victory for whales

Thanks to grassroots pressure, the moratorium on whaling is fully in tact. And no thanks to Obama, who supported lifting the ban.

oil spill--blessing in disguise?

While coverage of the oil spill makes me cry, the disaster might prove beneficial after all. In its nascent stage, the spill cast energy reform as a "political impossibility," primarily because compromises expanding offshore drilling attracted otherwise-opponents to the measure. Post-spill, those compromises would be pulled, and opposition would increase.

But that assessment was nearly a month ago. Six weeks later and still no solution, the spill has become truly frightening. So frightening that, despite my heated criticism of Obama's stagnant efforts to push an energy bill in the past, looks like we are both singing different tunes. Now the President is actually willing to do something, and now I believe it.

The New York Times reports:

President Obama will call Wednesday for rolling back billions of dollars in tax breaks to oil companies, and will vow to push for climate change legislation “in the coming months,” setting the stage for another potentially divisive battle in Congress. full article

Holler.

energy reform is a political impossibility

While my immediate reaction to the oil spill was sadness, my secondary reaction was optimistic. Now Obama would be forced to back-peddle on his proposal to expand offshore drilling.

That was an incomplete assessment.

Senator Graham, chief sponsor of a Senate energy bill, called energy politically impossible for now. The bill tempered opposition by amping up offshore drilling. With drilling off the table, say buh-bye to any compromises. Additionally, Democrats are focusing on immigration, putting energy reform back where it was during the health care debate--on the back burner (well...not that it ever left the back burner).

Obviously I say "thanks, but no thanks" to offshore drilling--but I am willing to accept a diluted energy package over nothing at all. Sadly, even a limp bill is looking unrealistic.

While there is talk about making moves ("Never let a crisis go to waste. It is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before"--Rahm Emanuel), nothing will happen unless Dems get their priorities straight.

Really, the only option at this point is consumer activism. I'm all about Thomas Friedman's re-casting of capitalism as favorable to the environment. Consumer pressure can enact change faster than government action. I'll have to dig up the Lexus and The Olive Tree and blog some examples (e.g. consumer pressure forcing large tuna companies to go "dolphin free" when net restrictions were lifted).

Obama made moves last week

Obama is amping up coal mine safety reviews and widened medical rights for same-sex partners.

and looky, looky...a presidential memo urging reconnection with the earth.

eco woes: Obama continues to disappoint

If you've been following Obama Watch: The Environment on The Colonic, it should come as no surprise that my profound disappointment in Obama only grows. (Note my shock that the League of Conseravtion Voters rated him a B+...more on this in another post).

Earlier this week, Obama announced a loan guarentee of $8.3 billion for the construction of two nuclear reactors in Georgia.

In his speech, Mr. Obama portrayed the decision as part of a broad strategy
to increase employment and the generation of clean power. But he also made clear
that the move was a bid to gain Republican support for a broader energy
bill.

...Don Stewart, a spokesman for the Republican Senate leader, Mitch
McConnell, said that Mr. McConnell had repeatedly praised Mr. Obama for favoring
additional loan guarantees for nuclear power plants. But, he said, this would
not translate into support for a cap on carbon dioxide emissions.

“It won’t cause Republicans to support the national energy tax,” Mr.
Stewart said. He added that Republican and Democratic ideas on energy policy
overlapped in some areas, but that much of Mr. Obama’s energy program did not
fall into those areas. full article

In short, 3 things have happened:

a) Obama has taken a step backward in clean energy and conservation.
b) The regression will not even have the added benefit of garnering Republican support for energy reform.
c) Environmentalists are not happy.

Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth, whose political arm endorsed
Mr. Obama’s candidacy for president, said that Mr. Obama’s recent policy
emphasis amounted to “unilateral disarmament.”

“We were hopeful last year; he was saying all the right things,” Mr. Pica
said. “But now he has become a full-blown nuclear power proponent, a startling
change over the last few months.”

“I think we all had higher hopes,” said Bill Snape, senior counsel for the
Center for Biological Diversity. “We expected a lot in the first year, and
everyone agrees they didn’t quite live up to it. But there is recognition that
he and the whole administration will get another stab at it.”
Mr. Snape said
his group was particularly disappointed that the administration did not
designate the polar bear as endangered by global warming and that it could not
push a climate change bill through Congress.

“You can’t get anything right,” he said, “unless you get the polar bear
right.”

Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, one
of the administration’s most stalwart supporters up to now, also expressed
disappointment in the president’s new focus on nuclear power and his mention in
the State of the Union address of “clean coal technologies.” full article

Copenhagen gone bust

If your week was boring, he is something to ruffle your feathers. At the annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit (APEC), world leaders "announced on Sunday morning that a legally binding deal on climate change would be impossible to achieve at the U.N. summit on global warming in Copenhagen next month."

What's going on?

The reason is simple: the deadlock between developed nations and developing ones. Developing nations refuse most responsibility for climate change, arguing that warming is primarily the fault of rich industrialized countries, and want the developed world to take on strict short-term emissions reduction targets. Developed nations, led by the U.S., argue that fast-growing developing nations like China and India will emit the vast majority of future carbon emissions, and that any deal that exempts them from action — as the Kyoto Protocol did — is a farce. Despite months of negotiations in Barcelona, Bangkok and other world cities, that gap remains vast.

At the same time, the failure of the U.S. Senate to pass carbon cap legislation leaves American negotiators in a difficult position at Copenhagen. Read the full article

tell Obama to attend Copenhagen in person

Tell Obama it's game time, and he needs to attend Copenhagen in person. Sign the petition here.

Obama pushes for coal

Finally Barack Obama takes a break from health care reform and shouts a holler to energy legislation...of sorts.

On Friday, Obama spoke at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on energy and the environment, and called for “the best use of resources we have in abundance, through clean coal technology, safe nuclear power, sustainably grown biofuels and energy we harness from wind, waves and sun.” full article

Wow. Wait to start with a bang. "Clean" coal and "safe" nuclear?

Naturally, The Colonic is not surprised, seeing how Mr. Yes We Can rejected FOIA requests for Secret Service logs revealing the identities of big coal executives visiting the White House.

Can we be fair and say that Obama is pulling the strategic political strings by touting clean coal and nuclear, and tacking on renewables at the end?

Maaaayyybbbeee. But probably not. Change We Can Believe In handed the FDA over to Monsanto, attempted to suppress the democratic process of FOIA requests to hide his meetings with coal companies, and has done nothing of substance in to merit a leadership role in time for Copenhagen.

Obama, thanks for nothing

Oh, fab:

President Obama's top climate and energy official said Friday that there was virtually no chance Congress would have a climate and energy bill ready for him to sign before negotiations on a global climate treaty begin in December in Copenhagen. full article

I can't blog right now because I am too emotionally charged and will resort to obscene statements. But, when I come back, it's high time to discuss "health care reform" v the environment, and get a few things straight.

In the mean time, go register for your Power Shift Regional Summit.

Obama's betrayal: no wonder the White House has its own garden

It's no wonder that President Obama planted a vegetable garden in the White House--if I knew that I was destroying the FDA, consumer health, and sustainable agriculture, I'd plant my own garden as well.

That's right. Former Monsanto lobbyist Michael Taylor has been appointed as a senior adviser to the Food and Drug Administration Commissioner on food safety. No big deal--just a lobbyist for one the largest, most manipulative multinational biotechnology corporations that "owns" genetically engineered seeds that blow around and contaminate farms that do not even purchase Monsanto seeds to begin with. Then Monsanto drives these farms into debt with court battles over patent infringement.

Oh wait--it gets better. How can seeds be patented? In the case of J.E.M. Ag Supply v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, the Supreme Court legitimated the patenting of genetically engineered seeds. But who wrote the majority opinion? Clarence Thomas, former Monsanto attorney.

Back to Obama's betrayal, part II. Pennsylvania Agriculture Secretary Dennis Wolff is rumored to be President Obama’s choice for Under-Secretary of Agriculture for Food Safety--the same person who sought to deny consumers the right to know whether their milk had been genetically engineered with Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH). rBGH was previously owned by Monsanto.

Here's a little more on Michael Taylor:

Taylor is widely credited with ushering Monsanto’s recombinant bovine growth hormone through the FDA regulatory process and into the milk supply — unlabeled. A Government Accounting Office (GAO) investigated whether Taylor had a conflict of interest and or had engaged in ethical misconduct in the approval of rBGH...Taylor is also responsible for the FDA’s decision to treat genetically modified organisms as “substantially equivalent" to natural foods and therefore not require any safety studies. The “substantially equivalent” rule allowed the FDA to ignore evidence that genetically engineered foods, including soy, are in fact very different from natural foods and pose specific health risks. read more

Please sign the petition to let President Obama, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius know that Michael Taylor must resign, and Dennis Wolff should not be appointed.

Thomas Friedman on ACES

In his article The cap-and-trade bill is a mess; here's why Congress must approve it, Thomas Friedman expresses his utter dislike for ACES (and calls American youth to action) but insists that it must pass in the Senate. Why?

Because, for all its flaws, this bill is the first comprehensive attempt by America to mitigate climate change by putting a price on carbon emissions.

The next step is to strengthen the bill--but at least not weaken it--in the Senate. And to do so, Friedman says we need the support of three parties: Republicans, Obama, and the people. On Republicans, Friedman asks,

Does the GOP want to be the party of sex scandals and polluters or does it want to be a partner in helping America dominate the next great global industry: ET -- energy technology?

The funny part is that the GOP has an eco-friendly past. T.F. recalls Teddy and the national park system, the Nixon Administration which created the Clean Air Act and the EPA, and the Rio Treaty of 1993 signed by George Bush to protect bio-diversity.

Friedman speculates on Obama (who holds secret meetings with coal companies and blatantly attempts to hide them cough cough):

I also hope we will hear more from Barack Obama. Something feels very calculating in how he has approached this bill, as if he doesn't quite want to get his hands dirty, as if he is ready to twist arms in private, but not so much that if the bill goes down he will get tarnished.

That is no way to fight this war. Mr. Obama is going to have to mobilize the whole country to pressure the Senate -- by educating Americans, with speech after speech, about the opportunities and necessities of a serious climate/energy bill. If he is not ready to risk failure by going all out, failure will be the most likely result.

And my favorite part, We the People:

Attention all young Americans: Your climate future is being decided right now in the cloakrooms of the Capitol, where the coal lobby holds huge sway. You want to make a difference? Then get out of Facebook and into somebody's face. Get a million people on the Washington Mall calling for a price on carbon. That will get the Senate's attention. Play hardball or don't play at all.

Read the full article. It's a good one.

Obama's dirty little (energy) secrets

While the recent House passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act is a historic "first" in the battle against climate change--with Waxman, Markey, and Gore all reiterating the "first of many" mantra to climate activists--skepticism is just as appropriate, if not more, as celebration.

Eyebrows first went up when the bill called for the repeal of key provisions in the Clean Air Act, leaving no carbon regulation of coal-fired plants. One can only imagine that the effect will be similar to mischievous children who are not supervised or disciplined.

Then, earlier this morning as I was reading a blog post on the Obama Administration's lack of full disclosure and re-defining of the Freedom of Information Act, I also learned that Obama rejected the FOIA request for Secret Service logs revealing the identities of big coal executives visiting the White House. Despite the fact that as a Senator, Obama criticized Bush for his secret meetings with oil execs, Obama has pulled the same stunt to discuss "clean energy."

I get the fact that there are only 32 Democratic Senators and 157 Democratic Representatives that are from less-than-average coal-reliant states and that compromise for the sake of political viability is a shady game that must be played--but denying public and legal requests for information and holding secret meetings is a step too far, especially for a president who built his platform on transparency.

climate conference call with Reps Waxman and Markey

Earlier today, I joined climate advocates across the nation on a conference call with Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) to discuss the American Clean Energy and Security Act, otherwise known as the Waxman-Markey Bill or ACES. The call was co-sponsored by 1Sky and the Energy Action Coalition.

While Rep. Waxman rattled off some of the key provisions of the bill in his opening statement, Rep. Markey followed up with a grim report of Republican opposition--including references to green jobs as "sub-prime" jobs and "paper machete" jobs. Even more ominious, he explained the alternative plan generated by our friends across the aisle: more and more coal. Rep. Markey likened the climate-change skepticism and heavy coal initiative as "going from one pack of Camels a day to two packs of Camels a day."

However if Rep. Markey thought the only skepticism was coming from the GOP, he was mistaken. Climate advocates are wary of ACES, calling the renewable energy standards (RES) inefficient, offsets inadequate, the role of nuclear and coal questionable, and the helplessness of the EPA as unacceptable. The conversation was an hour long, but here are points that I found most critical:

• In response to credits awarded to nuclear and the acceptance of coal as an energy source, Rep. Waxman reiterated that nuclear energy is not considered renewable. However, he did stress that the main goal of this intiative is to reduce carbon emission. If industries can reduce emissions while adapting coal use to new targets, that is acceptable. The objective is to keep pressing down on total carbon emissions. While both members understand that coal is a heavy contributor to emissions, so long as reductions are met, we are ahead of the game. In short, coal can be a part of our energy future so long as reductions are met, and the coal is produced on our own turf as a measure of domestic security.

• In response to concerns that standards are not tight enough, the members explained that this bill simply provides a floor, but not a ceiling. The only exception is that, in terms of cap-and-trade, states must refrain from running their own cap-and-trade systems from 2012-2017 so that the national program can be put in place. During this time, however, states may tighten emissions standards. Under ACES, states will also receive money for research in efficiency and renewables.
  

• In response to concern that ACES does not meet the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) targets, the members explained that the projected reductions of 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 will actually be upwards of 23% in consideration of allowances aimed at preventing tropical deforestation. Rep. Markey also added that this is a first step--one that has happened far too late, thanks to the last administration--and that new bills considering current scientific findings will be introduced in years to come. These issues will be monitored as we go forward.
  

• As for uproar that 85% of allowances will be given away for free to polluters under the cap-and-trade system, staffers asserted that this is an incorrect statement. The configuration of 85% of total permits awarded for free to polluters is inaccurate, because this number also includes allowances that will be given to individual states, consumers, and in helping businesses transition. Additionally, 100% auction would pass enormous costs onto consumers in electricity bills. The current initiative is aimed to ease the transition, which will currently cost Americans less than a postage stamp a day (unlike Republican claims that this will cost families thousands of dollars).

• Vague answers include whether or not offsets, which can be purchased by companies as a means of meeting reductions, will undermine the bill through over-relying on offsets, incentives to create useless projects to produce offsets, or sub-par offsets. Staffers assured that the bill has 50 pages of detailed text to create quality offsets and agreements between countries to ensure that international offsets are as high in quality as domestic offsets.
  

• Lastly, answers provided to explain the inability of the EPA to regulate coal plants were entirely unclear to me. Staffers explained that consensus and creating a coalition on this bill is key, and that performance standards for coal are going forward. When the recording of the conference is released, I will re-examine this issue. I heard no answer the first time around.
  

I will say that I am content with giving away some free allowances for the time being, with the understanding that these allowances will have a variety of recipients (and therefore retract my harsh criticisms against Obama on this issue), not just high-polluting industries. I get that coal is going nowhere fast, that we need to wait for a renewable market to kick in and emerging technologies to drive this process forward--but I am not satisfied by stripping the EPA of its authority. I am not sure of the details, so this is something that will be revisited on The Colonic soon.

Stay tuned!

How soft will Obama go on cap-and-trade?

Needless to say, I have been less than thrilled with Obama's environmental action. But it's just getting worse.

Now, the White House is softening up on its proposed cap-and-trade system, and is opening up the possibility of giving industries some emissions permits for free.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

President Barack Obama last month backed away from pressing for 100% auction of emission credits, telling the Business Roundtable that it wasn't politically feasible. The president's science adviser said in an interview with the Washington Post Wednesday that a climate bill didn't necessarily have to start with 100% auction, but could work its way there over time. full article

Is a sub-par system better than no system? Will an 100% auction be achieved over time? I'm very skeptical. While I am upset with Obama, let's also consider his position.

Michael Barone from US News considers the percentage of electricity produced by coal in each state above the national average and concludes:

Do the math. That leaves only 32 Democratic senators from less-than-average coal-reliant states and only 157 Democratic House members from less-than-average coal-reliant states. Now I'm not saying that every member from such states will vote against cap-and-trade, but I think an awful lot would. And I don't think many Republicans are going to vote for cap-and-trade. In his press conference last night, Barack Obama seemed to accept the Senate Budget Committee's Democrats' decision to jettison the money for cap-and-trade and expressed a wistful hope that something might be done later. But even in better economic times, the numbers tend to work against any such proposal. full article

Considering the complications of this environmental mess, the legislative process, state variance in energy reliance, and Obama's eco-performance that continues to miss the mark, The Colonic will begin an Obama Watch: The Environment. (Note: I'm still traveling, this won't be up and running at my usual pace)

While pointing the finger is difficult in this situation, considering the environment and the recent gay marriage uproar sparked in California, it's clear that the only thing Obama will take a strong stance on is giving away billions of dollars to failing industries and "stimulating" the economy.

Obama puts politics over polar bears

First, let's not forget that Obama just said NO to international action to protect the ozone layer.

And now, in short:

The Obama administration said Friday that it would retain a wildlife rule issued in the last days of the Bush administration that says the government cannot invoke the Endangered Species Act to restrict emissions of greenhouse gases threatening the polar bear and its habitat. Full article from NY Times.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar claims that polar bears are better protected overall climate and energy policy, and adds:

“The single greatest threat to the polar bear is the melting of Arctic sea ice due to climate change.” But, Mr. Salazar said, the global risk from greenhouse gases, which are generated worldwide, requires comprehensive policies, not a patchwork of agency actions carried out for particular species.

But:

Some critics of the decision said it contradicted the approach the administration took when it chose to pursue restrictions on greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. That measure, which applies to national air pollution standards, is also not a perfect fit for a globally dispersed gas like carbon dioxide, they said.

Pragmatically speaking:

John Kostyack, executive director for wildlife conservation and global warming at the National Wildlife Federation, criticized the decision to retain the rule, which he said falsely asserted that there was no direct link between specific greenhouse gas emissions and the decline in the polar bear’s habitat.

But Mr. Kostyack said there was no way that the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Interior Department agency responsible for carrying out the Endangered Species Act, could handle the burden of trying to police emissions.

Just because emissions are currently not able to be regulated does not mean that the implications of a changing climate on vulnerable animal populations should be ignored. Even if this gesture could only be symbolic for the time being, America is allegedly on a route to capping and regulating emissions.

I used to feel that the reluctance was part of a larger political scheme to play games and do the right thing at the right time and make the right compromises. This excuse is wearing off. I'm feeling less and less confident sufficient environmental action will happen.

I would rather enrage opponents through fast and drastic environmental protections than enrage through wasting billions of dollars bailing out banks and failing automobile industries.

Obama declines immediate action to protect the ozone layer

Obama declined an immediate phase-out of hydrofluorocarbons (a powerful climate-warming gas) under a treaty designed to protect the ozone layer:

A number of lawmakers, foreign governments and environmental advocates had urged the administration to offer an amendment to the Montreal Protocol, the international treaty on ozone-depleting substances, calling for the rapid elimination of HFC’s. Some officials at the State Department and the Environmental Protection Agency had pushed for such a course, but the White House decided on a more moderate approach to give it negotiating room in upcoming rounds of climate and environmental talks.

...The treaty is considered a model of international comity and scientific success. Some within the administration, as well as several Democratic committee chairs on Capitol Hill, urged that the United States take the lead in calling for the elimination of HFC’s under the treaty. But White House officials blocked the move, saying they needed more time to study the issue and instructing the State Department to stall.

A White House official said that the climate and energy bill now before the House of Representatives provides for a phase-out of HFC’s. In addition, the chemical is among the six greenhouse gases that the E.P.A. is proposing to regulate under its recent finding that carbon dioxide and other substances pose a risk to human health and the environment. FULL ARTICLE

How about take your politics, your bartering strategies, your tit-for-that, and shove it. Does Obama want to hold out on this so the raging climate skeptics think that there is something to negotiate?

I'll wait and play games with health care reform. I've already had to swallow obscenely wasted tax dollars spent bailing out banks. Beating around the bush with gay marriage to appeal to a wide electorate? I'm coping (begrudgingly).

But there is only one (quickly diminishing) environment. There are no compromises.