Articles by David Roberts

Mo’ Mooney, mo’ problems

Chris Mooney points us to the now-notorious memo (PDF) written by science whistleblower Rick Peltz. Turns out the tidbit extracted by Andy Revkin for his NYT piece -- about Philip Cooney making direct edits to science reports -- is just the tip of the iceberg. The politicization of the administration's climate science program goes much deeper -- it's systemic, and pervasive, and irritating as hell. Check out Mooney's summary of Peltz's memo.

Also check out his follow-up on the reports Scott McClellan cited in his press gaggle the other day. Turns out McClellan was rather charitable to the administration in his gloss on the reports. Shocking.

Pat Burns writes on the uncertain fate of conservation easements and the millions of acres they prot

One of the developments I've been watching out of the corner of my eye, but not following very closely (or writing about), is the current kerfuffle over land trusts. It's an important issue, though. Land trusts protect an immense amount of land in the U.S., and their very existence has recently been in question.

Luckily, there's an excellent blog -- Nature Noted -- devoted entirely to land trusts. If you want to follow the unfolding developments, that's the place to go.

I invited its proprietor, Pat Burns, to join us here with a rundown on the issue, the recent developments, and what's at stake. His essay follows. (Thanks, Pat.)

---

One of the most successful environmental movements of the last fifty years is about to change the way it does business. And if it doesn't do it on its own, the government will step in and force it to change.

That's the headline on the recent investigation of the nation's land trusts by the Senate Finance Committee.

Wednesday, the Finance Committee held hearings ostensibly aimed at tightening the tax code on the use of conservation easements, which have become a prime tool in conserving land from development. It's also become a prime tool for evading taxes. The Finance Committee began its investigation three years ago after a series of embarrassing articles in the Washington Post about the practices of the country's biggest trust, The Nature Conservancy.

The staff released the results of its investigation Tuesday, outlining a series of abuses by TNC, including:

Lots more on the document-editing scandal.

As Lisa and Andy note below, the fuss du jour is over Philip Cooney's editing of scientific gov't reports on climate change to exaggerate the appearance of uncertainty. Two of the finest science bloggers going, Roger Pielke Jr. and Chris Mooney, have a wealth of interesting material on the subject.

First, Pielke argues that the whole thing is a case of manufactured controversy -- another attempt to play "gotcha" with government documents that just distracts attention from substantive policy debate.

The author of the NYT piece, Andy Revkin, emailed Pielke a congenial response, including this amusing bit: "Sadly, the White House is so hermetically sealed on such matters that it has essentially created such stories by making scraps of tea-leaf-like information noteworthy." It's true -- by playing footsy with the public, with a long history of contradictory and ambiguous statements on climate change, the Bush administration has created a situation where every official word or document on the subject is examined and parsed like the friggin' Zapruder film.

Chris Mooney unearths this tidbit from Cooney's past, revealing that his opposition to CO2 limits is longstanding. He also has an amusing rundown of White House flack Scott McClellan's typically opaque and evasive performance this morning. McClellan made a big deal out of a 2001 National Academy of Sciences report that praised the administration's 10-year climate plan. Mooney points out that the report also "seriously faulted" the plan, and oh yeah, is four years old.

And finally, in a post on The Huffington Post (who doesn't post there? oh, right, me.) Mooney lays out Revkin's history of uncovering Bush administration interference in climate science -- the same story over and over again, just the names and details change. And yet every time the larger media act like it's an isolated event, and the administration goes back to doing it. Sigh.

New Apollo Energy Act introduced

FYI: The New Apollo Energy Act, which Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) discussed in the pages of Grist, has been introduced. From Inslee's press release:

U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee and fourteen other Members of Congress today introduced the New Apollo Energy Act as a comprehensive clean energy policy for the 21st century. Inslee's legislation will use new and innovative tax incentives and market-based assistance, along with energy performance standards to address three challenges to America: creating clean energy manufacturing jobs, decreasing dependence on foreign oil, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. As the most comprehensive and technologically visionary energy program proposed in Congress, New Apollo seeks to solve America's energy problems and high energy costs through technological innovation much in the same way that President Kennedy channeled the resources of the American people to meet the challenges of the race to the Moon.

I hasten to add: It has a snowball's chance in hell of passing. But it's nice to see debate on these issues being stoked.