We already discussed this on the blog earlier this week, but it's worth mentioning here again since 1Sky is about federal solutions, after all. Two prominent House Democrats introduced climate legislation this week—and unfortunately, it falls short of what we'd call 'bold climate action':

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) and Energy and Air Quality subcommittee Chairman Rick Boucher (D-Va.) released a 461-page bill that seeks to cut greenhouse gas emissions by roughly 80 percent over the next four decades. Environmental groups welcomed that target, but criticized the bill, which Dingell and Boucher refer to as a “discussion draft,” for delaying dramatic emissions reductions until after 2020.

The long-awaited legislation relies on a so-called cap-and-trade program to make those reductions. Companies would be able to buy or sell emissions allowances on an open market, depending on whether they met or exceeded emissions caps set by federal regulators.

. . . . .

Tony Kreindler, a spokesman for Environmental Defense Fund, said the initial emissions cuts called for in the bill are too gradual. Polluters would only have to reduce emissions by 6 percent over 2005 levels by 2020, a much less aggressive target than the climate change bill the Senate debated earlier this summer.

“The short-term targets really tell people out in the marketplace that they need to get going,” Kreindler said.

Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, noted in an e-mail to reporters that the discussion draft includes the option for federal preemption, something that the liberal elements of the Democratic Party and environmental groups have opposed. The bill could block California and other states from going forward with ongoing efforts to cut carbon dioxide from tailpipe emissions, which Dingell, a big backer of the auto industry, has opposed.

For our take on the Dingell-Boucher bill, check out Jason's post from earlier this week.

Climate change had its moment in the spotlight during the second presidential debate on Tuesday when a swing voter asked a sharp and insightful question that even included a mention of green jobs:

The second 2008 presidential debate included a single, pointed question on global climate change from an audience member, but that didn't stop both candidates from working the issue of energy independence into their responses to all sorts of questions throughout the 90-minute faceoff.

By and large, John McCain and Barack Obama stuck to their scripts on energy, arguing that the nation must invest more in alternative and renewable energy sources ... and rely on traditional oil and coal sources. McCain repeatedly mentioned nuclear power, while Obama made the now-obligatory nod to "clean coal."

But for a few minutes in the middle of it all, the debate touched specifically on climate change with a question from an audience member that produced very different answers from the candidates.

The question came from Ingrid Jackson: "Sen. McCain, I want to know, we saw that Congress moved pretty fast in the face of an economic crisis. I want to know what you would do within the first two years to make sure that Congress moves fast as far as environmental issues, like climate change and green jobs."

You can read detailed excerpts from the candidates' responses on Grist, but it's fair to say that there was much to like (talk of green jobs and renewable energy) and much to dislike (talk of nuclear energy and the oxymoronic "clean coal") in both candidates' answers. Still, it's good to see the climate movement's efforts to put global warming on the agenda are paying off.

Bad news on the carbon emissions from comes to us this week from Asia, which is gearing up to spew more oil-related pollution into the atmosphere:

After years of putting a strain on world energy supplies, Asia is expected to significantly increase its own oil production next year, a development that could add to downward pressure on prices.

China, India and other big energy users in Asia aren't about to become major oil exporters -- far from it. They still consume much more crude than they produce and that trend won't change.

But several countries, including China, are lifting oil output. The unexpected boost -- some industry analysts had said the region would struggle to maintain production levels in the current decade -- should help Asia meet more of its own demand and reduce stress on supplies for the rest of the world.

There's been some positive news on the renewable energy front this week. Apparently, demand for wind power in the U.S. is growing rapidly—so much so that companies can't keep up. As problems go, it's a nice one to have!

A new wind turbine at the Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod was supposed to start cranking soon, generating enough electricity to save about $660,000 a year. But the $4.6 million turbine project - like many others in Massachusetts and elsewhere - is in limbo because key parts of the machine have yet to arrive.

"We are cleaning up the environment, but here we are using power generated by fossil fuel power plants, so we're actually polluting," said Rose Forbes, manager of the Otis project. "The longer it takes, the more energy we waste."

Blame a worldwide parts shortage. For all the talk about renewable energy and heated debates over the siting of wind turbines, the reality is the turbines can't be made fast enough to meet growing demand. As a result, projects are being delayed for up to two years. The problem is particularly acute in the United States, the world's fastest growing wind-power market.

It's not surprising that companies can't keep up with demand when you read this recent news from New Jersey, whose governor wants to turn the state into a world leader in wind power:

New Jersey is powering up an ambitious plan to become a world leader in the use of wind-generated energy.

Gov. Jon Corzine wants the Garden State to triple the amount of wind power it plans to use by 2020 to 3,000 megawatts. That would be 13 percent of New Jersey's total energy, enough to power between 800,000 to just under 1 million homes.

"We want to create this generation's race to the moon, but this time, a race to the sea, to harness this potential wind source off of our coasts, and bring economic development, environmental benefits, and new, green jobs to the Garden State," Corzine said Monday.

Environmentalists hailed the plan. Dena Mottola Jaborska, executive director of Environment New Jersey, termed it "a gale force for change, moving us away from dirty power and towards a new energy future. It is the most visionary plan to promote offshore wind energy in the nation."

Got any other must-read climate news this week? Share them in the comments!