"I have a aggressive goal of reducing carbon emissions, and coal is a dirty fuel right now." -- Barack Obama, on last Sunday's Meet The Press.

Well this kind of undoes a lot of the praise we've heaped upon Barack Obama over the past few weeks for refusing to go along with John McCain and Hillary Clinton's inane gas tax holiday proposal. It appears Obama can indeed pander for votes without shame. Just look at that big smile in this campaign flyer! He's a real working-class kind of guy.

We initially thought this was a forwarded joke, but as Grist reported this morning, it is an actual mailer from the Obama campaign in Kentucky, which by the way is one of four states yet to hold its Democratic primary.

There's a lot not to like about this flyer, starting with the fact that "clean Kentucky coal" is a total oxymoron. Yes, there are coal plants that use Integrated Gasification Combine Cycle (IGCC) technology to capture and store emissions underground. The problem is there isn't a single carbon capture and storage (CCS) plant in all of Kentucky.

Obama has always walked a fine line on coal, especially given that this home state of Illinois is such a large producer. But this flyer makes it clear he's willing to say one thing (like two days ago on Meet The Press) while giving a not-so-subtle wink to states where the industry still booms. We know the country still depends on coal for 50 percent of its electricity -- we just don't like the mixed messages.

Perhaps Obama needs to take his stump speech to eastern Kentucky next week, where he can see the mountaintop removal, polluted streams and rivers, and sick children firsthand. And then someone can ask him about his definition of "clean."

We've cringed quite a bit over the past few weeks while watching John McCain and Hillary Clinton take political pandering to a new level with their gas tax holiday proposal. Now, thanks to the folks at Greater Greater Washington and Gas Tax Scam, we can laugh at one of the best political parodies we've read in ages:

CONFIDENTIAL/URGENT POLITICAL PROPOSAL

Dear Sir:

First we must solicit your confidence in this issue. This is by virtue as being utterly confidential and "top secret".

We are SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON, the wife of the former United States head of state, PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON, and also SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN, friend and associate of current head of state PRESIDENT GEORGE W BUSH. We got your contact through business inquiries as we were searching for contacts of a citizen who can help save our and our family's political careers since our country has been frustrating us.

We are top officials of the United States Senate Government who are interested in importation of oil into our country with funds that are presently trapped in the FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION TRUST FUND dedicated to improving transportation. We wish to send this money to overseas accounts in the MIDDLE EAST but cannot due to restrictions in Congress Transportation Equity Act requiring that this money must be spent to build roads, bridges and high speed trains.

You can read the rest of the letter here. It only gets better.

The letter is of course modeled off the Nigerian 401 scams, which still manage to find their way into our junk e-mail from time to time.

We'll be interested to see whether exit polls in Indiana and North Carolina tomorrow indicate that this issue affected voters, especially given the verbal lashings Clinton has received over the past week. Meanwhile, Obama stepped up his attacks on the plan during a one-hour Meet The Press interview yesterday.

At the very least, we expect the positives from Obama's refusal to stoop low on this issue to offset any support he may have lost this week from the Rev. Wright fallout.

Lord Nicholas Stern, author of 2006’s grim Stern Review on the economics of climate change, now says he and his team underestimated the risks of global warming. He’s released a follow-up report that urges a quicker timeline to address the problem.

The new report highlights the Key Elements of a Global Deal that will need to take place in order to mitigate climate change. This report, published by the London School of Economics, is meant to help steer the conversation and prepare the international climate community for the upcoming talks at next year’s 15^th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Lord Stern explained last month that analytical foundations for discussions of a global deal are needed so that a coherent agreement can be reached at the Copenhagen meetings next December. "This paper is a contribution to that task. It offers a sense of direction and a basis for discussion and further work, rather than attempting a very formal description of a global deal" he said.

Over the next several months, EnviroWonk will be exploring the politics of Louisiana's coastal wetlands. Today's post is the first in the series.

The Army Corps of Engineers, an agency synonymous with incompetence, corruption, and superfluous work for over 100 years, may finally be held responsible for the flood damages sustained during Hurricane Katrina as a result of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (cleverly nicknamed "Mr. Go").

For years, Louisiana officials and environmentalists have asked the Corps to shut down Mr. Go due to its infrequent use by vessels, its contribution to the region's wetlands erosion, and the fact that it provides a path for tidal surges to reach New Orleans during big storms. Instead, the Corps built additional levees all around New Orleans -- we all know how well that turned out -- so flooded homeowners took their grievances to the courts.

The Corps argued that since the federal government is protected by law from being sued if a flood control measure fails (say, like levees breaking during a category 5 hurricane that starts with the letter K), the homeowners had no standing. But the federal judge rejected that argument because Mr. Go was built for navigation and not flood control, and had funding separate from that of the region's flood control projects.

Since the Corps has been re-engineering America's waterways for over 200 years, you would think by now they would have solved the nation's flood problems. A study conducted by the non-profit American Rivers collected a decade's worth of analysis of the Corps' work by the government, independent experts, and the Corps itself. We recommend you take a look at the whole 6-page report yourself, as there are too many delightfully scathing comments to include, but here are a few.

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."