Lawmakers are getting into the fray. Rep. Boelhert (R-NY) wants NASA to respond to the accusation of censorship. Sen. James Inhofe--the man who believes that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by environmentalists (doesn't that qualify him for some sort of sanity test?)--came to NASA's defense and criticized Hansen of playing politics.

It will be interesting to see how NASA explains threatening Hansen with "dire consequences" if he keeps speaking publicly about his research. Let's remember, according to the NY Times first report Hansen's latest transgression was reporting that 2005 was the hottest year on record. If this crosses the line into political speak, then local weathermen nationwide should take note.

Today's story is linked above but here's a solid quote from Rep. Boelhert:

"Political figures ought to be reviewing their public statements to make sure they are consistent with the best available science," Mr. Boehlert said. "Scientists should not be reviewing their statements to make sure they are consistent with the current political orthodoxy."

You can't time this stuff any better if you were writing it yourself: today Exxon reports it earned $10 billion in three months; three days ago they were in court refusing to pay $5 billion owed to Alaskan fisherman for the infamous Exxon Valdez disaster.

How much is Exxon willing to pay for the lives it has destroyed: $25 million. If I'm doing the math right, Exxon made that much every six hours in the fourth quarter alone! I suppose they figure ruining the lives of 34,000 fisherman is worth about a day's work for them...and not a penny more.

We'll not "we" exactly--more like Exxon. Three more months, another $10 billion in the bank. Here's the kicker: Exxon's annual profit of $36 billion makes them bigger than the economies of 124 countries, including every Central American country.

Apparently even those who support nuclear power can't come to grips with a waste solution. The Post ran a relatively contradictory oped on nuclear waste this morning by two pro-nuclear MIT profs.

The authors rightly dismiss President Bush's latest proposal to reprocess nuclear waste, suggesting, as I did, that this could signal the demise of the commercial nuclear industry in the U.S., because of proliferation concerns.

But without providing a serious solution to nuclear waste they encourage the construction of new plants. Buried quietly within their oped is the crux of the problem:

"But significant expansion of nuclear power, together with extension of licenses for current plants, will yield more spent fuel than Yucca Mountain can handle, even if the statutory limits on its capacity are doubled."

With Yucca Mountain rightly stalled, the U.S. has no credible solution for storing the waste. If we extend the licenses for current plants or build new plants, we'll need a second repository (that is once we've actually found a first one).

How is this legitimate public policy? How can anyone advocate creating more waste when we already have more than 60,000 MT sitting around the country with no safe solution? So long as this country is mired with a waste problem, we absolutely need a moratorium on building new nuclear power plants.

We know that the Bush administration won't do anything about global warming, but the NY Times reports that they are also gagging federal scientists from speaking out. Soon they'll be preventing you from looking out your own window.

In another disgusting example of their blatant disregard for science in order to maintain the march toward their ideological ends, the Administration has tried to gag the top climate scientist at NASA.

What was James Hansen's most recent transgression?:

[After] the release of data by Dr. Hansen on Dec. 15 showing that 2005 was probably the warmest year in at least a century, officials at the headquarters of the space agency repeatedly phoned public affairs officers, who relayed the warning to Dr. Hansen that there would be "dire consequences" if such statements continued, those officers and Dr. Hansen said in interviews

The weather! The Bush administration was trying to suppress the simple fact that 2005 was likely the hottest year on record.

Kudos to Hansen for ignoring the warning and eloquently articulating the importance of his work:

"Communicating with the public seems to be essential," he said, "because public concern is probably the only thing capable of overcoming the special interests that have obfuscated the topic."

This story is far from over. This isn't about failing to walk the dog, this is about muzzling it (so you won't get blamed for not walking it).

While the Bush administration drags its feet to the starting line in the global warming debate, scientists are now concerned about the point of no return--when things will be irreversibly changed. Today's Washington Post has a great front-page story by Juliet Eilperin on the global warming "tipping point."

Overall, a solid piece of reporting worth reading but I here's my one major beef with the story.

She quotes the Bush administration with saying this:

"The U.S. is the world leader in doing something on climate change because of its actions on changing technology,"

Plain and simple this is bad reporting--it's like quoting George Wallace in 1963 with saying that he's done more to fight racism than any other Governor. It's a flat out lie and it shouldn't appear in the press without being labeled as such.

Make that two records: highest annual profits and highest 4th quater profits. The story reports that Exxon is set to announce on Monday that they may have shattered their record of $10 billion set in the fall. By the way, that's $10 billion in three months.

Again, I'm not sure what it is like in papers across the country but DC has already been flooded with the industry's slick spin.

"Please, Mr. Politician, it's really not that much. We only made 8 cents on every dollar. We're just your average industry. The pharmaceuticals and the banks are really raking it in."

NPR reports about the discovery of the tiniest vertabrate in the world--a fish from Sumatra. There is no reason for it, but somehow I'm always amazed at how much we still don't know or understand about this crazy place.

Friedman continues to forge ahead. Today's column is his wistful attempt at a meaningful State of the Union speech, including the resignation of Veep Cheney. Here are some of snippets:

But to lead, we must impose the highest energy-efficiency standards on our own automakers and other industries so we force them to be the most innovative. I want to inspire girls and boys across America to study math, science and engineering to help our nation achieve green energy independence. President Kennedy said, Let's put a man on the Moon. I say, Let's make oil obsolete.

With all of this in mind, I am sending Congress the Bush Energy Freedom Act. It is based on ideas first offered by the energy expert Philip Verleger and it argues the following:

Transportation accounts for most of our oil consumption. And many Americans have purchased big cars and S.U.V.'s, expecting gasoline to remain cheap. That is no longer the case. Therefore, I propose creating a government agency that will buy up any gas-guzzling car or truck in America at the original new or used price, and crush it. This national buy-back program will be financed by a $2-a-gallon gasoline tax that will be phased in by 10 cents a month beginning in 2008 — so people know what is coming and start buying fuel-efficient cars right now.

and now for the funniest part:

One last thing: I have accepted the resignation of Vice President Dick Cheney, who felt he could not be a salesman for the Energy Freedom Act. I am nominating Jeffrey Immelt — the C.E.O. of General Electric, who has focused G.E.'s innovation around "eco-imagination" — as Mr. Cheney's replacement.

In response to the President's new proposal to reprocess nuclear waste, here's a good letter by arms control and environmental groups.

The letter outlines the National Academy of Sciences' estimate that such a program could cost more than $100 billion! A few years ago the DOE reported that a similar program could cost more than a $100 billion. This is no joke. The DOE quickly retracted their estimate but has never provided a new number. Can you imagine how many windmills could be build with that amount of money? And remember the only reason to support reprocessing is to assist the commercial nuclear industry.

This is going to be a heavy burden for an industry on precarious footing. Reactors already put communities at risk. Now the Bush administration is proposing to increase that risk?! If the defense community doesn't make him eat this the way he choked on Harriet Miers there's something really wrong.

If you want a clear indication that President Bush is completely insincere about national security issues look no further than his latest proposal to undertake nuclear reprocessing in the U.S. For decades, the U.S. has maintained a strict firewall between commerical nuclear power and nuclear weapons. That firewall has been maintained by preventing commercial reactors from undertaking reprocessing, which involves separating plutonium away from spent fuel. Now President Bush is planning on reversing that long-standing decision?!? I don't imagine that the hypocrisy of opposing North Korea and Iran's development of this technology will be lost on many.

And I am quite surprised that the commercial nuclear industry is acquiescing to this proposal. The commercial nuclear industry in the U.S. has long benefited from the fact that it poses no threat to nuclear proliferation. All of that will change. And so will much more. Although the details of the proposal are unclear we could be talking about shipping spent nuclear fuel across the country to a reprocessing facility, and then shipping the new fuel back to the reactor. I'm sure you all remember when people were throwing themselves in front of trains in Europe to prevent such shipments.

Where are the defense hawks? The Washington Post story suggests that the proposal is controversial within the White House, but how did security lose out to commercial nuclear power?

This story is explosive and we'll delve into more in the coming days.

The name is a mouthful: OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb. But at the rate we're going, we can just call it home.

Ah, the Onion! Capturing all the effects of global warming. At least the snowmen can muster some noise...or would it be a silent protest?

Yesterday, Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) sent a letter to the Government Accountability Office to inquire about reports that gas companies are underpaying royalties for drilling on public lands. 21 Senators signed the letter requesting more info. To read more about the story go here.

While it is good that the public will be getting more info. about this I remain skeptical of the outcome. As the NY Times story reported, there has been a long-standing problem with royalty payments. And part of the story that won't be talked about are the legal loopholes that allow companies to avoid royalty payments.

Don't forget: many of the Senators undertaking this investigation are the same ones that voted for billions of dollars in tax breaks and royalty relief for these same oil companies as a part of the Bush energy bill.

Between wiretaps and oil scams, its all a sober reminder of the importance of the media. Though it always makes me wonder how much we really don't know!

The EPA released the Top 25 Purchasers of Green Power. While it was no surprise to see Whole Foods on the list, there were other names I wasn't expecting, including the Air Force at the top of the list--doubling the next highest buyer.

If you survived West Wing's shift to Sunday night, then you know that this past week's episode was about nuclear power. (I actually haven't seen the show much this year but the football games were so boring that ended up tuning in). There's been an interesting discussion at Gristmill about the episode.

There isn't too much to add. But in defense of the show: the West Wing has always been endearing for its idealogical self-righteousness--particularly so when contrasted with the folly of the Bush administration.

With respect to nuclear power: it was refreshing to see that the writers didn't buy into any of the "new" arguments that the industry is peddling. None of the arguments against nuclear power have changed: it's still dangerous to operate, expense to build, and a mess to dispose of.

The EPA is set to release a new rule that would provide an opening for pesticides to be tested on humans--including children and pregnant women. For those of you who followed this story in the summer, it's about to come to head again. Congress passed a moratorium on these tests until a new rule was established. The expectation was that the Administration would ban these dangerous tests that target vulnerable populations. Apparently the doctrine of promoting a culture of life says otherwise.

I haven't followed this issue too closely but the real question is whose bidding is the EPA doing? Which companies or researchers want to have the leeway to test pesticides on humans?

File this under shock and surprise: the gas industry isn't paying its fair share again. Even though gas prices have nearly doubled since 2001, the industry paid less in royalties in 2005 than they did in 2001. The real question is who is fit to investigate this abuse?

A follow-up story in the NY Times today shows that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are falling over each other to "demand" answers. Pardon the cynicism but with these foxes we might be lucky if there's a feather or two left when it's all over.

The instability in Iran and Nigeria has already sent oil prices to a four-month high of $69. Now this: Kuwait's oil reserves are only half those officially stated. Markets may be closed by the time this news really trickles in. But if this is true--that Kuwait, which holds 10% of the remaining oil in the world, has half as much as they've long stated--then watch out. Effectively, this would mean that there is 5% less oil in the world then we believed. $70/barrel may soon feel like a comfortable memory.

This came across my e-mail this morning...

Tom DeLay Denies All Charges (As Told by Dr. Suess)

That Abramoff!
That Abramoff!
I do not like that Abramoff!

"Would you like to play some golf?"

I do not want to play some golf.
I do not want to, Abramoff.

"We could fly you there for free.
Off to Scotland, by the sea."

I do not want to fly for free.
I don't like Scotland by the sea.
I do not want to play some golf.
I do not want to, Abramoff.

"Would you, could you, take this bribe?
Could you, would you, for the tribe?"

I would not, could not, take this bribe.
I could not, would not, for the tribe.

"If we strong armed corporations
Into giving you donations?
They'd be funnelled to your PAC.
Would you then cut us some slack?"

I would not, could not, cut you slack.
I do not care about my PAC.
I do not want to play some golf.
I do not want to, Abramoff.

"A plane! A plane! A plane! A plane!
Would you, could you, for a plane?"

I could not, would not, for a plane.
Not for a bribe, not for the tribe.
Not for donations from corporations.
Not for my PAC, not for some slack.
Not from any schmoe named Jack.

"Would you help us buy some ships
Perfect for quick gambling trips?
Talk to people in the know
For a little quid pro quo?
Oh come now, don't be a snob.
Let us give your wife a job."

I will not help you buy some ships.
I do not wish for gambling trips.
My wife does not need a job
Even if she is a snob.
We do not like bribes, can't you see?
Why won't you just let me be?

"You do not like bribes, so you say.
Try them, try them, and you may.
Try them and you may, I say."

Jack. If you will let me be
I will try them, then you'll see.

Say.... I do like playing golf!
I like it, I do, Abramoff!
I do like Scotland by the sea.
It's such a thrilling place to be!
And I will take this bribe.
And I will help the tribe.
And I will take donations
From big corporations.
And I will help you buy some ships.
And I will take quick gambling trips.
Say, I'll give anyone the shaft
As long as it involves some graft!

I do so like playing golf!
Thank you! Thank you,
Abramoff!

The trouble in dealing with Iran is a chilling reminder of how vulnerable our dependence on oil makes us. If we impose sanctions on them for starting up their nuclear program, then we risk losing their oil production--which amounts to 4 million barrels a day--the 2nd most of all OPEC countries. The NY Times has a good story that explores this dilemma.

I've been meaning to post this editorial cartoon for a few days. I'm not sure how widely Tom Toles' is syndicated but if you aren't familiar with his work you should definitely check it out. I got a book of his cartoons over the holidays and it is laugh out loud funny. Then again, with this administration the stuff pretty much writes itself.

I know, I know, the anticipation is eating you alive. Will the President say "nuclear" or "nucular"? Will he weaken the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act? Who's coming off the endangered species list--the Grizzly Bear or the Northwest Wild Salmon? So many choices...and only two hours to drone on.

In all seriousness, the early reports are that the President will most likely talk about energy issues. After five years, we could all write his paragraph on energy, so there isn't going to be any big announcement. But the danger lies in how his allies will try to capitalize on it.

Here's an excerpt from a story in Congress Daily--a trade rag here in D.C.:

Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue also urged Bush to talk about "the hypocrisy in our energy policy and our energy rhetoric." He said the Chamber is considering taking out ads in the weeks after the speech to highlight legislators who have criticized energy companies for not increasing production capacity while they have blocked access to domestic energy sources. "Here's what they're saying: Build more refineries, get more domestic oil and gas," Donohue said. "And right down the hall, the same people in a different room were saying, you can't build refineries here and you can't drill on the continent shelf, you can't drill in the Rockies, you can't drill in Alaska."

As expected, the fallout from Robert Kennedy's wrong-headed opposition to the Cape Wind project is extending well beyond the environmental community--providing inherent naysayers yet another opportunity to step up and bash wind power.

John Tierney, the self-proclaimed libertarian columnist for the Times, has a piece yesterday that uses the Kennedy's hyprocrisy as an opportunity to do just that (unfortunately, you won't be able to read it without subscribing).

I've already stated that I disagree with Kennedy's position, so let's move on to taking apart Tierney's flawed argument.

The crux of Tierney's argument is that there are legitimate economic reasons for opposing wind farms:

Environmentalists have been promising for more than three decades that wind energy would be competitive if there was a "level playing field," but it survives only because the field has been tilted in its favor.

When you add up the tax breaks and other federal aid to wind farms, the subsidy per unit of energy produced is more than double the subsidy given to nuclear and fossil-fuel power plants, according to Thomas Tanton, a fellow at the Institute for Energy Research.

As comforting as this argument must be to Tierney's libertarian beliefs it simply isn't true. I haven't had a chance to review the report he cites but based on my three years of working on federal energy subsidies I feel pretty comfortable saying that it is unequivocally false.

I'm not sure what timeframe their analysis used, but from a historical perspective, there is no comparing the subsidies heaped upon fossil fuels and nuclear power, as compared to wind. One study by the consulting firm Management Information Services found that between 1950-97, the federal government provided conventional technologies nearly $300 billion in subsidies, whereas renewables as a whole (sun, wind, biomass, etc) received $25 billion.

As a libertarian, I suspect that Tierney would prefer that every energy source be kicked off the federal dole. But there's never been a "free market" energy system and as long as the likes of OPEC are controlling 70 percent of the oil remaining in the world, there never will be. Which means that the federal government does have to make choices.

Is it going to be windmills, cooling towers, or smokestacks?

For a 78 year old, them be fighting words. Whose words are they? That would be former Republican Congressman Pete McCloskey, who's tired of watching Richard Pombo dismantle the Endangered Species Act he authored in 1973 and cozy favor with Tom Delay. The feisty septuagenarian announced that he is going to challenge Pombo in the primary.

Ignatius' piece inspired me to go back and re-read some of Kolbert's three-piece article on global warming. In the process, I came across a great interview posted on the New Yorker website, in which Kolbert provides the best analogy yet for action on global warming.

Kolbert, as many have, makes the point that there is no scientific dispute that global warming is happening and that human activity is hastening it. But she states that there is a lack of scientific clarity on how the problem will play out.

But she then says the following:

"To focus on the degree of disagreement, rather than on the degree of consensus, is, I think, fundamentally misguided. If ten people told you your house was on fire, you would call the fire department. You wouldn’t really care whether some of them thought that the place would be incinerated in an hour and some of them thought it would take a whole day."

The problem is that, politically, we haven't acknowledged that things are on fire.

There was an excellent if somewhat defeatist oped in yesterday's Wash post by David Ignatius on the lack of media coverage of global warming. Using the Amazon as his lens, David does a good job of describing the changes already underway. Unfortunately, he strays from the heart of his piece, which is that the media is not providing coverage befitting the problem.

David argues that since most of the current effects of global warming aren't immediate to the daily lives of Americans, it is hard to report them as "news." But if one were to apply this approach to all news coverage, our papers would be even more insular than they are now.

On Tuesday, for example, the Washington Post had a front page story (above the fold) of the election results in Chile. It is hard to argue that the election of Michelle Bachelet has any relevance to the lives of Americans. The same could be said for much of the international news in our papers, but that's hardly an argument--especially for a national paper like the Post--to hide behind.

And the difference is that global warming does matter to the lives of Americans. Given that global warming will most certainly have a severe impact on the U.S., the burden then falls upon reporters and the media to cover it. Even before the U.S. went to war in Iraq, the media coverage of the issue escalated--only because there was a genuine threat that Iraq's future would be intertwined with America's. The same can--and should--be said for global warming.

Much has been made about Robert Kennedy Jr.'s opposition to the Cape Wind project. But with the project nearing full approval, the dust is being kicked up again. Amanda Griscom Little had a great article last week capturing the debate between RFK Jr. and pretty much the rest of the environmental community. In response to RFK Jr's vocal opposition, 150 environmentalists recently released a letter urging him to reconsider his position.

David Roberts, who blogs for Grist, posted an interesting response to the on-going discussion. While I agree, in theory, with his argument that no one issue should receive unquestioned approval, I don't think that really captures the debate.

Many environmental groups did not voice knee-jerk support for Cape Wind, but instead waited for the environmental assessment to be completed. Groups recognize that wind farms are industrial projects--with impacts. It is critical to note that these impacts are significantly smaller than conventional energy sources, but there are impacts nonetheless.

Most environmentalists will assess whether the impacts of a given project are justified. In fact, NRDC--Kennedy's employer--has itself taken this measured approach with Cape Wind.

What is so discouraging about Kennedy's opposition is that, ultimately, it really is a case of NIMBYism (Not In My Backyard). Yes, the project may create more noise, and perhaps the thumb-sized dots on the horizon are a blight of the Cape's historic views, and some people in the fishing industry may even take a little hit. But we aren't talking about shutting down the city of Boston, or sending a species into extinction, or displacing thousands of people.

This is the problem: in voicing his opposition to the Cape Wind project, Kennedy has set the bar for opposing these vital projects so low. How will he ever be able to convince another community that the rights they are fighting for (less noice, nicer vistas, etc) are any less valuable.

All environmentalists--even Kennedy--agree that stopping global warming requires an unprecedented build-up of wind farms across the country. If Kennedy has any forsight of what needs to be done, he will reverse his opposition and get behind this project. Unfortunately, his actions preface the sort of narrow self-interest that will impede the way forward.

Energy issues are front and center as the Republicans scurry to reorganize themselves in the House in the wake of Delay's resignation as Majority Leader. Zach Wamp (R-TN), who is making a bid for the Whip position (3rd in line), is urging his party to embrace clean energy policies and would recommend that they immediately pass another energy bill--this time one what will actually help our situation.

Wamp is already a bit of an outsider in his quest for the post, but this is certainly an affront to Tom Delay and President Bush, both of whom have spent the past five years pushing through a porky, do-nothing energy bill. The hypocrisy is that Wamp eventually voted for that bill, even though he initally opposed the House version. But the fact that he is even talking about energy is encouraging.

This hasn't gotten nearly enough attention nationally, but last week California created a $3.2 billion program to build solar roofs over the next eleven years. The program will generate 3,000 MW of solar power--the equivalent of six new coal-fired power plants!

As a sad comment on the state of affairs in Washington DC, I think that California will soon be investing more in solar energy than Washington does for the entire country--but I'll have to verify that such a dismal statistic is in fact true.

I'm not sure what it is like in newspapers across the country, but in Washington there's been an almost constant barrage of oil industry ads for the past four months.

I've been particularly annoyed by Chevron's condescending ad that states "The average American consumes 25 barrels of oil each year. What are you prepared to do about it?"

It's as if Chevron is unhappy with the $13.6 billion it made in 2004 or the $3.6 billion it made in just three months after the Gulf Coast hurricanes.

I suspect that we'll be getting another spike in ads over the next month as the industry announces its annual profits.

An interesting analysis by Dick Morris--the Republican pollster credited with "saving" Clinton's presidency. The second to last paragraph is particularly interesting:

"On the environment, Americans have already decided that global warming is causing weather aberrations like the hurricane activity this summer. The administration can no longer keep its head in the sand on this issue. More than any other subject, this area of Bush blindness is making America Democratic."

I think there's little doubt that between energy issues and global warming, enviro issues have the potential to be big electorally over the next three years. But Morris has got to feel like he's tilting at windmills to think that Bush will actually reverse course on global warming or energy issues. The problem is that not nearly enough Members of Congress are talking about this issue. Sure a bunch of them vote right--but how many are stumping on the issue? I'd be surprised if it were more than a couple.

Nonetheless, a promising insight.

The warnings of hitting peak oil are escalating. The latest story has the Venezuelan Energy Minister warning that U.S. will use up its oil reserves in 10 years. We'll examine the details of the peak oil argument later but I just wanted to throw out this latest warning.

We're going to hit the wall. The only question is: what speed will we be travelling?

Nothing short of the Clean Water Act is at stake with the nomination of Samuel Alito. Senators have focused much of their attention on other issues, but with two big cases pending before the Supreme Court, the future of the Clean Water Act and how it is enforced are hanging in the balance. The problem is Judge Alito's very narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause, which is the constitutional provision that enables Congress and the EPA to reguate pollution at a national level. Based on Alito's previous rulings, many fear that he would vote for a very strict limit on what Congress and EPA can regulate--providing developer and polluters with a big victory.

Another piece of Alaska is soon to be excavated in the century long pursuit of oil. The latest Bush government announcement opens another 400,000 acres in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska to oil and gas drilling even though most of the 23.5 million-acre reserve is already used for oil and gas drilling.

Two things are worth mentioning:

1) Like every other refuge or reserve under threat, this place would do virtually nothing to reduce the price of oil or reduce American's dependence on foreign oil--as much as the President and his supporters would like to argue otherwise. This latest piece of land contains an estimated 2 billion barrels of oil. Sounds like a heck of a lot, right? Except that the U.S. currently uses 7 billion barrels a day! This latest reserve wouldn't even last us half a year.

2) While the environmental community has enjoyed an impressive victory protecting the Arctic Refuge (ANWR) for more than twenty years--often against impossible odds--it simply isn't feasible for us to do so for every remaining wild place. It just goes to show you that until we can change this absurd policy of drilling to delay the inevitable, we may only have ANWR left to protect.

Death by a thousand rigs.

Good front page story today in the Washington Post about the disappearance of around 65 species of frogs in Central and South America as a result of global warming. It's an amazing indication of the insidious and mysterious ways in which global warming will wreak havoc. The study found that it isn't the warming itself that is bringing the frogs to extinction but rather that the additional moisture in the air is causing the spread of a particular fungus that is deadly to the frogs.

Also encouraging is that none of the so-called "global warming skeptics" were quoted in the story. It is incredibly frustrating when an attempt at journalistic balance provides a handful (literally) to have equal standing with virtually every other expert on the issue. Juliet did a good job of sticking to the facts of the study.

I was at ExxonMobil's website trying to see whether they had released news of their annual profits for 2005 (projected to exceed $30 billion!) only to find this farcical bit of greenwashing. ExxonMobil boasts that it won an environmental award for wildlife habitat conservation. The award was presented by the Wildlife Habitat Council. A quick look at their Board Members displays a roll call of the worst actors in the business: Dow Chemical Company, Monsanto, Ford and, of course, none other than ExxonMobil. I suspect that each of these companies just takes a turn awarding themselves each year.

In that vein, I'm thinking that we'll be winning the best new blog award any moment now...

One of the big issues we'll be monitoring in this blog is the (attempted) resurgence of nuclear power. No nuclear power plants have been commissioned and built in this country for more than thirty years, but Congress is very quietly pushing this country towards a nuclear relapse of significant proportions.

By now, I'm sure everyone has seen the industry's slick advertisements in which kids are flying kites, playing on swings, and blowing bubbles in an idyllic field far away from any nuclear cooling towers or radioactive storage pools. While the industry has tried to reinvent itself since the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania and the disaster at Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union, it hasn't been able to shake the pesky facts that continue to plague nuclear power. Those facts fall into three categories: cost, waste, safety.

While we'll eventually get to discussing each of these problems in turn, I just wanted to point out the latest concern raised by private investors about the risks of nuclear power. Standard & Poors, the credit rating company, continues to raise serious financial concerns about nuclear power. For years, the company (in conjunction with much of Wall Street) has rejected the financials of nuclear power.

The bottom-line is that the industry knows that it won't be able to build another plant in this country without significant federal subsidies.

Which really brings us to the main issue: what energy sources will the federal government support with its limited budget? We've already spent tens of billions of dollars subsidizing the nuclear industry over the past fifty years--and still the industry is back for more. Will we continue to invest in dangerous and outdated technologies or will we finally get serious about investing in clean alternatives?

This thing is really starting to snowball. Now it appears that Pombo also received $1,000 in 2002, after he helped derail an investigation in the dealings of Charles Hurwitz. Even more intriguing is that Hurwitz was also the owner of Pacific Lumber Co.--though Pombo claims that he didn't know this fact until after he acted on Hurwitz's behalf. Remember, Pombo went against the wishes of the federal investigators, who explicitly told him not to make this information public. Knowing this, Pombo quietly inserted all of these sensitive materials (the federal case against Hurwitz) into the congressional record, where Hurwitz's lawyers could have access to it.

Who was Pombo defending? Pacific Lumber has one of the worst environmental records, with more than 300 violations of state environmental law in the past decade. The company has also contributed more than $30,000 to Tom Delay since 2000, and has spent more than $2.5 million lobbying Congress and the California Legislature.

There seems to have been a lot of itchy backs that needed scratching.

The first rate foe of the environment--Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA) seems to be implicated in another scandal brewing on Capitol Hill.

Not related to the well publicized Jumpin' Jack Abramoff scandal, this involves Rep. Pombo's effort to squelch a federal investigation into the activities of a wealthy Texas businessman who provided Pombo with $1,000 for his 1996 reelection campaign. While the scandal is not directly related to the environment, any bad news for Pombo is sure to be good news for the environment. For those of you who aren't familiar with Richard Pombo, who represents California's 11th district (an area south of Sacramento and east of San Francisco), he is the Chairman of the House Resources Committee and on an avowed mission to gut the Endangered Species Act. His most recent brainchild was a proposal to sell off 15 National Parks to developers. Pombo eventually retracted the proposal saying that he was only doing it to get attention. If this scandal pans out, I'm sure he'll get plenty of attention.

Even as the Bush administration and a majority in Congress thwart efforts to tackle global warming, a bunch of U.S. states and cities are following Plan B: go around, over, or under the Bush administration and its allies who have fought tooth and nail against regulating global warming pollution.

That strategy is starting to pay off. Seven states in the Northeast, some led by Republicans, some by Democrats, just signed a regional agreement to limit carbon pollution from their states. Oregon, Washington, and California are putting together their own agreement.

And nine states in the Northeast and on the West coast have moved to cap carbon pollution by setting up new rules for cars and trucks -- though some of the automakers have sued to have those rules thrown out.

And 192 U.S. city mayors, including leaders of nearly half of the country's biggest cities, have agreed to meet or beat the reduction targets set out in the Kyoto agreement on global warming pollution.

When the logjam in Washington, D.C., over global warming finally shatters, it will be for two reasons: enough ordinary people joined the fight that our elected leaders were forced to act; and our individual states and cities, acting under their own leadership, proved that tackling global warming could be done.