Another day, another depressing story about the influence of big business on EPA business. The most recent chapter finds Dow Chemical accused of getting Midwest EPA Regional Director Mary Gade fired for trying to force the company to clean up Saginaw Bay and Lake Huron in Michigan, where the company had dumped the carcinogen dioxin for most of the last century.

In September 2006, Gade used her authority to order the company to clean up three locations. Additional testing found more of the toxin in the soil, at concentrations higher than had ever been measured in the environment. Dow insists that dioxin, a byproduct created when making the innocuous Agent Orange, isn't as dangerous as the EPA is making out to be and therefore shouldn't be required to clean up the chemical that is found in concentrations as high as 5,900 parts per trillion in soil, when the Michigan limit is 90 ppt.

According to Dow, "There is all of this mystique about dioxin. Just because it's there doesn't mean there is an imminent health threat." Interestingly, Gade's boss at the EPA in the 1980s was forced to resign when it became public that he allowed Dow to edit EPA reports on dioxin.

After failing to negotiate with Gade for a less comprehensive cleanup, the company went right to Washington, and next thing you know, two of EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson's aides are telling Gade she can quit or will be fired by June 1.

We want to applaud those aides for their excellent timing. The Chicago Tribune was about to profile Gade and her fight to get Dow to clean up its mess. So instead of letting Gade hang around a little longer and then giving her the boot, for doing her job well, they have managed to bring the spotlight of the media on Johnson, the EPA, and Dow Chemical.

You have a 1 in 708,000 chance of becoming a victim of a violent crime in a national park -- there's a greater chance that you'll be struck by lightning instead. But the Bush Administration thinks those odds are too high, and their solution is to allow you to carry a concealed firearm next time you take a trip to the Grand Canyon.

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne proposed the new regulation yesterday. It would overturn a 25-year-old regulation restricting loaded guns in national parks and wildlife refuges, enacted under that gun-hating liberal Ronald Reagan.

The proposal would permit park goers to carry loaded and concealed weapons if permitted by state laws in the state where the park or refuge is located. Interior officials said the change would clear up existing confusion and essentially defer to to state laws.

Seriously, what could possibly go wrong with this plan? Concealed loaded guns in national parks? Violent crimes are sure to go down.

Not exactly, say current and former national park employees. "This is purely and simply a politically-driven effort to solve a problem that doesn't exist," said Bill Wade, chairman of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees. Seven former National Park Service directors have also sent Kempthorne a letter saying this is a really bad idea.

The National Marine Fishery Service shut down almost all commercial and recreational chinook salmon fishing off the coast of California, Oregon and Washington yesterday, a move that came as little surprise, but which allow federal aid for those hurt by the collapse of the industry.

Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez declared a "commercial fishery disaster." which is certainly a new phrase in our lexicon. That's because there's really no precedent here -- it's the first total closure along the West Coast since commercial fishing started in 1848.

The move followed last month's recommendation by the Pacific Fishery Management Council, which estimates that estimates fewer than 60,000 salmon will make it back to the Sacramento River this year. That's about one-third the number needed to sustain a healthy fish population. Ecologists are still scrambling to understand why the population has declined so drastically.

State officials will now be allowed to seek federal assistance for the fishing, tourism, processing and boating industries, which are expected to face losses of at least $290 million. Not a good time to be in or dependent on the fishing industry, especially since this ban could last for more than a season. Years is what it may take order to allow the salmon population to recover.

Remember the Heartland Institute? They're the self-described public policy think tank, funded by big tobacco and big oil, that held a conference in March to promote the idea that there is no scientific consensus on climate change. That would be the same conference where the founder of the Weather Channel said it would be a good idea to sue Al Gore in order to "finally put some light on the fraud of global warming."

Since September, the Institute has been distributing a paper by "Senior Fellow" Dennis Avery entitled "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares." Funny thing about this paper though -- not only did dozens of the 500 scientists not realize they were included on the list, but many believe the opposite of what Avery said they do.

We know this because of the fantastic work done this week by the folks at DeSmogBlog. On Monday afternoon, Kevin Grandia e-mailed 122 of the scientists included in the paper. Less than 24 hours later, more than three dozen had responded in outrage, denying that their research supports Avery's conclusions. The number of angry scientists has since expanded to 45.

Below are a few of our favorite scientist responses, as seen on DeSmogBlog:

• Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh: “I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite.”
• Dr. John Clague, Shrum Research Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, SimonFraserUniversity: “I'm outraged that they've included me as an "author" of this report. I do not share the views expressed in the summary."
• Dr. Paul F. Schuster, Hydrologist, US Geological Survey: "They have taken our ice core research in Wyoming and twisted it to meet their own agenda. This is not science."

Well that didn't take long. The Obama campaign released a 60-second ad yesterday using footage from a speech this Monday in which Obama explained why the gas tax holiday is little more than political pandering at its very worst.

The ad, which will run in North Carolina and Indiana over the next week, is posted below. It's one of the best and most effective political ads of the 2008 campaign, if only for the display of refreshing candor and common sense.

You know by now that Hillary Clinton has joined John McCain in supporting a plan to suspend the $18.4-cent federal gas tax and 24.4-cent diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day. Obama isn't biting: "That's typical of how Washington works," he says in the ad. "There's a problem, everybody's upset about gas prices, let's find some short-term, quick-fix that we can say we did something even though, even though we're not really doing anything."

We're still stunned that Clinton got on board this train, and it appears she's already paying the price. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman returned from his sabbatical hibernation this week with a column that thoroughly dismantled the idea and praised Obama for "resisting this shameful pandering."

Meanwhile, the New York Times editorial board -- the same one that endorsed Clinton less than three months ago -- tore apart the plan, saying it would be "an expensive and environmentally unsound policy that would do nothing to help American drivers."

Ever feel righteous anger at traditional Chinese medicine manufacturers because of the arrogant practice of killing wild animals for a single body part, just to improve a man’s sex life or ease a stomachache?

Well, hold onto your tiger bones, folks. Despite the existence of alternatives to bear bile, which is used to treat "hot" ailments such as fevers and joint inflammation, demand for bear parts is soaring. And since Asia’s supply—comprising five different bear populations—has been decimated, poachers are increasingly mutilating U.S. bears to get their gallbladders to a flourishing black market.

In powdered form, a bear gallbladder is worth more than its weight in gold, says Ann Bryant, director of the Bear Education Aversion Response team, which reported a rise in bear poaching late last year. And those parts aren't just for export, as they often end up in Asian medicine markets in major U.S. cities, says Nilanga Jayasinghe, field conservation coordinator for Defenders of Wildlife.

The rise in illegal bear kills, to the tune of 30,000 or more per year, continues in part because the existing patchwork of state laws makes a ban on trafficking in bear parts unenforceable. Today, 34 states prohibit trade in bear gall bladders and bile, but five other states allow it, and the rest prohibit it for "in-state" bears but allow it for “out-of-state” bears, says Jayasinghe. She adds that there is really no easy or practical way to prove where a killed bear came from.

Enter the Bear Protection Act (HR 5534), introduced by Reps Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) and John Campbell (R-CA), which would ban trade in bear gallbladders at the federal level. Currently in the House Natural Resources Committee, the Act has attracted 25 co-sponsors, but is apparently getting some early opposition from the NRA.

Why the NRA would be opposed is unclear, since the legislation would put absolutely no restrictions on existing bear hunting. Maybe someone should tell them that Jackie Chan is helping out the supporters of this bill.

Cross-posted from Envirovore

President Bush said yesterday that people should buy food from local farmers in the face of rising food costs. If you don't believe us, read it for yourself.

During a press conference in the Rose Garden, Bush asserted that local food purchasing would be a "very creative policy" to "deal with scarcity" and help nations become "self-sustaining and self-supporting." He went on to say, "It's a proposal I put forth that Congress hasn't responded to yet, and I sincerely hope they do."

As Grist columnist Joseph Romm asks: "What proposal did Bush put forward to Congress about local food?" (Perhaps there's something tucked away in the Farm Bill?)

We support a policy like this, President Bush. Now tell us, who's your farmer?

Unless you are fortunate enough not to rely on a car for your day-to-day needs, you might have heard that oil is well on its way to $120 a barrel. This means we can expect $4.00+ gas this summer, and as much as $7 per gallon if when oil reaches $200 a barrel. American's aren't happy about the current gas price situation, so politicians have been obliged to come up with ways to win our hearts, and hopefully elected offices in November.

President Bush went old school, suggesting drilling in ANWR. Aside from the multitude of reasons environmentalists abhor that idea, the truth is that it would take years to get the oil out of the ground. Americans are all about instant gratification, which explains why presidential contenders John McCain and Hillary Clinton have both suggested repealing the federal gas tax between Memorial Day and Labor Day. The federal tax adds 18.4 cents to every gallon of gas to cover the federal highway budget. Hillary suggested recouping the lost revenue from the oil companies, while McCain vaguely asserted the money would come from trimming other federal programs.

Senator Obama has dismissed suspension of the gas tax as a gimmick, saying it would only save Americans about $30 and not solve the root cause of rising energy costs (we did the math: you'd need to buy about 163 gallons to save $30). Of course, since Obama had a legitimate point and would not resort to a band-aid to solve the problem, he's been pilloried by the McCain and Clinton camps.

It seems that while in the Illinois legislature in 2000, Obama voted to suspend the state's 6.5 percent gas tax, but refused to make it permanent, saying then, as he is now, that consumers did not save enough money to make the tax repeal worth it. We're not quite sure how McCain justifies referring to this as "flip-flopping" considering that Obama evaluated his initial position, found it to be wrong, and has stuck with the enlightened position for the past eight years.

The Maverick, on the other hand, knows a thing or two about changing one's position. Anyway, Bush actually agrees with Obama on this one, which may be the first and last time we write such a sentence.