Earlier this week, we escaped to Rocky Mountain National Park, a short drive from home, for a little snowshoeing. The sun was brilliant, the air was fresh, the snow was firm, and the mountains eternally awesome. We all look to national parks to protect some of the most beautiful areas in our country – and to provide us the opportunity to experience their natural beauty and recreational experiences firsthand.

Unfortunately, despite the stringent protections on National Park air quality, wildlife, water quality, and natural resources, they're not immune from the worst the industrialized world can throw at them. A six year federal survey of environmental quality released this week found evidence of mercury, fertilizer, legal pesticides in harmful concentrations, heavy metals, pseudo-estrogens, plastic precursors, PCBs, the banned pesticides dieldrin and DDT. Many pollutants are thought to arrive by wind deposition from Europe and Asia, though pesticides are likely runoff from local fields.

Fish were particularly found to be suffering from pollutant bioaccumulation; mercury levels in fish from eight parks were found to be well in excess of human consumption thresholds. In Rocky Mountain National Park, effeminized male fish were found, their sex organs atrophied and transformed by exposure to pollutants mimicking the female sex hormone estrogen.

In many cases, high-altitude winds bring power generation pollutants, dust, and heavy metals from Asia, where they are deposited in the Arctic. Mercury deposition from coal-burning power plants was especially high at the remote Noatak National Preserve and at Denali National Park, far from North American industrial sites.

The U.S. is expected to finally throw its hat into the ring of international cooperation during July's G8 summit in Japan, according to ... hey, what do you know, the White House. And we aren't talking about "unnamed sources" or speculation. None other than the Chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, James L. Connaughton, has been talking to the press about America's newfound willingness to cooperate.

The assistant to President Bush for International Economic Affair, Daniel Price, said point-blank that the U.S. is prepared to accept "binding international obligations." Connaughton is also trying to clarify the Administration's seemingly 180 degree change in position by explaining that it was mistaken in its tactic of focusing negotiations on what they weren't willing to do, which overshadowed the fact that they were willing to negotiate- really!

Pick your chin up off the floor, because there are strings attached, of course.

Price stressed that the U.S. is only committing to mandates as long as it is a global affair, meaning developing countries like India (currently the #5 largest GHG emitter) and China (who is either tied or has surpassed the U.S. as the world's largest emitter) will be forced to reduce their emissions as well. Bush had previously refused to sign on to Kyoto because only industrialized nations are required to reduce their emissions, while poorer countries were allowed to emit away.

The Exxon Valdez, the tanker responsible for the worst oil spill in American history, has come back into the news this week, as the Supreme Court finally decides the price that Exxon will pay for ruining the fishing industry in Alaska. But it will likely surprise you to know that the Valdez spill was actually only the 34th largest oil spill in history.

These ten oil spills, all massively larger than the Exxon Valdez, were all smaller new stories, either because the ships were offshore, or dropped their toxic loads in less developed parts of the world. The Valdez spilled 10 million gallons off the coast of Alaska, the smallest spill in the top ten was four times larger.

1. Kuwait - 1991 - 520 million gallons
   Iraqi forces opened the valves of several oil tankers in order to slow the invasion of American troops. The oil slick was four inches thick and covered 4000 square miles of ocean.
2. Mexico - 1980 - 100 million gallons
   An accident in an oil well caused an explosion which then caused the well to collapse. The well remained open, spilling 30,000 gallons a day into the ocean for a full year.
3. Trinidad and Tobago - 1979 - 90 million
   During a tropical storm off the coast of Trinidad and Tobago, a Greek oil tanker collided with another ship, and lost nearly its entire cargo.
4. Russia - 1994 - 84 million gallons
   A broken pipeline in Russia leaked for eight months before it was noticed and repaired.
5. Persian Gulf - 1983 - 80 million gallons
   A tanker collided with a drilling platform which, eventually, collapsed into the sea. The well continued to spill oil into the ocean for seven months before it was repaired.
6. South Africa - 1983 - 79 million gallons
   A tanker cought fire and was abandoned before sinking 25 miles off the coast of Saldanha Bay.
7. France - 1978 - 69 million gallons
   A tanker's rudder was broken in a severe storm, despite several ships responding to its distress call, the ship ran aground and broke in two. It's entire payload was dumped into the English Channel.
8. Angola - 1991 - more than 51 million gallons
   The tanker expolded, exact quantity of spill unknown
9. Italy - 1991 - 45 million gallons
   The tanker exploded and sank off the coast of Italy and continued leaking it's oil into the ocean for 12 years.
10. Odyssey Oil Spill - 1988 - 40 million gallons
    700 nautical miles off the cost of Nova Scotia.

The Exxon Valdez oil spill was a disaster, but so were the 33 oil spills that were, in fact, worse. Spills have slowed down in recent years, due to advances in logistics and tanker hulls. There are no longer any new single-hulled tankers being built...but there are still plenty that haven't yet been decommissioned.

But as long as we're dependent on the stuff, there will be accidents, as there were three in 2007 alone, one of over 3 million gallons of oil.

Thanks to Wikipedia and Associated Content

The 9^th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that California must seek federal approval for stringent new controls on sulfur emissions from oceangoing ships that enter the state's waters, following a suit filed by the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association.

The new rules ban vessels from burning bunker fuel, an environmentally dirty high-sulfur fuel, within 24 miles of the California coast. The PMSA objects not to the regulation, despite the higher cost of low-sulfur diesel, but to the creation of a de facto national standard independent of federal involvement, and the resultant “patchwork” of regulations.

For its part, California's State Attorney General Jerry Brown asserts that applying to the EPA is onerous due to its bureaucratic inertia and because the agency is “lax” in its enforcement of the Clean Air Act.

Whatever the outcome, this definitely represents another challenge by Calfornia to the EPA's primary authority to set air pollution regulations. It's a conflict that may end up costing EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson his job, if Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) gets her way – and, while it started with a waiver to reduce CO2 emissions from California vehicles, who knows where it might end?

Hard to tell whether this is an admission of their own ineffectiveness or an act of good will toward the private sector, but the Energy Department is going to give a few renewable energy start-ups access to their really nice labs and match them with venture capital firms.

It's probably a combination of both, but it still sounds like a good idea to us. DOE officials said yesterday that they've chosen the three VC firms who will sponsor and choose participants in the new Entrepreneur in Residence program.

The program is aimed at accelerating the commercialization of technologies that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Three DOE labs -- the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory -- will host one startup at a time and contribute up to $100,000 for research. The venture capital firms will match that figure and negotiate a license to use the technology.

"It's really a Silicon Valley idea - it's kind of alien to the federal government," said Andy Karsner, who heads the Energy Department's renewable power and efficiency programs.

According to DOE, the lucky entrepreneurs will conduct technology assessments, evaluate market opportunities and formulate preliminary business cases. No word on when the VC firms will select the first participants in the pilot program.

Americans hate taxes. Why else would McCain, Clinton and Obama all have tax-cuts as part of their presidential platforms? But the House of Representatives won't have to worry about backlash from their constituents for repealing tax breaks -- and few Americans will be shedding a tear for the prosperous oil industry -- after lawmakers voted yesterday to repeal billions in subsidies

The bill passed easily, 236-182, likely aided by record high prices, as oil hit $102 per barrel yesterday. The legislation revoked subsidies for oil companies, worth over $18 billion over 10 years, and instead allocated that money to extend renewable energy tax credits that are set to expire this year, and offer new credits for energy efficient changes made to homes, plug-in hybrid-electric vehicles, and fund renewable energy bonds to fund clean energy investments by rural electric co-ops.

House Republicans and the White House bristled over this unfair treatment of the oil industry, claiming it will reduce their incentive to look for new oil and gas deposits in the U.S. Looking out for your best interest, Republicans also claimed that consumers would have to pay even more at the pump. The reality is that the repealed subsidies will cost the 5 biggest oil companies 2 percent of their revenue, and even if they try and pass that on to the consumer, it won't cost us more than one penny per gallon.

Anyway, the GOP ought to go check their notes, since two years ago, back when oil was only $55 a gallon, President Bush said that subsidies for oil and gas exploration were no longer necessary.

In an eloquent defense of the wronged, Rep. Jim McCrery (R-LA) said the bill, "Punishes the oil and gas industry. This is wrongheaded. It's spiteful and wrong."

The bill is expected to face tougher opposition in the Senate, where it had previously fell one vote short of the 60 votes needed to block a fillabuster, so leaders will wait until after the March 4 primaries to introduce the legislation.

The hallmark of our democratic, open government is also one of the reasons it takes so darn long for anything to get done: The public comment period.

In what we hope will be the first in a continuing series of federal documents open for public comment, we invite you to take a look at the 800-page pdf that the U.S. Climate Change Science Program released this week on Coastal Sensitivity to Sea Level Rise: A Focus on the Mid-Atlantic Region.

For those of you who have never been bored/drunk enough or obligated by academic assignment to take part in a review of federal documents before, here is a quick primer.

1. Read document looking for inconsistencies/missing information.

2. In a *constructive* manner, point out said failings and how they should be remedied.

3. Sit back and bask in the glow of civic duty fulfilled, which one typically only feels after voting or making a citizen's arrest.

Don't be intimidated. The report is surprisingly easy to read, with most of the prose no more sophisticated than: "A rise in sea level implies that land that is now barely above sea level will end up below sea level if no shore protection measures are taken to prevent it from being submerged."

And there are lots of colorful pictures throughout.

The report does discuss important issues, such as deciding which coastal areas are most worthwhile to protect, how sea-level rise will affect your ability to go to the beach, and institutional barriers keeping governments from taking proactive steps to address sea-level rise.

But, please, keep your comments concise, as the office has previously been criticized for taking too long to get these reports out of draft status and available to decision makers. And we want this report publicized before the east coast is already underwater.

Alaskans who were born the year that the Exxon Valdez slammed into a reef in Prince William Sound have now graduated from high school, but that doesn't mean lawyers have finished fighting about it all. It has, however, finally reached the highest court in the land.

One month before the 19th anniversary of the infamous oil spill, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments this morning over whether the $2.5 billion award of punitive damages to victims of the Exxon Valdez disaster is too high.

We were a bit stunned to hear that ExxonMobil, the world's largest company by revenue ($404.5 billion for FY 2007), is still fighting this. We're even more stunned to learn that the company has argued it should pay no more than $25 million in punitive damages, or about $2.25 for each of the 11 million gallons of crude oil that spilled into the sound.

Granted, the company already has paid about $3.4 billion in fines, penalties, cleanup costs and other expenses resulting from the worst oil spill in U.S. history. Then again, they also hired a drinking alcoholic to take the helm of a supertanker.

The attorney for ExxonMobil told justices today that under the principles of maritime law, ship owners cannot be hit with punitive damages for the actions of their ship captains. You might not have heard of the Amiable Nancy case cited as precedent, because it was argued in 1818.

But a lawyer for the 33,000 commercial fishermen and business owners harmed by the spill said the company repeatedly overlooked reports that Captain Joseph Hazelwood had a drinking problem.

Court observers said it was unclear who the justices appeared to side with during the 90-minute hearing. But because Justice Samuel Alito owns ExxonMobil stock and has recused himself from the case, we could be looking at a tie. And a split decision would favor the plaintiffs.

If ExxonMobil is forced to pay the full award, plus more than $2 billion in accrued interest, it would be the largest-ever punitive damage payment.

Hopefully this doesn't take another 19 years to work itself out.