Climate Politics

But key Senators are making noise about rocking the boat

When Mark Udall (D-Colo.) proposed shaving two-thirds of a cent from just one of the subsidies that go to cotton farmers, Bob Etheridge (D-N.C.) said, "it is absolutely unfair, once we have reached this very delicate balance within the bill, to reach in and single out one commodity."

That amendment -- to cut less than a penny from cotton subsidies and use the savings to protect more than 200,000 acres from sprawl and development -- failed by a vote of 175-251. So what was that very delicate balance that the House of Representatives preserved?

But still no actual decision on whether it will happen

The federal government has agreed to allot $354 million to New York City to help it launch its congestion pricing plan. Yeah, that one where state legislators were first like “Hmmm, I dunno,” and then they were all like “no way,” and then some enviros were like, “Eh, maybe it’s not that great anyway.” Not […]

New consensus?

At the New York Sun, Gary Shapiro notices that there’s broad bipartisan consensus on the need for "energy independence" but very little agreement about how to achieve it. Uh, hasn’t that been the prevailing situation for almost a half century now?

Not really

I get the point Idean Salehyan is trying to make in "The New Myth About Climate Change,” but — the headline should tip you off — the whole piece has been unnecessarily tarted up to generate controversy. It administers a stern beating to a series of strawmen. The "myth" in question is that global warming […]

An attempt at censorship by Wolfowitz

Sad, but perhaps not surprising.

"Wolfowitz attempted to censor World Bank report on global warming," from Greenwire ($ub req'd):

Go big or play it safe

I’ve had the Lieberman-Warner climate bill proposal (PDF) printed out for a couple weeks now, but still haven’t gotten around to reading it. Bad blogger! The general assessment from other quarters seems to be: eh. Medium. The big flaw is that it gives around 25% 75% of its permits away. Bad, bad, bad, but maybe […]

A funny for word nerds

This is, I suppose, vaguely environmental, but I’m only blogging it because it’s hilarious. At least if you’re a word nerd like me.

Turns out that NAFTA superhighway is superfictitious

Last year I caught wind of concern on the far right about a "NAFTA Superhighway," an (alleged) gargantuan new road, four football fields wide, that would plow straight up through the country from the Mexican border, through Texas, through Minnesota, all the way up into Canada. Foreigners would own parts of it! The World Bank […]

Even though conventional wisdom says you need him to pass major environmental legislation

Whether House Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell is a potential friend or an implacable foe is not only the subject of intense debate here at Gristmill, but a key strategic question for the environmental movement and the Democratic Party. I recently wrote an article for The American Prospect about how Dingell's fellow congressional Democrats are abandoning him as he tries to obstruct meaningful energy and climate legislation -- and implied that his diminished power means Democrats and environmentalists can go around him without worrying about fallout from not having him at the table.

I want to use this opportunity to provide a little more information about how I reached that conclusion, in a way not possible within the length constraints of the original American Prospect article.

First, I was struck, and a little surprised, by the almost unanimous unwillingness of Democrats to say anything meaningful in support of Dingell. While all stopped short of explicit on-the-record attacks, they generally responded to my questions about their support for Dingell with harsh criticisms of his policies, largely untempered by the personal praise members usually bestow on even their roughest opponents.

Sharks vs. humans

Humans kill something like 100 million sharks annually. More humans are killed annually by dogs and by falling coconuts than are killed by sharks. At such levels, humanity will certainly survive its encounter with dogs and coconuts. The same cannot be confidently said of sharks and people.

The U.S. Shark Finning Prohibition Act is, unfortunately, another law whose name is misleading. The law carries a loophole that makes enforcement difficult. Sharks are allowed to be landed after their fins have been cut off. It's time to shut down that loophole and require that fishing companies prove that they are only killing the legal number and types of sharks for their fins by landing the creatures fully intact.

Sharks help to maintain an essential balance beneath the water's surface. Removing them from the ocean creates booms in prey species further down the food chain, which, in turn, can create terribly destructive cascading effects on countless ocean creatures.