Latest Articles

Bush administration quietly acknowledges climate plan is doable

Hey, did you notice that new analysis the Environmental Protection Agency just put out? The one on the economic impacts of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act? No? None of this ringing a bell?

That's just the way the EPA wants it. Like it was putting a scandal-ridden aide out to pasture, the administration quietly released the report on Friday afternoon and has tried to bury the important findings.

But while the release may have been stealthy and the presentation was marked by the White House's typical efforts to make everything look bleak, the results speak loudly, showing we can both tackle global warming and grow America's economy.

Don’t hold your breath on Lieberman-Warner passing in 2008

I can't imagine anyone believing we would see 60 Senate votes this year for an unwatered-down climate bill.

The center-right folk want big compromises, like a poison-pill safety valve (see below). But Sen. Boxer (D-Calif.) has little motivation to gut her legislation, since next year will probably bring more Senate Democrats and definitely bring a president who wants to take action, rather than one who has done everything in his power to block action and destroy the climate.

E&E News has a good article on this titled, "Lieberman-Warner floor strategy bothers some Senate swing votes" ($ub. req'd):

Take action and express your opinion to California regulators

The following post is by Earl Killian, guest blogger at Climate Progress.

-----

Part I described the background leading up to the March 27 California Air Resources Board meeting that will decide the fate of zero emissions vehicles (ZEVs) in a dozen or more states.

Because the 1970 Clean Air Act allows only two sets of regulations in the U.S. -- the EPA's, and California's (which must be stricter than the EPA's) -- California may be regulating for your state, even if you don't live in California. Roughly a dozen states routinely adopt California's stricter standards -- and sometimes as many as 18 -- and collectively these states can represent as much as half of the U.S. population. Since non-Californians may not be familiar with making their opinions known outside of their own state, this post explains how you can let California regulators know what you think.

First, the Air Resources Board (CARB) takes comments at its website. These comments are printed and given to each board member prior to the meeting. You may also fax or write to CARB. A fax, postcard, or letter addressed to Chairwoman Mary Nichols will reach the entire board.

Second, a phone call to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger helps, since the governor appoints many of the board members. The governor's phone number is 916-445-2841. Press 1, then 5, then 0, and you will be transferred to an operator to leave your opinion about this "hot issue." Alternatively, fax or write using the governor's fax and postal addresses, or use this web contact form.

Californians should also let their assemblymembers and state senators know their opinions.

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

BLM plows ahead with drilling plans in Colorado

The Bureau of Land Management, having already made the unpopular decision to drill for oil and gas on Colorado’s Roan Plateau, has politely declined Gov. Bill Ritter’s suggestion that it at least explore in phases or avoid certain environmentally sensitive areas. “There are some areas where we cannot meet the desires of the state of […]

In Arkansas, state ag officials turn to Syngenta to solve problems caused by Monsanto

In the late 1990s, farmers in the Southeast began planting Roundup Ready cotton — genetically engineered by Monsanto to withstand heavy doses of Roundup, the seed giant’s own blockbuster herbicide. As a result, use of Roundup exploded — and the farmers enjoyed “clean” (i.e., weedless) fields of monocropped cotton. But after a point, something funny […]

From P-I-M-P to Pimp

Say hello to Lolita’s friend Hey Miami Seaquarium: We can do this the easy way, or the hard way. So why don’t you just hand over the whale, and we’ll make sure you avoid a run-in with 50 Cent’s finger gunz, Johnny Depp’s crazy-eye, and Harrison Ford’s killer smile. Photo: Johnny Nunez / Wireimage Four14een […]

CO2’s connection to global warming is not murky

I like the L.A. Times. They do some of the best reporting on environmental issues. So I'm reading a pretty good piece on how the EPA administrator overruled his science advisers on the recent ozone ruling (more on that in a later post), and I come to this remarkable paragraph that shows how the president himself actually intervened to weaken the EPA regulations:

President Bush intervened at the 11th hour and turned down a second proposal by the EPA staff that would have established tougher seasonal limits on ozone based on its harm to forests, crops and other plants, according to documents obtained by The Times. Federal scientists had recommended those growing-season limits as a way to keep vegetation healthy and capable of trapping carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas linked to global warming.

No, no, a thousand times, no!

Can't the LAT do better than "linked to global warming"? The media use the word "linked" to deal with as-yet-uncorroborated or unproven allegations, as in the NY Times' recent blockbuster: "Spitzer Is Linked to Prostitution Ring."

Carbon dioxide has been proven conclusively to help warm the globe -- there is no serious scientific dispute of that. Why do you think scientists and everyone else calls it a "greenhouse gas"? Why do you think your own story calls it a "greenhouse gas"?

Time for the Times to stop soft-pedaling climate science.

[Note to the L.A. Times: I really really hope assume you know that greenhouse gases cause global warming. So were you afraid to say, " ... carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that causes global warming" because that means you are acknowledging that global warming is a real phenomenon and caused by humans? If so, that is perhaps even lamer.]

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

EPA closure of research libraries was a stupid idea, says GAO

The U.S. EPA decision to deal with a 2006 funding cut by closing several research libraries was not very well thought out, says a new report from the Government Accountability Office. To take just one example: The EPA promised to compensate for the closures by making information available on the internet, but due to copyright […]

‘Downergate’ reveals gaps in mad-cow testing and trouble in school-lunch sourcing

In Meat Wagon, we round up the latest outrages from the meat and livestock industries. Remember those “downer” cows that got forced through the kill line and into the food supply in California’s Westland/Hallmark beef-packing plant — the ones caught on tape by the Humane Society of the United States? Rest assured, friends — that […]

Conventional wisdom declares all candidates equally green

The Wall Street Journal blogs from the ongoing ECO:nomics conference:

The conventional wisdom among the boys on the bus -- including us -- has been that there's essentially no difference among the three presidential contenders on climate-change policy.

Really? I know I live in a bubble, but ... really?

Since there are some rather obvious climate policy differences between the candidates, I'm taking this to mean one of several things:

1. Conventional wisdom relegates the apparent differences between the candidates to the level of rhetoric, not policy. McCain says nice things about nuclear; Obama hearts ethanol; Clinton wants utilities to behave. All of this is just, in the WSJ's words, so much "hot air."
2. Or maybe conventional wisdom holds that the policy differences are so hopelessly wonky as to be irrelevant. Broadly speaking, all three candidates want cap-and-trade, and that's what counts. Airy details around allowance allocations are of concern only to environmentalists and congresscritters.
3. Or maybe the conventional wisdom truly doesn't understand that the candidates differ in any meaningful way on climate policy.

None of these interpretations is particularly heartening, although at least there's a logic to No. 1 and 2. No. 3 is just depressing. In any case, bear in mind that the WSJ reporting on energy issues is generally quite good, so when these reporters casually toss off the opinion that the candidates are indistinguishable, you start to gain some insight into why this issue gets so little play.

(As an aside: I'm a fan of the recent trend in blogs by journalists for just this sort of thing. These sorts of offhand, loosely structured observations would rarely make it into a feature story, and they're damned interesting.)