Palin Fought Polar Bear Protections for Oil Companies

Last Friday I posted about John McCain's running mate, Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin, and her record on the environment. I knew at the time that she opposed protecting polar bears and I eventually learned she believes global warming is a myth. Now we're getting a clearer picture of just how far she is willing to go to protect oil companies and stop protections for threatened species. 

ABC News is reporting that Gov. Palin sued the Bush Administration this year to stop the listing of polar bears as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. She believed the government was too accepting of climate change science and its impact on the bears. She also feared that increasing protection for polar bears would negatively affect the oil and gas industries in Alaska.

The exact language from the Palin Administration lawsuit against the federal government stated..."Listing the polar bear as a threatened species [under the Endangered Species Act] will have a significant adverse impact on Alaska because. . . [it] will deter activities such as commercial fisheries, oil and gas exploration and development, transportation, and tourism"

The decision by the government to protect polar bears was largely based on the findings of the U.S. Geological Survey. In the Alaska lawsuit, these studies were questioned, despite the fact that Alaska's own state scientists stated that the Geological Survey's research was reliable. 

The science provided by the U.S. Geological Survey, an independent government agency, may not have been sufficient enough for Gov. Palin, but research paid for by Exxon-Mobile was. According to the ABC News article, Palin supported the conclusions of research funded by the American Petroleum Industry and Exxon, which of course did not advocate protecting polar bears from the effects of global warming. 

To read the full ABC News piece, click HERE. 

Obama's VP, Joe Biden, On the Environment

Last night Senator Joe Biden of Delaware was officially nominated to serve as Vice President to Barack Obama. Biden gave a great speech, preceded by a passionate introduction by his son, Beau Biden. Joe Biden is a well liked Senator known for his straight talk and foreign affairs experience. What do we know about his support for environmental issues?

• Biden has an 83% lifetime score from the League of Conservation Voters.
  
• Supports capping carbon emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
• Supports requiring 20% of America's energy coming from renewable energy sources.
  
• Supports a federal government vehicle fleet with fuel efficiency requirements of 40 miles per gallon.
  
• Supports using federal construction projects to spur investment in the green building industry.
• Supports research and investment into clean coal and carbon sequestration technologies for export to other nations. China builds a new coal power plant every week.
• Does not support lifting the ban on offshore oil drilling.
• Co-sponsored a Senate resolution calling on the U.S. to participate in U.N. climate negotiations.
  
• Co-sponsored the Boxer-Sanders Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act which establishes a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse-gas emissions.
  

To see Grist.org's full scorecard on Biden, click HERE

Court Rejects Bush Admin's Pollution Rule

Since President Bush took office, he has worked to move environmental decision making away from the states to the federal government. Back in 2007, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson summed up the Bush Administration's philosophy perfectly when he said, "A national solution is better than a confusing patchwork of state rule."

For the sake of consistency, this might sound like a smart approach to environmental regulation, but what happens when the federal government fails to adequately monitor and enforce pollution rules? Without some state authority, no one can plug the holes in the federal government's weak efforts.

Congress emphasized the need for a state-federal partnership in environmental monitoring and regulation when it amended the Clean Air Act in 1990. The amendment granted permitting authority to state and local governments with federal supervision over the process. This change brought efficiency and transparency to a process that had become bogged-down in federal bureaucracy.

In 2006, the EPA approved a rule that prohibited states from supplementing federal pollution monitoring. In other words, the Bush Administration didn't want the holes in their poor monitoring program to be plugged.

Earthjustice, the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council filed a lawsuit claiming that the EPA's new rule would result in a failure to satisfy the monitoring requirements set out in the Clean Air Act. The groups believed that by taking states out of the process, federal monitoring would be inadequate.

Yesterday, a panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia agreed with the environmental groups and struck down the EPA's monitoring rule. Judge Thomas Griffith wrote the decision in the case and stated that the Clean Air Act, "is a complex statute with a clear objective: it enlists EPA and state and local environmental authorities in a common effort to create a permit program for most stationary sources of air pollution."

The basic message the court sent to the EPA is that if they are going to run insufficient monitoring programs, they cannot prohibit other permitting authorities (i.e. state and local governments) from attempting to supplement those monitoring programs.

To read the full Washington Post article on the decision, click HERE.

Bush Looking to Weaken Endangered Species Act

Its not unusual for an outgoing President to take a few parting policy shots as they walk out the door. Apparently President Bush is getting a head start.

For years, ultra conservative Republicans have tried to undermine the Endangered Species Act (ESA). These Republicans have such an expansive view of the free market that they believe only species able to compete with human development should survive. Their best chance at weakening the ESA is by greatly reducing the scientific review process that evaluates the impact of a proposed development on an endangered or threatened species, like the blue whale, and its habitat.

For years, mainstream Republicans and Democrats have successfully blocked many attempts by ultra conservative Republicans to change the scientific review process. Unfortunately, anti-ESA forces have found a friend in the White House and a way to completely avoid Congressional authority.

Newly drafted regulations proposed within the Executive Branch would make two significant changes to the ESA and would not require Congressional authorization.

The first change would remove the current independent review process that has been completed by objective government scientists for 35 years. Under existing law, a project built, funded or authorized by a federal agency must be submitted to either the Fish & Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service where scientists independently evaluate the project for any impacts on endangered or threatened species. If the proposed changes to the ESA take place, there will no longer be this independent review and the agency overseeing the project will make its own determination of risk to species. Even if that agency has no scientific expertise or experience with endangered species, they can decide if a project is acceptable.

The second change to the ESA being proposed is a complete ban on considering a proposed project's contributions to global climate change. Many agencies have sought out the authority to consider greenhouse gas emissions and their impact on the climate or species when reviewing a project. Ultra conservative Republicans and President Bush want to make sure this type of consideration is illegal under the ESA.

If the proposed changes are approved, they would be the most significant changes to the Endangered Species Act since 1988. Already, President Bush has been criticized for using bureaucratic obstacles and red tape to make it harder to list a species as endangered or threatened. His new proposed regulations would essentially end the power of the ESA. A federal government handbook from 1998 described the independent scientific consultations as "some of the most valuable and powerful tools to conserve listed species."

Once the proposed changes are officially filed, a 60-day comment period would be initiated and supporters or opponents of the changes could voice their opinions. After that, the regulation would be approved prior to the November election. A new President would have the authority to reverse or freeze the changes, but that could take months. Congress could pass legislation blocking the changes, but that would take even longer.

To read more about the proposed changes, click HERE.

$96.2 Billion: Cost to Clean Existing Nuke Waste

The United States Department of Energy recently conducted a study that found the cost of cleaning up existing supplies of nuclear energy waste will cost $96.2 billion. The current plan to clean-up our nuclear waste is to dump it in Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. In their study, the Department of Energy assumed no new nuclear power plants will be built in the U.S. and that the Yucca Mountain plan will move forward.

There are two flaws in the Energy Department's study. First, President Bush and John McCain are pushing for the development of more nuclear power plants. In fact, McCain's energy plan proposes construction of 45 new nuclear power reactors by 2030. Second, the Yucca Mountain plan has been long delayed and very controversial. Barack Obama would like to examine alternatives to dumping in Yucca Mountain and is only open to very moderate expansion of nuclear reactors, if necessary.

Back in 2001, the Energy Department conducted a similar study and it found that the cost of cleaning up our nuclear waste by dumping it in Yucca Mountain would be $57.5 billion. As a result of this more recent study, they've had to revise their estimates up by $38.7 billion. The agency says $16 billion of that increase is due to inflation. The rest of the increase is due to additional, unforeseen nuclear waste that has resulted from allowing current reactors to operate longer than expected.

Oil Pay for Protesting House Members

Republican Members of the U.S. House of Representatives are currently involved in a standoff with the House Democratic Leadership over offshore oil drilling. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has ordered the House begin its August recess without considering a proposal to lift the ban on offshore oil drilling. In protest, Republican representatives have stayed in Washington and continue to hold their own debate on the issue while everyone else returns to their Districts.

If you are wondering what it costs to keep a politician in Washington to participate in a highly publicized PR stunt, here is a chart of the oil campaign contributions received by each of the representatives involved in the protest. The chart was put together by John Nelson using Open Secrets.

Republican House Member	2006	2008
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland	$0	$0
Rep. John Boehner	$65,000	$0
Rep. Adam Putnam	$0	$20,000
Rep. Roy Blunt	$87,300	$98,900
Rep. Louie Gohmert	$76,700	$29,850
Rep. Tom Price	$0	$0
Rep. Mike Pence	$30,000	$0
Rep. John Shadegg	$21,775	$22,000
Rep. Ted Poe	$43,450	$24,200
Rep. John Campbell	$0	$0
Rep. Duncan Hunter	$0	$0
Rep. John Shimkus	$27,850	$31,750
Rep. Bill Sali	$10,500	$32,500
Rep. Charlie Dent	$0	$0
Rep. John Carter	$29,350	$18,550
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter	$0	$0
Rep. Shelley Moore Capito	$66,700	$47,250
Rep. Michael Burgess	$32,446	$53,700
Rep. Tim Walberg	$0	$13,050
Rep. Jeff Fortenberry	$0	$0
Rep. Virginia Foxx	$16,750	$7,500
Rep. Eric Cantor	$0	$44,600
Rep. Steve King	$0	$12,500
Rep. Pete Hoekstra	$0	$0
Rep. Mike Conaway	$94,500	$113,500
Rep. Dan Lungren	$15,000	$11,000
Rep. Don Manzullo	$0	$0
Rep. Adrian Smith	$0	$0
Rep. Devin Nunes	$24,000	$29,000
Rep. Michael Turner	$0	$0
Rep. Paul Broun	Didn't Run	$13,250
Rep. Greg Walden	$27,200	$0
Rep. Tom Cole	$86,096	$51,100
Rep. Kevin Brady	$43,500	$38,500
Rep. Wally Herger	$9,000	$0
Rep. Kevin McCarthy	$38,550	$16,000
Rep. John Boozman	$0	$4,300
Rep. Jon Porter	$50,562	$39,800
Rep. Henry Brown	$11,000	$15,550
Rep. Mary Fallin	$169,950	$79,950
Rep. Mike Rogers (MI)	$31,700	$23,950
Rep. Rob Bishop	$8,500	$5,100
Rep. Brian Bilbray	$20,300	$8,550
Rep. Todd Platts	$5,000	$4,000
Rep. Joe Wilson	$0	$0
Rep. Chip Pickering	$43,659	$43,300
Rep. Gus Bilirakis	$0	$17,100
Rep. John Culberson	$53,700	$18,657
Total Oil and Gas Contributions	$1,240,038	$988,957

Senate Committee Asks EPA Head to Resign

From the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works press release...

Washington, D.C. - Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and committee members Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) called for the resignation of Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen L. Johnson today, charging that Johnson had given misleading testimony before Congress; refused to cooperate with Congressional oversight; and based agency decisionmaking on political considerations rather than scientific evidence or the rule of law. The case against Johnson is outlined in a Sense of the Senate resolution Boxer and Whitehouse will introduce today.

To read the full press release click HERE

I have covered Administrator Johnson's political influence over the EPA extensively over the past few months. For a full summary of the problems arising at the EPA recently, click HERE.

Tim Kaine: Obama's Potential VP on the Environment

Its been widely reported over the past day that Barack Obama has placed Virginia governor Tim Kaine at the top of his short list of possible running mates. Usually this means that the Presidential candidate is trying to gauge the possible public reaction before making a final decision. That means its important to learn a lot about Kaine now and express support or opposition to his nomination before its too late.

I scanned Kaine's biography and found that he and Obama have a lot in common. Both of them have 1) worked to improve housing opportunities for low-income families, 2) have a mother from El Dorado, Kansas, 3) graduated from Harvard Law and 4) appeal to both Republicans and Democrats.

Unfortunately, both Kaine and Obama also share a belief that coal is still a viable source of energy. Obama had made several comments in the past about the benefits of "clean coal" and had even advertised his support for coal during the West Virginia primaries. Kaine has approved a coal power plant in Virginia as Governor. While other states like Florida and Kansas have completely blocked construction of any new coal power plants, Kaine approved the new Virginia plant relatively quickly. Some suspect his support for the plant was due to the hundreds of thousands in campaign contributions he received from Dominion Energy during his run for Governor.

There are many reasons why coal should be an energy source of last resort. Obtaining coal requires explosively removing the tops of mountains to expose the coal inside. The result is permanently destroyed habitat and dangerous materials dropping into the water and land of surrounding communities. Coal contributes greatly to global warming and releases toxic chemicals like mercury into the air. Fortunately, the agency responsible for approving the new coal plant in Virginia required a 75% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions before the permit was issued. This will help alleviate some of the consequences of the plant, but does not solve the other problems.

Tim Kaine redeems himself slightly on environmental issues through his support for expanded land protection in Virginia. In 2006, Kaine rolled out a plan to conserve 400,000 acres of land. This is significant because compared to other states, Virginia's per capita expenditures on land conservation are very low. The overall proportion of total land under protection is, however, relatively high.

Kaine has also been active in protecting Virginia's water ways. In 2006, Kaine stepped-in to block proposed offshore drilling. Unfortunately, he now supports oil exploration off the coast but will not endorse drilling until the results of the exploration are released. He has supported the funding of the Chesapeake Bay recovery. Kaine worked with the Virginia legislature to secure $250 million in bonds for the Bay's clean-up. He has urged water conservation and is looking for ways to increase knowledge of Virginia's oceans and the Chesapeake Bay through eco-tourism outreach.

Tim Kaine has had a rocky relationship with environmentalists since he approved the new Dominion Energy coal power plant. He has tried to repair that relationship since by supporting progressive conservation measures like energy efficient building standards for state buildings and expanded alternative energy usage.

You can read some of Tim Kaine's remarks from an environmental symposium back in 2006 by clicking HERE. Unfortunately there is not a section of the Governor's website that directly addresses environmental issues.

Toxic Toys Banned

For years, consumer advocacy groups have been complaining about the high volume of toxic chemicals in toys. There have been several studies published that link these toxins to reproductive development problems in children who simply play with the toys and put them in their mouths. Finally, Congress is stepping in to regulate the use of these toxic chemicals in toys.

Yesterday, a group of Congressional negotiators came to an agreement over how and when toxic chemicals would no longer be used in toy manufacturing. Congress wasn't necessarily the leader in blocking the toxic chemicals, called phthalates. The state of California, Toys 'R Us, Babies 'R Us and Wal-Mart have already refused to sell products made of the toxic chemicals. But the Congressional action is an important step to making sure all retail outlets will be selling products that are safer for children and pregnant mothers.

President Bush does not support the toxic chemical ban. He has yet to decide if he is going to veto any legislation that includes it. His position more closely mirrors that of the House of Representatives where passage of the ban was not certain. The Senate seemed more willing to move forward on the ban. Exxon-Mobile has spend $22 million trying to prevent this ban, they manufacture many of the chemicals that would be prohibited.

These phthalates are common in more than just toys. They are present in shampoo, perfumes and lotions as well. A Food and Drug Administration study on the presence of phthalates in people showed that all 1,000 of the study's subjects contained some level of phthalates in their systems. The Congressional ban will affect three toxic chemicals in toys.

The chemical industry has tried making the same argument big tobacco had tried making for years. They submit the results of their own studies as fact, while undermining the credibility of independently conducted studies that don't include results they approve. In fact, Keith Hennessey, director of Bush's Economic Policy Council, argued to the Senate that banning these chemicals could actually hurt children because, "Banning a product before a conclusive, scientific determination is reached is short-sighted and may result in the introduction of unregulated substitute chemicals that harm children's health."

Of course the true path forward that Mr. Hennessey ignores is to acknowledge the studies that show these chemicals have a negative impact on children's health and tightening our testing process to stop future toxic chemicals from reaching our kids.

Read the full Washington Post story on the ban HERE.

After McCain Flip-Flop, Oil Money Floods Campaign

I recently received a comment on my "Obama vs. McCain on the Environment" post that corrected one of my facts. In the post, dated February 13th, I said that John McCain did not support further drilling for oil in the United States, specifically in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Of course since that time, McCain has flipped on the issue of domestic oil drilling, even in ANWR.

As I thought about correcting my old post, I wondered what McCain had to gain in completely changing his mind on such a controversial issue. Apparently, he had lots of campaign contributions to gain.

The Washington Post is reporting today that during the last half of June, campaign contributions to McCain from oil executives rose from $208,000 in May to $1.1 million in June. The majority of that money rolled in when McCain began supporting additional domestic oil production on June 16.

Immediately after giving his speech on the 16th supporting additional oil production, McCain met with oil company executives and attended a fund raiser at the San Antonio Country Club. That event yielded $1.3 million in campaign contributions to McCain.

The Washington Post interviewed David Donnelly, the national campaign director of the Public Campaign Action Fund, a nonpartisan campaign finance reform group that conducted an analysis of McCain's oil industry contributions. In his interview, Donnelly said, "This is a case study of how a candidate can change a policy position in the interest of raising money."

To read the full Post article, go HERE.

Oil Spill in New Orleans

While President Bush and Senator McCain continue pressuring Congress and the country to feed our oil addiction by supporting their ten year plan to drill for oil in the risky Gulf of Mexico and the sensitive Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the reality of oil drilling hits home once again.

No one will forget the terrible oil spills that occurred on two coasts at the same time back in November of 2007. California was spending millions of dollars cleaning oil off of the feather of birds and out of the ocean water after a shipped leaked 58,000 gallons of fuel. Their fishing industry was hit hard by the spill. At the same time, the Black Sea was truly black when an injured Chinese tanker dumped oil into its waters.

Now Mississippi and Louisiana are suffering from an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that has shut down the Mississippi River and seriously damaged valuable wetlands. About 419,000 gallons of oil were dumped into the Gulf waters right at the mouth of the Mississippi River when a barge and a tanker collided on Wednesday. The result of the oil spill was the halting of supertankers, grain barges and other ships that use the River to deliver goods farther north. Currently, over 800 workers are using containment booms, skimmers and other equipment to try to scrub the oil out of the sea water.

The Decider Won't Decide on Emissions Regulations

Fifteen months ago, the Supreme Court ordered the EPA and the President to study the effect of carbon emissions on the publics' health and welfare. The Court's order came after the Administration dragged its feet on global climate change for 7 years.

It took the EPA a full year to begin the study ordered by the Supreme Court. They didn't begin the study because they wanted to, they did it because 18 states, 2 cities and 11 environmental organizations filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court to force the EPA to follow the Court's order. (Read my post on the lawsuit HERE).

Once the EPA finally completed the carbon emissions study, they emailed their findings to the White House who refused to open the email for several weeks (Read my post on the email HERE). Once they finally opened the email, they attempted to edit the results contained in the EPA's report (Read my post on the edits HERE).

Now, after years of drama over simply acknowledging the threat of global climate change, the Bush Administration has simply said it won't change its position on carbon emissions "this year." Reading between the lines, this means that the President will leave all work on global warming to whoever takes over his position in January of 2009.

Today, the EPA will announce many more months of public comment on the impact of carbon emissions on the nation's health and welfare, even though they completed the study on this exact issue several weeks ago. Many in Congress view this new public comment period as simply another delay tactic.

If the EPA's study were to be endorsed by the White House, then the federal government's official position on carbon emissions would be that they negatively impact public health and welfare. That position would trigger the Clean Air Act's regulatory provisions and polluting industries nation-wide would have to abide by stricter regulations. The special interests associate with these industries don't want that to happen.

Unfortunately, the Administration is siding with these special interests in spite of clear data which indicates regulating carbon emissions would actually have a positive impact on the economy. Here are some quotes from today's Washington Post story on the issue...

Career EPA officials argued that the global benefits of reducing carbon are worth at least $40 per ton, but Bush appointees changed the final document to say the figure is just an example, not an official estimate. They prohibited the agency from submitting a 21-page document titled "Technical Support Document on Benefits of Reducing GHG Emissions" as part of today's announcement.

"The administration didn't want to show a high-dollar value for reducing carbon," said one EPA official, adding that the administration cut dozens of pages from a draft that outlined cost-effective ways to reduce greenhouse gases."

If you would like to read the full story from the Washington Post on Bush's decision not to change his position on global climate change during his administration, click HERE.

Billionaire Oil Barron Has Renewable Energy Plan

If you are fed-up with waiting for the government to solve our current energy crisis, maybe you should read the Pickens Plan for America's energy challenges. Billionaire T. Boone Pickens made his fortune on oil and now he is betting that fortune on a future of renewable energy projects and natural gas.

Today the entrepreneur and philanthropist unveiled his plan to reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil by more than one-third and shift our energy sources to renewables and natural gas. He decided to confront the issue of oil reliance when he saw the destructive toll gas prices were having on our economy.

Currently, Pickens' efforts are directed at developing more wind energy. He says he cannot believe America is not better utilizing wind energy. "Wind power is ... clean, it's renewable. It's everything you want. And it's a stable supply of energy," Pickens told CNN in May. He will spend $2 billion on a new wind energy farm in Pampa, Texas as part of a multi-billion dollar plan to build the largest wind farm in the world there.

Wind energy farms along the nation's "wind corridor" (the area stretching from Canada to West Texas) could produce 20% of America's electricity. More importantly, the energy produced by wind could fuel power plants that are currently burning natural gas for fuel. Freeing up the natural gas will allow it to be used by consumers in vehicles.

It is very simple and cheap to outfit vehicles so they can run natural gas. A $100 mechanism is added to the car, which allows it to burn both regular and natural gas. Because the United States currently accesses natural gas from the ground and has large deposits of natural gas available, Pickens sees us saving $230 billion a year by following his plan.

Pickens is a lifelong Republican but he is not endorsing a Presidential candidate this year. He says he will work with whoever is elected. If you'd like to read his plan and get more information about the proposal, visit his website HERE.