USDA considers first-ever organic standards for farmed fish

You may have seen "organic salmon" on the menu in your favorite seafood restaurant or counter. Guess what? It's not organic, according to the USDA. It turns out that some fishmongers have been promoting their fish as organic with definitions of their own.

This week, a USDA advisory panel will consider a key element of the country's first-ever standards for "organic" farmed fish, including salmon. The surprising news is that this standard -- if adopted -- could be a boon for both seafood consumers and conservation.

Polar-bear listing would hurt the poor, says industry

If the U.S. Interior Department decides that polar bears are endangered, litigation will be immediate from a group arguing that...

World Bank finally releases ‘secret’ report on biofuels and the food crisis

Remember a few weeks ago, when The Guardian leaked word of a “secret” World Bank report that essentially blames U.S....

Washington Post reporter not allowed to say what he knows about climate legislation costs

Steven Mufson’s a good reporter, but I swear to God, something about the conventions of traditional journalism just drives people...

DOD slows condemning research into its polluting behavior

Back in April, a Government Accountability Office report explained how the White House Office of Management and Budget was holding up the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System assessments. According to GAO, the OMB started requiring an "interagency review" process allowing agencies that might be affected by the IRIS assessments to provide comments on the documents. As a result, some of these outside agencies can effectively block completion of IRIS assessments, which inform federal environmental standards and many environmental protection programs at local, state, and even international levels.

The GAO explained that this interagency review process came about because the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and NASA were upset about how EPA was addressing "controversial" chemicals such as perchlorate, napthalene, and trichlorethylene (TCE). These departments and agencies view these hazardous substances as "integral to their missions." IRIS assessments could lead to regulatory actions that will require lots of protection and clean-up spending by the responsible agencies.

Last week, the House Committee on Science and Technology's Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight held its second hearing on the IRIS process. One witness was particularly vocal about DOD's foot-dragging on TCE.

A little bit of this, a smidge of that

The ol’ browser’s getting a little clogged up. Time to stop thinkin’ and start linkin’! Yee-haw. —– Eco-friendly bombs! A...

How to green your day job

Simple steps are the key to a greener office. Hi-ho, hi-ho, it’s off to waste we go. Nope, those aren’t...

Challenging the militarization of U.S. energy policy

This essay originally ran on TomDispatch; it is reprinted here with Tom's kind permission.

-----

American policymakers have long viewed the protection of overseas oil supplies as an essential matter of "national security," requiring the threat of -- and sometimes the use of -- military force. This is now an unquestioned part of American foreign policy.

On this basis, the first Bush administration fought a war against Iraq in 1990-1991 and the second Bush administration invaded Iraq in 2003. With global oil prices soaring and oil reserves expected to dwindle in the years ahead, military force is sure to be seen by whatever new administration enters Washington in January 2009 as the ultimate guarantor of our well-being in the oil heartlands of the planet. But with the costs of militarized oil operations -- in both blood and dollars -- rising precipitously, isn't it time to challenge such "wisdom"? Isn't it time to ask whether the U.S. military has anything reasonable to do with American energy security, and whether a reliance on military force, when it comes to energy policy, is practical, affordable, or justifiable?

How energy policy got militarized

The association between "energy security" (as it's now termed) and "national security" was established long ago. President Franklin D. Roosevelt first forged this association way back in 1945, when he pledged to protect the Saudi Arabian royal family in return for privileged American access to Saudi oil. The relationship was given formal expression in 1980, when President Jimmy Carter told Congress that maintaining the uninterrupted flow of Persian Gulf oil was a "vital interest" of the United States, and attempts by hostile nations to cut that flow would be countered "by any means necessary, including military force."

Public investment can stop emissions faster than relying on private sector

David Roberts comments ruefully on the lack of a clean energy coalition for progressives to join, and on the lack of common talking points on clean energy -- which allows the right eat our lunch on drilling.

I've argued in the past that links between greens and progressive are more effective than trying to win the conservative movement over (though individual conservatives should be welcomed). The truth is, there is no solution that will lower oil prices below $100 a barrel: not drilling, not nuclear, not solar or wind, and not even massive efficiency. We have to replace oil, and anything that will do this (which does not include more drilling or nuclear) will take time to implement.

What we can offer are programs that help people's pocketbooks in other areas. We can't lower the cost of oil, but we can lower the cost of living in the short run -- and get the oil monkey and the greenhouse gas monkey off our nation's back in the long run. We won't come up with slogans as pithy as "drill everywhere" -- the disadvantage of basing a campaign on workable solutions is you can't just make stuff up. Our slogan would have to be along the lines of: "Nobody can make more oil; but we can put money in your pocket." (Someone better than I am at slogans please condense this.) What actual policies could lie behind this slogan?

If environmentalism was really a movement and tied to a larger progressive movement, we could support universal health care. I would favor single-payer, but at least something that would provide decent coverage to everybody and lower costs. (This, umm, comes back to single-payer, since incremental reforms tend not to actually control costs.) Health care reform would not lower the price of a single tank of gas or drop one utility bill, but it would save enough money that higher gas prices and utility bills would not hurt so much until the problem is solved.