Not sure if anybody saw this article yesterday from Reuters. The headline, "Americans favor environment, but don't vote on it", grabbed my attention, and the claim inside that less than 3% of Americans vote from an environmental perspective seemed ludicrous to me.

So, I did a little searching - the figure comes from Karlyn Bowman of the American Enterprise Institute. You should check out AEI. They're a conservative think tank, who describe themselves this way:

AEI's purposes are to defend the principles and improve the institutions of American freedom and democratic capitalism--limited government, private enterprise, individual liberty and responsibility, vigilant and effective defense and foreign policies, political accountability, and open debate.

Hmmm....Sounds a little fishy, and upon further reading, you'll discover that AEI is not exactly a pro-environment think tank, in fact they're adamantly against raising CAFE standards, for example.

What gets me is how information is transferred in our society - information that shapes public opinion, but which stands up to very little scrutiny. The article didn't disclose for instance, that AIE could be considered an anti-environmental organization - in some papers on the site, they refer to 'enviro-romantics', 'myopic environmentalists', and 'activist hysteria'.

In looking at one sentence in the article:

Only about 3 percent of U.S. voters in recent exit polls said the environment was the most important issue to them in casting their ballots, according to Karlyn Bowman, who tracks public opinion polling for the American Enterprise Institute.

I have to point out two journalistic errors in this article. First of all, what recent exit polls? The last national election was two years ago. The second being the use of the phrase, 'the most important issue'. That question skews the survey. I have a strong suspicion that if Environmental Action did exit polling next week, and asked, 'Is the environment important to you?', we'd have a 90% yes rate. Phrasing of the question is key - I can't imagine ONE issue that a majority of voters would highlight as their TOP issue.

And this isn't coming from Bill O'Reilly - this is coming from an environmental reporter at Reuters, a source for much of our news in the U.S.

I think it's safe to say that nobody has ever accused anyone from the World Bank of being a tree hugging environmentalist.

But today, Sir Nicholas Stern, former World Bank chief economist, released a report detailing the costs associated with curbing global warming vs. doing nothing.

According to the 700-page report, current policies will result in a 5-20% shrinkage of the economy of the next two centuries, whereas working to cut global greenhouse gas emissions by 25% would cost an additional 1% of global economic output by 2050.

It's a little strange being an environmentalist these days. After years of talking about climate change, seemingly into the wind, we find that a documentary about global warming is a wild hit, an ex-oil company man turned U.S. President is decrying our addiction to oil, WalMart is turning green, and the World Bank is talking about reducing greenhouse gasses by 25%. Crazy!

All that being said, and despite the dire forecast of the results of inaction, I'm feeling pretty good about this year.

Small wonder American is addicted to oil. ExxonMobil announced that their 2006 third quarter earnings came in at ten and a half billion dollars. This is the second highest quarter from a corporation in history. What was the first? ExxonMobil's 2005 fourth quarter earnings which were $10.71 billion dollars.

With these kind of profits in mind, it's not difficult to understand our oil addiction. These companies are addicted to money, and they addict us to oil to get it. It's really quite shocking when you think about it. What surprises me is that we as the environmental movement have been so successful at keeping them out of places like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and off the coasts of California and Florida.

If you're looking for a David and Goliath story, we've sure got one.

We all know that American's have a pretty sever problem with obesity. Well, it was reported today that Americans' obesity leads to the use of an additional one billion gallons of oil each year.

The study, conducted by a professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, found that the average weight of Americans has increased 24 pounds since 1960, causing the increase in fuel usage.

By comparison, 1.7 million cars could be filled with gas for a year with the fuel being used as a result of obesity.

Maybe it's time to diet for the environment!

I've been without a cell phone for a while now. Friends often chide me for not being reachable when I'm wanted, not being able to make a call when I'm out of the house, and so on. And I understand there are some GREAT things about having a cell phone. But there are some great things about being by yourself too, without the possibility of intrusion.

And maybe there's more to it than that. A study released recently shows the link between increased cell phone use and decreased fertility among men. The study also suggest that children should avoid them, they lead to addiction, tumors, and that 'more study needs to be done'.

With over one billion cell phones users worldwide, this could lead to serious long term problems.

Does this at all sound familiar to anyone? Wasn't it around forty years ago the surgeon general put out it's first report on smoking? I'm not saying that cell phones are quite as bad as smoking - but think of the similarities.

Companies willing to advertise 24-7 to get your business
People talking on phones in restaurants is annoying, and now potentially dangerous
Addictive
Marketed to kids
Tumors

I'm just glad I got rid of mine.

It was announced today that Wal*Mart is receiving a 'Green' award for their inclusion of environmental sustainability in their corporate platform. I blogged about this a couple weeks ago - at the time I suggested that perhaps we should hold off on the accolades until after we see if they actually follow through on their promises.

Some of you may have seen this yesterday - the story of the Christian Coalition launching an anti-global warming campaign.

Now, a lot of the pundits see this as a shrewd political move on the part of the CC. Polls indicate that the Democrats are set to take back the House on Nov. 7, and they posit that the Christian Right, wanting to maintain a level of power within the legislative branch, is warming up to some Democratic ideas (pun fully intended). The theory being, if the CC buddies up to the Dems on an issue like global warming, they'll still have a foot in the congressional door, so to speak.

I see it a little differently, and hope that other enviros will too. I've never understood why there aren't significantly more Christian environmentalists - after all, the bible proclaims that humans are 'stewards of the earth and all its creatures'. Unfortunately, 'greens' have been regarded for a long time as something between gaia -worshipping pagans and birkenstock-wearing hippies.

But the truth is that we are, and we have to be, beyond that. The harsh realities of global warming mandate that we as a people rise above partisanship, rise above religious beliefs, and cast off cultural differences to just solve the problem. The problem is bigger that all of that, and so to will the solutions need to be.

So, we can't get hung up on strange bedfellows - sure, I would imagine that many enviros disagree with the Christian Coalition's views on abortion, or the support of the President. But, they're a powerful force in America, and if we think of the fight to stop global warming not as an item on a progressives' laundry list of issues, but rather as generational global priority, well then it seems like a great thing that they're jumping on board.

It seemed more than a little crazy to us, but Iceland is going to resume whaling. It's hard to really describe how offensive this is.

It does underscore one point about being an environmentalist - the fight's never over. After literally decades, it seemed that whaling had been accepted as a dangerous, outdated, and obsolete practice. But, not unlike the protection of our national forests in the US, we find ourselves fighting the same battles over and over again.

The embarrassing thing is that Iceland has killed 161 Minke whales since 2003, claiming them for scientific purposes. Currently, it's estimated there are 184,000 Minke left in the world. That's a little more than the population of Syracuse NY. Crazy.

Today, the EPA released their list of most fuel efficient cars. They show the vehicle's class, and both city and highway mileage.

Top vehicles this year, for each class:
Subcompact Car Toyota Yaris (manual) 34/40
Compact Car Honda Civic Hybrid 49/51
Midsize Car Toyota Prius (hybrid) 60/51
Large Car Hyundai Sonata (manual) 24/34
Small Station Wagon Honda Fit 33/38
Midsize Station Wagon Ford Focus Wagon (manual) 27/37
Sport Utility Vehicle Ford Escape Hybrid FWD 36/31
Minivan Dodge Caravan 2WD 20/26
Pickup Truck Ford Ranger Pickup 2WD (manual) 24/29
Mazda B2300 2WD (manual) 24/29
Van (Cargo&Passenger) Chevrolet G1500/2500 Chevy Van 2WD 15/20
(4.3 and 5.3 liter engines)
GMC G1500/2500 Savana 2WD Cargo 15/20
(4.3 and 5.3 liter engines)

Bottom MPG for each class:
Two Seater Lamborghini L-147/148 Murcielago 9/14
Minicompact Car Aston Martin DB9 Coupe, Volante (manual) 11/18
Subcompact Car Bentley Azure 11/16
Compact Car Bentley Continental GT 12/19
Midsize Car Ferrari 612 Scaglietti 10/17
Large Car Bentley Arnage LWB 10/15
Small Station Wagon Audi S4 Avant 15/21
Midsize Station Wagon Mercedes-Benz E63 EMG Wagon 14/20
Sport Utility Vehicle* Jeep Grande Cherokee 4WD 12/15
Minivan* Ford Freestar Cargo Van FWD 17/23
Ford Freestar Wagon FWD 17/23
Mercury Monterey Wagon FWD 17/23
Pickup Truck* Nissan Titan 4WD 13/18
Van (Passenger and Cargo)* Chevrolet G15/25 series 14/18
Chevrolet H1500/2500 series 14/18
GMC G15/25 series 14/18
GMC H1500/2500 series 14/18

I don't mean to harp on this, but we here at Environmental Action are big fans of voting. In poking around the web today, I found On The Issues, a website that runs through every federal office holder's stances on issues.

It's nice, because the site appears to be non-partisan, and runs the gamut of issues from abortion to the environment, to welfare and the budget. Everything is based on officials' voting records, and surveys.

It's very user friendly, and offers both quick snippet information, and detailed analysis of voting records, along with links to the Thomas site (online Federal register of all legislation before Congress) where applicable.

Then really the best part is the link on every official's page to their contact info - phone numbers, email address, snail mail address, etc.

It's a great resource which I highly recommend

If you haven't heard of Open Secrets, you should go there (after finishing this post) and cruise around for awhile.

Open Secrets is the website for the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-profit, non-partisan watchdog group who for 25 years has been shining a spotlight on where money in politics comes from, and where it goes. I couldn't recommend this site more highly. It's very user friendly, and is a great way to keep tabs on who's funding your representatives in government.

A short 7-minutes research project I did today was thinking in the big picture, how much are the major anti-environmental industries spending on our elected officials.

I looked at the following industries: oil & gas, lobbyists, energy & natural resources, transportation, agribusiness, construction, and misc. business (which includes everything from Walmart to the nation Restauranters Association) from the period of 1990-2006.

Combined, those 7 industries have donated $2,753,428,859 since 1990. This breaks down to $449,246 a day, $18,718 an hour, and $312 a minute.

Pretty shocking - and anyone who says you don't get what you pay for is crazy.

So, go check out Open Secrets, see where your legislators are getting their money from, and if it offends you let them know.

I came across Free Range Studios today (thanks to Gristmill) which is a graphic design studio dedicated to promoting progressive causes, partly through cute/funny/scary flash animation.

One film, dealing with PVC (the poison plastic), is particularly good. It's a campaign set up targeting Target stores, and asking them to stop carrying products made with PVC.

Another film that was fantastic was The Meatrix, which is even better than it sounds.

The insurance industry, not known for their environmental activism in general, has come out with the information that they will be raising insurance costs in areas susceptible to hurricanes, largely because of the impact of global climate change.

From Reuters:

Global warming will push up insurance premiums in high-risk areas like coastal Florida and other hurricane-prone parts of the United States, an insurance company official said on Tuesday.

"That it will cost more, there's no question; we can put that on the table right at the beginning," said Clem Booth, a board member of Allianz Group. "To me as an insurance person, climate change is an absolute reality," Booth said in a telephone interview. "We could debate to what extent it's affected by human activity or not but it doesn't change the fact that we have to deal with the additional risks."

It seems that if we can't believe our trained scientists, we could at least believe the insurance industry, no?

If it weren't so sad, it'd be funny to me that in the midst of hundreds of articles about Bush's anti-environmental administration, there appears from Reuter's today an article essentially asking, 'when are you environmentalists just going to shut up and be happy?'.

This quote, which starts the article, definitely got my hackles up:

He's set up the world's largest protected marine reserve, raised air pollution standards and pledged to end damaging fishing, but President Bush still draws environmentalists' ire for his stance on global warming.

Admittedly the article doesn't exactly tout Bush as Mr. Green, but the tone of the whole piece ignores six years of anti-environmental policies, greenwashing, scientific censorship, and insance double-speak like 'healthy forests' and 'clear skies'.

In the article itself it acknowledges that the 'raised air pollution standards' are significantly below what EPA's own scientists recommended, but I can't believe there's even a viable level of debate on Bush's eco policies, which rank as the worst in this century.

I don't want to start any regional fights here at Environmental Action - but, I was pretty proud to see this in today's Washington Post. Evidently, The Bush Administration is really starting to frustrate all those activist judges out there.

U.S. District Judge James A. Redden, along with several other judges in the west have begun to show their frustration with Bush Administration policies, lack of honesty, lack of scientific basis for their policies, and just plain old inaction.

Federal agencies "have repeatedly and collectively failed to demonstrate a willingness to do what is necessary" under the Endangered Species Act to save fish at risk of extinction, wrote Redden.

Redden and other Federal Judges have taken the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, Bonneville Power Administration, the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management to task for their complete ineptitude at managing our wildlife and public lands.

Its perhaps best summed up by U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer : the "Forest Service's interest in harvesting timber has trampled" environmental laws protecting timberland.

So it seems that essentially every agency within the Bush Administration is far more concerned with business interests than in any kind of environmental concerns. This is not news - it's just nice to see some of the people with power fighting back.

With the news today of scientists around the world asking the US Fish & Wildlife Service to list the polar bear as endangered, and the Union of Concerned Scientists announcing today that the northeast will not be recognizable in the future if we don't curb our green house gases now, it's refreshing to see our government responding.

Currently, the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration)- which has been delegated the responsibility of proposing changes to our gas mileage standard - is proposing an increase in the mileage standard for SUVs. They want SUV mileage to increase by....wait for it.....3 miles in the next 5 years. This is so ridiculous as to be offensive.

As many of you know, right now we're working on the campaign to Double the Standard.

We have the technology, the consumer desire, and the environmental need to double our gas mileage standard for all cars, trucks, and SUVs in the U.S.

So, we're sending out 1,500 public comments via email to NHTSA telling them to Double the Standard.

If you haven't taken action, click here to do so.

Some of you may have heard about the environmental summit in Mexico yesterday.

Representatives from 20 nations met to further discuss how to deal with global warming. It was a closed door meeting, so sadly there's little to report on. It does seem like a positive step, however, that at least meetings are happening at the international level around the issue.

And, the exiting news is that most quotes from people involved in these talks are saying what we need to hear - that there is a definite problem, there are definite solutions, and now is the time to act.

It remains to be seen if the U.S. will second those emotions, or stick with their 'reduce methane' only plan.

Sorry it's taken us a while to get around to this - today we found this ridiculous editorial, which states, "People will remember him {President Bush} as a world leader who brought energy independence to the world."

I actually laughed out loud when I read this. But then I thought maybe I should take a look at his climate change plan. Given that folks all over the web have already picked it apart, I thought we might try something new.

I started reading the 243 page pdf report and had a lot of questions. I quickly realized I might be able to get my questions answered by doing some word searching. Surely I could glean the intent of the report from how often they used some words in comparison to others. Take a look at the not-so-surprising results.

A)What is the Future of Energy in America?
The words nuclear, coal, fusion, fission, and oil were used 545 times.
The words solar, wind, and geothermal were used 205 times.

B) Can We Control Public Perception of the Problem?
The term 'climate change' was used 462 times
The term 'global warming' was used 31 times

I argue that 'climate change' sound like not a big deal. 'Global warming' on the other hand is (rightfully) scary as hell.

C) Won't Ethanol Save Us?
The term 'corn' was used 6 times
The term 'switchgrass was used 1 time

D) Wouldn't Fixing Our Transportation Efficiency Make a Big Difference?
The term 'fuel efficiency' was used 4 times, but each time only related to aviation fuel efficiency. The report itself states that 62.5% of U.S. CO2 emissions come from cars & light trucks, whereas aviation emissions account for 9.6% of the total CO2 output.

CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) was used 0 times.

E) How Do We Make Change?
The word 'voluntary' was used 22 times
The word 'mandatory' was used 1 time (not in reference to legislation or an actual mandate - it was used in a caption)

F) So, Bush Administration, Which Side Are You On?
The words 'business' or 'industry' were used 124 times
The words 'environment' or 'environmental' were used 29 times