First of all, thank you to Dan and the rest of the Environmental Action team for inviting me to blog here while Dan is on vacation. I hope you all enjoy my posts as much as Dan's.

As you've probably seen or heard already, the "father of the hybrid car," David Hermance, died in a plane crash on Saturday. The condolences of the entire Environmental Action team go out to his friends and family. Dave was the Executive Engineer for Advanced Technology Vehicles for Toyota, and oversaw the development and launch of the Prius.

But let's talk about David's legacy, and what hybrid cars are doing for our country (besides reducing pollution and using less gas).

In an interview with Alan Alda (yes, that Alan Alda) for the PBS program "Scientific American Frontiers" in 2004, David Hermance was asked, "If [the Prius] is so good, why don't you just say to them, here's the car for you, and this is the one you're going to get because this gets the best mileage, it performs just like the car you've been driving, only this is better. Costs about the same and so now that's the car that you can buy. Why offer them others that are not as good?"

Dave's response shows just how far we've come since 2004: "Well, in the US, sad to say, folks don't largely value fuel economy. Most of the population of the US is not convinced that global warming is real or that cars have anything to do with it."

You can read the rest of this transcript here, if you're interested.

Since this interview, sales of hybrid cars in the US (lead by the Prius) have skyrocketed (Jan. 2006 report, Top Ten Hybrids of 2006), and global warming has taken center stage as the environmental issue facing our country and our world in the minds of a growing number of Americans.

This sea change shows no sign of slowing, and it is the result of countless hours of work by scientists, activists like you and me, and even an ex-Vice President to spread the word about global warming and the dangers it poses to our planet.

The fact that hybrid cars were introduced and marketed as green alternatives over six years ago is also an important reason why global warming, energy independence, and fuel efficiency loom larger on the radar screens of many Americans today. Dave's legacy is one not only of technological innovation, but also one of raising awareness of probably the biggest challenge to ever confront us as a species.

Thanks to innovators like David Hermance, we are in a better position today to stop global warming before we feel its worst effects. Dave understood that sometimes you have to introduce the change before the "market researchers" say we're ready for it. He didn't wait until global warming was making headlines to do something about it, and we need more leaders like him in both our government and energy and transportation industries. The time to create real change is now. Hybrid cars were the beginning, but we need to go much further.

Dave's sudden death is tragic. He was 59, and the engine in his small plane apparently just stopped running while he was flying off the coast of California. It is comforting, however, to know that he lived long enough to see the early success of his work.

Dave, we'll miss you, but we promise to pick up where you left off. Thanks.

In the exciting personal news category, I'm taking a week off to go visit my dad for his 60th birthday. I'll be blogging occasionally from home, but have invited a couple other great activists to help fill in as well.

The first is known to you, Mr. Navin Nayak who worked for Environmental Action for quite some time (and started this blog), and who is now the Global Warming Project Director with The League of Conservation Voters. The second is my good friend Wes Morgan, an organizer with The State PIRGs.

I believe they'll both offer some solid commentary on the issues we cover over the next week and a half. Enjoy!

If you've been conscious of global warming for awhile, then you're probably like me - used to warning people about it. For so long now we've been saying, 'global warming is happening, and there's danger around the corner if we don't act now'. Well, looks like we may have turned the corner.

According to a study from a researcher at the University of Texas, at least 70 species of frogs have gone extinct likely from the effects of global warming. Another 100 to 200 species are in sever danger of being wiped out, such as the emperor penguin and the polar bear.

Combined with this is evidence of many species migrating northward to escape the increased heat. Hopefully, we'll be able to generate enough change to stop it.

You might remember on 10/31, I blogged about how misleading the news can be on environmental issues. A conservative think tank, AEI, announced that less than three percent of Americans would vote on environmental issues based on recent exit polls. I asked, 'what exit polls', and questioned the validity of the coverage.

Well, it was announced this week by Zogby's, a non-partisan, well respected polling firm, that global warming may well have been a 'sleeper' issue that played a big roll midterm elections.

In the post-election survey, a solid majority (58%) of voters agreed their elected officials "should make combating global warming a high priority." Three-quarters (75%) of Americans who voted in the mid-term elections say the ".S. Congress should pass legislation promoting renewable and alternative energy sources as an effective way to reduce global warming pollution."

You really should read Zogby's analysis. They surveyed over 19K voters, and the results are pretty shocking. We're finally getting to the point where global warming is being treated not just as an environmental issue, but as the serious global threat that it is.

Sadly, when you do a Google news search on 'Zogby' and 'Global Warming', you get about 22 hits. Hopefully some other folks in the blogoshere will pick this story up - hint, hint.

First, the good news. It looks like the Supreme Court is going to be reviewing the Bush Administration's policies on global warming.

Essentially, conservation groups and twelve states have been suing to get the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks. As you know, since 2000, the Bush Administration has been claiming that there isn't enough scientific evidence to actually prompt action. Debate in the high court will happen on Nov. 29, and we'll keep you posted.

On the more disappointing side, the global conference on global warming wrapped up today, with little to no action happening. They couldn't come up with a post-Kyoto plan, nor could they even come up with a timetable for future actions by the group.

Experts claimed that America's resistance to come to the table with any real desire to fix the problem was a significant factor in the failure of the conference.

Plans to start producing oil shale in the Western US have been approved by the BLM, despite much debate and rancor over the issue.

There are the obvious problems with oil shale, the drilling, the destruction of land, and the lowering water table. There's the other issue though - we've been here before. A few decades ago, oil shale was going to be the savior of the oil crisis. Then it was deemed too costly, and was scrapped.

But here we are again - in the midst of another oil crisis. Instead of raising fuel economy standards, instead of pushing conservation, public transit, alternative fuels, or carpooling, how do we respond? Oil shale.

With proclamations of a '100-year supply' of oil, it would seem that all of our problems are solved. If we don't mind wrecking the environment and continuing our addiction to oil, oil shale is just fine. For now. Unless it doesn't work again.

Maybe, and I'm just saying maybe, it's time we looked seriously as alternatives to oil?

off Q/3

I don't normally post twice in a day - lots of other EA business to attend to - but I could resist talking about this.

In case you're not inspired to click the link, the CNN headline is: 'Scientists: Pollution could combat global warming'.

I'm not sure when CNN started cribbing from The Onion, but this story is pretty ridiculous.

Evidently a scientist studying global warming, and frustrated by the utter lack of action to stop it, came up with the proposal as sort of a wake-up call. Essentially, if you don't want to enact the sensible solutions (curb emissions, etc.) then we'll have to take drastic action, like putting up a layer of air pollution.

Unfortunately the idea, intended as a wake-up call, is actually being taken seriously by some in the field. Perhaps next the '5-ton ice cube in the ocean' approach will start gaining traction too.

Yesterday, at the global climate change conference in Nairobi, Kofi Annan got tough with world leaders about the issue. Evidently having just six weeks left in his post as Secretary General of the U.N. has allowed Mr. Annan to speak more freely about global priorities.

He told the delegation:

A few die hard skeptics continue trying to sow doubt. They should be seen for what they are, out of step, out of arguments and out of time. Instead of being economically defensive, let us start being more politically courageous. The question is not whether climate change is happening, but whether, in the face of this emergency, we ourselves can change fast enough.

I added the bolding to the above quote because I feel like that's really the bottom line in the debate. Recently, Environmental Action launched a campaign to get Wal-Mart to give away a free energy efficient light bulb to each of its 18 million daily U.S. customers.

We've certainly caught some flack from the myriad Wal-Mart haters out there - and I understand their frustration. But the bottom line is, we need to solve this problem. The solutions are in front of us, we just need the courage and strength of will - both political and personal - to see those solutions through.

You probably have heard about the climate change conference happening this week in Nairobi. It was announced today that the U.S. felt it was doing its part to combat climate change.

Undersecretary of State Paula Dobriansky said, "The United States is committed to addressing the serious global challenge of climate change."

What?

Isn't this the same administration who was caught at least twice censoring global warming scientists within the administration? Isn't this the Administration who has adamantly refused to join the Kyoto treaty because it'd be bad for business?

Well, Dobriansky's answer was that they've spent $29 billion on climate change in the last five years. To you and me, $29B is A LOT of money. It's in the unthinkable category. So let's put it in perspective.

In 2005, we spent $500B on Defense. That's more than 100 times what was spent on solving global warming. Call me crazy, but a war to stop global warming is winnable, and perhaps more of our resources should be going there.

I'm sure a lot of you have heard about the meeting happening in D.C. today between the leaders of Ford, GM, and DaimlerChrysler and President Bush. All news reports are saying that the Big 3 are asking for help, but not a bailout.

Let me be clear, I'm not against the American auto industry. I may not trust them, and I'm certainly disappointed in them regularly, but I wish them no ill-will.

What gets me is that according to the WSJ, Toyota Motor Corp. has mapped out plans to capture 15 percent of the global market in the next three years, up from 11 percent in 2005, while this quarter, the Big Three posted combined losses of $7.39 billion dollars . Their response has been to lay-off or buy out 135,000 American jobs.

Adding salt to the wound, CEO pay for these guys is just ridiculous. According to Forbes, GM CEO Richard Wagoner's salary and compensation increased 20% from 2004 to 2005, going from $7.1M to $8.5M. This from a guy who lost $1,000,000 A DAY in the last quarter.

The reason Toyota is able to expand is, of course, keeping their products current with the times - as people are becoming more aware of the severity of global warming and the financial realities of $2.50/gallon of gas, they're buying more energy efficient vehicles. But all the Big Three want to offer are giant SUVs. And that, more than health care or the value of the yen is what's hurting them.

But somehow I don't think they'll be asking Bush to double the mileage standard today.

While big changes happened in the election last week, we are now looking at the Congressional 'lame-duck' session, where lawmakers will be wrapping up the business of the year. This includes a number of spending and budget bills, but word has it there's one fairly dangerous proposal Congress will take up - offshore oil drilling.

According to recent reports, Sen. Harry Reid of NV, is working to layout a proposed lame-duck agenda to, "focus on the unfinished spending bills; a nuclear agreement with India; an offshore oil drilling bill; legislation to prepare for a potential flu pandemic and a biological attack; and a package of popular tax breaks."

While I'm perfectly comfortable with funding for flu pandemic preparation, I take great umbrage at the idea that the 109th Congress would attempt to open up areas currently off-limits to drilling.

I certainly hope in their final days of legislating, the 109th Congress has the wisdom to stop this proposal.

Today, Environmental Action kicked off an effort to get Wal-Mart to help out with a green Christmas this year. I know what you're thinking - Wal-Mart? Green? You don't buy it.

That's ok - but, think about this. Wal-Mart is the nation's largest retailer, right? They get about 18,000,000 customers a day in the United States. If each of those customers got a free CEF light bulb from Wal-Mart, and used it, it would reduce CO2 emissions by over 2.5 billion pounds a year. That's like taking 200,000 cars off the road.

Got your attention yet?

You don't have to like Wal-Mart in any way to recognize that if we could do this, it could help bring environmentalism to the masses, and at the same time cause some pretty significant reduction in our emissions.

It's not enough for us to be doing our part. We need to get people who don't even know they have a part to play to play it too. And that where Wal-Mart comes in. They have a unique level of access to the average American, like it or not.

So send them a message - ask them to sponsor free energy efficient light bulb day.

It was announced today that the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize recipient Wangari Mathai is launching an effort to plant one billion trees annually in an effort to combat global warming.

I can't say I'm against this plan, but it does seem like a long way to go to make a small dent in the global warming problem, when the root of the issue is American's lifestyles, not a lack of trees. Why are we not using buses or walking? Why do our cars not get the mileage they should? Why don't we use energy efficient lightbulbs?

Sadly, the American media is always on the lookout for what appear to be quick-fix band aid solutions to the problem, rather than pushing for actual change. Don't get me wrong - I'm not against the planting of trees - but if American energy consumption patterns don't change, this effort won't amount to a hill of trees.

It was announced today that essentially, plans to build a nuclear weapon where up on a website. Not an Al-Qaeda website, not a fringe group website, but a U.S. government website.

Evidently, the House leadership wanted to show some evidence that Iraq had a thriving nuclear weapons plan prior to the war. So, they put captured scientific documents up on the world wide web. Of course, these documents contain knowledge that would be helpful in designing a nuclear device.

The shocking thing to me is that when a scientist at NASA or NOAA wants to present evidence of global warming, and recommend steps to halt it, they are silenced by this administration, yet we will put up weapons designs on federally sponsored websites.

If it weren't so scary, it'd be funny.

It was announced today that there is going to be a lengthy investigation into charges of scientific censorship by the Bush Administration.

You may recall the issue with NASA censoring top climate scientist James Hansen last January, and more recently the Commerce Department halting a report from NOAA linking the increased number and severity of hurricanes to global warming.

As we all know, it must be scientific information that drives public policy, and certainly not the other way around. I'm a little hesitant because, according to Sen. Lautenberg of NJ, "he was informed that the inspectors general for the Commerce Department and NASA had begun coordinated, sweeping investigations of the Bush administration's censorship and suppression of federal research into global warming."

I would certainly feel better if there were a Congressional review, rather than an internal review of the administrations by the administrations themselves, but this is a great start.