Some of you may have heard about this, but the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has been running a contest lately for the best editorial cartoons around global warming issues.

They've announced their finalists, and trust us, they're all hilarious.

On the site, you can vote on which of the twelve finalists you think is best.

A couple days ago, I went on a little tear about Sen. Inhofe's speech on the Senate floor where he whined for 45 minutes about how the media is not covering global warming fairly.

CNN hit back with a great report this week that includes some interesting information:

- Inhofe has received over $850,000 in campaign donations from the oil and gas industry, who lead the anti-climate change crowd

- Despite his criticism that the media isn't covering the issue fairly, he refused an opportunity to come on CNN to talk about it

- Sen. Christopher Shays (R-CT), suggested that Sen. Inhofe's denial of global warming given the current info out there is basically like just putting a bag over his head

Watch the clip:

Between yesterday and today there's been some pretty interesting news on the climate change front.

First, news came out yesterday that James Hansen, the NASA climate scientist censored by the Bush Administration last January, announced the earth is essentially as hot as it has been in a million years, and that if it increases much more, we'll see some pretty catastrophic events.

Secondly, it was announced today that the Bush Administration is blocking the release of a report suggesting that global climate change may be contributing to the frequency and strength of hurricanes.

A series of studies over the past year or so have shown an increase in the power of hurricanes in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. The strengthening, many storm experts say, is tied to rising sea-surface temperatures.

What does all this mean? Well, first off, it's not exactly a shocker that the Bush Administration is blocking science - this has been their M.O. since taking office.

But there's some great news, I think. First of all, Hansen's study basically says that if we act now to curb climate change, we can bring it under control, and essentially fix the problem. If we don't, well that's another story. The other positives are that a broader range of people are becoming aware of, and acting to fight, climate change. About ten years ago, I worked on a campaign to educate people around the issue, and most people thought we were crazy extremists. Now, the reality of climate change is accepted by most people, and even Wal-Mart is getting into the game.

The other positive aspect is that, let's face, the Bush Administration is continuing to lose their fight against the environment. When they wanted to increase mercury pollution by weakening the Clean Air Act we stopped them. It may have taken six years, but we've been vindicated on the Roadless Rule, and it looks like it may stand. And even President Bush himself is at least paying lip service to climate change and our dependence on oil.

And all of this brings to mind the best part of being an environmentalist - we're right, and (call me an idealist) when you're right you win. It may take a long time, but eventually, we prevail.

In general, I'm not a big fan of refuting blowhards like Sen. Inhofe - we're pretty diametrically opposed, and arguing with someone that off base, I think, only gives credence to their side.

But yesterday Sen. Inhofe delivered a speech on the floor of the Senate allegedly taking the media to task for their one-sided acceptance of global warming.

David Roberts over at Gristmall has already posted a great piece refuting the Senator's claims, so I won't go into that here.

I will make two comments, however. First, it's a national embarrassment that this guy is the Chairman of the Committee on the Environment and Public Works. He once compared the EPA to the Gestapo, and his pre-political career consisted of being a real estate developer and running an insurance company. So a guy with no background in science or environmental issues is actually one of the most powerful people in deciding our nation's environmental policy.

Secondly, I honestly can't understand his vendetta about global warming. It's as if environmentalists were attacking his family. I've said this before, but even if global warming is non-existent, the changes recommended by environmentalists are sound for our country anyway. Let's drive less, let's get better gas mileage, let's invest in our public transit, let's change some light bulbs, etc. All of the changes make sound economic sense, and will help make the U.S. a more sustainable nation.

Environmental solutions just make good sense, all the way around.

Ok, I'll admit, I'm a little skeptical about Wal-Mart becoming a leading player on the environment.

So far, I like what they've announced as their eco-goals:

- Slash gasoline use by its trucking fleet, one of the largest in the USA, and use more hybrid trucks to increase efficiency by 25% over the next three years and double it within 10 years. That will save $310 million a year by 2015, the company says.

- Buy 100% of its wild-caught salmon and frozen fish for the North American market only from fisheries that are certified as "sustainable" by the non-profit Marine Stewardship Council within three to five years. That designation means areas of the ocean aren't fished in ways that destroy fish populations.

- Cut energy use at its more than 7,000 stores worldwide by 30% and cut greenhouse-gas emissions at existing stores by 20% in seven years. Wal-Mart is the largest private electricity user in the USA.

- Reduce solid waste from U.S. stores by 25% within three years.

First of all, the thing I like is that Wal-Mart, as the article points out, is taking a lot of these steps for the actual fiscal savings involved in them - something environmentalists have been saying for a long time, namely that SUSTAINABILITY is PROFITABLE. The fact that a juggernaut like Wal-Mart has opened up to this fact justifies our argument in the business world.

I'm also cognizant of the fact that Wal-Mart will milk this for all it's worth, for a long time, making it look like they're model corporate citizens, when in fact they have a long way to go before they will deserve that label.

So, my concerns are two-fold. First, who knows what they'll actually follow through on - in general the financial benefit of environmental sustainability is found in the long term, not the short term. Since most companies look at the quarterly bottom line, I can easily see a world where Wal-Mart attempts some of this, sees a short-term loss, and so packs it in, after they've reaped all the positive PR benefits.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, while some of the steps listed above are good, they don't get at one of the central problems with Wal-Mart, which is that ultimately, they promote sprawling communities. By building new buildings away from a town or city's center, they generally are able to skirt the town's ordinances, while forcing that community to create an infrastructure away from the existing infrastructure. This leads to more driving, more auto pollution, more development away from the community, etc. I believe if Wal-Mart was SERIOUS about sustainability, they would include redeveloping existing spaces within a community's center.

Don't get me wrong - they've proposed some good measures - but until they actually change their business model to help develop communities, and not just themselves, I'm going to remain a little skeptical.

Back in the late 90's I and thousands of other activists collected literally millions of signatures to the forest service asking that 58.5 million acres of national forest land be set aside as off-limit to road building, logging, mining, etc.

When Clinton passed the Roadless Rule at the end of his second term, there was much rejoicing.

Within two years however, the Bush Administration rolled back every key component of that rule. Of coarse, we've all been fighting it for years, and guess what.....we've moved a HUGE step forward.

A federal judge in the case today ruled today that the roadless rule should stand.

Outstanding, just outstanding.

Today, Environmental Action is kicking off our campaign to Double the Standard.

As you know, one of the fastest, easiest, and most cost effective ways to break free from our dependence on oil would be to get double the mileage from a gallon of gas.

This is exactly what we did when faced with an oil crisis in the 1970's, but since then the automakers and Congress have been wringing their hands.

Ironically, the big three automakers claim that increasing the gas mileage standard would cost too much, even though Ford recently announced the lay off or buy out of their entire hourly workforce because Americans want fuel efficient cars.

And what's the cost? We estimate it to be an additional $2000 per vehicle to double the mileage standard. The automakers would pass 2/3 of that cost along to consumers anyway, so really it's about $700/vehicle that they're whining about.

So, the first step in our campaign is to get 3,600 to pledge to Detroit that if they make cars, trucks, and SUVs that get double their current gas mileage, we'll not only buy them, we'll pay the difference.

The extra money we'd be paying will be more than made up for in the first year through savings at the gas tank, not to mention that we'll cut our dependence on oil by almost a third.

Seems like a pretty good bargain.

To take the pledge, click here.

This time it's the Department of Commerce.

Recently, CNBC requested an interview with Tom Knutsen, a hurricane modeler with NOAA at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, NJ. The request was geared at finding out if there could be a link between global climate change and the increase in both the number and severity of hurricanes.

The request made it through some PR rounds at NOAA and ended up with Chuck Fuqua at the Department of Commerce. Mr. Fuqua previously served as the director of media operations for the 2004 Republican National Convention.

According to emails sent between NOAA and Mr. Fuqua, it appears that Mr. Fuqua only wanted a scientist who would espouse the theory that increase in hurricane activity is due to natural causes outside of human action. He asked the NOAA:

what is Knutson's position on global warming vs. decadal cycles? is he consistent with Bell and Landsea?

The response was that Knutson was 'consistent' but did believe there was a link between global warming and hurricanes, though it's minor. Despite that, Fuqua response was to not allow Knutson to do the interview, and in fact denied CNBC an interview altogether.

The only reason a PR guy at the Department of Commerce would meddle with this type of interview is because he wants the idea that global warming doesn't impact hurricanes to be the dominant paradigm, and therefore the message spun to the media.

Thankfully, Rep. Waxman of CA is investigating this censorship via the House Committee on Government Reform, but we need to do more -

To send Chuck Fuqua an email expressing your anger and frustration over this continued censorship, click here.

Normally for the blogs, we troll around for news, or do research on one of our issues. Today however, Alan Farago wrote a wonderful editorial for the Orlando Sentinel, which we think you should all read.

You don't know whether to laugh or cry, reading in newspapers that the public ranks the environment as a low order of concern.

Let me tell you when the environment is the No. 1 concern: When you discover your cancer could have been caused by contaminants in drinking water or that your child's learning disability was due to overexposure to mercury.

Most public opinion polls don't ask the question this way: If you had a serious illness and knew your breast or prostate cancer was due to decisions by legislators on the environment, would you be more or less inclined to cast your vote for the environment?

In that case, every single voter in America is an environmentalist.

To read the rest of the editorial, click here.

Having spent a third of my life in the west of the U.S., I was pretty happy to see this article today talking about mayors from 32 U.S. cities (many of them western) gathering in Anchorage to discuss how their communities can impact global warming. Over the years there have been many clashes on environmental issues out west. From grazing on public lands to four-wheeling to water rights, in many parts of the west, 'eco' is definitely a four letter word.

With climate change however, we really need to put aside old grudges, old ideologies, and develop a new set of rules. Because we're not talking about one set of 'rights' versus another, we're talking about coming together as a people to solve a global problem. Sadly, leaders in Washington have been offensively slow to act on the issue, but I have to agree with this quote from the mayor of SLC.

"We need to find the leadership in this country," said Mayor Rocky Anderson of Salt Lake City at a conference on climate change. "If it's not going to come from the top down. ... We need to push from the bottom up."

It seems that if we're in a place where a legitimate leadership conference can happen amongst mayors from across the U.S., in the very heart of oil-friendly Alaska, we're getting to the point where global warming is flat out accepted, and at long last dealt with.

You may have noticed in the blog we've been railing quite a bit on fuel economy lately. That's not an accident. Keep your eyes peeled - in the next week we're going to kick off one of our most forward reaching campaigns yet.

And we'll give you a hint.....it has to do with gas mileage standards.

Have a great weekend!

Last week I asked if Ford was crazy, or stupid. Turns out they're stupid.

Another Ford announcement yesterday a plan to cut 10,000 additional salaried jobs and buy out its entire hourly workforce of 75,000.

This is just sad news all the way around. Obviously for the people and families affected by the move, but also because Ford is failing to see the writing on the wall.

Ford has acknowledged a need for drastic changes in its product lineup. Like other U.S. automakers, its bottom line is heavily dependent on high-margin trucks and large SUVs, but recently consumer preferences have shifted toward more fuel-efficient vehicles. Ford says the speed of that shift caught it by surprise.

So it would make sense to then offer people a more fuel-efficient vehicle, right? Give the people what they want, and you'll profit? Isn't that the core principle at work in a free-enterprise system?

Ford doesn't seem to think so:

Ford said it will try to maintain its lead in the truck segment by introducing a completely reworked F-150 that will go on sale in 2008.

I'm literally dumbfounded that Ford isn't saying, 'Americans want fuel efficient cars, so we're going to give them that option'. It would save jobs, it would help the economy, and definitely the environment.

There was an interesting article in the Washington Post the other day about conservation and youth.

Essentially, there was a study released that since 1976, conservation trends amongst 18-year-olds has decreased as materialism has gone up.

Since the 1990s, the trends in materialism seem to have topped out at a steady high level, while willingness to conserve keeps declining. These opposing values should raise a red flag about the consumer culture and its influence on youth.

Youths also consistently believe that government is more responsible for the environment than they are personally. Importantly, when they perceive that the government's role in solving environmental problems is declining, so does their belief that they, personally, must do their part to save the environment.

This isn't exactly shocking, though it is scary. It does lend credence to a belief of many environmental groups (including us) that for conservation to actually happen, it needs to be government led. Typically, we believe that this is because industry/business won't voluntarily take conservation steps, since there are rarely short-term financial gains to be had from conservation.

Of course, environmentalists have long argued that one of the core benefits of sustainability is its long term financial gain - sadly industry rarely seems concerned with that.

This new study, while sad, is helpful in that it lends even more credence to our already help beliefs.

Yet again the fact that humans are the #1 cause of global climate change has been proven by a team of legitimate scientists.

The consequences of global warming and the green house effect are even worse than previously anticipated. According to a study by 19 climate researchers published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences polluting particles emitted from car tailpipes and power plants that work with fossil fuel are making the surface of the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans warmer, acting like a catalyst for stronger and more devastating hurricanes that form there.

The scientists estimated an 84 percent chance that at least two-thirds of the sea surface temperature increase were due to human activity.

Sadly, this is nothing new to those of us that've been working to fight global warming for years. Not surprisingly, there are detractors.

According to Gray, the Atlantic Ocean is in a period of increased hurricane activity that began around 1995 and could last another 15 or 20 years before tapering off. The recent surge of activity is part of a natural cycle and has little to do with global warming, he contends. "This paper is going to carry a lot of weight because it has such prominent authors," he said. "But I'm sure they're going to be proven wrong."

I have to say how sick and tired I am of these so-called expert detractors. They remind me of the segregationists of the 1950's. Implying that it's a natural cycle that somehow humans are not a part of is offensive. And the tide has turned, it's going to take a little while longer, but change is coming, there's a storm-a-brewin', and we're not going to be stopped by phony arguments about natural cycles, so you better get on the damn train, or get the hell out of the way.

The Sun!

I have a friend who's working on a Go Solar! campaign for Environment Colorado. While poking around their site for info, I found this:

Colorado enjoys 300 days of sunshine every year and we have the 5th best solar potential in the country. Essentially, we are sitting under an energy goldmine. Employing today’s solar power technologies, Colorado can heat and power more than a quarter of a million homes, businesses, farms & schools in the next two decades.

Isn't it amazing that every time there's a gallon of oil found in a pristine area, the oil companies and the media have a field day literally tripping over themselves to proclaim that the energy problems are solved (for now) if we just drill (everywhere)?

Or take oil shale, which until oil prices hit $70/gallon was considered way too expensive as to be viable, since many people estimate that it takes as much if not more energy to 'harvest' it as you get from it in the end.

I want to be clear though, and not confuse the issue - solar power would be used primarily as a non-transportation energy source, as opposed to oil, 70% of which is used for moving things around the country. So, while solar power may not solve the oil crisis, it would do immense good in getting us off of coal and nuclear power for home energy needs.

I just think it's funny (or sad) that when environmental groups announce, 'Hey, here's a RENEWABLE source of energy that would solve a lot of problems', it gets almost no coverage. BUT when oil is found miles deep in sensitive oceanic ecosystems, there is much rejoicing by the evening news.

Thousands of kids returned to school this week, so we thought we should do likewise. Welcome to Math Friday at Environmental Action.

In the spirit of openness and full disclosure, I should confess that I'm a math nerd. Went to math camp in high school, aced the math SAT, and still do math for fun.

I know I'm not like most people, and that's ok. One of the things that is beautiful to me about math though is beating the odds. And that's what we, as a movement, do on a daily basis. Let's look at some numbers.

Between 1998 and 2005, the (arguably) top four most anti-environmental industries (utilities, oil & gas, automobile, and mining) spent $1,515,597,884 just on lobbying. This does not include campaign donations - this is money spent to influence legislators around the US.

Whether it's local, state, or national, that's $1.5 BILLION in just seven years. To break this down a little further. There are roughly 7875 people industry would want to lobby. That's every state legislator, every state's governor, every member of the US House of Representatives, every member of the US Senate, and the President and Vice President of the US.

On average then, these industries spent $192,466.87 lobbying each and every one of those people.

How does the environmental movement stack up? Combined, all the major groups have spent roughly $58,401,179 in that same period. That's $58 million spent fighting those four industries, but others too - chemical companies, loggers, developers. How does that break down? About $7K spent on each of the 7875 decision makers listed above.

For every dollar we spend, they spend $25. Those're pretty long odds.

But you know what? We win.

Together we've halted Bush's 'Dirty Skies Bill'. We've stalled the sale of hundreds of thousands of acres of national forest. We've passed the strongest carbon reduction bill in U.S. history. There are more green cars on the road every day. Wind and solar are catching on. And what's one of the top movies right now? A documentary about global warming.

In an election year, what rhetoric is Bush using to help win elections? Not gay marriage, not even the war as much. He keeps talking about alternative energy and our addiction to oil! This is a former oil man, stumping for votes on our platform.

The reason is that we're right, and they're wrong, and people are waking up to our global environmental realities.

Now, all that being said - we know we can do more. We know we can take it further. But, it takes all of us doing what we can, when we can.

So give money when asked, send that email, tell your friends, post actions on blogs, collect signatures, make the phone call, hang the sign, go to the house party.

A little bit really goes a long way - $30 here and there, 2-3 friends here and there is how a movement is built and sustained.

OK, math lesson is over - have a great weekend.

There's an interesting piece from Tuesday over at Unbossed. Essentially, it's about the conundrum of 'greenwashing' whereby major polluters (in this case ExxonMobil) fund some kind of environmental project to make them appear eco-friendly.

Evidently, starting in 1995, ExxonMobil has been the principle funder of the Save the Tiger Fund - an organization which works to help endangered tigers. The site itself touts ExxonMobil's $1M a year donation to the organization. But, given profits of $25.33B, this is similar to someone who earns $35,000 a year donating $1.38 to a group.

To be clear, I believe greenwashing to be a significant problem in our society. It's a way for corporate polluters to bolster their image, while doing nothing whatsoever to be good corporate citizens. It's hypocritical and it's wrong. The scary thing is, it's working.

I've been meaning to post on this for awhile - it didn't get much traction online so far, but is pretty amazing. According to 9News in Denver, SUV owners have been setting their vehicles on fire because they can't afford to drive them, and the resale on them has plummeted because of the spike in gas prices.

According to The Colorado Department of Public Safety and Division of Fire Safety, there has been a 1086% increase in intentional vehicle fires from 2000 to 2005 (from 7 in 2000 to 83 in 2005).

It's completely ridiculous that it's come to this -

We have the capability to break free from oil, and we obviously have the need - where is the leadership?

It was reported yesterday that massive oil reserves were found in the Gulf of Mexico, in areas never before drilled. According to the news, this find could increase our reserve by 50%.

I have to say, this is the worst news that could've come right now. The US was FINALLY waking up to the countless threats our dependence on oil brings. Now, with this news I can only imagine many Americans breathing a sigh of relief, as if the problem were over. But that couldn't be further from the truth.

Bottom line, our dependence on oil, foreign or domestic, is strangling our country. Economically, it's unsound to put all your energy eggs in one basket and environmentally, drilling and air pollution are killing our wild places and poisoning our people.

This find only gives fodder to proponents of offshore oil drilling and weakens our ability to get off of oil, which we need to do. This is very bad news indeed.

Hold on to your hats......America's dependence on oil is hurting us. But, this is according to President Bush. So far it doesn't look like the same spin that happened after the State of the Union is happening now - you may remember he famously said, 'We're addicted to oil', but within 5 minutes of the speech, his spin doctors said, 'Well..he meant addicted metaphorically'.

Now it appears he's revisiting the message. I can't imagine a former oil man who's best friend and advisor list reads like a who's-who of the nation's worst polluters is suddenly an environmentalist. Rather I tend to think he's pandering. Most Americans are beginning to understand exactly how devastating our reliance on oil is, and with some elections coming up, it's not surprising to hear this type of rhetoric.

That being said, his statement leaves his administration open to pressure on the issue like never before. This is going to be one of the largest issues in the November election - let's use it to our advantage.

It was announced today that Ford Motor Company is attempting to speed up plans to close 14 plants, and lay off 30,000 people.

According to analysts, this move is largely due to plummeting SUV & truck sales as a result of rising gas prices. Despite the announcement today that gas prices are at a 15-week low, most forecasters expect fuel costs to remain high - meaning the people will continue to buy more fuel efficient vehicles, not SUVs.

The Ford fleet is shockingly fuel inefficient - for the 62 Ford models in 2006, only 2 get above 30mpg (city), while 41 models get less than 20mpg. It seems to me that perhaps instead of closing plants and laying off American workers, Ford could switch that ratio around.

If they're saying they're losing business because they're not providing consumers with what they want, then why the hell aren't they changing with the times? Animals learn faster.