Great news! It was announced today that the Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed listing the Polar Bear as 'threatened' under the Endangered Species Act.

I want to explain two things which are very important.

First, if the polar bear gets listed, it will be a huge step towards stopping global warming. The way the ESA is written, it forces the government to analyze and stop the cause of a species' decline. In the case of the bald eagle, that meant banning DDT, in the case of the spotted owl, it meant halting logging of the owl's habitat, and so on. With the polar bear, the cause of their decline is global warming. This means, in a perfect world, the government will be forced to take measures to stop global warming. This could lead to limits on C02 emissions, along with other greenhouse gases. Following this trail, you could make a case to double our vehicle mileage because of the ESA, and the polar bear's listing.

The second piece, however, is less good. This proposal is just a step in the process. From here, there is a 90-day comment period, there will be hearings set up, and then a 12-month review of all comments, hearings, and scientific data which will lead to a final ruling.

You can bet your bottom dollar that major industries around the country are going to pull out all stops to fight this, and let's be honest, the Bush Administration hardly serves as the poster child for action on global warming.

So, we've got a window, and if we're successful, it will be huge. But we've got a lot of work to do to make it happen.

I was checking an article this morning which goes into pretty good detail about the state of the environment in 2006. It covers both the fact that 2006 is the year that a majority of people woke up to the realities, but then also covers the very severe environmental problems fully realized in 2006.

It went into the report about 2006 being just a degree or two close to being the warmest year on record in a million years, the discover of methane as a cause of global warming, and the acceptance and warning of global warming by such unlikely places as the Vatican and the World Bank (though not yet the Bush Administration...)

One of the scariest pieces of the article, was a reference to a report done in May called the red list which said that two out of every five species faces extinction.

We all discovered this year the risk of polar bear and penguin extinction, but to find out that 40% of the world's species are at risk of extinction is nothing short of terrifying.

I plan on doing a little more research on this issue over the next two days, but from the outset, this seems pretty legit.

From the Red List report "Overall, 16,119 animal and plant species are in danger of extinction, including 1 in 8 birds, 1 in 4 mammals and 1 in 3 amphibian species. Since records began, 784 species have been declared extinct"

What sad news coming from Nigeria. Evidently, a state-owned pipeline exploded, and killed at least 200, though the fires are still raging and are too dangerous to recover all the victims.

Reading the story is very difficult. Poor people often tap into the pipelines to get oil for their homes and families, which in and of itself is depressing, but when an accident like this happens, it's nothing short of tragic.

I can't help but critique the story, however, because it ends with this line, "The blast was not expected to affect production in Africa's largest oil exporter." This sentence sums up the insane level of greed and inhumanity that oil creates in our society. Beyond the environmental imperative to get off of oil, there is surely a moral one, which the article makes absolutely no mention of.

Toyota announced today their 5-year plan for helping the environment. And there are some good things in there, including:

- achievement of best-in-class fuel efficiency performance,

- reduction of total energy usage of manufacturing facilities and operations in North America by 27% per vehicle produced, using FY 2002 as a base year,

- promotion of basic environmental research aimed at CO2 emissions reductions, and

- reduction of waste in sales and logistics facilities, including a 90% recycling rate at vehicle distribution centers by FY 2011, reduction of non-hazardous waste to landfill from parts operations by 33% by FY 2011 (FY2006 baseline), diversion of 95% waste from Toyota Canada facilities from landfill by FY 2010 and reduction of Canadian facility paper consumption per person by 25% by FY 2010.

This is all well and good, and all of us greens have been big fans of Toyota and they're so great, blah, blah, blah.

But, notice in the first goal, an important sentence, "achievement of best-in-class fuel efficiency performance" This is important. According to FuelEconomy.gov the 2007 Toyota Sequoia 4WD model gets 16 miles to the gallon.

This means that Toyota will work to get the best fuel economy in the class, based partly on what that class is legally required to get. They're not saying, 'our fleet will get 30mpg, or 40mpg. They're saying, they'll do the minimum they have to, plus a little to put them on top.

Until we close the SUV loophole, and legally mandate a higher mpg for all vehicles automakers, every one of them, will take advantage of these loopholes.

For awhile now, we've been referencing that 2006 is going to go down as the year that the environment reached a tipping point (really, a second tipping point) as a critical issue in people's minds.

And a report released today confirms it. We knew it all along, but it's always nice when you can point to a study that proves your theory.

The report talks mostly about Britain, and how consumers seem to be weighing environmental concerns much more heavily in their purchasing than in years past. I believe this trend is happening in America, though perhaps a couple months behind our British friends.

On a slightly separate note, I know you shouldn't point to individual weather events as evidence of global warming - that you need to look for trends and patterns, etc. BUT I can't help but notice that as I write this, I am snowbound in Denver, CO under two feet of snow with the city at a standstill, while it's 50 degrees in Boston, MA.

Last week I announced that we opened new field offices in SF, Berkeley, and Atlanta, while completely neglecting to highlight our new office in Portland OR!

Brian Greene is our campaign director up there, and in fact is doing some great work with his team - we couldn't be more pleased to have them all working on energy independence, and don't be surprised if in the next few months you get a knock on your door from one of these fine people. If you do, please take a moment to listen to their important message and get involved.

And thanks to everyone up in Portland!

It could be pretty successfully argued that 2006 will go down as the year that global warming hit a tipping point in the public consciousness. One side effect of this is the uncovering of the vast amounts of censorship occurring at federal agencies engaged in scientific research. From NASA to the NOAA, it appears the Bush Administration has done what it could to silence science over the last six years.

Thankfully, due to the prominence of the issue, and the media picking up these censorship stories, there are now investigations underway to determine how deep the censorship went. Some pretty shocking developments have come out.

Scientists at the NOAA lab in Boulder CO were told not to use the word 'Kyoto', nor mention the phrase 'climate change' during a conference of the world's top emissions scientists.

The sad thing you'll see from the article is that many scientists just had to go along with it all, sometimes for years.

'We were under instructions not to use the word Kyoto, which of course is absurd,' said Tans, who measures levels of carbon dioxide at NOAA's Global Monitoring Division. He has worked for the agency since 1990.

Tans said the order was issued verbally by his boss, David Hofmann, the division director. Another senior researcher at the Boulder laboratory, NOAA physicist James Elkins, said Hofmann told him the same thing.

Elkins studies greenhouse gases and has worked at NOAA for more than 20 years. He said he can't remember when the directive was issued, but it was 'probably in 2000 or 2001.'

Well keep you posted on the results of the investigations as we learn of them.

By now, many of you have probably heard about President Bush signing the nuclear treaty with India.

Two things jump out as being pretty bad about this.

The first is that much of the reasoning for the US signing the pact is that India's energy needs are going to double in the near future. Given the continuing shortages of oil, the US sees India's ability to rely more on nukes than on oil as a good thing - more oil for us. This patently ignores the reality that there won't be enough oil to go around in the future, and we need to deal with the problem now, and hogging all the oil for ourselves is no answer, particularly when it means that other countries will be more reliant on nuclear power, a dangerous energy source in its own right.

Secondly, President Bush essentially said that Congress' impact on the deal, and it's future ramifications will be 'advisory', because the President determines foreign policy. This seems dangerous to the entire concept of checks and balances.

much of the reasoning for the US signing the pact is that India's energy needs are going to double in the near future. Given the continuing shortages of oil, the US sees India's ability to rely more on nukes than on oil as a good thing - more oil for us. This patently ignores the reality that there won't be enough oil to go around in the future, and we need to deal with the problem now, and hogging all the oil for ourselves is no answer, particularly when it means that other countries will be more reliant on nuclear power, a dangerous energy source in its own right.

I'm not putting this on the home page, but thought regular readers of the blog would get a kick out of it. Enjoy.

As you probably know, Al Gore, MoveOn, and the nation's top environmental groups hosted thousands of house parties this weekend to watch 'An Inconvenient Truth', and then participate in a conference call with Al Gore.

Initial word seems promising, but I'd love to hear from others - did you go to a party? How was it? Do you have feedback that would be helpful?

If so, send me email at dan(at)environmental-action.org, and let me know what you think.

This has making the rounds a little bit recently, but it has been reported recently that the Bush administration, via the EPA, wants to take lead off the toxic pollution list.

This is just crazy - when we realized the danger of lead as a pollutant, we sprang into action, and have successfully reduced exposure.

But according to the story:

"The agency says revoking those standards might be justified 'given the significantly changed circumstances since lead was listed in 1976' as an air pollutant."

Does this mean that lead is somehow less toxic than it was 30 years ago?

The EPA also says concentrations of lead in the air have dropped more than 90 percent in the past 2 1/2 decades. Given the amazing success of reducing lead in our air, why on earth would we take it off the list?

I'm quite literally dumbfounded as to why this proposal is coming up right now.

New out of Vatican City today has the Pope essentially calling for energy conservation efforts, and that countries conserve basic energy sources like oil so that developing nations suffer less.

Obviously, this is good news, and further underscores the point we've all been making all along. The ideas of energy sustainability transcend party and religious differences. For too long people have viewed 'eco-issues' through the (wildly inappropriate) lens of party or religious doctrine, when the reality is that most of our most pressing issues, like global warming, need to be confronted and solved by humanity as a whole.

And who knows, maybe solving problems together will help everyone get along more peacefully.

I'm pleased to announce that in the last week Environmental Action has opened three new field offices in Atlanta, San Francisco, and Berkeley.

Our Atlanta office is being headed up by Jeff Totty, San Francisco by John Versey, and Berkeley by EA vet Josh Sbicca. These three are working to build teams of people to get out into the neighborhoods to raise some consciousness (and hopefully a little money!) for our work on energy independence.

If you live in one of these cities, don't be surprised if in the next couple months you get a knock on your door from one of our people. I know we all live harried lives, but please take a moment to hear them out. These great activists need all of our support, and we couldn't be more pleased to have them on board.

While it isn't exactly news to people like us, people the world over are voting for the environment! Great story today in Reuters about many nations' politicians are jumping on the global warming bandwagon as a way to earn votes. Obviously, the proof will be in the pudding, but it's a good start.

By now you've probably heard about the house parties happening around the country this weekend. MoveOn.org, Al Gore, and the nation's leading environmental groups are pulling together thousands of house parties nationwide to view the film, 'An Inconvenient Truth', and then take part in a national conference call with Gore.

If you haven't check it out, go to AlGore.com, and you can find parties in your neighborhood, or sign up to host a party if there isn't one close to you.

On a separate note, I want to add my extreme joy that MoveOn is taking on this fight. Given their membership size, and winning track record, it's nice to have them on board.

This is a little old, but the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) has formally petitioned the US Fish and Wildlife service to list 12 species of penguins on either the endangered or threatened list under the ESA.

This is the same group who, last year, petitioned to list the polar bear as well. The bad news, aside from the fact that these amazing species are in serious trouble, is that CBD had to sue Fish and Wildlife to get them to respond. Under law, when a petition is filed with FWS, they have 90 days to respond to the petition, then there's a public comment period, and a final decision on whether to list or not.

Not surprisingly, the Bush administration dragged their feet, though CBD won the lawsuit, and their proposal on the polar bear should be coming out this month.

Now for the good news. Both the listing of the penguins and the polar bear are being proposed because of the impacts of global warming. If they're listed (and that's a big if), FSW has to take efforts to rejuvenate the species, meaning they'll be forced to take federal action to curb global warming. Or at least, that's our hope.

We'll be doing a bunch of work on both these issues in January, once the public comment periods get under way. Keep your eyes peeled!

For those of you who didn't catch it, Gov. Tom Vilsack--the first candidate to officially run for president (not one of those just dipping their toe in the water with an exploratory committee)--was on ABC This Week on Sunday.

To Stephanopoulos' credit, a chunk of the discussion focused on energy. He basically asked Vilsack whether he would support a carbon tax, which many economists view as the most efficient way of achieving many of the goals Vilsack supports. While refusing to support a carbon tax, Vilsack did lead with conservation and renewables.

To my knowledge, none of the potential candidates have been willing to embrace a carbon tax (except for Gore), but if they are serious about solving global warming it is inevitable. Either we'll place a cap on carbon, which will drive the price up, or we'll do it directly through a tax. Or we won't do either and will usher in a new reality--not a pretty one at that.

As these candidates continue on the campaign road, they'll be a real challenge in getting them to clarify exactly how they plan to address climate change--if at all.

The Liberal Party in Canada--now the loyal opposition to the Conservative Government--has chosen a politician with strong environmental credentials to lead the party. Stephane Dion was a former Minister of the Environment and made the environment a top issue in his leadership bid.

"In his acceptance speech, Dion repeatedly emphasized his main goal: dealing with what he called "the greatest challenge we have today, sustainable development."

There weren't any big commitments made and as the opposition party, there won't be too much Dion can do in the next few months. But with another election likely looming in Canada, this could mean that the environment--and global warming particularly--could play a central role in the campaign.

Of course, Dion still has to win and according to most news stories, electability wasn't his strongest asset.