Barbara Boxer, head of the key U.S. Senate global warming committee, just announced the principles for new climate legislation, expected to be reported out of her committee no later than the end of the year, and possibly as early as a matter of weeks. The lead principle is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: "To levels guided by science to avoid dangerous climate change.”

How familiar.

Government officials, high-profile environmentalists and journalists repeatedly refer to dangerous climate change as a future condition that we can avoid, rather than a current--and steadily worsening-- fact of life on this planet.

Sen. Boxer, clearly well-intentioned, has obviously not taken -- let’s call it "Climate Math 101" -- a course that can be completed in under 60 seconds, as the curriculum is only four basic facts:

1. The global average temperature has risen approximately 0.8C since pre-industrial times, due to human activities.

2. Because of thermal lag in the global climate system, there is another 0.6C rise in temperature on its way even if all fossil fuel burning ceased immediately. That would bring us to 1.4C.

3. In addition, due to the steadily diminishing reflectivity of the earth’s surface from retreating snow and ice cover, known as the albedo flip, another 0.3C temperature rise can be expected. So even if all fossil fuel burning ceased immediately world-wide, we are on course, from emissions already in the atmosphere, to a temperature rise of 1.7C.

4. A 1.7C temperature rise (and probably even less than that) would in all likelihood trigger catastrophic and irreversible melting of the major ice sheets according to leading climate scientist Dr. James Hansen. Virtually every coastal city on earth would flood, clearly a dangerous condition.

(It’s a dangerous, but not hopeless, situation. We need to phase out fossil fuels burning as fast as possible and then draw enough CO2 out of the air to prevent the temperature from reaching 1.7C)

We couldn't have penned the title of the Interior Department's February 4^th News Release any better ourselves – "Secretary Salazar Restores Balance to Controversial Last-Minute Oil and Gas Lease Sale near Utah National Park."

Salazar announced plans to force the BLM to repeal mining and gas leases released by the Bush Administration that are near Canyonlands National Park, Arches National Park, Dinosaur National Monument and Nine Mile Canyon.

Salazar said, "I have directed Bureau of Land Management not to accept the bids on 77 parcels from the December 19 lease sale and which are in close proximity to these national parks, monuments, and sensitive landscapes." The parcels, totaling 103,000 acres were part of the December 19, 2008 lease sale on lands covered by the BLM’s Moab, Vernal, and Price land use plans. These 77 parcels were the subject of a January 17, 2009 injunction issued by the U.S. District Court.

Salazar added that "We need to responsibly develop our oil and gas supplies to help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but we must do so in a thoughtful and balanced way that allows us to protect our signature landscapes and cultural resources ... for future generations."

In an interesting twist, a University of Utah economics student bid almost $2.5 of the $6 million dollars generated by these 77 parcels as a protest, never intending to pay for his leases. No major oil companies purchased any of the leases and the Interior Department will refund those companies that did.

If news like this keeps coming from Interior, we're gonna start to wonder just what’s going on over there. "Restoring balance," developing oil and gas "responsibly" and "thoughtfully," sounds like the environment and future generations might be taking precedence over oil company profits and short term gain. Imagine that.

Maybe it's just because we live in Montana, maybe it's because we recognize just how dirty coal is, but we were pretty excited that an electric cooperative in Montana has dropped plans to build a coal fired power plant. Southern Montana Electric Generation and Transmission (SME) will scrap coal in favor of natural gas and wind for its Highwood Generating Station. The new plans call for a shift from 250 megawatts to 126 megawatts, 120 from natural gas and 6 from wind, reported The Great Falls Tribune.

In a similar move last week, the U.S. Air Force decided to scrap plans to build a coal-to-liquids plant at Malmstrom Air Force Base, also in Montana.

While the loss of these projects may disappoint a few in the local community, the moves represent a great opportunity for Montana and the country. The Obama Administration has pledged to cut U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by 80 percent by 2050, and SME's decision represents the new reality.

Southern Montana Electric's CEO, Tim Gregori, cited regulatory uncertainty as a primary driver for the shift in fuel; although, he was quick to point out that repeated appeals from environmental groups made obtaining financing for the coal plant virtually impossible. The state's regulatory climate allowed for opponents of the plant to repeatedly appeal the project, Gregori noted. Whatever the cause, this move sends a clear message about the future of coal in America.

While natural gas isn’t wind or solar, we can't expect America to switch to alternative energies overnight. Environmental groups can be proud that they helped prevent the equivalent of 20 million cars from hitting the road and if they concede a few points, good, green jobs can still be created in an area that badly needs them. Still, we can't help but wonder, hope even, if the image of 20 tons of toxic coal slurry burying Great Falls like it buried Kingston, Tennessee might have played a bigger role in SME’s decision than they’d like to admit.

The stimulus bill passed by Congress last Wednesday contains over $2 billion for the country’s National Parks. The National Parks Conservation Association was thrilled with the news. As well they should be. The Parks have a $9 billion dollar backlog of deferred maintenance. No doubt they have a number of "shovel ready" jobs.

Apparently, however, the fact that the top lobbyist for the NPCA, Craig Obey, is the son of House Appropriations Chairman David Obey raised the eyebrows of some Republican lawmakers. Representative Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the top Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has called for an investigation into the funds. While we're confident that the firewall provision prohibiting lobbying by family members was effective in this case, it’s nice to see lawmakers ensuring there’s no nepotism in Washington.

The $2 billion would nearly double the National Park’s annual budget and was reportedly included at the bequest of Norm Dicks (D-Wa.). The amount differs vastly from the $880 million allocated in the Senate Appropriation Committee’s stimulus bill.

As parks struggle with increasing visitor numbers, encroaching urbanization, climate change, invasive species and crumbling infrastructure, officials could doubtless use as much money as they can get. While a $2 billion shot won’t solve all of the parks’ woes, and there’ll probably be instances of waste, there is no doubt in our minds that these iconic lands will benefit from whatever stimulus they receive.

Source: Washington Times

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has promised to examine reversing many of the midnight rule changes made by the outgoing Bush Administration. On Tuesday, Salazar said "We barely have moved in, but we already know enough to know that there are many issues we need to revisit."

Salazar listed oil and shale development in the west, changes in the processes to allow for more oil exploration along coastal America, and efforts to water down the Endangered Species Act as just some of the policies he would examine. He also noted that he would reconsider excluding global warming in listing criteria for threatened species such as the polar bear.

Salazar specifically mentioned the move to eliminate scientific consultation requirements for government actions that may impact threatened species. Echoing Obama’s inaugural address, Salazar vowed to place science back in the driver’s seat. "At the end of the day, it should be the scientific foundation that drives the decisions."

In the last couple of weeks, Salazar has pledged to clean up the Interior Department. In a press release issued last week, Salazar said, "My first priority at Interior is to lead the Department with openness in decision-making, high ethical standards and respect for scientific integrity…" In his opening statement before the Senate Confirmation Committee, Salazar said, "I want to clean up the mess."

We can’t help but wonder to which mess Salazar is referring. The Minerals Management Service, located within Interior, has been rocked by allegations of sexual misconduct, drug abuse, and favor trading with energy companies. Interior staffers have long been subjected to constant political meddling that prevented scientific findings from inclusion in Endangered Species Act rulings. Julie MacDonald, a high level Fish Wildlife and Parks official, meddled so frequently, staffers came to describe the occurrence as "getting MacDonalded."

Let’s hope that Salazar’s ethics memo, issued Tuesday, finds its way not only to the MMS, but to all of the agency's employees and political appointees. We don’t want to read a report in the next year detailing how someone in Interior "got Salazared."

President Obama's inauguration marked another historic moment: the first "Green" inaugural ball. And not just one, but two, a fact that caused some not-insignificant confusion for partygoers.

The invitation-only 2009 Green Inaugural Ball, at the Donald W. Reynolds Center for American Art and Portraiture, sold out online in 15 minutes about 3 weeks before. The $250-ticket event was billed to "celebrate the strength and diversity of the network of organizations, corporations, and individuals committed to creating the new energy economy that will repower, rebuild, refuel and restore America." Standing in line to get in, we discovered that the invite list included national security defense contractors. Whatever.

As we entered the open-air courtyard of the center, John Legend was playing "Save Room for My Love." Later, we met a gentleman from Native Energy (who first spoke to us in Lakota), which had provided the carbon offsets for the event, as it did it for the Democratic National Convention. The organic, locally sourced food was pretty good, if a bit salty. We can attest that the event appeared to use the LED lighting it advertised, as well as minimal signage. We cannot, however, vouch for whether its waste was, in fact, recycled, reused and composted. But Al was there, along with the heads of the National Wildlife Federation, the Solar Energy Industries Association and the American Wind Energy Association, who all had their say. Not to be outdone by the star power at all of the week’s events, revelers also enjoyed will.i.am, Maroon 5 and Melissa Etheridge.

But a number of inaugural celebrants who did not know the Al event had sold out often found themselves with tickets to The GREEN Inaugural Ball: Maximum Celebration, Minimal Impact. This event, held two days prior, was presented by Event Emissary, which bills itself as the first green event planning company, Environment America and One Degree Less. Tickets cost twice as much, with 5 percent going to one of the event’s 15 partners. It featured hip-hop music from Wyclef Jean and the presentation of the Campaign for Change Couture Collection that featured a 1950s vintage mens coat adorned with countless 1.5-inch-long strips of Obama campaign door hangers. Environmental artist and educator Nancy Judd, of Albuquerque, New Mexico, said the suit took 200 hours to make.

Ever wonder how quickly we could phase out coal use? Just take a peak over the border to Ontario, by far the most industrialized and populous Canadian province. They are on track to a complete cessation of coal burning for electricity by 2014, according to a recent report issued by the Ontario Independent Electricity System Operator.

This latest projection is another in a string of very impressive milestones from this province:

• In 2006, Ontario implemented the first European-scale “feed-in tariff” in North America in over 20 years. Inspired by the highly successful German renewable energy law, it requires utilities to purchase renewable power produced by residences, businesses and other entities at a premium price for twenty years, helping to overcome the financial hurdles that prevent so many promising renewable energy projects from getting off the ground.
• In 2007, Ontario reported that from 2003-2006 coal-electricity use there dropped 32%, the equivalent of taking 2 million cars off the road. Pretty impressive figure for a province of 11 million people.
• In April, 2007 the Ontario energy minister announced the construction of what was then the largest solar farm in North America.
• In February, 2008 RenewableEnergyWorld.com reported that two of the largest solar PV contracts in the world were for Ontario installations.
• In April of 2008, Ontario’s energy ministry reported the province had met its 10-year renewable energy procurement goals in a little over one year.

The generation capacity currently provided by coal will be replaced by conservation, natural gas, renewable power, and the refurbishment of existing nuclear power plants. By law the province is banned from building new nuclear plants. Through greater emphasis on conservation, efficiency and renewable forms of base load power, Ontario could also be phasing out nuclear power and avoiding the need for additional natural gas electricity generation, which of course adds carbon to the atmosphere.

All of this notable progress will not be enough to overcome the fact that Canada has abandoned attempts to meet the emissions reduction targets it agreed to under the Kyoto Protocol. And even this trendsetting law in Ontario is still not a wartime-speed energy transformation, which is clearly what is warranted by the climate crisis and the looming threat of peak oil and peak natural gas.

Cross-posted from Envirovore

The President-elect's choice of former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack for Secretary of Agriculture has ignited sentiments ranging from delight to dismay, just what you'd expect from a pick who "has the merit of being unsatisfactory to both extremes of the farm-policy debates."

Over the past few weeks we've digested a range of views on the Secretary of Ag nominee -- the Secretary of Food, as some advocates keep reminding the nation. This position comes with a host of responsibilities tied to issues that don't automatically register when one hears "agriculture," like nutrition, food stamps, rural development, energy and conservation, to name a few. We know the road ahead will demand the tools of diplomacy and debate. May it also include millions of watchful eyes who are waiting for Obama to see through his ambitious plan for Rural America.

What follows is the quick and dirty overview of why Vilsack comes bearing both promise and peril:

Vilsack's experience. Some progressive, well-respected farm and conservation groups praise Vilsack for his experience. National Farmers Union president, Tom Buis (someone we would have picked for the post), said Vilsack understands the economic challenges facing rural America; the League of Conservation Voters cited Vilsack's commitment to renewable energy; and R-CALF said in a press release that it's pleased with Obama's choice, and expects Vilsack to represent the interests of independent U.S. cattle producers.

Other food and farm groups aren't as complimentary, pointing to his support of industrial farming, including an expansion of CAFOs in Iowa, and biotechnology (which Obama actually mentioned in his nomination speech).

As evidence, in 2001 the Biotechnology Industry Organization gave Vilsack a Governor of the Year award, and in 2005, Vilsack supported a pre-emption bill that took away local and state rights to enact stricter regulations on GMOs.

He has, however, said he supports labeling GMOs (which is great, but wrong agency, since the FDA oversees labeling and isn't poised to sway on this issue) and wants to strengthen the approval process for biotech crops. Andrew Kimbrell notes in the Huffington Post that Vilsack also supports biotech firm liability in cases of contamination events and said USDA should require companies to demonstrate no harm to markets for conventional and organic crops before approving new GE varieties.