As election season heats up, Obama took on Republicans who he says would rather “stand on the sidelines” than do what’s necessary to create jobs.

President Barack Obama tours the ZBB Manufacturing Facility in Menomonee Falls, Wis., and is shown the battery making process by ZBB President and CEO Eric Apfelback, left, and ZBB employee Lonnie Mages, August 16, 2010. (White House Photo/Chuck Kennedy)

While visiting a Wisconsin battery plant that he touted as the future of renewable energy in America, US President Barack Obama predicted that his administration’s clean energy policies will create 800,000 jobs in the next two years.

The President also harshly criticized political opponents who blocked some of his administration’s policies in Congress.

“There are folks in Washington right now who think we should abandon our efforts to support clean energy,” Obama told the crowd at ZBB Energy Corporation’s manufacturing facility. “They’ve made the political calculation that it’s better to stand on the sidelines than work as a team to help American businesses and American workers.”

Obama toured ZBB Energy Corporation’s manufacturing facility, which received $1.3 million in Recovery Act State Energy Program loans in order to fund a $4.5 million factory renovation to triple their capacity to manufacture flow batteries and power systems.

President Barack Obama speaks to workers following a tour at ZBB Energy Corporation in Menomonee Falls, Wis. ZBB is a leader in the design and manufacture of advanced energy-storage products. August 16, 2010. (White House Photo/Chuck Kennedy)

“We expect our commitment to clean energy to lead to more than 800,000 jobs by 2012,” Obama declared. “And that’s not just creating work in the short term, that’s going to help lay the foundation for lasting economic growth.”

The advanced zinc bromide flow batteries and intelligent control platforms manufactured by ZBB, are crucial components to building a smart energy grid and expanding the commercialization of electric vehicles. They allow users to cut costs by shifting energy use to off-peak hours and bank intermittent sources of energy like the sun and wind for future use.

Obama highlighted the major advances America has made in battery technology in just a few short years. “I just want everybody to understand –just a few years ago, American businesses could only make 2 percent of the world’s advanced batteries for hybrid and electric vehicles — 2 percent.  In just a few years, we’ll have up to 40 percent of the world’s capacity.”

Abengoa Solar plans to build the largest concentrating solar plants in the world in Arizona.

Two solar energy companies are looking to expand with the help of nearly $2 billion in new financing through the US Recovery Act, President Barack Obama announced over the weekend.

During his weekly address, Obama said the Department of Energy would provide $1.45 billion in conditional commitment funds to Abengoa Solar, as well as additional funding to Abound Solar Manufacturing for three massive construction projects.

Abengoa Solar plans to build the largest concentrating solar plants in the world in Arizona. When completed, the 250-megawatt facility known as Solana is expected to provide enough clean energy to power 70,000 homes.

“After years of watching companies build things and create jobs overseas, it’s good news that we’ve attracted a company to our shores to build a plant and create jobs right here in America,” Obama said of Abengoa. “In the short term, construction will create approximately 1,600 jobs in Arizona. What’s more, over 70 per cent of the components and products used in construction will be manufactured in the USA, boosting jobs and communities in states up and down the supply chain. Once completed, this plant will be the first large-scale solar plant in the US to actually store the energy it generates for later use — even at night.”

The Solana project will be able to store up to six hours of energy by using molten salt. The strategy will allow the facility to provide power even during cloudy weather and after sunset, enabling it to help meet the summer peak demand.

Meanwhile, Obama continued, Abound Solar “will manufacture advanced solar panels at two new plants, creating more than 2,000 construction jobs and 1,500 permanent jobs. A Colorado plant is already underway, and an Indiana plant will be built in what’s now an empty Chrysler factory. When fully operational, these plants will produce millions of state-of-the-art solar panels each year.”

While acknowledging the severe economic conditions facing many citizens, Obama said such projects can gradually help replace many of the jobs that have been lost in this recession.

“These are just two of the many clean energy investments in the Recovery Act,” he said. “Already, I’ve seen the payoff from these investments. I’ve seen once-shuttered factories humming with new workers who are building solar panels and wind turbines; rolling up their sleeves to help America win the race for the clean energy economy.”

Reproduced with permission from Greenbang.

The following article is provided by UNC’s Powering A Nation journalism team.

Our focus on emerging energy issues has carried us to Burke County, Ga., a sparsely populated community of more than 22,000, located 25 miles south of Augusta. Burke County now finds itself at the center of the Obama administration’s emphasis on nuclear power as a viable answer to America’s energy predicament.

Georgia Power, a subsidiary of Southern Company, provides 15 percent of Georgia's power through Plant Vogtle. Plant Vogtle will be the first nuclear license to be issued in 30 years if granted a license by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and it will be the only site in the U.S. with four reactors. Photo by Lauren Frohne

President Obama announced in February that Southern Company would receive $8.3 billion in loan guarantees to build the nation’s first nuclear reactors in 30 years. Plant Vogtle already houses two nuclear reactors. Unit 1 went online in 1987, and Unit 2 went online in 1989.

The current project serves as a $14 billion capital investment in Georgia and promises to bring more than 3,500 construction jobs and more than 800 permanent jobs.

The twin cooling towers stand 548 feet high, roughly equal to a 55-story building and taller than the Statue of Liberty (456 feet). Photo by Jessey Dearing

Construction on Plant Vogtle’s site began in April 2009 and is projected to last until 2017. If the Nuclear Regulatory Commission grants a Combined Construction and Operating License in late 2011 or early 2012 as expected, the project will bring Unit 3 online in 2016 and Unit 4 online in 2017.

Mike McCracken, spokesman for Southern Nuclear Public Affairs, said Plant Vogtle would be the only nuclear power plant in the U.S. with four reactors.

We did find some individuals in the Burke County community who seem skeptical of bringing more nuclear reactors close to their community. They expressed concern at how much of the land where they used to roam without worry—Plant Vogtle has a 3,100 acre site along the Savannah River–is now surrounded by “No Trespassing” signs. They lamented the fact that they could no longer fish in the Savannah River for fear of pollution. And they used the recent oil spill in the Gulf to discuss the uncertainty of what happens if there is an accident at Plant Vogtle.

Despite those concerns, George DeLoach, the mayor of Waynesboro, Burke County’s seat, said that in an economic downturn, the construction of the two nuclear reactors means money for the county. Already, the plant provides 70 percent, or $25 million, of the county’s tax base. DeLoach said Units 3 and 4 could mean a doubling of that amount to between $50 and $60 million.

And, DeLoach says, the jobs that are coming to Burke County help quell consternation a resident may currently hold. “Because of the economic situation that we’re in now, jobs mean more to them than the environment,” he said. “Everybody wants a good job.”

How dangerous are the towers?

Plant Vogtle's twin cooling towers stand on Southern Company's 3,000 acres of land in Burke County, Georgia. In the foreground, land has been cleared for the construction of Vogtle's two new reactors and cooling towers. Photo by Lauren Frohne

Cooling towers are an iconic symbol of nuclear energy. Visible from a dozen or more miles away, they are, for some, the representation of an unwanted neighbor; for others, they’re beacons of a clean energy future.

Despite the cooling tower’s intrusive appearance, it is probably the most benign part of a nuclear power plant, based on what we recently learned during a tour of Plant Vogtle in Burke County, Georgia. The towers can appear daunting, but when it comes down to that part of the nuclear energy process, it’s nothing but water.

Facts about cooling towers:

• Nuclear reactions do not occur in the cooling towers.
  • The actual reactor is typically enclosed in a cement building that is built to withstand natural disasters and other threats.
• They are not just used for nuclear power plants.
  • Many coal plants and other industrial facilities that boil water and use steam to turn a turbine use them to cool water before releasing it into the lake or river from which it came.
  • There are nuclear power plants that do not use cooling towers, but instead utilize other methods for cooling water vapor into liquid.
• The substance that billows out of the top of a cooling tower is just water in the form of vapor.
  • The water that is released never comes in contact with any radioactive material. At Plant Vogtle, that water is brought into the plant from the Savannah River through pipes. It is used to cool down the steam that turns the turbine so it can condense and be used in the process again. Because of the high temperatures, some of the river water is released as steam, while the rest flows back into the river.
• One cooling tower at Plant Vogtle consumes about 15,000 gallons of water per minute.
  • Between the two, that’s 43.2 million gallons per day.
  • With the addition of two more towers to accommodate the two new reactors they have planned, the plant will use 86.4 million gallons of water a day.
  • According to Plant Vogtle’s website, their current reactors use “1 percent of the average annual flow of the Savannah River. Adding two additional units at the site would increase that amount to 2 percent.”

Two cement domes enclose the nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle. Radioactive materials and waste are housed in the domes and conjoined buildings. At its narrowest part, the cement dome is three feet thick. Some parts of the dome are as thick as nine feet. Photo by Lauren Frohne

Though the cooling tower is relatively gentle in nature, it is capable of interrupting even the most picturesque landscape. For Jessey, Chris and me, this was our first time beholding one at such close proximity. The photographers in the group that visited Burke County had fun juxtaposing the towers with the beautiful scenery we found there.

Predominantly rural, Burke County is one of the largest counties in Georgia in terms of square miles, but it has a population of only about 24,000. Photo by Lauren Frohne

Written by Chris Saunders and Lauren Frohne under the auspicies of UNC’s Powering A Nation and shared with Consumer Energy Report.

The Green River Formation in the Rockies reportedly holds the largest bed of shale oil in the world.

Oil locked in shales situated on Federal lands in the Rocky Mountains are not likely to be tapped any time soon.

“I don’t know when we’ll see commercial development on public lands,” Steve Black, counsel for Interior Secretary announced at the Unconventional Fuels Conference.  “It’s an industry that is not ready for prime time.”

A 2005 study by the Rand Corporation estimated that sedimentary rock in the corner where Utah borders Colorado and Wyoming called the Green River Formation contains an untapped 800 billion barrels. That’s three times the size of Saudi Arabia’s oil reserves.

World-renowned geologist Walter Youngquist called the oil beneath the Green River Formation, “a national treasure.”

Nevertheless, in February 2009, Salazar scrapped land leases designed to enable oil developers to tap oil from 1.9 million acres of the range, saying “I am withdrawing that Jan. 14 solicitation because in my view it was a midnight decision, and it was flawed.”

Fuel developers allege that the Obama administration has blocked progress of drilling in the potentially kerogen-rich shale.  They believe that the White House is reluctant to endorse drilling for oil generally, and that the Green River Formation shales in particular have been blacklisted.

Yesterday, Black denied that Salazar and President Obama are red-lighting all oil projects.  “This administration supports responsible development of all energy resources in the right place and at the right time,” said Black.

“He has never said privately or publicly that his intention is to kill oil shale,” Black added. “We’re not trying to pick winners or losers.”

Despite campaign promises to the contrary, President Obama does not think the sun has set on off-shore fuel exploration.

After denouncing off-shore oil drilling almost two years ago, President Barack Obama’s new plans for reducing the United State’s energy dependency includes carrying out the same steps that Bush Administration and former foe John McCain supported all along.

Last week, in front of a crowd at Andrews Air Force Base, Obama announced his plan to open up parts of the United States coast to off-shore drilling sites, while putting a stop to drilling in current off-shore zones. Obama believes that combining biofuel production, wind energy, nuclear energy with exploring for oil and natural gas sites, will help the U.S. become free from foreign oil all together. However, Obama’s proposal for oil and natural gas expiration in parts of Northern Alaska, parts of the Atlantic coast and Gulf of Mexico raise questions about the viability of the plan as well as contempt among environmentalists.

Obama stated in the speech that he will strive to open up the Atlantic Coast from Delaware down to Florida, Eastern Parts of the Gulf of Mexico and the Northern seas of Alaska, including the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas for exploration. In turn, oil drilling will be shut down in the Atlantic from Delaware north, the Pacific coastline and Bristol Bay in Alaska.

One possible explanation for the White House’s change in direction is because of recent reports from the Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service, predicting that undiscovered, recoverable resources in Beaufort Sea could yield 7 billion barrels of oil and 20 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The Chukchi Sea holding potential yields of 12 billion barrels of oil and 54 million cubic feet of natural gas.

Obama also said that the decision, even though it will be highly controversial, is necessary to protect our economy and create jobs. Also, those will strongly disagree with the plan, but it is part of a broader strategy of keeping the reliance on home grown resources instead of relying on foreign sources.

“Given our energy needs in order to sustain economic growth and produce jobs and keep our businesses competitive we are going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel,” said Obama.

In the President's 2010 "State of the Union" address, Obama received applause when he described "making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. "

Obama still insists that drilling must be kept to a minimum and stressed the importance of developing clean burning fuels. The reason behind making his speech at Andrews was because of the military’s goal of using a minimum of 50 percent biofuel in military planes, vehicle and ships in the next ten years. He said that the military leads by example.

That being said, it is indisputable that Obama’s stance on offshore drilling has veered substantially from promises he made in his presidential campaign throughout 2009. Prior to his election in 2008, Obama delivered a speech in front of media and Florida residents denouncing, Republican presidential hopeful, John McCain’s backing of the Bush Administration’s plans to explore for oil reserves along the U.S. Coastline. At that time, Obama was critical of the Bush administration for permitting a twenty-five year Congressional moratorium on new off-shore drilling to expire.

In the 2008 speech, Obama addressed the record high gas prices and suggested ways to fix the problem, but specifically said that new drilling was not the solution.

‘What would not do a thing, to lower gas prices, is John McCain’s new proposal, a proposal adopted by George W. Bush as well, to open Florida’s coastline to offshore drilling,” said Obama in the 2008 speech. “There would be long term consequences for our coastlines, but no short term benefits since it would take at least ten years to get any oil.”

Obama went on to say in the 2008 speech that drilling would not help gas prices at all and that full production of new oil reserves would not reach full potential until 2030. New drilling would only worsen our addiction to oil and when he would become president, he would continue to support the moratorium on off-shore drilling.

Some environmentalist groups have already spoken out against Obama’s new plans stating that ecosystem damage is unavoidable.

Michael Brune, Executive Director of Sierra Club, in a public statement said that his organization was upset over the decision. Brune said that the U.S. should be taking steps toward clean energy, referring to recently enacted clean air regulations and not “dirty, expensive off-shore drilling.”

Brune said that drilling in the Arctic will threaten marine life and there will always be the danger of oil spills and drilling could jeopardize beaches and tourist economies.

During his trip to Savannah, Obama shared a lunch with a few of the locals.

Savannah, Ga. – Willing homeowners across America may soon be eligible for rebates for making energy efficient improvements to their houses, according to President Barack Obama. Standing in front of the student body and faculty at Savannah Technical College, Obama laid out the general groundwork for implementing his $6 billion HOMESTAR program, commonly referred to as the “Cash for Caulkers” program.

Obama said the plan is focused on providing rebates for consumers that purchase energy saving, home improvement upgrades such as insulation and water heaters. Under the program, vendors ranging from small independent contractors to nationwide home improvement chain stores will offer the on-the-spot rebates that will range between $1000 and $1500. The federal government will then reimburse the vendor for the rebate.

This program would also reward homeowners who have energy audits conducted and then follow through with the necessary improvements to reduce their energy consumption. Audited homes that are improved by cutting their energy costs by at least 20 percent can receive up to $3000 with the possibility of a larger rebate for any reduction over 20 percent.

Obama praised the Savannah Tech’s initiative called the YouthBuild program, geared toward pursuing energy efficient business practices through their specialized classes and training. He also drew parallels between the school’s energy education program and the White House’s current goals.

“In terms of energy usage, 40 percent of it goes into our homes and our building,” Obama said during the speech. “So as we’re looking for additional initiatives to spur hiring, I think we ought to embrace what’s happening on this campus. I think we ought to embrace the incredible potential that awaits us across America in clean energy.”

Cutting residential energy consumption and providing relief to homeowners who would partake in the plan, was not the only item on the agenda. The other task at hand for the White House, according to Obama, is attempting to provide jobs for American’s who will assist in weatherizing these houses.

Obama referred to manufacturers and contractors being ready to work and take on the possible increase in demand for labor, and even joked at one point in his speech about outsourcing.

“It turns out that energy-efficient windows or insulation, those things are products that are almost exclusively manufactured right here in the United States of America. It’s very hard to ship windows from China,” Obama said. “So that creates work for small businesses and contractors like some of the folks who are here today. And obviously construction work that’s been as hard hit as anything during this recession, so you’ve got a lot of skilled contractors ready to go.”

The White House has yet to propose the plan to Congress and several details are yet to be determined, such as its duration and costs.

There was one issue that I considered quite important, but I didn’t know whether it was in the bill. Jim Mulva was recently quoted as saying that the climate bill would impose higher taxes on domestic fuel versus imports. While we can agree that Mulva’s comments are self-serving, I also believe that most people would oppose a bill that shifts more of our fuel supply to imports.

While I know the goal here is to favor renewable energy, what happens if it can’t fill a void left if the new bill discourages domestic production? The void will be filled by imports. Prices will also rise, so some of the void will be filled by conservation. But in order to keep the playing field level, I really liked the idea proposed by Jeff Rubin: If you place a carbon tax on domestic production, you can place a carbon tariff on imports. This idea was discussed in my review of his book Why Your World Is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller: Oil and the End of Globalization.

I hadn’t heard any discussion of this until today. From Steven Mufson of the Washington Post:

Obama Praises Climate Bill’s Progress but Opposes Its Tariffs

President Obama yesterday said that the House took an “extraordinary first step” by passing a climate bill on Friday, adding that he hoped it will “prod” action by the Senate and predicting that the legislation could make renewable energy “a driver of economic growth.”

But he said he hopes that Congress will strip out a clause that would impose a tariff in 2020 on imports from countries without systems for pricing or limiting carbon dioxide emissions.

Obama went on to suggest that there were other protections built in that will keep the playing field level. I would like to know what those are. I can understand how tariffs would do it (although enforcement raises some sticky questions). But I have heard enough double-speak on energy policy that I want to see the fine details of how the playing field will be kept level.

Make no mistake: This bill is a tax increase. That’s the basis for the political opposition. But I have long advocated a tax increase on fossil fuels to slow the rate at which we are using them up (and to make renewables more competitive). So I don’t oppose the bill on the basis that it is a tax increase. On the other hand I can’t say that I endorse it, because I haven’t read it. I certainly believe there are more efficient ways of raising carbon taxes than this. I still think – perhaps naively – that my proposal to tilt the tax code toward higher fossil fuel taxes and lower income taxes would be more attractive than this.

A particular example I will name (but not the only one) is that of Range Fuels. I have written about them in the past, and while I am a fan of gasification, I don’t think gasification to produce ethanol is the right path. But if you search through my blog, you will find that I have not written much about Range Fuels. Why? Because two different people have passed on sensitive information to me that compromises my ability to criticize the company. Now if I write that I expect Range Fuels to be wildly successful – or not – my writing could be influenced because I know some things that aren’t public. So, I play it safe and generally don’t say much about Range Fuels – even though they would appear to fit the criteria of a company that I would normally focus on.

Such was the case with some juicy information I received last year. In July of last year I received the following tip: Presidential candidate Barack Obama had summoned some of the CEOs of the top oil companies to a secret meeting to talk about energy policy. I knew who was at the meeting, and I knew what the meeting was about.

Some may know that Vice President Dick Cheney also summoned a number of energy executives to private meetings at the White House in 2001, and he had been criticized heavily over the secret meetings:

Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force

The task force’s activities attracted complaints from environmentalists, who said they were shut out of the task force discussions while corporate interests were present. The meetings were held in secret and the White House refused to release a list of participants. The task force was made up primarily of Cabinet-level officials. Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club unsuccessfully sued to obtain the records.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who posed the question about the task force, said he will ask the Justice Department today to investigate. “The White House went to great lengths to keep these meetings secret, and now oil executives may be lying to Congress about their role in the Cheney task force,” Lautenberg said.

So now we had Obama conducting secret meetings with Big Oil, but the press didn’t seem to have wind of it. I had a possible scoop on the story. The only problem was that I was asked not to divulge the information. So, I waited until it hit the press. And I waited. And I waited until now, almost a year later. I have finally seen the story in the press for the first time. Not surprising to me that Washington Post reporter Steven Mufson would have the story:

How Obama Made Energy Platform ‘Pop’

After a long day of campaigning on July 8, candidate Barack Obama arrived at his Chicago headquarters for a three-hour brainstorming session about a suddenly hot issue: energy and climate change.

He had summoned a cross section of experts, including top executives from three utilities and two oil companies, the chief energy economist of an investment bank, a climate scientist, a California energy and environment expert, an oil consultant-historian, and several campaign staffers. Despite the late hour, one participant recalled, “He walked in as if he had just gotten up after a refreshing night’s sleep to lead a class. He was clearly there to harvest information and then do something with it.”

My version is slightly different from this. I was told that the meeting happened in D.C. – not Chicago – and it happened on July 10th – not July 8th. Not sure which of those versions is correct [RR: My source has sent me a note correcting previous statements; the meeting was in Chicago on the 8th, although there was a similar meeting on the 10th in D.C.], although I got the information very close to the source. Otherwise, the description of the meeting is consistent with the information I had been given.

To be clear, the Washington Post story isn’t about uncovering a secret meeting with energy industry executives. That bit is just the preamble to the story of how Obama’s energy policy crystallized into a high-profile part of his campaign. Oil and gas prices were headed to record highs, and Obama wanted input from energy insiders on how to tackle energy problems (although I was told that he did most of the talking).

So how will partisans react to this news? Will those who denounced Cheney for his secret meetings now do the same for Obama? I had seen endless speculation that the Cheney meetings were all about carving up Iraq for the oil companies to loot. This, despite there being no public details about the meeting available. Once again, the Washington Post finally broke the news of who some of the attendees were to Cheney’s meetings:

Papers Detail Industry’s Role in Cheney’s Energy Report

Provided a copy of the list, Cheney’s office said he would not comment on it. “The vice president has respectfully but resolutely maintained the importance of protecting the ability of the president and vice president to receive candid advice on important national policy matters in confidence, a principle affirmed by the Supreme Court,” spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride said by e-mail.

Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, who unsuccessfully pushed for details of the meetings, said it is “ridiculous” that it has taken six years to see who attended the meetings. He described the energy task force as an early indicator of “how secretively Vice President Cheney wanted to act.”

Waxman said he was not surprised to see the prevalence of energy industry groups on the list of meetings. “Six years later, we see we lost an opportunity to become less dependent on importing oil, on using fossil fuels, which have been a threat to our national security and the well-being of the planet,” he said.

One thing that fueled the speculation was that Cheney fought to keep the names of the participants and the discussions that took place a secret. But that certainly didn’t stop the speculation that the meetings were for planning the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the subsequent division of the spoils among the oil companies.

Don’t get me wrong. I am glad Obama summoned energy executives to these talks. To formulate a good energy policy you had better be engaging those who provide the energy. I am also sensitive to the fact that this could have been unpopular with his supporters. But I suspect that those who suggested sinister motives behind Cheney’s meetings won’t do the same over Obama’s meetings.

Lisa Jackson, head of the EPA, delivered a "message of hope... message of change" from President Barack Obama on the issue of climate change.

EPA administrator delivers “message of hope” to G8 environmental meeting, committing the U.S. to the fight against climate change, in a major departure from the policies of former President Bush.

United States environmental officials, taking part in talks with the Group of Eight nations in Syracuse, Italy on Thursday, vowed that President Barack Obama would help bring about a ‘meaningful’ response to climate change.

“I bring from President Obama his message of hope, his message of change, his message of common purpose for the environment,” said Lisa Jackson, the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

“The U.S. government now fully acknowledges the urgency and complexity of climate change challenges, and we know full well that a meaningful U.S. response to this challenge is absolutely essential,” she said.

Obama’s stance marks a radical about-face from that of former President George W. Bush who refused to endorse the 1997 Kyoto Protocol binding wealthy nations to carbon cuts because he said it would endanger American jobs.

The current administration has made the fight against climate change a priority, and insists that protecting the environment will actually have a positive impact on the economy.

Currently, the US Congress is debating a bill that seeks to cut the country’s carbon emissions by 20 per cent from their 2005 levels by 2020. The Obama administration is also pushing for the introduction of a carbon trading system similar to the one already in place in Europe.

Obama is also set to host a meeting of world leaders from the 16 largest carbon emitting nations in Washington next week, in an attempt to clinch an international agreement in Copenhagen in December to extend the Kyoto deal beyond 2012.

The message that Jackson brought to the conference received warm applause from nations in attendance at the G8 meeting of environment ministers.

“It shows that the Americans attach a lot of importance to these discussions,” said Stavros Dimas, the EU environment commissioner.

Pollution in China often obscures visibility in city streets.

European ministers at the conference continuously spoke about how important it is for the U.S. to take the lead in cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The ministers contend that it’s the only way that big polluters such as China can be expected to follow suit.

“The sooner the U.S. can specify, and be concrete in its position, the sooner we can expect some signals coming out of Beijing,” Danish Climate and Energy Minister Connie Hedegaard, who will chair the talks in Copenhagen, told a German news service.

Jackson also scolded lobbyists who she said were attempting to derail the President’s attempt to fight climate change.

“I am hopeful and the president is hopeful that we are on the verge of opening a clean energy economy,” she said. “Certainly those with interests vested in the status quo will come up with horror stories to try to hold us back.”

Small island nations, such as Trinidad and Tobago, can "simply dissapear" due to rising temperatures, warned Energy Secretary Steven Chu.

Attending the fifth Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago, along with U.S. President Barack Obama, Energy Secretary Steven Chu told reporters on Saturday that if climate change is not dealt with properly “some island states will simply disappear.”

Chu called the potential for disastrous hurricanes and rising oceans caused by an increase in temperatures “very, very, scary.” Climate change is “a demonstrable fact,” he said.

He cited “very, very convincing evidence” that climate change “was caused predominantly by greenhouse gas emissions.”

Polar ice is melting “considerably faster than anyone predicted” just a decade ago, he said.

Obama, during his address to the summit in the island’s capital, Port-of-Spain, on Friday, was also extremely vocal about climate change, and the need to develop sources of renewable energy.

In order to combat the effects of climate change, such as those Mr. Chu alluded to regarding islands beginning to ‘disappear’, the President proposed the creation of a new Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas “that can forge progress to a more secure and sustainable future.”

Trinidad and Tobago is one of the wealthiest Caribbean countries and lies just 11 miles off the coast of Venezuela. The island is quite small – slightly less than the state of Delaware.

“It’s a partnership that will harness the vision and determination of countries like Mexico and Brazil that have already done outstanding work in this area to promote renewable energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” said Obama.

“Each country will bring its own unique resources and needs, so we will ensure that each country can maximize its strengths as we promote efficiency and improve our infrastructure, share technologies, support investments in renewable sources of energy. And in doing so, we can create the jobs of the future, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and make this hemisphere a model for cooperation,” he said.

Obama said that the threat of climate change is a real one and needs to be dealt with collectively. “The dangers of climate change are part of a broad range of threats to our citizens,” he said.

“We must come together to find new ways to produce and use energy so that we can create jobs and protect our planet,” he said.