The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Never knew exactly what that meant, but this I do know: the proof that the Endangered Species Act works is in the improving status of the species under its protection.

Today my organization, the Center for Biological Diversity, released a new report analyzing decades of information about endangered species recovery in the Northeastern U.S. We discovered that 93% of Northeastern endangered species have improved or remained stable since being listed as endangered. That's an impressive record of success, thanks to the hard work of people and organizations throughout the region and the effective protection of the Endangered Species Act.

Why does this matter? Political opponents of the ESA often claim that the law is ineffective and must be "updated" and "modernized." This is a disingenuous argument. We already knew that the ESA has been overwhelmingly successful at its first core purpose, preventing extinction. Now, with this report, we have a better idea at how well the ESA is performing at its second core purpose, putting endangered species on the road to a full recovery. The numbers unequivocally speak for themselves. You can download the full report, first in a series of regional reports, at www.esasuccess.org.

A fascinating new poll by the NY Times/CBS found that a majority of Americans are willing to support a gas tax increase if it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil or global warming.

The poll is quite clear. When asked straight up whether they would support a gas tax increase 85% were opposed. But when you asked then whether they would support a gas tax increase if it reduced our dependence on oil, 55% were supportive, and if it reduced global warming 59% were in favor.

The basic notion underpinning the poll results are simple: across the board, Americans are willing to pay taxes if they will result in measurable and valuable outcomes. This is an aside, but I've often thought that a truly accountable government would issue each tax paying citizen a breakdown of how their taxes were spent. Everyone would get the same readout: 50% for defense, X for healthcare, etc and you could even go into a few more details--with a "results" section for each category. It would be an effective tool for getting people bought into the value of government. Obviously that isn't the modus operandus of the current system.

Anyway, back to the poll, which clearly shows that Americans believe that global warming and energy independence are serious priorities--worth paying to solve.

I was surprised that when the gas tax was linked to reducing global warming it gained more support (59%) than when tied to reducing our dependence on foreign oil (55%). The difference if probably close to the margin of error, but I would have thought that the latter would have blown the former out of the water.

Also interesting, if you look at the entire poll is that when revenue from the gas tax was used to fight the war on terrorism, 71% were opposed. I'm not sure if this suggests some fatigue with the war on terrorism (doubtful) or whether the public really makes a strong connection between a gas tax and global warming/foreign oil and wants to ensure that the money is dedicated to the right fight.

Either way, this is quite an encouraging sign that the public is on board and willing to put their money where their concerns are.

Ha! The folks here at Environmental Action have been bouncing around this very idea that the Winter Olympics are in jeopardy because of global warming. Toles captures the thought brilliantly--and throws in a little commentary to boot.

Daniel Donato, the lead researcher of an Oregon State study which concluded that logging after a forest fire may not be the best policy (at least for the forest), was taken to task by a congressional commmittee last week. The story, which was reported in the Washington Post today, chronicles another episode in the sordid tales of "Researchers Gone Wild: Get Me a Leash".

Of course, as researchers tend to do, Daniel Donato defended himself before the House Committee by saying:

This forest study should not be viewed as, nor was it intended to be, the final word on post-fire logging.

Yet to the logging industry's backers, it was heresy that any study dare contradict their economic interests. True to form, Members of Congress such as Rep. Walden (R-OR) and Baird (D-Wash) resorted to personal attacks against Donato, charging him of:

a long list of professional failings and character flaws, including "deliberate bias," lack of humility and ignorance of statistical theory.

Now I don't know much about Donato personally and haven't read the study itself either. But that one study by graduate students at Oregon State could cause such a backlash is quite indicative of the level of debate that exists in Congress. Then again, given that the study was peer-reviewed, published in the journal Science, and has produced similar findings to other studies may just be enough reason for all the sound and fury. At least it provided the industry and its backers reason enough to take Donato to the woodshed.

The latest quest to solve our addiction to oil hinges on microbes able to rapidly convert swithgrass or other plant products into ethanol. The Washington Post had a story today about J. Craig Venter's efforts to create a designer microbe that could reduce the costs of producing ethanol.

Now I'm as supportive as the next person of investing in safe technologies that can reduce our dependence on oil. It is certainly a worthy pursuit that Venter and others are undertaking and one that could someday transform our energy system.

The only concern with these magic bullet proposals, like hydrogen, is that they are years--if not decades--away from commercial use. And while it may certainly be good planning to pursue these technologies today it is just as bad planning not to be utilizing existing technologies to address the problem.

We know that we could double the fuel efficiency of our cars immediately if there were political will, and that doing so would make a serious dent in our dependence.

Anyway, I wouldn't get so worked up about this if politicians, such as Bush, weren't always using the promise of future technologies to avoid supporting existing ones.

The story is an interesting read though...

(Via Grist) James Gustave Speth submitted a succint and appropriately jarring letter to the editor in the NY Times today:

Re "Glaciers Flow to Sea at a Faster Pace, Study Says" (news article, Feb. 17): The world we have known is history. A mere 1 degree Fahrenheit global average warming is already raising sea levels, strengthening hurricanes, disrupting ecosystems, threatening parks and protected areas, causing droughts and heat waves, melting the Arctic and glaciers everywhere and killing tens of thousands of people a year.

Yet there are several more degrees coming in our grandchildren's lifetimes.

It is easy to feel like a character in a bad science fiction novel running down the street shouting "Don't you see it!" while life goes on, business as usual.

Climate change is the biggest thing to happen here on earth in thousands of years, with incalculable environmental, social and economic costs. But there is no march on Washington; students are not in the streets; consumers are not rejecting destructive lifestyles; Congress is not passing far-reaching legislation; the president is not on television explaining the threat to the country; Exxon is not quaking in its boots; and entire segments of evening news pass without mention of the climate emergency.

Instead, 129 new coal-fired power plants are being developed in the United States alone, and so on.

There are many of us caught in this story. We must find one another soon.

We need much more of this...
-------------------------------------------
UPDATE: Forgot to mention to check out Grist's interview with Speth from a couple of years ago.

"When someone says it's not about the money, it's about the money."

Ted Koppel has an honest and provocative oped in today's NY Times summarizing how U.S. actions in the Middle East over the past fifty years have centered on oil.

From British and U.S. efforts to install and support the Shah in Iran, to the 1990 Iraq War, to today's on-going war, Koppel traces a steady line demarking the clear role that oil has played in U.S. involvement in the Middle East.

Koppel debunks Bush's efforts to dismiss America's dependence on oil as an underlying reason for the war.

If those considerations did not enter into the Bush administration's calculations when the president ordered the invasion of Iraq in 2003, it would have been the first time in more than 50 years that the uninterrupted flow of Persian Gulf oil was not a central element of American foreign policy.

That is not to say that the United States invaded Iraq to take over its oil supply. But the construction of American military bases inside Iraq, bases that can be maintained long after the bulk of our military forces are ultimately withdrawn, will serve to replace the bases that the United States has lost in Saudi Arabia. There may be other national security reasons that the United States cannot now precipitously withdraw its forces from Iraq, including the danger that the country would become a regional terrorist base; but none is greater than forestalling the ensuing power vacuum and regional instability, and the impact this would have on oil production.

I've been on the road visiting some of our Northeast field offices the past few days, which explains the sporadic and at times completely non-existent posts.

But I got to curl up with the New Yorker (in New York of all places) for a bit last night and made it part way through Elizabeth Kolbert's excellent piece on the tragic destiny of southern Louisiana.

I know that most of you won't be able to read it, but I thought I would pull a few paragraphs out:

Five thousand years ago, much of southern Louisiana did not exist. A hundred years from now, it is unclear how much of it will remain. The region, it is often observed, is losing land at the rate of a football field every thirty-eight minutes. Alternatively, it is said, the area is shrinking by a large desktop's worth of ground every second, or a tennis court's worth every thirteen seconds, or twenty-five square miles a year. Between 1930 and 2000, some 1.2 million acres, an area roughly the size of Delaware, disappeared. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita stripped away an estimiated seventy-five thousand acres--a loss as big as Manhattan and Brooklyn combined. The U.S. Geological Survey has published a map illustrating the process. Areas that have already vanished appear in red, and areas that are expected to vanish by 2050 in yellow. On the map, the southern coast looks as if it were on fire. According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, "The rate at which Louisiana's land is converting to water is probably the fastest in the world."

Over the years, a great mnay plans have been drawn up to protect the Louisiana coast; these range from building up barrier islands with pumped sand to digging an alternative route for the Mississippi River--the so-called Third Delta Conveyance Channel. Katrina and Rita have inspired a whole new generation of proposals...All of these plans rest on the same assumption, which is that something can be done to halt, or at least dramatically slow, land loss. If this can be acccomplished, there are many possible futures for southern Louisiana. If it can't, there is only one.

And one great quote from Roy Dokka, a geologist at LSU, who is sounding the alarm bells about the rates at which the area is sinking:

"I don't want to be the person who pulled the rug out from under southern Louisiana," Dokka said later, as we walked back to the car. "But ultimately it's going to get so bad over her--in fifty to a hundred years, maybe sooner--that this is going to go under water."

Although I haven't made it through the whole piece yet, Kolbert does a great job of chronicling the successive communities and towns that have been dispersed or washed away completely. Yet I can't figure out whether it is an inspiring testatment to human endurance that we have continued to rebuild and reinhabit the area or a monumental dose of stupidity that we haven't moved on.

Here's an old but timely story that came across my e-mail today. It's an interesting article in a local Cape Cod paper about the latest tribulations of the Cape Wind Project. Although the story focuses on Rep. Don Young's (R-AK) effort to kill the project, it leads by exposing the oil affiliations of members of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. I haven't followed the issue closely enough to know whether this info. has gotten out broadly, but it sure makes for interesting reading:

* Bill Koch: owner of a major energy conglomerate that includes oil, natural gas and petroleum interests - and co-chairman of the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound.

* Doug Yearley - board member of Marathon Oil - and former president of the Alliance.

The other amazing factoid in the story is that oil rigs are apparently allowed to be as close as 500 feet of a shipping channel yet Young (and his allies) are proposing that turbines be restricted to a distance of 1.5 miles.

In advance of Bush's appearance at the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) today, the Secretary of Energy scrambled to save face by restoring $5 million to their budget.

As you may have heard, President Bush's budget last year resulted in a $28 million cut in funding for NREL. As a result, more than 30 researchers were promptly let go within a week of the President's brash State of the Union address in which he declared America addicted to oil and in need to technological advances. Oops.

So five million of the $28 million was quickly restored to rehire those employees. But it's clear that the President's budget still falls well short of his rhetoric.

I think this one has been a long time coming

Grist and Oil Drum have already initiated discussions on this one.

There has been a lot of well-placed concern about President Bush's new Global Nuclear Energy Partnership. The program raises serious proliferation concerns, would cost tens of billions of dollars, and would not resolve the need for a permananent nuclear waste solution. The Washington Post did a good job of running through some of these concerns in today's story.

But the story's lead had me bouncing off the walls.

President Bush's new nuclear energy initiative is supposed to help cure America's "addiction to oil" by redesigning a taboo technology, originally used to obtain plutonium for bombs, to reuse spent nuclear fuel.

Now would someone please explain to me how exactly nuclear power is supposed to reduce our "addiction to oil"? Have I missed the new breakthrough that would have us fueling up on uranium or plutonium?

Oil only accounts for 3% of our electricity, which--as of now--is the sole energy use for nuclear power.

So perhaps Bush's grand scheme to invest billions in nuclear power in an effort to reduce our dependence on oil is in fact targeted at displacing this miniscule three percent. Of course, the more likely explanation is that the Bush administration is trying to associate their personal ambition (and a notably unpopular one) of increasing nuclear power with the publicly valued goal of ending our dependence on oil.

But why do reporter's continue to propogate this blatant misdirection?

With the advent of the hydrogen economy, nuclear power could, in theory, play a role in reducing our dependence on oil. But this is never a part of the story. Instead, Bush--and many reporters--are content to connect two dots that are not on the same page.

Given what is at stake, we need to get better (and louder) at pointing this out.

In an encouraging signal that NASA will actually bring an end to the censorship of its scientists, NASA Administrator Griffin promised a new communications policy "in the next few weeks."

However, as the NY Times reports, Griffin also doubts that this is anything but a few loose canons.

"certain individuals have done things they shouldn't have" but...he doubted there was a widespread practice of muzzling NASA scientists or misrepresenting science.

While a new policy is certainly a step in the right direction, it also sounds like a serious glossing over of the problem.

A clear indication that there is a deeper problem is David Mould's refusal to admit that there was any wrongdoing in the first place. The assistant administrator for public affairs "defended the agency's handling of news releases and the media, saying his goal was to keep it free of spin of any sort."

And what about the other agencies? Were there just a few loose canons at NOAA as well?

This weekend, 60 Minutes will air an interview with Bob Correll, one of the leading climate scientists. The tease on the 60 Minutes website has Correll saying that global warming is, in effect, the cause of stronger hurricanes, such as Katrina, and that future storms will be even more severe.

Here's another good primer:

"This is bellwhether, a barometer … the warning that things are coming," says Corell, who also predicts lowlands will be inundated by waters from the melting glaciers in the future. "In 10 years here in the arctic, we see what the rest of the planet will see in 25 or 35 years from now," he says. "The entire planet is out of balance."

It sounds like the interview will be a good edition to the barrage of recent reports on global warming.

The Bush administration has the country so far in the red it now wants to sell off 300,000 acres of national forest to help pay for rural schools. And the Bureau of Land Management has orders to find buyers for another $350 million worth of public land.

The LA Times says the Bush plan would be the largest sell-off of its kind since Teddy Roosevelt started the Forest Service in 1905.

Here's what I wish the press accounts of this crazy scheme would point out: Nobody is against educating kids in rural states. But if we're really that desperate for cash, it's not hard to come up with some better ideas.

We could start by throwing out the taxpayer subsidy that supports logging in national forests. That would save us $330 million a year.

Next we could cut the billions in subsidies to the oil and gas industries written into the $20 billion energy bill passed last year.

Another good place to look: the $300 billion highway bill stuffed with more than 6000 "earmarked" pet projects for members of Congress.

You can see the list of national forest land that may be heading for auction here.

In the absence of any congressional oversight, the public has no choice but to rely on Andrew Revkin of the NY Times to investigate the censorship scandal at NASA. In today's story, Revkin finds that research contradictory to administration policies was suppressed during the 2004 Presidential campaign. One example given was the postponement of a press conference to announce new data on ozone and air pollution.

After citing further examples, Revkin writes that:

The recent accusations of political interference appear to reflect an intensifying debate between a small but influential cluster of presidential appointees at NASA headquarters and longtime civil servants and career scientists dispersed at space agency research hubs around the country.

Of course, the real question is who was coordinating that cluster of political appointees? Were they making the decision themselves to censor scientists or were there given orders?

Not surprisingly, David R. Mould, NASA's assistant administrator for public affairs said:

"We've received no marching orders from anyone,"

But unless there is a thorough independent investigation, how will we ever know?

Another day, another story. The LA Times reports that Democrats have asked the House Administration Committee to investigate Pombo's family vacation which was funded on the taxpayer dime. If the House Administration Committee finds a problem on it goes to the Ethics Committee.

This isn't going to go away anytime soon.

In a survey of the Greenest Cars only GM's Pontiac Vibe could crack the top 10. The top nine spots were claimed by the likes of Toyota, Honda, Hyundai and Kia. In fact, GM had to share the 10th spot with Toyota. Oh, yeah, and that all popular Pontiac Vibe--it has a Toyota engine.

The survey was conducted by ACEEE

The allegations that climate scientists were censored by the Bush administration are growing. In the latest revelation, Dr. Hansen stated that the muzzle on federal climate experts extends beyond NASA to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Where is Congress? Whatever happened to that check and balance thing?

Today, Environmental Action is launching an effort to get Rep. Sherry Boehlert (R-NY) to investigate the gag on global warming. We know that Rep. Boehlert is concerned about these allegations but sending a letter is not enough. Congress has a responsibility to investigate these serious allegations.

Tell Congressman Boehlert to hold an immediate hearing to investigate the censorship of climate scientists and the abuse of power by the Bush administration.

You've gotta be thinking that Pombo is waking up every morning saying to himself that "no news is good news." Unfortunately, he hasn't had any such luck. Every day it seems like a new controversy or unflattering profile of his unsavory ties is popping-up in the press. Today it was the LA Times' turn.

Some snippets from the story:

Now...he finds himself facing questions about his efforts on behalf of Abramoff clients. And a series of legislative maneuvers late last year called attention to what critics say is his record of pushing proposals that benefit his primary campaign contributors: agribusiness, the oil and gas industry, builders, utilities and mining.

and on his fictitious story about being personally impacted by the Endangered Species Act:

In 1994 he told a Senate subcommittee that he ran for Congress after the ranch was declared critical habitat for the endangered San Joaquin kit fox, stripping his land of its value and forcing his family to run the ranch "with an unwanted, unneeded, un-silent partner — the federal government."

The tale turns out to have been embroidered. Pombo's ranch is a corridor for the kit fox, the smallest fox in North America. But it is not critical habitat, which the government has never designated anywhere for the tiny fox. Pombo paid $5,137 into a regional habitat conservation plan to compensate for houses he and relatives were building on the ranch. But that was years after his congressional testimony.

Today, Pombo concedes his characterization was "mistaken" and says having kit fox habitat on his land "didn't prevent me from doing anything."

While the California reporters are keeping busy with this, how long will it be before Pombo becomes another national figure tainted by the corruption scandals in Washington?

The NY Times story on royalty relief quoted Rep. Richard Pombo as saying:

"I don't think there is a single member of Congress who thinks you should get royalty relief at $70 a barrel" for oil, said Representative Richard W. Pombo, Republican of California and chairman of the House Resources Committee.

"It was Congress's intent," Mr. Pombo said in an interview on Friday, "that if oil was at $10 a barrel, there should be royalty relief so companies could have some kind of incentive to invest capital. But at $70 a barrel, don't expect royalty relief."

Now compare this statement to the 2005 Energy Bill that Pombo helped draft. Specifically, as chair of the House Resources Committee, Pombo was responsible for much of the oil and gas section.

The bill included the following royalty provisions:

Sec. 344 Incentives for natural gas production from deep wells in the shallow waters in the Gulf of Mexico

Sec. 345 Royalty Relief for Deep Water Production

And here's the kicker. The bill does not explicitly end the subsidies if the price of oil rises above a certain level. Instead it simply says: "The Secretary may place limitation on the royalty relief granted under this section based on market price."

Not exactly what you would call tough love. It's hard for Pombo to square his statements in today's NY Times story with his actions over the past few years of fervently working for royalty relief in the energy bill.

This is heartwarming stuff. Late January, five big oil companies announce that they've earned more than $100 billion in profit in 2005. Two weeks later, we learn that the industry is poised to reap a $7 billion handout over the next five years. Wait, maybe I'm missplacing the sensation. It's not so much in my heart as in my stomach.

As the NY Times reports today:

The federal government is on the verge of one of the biggest giveaways of oil and gas in American history, worth an estimated $7 billion over five years. New projections, buried in the Interior Department's just-published budget plan, anticipate that the government will let companies pump about $65 billion worth of oil and natural gas from federal territory over the next five years without paying any royalties to the government.

Of course everyone and their mother is trying to distance themselves from a handout this obscene, including big oil boosters like Pombo and the Bush administration.

While the giveaway is partly in place because of provisions passed nearly a decade earlier (when oil prices were markedly lower), the NY Times rightly points out that one way to solve this problem is to impose a new tax on the industry.

Now this will really test the Administration and Congresses' rhetoric. If they are seriously bothered by this giveaway they can easily impose a new tax on the industry of equal proportion. But the Bush administration is already fighting tooth and nail against a proposed one-year tax on the oil industry, worth $5 billion, that is included in the Senate tax reconciliation bill.

Yet this $7 billion giveaway could be just the tip of the proverbial iceberg:

Moreover, the projected largess could be just the start. Last week, Kerr-McGee Exploration and Development, a major industry player, began a brash but utterly serious court challenge that could, if it succeeds, cost the government another $28 billion in royalties over the next five years.

In what administration officials and industry executives alike view as a major test case, Kerr-McGee told the Interior Department last week that it planned to challenge one of the government's biggest limitations on royalty relief if it could not work out an acceptable deal in its favor. If Kerr-McGee is successful, administration projections indicate that about 80 percent of all oil and gas from federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico would be royalty-free.

Gristmill posted an interesting article from the Independent that claims that the tipping point on global warming has come and gone. That's it. We're screwed.

If you want some fairly depressing quotes, read this:

"...really dangerous climate change is likely to be unstoppable.

The implication is that some of global warming's worst predicted effects, from destruction of ecosystems to increased hunger and water shortages for billions of people, cannot now be avoided, whatever we do."

But here's the one question I have about this piece: How is the Independent leading the way on climate change research?

This article--alledging that we've passed the tipping point--is based on research funded by the Independent?!

However, an investigation by The Independent has established that the CO2 equivalent concentration, largely unnoticed by the scientific and political communities, has now risen beyond this threshold.

How is it possible that of the thousands of climate scientists across the world, no one else has bothered to calculate C02 equivalent concentrations?

If you haven't seen it, the DSCC pulled together a quick video on Pombo's taxpayer-funded vacation. While the information in the piece seems solid (though I haven't checked all the info.), the low-quality production of it can only suggest that the Democrats are not that serious about going after Pombo.

You can see the video here

The Pombo shores are being beaten by wave after wave of problems. The latest is a report that Pombo used $5,000 in taxpayer money to rent an RV to take his family on a tour of national parks. Pombo claims that the trip was "official business," as he was visting seven national parks, which he has jurisdiction over as chairman of the Resources Committee. The only problem is that most park officials have no recollection of Pombo's visit.

Here's what the Tracy Press has discovered:

But questions remain over whether Pombo actually visited the parks he said he did.

Officials at Joshua Tree and Deadwood national parks told the Press last week that they could not remember a visit by Pombo, and officials at Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks told the Sacramento Bee they could not remember a Pombo visit, either.

A Pombo spokesman, Brian Kennedy, told the Press that Pombo met with Joshua Tree superintendent Kurt Sauer on or around July 29. But Kennedy told the Bee that Pombo showed up at Joshua Tree only to find the visitors’ center locked and reported that to the National Parks Service director.

Oops. Seems like Kennedy forgot which story they were supposed to stick to.

There's more.

When he arrived at Yellowstone a few days later, Pombo spent at least several hours meeting with park superintendent Suzanne Lewis, but the trip had not been presented as an official visit, a park official said.

It was presented as “they were passing through on their vacation” and wanted to stop by, said Al Mash, a park spokesman, referring to the Aug. 4, 2003, visit by Pombo and his family.

So it sounds like there are two questions:

1) Did Pombo actually visit the places he claims to have visited?

2) Even if he did meet with a few park representatives, was he actually doing "official business" or was it all a facade to write-off the trip?

More to come...

A little higher...no, that's not it...a little to the right...you're close...can you go as high as $1,000....aaah...yeah, that's the spot. And a fundraiser too...oh, man this feels great.

The LA Times ran this story about Pombo's little tit-for-tat with lobbyist (and former Resources Ctee staffer) Duane Gibson. Gibson donated $1,000 to Pombo and organized a $1,000-a-head fundraiser for him. Three months later, Pombo was trying to open up our national forests and other public lands to mining.

And, yes, you guessed it. Gibson represented at least one of those mining companies that donated to Pombo.

Technically there's nothing illegal in this but it's always nice to round out the picture of who our Representatives really represent. Not that there's much of a surprise here...

I'm starting to worry that the Grammys and the Oscars may be overshadowing another award that will be handed out soon: the American Association of Petroleum Geologists' annual journalism prize.

So what? So this year's winner is science fiction writer Michael Crichton for "A State of Fear." The novel argues that global warming is an imaginary threat.

Climate scientists at Stanford and Harvard aren't shy about criticizing Crichton and the award in the New York Times today, calling his book "demonstrably garbage" and "an embarrassment."

It's not that the award is always used for such nakedly self-interested purposes. It can go to anyone who "contributes to the understanding of geology" and usually goes to people who have done venerable work.

Steven Jay Gould and James Michener were recipients. John McPhee won twice. I wonder what they'd say about this year's prize.

A new poll by the Pew Research Center found that 85% of Americans surveyed agreed that we are addicted to oil. Fifty percent thought that we could end our dependence on foreign oil within 20 years.

But I still don't get the jump from thinking we are "addicted" to oil to only eschewing a particular kind of oil (i.e. the "foreign" variety). If we're addicted, we are addicted. Period. And the solutions we need to be working toward should be ending our dependence on oil--not just the amount that comes from overseas.

As long as we are still using oil in significant amounts we are going to continue importing it from somewhere. And, as far as I know, global warming doesn't discern but Middle Eastern oil and American oil. Though I do suspect the Bush administration has its "researchers" hard at work trying to make this case.

That's the word that Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) coined to describe what could happen to the Endangered Species Act if some Senators have their way with it. "The bottom line is there is a new word in the English language, and that word is 'Pombo-ized'," Chafee said recently. "Any discussion of ESA has this word, because anything we do here will be reconciled with the House."

Here's what he was talking about: last September the House of Representatives narrowly passed an outrageous bill from Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA) that would gut the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This was a triumph for Mr. Pombo, a special interest ally who's made it his mission to weaken the Act, and a defeat for wildlife on the brink of extinction. The current ESA has been enormously successful, halting the extinction of 99% of all the species ever listed as endangered.

Now Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK)--yeah, the "global warming is a hoax" guy--is looking to pass a bill to "update" the Endangered Species Act through the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which he chairs. Could an Inhofe-headed committee actually pass a good bill? Well, it's within the realm of possibility.

But here's the rub: it's likely that any ESA bill that passes the Senate would end up in conference with the Pombo bill. That is, House and Senate members would have to get together and reconcile the two bills. Behind closed doors, Pombo and Inhofe could make sure the worst provisions of the Pombo bill were adopted in their final product. Even a moderate bill could become, in the words of Senator Chafee, "Pombo-ized."

What's next for the Endangered Species Act? Hopefully Sen. Inhofe's committee will continue to work carefully as it examines possible changes to one of America's oldest and most successful environmental laws.

Now that Congressional junkets are on the back burner for a while, I suppose that folks in Washington, D.C. are burning the midnight oil poring through the federal budget President Bush sent to Congress recently.

The document itself weighs 15 pounds, which is just one reason that I haven't heard anyone - outside of a few people I know inside the Beltway - say anything about it.

That works to Mr. Bush's advantage, of course. The budget is so big and so complicated and so subject to spin and to smoke and mirrors that a lot of it goes without public scrutiny.

The Boston Globe crunches some of the White House numbers this morning. The article points out that the President proposes cutting $100 million from energy conservation and shortchanges by 22 percent the renewable energy programs that were one of the few bright spots in the blockbuster federal energy bill he signed last year.

And, Mr. Bush asks for a 10 percent increase in funding for drilling on public lands.

And once again, he revives the effort to drill in the Arctic Refuge - even though Congress drove a stake through the heart of that idea only weeks ago.

It's deja vu, all over again.

As first announced on the Scientific Activist blog George Deutsch is a liar. Not only has he undermined the scientific integrity of NASA, but turns out he never graduated from Texas A&M, as he stated on his resume.

And now, as reported by the NY Times this morning Deutsch has resigned. Well, Georgie boy, there's always a career in judging Arabian show horses.

But let's not get played here. This 24 year old may be a scapegoat but he's certainly not the real cause of the problems at NASA. We need to get to the bottom of how this culture of fear and intimidation has arisen at NASA.

We know that Deutsch is carrying out the orders, but who was giving them? We want the other shoe--the bigger one--to drop.

Dr. Hansen said it best in today's NY Times story:

Dr. Hansen said that the questions about Mr. Deutsch's credentials were important, but were a distraction from the broader issue of political control of scientific information.

"He's only a bit player," Dr. Hansen said of Mr. Deutsch. " The problem is much broader and much deeper and it goes across agencies. That's what I'm really concerned about."

"On climate, the public has been misinformed and not informed," he said. "The foundation of a democracy is an informed public, which obviously means an honestly informed public. That's the big issue here."

Let's keep our eye on the ball. Again if you haven't already signed our petition to pressure NASA, you can do it here.

NPR ran a good story this morning about the 86 evangelicals that have taken a position on global warming and sent a letter to President Bush.

I'm not privy to the internal debates of the evangelical community but it was clear that those opposed to addressing global warming were basing their decision on an anthropocentric argument.

Richard Land, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission said the following:

Human beings come first in God's created order. And that primacy must be given to human beings and for human betterment. If that means that other parts of nature take a back seat, well, then they take a back seat,

The problem with his argument is that humans are at risk, in fact, those motivated to act on global warming--including the 86 evangelical leaders--are concerned about the impact on humans.

Leith Anderson, an evangelical pastor in MN, who signed the letter to President Bush, said:

Climate changes in terms of famine, in terms of the inability to grow crops, in terms of the flooding of islands, most affects the poor. So we here in America probably can do many things to exempt ourselves from the immediate consequences, but the front edge of disaster is most going to affect those who have the least.

Ultimately, it sounds like the divide on global warming likely mirrors the divide in the evangelical community on issues of social justice and poverty.

To read the entire Call to Action, signed by the 86 leaders go here.

Blair stated today that the world has 7 years to act on global warming.

It's hard to say how effective it is to set timelines for action on global warming. Sure, in one sense it can feed the public's desire for action and put additional pressure on international negotiations. Yet on the other hand, the "crying-wolf" syndrome looms large if the world isn't transformed forever--especially if the U.S. hasn't acted by then (god help us).

There are however critical factors that justify Blair's pronouncement. First, 2013 is when the Kyoto agreement will expire, leaving a gaping hole in international climate policy. Second, many scientists including NASA's own James Hansen have predicted something similar: that if we don't act within the next decade we'll have missed our chance to stop the effects of global warming.

I'm certainly not an expert on British politics, but given that Blair is unlikely to run again, it seems like the challenge of getting the U.S. to act on global warming will be a significant part of his legacy. You can't ask for a bigger challenge--at least not for the next three years.

Slideshow in hand, Al Gore made his trademark presentation on global warming before the House Dems at their retreat this past weekend. While it's always hard to know where this will lead, the word from the retreat was that the presentation lit a fire under some legislators.

Sadly, the debate on global warming has taken a real backseat in the House. While the Senate has flirted with the McCain-Lieberman proposal for the past three years, the House has barely stirred. Sure there's an equivalent proposal by Reps. Gilchrest and Olver, but it only has 111 co-sponsors.

More than 15 years into the fight against global warming and a bill (that is significantly weaker than Kyoto) only has 111 co-sponsors?

Obviously, the Republicans control the House and are the first to blame for inaction on this issue. But the last time I checked, there were more than 200 Ds. Where are they on this issue?

Fine, we know the bill isn't going to move in this Congress, but who is even speaking about global warming? Where is the outrage? Why isn't the Bush administration being held accountable for gagging climate scientists and undermining international climate talks?

Again, with 2006 being a ballot year it will be interesting if this issue gains some traction on the stump...or whether Gore will be left to do all the heavy lifting.

I was listening to C-SPAN on the way home tonight, as they replayed Josh Bolten's (Bush's Budget Director) press conference on the FY07 Budget. In response to a reporter's question about Medicaid cuts, Bolten made a point of clarifying that President Bush was not proposing a cut, "it's a reduction in the rate of growth," he said.

Ask President Bush about his global warming plan, which is to reduce the rate of growth of emissions and he'll be more than happy to call it a "cut in greenhouse gas intensity."

Sometimes it's a cut, sometimes a reduction in the rate of growth--you just have to know how to speak the language.

Isn't it great when apples are apples until they're oranges?

I'm not sure it's a screening when 80 million people have already seen them, but Grist has posted some of the best and the worst of the car commericals from last night. If you missed them, you can see them here

If you haven't heard it, check out Hansen's interview with Tom Ashbrook of On Point

This abuse of power is another sad example of the problems with having one party control the legislative and executive branches. Unfortunately, Rep. Boelhert sounds like he's not eager to hold hearings. The rubber stamp Congress continues...

Revkin's story on Sat. mentioned a statement by NASA's Administrator Griffin in response to allegations of censorship. Here's that statement in full:

Statement on Scientific Openness

I want to make sure that NASA employees hear directly from me on how I view the issue of scientific openness and the role of public affairs within the agency. First, NASA has always been, is, and will continue to be committed to open scientific and technical inquiry and dialogue with the public. The basis for this principle is codified in the Space Act of 1958, which requires NASA to provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof.

Second, the job of the Office of Public Affairs, at every level in NASA, is to convey the work done at NASA to our stakeholders in an intelligible way. It is not the job of public affairs officers to alter, filter or adjust engineering or scientific material produced by NASA's technical staff. To ensure timely release of information, there must be cooperation and coordination between our scientific and engineering community and our public affairs officers.

Third, we have identified a number of areas in which clarification and improvements to the standard operating procedures of the Office of Public Affairs can and will be made. The revised policy, when complete, will be disseminated throughout the agency.

I want to encourage employees to discuss this issue and bring their concerns to management so we can work together to ensure that NASA's policies and procedures appropriately support our commitment to openness.

Mike Griffin
NASA Administrator

The first paragraph is throw-away rhetoric that is clearly false..."NASA has always been, is, and will continue to be committed to open scientific and technical inquiry." This is precisely the problem.

The next two paragraphs are promising but given the stories of censorship and deceit that have permeated NASA it isn't clear that a new policy alone will do the trick. Scientists at NASA are clearly immersed in a climate of fear and intimidation. This issue can't be resolved with a memo or statement. There needs to be some clear disciplinary action taken against those that have lied to the public and intimidated researchers.

Again, if you haven't already signed the Environmental Action petition do so here. Griffin has started to get the picture but this problem is not even close to being truly resolved.

(Nod to Dr. Benway for NASA's full statement)

The Washington Post reports this morning that New Hampshire's largest lake, usually under a foot of ice at this time of year, is mostly open water. The annual ice fishing derby, the skating, and our other small-town rituals have all been put, well, on ice.

The Post story isn't news to anyone who lives here. One of the diversions that goes along with waiting for spring in New Hampshire is betting on the ice-out date on Lake Winnipesaukee. Officially, that's the first day when the MV Mount Washington can make its way to all ports of call around the lake.

I always bet on April 14 - on the grounds that I could use the winnings to cover my taxes, due the next day - but now people are betting on whether the ice will show up at all.

Is this more evidence of a warming planet? The article gives cursory treatment to the question and concludes we're seeing only "normal climate variability." That may be true. And this is part of the global warming phenomenon that lends comfort and aid to the dwindling band of global warming skeptics. It's very hard to link any particular event, conclusively, with global warming.

But the trend over time in New Hampshire is undeniable. When our lakes do freeze, the ice-out comes earlier than it did a few decades ago. The maple sap starts running sooner. The ski mountains struggle. This is how global warming is moving out of the scientific journals and into ordinary, day-to-day life.

Aaah, Mr. Toles...calling the Bush administration out on their dramatic pronouncements...

Revkin fired off another story this Saturday documenting that the censorship at NASA runs deep. Not only are they preventing scientists from speaking, but they are apparently speaking (erroneously) on their behalf. Two stand out updates:

1) A 24 year old presidential appointee with no expertise in science issued directives to scientists that the Big Bang always be qualified as a "theory" so as not to discount the concept of intelligent design!

2) NASA issued a press release claiming that a particular technology
"may someday prove useful in studying climate systems on other planets." Sounds promising, right? Only problem: the scientist doing the research doesn't believe it's true and disavowed the statement, which was attributed to him!

This is not going away...

Now this is a global warming plan that I could imagine President Bush getting behind. Although he's very concerned about animal-human hybrids, I think he'd be ok with feeding Kangaroo microbes to cows.

check out the story here

We've sure come a long way from the not-so-lofty target of the Kyoto Protocol. The hope in 1997 was that we'd reduce our emissions by 5 percent of 1990 levels. Now eight years later (not to mention countless natural disasters) and the latest global warming proposal in the Senate outlines the oh-so-ambitious goal of reducing the growth of greenhouse gas emissions by 2.4 percent annually.

Just in case your screen is not registering the html coding, let me write that again: the plan aims to reduce the GROWTH of greenhouse gas emissions by 2.4 percent annually. The latest plan is proposed by Senators Pete Domenici (R-NM) and Jeff Bingaman (D-NM).

How far are we from the bottom? President Bush's plan set a goal of reducing the GROWTH by 1.8 percent annually. Bush of course shares some company at the bottom with Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), who immediately came out against the latest Senate proposal.

Can't anyone lower the ante and debase this debate any further? Pat Robertson where are you when we need you?

There's been a lot of hype and hope about the evangelicals throwing their considerable heft behind solutions to global warming, but apparently it isn't going to happen. The Washington Post reported today that the National Evangelical Association was unable to reach an agreement and will sit this one out.

Maybe next go around. You know with the other planet we'll have.

In all seriousness, this is a significant disappointment. If there was any constituency that could have significantly shifted the debate in the current Congress and with the current Administration, they were it.

*****
Update: Here's the letter sent by a group of evangelical leaders opposed to the NEA taking a position on global warming.

Here's David Roberts' post at Grist highlighting that, in the end, the decision had less to do with Jesus and more to do with riding the elephant.

Mark Fiore has put out a new cartoon on global warming. Watch it here

Note the mention of climate scientists being gagged. If you haven't already--go here to take action and help "Stop the Gag on Global Warming"

Also in the Wash Post:

Spotting an Oil Addict: A Crude Guide

In light of President Bush's declaration in the State of the Union address that "America is addicted to oil," here's a list of warning signs that a loved one may have a problem:

Keeps saying, "I can stop my SUV anytime I want."

Characterizes habit as simply "social driving."

Buys drugstore needles for "fuel injections."

Wants to send daughter to Quaker State.

Hidden inside teenage son's copy of Penthouse: a well-thumbed issue of Petroleum Digest.

When they talked about a higher power at the 12-step meeting, thought they meant premium unleaded.

Wakes up in a pool of own light sweet crude.

Cans of 5W-40 hidden in underwear drawer.

Can't kick the minivan habit even after the kids have left for college.

There's a "Mr. OPEC" on the phone, saying he just scored some "really potent" black gold.

Turns out that Bush's signature goal (as weak as it was) of reducing America's dependence on Mideast oil by 75% in 20 years was actually his best punch line. According to the Secretary of Energy, Samuel Bodman, it was just a figure of speech. The President has no intention of reducing our actual imports from the Middle East, instead his Cabinet members are saying that the goal is to displace the equivalent amount with biofuels.

The reference to the Middle East was "purely an example," said Bodman. The Middle East was just a convenient reference point. In the end, their plan has nothing to do with reducing Middle East imports.

Granted, oil is a globally traded commodity so there will always be a challenge in ending imports from a specific place. But the President's language was intentionally misleading.

Now let's revisit what Bush actually said:

"Breakthrough on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025."

You can't fault 30+million viewers with assuming that Bush meant what he said. (Although you do think we'd have learned by now).

Instead what the President meant to say was:

"Breakthrough on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace the equivalent of more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025."

or "an amount equal to" or so on and so forth.

Why mislead the public (other than habit of course)?

According to one official:

"Bush wanted to dramatize the issue in a way that every American sitting out there listening to the speech understands"

Let's see what the mainstream media does with this after so many led with this goal in the stories this morning.

Just a few days after Exxon reported that its mattress was $36 billion thicker, Sen. Specter is saying it's time to do something. It's still unclear what that something will be and whether he's got the will to sustain it.

Remember when Exxon announced their 3rd quarter profits a few months ago, Senators were falling over themselves trying to be the new Sheriff in town. But once the cameras turned away all we were left with was a bunch of Deputy Dogs.

It's hard to imagine a windfall profit tax making it through this Congress but maybe just maybe, we can start cutting the billions of dollars in tax breaks tailored to the oil industry. Obviously that wouldn't make much of a difference but remember this is just for show--it is an election year after all.

I suppose that no one should be surprised that in the 40-minute speech the words global and warming never appeared adjacent to each other. But I thought that he might at least broach the subject rhetorically, if only to reassert their "leadership" on the issue. But not a peep.

A couple of quick quotes from the NY Times' editorial on the issue

Of all the defects in Mr. Bush's energy presentation, the greatest was his unwillingness to address global warming

That Mr. Bush has taken a pass on this issue is a negligence from which the globe may never recover.

Uh, excuse me? Can you repeat the statement, I couldn't hear you...

One thing I don't get is why President Bush and his advisers hyped energy as being a central part of the SOTU. They must have known that energy would occupy only 2 mins and 15 secs of the speech. Why disappoint? There were no serious initiatives and none of the press is really being fooled by the rhetoric.

The NY Times'lead editorial expresses their disappointment that energy didn't play a central role in the speech. Notably absent was any mention of energy efficiency, increasing gas mileage, taxing oil--or any legitimate policy that would significantly reduce our dependence on oil.

The President declares America "addicted to oil" the day after Exxon reports the highest profits in our history.

This stuff draws itself...

The rhetoric last night was grand, even bold at times. How it must have rustled the feathers of his oil buddies to have heard the President declare that "America is addicted to oil." And you do have to wonder how many times the President had to practice that before he could get it out clean. Of course Bush knew it all stopped at the rhetoric so that must have made it easier to swallow.

There were two goals set out on energy:

1) Cut our imports of Middle East oil by 75% by 2025
2) Make ethanol practical and competitive in six years

Why bother with the timelines? Both of those goals are worthy on their own. But within that timeframe they are bad jokes. Really bad jokes.