Centerblue.org

In an outrageous decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that the US Navy can use sonar that has been demonstrated to seriously injure whales and other marine life, in an unrestricted fashion.

The Navy has been embroiled in a dispute with environmental groups over use of the sonar in training exercises. Lower courts had ruled that the Navy could use the sonar in its exercises so long as it employed mitigation measures such as reducing or suspending sonar emissions when sound-sensitive marine animals are nearby. The Navy was even left with a path whereby it could demonstrate to the court that these mitigation measures had in fact interfered with and impeded its ability to operate effectively.

But no, this wasn’t enough for the Bush Administration, the Navy, or the radical right wing of the Supreme Court. Nothing less than full, unrestricted use of the sonar devices would suffice, with no regard whatsoever for environmental concerns. In making the argument the Bushites resorted to the same, tired but unfortunately effective appeal to a vague national security threat that in their minds require that absolutely nothing get in the way of doing what they please. It’s the same old movie with different actors.

The Court sided with the Navy in a 5-4 decision, which offered blandishments about how the sonar might cause “minor problems”–and rejected the evidence provided by the plaintiffs that showed the exact opposite.

This is what so infuriates me about the radical Right–the pursuit of its interests in a manner that is selfish and without regard to collateral consequences for people, the environment, or future generations. It’s all about what’s important in the here and now, and in the pursuit of a narrow ideology with no room for compromise. Witness the language of Justice Roberts:

Even if plaintiffs have shown irreparable injury from the Navy’s training exercises, any such injury is outweighed by the public interest and the Navy’s interest in effective, realistic training of its sailors…For the plaintiffs, the most serious possible injury would be harm to an unknown number of the marine mammals that they study and observe. In contrast, forcing the Navy to deploy an inadequately trained antisubmarine force jeopardizes the safety of the fleet.

The Court does not, of course, address how some simple common sense mitigation measures “jeopardizes the safety of the entire fleet.” The Navy had more than ample opportunity to use the sonar exercises in places that did not affect marine mammals, and to do so even in locations frequented by the animals if they would just exercise a bit of care. Nobody was asking the Navy to stop using the technology altogether, and the Navy could of course use the sonar in unrestricted fashion in case of war.

National security is obviously an important public interest–but it is not the only one. The public interest is not served if the ocean upon which we rely so much for our food becomes a toilet and a graveyard. Marine mammals are an essential part of the ocean’s ecosystem, and disregarding them so crassly is an assault on all of our long term interests. When two important public interests collide, we should seek out the best compromise possible instead of pretending that one of those interests isn’t really important, as the Court did today.

Hopefully this is yet another senseless decision that will be reversed by the Obama administration.

I decided to evaluate Obama’s and McCain’s proposals for confronting the twin crises of energy scarcity/dependence and climate change. I developed the following grid, based on information provided by the two candidates on their respective web pages devoted to these issues (you can see Obama’s page here, and McCain’s pages here and here.)

(The government report referenced above regarding offshore resources can be found here.)

Bottom line: overall, Obama’s plan beats McCain’s hands down when it comes to aggressiveness and vision. These crises require a national resolve and commitment akin to the Manhattan Project or the Apollo program in order to relieve our oil dependence and prevent a climate catastrophe. We should be throwing everything and the kitchen sink at these problems–government funding, tax incentives, education, efficiency improvements, and every other tool in the book. Both candidates kind of pick and choose, but at the end of the day Obama’s plan shows more of a commitment to resolving these problems than McCain’s.

McCain’s emphasis on developing “clean coal” technology is particularly disappointing. Coal can never truly be clean from an emissions perspective until we develop sound ways to sequester the carbon dioxide emitting from these plants, and we are a long ways off from doing that in a cost-effective and reliable manner.

However, McCain’s plan fills some notable gaps in Obama’s–most notably in pushing for the large-scale development of nuclear power as a cleaner alternative to coal. Nuclear has its problems too, but at least it doesn’t worsen the carbon emissions problem as we ramp up production of renewable energy.

I also oppose continuing subsidies for corn-based ethanol, which Obama favors but McCain does not. We have to stop putting food into our gas tanks as quickly as possible or we will continue to exacerbate food shortages around the world. Cellulosic ethanol is just around the corner, but we need to push very hard right now to make that a viable alternative to corn.

Overall, Obama has it right on these crises–but he would do well to pick up a few elements of McCain’s plan so as to truly commit America to literally saving the world from these pernicious problems that are wrecking our planet, economy, and national security.

Seven years. That’s as long as we have left to prevent a climate calamity by stopping the growth in carbon emissions entirely, according to the conclusions derived from thousands of studies by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Doing that, along with cutting emissions 50-85% by 2050, will stabilize the climate at a 3.5 degree Fahrenheit increase, which will “merely” cause seas to swell, a reduction in water supplies from glaciers and icecaps with millions of people going thirsty, acidification of the oceans, the dying out of most coral reefs, and increases in flood and storms. Again, ladies and gentlemen, this is what we get if we meet the impossible goal of stopping emissions growth in 7 years.

What if we do not? Well then things go downhill from there, don’t they. If instead we fail to stop emissions growth until 2030, the planet’s temperature will increase by 6.3 degrees F. That would result in the widespread extinction of species, slowing global currents that would wreak havoc on climates all over the developed world, decreases in food production, 30% global loss of wetlands, flooding of millions of people, and many more deaths from heat waves.

To say that these are “extremely serious findings,” as the chairperson of the IPCC said, is an understatement. They are stunning and depressing in their immediacy, inevitability, and seeming impossibility of doing anything in our political world in time to prevent catastrophe.

Seven years is also, by the way, the amount of time the US has wasted in doing absolutely NOTHING about climate change under our current Chimp-in-Chief, who refused to join most of the rest of the world in ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. Even now, when confronted with these dire warnings and mindful that they can no longer play the part of ostriches with their heads stuck in the ground, US climate delegate Sharon Hays had the gall to defend our non-action, saying that “what’s changed since 2001 is the scientific certainty that this is happening”–with no promises that Washington would change its reliance on “voluntary” (aka non-existent) reductions given the “new evidence.”

No Sharon, we knew fully well in 2001 what was happening, which is why Kyoto came about. What hadn’t happened then was Katrina, and Atlanta going dry of water, and Al Gore, and other evidence so clear that even a monkey could understand it. In insisting on evidence as certain as cogito ergo sum, all we have done is waste seven valuable years while allowing the oil industry and other polluting interests increasingly free reign to pollute with impunity. We now have the result–our backs are against the wall with only 7 years left to avoid a worse calamity.

I’m not sure anything CAN be done in 7 more years, despite the good intentions of a few. Our world is just too fragmented politically, with too many competing interests. I also wonder whether the exponential nature of technological advancement is being accounted for in these findings–futurist Ray Kurzweil is severely critical of Al Gore for supposedly failing to account for technological advancements in areas like nanotechnology that could prevent carbon emissions or even suck already-emitted carbon out of the air.

I sure as hell hope Kurzweil is right, because that may be our last best hope. In case he is not, however, we still have a moral obligation to do everything possible to lessen the damage and destruction as much as we can. If we can’t or won’t, then I question whether we even deserve to be on this third rock from the Sun, given our disgraceful stewardship of the planet.

In an era of $100/barrel oil with no end in sight to our energy problems, and with climate change growing increasingly alarming, the League of Conservation Voters has put out a chart that shows the energy policy positions of each of the 2008 presidential candidates. I’d love to reproduce it here, but it doesn’t fit the blog’s margins–so you can see the whole chart here.

Here’s a sample from the top candidates.

Dems

Clinton: wants 80% carbon reduction by 2050, 55 miles per gallon standards by 2030, 25% energy from renewables by 2025, reduce energy consumption (increased efficiency) 20% by 2020.

Obama: wants 80% carbon reduction by 2050, 50 MPG standards by 2025, 25% energy from renewables by 2025, reduce energy consumption 50% by 2030.

Edwards: wants 80% carbon reduction by 2050, 40 MPG standards by 2016, 25% energy from renewables by 2025, reduce electricity consumption 15% by 2018.

GOP

Giuliani: no articulated position on anything except supporting liquefied coal.

Romney: cap carbon emissions only if the entire world does so, opposes fuel economy/MPG increases, generally supports efficiency but has no stated goals, has no renewable energy goal, supports liquefied coal.

McCain: lead author of bill to reduce carbon emissions 65% by 2050, wants fuel efficiency increase but no goal specified, wants 25% of energy from renewables by 2025, 50% reduction in energy use via efficiency by 2030.

What strikes me is how pathetically small-minded the GOP candidates are on this issue (with the exception of McCain, who at least “gets” it about global warming and somewhat “gets” it about the energy crisis). It’s as if the rest of the GOP candidates forgot that a lot of middle class people are stretching to the breaking point in the wake of $3.00+ gas and multi-hundred dollar winter heating bills–or maybe they just never bothered thinking about it in the first place. It’s also as if they have no idea about the freight train of fossil fuel scarcity headed our way that even our own Bush-led government has warned us about, preferring instead to continue blithely on in ignorance.

Well, the rest of us “get” the energy problem every time we go to the gas pump, and a majority of us now see the light on global warming. Whether the GOP candidates like it or not these issues will be front and center in this campaign–and they will be bludgeoned to a bloody pulp by their Democratic opponents if they don’t get their heads out of their asses and address the obvious.

Thing is, we can meet the energy goals outlined by the Democratic candidates–but we need someone at the helm willing to provide the leadership necessary to make them happen. The process will be painful, and will require an adjustment to the thinking of many Americans with feelings of entitlement to cheap energy, but it CAN be done and it MUST be done if we are to keep our nation (and indeed our civilization) moving forward.

For those of us keeping track of environmental and energy news, this week has been very depressing and makes one fear for the not-so-distant future.

Some snippets:

A new study shows that carbon dioxide has been accumulating in the atmosphere in far greater amounts than estimated by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the use of their climate change models. CO2 levels are as much as 35% higher since 2000 than estimated by the IPCC, making their climate change estimates over the coming years and decades entirely too optimistic. The reasons are primarily the inefficient use of fossil fuels, the strong growth of India and China, and the saturation of the world’s oceans with CO2 to the point that they can’t absorb any more. Result: global warming is likely to be far more severe than current predictions, as if they weren’t bleak enough.

In typical cowardly politician fashion, British Labour ministers are advising Prime Minister Gordon Brown to effectively abolish the goal stated by Tony Blair of having 20% of European energy come from renewable sources, citing the plan as too expensive and facing “severe practical difficulties.” Absolutely shameful. I wonder what they’ll think of the expense when parts of Britain go under water?

Speaking of under water, Bangkok is sinking fast. Bangkok is giving us a preview of what is to come, being one of 13 of the 20 largest cities in the world at risk of being engulfed by water as the oceans rise by 2100.

Atlanta has only 80 days of of drinking water left due to the worst drought in the Southeast on record, as its reservoir Lake Lanier runs bone dry. After that there will be little to no water left for taking showers, cooking, drinking, or anything else. Severe water restrictions are in place across the area. (Thanks to my friend Francis-Maria for the heads up.)

Fires rage out of control in Southern California. Thousands of homes have been incinerated.

Last but not least, a new study based on actual oil production rather than government-skewed estimates states that “peak oil” passed in 2006–that is, the point in time where the world will produce the most petroleum it can. From this point forward comes a decline that could reach as much as 7% a year. This suggests that extreme shortages possibly leading to “war and unrest” are in the immediate future as the world will produce only half as much oil in 2030 as it does today, starving growing economies of the energy they need. Meanwhile, crude oil has soared to around $90 a barrel as of last Friday; the markets sense something very rotten in Denmark. $4 gas? $5 gas? $10+ gas? Get prepared.

Can we act swiftly enough to tackle these simultaneous crises affecting the entire human race? I grow more pessimistic by the day.

On Monday evening I was sitting at a sidewalk cafe with a friend, enjoying the spring weather after having taken in the sights of DC’s beautiful cherry blossoms. As I sipped on a martini the conversation turned to global warming, and in particular to the use of compact fluorescent light bulbs instead of incandescent ones.

My friend bought these light bulbs and installed them. After trying them a few days he removed them and replaced them with the original bulbs. Why? Because he felt their light was simply too unnatural and ugly to bear. He felt terrible about it, but he simply had to get rid of them.

That got my mind to thinking about how much easier it is to care abstractly about global warming than it is to do something about it. And this is true for all of us, not just my friend. In my case, I know that eating meat is very destructive to the environment because of the huge amounts of carbon dioxide and methane spewed by the meat industry, but hell will freeze over before I become a vegetarian.

Why is it so difficult for us to actually DO something about global warming? Maybe because it’s just hard for human nature to accept the reality of an emergency and the need to take proactive action when it happens in slow motion. It’s like the proverbial frog in a pot, which sits there while the water is slowly heating on the stove and doesn’t try to leap until it’s entirely too late.

The evidence of the impacts of global warming are out there already, but most of us are not in a position to see them either individually or in their aggregate. We don’t see the ice melting every day. We don’t see the hungry polar bears. We don’t see the mountain frogs going extinct right now. We hardly notice that the DC cherry blossoms bloom almost a month earlier than they used to, a change so drastic that the accompanying festival had to actually be moved back earlier on the calendar a few years ago because the blossoms were already gone by the time the festival happened. But whether we see these things happening or not, they ARE happening, and the emergency is real.

Or maybe the reason we are slow to act is because we feel impotent, powerless to stop something ourselves that encompasses all of humanity…and if we can’t stop it then why should we change our behavior? Does it really matter much if *I* recycle or not, when most people don’t? Does it really hurt much if *I* use plastic bags because they are convenient, because so many other people do? It seems that if we did away with using plastic bags and installed the CFL light bulbs and did all the rest that we are inconveniencing ourselves while not seeing any measurable result from our personal sacrifices.

That’s a tough argument to counter, but we must. Inventor/architect/poet Buckminster Fuller said,

“Never forget no matter how overwhelming life’s challenges and problems seem to be, that one person can make a difference in the world. In fact, it is always because of one person that all the changes that matter in the world come about. So be that one person.”

It doesn’t matter if the person next door recycles or not–we must (and maybe we can convince them to do it too!) It doesn’t matter that the effects of our own personal contributions and sacrifices are tiny, because when it comes to this kind of thing the AGGREGATE effect of lots of people making tiny contributions is absolutely huge.

I intend to begin a series of postings over the next several weeks that will focus exclusively on what *we* as individuals can do to make a difference in this emergency. I’m basing the list loosely off Time Magazine’s recent article on 51 things we can do about global warming, though their list also discusses things that are not in the power of individuals and I will ignore those (such as building environmentally friendly buildings, irrelevant to most of us unless you’re an architect).

Let’s face it–none of us is going to be the planet’s environmental Jesus Christ, and nobody can possibly be expected to do everything on this list. Each of us has different things we can and cannot tolerate, allowing us to pick and choose among the various things we can do. I personally don’t mind certain compact fluorescent light bulbs and I have replaced most of my incandescents, but I will not give up meat. Perhaps my friend can’t tolerate fluorescents, but may be able to recycle his clothes or do something else on the list. Same goes for anyone else reading this.

As we go through this list we’ll have a better idea of the things we can do and how those things can add up to huge benefits. The only thing that remains is for you to care enough to actually do something about global warming. Are you up to the challenge?

Today the Supreme Court handed down an extremely important case on the environment, Massachusetts v. EPA. In it the Court ruled that the EPA has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide/auto emissions as a pollutant. It is forcing the EPA to reconsider its refusal to regulate carbon dioxide and to base its decisions on regulation/non-regulation on applicable law rather than arbitrarily declining to do so. The lawsuit arose as several states sued the EPA to get the federal government to do something about global warming.

The case is a stinging rebuke of Bush’s approach of doing absolutely nothing about climate change. Said Justice Stevens in writing for the majority:

“A well-documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere… EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change.”

For the first time the Court has weighed in on global warming and broadly reviewed national policy on the issue in favorable terms. That’s fantastic, although the 5-4 nature of the decision reminds one of the razor-thin balance of power on the Court; the decision could have easily gone the other way. Nevertheless, the precedent set by the decision is great news as individual states continue their battles against global warming.

I remember when plastic grocery bags first came out. The grocery industry made a huge deal in trying to convince the public about how plastic bags were “better for the environment” than paper because they took up less space in landfills compared to paper ones. Of course what they didn’t tell you is that these little beasties never degrade like paper does, they end up polluting our oceans and choking marine life, and blow incessantly around our urban streets in an unsightly manner. In fact the only thing they are better for is lining grocers’ pocketbooks because they are cheaper than paper bags.

As usual, San Francisco is taking the environmental lead by banning these plastic bags and forcing grocers to offer paper or biodegradable plastic instead. Grocers are, predictably, squawking and saying the newer degradable plastic bags aren’t really ready for showtime yet so they’ll just have to offer paper. Oh well!

It’s long past time we stop playing these little games that improve the pocketbook at the expense of the environment. All the rhetoric about how helping the environment is bad for industry and our economy (such as the hot air that was blown by some conservative Luddites like Sen. Inhofe last week when Al Gore testified before Congress about global warming) is a false hobson’s choice, because if we abuse the environment to the point of imperiling our civilization then our economy will have no legs left to stand on. No planet, no economy. Simple.

Looking for ways in which you as an individual can meaningfully help out the environment? Here’s one: next time you go to the store and are asked “paper or plastic,” you know the answer: paper. Or better yet, bring your own re-usable nylon ones!

Bush, apparently not wanting to be seen as the last and stupidest person on Earth to be convinced that global warming is real in the face of overwhelming evidence, is mounting a PR offensive. He is sending his lackeys out, claiming the administration has spent over $29 billion to fight climate change.

How cheeky, especially in light of evidence that the Bush administration has tried to suppress hundreds of scientists’ findings in support of global warming, which has done serious damage to American efforts to curb greenhouse gases. But then again, this administration has amply demonstrated its ability to live in Fantasyland.

What are YOU doing about global warming?