In news that is shocking to nobody, it was announced that top EPA officials advised Administrator Johnson to either allow California's waiver (which would allow them to limit tailpipe emissions in their effort to fight global warming), compromise on the issue with California in some way, or resign.

Instead, he met with White House officials - though who he met with and what they discussed, he just can't seem to remember! - and then came out with his announcement that he was denying their request outright.

Thankfully, Senator Boxer is staying hot on the case, calling for subpoenas, and promising she'll get to the bottom of the issue.

Of course, what needs to happen is that he should resign. If you haven't sent him an email asking him to yet, please click here.

Holy inappropriate, Batman. Bob Lutz, the vice chairman over at General Motors, was recently quoted as saying that global warming is, 'a crock of sh*t'.

When the web exploded in response to his statement, he decided to pour some salt on it, writing in a post on the GM blog entitled, 'Talk About A Crock':

What they should be doing in earnest is forming opinions, not about me but about GM and what this company is doing that is ... hugely beneficial to the causes they so enthusiastically claim to support.

He continues to rant on about how his statement was a personal opinion, and didn't reflect on GM policy. And that's fair. When I'm at a party, going off about how SUVs are the scourge of the planet and how General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler are evil for having shoved the SUV down consumer's throats, it has no impact whatsoever on Environmental Action's campaigns. Suuuuuure.

I will, however, point out that I'm not surprised at his outburst. I mean, really, people were shocked that a top exec. at GM is trash-talking global warming? C'mon!

What I am confused about is what exactly he thinks GM is doing about the cause that I do care about so deeply (assuming he's talking about global warming still)? Is he referring to the $4 million GM has made in political contributions since 2000? Or maybe it's the $6.4 million they spent on lobbying firms in 2007 (which works out to $730/hour)?

I can only presume that most of this lobbying has been in support of doubling our gas mileage standard, pushing for clean energy and alternative fuel research and development, and pushing for better public transportation, since those are the issues I'm wildly passionate about. Well Bob? Have I got it right?

ConocoPhillips, one of the largest oil companies in the world, really wants to drill in Alaska. In fact, they were the high bidder for drilling rights to tens of thousands of acres of pristine polar bear habitat. Yet they have the moxie to proclaim on their web site :

In all of the company's operation, the highest environmental standards are implemented to ensure that the company's actions today will not only provide energy, but will also secure a stable environment for tomorrow.

We're taking them at their word, and calling on them to voluntarily halt any drilling in polar bear habitat.

For years, environmentalists have been working to protect the polar bear, but, as you may recall, the Fish and Wildlife Service delayed granting the bears protection under the Endangered Species Act long enough for the land to be auctioned off under their feet.

Now, habitat for more than half the world's remaining polar bear population is at the mercy of companies like ConocoPhillips.

Please help us hold ConocoPhillips to the 'highest environmental standards' - ask them to pledge not to drill in polar bear habitat.

For a couple of years now, I've been the 'online organizer' at Environmental Action. Sometimes, I'm just the 'organizer'. When I work on our newsletter, I'm 'editor', and when I do press conferences, I'm the 'western states field director'. In truth, I'm all these things, and I pride myself on being the utility guy around the office. But, after reading some anti-environmental clap trap masquerading itself as 'news' today, I'm considering becoming a senior policy analyst.

Of course, I'm talking about Ben Lieberman over at the Heritage Foundation, and his ridiculous article in the Hartford Courant yesterday.

It's the same tired argument that we whack job environmentalists are standing in the way of progress! We're yelling that the sky is falling! We're insane! We're wearing Birkenstocks with socks! Ok, that last one is mine, but the others are arguments we've heard time and again, and frankly, they're played out.

I'm not going to pick apart his article piece by piece, or refute his claims even. In his article he suggests:

so what's behind the push to "save" the bears? A desire to ban energy exploration in much of Alaska.....The first victim of a polar bear listing would be new oil and natural gas production throughout Alaska and in its surrounding waters. The listing would end any chances of opening up a small part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The rationale for listing the polar bears as endangered, after all, is that carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use contributes to global warming and thus harms the bears. Well, having them listed as a threatened species could give the government the authority to shut down new power plants, factories, or just about any fossil energy-producing or energy-using entity in the United States.

You know what, Ben? You're spot on! That's exactly what I'm after. The problem is, I don't have a multi million dollar foundation funded by Coors, Chase Manhattan, Dow Chemical, Ford, GM, Mobil, and Proctor & Gamble, to help me buy my way into major media outlets.

I do, however, have the majority opinion of the public, the evidence of countless scientists, and the energy of thousands of activists. Oh, and we're not representing any vested corporate interest, and I think I speak for us all when I say that I'm a-ok with the oil and gas industry being victims for a change.

Reuters announced today that 12 major companies are launching a massive effort to fight global warming.

Don't get me wrong, I welcome anyone who's making an effort to solve this problem - what gets me, however, is that I couldn't find any reports on what these companies are actually going to do.

From the story:

At electronics and entertainment conglomerate Sony, for example, one potential step would be working with transportation companies that handle the distribution of its products to help cut their emissions, a Sony official said.

This doesn't seem like much of an actual pledge. Potential steps will not solve our global warming crisis. Then, when you consider that this is the same Sony who gave $53,940 to the Republican Party in 2000, and almost $115,000 to them in 1998, and you realized that the leaders of the Republican Party are generally the ones lambasting global warming science, you begin to wonder just how honest their 'pledge' is, and just how seriously they will take it.

Last fall, Environmental Action started doing a bunch of work to stop mountaintop removal mining. One of the centerpieces of our campaign was to stop a Bush administration proposal to expand coal companies' ability to practice mountaintop removal mining.

While we're not there just, a major hurdle has been crossed. The Office of Surface Mining has announced that during the comment period on the proposal, they received more than 43,000 public comments - with the overwhelming majority of them being against the proposal. Woo-Hoo!

This horrible proposal, if approved, has the potential to level 700 mountains throughout Appalachia, and we certainly hope some level of sanity, fairness, or accountability creeps into the OSM, and they shoot down this idea. You can check out a press release on it here.

It's true! If you are a multi-national oil company, that is. A week ago today, the Bush administration auctioned off 30 million acres of Alaskan wilderness to oil and gas companies, who will now be able to get their hands on the region's estimated 15 billion barrels of oil. The going price of our land? $86.67 an acre - a little over 17 cents a barrel.

Oh, and guess what else? These 30 million acres are home to about half of the world's reaming polar bears.

It would be a lot harder for oil companies to wreak havoc on this wild landscape if the polar bear were protected under the Endangered Species Act - but, par for the course, the Bush administration has been dragging its heals on awarding polar bears this protected designation, missing deadline after deadline.

Will you join us in calling on Congress to stand up to the Bush administration - and demand a stop any new oil drilling in polar bear habitat?

For over two years now, environmentalists (like yours truly) have been working to protect the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act - but the Fish and Wildlife Service keeps delaying a decision. At first we thought it was just because they were mean, but then a certain 30 million acre tract of polar bear habitat hits the auction block - an area of land that would never be opened if the bear were protected.

We can't let 2008 will go down in history as the year the Bushies took every last thing they could get their hands on. Please take a minute right now, email your members of Congress, and ask them to stop any oil and gas leases in polar bear habitat.

I wanted to let everyone in on a couple of updates. First of all, a tremendous thank you to our 'January 50' who donated $3,460 to sustain our online program. You all rule! And if January wasn't your month, don't worry, we've got eleven more this year.

Secondly, our winter newsletter is now up online for you to check out. We've done some great work together over the last few months. You can check out the full edition here.

Top Stories:

Saving Our Mountains
This fall, we took on Mountaintop removal mining, the scourge of Appalachia. As the Bush Administration attempted to make it easier for the mining industry to rip apart our wild lands, we sprang into action to protect our mountains.

Watered-Down Energy Bill Falls Short
Labeled 'historic' by those with a short view of history, the 2007 Energy Bill failed to make any of the radical changes our national energy policy needs to truly break our addiction to oil.

Nuclear Power : Still Crazy After All These Years
It was a bad idea then, and remains so. Unfortunately, the nuclear industry is playing on global warming fears to reinvent themselves as environmentally friendly. Meh.

In The News
. . . Toxic Chemical Banned from Toys
. . . Nuclear Power : Still Crazy After All These Years

To make a contribution, join Environmental Action, or sign up for our email list, click here.

And feel free to write me - I love hearing from you - just reply to this message.