This week's 'Nation' magazine is dedicated to what we can do to solve the global warming crisis. And it's pretty good. This week there's been much flack over Sheryl Crow's suggestion that we stop global warming by only using one sheet of toilet paper. Obviously, the suggestion is ridiculous, but the sad thing is that while the media is pouncing all over Crow, nobody's really covering Hansen's excellent article which covers real solutions. Namely, they are:

- a moritoium on the construction of new coal-fired power plants
- putting a price on CO2 emissions
- national energy efficiency standards on cars and buildings
- get the National Academy of Sciences to do a study and report on ice sheet sustainability
- open communication between the scientific community and the political community

In general, these solutions are very much on the right track. We believe that CO2 emissions should be capped, and there should be a an emphasis about public transit, but besides that, Hansen's recommendations are right on point.

He wraps up, saying:

The global warming problem has brought into focus an overall problem: the pervasive influence of special interests on the functioning of our government and on communications with the public. It seems to me that it will be difficult to solve the global warming problem until we have effective campaign finance reform, so that special interests no longer have such a big influence on policy-makers.

I couldn't agree more, though I would add that a stronger emphasis in the media is also needed. A Google news search shows 94 entries for James Hansen, and over 2,000 on the recent Crow hubbub, which only just scratches the surface of media bias on the issue.

It was reported today that Ford CEO Alan Mulally said global warming is real, man-made, and caused in part by auto emissions.

Wow, really Alan? I don't mean to be cynical, but that's not really 'news'. In an age where the conservative Christian right, the United Nations, and most any reputable scientist has already said that, this announcement seems far more like a platitude than an actual acceptance of the problem.

And don't forget, Ford pledged to build a quarter million hybrids annually by 2010, but then quickly changed their minds, and recanted that pledge.

If you check out FuelEconomy.gov, you'll see 68 different models of car for Ford for 2007. Of those, only 2 get better than 30mpg in city driving. And those are the two hybrid models, which they're not aggressively pushing as they said they would. The average fuel economy for Ford vehicles is 18.2mpg in city driving, and 23.6mpg on the highway - with the worst offender being the Ford F150 pickup which gets 14 miles to the gallon in city driving.

So until Ford actually does something about their contribution to global warming, the announcement today is really nothing but hot air - which we both know only makes the whole problem worse.

I don't often turn to CNNMoney.com for my environmental news, but today they actually had a great article on the liquid coal debacle.

It cuts to the chase about the issue of coal sequestration, essentially burying the CO2 emissions generated during the processing of liquid coal. While the coal industry, and many coal-state politician's look to sequestration as the silver bullet, the reality is that the science of sequestration is nowhere near perfected enough that we could count on it as a solution.

The article also points out, "Coal fuels have so far been left out of the Senate biofuels bill.....both Democrat and Republican staffers say a Republican sponsored amendment allowing for liquid coal is likely," so we'll see what happens.

Sen. Obama today issued a call to stop global warming. Speaking at the University of New Hampshire, Obama said, ""I believe we still have a chance to pass on a planet to our children that is cleaner and safer and more prosperous than we found it. This is our generation's moment to save future generations from global catastrophe."

And while I couldn't agree more, I have to say that until Sen. Obama stops supporting liquid coal technology, which will increase CO2 output nationally, I can't help but to feel his comments are not genuine.

Now, don't get me wrong - Obama speaks well about the environment, and has introduced legislation to raise the fuel efficiency standard, and has been a proponent of increased R&D into different kinds of ethanol and alternative fuels - but for my money, I can't get over his support of liquid coal.

The reason is that I believe his support of liquid coal comes from the fact that Illinois is a big coal state - and those industries have pressured him to support bad legislation, despite what seem to be personal beliefs to the contrary, and I'm always dubious of such actions by our elected officials.

The Senate energy bill, which mandates a massive increase in alternative fuels, so far has left out some sources the Bush Administration would like to see included - like natural gas and liquid coal.

It's not shocking, of course, that the Bush Administration is angry about the omission - what is surprising is this quote, "The U.S. Congress must not exclude fossil-based fuels, such as liquids extracted from coal, from proposed legislation to reduce gasoline use" from Alexander Karsner.

The shocking thing is that Karsner is the assistant secretary for renewable energy at the Energy Department. So, the assistant secretary for renewable energy is pushing liquid coal. Perhaps someone needs to email him a) a job description and b) the definition of 'renewable' - pretty sure 'coal' isn't in there.

I posted last week that the Fish and Wildlife Service was crushed under the weight of public comments.

Well, as I wrote, they received over 500,000 emails, and they're still not sure how many mailed in comments, but the emails alone are more than twice as many comments as they've ever received on a proposed species listing. Oh, and the majority are in favor of listing the bear too.

In the 'bad news' department though, Russia is legalizing polar bear hunting for the first time in fifty years. According to one report, the change in policy is, "in response to the increasing number of polar bears traveling into the eastern Russian region due to the changing climate."

Now, if Russia is changing their policies (albeit negatively), because of global warming, hopefully the Fish and Wildlife Service will get the (shockingly loud) message.

There was an article today discussing a debate between Sen. John Kerry and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich about how to deal with global warming.

Sen. Kerry, wisely, points out that no serious environmental threat has been stopped without governmental regulation, and that asking industry to self regulate is like asking Barry Bonds to look into steroid use in baseball, or Enron looking into pension plans.

Newt (and, as an aside, how on earth is this guy still relevant?) countered by insisting that industry self-regulate through governmental incentives and like. But then he argued that 'no strategy which does not bring in China and India' will not work.

This argument seems to be coming up more (see Bush's comments in the Rose Garden from a week or two ago), and it's a little confusing. For years now, the United States has taken a 'go-it-alone' attitude to climate change, not caring what the international community was doing on the issue. Now, all of a sudden, the Administration is trotting out this 'we can't do anything unless China and India do too'.

This seems crazy to me - while America was refusing to do anything about global warming, the rest of the world moved forward, so why can we not do the same now?

On top of that, if I'm not mistaken, the US is pretty good about demanding action from other countries when it serves our interest (for better or worse). Why is this any different?

It was announced by the Fish and Wildlife Service yesterday that they had received over 500,000 comments on the proposed polar bear listing. And that was just the e-mails, evidently, they're collapsing under tons of mail they'ver received as well.

I called up the office in Alaska on Tuesday, and spoke with a staffer who was literally floored by the amount of comments they'd received. 'We're going to be reading these for a long time,' she said.

First run estimates suggest that the Fish and Wildlife Service received more comments on the polar bear than on any other listing since the Endangered Species Act went into effect almost 35 years ago.

We may not get a final ruling until January of 2008, but I wanted to say a sincere thanks to everyone who signed, collected, and sent in comments. See what happens when we all get together on something?

A friend of mine once told me a great story. He's an only child, and was being raised by his mom. He was a great student, ran track and cross country - basically a great kid.

One day, he stayed out too late playing with friends, and came home after dinner. His mother, terrified that he'd been kidnapped or hit by a car, but still the cool-hip mom she still is to this day, was angry but let him set his own punishment.

'I should be grounded for a month' was his self-imposed punishment. His mother thought it an overly harsh judgment, but let it stand.

I bring this up because it was announced today that the auto industry recognizes that some major changes are coming. Between the Supreme Court ruling, the UN global warming reports, and the success of 'An Inconvenient Truth', people have woken up to the dangers of tailpipe emissions, the need for CO2 caps and an increased MPG standard for our vehicles.

Somehow, I don't believe the big three automakers in Detroit are going to be as strict as themselves as my friend was when he was ten.

From the NYT story today:

'We very much want to work with Congress,' said Derrick M. Kuzak, group vice president for global product development at the Ford Motor Company, echoing the official stance of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, an industry trade group.

Mr. Kuzak went on, 'We recognize that CO2 is an issue and we want to be part of the solution, but it has to be technology-based, and affordable.'

So the automakers just want a seat at the table, right? Well, ask yourself, when your property taxes are determined, are you invited to 'the table' to determine how fair they are? What about your income tax or sales tax? What about the speed limit - did your state legislator call you up and say, 'We're thinking 65mph, but wanted to find out how fast you drive before we make any decisions? I doubt it.

Look at the quote again - 'We recognize the CO2 is an issue'. Not a 'problem', an 'issue'. Problems need to be solved, whereas issues need to be debated - which is exactly why they want a seat at the Congressional table, so they can debate the issue, and push bogus fixes to the problems.

The headline of the story may be hopeful, but somehow, I just can't buy it. The same people who were against seatbelts and airbags, who until recently have denied global warming even existed suddenly want to help out? Nope - they want to push for minimum standards and passing costs along to consumers. Remember, these guys are suing California and Vermont right now over those states' emissions plans. I just wish they had the same tough moral code as my friend did two decades ago.

It may be possible to stop global warming and save the Earth's endangered tropical forests with skyscraper agriculture, according to this week's New York magazine. Dr. Dickson Despommier of Columbia University was worried about the disappearance of CO2 sucking tropical forests as agriculture expands to feed the growing world population's increasing appetite for meat. He realized that growing crops in skyscrapers could obviate the need for so much agricultural land - land that needs to be converted back to its natural state if we're ever to get a grip on global warming (cutting pollution alone won't do the job). 150 of the skyscrapers he's designed could feed all 8 billion people in New York!

This is one of the most imaginitive and hopeful articles I've read. Check it out and forward it along.

Remember yesterday when I wrote about the President's comments on the Supreme Court's recent EPA decision?

Well, one thing I didn't really get into was the fact that Senator Boxer from California has vowed to bring the EPA administrators before the Senate to discuss how they're going to deal with this ruling and what actions they will take.

The key thing here is that we need caps on CO2 emissions from car and truck tailpipes. This is a critical piece of the puzzle - and we're not sure Sen. Boxer will push for them.