Latest Articles
-
EPA sued over ship emissions, smacked over 9/11 cleanup
The Environmental “Protection” Agency faced two major slams yesterday, from east and west. In Washington, D.C., the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office issued a report scolding EPA for its post-9/11 cleanup efforts, saying the agency’s approach to toxic indoor contamination in buildings near the site is misdirected and ignores New Yorkers’ health concerns. The report “confirms […]
-
Penguin populations in trouble, climate cited as one cause
Photo: iStockphoto First, the good news: there’s an International Penguin Conference! Who knew? Now, the bad news: at said conference, taking place this week in Tasmania, a team of researchers has reported that the world’s penguins are in trouble. The 17 species “face serious population decreases throughout their range,” the team wrote, adding that officials, […]
-
ConAgra: No more toxic fake butter
Clearly not responding to my post from yesterday — but rather to steady pressure from the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy and other groups — ConAgra announced it would stop using diacetyl in its Orville Redenbacher and Act II microwave popcorn brands. Diacetyl, a fake butter flavoring, has been known for years to […]
-
-
Japan offers Micky D’s as reward for climate change promises
Today, in Japan: A Japanese government website crashed Wednesday as people raced to take up an offer of a half-price McDonald’s hamburger in exchange for pledging to fight global warming. … People were asked to check up to 39 boxes on a form they could download from the environment ministry’s website, each listing a way […]
-
A guest essay from Jan Lundberg
This is a guest essay from Jan Lundberg, who is, at press time, on the Climate Emergency Fast promoted by Mike Tidwell’s organization. It is a response to Tidwell’s recent piece in Grist, "Consider Using the N-Word Less." Jan publishes Culturechange.org and participates in campaigns to have cities ban plastic bags and water bottles. His […]
-
Rate of global warming predicted 35 years ago in Nature
Nature just published this remarkable letter by Neville Nicholls of Australia's Monash University:
-
How the congressional energy bills stack up
We've got three big hurdles before we see a new Energy Bill enacted: substantive, procedural, and presidential.
First, the substantive hurdle: the House and Senate bills differ on key points, such as fuel economy standards, a national renewable electricity standard, and energy taxes (I have reprinted a side-by-side comparison below). Merging the bills won't be easy.
Second, the procedural hurdle: both chambers must "formally be considering the same legislation," as E&E Daily ($ub. req'd) explains:
The Senate in June passed its amendment to H.R. 6, which is the energy bill the House passed during the new Democratic majority's opening 100 hour legislative blitz in January. Then the House last month passed a much more sweeping bill than its January effort and a companion $15 billion energy tax package.
"Right now we are in this interesting situation where we have two bills out there," said David Marks, a spokesman for Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.). "There is this procedural hurdle to get over first."Third, the presidential hurdle: Bush must sign whatever passes before it becomes law. And that is not a sure thing.
Side-by-Side Comparison
This chart from E&E Daily compares the House-passed energy bill, H.R. 3221 (on the left), with the Senate-passed energy bill, H.R. 6 (on the right):
-
Examining John Dingell’s about-face on climate change
New York Times economics writer David Leonhardt examines a question that David and I have enjoyed disagreeing about (or at least that I've enjoyed disagreeing with David about) for a couple of months now: Is John Dingell sincere about tackling climate change, or is he pulling old tricks?
Leonhardt recounts the tale of Dingell's efforts to block fuel-economy standards introduced by former Sen. Richard Bryan a couple of decades ago by introducing a bill that would have created a nuclear waste dump in Bryan's home state of Nevada. Are we seeing that type of tactic again, albeit in slightly different form?
I still go back and forth on this. On the one hand, Dingell talks a good game to the press. On the other, what's really important is for him to whip up support among his colleagues for his carbon-tax proposal. The congressional aides I've talked to about this take stances ranging from "we don't trust him" to "we never know what he's really thinking" to "we believe he's out to axe real progress" to "it's too early to say." Time, as the kids are fond of saying, will tell.
Leonhardt writes, "If nothing else, it's also enormously useful that Mr. Dingell is no longer suggesting, as he did just eight months ago, that the scientific consensus on global warming may be a 'great error.'" It would be fascinating to figure out how Dingell came around, if he in fact has. And he certainly would like us to believe he has:
After the town hall meeting [which Dingell had called to discuss climate change] was over -- and he had listened to a couple of hours of questions about timed traffic lights, nuclear power and the possibility of impeaching President Bush -- Mr. Dingell sat down in a dark area behind the stage. I asked him whether Mr. Gore, who has been both a Dingell nemesis and ally at various times, had been right for all those years he was pointing out what was happening to the earth's climate.
"I think a cold statement on that point would be yes," Mr. Dingell replied.
And would it have been easier to solve the problem if we had started earlier?
"What's the saying? The saddest words in the English language -- 'might have been.'" -
