NRDC’s Kristin Eberhard said the proposition, which would require two-thirds approval in the state legislature for any proposal that imposes a new fee on industry, will not affect the state’s climate change law, AB32, because it only pertains to changes in statute that occur after Jan. 1, 2010.

In the weeks before the elections, environmentalists raised concerns that passage of Prop 26 would impact the state’s climate change law. That’s on top of concerns about Proposition 23, which failed, but would have suspended AB32. While Prop 26 will likely affect other environmental rules in the state — Eberhard listed fees for hazardous waste disposal — it looks like AB32 is safe.

Eberhard explained:

The Legislature passed AB 32 and the Governor signed it into law in 2006, well before Proposition 26 comes into effect. Although AB 32 implementation is ongoing, [the California Air Resources Board's] authority to impose fees on polluters under AB 32 will not require “any change in state statute” post January 1, 2010. Accordingly, Proposition 26 does not change CARB’s authority to move forward with implementing AB 32.

On top of that, Mary Nichols — head of the California Air Resources Board, which implements the state’s climate law — said Prop 26 won’t affect AB32. “Prop 26 does not impair the scoping plan adopted in 2008 or any regulations developed under that plan. AB 32 is on track,” she said on a recent conference call, according to Eberhard.

In 2009, drivers spent less on gas than in recent years:

Drivers in 2009 spent a markedly lower percentage of their income on gasoline than they did in 2008, and drivers in all but five states actually spent a lower percentage than they did in 2006. This is largely due to the fact that gas prices went down, dropping from the record high prices we saw in 2008. This is a notable change in the trend of the past few years, which saw increasing vulnerability. But with gas prices once again beginning to rise, vulnerable states will be even more at risk.

Pachauri’s comments come as observers expect little progress in the upcoming United Nations climate change talks in Cancun; some have suggested that bilateral agreements between countries will help lay the foundation for a future binding climate treaty.

Pachauri, speaking to reporters on a conference call set up by the Natural Resources Defense Council, said he hopes to see a “very clear plan of action” from the two leaders after the meeting that focuses on extending an already-established clean energy partnership between the countries. Pachauri called for collaborative research and development as well as increased investments in green energy technology.

NRDC Director of Global Strategy and Advocacy Jacob Sherr, also on the call, said the leaders should commit to helping the countries adapt to the affects of climate change by establishing a “green hotline” that would allow India and the United States to share resources.

“Uncertainty raises challenges,” Schmidt said, adding that “not just saying that it will take action, but actually showing that it will take action” is key.

China and other key countries have taken significant actions to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, leaving the United States, which has consistently failed to pass significant climate legislation, in the dust. In order to build trust at the talks next week in Tianjin, China, and later in Cancun, Mexico, the United States should come prepared to detail what it has done and will do to reduce its emissions, Schmidt said.

But the climate talks in Cancun are not expected to produce a binding climate treaty, though Schmidt said the talks will “lay some important foundations,” including potential agreements on transparency and deforestation.

In opening remarks, former Senator Bob Graham, co-chair of the commission, called the spill an “enormous and shared failure.” And former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator William Reilly, also co-chair of the commission, said the administration’s moratorium on deepwater drilling “has taken a toll” on the Gulf.

President Obama established the oil spill commission in June. The commission has been criticized by Republican and some Democrats for being too heavily weighted toward opposing offshore drilling. The criticism has focused on the inclusion on the commission of Natural Resources Defense Council President Frances Beinecke, who has supported a deepwater drilling moratorium in the past.

Some things to look forward to: testimony from Council on Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Administrator Jane Lubchenco, former head of the Minerals Management Service Elizabeth Birnbaum and American Petroleum Institute officials. Here’s the full agenda.

The first panel included testimony from Carter Roberts, president of the World Wildlife Fund. Roberts called for “coastal and marine spatial planning” before approving drilling projects. In other words, Roberts said it’s important to “make smart decisions” based on information on how drilling will impact the environment and the things living in it.

Environmentalists have turned to the Clean Air Act amid ongoing frustration with Congress. While the House passed a climate change bill last year, it appears unlikely that the Senate will be able to pass such legislation this year. But attempts to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions are facing intense objections from many Republicans and industry groups. The ad asks Obama to, “Help us stop the attacks on the Clean Air Act.”

Here’s an image from the ad:

Here’s David Doniger, for example, policy director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Climate Center:

It is not constructive to block the only working law on the books to curb global warming pollution and replace it with nothing. Blocking the Clean Air Act will do nothing to bring Congress closer to passing comprehensive climate and energy legislation. Rather than fighting global warming solutions, we need to focus on cutting carbon pollution in a way that will spur clean energy investment and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

During a jobs crisis, when the heavy-polluting industries represent jobs in any number of congressional districts, the environmentalists have the distinct disadvantage.

The Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service are required to analyze the new rules to make sure they don’t violate the National Environmental Policy Act. This law requires federal agencies to come up with an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a proposed rule that could harm the quality of the human environment. According to Wetzler, coming up with an EIS is a long and involved process.

In addition, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service have to undertake “internal” consultations to determine the rules’ potential effects on species protected by the Endangered Species Act before the rules can be finalized. Yet another involved process, Wetzler says.

The Bush administration hopes to pass its new rules by November. It’s unclear how it plans to carry out the necessary reviews and consultations in a matter of days without violating any laws.