Perhaps Time magazine was exactly right. We already know that glaciers are melting at twice the rate previously predicted. Countless species are going extinct. Droughts, severe storms and flooding will increase. But it's worse. Much worse.

All of this will happen if we do nothing. Unfortunately, the coal industry is about to do something.

We've pulled together this frightening interactive map of the 130 brand new coal-fired power plants that the industry is pushing to build in the next ten years.

Building these plants would be a disaster. They would increase U.S. production of coal by nearly 25 percent—accelerating global warming even further.

A few years ago, the Christian Science Monitor wrote a story detailing how China, India and the U.S. would bury any progress made under Kyoto. By 2012, new emissions from these three countries alone would be five times as much as would be avoided under the Kyoto agreement.

That was two years ago when the U.S. was planning 100 plants. Now it's a 130 and growing.

Granted, China is predicted to have the greatest expansion in coal production. But we already produce more global warming emissions than any other country—with less than 5 percent of the population.

How much will be spent by the coal industry (with some federal assistance) in building these plants? Nearly $120 billion—with a 'b'. Imagine if we made that sort of investment in energy efficiency and renewables, what a different path we'd be heading down...

Almost two months to the day since the NY Times broke the story that NASA political appointees were trying to silence climate scientists, NASA has issued a new communications policy. The policy permits scientists to be interviewed by the media about their research and to provide their own personal interpretation of the findings. Moreover, while scientists are encouraged to have public affairs staff accompany them to interviews, they are not required to do so.

Given the speed at which scientists are gathering information about the changing climate, this is a strategic victory in the fight against global warming. Of course, reports also arose that NOAA was censoring its scientists, so there is clearly some work to be done before all federal research is fully shared with the public.

Blanco

Lousiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco has set the stage for another showdown with the feds - this time by threatening to block the sale of new oil leases in the Gulf of Mexico.

Why? Because an oil spill might add to the problems that Louisiana's coast has already got? Because more drilling simply worsens our now-infamous addiction to oil?

Not exactly. It's because the feds keep most of the money from lease revenue and Blanco wants her state's share. If the feds had played fair with Louisiana in the past, Blanco said, the state would have used that cash to restore wetlands - in turn, cushioning Katrina's blow.

It's hard to see how Blanco can stick it out for much longer in this game of state-federal chicken. But could a coalition joining Blanco with those who oppose more drilling in the Gulf - no matter where the money goes - win out?

Uggh...if only they had waited a couple of more days...April 1st is just around the corner. Instead, the Bush administration opted to release their "do nothing-say everything" fuel efficiency rule today.

"The new standards represent the most ambitious fuel economy goals for light trucks ever developed in the program's twenty-seven year history," Secretary Mineta said. "And more importantly, they close loopholes that have long plagued the current system".

Umm..these policies actually used to save us oil once upon a time. I'm assuming that Mineta is discounting the years between 1977-85 when fuel efficiency caused U.S. oil consumption to drop 17%.

The Bush proposal is a 1.8% increase over four years. While it is certainly a positive step to require the largest SUVs to meet a standard, the exemption of pick-up trucks and the small increase in the standard makes this rule more of a dog and pony show, then a real racehorse.

Another feel good story from the UK. Wind power is thriving in the U.S., we just haven't set any national goals—we tend to eschew those positive targets we can work toward.

On the other side of the pond though, they have pushed to get 10 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2010. And apparently the booming wind industry is set to provide half of that amount.

I should note that several states have set goals for renewable energy production.

Wouldn't it be nice if the U.S.'s problems were similar? A new report projects that Britain will fall short of meeting its voluntary target of cutting emissions by 20 percent by 2010 (which goes above and beyond Kyoto). Instead, under current policies, they will acheive a 15-18% reduction (also better than their Kyoto target). But don't worry, the government isn't resting on its laurels—they are going to push forward in an attempt to meet the original target.

Here, on the other side of the pond, the debate rages on over whether we should have a program to reduce emissions at all.

The Forest Service has extended until May 1 the public comment period on the plan to sell off hundreds of thousands of acres of national forest.

To tell the Forest Service to drop the scheme, click here

Meanwhile, the fight to stop the plan in Congress goes on. Take part in our online rally.

For those of you who didn't catch it, ABC This Week did a great interview with Gov. Schweitzer, on global warming, in which they flew over Glacier National Park.

It is obvious that the Montana governor gets the severity of global warming, pointing out that at the current pace they'll be no glaciers left in the park in a few decades.

But what truly astounds me is his persistence in leading with coal as a part of the solution. Is he just playing to his Montana base? Or is he really delusional?

Why are our solutions still dependent on things that don't exist and aren't proven to work (clean coal, carbon sequestration, coal to diesel) instead of actually investing in things that we know would work right now.

We know that we can make our cars significantly more efficient. We know that we could get 20 percent of our electricity from renewables in the next 10-15 years. We know that we could drastically reduce the amount of electricity that we use through energy efficiency. Yet this "progessive" Governor from Montana leads with coal? Sure, I know that Gov. Schweitzer supports many of those other things but it is irresponsible to place them at the bottom of the list.

We are quickly approaching the point (and frankly should be well past it) where the debate about global warming is solely focused on what we need to do—with no mention of whether it is happening and whether humans play a role. If that third phase of the battle is going to move more quickly and effectively than the first two, we need to kick coal to the back of the line and lead with solutions that will make a difference know.

I believe that everyone who is serious about solving global warming would probably accept continued research into "clean coal" technologies—but virtually no one who is serious can suggest that our salvation lies therein.

The NY Times has a lenghty article rounding out how the oil and gas industry secured $7 billion in royalty relief through various legislative and court maneuvers. I have already written about this issue here and here.

Of course, the absurdity of this is that even after knowing that big oil is making off like bandits, there is still no interest among congressional Republicans to right the situation. While it isn't clear that much could be done about older leases or wells already drilled (at least not without a court challenge), Congress isn't rushing to turn off the faucet.

What did President Bush say?: "Fool me once, shame on...you. Fool me, you can't get fooled again."

And then there are the oil companies. Who swear that they don't need these incentives:

Michael Coney, a lawyer for Shell Oil, said, "Under the current environment, we don't need royalty relief."

Of course a few years ago...

A group of oil companies, led by Shell, defeated the Bush administration in court. The decision more than doubled the amount of oil and gas that companies could produce without paying royalties.

Perhaps they'll consider returning all that money they don't need...

Despite the catchy slogan, "Go Yellow, Live Green", GM is proposing to increase production of full-size SUVs by 1,000 cars. The brief story in the Detroit Free Press is yet another indication of why this company is no longer the King of the Hill—but is rather fast approaching the bottom of the barrel. While the public definitely ate up GM's large trucks and SUVs in the 90s, the industry still isn't able to demonstrate any foresight. And to be honest, given all of the news stories about the public increasingly turning away from SUVs, we can't exactly call it foresight.

As gas prices continue to rise, SUVs will likely continue to shrink. Perhaps there will always be a market for gas-guzzlers, and apparently GM is staking its future on dominating that dwindling demographic.

As many of you have probably heard, Environmental Defense has teamed up with the Ad Council to launch a series of hard-hitting radio and t.v. ads on global warming. You can check out the ads here

The Philly Inquirer also ran a front-page story on the ads.

I have to say that while the writer is taken by the ads, the article falls into the same bogus trap of offering "balance" on an issue that is completely one-sided.

Quotes such as these should never appear in a global warming story:

All in an effort to reduce carbon emissions,which many scientists say contribute to global warming.

Many? Sure like the largest body of scientists to ever come together.

And then the writer gives a whole paragraph to the doubting Thomases, including their own header:

Doubt over global warming

James Taylor, an editor with the Heartland Institute, a public-policy organization that is skeptical of global warming, said the campaign is partisan and out of line with the Ad Council's stated mission.

The ad doesn't mention George Bush. It doesn't even mention a political party. So why exactly is it "partisan"? No matter...let the man speak! And what does he have to say:

"But any implication that the scientific debate over global warming is settled... is simply wrong."

He said the campaign "amounts to nothing more than an end run around a skeptical Congress, a skeptical president, and a sharply divided scientific community."

It's embarrasing that stories like these still get printed. The next ad campaign should be against the journalists who are failing the public...but they probably won't cover that story.

Photo: Concord Monitor

I hope Hagel gets into the race. He's got that maverick, straight-talking, principled persona that New Hampshire voters just can't get enough of. He reminds us of John McCain - a point that a Concord Monitor reporter raised:

At one point in the interview, Hagel demurred when asked to lay out the differences between himself and close friend Sen. John McCain, whose 2000 presidential campaign he co-chaired. It was the only question he didn't answer.

"Nebraskans can be tricked pretty easily by you fancy New Hampshirites," he joked.

Monitor Editor Mike Pride aggregates coverage of the Hagel visit on his outstanding blog this morning. Pride, by the way, is one of the most experienced and thoughtful commentators around when it comes to the New Hampshire primary. He's worth reading every day.

The Portland Press Herald reports this morning that Colgate will buy Tom's of Maine, the small company famous for its natural toothpaste and its socially-conscious operating philosophy.

Will Tom's new corporate masters allow the company to stick to its principles? Yes, say the folks involved - particularly as long as founders Tom and Kate Chappell retain day-to-day control over the company, which they'll have for at least 5 years.

Maybe, maybe not, concludes an NPR story chronicling the fate of other socially-conscious businesses (Ben and Jerry's, Stonyfield Farm) which elected to sell to big corporations.

In his first budget as the new Governor of New Jersey, Jon Corzine included a proposal to require nuclear operators in the state to compensate the government for security costs. Corzine estimates that nuclear security costs the state government $4.4 million, which they will ask nuclear operators to cover.

A story in the Wall Street Journal today reports that the Bush administration is considering applying fuel efficiency standards to the largest SUVs, which are currently exempt from meeting any standard at all.

As the chart shows, GM would be hardest hit.

The one concern the story raises is that the Administration is also proposing to change fuel efficiency rules in a way that would allow companies to sell more inefficient vehicles by calculating their fleet average differently.

Despite this, I was tempted to break open the champagne on my first read of the story. But after a closer review, I think we'll have to keep it on ice for a little while longer. First off, the story states:

People familiar with the discussions cautioned that no decisions have yet been made, and the final regulation may continue to exempt large vehicles.

So who knows what the final rule will look like. But more importantly, the math (if I'm doing it right) just doesn't amount to much.

The proposed rule would continue to exempt pick-up trucks, which constitute the largest portion of heavy vehicles. Overall, the administration estimates that the rule would result in oil savings of a half billion gallons in 2011 (when it would take effect).

Initially I thought this was impressive. But I was thinking barrels--not gallons

Currently the U.S. consumes 7.3 billion barrels of oil annually. Each barrel produces roughly 19 gallons. We therefore consume about 138 billion gallons.

So if you're already ahead of me, you've figured out that the rule would save roughly 0.4% of our total oil consumption. Also it isn't clear whether this is a net savings that takes into account the new loophole. As I said, this isn't a champagne moment, but it may call for a non-diet soda...

UPDATE: My bad on the math. While every barrel of oil produces approximately 19 gallons of gasoline, the remaining oil is used for other things, so in actuality, every barrel produces 42 gallons. What does that mean? I was being generous. The administration's proposal would save approximately 0.16%--not a whopping 0.4%. Forget the non-diet soda, there's no time to celebrate.

Photo by Doug Struck

Fish and wildlife are following the retreating ice caps northward. Polar bears are losing the floes they need for hunting. Seals, unable to find stable ice, are hauling up on islands to give birth. Robins and barn owls and hornets, previously unknown so far north, are arriving in Arctic villages.

The Inuit alarms, once passed off as odd stories, are earning confirmation from science. Canada's federal weather service said this month that the country had experienced its warmest winter since measurements began in 1948. Nationwide, average temperatures this winter were 7 degrees above normal. Some of the larger temperature increases were in the arctic north.

A report released today ranks 100 big companies on their efforts - or failures - to tackle global warming. Check out www.ceres.org

By industry sector, here are the leaders and laggards:

Oil/Gas
Leader: BP (90 points*)
Laggard: ExxonMobil (35)

Chemical
Leader: DuPont (85**)
Laggard: PPG (21)

Metals/Mining
Leaders: Alcan (77) & Alcoa (74)
Laggard: Newmont (24)

Electric Power
Leader: AEP & Cinergy (both 73)
Laggard: Sempra Energy (24)

Auto
Leader: Toyota (65)
Laggard: Nissan (33)

*Top score among the 100 companies
**Top score among 76 U.S. companies

Here's something you didn't know about New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson: he holds the Guinness record for shaking the most hands in a day - almost 8500.

So it wasn't a surprise that Richardson, dressed mostly in green and marching in a St. Patrick's Day parade over the weekend, held the parade up for several blocks while he worked his magic.

The hope of environmental groups here is that the 2008 New Hampshire primary will give them a chance they won't find nearly anywhere else. The primary's door-by-door town-by-town campaign style is perfect for forcing candidates from both parties to focus on fixing the nation's disastrous energy policy.

The idea is to organize the activists, the ones who show up for events in the living rooms and the library basements, and the candidates will respond.

Too soon to say whether that will work. In fact, the biggest news from Richardson's visit was that he endorsed holding another caucus ahead the New Hampshire primary -- a cardinal sin in the Granite State.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) continues to demand a bill to overhaul the Endangered Species Act in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. But he may meet more resistance than he's bargaining for as he pushes for a bill that would be a companion to the ESA rollbacks passed in the House of Representatives last year. There have been some stirrings in the public debate in the last couple of weeks...

o Pro-Endangered-Species-Act editorials have been published in the Providence Journal (3/8), Hartford Courant (3/19), and Boston Globe (3/13), to name a few. This round of editorials caps a year in which more than 100 newspapers across the U.S. have editorialized in favor of a strong ESA.

o Last week 5,700 American biologists delivered a letter to Congress supporting the protections of the current, strong Endangered Species Act. You can read more about the scientists' letter at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

o Through the Aveda Corporation's Earth Month Petition and the Endangered Species Act Legacy Pledge, almost a quarter of a million people have spoken out in support of a strong Endangered Species Act. You can see the pledge and add your signature at the Endangered Species Coalition.

TPM Muckraker has some good dirt on Dirk Kempthorne's schemes to use corporate contributions to finances personal activities. The practice was legal thanks to a loophole in the Idaho law, but has since been closed. It will be interesting to see whether the appearance of being bought and sold will make any difference in the nomination process—or at least in the media's coverage of it.

It will be interesting to see how BP recovers from the string of bad press surrounding the largest oil spill ever on Alaska's North Slope. The NY Times has a story today investigating BP's actions leading up to the spill, including warnings from workers on the pipeline.

"For years we've been warning the company about cutting back on maintenance," Mr. Kovac said, adding that he was speaking for himself, not the union. "We know that this could have been prevented."

The story also highlights BP's failure to investigate in a more thorough analysis of corrosion problems.

In the procedure, electronic monitors called smart pigs—successors to an earlier generation of cleaning devices that squealed as they ran through the pipe—are used to measure the thickness of a pipe's walls and detect defects. Mr. Beaudo and Mr. Kovac agreed that since 1998 no such inspection had been performed on the line that leaked. Setting up the device is cumbersome, and its data are hard to analyze. The process also slows the movement of oil to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline.

The real question is given how much BP has invested in its environmental credibility, how will they respond?

More info on the flip about the spill itself, courtesy of the Alaska Wilderness League.

* OFFICIAL SPILL VOLUME ESTIMATE: 201,000-267,000 gallons of crude oil announced Friday, March 10, 2006 from the Unified Spill Response Team (made up of BP, EPA, AK Dept. of Enviro Conservation, North Slope Borough)

* Approximately 1,428 bbls (59,976 gallons) of free-flowing oil combined; 57 yards of contaminated gravel, and 1,668 yards of contaminated snow have been recovered as March 12, 2006.

* This spill is now the largest crude oil spill in the history of oil & gas operations on Alaska's North Slope (this record was previously held by the 1989 Milne Point incident that resulted in 38,850 gallons of crude oil being spilled)

* The announcement of the size of the spill came two weeks before the 17th anniversary of the March 24, 1989 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, which dumped 11 million gallons of oil into Prince William Sound and devastated the area's residents, economy and wildlife.

Ron Brownstein had an interesting piece in yesterday's LA Times about the failure of Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) to negotiate a good deal on energy. As the ranking Democrat on the Senate Energy Committee, Bingaman signed off on the wasteful, destructive Bush-backed energy bill last year. Although Bingaman did play a role in blocking the 2003 version of the energy bill, his opposition was less about the substance of the bill and more about being excluded from the process.

When Senator Domenici changed his approach by allowing Bingaman a seat at the table last year, the bill was essentially guaranteed passage. To his credit, Bingaman did manage to keep a couple of bad provisions out of the bill but he didn't manage to win any positive additions.

The 10% renewable energy standard—dropped
The oil savings provision—dropped

While Domenici was able to secure billions of dollars for nuclear power, and Barton targeted billions for the oil industry, Bingaman's fingerprints are only noticeable for what isn't in the bill.

And as Brownstein points out, Bingaman is essentially at it again. In endorsing Domenici's effort to support drilling along Florida's coast, Bingaman is implicitly supporting a flawed notion that supply-side solutions matter. Or worse, that they alone matter.

But given that Bingaman already signed off on what was overwhelmingly a supply side energy bill, maybe it's time to consider that in many respects, Bingaman's priorities are not that different from Domenici's. Or maybe he really is that bad of a poker player.

What is up with the Senate?  President Bush nominates an extremist to head the Dept. of Interior and suddenly everyone approves.  

Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington, said she welcomed the appointment. "He understands the Northwest and a lot of Interior issues."

Dirk Kempthorne is well known and respected by those of us in the Senate who served with him. As a Westerner, former senator and current governor, he certainly understands the issues managed by the Interior Department.

Apparently collegiality trumps conviction.

In his six years as a U.S. Senator, Dirk had a lifetime environmental score of 1%; he cast only one vote in favor of the environment.

It is very likely that pro-environmental Senators will disagree with nearly everything he pushes. And yet...

With proposals to drill along our protected shores and plans to sell-off thousands of acres of public lands, this is a critical moment for America's natural heritage.

The only Senator who has stood up so far is Senator Nelson (D-FL) who has threatened to place a hold on the nomination. So this won't be a complete cakewalk. Go here to e-mail your Senators and bolster their backbone.

In the end, President Bush did decide to choose a former Senator—it was former Senator and current Idaho Gov., Dirk Kempthorne.

Check out Grist's story on Kempthorne.

It suffices to say that based on his six year record in the Senate, Kempthorne promises to carry Norton's mantle.

UPDATE: Even though Senator Bingaman has been leading the charge against President Bush's proposal to sell off 300,000 acres of National Forest, here was his statement on Kempthorne's nomination:

"Dirk Kempthorne is well known and respected by those of us in the Senate who served with him. As a Westerner, former senator and current governor, he certainly understands the issues managed by the Interior Department. I would expect that Dirk will be confirmed."

This is precisely the kind of response the Bush was hoping for when he chose a former Senator.

Scientist at NASA have found that smog (ground-level ozone) plays a big part in warming the Arctic.

"Instead of being this tiny player, (ozone) can be more like 30 or 40 or even 50 percent of the cause of warming that we're seeing in the Arctic now," said lead author Drew Shindell, a scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "It's very dramatic."

Displaying an uncanny knack for symbolism, the Statue of Liberty's light will now be powered by wind energy. The story suggests that the Bush administration itself was behind this decision though this isn't totally clear. Either way, you know that Bush will be touting this as a symbol of his own effort to support alternative energy.

If you were going to support just a few kilowatts of wind energy this would be the place to do it...

In turns out that Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) is not the only Senator exercising his right to place a "hold" on a nomination. Senator Byrd (D-WV) is not comfortable with Bush's nominee for Mine Safety and Health Administration and Senator Kerry opposes Bush's nominee to head the Federal Highway Administration.

The practice of placing a hold is a relatively common occurrence, which Senator sometimes use to outright block a nominee or to at least extricate some concessions. Will be interesting to see how each of these plays out.

According to a report from E&E Daily (unfortunately behind a firewall), former Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO) is a potential candidate to replace Sec. Norton at the Department of Interior. Campbell met with Norton last week after she announced her resignation and was seen on the hill this week meeting with Senators.

Although a former Senator would likely enjoy a smooth confirmation, an interesting subplot in this process is Senator Nelson's (D-FL) threat to place a hold on the nomination—whomever it is. Not surprisingly, Nelson is livid about a proposal to open portions of Florida's currently protected coast to offshore drilling.

"I'm going to object to anyone who intends to follow through with Norton's plan to open vast areas off Florida to oil and gas rigs," Nelson said over the weekend. Last year, Nelson held up the confirmation of Lynn Scarlett as Interior deputy secretary for eight months in a dispute over the 181 area.

It seems like whoever is picked, they'll be a rocky confirmation process...

Twenty years after the fact, farms in Britain are still living with the fallout from the worst nuclear disaster. The British Department of Health reported that 375 British farms (the overwhelming majority of which are in Wales) are still contaminated by the accident that occurred 1,500 miles away in Ukraine. While the nuclear industry is no longer building plants similar to the one in Chernobyl (and the U.S. has none using that design), the report is a sobering reminder of the serious impacts of nuclear power.

As Jean McSorley of Greenpeace states:

"Chernobyl was the worst nuclear accident the world has ever seen but it is by no means the worst that could happen."

NPR ran this great story about the real-life impacts of wind power on rural communities. While allowing the grievances about noise and visual pollution to be aired, the story's undeniable point is that wind is rescuing small towns. On the Tug Hill Plateau in New York state, Horizon Wind Energy's 120 turbine project has revived a dwindling community. Each tower generates $6,000–$10,000 in lease revenue for landowners per year. One family interviewed in the story has 8 towers on its property generating between $50,000–$80,000! And, the wind farm will generate $9 million/year in local taxes suddenly providing the town with the opportunity to build new parks and invest in other amenities. Giddy-up!

(Hat Tip to Shannon Ryan).

I'm not sure whether this back and forth with NEI would be of on-going interest to many of you. I suspect the debate would become more engaging once someone at NEI actually tried to make an argument to suggest that nuclear power, after 60 years and tens of billions of dollars in subsidies, is in fact worthy of billions more in federal support, and that it should not just be a last resort of serious desperation.

So for what it's worth, I placed my response to NEI's latest post in their handy little comments section. The full response is on the flip. The acerbic tone is part a function of my fatigue last night, part a function of the subject matter, and just part me. Like I said, nobody likes a smart ass...

I figured I would take advantage of NEI’s graciousness and post a comment directly on your blog. Thank you for the opportunity.

To stick with the subsidy issue first, it is worth noting that the oped by Lisa, which Eric directed readers to for his response, was penned prior to passage of the energy bill. A not-so-subtle way of avoiding the "point-by-point" response but still appearing to make his argument appear as a direct response. Thus, while the industry was still on the federal dole back then, Lisa makes no mention of the loan guarantees, the risk insurance, or the construction and operating subsidy for the Idaho plant. On the production tax credit for nuclear power, she writes this:

"The most recent proposal capped support at $125 million for up to 6,000 MW for the first eight years."

I’m assuming to keep the word count down (and the truth concealed), she was forced to cut out the all important word "each." That’s right, the industry is now eligible to receive $125 million for EACH of the first eight years of production. In other words, each of the first six plants can receive $1 billion (note again how important the use of the word "each" is in this last sentence—indicating that the total industry subsidy from this one provision is $6 billion). Also worth noting, the nuclear industry’s tax credit—passed in 2005—will stay on the books until 2025 (unless a more fiscally responsible and visionary government repeals it), providing the industry with a necessary long-term security blanket.

On Price-Anderson Lisa says this:

"For both property and liability insurance, commercial nuclear operators pay 100 percent of the premiums; taxpayers and the government contribute nothing."

Two things on this point. First, the industry is clearly subsidized because the cost of its premiums are reduced. If the federal government were to cover damages to my house above a certain amount, I’m pretty certain that Allstate or State Farm or really any company would be happy to charge me significantly less for my own insurance. Hence the obvious and often repeated statement that Price Anderson is a subsidy to the industry. But there’s more...not only are the industry’s premiums subsidized, but their liability is capped. To provide a sense of perspective, the cost of cleanup and compensation in Chernobyl was in the hundreds of billions of dollars; in the event of an accident in the U.S., the nuclear industry would only be liable for approximately $10 billion—a very small fraction of potential costs.

Just to make sure this overall point is clear: the U.S. nuclear industry will never build another plant in this country without billions of dollars in subsidies from the federal government; nuclear power still remains the least competitive source of electricity, which is precisely why many economists (and investors) including Amory Lovins are correct in signaling the demise of the industry. If it turns out otherwise, it will be because the federal government made the unwise and expensive choice to back a turkey.

To be fair, from my experience in talking and debating with the industry, they generally agree with the statement in bold. Clearly they believe in their product, but the honest ones will always recognize that the industry will never get off the ground without significant federal involvement—the likes of which no other industry (except perhaps oil) has ever seen.

Now onto the particular arguments against RMI. I’ll admit that when I posted the initial response to NEI, I didn’t re-read RMI’s press release and newsletter, which NEI critiqued. So it has been more than six months since I read RMI’s analysis. My second reading did surprise me. Did you notice that Amory also used the statement "Why bother?" in reference to investing in nuclear power? Apparently, I’m not as clever as I thought, but the question’s aptness remains.

Before we look at Bradish’s analysis let’s pull a key quote from RMI’s analysis:

"In 2004, decentralized cogeneration and renewables, excluding big hydro dams (any over 10 megawatts), added 5.9 times as much worldwide net capacity as nuclear power added, and raised annual electricity production 2.9 times as much as nuclear power did. By the end of 2004, these decentralized, nonnuclear competitors’ global installed capacity totaled ~411 GW*—12% more capacity than global nuclear plants’ 366 GW—and produced ~92% as much electricity. Thus the “minor”alternative sources actually overtook nuclear’s global capacity in 2003, rivaled its 2004 and will match its 2005 output, and should exceed its 2010 output by 43%. They already dwarf its annual growth."

Now it is clear that RMI’s analysis is analyzing several different parameters including total capacity, annual growth (increased capacity) and electricity generation. These can all become very confusing when they are muddled together in one short paragraph, which may explain part of the problem.

Let’s take each of David Bradish’s points in turn:

1)He demurs RMI’s decision to use capacity instead of generation. To be clear, RMI doesn’t mislead—they are clear about the fact that part of their research compared installed capacity of different energy sources. Measuring capacity is a legitimate (and often used) benchmark for comparing different electricity resources. NEI can quibble about RMI’s decision to graph one data point vs. another but what they fail to acknowledge is that RMI states clearly in the text that alternative energy sources produced 92% as much electricity as nuclear power. So while RMI emphasizes capacity graphically, they provide the electricity generation figure verbally. Hardly the basis for condemning an institution, but then again if you haven’t got much to work with…

Unfortunately that first point is actually the best critique that NEI could make. From there, Bradish’s straws getting thinner and thinner, but to his credit, he holds on tight.

2)In his second critique, David suggests that RMI didn’t examine total operating capacity in existence and instead only calculated yearly capacity increases. Unless I’m missing something, RMI explicitly did this in certain places—i.e. when they were comparing annual capacity increases—but in other places examined operating capacity. So in some places, the very point that RMI was making was that alternative energy sources are "growing" faster (measured as an increase of annual capacity) than nuclear power. How else would Brandish expect RMI to document the "increase in capacity"? When they weren’t measuring increases in capacity, they were referring to total capacity or electricity generation as the statement from RMI above indicates.

3)The third point against RMI’s analysis is itself confusing. Here’s the paragraph from NEI:

"The third reason the graph is misleading is because it uses five different sources for its information. For example, when conducting a search on EWEA, they said that wind could supply 12% of the world’s electricity by 2020. After doing some calculations, 1,250 GW (the amount needed to achieve 12%) would be a wind farm the size of Texas. Let’s be realistic here, right now the total capacity in the US of wind is about 4 GW."

Now is the critique that RMI used different sources or is it the result? Since it doesn’t make a difference, I may as well address both. The decision to use various sources is hardly a research flaw in and of itself—assuming a few things: you clarify your sources, use similar units, and don’t double count. Double counting is a definite no-no. Good scientists that they are, RMI follows these rules. But then it occurred to me that Bradish’s actual critique could be that the potential result is itself unrealistic. But Bradish doesn’t provide his own analysis to document where EWEA or RMI’s calculations are wrong he only suggests that 1,250 GW is an impossible figure. Forget for a minute that the folks at NEI are the same people who strongly "believe" that nuclear waste can be safely disposed of and that we will someday find an alternative use for spent fuel. Let’s dispense with the belief argument. Show me some numbers and then we’ll talk.

4)Finally, NEI disputes RMI’s decision to limit the analysis to 2010. Hmm. I doubt that NEI complained when the Joint Committee on Taxation decided to limit its analysis of the tax provisions in the energy bill to 10 years, thereby masking the $6 billion cost of the nuclear production tax credit. Let me go back and check whether Bradish raised this point with JCT, or whether someone raised this issue in NEI's blog—urging JCT to calculate the full cost of the nuclear production tax credit. Couldn't find anything. Maybe NEI’s Vice President sent a letter directly to the committee staff urging them to change the calculations? Eric, I missed that letter—please send me that letter when you find it.

This is truly the most pathetic argument of the lot, and I am embarrassed to have to spend five minutes responding to it. I could understand NEI’s frustration with RMI’s decision to limit the analysis to 2010 if the nuclear industry was planning for 20 plants to be completed and online in 2011—thereby clearly biasing their analysis. But how far does Bradish expect RMI’s analysis to extend? Would 2015 have been acceptable? 2020? As Bradish himself says at the end of his piece "In another 10-15 years, as the world has to make intelligent choices involving economic growth and environmental protection, it may begin skyrocketing again." Just because the industry "may" add capacity in 10-15 years doesn’t imply that every analysis should extend far enough to accommodate the nuclear industry’s dreams. And 2010—being a round number and the beginning of a new decade and all—seems like a pretty defensible end point for an analysis.

What is not defensible is that I've spent more than a half hour responding when I could just have easily said "Why does the nuclear industry bother?"

Eric--don't forget the letter, oh and an explanation of why you need ALL THOSE SUBSIDIES...

Later this week, NASA is expected to release a five-page document outlining its new communications policy in response to repeated incidences of censorship. Already more than 160 scientists have issued a statement supporting the process and NASA's commitment to a new policy. While hinting at the on-going vigilance required, Revkin reports that Dr. Hansen—who was at the center of the uproar—is also content with the progress being made at NASA:

"The battle to achieve open communication between government scientists and their employer, the public, is far from won. Nevertheless, I agree with the opinion of colleagues that the focus should be on discussing solutions to global warming."

"My personal aim is to get back to science research full time," he said, "especially on quantifying options for dealing with global warming."

For the second time in four months, the CEOs of the top five oil companies will appear before a Senate Committee tomorrow to defend industry mergers, prices, and profits. As was the case last time, little is expected to come of the event other than a bevy of soundbites from seemingly angry politicians showing national (and hopefully local) cameras their best profile as they chew out the industry execs. As the cameras pan the dais away from the Senators all that is left behind are trails of winks and nods to complement the on-camera frown.

Unlike Senator Stevens, Chairman Specter is apparently planning to put the witnesses under oath. Stevens must be thinking the place is going to the dogs.

(Via the Progress Report)

Knight Ridder reported that 136 Members of Congress spent more than $1 million in taxpayer dollars last year to lease vehicles, often choosing gas-guzzling SUVs or luxury cars.

Exposing my own bias, I initially thought that Members leasing SUVs would hail from rural districts, but this is not the case:

Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., tools around his 16-square-mile Manhattan district in a Cadillac DeVille that costs nearly $1,000 a month. In nearby Queens, Democratic Rep. Gregory Meeks chose a Lexus for $1,062.85 a month.

To see the whole list go here

According to AP, Secretary of Interior Gale Norton is going to resign her post. With close ties to the logging and mining industries, Norton has been the bane of nearly every environmentalist's existence. She has also been one of the Administration's key proponents for drilling in the Arctic Refuge.

Of course it will be interesting to see who Bush chooses as a replacement, but given his position of weakness, it is hard to imagine anyone worse.

UPDATE: Read Norton's resignation letter here.

Mr. President, this department has climbed the mountaintop in terms of achieving the goals we set out to accomplish.

Pity she didn't mention the part about leveling the mountaintop once they got there...

Field & Stream has a short article on the Bush administration's proposed sell-off of our public lands. The piece discredits the administration line that "most of the lands in question are small, isolated parcels, usually surrounded by private property and, hence, "difficult to manage."

Environmental Action has started an on-line photo rally to pressure Congress to stop this deal. Check it out here.

In my career as a environmental advocate, one of the more amusing experiences was debating the nuclear industry's lobbyists. Even though the audiences were generally biased (employees of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission who were predisposed to support nuclear power) it was always quite easy to seed doubt about the industry. Why? Because the facts are simply not in the industry's favor.

Those experiences led me to believe that the nuclear industry was best served when it stayed hidden; if they stuck their head out, it was as easy as hitting the mole back into its hole at that carnival game.

Yet for some reason, NEI (the Nuclear Energy Institute) has decided to stick its head out in criticizing this fine blog for supporting the work of Amory Lovins and the Rocky Mountain Institute.

Although this is somewhat of a bank-shot against us, I figured I'd take a couple of minutes to respond.

For today, we'll focus on RMI's main argument, which is that nuclear power is not competitive without massive federal support; if every energy source (including efficiency) were allowed to compete on a level playing field, nuclear would sink to the bottom.

The industry of course knows that it can't get a foothold in today's energy market, which is precisely why they have groveled for every subsidy imaginable.

I present to you Exhibit A: The Energy Policy Act of 2005. I'm guessing the industry would rather keep quiet about how they made off like bandits, but then again, they chose to stick their heads out. Without forcing you to scroll through a half-hour worth of text, I'll just point out the more eye-popping goodies.

Construction: The nuclear industry is eligible to receive federally-backed loan guarantees covering up to 80% of the cost of building new plants. The industry knows that Wall Street/private investors are not interested in nuclear power and that without Uncle Sam's helping hand they would never get started.

As Dominion's CEO himself has said:

"If you announced you were going to build a new nuclear plant, Moody's and Standard & Poor's would assuredly drop your bonds to junk status, hedge funds would be bumping into each other trying to short your stock."

Risk Insurance: $2 billion in risk insurance to cover the costs of construction delays. Again, the industry knows that the construction of a new plant will be a challenging endeavor with many variables, but they aren't interested in assuming that risk on their own.

Operating Insurance: Also known as the Price Anderson Act, this is a monumental subsidy that caps the industry's liability in the case of a serious accident. The public has no guarantee that it would be compensated, while the industry would walk off without being liable beyond a limited amount. Say what it will about this, but in the end they only need to answer one question: if nuclear power is so safe (as proponents like to argue) why do they need the federal government to limit their liability? I'll jump in with a possible answer, which is that no private insurance company would even take the industry's phone call otherwise.

Production Tax Credit: A $6 billion production tax credit worth as much as $1 billion each for the first six plants.

Decommissioning Tax Credit: A $1.3 billion tax credit to assist with the decommissioning of plants.

I'm guessing the intelligent readers of this blog have detected the pattern here: every phase of the nuclear industry needs federal support. The federal government will help build the plants, protect the industry against any delays or serious accidents, pay them for producing electricity, and credit them for decommissioning the plants. Of course, we still haven't talked about the inevitable federal support for dealing with radioactive waste which would likely run into the billions once the ratepayer fund runs dry, or the $60 plus billion the industry has received in research and development support, or the $1.2 billion they were given to build a plant in Idaho, or, or, and, or.

So I guess all I'm really wondering is why the nuclear industry bothers?

I wrote about the proposed electricity rate hike for MD residents, but Toles talks in images:

Once again, the Virginia legislature is proposing to allow gas drilling along its coasts--undermining a federal moratorium on offshore drilling.

Gov. Warner vetoed a similar bill last year and now we'll see where Tim Kaine stands on critical energy issues. Will he cave and support a bill that leads Virginia in the same direction of continued dependence on fossil fuels or will he try to move toward the new technologies and energy sources of the future.

It is worth noting that the final bill doesn't even include tax credits for consumers to purchases energy efficient appliances. At least the legislature still knows how to spell "O-N-E S-I-D-E-D"

Some quick thoughts about the 25x'25 Conference:

* Overall, this is a great initiative to bring farmers, industry, government and environmentalists together to address our collective energy concerns.

* Not surprisingly, the more vague a goal is the easier it is for people to get behind it. This campaign casts a broad net of calling for 25 percent of our energy from renewables by 2025. But since the definition of renewables includes both electricity and transportation fuels it enables everyone from supporters of ethanol to supporters of wind to all jump on board.

On the one hand it is great to build momentum by bringing more people on board. But the flipside is that the goal is so nebulous that people aren't necessarily working together on a concrete proposal. At least in the legislative arena, the real weight of this coalition would be realized if they were able to support each others' individual efforts. Will industry support a renewable portfolio standard? will environmentalists support ethanol? It's not sure what this all looks like when the rubber hits the road.

* Sec. of Agriculture Johanns was at the event providing a glimpse of what the administration is doing that is compatible with the goal of 25x'25. I specifically asked the Secretary why the administration hasn't supported a renewable electricity standard, which we know is the best way to encourage the development of alternative energy. The Secretary punted the question, saying that it was within the jurisdiction of the Dept. of Energy. I'm sure the farmers who benefit from siting wind turbines on their land appreciated that.

* One of the better presentations was by James Woolsey , who displayed an incredible knowledge of both the history of U.S.-Islamic relations and of the technologies avaiable to end America's dependence on oil. He also possesses a great deadpan sense of humor. One of the interesting stats he provided related to Brazil's recent transformation in their transportation industry. In just two years (2003-2005), Brazil transformed its vehicle fleet from being 5% flex fuel to 75% flex fuel. Of course the transformation was years in the making, but to make those leaps in just two years is incredible.

Of course, from a sociological/historical perspective, these long-term visionary efforts always provide a future opportunity to reflect on stated goals and evaluate the progress made. It will be interesting to imagine what our energy sector will look like in 20 years.

So the conference I attended today was the 25x'25 Agriculture and Forestry Renewable Energy Summit. It's a broad-based coalition effort to get 25 percent of our energy from renewables by 2025. There were a bunch of good presentations that I'll discuss but one interesting piece were the results of a public poll on the issue.

Public Opinion Strategies surveyed 1,000 registered voters and found several interesting things:

* Americans don't believe that there is an energy crisis, but they do believe we have a serious problem; it's just not the level of a crisis in the public's mind.

* 98% of Americans believe the overall goal of getting 25% of our energy from renewables is important (74% very important)

* 90% believe the goal is achievable

* 88% support federal incentives to acheive the goal and 92% favor government mandates.

* Energy ranked at the top of Americans concerns along with health care, security and education

* the public believes that special-interests, such as the oil and gas industry, are the primary obstacle to achieving the goal

* national security is the best way of selling the goal.

The support levels are of course off the charts, which has to be rare for any issue.

Baltimore and Maryland residents are in for a real jolt in their electricity rates this year. The average Baltimore Gas and Electric customor will watch their electricity bills increase by $743—a 72 percent hike on current rates.

As reported in the Baltimore Sun, this will be one of the biggest one-year price hikes in the nation.

In July, legislated "rate caps" expire that had kept electricity prices frozen for six years, saving BGE customers more than $1 billion over what they might otherwise have paid.

Deregulation ain't cheap...but it sure can be profitable.

I haven't kept close tabs on the coverage of global warming in the past year but I'd be shocked if an analysis didn't show a surge in stories and opeds in the past three months. David Ignatius' piece today continues this string.

After outlining the significant vacuum in political leadership on the issue, Ignatius exposes the hypocrisy of the administration.

And now we come to the Bush administration -- the folks who once warned that it would be folly to wait so long for evidence that the "smoking gun" might be a mushroom cloud. Their spirit of vigilance was applied to Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, which turned out not to exist -- but not to climate change, which does.

For years, I've maintained that this argument ought to be thrown in the administration's face.

Ignatius concludes:

Usually, America's political antics are forgivable, but not on this issue. As evidence grows that human activity is accelerating dangerous changes in the world's climate, the Bush administration's excuses for inaction are running out. History will not forgive political leaders who failed to act on this issue, and neither should voters.

Taking global warming to the ballot box will be an even bigger challenge--but we may only be a few more natural disasters from that reality.

Between travelling yesterday and attending a conference on renewable energy today, I haven't been able to carve out much time to blog--despite my best efforts (would you believe the Mayflower Hotel in DC isn't wireless??). I'll write up a bunch on the conference in a bit, but I wanted to do some catchin' up first.

Despite Tony Blair's best efforts to revive nuclear power in Britain, a new report released by his own advisory panel strongly opposed the construction of new plants. The Independent reported on the story yesterday.

Its criticisms of nuclear power are nothing new but this report appears quite hard-hitting in that it touches on all the concerns:

Despite the Prime Minister's well-known support for the nuclear industry, the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) concluded that a new nuclear programme was not the answer to the twin challenges of climate change and security of supply. In a hard-hitting report, the 15-strong Commission identified five "major disadvantages" to nuclear power:

* The lack of a long-term strategy for dealing with highly toxic nuclear waste

* Uncertainty over the cost of new nuclear stations and the risk that taxpayers would be left to pick up the tab;

* The danger that going down the nuclear route would lock the UK into a centralised system for distributing energy for the next 50 years;

* The risk a new nuclear programme would undermine efforts to improve energy efficiency;

* The threat of terrorist attacks and radiation exposure if other countries with lower safety standards also opt for nuclear...

There's little point in denying that nuclear power has its benefits but, in our view, these are outweighed by serious disadvantages.

Throw in a nod to the potential of renewables:

The commission said that even if the UK's existing nuclear capacity was doubled, it would only lead to an 8 per cent reduction in carbon emissions from 1990 levels. By contrast, renewable energy sources such as wind, wave, solar and biomass, which are zero-carbon sources of energy, could supply 68-87 per cent of the country's electricity needs if fully exploited.

It isn't clear what Blair will do with this but it's got to give him reason to pause and think twice about the rush to build new nuclear plants.

I haven't heard much from this morning's committee hearing on energy independence, but I did track down Amory Lovin's press release for the event. As usual, his thoughts are bold and solidly backed by research.

"The surest path to an energy policy that enhances security and prosperity is free-market economics," Lovins's prepared testimony concludes: "letting all ways to save or produce energy compete fairly, at honest prices, no matter which kind they are, what technology they use, where they are, how big they are, or who owns them. That would make the energy security, oil, climate, and most proliferation problems fade away, and would make our economy and democracy far stronger."

The full release is on the flipside.

UPDATE: His full testimony is posted here

Media Alert: Senate Energy Committee To Hear How U.S. Energy Policy Undercuts National Security

Washington, D.C., 7 March 2006-The U.S. Senate's Energy Committee is scheduled Tuesday to hear four invited experts-former CIA Director R. James Woolsey, top oil strategist Dan Yergin, Susan Cischke, vice president of environmental and safety engineering for Ford Motor Company, and Rocky Mountain Institute CEO Amory Lovins-testify on the goal of energy independence. Lovins, who has briefed two U.S. Presidents and 16 other heads of state on energy policy and has long advised major energy firms and the Departments of Energy and Defense, will report his organization's dramatic new finding: a business-led roadmap for getting the U.S. entirely off oil. He will also explain why that's not enough, because one of the biggest threats to national security is national energy policy.
Lovins will testify that achieving energy independence and security requires three actions: making domestic energy infrastructure, notably electric and gas grids, resilient; phasing out, not expanding, vulnerable facilities and unreliable fuel sources; and ultimately eliminating reliance on oil from any source. Thus, for example, U.S. policymakers should be concerned about recently attacked Saudi oil facilities whose destruction could crash the global economy; but they should be equally wary of creating an "all-American Strait of Hormuz" by drilling for oil under the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, thus doubling and prolonging dependence on the vulnerable Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). Lovins documented TAPS's frightening vulnerability in his 1981 Pentagon study Brittle Power: Energy Strategy for National Security (www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid1011.php). In 2001, Mr. Woolsey, who'd coauthored its foreword with Adm. Tom Moorer (President Reagan's Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), testified against Refuge drilling as imperiling national security.
Lovins will also testify that overcentralized energy systems create other tempting terrorist targets and make regional blackouts bigger and more frequent. He will describe how nuclear power, another centerpiece of Federal energy policy, encourages the spread of nuclear bombs-"correctly identified by the President as the gravest threat to national security"-as is now occurring in Iran.

Lovins will explain how these "self-inflicted security threats" can be eliminated by cheaper, faster, more abundant, and security-enhancing energy alternatives-both comprehensive efficiency and more diverse, dispersed, renewable supplies-that are already winning in the global marketplace. For example, decentralized power generation, a third of it renewable, is already bigger than nuclear power and is growing many times faster, simply because it cuts investors' costs and risks. Energy efficiency is even cheaper and probably bigger. Such quick, affordable options would, he will suggest, make a better and safer offer to India-modernizing the non-nuclear 97 percent of its electricity system-than boosting the costly nuclear 3 percent.

Similarly, the costly and risky liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals pushed by Federal policy would become needless and uncompetitive if policymakers relieved both gas and power shortages by simple policy reforms. These could save half of U.S. natural gas at less than a tenth of its price, and quickly slash the country's annual gas and power bills by more than $50 billion.
Lovins's testimony will emphasize Winning the Oil Endgame (www.oilendgame.com)-an independent, peer-reviewed, detailed, transparent, and uncontested RMI study cosponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Chief of Naval Research, and introduced by former Secretary of State George Shultz and Shell ex-chairman Sir Mark Moody-Stuart. The study shows how existing technologies and innovative business strategies and government policies can eliminate U.S. oil use by the 2040s and revitalize the U.S. economy, without needing new energy taxes, subsidies, mandates, or Federal laws. Welcomed by business and military leaders, the RMI analysis is based on competitive strategy for cars, trucks, planes, oil, and the military. Such powerful forces as Wal-Mart and the Pentagon are already starting to speed its implementation.

"The surest path to an energy policy that enhances security and prosperity is free-market economics," Lovins's prepared testimony concludes: "letting all ways to save or produce energy compete fairly, at honest prices, no matter which kind they are, what technology they use, where they are, how big they are, or who owns them. That would make the energy security, oil, climate, and most proliferation problems fade away, and would make our economy and democracy far stronger."

In almost any other country, this would be heralded as bad news. But in this Senate, with this Congress and this President, inaction is a good thing—a very good thing.

According to Congressional Quarterly, Senator Domenici told reporters today that his Committee (Energy and Natural Resources) would not deal with global warming this year.

"There will be no climate change legislation coming out of my committee this year," Domenici told reporters.

Senator Domenici's admission today is a relief. Just to be clear: global warming is bad. And we need a solution—fast. But the proposal Senators Domenici and Bingaman were considering would have allowed greenhouse gas emissions to increase for the next twenty years before we actually started to see a decline back toward today's levels.

We need a bold, serious solution for global warming. We do not need an irrelevant, feel-good bill that will impede real progress.

The Senate Energy Committee is holding a hearing today on energy independence with some heavy hitters testifying, including Amory Lovins (head of the Rocky Mountain Institute and overall energy guru) and James Woosley (former CIA Director and active member of the Set America Free Coalition).

Instead of being in DC (where I'm usually based), I'm held up in Boston, so I won't be able to report on the actual proceedings. Though if you are particularly interested you may be able to watch them on the Committee's website or through CSPAN.

Of course we generally know what each witness will say, so these things are at least part kabuki theatre, but it's still a great opportunity to raise the profile of the issue.

I'll be reporting on some of the goodies from the hearing as they come to me.

There's been a lot about Rep. Bill Thomas' (R-CA) announced retirement today. Much of the media has focused on his efforts in crafting the Medicare prescription bill and the Bush tax cuts, but enviros won't be remiss to see him go. As a staunch supporter of oil & gas (he is from Bakersfield no less), Thomas was instrumental in creating billions of dollars in tax breaks for the oil and gas industry, as well as other polluting sectors. In fact, the original energy tax bill crafted in 2005 by Thomas provided 95% of the tax breaks to polluting industries (coal, nuclear, oil and gas), with only 5% targeted at renewables and energy efficiency.

Now it isn't clear that things got better on the Committee as Jim McCrery from Louisiana is one of three people that could get the spot, but given Thomas' record they couldn't get much worse.

As I mentioned last week the spectre of global warming may, and many increasingly believe should, overshadow every other concern—environmental and non-environmental. Kristof's oped today touches on this very point. Of course, we don't want to dismiss the importance of all the other concerns and problems people are fighting for but at some point the all-encompassing consequences of global warming will take precedence.

I'll talk about this more later this week, but here are a few pieces from the oped:

Look, I know that climate science can be — here's a shock — boring! But it's better for us to slog through it now than for coming generations to slog through the rising waters of, say, Manhattan. It may be more exciting to thump the table about Iraq or torture — or even the preservation of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge — and those are all hugely important. But global warming may ultimately be the greatest test we face as stewards of our planet. And so far we're failing catastrophically.

"Historians of science will be brutal on us," said Jerry Mahlman, a climate expert at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "We are right now in a state of deep denial about how severe the problem is. Political people are saying, 'Well, it's not on my watch.' They're ducking for cover, because who's going to tell the American people?"

We know what to do: energy conservation, gas taxes and carbon taxes, more renewable energy sources like wind and solar power, and new (and safe) nuclear power plants. But our political system is paralyzed in the face of what may be the single biggest challenge to our planet.

"Are we an intelligent species or not?" Dr. Mahlman asked. "Right now, the evidence is against it."

Since the Bush administration announced a proposal to reprocess spent commercial nuclear fuel, they have ducked and dodged every query about the price tag. Well this past week, the Secretary of Energy finally admitted what everyone familiar with the technology has known: it is expensive. Really, really expensive.

From Congress Daily:

"One of the reasons it might not pan out is that it's thought to be too expensive," said Bodman, who today reiterated his estimation that the program would eventually cost between