SC rules Bush has power to control gas

I promised a few days ago I would comment further on Monday's Supreme Court's 5-4 decision that the Bush administration (and any administration) has the power to regulate greenhouse gases.

As an avid environmentalist, I should be happier than I am. Why? Because this administration has nearly two years to go before we get a change in leadership, and by extension, a change in environmental policy.

This does signify a victory, but not a significant one, yet. If this administration had any sort of moral compass, this would qualify as an embarrassment. But, how can the shameless be embarrassed? I can just imagine the conversation in the White House: "Uh oh, the greenies are knocking at our door again. Someone get me Phil Cooney on the phone!"

The Bush administration argued that Congress never gave it the power to determine whether carbon dioxide was a pollutant as defined in the Clean Air Act. In the majority opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the court said administrations do have such authority.

Best of all, in unusually strong language, Stevens sided with scientists who say that U.S. car emissions do contribute to greenhouse gases, leading to global warming. In doing so, he refuted the argument of energy industry officials and Republicans who reason there is no proof of global warming.

Stevens wrote that the contribution of American cars to global warming is so significant that strong regulations "would slow the pace of global emissions, no matter what happens elsewhere in the world."

Since the US is by far the largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world, I'm inclined to agree with Stevens somewhat, but really, we could cut our emissions to zero, but if China and India aren't on board with controlling greenhouse gases, we're all going to cook anyway. This is precisely why the United States needs to show leadership on this issue, which, to date, the US has done a very poor job of doing. (Remember when the US showed leadership on anything other than starting wars? Yea, me neither.)

Following of the court's decision, the White House was predictably ambiguous.

"We questioned whether we did have the legal authority," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. [More like this administration didn't want the legal authority.] "Now the Supreme Court has settled that matter for us, and we're going to have to take a look at it and see where we go from there."

"...look at it and see where we go from there" is Bush-speak for "on the back burner until 2009," when we get a new president.

Incidentally, does anyone find it ironic that Bush campaigned in 2000 on the promise of mandatory caps on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (a campaign promise he almost immediately broke once appointed president), yet his administration ended up going before the SC to argue that it didn't have the power to regulate such emissions? The irony is thicker than LA smog on a hot August day.

One other thought on this ruling: The importance of the 2009 Presidential Election, strictly from the standpoint of the Supreme Court, cannot be overstated. If Stevens retires, the court will be hopelessly conservative for generations to come. Bush has already appointed two SC justices - if he has the opportunity to appoint a third, it would be a disaster for the environment, abortion rights, civil liberties and a host of other issues.

Here's a cheerful thought - heaven forbid we have another disputed election circa 2000. If Bush gets a third appointee, we'll simply have a Republican coronation for president every four years.

It's funny - I remember preaching this to many people in political discussions before the 2000 election, and it just didn't seem to resonate, even among Democrats. It matters now more than ever. The Supreme Court should be near the top of the list on DemocratIC voters minds for this election.

I can never hear or read a story about the Supreme Court without thinking about Stevens, the SC's senior justice. He turns 87 in a few weeks, and I sure hope he remains healthy until he's 89, when a DemocratIC president can name a liberal successor.

The Legislative Branch now has the authority to do something about global warming, while working with Congress. Now we need an administration with the political will to do it. Tick-tock, tick-tock - 653 days to go.

It's no secret I hope Gore enters the presidential race, but if he doesn't (and it's looking more and more likely he won't with each passing day), I wonder how receptive he would be to becoming Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency? Now that would be an amazing cabinet appointment.

Of course, there are other ways for Gore to serve a Democratic administration, and I hope he is given the opportunity.

In case you missed the footage from Olbermann early this past week about the SC's decision, here it is again...

Hannity's global warming lies & misrepresentations

If you've seen An Inconvenient Truth (I have, three times, so I know what's in the movie), you know that Hannity is taking loads of information and quotes out of context when you watch the above clip.

Gore was spot on in the movie - the right will come at the global warming people with accusations, insults, dies and distortions. Hannity is just the beginning. Oh, and in the clip, Hannity mentions Gore's assertion that the Bush/Cheney White House has lied and distorted about global warming. That's a fact, jackass. 60 Minutes did a report on Phil Cooney, who used to work for the American Petroleum Institute before going to work for the Bush White House. While working for this administration, as chief of staff for White House Council on Environmental Quality, Cooney edited reports on global warming, cutting out whole sections. He has no scientific background, and no education on the environment whatsoever. He's a lawyer. Not long after Cooney's editing was made public (Oh, that damn press, eh, Cheney?!?), he quit, and was hired by ExxonMobile the next fucking day. I've blogged about this extensively Here, and also in my An Inconvenient Truth movie review Here.

You read, you decide. Just don't let Sean Hannity's wind-blown political rhetoric from the Republican News Channel decide for you.

Meet the 21st century's biggest non-nuclear threat

Recently, much has come to light about global warming, and just about none of it is good news. This growing problem and concern should be on every American’s mind, now and into the foreseeable future. I know that isn’t going to happen, but I hope and pray that our next president, no matter Democrat, or heaven forbid, Republican, makes this important issue a top administration priority, because our current president’s indifference is sending this horrible message to the rest of the world: “We’ve got bigger things to worry about.” The good news in all of this is that the latest scientific data should jolt even the most hearty of global warming deniers out of their smog-induced drowsiness.

New evidence strongly suggests that much of what dozens of government agencies report about on science is edited with a heavy hand at the White House, according to Rick Pilts, NASA’s top scientist on climate change. Recently, Scott Pelley of 60 Minutes interviewed Pilts about climate change, and what he had to say was highly disturbing.

His thoughts? “The strategy of people with a political agenda to avoid this issue is to say ‘There’s so much to study way upstream here that we can’t even begin to discuss impacts and response strategies. There’s much too much uncertainty,’” said Pilts. “And, it’s not climate scientists who are saying that. It’s lawyers. It’s politicians.”

Pilts, much like the much-maligned Richard Clarke (the former anti-terrorism chief – more on him in a future post), has worked for both Republican and Democratic administrations; he worked under President Clinton as well as current President George W. Bush. Every year, he wrote a report on climate change called, “Our Changing Planet.” He was responsible for writing and editing this report, and he sent a review draft to the White House. “It comes back with a large number of edits, handwritten on the hard copy, by the chief of staff of the council on environmental quality, Phil Cooney.” When asked if Cooney is a scientist, Pilts responded, “No, he is a lawyer, he was an environmental lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute before going into the White House.”

This is unsettling, to say the least, but hardly surprising considering this administration’s environmental record. The 60 Minutes report offered up hard evidence – first Pilts’ notes, then the final copy of the report. Take a look at these examples:

One line in the Pilts draft that read, “Earth is undergoing rapid change” was rewritten as “Earth may be undergoing change” in the final report.

Further down, “uncertainty” becomes “significant remaining uncertainty.”

Another line that said, “energy production contributes to warming,” was crossed out altogether.

“He was obviously passing it through a political screen. He would put in words ‘potential’ or ‘may,’ or weaken or delete text that had to do with the likely consequences of climate change,” said Pilts.

In one section, Cooney added the line, “The uncertainties remain so great as to preclude meaningfully informed decision making.”

60 Minutes obtained the final report, and Cooney’s edits made it into the final report. Pilts, clearly seeing that there was no room at the White House for people who disagree with the administration, resigned. Sound Richard Clark-ish to you? Sure does to me.

Wow, I feel so much better about global warming knowing that our president has former lobbyists who share values with oil companies making edits on climate change reports to Congress. Clearly this administration has its collective head in the smog when it comes to global warming.

More damning evidence that the administration doesn’t acknowledge/doesn’t care about global warming: In a Web exclusive I just watched the other day, 60 Minutes' Pelley had this to say about global warming, and I’m paraphrasing here:

Dr. James Hansen heads NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which is the agency’s preeminent institute for studying the Earth and the Earth’s climate. Way back in the 1980s, Hansen was one of the first scientists to conclude that greenhouse gases were causing the Earth to warm. Since then, his research has been cutting edge in a number of ways. A few weeks ago, the Goddard Institute found that 2005 was the hottest year on record. The White House continues to say that we need more time, that there is so much we don’t understand, that we can’t conclude anything just yet. Hansen says the research and the data are in, and that there is no doubt that the Earth is warming, rapidly.

*****

When I hear and read things like that, I can’t help thinking our planet is sitting on the stove, the burner’s on high, and the water is starting to do more than simmer. So, just what is America doing about it? Our politicians stall and debate, while Earth cooks. What the hell are we waiting for? What’s even more sickening to me, and I’m sure to a significant portion of the rest of the world, is that the United States has about 5% of the Earth’s population, and we contribute anywhere (depending on where you are getting your numbers) from 25 – 33% of the Earth’s greenhouse gases. Stevie Wonder could see the disparity with those figures.

To be fair, Pelley also reports that the administration is spending billions on research on climate change, probably more than any other administration. That’s encouraging, but what this administration is not doing is acknowledging the fact that much hard, credible evidence is conclusive now, and the time to act is yesterday. In my view, what Bush is doing is simply postponing (Read: Until January 20, 2009) the necessary tough choices that will affect industry, jobs and the lifestyle that Americans are accustomed to.

Republican sycophants are quick to jump up and down and say, “But Bush recently proposed alternative fuel sources, like ethanol and hydrogen cells!” Yes, but simply putting forth these ideas, and actually offering real and tangible incentives for companies to aggressively pursue these technologies are two different things. It’s a typical Bush strategy that I’ve become all too familiar with these past 5+ years – he puts forth an idea or suggests something, then later shrugs his shoulders and says, with a straight face that Congress isn’t doing anything about it. He counts on and usually is rewarded by the public’s two-week memory span. He then later substitutes his “idea” for “doing something about the problem.”

Remember Bush’s proposal a few years ago for the U.S. to have a manned mission to Mars? It’s a lofty and admirable goal for Americans to achieve. Too bad he didn’t have one suggestion or solution to how we would pay for the $100+ billion price tag. His proposal was greeted with so much enthusiasm, he failed to mention one word about his Mars mission proposal in his State of the Union speech just days later.

Time recently ran an entire series on global warming in the April 3, 2006 issue. The report contained a number of eye-popping statistics, not the least of which is this passage:

If everyone lived like the average Chinese or Indian, you wouldn’t be reading about global warming. On a per capita basis, China and India emit far less greenhouse gas than energy-efficient Japan, environmentally scrupulous Sweden and especially the gas-guzzling U.S. (The average American is responsible for 20 times as much CO2 emission annually as the average Indian.)

It makes me shake my head in amazement that other countries don’t resent us more than they do. It’s pretty breathtaking that we aren’t taking a leadership role in the world in curbing greenhouse gases, thereby cutting down on what could be humankind’s biggest scourge since the dawn of the nuclear age.

To be fair, the Clinton Administration deserves blame here, too. Following Kyoto’s creation in 1998, Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors did a thorough analysis of the potential impact of the treaty on U.S. GDP. The conclusions were that GDP impact could be significant. I ask you, if sea levels rise 5 feet, 10 feet or more, what impact will that have not only on U.S. GDP, but all Americans and humankind?

Although Clinton deserves some blame, President Bush earns marks that are no better on global warming. In fact, his record is substantially worse. For beginners, his thoughts on Kyoto, as found on Wikipedia:

“This is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto. . . . America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change. …Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.”

So, Kyoto is seemingly dead – Clinton did not and Bush will never present Kyoto for ratification in the Senate. I’m not an expert on Kyoto, and of course an environmental treaty as far reaching as this one deserves careful consideration.

But, the U.S. should be showing much more leadership on global warming. Perhaps we could come up with our own alternative, or at least work on our own to drastically cut greenhouse gases? Bush simply throws his hands in the air, says the treaty is flawed, and then proceeds to pretty much ignore this growing threat.

Prior to the 2000 election, candidate Bush ran on a promise to make mandatory cuts in carbon dioxide (greenhouse) gases. After taking office, Bush proposed voluntary emission cutbacks by companies. This is akin to telling a drug addict, “I think you should stop, so I’m asking you to cut back on your crack cocaine use, but I’m not going to make you.” Yea, right.

The scary part about our lack of leadership on global warming is its effect on the two sleeping, but quickly awakening, economic tigers in the world – India and China. To be blunt, without even factoring in the U.S. contribution to greenhouses this century, China and India could quite literally hold the fate of the world in their hands. Ask yourself – how worried should they be about their emissions when the U.S. continues to stall and even deny that there is a real problem?

Put yourself in the positions of both India and China and consider the problem from their perspectives: The United States has been burning and belching fossil fuels into the atmosphere since the mid-to-late nineteenth century, while in the process getting rich and forming the world’s largest and most expansive economy. We’ve profited, polluted and pilfered. Fast-forward to now – it’s very obvious to just about everyone that the Earth is warming at a rapid rate, the bill for the environment is due, and we’re walking out on the check. Why should China or India have their economies stymied in the name of environmental recovery when we refuse to even adequately address the problem?

A few startling facts from Time’s report:

“Barbara Finamore, director of the National Resources Defense Council’s China Clean Energy Program, estimates that China’s total electricity demand will increase by 2,600 gigawatts by 2050, which is the equivalent of adding four 300-megawatt power plants every week for the next 45 years. India’s energy consumption rose 208% from 1980 to 2001, even faster than China’s, but nearly half the population still lacks regular access to electricity – a fact the government is working to change. ‘They’ll do what they can, but overall emissions are likely to rise much higher than they are now,’ says Johnathan Sinton, China analyst for IEA [International Energy Agency].”

Time also reports that “India’s greenhouse-gas emissions could rise 70% by 2025, and the increase in China’s emissions from 2000 to 2030 will nearly equal the increase from the entire industrialized world.” Frightened yet? You should be. This will not only affect our children, but their children, and their children, and their children. This is a planet-threatening problem, yet few people seem to take notice. But, the Indian and Chinese governments are taking notice at U.S. inaction. To wit, also from Time:

“‘Our issue is that, first and foremost, the U.S. needs to reduce its emissions,’ says Sunita Narain, director of the Center for Science and Environment in New Delhi. ‘It is unacceptable and immoral that the U.S. doesn’t take the lead on climate change.’”

It’s tough to disagree with him. Bush’s position is that developing nations should be made to curb their emissions. True, but we had no restraints when we were developing and experiencing an industrial revolution, so why should other countries? True, our industry boom was before anyone realized the drastic effects on the environment, but it’s not a stretch to see our government’s hypocrisy. We need to take the lead, and take it now. Discovering not only alternatives to fossil fuel, but also ways to reverse global warming is a much bigger undertaking than flying to the moon, curing Polio, and inventing nuclear weapons put together. In fact, it’s a much bigger undertaking than all of humankind’s inventions in history put together. No one on the plant is immune to global warming’s effects.

Frustrated at our government’s inaction? Turn your frustration into determination. Here’s a small list of things you can do to make a difference, and don’t say to yourself, “I’m just one person, what kind of difference can I possibly make?” Imagine if Jonas Salk felt that way, or Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. At the risk of sounding like a desk calendar, a 1,000-mile journey begins with one step. So, take these steps to limit your contribution to energy consumption, trash and pollution. Conserving water, waste, electricity or any natural resource has an impact on the manufacture of goods and environmental impact. Here’s a quick list of things I’m doing/trying to do as much as possible.

1. Grocery store plastic bags – reuse the ones you do get, and refuse a bag when you don’t need it. I know this sounds like a simple one, but these bags are made from petroleum, if I’m not mistaken, and think of how long they will sit in a landfill. Most grocery stores give you a few cents per bag with each shopping visit, so you can save dozens and even hundreds of bags a year simply by bringing in old ones. Ever go into a convenience store and they offer you a bag when you buy as little as a pack of gum? I experience this all the time, and I refuse a bag every time. If I absolutely need a bag, I reuse it. I read somewhere that the average person uses 250 of these bags a year. Imagine if you reused the ones you already have, while using maybe 50 new ones a year and you reuse them! It would make a big difference. Now, multiply that difference by millions of people, and hundreds of millions of bags could be saved a year.

2. Turn off those lights and lower/raise your thermostats for the season. I know, I know, easier said than done, but even a few degrees makes a difference. I’m not talking about when it’s 100 or 10 degrees outside, but in the moderate spring and fall seasons, wear a t-shirt to cool off or a sweater to warm up. Every bit helps. Also, consider energy-saving bulbs. Yes, they are a bit more expensive, but they last up to 5 times longer (some more) and use a fraction of the energy. Another energy saver: turn off your computer monitor. If you have to leave your computer up and running, use the energy saver mode, and turn off your monitor when you walk away.

3. Walk! I know, again, easier said than done, since I live in the city. But, do it whenever you can, or ride a bike. With gas skyrocketing (and we may never see, no I take that back, we will NEVER see $2 a gallon again), it makes all the sense in the world to hit the pavement when you can. It becomes surprisingly addictive once you get started. And I don’t need to talk about the benefits of walking – more exercise, savings in automobile costs, weight loss, etc.

4. When you buy your next car, pick one that is fuel-efficient. Hybrids are becoming all the rage. If I were buying a new car right now, it would be a Toyota Prius. Good looking, and amazing on gas. Better yet, take mass transit when you can. Coming to the city? Why not take the train? A word of caution about the “hybrid” label though – read the fine print. Like “organic” and other buzzwords, it’s often abused for the positive PR effect. Make sure if you are buying a hybrid, you truly are getting a hybrid with the benefit of significant fuel savings.

5. Purchase from companies who are being good corporate citizens in environmental ways – be it recycling, pollution, emissions, philanthropy, whatever. Hey, even Wal-Mart is becoming a bit greener now, and if that company can do it, just about any company can. It pays to do your homework.

6. Recycle. It’s so obvious, but it’s one of the best things you can do to prevent/reduce the manufacturing of new bottles, bags, cans, glass, paper, etc. On Earth, nothing happens in a vacuum. If more paper is recycled, in theory that reduces the number of trees felled to produce the paper… more trees means more absorption of carbon dioxide… which means a cooler Earth… etc. And once you think about it, there are sooo many things that can be recycled; mobile phones – take them to your nearest Verizon store, and they get refurbished and donated to Hopeline, an org. that gives mobile phones to victims of domestic violence; ink cartridges – take them to Staples and get $3 off of your next purchase (it doesn’t even have to be the purchase of another ink cartridge), etc. You get the idea – from computer monitors, old tires, appliances and clothing – chances are, most things have a way to be recycled or reused.

7. Get politically active and demand that global warming become an important issue in campaigns both big and small. The best way for politicians to hear your voice is with your vote. When elected leaders see that the electorate is taking the matter seriously, they will take it seriously. You can be heard not only by who you vote for, but by writing letters advocating recycling (or more of it) in your area, supporting mass transit, etc. Sitting around and complaining about it does nothing. I fell in love with a bumper sticker I saw the other day – “Quit Bitching and Start a Revolution.” Exactly right.

8. Join one or several of the many organizations dedicated to preserving and saving our environment. The list is endless. One site I found that I’m taking an interest in is Our Energy. It’s worth a look, but there are many others – Greenpeace and the Sierra Club to name a few. I just joined both – I want to put my beliefs into action. If you find more sites and/or organizations or have recommendations, please leave a comment at the end of this post and I will pass it along. And of course I will be writing more about global warming in future posts.

These are just a few of the things you can do, and it really does become addicting and gratifying once you start to find all of the little ways you can make a difference. Plus, it can be a real money saver to boot. Americans need to wake up and realize that we are having a significant impact on the environment, but if we all work together, we can help cool down global warming. Let’s lead by example and show the rest of the world how it’s done – most notably, China and India.