The House voted yesterday to allow drilling in off shore water that have been protected for decades. Anyone out there guess who co-sponsored that one? Congressman Richard Pombo!

It will now go to the Senate, where Sen. Domenici of New Mexico (and the bill's largest cheerleader there) admits they don't have the votes to pass it.

There's more in today's NYT, but really, this is ridiculous. President Bush said that we're a nation addicted to oil, and that's right, but he forget to mention how far some of these junkies will go to get a fix.

If you're curious how your representative voted, check this out.

The NYT reported today that Dell Computers is expanding its computer recycling program. Previously, they would only take your computer for recycling if you were purchasing a new one from them. Now, if you've got an old Dell, you just print out a shipping label, contact them, and they'll have someone come pick it up.

According to The Silcon Valley Toxic Coalition, 40% of heavy metals found in landfills come from discarded electronics.

Click here to check out their recycling program.

While trolling around the The Library of Congress site, I saw that Rep. Pombo is at it again - last month he introduced the 'American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act'. Gosh, that sounds good, doesn't it? Well, really it would just open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas development.

How many times do we have to stop them from drilling up there? When are they going to realize that solar, wind, and geothermal power can be American Made, and will provide Good Jobs? But, whenever we bring that up, we're just getting in the way of 'progress'.

As we all know, there's a limited supply of oil in the Arctic, and it will take a decade to get it online! But these folks seem more content to stick their heads in the sand than to promote real solutions.

Apparently, it isn't that easy being green. Ford is now backing away from their promise to produce 250,000 hybrid vehicles by the end of the decade.

Not surprisingly, they are jumping on board the flex-fuel bandwagon along with GM and Chrysler. Of course, hybrid vehicles would actually reduce oil consumption, whereas flex-fuel vehicles only have the potential to reduce consumption if ethanol (which isn't readily available) is actually used in the vehicles.

I wonder what Kermit thinks of this backpedaling.

Last week I pointed out that An Inconvenient Truth was about to bust into the top 10 highest grossing documentaries of all time, and this weekend it soared up to number 7.

If it has another $2M weekend, it'll hop up to #4. Personally, I'm hoping it can earn another $5.4M so that it can get ahead of Madonna's 'Truth or Dare'. Not that I have anything against the material girl, per se, just think that global warming is a little bit more important.

I finally went this weekend, and if you haven't seen it yet, go. It's well worth the money, and is so well done. I also got a chance to see a preview for 'Who Killed the Electric Car?', which I'm also very excited about.

Today we launched a new effort asking the presumed Presidential candidates to sign our Declaration of Energy Independence.

For years, politicians have been paying lip service to the concept of energy independence - but today we're worse off than ever before. So, we're done with the talk, and we're looking for action. We want the candidates to take a stand - but they're not going to do it on their own.

We want to send each of them 25,000 emails before the 2008 election cycle officially gets underway in January -

To send an email to the candidates, click here, and then please ask your friends to do the same.

That Al Gore is even doing these self-depricating pieces says a lot. He is being very savvy about figuring out different ways of engaging the public. (HT to Grist)

Rep. Waxman of California has introduced the 'Safe Climate Act'. From Waxman's website:

'The Safe Climate Act (H.R. 5642) freezes U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2010, at the 2009 levels. Beginning in 2011, it cuts emissions by roughly 2% per year, reaching 1990 emissions levels by 2020. After 2020, it cuts emissions by roughly 5% per year. By 2050, emissions will be 80% lower than in 1990. This goal is similar to goals that have been announced by United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.'

He's also got a pretty striking graph(pdf) of GW emissions under business-as-usual vs. under the Safe Climate Act.

The usual cast of enviro champs in the house have co-sponsored this bill, and it seems like a good start.

The best part of the carban calcutar we sent out to everyone today has been all the responses we've gotten back from Environmental Action activists saying, 'But I've already cut my carbon!', 'I drive a hybrid', 'I don't use the AC!' and so on. It is such a great thing to be connected to so many people who are walking the walk.

And, admittedly, our scoring in the calculator is based on what percentage you're GOING to cut, not what percentage you've ALREADY cut.

So, to all you climate visionaries out there, here's a great thing for you - the folks over at Gristmill are helping a national magazine find the 'top greens'. Not the wonky guys like Navin, Josh, and me, but the people who use the right light bulbs, who drive the right car (or don't drive at all), who don't eat meat for it's environmental consequences, and so on.

To check out the contest, and enter yourself, or someone you know, mosey on over here.

And to everyone doing their part, or starting to do their part, thank you.

How exciting to wake up and discover that in less than five days we beat our goal of getting 2000 signatures to the Fish & Wildlife service? As of this writing in fact, we're up to 2,266.

In case you don't know, last Friday, we kicked off an effort to get the Polar Bear listed as a threatened species under the endangered species act. There are just over 20,000 of these great bears left in the world, and thanks to global warming, they're having to swim further and further for food, leading to many more drownings. Polar Bears International has some great info for those of you who'd like more about these bears.

If you haven't signed the petition yet, click here to do so. If you have signed, and want to ask a friend to sign as well, click here. If you've signed AND told your friends already, then thank you, and stay tuned for updates on this action.

PS - In the five minutes it took to write this, three more folks signed, so we're up to 2269. Nice work everybody!

According to Rotten Tomatoes, 'An Inconvenient Truth' is up in over 400 theatres around the country, is one of 2 movies in release rated at 90% (nothing's higher), and is approaching the all-important $6.6M gross mark, which would put it into the top 10 highest grossing documentaries of all time.

My favorite part though is hearing Al Gore say things like this, "The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged on a movie lot in Arizona," on the Charlie Rose show.

If you haven't seen the movie, you should go - if you're thinking, 'But I already know about global warming,' you should still go. Your attendence supports the film, which helps to broaden the release and get the idea out there more. And we need that.

I was reading Amy Stodghill's blog, 'It's the Environment, Stupid' yesterday about a group called 'Americans for Balanced Energy Choices'. Now, I believe that every environmentalist has a little conspiracy buff inside them - sadly it's not always unfounded.

Amy details how it's a front group for the coal industry at her site, so I won't rehash that here.

But, the thing that scared me the most was that their 'grassroots' effort is powered by GetActive. This is a little wonky, but GetActive is a company that produces software for use by advocacy organizations. Essentially, this software makes the emails groups like us send to our members look really pretty and nice, and then helps to figure out what types of emails generate the most actions.

If you look at their sample client list, you'll see groups like Earthjustice, Human Rights Campaign, Oxfam, Riverkeeper, Union of Concerned Scientists, along with NPR, PBS, AFL-CIO, SEIU and so on, so it's a little shocking to see ABEC's group using GetActive services. A short search through GetActive website found no info on ABEC, or their website learnaboutcoal.org.

Astroturf campaigns are nothing new, and I don't want to slam GetActive. They do some great things for some great groups. But I sincerely hope that their aid to and endorsement of the coal industry is an oversight of some sort. Otherwise, I have some pretty serious concerns about one company controlling membershipi information for groups on opposite sides of many battles.

I am writing the company today, and will share the response ASAP.

In an article in today's Denver Post it was announced that energy powerhouse Xcel wants to artificially jack up the cost of wind power to the over 30,000 customers in their wind program.

Ethnie Groves, Xcel spokeswoman said, "This is a premium price program, and customers that elect to join the Windsource program have decided to pay more to build up wind power in the state. This was never designed to be competitive with traditional generation."

Huh? Sound crazy to you? Me too.

For two reasons:
- unless the energy companies make alternative sources of energy cost-competitive, it won't catch on in the way it needs to. By saying this is a program for the elite not only will people not opt in, they will, slowly, turn against it.

- let's call this what it is - a money grab. They're proposing uping the rate from $3.79 to $4.29 per 100 kwh; that's a 13% increase. Not because it got more expensive, but because they want the money. To put this in perspective, based on people in the program and average use, this will bring an extra $1,288,500 to Xcel. For doing absolutely nothing.

Let's face it - as the cost of natural gas and coal have dropped, they want to recoup that windfall. And that's deplorable.

Last month, more than one thousand Environmental Action members wrote to their member of Congress to stop an EPA proposal that would make it easier for polluters to avoid telling us how much toxic pollution they're sending into our environment.

We're happy to tell you that the U.S. House heard the opposition of Americans worried about exposure to more mercury, lead, and other hazards -- and voted to kill the agency's proposal.

Now, to give the EPA's plan a knockout punch, please ask your senators to follow the House's lead.

To take action, click here.

Senators on both sides of the aisle are already standing up to voice their opposition to the EPA proposal. And with good reason.

Under the new plan, the release of some dangerous pollutants won't be reported at all. Others won't be reported to the public unless polluters reach a threshold 10 times higher than what it is today.

For almost two decades, the EPA's Toxic Release Inventory has given the public a way to track who is sending dangerous pollutants into our air and water - and what those chemicals are.

Over time, the program has proven tremendously successful not only at alerting us to pollution jeopardizing the health of our families, but also at encouraging polluters to cut their release of toxic pollutants in the first place. That's because when an industrial facility is forced to report releasing toxic pollution, it has a powerful incentive to clean up. In fact, of the nearly 300 toxic chemicals tracked by the original program, release and disposal has fallen by more than 50 percent. Between 1995 and 2000, release of chemicals known to cause cancer is down by 41 percent.

If you are like me at all, you've listened to the champions of natural gas with quite a bit of suspicion. Perhaps it's the old adage, 'if it seems too good to be true.....', or perhaps it's the fact that the natural gas propaganda comes from the same folks who brought us oil, coal, and global warming.

There's a great piece over at Unbossed, outlining the environmental problems associated with recovering natural gas, and the health problems associated with the same. It's part one of two (second part coming later today), and is worth checking out.

It's a long post, but this should get your blood boiling enough to read it:

"We don't believe in that."
- Industry representative at a public hearing in Farmington, NM after a physican spoke about the detrimental health effects of even low-levels of ozone.

Greetings from the YearlyKos convention in Las Vegas! I got into town late Wednesday night, and have had the pleasure of meeting tons of great blogging friends, activists, and 'big-wigs'. As I type, I'm sitting in the 'Energy Panel', and had to post because in the slide show on energy use, the Environmental Action graph of production and consumption of oil was displayed at the giant screen.

Gov. Bill Richardson just wrapped up his speech - he called for much of the same solutions as all of us have been for quite some time now - better funding for alternative fuel sources, better funding for public transit, better conservation -- additionally, he added that the U.S. should strive to develop a renewable portfolio standard of 25% by 2020. I would agree -

Will post more later, but it's so inspiring to be in these gigantic rooms full of people all of whom are striving to make a difference in their communities. For now, enjoy the pic of Gov. Richardson (taken less than 10 minutes ago), and my autographed copy of the new Tom Tomorrow collection -

It's near impossible to listen to a political speech on energy independence without hearing the refrain "If Brazil can do it, so can we!" Yes, Brazil is now effectively energy independent. But the lesson we can learn from them might surprise you.

Here's a week-old post at Oil Drum, which breaks down the numbers showing that:

the reason they achieved energy independence is primarily because of their frugal energy usage, not because of ethanol. Increase their energy usage to U.S. levels, and the "energy independence miracle" would quickly vanish. This is the factor that the media and the politicians have overlooked...

The real lesson from Brazil is that energy independence can be achieved by slashing our energy usage. (emphasis added) It is simply not realistic to expect the U.S. to achieve energy independence with biofuels - unless we sharply curb our consumption.

Check out the whole post so you know exactly which way the Brazilian bandwagon is headed. It's about conservation, stupid.

NPR has a series of stories on fuel efficiency. Here's one, another, and an interview with Chrysler CEO.

NPR's site also has a bunch of great information on the issue, including why window sticker mileage doesn't tell the real story.

The Sierra Club and the Steelworkers have launched a new initiative to jointly address key issues affecting both organizations. For starters, the new alliance will focus on three issues: global warming and clean energy, fair trade and toxics. The effort will include a New Vision for America tour to talk about the solutions to global warming.

It isn't clear to me how this effort will differ from the work done by the Apollo Alliance, but it certainly seems like it would at the very least continue to build on it.

Leo Gerard, the head of the Steelworkers, has led the way in getting labor to embrace the opportunities of a new (greener) economy.

Apparently the American Petroleum Institute agrees that "boutique fuels" are not the cause of high gas prices. According to a story in a E&E Daily, API testified today that environmental regulations requiring different types of fuel for different areas are not the cause of rising gas prices. Instead, they said that...wait for it...crude oil prices are the cause.

Well I'll be darned. Looks like Rep. Joe Barton's effort to address the rise in gas prices by gutting environmental regulations isn't going to do that much after all.

For those of you artistically inclined, the Union of Concerned Scientists has launched a cool (but not-so-creatively named) contest: Scientific Idol, in search of the best editorial cartoon on scientific integrity.

At the very least, you should check out the site since they have links to some fantastic professional editorial cartoons at the bottom of the page.

The American Public Transportation Association is asking people to Dump the Pump on June 8, and ride public transit. And their site has a neat state-by-state tool for finding options in your area.

Of course, the value of these "change your habits for a day" events (like "Buy Nothing Day") have little to do with their impact on any given day and are clearly consciousness raising experiences. Though I do wonder whether this one could backfire for some people.

If a significantly higher number of people actually end up riding the subway/bus/train on June 8, it could lead to public transit being a lot more crowded than it usually is, effectively turning people off of transit. Now I'm likely overstating this issue, but from an academic perspective, that would clearly be the case at a certain point.

Still any effort to get people out of their cars and into mass transit should be supported. Would be even smarter if the federal goverment could dip into their coffers and offer a free transit week. Then we'd really get people hooked.

A survey released a couple of days ago (yes, I'm still catching up), by the Civil Society Institute found that 61 percent of Americans are opposed to building more nuclear power plants to solve the energy and global warming crisis. Grist has already written about this, so I only have one thing to add:

I think the wording of the question is critical. Note that the survey examined the "energy and global warming crisis." I wonder whether it would have scored nearly as high if they had just asked about the "global warming crisis".

Other surveys/polls suggest that people are much more receptive to the "energy crisis" because it evokes the experience of rising utility bills and rising gas prices—very tangible events in their lives. While public awareness about global warming has shot up in the past few years, it isn't clear yet that it evokes a tangible experience. Do people think about last summer's drought or wildfire or tornado?

I think it is a smart messaging strategy to lump energy and global warming together—particularly since they are completely intertwined from a policy perspective.

So I'm sure that others have already blogged about this (can you tell I'm digging through my inbox?), but this piece by John Heilemann is a particularly insightful and thorough look at Gore.

A few quick thoughts:

First, Heilemann displays his new found confidence in Gore's potential to (re)claim the presidency, outlining (and clearly overstating) Gore's capacity to appeal to everyone:

Hence the argument for Gore. To begin with, unlike all but a handful of Democrats, Gore, with his ties to the Netroots and his burgeoning personal wealth, could readily raise the requisite funds to take on Mrs. Clinton. Having loudly and steadfastly opposed the war, he could challenge her from the left. Yet on national security, he could simultaneously run to her right, given his long-held expertise about bombs and bullets and his advocacy of intervention in Kosovo and Bosnia; as a putative commander-in-chief, his credentials are beyond reproach (no small thing in an age of terror). Similarly, Gore's anti-global-warming jihad would stand him in good stead with the greens and other liberals, while his long and demonstrated history as a moderate on countless other issues (from the deficit to "reinventing government") would allow him to score with centrist Democrats who fear that Clinton is a once-and-future lefty.

More than anything, this comically portrays why Gore is content to stay out of politics. For all of the talk of "Gore's transformation" to a likeable guy, the truth is that the media is treating him with kid gloves right now. Reporters are genuinely taken by his intelligence, his wit, and his passion. Through the lens of a political campaign, all of those qualities are scrutinized and refracted, with Gore emerging as a pedantic, awkward, and dull candidate. While there is certainly some merit to the argument that the man himself is more relaxed, it is also the case that the media is too.

Second, one question I haven't heard asked much: If Gore doesn't run, who will he endorse? Unlike 2004, when Gore endorsed Dean, he now has a greater potential to significantly shift the balance in the 2008 primary. It may be that Gore will stay committed to his current focus of elevating the issue of global warming—thereby focusing on both parties, especially during the primaries. But given all the press he is getting, the support from hollywood, etc, you have to wonder when 2008 candidates will start to curry favor with Gore. Given his supposedly strained relationship with Hillary, it is likely that he would back someone else, which could decide who emerges as the anti-Hillary candidate in the primary.

I've documented McCain's love affair with nuclear power before, so that isn't the reason I am bringing up this story that ran in the Concord Monitor last week.

I just want to point out two things:

1) How absurd is this quote from McCain:

Nuclear power "is safe. The technology is here," McCain said, speaking to a crowd of about 200 at a breakfast hosted by The New Hampshire Federation of Republican Women. "It's a NIMBY (not in my backyard) problem, and a waste-disposal problem. It is not a technological problem."

Uh? So the waste-disposal problem isn't a technological problem? Given that no one really knows what to do with this stuff, I'd have to say it's a technological problem.

2) And this is my bigger beef:

McCain pointed to France, which draws more than three-quarters of its power from nuclear plants

I am so tired of proponents of nuclear power pointing to this misleading factoid. Everyone in the U.S. must think that there are nuclear power plants on every corner in France; that the French are leading the world in nuclear power production. Wrong. The U.S. already is. While France may get a higher percentage of their power from nuclear, they still get WAY less electricity from it. The U.S. generates 763 billion kwh from nuclear power, while France generates 419 billion kwh. In other words, we ALREADY produce almost twice as much electricity from nuclear power, as compared to France. Which also means that we have twice as big a nuclear waste problem. Somehow that never makes it into stories.

To be fair, the environmental community used to make a similarly false comparison when talking about Denmark's wind capacity. But the media almost seemed to see right through that comparison, whereas you hardly ever see a reporter point out that the U.S., not France, is the leading producer of nuclear power—despite not having built a plant in 30 years.

Ok, so now that Dependence Day is launched, I can hopefully get back to the blog. Apologies for the prolonged absence.

Here's an awesome effort by the American Institute of Architects. Recognizing that their product (buildings) is a significant source of global warming pollution, they've launced the 2030 Challenge to make all new buildings carbon neutral by 2030.

As a clear sign that they are making progress, the US Conference of Mayors will vote on a resolution to adopt this goal at their annual meeting next week. The resolution was jointly proposed by the Mayors of Chicago, Seattle, Miami and Albuquerque.

Contact your mayor and tell them to support Resolution 50.