So before I equivocate a little and piss off my colleagues, I wanted to say a bit more on the importance of endorsing Chafee.

As I mentioned, the bottom-line is that he deserves it. You vote right for an issue group, you deserve to be endorsed. That's why issue groups exist in the first place—because no party can be counted on to represent it fully. There will always be differences.

It will always be easier for the environmental movement to win votes with bipartisan support. As was likely evident from the scores I posted of many Democrats, it is rare that the environmental community can count on the entire caucus to vote right.

This may have some unintended negative consequences, like Gail Norton being appointed Secretary of Interior, or Judge Alito sitting on the Supreme Court, and so on. But it is also rarely the case that the environmental community alone holds the balance of power in forming the Senate or House majority. More importantly, passing higher fuel economy standards, capping global warming, and reinstating superfund will almost surely require bipartisan support.

So again, in the long run, it is undoubtedly the right choice.

Now where I think the community goes wrong at times is in going out of their way to be bipartisan. We need pro-environmental candidates on both sides of the aisle, but there has to be a single standard applied to both parties. If a score of 50 isn't good enough for a Democrat to get an endorsement, then it shouldn't be good enough for a Republican. Moderate republicans should not get a pass because their party has shifted further right. It will also mean that environmental groups will have to prioritize helping more moderate republicans win open primaries, as occurred with Joe Schwarz last cycle.

With Bush scrambling for fast and easy solutions to gas prices - opening the SPR, suspending clean air rules to cut refineries a break - John Sununu took a little bit of a shot at the President yesterday.

Sununu (by the way, recently named the smartest U.S. senator by John McCain) told the Concord Monitor:

"It was a mistake to suggest that the bloated energy bill that passed last year was a solution to this problem, and it's a mistake to suggest that a few quick changes make today a solution to the problem."

Good for him, right? Sununu was, after all, one of the few senators to oppose the energy bill, sticking to his guns about the outrageous cost of the measure.

He goes on to say that nuclear power is the biggest and best way to cut our enormous appetite for oil. Which is puzzling, because such a big - and growing - percentage of the oil we use goes to transportation.

As for others in the NH delegation quizzed about the issue:

Jeb Bradley: Worried about gas prices becoming an election issue? Didn't want to say. Called for bipartisan solutions. Loves his new hybrid.

Charlie Bass: Says he's left the family Suburban in the garage of six weeks and counting. Now he's driving the Volvo. Oh, and the market is the best way to set fuel efficiency standards.

Right on, Navin. This is the general problem with the Dems at any cost approach - it tends to blame environmentalists or choice advocates or labor union members for prioritizing their views. In my forthcoming book, Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party, I write about the dangers of this approach; here's an excerpt:

In their otherwise trenchant 2006 book Crashing the Gate, bloggers Jerome Armstrong and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga trash progressive organizations like the Sierra Club, NARAL, and labor unions for their occasional bipartisan tendencies. They condemn these groups for being willing to endorse Republicans who support them on their issues over Democrats who are more wishy-washy. They argue, perhaps fairly, that the most important vote a senator or congressman casts is not one on a particular issue, but rather their vote for the leader who sets the agenda. They also argue, again perhaps fairly, that on the really important votes, single issues don't matter as much as a general philosophical approach.

This view ascribes a great deal more partisanship to the membership of these groups than they truly possess. Most Sierra Club members want a candidate who will protect the environment, no matter which party that person belongs to. Most workers want a candidate who will fight to protect their rights to organize and help improve their pay and benefits. And most members of abortion rights groups want candidates who will defend their right to choose, regardless of their party. And with a Democratic Party that has a demonstrated inability to get elected, it's wise to hedge your bets at least a little bit - so you don't lose everything.

Moderate Republicans played a key role in protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - in part because some of them were led to feel that they would have a realistic chance of getting a Sierra Club or LCV endorsement if they did so. Armstrong and Zuniga want these groups and their members to ignore times when Democrats sell them out or just flat out disagree with them and support them based solely on their party affiliation. I think I might agree with them that these groups would do more to advance their goals by working together more closely, prioritizing their fights, and pooling their resources, but it's completely unrealistic to expect, say, abortion rights groups to support anti-choice candidates or for environmentalists to reward Lincoln Chafee's tie-breaking environmental votes with support for his opponent. To me, the fault is not the people who care about the environment, women's rights, or their jobs, but rather Democratic politicians who betray those people and don't give them enough reason to support them and their party.

Sheldon Whitehouse is a great environmentalist too, but if LCV and Sierra Club don't endorse Chafee, the message they're sending to Republicans is, "No matter how much you vote for the environment, we won't help you win reelection" - giving environmental groups a lot less leverage in lobbying.

So I've been meaning to comment on this brouhaha in the blogosphere about the decision by LCV and the Sierra Club to endorse Chafee. I figure that since I attended LCV's (bipartisan) annual dinner last night, now is as good a time as any.

If you haven't caught the story (where have you been??), over at Daily Kos, Markos himself has been raging against the "stupidity" of this decision. He posted when Sierra Club first endorsed Chafee and then a few days later when LCV followed with their own endorsement. He then felt smuggly validated when Chafee screwed the environmental community by endorsing Bush's nominee to the EPA yesterday. He's followed up that post with another today.

Dave Roberts over at gristmill initially defended the decision to endorse Chafee, but has since reconsidered.

Personally, I think that LCV and Sierra Club would become irrelevant if they DIDN'T endorse Chafee.

Fundamentally, the difference of opinion comes down to a matter of focus. Partisan types like Kos are exclusively focused on one thing: winning in 2006. It doesn't really matter what the new majority stands for, as long as they have a "D" next to their name. They'll take conservative Dems, anti-choice Dems, pro-gun Dems, anti-environmental Dems. Granted, they would certainly prefer progressive Dems over conservative ones, but in the end, all that matters is that control of one (or both) houses changes hands.

Without question, this would make a big difference for the environment—among many other issues. At the very least, it would end the string of disastrous appointments. It would probably slow the tide of crappy legislation. Would it actually result in any GOOD? That, unfortunately, is a completely different question.

Building a democratic majority is only a part of building an environmental majority, which is the stated purpose of these two organizations. Sure democrats are, on the whole, much more supportive of environmental issues but that doesn't change the underlying mission of these organizations.

When your focus is not just on 2006, but on 2010, or beyond, it behooves you to stick to your principles—of supporting members who are consistently pro-environment.

There is NO doubting that Chafee has a pro-environmental record. Just for reference: Chafee's LCV score bested the following Senate Dems: Akaka, Baucus, Bayh, Bingaman, Byrd, Carper, Conrad, Corzine, Dorgan, Inouye, Jeffords, Kohl, Landrieu, Levin, Lieberman, Mikulski, Nelson (NE), Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar and Stabenow.

In other words, Chafee is better than nearly HALF of the standing Senate Democrats. HALF! What would Kos propose? That LCV conveniently ignore his record? That they say "thank you for stopping Clear Skies, the gutting of the Engandered Species Act, Drilling in the Arctic, and by the way we just can't help you because, in the end, voting right isn't enough--you need to be a Democrat"?

You can argue about the accuracy of the score: sure some important votes were not included, but would that have drastically changed the overall issue? Of course not.

This may just be a shitty fact of (democratic) electoral politics. But issue groups are NOT going to stand behind the party without question. Perhaps we ought to bemoan the fact that the environmental movement isn't as unprincipled and as two-faced as the NRA—willing to embrace democrats when it's convenient or throw them overboard when it's not. But I'd say we are better off for it.

I'll say more on this tonight, but I've got to run out for a bit.

A couple of oil related cartoons from Mike Luckovich at the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

Oil prices are high. The public is demanding action. Congress is making speeches. Oil companies have seized the opportunity.

President Bush announced today that in response to high gas prices he's going to waive environmental regulations. That should do the trick.

Wasn't this the same President who just a few days ago (on Earth Day) said that we could have a clean environment and a healthy economy? Apparently April Fool's Day is getting harder to distinguish from Earth Day.

Today's announcement was made at a "major" speech given by the President before the Renewable Fuels Association. The text of the full speech is below the fold, but here's how things break down:

Demand Solutions: Increase consumer tax credits for efficient cars

Supply Solutions: Stop filling SPR, waive environmental regulations, review boutique fuels, build more refineries, drill in ANWR, and ethanol.

Fair and Balanced, wouldn't you say?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you all. Please be seated. (Cheers, applause.) Thank you all for coming. Proud you're here. Please be seated. (Cheers, applause.) Thank you all. Bob, thanks for the introduction. It's always good to be introduced by somebody's who's referred to as the "promoter in chief." (Laughter.) For 25 years, the Renewable Fuels Association has been a tireless advocate for ethanol producers. Your advocacy is paying off. Renewable energy is one of the great stories of recent years, and it's going to be a bigger story in the years to come. (Applause.) I like the idea of talking to people who are growing America's energy security. I -- I like the idea of policy that combines agriculture and modern science with the energy needs of the American people. I'm here to talk to you about the contributions you are making, and I'm here to talk to you about the need for this country to get off our dependency of oil.

And so I want to thank Bob for the invitation.
I want to thank Ron Miller, the chairman of the Renewable Fuels Association.

I want to thank -- thank the board of directors and the members of the Renewable Fuels Association.

I thank the members of my administration who are here. Clay Sell, who's the deputy secretary of Energy, has joined us.
I see members of the United States Congress who are here.
I appreciate Jack Kingston of Georgia, Jerry Weller of Illinois and Gil Gutknecht of Minnesota for joining us. Thank you all for your interest in this very important subject. (Applause.)

Before I talk about energy, I do want to share with you some thoughts about the war on terror. I just got off of a conference -- a video conference with our strong ally Tony Blair, and we were talking about a major development that is taking place in the war on terror. After months of patient negotiations, Iraqi leaders reached an agreement on a unity government. And that's positive. This is a government -- (interrupted by applause). This new leadership reflects the diversity of Iraq, and it reflects the will of the Iraqi people who defied the terrorists and killers and went to the polls last December.
This new government is an important milestone for a free Iraq, and it's the beginning of a new chapter in our relationship with the Iraqi people. When I was in California over the weekend, I had the opportunity to speak to the three leaders -- the president, the speaker and the prime minister-designate. I congratulated them on their courage and encouraged them to stand strong for the Iraqi people. I reminded them the people had voted, the people had expressed their desire for democracy and unity, and now there's a chance for these leaders to stand up and lead.

I told them that they have important responsibilities to their people -- to rebuild infrastructure and to improve their economy and enhance security. I was pleased with the response I got.

It's important for the American people to know that these three leaders appreciate the sacrifice that our troops have made and that our taxpayers have made to help them realize a dream, and the dream is to live in a unified, free society. A free Iraq is in the interest of the United States of America. A free Iraq will be a part of laying the peace for generations to come, and a free Iraq will be a major defeat for the terrorists who still want to do us harm. Prime -- (interrupted by applause).

We got good news here at home on the economic front, too. This economy of ours is growing, and the entrepreneurial spirit in America is strong. We've cut the taxes for everybody who paid income taxes, and that tax relief is getting results. Last year our economy grew faster than any major industrialized nation. Since August of 2003, this economy of ours has created 5.1 million new jobs. The unemployment rate nationwide is 4.7 percent. That's lower than the average rate of the '60s, '70s, '80s and '90s. The American people are working. (Applause.)

Farm income's up. Agricultural exports are growing. Real after- tax income is up over 8 percent per American since 2001. Productivity is high. More people own a home than ever before in our nation's history. This economy is strong, and we intend to keep it that way. And one way to keep it that way is to make the tax cuts permanent. (Applause.)

Yet amongst this hopeful -- these hopeful signs, there's an area of serious concern, and that is high energy prices. And the prices that people are paying at the gas pumps reflect our addiction to oil. Addiction to oil is a matter of national security concerns. After all, today we get about 60 percent of our oil from foreign countries. That's up from 20 years ago, where we got oil from -- about 25 percent of our oil came from foreign countries.

Now, part of the problem is -- is that some of the nations we rely on for oil have unstable governments or agendas that are hostile to the United States. These countries know we need their oil, and that reduces our influence, our ability to -- to keep the peace in some areas.

And so energy supply is a matter of national security. It's also a matter of economic security. What people are seeing at their gas -- at their gas -- gasoline pumps reflects the global economy in which we live.

See, when demand for oil goes up in China or India, two fast-growing economies, it affects the price of oil worldwide. And when the price of crude oil goes up, because it's such an important part of the price of gasoline, the average citizen sees the price of gasoline go up at the pump.

Gasoline price increases are like a hidden tax on the working people. They're like a tax on our farmers. They're like a tax on small businesses. Energy prices are -- energy experts predict gas prices are going to remain high throughout the summer, and that's going to be a continued strain on the American people.
And so the fundamental question is, what are we going to do? What can the government do?

The -- one of the past responses by government, particularly from the party of which I'm not a member -- (scattered laughter) -- has been to have -- to propose price-fixing or an increase to taxes. Those -- those -- those plans haven't worked in the past. I think we need to follow suit on what we have been emphasizing, particularly through the energy bill, and that is to encourage conservation, to expand domestic production, and to develop alternative sources of energy like ethanol. (Applause.)

Signing the energy bill was one thing -- and I want to thank the members of Congress for getting a comprehensive energy bill to my desk -- but there's a lot more to be done.
First thing is to make sure that the American consumers are treated fairly at the gas pump. Americans understand by and large that the price of crude oil is going up and that the prices are going up, but what they don't want and will not accept is -- is manipulation of the market, and neither will I. The Federal Trade Commission is investigating whether price of gasoline has been unfairly manipulated in any way. I'm also directing the Department of Justice to work with the FTC and the Energy Department to conduct inquiries into illegal manipulation or cheating related to the current gasoline prices.
The FTC and the attorney general are contacting 50 state attorney generals to offer technical assistance to urge them to investigate possible illegal price manipulation within their jurisdictions. In other words, this administration is not going to tolerate manipulation. We expect our consumers to be treated fairly.
To reduce gas prices, our energy companies have got a role to play. Listen, at record prices these energy companies have got large cash flows, and they need to reinvest those cash flows into expanding refining capacity or researching alternative energy sources or developing new technologies or expanding production in environmentally-friendly ways. That's what the American people expect. We expect there to be strong reinvestment to help us with our economic security needs and our national security needs.
Record oil prices and large cash flows also mean that Congress has got to understand that these energy companies don't need unnecessary tax breaks, like the write-offs of certain geological and geophysical expenditures or use of taxpayers' monies to subsidize energy companies' research into deep-water drilling. I'm looking forward to Congress to take about $2 billion of these tax breaks out of the budget over a 10-year period of time. Cash flow is up; taxpayers don't need to be paying for certain of these expenses on behalf of the energy companies. (Applause.)

The second part of a good plan is -- to confront high gasoline prices is to promote greater fuel efficiency, and the easiest way to promote fuel efficiency is to encourage drivers to purchase highly efficient hybrid or clean-diesel vehicles, which, by the way, can run on alternative energy sources. Hybrid vehicles run on a combination of a traditional engine and electric battery. The twin sources of power allow hybrid cars and trucks to travel about twice as far on a gallon of fuel as gasoline-only vehicles. When people are driving hybrids, they're conserving energy.

Clean-diesel vehicles take advantage of advances in diesel technology to run on 30 percent less fuel than gasoline vehicles do, and more than 200,000 hybrid and clean-diesel vehicles were sold in the United States last year. It's the highest sales in history.
Congress wisely, in the energy bill, expanded the tax credit for purchases of hybrid and clean-diesel vehicles up to as much as up to $3,400 per purchase. That made sense. If we're trying to conserve energy, if we want to become less dependent on oil, let's provide incentives for consumers to use less energy. The problem is that these tax credits apply to only a limited number of hybrid and clean- diesel vehicles for each manufacturer. The automobile -- if the automakers sell more than their limit, new purchasers are not eligible for the full tax credit.

And so here's an idea that can get more of these vehicles on the road, and that is to have Congress make all hybrid and clean-diesel vehicles sold this year eligible for federal tax credits. We want to encourage people to make wise choices when it comes to the automobiles they drive.

Third part of the plan to confront high gas prices is to boost our supplies of crude oil and gasoline. It makes sense. We're in the supply-and-demand world. If prices are high, it means demand is greater than supply. One way to ease price is to increase supply.
One immediate way we can signal to people we're serious about increasing supply is to stop making purchases or deposits to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for a short period of time. Directed the Department of Energy to defer filling the reserve this summer. Our strategic reserve is sufficiently large enough to guard against any major supply disruption over the next few months. So by deferring deposits until the fall, we'll leave a little more oil on the market. Every little bit helps.

We also need to ensure that there are not needless restrictions on our ability to get gasoline to the pump.

Under federal quality -- air quality laws, some areas of the country are required to use a fuel blend called reformulated gasoline.
Now, as you well know, this year we're going -- undergoing a rapid transition in the primary ingredient in reformulated gas from MTBE to ethanol. And I appreciate the role the ethanol producers are playing to meet this challenge. You're playing a vital role.

Yet state and local officials in some parts of our country worry about supply disruption for the short term. They worry about the sudden change from MTBE to ethanol, the ethanol producers won't be able to meet the demand, and that's causing the price of gasoline to go up some amount in their jurisdictions. And some have contacted us to determine whether or not they can ask the EPA to waive local fuel requirements on a temporary basis.

And I think it makes sense that they should be allowed to, so I'm directing EPA Administrator Johnson to use all his available authority to grant waivers that would relieve critical fuel supply shortages. And I do that for the sake of our consumers. If Johnson finds that he needs more authority to relieve the problem, we're going to work with Congress to obtain the authority he needs.
Secondly, we also need to confront the larger problem of too many localized fuel blends, which are called boutique fuels. The number of boutique fuels has expanded rapidly over the years, and America now has an uncoordinated and overly complex set of fuel rules. And when you have an uncoordinated, overly complex set of fuel rules, it tends to cause the price to go up.

And so I'm asking director -- directing Administrator Johnson to bring the governors together to form a task force on boutique fuels. And the mission of this task force will be to find ways to reduce the number of boutique fuels and to increase cooperation between states on gasoline supply decisions. Want to simplify the process for the sake of our consumers. And then I'm asking them to get these recommendations to my desk, and I look forward to working with the United States Congress to simplify the process.

Listen, we need to expand our refining capacity. One of the problems we face is that we got tight supplies because we haven't expanded refining capacity. There hasn't been a new refinery built in 30 years. If you're worried about the price of gasoline at the pump, it makes sense to try to get more supply to the market. That will be beneficial for American consumers to get more supply to the market.
Part of the reasons why we haven't expanded or built new refineries to the extent we need to is because the permitting process in this country is extremely complicated. Companies that want to upgrade their equipment or expand their existing refineries or build new ones often have to wade through long, bureaucratic delays and/or lawsuits. To make this gasoline supply more affordable and more secure, Congress needs to allow refiners to make modifications on their refineries without having to wait for years to get something -- to get their idea approved. I mean, if we want more supply, let's reduce the paperwork in the regulations. Congress also to simplify and speed up the permitting process for refinery construction and expansion. And so I'm going to work with Congress. It's important for Congress to cut through the red tape and guarantee refinery construction permits will be processed within a single year.

We also need to be mindful of the fact that we can find additional crude oil in our own country in environmentally-friendly ways. The technology is such that we're capable of environmentally- sensitive exploration. We got tight crude oil supplies, and it seems like it makes sense for us to use our new technologies to find more crude, particularly crude here at home.

One of the issues that you know that has been confronting Congress is ANWR. And I fully recognize that the passage of ANWR will not increase the oil supply immediately. But it's also important to understand that if ANWR had been law a decade ago, America would be producing about a million additional barrels of oil a day, and that would increase our current level of domestic supply by 20 percent. Listen, we got to be wise about energy policy here in America.
We got to make sure that we protect the environment. We also got to make sure that we find additional supplies of crude oil in order to take the pressure off the price of crude, which takes the pressure off the price of gasoline at the pump.

And all I've outlined here today are interim strategies, short- term and interim strategy. The truth of the matter is, the long-term strategy is to power our automobiles with something other than oil -- (applause) -- something other than gasoline which is derived from oil. And we're making progress.

In my State of the Union address, I talked about the Advanced Energy Initiative. This is an aggressive plan, a wise way of using taxpayers' money to get us off our addiction to oil. We have a unique opportunity to continue forward with this plan. Technology is the way really to help us -- to help change America for the better. Years of investment in fuels like ethanol have put us on the threshold to major breakthroughs, and those breakthroughs are becoming a reality for our consumers.

It's -- I've set a goal to replace oil from around the world. The best way and the fastest way to do so is to expand the use of ethanol. The Advanced Energy Initiative is focused on three promising ways to reduce gasoline consumption: one is increasing the use of ethanol; another is improving hybrid vehicles; and finally, one is developing hydrogen technology. All three go hand in hand. All three are an important part of a strategy to help us diversify away from hydrocarbons.

Ethanol is -- has got the largest potential for immediate growth.
Most people may not know this, but today, most of ethanol produced in America today is from corn. Most vehicles can use 10 percent ethanol in their automobiles. What's interesting that Americans don't realize is with a little bit of expenditure, we can convert a, you know, a kind of the standard automobile to what's called a FlexFuel automobile.

And that FlexFuel vehicle can use ethanol that is -- or fuel that is 85 percent ethanol. Amazing, isn't that? Without much cost, your automobile can be converted to be able to burn fuel with 85 percent ethanol or a product made from corn grown right here in America.
Ethanol is a versatile fuel, and the benefits are -- the benefits are, you know, easy to recognize, when you think about it. One, the use of ethanol in automobiles is good for the agricultural sector. I'm one of these people who believes when the agricultural sector is strong, America is -- America's strong. (Applause.)

The way I like to put it -- it's a good thing when a president can sit there and say, "Gosh, we got a lot of corn," and it means we're less dependent on foreign sources of oil. (Chuckles.) (Applause.) It -- years back, they'd say, "Oh, gosh, we got a lot of corn," and worried about the price. Ethanol's good for our rural communities. It's good economic development for rural America. You know, new biorefinery construction creates jobs and local tax revenues. When the farmer -- when the family farmer's doing well, it's good for the local -- the local merchants.

Ethanol is good for the environment. I keep emphasizing that we can be good stewards of our environment and at the same time continue with our economic expansion. Ethanol will help meet that strategy. You don't have to choose between good environment and -- and -- and good economics. You can have both by the use of technology. And ethanol is an example of what I'm talking about. And ethanol's good for drivers. Ethanol is homegrown. Ethanol will -- will replace gasoline consumption. It's a good -- it's -- ethanol's good for the whole country, and we've been -- (prolonged applause).
I thought you'd like that. (Laughter.)

The ethanol industry is booming. It must be exciting to have worked for as long as you have on encouraging alternative sources of energy and then all of a sudden see the work come to fruition. Last year America used a record 4 billion gallons of ethanol. There are now 97 ethanol refineries in our country, and nine of those are expanding and 35 more are under construction. The ethanol industry is on the move, and America is better off for it.

Many of these refineries are in the Midwest, Midwest because that is where the source of the -- you know, the feedstock for ethanol comes from. That happens to be corn. But it's really interesting, there are new plants springing up in unexpected areas, like the Central Valley of California, or Arizona, or, of course, in the sugar fields of Hawaii. After all, sugar is also a -- is a -- can be used for ethanol. As a matter of fact, it's a very efficient feedstock for ethanol.

Ethanol is a -- required our support. In other words, to get this new industry going, it required a little nudge from the federal government. Since I took office, we've extended the tax credit of 51 cents per gallon for suppliers. We've created a new 10-cent-per- gallon tax credit to provide extra help to small ethanol producers and farmers. We've provided $85 million of loans and grants for the ethanol business ventures. In other words, it's a collaborative effort. The federal government has got a role to play to encourage new industries that will help this nation diversify away from oil.
And so we're strongly committed to corn-based ethanol produced in America, yet there are -- you got to recognize there are limits to how much corn can be used for ethanol. I mean, after all, we got to eat some. (Laughter.) And the animals have got to eat. And so I am committed to furthering technological research to find other ways, other sources for ethanol.

We're -- we're working on research -- strong research for -- to figure out cellulosic ethanol that can be made from wood chips or stalks or switch grass. These materials are sometimes waste products and just simply thrown away, and doesn't it make sense for us -- I think it does -- to use taxpayers' money to determine whether or not we can use these new -- these raw materials to make something out of nothing, so that we continue the advance of ethanol and so the market for ethanol expands throughout the United States? We're spending -- I proposed -- and I'm working with these members of the Renewable Caucus -- $150 million in next year's budget for research in advanced forms of ethanol, and that's a significant increase over previous levels. I think it makes sense. And surely the prices at the gas pump should say to the taxpayer it makes sense for this government to spend money on research and development to find alternative sources of energy. (Applause.)

I also support biodiesel fuel, which can -- (applause) -- which can substitute for regular diesel in cars, trucks, buses and farm equipment. I -- last year I went out to see a biodiesel refinery in Virginia that's making clean-burning fuel from soybean oil, and it was a really interesting process to watch. It's -- it's -- it's -- it's -- I don't know if you know this or not, but they're -- they're able to -- they use waste products like recycled cooking grease to manufacture biodiesel. In other words, research and development has led to new alternative sources of energy like biodiesel. And so that's one of the reasons why I signed into law the first-ever federal tax credit for biodiesel producers.

In other words, we're interested in addressing our energy security needs on a variety of fronts. It makes sense for the United States to have a comprehensive strategy to help us diversify away from oil. And so we also got to understand that we got to research not only to find -- to invest in ethanol and biodiesel, but part of our comprehensive strategy is to spend money on researching new battery technologies.
And one of the really interesting opportunities available for the American consumer will be the ability to buy a plug-in hybrid vehicle that will be able to drive up to 40 miles on electricity. Seems to make sense to me. If we're trying to get us off gasoline with crude oil as the main -- as its main feedstock, then why wouldn't we explore ways to be able to have vehicles that use less gasoline? And one way to do so is to use electricity to power vehicles, and we're pretty close to a breakthrough. We believe we're close to a technology that will make it possible to drive up to 40 miles on electricity alone. And then if you have to drive more than 40, then your gasoline kicks in.

But you can imagine what that'll mean for a lot of drivers in big cities. You know, on a daily basis, they don't drive over 40 miles, and so therefore, a lot of drivers that are going back to forth from work in big cities won't be using gasoline, and that's going to help. We got $31 million in our budget to speed up research and development into advanced battery technologies.

And finally, one other opportunity that is more long-run than ethanol or biodiesel or plug-in hybrid vehicles or encouraging people to buy the hybrids that are on the market today is hydrogen.
We're spending about $1.2 billion over five years to research the use of hydrogen to power vehicles. And it makes a lot of sense, when you think about it, because hydrogen produces zero emissions. The only -- the only emission it produces is water.

And I -- when I was out there in California, I visited the California Fuel Cell Partnership and saw buses and cars and SUVs that are driving on the highways out there with -- powered by hydrogen. And the research and development money that we have spent has lowered the cost of hydrogen fuel cells. It's helped, you know, make them lighter. In other words, there's an industry coming, and it's -- it's an industry that will enable consumers to drive to work -- just like we're doing today -- but not rely on foreign sources of oil.
What I'm describing to you today is a strategy that recognizes the realities of the world in which we live. Our dependency on oil has -- you know, has created economic security issues for us and national security issues for us. And therefore this country must use our brainpower and entrepreneurial spirit to diversify away from the hydrocarbon economy. You -- you all have known this a lot longer than most Americans. You've known that we needed to have this strategy, and that's why you're on forefront of incredible changes that are taking place in this country.

You know, there's no doubt in my mind that one of these days, instead of people driving up to a gas station, they're going to be going up to a fueling station. And they'll be able to have choices to choose from. If you've got a hydrogen, you know, -powered car, you'll be able to have that choice. If you want 85 percent -- maybe someday a hundred -- percent ethanol, that'll be an option available, too. We owe it to the American people to be aggressive on price-gouging now. We owe it to the American people to be promoting alternative ways to drive their car, so as to make us less dependent on foreign sources of oil. We owe it to the American people to be aggressive in the use of technology, so we can diversify away from the hydrocarbon society.
And that's precisely what we're doing, and I'm glad to stand with you. I appreciate your work for the United States of America. Thank you for letting me come by and talk to you, and may God bless you. (Applause.)

If you haven't already checked it out, EA has launched a new energy independence campaign with some (ahem) pretty cool features. We've created a "Cost of Oil Counter," which keeps an annual running tally of oil consumed, money spent and global warming pollution generated. We've also created a neat world map of "Who Has the Oil?," which reapportions every country based on the size of their oil reserves.

You can download your own version of the map here.

As the first step of our campaign, we've launched a Declaration of Energy Independence to set out an attainable goal to reduce our dependence by at least 10 percent in 10 years, at least 50 percent by 2030, and to get completely off of oil by 2050. We'll be pushing Members of Congress to support this Declaration, but for now, we're just focused on building public support for these goals.

I missed this last week. A new survey by Public Agenda found that 90 percent of Americans viewed our dependence on oil as a security risk, and 55 percent said they "worry a lot" about this issue. This actually placed oil dependence at the top of the "worry scale" out of 18 issues surveyed. Also interesting, 85 percent of those surveyed thought that the government could do something to address the issue.

So there's concern and there's hope. Both good signs. Now we just have to make sure that politicians don't get sidetracked with talk of price-gouging and other such diversions when they should be focusing on the real issue at hand.

The NY Times pulled together this nifty graphic, breaking down each state based on its oil consumption and presidential vote. Obviously nothing surprising here given that states with higher density, which trend democratic, will use less oil and lower density states, which trend republican, will use more oil. But I always find it cool to see these things visually.

I can't quite tell if this means that the DSCC is serious about going after Dick Pombo or whether it means this is about as much money as they are willing to spend.

I'm a couple of days late, so from here on out all I've got are non-earth days. Where was I for the actual day? Up in wet and rainy NYC briefing a great group of college students that are going to be running citizen outreach offices for EA this summer. That was pretty great. The wet and rainy, not so much.

Anyway, here's a roundup of things I would have posted this past weekend.

* The BBC's photo essay on how the world is changing

* Alternet provides its grassroots response to Vanity Fair's celebration of the big wig enviros.

* Jad Mouawad had a good piece in yesterday's NY Times about how the tightening of global oil supplies has provided smaller producing countries with new leverage.

* For his part, Andrew Revkin, who has been one of the leading mainstream writers on global warming, attempts to "shed a little light in all the heat." Surprisingly, he continues to play the game of allowing a handful of scientists to hold equal weight with the overwhelming majority of scientists.

* Apple does its small part

The price of oil has now hit $75/barrel, and summer (peak driving season) hasn't even started.

I really thought this was something out of the Onion. According to the folks at Autoblog, oil companies see the melting ice caps as an opportunity to search for more oil.

No joke.

As the ice retreats, there is hope utter fear that more oil will be discovered.

So we know that the oil industry is required to explain why prices have jumped in the past four months. Not surprisingly, they've pointed to three things:

1) Increase in the spot price of oil (now over $70 per barrel)
2) Costs of producing various cleaner blends
3) The cost of replacing MTBE as a gasoline additive

Today, the Foundation of Taxpayer and Consumer Rights released a brief analysis which concluded that the industry's explanations don't account for the majority of the price hike.

More than 40 cents of the 60-cent increase in gasoline prices over 3 1/2 months is attributable to increased refinery and marketing profit margins for the oil companies

While I, like the majority of Americans, will be inclined to believe that the oil industry is ripping us off, where exactly does that get us?

Now don't get me wrong, price-gouging is a serious issue and if Americans can avoid giving big oil billions more, I'm all for it. And I suppose, that is precisely the role that a consumer watchdog group like FTCR is supposed to play.

But it is also clear, that this debate—about whether and how badly we are being ripped off—doesn't lead to the solutions that we really need.

It could lead to lower gasoline prices in the short term. Again, good that we aren't handing our money unnecessarily to the oil companies and good that families are saving a bit more money. But bad in terms of ending our dependence on oil.

It could lead to a big push on Capitol hill to stregthen price-gouging laws. Again good in the short-term, but would do nothing in the long-term.

Maybe I'm being overly concerned about having several (somewhat diverging) debates on the same issue. But my (limited) experience in D.C. tells me that it is rare for Congress to act often and in a big way on the same issue.

Medicare: Prescription Drug Bill
Education: Leave no child behind
Energy: Energy Policy Act of 1905 2005

In each case (and others), these legislative efforts took years. It is also unlikely that anything else of any heft will happen for a while.

Perhaps rising gasoline prices will change this pattern. But I'm not the biggest fan of making price-gouging our primary concern.

Penn University has set the standard—purchasing around 30 percent of its electricity from wind power. Now that should be a factor in ranking colleges.

Here are a couple of great interviews by NPR about the real impacts of high oil prices. Not surprisingly, both the Kentucky farmer and the go-cart course owner are miles ahead of our political leadership on this issue.

While these are great stories in their own right, I think the underlying message is how important it is for us to get the price of gasoline right. If people want to go-cart, they should pay the true cost of doing so. And with high gasoline prices, everyone will be much more likely to conserve.

Of course, there are real life implications with rising oil prices (putting farmers and businesses out of work), which is yet another reason why we need develop clean alternatives immediately.

These stories make a good case for both increased efficiency and oil alternative, and higher gasoline prices to dissuade wastefulness.

Anne Applebaum's oped this morning was ostensibly about the small anti-wind movement popping up in opposition to the rise of wind power. But in the end, Applebaum ends up skewering wind power itself.

Applebaum argues that personally, she finds wind turbines to be elegant and beautiful. She does, however, accept that some people see them as a nuisance and a blight on the land. Yet she then equates the opposition to wind power with the broader (and deeper) opposition to coal, nuclear power and liquified natural gas terminals.

In one instance, people hold a purely personal position—they don't like the aesthetic of wind turbines. This is something that will vary from person to person and which should have no (or little) bearing on these political decisions. In the other instance, opposition to nuclear power, or coal, or liquified natural gas has everything to do with political decisions: how many lives will be placed at risk? How much pollution (radioactive or otherwise) will be created? How many kids will suffer from asthma as a result? How much radioactive waste will be transported across the country?

For Applebaum to equate these two types of concerns is to significantly debase the importance of the energy debate. With so much at stake, there is no room for frivolous, personal objections.

NPR ran an interesting interview this morning with Kevin Phillips, former Nixon aide, about the ties between the oil industry and the Republican party.

The oil industry's shift in allegiance from the Democrats (who dominated southern politics 50 years ago) to the Republicans adds an interesting layer to the conversations about the South and party politics.

Displaying the foresight and urgency sorely lacking over here, a British government committee has released a report urging Blair to abandon his proposed revival of nuclear power, stating that there isn't enough time to wait 25 years.

As reported in the Independent

The committee chairman Tim Yeo urged ministers to return to the strategy laid out in the Energy White Paper of 2003 which focused on energy efficiency and renewables as the cornerstones of a sustainable energy policy. "The Government must be far more imaginative and radical in pursuing the twin goals of the Energy White Paper - energy efficiency and renewables," he said.

What a novel idea.

Your only friend against the oil industry. (Besides a hybrid).

If you want to find the lowest gasoline prices in your area.

(Hat Tip to the Progress Report)

I knew that I should have slept in longer. Reading Patrick Moore's atrocious oped this morning was as rude an awakening as I've had in a while. Which lie or omission to begin with?

Actually, the best argument I can make against Moore is to take his argument head on. Let's place our salvation in nuclear power. Let's make it our primary strategy in displacing billions of tons of carbon emissions. Let's do it!

What would that take?

Stephen Pascala and Robert Socolow have produced one the definitive studies on this issue. The world's carbon emissions are projected to jump from 7 billion tons today to 14 billions tons by 2054. Pascala and Socolow undertook an analysis to determine what would be needed to displace the additional 7 billion tons of carbon emissions and maintain emissions at current levels.

What role could nuclear power play?

To displace one billion tons of nuclear power, we would have to double the number of nuclear reactors currently operating in the world. This means building another 440 reactors. Given that the U.S. produces a quarter of the world's global warming emissions and has roughly a quarter of the world's nuclear capacity—this would involve building another 100 nuclear plants in the U.S.

Now remember this would only displace 1 billion tons of carbon—or a seventh of the projected increase in emissions. Moore clearly wants to do more. So if we used nuclear power to displace half the problem, we would be looking at more than 1,500 new plants, or in the U.S. some 350 new plants. That's just one new nuclear power plant every two months from now until 2050. Easy, right?

According to Moore, it is only a myth that nuclear power is expensive. The average new plant would only cost between $1-2 billion. So we are just talking about $350-700 billion. Easy, right?

Note that Moore never addresses any of this. He builds up nuclear power but just leaves the reader to assume that this magic energy source could easily replace coal—even urging the reader to imagine a world in which coal and nuclear power were produced in reverse amounts. As if.

The bottom line is that nuclear power is too expensive to play any serious role in addressing global warming. We don't have the money to build 100 new plants in the U.S., let alone more than 350.

And although Moore would like to dismiss the waste issue in one short paragraph, the reality is that 50 years and counting and we still haven't discovered a safe solution for nuclear waste. And we'd be producing two times, three times or four times as much of it.

Easy, right?

Give it a rest, Patrick.

(Via Think Progress).

And I thought I was earning the big bucks. Little did I know. Let's just say that former Exxon CEO Lee Raymond made more from a very short night of sleep then I do from an entire year of work. And we haven't even hit peak oil yet. These people have only just started making a killing. When oil prices jump to $100/barrel then we'll be talking about some real money.

Warms the heart.

Here in the Live Free or Die state, we file our federal tax returns at the last possible moment. It's one part our heritage as flinty New England Yankees, two parts sending a message to a federal government spending money like a drunken sailor.

It's also a chance to look back on the vast amounts of our money that went to wasteful, environmentally destructive projects over the last year.

Projects like the $15 billion in subsidies for the oil and gas industries included in the 2005 energy bill. Or the $300 billion transportation bill, stuffed with more than 6300 special earmarks, mostly projects that would never withstand scrutiny on their own.

Or the ongoing billions in subsidies we're paying to support logging in our national forests.

You can read the Green Scissors report documenting billions in savings available by cutting environmentally damaging, wasteful projects here.

In the meantime, mail those checks.

Now this is funny. Whether it is fair or accurate is another question. But it is certainly funny.

Toles clearly exaggerates the individual's responsibility in funding terrorism. Do we control the way our cities are designed? Not really. Could more of us live closer to our work? Certainly—though owning a place in a big city is no small feat. Could we drive smaller cars? Abso–frickin–lutely. Can we fill up with something other than oil? Pretty much not.

So clearly, each one of us bears some responsibility. We could live in smaller houses, which in turn would allow more of us to live in cities (or higher density areas). And, when it comes to purchasing a vehicle, well there's the biggest burden.

But why over analyze things? It's just funny.

You would think that 20 years of serving on the highest court in the land would produce some fairly stunning accomplishments. Writing the majority's opinion in a landmark case. Providing a decenting view that is picked up decades later to establish a new precedent.

But not for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. He told University of Connecticut law students yesterday that "I think the proudest thing I have done on the bench is not allowing myself to be chased off of the Cheney energy case."

Remember the case in which the Sierra Club and another plaintiff were calling for Cheney to divulge information regarding the Energy Task Force. The Sierra Club asked Scalia to recuse himself given that he had recently gone hunting with Cheney prior to the hearing. And there you go...not recusing himself was the proudest moment of his career.

Those law students must have been mighty inspired.

We've talked about this before—how global warming is quickly engulfing every other major environmental concern. A new report in Scientific American found that global warming is rapidly becoming the greatest threat to biodiversity. Depending on the scenario, the study found that tens of thousands of species could be lost.

I increasingly believe that global warming will soon assume trump card status. No longer will the vistas of Cape Cod take precedence over stopping global warming. There will be little left of Cape Cod if we do nothing.

Obviously we want to create as little harm in the process of solving this global crisis, but soon we won't be able to ignore that it is indeed a serious crisis, which takes precedence over many other concerns.

We want to stick this ad in every major newspaper in Pombo's district. Right now, we've raised a fair amount, allowing the ad to appear at least in the largest paper—reaching 50,000 of Pombo's constituents. If we hit the other papers, we'll reach another 100,000.

A quick reminder of what's at stake: 800,000 acres of our remaining wild lands. How big is that? How about this big:

* Larger than Yosemite National Park
* Larger than Great Smokies National Park
* Three-quarters the size of the Grand Canyon

Help get this ad out

The Energy Information Administration predicted today that gasoline prices will increase significantly over the summer months—soaring as much as 25 cents higher than last year's average.

Prices could climb by 10 to 15 cents in the next few weeks alone. And here's the kicker: EIA's estimate doesn't account for any major supply disruptions.

Another hurricane: Spike. Problems in Nigeria: Spike. Iran: Spike Spike.

It's almost surprising that it's taken this long for the NY Times to run a story on Brazil's booming ethanol industry.

As this story suggests, one of the highlights of Brazil's march toward energy independence is the auto industry's efficient response in building flex-fuel vehicles (cars that can run on either gasoline or ethanol). In three short years, Brazil transformed their industry, making 70 percent of new vehicles flex-fuel. Of course, fuel production and distribution were also necessary, but it is still a stunning contrast in leadership when compared to the Big Three in Detroit.

The story also sketches out some of the unintended consequences of this boom from the threat of pushing ranchers further into the Amazon (so current land can be used for sugarcane) to the exploitation of workers pressured to produced increased amounts of sugarcane. The article explores neither in any depth, though they do serve as a subtle reminder that this isn't necessarily a perfect story—though it's clearly heading in that direction.

So this story is a week old, but I heard it referenced on Wait Wait—Don't Tell Me! today and couldn't stop laughing (the kind that masks a deep sense of sadness and disbelief).

In her final salute to the environmental community before stepping down as Secretary of Interior, Norton has proclaimed the fight to protect our wetlands a success!

"For the first time since we began to collect data in 1954, wetland gains have outdistanced wetland losses."

I know, you're just sitting there trying to figure it out. What's the catch? They must be using some mathematical sleight of hand, right? What sneaky trick have they employed?

If you guessed this your a spinmaster ready for the big leagues:

The definition of wetlands was expanded to encompass reservoirs, storm water management facilities, and ponds including newly created ones on golf courses springing up across the country!

For Norton, the loss of wetlands is offset by the increase in water traps nationwide. I wish my math teacher had accepted reasoning like that.

Over the last several weeks, we sent our door-to-door citizen outreach teams into Virginia to help convince Gov. Kaine to veto legislation that opens the door to offshore oil and gas drilling.

It's clear that should Virginia say yes to opting out of a federal moratorium on new offshore drilling, Old Dominion would be the first domino to fall. Other states would surely follow. And members of Congress, like Rep. Richard Pombo, who want to give states the right to ignore the ban on drilling would get a huge boost. They'd point to states willing to open up their coasts as justification for the bill.

Kaine made his decision today (E&E News PM, registration required). The verdict is mixed. The governor said no to opting out of the federal moratorium, should Congress give states that option.

But he said yes to a survey of energy resources 50 miles or more offshore - as long as the feds put up the money.

That's a dangerous step. There's no reason to map oil and gas resources unless you're thinking about drilling.

A couple of days ago, I wrote about a spat between members of the Maryland Assembly and Gov. Ehrlich. It was real cloak and dagger stuff. A mysteriously locked door. Dubious alibis. And of course, lots of lawyers.

At issue was the toughest power plant cleanup bill in the nation, championed by a majority of the Assembly but dismissed by Ehrlich as unnecessary. In the latest stick-in-his-opponents'-eyes, Ehrlich suddenly reversed course and signed the bill.

But he didn't invite the bill's Democratic champions to the signing.

So did they rise above the insult like grown-ups? Did they talk to the press instead about how tens of thousands of Marylanders will be healthier and safer thanks to the Assembly's hard work?

Not so much.

From the Post's coverage: "Guess what, governor -- none of my members were invited," an upset Democratic Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller said after the signing.

And so that became the story.

Just when you thought things couldn't get worse at the federal level...apparently Congress is posed to effectively kill the largest offshore wind project in the country. According to a story in Environment & Energy Daily (firewalled) the final Coast Guard reauthorization bill provides the Massachusetts Governor with the power to veto the project.

The final bill still needs to be passed by the House and Senate, so this could turn into a fight—but it won't be easy to stop this train now without some heros. Will any Senator step up and throw themselves on the tracks to avoid one of the worst precedents for clean energy? Where's renewable energy's Ted Stevens? (though we could do without whiny tone).

The Democrats released a letter today calling on President Bush to convene an Emergency Bipartisan National Energy Summit.

Now allow the cynic in me to provide some thoughts on this.

Both parties know they have to do something about this issue; pollsters are turning blue in the face. Hence, President Bush offers a couple of sentences about our "addiction to oil," and tours a few labs across the country to tout his "plan".

The Democrats have, for the most part, opposed Bush's proposals—not withstanding the fact that a majority of them voted for his energy bill last year. But when it comes to providing an actual solution (as one might be prone to do if one had power) the Democrats also fall short of finding any party consensus. They agree on the goal—vehemently proclaiming the need to end our dependence on oil. But when it comes to the actual policies, such as fuel efficiency, a majority evades them.

So, the strategy is obvious: get out front on the issue and put the ball in the President's court. If the Democrats actually try to make some noise on this and force Bush's hand, it will be interesting to see how he responds.

UPDATE: So apparently, Bush was quick to throw the ball right back into the Democrat's court—immediately rejecting their proposal for an emergency summit. Now we'll see whether the Democrats can actually turn this into a news story that forces Bush's hand. (Obviously, Bush wasn't going to make it that easy for them). Then again, from a policy perspective, given the lack of leadership on both sides, a bipartisan summit could be the one approach that actually moves things forward.

If you're interested, you can read the letter to Bush (hopefully the download function will work). It was signed by 50 Democrats including leadership in both houses.
Letter from Democrats

First off, I've been an absentee blogger for the past few days, out in Califonia meeting with our field offices—so I've got a lot of catching up to do. I'll be posting some sweet pictures of elephant seals tomorrow but first things first...I'm plowing through my inbox.

A new report by CERES evaluated the emissions at the top 100 electricity producers in the country. Surprise, surprise, C02 emissions have jumped 27 percent between 1990–2004. Yet the emissions of regulated pollutants such as sulphur dioxides and nitrogen oxides fell by 44 and 36 percent respectively over that period thanks to the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990.

The message of the report is not surprising: regulation works. Beyond this, there are a few interesting points in the report:

As we've talked about at Environmental Action, the U.S. is bracing for a surge in new coal-fired power plants. The CERES reports concludes that emissions in the U.S. will increase by 43 percent in 2030.

The other fascinating tidbit is the incredible discrepancy in emission rates for different companies:

Although American Electric Power produced seven times more electricity than PG&E, the company was responsible for 109 times the CO2 emissions. And Southern Company produced about 58 percent more electricity than Entergy, but emitted 400 percent more CO2 emissions.

As the corporate responsibility world is effective at pointing out, there are good actors and bad actors—and it isn't profit that distinguishes them.

Salon has an insightful article about meteorologists on the nightly news ignoring global warming and simply reporting on increasingly disastrous weather and bizare conditions -- but without exploring the causes. (I was tipped off to the piece by David Roberts posting at Gristmill.)

I'm not sure whether to call this problem or opportunity - probably both, of course - but it is something we've wrestled with at Environmental Action too. Millions of nightly viewers. A ready-made audience. Yet, as Salon says, news directors aren't big on introducing things like global warming or the consequences of air pollution into the next day's forecast. Not good for ratings.

"The last thing any station wants is an activist weatherman," says Matthew Felling, media director for the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a Washington research group.

In Maryland last week, the General Assembly approved the strongest power plant cleanup bill in the nation. The members moved fast to get the bill through in the closing days of the session - but not fast enough.

Assembly leaders went upstairs to deliver the bill to the governor's office at 4:50 that afternoon. But the office was already locked, apparently at the direction of the governor's crafty legislative director. The messengers were reduced to sliding a copy under the door, like a college kid who missed the due date on her term paper.

Why lock up early? If Gov. Ehrlich officially received the bill last Friday, the timing was such that he would have been required to act on it before the Assembly adjourned for the session. The endgame: he'd veto the bill but the Assembly would still be around to override him.

But if his staff ducked receipt until Monday - say, by locking the office and going down the fire escape like someone dodging a subpoena - the clock wouldn't start running for another 3 days. And, conveniently, that would push the deadline for action off just beyond the day when the Assembly will adjourn for good. That means Ehrlich could still act on (read: veto) the bill after the Assembly has gone home -- and the threat of an override is gone too.

Now this should be fun. As you know, President Bush has launched a crazy scheme to sell off up to 800,000 acres of national forests and other public land as a way to raise money for the federal budget.

Our allies in Congress have been awakened and are rightly outraged. But we decided that we should take this fight right into the belly of the beast. We want to run an ad in every major newspaper in the district of Rep. Richard Pombo, the pointman on the President plan.

The ad campaign will reach nearly 150,000 people in Pombo's district.

To kick-off the effort, we are asking people to vote on the ad they prefer.

The two ads: "Going Once, Going Twice" & "Feeding Time" are below:

To view the ads close up and to vote for your favorite, head over here.