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

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.

So I'm sure that others have already blogged about this (can you tell I'm digging through my inbox?), but this piece by John Heilemann is a particularly insightful and thorough look at Gore.

A few quick thoughts:

First, Heilemann displays his new found confidence in Gore's potential to (re)claim the presidency, outlining (and clearly overstating) Gore's capacity to appeal to everyone:

Hence the argument for Gore. To begin with, unlike all but a handful of Democrats, Gore, with his ties to the Netroots and his burgeoning personal wealth, could readily raise the requisite funds to take on Mrs. Clinton. Having loudly and steadfastly opposed the war, he could challenge her from the left. Yet on national security, he could simultaneously run to her right, given his long-held expertise about bombs and bullets and his advocacy of intervention in Kosovo and Bosnia; as a putative commander-in-chief, his credentials are beyond reproach (no small thing in an age of terror). Similarly, Gore's anti-global-warming jihad would stand him in good stead with the greens and other liberals, while his long and demonstrated history as a moderate on countless other issues (from the deficit to "reinventing government") would allow him to score with centrist Democrats who fear that Clinton is a once-and-future lefty.

More than anything, this comically portrays why Gore is content to stay out of politics. For all of the talk of "Gore's transformation" to a likeable guy, the truth is that the media is treating him with kid gloves right now. Reporters are genuinely taken by his intelligence, his wit, and his passion. Through the lens of a political campaign, all of those qualities are scrutinized and refracted, with Gore emerging as a pedantic, awkward, and dull candidate. While there is certainly some merit to the argument that the man himself is more relaxed, it is also the case that the media is too.

Second, one question I haven't heard asked much: If Gore doesn't run, who will he endorse? Unlike 2004, when Gore endorsed Dean, he now has a greater potential to significantly shift the balance in the 2008 primary. It may be that Gore will stay committed to his current focus of elevating the issue of global warming—thereby focusing on both parties, especially during the primaries. But given all the press he is getting, the support from hollywood, etc, you have to wonder when 2008 candidates will start to curry favor with Gore. Given his supposedly strained relationship with Hillary, it is likely that he would back someone else, which could decide who emerges as the anti-Hillary candidate in the primary.

Apparently President Bush won't be seeing Gore's new movie.

A new poll commissioned by Defenders of Wildlife found that 52% of likely voters would choose someone other than Richard Pombo.

In head to head matchups, both Democratic challengers were favored. I was mildly skeptical given who funded the poll, but Republican pollsters and even Pombo's consultant admitted that these are tough, tough times for a Republican.

What was that Bruce Springsteen song? "It's hard to be a Republican in the City"

Here is a good example of how the media (and the public) get star struck by a politician's image rather than focusing on their actions.

McCain has built up such strong credentials as a fighter of government pork that when he starts peddling it himself no one bats an eye.

Case in point, listen to McCain's speech at the Clean Cities conference. Standing on his reputation for being bold, he repeats twice that he opposes federal subsidies for ethanol and thinks the industry should stand on its own. But then McCain pulls out the pompoms and breaks out in cheers for nuclear power. Of course, he doesn't mention the indisputable fact that no new nuclear power plant will be built in this country without significant federal subsidies.

In fact, the federal government is now teed up to provide the industry with more than $10 billion in subsidies. This is after providing the industry with more than $60 billion in research and development support over the last half century.

So what's the difference between subsidizing ethanol and nuclear power? None. Ostensibly, they would both be deployed to reduce global warming emissions. Yet McCain can comfortably bound about the country, high on his reputation, spewing glaring contradictions that no one will scrutinize. Except for little ol' me.

Here's another: McCain has repeatedly opposed Senate efforts to create a 10% renewable energy standard. These standards have been created in nearly half of all states in the country. Even Arizona is considering a similar proposal. But John McCain—the climate crusader—(or is that Gore?) continues to oppose renewable energy when it counts.

To be honest, I really don't understand it. Because I don't doubt for a second McCain's sincerity in addressing global warming. But is he trying to avoid appearing too green? Does he just not get the solutions as well as he gets the problem?

It's tough to say, but given his reputation, he won't have to answer to any of these contradictions.

With both Republicans and Democrats sinking so pathetically low these days in their efforts to pander to Americans suffering under the weight of high gas prices it's pretty hard to tell the difference between them. The leading Republican proposal—offering Americans a $100 rebate—has now been scrapped. The Democratic proposal that has gained the most attention is to temporarily repeal the gas tax while funding the shortfall by repealing oil and gas tax breaks.

Is it any surprise that American Idol is one of the most popular shows in the country? I work on these issues and even I'm having trouble holding down my lunch.

Clearly both parties are eager to appease public anger over gas prices. But if you ask me, this is an opportunity for some "straight talk". Americans need to be told that there are consequences to consuming oil. If you want to drive a Hummer or a Chevy Tahoe you will have to pay for it. Oil isn't cheap.

Oh, and don't forget, that we have more than 100,000 soldiers over there in the Middle East making the ultimate sacrifice. And the more oil we consume, the more soldiers we will have to send abroad in years to come to protect our right to drive Chevy Tahoes.

There are consequences to consuming oil.

Then we need to straight talk with Detroit and tell them to change their business plan. No more emphasis on size and power. From now on, it's all about fuel efficiency. And perhaps this will involve a bailout to set the industry straight, but so be it—if it will guarantee that more efficient cars will come off the assembly line.

And, then of course, there are the policies that Congress needs to implement.

My use of the words "straight talk" in no way imply that John McCain is the person to lead this effort. In fact, I doubt he would. But the opportunity to seize this moment is sitting out there for someone. And unlike Thomas Friedman's column today (behind the Times Select wall), it doesn't have to be a third party candidate. It's there for anyone who can see through the short term political pain of being honest and focus on the long-term public gain of doing so.

You don't have to be in politics to know that today's gas prices are a problem. But it does take a special kind of animal to respond with a $100 rebate check as the solution. There are really only two ways to analsyze Bill Frist and the Senate Republicans' energy proposal: 1) they are utterly and completely clueless when it comes to solving this problem; or 2) they actually think that throwing money straight at the voters is too good a political opportunity to pass up.

Apparently, a couple of free fill-ups is not quite the proposal Americans were looking for. According to the NY Times, the Senate has heard an earful from people an all sides of the spectrum.

And today, to make sure that the main message isn't muddled too much, Frist has dropped the one proposal that would raise revenue from oil companies by changing their accounting system. I won't get into the arcane details of the LIFO (last-in, first-out) proposal, but the bottom-line is that it would raise $4.3 billion from the top five oil companies in one year. There's a lot that could be done to reduce our dependence on oil with that money. $4.3 billion is more than half of the total amount the federal government spend on transit each year. You could give hundreds of thousands of consumers a rebate for buying a fuel efficient car. And so on.

But according to a trade paper, Frist wants to stay focused on the rebate and drilling in the Arctic, without getting sidetracked by anything targeting the oil industry.

The direct quote from Frist's staff:

We wanted the debate to focus on our full proposal, including the rebate and ANWR, rather than a distraction on an unrelated tax and accounting policy issue," the aide said.

Good use of the word "unrelated".

So before I equivocate a little and piss off my colleagues, I wanted to say a bit more on the importance of endorsing Chafee.

As I mentioned, the bottom-line is that he deserves it. You vote right for an issue group, you deserve to be endorsed. That's why issue groups exist in the first place—because no party can be counted on to represent it fully. There will always be differences.

It will always be easier for the environmental movement to win votes with bipartisan support. As was likely evident from the scores I posted of many Democrats, it is rare that the environmental community can count on the entire caucus to vote right.

This may have some unintended negative consequences, like Gail Norton being appointed Secretary of Interior, or Judge Alito sitting on the Supreme Court, and so on. But it is also rarely the case that the environmental community alone holds the balance of power in forming the Senate or House majority. More importantly, passing higher fuel economy standards, capping global warming, and reinstating superfund will almost surely require bipartisan support.

So again, in the long run, it is undoubtedly the right choice.

Now where I think the community goes wrong at times is in going out of their way to be bipartisan. We need pro-environmental candidates on both sides of the aisle, but there has to be a single standard applied to both parties. If a score of 50 isn't good enough for a Democrat to get an endorsement, then it shouldn't be good enough for a Republican. Moderate republicans should not get a pass because their party has shifted further right. It will also mean that environmental groups will have to prioritize helping more moderate republicans win open primaries, as occurred with Joe Schwarz last cycle.

Right on, Navin. This is the general problem with the Dems at any cost approach - it tends to blame environmentalists or choice advocates or labor union members for prioritizing their views. In my forthcoming book, Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party, I write about the dangers of this approach; here's an excerpt:

In their otherwise trenchant 2006 book Crashing the Gate, bloggers Jerome Armstrong and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga trash progressive organizations like the Sierra Club, NARAL, and labor unions for their occasional bipartisan tendencies. They condemn these groups for being willing to endorse Republicans who support them on their issues over Democrats who are more wishy-washy. They argue, perhaps fairly, that the most important vote a senator or congressman casts is not one on a particular issue, but rather their vote for the leader who sets the agenda. They also argue, again perhaps fairly, that on the really important votes, single issues don't matter as much as a general philosophical approach.

This view ascribes a great deal more partisanship to the membership of these groups than they truly possess. Most Sierra Club members want a candidate who will protect the environment, no matter which party that person belongs to. Most workers want a candidate who will fight to protect their rights to organize and help improve their pay and benefits. And most members of abortion rights groups want candidates who will defend their right to choose, regardless of their party. And with a Democratic Party that has a demonstrated inability to get elected, it's wise to hedge your bets at least a little bit - so you don't lose everything.

Moderate Republicans played a key role in protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - in part because some of them were led to feel that they would have a realistic chance of getting a Sierra Club or LCV endorsement if they did so. Armstrong and Zuniga want these groups and their members to ignore times when Democrats sell them out or just flat out disagree with them and support them based solely on their party affiliation. I think I might agree with them that these groups would do more to advance their goals by working together more closely, prioritizing their fights, and pooling their resources, but it's completely unrealistic to expect, say, abortion rights groups to support anti-choice candidates or for environmentalists to reward Lincoln Chafee's tie-breaking environmental votes with support for his opponent. To me, the fault is not the people who care about the environment, women's rights, or their jobs, but rather Democratic politicians who betray those people and don't give them enough reason to support them and their party.

Sheldon Whitehouse is a great environmentalist too, but if LCV and Sierra Club don't endorse Chafee, the message they're sending to Republicans is, "No matter how much you vote for the environment, we won't help you win reelection" - giving environmental groups a lot less leverage in lobbying.

So I've been meaning to comment on this brouhaha in the blogosphere about the decision by LCV and the Sierra Club to endorse Chafee. I figure that since I attended LCV's (bipartisan) annual dinner last night, now is as good a time as any.

If you haven't caught the story (where have you been??), over at Daily Kos, Markos himself has been raging against the "stupidity" of this decision. He posted when Sierra Club first endorsed Chafee and then a few days later when LCV followed with their own endorsement. He then felt smuggly validated when Chafee screwed the environmental community by endorsing Bush's nominee to the EPA yesterday. He's followed up that post with another today.

Dave Roberts over at gristmill initially defended the decision to endorse Chafee, but has since reconsidered.

Personally, I think that LCV and Sierra Club would become irrelevant if they DIDN'T endorse Chafee.

Fundamentally, the difference of opinion comes down to a matter of focus. Partisan types like Kos are exclusively focused on one thing: winning in 2006. It doesn't really matter what the new majority stands for, as long as they have a "D" next to their name. They'll take conservative Dems, anti-choice Dems, pro-gun Dems, anti-environmental Dems. Granted, they would certainly prefer progressive Dems over conservative ones, but in the end, all that matters is that control of one (or both) houses changes hands.

Without question, this would make a big difference for the environment—among many other issues. At the very least, it would end the string of disastrous appointments. It would probably slow the tide of crappy legislation. Would it actually result in any GOOD? That, unfortunately, is a completely different question.

Building a democratic majority is only a part of building an environmental majority, which is the stated purpose of these two organizations. Sure democrats are, on the whole, much more supportive of environmental issues but that doesn't change the underlying mission of these organizations.

When your focus is not just on 2006, but on 2010, or beyond, it behooves you to stick to your principles—of supporting members who are consistently pro-environment.

There is NO doubting that Chafee has a pro-environmental record. Just for reference: Chafee's LCV score bested the following Senate Dems: Akaka, Baucus, Bayh, Bingaman, Byrd, Carper, Conrad, Corzine, Dorgan, Inouye, Jeffords, Kohl, Landrieu, Levin, Lieberman, Mikulski, Nelson (NE), Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar and Stabenow.

In other words, Chafee is better than nearly HALF of the standing Senate Democrats. HALF! What would Kos propose? That LCV conveniently ignore his record? That they say "thank you for stopping Clear Skies, the gutting of the Engandered Species Act, Drilling in the Arctic, and by the way we just can't help you because, in the end, voting right isn't enough--you need to be a Democrat"?

You can argue about the accuracy of the score: sure some important votes were not included, but would that have drastically changed the overall issue? Of course not.

This may just be a shitty fact of (democratic) electoral politics. But issue groups are NOT going to stand behind the party without question. Perhaps we ought to bemoan the fact that the environmental movement isn't as unprincipled and as two-faced as the NRA—willing to embrace democrats when it's convenient or throw them overboard when it's not. But I'd say we are better off for it.

I'll say more on this tonight, but I've got to run out for a bit.

TPM Muckraker has some good dirt on Dirk Kempthorne's schemes to use corporate contributions to finances personal activities. The practice was legal thanks to a loophole in the Idaho law, but has since been closed. It will be interesting to see whether the appearance of being bought and sold will make any difference in the nomination process—or at least in the media's coverage of it.

Ron Brownstein had an interesting piece in yesterday's LA Times about the failure of Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) to negotiate a good deal on energy. As the ranking Democrat on the Senate Energy Committee, Bingaman signed off on the wasteful, destructive Bush-backed energy bill last year. Although Bingaman did play a role in blocking the 2003 version of the energy bill, his opposition was less about the substance of the bill and more about being excluded from the process.

When Senator Domenici changed his approach by allowing Bingaman a seat at the table last year, the bill was essentially guaranteed passage. To his credit, Bingaman did manage to keep a couple of bad provisions out of the bill but he didn't manage to win any positive additions.

The 10% renewable energy standard—dropped
The oil savings provision—dropped

While Domenici was able to secure billions of dollars for nuclear power, and Barton targeted billions for the oil industry, Bingaman's fingerprints are only noticeable for what isn't in the bill.

And as Brownstein points out, Bingaman is essentially at it again. In endorsing Domenici's effort to support drilling along Florida's coast, Bingaman is implicitly supporting a flawed notion that supply-side solutions matter. Or worse, that they alone matter.

But given that Bingaman already signed off on what was overwhelmingly a supply side energy bill, maybe it's time to consider that in many respects, Bingaman's priorities are not that different from Domenici's. Or maybe he really is that bad of a poker player.

What is up with the Senate?  President Bush nominates an extremist to head the Dept. of Interior and suddenly everyone approves.  

Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington, said she welcomed the appointment. "He understands the Northwest and a lot of Interior issues."

Dirk Kempthorne is well known and respected by those of us in the Senate who served with him. As a Westerner, former senator and current governor, he certainly understands the issues managed by the Interior Department.

Apparently collegiality trumps conviction.

In his six years as a U.S. Senator, Dirk had a lifetime environmental score of 1%; he cast only one vote in favor of the environment.

It is very likely that pro-environmental Senators will disagree with nearly everything he pushes. And yet...

With proposals to drill along our protected shores and plans to sell-off thousands of acres of public lands, this is a critical moment for America's natural heritage.

The only Senator who has stood up so far is Senator Nelson (D-FL) who has threatened to place a hold on the nomination. So this won't be a complete cakewalk. Go here to e-mail your Senators and bolster their backbone.

In the end, President Bush did decide to choose a former Senator—it was former Senator and current Idaho Gov., Dirk Kempthorne.

Check out Grist's story on Kempthorne.

It suffices to say that based on his six year record in the Senate, Kempthorne promises to carry Norton's mantle.

UPDATE: Even though Senator Bingaman has been leading the charge against President Bush's proposal to sell off 300,000 acres of National Forest, here was his statement on Kempthorne's nomination:

"Dirk Kempthorne is well known and respected by those of us in the Senate who served with him. As a Westerner, former senator and current governor, he certainly understands the issues managed by the Interior Department. I would expect that Dirk will be confirmed."

This is precisely the kind of response the Bush was hoping for when he chose a former Senator.

In turns out that Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) is not the only Senator exercising his right to place a "hold" on a nomination. Senator Byrd (D-WV) is not comfortable with Bush's nominee for Mine Safety and Health Administration and Senator Kerry opposes Bush's nominee to head the Federal Highway Administration.

The practice of placing a hold is a relatively common occurrence, which Senator sometimes use to outright block a nominee or to at least extricate some concessions. Will be interesting to see how each of these plays out.

According to a report from E&E Daily (unfortunately behind a firewall), former Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO) is a potential candidate to replace Sec. Norton at the Department of Interior. Campbell met with Norton last week after she announced her resignation and was seen on the hill this week meeting with Senators.

Although a former Senator would likely enjoy a smooth confirmation, an interesting subplot in this process is Senator Nelson's (D-FL) threat to place a hold on the nomination—whomever it is. Not surprisingly, Nelson is livid about a proposal to open portions of Florida's currently protected coast to offshore drilling.

"I'm going to object to anyone who intends to follow through with Norton's plan to open vast areas off Florida to oil and gas rigs," Nelson said over the weekend. Last year, Nelson held up the confirmation of Lynn Scarlett as Interior deputy secretary for eight months in a dispute over the 181 area.

It seems like whoever is picked, they'll be a rocky confirmation process...