Recently in Political Climate Category

Newt Gingrich has been making himself out to be a green lately - but activists at the Alaska Wilderness League say he's just an oil company shill. Get the details at Political Climate:

Since May, the former speaker has been larding his environmental rhetoric with calls for America to begin new drilling programs to achieve energy independence and bring down the price at the pump. Never mind that domestic oil production will never put a significant dent in gas prices or offset the demand for imported oil: Newt’s sloganeering - “Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less” - hit a nerve, and more than 1.3 million people signed a petition backing his campaign.

That was bad enough. Now, though, researchers at the Alaska Wilderness League have revealed that Gingrich’s cheerleading for Big Oil was bankrolled by a veritable Who’s Who of the extractive industries. The group behind Newt’s drilling drive has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from executives and investors with close ties to companies like Exxon, Shell, and Suncor.

Read more here.

The lifeless 'dead zone' off the Louisiana coast is set to expand to record-breaking levels this year, thanks to profligate agricultural polluters along the Mississippi river basin:

The spread of the dead zone is partly due to widespread flooding, possibly caused by global warming, which this year brought especially large quantities of chemical waste into the Mississippi. The single biggest culprit, though, is the American infatuation with corn ethanol: Farmers are planting more corn per acre than ever before in a bid to cash in on federal biofuel mandates. That’s rapidly depleting the soil along the banks of the Mississippi, leading to a massive new demand for the chemical fertilizers responsible for deoxygenation.

Researchers say that we’re rapidly approaching the point of no return. If the dead zone continues to spread, shrimp and other seabed dwellers could be left with nowhere to run and find themselves literally pushed off the continental shelf. If that happens, the Gulf’s valuable crustaceans could be permanently replaced by an expanse of worthless - and possibly carcinogenic - bacterial sludge.

Read the rest here.

Off-shore drilling is all the rage this election cycle, and Democrats seem to be struggling to find a decent response. I've scribbled some thoughts over at Political Climate:

Dems haven’t quite gone so far as to back Bush’s barmy plan to open up protected areas of America’s coastline to the oil companies, of course; instead, they’ve rolled out a counter-proposal that would boost oil production in those areas of Alaska already open to drilling. That’s essentially an attempt to shield Democratic lawmakers against charges of obstructionism, while stopping short of endorsing new drilling in protected areas.

Unfortunately, though, it’s a strategy that plays into Republicans’ hands. The Democrats’ Alaskan gambit only makes sense if the root problem is that American oil production is too low. That reinforces the Republican argument that boosting oil production would help alleviate the current energy crisis, and makes it easier for Bush and McCain to argue that greens, in opposing new offshore drilling, are simply putting coastal ecosystems ahead of the wider US economy.

Get the rest here.

Chicago residents can chow down on foie gras once again, after the city's mayor rolled back a two-year-old ban on the buttery delicacy. I've got a piece up at Political Climate arguing that there are lessons here for greens:

Probably activists’ biggest mistake was pursuing a blanket ban on the sale and consumption of foie gras, rather than a more specific ban on inhumane production techniques. That shifted the blame to the consumer rather than the producer, and put greens in the uncomfortably paternalistic position of trying to dictate what people should and shouldn’t be allowed to eat; it also gave farmers and restauranteurs little incentive to explore the various ethical and humane alternatives to traditional production methods.

Fighting for a blanket ban also led campaigners to dismiss evidence that while foie gras factory farms are predictably horrific, small-scale producers are usually fairly humane. The French Institute for Agricultural Research found no increase in ducks’ stress hormones immediately before or after force-feeding sessions, for example; the American Veterinary Medical Association also examined the industry, and determined that birds in US foie gras farms weren’t in any significant distress or pain.

More here.

John McCain is selling his new environmental policy in Oregon today. I've posted some thoughts over at Political Climate:

McCain pitched his plan - essentially a rehash of the cap-and-trade system he proposed back in 2003 - as a third way between the outright climate denial of the Bush years and the more ambitious climate strategies offered by his opponents. “One extreme thinks high taxes and crippling regulation is the solution; another denies the problem even exists,” he announced in a campaign ad accompanying yesterday’s speech. “There's a better way.”

...

McCain might have done better to propose a straight-up carbon tax. That would have sliced through the “crippling regulation” of a cap-and-trade system, and allowed him to present himself as a straight-talking maverick opposed to hidden taxes, big government, and pork-barrel politics. Instead, he offered up a heavily diluted version of the plans already set out by his Democratic rivals: good enough to convince a few independent voters, perhaps, but hardly worthy of a politician who used to be a genuine environmental hero.

More here.

The EPA is considering allowing unlimited amounts of perchlorate - a chemical nasty derived from rocket fuel - in US drinking water. It's not the best idea: perchlorate has been linked to metabolic problems in adults, and to developmental disorders in children and fetuses. I've posted more details over at Political Climate:

Having failed to safeguard our water supplies, the EPA is now dragging its heels over providing a solution. Benjamin Grumbles, the agency’s top water-safety official, told Congress this week that the EPA might not decide whether to begin regulating perchlorate until the end of the year - and that even then there was “a distinct possibility” that the agency would stick to its guns and refuse to limit the amount of perchlorate in America’s drinking water.

The EPA says it needs to give its scientists more time to figure out whether perchlorate is actually harmful, and at what levels. That sounds reasonable - but given the agency’s usual disregard for scientific opinion, some greens believe that other factors may be at work behind the scenes. Prime suspect: the Pentagon, which has been lobbying against a federal perchlorate standard for years, hoping to avoid an expensive cleanup of its military and aerospace facilities.

Read more here.

Alaskan residents and green activists have launched another legal challenge to the Bush administration's efforts to open the Chukchi Sea to oil exploration. I've written it up for Plenty's Political Climate blog:

According to their complaint, federal officials gave oil companies the go-ahead to use powerful acoustic devices to test for seismic activity - without waiting for legally mandated reports on the tests’ potential environmental impact.

The tests - which give a whole new meaning to the phrase “oil boom” - involve firing massive air-guns at the Arctic seabed, creating a noise ten times louder than a rocket launch. The din, which can carry for hundreds of miles, is repeated every 10 to 15 seconds, sometimes for weeks or months at a time.

That can have a devastating impact on marine wildlife, particularly mammals like whales, walrus and seals: Nearby animals can be permanently deafened, and thousands more interrupt their feeding and migratory patterns to escape the noise. The Chukchi Sea - home to tens of thousands of marine mammals, including several endangered species of whale - is particularly vulnerable: Its bad weather and choppy waters can make it almost impossible for seismic survey ships to spot and steer clear of marine mammals.

Read the rest here.

Nancy Pelosi's efforts to give Congress an environmental overhaul are going slower than she'd hoped, thanks to foot-dragging lawmakers and congressional bureaucracy. I've posted some details over at Political Climate:

Last year, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi launched a major new initiative aimed at turning Congress into a model of environmental best practice. Some of the changes were small, simple things: Meeting-rooms had their lights rigged to motion detectors, vending machines were ordered to be turned off at night, and a bike share program was set up for staffers. Even the House cafeteria got a face-lift: Freedom fries were swapped for organic arugula and free-range eggs, and styrofoam containers gave way to biodegradable plates and cutlery.

Other changes were more significant - and more controversial. Efforts to install energy-efficient spotlights to illuminate the Capitol dome met with fierce opposition from Republicans, who called the $671,900 project a “ridiculous boondoggle”. The decision to spend almost $90,000 on carbon offsets nearly sparked a full-blown inquiry. And only this week, lawmakers threw an almighty strop over new rules requiring them to trade their taxpayer-funded SUVs and luxury gas-guzzlers for more fuel-efficient models.

More here.

Following John McCain's calls for a summer-long gas-tax "holiday", Hillary Clinton has come out in favor of a moratorium on the federal gas tax. It's a lousy idea that would hinder the fight against climate change, and probably make little difference to the price paid at the pump. I've posted some more details over at Political Climate:

That means that of the presidential hopefuls, only Barack Obama wants the gas tax to remain in place. He’s learned the hard way that gas-tax cuts don’t work: In 2000, with gas prices weighing in at a whopping $2 a gallon, he supported the Illinois Senate’s move to slash the state’s 6.25 percent gas tax.

The state’s moratorium was politically popular, but achieved almost nothing. Gas prices fell by just 3 percent, meaning that a hefty chunk of the tax relief went straight to oil companies. Less than a third of Illinois motorists said the tax cut had made them better off. And over six months, the state lost $175 million in revenues, prompting then-Gov. George Ryan to beg lawmakers to reinstate the tax. (In the end, Obama was among those who voted to restore the tax.)

Clinton may not have Obama’s experience, but she can hardly claim ignorance of the problems gas taxes entail. Back in 2000, she made her opposition to gas-tax cuts a centerpiece of her Senate campaign, saying her rival’s plan for a 4.3-cent cut would be “a bad deal for New York and a potential bonanza for the oil companies,” and added that “the gas tax is one of the few exceptions where we actually get more money back than we send to Washington.”

More here.

Over at Political Climate, I've posted some notes on the Bush administration's attack on the public right to know. Read more here.