The full text of the release is after the jump.

Today, the White House announced President Obama will travel to Copenhagen on Dec. 9 to participate in the United Nations Climate Change Conference, where he is eager to work with the international community to drive progress toward a comprehensive and operational Copenhagen accord. The White House also announced that, in the context of an overall deal in Copenhagen that includes robust mitigation contributions from China and the other emerging economies, the President is prepared to put on the table a U.S. emissions reduction target in the range of 17% below 2005 levels in 2020 and ultimately in line with final U.S. energy and climate legislation.

This announcement was promptly met with strong support from a diverse group of leaders, representing Congress, business and environmental organizations.

Key quotes are highlighted below:

Former Vice President Al Gore:

“President Obama took an important step today with the announcement that he will attend the global warming treaty talks in Copenhagen.

This action is another example of the significant change in policy on the climate crisis.…Those who feared that the United States had abdicated its global responsibility should take hope from these actions and work towards completing a strong operational agreement next month in Copenhagen and guidelines for negotiators to complete their work next year on a comprehensive treaty.

It is my hope that the Senate will support the President and move quickly to pass climate and energy legislation early next year in order to ensure that the world moves toward speedy solutions for the climate crisis.”

Senator John Kerry:

“This could be one hell of a global game changer with big reverberations here at home. For the first time, an American Administration has proposed an emissions reduction target and when President Obama lands in Copenhagen it will emphasize that the United States is in it to win it. This announcement matches words with action. The Obama Administration is now undeniably mustering bona fide leadership on climate change, not merely departing from Bush Administration intransigence and ideology,” Kerry said. “By announcing a provisional target, contingent on the support of Congress, the President has defined a path to an international agreement that challenges the developed and developing nations to fulfill their obligations. It lays the groundwork for a broad political consensus at Copenhagen that will strip climate obstructionists here at home of their most persistent charge, that the United States shouldn’t act if other countries won’t join with us. It is an enormous shot in the arm for those of us working overtime to get a comprehensive bill passed in the Senate. And the fact that the President will attend the Copenhagen talks underscores that the Administration is putting its money where its mouth is, putting the President’s prestige on the line.”‪‪

Senator Barbara Boxer:

“I am so pleased that the President is going to Copenhagen to address one of the most pressing issues of our time – global warming. The goal he announced today, in the range of 17 percent, reflects the work that was done in the House of Representatives and in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. It is realistic, it’s smart, and it’s credible.”

Senator Joe Lieberman:

“Obama’s announcement of an emissions goal “has laid the groundwork for productive negotiations in Copenhagen, including a significant commitment by China to reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions.”

Representative Ed Markey:

“By putting a serious number for U.S. emission reductions on the table, the President just called the world’s bet and then raised it for our negotiating partners. The President’s attendance in Copenhagen demonstrates his personal commitment to getting a deal that is good for the U.S. and good for our clean energy future. It’s a powerful statement that the U.S. is back, ready to lead the world….In the effort to protect the planet from climate change, these are the most significant travel reservations ever made. With one trip to Copenhagen, President Obama will put U.S. leadership back on the map in the fight against carbon pollution.”

Lew Hay, Chairman and CEO of Florida Power & Light:

“We commend the president for his efforts and leadership as the world strives for agreement on reducing greenhouse gases. Here at home, it’s critical that Congress act to cap and price carbon emissions while providing financial protection to energy consumers,” said Lew Hay. “The U.S. energy sector is ready to lead the world into a low-carbon future, but we need the right price signals to point the way.”

Jim Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy:

“I applaud President Obama’s travel to Copenhagen, demonstrating the United States’ commitment to action on climate change. His presence will help ensure a successful outcome at the global climate talks, driving new investment, strengthening our global economic recovery, and moving us forward in building a productive, competitive economy here at home. The rules that Congress is developing will complement Copenhagen’s global road map, supporting our business objectives to provide clean, efficient, affordable, and reliable energy to our customers.”

Frances Beinecke, President of NRDC:

“President Obama is taking the full power and prestige of the highest office in the land to Copenhagen. He goes with a serious climate protection proposal from the United States that shows we mean business. It shows we’re ready to lead. And it will help advance efforts to secure commitments for action from other countries around the world. We urge Congress to support the President and pass clean energy and climate protection legislation that will put millions of Americans back to work, reduce our reliance on foreign oil and create a healthier future for our country and the world.”

Jonathan Lash, President of the World Resources Institute:

“President Obama’s willingness to go to Copenhagen and put numbers on the table are two necessary pieces to make a binding global agreement possible. The 17 percent number is consistent with what Congress has been debating and we hope legislation eventually reaches an even higher target. The President’s leadership in Copenhagen will have an even greater impact if he is able to give the world a timetable for when he expects a bill on his desk.”

The decision follows months of speculation over whether the president would make the trip. Obama has said for the past few weeks that he would only attend if his presence could be the impetus for a successful climate agreement.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Obama will commit to a greenhouse gas emissions cut by the United States “in the range of” 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. That’s the target set by the House climate bill passed in June. But without a Senate counterpart in place, Obama’s pledge might not carry much weight in Copenhagen. The Senate is not expected to take up climate legislation until early next year.

Obama will spend Dec. 9 in Copenhagen before flying to Oslo the next day to accept his Nobel Peace Prize. The climate conference is scheduled to run from Dec. 7 to Dec. 18.

Environmentalists have argued for some time that Obama’s presence is critical if the global community is to think that the United States — the world’s biggest carbon emitter, historically — is serious about an international treaty.

But a one-day stop in Copenhagen may not be enough. Obama “must also be willing to return to Copenhagen with the rest of the world’s leaders during the final stages of the negotiations” if necessary, Keya Chatterjee, climate director for the World Wildlife Fund, told The Post.

Other Western leaders, including Britain’s Gordon Brown and France’s Nicolas Sarkozy, have already pledged to attend the conference.

Update 10:54 am: Here’s a press release just sent out by the White House:

President to Attend Copenhagen Climate Talks

Administration Announces U.S. Emission Target for Copenhagen

The White House announced today that President Obama will travel to Copenhagen on Dec. 9 to participate in the United Nations Climate Change Conference, where he is eager to work with the international community to drive progress toward a comprehensive and operational Copenhagen accord. The President has worked steadily on behalf of a positive outcome in Copenhagen throughout the year. Based on the President’s work on climate change over the past 10 months – in the Major Economies Forum, the G20, bilateral discussions and multilateral consultations – and based on progress made in recent, constructive discussions with China and India’s Leaders, the President believes it is possible to reach a meaningful agreement in Copenhagen. The President’s decision to go is a sign of his continuing commitment and leadership to find a global solution to the global threat of climate change, and to lay the foundation for a new, sustainable and prosperous clean energy future.

The White House also announced that, in the context of an overall deal in Copenhagen that includes robust mitigation contributions from China and the other emerging economies, the President is prepared to put on the table a U.S. emissions reduction target in the range of 17% below 2005 levels in 2020 and ultimately in line with final U.S. energy and climate legislation. In light of the President’s goal to reduce emissions 83% by 2050, the expected pathway set forth in this pending legislation would entail a 30% reduction below 2005 levels in 2025 and a 42% reduction below 2005 in 2030. This provisional target is in line with current legislation in both chambers of Congress and demonstrates a significant contribution to a problem that the U.S. has neglected for too long. With less than two weeks to go until the beginning of the Copenhagen conference, it is essential that the countries of the world, led by the major economies, do what it takes to produce a strong, operational agreement that will both launch us on a concerted effort to combat climate change and serve as a stepping stone to a legally binding treaty. The President is working closely with Congress to pass energy and climate legislation as soon as possible.

Underscoring President Obama’s commitment to American leadership on clean energy and combating climate change, the White House also announced today that a host of Cabinet secretaries and other top officials from across the Administration will travel to Copenhagen for the conference. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson are all scheduled to attend, along with Council on Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley, and Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change Carol Browner.

For the first time, the U.S. delegation will have a U.S. Center at the conference, providing a unique and interactive forum to share our story with the world. In addition to working with other countries to advance American interests, U.S. delegates will keynote a series of events highlighting actions by the Obama Administration to provide domestic and global leadership in the transition to a clean energy economy. Topics will range from energy efficiency investments and global commitments to renewables policy and clean energy jobs. The following keynote events and speakers are currently scheduled:

· Wednesday, December 9th: Taking Action at Home, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson

· Thursday, December 10th: New Energy Future: the role of public lands in clean energy production and carbon capture, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar

· Friday, December 11th: Clean Energy Jobs in a Global Marketplace, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke

· Monday, December 14th: Leading in Energy Efficiency and Renewables, Energy Secretary Steven Chu

· Tuesday, December 15th: Clean Energy Investments: creating opportunities for rural economies, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack

· Thursday, December 17th: Backing Up International Agreement with Domestic Action, CEQ Chair Nancy Sutley and Assistant to the President Carol Browner

The Los Angeles Times reports:

The pioneering effort would cap greenhouse gases emitted by more than 600 power plants, refineries, cement plants and other big factories at 15% below today’s levels by 2020. And it would allow companies to buy and sell emissions allowances among themselves as a way to meet the overall goal less expensively. [...]

Cap-and-trade, a centerpiece of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s push for flexible market-based regulations, could yield $2 billion to $4 billion per year in revenue to the state from affected industries, depending on the market value of carbon, how many allowances for greenhouse gases are auctioned, how many are given away. [...]

The state’s landmark 2006 law requires emissions of planet-heating pollutants to drop to 1990 levels by 2020. The cap-and-trade program will take effect beginning in 2012, complementing strict rules to cut emissions from automobiles and slash the carbon content of fuels.

The full text of the release is after the jump.

Inhofe Begins Hadley Center “Climategate” Investigation

Warns Participants to Retain Documents

Washington, D.C.-Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, today sent letters to several scientists, some of whom allegedly manipulated data to prove the scientific “consensus” of global warming, as well as to the inspectors general of several federal agencies, notifying them to retain documents related to the release of emails from the Hadley Center’s Climate Research Unit.

“The stakes in this controversy are significant, as it appears that the basis of federal programs, pending EPA rulemakings, and cap-and-trade legislation was contrived and fabricated,” Sen. Inhofe said. “Moreover, it appears that, in an attempt to conceal the manipulation of climate data, information disclosure laws may have been violated.

“I certainly don’t condone the manner in which these emails were released; however, now that they are in the public domain, lawmakers have an obligation to determine the extent to which the so-called ‘consensus’ of global warming, formed with billions of taxpayer dollars, was contrived in the biased minds of the world’s leading climate scientists.”

The letters are the first step in the investigation of the Hadley Center climate scandal. Last week, emails released by a computer hacker revealed that several leading climate scientists allegedly manipulated climate data and research used by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These scientists also appear to have refused outside access to their raw data, obstructed freedom of information requests, and plotted ways to prevent the publication of papers in peer-reviewed journals by scientists who question global warming alarmism.

“Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?” asked one headline. Another piece called the scandal “one of the greatest in modern science.” Today, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) called for an investigation.

So what exactly in these emails is causing such celebration among the deniers? The Daily Telegraph compiled “the most contentious quotes,” and while they’re certainly embarrassing for their authors, they don’t come close to undermining the very basis of climate science. Here are three of the six they list:

From: Michael Mann. To: Phil Jones and Gabi Hegerl (University of Edinburgh). Date: Aug 10, 2004
“Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the [global warming-denying] idiots in the near future.”

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. March 11, 2003
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome [global warming-denying] editor.”

From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
“I can’t see either of these [global warming-denying] papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

These emails demonstrate a deep disdain for global warming skepticism that does not befit scientists in objective pursuit of the truth. But disdain is a far cry from intentional falsification, which is what they’re being accused of. These scientists could — and maybe should — suffer consequences for presenting their findings, and those of their colleagues, in a way that jibes with their broader agenda. But that this leak threatens to undermine next month’s climate negotiations in Copenhagen strikes me as more than a bit excessive.

Marc Morano, the former spokesman for climate change denier-in-chief Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), features clinking champagne glasses atop his anti-climate legislation Website. Meanwhile, at the Center for American Progress, influential liberal climate blogger Joe Romm calls the development “some very good news.”

What gives?

Well, of course, Morano and Romm aren’t really in agreement; they’re just drawing wildly different conclusions. Morano proclaims in an email this morning, “Climate Fear Movement Collapsing at Last!” Romm takes a more nuanced position, arguing that Copenhagen has been doomed for some time now, and this recognition of reality allows for incremental progress next month and also buys American lawmakers more time to craft strong climate legislation. before global negotiations start in earnest.

Romm writes:

The new plan for Copenhagen makes the prospects for a successful international deal far more likely — and at the same time increases the chance for Senate passage of the bipartisan climate and clean energy bill that Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John Kerry (D-MA) and Sen Lieberman (I-CT) are negotiating with the White House. [...]

Indeed, had leaders gone into Copenhagen without this recognition of the obvious and let the whole effort collapse under the weight of unrealistic expectations, that would have been all-but-fatal to the domestic bipartisan climate bill.

Now it will be obvious when the Senate takes up the bill up in the winter that the rest of the world is prepared to act — that every major country in the world has come to the table with serious targets and/or serious commitments to change their greenhouse gas emissions trajectories.  Every country but ours, that is.

Over at Grist, Dave Roberts takes a less exuberant but similarly reasoned tack:

[I]f the world’s nations had headed into Copenhagen expecting a legally binding treaty complete with targets and timetables, the result would have been disappointment, acrimony, and worst of all, wasted time. By taking some of the pressure of Copenhagen, the two-steps agreement has avoided disaster and maintained momentum. It’s also given the Obama administration time to engage in more climate diplomacy. Now if something could just be done about the Senate …

The Charleston County Republican Party’s executive committee took the unusual step Monday night of censuring U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham for stepping across the GOP party line.

Marc Ambinder has the full text of the resolution. Here are the key portions:

Whereas, U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (SC) and John Kerry (MA) have called for a bipartisan bill dealing with “climate change” via a “Cap & Trade” energy bill;

Whereas, the basis of Cap & Trade – global warming caused by carbon emissions – is still in doubt as evidenced by the past decade of cooling temperatures;

Whereas, the people of South Carolina can ill afford the job-killing Cap & Trade bill’s ripple effects on our state’s economy and on personal energy bills; [...]

Therefore, let it be resolved: The Charleston County Republican Party Executive Committee respectfully requests, with sincere sadness that the South Carolina Republican Party withdraw their resolution commending U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham and that the Charleston Country Republican Party censure U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham for many of the positions he has taken that do not represent the wishes of the people of South Carolina, such as: passing a “Cap & Trade” energy bill, bailing out banks, and granting amnesty for illegal aliens.

Which Republican senator will be next to step up and cross party lines on climate legislation?

[...] I am committed to passing meaningful, balanced climate-change legislation. I am committed to legislation that will protect our land and those whose livelihood depends on it.

I want our children and grandchildren to be able to enjoy the outdoors the way that we can today. So I’m going to work to pass climate-change legislation that is both meaningful and that can muster enough votes to become law. [...]

Let me be clear.  We should work to minimize any job losses.

But we should recognize that in the case of acid rain [in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments], the negative [economic] consequences were far less than projected.  We should keep this in mind when similar claims are made about the effects of legislation to address climate change.

So he’s committing to passing a bill and preempting the economic attacks that will inevitably come from the industry-heavy panel of witnesses.

Now, that’s not to say that the bill’s passage through the Finance Committee will be a breeze — it’s a relatively conservative committee, and Baucus is no environmentalist along the lines of EPW Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). But advocates of a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions have to be heartened by Baucus’ rhetoric this morning.

Of course, their mood might change when the legislation hits the Agriculture Committee, now chaired by cap-and-trade-wary Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.).

So why did Baucus oppose the EPW bill, and why does he want to tinker with the legislation in Finance so much? According to the Sunlight Foundation, part of the answer could lie in the company he keeps:

Baucus will likely have a lot of input coming in from outside his office as twelve of his former staffers, including four former chiefs of staff, work as lobbyists for organizations with an explicit interest in climate legislation. [...]

Many of the organizations represented by former staffers of Baucus are generally supportive of a climate bill, but are seeking certain provisions to be included or not removed during the committee process. Others are engaged in outward opposition.

To be sure, this is far from scandalous: many former Hill staffers move on to lucrative positions on K Street. But given Baucus’ somewhat recalcitrant stand on health care in the context of heavy donations from the insurance industry, it’s reasonable to suspect that the energy industry — chock-full of old Baucus buddies — will have at least some sway as Baucus takes up climate legislation.

Sunlight has a full chart of the twelve lobbyists, along with a relationship map, here.

By the way, the Finance Committee will hold its first hearing on climate legislation tomorrow, and the witness list isn’t exactly a who’s who of environmentalists:

Mr. Abraham Breehey, Director, Legislative Affairs, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Department of Government Affairs, Fairfax, VA

Ms. Carol Berrigan, Director, Industry Infrastructure, Nuclear Energy Institute, Washington, DC

Dr. Kenneth P. Green, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington, DC

Dr. Margo Thorning, Senior Vice President and Chief Economist, American Council for Capital Formation, Washington, DC

Ms. Van Ton-Quinlivan, Director,Workforce Development and Strategic Programs, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, CA

I am deeply disappointed by Chairman Boxer’s decision to violate the rules and longstanding precedent of the committee. The Republicans offered a clear path forward to a bipartisan markup, but it was summarily rejected by Chairman Boxer. Instead, she decided to ignore the entreaties of all 6 ranking members from Senate committees with some share of jurisdiction over climate change legislation, as well as leading moderates in the Senate. Her action signals the death knell for the Kerry Boxer bill.

I’m not so sure Boxer violated the rules — by passing the bill without amendments, she would appear to have obviated the need for a quorum with GOP representation — though she certainly circumvented precedent. As for the “clear path forward to a bipartisan markup”: what Inhofe and his colleagues were demanding was a re-analysis of the bill by the EPA, after EPA officials insisted that a new analysis would be nearly identical to the previous one (which, by the way, was more thorough than any counterpart at this stage in the debate over previous climate legislation).

Elana Schor notes that Inhofe “seems to delight” in forcing Boxer’s hand, but the end result is that the legislation will now be molded by other committees and the Senate leadership, without input from Inhofe and his Republican EPW colleagues.