Bush Administration Continues To Screw The Environment

The Bush Administration, in its race to be the worse administration in the history of the world, wants to build power plants outside our national parks. The EPA, again, is going against what the EPA's own scientists say, again. Did I mention, "again"?

The new rule changes how pollution levels in parks are measured -- instead of frequent measures, the new rule "would average the levels over a year so that spikes in pollution levels would not violate the law." Just a common sense fix, you might say. But as one environmental advocate explains, "It's like if you're pulled over by a cop for going 75 miles per hour in a 55 miles-per-hour zone, and you say, 'If you look at how I've driven all year, I've averaged 55 miles per hour.'"

via TPM

[part of the] The Answer, My Friend, Is Blowing In The Wind

A U.S. Department of Energy study says wind power is a viable answer to the energy problem.

Windmills spinning over the Great Plains and along the coasts could supply 20 percent of U.S. electricity by the year 2030 and put a significant dent in greenhouse gas emissions, federal officials said Monday.

Although wind farms now generate just 1 percent of the nation's electricity, a new report from the U.S. Department of Energy found that wind power could play a far larger role in the future. It could supply roughly the same percentage of the nation's power as nuclear plants provide today.
____________________
In addition, the country's network of high-voltage power lines would need to be expanded and upgraded. Some of the country's strongest, most reliable winds flow over the sparsely populated Great Plains, and a nationwide "superhighway" transmission system would be needed to carry that power to states and cities that need it.

via SFGate

Let's hope the next President will see this reality and do everything possible to achieve it.

Quote

"This McCain ad on global warming is hilarious. It says that one side denies the reality of global warming while the other supports "high taxes and crippling regulation." McCain you see, takes the moderate aproach we need: Admitting there's a problem without actually doing anything about it. Now that's a maverick!"
via Tapped

Translation: Republicans in a nutshell

Senate Dems urge windfall-profits tax on oil companies

Senate Democrats on Wednesday called for a windfall-profits tax on oil companies and a rollback of $17 billion in oil industry tax breaks as part of an energy package. The proposal also would impose federal penalties on energy price gouging and calls for stopping oil deliveries into the government's emergency reserve.
-----
The proposed 25 percent profits tax would apply only to windfall oil company earnings above what would be considered reasonable and only if those profits are not reinvested in refinery capacity expansion or renewable energy sources, according to a summary of the proposal.

via SFGate

First question that pops up is, who determines what a "windfall-profit" is?

I agree, the Congress needs to repeal the $17 million tax break we give to the oil companies - clearly, they do not need a tax break - not that they ever did to begin with.

I don't mind a company making a profit, so to punish a company for making profits seems to me a bit counter-productive - the wind-fall profit idea seems like pandering on the part of the Dems. We should use this time to change our policies on the environment and fuel efficiency, not pander with blame the oil company "solutions". Now, if there is price-gouging, that's a different set of problems.

I understand the pain ("I understand you pain"--Bill Clinton) people are feeling by having to pay for $4.00/gallon gas, but this seems to be the only way our country will get serious about fuel efficiency standards and our environmental laws changing. I used to live in San Diego where if you didn't have a car, you were pretty much out of luck - I hear from my family all the time about the price of gas, but if the U.S. just goes about trying to artifically turn back the clock, we will never get out of the problems we are in. The fact is, the U.S. only ever changes when we have to change - maybe the rise in fuel prices will make us take fuel efficiecny and environment seriously.

Does McCain Stand For Anything? Part III

The Myth of Green McCain by Kate Sheppard.

But while McCain maintains that global warming will be one of his top three issues as president, he has not articulated a plan of action, nor has he updated his policy positions to reflect changing scientific understanding. Despite all the kudos he gets for acknowledging the threat of climate change, both his record and policy reveal a candidate who is confused about what he's supposed to advocate, and lacks true conviction about environmental protection.

Not surprise McCain has no plan. Republicans have a habit of talking big, but when it comes to the grunt work, they are absent from true debate.

Speaking The Truth

It is refreshing to hear a Presidential candidate speaking the truth rather than pandering, *cough*ClintonMcCain*cough*

Few Americans know it, but for almost a year now, Congress has been bickering over whether and how to renew the investment tax credit to stimulate investment in solar energy and the production tax credit to encourage investment in wind energy. The bickering has been so poisonous that when Congress passed the 2007 energy bill last December, it failed to extend any stimulus for wind and solar energy production. Oil and gas kept all their credits, but those for wind and solar have been left to expire this December. I am not making this up. At a time when we should be throwing everything into clean power innovation, we are squabbling over pennies.

These credits are critical because they ensure that if oil prices slip back down again — which often happens — investments in wind and solar would still be profitable. That’s how you launch a new energy technology and help it achieve scale, so it can compete without subsidies.

The Democrats wanted the wind and solar credits to be paid for by taking away tax credits from the oil industry. President Bush said he would veto that. Neither side would back down, and Mr. Bush — showing not one iota of leadership — refused to get all the adults together in a room and work out a compromise. Stalemate. Meanwhile, Germany has a 20-year solar incentive program; Japan 12 years. Ours, at best, run two years.
----------
While all the presidential candidates were railing about lost manufacturing jobs in Ohio, no one noticed that America’s premier solar company, First Solar, from Toledo, Ohio, was opening its newest factory in the former East Germany — 540 high-paying engineering jobs — because Germany has created a booming solar market and America has not.

In 1997, said Resch, America was the leader in solar energy technology, with 40 percent of global solar production. “Last year, we were less than 8 percent, and even most of that was manufacturing for overseas markets.”

The McCain-Clinton proposal is a reminder to me that the biggest energy crisis we have in our country today is the energy to be serious — the energy to do big things in a sustained, focused and intelligent way. We are in the midst of a national political brownout.

via Thomas Friedman
emphasis mine

40 percent of global solar production down to 8 percent. We need change, not pandering. We need leadership not sillinessstupidity.

The Case For CFLs

Yes, CFLs contain mercury, but a very small amount - about the size of a pinhead.

"The irony of CFLs is that they actually reduce overall mercury emissions in the long run. Despite recent improvements in the industry's technology, the burning of coal to produce electricity emits roughly 0.023 milligrams of mercury per kilowatt-hour. Over a year, then, using a 26-watt CFL in the average American home (where half of the electricity comes from coal) will result in the emission of 0.66 milligrams of mercury. For 100-watt incandescent bulbs, which produce the identical amount of light, the figure is 2.52 milligrams."

via SLATE

Maybe If Polar Bears Peed Oil...

Republican Ignore The Dead Canary, Democrats Let More Carnaries Die

Republicans and Democrats agreed on a weaker energy bill after pressure from energy lobby.

The legislation still contains a landmark increase in fuel-economy standards for vehicles and a huge boost for alternative fuels. But a $13 billion tax increase on oil companies and a requirement that utilities nationwide produce 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources were left on the floor to secure Republican votes for the package.

via NYTimes

Meanwhile...

This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."

and that dead canary?

The Arctic is often cited as the canary in the coal mine for climate warming," said Zwally, who as a teenager hauled coal. "Now as a sign of climate warming, the canary has died. It is time to start getting out of the coal mines."

via CNN

America: Leading the way to disaster.

Lightbulb bill approved by Assembly panel

"An Assembly committee approved a bill Monday that would make California the first state in the nation to ban the sale of incandescent lightbulbs."

Sadly, this will probably not get anywhere because of stupid people like this:
"Critics of AB722 argue that fluorescent bulbs are more expensive, don't fit all light fixtures and offer inferior light quality."

Yes, "inferior light quality". If we are going to have climate change, I want to be able to see it with superior lights!

via Sfgate

Climate Change

There is a lot to disagree with when it comes to Andrew Sullivan, but one of the most infuriating canards Sullivan keeps harping on (and there is a pattern) is Andrew's explanation of how the real answers to the world's problems are always a conservative answer. He keeps saying gay marriage is really a conservative idea, for one (!!?). But, his latest solution for climate change? He claims "it's the truly conservative response to an emerging problem. It's simple, involves as little government bureaucracy as possible, and will unleash the private sector to do its magic. Neither Democrats nor Republicans really want to go there, which is a sign of how broken the system is."

Andrew Sullivan is a small government, low tax, little regulation conservative (so am I - to an extent). But his solution to climate change is to, essentially, leave it up to the "magic" private sector by setting a carbon tax. Well, I think we have seen how well the private sector has done when it is barely/badly regulated: tainted pet food, tainted spinach, subprime loans.

So with such a stellar track record of barely-there regulation of the FDA or financial institutions, Sullivan continues to feel the private sector should be left to its own devices to solve the climate change problem. But Sullivan has found a way to do an end-run around his cherished "private sector is the solution for every ill" philosophy; he wants to have a carbon tax. To my mind, Sullivan is simply keeping hold of his conservative principles by slyly slipping in a traditionally "liberal" solution by advocating a tax to spur the private sector to make the necessary changes and innovations (Sullivan would never admit to this).

I don't know why Sullivan is so against regulating greenhouse gasses up front with government mandated regulation (auto mileage/emission, coal plant, etc) when he is advocating, essentially that very thing - a government mandated tax in order to make the private sector do what it needs to do in the first place. Rather than take a direct route to help solve climate change (which, according to scientist, is a pretty damn serious problem!), Sullivan simply wants to take the scenic route in order to arrive at the same destination: to slow climate change. I'm not sure why Sullivan can't just come out and say, this problem requires a quick response, not some slow, "we'll get there eventually" so "I can continue to claim my conservative credentials with this face-saving solution".

If scientist are correct (every indication shows that the science is right when it comes to climate change), the problem of climate change needs a quick response.

Stupid Wildlife Part II

"Bush Fish and Wildlife Service appointee not only sends internal government reports to industry lobbyists but also to online gaming 'virtual friend' for unbiased second opinion"

via Talking Points Memo

Which directly contradicts what I posted earlier:

"Chris Tollefson, a spokesperson for the service, says that while it's accurate to characterize the agency as trying to keep the draft under wraps, the agency has every intention of communicating with the public about the proposed changes; the draft just hasn't been ready. And, he adds, it could still be changed as part of a forthcoming formal review process."

It's okay to send internal reports to lobbyists (and "virtual" friends), but not to the general public.

And, again, from my previous post:

"'Please Keep close hold for now. Dale [Hall, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] does not want this stuff leaking out to stir up discontent based on speculation.'"

They'll let lobbyists and virtual friends speculate, though.

Wow, you can't see the forest through the corruption.

San Francisco Bans Plastic Grocery Bags

San Francisco is, again, first in the nation. San Francisco has banned those plastic grocery bags which, admittedly, are convenient and all that, but environmentally, not so convenient.

My cynical side is waiting for business "leaders" to protest that market forces should determine this sort of thing. Well, I don't trust those elusive market forces one bit. If we trusted market forces, I really think we would still be riding around in cars with no seat belts, airbags, crumple zones, exploding gas tanks, etc. If we put our trust in market forces, we would still be hearing about workers dieing in coal mines (oh, wait)...We would still being hearing about garment workers burning alive.

This is where government must take the lead. Market forces are fine when dealing with issues of quality of product(Toyota? Ford? - which would you buy?), levels of service, taste of consumer, location of store, etc. But to trust market forces to take the lead in of safety, environment, and worker's rights? Not so good (market forces look at the bottom line, and the environment is never factored into the bottom line).

So, YAY for San Francisco

update on the whole market forces thing:
Burger King Shifts Policy on Animals

In what animal welfare advocates are describing as a "historic advance," Burger King, the world's second-largest hamburger chain, said yesterday that it would begin buying eggs and pork from suppliers that did not confine their animals in cages and crates.

Good for Burger King.

Let's hope this is a trend that continues into other fast food outlets.

via Andrew Sullivan

Stupid Wildlife

How does BushCo want to change the Endangered Species Act? Why in secret, of course.

"In recent months, the Fish and Wildlife Service has gone to extraordinary efforts to keep drafts of regulatory changes from the public. All copies of the working document were given a number corresponding to a person, so that leaked copies could be traced to that individual. An e-mail sent in March from an assistant regional director at the Fish and Wildlife Service to agency staff, asking for comments on and corrections to the first draft, underscored the concern with secrecy: 'Please Keep close hold for now. Dale [Hall, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service] does not want this stuff leaking out to stir up discontent based on speculation.'"

"Many Fish and Wildlife Service employees believe the draft is not based on 'defensible science,' says a federal employee who asked to remain anonymous. Yet 'there is genuine fear of retaliation for communicating that to the media. People are afraid for their jobs.'"

To be fair, "Chris Tollefson, a spokesperson for the service, says that while it's accurate to characterize the agency as trying to keep the draft under wraps, the agency has every intention of communicating with the public about the proposed changes; the draft just hasn't been ready. And, he adds, it could still be changed as part of a forthcoming formal review process."

Every time BushCo keeps things "under wraps," I can't help but see a warning sign blinking "cover up!"

I know I sound like a broken record about BushCo, but there's just so much!

I don't know, maybe what BushCo does is...Christian, or something?

via Salon

Harry Potter Goes Green...

at least 30% green.

"A 'deluxe edition of the new book, which has a first printing of 100,000, will be printed on paper that contains 100 percent post-consumer waste fiber.'"

Australia To Ban Incandescent Bulbs

This is the type of bold move we need in this country.

CANBERRA, Australia - Australia will be the world’s first country to ban incandescent light bulbs in a bid to curb greenhouse gas emissions, with the government saying on Tuesday they would be phased out within three years.

British and Californian lawmakers also have been lobbying for bans on incandescent light bulbs, which lose much of their energy as heat.

I've already replaced the incandescent bulb in my bathroom with a compact fluorescent bulb and will replace the rest in my apartment as soon I replace the dimmer switches (compact fluorescent bulbs do not work with dimmers).

C'mon, won't you join me and help the environment?

Here's a link to California's State Assembly Members:
California