Honestly, this just cracked me up this morning.

The State of Alaska is looking to conduct a scientific study. Nothing crazy about that, right? And, it's on polar bear population, which makes sense, since a lot of them are in Alaska. All of this sounds right, except, according to the article, 'The Alaskan government wants to find scientists who will study polar bears to prove they are not threatened by global warming'.

Huh. I'm guessing, and I could be wrong here, but aren't these the type of people who always complain about 'junk science'?

The Alaskan state government as already set aside $2 million for this type of lets-refute-science-science, which equals about $3 for every person currently living in Alaska. Now, play that out - if this were the federal government, they'd be spending over $900 million - about half what the Fish and Wildlife Service is proposed to get next year.

But seriously, how can they be putting aside money for this study, and openly calling for scientists willing to refute current on-the-books science? Added to that, the state has no basis for promoting the study, other than they want to refute any claims the polar bear could be impacted by global warming since the state gets so much funny money from the oil industry.

From The New York Times's Nicholas Kristof:

I ran into Al Gore at a climate/energy conference this month, and he vibrates with passion about this issue — recognizing that we should confront mortal threats even when they don’t emanate from Al Qaeda.

“We are now treating the Earth’s atmosphere as an open sewer,” he said, and (perhaps because my teenage son was beside me) he encouraged young people to engage in peaceful protests to block major new carbon sources.

“I can’t understand why there aren’t rings of young people blocking bulldozers,” Mr. Gore said, “and preventing them from constructing coal-fired power plants.”

Say it, Al! But it's not just young people who need to do it - everyone needs to join in, starting with you. Shutting down coal plants, blockading palm oil importers like Imperium Renewables and other rainforest destroyers, and stopping work at oil refineries could move the climate debate beyond just personal action and put the spotlight squarely on the big polluters who are the real culprits behind the problem.

This could be Al Gore's Gandhi moment (especially appropriate for a Nobel Peace Prize nominee). It would be great if you (in conjunction with say, Greenpeace, Rainforest Action Network and other civil disobedience-oriented environmental groups) announced a day of civil disobedience to confront polluters - and were the first one to get arrested. You'll find thousands of people (self included) to back you up.

If you're interested in being one of those people, click here to send Al Gore a fax letting him know you're ready to participate in civil disobedience on behalf of the planet.

As awful as the fate of the four coal miners trapped underground in Utah is, the sad truth is that they represent merely a fraction of the casualties of America's addiction to coal.

Every year in America, pollution from coal fired power plants cuts short the lives of more than 30,000 people and causes millions of asthma attacks, according to government consultants Abt Associates. It's also responsible for retarding the mental development of thousands of American children: according to EPA scientists, more than one in six children born every year have elevated levels of mercury in their blood, putting them at risk for developmental disorders and slower brain growth.

Worst of all, coal is driving the global climate crisis that is putting billions of people at risk from more extreme weather, spreading infectious disease, and disastrous flooding (not to mention threatening thousands of species with extinction).

I suppose there's no better evidence for the urgent need to eliminate our addiction to coal than the callous (and weird) rant against action to solve the climate crisis made by the owner of the collapsed mine: (thanks to Grist's David Roberts for finding this clip. The man is willing to expose his workers to unsafe conditions - and exploit their situation to pursue his far-right political agenda; is it any surprise he's willing to let the planet boil as he tries to extract a few extra dollars from allowing safety violations to stack up in his mine?

I hope Murray keeps up the crazy talk; this unfeeling greed monster is the second best poster boy for the climate crisis doubters we could hope for; next thing you know, maybe he'll go for the climate skeptic gold and shoot an elderly friend in the face.

Glenn Hurowitz, who covers environmental affairs for The American Prospect, is the author of the forthcoming book Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party.

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.

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.

So, we've set up a petition to the Senator, thanking her for taking action, and encouraging to focus on these caps. If you haven't already, please go there now and sign it.

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)

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.

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.

That Al Gore is even doing these self-depricating pieces says a lot. He is being very savvy about figuring out different ways of engaging the public. (HT to Grist)

The Sierra Club and the Steelworkers have launched a new initiative to jointly address key issues affecting both organizations. For starters, the new alliance will focus on three issues: global warming and clean energy, fair trade and toxics. The effort will include a New Vision for America tour to talk about the solutions to global warming.

It isn't clear to me how this effort will differ from the work done by the Apollo Alliance, but it certainly seems like it would at the very least continue to build on it.

Leo Gerard, the head of the Steelworkers, has led the way in getting labor to embrace the opportunities of a new (greener) economy.

Ok, so now that Dependence Day is launched, I can hopefully get back to the blog. Apologies for the prolonged absence.

Here's an awesome effort by the American Institute of Architects. Recognizing that their product (buildings) is a significant source of global warming pollution, they've launced the 2030 Challenge to make all new buildings carbon neutral by 2030.

As a clear sign that they are making progress, the US Conference of Mayors will vote on a resolution to adopt this goal at their annual meeting next week. The resolution was jointly proposed by the Mayors of Chicago, Seattle, Miami and Albuquerque.

Contact your mayor and tell them to support Resolution 50.

Gregg Easterbrook, who I am not all that familiar with, has a "I have seen the light/I am feeling the heat" piece on global warming in today's NY Times. While flirting for a paragraph or two with the potential benefits of global warming, Easterbrook eventually concludes that the dangers outweigh any upswing. In the end, Easterbrook offers a hopeful review of our success in tackling other challenges from smog to acid rain—and celebrates our ability to do so at a fraction of the projected cost. While global warming certainly appears to be a much greater challenge with far-reaching consequences, it is always a welcome reminder to highlight other problems we have tackled.

I wasn't sure whether to file this story under global warming or humor. The Competitive Enterprise Institute is running a couple of ads attacking environmentalists and virtually every major newspaper (given that almost everyone is in agreement on this issue).

These are actually quite funny, I kept feeling like I was watching an episode of "Deep Thoughts" by Jack Handy.

It might not seem like a big deal in other, more disaster prone parts of the country, but the flooding in New Hampshire this week is so serious the newspapers are calling it the worst disaster in a century. Tens of millions in damages. Hundreds of people evacuated. Roads torn up and schools closed all around the state.

The state climatologist draws the link to a warming planet.

Sometimes the less we know about our leaders in Washington the better.

The more the press talks to them, the more likely they are to say something like this:

"Global warming has been happening since the glaciers started to recede," Burns said in an interview. "You remember the ice age? It's been warming ever since, and there ain't anything we can do to stop it."

We've talked about this before—how global warming is quickly engulfing every other major environmental concern. A new report in Scientific American found that global warming is rapidly becoming the greatest threat to biodiversity. Depending on the scenario, the study found that tens of thousands of species could be lost.

I increasingly believe that global warming will soon assume trump card status. No longer will the vistas of Cape Cod take precedence over stopping global warming. There will be little left of Cape Cod if we do nothing.

Obviously we want to create as little harm in the process of solving this global crisis, but soon we won't be able to ignore that it is indeed a serious crisis, which takes precedence over many other concerns.

First off, I've been an absentee blogger for the past few days, out in Califonia meeting with our field offices—so I've got a lot of catching up to do. I'll be posting some sweet pictures of elephant seals tomorrow but first things first...I'm plowing through my inbox.

A new report by CERES evaluated the emissions at the top 100 electricity producers in the country. Surprise, surprise, C02 emissions have jumped 27 percent between 1990–2004. Yet the emissions of regulated pollutants such as sulphur dioxides and nitrogen oxides fell by 44 and 36 percent respectively over that period thanks to the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990.

The message of the report is not surprising: regulation works. Beyond this, there are a few interesting points in the report:

As we've talked about at Environmental Action, the U.S. is bracing for a surge in new coal-fired power plants. The CERES reports concludes that emissions in the U.S. will increase by 43 percent in 2030.

The other fascinating tidbit is the incredible discrepancy in emission rates for different companies:

Although American Electric Power produced seven times more electricity than PG&E, the company was responsible for 109 times the CO2 emissions. And Southern Company produced about 58 percent more electricity than Entergy, but emitted 400 percent more CO2 emissions.

As the corporate responsibility world is effective at pointing out, there are good actors and bad actors—and it isn't profit that distinguishes them.

Salon has an insightful article about meteorologists on the nightly news ignoring global warming and simply reporting on increasingly disastrous weather and bizare conditions -- but without exploring the causes. (I was tipped off to the piece by David Roberts posting at Gristmill.)

I'm not sure whether to call this problem or opportunity - probably both, of course - but it is something we've wrestled with at Environmental Action too. Millions of nightly viewers. A ready-made audience. Yet, as Salon says, news directors aren't big on introducing things like global warming or the consequences of air pollution into the next day's forecast. Not good for ratings.

"The last thing any station wants is an activist weatherman," says Matthew Felling, media director for the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a Washington research group.

Perhaps Time magazine was exactly right. We already know that glaciers are melting at twice the rate previously predicted. Countless species are going extinct. Droughts, severe storms and flooding will increase. But it's worse. Much worse.

All of this will happen if we do nothing. Unfortunately, the coal industry is about to do something.

We've pulled together this frightening interactive map of the 130 brand new coal-fired power plants that the industry is pushing to build in the next ten years.

Building these plants would be a disaster. They would increase U.S. production of coal by nearly 25 percent—accelerating global warming even further.

A few years ago, the Christian Science Monitor wrote a story detailing how China, India and the U.S. would bury any progress made under Kyoto. By 2012, new emissions from these three countries alone would be five times as much as would be avoided under the Kyoto agreement.

That was two years ago when the U.S. was planning 100 plants. Now it's a 130 and growing.

Granted, China is predicted to have the greatest expansion in coal production. But we already produce more global warming emissions than any other country—with less than 5 percent of the population.

How much will be spent by the coal industry (with some federal assistance) in building these plants? Nearly $120 billion—with a 'b'. Imagine if we made that sort of investment in energy efficiency and renewables, what a different path we'd be heading down...

Blanco

Lousiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco has set the stage for another showdown with the feds - this time by threatening to block the sale of new oil leases in the Gulf of Mexico.

Why? Because an oil spill might add to the problems that Louisiana's coast has already got? Because more drilling simply worsens our now-infamous addiction to oil?

Not exactly. It's because the feds keep most of the money from lease revenue and Blanco wants her state's share. If the feds had played fair with Louisiana in the past, Blanco said, the state would have used that cash to restore wetlands - in turn, cushioning Katrina's blow.

It's hard to see how Blanco can stick it out for much longer in this game of state-federal chicken. But could a coalition joining Blanco with those who oppose more drilling in the Gulf - no matter where the money goes - win out?

Wouldn't it be nice if the U.S.'s problems were similar? A new report projects that Britain will fall short of meeting its voluntary target of cutting emissions by 20 percent by 2010 (which goes above and beyond Kyoto). Instead, under current policies, they will acheive a 15-18% reduction (also better than their Kyoto target). But don't worry, the government isn't resting on its laurels—they are going to push forward in an attempt to meet the original target.

Here, on the other side of the pond, the debate rages on over whether we should have a program to reduce emissions at all.

For those of you who didn't catch it, ABC This Week did a great interview with Gov. Schweitzer, on global warming, in which they flew over Glacier National Park.

It is obvious that the Montana governor gets the severity of global warming, pointing out that at the current pace they'll be no glaciers left in the park in a few decades.

But what truly astounds me is his persistence in leading with coal as a part of the solution. Is he just playing to his Montana base? Or is he really delusional?

Why are our solutions still dependent on things that don't exist and aren't proven to work (clean coal, carbon sequestration, coal to diesel) instead of actually investing in things that we know would work right now.

We know that we can make our cars significantly more efficient. We know that we could get 20 percent of our electricity from renewables in the next 10-15 years. We know that we could drastically reduce the amount of electricity that we use through energy efficiency. Yet this "progessive" Governor from Montana leads with coal? Sure, I know that Gov. Schweitzer supports many of those other things but it is irresponsible to place them at the bottom of the list.

We are quickly approaching the point (and frankly should be well past it) where the debate about global warming is solely focused on what we need to do—with no mention of whether it is happening and whether humans play a role. If that third phase of the battle is going to move more quickly and effectively than the first two, we need to kick coal to the back of the line and lead with solutions that will make a difference know.

I believe that everyone who is serious about solving global warming would probably accept continued research into "clean coal" technologies—but virtually no one who is serious can suggest that our salvation lies therein.

As many of you have probably heard, Environmental Defense has teamed up with the Ad Council to launch a series of hard-hitting radio and t.v. ads on global warming. You can check out the ads here

The Philly Inquirer also ran a front-page story on the ads.

I have to say that while the writer is taken by the ads, the article falls into the same bogus trap of offering "balance" on an issue that is completely one-sided.

Quotes such as these should never appear in a global warming story:

All in an effort to reduce carbon emissions,which many scientists say contribute to global warming.

Many? Sure like the largest body of scientists to ever come together.

And then the writer gives a whole paragraph to the doubting Thomases, including their own header:

Doubt over global warming

James Taylor, an editor with the Heartland Institute, a public-policy organization that is skeptical of global warming, said the campaign is partisan and out of line with the Ad Council's stated mission.

The ad doesn't mention George Bush. It doesn't even mention a political party. So why exactly is it "partisan"? No matter...let the man speak! And what does he have to say:

"But any implication that the scientific debate over global warming is settled... is simply wrong."

He said the campaign "amounts to nothing more than an end run around a skeptical Congress, a skeptical president, and a sharply divided scientific community."

It's embarrasing that stories like these still get printed. The next ad campaign should be against the journalists who are failing the public...but they probably won't cover that story.

Photo by Doug Struck

Fish and wildlife are following the retreating ice caps northward. Polar bears are losing the floes they need for hunting. Seals, unable to find stable ice, are hauling up on islands to give birth. Robins and barn owls and hornets, previously unknown so far north, are arriving in Arctic villages.

The Inuit alarms, once passed off as odd stories, are earning confirmation from science. Canada's federal weather service said this month that the country had experienced its warmest winter since measurements began in 1948. Nationwide, average temperatures this winter were 7 degrees above normal. Some of the larger temperature increases were in the arctic north.

A report released today ranks 100 big companies on their efforts - or failures - to tackle global warming. Check out www.ceres.org

By industry sector, here are the leaders and laggards:

Oil/Gas
Leader: BP (90 points*)
Laggard: ExxonMobil (35)

Chemical
Leader: DuPont (85**)
Laggard: PPG (21)

Metals/Mining
Leaders: Alcan (77) & Alcoa (74)
Laggard: Newmont (24)

Electric Power
Leader: AEP & Cinergy (both 73)
Laggard: Sempra Energy (24)

Auto
Leader: Toyota (65)
Laggard: Nissan (33)

*Top score among the 100 companies
**Top score among 76 U.S. companies

Scientist at NASA have found that smog (ground-level ozone) plays a big part in warming the Arctic.

"Instead of being this tiny player, (ozone) can be more like 30 or 40 or even 50 percent of the cause of warming that we're seeing in the Arctic now," said lead author Drew Shindell, a scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "It's very dramatic."

Later this week, NASA is expected to release a five-page document outlining its new communications policy in response to repeated incidences of censorship. Already more than 160 scientists have issued a statement supporting the process and NASA's commitment to a new policy. While hinting at the on-going vigilance required, Revkin reports that Dr. Hansen—who was at the center of the uproar—is also content with the progress being made at NASA:

"The battle to achieve open communication between government scientists and their employer, the public, is far from won. Nevertheless, I agree with the opinion of colleagues that the focus should be on discussing solutions to global warming."

"My personal aim is to get back to science research full time," he said, "especially on quantifying options for dealing with global warming."

I haven't kept close tabs on the coverage of global warming in the past year but I'd be shocked if an analysis didn't show a surge in stories and opeds in the past three months. David Ignatius' piece today continues this string.

After outlining the significant vacuum in political leadership on the issue, Ignatius exposes the hypocrisy of the administration.

And now we come to the Bush administration -- the folks who once warned that it would be folly to wait so long for evidence that the "smoking gun" might be a mushroom cloud. Their spirit of vigilance was applied to Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, which turned out not to exist -- but not to climate change, which does.

For years, I've maintained that this argument ought to be thrown in the administration's face.

Ignatius concludes:

Usually, America's political antics are forgivable, but not on this issue. As evidence grows that human activity is accelerating dangerous changes in the world's climate, the Bush administration's excuses for inaction are running out. History will not forgive political leaders who failed to act on this issue, and neither should voters.

Taking global warming to the ballot box will be an even bigger challenge--but we may only be a few more natural disasters from that reality.

In almost any other country, this would be heralded as bad news. But in this Senate, with this Congress and this President, inaction is a good thing—a very good thing.

According to Congressional Quarterly, Senator Domenici told reporters today that his Committee (Energy and Natural Resources) would not deal with global warming this year.

"There will be no climate change legislation coming out of my committee this year," Domenici told reporters.

Senator Domenici's admission today is a relief. Just to be clear: global warming is bad. And we need a solution—fast. But the proposal Senators Domenici and Bingaman were considering would have allowed greenhouse gas emissions to increase for the next twenty years before we actually started to see a decline back toward today's levels.

We need a bold, serious solution for global warming. We do not need an irrelevant, feel-good bill that will impede real progress.

As I mentioned last week the spectre of global warming may, and many increasingly believe should, overshadow every other concern—environmental and non-environmental. Kristof's oped today touches on this very point. Of course, we don't want to dismiss the importance of all the other concerns and problems people are fighting for but at some point the all-encompassing consequences of global warming will take precedence.

I'll talk about this more later this week, but here are a few pieces from the oped:

Look, I know that climate science can be — here's a shock — boring! But it's better for us to slog through it now than for coming generations to slog through the rising waters of, say, Manhattan. It may be more exciting to thump the table about Iraq or torture — or even the preservation of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge — and those are all hugely important. But global warming may ultimately be the greatest test we face as stewards of our planet. And so far we're failing catastrophically.

"Historians of science will be brutal on us," said Jerry Mahlman, a climate expert at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "We are right now in a state of deep denial about how severe the problem is. Political people are saying, 'Well, it's not on my watch.' They're ducking for cover, because who's going to tell the American people?"

We know what to do: energy conservation, gas taxes and carbon taxes, more renewable energy sources like wind and solar power, and new (and safe) nuclear power plants. But our political system is paralyzed in the face of what may be the single biggest challenge to our planet.

"Are we an intelligent species or not?" Dr. Mahlman asked. "Right now, the evidence is against it."

A report in Science found that Antarctica is melting at an annual rate equal to the entire amount of water in Lake Tahoe. Bloomberg has a summary of the report, which found that this melting is causing sea levels to rise as much as 0.6 mm a year.

A few more excerpts:

Antarctica's annual loss of 152 cubic kilometers of mass is 36 times the amount of freshwater used by Los Angeles annually...

Sea level increased 3.2 millimeters a year from all sources of freshwater entering the system during the past decade compared with an increase of an average of 1.8 millimeters during the past 100 years...

The oceans would rise more than 20 feet if the West Antarctic ice sheet melted...

A front-page story in today's Washington Post details the devastation on Canada's forests by the mountain pine beetle.

Surveys show the beetle has infested 21 million acres and killed 411 million cubic feet of trees -- double the annual take by all the loggers in Canada. In seven years or sooner, the Forest Service predicts, that kill will nearly triple and 80 percent of the pines in the central British Columbia forest will be dead.

The red trees in the image below depicts the dead trees. Devastation can be hauntingly beautiful. Though the red is only temporary, so the beauty is fleeting.

(Courtesy Of Leo Rankin, British)

But the real story is that this is not just another isolated outbreak but the result of a warmer climate that is allowing the beetle to thrive. In past years, the beetle would have been killed off by a deep freeze. But with the onset of global warming, the beetle is expanding its reach.

I wonder at what point every environmental issue will take a back seat to global warming. Will it be long before organizations working to protect forests, oceans or endangered species will drop their current efforts to focus more broadly on global warming?

Given the sweeping impacts we are already seeing—from the extinction of frogs to the decimation of forests—you would think it would be a necessary strategy.

(Via Grist) James Gustave Speth submitted a succint and appropriately jarring letter to the editor in the NY Times today:

Re "Glaciers Flow to Sea at a Faster Pace, Study Says" (news article, Feb. 17): The world we have known is history. A mere 1 degree Fahrenheit global average warming is already raising sea levels, strengthening hurricanes, disrupting ecosystems, threatening parks and protected areas, causing droughts and heat waves, melting the Arctic and glaciers everywhere and killing tens of thousands of people a year.

Yet there are several more degrees coming in our grandchildren's lifetimes.

It is easy to feel like a character in a bad science fiction novel running down the street shouting "Don't you see it!" while life goes on, business as usual.

Climate change is the biggest thing to happen here on earth in thousands of years, with incalculable environmental, social and economic costs. But there is no march on Washington; students are not in the streets; consumers are not rejecting destructive lifestyles; Congress is not passing far-reaching legislation; the president is not on television explaining the threat to the country; Exxon is not quaking in its boots; and entire segments of evening news pass without mention of the climate emergency.

Instead, 129 new coal-fired power plants are being developed in the United States alone, and so on.

There are many of us caught in this story. We must find one another soon.

We need much more of this...
-------------------------------------------
UPDATE: Forgot to mention to check out Grist's interview with Speth from a couple of years ago.

In an encouraging signal that NASA will actually bring an end to the censorship of its scientists, NASA Administrator Griffin promised a new communications policy "in the next few weeks."

However, as the NY Times reports, Griffin also doubts that this is anything but a few loose canons.

"certain individuals have done things they shouldn't have" but...he doubted there was a widespread practice of muzzling NASA scientists or misrepresenting science.

While a new policy is certainly a step in the right direction, it also sounds like a serious glossing over of the problem.

A clear indication that there is a deeper problem is David Mould's refusal to admit that there was any wrongdoing in the first place. The assistant administrator for public affairs "defended the agency's handling of news releases and the media, saying his goal was to keep it free of spin of any sort."

And what about the other agencies? Were there just a few loose canons at NOAA as well?

This weekend, 60 Minutes will air an interview with Bob Correll, one of the leading climate scientists. The tease on the 60 Minutes website has Correll saying that global warming is, in effect, the cause of stronger hurricanes, such as Katrina, and that future storms will be even more severe.

Here's another good primer:

"This is bellwhether, a barometer … the warning that things are coming," says Corell, who also predicts lowlands will be inundated by waters from the melting glaciers in the future. "In 10 years here in the arctic, we see what the rest of the planet will see in 25 or 35 years from now," he says. "The entire planet is out of balance."

It sounds like the interview will be a good edition to the barrage of recent reports on global warming.

In the absence of any congressional oversight, the public has no choice but to rely on Andrew Revkin of the NY Times to investigate the censorship scandal at NASA. In today's story, Revkin finds that research contradictory to administration policies was suppressed during the 2004 Presidential campaign. One example given was the postponement of a press conference to announce new data on ozone and air pollution.

After citing further examples, Revkin writes that:

The recent accusations of political interference appear to reflect an intensifying debate between a small but influential cluster of presidential appointees at NASA headquarters and longtime civil servants and career scientists dispersed at space agency research hubs around the country.

Of course, the real question is who was coordinating that cluster of political appointees? Were they making the decision themselves to censor scientists or were there given orders?

Not surprisingly, David R. Mould, NASA's assistant administrator for public affairs said:

"We've received no marching orders from anyone,"

But unless there is a thorough independent investigation, how will we ever know?

The allegations that climate scientists were censored by the Bush administration are growing. In the latest revelation, Dr. Hansen stated that the muzzle on federal climate experts extends beyond NASA to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Where is Congress? Whatever happened to that check and balance thing?

Today, Environmental Action is launching an effort to get Rep. Sherry Boehlert (R-NY) to investigate the gag on global warming. We know that Rep. Boehlert is concerned about these allegations but sending a letter is not enough. Congress has a responsibility to investigate these serious allegations.

Tell Congressman Boehlert to hold an immediate hearing to investigate the censorship of climate scientists and the abuse of power by the Bush administration.

Gristmill posted an interesting article from the Independent that claims that the tipping point on global warming has come and gone. That's it. We're screwed.

If you want some fairly depressing quotes, read this:

"...really dangerous climate change is likely to be unstoppable.

The implication is that some of global warming's worst predicted effects, from destruction of ecosystems to increased hunger and water shortages for billions of people, cannot now be avoided, whatever we do."

But here's the one question I have about this piece: How is the Independent leading the way on climate change research?

This article--alledging that we've passed the tipping point--is based on research funded by the Independent?!

However, an investigation by The Independent has established that the CO2 equivalent concentration, largely unnoticed by the scientific and political communities, has now risen beyond this threshold.

How is it possible that of the thousands of climate scientists across the world, no one else has bothered to calculate C02 equivalent concentrations?

As first announced on the Scientific Activist blog George Deutsch is a liar. Not only has he undermined the scientific integrity of NASA, but turns out he never graduated from Texas A&M, as he stated on his resume.

And now, as reported by the NY Times this morning Deutsch has resigned. Well, Georgie boy, there's always a career in judging Arabian show horses.

But let's not get played here. This 24 year old may be a scapegoat but he's certainly not the real cause of the problems at NASA. We need to get to the bottom of how this culture of fear and intimidation has arisen at NASA.

We know that Deutsch is carrying out the orders, but who was giving them? We want the other shoe--the bigger one--to drop.

Dr. Hansen said it best in today's NY Times story:

Dr. Hansen said that the questions about Mr. Deutsch's credentials were important, but were a distraction from the broader issue of political control of scientific information.

"He's only a bit player," Dr. Hansen said of Mr. Deutsch. " The problem is much broader and much deeper and it goes across agencies. That's what I'm really concerned about."

"On climate, the public has been misinformed and not informed," he said. "The foundation of a democracy is an informed public, which obviously means an honestly informed public. That's the big issue here."

Let's keep our eye on the ball. Again if you haven't already signed our petition to pressure NASA, you can do it here.

NPR ran a good story this morning about the 86 evangelicals that have taken a position on global warming and sent a letter to President Bush.

I'm not privy to the internal debates of the evangelical community but it was clear that those opposed to addressing global warming were basing their decision on an anthropocentric argument.

Richard Land, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission said the following:

Human beings come first in God's created order. And that primacy must be given to human beings and for human betterment. If that means that other parts of nature take a back seat, well, then they take a back seat,

The problem with his argument is that humans are at risk, in fact, those motivated to act on global warming--including the 86 evangelical leaders--are concerned about the impact on humans.

Leith Anderson, an evangelical pastor in MN, who signed the letter to President Bush, said:

Climate changes in terms of famine, in terms of the inability to grow crops, in terms of the flooding of islands, most affects the poor. So we here in America probably can do many things to exempt ourselves from the immediate consequences, but the front edge of disaster is most going to affect those who have the least.

Ultimately, it sounds like the divide on global warming likely mirrors the divide in the evangelical community on issues of social justice and poverty.

To read the entire Call to Action, signed by the 86 leaders go here.

Blair stated today that the world has 7 years to act on global warming.

It's hard to say how effective it is to set timelines for action on global warming. Sure, in one sense it can feed the public's desire for action and put additional pressure on international negotiations. Yet on the other hand, the "crying-wolf" syndrome looms large if the world isn't transformed forever--especially if the U.S. hasn't acted by then (god help us).

There are however critical factors that justify Blair's pronouncement. First, 2013 is when the Kyoto agreement will expire, leaving a gaping hole in international climate policy. Second, many scientists including NASA's own James Hansen have predicted something similar: that if we don't act within the next decade we'll have missed our chance to stop the effects of global warming.

I'm certainly not an expert on British politics, but given that Blair is unlikely to run again, it seems like the challenge of getting the U.S. to act on global warming will be a significant part of his legacy. You can't ask for a bigger challenge--at least not for the next three years.

Slideshow in hand, Al Gore made his trademark presentation on global warming before the House Dems at their retreat this past weekend. While it's always hard to know where this will lead, the word from the retreat was that the presentation lit a fire under some legislators.

Sadly, the debate on global warming has taken a real backseat in the House. While the Senate has flirted with the McCain-Lieberman proposal for the past three years, the House has barely stirred. Sure there's an equivalent proposal by Reps. Gilchrest and Olver, but it only has 111 co-sponsors.

More than 15 years into the fight against global warming and a bill (that is significantly weaker than Kyoto) only has 111 co-sponsors?

Obviously, the Republicans control the House and are the first to blame for inaction on this issue. But the last time I checked, there were more than 200 Ds. Where are they on this issue?

Fine, we know the bill isn't going to move in this Congress, but who is even speaking about global warming? Where is the outrage? Why isn't the Bush administration being held accountable for gagging climate scientists and undermining international climate talks?

Again, with 2006 being a ballot year it will be interesting if this issue gains some traction on the stump...or whether Gore will be left to do all the heavy lifting.

I was listening to C-SPAN on the way home tonight, as they replayed Josh Bolten's (Bush's Budget Director) press conference on the FY07 Budget. In response to a reporter's question about Medicaid cuts, Bolten made a point of clarifying that President Bush was not proposing a cut, "it's a reduction in the rate of growth," he said.

Ask President Bush about his global warming plan, which is to reduce the rate of growth of emissions and he'll be more than happy to call it a "cut in greenhouse gas intensity."

Sometimes it's a cut, sometimes a reduction in the rate of growth--you just have to know how to speak the language.

Isn't it great when apples are apples until they're oranges?

If you haven't heard it, check out Hansen's interview with Tom Ashbrook of On Point

This abuse of power is another sad example of the problems with having one party control the legislative and executive branches. Unfortunately, Rep. Boelhert sounds like he's not eager to hold hearings. The rubber stamp Congress continues...

Revkin's story on Sat. mentioned a statement by NASA's Administrator Griffin in response to allegations of censorship. Here's that statement in full:

Statement on Scientific Openness

I want to make sure that NASA employees hear directly from me on how I view the issue of scientific openness and the role of public affairs within the agency. First, NASA has always been, is, and will continue to be committed to open scientific and technical inquiry and dialogue with the public. The basis for this principle is codified in the Space Act of 1958, which requires NASA to provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof.

Second, the job of the Office of Public Affairs, at every level in NASA, is to convey the work done at NASA to our stakeholders in an intelligible way. It is not the job of public affairs officers to alter, filter or adjust engineering or scientific material produced by NASA's technical staff. To ensure timely release of information, there must be cooperation and coordination between our scientific and engineering community and our public affairs officers.

Third, we have identified a number of areas in which clarification and improvements to the standard operating procedures of the Office of Public Affairs can and will be made. The revised policy, when complete, will be disseminated throughout the agency.

I want to encourage employees to discuss this issue and bring their concerns to management so we can work together to ensure that NASA's policies and procedures appropriately support our commitment to openness.

Mike Griffin
NASA Administrator

The first paragraph is throw-away rhetoric that is clearly false..."NASA has always been, is, and will continue to be committed to open scientific and technical inquiry." This is precisely the problem.

The next two paragraphs are promising but given the stories of censorship and deceit that have permeated NASA it isn't clear that a new policy alone will do the trick. Scientists at NASA are clearly immersed in a climate of fear and intimidation. This issue can't be resolved with a memo or statement. There needs to be some clear disciplinary action taken against those that have lied to the public and intimidated researchers.

Again, if you haven't already signed the Environmental Action petition do so here. Griffin has started to get the picture but this problem is not even close to being truly resolved.

(Nod to Dr. Benway for NASA's full statement)

The Washington Post reports this morning that New Hampshire's largest lake, usually under a foot of ice at this time of year, is mostly open water. The annual ice fishing derby, the skating, and our other small-town rituals have all been put, well, on ice.

The Post story isn't news to anyone who lives here. One of the diversions that goes along with waiting for spring in New Hampshire is betting on the ice-out date on Lake Winnipesaukee. Officially, that's the first day when the MV Mount Washington can make its way to all ports of call around the lake.

I always bet on April 14 - on the grounds that I could use the winnings to cover my taxes, due the next day - but now people are betting on whether the ice will show up at all.

Is this more evidence of a warming planet? The article gives cursory treatment to the question and concludes we're seeing only "normal climate variability." That may be true. And this is part of the global warming phenomenon that lends comfort and aid to the dwindling band of global warming skeptics. It's very hard to link any particular event, conclusively, with global warming.

But the trend over time in New Hampshire is undeniable. When our lakes do freeze, the ice-out comes earlier than it did a few decades ago. The maple sap starts running sooner. The ski mountains struggle. This is how global warming is moving out of the scientific journals and into ordinary, day-to-day life.

Revkin fired off another story this Saturday documenting that the censorship at NASA runs deep. Not only are they preventing scientists from speaking, but they are apparently speaking (erroneously) on their behalf. Two stand out updates:

1) A 24 year old presidential appointee with no expertise in science issued directives to scientists that the Big Bang always be qualified as a "theory" so as not to discount the concept of intelligent design!

2) NASA issued a press release claiming that a particular technology
"may someday prove useful in studying climate systems on other planets." Sounds promising, right? Only problem: the scientist doing the research doesn't believe it's true and disavowed the statement, which was attributed to him!

This is not going away...

Now this is a global warming plan that I could imagine President Bush getting behind. Although he's very concerned about animal-human hybrids, I think he'd be ok with feeding Kangaroo microbes to cows.

check out the story here