The Progress Report.

GW Bush's final middle finger extension: last rush of mismanagement before leaving.

Lame duck president George W Bush (remember him?) is pushing through a host of "midnight regulations" before leaving office, many of them screwing with the environment.

The Los Angeles Times says environmentalists are angry by a host of loosened safeguards:

In recent days, the Bush administration announced new rules to speed oil shale development across 2 million rocky acres in the West. It scheduled an auction for drilling rights alongside three national parks. It has also set in motion processes to finalize major changes in endangered species protection, allow more mining waste to flow into rivers and streams, and exempt factory farms from air pollution reporting.

The Chicago Tribune did a special report saying the administration undercut a clean-air rule aimed at curbing childhood lead poisoning:

...the EPA had planned to require lead monitors next to any factory emitting at least a half-ton of lead a year. But after the White House intervened, the agency raised the threshold to a ton of lead or more, according to e-mails and other documents exchanged between the EPA and the Office of Management and Budget.

Read more: Bush's last rule-making hurrah (Yahoo)

As if it wasn't already clear which pocket Bush's interests lie in, and it's not you or me and it's not the American environment, in case you were wondering.

Fox and The Wall Street Journal Don't Get It: Americans Want Action on Global Warming and Clean Energy

(I'm reposting this from Josh Nelson's spot-on piece up at The Seminal:

Fox and The Wall Street Journal Don't Get It: Americans Want Action on Global Warming and Clean Energy

Despite what the Wall Street Journal would have you believe, the election on Tuesday did not indicate opposition to action on global warming and clean energy. In fact, we are now seeing more and more evidence that the opposite is true.

A poll was just released with some extremely encouraging data on voters’ opinions on global warming and clean energy.  It was commissioned by The National Wildlife Federation and conducted by Zogby.

Here are some of the findings, which show that support for combating global warming and investing in the green economy have gained tremendous support, especially among a few key demographics:

78 percent of voters agree that investing in clean energy is important to revitalizing America’s economy.  Let that sink in for a second.  If we can get 60% of the United States Senate to agree on this we’ll be in good shape.

57 percent of voters said it was important to back candidates who support reducing global warming pollution.

60 percent agreed that elected officials should make combating global warming a high priority.

The results also showed increasing demand for climate action among some key demographic groups:

Independents: 57 percent felt it was important to vote for candidates who support reducing global warming pollution, up from 49 percent in 2006.

Minorities: An incredible 85 percent of African-Americans called it important to vote for climate candidates, a huge increase from 59 percent in 2006.

Among Hispanic voters, 70 percent agreed a candidate’s climate stance was important, up from 62 percent in 2006.

Young voters: 53 percent strongly agreed that elected officials should make combating global warming a high priority, a major jump from 38 percent in 2006.

NWF’s President and CEO Larry Schweiger offered the following summary of the findings:

“This election was powered by a voting public that wants dramatic and meaningful change, especially when it comes to action to advance a clean energy economy,” continued Schweiger. “President-elect Obama and the new Congress have the public support they need to move an ambitious clean energy agenda that measures up to the science of global warming and the full economic potential of our economy.”

So how did The Wall Street Journal and Fox get it so wrong?  Short answer: intentionally.

Not So Green: Voters Nix Most Environmental State Ballot Measures

Not Easy Being Green

Several of the initiatives the WSJ examined were opposed by environmentalists. I fail to see how this qualifies as voters nixing environmental measures. They also conveniently forgot to mention all of the environmentally friendly initiatives approved by voters on Tuesday. For the record, here are eight:

CA Proposition 1A:  Would partially fund a high-speed train linking Southern California with the Bay Area and the Sacramento/San Joaquin Valley.

CA Proposition 2: Would prohibit the confinement of livestock in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, stand up, lie down, or extend their wings and limbs.

FL Amendment 4:  Would institute a property-tax exemption for property placed under permanent conservation protection.

Minnesota Clean Water, Wildlife, Cultural Heritage, and Natural Areas Amendment: Would raise the state sales tax by three-eighths of 1 percent in order to increase state funding for natural resource protection and cultural heritage programs.

MO Proposition 3: Would require 15 percent of the state’s electricity come from clean energy sources by 2021, and would require that utilities raise consumer rates no more than 1 percent per year to pay for the renewable energy.

Ohio Issue 2:  Would authorize the state to borrow $400 million for environmental conservation.

Ohio Issue 3:  Would create a constitutional amendment to protect property rights and rights to the reasonable use of water.

Washington Prop. 1:  Would provide $18 billion to support mass-transit services and expand light rail into several communities south of Seattle.

It also wouldn’t be hard to make the case that the defeat of California Propositions 7 and 10 were victories for environmentalists as well.

Read the rest of Josh's piece here.

He's certainly right about the CA props -- those were thinly veiled measures meant to aid the energy corporations and T Boone Pickens in particular. Kudos to Californians for not falling for them.

ABC won't air Repower America ad.

From the We Can Solve It campaign:

     
       

Dear Craig,

Did you notice the ads after last night's presidential debate? 

ABC had Chevron. CBS had Exxon. CNN had the coal lobby. But you know what happened last week? ABC refused to run our Repower America ad -- the ad that takes on this same oil and coal lobby.

I sent a letter asking ABC to reconsider their decision and put our ad on the air, but still we haven't heard back more than a week later. I think they need to hear from all of us. Can you help? Please send a message to ABC and tell them to air the Repower America ad this Friday on 20/20. Just click here:

http://www.wecansolveit.org/ABC

We're working to get 100,000 public comments to ABC before 20/20's next airing.

Our Repower America ad has a clear and simple message -- that massive spending by oil and coal companies on advertising is a key reason our nation hasn't switched to clean and renewable sources for our energy.

Here's the script of the ad:

 

The solution to our climate crisis seems simple.
Repower America with wind and solar.
End our dependence on foreign oil. A stronger economy.
So why are we still stuck with dirty and expensive energy?
Because big oil spends hundreds of millions of dollars to block clean energy.
Lobbyists, ads, even scandals.
All to increase their profits, while America suffers.
Breaking big oil's lock on our government ...
Now that's change.
We're the American people and we approve this message.

  You can view the ad on the ABC petition page, here.

As our country faces deep economic problems, we need to be able to have an honest debate about the root causes of our problems. As Al Gore has said, "We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the future of human civilization. And every bit of that has to change."

As oil and coal backed groups outspend even major party committees in this political year, it's outrageous that ABC would deny our ad. Let ABC know what you think. Just click here.

Thank you,

Cathy Zoi
CEO
www.wecansolveit.org

Must-listen Podcast: Thomas Friedman on Geo-Greenism (and McCain and Obama)

Great interview with Thomas Friedman, on NPR's Fresh Air  this past week. Definitely listen.

He has a pretty frank opinion about John McCain's environmental record/philosophy, and a few concerns regarding Obama as well.

  Thomas Friedman is a man bent on revolution. In his new book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded, the three-time Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist writes about the need for a green revolution — and calls upon Americans to lead the charge.

Friedman argues that the U.S. can help revive itself at home and abroad by finding solutions to global warming.

Friedman is a foreign affairs columnist for The New York Times. His other books include From Beirut to Jerusalem and The World is Flat.

Palin's record on the environment is abysmal.

(After this post, I've made a vow to not post anything specifically Sarah Palin-related for one week. Let's see how good my willpower is! Read and forward this piece, and watch this brutal wolf-killing video.)

This is an editorial by Rick Steiner, a Professor in the Marine Advisory Program at the University of Alaska.

Sarah Palin's record on environment is abysmal

While I disagree with many of Sen. John McCain's policies, I was willing to concede that he may at least make a wise, rational president and represent a step in the right direction for the nation. No longer. With his pick of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, he has shown a spectacular, even dangerous lack of judgment.

In addition to her frightening lack of qualification to be vice president (much less president) of the United States, Palin is an evangelical, anti-choice, pro-gun, right-wing conservative who wants creationism taught in schools. She is currently under investigation by the Alaska Legislature for alleged abuse of office. Many of us in Alaska simply cannot imagine Palin having anything to do with U.S. foreign policy, domestic policy, national defense or the countless other affairs of federal governance.

A particularly worrisome aspect of the Palin candidacy is her abysmal record on the environment during her two years as Alaska governor, and how that would translate into national environmental policy if she became vice president. Her environmental record as governor of the nation's "last frontier" deserves close examination.

Climate change. Although Alaska is ground zero in the crisis of global warming, Palin has done virtually nothing to address the problem except hold meetings and appoint a "climate sub-cabinet" that likewise has done little. Lots of talk, no action. Although in the past two years the Arctic summer sea ice shrunk to the lowest levels ever recorded, Palin apparently does not believe it is human-induced or cause for alarm. She was asked to establish an Alaska Office on Climate Change, an Alaska Climate Response Fund (based on a tax on Alaska oil production) and emissions reduction targets for Alaska, but has taken no action on those requests.

Polar bears. This summer, Palin filed suit against the Bush administration over the federal listing of polar bears as threatened, saying that her opposition was based on a "comprehensive scientific review." But when asked to release the scientific review, she refused. The document, later obtained by the public (from the federal government), clearly shows that, contrary to Palin's assertions, the state of Alaska's marine mammal scientists agreed with the federal conclusions that the polar bears are in serious trouble because of global warming and loss of their sea ice habitat, and that they would be gone from Alaska by 2050. Palin clearly decided to oppose the listing in order to protect Arctic oil and gas development, then publicly misrepresented the basis for her decision, and then tried to conceal all of that. Having run for office on a platform of honesty and transparency, this behavior was neither. Her extreme position here puts her to the political right of the Bush /Cheney administration.

Carrotmob Makes Rain (and an impact).

From KarmaTube:  

Everyone needs to buy things. But we tend not to spend our money in a socially organized way. So Carrotmob, a new environmental advocacy group, had an idea: what if those seeking the same kind of product got together, pooled their dollars, and used them to collectively support local companies that were also doing the most for the environment? Watch what happened when Carrotmob pulled a big crowd together to spend a lot of money at the local liquor store with the strongest environmental commitment. If we live our values, business can--and does--listen.

Watch Video >>

(Which is both informative and funny, and shot here in San Francisco.)

Free us.

--From We Can Solve It.

Green for green: Earn cash for recycling your cell phone (and other electronics)

From US News (via Yahoo):

4 Ways to Earn Cash for Recycling

Recycling may be getting easier each year, but let's face it: People are lazy. That's why bottles get thrown into trash bins when recycling bins are a foot away. It's also why technology ends up in landfills, when it could be deconstructed for its perfectly good parts. Four programs are trying to change that by offering armchair environmentalists cold, hard cash to recycle their stuff.

Cell for Cash offers money for an infrequently recycled gadget -- your cellphone. Many people get a new cellphone each year. Some leave the old one sitting around their house, and 7 percent just throw it away. Cellphones are full of chemicals that leach into groundwater from landfills. In California, they're considered hazardous waste. Cell for Cash lists hundreds of makes and models of phones. When you find yours, you can request a postage-paid box. Send it back with your phone and charger, and once the company verifies the contents, you'll receive a check.   

Read the rest of the article >>

It's a great, and easy, idea.  I actually sent one of my two (hang head in shame) outdated cell phones to a nonprofit that refurbished cell phones and then sent them to needy soldiers. One down, one to go - time to recycle.  I should hope that people will do this because it's the right thing to do, not just for money, but if money helps motivate people, hey, whatever it takes.

Looks like we're in for nasty weather

From the We Campaign to me (and you);

According to a new report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), climate change will likely lead to an increase in extreme weather in the United States. That means more droughts, heavy downpours, excessive heat, and intense hurricanes. Not good.

We hope to alert 100,000 people to this NOAA report within the next 48 hours. If each of us tells 5 people, that's within easy reach. Please use our tell-a-friend tool to help educate your friends and family about this critical issue.

The report projects:

• Abnormally hot days and nights, along with heat waves, are very likely to become more common.
• Droughts are likely to become more frequent and severe in some regions.
• Hurricanes will likely have increased precipitation and wind.

We will need everyone's voices to solve the climate crisis, starting with yours. Start a conversation today.

--

You'll hear some scoffing from Faux News and the three meteorologists on the planet who don't believe in global warming will be given equal air time with a couple of scientists, but ignore that. If they want to ignore the facts, ignore them, skip them. Pass this on. -- cp

Offshore Oil Drilling: Just Say No.

The topic of offshore oil drilling is near and dear to my heart, I'll admit, as I grew up in Santa Barbara*, sight of the infamous and truly awful oil spill several decades ago. While that happened just before I was there, the influence on our mindset there was unmistakable. As were the unsightly oil rigs that continued to sit offshore in subsequent decades. I'm not alone in California, in believing strongly that offshore oil drilling is no solution at all, simply a recipe for a future disaster. In short, it's another example of shortsighted thinking that causes harm both immediate and long term without actually solving any of our problems.  I thought, or at least hoped, our coastline would be forever untouchable but perhaps I was naive about that.

From Credo:

Next time you go to the beach with your family, do you want  to see a mammoth oil rig only three miles off the coast?

Senator John McCain and President Bush have joined forces to resume offshore oil drilling. There's been a moratorium on it since 1981, but now President Bush is demanding that Congress lift the moratorium in the next two weeks. "If Congressional leaders leave for the Fourth of July recess without taking action," he said, "they will need to explain why $4-a-gallon gasoline is not enough incentive for them to act."

What President Bush didn't say was that offshore oil drilling will have zero effect on gas prices. Instead, lifting the moratorium will serve only to damage our environment and put our coast at risk for toxic spills. Of course, what's a few destroyed beaches compared with more profits for Big Oil?

Fight to Protect California's Coastline >>

The idea should be to look for alternative energy and fuel sources, not serve oil companies who are already raking record profits. There are so many other solutions out there. This is the disastrous one. Plus, as Speaker Pelosi recently noted:

"Oil companies are sitting on 68 million acres of public lands they have already leased, but President Bush and Senator McCain want to award them with even more.

"Americans are suffering under the Bush-Cheney-McCain policies that were written by Big Oil: $4 a gallon gasoline; $134 per barrel oil; increased reliance on foreign sources of energy and on hydrocarbons that contribute to climate change.

"Americans use one quarter of the world's oil consumption every day and we possess less than 2 percent of the world's supply. We cannot drill our way to energy independence.

"Our nation must move toward a new, cleaner, and more affordable energy future that focuses on renewable and increased energy efficiency. The New Direction Congress has already passed innovative energy legislation and will continue to develop other proposals to address high energy costs and shift our nation to a more energy efficient economy.

Does anyone (I'm talking to you Nader voters) still think there's no difference between a Democrat and the GOP in the House and in the White House? Think again.

*See/hear comments from Santa Barbaran Michael Feeney at John McCain during the latter's visit to SB this week.