Environment

While Obama is fact-finding in Iraq, a congressional GOP delegation is in Alaska, highlighting the plight of the caribou pointing out that we have $1 trillion dollars worth of oil in them thar hills. From the KC Star:

"It's still a long road," said Steve Hansen, a GOP spokesman on the House Natural Resources Committee, where Rep. Don Young of Alaska has long pushed for drilling. "But right now the chances for opening ANWR for drilling are better than they have been for years."

Would more drilling in Alaska, in the end, move prices at the pump? Barely, suggest experts.

Still, geologists believe much could be sucked from the new petroleum frontier. Oil worth at least $1 trillion likely sits below the refuge. It could add 27 million gallons of gasoline and diesel to the daily U.S. supply, or an increase of 20 percent of domestic production. Over the estimated 30-year life of the oil field, drilling could deliver between 5 billion and 20 billion barrels of oil.

Michele Bachman from NR went along and took some pictures:

Ugh. The Grand Canyon, this is not.

But the unintentionally funniest line goes to Roger Kaye of the Fish and Wildlife service:

Roger Kaye helps manage ANWR for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and is the author of Last Great Wilderness. Even if caribou numbers don't decline - they actually rose around Prudhoe Bay with the construction of the Alaska Pipeline in the 1970s - the herds might become more tame and accustomed to humans.

Wait, what? We're not drilling in Alaska and diverting $1 trillion worth of oil revenue from domestic to foreign companies so that we can prevent our caribou herds from becoming more tame!?!?

America is spending $60 bucks ++ to fill up their gas tanks (and more for heating oil) I think we can deal with tame caribou.

One of our readers told a story in our comments section that really touched me, and I wanted to share it with all of you. To me, this is a completely apolitical issue, so I am removing the unrelated political context. Here is what Blue Moon had to say:

There are STILL 1,000s of former pets on the streets, waiting for their families to come home -going on 3yrs after the fact AND there are still NO homes to come home to.

That was what really stood out to me. This is one of those unseen ripples, a tragedy reduced to an afterthought by even greater tragedy. It may seem counter-intuitive, at first, to help animals, when so many people still suffer from that awful event, but it is also a matter of means. Most people can't afford to take in a displaced family, but many could help find a home for these most loyal of Americans.

Even if you can't, forward this story to someone else who might be able to.

I'm going to let Blue Moon tell you all about it.

Former Vice-President turned environmental activist Al Gore issued a challenge to politicians and policy makers yesterday. Gore wants the United States to commit to producing 100% of its electric power from renewable sources, like wind, solar, clean coal, and geothermal energy, within 10 years. Gore cited the rising cost of oil as well as the alleged impact of burning fossil fuels on global warming as reasons for his call to action. Currently, renewable sources account for about nine percent of the 3.7 billion kilowatt hours of electricity produced and consumed in the United States.

"I have never seen an opportunity for the country like the one that's emerging now. I hope to contribute to a new political environment in this country that will allow the next president to do what I think the next president is going to think is the right thing to do. But the people have to play a part."

The people's part, of course, will come in the form of providing the money for the construction of all the new infrastructure that will be needed to implement Gore's plan. Gore's group, the Alliance for Climate Protection, says that the total cost of the project could range from 1.5 to 3 trillion dollars over 30 years. Gore dismissed the potential cost as, "an expensive investment but not compared to the rising cost of continuing to invest in fossil fuels."

Curiously absent from Gore's plan is a call to increase the amount of electricity produced from nuclear power. The U.S. generates about 20 percent of its power from nuclear plants, which produce no greenhouse gases, yet Gore does not advocate for more production from this most environmentally friendly method. He also did not point out the fact that the World Meteorological Organization has said that global average temperatures have not increased, and may have actually decreased, over the last ten years. Lastly, Gore did not address the fact that fossil fuel power sources will be needed to back up alternative sources like wind and solar, which cannot be adjusted to meet peak demands and do not generate power when there is no wind or when it is dark.

The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to announce today that it will not issue new regulations for greenhouse gas em missions this year, delaying action on the issue until the next Administration takes office. Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA must regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, or provide a good reason for not regulating it. The EPA argued that it did not have the authority under the act to regulate carbon dioxide partly because the gas is a ubiquitous substance, and not simply a product of emissions from factories and power plants.

The EPA denied that it is dragging its feet on the regulations, saying that regulating is, "a long process."

"You don't just wake up one day and say, 'Here's the decision.' It's a long process with lots of thought, lots of analysis and lots of research that gets you to that decision point. We're going to be more transparent than we've been, laying it all out and saying, 'How should we do this?'"

But some inside the agency tell the Washington Post a story of a series of moves by the Administration to deliberately delay new regulations, including editing congressional testimony, changing official agency policy, and burying reports from career professionals in the agency. In effect, putting a bureaucratic lockdown on the process. "They argued that this increase in regulation should be on the next president's record," an unnamed official told the Post.

Is there anyone worse than that guy at the party who thinks he's HILARIOUS but is really just obnoxious and dumb? What if the party was the annual G8 summit and that annoying guy was President of the United States? Well then something like this might happen:

George Bush surprised world leaders with a joke about his poor record on the environment as he left the G8 summit in Japan.

The American leader, who has been condemned throughout his presidency for failing to tackle climate change, ended a private meeting with the words: "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter."

Yes that did actually happen. And it gets even better (ie. worse). The president drove home his witticism thusly:

He then punched the air while grinning widely, as the rest of those present including Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy looked on in shock.

Punched the air? What, he didn't have the presidential snare and cymbal handy?

If I ever finish this damn time machine I'm going to set it for January 20, 2009.

I just listened to President Bush renew his call to allow drilling in the country's Outer Continental Shelf and to let states help to decide where to allow drilling. Oh, and he also wants to go ahead and open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, too. And then I got angry.

The Shelf is defined as "all submerged lands lying seaward of state coastal waters (3 miles offshore) which are under U.S. jurisdiction." That includes the frigid Alaskan waters, the coral reefs of the Florida Keys, Maine's rocky coasts and other shorelines in between where, the Sierra Club points out, thousands of plant and animal species thrive. Bush's reasoning is that $4+ per gallon gas at the pump is just cause to mutilate our shorelines and decimate the surrounding environments and ecosystems with our drills. It reportedly could take up to 10 years to even get that oil out.

This same week, Congress once again failed again to pass a bill extending tax credits that would continue to fuel the growth of the solar and wind industries. The incentives are due to expire at the end of the year. Because the industries are capital intensive to get off the ground, tax credits are required to help get them up and running - and to encourage residents to lean green. Apparently our lawmakers are fighting over who is going to pay for those incentives.

The San Francisco Chronicle notes that there are currently 22 major solar power plants in the planning phase in the U.S., many of them in Southern California. But all those deals were signed based on the assumption Congress would extend the solar energy tax incentives.

Washington Post:

Sen. John McCain called yesterday for an end to the federal ban on offshore oil drilling, offering an aggressive response to high gasoline prices and immediately drawing the ire of environmental groups that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee has courted for months.

The move is aimed at easing voter anger over rising energy prices by freeing states to open vast stretches of the country's coastline to oil exploration. In a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, nearly 80 percent said soaring prices at the pump are causing them financial hardship, the highest in surveys this decade.

"We must embark on a national mission to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil," McCain told reporters yesterday. In a speech today, he plans to add that "we have untapped oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. . . . It is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions."

According to Rasmussen, this appears to be a popular move:

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey-conducted before McCain announced his intentions on the issue--finds that 67% of voters believe that drilling should be allowed off the coasts of California, Florida and other states. Only 18% disagree and 15% are undecided. Conservative and moderate voters strongly support this approach, while liberals are more evenly divided (46% of liberals favor drilling, 37% oppose).

Sixty-four percent (64%) of voters believe it is at least somewhat likely that gas prices will go down if offshore oil drilling is allowed, although 27% don't believe it. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of conservatives say offshore drilling is at least somewhat likely to drive prices down. That view is shared by 57% of moderates and 50% of liberal voters.

Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell has the audacity to hope:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell dropped by our offices in New York this week. Republicans face potential electoral disaster this fall, but he says a few issues could turn out to be lifesavers. Case in point: Gas prices, at more than $4 per gallon for the first time in history. Mr. McConnell notes that a new poll shows Americans now favor drilling for oil in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge 57% to 41%. That's up from a nearly even split before consumers were getting socked at the pump. Asks Mr. McConnell: "At what point does the hammerlock the Sierra Club has on the Democrats come off? Is it $5? Is it $6?"

The hammerlock comes off at $4 as the poll shows, but the effort is complicated by a few things. One is that there are many other issues on the table which cut against Republicans. The other big complication is that John McCain is still in "maverick" mode and has not figured out that gas prices and drilling are winning issues for the GOP.

So the key question is not what the Democrats will do, they are locked in between working class voters on one end and upper class yuppies with a penchant for green living on the other end. Who will win? The Democrats hope to never have to find out. So they blame the oil companies and hope no one asks them serious questions.

No, the real interesting question is at what point does it behoove John McCain to put together a serious plan to address energy issues that has a credible chance at lowering energy costs? $5, $6? Whatever it is, we haven't hit it yet.

Environmentalists in Ohio are putting heat on Sherrod Brown:

What's interesting about this is that the Ohio economy has taken two body blows in just the last week due primarily to high fuel prices.

First DHL decided to give up and outsource their overnight delivery to UPS, which kills about 6,000 jobs in Wilmington, a small community in a rural part of southwest Ohio. And just a few days ago, GM decided to close a truck plant in Dayton. The latter was partially offset by more small cars in Lordstown, but the problem for Sherrod remains.

And that's not even getting into the politics around coal, a major player in Ohio energy production, and discussed in this article.

In 2006, Sherrod barnstormed the state decryinig the state of Ohio's manufacturing industry and blaming all the ills on free trade and evil corporations. Well we have here two concrete examples of a problem for Ohio industry; high fuel prices, and Sherrod hasn't said boo about DHL or GM, and now he is on the verge of signing legislation that will increase energy costs for everyone? That's not what Ohio workers thought they were getting with Senator Brown.

Health and environmental groups are suing the Environmental Protection Agency for its (meaning, the Bush administration's) refusal to adopt stronger ozone standards.

The public interest law firm Earthjustice filed the intent to sue with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on behalf of the American Lung Association, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Environmental Defense Fund, National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), and Appalachian Mountain Club. The groups say the EPA standards adopted in March for ozone pollution - "smog" - are too weak and put public health and the environment at greater risk. The elderly, kids and those with respiratory ailments are particularly vulnerable, they argue.

The agency in March set a nationwide limit on the amount of ozone permitted in the atmosphere at 75 parts per billion. The EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee had said 60 and 70 parts per billion of ozone would be acceptable. Factories, utilities and other business groups wanted the level to stay at 84 parts per billion.

"EPA officials ignored the advice of their own scientists when they chose these deficient standards, but they can't ignore the law," said Earthjustice attorney David Baron. "The Clean Air Act requires EPA to adopt standards strong enough to protect our lungs and our environment. We're fighting to make sure that happens. Stronger standards could save thousands of lives, by some estimates."

"The president personally engaged in an unprecedented level of intervention and interference," NRDC's John Walke told CongressDaily, which reports that the National Association of Manufacturers and other industry groups will counter that EPA issued a standard that is too costly to businesses, and that the agency did not objectively consider the science in deciding to replace a less-stringent requirement.