That's John McCain delivering his climate change speech yesterday, surrounded by models of wind turbines. As you see, he is in Oregon. What you don't see -- and what the folks at Climate Progress astutely noted -- is that McCain delivered his remarks at the Portland headquarters of Vestas, a Danish wind turbine manufacturer.

McCain need only look in the mirror to understand why finding an American turbine manufacturer has become such a challenge. He has repeatedly opposed tax breaks and subsidies for the once dominant American industry, and has been particularly soft in his support for the wind power production tax credit. As Climate Progress noted, that tax credit has been the key incentive for the industry, "allowing it to compete with our better-subsidized power sources (like nuclear) in this country, and to partly offset the much bigger subsidies other countries have for renewables."

You may also remember that soon after securing the GOP nomination in February, McCain skipped a Senate vote on a $204 billion stimulus package that included a one-year extension of the PTC, as well as credits for energy-efficient homes and appliances. The bill failed by one vote, unable to hit the 60-vote threshold necessary to stop a GOP filibuster. McCain was in Washington, D.C. at the time of the vote.

Of course, how surprised should be really be about the hypocrisy of yesterday's speech location? Remember, this is a senator who earned a score of 0 (zero) from the the League of Conservation Voters after he failed to show up for every one of the 15 votes last year related to conservation issues, ranging from a bill on CAFE and energy efficiency standards to the Farm Bill.

And as the Center for American Progress has nicely documented, McCain has made a habit opposing renewable energy, voting to scrap or weaken the renewable portfolio standards for utilities three time in 2002 alone, and again in 2005. But hey, those turbines make nice speech props.

Do you live in San Diego, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Tucson, or anywhere near there? Well, the EPA just shook up your Magic 8-Ball, asked if it should regulate the perchlorate in your Colorado River drinking water, and "Outlook not so good" came up. Bummer! Guess you'll have to live with a known toxic component of rocket fuel that harms fetuses and affects thyroid functioning.

However, they may issue a bulletin telling you that it might harm your unborn children, just so you know. At least it works out OK for the poor, impoverished Department of Defense, who'd have to fund the cleanup.

The EPA's assistant administrator for water, Benjamin Grumbles, said he knew that perchlorate was toxic, but questioned whether regulation of drinking water was feasible or effective. He cited a Food and Drug Administration study released in January that found 81 percent of perchlorate intake by infants comes from baby foods and dairy foods, and that 74 percent of the 285 distinct foods tested contained the chemical.

Grumbles' point that drinking water isn't the only source of perchlorate intake is well-taken, but we'd rebut that by noting that the study he cited only dealt with infants, not adults, who are more likely to drink significant amounts of tapwater. Also, given the EPA's jurisdiction over water pollution in all forms, not just drinking water, the fact that it's present in food doesn't seem to be a barrier to regulating its presence in surface and groundwater used for irrigation and livestock watering too.

Much to the chagrin of many environmentalists (among others), nuclear power is making a comeback as nations scramble to find zero-emission sources of energy. The Washington Post reported that at least 40 countries have told the UN that they are interested in developing nuclear energy programs.

Until relatively recently, only the US, Russia, and a handful of European nations actually enriched uranium, and countries with nuclear reactors would purchase the material from them, keeping the production of weapons-grade material in the hands of a few. Now that so many other countries are looking to enrich their own uranium there is concern that the true motives of most of these countries is to develop their own nuclear weapons.

When you consider that many of the enrichment-happy countries include oil rich Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates; the rather poor Yemen and Jordan; and Egypt and Turkey, who had both dropped their nuclear power programs decades ago, something doesn't sit right. Hmmm, all of these countries are neighbors and/or rivals with Iran, who has also promised to enrich uranium for power and not wiping out Israel.

The Bonneville Power Administration and the Bush administration have released their new salmon protection plan for the Snake and Columbia Rivers, and salmon conservationists are hoping that a federal judge gives the plan the hook.

Why? Well, BPA and NOAA have released adequate plans to help boost salmon spawning and survival in tributaries of the two main rivers, but fail to address the four major dams that represent the major challenge to salmon survival in the region. According to the NOAA Fisheries Service, those dam's turbines and spillways - and their associated reservoirs, in which salmon become disoriented and are easily preyed upon - have the greatest impact on salmon populations. By refusing to consider the decommissioning of these dams, fisheries scientists and fishermen contend that the government really proposes to do nothing at all.

The plans come in the form of "biological opinions", which will be considered by U.S. District Judge James Redden. He, then, will ascertain whether they adequately address the problem. In this case, the law(man) may be on the side of the salmon; he has repeatedly rejected biological opinions before, and he has threatened to turn the decision-making over to an independent panel of experts if this one doesn't cut the mustard. Let's hope he does.

I will not shirk the mantle of leadership that the United States bears. I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action on serious challenges. I will not accept the same dead-end of failed diplomacy that claimed Kyoto. The United States will lead and will lead with a different approach — an approach that speaks to the interests and obligations of every nation. -- John McCain, May 12

Sounds like someone is bitter that they didn't get invited to Jenna's wedding over the weekend. Or it could just be that today's climate policy speech in Portland, Oregon, by the presumptive GOP nominee signaled McCain's official goodbye to the Republican base and a big hello to Mr. and Mrs. Independent.

We're not going to waste any (virtual) ink praising McCain for acknowledging the science of climate change is sound and all of that, because it's such a non-issue at this point. But, it was nice to hear a politician talk about the need for adaptation of the nation's infrastructure to meet the future climate change challenges, rather than the same rhetoric focusing only on efficiencies.

McCain and his advisers apparently made a list of every one of the Bush Administration's positions on the issue and made sure to mention the 180-degree difference that he would take. This included his proposal to reduce emissions to 2005 levels by 2012, then 1990 levels by 2020 and eventually pre-1990 levels by 2050, as opposed to Bush's support of continued emissions increases until 2025. He also promised the U.S. would take part in international negotiations even if China is not willing to get on board. In fact, as the quote at the top indicates, the Maverick went as far as to subtly compare the leaders of China and India to Bush.

At the intersection - some might say train-wreck - of politics and science, the latter often gets mistaken for the former, and science often gets treated as nothing more than another political opinion. Case in point: the Alaska State Legislature has decided that federal plans to extend threatened status to the polar bear simply don't jive with the political necessities of supporting the energy industry and hewing to party line. Only problem is, the scientists don't really agree with that one.

So the legislature decided to buy some scientists to offer a "dissenting viewpoint" and approved funds for an "academic-based" conference to undermine the public perception that global warming poses a threat to polar bears. Says House Speaker John Harris, a Republican from the apparently irony-free district of Valdez, "We want to have the money to hire scientists to answer the Interior (Department) scientists."

This is what is known as "doing it wrong".

Alaska's choice of response to the Department of the Interior's soon-to-be finding that the polar bear should be added to the list of threatened species is as revealing as the language they employ: rather than directly challenge the ruling, they elect to obfuscate, confuse, and spread manufactured uncertainty. Meanwhile, the conclusions of the state's own wildlife scientists have yet to be released, and may never see the light of day unless the Alaska Department of Law releases them under open-records laws.

Meanwhile, the National Snow and Ice Data Center has publicly released predictions of record low Arctic sea ice in 2008, and predicts that the Arctic may be ice-free by 2050, drastically reducing available polar bear habitat. The best available research suggests that arctic, polar, and alpine areas - and the biodiversity they harbor - will be among the earliest and most severe victims of climate change. So why is it necessary to hold an intellectually bankrupt pseudo-scientific conference to defend the political priorities of Alaskan politicians?

Turns out that people really pay attention when a high-level government official like EPA Region 5 Administrator Mary Gade resigns amid threats of getting canned for too vigorously pursuing Dow to cleanup dioxin pollution. Following up on last week's report of Gade's exit, the Washington Post's Al Kaman—already a fan of EPA Deputy Administrator Marcus Peacock's blog—uncovered an internal email from Peacock talking about Gade's resignation, complete with interesting time stamps.

Subject: Region 5 Personnel Announcement

As of this afternoon, Thursday, May 1, 2008, Mary Gade has resigned her position as Regional Administrator for EPA Region 5. I want to thank Mary for her many years of service to the people and the mission of EPA.

She has worked hard to help protect human health and our environment.

Mary plans to return to private life and spend time with her family.

Bharat Mathur, the Deputy Regional Administrator, will assume the responsibilities of Acting Regional Administrator. I thank Bharat for his continued service and leadership.

Nothing in there about Dow. Hmm.

Now, Citizens for Responsibility in Washington has followed a Freedom of Information Act request to uncover the details of Gade's departure.

And as for EPA Administrator Steve Johnson's back problems Kaman cites as the reason Johnson couldn't testify before the House Reform and Oversight Committee, we buy it. After all, you'll surely have back problems if you don't have a spine.

Cross-posted from EcoGeek

The most near-term, cost-effective solar solution is undoubtedly solar thermal. While photovoltaics, which convert light directly into electricity, can have a significantly smaller footprint and higher efficiency...solar thermal has generally proven that it can create electricity at a lower cost.

With that in mind, the U.S. Department of Energy has decided to spend $60 million over the next five years developing low-cost concentrating solar thermal technology (like the parabolic trough pictured from Schott Solar.) They plan on making between 10 and 20 awards to industry and universities working on increasing the efficiency and decreasing the costs of solar thermal power.

They will also be funding projects related to "advanced thermal storage." At first this might seem slightly unrelated. In fact, what they're looking for is a way to store the heat captured during the day so that they can continue to generate electricity throughout the night. This is another possible advantage to solar thermal technology. If the heat can be stored in some medium, say molten salt for example, then that medium could, in effect, make the solar plant a giant battery. Photovoltaic plants, on the other hand, would require some other form of backup energy to keep the juice flowing at night.

Via Cleantech