In the interest of full disclosure, let me say that I am a lifelong Coke drinker. But, that may be changing - not because of the insanely high levels of sugar and who knows what else, but because of their complete idiocy on the polar bear campaign.

If you were like me, and you emailed Coke yesterday, and asked them to help out, you probably got this response:

You mentioned our advertising that features the Coca-Cola Polar Bears. As a beverage company, our conservation efforts are focused on the bottling process and recycling. We are also involved with many other worthwhile causes. When the cause is outside of our expertise, as is the case with polar bear conservation, we rely on others to approach us for financial support. We receive many requests for funding, and we give each proposal proper consideration.

Never mind that Coke was one of the largest companies fighting any kind of bottle bill (the nickel deposit/return program), let's take them at their word.

'When the cause it outside of our expertise....' they pass the buck. But, if you look on their website, it's chock full of programs that Coke helps run, advertises, etc. which includes building schools, homes, sponsoring soccer matches, and the Danish cycling program. Call me crazy, but when I crack open a cool can of Coke, I'm not thinking, 'Thank god these guys are experts at Danish cycling!'

The Congress is evidently looking into the Bush Administration's censorship of global warming scientists.

The Union of Concerned Scientists just issued their findings after surveying 1,800 scientists, and discovering widespread censorship and alteration of the science around global warming.

So, while President Bush was saying, 'We'll have to wait for the science', he was allowing former oil lobbyist Phil Cooney to edit reports on global warming when he was chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

We're not surprised, and we applaud both UCS and Rep. Waxman of CA for bringing these issues to light.

Over the winter holidays I was home with my family, specifically visiting my mom and grandma in Tennessee. They are very supportive of the work that I do with EA, and wanted to know what we were up to. When I explained the work to get the polar bear listed on the Endangered Species Act, my grandma said, 'Danny - you need to get Coke to help out. They've used that bear in their ads for years, for free, and it's time they gave something back!'

Well grandma was spot on - so today, our next step in listing the polar bear is to get Coke to do their part, and help get the bear listed. To send Coke an email, click here.

And thanks to grandma for keeping a young activist on the ball!

The dark side of our nation's realization of its addiction to oil is that the nuclear industry is jumping on the PR bandwagon, hoping to convince both the American people and Congress that nuclear energy will save us.

False. For so many reasons. Firstly, the very idea is completely ridiculous. Our addiction to oil is brought upon by transportation, not by utility energy needs. Switching more utility power to nuclear will do little to solve our energy crisis.

Secondly, while we do need to promote alternative utility energy sources, they should not come from such a dangerous place as the nuclear industry. We need more wind and more solar, not more nukes.

Frankly, we thought this debate was over. Nuclear power is unsafe, unstable, and not the place to put our resources. But, the nuclear industry is pressuring Congress right now, and working to delude the public into thinking that suddenly a nuclear reactor is a safe thing.

This week, Zogby and UPI announced the results of their poll about offshore oil drilling. And it's pretty depressing.

In a poll of 6,882 people, they found:

Asked their level of support for oil drilling off coastlines of the United States, 42.4 percent said they would "strongly support" such a program while another 18.6 percent gave the idea "somewhat support." A total of 16.7 percent would "somewhat oppose" the idea and 18.5 percent listed "strongly oppose" as their option.

But I can't find the geographic breakdown of the survey anywhere. I would wager a guess (as a former Californian) that most people in the places to be drilled (CA, FL, LA) are against oil drilling, but people everywhere else in the country say, 'why not?'. Because it wouldn't affect them.

On the one hand then, you would think, 'ok - not the worst poll in the world'. But, really, how can we, as environmentalists get the rest of the country to care about what happens to the environment in other parts of the U.S.? How can we show that it's all connected?

Not to be a downer before the weekend, but this poll is weighing heavily. Given the advance we've made on global warming, it's shocking people would see offshore oil drilling as an energy solution.

Well, the Federal Way school board announced their policies on showing, 'An Inconvenient Truth' to their students.

As you may recall, the school board of this Seattle suburb put a temporary ban on showing the film. Well, at their meeting this week, they have lifted the ban (good) on the condition that the film be shown with the approval of the principal, and offer 'the opposing viewpoint' (bad).

The schoolboard's story, which evidently they're sticking to, is that because the film is 'controversial', alternate viewpoints must be taught alongside the film.

This brings up the very frustrating reality that for years environmentalists and scientists have been shouting at the top of our lungs about global warming. And it was usually ignored. Now that it's being accepted as fact and not theory, industry says it's controversial, and suddenly we need both sides taught. Just ridiculous.

I'm going to wait a little bit to blog on the President's State of the Union last night - thousands and thousands of words have been and are being written on it, so I'll see what some of that has to offer.

In the meantime though, I was curious to find out what happened in the Federal Way WA school board meeting last night. The school board recently canned showings of Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth', and last night were reviewing their decision.

In this article I found that it looks like they will not show the film until they can show an opposing viewpoint. What caught my eye, however were two paragraphs at the bottom of the story.

The National Science Teachers Association rejected an offer from producers of the film for 50,000 free DVDs of "An Inconvenient Truth," stating that the organization did not want to offer a "political endorsement" of the film.

The NSTA also voiced concerns that accepting the DVDs might jeopardize their capital campaign's relationship with one of its principle donors, the Exxon Mobile Corporation.

WHAT?!?!

I've been around the block - I know that corporate America makes large 'philanthropic' donations. From food group education to the meals on wheels program, the beef industry, Phillip Morris, and on and on have worked to better their image.

But this is ridiculous. These are our teachers, and their ability to teach our children is being compromised so as to not offend the likes of ExxonMobil. And, when you look at the NSTA 'Partners and Contributors' page, you see not just ExxonMobil, but also DuPont, the U.S. Department of Transportation, Shell Oil, Puget Sound Energy, Lockheed Martin, and Dow Chemical.

I understand companies want to give money to look good, and the petro-chemical industries certainly have a financial interest in science education. But, once the National Science Teacher's Association censors itself, or limits itself, for fear of upsetting a donor, they have abandoned their mission, " ... to promote excellence and innovation in science teaching and learning for all", and anyone who believed in it.

When you're involved in activism, a huge part of your work is getting other folks to take action with you. As such, you'll find yourself repeating the same problem over and over again. This puts you in an interesting place, because, frankly, most people think we're fine - and if the is a problem, they can't understand why some combination of the government and corporate American cannot fix the it.

To me then, the heart and soul of an 'activist' is someone dedicated to convincing individuals that they have more power than the government or corporate America, if only they'd use it to take action.

I bring this up today, because there are different kinds of environmental groups. It was announced yesterday that USCAP (United States Climate Action Partnership) was pressuring Congress to do something about global warming. What makes USCAP unique is its membership. Alcoa, Duke Energy, BP America, PG&E, General Electric all belong - and they're some of the worst polluters our world has ever known. Who else is in this group? The Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense, Pew Center on Global Warming, and the World Resources Institute.

Yes, that's right - the biggest polluters have teamed up with these enviro groups to finally do something about global warming. Never mind it was these companies who have fought global warming protections for years.

If you're like me, you're wondering - a) why are these companies pressuring Congress and the President to fight global warming, and b) why are those organizations joining up with the some of the worst polluters in the world?

I think I know.

A)This group, USCAP, is saying, 'We need mandatory limits on CO2 emissions' While a great idea in and off itself, the cornerstone of their version is what's known as cap-and-trade, which means the US puts a limit on emissions and each polluting industry gets CO2 credits. You can put out XXX million lbs. of CO2, etc. If a company exceeds their limit, they have to buy credits from someone who's under the limit. Great, right? Nope.

This is a bad program for two reasons. It doesn't limit emissions nearly as much as a straight up 'cap and no trade' program would, and it allows for environmental hotspots. Some industries are fine paying for the credits to pollute, so you'll get a few places in every state that become environmental wastelands.

B) These groups are not environmental 'activist' groups. Let's take a look. Environmental Defense has a great history. They got started by banning DDT. But, take a look at their board of directors now. You've got two advisory directors for Morgan Stanley (another company in the USCAP coalition), and a bunch of CEOs, consultants, investors, and other people not normally called 'environmental activists'.

World Resources Institute is much worse. A look at their board shows the former president of an import-export bank, executive vp at Wal-Mart, a Professor of Business Administration, and so on.

NRDC and Pew are a little harder to pin down, but both are massive players in the environmental scene. Both are known for doing good work, but are also known for taking the middle-of-the-road approach to problems, and working very closely with business interests.

Essentially what's happening is this. Industry sees the writing on the wall, and thinks if they're pro-active about pushing legislation, they'll get what they want (cap and trade). The organizations in this coalition see the writing on the wall, understand there will be global warming legislation soon, and want their names on it, because that brings the big bucks.

While there's nothing wrong in working within the system to change it, or even working within an industry to change it, it's an entirely different thing to be co-opted by industry for their gains. And, no matter how you cut it, all these entities seem be selling us upriver.

It seems that the big news of the week is how President Bush is going to respond to global warming in his state of the union address tomorrow. It's been all over the news this past week, and I'm cautiously optimistic.

The new Congress has taken global warming seriously by replacing Sen. James 'global warming is a hoax' Inhofe with Sen. Barbara 'global warming needs to be stopped' Boxer as head of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Speaker Pelosi's creation of a committee specifically focused on global warming in the house, and placing Rep. Markey (MA) as its chair. I fully expect to see further progress made on the issue out of the Congress, and if Bush is coming to terms with the reality of the issue finally, we may actually see some action.

One quote which I found in The Boston Globe, "Nothing is going to happen on this unless it is done on a collaborative effort," said Frank Maisano, an energy industry spokesman in Washington, frankly read to me more as a threat however, which is why I'm going to wait for the proof in the president's pudding.

It seems that the big news of the week is how President Bush is going to respond to global warming in his state of the union address tomorrow. It's been all over the news this past week, and I'm cautiously optimistic.

The new Congress has taken global warming seriously by replacing Sen. James 'global warming is a hoax' Inhofe with Sen. Barbara 'global warming needs to be stopped' Boxer as head of the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Speaker Pelosi's creation of a committee specifically focused on global warming in the house, and placing Rep. Markey (MA) as its chair. I fully expect to see further progress made on the issue out of the Congress, and if Bush is coming to terms with the reality of the issue finally, we may actually see some action.

One quote which I found in The Boston Globe, "Nothing is going to happen on this unless it is done on a collaborative effort," said Frank Maisano, an energy industry spokesman in Washington, frankly read to me more as a threat however, which is why I'm going to wait for the proof in the president's pudding.

Congratulations, we won! It's been a long time since the House passed an energy bill Environmental Action could get behind - but thanks in part to the over 2,000 of us who wrote our representatives this week, it happened yesterday.

The House voted for H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007. This bill strips away subsidies given to the oil and gas industry, and puts that money into clean, alternative energy programs, and strong conservation measures.

Thank you to everyone who took action this week, and thank you to all the groups, and all the people throughout the country who've worked for a long time to make this happen. Now, hold on to your hats, because we've got a lot more work to get done in 2007!

To see how your representative voted click here, and remember, a 'yea' vote is the good vote.

To find your Representative, click here, and use the 'Find Your Representative' area in the top left of the page.

To read the text of the legislation, click here, and do a bill number search on H.R. 6.

Today, the House of Representatives is voting on HR 6 - the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007. This bill would cut billions of dollars in subsidies to the oil and gas industry, and would invest more money in clean energy alternatives, and energy efficiency programs.

The vote should be happening today - I've been watching CSPAN all morning, and it looks like a vote will come this afternoon. If you haven't sent a message to your representative yet, please do so now, and urge them to vote for this important piece of legislation - just click here to send your message.

It was announced today that the scientists who oversee the Doomsday clock have pushed it forwards two minutes. Two factors brought this on - the first is the nuclear escalation happening - North Korea's tests and Iran's desire to be a nuclear power, the second being the impacts of global warming.

The clock, which was created in 1947, works to show how close our society is to annihilation. Originally intended to to represent perils from nuclear weapons, it now includes climate change.

In their statement, the group of scientists said, "Global warming poses a dire threat to human civilization that is second only to nuclear weapons," with physicist Stephen Hawking of the University of Cambridge adding, "We foresee great peril if governments and societies do not take action now to render nuclear weapons obsolete and to prevent further climate change."

This puts us at five minutes to midnight on the doomsday clock.

This story has been making quite a splash. The evangelical community and the scientific community have come together to help stop global warming. Evidently, there had been some problems early in the partnership over issues of evolution and creationism, but both sides seem to be rising above that difference. Best quote from the story:

"Whether God created the Earth in a millisecond or whether it evolved over billions of years, the issue we agree on is that it needs to be cared for today," - Rich Cizik, vice president of government relations for the National Association of Evangelicals, which represents 45,000 churches.

I wrote a short piece on this last year, and I couldn't be more excited. So, to be clear, the evangelicals are on board, the enviros are on board, Wal-Mart's on board, millions of Americans are on board, Canada, the EU, Australia are on board.

So where's the fight in global warming? Well, people like Bonner Cohen, of the National Center for Public Policy Research, keeps beating the drums about all of us being full of hot air. But, didn't he take money from Phillip Morris to run an anti-EPA organization? And doesn't he publish 'papers' slamming environmental groups like the Environmental Working Group and NRDC? Yep. So maybe we should discount his input a little.

Friday brought the announcement of a new Forest Service Chief. Gail Kimbell. According to reports, this is not a good thing.

Evidently, Ms. Kimbell helped the President draft his 'Healthy Forests' initiative - you remember, that idea was the forest will be healthier if we sell them to logging companies and sell them all off.
According to MSNBC, by the end of next year, it is projected that 'healthy forests' and other logging initiatives will have resulted in more than 21.5 million acres of forest cut since 2001.

Previously, she 'supervised' national forests for northern Idaho, Montana and the Dakotas, where much of the roadless controversy has raged, and she will now be in charge of 155 forests throughout our national forest system.

Bad news indeed.

I was flabergasted when I read that a school board outside of Seattle has restricted showings of 'An Inconvenient Truth'.

Evidently, the school board has fallen for the big tobacco style confusion around the issue. Despite none of the school board members having seen the film, they are blocking at it because, according to board member Dave Larson, 'We have to ensure that our schools are not being used to politically indoctrinate anyone'.

Board President Ed Barney said he has received about 'half a dozen' complaints from parents -- so Environmental Action has set up a form to send Mr. Barney an email of their own. To send him a message, click here. Maybe we can get in more than six comments.

If you know anyone in or around the community of Federal Way, WA, please send them a link to the action page - comments from the community will like go further.

Just about a year ago, Environmental Action worked on a short campaign to stop scientific censorship. James Hansen, a top climate scientist with NASA was ordered to stop speaking out on the dangers of global warming. There was a massive backlash against NASA, and they quickly ordered a policy of scientific openness.

Well, today, USA Today has a lead story on Dr. Hansen, and his warnings on global warming, and the reality that we must act now to stop its devastating consequences.

In a word - wow. It's pretty amazing to look back at 2006 and see the progress made in the fight to stop global warming, and if 2006 was the year that the general public finally woke up to the issue, 2007 may well be the year that knowledge turns to action.

A year ago, the Fish and Wildlife service was dragging their feet on listing the polar bear under the endangered species act. Starting this week, they're taking public comments on the issue.

Sadly, despite this public outcry, and the advances we've made, the Bush Administration remains stuck with its head in the sand on the issue. Despite lip service about our 'addiction to oil', this week President Bush lifted a ban on drilling in a sensitive ecosystem in the Arctic, at about the same time that the new Congress has proposed permanent protection of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.

Looks like 2007 is going to be a very decisive year for the planet.

The National Climate Data Center released a report yesterday announcing that 2006 was the warmest year on record.

The 2006 average annual temperature for the contiguous U.S. was the warmest on record and nearly identical to the record set in 1998. Based on preliminary data, the 2006 annual average temperature was 55°F, 2.2°F (1.2°C) above the 20th Century mean and 0.07°F (0.04°C) warmer than 1998.

NOAA originally estimated in mid-December that the 2006 annual average temperature for the contiguous United States would likely be 2°F (1.1°C) above the 20th Century mean, which would have made 2006 the third warmest year on record, slightly cooler than 1998 and 1934, according to preliminary data. Further analysis of annual temperatures and an unusually warm December caused the change in records.

There's an excellent analysis of this data, and its ramifications over at the The Weather Underground. At the same time, one thing I'm happy about is that the agency has linked human activity and CO2 emissions to the increased temperature. It shows that our work is making a difference, as the Bush Administration is fessing up to the realities of global warming after a year wrought with scientific censorship on the issue.

I recommend reading both the report and the WU writings linked above, but I'll leave you with one frightening chart:

We need to get the polar bear onto the list of endangered species. The Endangered Species Act is one of the most powerful tools we have to protect the environment in the U.S., because it doesn't just protect a species, it protects its habitat.

So imagine it - the bear's habitat is being destroyed by global warming. If the bear gets listed, we could make the case to drastically reduce emissions because of the endangered species act. We could work to get gas mileage doubled under the endangered species act, and it would place in the federal record that global warming exists, and needs to be stopped.

Right now, there is a 90-day public comment period on listing the bear, and that's why I'm asking you to take a minute right now, and submit your public comment to save the polar bear.

To take action, simply click here.

This came out last week from the Union of Concerned Scientists, and there's been a lot of great coverage around it. UCS released the report, "Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air - How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science". The title of the report pretty clearly defines what it's about, and it's something every elected official needs to read.

In the report it describes the way that ExxonMobil

- Manufactured uncertainty
- Adopted a strategy of information laundering
- Promoted scientific spokespeople who misrepresent scientific findings
- Shift focus from action to need for 'sound science'
- Used it's access to the Bush Administration to block federal policies and shape policy on global warming

There are two aspects of this which need to be focused in on. The first is that, in the report, there is an appendix of memos, talking points, and suggestions from these industry front groups to the Bush Administration. It is pretty alarming to read these memos, written in the familiar tone of old friends, and seeing how they impacted federal policy.

The other key aspect is that UCS is not just making the observation between the tobacco industry's misinformation campaign around smoking and ExxonMobil's misinformation campaign around climate change. In several cases, it was the same people running both campaigns, as you can see in the chart below.

We all remember the rhetoric from big tobacco. Not enough science. Not enough research. Jury is still out. The people will decide for themselves. And all of that worked for the tobacco lobby for decades, and these same guys have been making it work for ExxonMobil for quite some time. But with global warming, we surely can't afford decades of misinformation.

A couple days ago, I wrote about a polar bear scientist in Canada who has been agitating against listing the bear under the Endangered Species Act. Well, it seems that the fight is really heating up.

The government of Nunavut is launching a massive PR campaign aimed at Americans which will undoubtedly prey upon fears of messing with an indigenous people's way of life.

I'm not insensitive to this, but reading the article today I came across this gem: "Nunavut communities would suffer financially from any action choking off the polar bear hunt. Sport hunters, mostly American, pay up to $20,000 for the experience."

So, the PR campaign is hoping to protect the Inuit's traditional way of life....which includes Americans going up for the big-game hunt? Somehow, I don't think the Inuit's ancestors would see much glory in that. In fact, it seems far more disrespectful to sell off your natural wonders to big-game hunters than to protect these wonderful creatures.

As the snow melts around me here in Denver, I can't help but to be worried about a story today suggesting there's a 60% probability that 2007 will be the hottest year on record, breaking the previous record set in 1998.

The reason for the forecast is mostly due to El Nino, a cyclical warming trend now under way in the Pacific Ocean. The event occurs irregularly — the last one happened in 2002 — and typically leads to increased temperatures worldwide.

While this year's El Nino is not as strong as it was in 1997 and 1998, its combination with the steady increase of temperatures due to global warming from human activity may be enough to break the Earth's temperature record, said Phil Jones, the director of the Climatic Research unit at the University of East Anglia.

While this isn't entirely shocking, it is pretty scary. While 2006 was the year that global warming awareness hit an all time high in our public consciousness, that doesn't mean it was the year of action to stop global warming. We've seen speeches, plans, and rhetoric coming from the Pope, to the new Congress, to Wal-Mart, but frankly the jury is still out on what happens.

I for one certainly hope that 2007 will be the year the world changed its ways on emissions. We'll see.

It was bound to happen. In fact, I predicted it just last week. Now that there's a proposal to list the polar bear as 'threatened' under the endangered species act, 'experts' are coming out of the woodwork to insist that we crazy eco-tree-hugging-wackos are crazy.

Yesterday, in The Conservative Voice the headline read, "Polar Bear Decline Stories Said False". They're citing a report from one Dr. Mitchell Taylor, Polar Bear Biologist, Department of the Environment, Government of Nunavut, Igloolik, Nunavut. Dr. Taylor in fact has written a much-quoted 12-page paper to the USFWS decrying their proposal to list the polar bear as threatened.

This flies in the face of his previous statements. An interview with the CBC lead them to write, "Taylor also said scientific studies show the number of bears in western Hudson Bay has dropped from about 1,200 to about 1,000 and seems to be related to climate."

And according to ArcticNet "He [Taylor] said no one is suggesting that climate change isn't affecting some polar bear populations"

And then, the Canada Free Press quotes Taylor this way, "No one can say with certainty that climate change has not affected these other populations, but it is also true that we have no information to suggest that it has."

So, this polar bear expert is saying:
- Climate change adversely affects at least one population of polar bears
- Nobody denies that
- We're also not sure how it affects other populations of polar bears

And somehow, news agencies around the world are quoting his resistance to listing the species as threatened, with such yellow journalistic headlines as, 'Polar bear worries unproven, expert says' and 'Eco hysteria over polar bears unjustified'.

Seems like he wants it both ways - but sadly, nobody is reporting on his obvious contradictions. And why could that be?

From the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut notes, 6/15/06

"Americans were thinking of putting polar bears on the species-at-risk list, and Mitch Taylor wrote a letter to their government and identified some of the issues coming from Nunavut and he also included Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit as part of the contents.

I am very proud of Dr. Mitch Taylor who is very competent. This is the main source of revenue for some of the people who take Americans out for big game hunts, and they use traditional dog teams to take those big game hunters out on the land.

With those in mind, Dr. Mitch Taylor wrote a letter to those people to make sure that they understood exactly what happens up here in regards to the polar bears. If we were not going to be polar bear hunting, we wouldn’t be making any money.

I’m very pleased that he wrote this letter on behalf of the people of Nunavut, and especially the hunters. I wanted to make this comment in the House."

On one hand then, Dr. Taylor is saying things which actually back up the need for protection, while his ties to the hunting industry in Canada have lead him to take a massive stand against listing the species. I'm greatly saddened that no reporter covering his comments took the ten minutes to do a little research and discover this obvious conflict of interests.

Not sure if any of you saw this in the NYT today, but Wal-Mart is setting up a huge campaign to push CEF bulbs.

The article goes into pretty good detail about the benefits of the energy efficient bulbs, and Wal-Mart's commitment to get them into 100 million homes. As you know from previous posts, this would be a pretty big boon to CO2 reductions.

My latest op-ed,
printed in Fort Lauderdale/Broward County's South Florida Sun-Sentinel, talks about how the Democrats' fear of taking on some of their caucus's more anachronistic and corrupt members means that despite their promises, they're not likely to be able to make real progress on issues like global warming.

The article focuses in particular on the political impact of allowing polluter lackies like House Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell to stay in power, even when they allow loyalty to special interests like the auto industry to trump not only the public interest, but also the Democrats' collective political interests.

I've posted a slightly expanded version of the published op-ed here. You can also read a few highlights below.

Out With the Old
By Glenn Hurowitz

Pretty soon, walking into the House Energy and Commerce Committee will be like entering Unfrozen Caveman Committee Chairman world. The new Democratic Chairman of the powerful committee , whose jurisdiction includes clean air, telecommunications, food and drug safety, and several other wide ranging policy areas, is Michigan’s John Dingell. Dingell is known as the “Dean of the House” because he’s its longest serving member, having first taken office in 1955.

Unfortunately, some of Dingell’s ideas are stuck in the 1950’s as well – most notably his thinking about global warming. While most Americans are looking for solutions to a problem that is causing a surge in extreme weather like Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, threatening New York’s coasts, and causing species extinctions around the world, Dingell says he’s not even sure if it is a problem.

“This country, this world, the [human] race of which you and I are a part, is great at having consensuses that are in great error,” he recently told Grist Magazine’s Amanda Griscom Little when asked about his plans for tackling global warming. “And so I want to get the scientific facts, and find out what the situation is, and find out what is the cure, and find out what is the cure that is acceptable to the country that I represent and serve.”

That’s a striking claim of ignorance for someone who’s known around Capitol Hill for his spritely mind and his attention to detail (as well as for having the ability to slip a political knife in between the ribs of his enemies with an alacrity that belies his age).

No, it’s not likely ignorance or mental feebleness that’s informing Dingell’s ambivalence about the greatest environmental challenge confronting the world. It’s something a little darker, and it’s a characteristic that demonstrates that Capitol Hill may not change as much under the Democrats as they would like to claim... (More here)