologies pay well, and they can’t be outsourced," said Obama (who still hasn't explained exactly why wind turbines and solar panels can't be constructed elsewhere).